How would you say it?

[Vance]

Yes But, You TE's think Adam was mythological or non-literal because of all the evidence of modern day science.

None of "the Evidence" was available 2000 years ago, thus they did not know Adam was a mythological or non-literal figure whatever you prefer. So Knowing this why wouldnt paul set them straight on that, instead on letting them go on beliving a lie.And I say lie because if they belived Adam to be literal and Paul or Christ knew that he wasnt a literal figure, then to use something they thought to be truth just to get a point across would have been very misleading. I'm sorry but it just seems to me that without a literal Adam the Bible just doesnt work.

Ah, but this is a false premise. TE's do not (at least the one's posting here do not) think Genesis 1 is non-literal because of the evidence of modern day science. I personally concluded that Genesis should be read non-literally long before I had any real understanding of the scientific evidence, and while I was still a YEC. Your premise is also contradicted by the fact that many people have been viewing Genesis non-literally from as early as we have records about what people thought about Scripture. Long before anyone had any scientific basis for this interpretation. For a LOT of people, it simply reads entirely as a non-literal text.

And, again, the people of Paul's time would not have made the distinction we do. They simply did not view the past the way we do, drawing these bright line distinctions between historicity and legendary stories. It was really much the same to them. So, it would not be a lie in any sense of the word.

 

[gluadys]

Yes But, You TE's think Adam was mythological or non-literal because of all the evidence of modern day science.

None of "the Evidence" was available 2000 years ago, thus they did not know Adam was a mythological or non-literal figure whatever you prefer. So Knowing this why wouldnt paul set them straight on that, instead on letting them go on beliving a lie.

How could he? On this point his knowledge and beliefs would be the same as theirs.

 

[herev]

Yes But, You TE's think Adam was mythological or non-literal because of all the evidence of modern day science.

Not all of us do! Do not assume to much.

None of "the Evidence" was available 2000 years ago, thus they did not know Adam was a mythological or non-literal figure whatever you prefer. So Knowing this why wouldnt paul set them straight on that, instead on letting them go on beliving a lie.And I say lie because if they belived Adam to be literal and Paul or Christ knew that he wasnt a literal figure, then to use something they thought to be truth just to get a point across would have been very misleading.

you're missing the point, the point is not that Paul thought it WAS non-literal. Creationists have been saying that if Adam was not literal, then we can't believe Paul's words. My point is that IT DOESN'T MATTER if Adam was literal or not--Paul's words are still true!

I'm sorry but it just seems to me that without a literal Adam the Bible just doesnt work.

Now that is sad. Do you realize you are coming very close to saying that your salvation rests on Adam being literal? What if, just what if, you find out for sure that he wasn't? Very dangerous theology

 

[Vance]

"I'm sorry but it just seems to me that without a literal Adam the Bible just doesnt work."

This is the very "either/or" teaching I am talking about. Those growing up being taught this very approach to the Bible, having it drilled into them from the cradle, very often face a severe crisis of faith if they later come to believe that Adam is NOT literal. Now, based on their indoctrination, they lose faith in ALL of Scripture, even those salvation parts.

Believe it if you must, but consider how responsible it is to teach it dogmatically, as my own church does.

 

[JAL]

I was worried about the possibility that the fossil record showed first whales, then grasses whereas Moses has first grasses, then whales (whales are said to originate 50 million years ago).

But then I found two articles that date grasses 60 million years ago with a possible date of 70 million years. So now I feel a little better about Genesis 1. I hope I don't run into any more obstacles. These are the two articles I found:

1. Elizabeth Kellog, “Evolutionary History of Grasses,” Plant Physiology, 2001 Mar;125(3):1198-205. http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/125/3/1198 She also writes about it here.

2. Michael T. Clegg, Michael P. Cummings, and Mary L. Durbin (Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California), “The Evolution of Plant Nuclear Genes” (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 94, pp. 7791-7798, July 1997): This article was here

As I said earlier in this thread, my theory is that Moses' biology begins after the dinosaurs and thus with flowering plants (what Moses refers to as the third day). I argued that he omitted the dinosaurs because they were not relevant to the people of his time.

 

[gluadys]

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.

It seems a contradiction to us because we are not accustomed to thinking this way. Before Enlightenment (scientific) thinking became dominant, the unity of literal and mythical meanings was taken for granted. In medieval times, hermeneuticians were expected to come up with a minimum of four meanings for a text.

