How would you say it?

[gluadys]

I used the words “our galaxy” to describe Genesis’ purview whereas you want to use the words “our universe.” This sounds like more peripheralism.

Sorry about that. I was reacting to your statement that ancient peoples could not see distant galaxies. My point was that they could not see near-by galaxies either. In a sense they could not even see our galaxy, as the concept of galaxy had not been invented yet. They could, of course, see the stars of the Milky Way. But since there was no understanding of what a galaxy is, they did not "see" the Milky Way Galaxy. Is that clearer?

Let’s call it “the cosmos.”

"Cosmos" is good. Now what we can say for the author of Genesis is that the cosmos consisted of earth, heaven, sun, moon and visible stars, and nothing more, other than the occasional comet. Note that the list does not include planets. That is because the ancients did not know that planets existed. They thought that the entities they called planets were stars. What made them different from other stars is that they were not fixed in any one constellation. ("Planet" literally means "wanderer".)

Now perhaps what you were really getting at is that Genesis creates the earth before the visible stars. Why would that be a problem?

It would be a problem because it is not a fact.

Of course scientific data is not going to support it, because the data is probably formulated and interpreted from the standpoint of non-creationist assumptions (or at least non-Genesis assumptions). But would an objective view of the data change the picture? If not, why not?

Just what kind of arrogance is it that says it is ok to handwave away the work of hundreds of researchers, many of them Christian, over more than a century on the assumption that all of them as individuals and all of their efforts are biased. Since you call yourself a Christian, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. This is, in essence, a blanket accusation of lying levelled against all scientists with no evidence whatsoever. If you think the data is skewed by assumptions, it behoves you to state what those assumptions are, provide evidence that the scientists in question are making said assumptions, and show how the data has been modified by the said assumptions.

But you have not studied enough science to even guess at what the assumptions are. You just assume, sight unseen, and with no knowledge of the field whatsoever, that all results are flawed because of faulty assumptions which you can't even state.

*End of rant*



The data on the age of stars is objective. You can go to any university with a department of astronomy and check out how they are measured. If you can find a fault in the measurements, believe it or not, the scientists will welcome your input. In general, scientists want to have correct data.

Some stars must be very old, because stars are the nursery of heavy elements such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and various other elements without which life cannot exist. It takes billions of years for the fusion process at the heart of a star to turn hydrogen to helium and then helium to heavier elements. The more complex the element, the more time is necessary to create it. Straightforward physics tells us that you have to allow at least 10 billion years from the first star formation to the first possibility of a solar system in which the elements of life exist.

Our sun is a relatively young star (3rd generation IIRC) born out of a vanished super-nova. That is why our solar system is rich in the heavy elements necessary to life.

A good read on the whole relationship of stars to life is The Life of the Cosmos by Lee Smolin.

No, this wasn’t an error on my part. (Funny how every one of your patronizations turns out to be an error on YOUR part, that is, in inability to understand me). I was speaking of terrestrial plants as APPARENTLY CONCEIVED BY MOSES AND HIS READERSHIP, which would be flowering plants.

Here is what you said:

I found it very interesting that the end of the dinosaurs (a likely starting point for Moses) was ALSO the beginning of terrestrial plants (which is where Moses seems to start!)

I take it you are now saying you erred in omitting the adjective flowering?

As I said, it was the consensus of ALL Jews and ALL Christians until the Renaissance that the visible heavens including earth were originally water (2Pet 3:5).

Correct. In fact you can go to after the Renaissance. The first scientific study challenging the "Neptunian" theory as it was called, was James Hutton's 1797 analysis of the geological formations of Scotland, where he introduced (among other important concepts) that of a "Plutonian" (igneous) origin of many rocks and geological features.

Read my lips. THE LITERAL READING OF GENESIS HAS NO EARTH AND NO SUN AS SUCH WHEN THE DAYLIGHTS AND NIGHTS BEGIN AT VERSES 4 AND 5. ... The earth existed only in the sense that the water serving as its raw material existed.

One could, after a school of interpretation I do not follow, consider this a description of the earth before it was fully formed. The basic scientific problem is that at the early stage of planetary formation there would be no water---at least not in liquid form. The material of the earth would be too highly heated to retain liquid water.

There was no land, and no sun, and no moon, and no evidence of rotation on an axis.

You see, that is why Genesis 1 cannot be a literal description of the formation of the earth. The earth is a planet in the solar system. It was formed as part of the formation of the solar system. That means there was never a time in the earth's existence when it did not have a sun to orbit. And there was never a time when the earth did not rotate on its axis. These are physical necessities. They are dictated by the fundamental laws of gravity, angular momentum, and thermodynamics among others. If God created these laws of nature, these are the necessary consequences of those laws. So, if these facts are incompatible with a literal intepretation of Genesis, then the literal interpretation is just plain wrong.

