How old is the world?

[ebia]

Perhaps, before we can discuss Genesis, the Fall and inherited sin it might be best to see how we stand on the reality, factuality and historicity of Jesus Christ. If we can establish common ground here maybe we can then look at other parts of the Bible.

I think I've answered this, but just to be clear, as far as I'm concerned - Jesus of Nazareth was a real, historical figure in 1st century Palestine and the gospel accounts are essentially factually correct. Thought it needs to be said that all accounts of historical events - whether the gospels through to a 21st century newspaper story - are written with point and that point shapes the way the storyteller tells the story. The gospels are finely crafted theological narratives, not simple records of events.

Please note that I'm not trying to be mechanistic or to take a black-and-white view of things. Rather, I'm trying to gain a better understanding of Christianity's basic tenets, which are based on the words of the Bible. While the symbolic and metaphoric meanings of some passages are up for interpretation surely the historical reportage of events, people and places is not? Surely that way undermines the value of the Gospels as accurate documents of historic events and converts them to a collection of tales that might be true and which you can interpret as you like?

You've got that theological question anyway. However historicially precise you think the gospels are or are not.

So, am I right in thinking that the historical authenticity and reality of Jesus is fully accepted by Christians?

Jesus as an historical figure is accepted by most historians, Christian or otherwise.

They believe that he was a real person who was born, lived and died in what is now Israel, about two thousand years ago. The Gospel accounts of his life are taken to be accurate reportage of real events involving real people in real places.

Basically so, but it depends what you mean by reportage. There are of course some on the more liberal end who view the gospels as being mythologised - that say the resurrection is not a literally true account.

Yes, when he preaches he uses symbolism and metaphor to explain his meanings, but many Christians do not think of his crucifixion as a metaphor - they understand that he really was nailed to a cross and died there, rising from the dead three days later. Acceptance of these events as fact is one of the basic tenets of the Christian faith, isn't it?

It's a bit hard to say what the basic tenents of Christianity are beyond "Jesus Christ is Lord". And it's important to remember that the crucifixion and resurrection is both literally true and metaphor.

A Christian who puts their faith in Jesus becomes a "new creation" and is "born again" of the Holy Spirit. Are these metaphorical concepts or are they actual and real events that happened in the lives of true believers? Christians I've spoken to know the exact date, time and location they became new creations.

For some Christians that's an identifiable event, for many it's a process.

For them this was a real event in the history of their lives. Take the Apostle Paul. His conversion event is documented in the Book of Acts. Is this meant to be taken metaphorically?

The change of his name from Saul to Paul, his ministry to the Gentiles, his letters to the churches and his many travels are all taken as real events and accepted as the early history of the Christian church. Historical fact or metaphor?

Both.

I accept that Jesus, Paul and other N.T. spoke in parables, used metaphors, symbols and other devices to explain their message, but the underlying factuality of their existence, lives and writings aren't in dispute, are they?

There are some that dispute them.

So can we agree on these matters?
Is the historical reality of all that Jesus did common ground for us to build upon?

Yep.

Assuming so perhaps the next step would be to examine why he died on the cross? As you will have read earlier in this thread, I contend that Christ's death and resurrection (real, historical events) are God's response to the real and historical event where our relationship with Him was broken.

Our relationship is broken - but that doesn't have to be through a single identifiable event.
"There no more needs to be an identifiable first sin in theology than there needs to be an identifiable first human being in evolutionary theory."

Here's why...

Evolutionary theory does not posit the existence of a first human being in the sense of a first man and a first woman. Rather, it says that humans descended from a larger gene pool (several thousands of individuals perhaps) of primates. One of the main evolutionary objections to Adam and Eve being the first humans is the lack of genetic diversity two people would have. A much larger gene pool of several thousand is required to prevent inbreeding and rapid extinction.

No doubt we can discuss the concept of first sin in future postings.

That's exactly my point. Neither genetics nor sin requires there to be a single identifiable human being.

 

[WalterPlinge]

Thanks for your response Ebia.

It's a bit hard to say what the basic tenents of Christianity are beyond "Jesus Christ is Lord". And it's important to remember that the crucifixion and resurrection is both literally true and metaphor.

I'm sorry Ebia but I'm a little confused by what you say here.
Do you mean that Christ's crucifixion and resurrection are literally true, but written about in metaphorical terms? Or something else, perhaps?

Paul... Historical fact or metaphor?

Both.

The same confusion here as above, I'm afraid. I can see how an actual event can be reported in a metaphorical way or can be used to draw a metaphorical meaning about something else, but beyond that I'm confused. Either Christ was crucified or not. He rose on the third day - or not. A historical fact is a historical fact because an event is tied to a specific place and a specific time. If it didn't happen, then it's not history, it becomes something else - mythology perhaps?

Can you help me out here please?

Our relationship is broken - but that doesn't have to be through a single identifiable event.
"There no more needs to be an identifiable first sin in theology than there needs to be an identifiable first human being in evolutionary theory."

That's exactly my point. Neither genetics nor sin requires there to be a single identifiable human being.

Nope. We're still not agreeing on this.

I've declared that genetics does not require an identifiable first human - and I think you agree with me there.

Let me try and explain where I'm coming from.

The Apostle Paul referred to parts of the Old Testament not just for teaching purposes but also to remind early Christians that Moses and the 12 tribes of Israel were real, historical people. In 1 Corinthians 10: 1 - 13 Paul lists events that befell the Israelites and uses these incidents to teach and encourage those in Corinth.

It seems quite clear to me that Paul genuinely believed that he was talking about historical facts, not just stories about his nation's past.
Yes, he chose to wax metaphorical about these events to make his points, but the underlying thrust and meaning of these passages gains it's authenticity because these things really happened.

So my case is essentially this...

If Paul was certain about his history here, what about when he refers to Jesus as "The Last Adam"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Adam

Why should he take the contents of the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. as Israel's history but not the Book of Genesis?
Genesis describes the lives of Israel's patriarchs and founders.
Or why would Paul accept the writings about Noah and Abraham as historical fact but not that about Adam and Eve?
Why must some passages be seen as stories to provide meaning when Paul most likely considered them as historical records?

Can you see my approach here, Ebia?

If a major figure in the New Testament (Paul) did NOT consider Genesis to be historical fact then why does he use O.T. passages as history to inform and teach? Where did Paul apply the historical / non-historical line?
Does it seem likely that he would believe the entire canon of the O.T. writings as history except for the first few chapters?

The kind of inconsistent line this would imply seems (to me at least) uncharacteristic of Paul.

Finally, I'd just like to say that I also consider it more likely that most Christians throughout history believed in Genesis as historical fact. The Desert Fathers, Irenaeus, Origen, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, etc. most likely believed in the historical authenticity of Genesis.

It seems to me that taking a metaphorical approach to the words of the Bible is a more modernistic, 20th / 21st Century thing. Of course, I could be wrong here.

Once again, I look forward to your reply.

Walter.

 

[ebia]

Thanks for your response Ebia.