And you have the gall to act as though this is standard thinking! You even construe me as nave for having

Not is standard thinking. It hasn't been standard thinking for over 300 years. But it was standard thinking for the 5,000 + years before the Enlightenment.

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

If you think "myth"="lie" I can understand why this would disturb you. But that is not a correct definition of "myth". Paul could most assuredly tell a fact from a lie. He could even distinguish a physical object from a mental concept. But when it comes to drawing a line between literal and mythological, it would not occur to Paul that such a distinction was necessary or possible.

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:

Of course, I take the Last Supper to be literal. I believe Jesus and his disciples actually met in an upper room in Jerusalem for their last meal together. I believe that during the meal, Jesus actually said "This is my body" while clearly referring to the bread he had just blessed and broken.

And I know that the Catholic church teaches to this day that the communion bread is literally the body of Christ---a teaching with which I have some sympathy, though I am not Catholic.

But it is one thing to say the communion bread is the body of the crucified and risen Christ. It is quite a different thing to say the bread at the Last Supper was literally the body of Jesus when he was still alive and present in the room with the bread. So, in reference to that bread, can Jesus' words be other than a metaphor?

Be careful how you answer.

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.

I wouldn't be too quick to say that. How do you know it is impossible? Especially with God?

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.”

Right---one of the most important doctrines of Christianity--that the Word actually became flesh, and did not just appear to be flesh. How? I don't know. I think that is one of those vain questions Paul warned Timothy not to get involved with.

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. [/font]

Oooo! This is difficult. I agree and disagree with you at the same time. And it really goes back to the fact that Paul did not separate literal and mystical as we do. In no way would I agree that Paul is using "flesh" here to refer specifically to the physical body. Rather this is the same contrast he makes elsewhere between the natural man and the spiritual man. At the same time, in both cases, Paul is not using "spirit" or "spiritual" to refer to an immaterial nature.

In speaking of the flesh/natural man, Paul is speaking of the whole person in a fallen estate (what Calvin called the state of depravity). That is not just the body. That is the mind, the will, the consciousness, the spirit and the soul as well as the body. All of it is "flesh". And similarly the spirit or spiritual man is the whole person in a state of grace. It does not refer to an immaterial soul being saved apart from the body. But to the whole redeemed person: soul, spirit, mind, consciousness, will and body.

In other words Paul is not saying the flesh is physical and sinful and the spirit is immaterial and pure. That would be a merely literal reading. And it would, in fact, be a wrong reading---a Platonic reading, not a Christian reading. Paul is using both "flesh" and "spirit" to refer metaphorically to the whole person in all aspects of their being without Chist (still in Adam) and with/in Christ.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Ah, but it was not I who said that we are born innocent. What I said is that we are not born sinners, with a “tainted” soul.

You presumed that the only alternative was to be born innocent, because you have set up a false dichotomy that allows only two choices: innocent and sinners.

But the Calvinist doctrine on original sin allows a third way: born neither a sinner, nor innocent, but in a state of depravity. (It’s a heavy sounding word that I don’t like. But it will suit for the moment.) What do we mean by that? We mean simply that the newborn, though having committed no sin, does not enjoy something that is part of every other state, whether of innocence, grace or glory. The child does not know by nature a relationship with the Creator. This is what Adam’s sin robbed us of. And it makes no difference in this case whether we are speaking of a literal or mystical Adam. We are born as it were “out of step” with God.

And because this is so, we have no freedom to choose the good until that relationship is restored. We are in bondage to sin, even before we sin.

Because the human child is not born in the relationship with God which Adam and Eve enjoyed in their innocence, and which the redeemed know by grace, the child must be brought into that relationship through the saving work of Christ.

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?

No, your model is not necessary here. It might be necessary if we suppose a positive: namely that the soul is tainted. But I contend the soul is not tainted. My proposition is to suppose instead a negative: lack of a relationship with God that would preserve the freedom of the will to choose the good. It is like being born in slavery. One is born lacking freedom.

This does not require that we literally have a piece of Adam’s soul. It simply means that we are born to parents who themselves were born outside of a free relationship to God, and so cannot bequeath that relationship to their children. It does not make any difference if the parents have subsequently come to know the Lord. That is what biologists would call an “acquired characteristic” which is not inheritable. Or, to use the slavery motif again: if a person is born in slavery and subsequently their parent is set free, it does not follow that the child is automatically free as well.

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 is because the Catholic church is looking for a positive---for a taint or stain on the soul of the newborn which must be washed away by the waters of baptism.