If your faith depends on Genesis being literally true, the only possible outcome of this clash of "data" is that either scripture is lying or creation is lying.

I choose to believe that neither is lying. I choose to believe the verifiable data from creation do not deceive us. And I choose to believe that since scripture is not lying to us either, it is my literal interpretation which is at fault.

Here you want to define “day” by axial rotation, as though it’s biblical. Biblical? Show me evidence that this is how Moses and the ancients conceived day! What did they know about axial rotation! No, Moses defines day as morning and evening, daylight and darkness – whatever the cause, and WHATEVER THE TIME INTERVAL.

Yes!! This is what I was getting at earlier. Of course the Copernican helio-centric solar system is not biblical. That is why it caused such a fuss. Nothing in the bible sustains the Copernican thesis and much contradicts it.

So, we while we can conclude that if "day" is measured according to Webster's definition (which is based on the Copernican model) it must be 24 hours, because that is what the time period of the axial rotation of the earth is---we have a whole different ball game if "day" is to be defined in the context of the perceived cosmos of the OT.

In the first place, there is no axial rotation by which to measure the day. The earth doesn't rotate at all. So what measures the length of the day? Obviously, it was the movement of the sun. It happens that this still gives us a 24-hour day.

But that can only apply once the sun exists. What about the period before day 4? What measures the day in that time period? Since it is related to morning and evening, daylight and darkness, it must be the pre-solar light source. Right? So the length of the day is set by the movement of the pre-solar light source. And we are not told in scripture how long that was. It need not be 24 hours at all.

Solves everything, doesn't it?

Except for a few flies in the ointment.
1. The cosmos must be geo-centric, so that both the sun once it is created and the pre-solar light source can move around the earth.
2. Both light sources must actually move. Their motion cannot be merely apparent.
3. The earth, by contrast, must not move.

In short, to get a literal day that need not be a 24-hour day, you must accept a literal geo-centric cosmos.

In a helio-centric solar system (and I don't know of any other kind) the length of day on each planet is set by the axial rotation of the planet. On earth that is 24 hours.

So those are your choices.

A day whose length is determined by the motion of the light source and need not be 24 hours together with a literally geo-centric cosmos, such as the bible describes.

or

A helio-centric solar system, such as science describes, where the length of the day is set by the axial rotation of the planet and is therefore literally 24 hours on earth (except in the distant past when it was shorter).

I don't care which you choose as long as you are consistent. Don't talk to me about a literal day which is not essentially a 24 hour day unless you are prepared to defend the literally geo-centric cosmos with which it is logically bound.

 

[Micaiah]

But if I was going to write it as strict history and science, I would not use poetic language and structure as it is written now. Further, if the actual history included such events and characters which would normally indicate strong imagery, typology, allegory and metaphor (as the text does), I would present additional language to make sure the reader knows that these literary forms were not intended, but that that no matter HOW much they resemble such literary forms, these were the actual events. As it is, God just left us with the language that so strongly screams out non-literal.

Also, I wouldn't use as a name for my first man a word that equates with "Mankind".

Also, I would not provide two different creation accounts that seem to contradict each other in regards to the order of events. I would definitely clarify that point.

Also, I would point out that Cain married his sister, so that the plain reading would not be that there were others living at the time.

Not a very convincing set of claims to justify interpreting Genesis as myth.

 

[JAL]

Gluady’s, I haven’t had a chance to examine closely all what you wrote, but a brief look at it does look impressive. Let’s start with David’s statement again, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me’ (Psal 51:5). You responded that this verse shouldn’t be taken literally:

Actually, he says he was sinful from conception. I think that qualifies as hyperbole in the context. But the question of hyperbole is peripheral. The main argument is that David is speaking personally. He is speaking of himself. Even if he is speaking the plain unvarnished truth about himself, there is insufficient reason to apply David's self-accusation to all of humanity.

Yes. David is speaking personally. And perhaps it is hyperbole. But keep in mind the context. Here is where David is supposed to be finally confessing his sin to God, that is, finally TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for his actions. A person who says, “It’s not my fault, God, I was just born sinful” isn’t making a very convincing confession. In other words, if David’s statement isn’t literal, it really has no place in this confession. It sounds like a sorry excuse, an attempt to EVADE responsibility. That’s why I take him literally here. The thing is, only my model of Adam (a physical soul) can explain how a person can be conceived in sin. If our soul is a physical subsection of Adam’s sin-tainted soul, we are sinful not only at conception but even BEFORE conception (I hold that most of Adam’s tainted soul, from which our souls derive, is held by God in suspended animation somewhere). So even though your position is plausible, I still think my case is stronger.

