excuse the absence for four days preparing for two of our childrens HS graduations is priority over my joy of this forum.
willtor writes:
According to a literal Genesis? Because this is one of the conclusions one ought to draw from a figurative Genesis, too.
Wow!! Figurative passages drawing literal conclusions?? Sounds like taking it literally to me! Once again why would God make it a fable and then wait fro Augustine or Darwin to tell His Church how He made the universe, especial;ly when Genesis is designed to be taken literally as do all the OT authors as well as the NT authors and Jesus HImself! Why wouldn't the eterrnal Lord when He dwelt on earth give a clue to the founders of HIs church--His messengers- His sole ambassadors on the earth that Genesis was in fact a fable and not to be taken literally??
But there is very little, here, that I wouldn't say, myself. That said, I did say that I accepted this as a literal interpretation. Just that there are the aforementioned elements for which he casually discusses in figurative terms that are most certainly not taken figuratively by YEC organizations.
This is wherre you r lack of understanding of homiletics shows. The authors were drawing applications from the passages. They were not being figurative-- they were showing how these passages also apploy on a personal level to beleivers.
Assuming you're talking about the Bible, of course you know that I accept it as a vessel of truth and an infallible revelation of God, so your usual contrast of truth and myth is not meaningful. That said, you'll have to demonstrate that Christ was thinking in modern terms to make the distinction between factual history and saga.
one little phrase you said here shows you are in error:
I accept it as a vessel of truth
Jesus declared Gods Word IS TRUTH not a vessel of truth. Groups like the LDS, JW"s, CoG, amongst others hold this concept of the bible--that it is not the truth but contains or is a vessel of the truth.
And, just like everything else, you'll have to demonstrate that you are an authority in what I think. I think I think differently from what you think I think, and I tend to think I would know better than most.
And again my words are ripped out of their meaning! I did not come close to saying what you thought-- I even used the Words I DON'T KNOW! Then if you (key IF) you wouldn't even have a scripture to back you up. Why do you guys always take my words way bewyond where they arte supposed to go.
I have cited the primary architect of the Nicene Creed. He calls the garden a "figure" and proceeds to treat the fall account figuratively.
Well post the cite so we all can read it. Several other "qoutes" were pulled out of context by you so I guess I want to see Augustines writings.
This is not a prophetic jab at evolution. This is a jab at poor theology.
Well back then the false authors of life were called angels, demigods, demiurges: today they are called natural selection, mutation and evolution--same falsities just with a newe dress on!
Which quote? I'm almost certain it comes from "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis," whatever it is. That's the text I tend to quote in such a discussion. But if you tell me what post number or give me the quote I made, I'll give you the reference.
Post 908 and you give no source for your statement
Shernren writes:
Well the early church fathers were all special creationists who beleived in a young earth. There were argumetns about meaning but that is basded on their philophy and not the scriptures. Show me one church father who rejected a literal view of creation as stated in Genesis 1. I agree that saying they did not beleive in evolution is my creation, because it did not exist in church circles (except in the pagan heresies plaguing the church. Though this form of evolution hardly resembles the form of today)
Well that was my bad I should have kept on saying the ante nicene fathers. Augustine I view as a sewrious heretic bordering on apostasy--through his writings he led Europe into what used to be called (pre PC days) the dark ages.
Assyrian writes:
Well Augustine and Aquinas molded the prevailing view of the church for well over a thousand years and they did not take the days in Genesis literally. (But of course that were 'heretical' so they don't count.) So Apparently you are asking for 'anytime where the church... prior to the mid 1800's' as long as they were not Catholic, or hold any of the heretical views that were actually the dominant theology for most of this period.
Well according to my catholic catechism for adults and my 1950's era Douay-Rheims teh catholic church still held to a literal genesis even after Augustine. His Work city of God helped lead the church into the dark ages or the millenium you wrote of.
According to C.S.Lewis's Reflections on the Psalms, Jerome said that Moses described Creation 'after the manner of a popular poet' an interesting statement for the early church's greatest Hebrew scholar,
Well even if he did-does that make poetic style of writing nonliteral? wOULD YOU ACCEPT THE PSALMS AS FABLES TO TEACH A LESSON? Would you accept the song sung by Israel aftrer pharoahs chariots were drowned int he Red Sea a fable as well cause they are poetic in style??
A further question, if, when my friend is listening to gossip about his wife and getting jealous, I tell him he is acting like Othello, am I lying? am I accepting Othello as a historical personage?
But wew know Othello is a creation of Shakespeares mind, and if one doesn't He can findout quickly and the speaker is using a known fictisious character. That is like saying it is raining catrs and dogs--literalists use this it is known as a figure of speech.
So why, if 2000+ years of believers misunderstood this passage of historic writing, based on a literal interpretation, are you so certain that a literal reading of Genesis is necessary.
I would not say they misunderstood as just simply not knowing HOW the day lasted longer--ther are many options and Scripture does not say which one God uses. They still know the day was loonger--they just dont know HOW.
"Show me anyone who believed in a figurative interpretation of Genesis
who did not live during any time when anybody in the church interpreted it figuratively."
My original question still stands--show me whne the CHURCH itself held to a nonliteral genesis before the mid 1800's. I corrected my statemetn of a who for we had been speaking of the antenicenes and Augustine is post nicene. Even though Augustine influenced the church greatly the RCC stillh eld to a literal 6 day creation through the dark ages.