On this point, I look more to the Christian tradition of the East which does not presume such a taint on the soul. The Eastern church takes a broader view of the fall. It notes (as Paul does in Romans) that in the fall of humanity, all creation fell from its first estate and is in bondage to decay and futility. It is the world that is fallen, not just humans. And as humans are part of the world, humans share in the general fallen estate of all creation. Born and raised in a fallen world we have no natural capacity to avoid sin and so we all sin. But by the grace of God we are called into fellowship with our Creator, a fellowship that will one day be extended to all of creation. And in this fellowship we are released from bondage to sin and made partakers of the grace of God in Christ, by whom, in whom and for whom all things were created in the first place.

(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.

No, doesn’t make sense, and as you see, that is not what I am saying.

 

[gluadys]

I was worried about the possibility that the fossil record showed first whales, then grasses whereas Moses has first grasses, then whales (whales are said to originate 50 million years ago).

But then I found two articles that date grasses 60 million years ago with a possible date of 70 million years. So now I feel a little better about Genesis 1. I hope I don't run into any more obstacles.
[/font]

Well, I am glad you are relieved about whales being more recent than grass. What about birds, mammals, insects, lizards, turtles, frogs and fish which all originated before grass and other flowering plants?

I know you are dating the Genesis account from after the disappearance of the dinosaurs, but by then all of these things were already in existence, so doesn't that make the whole chronology of Genesis 1 as topical as that of Genesis 2?

 

[JAL]

Well, I am glad you are relieved about whales being more recent than grass. What about birds, mammals, insects, lizards, turtles, frogs and fish which all originated before grass and other flowering plants?

I know you are dating the Genesis account from after the disappearance of the dinosaurs, but by then all of these things were already in existence, so doesn't that make the whole chronology of Genesis 1 as topical as that of Genesis 2?

I'm not sure if this is a big problem for my model or not, so let me rephrase the logic. Moses would hardly be expected to mention EVERYTHING, right? For instance microscopic sea life, and microscopic land life? He limited himself pretty much to the visible stars and likewise, in my opinion, to the species visible in his day. So he was primarily interested in MODERN species, I would say, and not necessarily all of them. (As far as I know, most modern mammals appeared after trees, plants, and grass). Which is to admit that Genesis is not a very scientific document, a fact which continues to disappoint me somewhat. I would at least like to think that Moses was chronological from the standpoint of modern species, but if you feel this cannot be maintained, feel free to say why.

 

[JAL]

But it is one thing to say the communion bread is the body of the crucified and risen Christ. It is quite a different thing to say the bread at the Last Supper was literally the body of Jesus when he was still alive and present in the room with the bread. So, in reference to that bread, can Jesus' words be other than a metaphor? Be careful how you answer.

Well, honestly I find it hard to be “careful how I answer” since I settled this matter to my own satisfaction about 15 years ago. In my understanding, He’s not talking about His natural body but about His divine Body and Blood. There’s plenty of that to go around, and all the OT saints ate and drank it as well, for “Unless you eat my flesh and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” In John, “Life” means salvation. Every believer HAD to eat His flesh and blood to be saved (this happens automatically by saving faith since regeneration is physical). Whereas Catholics claim to eat and drink His NATURAL body). And Catholics insist that ordinary bread and wine becomes God whereas I side with Martin Luther’s idea that God takes the form of bread and wine.



I stated

“

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.”

You responded:

I wouldn't be too quick to say that. How do you know it is impossible? Especially with God?

Look, if the law of non-contradiction is fallacious, hermeneutics is a waste of time. I departed from orthodox theology because its solution for several problematical propositions is to affirm the contrary at the same time (instead of revising the propositions). You cannot have it both ways. You cannot define God as an intangible being one day, insist that He is immutable, and then Have Him be tangible the next day. Immaterialists say that God is spirit AS OPPOSED TO flesh. If God is spirit, and then becomes flesh, we no longer have a Holy Spirit but a Holy Flesh. You might reply, “Only SOME of God became flesh, namely the Son, whereas the rest of Him remained spirit.” Some of God? Immaterialists reject such quantifications, insisting that divine substance is simple/indivisible/non-composite. Secondly, if the Son became flesh, while the rest of God remained spirit, we thus have a violation of the Nicene Creed which has Father, Son, and Spirit consubstantial (of one substance). I don’t run into these kinds of problems because I reject the notion of spirit. The proper translation in my view is Wind/Breath – a translation which allows my model to be the first, in my opinion, that can handle John 3:5-8. Since our bodies are mostly water, a physical regeneration entails that God inhabit our body in watery forms (see Eze 36:25). Thus John 3:5 has nothing to do with water baptism but is rather about watery regeneration, and should be translated thus, “Unless a man is born of Water and Breath/Wind, he cannot see the kingdom of God…This Wind blows where it pleases. You hear its sound (you hear God’s Voice/Wind), but you don’t know where it came from or where it is going. So it is of everyone born of this Wind” (3:5, 8). Now on Pentecost they heard the sound of rushing Wind. Were they filled with the Holy Spirit? NO! Clearly they were filled with the Holy Wind!