 

[JAL]

There are several problems with the idea that we are born innocent. (1) Abortion is then a favor because it prevents the child from sinning himself into hell. (2) A person who is born innocent should not be distinguished from a Christian. After all, the Bible teaches that it is by repentance that we come to know God/Christ. A person innocent from birth, who has no need to repent, should be a believer/Christian from the age of accountability. This results unacceptably in a whole world of Christians. Thus the Protestant church had good reason for rejection such Pelagianism (presumption of innocence). (3) Many of the angels never sinned. If all are born innocent, some children, having been killed just after the age of accountability, would die sinless. There is no biblical evidence for sinless people. ALL have sinned, said Paul.



Realizing that it is difficult to explain universal sin on the presumption of universal innocence at birth, you end up admitting that we ARE by nature sinful.

So, the answer to your question is: No, even though we have a choice, no one, even temporarily, chooses not to sin. Because our capacity to choose is depraved. It is not a fully free choice, it is the choice of a will in bondage to sin. None of our choices, not even the first truly voluntary choice we make is wholly innocent, because we are limited to those choices available in the state of depravity.

It is this state of depravity which Augustine and Calvin were referring to when they spoke of original sin. It exists prior to any actual commission of sin and is the root cause of sin.
As I once heard it put (by C.S. Lewis IIRC): we are not sinners because we commit sin; we commit sin because we are sinners.

What happened to your presumption of innocence? Clearly, Gluadys, you are taking back with the one hand what you put forth with the other. Now you are saying that we ARE by nature sinful. And so we have come back, full circle, to precisely my original contention, that is, there is no way to explain HOW all of us came to be depraved apart from my model of Adam. When we are born, does God taint our souls with sinfulness? No. So how then did we become sinful? The Catholic Catechism admits that no theologian has explained this. I referenced you other theologians who make the same admission. I also told you that Millard J. Erickson falls back on a physical model (a watered-down version of my own model) to explain it. He argues that, physically, we were all Adam. And in one sense that’s where you go with your next statement:

And that takes us back to Adam as mystical reality; as not just an individual being, but as Adam Kadmon, the human race as a whole. And no, your model is not the only possible model. Jewish Kabbala is a much older model and very different

Now please don’t start throwing out a bunch of religious terms as a substitute for reasoning. Look, I want you to explain WHY I have a sinful nature. Don’t just tell me “Kabbala.” So I’ll ignore that word. More to the point was your comment that Adam is the human race. In my physical model, much of Adam’s sin-tainted soul was placed in suspended animation as the source of our souls. Thus we are now individuals even though formerly the one man Adam. In other words my model allows for subsequent individuality, precisely because it is a physical model. Now if you want to define Adam in my sense, this particular debate is over. But if you want to stick to the traditional theory of immaterial soul (immaterial substance is defined as INDIVISIBLE substance), then your model doesn’t allow for individuality. You end up with one soul, Adam, embodied in the entire human race. And that raises problems such as the following.



(1) If we are all the same person/soul (Adam), why do some go to heaven, and others to hell? Doesn’t make sense. (2) Why does Christ promise to grant each Christian different rewards? Doesn’t make sense. (3) If we are all one soul, why don’t I know your thoughts? Why don’t you know my thoughts? Doesn’t make sense. (4) If we are all one soul, why do our choices conflict? Why does God get angry at one person while being pleased with another? Doesn’t make sense.

 

[JAL]

I have asked you to show how mythologizing Genesis is hermeneutically consistent/justified. I have demonstrated that it is not. In response, you become a moving target. Instead of deciding upon either myth or literalism, you try to affirm that a given verse can be both literally true and yet mythical, which is a contradiction. And you have the gall to act as though this is standard thinking! You even construe me as naïve for having

never questioned the mutual exclusiveness of the concepts "literal" and "metaphorical", any presentation of "literal" and "metaphorical" as a unified reality seems contradictory. But historically, that conceptual dividing line did not exist until the Enlightenment, about 300 years ago. Any time you are dealing with human thought from an earlier age, the identity of literal fact and metaphor as a single reality has to be taken for granted. [

And then you go on to imply that even Paul didn’t know how to distinguish truth from myth:

In [Paul’s] time, the separation of literal from metaphor was not an existing category of thought. He could not distinguish what no human had thought to distinguish. The consequence for us, is that we cannot assume that Paul was speaking either literally or metaphorically of Adam in any given situation. He slides easily and naturally from what we would consider literal to what we would consider mysticism because, for him, there is no difference between these and so he makes no attempt to mark any difference. For him, as for all thinkers of his time, and right through the Middle Ages, the mystical and metaphorical were just as "literally" true as any literal fact.