Nope. We're still not agreeing on this.

I've declared that genetics does not require an identifiable first human - and I think you agree with me there.

Yep

Let me try and explain where I'm coming from.

The Apostle Paul referred to parts of the Old Testament not just for teaching purposes but also to remind early Christians that Moses and the 12 tribes of Israel were real, historical people. In 1 Corinthians 10: 1 - 13 Paul lists events that befell the Israelites and uses these incidents to teach and encourage those in Corinth.

It seems quite clear to me that Paul genuinely believed that he was talking about historical facts, not just stories about his nation's past

a) Paul would not have made that distinction in the modernistic terms that we do. b) even if he did, texts don't give that away easily. A reference to a shared story looks the same whether that story is historical or fictional or somewhere between the two providing the significance of that story is shared, even in a modern cultural context that makes a sharp distinction between fact and fiction. In all the sermons on Genesis I've heard I've never once been able to tell whether the minister thought it were literal or not from their sermon alone (except if they addressed that question directly) - it's quite normal to talk about non-historical figures in the same way as historical ones.

Anyway, I'm not here to debate the point - you can conclude whatever you conclude on the issue. The fact is that most of the world's Christians do not take the early Genesis stories as literal history in modernistic terms. To do so is to interpret the stories in a frame of thinking that wouldn't develop for several thousand years after they were written, and then within a worldview that is completely at odds with biblical thinking.

I'm not going to address your argument of Paul's view of various people in detail except to say that it's no good looking for sharp divides in what is a gradual development.

It seems to me that taking a metaphorical approach to the words of the Bible is a more modernistic, 20th / 21st Century thing. Of course, I could be wrong here.

Not at all - various other approaches have a very ancient pedigree.
On the other hand the obsession with fact over truth is very much an enlightenment product.

 

[WalterPlinge]

a) Paul would not have made that distinction in the modernistic terms that we do. b) even if he did, texts don't give that away easily. A reference to a shared story looks the same whether that story is historical or fictional or somewhere between the two providing the significance of that story is shared, even in a modern cultural context that makes a sharp distinction between fact and fiction. In all the sermons on Genesis I've heard I've never once been able to tell whether the minister thought it were literal or not from their sermon alone (except if they addressed that question directly) - it's quite normal to talk about non-historical figures in the same way as historical ones.

Anyway, I'm not here to debate the point - you can conclude whatever you conclude on the issue. The fact is that most of the world's Christians do not take the early Genesis stories as literal history in modernistic terms. To do so is to interpret the stories in a frame of thinking that wouldn't develop for several thousand years after they were written, and then within a worldview that is completely at odds with biblical thinking.

I'm not going to address your argument of Paul's view of various people in detail except to say that it's no good looking for sharp divides in what is a gradual development.


Not at all - various other approaches have a very ancient pedigree.
On the other hand the obsession with fact over truth is very much an enlightenment product.

Hello again Ebia.

Well, I guess that I'm going to conclude whatever I conclude on the issue.

It's clear to me from what you've written in this thread that you're a highly intelligent and well-read person. Your understanding of what we've discussed here has been framed in a sophisticated and subtle manner. There's no harm in that, of course.

However, it seems to me that the erudite means with which you make your points sits somewhat at odds with my understanding (rightly or wrongly) of how most of the world's ancient and modern population have viewed the book of Genesis. My contention breaks down into two parts.

1. Paul was one of the elite in Israel in terms of his learning and education. This, combined with his razor-sharp intellect, makes your point about his ability to make distinctions and look at the context in which things are written entirely acceptable.

However, I would contend that 99% of Israel's population at that time would have been unable to read or write, relying on the spoken word to understand God's holy words. In Acts 4: 13 we see that Peter and John were described as "unlettered / unschooled men" and that the Pharisees took note of this when they spoke out so eloquently about Jesus.

Peter and John were direct witnesses of Jesus miracles, his death and his resurrection. They did not need sophisticated methods of analysis, the understanding of how societies evolve or subtle ways of reading scripture in it's correct theological context to believe in Jesus. They had seen him raise the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine and cast out demons.

What these unschooled men did was to simply put their faith in Christ, based on what they had directly seen and heard. Yes, they also listened to his teachings and parables, but if Jesus' ministry had been solely based on tutoring would these hard-working fishermen have believed in him unto death? Without the miracles, the crucifixion and resurrection Jesus would simply have been an inspired, but still mortal, teacher of holy things.

It's exactly because of the real, historically authenticated miracles and rebirth of Jesus that Peter and John believed. Having believed the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them and Christ's church founded. You see Ebia, I contend that it was no more complicated than that. Real events, witnessed by real people lead to real faith. There was no need for sophistry and learned analysis. Well, at least that's what I contend.

I also contend that their faith in Jesus would have made the words of Genesis real and relevant to them. Not something they heard in a synagogue, which was distant, difficult to understand and only metaphorically relevant to their lives on the shores of Gallilee.

Ok. moving on. Here I'm going out on a limb, but based on the case I've just made about Peter and John I'd say that the early Christian church grew so rapidly precisely because of the immediacy of this message.
Here was a carpenter's son who preached the good news, performed miracles, was killed and lived again. Believe in Him and you can share in eternal life too.

The Jews, Greeks, Romans, etc. who put their faith in Jesus did so because he lived in their times, worked and walked and spoke in the same world they did. This was an immensely more powerful message than anything that could be heard in a synagogue, a temple or other holy place. It was real, factual and immediate - therefore powerful.

The same relevance that Genesis assumed to Peter and John would have most likely been true for other Jews living across the Mediterranean. They would be familiar with this book and, putting their faith in Jesus would renew it's immediacy for them.

We are now removed from those times by two millennia of history, but if we conclude that these events really happened we can follow the same direct spiritual path that Peter and John did. It all still applies, provided that we accept it as real, factual and historical. This leads me on to my second point.

2. Today there are thousands of millions who cannot read or write, have no access to education and little hope of gaining any. These people have next to no chance of knowing the correct social context in which to read the Bible and no way of analysing it in sophisticated ways. In fact, these are exactly the kind of people Christ's message was intended to reach. Ordinary folk who would put their faith in Him if they knew that he was the real, historical figure we've agreed Jesus is.

Would they believe if they had to understand that some of the Bible is meant to understood metaphorically, some of it should be considered as an elaborate theological tract and some of it allegorical? To me it seems more likely that the historical facts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection will speak powerfully to them. He offers them hope and a way out of their lives of poverty, oppression and despair. If they follow the same, simple path as Peter and John, new life can be theirs.

But only if these things are real, factual, authenticated historical events.
A man really overcame death. It's a fact. Believe in it and you can too.

Believing in stories where the meaning has to understood in a subtle framework of context, historical knowledge and expert analysis is not for these people. I contend that it never will be. There are millions of Christian's worldwide who will never grasp the social millieu of Israel under the Romans, will never acquiant themselves with the meanings of ancient Hebrew and don't know what a Greek Interlinear is. This doesn't stop them from having a valid, growing and vibrant Christian faith. Why?