I intended to let some of these issues go, but your getting me stirred up again. So maybe I’ll go another step further.



This law of non-contradiction is the very reason I’m having trouble with the idea that a text can be both literal and non-literal at once. But let me qualify that. God can have multiple applications for a text, some of them literal, some of them non-literal/mythical, all at once – AS LONG AS NONE OF THEM CONTRADICT EACH OTHER FACTUALLY. For instance, we cannot say that Adam both existed and never existed. This is an issue of fact and thus does not lend itself to simultaneous literalism-myth. Now earlier I stated that the NT is primarily literal and that it usually warns us when a parable or metaphor is coming up. Thus I said,

Probably 99% of the time, when the NT is making a a comparative statement intended non-literally, it SIGNALS us with words such as "parable" or "like" (viz. The kingdom of heaven is LIKE a mustard seed).

Vance objected:

How do you know this? This is circular reasoning to the extreme. There are instances where they give such signals, but what is the evidence that there were not other instances where they were referring to non-literal events, but NOT giving such signals? Your conclusion just circles back to your belief that these other instances were referring to literal events.

“Circular” is not the best word here. I’m simply operating on a methodological assumption standard for conservative evangelical hermeneutics. Let me explain. When I heard the gospel preached, God’s voice persuaded me that Jesus died and rose for me as DESCRIBED in His written Word. (Later on I concluded that this voice is also called “the convicting power of the Holy Spirit.”). In other words, my faith begins with a strong inclination to believe that the 4 gospels are historical documents (not myths) and historically accurate. As I said, hermeneutics isn’t a perfect science, so this assumption could fail me in some minor issues of historical detail, but that’s life. It’s better to have some ground rules than none at all. So I start with the assumption that the gospels contain the literal history of Christ. So i

march through the gospels, line by line, with the METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTION that any data describing Christ’s history is to be taken literally. I also keep my eyes open for data seemingly of dubious historicity of Christ (such as parables). And what I find is that, 99% of the time, when I encounter such dubious data, it is prefaced by signals in the text, clearly indicating a metaphor. And then I find this. The epistles seem to be didactic. If Romans isn’t a systematic theology, I don’t know what is. It’s not a bunch of myths. In the midst of this intensely theological discussion, Romans predicates doctrines on Abraham, Christ, Moses, Elijah – and Adam! And because I see this type of writing in ALL of Paul’s letters, and a similar pattern in books such as Hebrews, I feel little choice but to take these texts literally. (Again, the text can also have non-literal meanings too, as long as the non-literal meanings don’t factually contradict). So I don’t agree that I’m engaged in circular reasoning. I’m aware that this hermeneutic could fail me in some verses. But I’d rather be on the 99% side of error than on the 1% side. Since I take the whole NT literally (except for Revelation as explained elsewhere), consistency forces me to take Adam literally as well.

 

[JAL]

I forgot to define God's Body and Blood, and unfortunately this would take a bit of writing. Let me state here, briefly, that blood is a vitalizing principle coursing through a physical frame. I believe that God is self-vitalizing, not in biological ways, but psychologically (butthe physical gives rise to all psychological experience). Hence there are undercurrents (viz. Fire for example) rampant throughout His whole Frame. Christ refers to these undercurrents as His Blood.

 

[gluadys]

I'm not sure if this is a big problem for my model or not, so let me rephrase the logic. Moses would hardly be expected to mention EVERYTHING, right? For instance microscopic sea life, and microscopic land life? He limited himself pretty much to the visible stars and likewise, in my opinion, to the species visible in his day. So he was primarily interested in MODERN species, I would say, and not necessarily all of them. (As far as I know, most modern mammals appeared after trees, plants, and grass). Which is to admit that Genesis is not a very scientific document, a fact which continues to disappoint me somewhat. I would at least like to think that Moses was chronological from the standpoint of modern species, but if you feel this cannot be maintained, feel free to say why.