To defend your non-literalism, you next appeal to the Last Supper. Now, to begin with, I never denied that some texts are metaphorical. I stated that parables are clearly marked by indicators in the text. Interestingly, the Last Supper has no such indicators. I take it literally – and so has the Catholic Church for over a thousand years (although I differ slightly in my understanding of it). Yet you write as though no would take it literally:

It might be easier to understand this if we look at another instance. In the synoptic gospels, Jesus, at the Last Supper, breaks bread and distributes it to the disciples with the words "This is my Body". Any modern person reading this statement will identify it as a metaphor---and it is. But when we say "metaphor" we exclude the possibility that the bread really is the body of Christ.

Here’s one reason I take these passages literally (but probably not in the way you think). Jesus said, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). But also look at verse 51, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” You see, here He DEFINES the bread as “the flesh which I will give for the life of the world.” Did He literally give His flesh for the life of the world? Yes. He says that’s the same bread that each Christian is to eat. Only a Platonist would try to distort the clearly physical model of God presented here. This is not Scripture, but philosophy. Now let’s consider John 1:14. Certainly food can become flesh when I eat it. But an immaterial substance cannot turn into my bodily flesh. God is said to have an unchanging nature. Either He is physical or non-physical – but a non-physical substance can’t be flesh. How then, is it, that “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14). It doesn’t say “was made LIKE” flesh. It says, “was made flesh.” Now let’s consider Romans 6-8. This is the passage where Paul speaks abundantly of “the flesh” taken by immaterialists (unjustifiably) as “the sinful nature.” That’s not what Paul said. He said flesh. To prove this, look at Rom 8:3. There is no way you can get “immaterial sinful nature out of it.” We have a sinful nature, but it is physical/fleshy, and Rom 8:3 proves it.



Time for me to go to work.

 

[Vance]

Just got back from the holidays (left late Wednsday) and will try to read through this and the other threads as soon as possible.

JAL, I just read the first couple of posts that were new to me and, to the extent that others have not covered the matter, I will be happy to respond, hopefully sometime today, along with all the other ongoing discussions. This one is has four pages of posts, so I might do this one last.

The short answer to the one question I did read is that it is not just the use of metaphorical images (although the snake does fit that), but the framework structure, the poetic language, the usages that argue for symbolism (ie the name of Adam, the two trees, the garden itself, the snake, etc), the two differing accounts. To me, it reads stylistically very much like near eastern and Egyptian myth.

 

[Vance]

OK, basically, what Gluadys said, after skimming through the posts. JAL, what you describe as a mass of contradictions you can not follow is what makes perfect sense to me. The ability to mix fact and fiction to present a literal truth, and to not make a clear distinction between that and literal history, is something that our modern minds just have trouble getting around.

When facing an ancient text, it simply makes little sense at all to start with a presumption of literalness. Yes, with a modern text, this makes perfect sense, because today people draw these bright-line distinctions, and so if someone is intending to write about the past, they do it as either history or fiction, and know that the reader will expect one or the other.

Generally, I approach the Bible as literal unless there is a solid reason NOT to (although I agree with Gluadys that there is no particularly convincing reason to do this, but upbringing dies hard at times). With Genesis up to Abraham, there is a very good reason not to, since the authors (meaning the scribe God was inspiring) would not have EXPECTED me to read it literally. From Abraham to David, there is good reason to read it more literally, but still with a mix of non-literal elements, etc.

 

[Vance]

Here is a thread over in the hermuenetics forum on this point:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1140598-theology-correct-but-history-wrong.html

 

[JAL]

Gluadys, You say that the chronology of Genesis 1 contradicts the chronology of Genesis 2. Here is a summary statement of my rebuttle. There is definitely a six day chronology in Genesis 1. There is definitely NOT a chronology in Genesis 2 because it’s instead a topical treatment.

And three times I have read it and found it overwhelmingly naive. To understand any answer I could possibly give, you need to be familiar with why theologians and biblical scholars came to suspect and then verify the composite, non-Mosiac authorship of the Torah. You choose not to acquire that knowledge. Case closed. Read literally, there is a chronology in Genesis 2 just as there is in Genesis 1. You choose to interpret that chronology topically. Great. I have no problem with that. I interpret both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 topically. I don't try to pretend that I am still interpreting either story literally. You shouldn't either.

This response seems ridiculous. The example I gave was perfectly literal, namely the following TOPICAL statement. “On that day I washed the clothes, cooked a meal, cleaned the car, did my laundry, and walked the dog.” This statement is not chronological. Now let me ask you, is it a myth? Or is it a literal statement? You are making the ridiculous claim that a topical Genesis is not a literal Genesis. Gluadys, if you are going to continue with arguments so silly, this debate is soon to end. It would be a waste of my time. If you have a reasonable argument, state it. If not, stop PRETENDING to have refuted my position.