Because they've accepted the reality and historical authenticity of Jesus' life. For them, just as it was for Peter and John and the many millions who've lived throughout the two intervening millennia the historical facts spoke for themselves.

To finish off Ebia, I contend these points, but of course, I cannot prove them. They simply seem more likely than the processes you maintain are necessary to correctly understand the Bible.



I hope that our lively discussions will continue in a spirit of mutual respect and tolerance. We may choose to agree to disagree - but please let's keep it good natured.

Thanks,

Walter.

 

[ebia]

Hello again Ebia.

Well, I guess that I'm going to conclude whatever I conclude on the issue.

I'm guessing that you're highlighting that bit because you took it as
It's clear to me from what you've written in this thread that you're a highly intelligent and well-read person. Your understanding of what we've discussed here has been framed in a sophisticated and subtle manner. There's no harm in that, of course.

However, it seems to me that the erudite means with which you make your points sits somewhat at odds with my understanding (rightly or wrongly) of how most of the world's ancient and modern population have viewed the book of Genesis. My contention breaks down into two parts.

1. Paul was one of the elite in Israel in terms of his learning and education. This, combined with his razor-sharp intellect, makes your point about his ability to make distinctions and look at the context in which things are written entirely acceptable.

However, I would contend that 99% of Israel's population at that time would have been unable to read or write, relying on the spoken word to understand God's holy words. In Acts 4: 13 we see that Peter and John were described as "unlettered / unschooled men" and that the Pharisees took note of this when they spoke out so eloquently about Jesus.

Peter and John were direct witnesses of Jesus miracles, his death and his resurrection. They did not need sophisticated methods of analysis, the understanding of how societies evolve or subtle ways of reading scripture in it's correct theological context to believe in Jesus. They had seen him raise the dead, walk on water, turn water into wine and cast out demons.

Without nit-picking some bits of that that I'm tempted to correct but would throw the thread off track, John, Peter, etc lived in Jesus' context. They had considerably less work to do to understand it. Not to mention that if John was even partly responsible for the gospel that bears his name he may have had little education but he was quite an increadable thinker, theologian and writer.

What these unschooled men did was to simply put their faith in Christ, based on what they had directly seen and heard. Yes, they also listened to his teachings and parables, but if Jesus' ministry had been solely based on tutoring would these hard-working fishermen have believed in him unto death? Without the miracles, the crucifixion and resurrection Jesus would simply have been an inspired, but still mortal, teacher of holy things.

Jesus' actions and speaches are inseparable.

It's exactly because of the real, historically authenticated miracles and rebirth of Jesus that Peter and John believed. Having believed the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them and Christ's church founded. You see Ebia, I contend that it was no more complicated than that. Real events, witnessed by real people lead to real faith. There was no need for sophistry and learned analysis. Well, at least that's what I contend.

I've agreed already that Jesus' life, death and resurrection is historical - haven't I?

I also contend that their faith in Jesus would have made the words of Genesis real and relevant to them. Not something they heard in a synagogue, which was distant, difficult to understand and only metaphorically relevant to their lives on the shores of Gallilee.

I think you underestimate the power of Genesis and Exodus and how important they were to the self-understanding of all Israel in their daily lives. You seem to impose a separation between religion and daily life that would have been completely alien even to a Gallilean fisherman. It's they way we tend to think, but not the way they thought. I'm not saying that they would have though of Genesis as a-historical metaphor - they wouldn't have thought in those categories at all.

Ok. moving on. Here I'm going out on a limb, but based on the case I've just made about Peter and John I'd say that the early Christian church grew so rapidly precisely because of the immediacy of this message.
Here was a carpenter's son who preached the good news, performed miracles, was killed and lived again. Believe in Him and you can share in eternal life too.

A bit more complicated that than, but keep going...

The Jews, Greeks, Romans, etc. who put their faith in Jesus did so because he lived in their times, worked and walked and spoke in the same world they did. This was an immensely more powerful message than anything that could be heard in a synagogue, a temple or other holy place. It was real, factual and immediate - therefore powerful.

To an extent this is true, but I think you are imposing a post-enlightement obsession with fact back onto ancient modes of thinking. It's vital to the gospel story that the resurrection is immediate fact, but one needs to be a bit more subtle and careful in the whys and where one goes from that. It's not simply that fact is more important or more relevant than other truth.

The same relevance that Genesis assumed to Peter and John would have most likely been true for other Jews living across the Mediterranean. They would be familiar with this book and, putting their faith in Jesus would renew it's immediacy for them.

This is where I think you leap off in the wrong direction. Genesis remains important, but because it's a long, long time ago one doesn't need or even tend to divide it into fact vs non-fact but to consider it's truth and implications. "Is this factual?" is a 17th century question, not a 1st century one, when asked about early-Genesis.

2. Today there are thousands of millions who cannot read or write, have no access to education and little hope of gaining any. These people have next to no chance of knowing the correct social context in which to read the Bible and no way of analysing it in sophisticated ways. In fact, these are exactly the kind of people Christ's message was intended to reach. Ordinary folk who would put their faith in Him if they knew that he was the real, historical figure we've agreed Jesus is.

Would they believe if they had to understand that some of the Bible is meant to understood metaphorically, some of it should be considered as an elaborate theological tract and some of it allegorical? To me it seems more likely that the historical facts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection will speak powerfully to them. He offers them hope and a way out of their lives of poverty, oppression and despair. If they follow the same, simple path as Peter and John, new life can be theirs.

I think you underestimate the ability of people uneducated by western standards to deal with narrative as a teaching structure. On the whole they are much better at it than us. They don't have to overcome a western tendency to over-rate fact above truth because they have never been taught the bad habit in the first place.

 

[Markus6]

Please note that while I may be an atheist I'm not actually taking the scientific line for or against Genesis in this thread. I'm more interested in how accurately the forum members think the reported events in that book are. Hence my initial question, "How old do you think the world is?"

To start at the beginning then I turn to science to answer this question so I think the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the universe about 14 billion years.

What is still puzzling me is the apparent divergence of thought amongst believers as to the factuality of the whole Bible.

Perhaps, before we can discuss Genesis, the Fall and inherited sin it might be best to see how we stand on the reality, factuality and historicity of Jesus Christ. If we can establish common ground here maybe we can then look at other parts of the Bible.

Please note that I'm not trying to be mechanistic or to take a black-and-white view of things. Rather, I'm trying to gain a better understanding of Christianity's basic tenets, which are based on the words of the Bible. While the symbolic and metaphoric meanings of some passages are up for interpretation surely the historical reportage of events, people and places is not? Surely that way undermines the value of the Gospels as accurate documents of historic events and converts them to a collection of tales that might be true and which you can interpret as you like?

While I think you could try a little harder to not take a black-and-white view. The bible is not one book and to try and read the whole thing through one lense is a mistake. Each books varies greatly in terms of who wrote it, why, who they wrote it for and when they wrote it in relation to the events described. The gospels were written relatively very soon after the events by authors who probably had access to eye witnesses as sources. This is by no means true for Genesis. In fact study shows that Genesis was probably written by multiple authors so trying to read just the whole of that book in the same way may be a mistake.