I think it is fairly difficult. Obviously, by starting at a point when modern species are beginning to appear, there is no difficulty in terms of dealing with ancient armoured fish, tetrapods, flying or seagoing reptiles, dinosaurs and such. And it would put the appearance of most modern mammals within the time frame. The problem comes with animals other than mammals.

Although mammals as a whole have a longer history than birds--(there were mammals before there were dinosaurs)--modern mammals are quite recent and I think modern birds appeared earlier. Then there are reptiles: turtles, snakes, lizards, crocodiles. All of these have a long history going right back to Paleozoic times. But surely the people of Israel were aware of them?

Same goes for salamanders, newts and frogs. And, of course, for all sorts of fish and sea creatures.

What it comes down to is that if you take sometime in the Cretaceous period (near the end of dinosaurian age, emergence of flowering plants) as a presumed beginning point, you do start before the emergence of large mammals, including whales, but many other creatures have attained an essentially modern form already. They don't start appearing in modern form in any big way after the Cretaceous. Because the modern orders already exist. So it would be a matter of distinguishing at a lower taxonomic level like that of a family or genus or even a species.

Then there is also the point that Gen. 1 is not only about the creation of animal life. It includes the creation of sky, continents and sun, moon and stars. But all of these also existed billions of years before the Cretaceous starting point. Especially the stars, which of all the items named are the first things to appear in the scientific created order several billions of years before the sun, earth and moon.

So when using a human-centered starting point (which makes sense to me--why go into the history of animals and plants humans never knew by experience?) one is definitely starting in the middle of the story with most things already in existence. So, to depict them coming into existence sequentially after that starting point is inconsistent with historical fact. That makes a topical rather than a chronological approach just as valid, if not more valid, for Genesis 1 as for Genesis 2.

Especially as the sequence is wrong scientifically anyway.

 

[gluadys]

Well, honestly I find it hard to be “careful how I answer” since I settled this matter to my own satisfaction about 15 years ago. In my understanding, He’s not talking about His natural body but about His divine Body and Blood. There’s plenty of that to go around, and all the OT saints ate and drank it as well, for “Unless you eat my flesh and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” In John, “Life” means salvation. Every believer HAD to eat His flesh and blood to be saved (this happens automatically by saving faith since regeneration is physical). Whereas Catholics claim to eat and drink His NATURAL body). And Catholics insist that ordinary bread and wine becomes God whereas I side with Martin Luther’s idea that God takes the form of bread and wine.

In other words you adopted a mystical/metaphorical interpretation. The bread was not Jesus literal flesh and blood body and never was, and even in communion is not.

Look, if the law of non-contradiction is fallacious, hermeneutics is a waste of time. I departed from orthodox theology because its solution for several problematical propositions is to affirm the contrary at the same time (instead of revising the propositions). You cannot have it both ways.

It's called paradox, and yes, orthodox Christianity is filled with them. God is one, God is three, God is three in one. Christ is eternal, Christ was born in time. Jesus is fully human, Jesus is fully divine. Jesus is really present in his church now; Jesus is coming to establish his kingdom at the world's ending. God is transcendant, God is immanent. God is wholly other. God is within you.

One could go on and on. I'm sorry you have a problem with it. I disagree that one cannot have both at the same time. To me, these paradoxes simply illustrate how much greater God is than we are. Human language does not have the resources to describe God as God is, so paradox is as close as we can get.

The mystics tell us the only true thing we can say about God is "not that", "not that". Any positive comparison we make about God falls short of the reality. So to say God is spirit (immaterial) is to fall short of the reality, but to say God is physical (material) is also to fall short of the reality.

You cannot define God as an intangible being one day, insist that He is immutable, and then Have Him be tangible the next day. Immaterialists say that God is spirit AS OPPOSED TO flesh. If God is spirit, and then becomes flesh, we no longer have a Holy Spirit but a Holy Flesh. You might reply, “Only SOME of God became flesh, namely the Son, whereas the rest of Him remained spirit.” Some of God? Immaterialists reject such quantifications, insisting that divine substance is simple/indivisible/non-composite. Secondly, if the Son became flesh, while the rest of God remained spirit, we thus have a violation of the Nicene Creed which has Father, Son, and Spirit consubstantial (of one substance). I don’t run into these kinds of problems because I reject the notion of spirit. The proper translation in my view is Wind/Breath – a translation which allows my model to be the first, in my opinion, that can handle John 3:5-8. Since our bodies are mostly water, a physical regeneration entails that God inhabit our body in watery forms (see Eze 36:25). Thus John 3:5 has nothing to do with water baptism but is rather about watery regeneration, and should be translated thus, “Unless a man is born of Water and Breath/Wind, he cannot see the kingdom of God…This Wind blows where it pleases. You hear its sound (you hear God’s Voice/Wind), but you don’t know where it came from or where it is going. So it is of everyone born of this Wind” (3:5, 8). Now on Pentecost they heard the sound of rushing Wind. Were they filled with the Holy Spirit? NO! Clearly they were filled with the Holy Wind!