 

[JAL]

What you actually need are principles for distinguishing when to use a literal interpretation alone, when to use a literal interpretation along with a non-literal interpretation, and when to use a non-literal interpretation alone.

But the point is this, gluadys, and I don’t know how many times I need to say it. Here we go again. When we look at a text suspect of mythology, precisely what makes it suspect are non-empirical, supernatural, and typically invisible “realities.” When you look at the NT, then, there might be a temptation to discard the whole thing as myth. But here’s the rub. You don’t. The very types of things that are typically regarded as myth (the 8 invisible realities such as angels and demons), are precisely what you take literally. On what basis? That’s important question, and I’d like both you and Vance to answer it. Now once you’ve answered that question, I want you to be consistent. To get the ball rolling, let me throw out a possible scenario. Suppose you say, “I take these 8 invisible realities literally because (a) certain biblical texts that mention them (b) and these texts never explicitly place these 8 realities in the category of myth.



In other words, “Based on criteria A and B, I take these 8 realities literally.” Now you have to ask yourself, do the texts on Adam and Eve meet those same criteria (or whatever your criteria happen to be)? If so, consistency would demand that you take Adam and Eve literally.



So I want to know your basic criteria for taking those 8 realities literally – lay it out for me, as A, B, and C. Or to shorten the task, just tell me what criteria the Adam-texts have failed to meet whereas the 8-reality texts have passed with flying colors. This is what I’ve been asking for from the start. I’m tired of asking. It’s really a simple question.

 

[JAL]

However, your parallel is still false, because Genesis, as a written account, contains no verifiable data. It is, at best, testimony, not evidence. And it is certainly not evidence of its own testimony. To determine whether or not its testimony is correct, we need to go to an actual source of data. Data that can be objectively observed and verified many times by many different people. And the source of that data is nature.

When you say that Genesis contains no verifiable data, you are failing to distinguish between DATA and INFERENCES. Data is what is presented to us. It is ALWAYS verifiable because we can verify that we do, in fact, have something presented to us (such as a book called Genesis). But the INFERENCES are not always verifiable. For example, the data used to support evolution (the fossil record) is verifiable. But the inference (a common ancestor) is NOT empirically verifiable because it doesn’t exist any more (assuming it once did). In both cases, then, what we have before us is empirically verifiable data. We have the first testament (i.e. Genesis) and the third testament (Nature). If one can be a metaphor, so can the other. The pot shouldn’t call the kettle black. You’ve done nothing to discredit my parallel, and in fact I probably won't reply to you on this issue any more. I’ve had enough.

 

[JAL]

I stated that Genesis has the earth formed before the visible stars. Then I stated:

Of course science is not going to support [this order of creation], because scientific conclusions are probably formulated and interpreted from the standpoint of non-creationist assumptions (or at least non-Genesis assumptions). But would an objective view of the data change the picture? If not, why not?

You then responded:

Just what kind of arrogance is it that says it is ok to handwave away the work of hundreds of researchers, many of them Christian, over more than a century on the assumption that all of them as individuals and all of their efforts are biased. Since you call yourself a Christian, you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. This is, in essence, a blanket accusation of lying levelled against all scientists with no evidence whatsoever. If you think the data is skewed by assumptions, it behoves you to state what those assumptions are, provide evidence that the scientists in question are making said assumptions, and show how the data has been modified by the said assumptions.

But you have not studied enough science to even guess at what the assumptions are. You just assume, sight unseen, and with no knowledge of the field whatsoever, that all results are flawed because of faulty assumptions which you can't even state.

Well, you’re right. It was an arrogant statement. I should have chosen my words better. Nonetheless my instincts are usually correct and, interestingly enough, as you continue, you end up confirming precisely what my statement was getting at. That is to say, you begin to enumerate the assumptions of scientists whereby they draw their conclusions even though these assumptions are not necessary in a creationist cosmogony. Obviously, since God can act miraculously, the way He goes about forming the stars is not necessarily constrained by natural requisites. You list some of the naturalistic requisites presumed by the scientific community (and I’m grateful for that, since I didn’t know the specifics):

Some stars must be very old, because stars are the nursery of heavy elements such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and various other elements without which life cannot exist. It takes billions of years for the fusion process at the heart of a star to turn hydrogen to helium and then helium to heavier elements. The more complex the element, the more time is necessary to create it. Straightforward physics tells us that you have to allow at least 10 billion years from the first star formation to the first possibility of a solar system in which the elements of life exist…You see, that is why Genesis 1 cannot be a literal description of the formation of the earth. The earth is a planet in the solar system. It was formed as part of the formation of the solar system. That means there was never a time in the earth's existence when it did not have a sun to orbit. And there was never a time when the earth did not rotate on its axis. These are physical necessities. They are dictated by the fundamental laws of gravity, angular momentum, and thermodynamics among others. If God created these laws of nature, these are the necessary consequences of those laws. So, if these facts are incompatible with a literal intepretation of Genesis, then the literal interpretation is just plain wrong.