So, am I right in thinking that the historical authenticity and reality of Jesus is fully accepted by Christians? They believe that he was a real person who was born, lived and died in what is now Israel, about two thousand years ago. The Gospel accounts of his life are taken to be accurate reportage of real events involving real people in real places. This accuracy and realism is what persuades many that he was not just a man but the Son of God.

Yes, when he preaches he uses symbolism and metaphor to explain his meanings, but many Christians do not think of his crucifixion as a metaphor - they understand that he really was nailed to a cross and died there, rising from the dead three days later. Acceptance of these events as fact is one of the basic tenets of the Christian faith, isn't it?

Yes sir.

A Christian who puts their faith in Jesus becomes a "new creation" and is "born again" of the Holy Spirit. Are these metaphorical concepts or are they actual and real events that happened in the lives of true believers? Christians I've spoken to know the exact date, time and location they became new creations. For them this was a real event in the history of their lives. Take the Apostle Paul. His conversion event is documented in the Book of Acts. Is this meant to be taken metaphorically?

Well yes. No Christian has either been literally re-created (you'll notice the molecules making up their body stay suspiciously close together during the process) or born again (Nicodemus also struggled with taking this verse literally, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" ). Both are metaphors that reflect a spiritual event that really happens.

The change of his name from Saul to Paul, his ministry to the Gentiles, his letters to the churches and his many travels are all taken as real events and accepted as the early history of the Christian church. Historical fact or metaphor?

Considering we have his letters and facts about the churches I'd stick with the former.

Assuming so perhaps the next step would be to examine why he died on the cross? As you will have read earlier in this thread, I contend that Christ's death and resurrection (real, historical events) are God's response to the real and historical event where our relationship with Him was broken.

Firstly I don't share your view on original sin and I don't think the bible explicitly agrees with you either. I believe Jesus was born with the exact same propensity towards sin as you or I but did not sin. He didn't have inherited sin that condemned therefore neither do I. I believe that the fall, like being born again, is a metaphor for a real event. To see that it is a metaphor I think it is instructive to look at the serpent. Tradition has it that the snake is the devil and I agree. However, those who read the passage literally have to add a little to make the snake possessed by the devil or the devil in the form of a snake. However, reading the text purely literally it is clear that the snake is just a snake - pre leg removal. It takes a metaphorical reading for the great tempter to become the devil.

 

[WalterPlinge]

Hello Markus6.

Thanks for the reply.

I take on board your point about different / multiple authors, but would it be too black-and-white of me to suggest the following?

Given that all the books of the Bible have something to say about God's relationship with man is it going too far to say that God has a hand it what has been written there?

To put this another way, would God ensure that only ideas and concepts that bring the reader closer to Him are included, whereas those that do not are excluded? Doing this would lead to a diverse, but consistent body of information that is unified in it's message, yet reflects the social context of the times and places it was written in.

Do you see where I'm going with this line of argument?

Agreed, there's a wealth of differences between different parts of the Bible, but since God is one, unified, timeless deity wouldn't the various facets of these books reflect a unified whole?

Try thinking about the way pure white light is changed into many different colours when it shines through a prism or a diamond. The end result is a diversity of different products (red, orange, yellow light, etc.) but they can all be traced back to one single point of origin.

Does this argument work, Markus6?

Moving on, I believe your point about there being no identifiable changes in the molecular structure of newly born-again Christians is a bit wide of the mark.

Here I think we have to take a leaf out of Ebia's book and look at this change in more metaphorical terms. Just as Jesus wasn't renewed until he had risen from the dead, I don't think that Christians can expect their bodies to be renewed in any perceptible way until Christ returns.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ebia, if you are reading this, please note that I'm not against the use of metaphor per se. When dealing with concepts like the workings of being born-again, it works fine. The point of issue between us is that you would look at described events in non-historical, perhaps metaphorical ways. I contend that these things are properly recorded historical events the value of which may be seen in metaphorical terms after they are accepted as having really happened.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally Markus6, please note that while we may disagree about inherited sin there's an important point to be made here about reading Genesis literally.

So far in this thread, I believe that I haven't said that Genesis should be read literally. What I have said is that the Bible makes more sense (in my opinion) when taken as a unified whole - see above. You, Ebia and I have agreed that Jesus was a real person. I contend that if the Bible is unified in the way I suggest and Jesus was real then Genesis makes more sense if read in terms of actual historical events.

This is approach is not literalism, rather it is accepting that the words are accurate recordings of places, events and people who are as real as we've accepted Jesus to be. Literalism is taking every word to be true, whatever the outcome.

For instance, Christians accept that there are differences between the way Matthew, Mark, Luke and John record the events of Jesus' life, yet they also accept that he was a real person. Differing viewpoints yield different reports but the reality is still the same.

Every word of Genesis cannot be literally true, when taken in the fuller context of the whole Bible. I know of two instances where if certain passages in Genesis are accepted as literally true, they would contradict other parts of the Bible. I can cite these if you wish.

These contradictions arise only if one takes a narrow, literalist line on these matters. When you see them in the wider context of the whole Bible, these conflicts are resolved and disappear.

What you say about the snake / devil issue seems to me to be less of a metaphor than another example of seeing this passage in the whole context of the Bible. If we say that there really wasn't a Tree of Life, no Eve and no snake - that Genesis is a work of moral instruction or a fable handed down from ancient times, which we can draw meaning from, then, Yes, the snake / devil issue is purely metaphorical.

But now look at that passage in the wider context of the whole Bible.
Time and again there are connections made between snakes and Satan. Jesus, Paul and John are three people from scripture who explicitly make that connection. By taking their words and then looking backing at the Genesis narrative the snake / devil issue makes much more sense. If this is being metaphorical then so be it!

Even then I would still contend that Jesus, Paul and John would not have seen the story of Eve and the snake in only metaphorical terms.
For them to do so would have undermined the reality of the message they were preaching. If sin entered into the world by another means (not Eve and the snake) and the only account of this event was a story involving possibly fictitious characters then where does this leave us?

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
If the Bible is an integrated whole, as I've suggested earlier, then it can be relied upon. If it is accepted that Jesus was (and is) real in historical terms why not Elijah and Moses? Christ spoke to them before he ascended. Are they therefore not as real as He is?
If they are real, why not their forefather Abraham?

Do you see how the links in the chain going backwards in time are still strong because we've accepted that these people really lived ? Why then is it necessary to say that the first link in the chain (Eden and the Fall) is an allegorical tale or a race memory that is not historical? Doesn't this change from historical to metaphorical weaken what the Bible says about Jesus and his message?

So as far as I can see Markus6, the snake was Satan. I arrive at this conclusion not by taking Genesis literally (where the snake is just a snake) but by seeing it in the full, historical context of the Bible.