I think you are a mystic, JAL. I really like much of what you say. I don't agree with all of it, but it is thought-provoking. But why a person with such mystical leanings as you appear to have wants to insist he is a literalist stumps me.

 

[JAL]

Gluadys, in these last series of posts you revisited two tactics that don't wash with me.

In other words you adopted a mystical/metaphorical interpretation. The bread was not Jesus literal flesh and blood body and never was, and even in communion is not… I think you are a mystic, JAL. I really like much of what you say. I don't agree with all of it, but it is thought-provoking. But why a person with such mystical leanings as you appear to have wants to insist he is a literalist stumps me.

First, you label any interpretation other than YOURS as non-literal to write off my conclusions as contradicting my own literalism. You did the same thing with the 24-hour issue, where your definition of day could not be shown from the text since the earth was still water whereas my definition of day was Moses' words taken literally. That's why I ignored your last post on the 24-hour issue where you continued to accuse ME of being non-literal. That's a tactic, and it's not playing fair. (BTW, I’m still uncomfortable with the term mystic. Here you conflate it with metaphorical which confuses me because I define a mystic as a religious experientialist (one who espouses seeing/hearing God). I’m a mystic, but that’s an issue separate from literalism versus metaphor/myth. I’m not saying your usage is wrong, but can we please stick with the more common meaning (experientialist) as to avoid confusing feeble minds like mine?)

Now in this case concerning “eat my flesh and drink my blood,” I will concede that the Catholic reading of flesh is more literal than mine. But my definition does have some basis in literal text, for starters 1Cor 15:35-46 where a body/flesh is not limited to human flesh. (BTW, I agree with commentators such as Vincent who take “spiritual body” tangibly at verse 15:46). But even more to the point, my definition also has considerable support from the immediate context. Why so? Because in this context Jesus defines this flesh/bread as both (A) a flesh descendant from heaven and (B) a flesh that will be nailed to the cross. The Catholic definition easily meets criteria B but has to wrestle with A (probably unconvincingly). Now since Christ was referring to His heavenly Flesh, it stands to reason that He was also referring to heavenly Blood. True, there are other verses which prohibit human flesh and blood from entering heaven, but precisely what I deny of Christ’s statement is human flesh and blood. He is referring to His heavenly Flesh and Blood. A good parallel is where Jesus spoke of living water a couple of chapters earlier. I take it literally as a reference to physical water, but not EARTHLY water. It’s heavenly Water (i.e. divine Water), for “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” (Jn 7:38; cf. Eze 36:25).
The second tactic you revisited was, in a most cavalier manner, dismissing contradiction as mere paradox.

It's called paradox, and yes, orthodox Christianity is filled with them. God is one, God is three, God is three in one. Christ is eternal, Christ was born in time. Jesus is fully human, Jesus is fully divine. Jesus is really present in his church now; Jesus is coming to establish his kingdom at the world's ending. God is transcendant, God is immanent. God is wholly other. God is within you.

One could go on and on. I'm sorry you have a problem with it. I disagree that one cannot have both at the same time. To me, these paradoxes simply illustrate how much greater God is than we are. Human language does not have the resources to describe God as God is, so paradox is as close as we can get. The mystics tell us the only true thing we can say about God is "not that", "not that". Any positive comparison we make about God falls short of the reality. So to say God is spirit (immaterial) is to fall short of the reality, but to say God is physical (material) is also to fall short of the reality.