But Gluady’s, isn’t your conclusion a bit arrogant as well? I was prejudging the scientists, and turned out to be right! But here you seem to be putting your own scientific assumptions above God and His Word! You seem to be saying, “Because of these scientific obstacles, God, even you yourself would have been UNABLE to create the earth before the sun. Therefore your Word cannot be literally true. It must be a myth.” WOW! I wonder how God is reacting to your statement. My guess? He’s got three letters in mind, namely LOL. Now getting down to specifics, you say that the sun had to be in place first in our solar system because it’s gravitational pull keeps the earth in proper position. I’ve got news for you. God is gravity. There’s no such thing as “gravity.” Hence the sun did NOT need to be created first to supply gravity. Here’s a couple of reasons why I say that God is gravity. (1) Because that’s what the founder of gravitational theory, Isaac Newton, ALSO said. He said this because he realized that his own gravitational theory as such is an absurdity, since it teaches that a given object pulls all other objects even without ropes connecting them, and without hands to pull the ropes! At times, however, Newton vacillated, that is, entertained the possibility of ropes (aether) connecting the objects as a possible source of gravitational pull. But note that aether is a physical substance, which supports my theory of a physical God (as source of gravitational pull). More on this in a moment. (2) Newton probably realized a second logical weakness of gravitational theory. Gravitational force is not constant but increases as the two objects (say, two particles) get closer together. The problem is that a particle does not have eyes, ears, or other sensors to detect that the other particles is approaching. Hence there seems to be an Eye at work that monitors all the particles and a Hand that pushes them gravitationally in accordance with their mutual proximities. In Him, said Paul, we live, and move, and have our being. In Him, said, Paul, all things consist. He sustains all things, said Hebrews, by the (physical!) Word of His power. (3) Gravity isn’t the only force to be accounted for. There’s roughly about seven others, if we fully appreciate magnetism and nuclear forces. NONE of these forces have been explained atheistically.



Now I have portrayed God here as a physical substance that invisibly fills the whole universe, pushing and pulling as necessary to sustain ordinary matter. He not only keeps the planets in orbits around their suns, He also keeps the electrons in orbit around each nucleus. All matter is anchored in Him. Now I would submit to you – and here’s another reason for taking Genesis literally – that Moses refers to this setup in Genesis 1. Just as He referred to God’s Light as simply “Light,” so too He refers to God’s substance merely as “firmament.” Until the Renaissance, ALL Jews and ALL Christians held that God anchored the stars in a solid block of sky called firmament. Only when the firmament was in place (and of course it already existed in all prior galaxies as their source of gravity) did God transform a pocket of water into dry land (what we call earth) and then make the rest of the visible stars. So, you’re right, gravity needed to be in place, but Moses knew what you still haven’t guessed, that God is gravity (i.e. that He is the anchor of all things). You think Genesis is dumber than science? Actually, it’s a whole lot smarter. Genesis explained what scientists have not, that is, PRECISELY why the stars remain in their respective orbits.

 

[Vance]

When you say that Genesis contains no verifiable data, you are failing to distinguish between DATA and INFERENCES. Data is what is presented to us. It is ALWAYS verifiable because we can verify that we do, in fact, have something presented to us (such as a book called Genesis). But the INFERENCES are not always verifiable. For example, the data used to support evolution (the fossil record) is verifiable. But the inference (a common ancestor) is NOT empirically verifiable because it doesn’t exist any more (assuming it once did). In both cases, then, what we have before us is empirically verifiable data. We have the first testament (i.e. Genesis) and the third testament (Nature). If one can be a metaphor, so can the other. The pot shouldn’t call the kettle black. You’ve done nothing to discredit my parallel, and in fact I probably won't reply to you on this issue any more. I’ve had enough.

As an attorney and a historian (although a "real" historian may balk at my use of the term since I only have a Bachelor's of Arts on the subject, not a doctorate), I would agree that the text of the Bible itself is evidence. The question is what it is evidence of. It can only be evidence of what it intends to be (considering what the writer intended it to be and what God intended it to be). It is incorrect, for example, to dismiss the Gospel texts as historically useless (as the minimalists do) because it was written by biased writers. The writings themselves, even setting aside theological issues, are valid historical documents which provide valid historical evidence of events, even if you have to consider many additional factors on the purely historical level.