I hope this long, rambling reply doesn't put you off. Sometimes I can be too verbose for my own good.

Thanks again,

Walter.

 

[WalterPlinge]

Dear Ebia,

Hmmm. I don't seem to be making my case very well here - at least not according to your responses. You say that my p.o.v. would not be shared by 1st century Israelites because I inhabit a modern, fact-based worldview. Therefore, I have a suggestion.

Why don't you explain how you think the Israelites understood Genesis? If you can make a good case I'd be very interested to read it.

Naturally I reserve the right to respond to and debate the points that you make.

Thank you,

Walter.

 

[Markus6]

Hello Markus6.

Thanks for the reply.

I take on board your point about different / multiple authors, but would it be too black-and-white of me to suggest the following?

Given that all the books of the Bible have something to say about God's relationship with man is it going too far to say that God has a hand it what has been written there?

To put this another way, would God ensure that only ideas and concepts that bring the reader closer to Him are included, whereas those that do not are excluded? Doing this would lead to a diverse, but consistent body of information that is unified in it's message, yet reflects the social context of the times and places it was written in.

Do you see where I'm going with this line of argument?

Agreed, there's a wealth of differences between different parts of the Bible, but since God is one, unified, timeless deity wouldn't the various facets of these books reflect a unified whole?

Try thinking about the way pure white light is changed into many different colours when it shines through a prism or a diamond. The end result is a diversity of different products (red, orange, yellow light, etc.) but they can all be traced back to one single point of origin.

Does this argument work, Markus6?

Well I believe that God inspired the whole bible and that it all points to him as a single point of origin. I'm a little reticent to agree that the purpose of the bible is to bring a 20th century reader closer to him. Many of Paul's letters, for example, were written to address specific problems in specific churches. I wouldn't want to call Paul's letter to the Ephesians, God's letter to me. There are certainly things we can learn from them, especially when combined with knowledge of the issues in the church addressed.

I do disagree with any concept of a underlying theme in the bible that would suggest that we can learn how to read Genesis from how we read Matthew.

Moving on, I believe your point about there being no identifiable changes in the molecular structure of newly born-again Christians is a bit wide of the mark.

It is? We have a story of the creation of man - formed from dust. Re-creation would be a physical dismantling and then re-forming. Like 'born again' it is likening a spiritual event to a physical event. Exactly what I contend Genesis 3 is.

So far in this thread, I believe that I haven't said that Genesis should be read literally. What I have said is that the Bible makes more sense (in my opinion) when taken as a unified whole - see above. You, Ebia and I have agreed that Jesus was a real person. I contend that if the Bible is unified in the way I suggest and Jesus was real then Genesis makes more sense if read in terms of actual historical events.

And I'd disagree with that. I think reading Genesis for itself that passage (and I don't make generalisations about the whole book) makes more sense as imagery likening spiritual realities to physical events.

Literalism is taking every word to be true, whatever the outcome.

No, literalism is taking every word to be literal. Words can be true but not literal, that's my view of Genesis.

Every word of Genesis cannot be literally true, when taken in the fuller context of the whole Bible. I know of two instances where if certain passages in Genesis are accepted as literally true, they would contradict other parts of the Bible. I can cite these if you wish.

I would be interested if you have time. Though I'm not sure it's totally necessary to the discussion.

What you say about the snake / devil issue seems to me to be less of a metaphor than another example of seeing this passage in the whole context of the Bible. If we say that there really wasn't a Tree of Life, no Eve and no snake - that Genesis is a work of moral instruction or a fable handed down from ancient times, which we can draw meaning from, then, Yes, the snake / devil issue is purely metaphorical.

But now look at that passage in the wider context of the whole Bible.
Time and again there are connections made between snakes and Satan. Jesus, Paul and John are three people from scripture who explicitly make that connection. By taking their words and then looking backing at the Genesis narrative the snake / devil issue makes much more sense. If this is being metaphorical then so be it!

Even then I would still contend that Jesus, Paul and John would not have seen the story of Eve and the snake in only metaphorical terms.
For them to do so would have undermined the reality of the message they were preaching. If sin entered into the world by another means (not Eve and the snake) and the only account of this event was a story involving possibly fictitious characters then where does this leave us?

The snake/devil image is a rich one that is indeed woven all the way through scripture. However, it is always an image, I don't think anyone thinks the devil is actually a snake. You are right, it does take some other parts of scripture to realise it is an image. If one was just to read Genesis they'd be forgiven for thinking the snake was actually the bad guy.

To see the story in metaphorical terms is not at all to undermine the reality of the message. Infact it is to focus on the message as opposed to physical realities and waste effort denying scientific research and theories. Metaphorical =/= ficticious or false.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
If the Bible is an integrated whole, as I've suggested earlier, then it can be relied upon. If it is accepted that Jesus was (and is) real in historical terms why not Elijah and Moses? Christ spoke to them before he ascended. Are they therefore not as real as He is?
If they are real, why not their forefather Abraham?

I suspect they are all real people. Though your integrated whole concept seems to be again ignoring the differences in the books of scripture in favour of seeing the whole thing as a consistent, literal, historic account based on your concept on inspiration not the witness of the text.

Do you see how the links in the chain going backwards in time are still strong because we've accepted that these people really lived ? Why then is it necessary to say that the first link in the chain (Eden and the Fall) is an allegorical tale or a race memory that is not historical? Doesn't this change from historical to metaphorical weaken what the Bible says about Jesus and his message?

So as far as I can see Markus6, the snake was Satan. I arrive at this conclusion not by taking Genesis literally (where the snake is just a snake) but by seeing it in the full, historical context of the Bible.

I hope this long, rambling reply doesn't put you off. Sometimes I can be too verbose for my own good.

Thanks again,

Walter.

Metaphorical does not mean not historical (in the same way it doesn't mean ficticious), it just means not literal. For example you're clearly seeing the snake metaphorically but still call it historical. Now if you see the snake as the devil in snake form or possessed by the snake that would be slightly different and I don't think that fits with the text.

 

[NewToLife]

It seems quite clear that the physical evidence shows the Earth to be approx 4.5 billion years old. I do not believe that it is necessary, from a Christian standpoint, to manufacture a conflict with the physical evidence by adopting an unnecessarily unsophisticated reading of Genesis ( or any other book ) even if that means that we must recognise that even the greatest saints might not always have had perfect understanding.

Christian tradition has over the centuries, and indeed from the earliest times, always recognised that scripture often has a symbolic or metaphorical nature and can even at times contain multiple readings that are both correct and apparently at odds with each other. Apart from this it is true that God's revelation to man is not now at an end. The study of the natural world is a valid means of revelation in and of itself and Tradition testifies to this over and over again. The understandings of the earliest witnesses of Christianity are of course critical to our faith but it would be foolish not to recognise that revelation has continued and that, outside of those few areas where the Church holds something as dogmatically true, our understanding should recognise those truths which those from earlier times would not have been aware of.

