Interpretation affecting what's important?

[phylaax]

How does an interpretation of Genesis relate to a Christian's spiritual life? What are some reasons that it is so important?

 

[Bushido216]

It shouldn't. However, there are some Christians who are afraid that if it can be demonstrably shown that Genesis is not a literal story (which it has) then God loses all power (which is false).

Unless your interpretation of Genesis is really out there it shouldn't make a difference at all.

 

[mhess13]

It is of huge importance! If Genesis isn't true, then why would Romans or Galatians be true? God is not a man that he can lie. "Christians" the world over SCOFF at the Bible believing only that they are saved. I don't pick and choose the parts of the Bible that I like and just believe that!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It is of huge importance! If Genesis isn't true, then why would Romans or Galatians be true? God is not a man that he can lie. "Christians" the world over SCOFF at the Bible believing only that they are saved. I don't pick and choose the parts of the Bible that I like and just believe that!

Genesis can be true in a thousand substantially different ways.
True literally, figuratively, allegorically, morally, mythically, as history, as science, as window into a bygone age, as illustration, etc etc as you combine these elements over each verse of the book.

do not shortcircuit the great hermeneutical task and make literal=historical=true. the connections simply are not that simple, nor do they do justice to God.
Your idea of God is too small if this is your process of interpretation and exegesis.

 

[mhess13]

Genesis can be true in a thousand substantially different ways.
True literally, figuratively, allegorically, morally, mythically, as history, as science, as window into a bygone age, as illustration, etc etc as you combine these elements over each verse of the book.

do not shortcircuit the great hermeneutical task and make literal=historical=true. the connections simply are not that simple, nor do they do justice to God.
Your idea of God is too small if this is your process of interpretation and exegesis.

Noooo, my God is big enough to create everything from nothing in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago. He is GOOD enough to leave His word and tell me how He did it. He's an awesome GOD

 

[Chi_Cygni]

mhess13,

is the perfect example that Bushido's post was referring to.

My God probably utilised a Big Bang cosmology 13.7 Gyr's ago that took an infintesimal time to create. That is way more awesome than some God who needed 6 days for Creation.

Thus my God must be more awesome than yours.

See how silly all this argument is?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Noooo, my God is big enough to create everything from nothing in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago. He is GOOD enough to leave His word and tell me how He did it. He's an awesome GOD

my line 'your God is too small' is meant to challenge the simple identification of
literal=scientific=historical=true

and to widen your horizon to see that Genesis can be true simultaneously on a number of different levels.

1-the framework interpretation-->eternal Sabbat, the model for earthly week and the heavenly 'vacation'
2-contra polytheism---> the sun and stars are not gods
3-as a prologue to the treaty of the Great King -->the taledot lists
4-as ex nihilo, contingent, voluntaristic--->supplies scientific presuppositions and impetus to experiment and not just to theorize from a chair
5-as supplying a linear time line contra the cyclic view of time

etc etc
and this is just Gen1

to collapse all of this beauty into a 6 day YEC is almost unforgivable
and really really misses God's big point

 

[mhess13]

my line 'your God is too small' is meant to challenge the simple identification of
literal=scientific=historical=true

and to widen your horizon to see that Genesis can be true simultaneously on a number of different levels.

1-the framework interpretation-->eternal Sabbat, the model for earthly week and the heavenly 'vacation'
2-contra polytheism---> the sun and stars are not gods
3-as a prologue to the treaty of the Great King -->the taledot lists
4-as ex nihilo, contingent, voluntaristic--->supplies scientific presuppositions and impetus to experiment and not just to theorize from a chair
5-as supplying a linear time line contra the cyclic view of time

etc etc
and this is just Gen1

to collapse all of this beauty into a 6 day YEC is almost unforgivable
and really really misses God's big point

There's no way you would get any of those interpretations from reading the Bible. In order to come to those conclusions you have to already be convinced that evolution is true, God is fallible but scientists are not, AND you have to have someone like Hugh Ross contort the scriptures to tie it all together

 

[Chi_Cygni]

evolution is a fact.

You can argue as to the theory explaining evolution but you cannot argue it's occurrence.

 

[mhess13]

evolution is a fact.