With the Genesis account, if we are looking at purely historicity, Gluadys is right, most of the time we want additional sources outside the Scripture to verify the dates, persons and events. This does NOT mean, however, that the Scripture itself is useless as a historical record. Any historian who is not biased against the Scripture will acknowledge that it is an invaluable historical resource in the period starting with Abraham. But it is still only one source, and the historian can not take it as confirmed based on a single source.

This is where the analogy with evolution falls down. There we DO have multiple sources of supporting evidence to develop our "inferences" as you put it. The inference is dramatically more substantiated on a factual level than the historicity of the Biblical accounts before, say, the exile. True, it can not be verified 100% (no theory can), but as discussed in the "theory and fact" thread, it can be verified so far beyond a reasonable doubt that only those who have a very strong ulterior reason NOT to accept it refuse to do so.

But, more importantly, we do not look at Scripture on a purely historical level. It is a greater document to us than just any other ancient text. We are talking about God's Holy Word. So, it can be trusted in the way no other document can. The question is what it can be trusted for. The answer is that it can be trusted for what God intended it to be for us. What did God intend the Genesis account of Creation to be for us? A historical and scientific record? Or a theological presentation of the great truths about God's relationship to His Creation and to us?

I think that we would all agree that it was the latter, and the literalist would like to say it is the former as well. But there is no solid reason I have seen to believe this to be the case.

 

[JAL]

I could debate that last post of your Vance, but I'm more interested in the first question that I posed to you on this forum, and re-mentioned just a couple of posts back - why Adam-texts (especially NT Adam-texts) fail your criteria for literalism even though the 8-texts pass with flying colors.

Well, then again, Vance, I briefly WILL debate that last post. You try to contend that Genesis-data is less reliable than scientific data because less people verify it. You claim to be responding to my post but miss the whole point. You fail to distinguish INFERENCES from DATA. We have just as many people verifying the Genesis data as science data (there are as many copies of the Bible around the world as science books). The two sets of data (the Old testmanent and the third testament (Nature)) are EQUALLY verifiable empirically. If one set of data (one testament) can be a metaphor, so can the other data (the other testament). That's all there is to it.

 

[Vance]

I could debate that last post of your Vance, but I'm more interested in the first question that I posed to you on this forum, and re-mentioned just a couple of posts back - why Adam-texts (especially NT Adam-texts) fail your criteria for literalism even though the 8-texts pass with flying colors.

Which "8 - texts"? I will have to go back and look at what you were discussing. As for Adam, they do not pass my test for literalness because the original text is written in a way that strongly suggests non-literalness to me, and the NT references work JUST as well discussing a non-literal Adam as a literal Adam.

Well, then again, Vance, I briefly WILL debate that last post. You try to contend that Genesis-data is less reliable than scientific data because less people verify it. You claim to be responding to my post but miss the whole point. You fail to distinguish INFERENCES from DATA. We have just as many people verifying the Genesis data as science data (there are as many copies of the Bible around the world as science books). The two sets of data (the Old testmanent and the third testament (Nature)) are EQUALLY verifiable empirically. If one set of data (one testament) can be a metaphor, so can the other data (the other testament). That's all there is to it.

No, there is only one Genesis text. Copies don't count. And the data from nature in favor of evolutionary development comes from a variety of sources within nature, not just the fossil record. We have the stratigraphy, genetics, the nested cladistics, as well as the observable mechanisms themselves which have caused speciation. So, no, they are not equally verifiable by any stretch.

But, what is more important is that you are still begging the question that Genesis should be read literally as a prima facie approach unless proven otherwise. I see no reason at all to do this.

 

[JAL]

[Qoute=Vance] But, what is more important is that you are still begging the question that Genesis should be read literally as a prima facie approach unless proven otherwise. I see no reason at all to do this. [/quote]
I'm the one begging the question? Look again at my post #70 on this thread. It is a recap of something I've been begging you to deal with for about a week now, and I've been begging Gluady's as well. The silence of you two on this question is rather telltale, it seems to me.

 

[Vance]

Oh, I see what you are getting at. Well, the problem is that those AREN'T the factors for determining whether something is myth or not. I have no problem with the supernatural at all. No issue at all with angels or demons, etc. So, the existence of supernatural events or angels or demons, etc, are NOT what lead me to think any text may be non-literal (as opposed to the term "myth" since that is too often, albeit wrongly, equated with "untrue"). I mentioned in my first post after having gotten back what causes me to read a text non-literally. It is the structure of the text itself, its literary style, etc. As I said above, it is

the framework structure, the poetic language, the usages that argue for symbolism (ie the name of Adam, the two trees, the garden itself, the snake, etc), the two differing accounts. To me, it reads stylistically very much like near eastern and Egyptian myth.