I think the questions in this thread probably arise out of a fundamental misunderstanding of what the mainstream of Christianity actually is. It is not a dead religion defined by a book or set of books, it is rather a living Tradition which remains constant in essence ( ie there is indeed a dogmatic core ) but which nevertheless continues to develop as all living entities develop. Christianity is alive and vital it is not a corpse to be preserved, rather it is a life being lived.

 

[Mallon]

Count me in with those who don't read the Genesis creation accounts as historical ones. I also don't think Christ's saving grace hinges upon a literal reading of those accounts. Stories can convey significance and meaning without ever having actually occurred as told. A boy never literally had to cry "WOLF!" in order for me to understand that it's wrong to lie. Likewise, a man didn't literally have to eat a forbidden fruit in order for me to recognize that I am a sinner in need of salvation. Insisting that Genesis must be read literally is to display a very post-Enlightenment mindset not shared by the ancient Near Eastern people.

 

[gluadys]

Hello Refurbished!

Thanks for replying.

Also thanks for checking out the reasoning in my initial proposition.

Umm, yes. I do find it puzzling that some folks here don't seem to see that a real, historical Jesus requires a real, historical Fall from Grace. To keep the internal consistency and accuracy of the Bible, this is an absolute necessity.

I am only part way through this thread so excuse me if I am repeating something already said.

You are right that a real historical Jesus does require a real fall from grace. He is not dealing with an unreal problem.

But a real fall from grace does not require an actual man and woman in an actual Garden of Eden.

That can all be pictorial language to describe our very real broken relation to our Creator.

 

[gluadys]

Hello Solarwave, Ebia & Refurbished.

Thanks for replying. (Sorry about my impolite messaging. I'll address that from now on.)

Just picking up on several items from the last two pages.

While the symbolic and metaphoric meanings of some passages are up for interpretation surely the historical reportage of events, people and places is not?

Well, yes it is. At least there is considerable controversy about the historical nature of some passages and some events. Even genealogies are not strictly factual. We know from Egyptian and Sumerian sources that it was customary to give a king or other notable person a symbolic age, whatever their actual age of death was, as a token of honour.

Surely that way undermines the value of the Gospels as accurate documents of historic events and converts them to a collection of tales that might be true and which you can interpret as you like?

People who are not terribly familiar with the use of symbol in theology, literature and the arts vastly overestimate the elasticity of interpretation. Symbols actually have significant stability and staying power through many cultural changes. That is one of the things that led Carl Jung to propose the existence of collective mental archetypes. Another modern take on this phenomenon is the concept of memes (analogous to genes, but mental).

Creative thinkers, writers, painters, etc. do not use symbols so that they can be interpreted in any way you like, but to call up the traditional meaning of the symbol as applying to a current situation.

For most of the history of the Church, the prevailing mode of interpretation was to read the text as an allegory. Whether or not it was also understood as history, it was given allegorical sense as well. But the terms of the allegorical interpretation was not left to individual exegetes. The Church Fathers and theologians worked out the official allegorical meanings of each text and taught these to their students.

So, am I right in thinking that the historical authenticity and reality of Jesus is fully accepted by Christians? They believe that he was a real person who was born, lived and died in what is now Israel, about two thousand years ago.

Yes.

The Gospel accounts of his life are taken to be accurate reportage of real events involving real people in real places.

That is more debatable, especially among scholars of a Jesus Seminar inclination.

This accuracy and realism is what persuades many that he was not just a man but the Son of God.

No, I wouldn't phrase it that way at all. He was just as real to the Pharisees as to the disciples, but they didn't see him as the Son of God.

A Christian who puts their faith in Jesus becomes a "new creation" and is "born again" of the Holy Spirit. Are these metaphorical concepts or are they actual and real events that happened in the lives of true believers?

Spiritual events are real, but they are necessarily described in symbolic language.

Take the Apostle Paul. His conversion event is documented in the Book of Acts. Is this meant to be taken metaphorically?

Depends what you mean by "metaphorical". If to you "metaphorical" means nothing real happened, then no. But we are dealing with a spiritual reality, so the language must be in the nature of symbol. The conversion event is real; the description of the conversion event could be metaphorical.

The change of his name from Saul to Paul, his ministry to the Gentiles,

These go together. "Saul" is Hebrew; "Paul" is Greek. Makes sense to use a Greek name when ministering in Greek communities.

Assuming so perhaps the next step would be to examine why he died on the cross? As you will have read earlier in this thread, I contend that Christ's death and resurrection (real, historical events) are God's response to the real and historical event where our relationship with Him was broken.

I agree. But I don't think that reality requires a real Garden of Eden or a real tree and snake. Nor a particular man and woman.

The Apostle Paul referred to parts of the Old Testament not just for teaching purposes but also to remind early Christians that Moses and the 12 tribes of Israel were real, historical people. In 1 Corinthians 10: 1 - 13 Paul lists events that befell the Israelites and uses these incidents to teach and encourage those in Corinth.

Have you really, really read this passage? Consider, for example v. 2 "and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (Cf John 3: 5 "No one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and spirit.")

Or the next verses "and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink for they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them and the rock was Christ."

Paul is not simply listing events; he is turning them into allegories of Christ. He does this often--which is why the early and medieval Church considered allegory the proper way to understand scripture. And it is the allegory as much as the remembrance that becomes the source of teaching and encouragement.

It seems quite clear to me that Paul genuinely believed that he was talking about historical facts, not just stories about his nation's past.

Neither Paul nor his audience would have recognized the distinction you are making here. A nation's history was identical with a nation's stories about its past.

If Paul was certain about his history here, what about when he refers to Jesus as "The Last Adam"?

Paul at his allegorical best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Adam

Why should he take the contents of the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc. as Israel's history but not the Book of Genesis?
Genesis describes the lives of Israel's patriarchs and founders.
Or why would Paul accept the writings about Noah and Abraham as historical fact but not that about Adam and Eve?
Why must some passages be seen as stories to provide meaning when Paul most likely considered them as historical records?

Again you are making a distinction here Paul would not have made. For Paul, history was not a matter of records; it was about providing meaning. The stories which provide meaning are what Paul would consider history.

We moderns try to separate the two. We want to record the history accurately in terms of who did what when, but we invest no meaning in it. To most ancient peoples there is no point in history without meaning; so history was recounted as stories in which the meaning is clear.

No, we should not discriminate among the books of the bible. Genesis is no less historical than Exodus, but by the same token Exodus is no more historical than Genesis. Leviticus is probably an idealized record of temple worship and social rituals written after Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of the temple and the cessation of worship there. There is no place in scripture, including the gospels, where a firm, clear line can be drawn between history (as moderns define it) and legend.

This is not to say there is no history in the bible, but that even when there is, it is so wrapped around with legend and symbol that it is next-to-impossible to divide one from the other.

Can you see my approach here, Ebia?

Where did Paul apply the historical / non-historical line?

Basically he didn't. It is a line he would not recognize as existing.

However, I would contend that 99% of Israel's population at that time would have been unable to read or write, relying on the spoken word to understand God's holy words.

