How do TEs inteperate Chapter 1?

[shernren]

But then why would he give us an account that would lead to the damaging arguements of today? That's where the TE arguement seems to fall down.

Actually, we have arguments precisely because the account of Creation in the Bible is so vast and grand and beautiful that there is room within it to argue. It is the same with all the doctrines: why hand down the "troublesome" doctrine of the Trinity? Why do some passages support predestination and others free will? Why is one's salvation assured in some places and lose-able in others?

Doctrine as a whole is an attempt at logical description of God and His dealings. And a logical description of something that is beyond and above logic can only be gotten by suppression at some points and over-emphasis at others. When I focus more on a different aspect of God than you, it's only natural that we argue.

I hope I've answered your question. Christianity and the True God are far too large to be understood by any one theory alone. It is only in experiencing Him that we can go beyond knowing about Him to know Him.

Well Potluck, basically the argument here is whether the Creation story of Genesis 1-2 is a news article or a dramatization.

Creationists believe that it is a news article.
On the other hand, TEs believe that it is a dramatization. Someone is dramatizing for us the story of Genesis to bring across certain truths. Now, when you read an editorial, you don't come with the same expectations that you bring to a news article. For example, we can have flashbacks; we can have symbolism; unimportant events will be glossed over while important things stay in the limelight. But is there an intentional distortion of the facts? Whatever there is is only necessary to bring the point across.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

But then why would he give us an account that would lead to the damaging arguements of today? That's where the TE arguement seems to fall down.

1set of verses in the New Testament undoes generations of polygamy and divorce. Why nothing in the New Testament to condemn slavery? but a whole book in the NT to support it? it would certainly have avoided a bloody civil war in the US, at the very least, perhaps even stopped millions of African deaths. yet nothing.

good question. i would be glad to show you support explicitly for evolution if you can show me where the Scriptures condemn slavery.
or say that the earth is round.
or tell us that the earth revolves around the sun.
or tell us that the best OS is linux.
of tell us that cars ought to get at least 30mpg.

etc
etc.


.....

 

[rmwilliamsll]

On the other hand, TEs believe that it is a dramatization. Someone is dramatizing for us the story of Genesis to bring across certain truths. Now, when you read an editorial, you don't come with the same expectations that you bring to a news article.

i like the distinction between a news article and an editorial.
both appear in newspapers.
unless marked, it is often hard to tell where one begins and the other ends.

i will add it to the other similiar distinction between a newspaper account and historical novel, both are pointing out specifics about genre that is important and overlooked by YECists.

thanks.
tried to give reputation for it, but got, must spread reputation around before giving it to shernren again error....*grin*

....

 

[shernren]

thanks.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

1set of verses in the New Testament undoes generations of polygamy and divorce.

Monogamy was already the norm by the time of Jesus and divorce was a debated issue. My understanding is that divorce is the one issue where Jesus took a position against Hillel.

Why nothing in the New Testament to condemn slavery?

There is no clear condemnation but much of the New Testament appears to have been written in anticipation of an imminent 2nd coming and we do have (paraphrased):
"In Christ there is no Free or Slave"
"If you can obtain freedom do so"

but a whole book in the NT to support it?

Go back and read Philemon again.
Paul heaps it on thick and heavy...
"I will obey the law and send Onesimus back to you but if you are a decent Christian you will free him and send him back to me"

 

[Taure]

i must confess that I did not read all of the previous posts, as some of them are quite lengthy. I just have one thing to say on the subject of the litrality (is that a word?) of the six days. I was reading an article the other day which touched on the hewbrew language. Apparently they did not have a word for day month year etc. but just had one word meaning "a period of time" The hewbrew language is a very narrow one, it has very few words (at least written ones) and only two tenses. One for complete actions, one for incomplete actions. Therefore any translation of Genisis is open to interpritation, the "days" can be any period of time the writer wanted.

For an excelent read on TE go to google and search for cosmicfingerprints. The first result is a transcript of a speech by a Dr. Hugh Ross, it based in good science and is very thought provocing.

or say that the earth is round.
or tell us that the earth revolves around the sun.
or tell us that the best OS is linux.
of tell us that cars ought to get at least 30mpg.

Are these all things that you belive not to be true?

 

[shernren]

Taure, what is your source for those statements about the Jewish language? As much as I agree that many things are somewhat open to interpretation I don't think that Hebrew was as ambiguous and incomplete a language as that. Indeed I think some difficulties may arise precisely because of some sophistry of the Jewish language that English simply has no parallels for.

 

[Taure]

I am talking about the written form of hewbrew in biblical times, when they would have very little need for writing. I have no doubt that the spoken language was very sophisticated but I dont think all of this was written down. Its like latin, what they actually spoke is very differnet to formal texts that we have. As far as english goes, i believe that it is the most sophisticated and has the largest vocabulary of any language in the world, ever. This is parly to do with all the differnt inputs it has had from many differnt culture, eg Roman, french, germanic. i cant remember where my sorce was, It may be the document that I recomended.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i was going to post this in the YECists protected forum but changed my mind.
this thread is on Gen1 so i will post it here.

TE's view Adam and Eve in a couple of different ways. First, they weren't real people. Second, there wasn't a real fall. This has serious complications for Christian teaching. TE's try to explain that Adam and Eve are not necessary to believe as real people, and some suggest we shouldn't believe they are real people. They explain that we are fallen, but there was no literal fall. This too suggests things about God that are not true.

since you posted this in a protected forum you dont want any discussion of your points, since no TE's are allowed to debate the issues here. It is however untruthful to ignore the fact that the spectrum of TE belief includes a right wing of such notable orthodox theologians as Machen and Warfield who defended a fully historical Adam, or modern conservatives such as Terry Gray who, AFAIK, is the only church trial on these issues who argues for a strongly reformed Federal headship position, something his accusers never doubted his orthodoxy on.

i am posted this not to debate but to simply point out the straw man nature of this argument that ALL TE's deny the historicity of Adam etc expressed here. if you wish to actually discuss the nature of TE belief you will have to do so somewhere they can reply.

so i took my own advice and posted this reply to the open forum. it allows the YECists to continue their untruthful TE bashing by themselves there.

 

[shernren]

I am talking about the written form of hewbrew in biblical times, when they would have very little need for writing. I have no doubt that the spoken language was very sophisticated but I dont think all of this was written down. Its like latin, what they actually spoke is very differnet to formal texts that we have. As far as english goes, i believe that it is the most sophisticated and has the largest vocabulary of any language in the world, ever. This is parly to do with all the differnt inputs it has had from many differnt culture, eg Roman, french, germanic. i cant remember where my sorce was, It may be the document that I recomended.

Hmm? How would we know anything about their spoken hebrew, unless through their recordings in written hebrew? And as far as I know in most languages around the world it's actually different: the high language is the written one, and then there is the "pidgin" lower language which is the spoken one.

Having said that, one area of "imprecision" may be the fact that the letters used to form the Hebrew written language are very visually precise. I read somewhere that by scholarly estimates there are more than 10 pairs of possible letters that could have been confused just by differences of whether this line was closed or not, the weight of that stroke, how many dots or if there are none ... In light of that I believe that it is a miracle and divine confirmation that while there are so many alternative readings (with respect to ambiguous words) not one of these wavers significantly in any major doctrinal point.