JAL said:
Who are you addressing here? You apparently havent read my post. I follow Tertullian in tangibility of soul, but the rest is my own formulation. I made it very clear that the soul is not passed down sexually/genetically (how could it be, since the parents would then lose their souls to the children?). Note carefully the phrase suspended animation in my post.
Mea culpa. You are quite right. I read hastily and did not notice the nuances.
However, I would still disagree with both Tertullian and yourself.
My personal approach to the nature of the soul is derived from Gen. 2:7. As the creation of Adam is described here, "soul" is not to be identified as either physical or non-physical, but as the union of both. The "breath of life" is not the soul, but that which transforms the body in such as way that it becomes a living soul. The operative word is "become". Hence, it is not proper (though common) to speak of "having" a soul, but rather of "being" a soul. Just as it is not really proper (though common) to speak of "having" a body, but of "being" a body. And likewise of "being" a spirit/breath. We are souls because we are spirit-animated bodies.
Here too is a strawman that has nothing to do with my argument. You merely point out the obvious FACT that many difficult texts are definitely not myth (as though this constitutes an objection to my view when in fact it SUPPORTS everything I stated).
In the post I was responding to that was your argument:
JAL said:
Your logic here seems to be, Where Scripture is not plain, we are entitled to classify it as myth. This is an interesting hermeneutic, given that Peter regarded Pauls writings as hard to understand.
I did not attempt a response to related ideas from your earlier posts.
Somewhat true, but another strawman. The fact remains that mythologizing Genesis means discarding the historical events that seem to be recorded there. So even though your point its valid, lets not get excessively tied up in semantics while failing to respond to the real MEAT of my arguments.
Emphasis added
That IS the meat of your argument. That a mythological or allegorical or otherwise figurative interpretation of what you interpret as history (and note, that is ALSO an interpretation) is equivalent to discarding, demoting, demeaning, ignoring, "picking and choosing" scripture. That it is a tactic to render the scripture without force or authority, to weaken it to the point that it can be safely dropped out of sight. That is the whole foundation of the literalists' attack on non-literal interpretations of what they deem to be history.
And it is simply not true. Perhaps it is your position that only objective history can carry the authoritative voice of God. But it is not my position. So when you use words like "discard", "demote" etc. you are mis-representing my beliefs on this matter.
Debating whether or not a passage is "really" history or not is beside the point. We can agree to disagree on that. As far as I am concerned, you are quite free to interpret Adam & Eve literally if that is what makes sense to you. But don't claim it is the only right interpretation or that a non-literal interpretation is tantamount to denying the text as God's word.
The human mind, for lack of knowledge and insight, ascribes false conflicts to the text. Thus the reconciliation takes place in the human mind, not in the text.
When the conflicts are indeed false, and a matter of mis-understanding, this applies. But not every scriptural conflict is of this sort. The contradictions between the two creation stories are endemic to the text, not a figment of fallible interpretation.
Ok, no need for precise terminology in the Constitution and lawbooks hey everyone, lets just have a book of fables! Isnt that just as good?
Red herring.
Show me why Genesis cant be reconciled with science. (And please dont say, Genesis features the supernatural. The whole Bible is supernatural.)
Genesis can be reconciled with science if it is not interpreted literally. It is only the literal interpretation of the text that contradicts science. Science has shown us that creation did not occur in only 6 days. It has shown us that neither chronology in Genesis reflects the actual order of the appearance of living species on earth. Hence, any reconciliation of science with Genesis must rely to some extent on non-literal interpretation.
Since you disavow YEC, you should be aware of that. For you, yourself, do not interpret the days of creation as simply 6 days.