Illiteracy is not the same thing as ignorance. Relying as we do on written records, we leave our memories untrained and vastly underestimate the capacity of the human mind to learn a great deal, and with a great deal of sophistication, without learning to read and write. Many ancient teachers, such as Socrates, deplored the growing impact of the written word on education, considering it inferior as a mode of education to the living relationship of teacher and disciple.

You can find examples of the same attitude in the early church, where Papias and others preferred to hear a living apostle or one of his disciples to reading a text. The episcopal tradition of bishops (apostolic succession) is another reminder of the importance of safeguarding the faith by entrusting the teaching to a direct transmission from one generation to another, person to person.

Jesus, of course, practised this tradition of oral teaching with his disciples. We have no writing from him and only two texts that tell us he was literate.

2. Today there are thousands of millions who cannot read or write, have no access to education and little hope of gaining any.

That is why they get their theology from sermons, oral lessons and hymns. Just as most of the first generation of Christians did.

Would they believe if they had to understand that some of the Bible is meant to understood metaphorically, some of it should be considered as an elaborate theological tract and some of it allegorical?

Actually some of the most inventive allegory comes from people just like these.

To me it seems more likely that the historical facts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection will speak powerfully to them. He offers them hope and a way out of their lives of poverty, oppression and despair. If they follow the same, simple path as Peter and John, new life can be theirs.

Except the hope does not come directly from the historical facts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection. It comes from the proclamation of the gospel which sets these events in a context of meaning. The facts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection are embedded in a story--and the meaning which gives hope is in the story.

Even the disciples had to learn the story before they understood the events they witnessed. (Luke 24:32)

A man really overcame death. It's a fact. Believe in it and you can too.

But, you see, that is not the gospel. The gospel is that Christ overcame sin and reconciled us to God. You don't get that from the mere fact that he died.

I take on board your point about different / multiple authors, but would it be too black-and-white of me to suggest the following?

Given that all the books of the Bible have something to say about God's relationship with man is it going too far to say that God has a hand it what has been written there?

Not precisely. To inspire someone to write is not the same as taking a hand in the writing. The biblical writers were truly authors, not secretaries.

And it doesn't mean you won't get a variety of perspectives from the writers either. Sometimes even contradictory.

To put this another way, would God ensure that only ideas and concepts that bring the reader closer to Him are included, whereas those that do not are excluded?

That seems to assume that what brought ancient Israelites closer to God and what brings a 21st century American closer to God are the same thing.

Does this bring us closer to God?

"Happy shall they be who pay you back for what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against a rock!"

If not why is it there?

Agreed, there's a wealth of differences between different parts of the Bible, but since God is one, unified, timeless deity wouldn't the various facets of these books reflect a unified whole?

The process of canonization would do that. The bible is a selection of books from a much larger corpus of literature--even of religious literature. Those who decided on the canon used criteria which would impose a sense of unity on the message of the whole.

Literalism is taking every word to be true, whatever the outcome.

No it is not. It is taking every word in its most basic non-figurative meaning. To identify "literal" as "true" does the disservice of identifying "figurative" as "false".

Both literal and figurative language can be true and both literal and figurative language can be fictive. Jesus' parables are fiction that is true, would you not agree?

Time and again there are connections made between snakes and Satan.

Look up "meme".

By taking their words and then looking backing at the Genesis narrative the snake / devil issue makes much more sense. If this is being metaphorical then so be it!

It is definitely being metaphorical. Literally, a snake cannot be anything other than or more than a snake. As soon as you introduce the idea that it is something else, that is metaphor.

Even then I would still contend that Jesus, Paul and John would not have seen the story of Eve and the snake in only metaphorical terms.
For them to do so would have undermined the reality of the message they were preaching. If sin entered into the world by another means (not Eve and the snake) and the only account of this event was a story involving possibly fictitious characters then where does this leave us?

Same place we always find ourselves: creatures separated from our Creator by our sin.

Doesn't this change from historical to metaphorical weaken what the Bible says about Jesus and his message?

Only if you devalue metaphor.

Why don't you explain how you think the Israelites understood Genesis? If you can make a good case I'd be very interested to read it.

What part of Genesis? It is not all the same.

 

[WalterPlinge]

Hello Markus6, NewToLife, Mallon and Gluadys.

Thank you for your replies.

There seems to be a certain consensus in this thread as to how the Book of Genesis should be read. So be it.

As of now I await Ebia's response to my invitation - that he present his argument/s as to why he thinks this book should be read in the way he describes. Therefore, I feel that it would be inappropriate to reply directly to each and every point made by the four members listed above. I hope you will all accept my hesitation on this matter, because I feel that there is some unfinished business between Ebia and I.

However, there are three other things I can do right now to help this debate along.

Firstly, please go to...

Christianforums> Congregation> Faith Groups> Fundamentalist Christians

and check out the thread, "Age of the Earth?"

This location would be my preferred place to discuss and debate about Genesis, but, being an atheist, I cannot do that because that would breach the Congregation guidelines about defenses and apologia.
Therefore, I am limited to being here - in the "Exploring Christianity" part of the Outreach section. Please note that the some of the folks replying to the "Age of the Earth" thread are quite happy to take the words of Genesis as historical events.

If you check out my Profile you'll see that I used to be a born-again Christian. I was of the Fundamentalist variety, so perhaps it's not surprising that my p.o.v. and arguments tend to look black-and-white to non-Fundamentalist Christians.

Secondly, is this link of any help with the topic under debate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Hypothesis

Lastly, to fulfill Markus6's request, here are the two passages from Genesis that I contend lead to contradiction with the rest of the Bible if read literally.

Genesis 9: 12 - 16.

Summarising...
After the Flood God promises that he will never again destroy the world by water. As a sign of this he says that he will place a rainbow in the sky. When it appears in the sky God will remember his promise.

Taken literally, that is following the sequence mentioned, God will place the rainbow in the sky and then remember his promise.
Clearly this literal interpretation is unworkable.

This contradicts what the rest of the Bible says about God's omniscience. An eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing God would not need such a reminder.

The second passage is Genesis 18: 16 - 33, especially verses 20 & 21.

Summarising...
Here the Three Visitors to Abraham's tent are talking to him about the cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah. Verses 20 and 21, if taken literally, imply that God does not know if the outcry against these places is justified and must go there to find out.

This literal interpretation creates the same kind of contradiction as mentioned above. An all-seeing God would not need to visit a certain location to find out what is going on there.

Now I suspect that some folks will want to comment on what I've just written, saying that...

"Genesis wasn't meant to be read in that way."

...or

"The Israelites would not have understood things like this."

...or

"Your interpretation is too modern/mechanistic/black-and-white,etc."

Well friends, I'm sorry, while I've heard people express these opinions I haven't yet seen any evidence presented to back these propositions up. As I mentioned earlier, I'm still waiting on Ebia to do so.

Imho, a good way to present the case would be to link to it, rather than type it out here.