If both A and not A are simultaneously true of a reality (unless we are speaking of two separate subdivisions of that reality), the law of non-contradiction is violated, and theological discussion has no point. This is not a paradox. It’s a contradiction. The problem is that orthodoxy does not allow divine substance to be subdivided, defining God as one indivisible substance precipitating three personalities. As you said, this indivisibility leads to a number of “paradoxes” as you call them, which are really contradictions. For instance:
(1) God cannot suffer temptation
(2) Jesus suffered temptation

Again
(1) God is omniscient. He cannot learn
(2) Jesus learned on earth

Again
(1) God does not fatigue
(2) Jesus fatigued on earth

Again
(1) God is impassible/non-suffering
(2) Jesus suffered on earth

Again
(1) God is not human (where human entails being a created soul)
(2) Jesus became human (according to orthodoxy at least).

Again
(1) God’s volition cannot contradict itself.
(2) Jesus prayed, “Not MY will, but THINE be done.”

Gluady’s, both you and Vance espouse non-literal Genesis to remove barriers from believing the gospel. What about this barrier? You think atheists are ready to jump head-first into a Christianity laden with so many blatant contradictions? Hardly. I’ve seen them discussing this on other threads. They’ll say things like, “If these people believe that God became human, it’s little wonder that they believe in YEC.” Not only that, Gluadys, but I can also cite recent evangelical scholarship in agreement with me that the orthodox Incarnation is self-contradictory and needs to be revised. So it’s not just “my opinion.” A good starting point to resolve these contradiction is to admit that the Trinity has ontological subdivisions (the earmark of physical substance). In this case, it is not necessarily a contradiction to say, for example, that at Gethsemane the Father and Son experienced a moment of diametrically opposed wills/volition.

You're right that certain mystics (frequently pantheists) describe God as transcending logic as to embody contradictions, but I will have none of this. His promises are worthless if He can contradict Himself. Sorry, Gluadys, this kind of thing does not wash with me. When I think I’ve contradicted myself, I admit it, and then try to revise my theology, which is the whole point of my next post. I’m going to revise my reading of Genesis because I think I’ve located a contradiction with science. What surprises me is that none of the scientific minds on this forum mentioned it before, despite how frequently I begged them for this kind of information.

 

[JAL]

It looks like I need to revise my reading of Genesis because I get the impression that scientists have performed radiometric dating on moon rock indicating an age as old as the earth. Thus I’m led to agree with Barnes’ Notes that at Genesis 1:1 God created the moon (and probably the sun) before the six days began but did not position them in our galaxy until the fourth galactic day. I found a certain pattern in the text, namely, that the words “Let there be” do not necessarily indicate a new creation but rather the uncovering of an existing creation. Thus, “Let there be light” is not the first time Christ’s face shined but the unshading of that Light to our galaxy. Similarly, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters” (a physical substance to anchor our visible stars) is not the creation of new substance (in my view) but a re-positioning (and perhaps a reforming as well) of existing substance. Thus at 1:14, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven” is a re-positioning of two preexisting bodies (the sun and the moon). Where were they previously? Well, seeing as our galaxy alone has 300 billion stars, there was plenty of room for them somewhere out there. Thus Barnes’ reads, “And God made two great lights” as “God HAD made them previously and is now repositioning them.”

 

[JAL]

You mentioned birds as being a problem for my chronology. Thanks for this information. However, when I started taking a look at it, I soon got the impression that birds are also a problem for evolution. Anyone care to comment on this article? Meanwhile I will look at this issue a llittle more myself.

 

[JAL]

You suggest that snakes and lizards are too ancient for my chronology. But apparently there is such a thing as MODERN snakes and lizards. According to Wikipedia, snakes and lizards are Squamata where “Squamata (scaled reptiles) is the largest recent order of reptiles.” The word “recent” implies to me a distinction between ancient snakes and modern versions. This is confirmed a few paragraphs later where Wikipedia says, “Several thousand fossil species showing a clear smooth transition from the ancestors of reptiles to present-day reptiles exist.” Further, snakes seem to very controversial, so I would not want to throw out my chronology too hastily.

I find Wikipedia using similar language in other areas. For instance, “The Gharial (Gavialis gangeticus) is the only surviving member of the family Gavialidae, a long-established group of crocodile-like reptiles with long, narrow jaws…The earliest Gavialoidea may or may not have been related to the modern types.”

Let’s put it this way. Even if there are both ancient and modern versions of a certain species living today, we can probably assume that Moses was only dealing with the modern version. That’s his purview in Genesis 1, arguably. For instance, let’s say there are both ancient and modern turtles living today. If Moses’ purview is modern turtles, then this is how we should take the word “turtles” if found in Genesis 1. (As I often put it, words usually have a limited force). So if there are ANY modern turtles (that is, if such a thing exists), then Moses is consistent. I think this approach would handle most chronological problems (although I have to admit that this makes Genesis very unscientific).