The subject matter does come into play somewhat, however, since there are different styles at different times. The Genesis creation story arose at a very different time than the Gospels were written, so the two texts can not be compared head to head. The Genesis account of creation reads very much like any near eastern or even Egyptian mythology. The Gospel accounts read as eyewitness accounts, even if carried down orally. The two are so different in style and composition I am surprised you would think that they could be compared. In fact, nothing in Scripture reads like Genesis 1 and 2, other than possibly the Babel, Cain/Abel and Flood stories.

 

[JAL]

Oh, I see what you are getting at. Well, the problem is that those AREN'T the factors for determining whether something is myth or not. I have no problem with the supernatural at all. No issue at all with angels or demons, etc. So, the existence of supernatural events or angels or demons, etc, are NOT what lead me to think any text may be non-literal (as opposed to the term "myth" since that is too often, albeit wrongly, equated with "untrue"). I mentioned in my first post after having gotten back what causes me to read a text non-literally. It is the structure of the text itself, its literary style, etc. As I said above, it is

the framework structure, the poetic language, the usages that argue for symbolism (ie the name of Adam, the two trees, the garden itself, the snake, etc), the two differing accounts. To me, it reads stylistically very much like near eastern and Egyptian myth.

The subject matter does come into play somewhat, however, since there are different styles at different times. The Genesis creation story arose at a very different time than the Gospels were written, so the two texts can not be compared head to head. The Genesis account of creation reads very much like any near eastern or even Egyptian mythology. The Gospel accounts read as eyewitness accounts, even if carried down orally. The two are so different in style and composition I am surprised you would think that they could be compared. In fact, nothing in Scripture reads like Genesis 1 and 2, other than possibly the Babel, Cain/Abel and Flood stories.

Vance, read my lips. I AM NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT GENESIS. Other books mention Adam and Eve. I specifically emphasized NT texts in one of the recent posts. You keep going back to Genesis. That misses the whole point, and I'm begining to think that you KNOW it's missing the point. Like Gluadys, you seem to pretend to respond, all the while missing the whole point. Here it is again. Many NT texts speak of 8 invisible realites which really look quite mythical on the face of it. Yet you take many of these verses literally. Then when the NT speaks of Adam and Eve who, being people, are non-mythical-sounding by the very nature of the case, suddenly you start taking the NT mythically. And I'm trying to evaluate the consistency, becaue this looks to me hopelessly inconsistent. Again, we are not speaking of Genesis. WE ARE SPEAKING OF NT TEXTS. Let's pretend for now that Genesis didn't even exist. What elements in the NT texts signal you to take these 8 realities literally. And how are these elements lacking in the NT texts that refer to Adam and Eve?

 

[Vance]

Vance, read my lips. I AM NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT GENESIS. Other books mention Adam and Eve. I specifically emphasized NT texts in one of the recent posts. You keep going back to Genesis. That misses the whole point, and I'm begining to think that you KNOW it's missing the point. Like Gluadys, you seem to pretend to respond, all the while missing the whole point. Here it is again. Many NT texts speak of 8 invisible realites which really look quite mythical on the face of it. Yet you take many of these verses literally. Then when the NT speaks of Adam and Eve who, being people, are non-mythical-sounding by the very nature of the case, suddenly you start taking the NT mythically. And I'm trying to evaluate the consistency, becaue this looks to me hopelessly inconsistent. Again, we are not speaking of Genesis. WE ARE SPEAKING OF NT TEXTS. Let's pretend for now that Genesis didn't even exist. What elements in the NT texts signal you to take these 8 realities literally. And how are these elements lacking in the NT texts that refer to Adam and Eve?

Look again at what I said a few posts back:

"As for Adam, they do not pass my test for literalness because the original text is written in a way that strongly suggests non-literalness to me, and the NT references work JUST as well discussing a non-literal Adam as a literal Adam."

Does that answer your question?

If the Genesis text of Adam and Eve read literally, I would then read the references in the NT to them as references to literal characters. But, if Adam and Eve are not literal in Genesis, then they are not in the NT either. And, since the NT texts work just as well with a non-literal Adam and Eve as a literal Adam and Eve, there is no problem.

Now, having said that, it may well be that Adam and Eve were actual historic figures, as I have discussed with you in the past. There are a number of possibilities. But, the story told about them, and about the creation process are told in a non-literal manner to convey greater truths, as I read it.

Again, you keep referring to your "8" criteria, but I have told you that those are not my criteria at all. Kind of a strawman, really.

 

[1denomination]

Please show me some non-literal uses of Adam and/or Eve in the New Testament..................uh........um..please. hehe