I hope the tone of this message does not come across as rude or confrontational. That is not my intent. I still hope that productive dialogue will be possible.

Thank you,

Walter.

 

[gluadys]

If you check out my Profile you'll see that I used to be a born-again Christian. I was of the Fundamentalist variety, so perhaps it's not surprising that my p.o.v. and arguments tend to look black-and-white to non-Fundamentalist Christians.

No, it is not surprising. Many current atheists come from such a background (and many from non-fundamentalist backgrounds too.) And having come from that background that is the way they think of the bible as "true" even if they personally reject that truth. IOW, ifyou were to become a Christian again, it is fundamentalist Christianity you would be most comfortable with because that is what it means to you for Christianity and the bible to be true.

You might, however, reflect on why you became an atheist. Since the form of Christianity you rejected was that of your upbringing, perhaps the problem is with that form of Christianity. Maybe it really is not true, at least in respect of such things as the age of the earth and its commitment to the historicity of some aspects of scripture.

Secondly, is this link of any help with the topic under debate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Hypothesis

Yes, indeed. It is not the only way to understand Genesis 1 in a non-historical manner, but it is a good one. It also has the advantage of coming from a very conservative theological source (not "tainted" with liberalism.)

Lastly, to fulfill Markus6's request, here are the two passages from Genesis that I contend lead to contradiction with the rest of the Bible if read literally.

Genesis 9: 12 - 16.


The second passage is Genesis 18: 16 - 33, especially verses 20 & 21.

This literal interpretation creates the same kind of contradiction as mentioned above. An all-seeing God would not need to visit a certain location to find out what is going on there.

IOW some parts of the bible present God in a way that does not harmonize with the absolute characteristics of God that the Church adapted from Greek philosophy.

Along the same line is the introduction to the flood story in which God "repents" that he has made humans, and a similar passage in Numbers where he is ready to destroy the people of Israel, but is deterred by Moses' intercession. Such passages contradict the conception of God as all-knowing and unchanging.

 

[WalterPlinge]

Hello Gluadys!

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner - that was a bit of a mad weekend.

You may well be right about the brand of Christian Fundamentalism I used to hold to affecting the way I think about Christianity generally. To be honest, the integrated whole of the Bible seemed to hang nicely together (for me at least) without any of the subtle sophistries that more liberal Christians have "introduced".

Truth was truth, fact was fact and God's word was God's word. Period.

It was comparing the Genesis account of Creation with what science said about the Universe, the Solar System and Geological time that caused me to have doubts. That and the behavior of my "so-called" brothers and sisters in Christ. Unlike my conversion testimony, my de-conversion testimony is not a happy one.

Moving on, I shall look deeper into the Framework Hypothesis, but part of me still thinks that God's word, if true, really doesn't need these added-on aspects of human thought to make it work. Hundreds of generations of devout Christians from many different nations and cultures didn't need these add-on's to make their faith work. Their faith in Jesus worked just fine without knowing the sociological/cultural context in which certain parts of the Bible should be read.

Perhaps, as Science has grown in it's ability to provide an alternative explanation for how the Universe works, so people have found it necessary to discard the traditional, more literal understanding of the Bible, in favour of a more nuanced one that is more difficult for atheists to refute? I suggest this possibility because, coming from a Fundamentalist background, I am familiar with the assertions and claims Young Earth Creationists make to try and keep as literal a faith in Genesis as possible. As Science provides more and more answers I see the Y.E.C.'s engaged in an ultimately futile rear-guard action to present the case that scripture accurately describes the way God made everything.

Thanks also Gluadys for the info about perceived contradictions re: the Flood story and Moses' intercession for the people of Israel. I will check out the second one in Numbers a.s.a.p.

I expect that this thread will fizzle out very shortly, but it certainly has been eye-opening to see some radically different takes on the Fall, inherited sin, Genesis and such like.

Thanks again,

Walter.

 

[gluadys]

Hello Gluadys!
It was comparing the Genesis account of Creation with what science said about the Universe, the Solar System and Geological time that caused me to have doubts. That and the behavior of my "so-called" brothers and sisters in Christ. Unlike my conversion testimony, my de-conversion testimony is not a happy one.

It is a story we hear many times. You might like to check out what Glenn Morton has to say on this.

Moving on, I shall look deeper into the Framework Hypothesis, but part of me still thinks that God's word, if true, really doesn't need these added-on aspects of human thought to make it work. Hundreds of generations of devout Christians from many different nations and cultures didn't need these add-on's to make their faith work. Their faith in Jesus worked just fine without knowing the sociological/cultural context in which certain parts of the Bible should be read.

I don't think faith in Christ (which ultimately is the only faith that counts) depends on education in the socio-cultural context that gave us the Bible. But a person who would truly understand the text in any sort of scholarly way needs to have some understanding of the culture that shaped it. One can get a lot of strength and comfort from scripture without that background. My experience is that learning something about the author and the circumstances in which he was writing only adds to that. The wonderfully hopeful message of deutero-Isaiah, for example, shines even more brightly when we understand that it was written from the depths of the Babylonian exile. (These are the passages that we read in this season of Advent, so they are on my mind right now.)

The other thing you will find if you look into these things deeply is that it was really Fundamentalism that was the modern add-on. What those of us who have loosed ourselves from that paradigm have found is that the resources for a more non-literal approach to scripture go right back to ancient times and it was only after the advance of science that the "truth=scientifically valid fact" paradigm was applied to scripture.

The Hebrew people did not have a scientific paradigm that challenged the scriptures, and more importantly, it was not even available as a model of how to write.

As Science provides more and more answers I see the Y.E.C.'s engaged in an ultimately futile rear-guard action to present the case that scripture accurately describes the way God made everything.

Absolutely.

I expect that this thread will fizzle out very shortly, but it certainly has been eye-opening to see some radically different takes on the Fall, inherited sin, Genesis and such like.

Thanks again,

Walter.

You might like to check out this video series on the Old Testament.
http://www.yovisto.com/lecture/2754

 

[WalterPlinge]

Hello Gluadys.

Thanks for the video link and the mention of Glen Morton.

I "Googled" Glen Morton and came up with a number of hits about him. At first glance we don't see exactly eye-to-eye (theistic evolution versus atheistic evolution) but I can't help but admire his integrity and honesty. Also the geological data he presents looks good too.

So now I have three things to go away and think about...

* Framework Hypothesis.

* Glen Morton's take on Genesis.

* Those videos about the O.T.

...and I have you to thank for helping me find them.

In my last posting I said that this thread would finish soon. I suspect this will be my last posting here - unless something new turns up.

Before I go I'd just like to say that I no longer count it as a sign of weakness / lack of faith / double-mindedness / or whatever to have my views challenged and changed. That is the hallmark of an open mind. A closed mind, for whatever reasons, will not entertain or tolerate new ideas.

So who is better off? Those whose views are set in the hardest of stone or those who can grow and learn and adapt? I know where I would have stood on this question in the past. Thank goodness (not God ) I have moved on.

Thanks again,

Walter.