Perhaps we need to keep in mind that Moses’ main goal is to depict the world as created in six days to establish a paradigm/calender of resting every seventh day. Since this obviously raises the question, “What did God do on each day,” he names specific species on each day. “And God said, let there be such and such species.” But such a proclamation need not be LIMITED to a given day. As I said, “Let there be light” is an injunction repeated innumerably. Thus when the text says, “And God made such and such species,” we don’t have to conclude that this is the ONLY day when He made them. Of course Moses could have been more specific. He could have said, “God made the ancient versions of this species on day 2 and the modern versions on day 5,” but this quickly becomes more verbose than his 6-day motif strictly requires.

 

[Vance]

JAL, your my favorite Creationist! :0)

You are honestly seeking, and that is the key, even if we end up with different perspectives. The fact that you very quickly saw that the age of the earth was the easy question, and didn't hesistate for long speaks volumes about your willingness to look frankly and honestly at the issue.

I followed the same path you are following almost exactly. I was having the same discussions, and making many of the same points you are now. There came a point of epiphany, though, when I just decided to "let go and let God", so to speak. I just let go of my previous presumptions (in my case it was the theological issues of Man's evolution, not literalism, since I had already accepted non-literalism just from the text itself), and "let God" by accepting however God made things, as shown by the actual evidence. If it turned out that evolution was bunk and God did make things by fiat, then fine. If He used evolution, then fine. And I decided that I would hold to whichever seemed to be true only to the extent that the evidence supported it. So, if the evidence was mixed, or too close to call, that is the position I would hold. If I found one more convincing, but not dramatically so, then that is where I would be, etc. And I have been at peace with this ever since.

I appreciate the fact that you are following your own path on this, and not blindly following any position dogmatically. Some seek deep into these things in a manner designed only to find the evidence that supports their position. I don't think you are doing this at all.

 

[gluadys]

You mentioned birds as being a problem for my chronology. Thanks for this information. However, when I started taking a look at it, I soon got the impression that birds are also a problem for evolution. Anyone care to comment on this article? Meanwhile I will look at this issue a llittle more myself.

Ah, yes. Mr. Fedducia. Scientists like Mr. Fedducia are proof that, contrary to some creationist claims, there is no scientific conspiracy to suppress views outside the mainstream consensus. I have never seen a situation in science where the consensus carries everyone along. There are always the odd-balls like Fedducia with their pet claims that everyone else is wrong.

Of course, a lot of legitimate science begins as someone's apparently screw-ball idea too. Plate tectonics did and it took 35 years of patiently pressing the case with more and more evidence until it was accepted.

Are birds a problem for evolution? Most biologists and paleontologists don't think so. The evidence that they evolved from therapods is pretty solid. Fedducia, at the moment, is a voice in the wilderness. Whether he will be there forever, time will tell.

BTW note that Mr. Fedducia is not saying birds did not evolve. He is just saying that current science has mistaken who their ancestors are. He favours a crocodilian ancestry to a dinosaurian ancestry.

 

[JAL]

JAL, your my favorite Creationist! :0)

You are honestly seeking, and that is the key, even if we end up with different perspectives. The fact that you very quickly saw that the age of the earth was the easy question, and didn't hesistate for long speaks volumes about your willingness to look frankly and honestly at the issue.

I followed the same path you are following almost exactly. I was having the same discussions, and making many of the same points you are now. There came a point of epiphany, though, when I just decided to "let go and let God", so to speak. I just let go of my previous presumptions (in my case it was the theological issues of Man's evolution, not literalism, since I had already accepted non-literalism just from the text itself), and "let God" by accepting however God made things, as shown by the actual evidence. If it turned out that evolution was bunk and God did make things by fiat, then fine. If He used evolution, then fine. And I decided that I would hold to whichever seemed to be true only to the extent that the evidence supported it. So, if the evidence was mixed, or too close to call, that is the position I would hold. If I found one more convincing, but not dramatically so, then that is where I would be, etc. And I have been at peace with this ever since.

I appreciate the fact that you are following your own path on this, and not blindly following any position dogmatically. Some seek deep into these things in a manner designed only to find the evidence that supports their position. I don't think you are doing this at all.

Thanks for the compliments. And frankly I can empathize with your position a lot more than before, having wrestled with Genesis these last few days in particular, only to find myself frustrated and disappointed most of the time. I suppose some day God will let us know all the reasons why He chose to write it as He did.