You can argue as to the theory explaining evolution but you cannot argue it's occurrence.

If you're talking variations within kinds I'd agree with you. If you mean that we evolved from a rock 4.5 billion years ago, I'd take issue with that.

 

[Bushido216]

Noooo, my God is big enough to create everything from nothing in 6 literal days 6,000 years ago. He is GOOD enough to leave His word and tell me how He did it. He's an awesome GOD

You remind me of my cousin. Whenever you disagree she sticks her fingers in her ears and makes loud noises to drown you out.

However, that won't help you. The fact of the matter is, a literal Genesis account has been falsified ad nauseum. There are, however, other interpretations available. Once you untangle yourself from trying to make Genesis literal you can see the deeper meanings in the text. That's the beauty of the Bible.

 

[Bushido216]

If you're talking variations within kinds I'd agree with you. If you mean that we evolved from a rock 4.5 billion years ago, I'd take issue with that.

So would I.

However, that's not what the Modern Synthesis states.

However, there are people with degrees in their fields, much smarter than you, who accept evolution. You have really no right to call them liars.

 

[Bushido216]

There's no way you would get any of those interpretations from reading the Bible. In order to come to those conclusions you have to already be convinced that evolution is true, God is fallible but scientists are not, AND you have to have someone like Hugh Ross contort the scriptures to tie it all together

No, YOUR INTERPRETATION of what God is saying is in error. Not God. You are not God, do not pretend to be God.

 

[pressingon]

phylaax --

Although Bushido216, Chi_Cygni, and other Theistic Evolutionists will probably immediately take issue with the source, I'd suggest http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/creation-matters.asp for a Q&A section on the YEC viewpoint of why one's interpretation of Genesis matters.

I'm sure they can provide a similar link for the Theistic Evolutionist's viewpoint.

I'd suggest you look at both sides, pray about the issue, and see what God leads you to believe. According to Scripture, Christians are given the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. Trust the Lord's guidance... not man's.

One personal suggestion I think both sides can agree with... Never forget that HOW we're created is not a central issue to salvation, although many have made it such. It can shape our viewpoints of other scriptural passages (hence causing much conflict and disagreement amongst Christians), but the bottom line for both YEC's and TE's is that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ.

May the Lord lead you and guide you in your search for truth.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

If you're talking variations within kinds I'd agree with you. If you mean that we evolved from a rock 4.5 billion years ago, I'd take issue with that.

This is why it's pointless to argue with Creationists. Repeated uses of inaccurate statements about what they disagree with.

If you are going to attack something (like evolution) then at least learn what it is first.

Is that so bloody difficult for you to do?

Evolution has nothing to do with rocks, period. Do you follow this?

By the way, please define 'kind'. I'll be happy to have you dancing in circles with this one.

 

[phylaax]

Oh man, I'd love it if Lucaspa would post in this thread... Well, like all threads concerning Genesis, evolution comes up. I really meant this thread to be about how the Genesis debating relates to Christianity, and the arguing to be more based around matters of scriptural fallibility and salvation. Thanks! This is very interesting.

 

[Bushido216]

phylaax --

Although Bushido216, Chi_Cygni, and other Theistic Evolutionists will probably immediately take issue with the source, I'd suggest http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/creation-matters.asp for a Q&A section on the YEC viewpoint of why one's interpretation of Genesis matters.

I'm sure they can provide a similar link for the Theistic Evolutionist's viewpoint.

I'd suggest you look at both sides, pray about the issue, and see what God leads you to believe. According to Scripture, Christians are given the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. Trust the Lord's guidance... not man's.

One personal suggestion I think both sides can agree with... Never forget that HOW we're created is not a central issue to salvation, although many have made it such. It can shape our viewpoints of other scriptural passages (hence causing much conflict and disagreement amongst Christians), but the bottom line for both YEC's and TE's is that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ.

May the Lord lead you and guide you in your search for truth.

That's the point. We have to trust man's judgement on everything. Let me elaborate.

God has given us everything we see around us. Specifically he gave us his Word and his Creation (keep in mind that TE's accept God's creation, but challenge the HOW of that creation).

BOTH the Word and the Creation need to be interpreted. That's what science is, interpreting the data. That's what religion is, too, interpreting the messages.

What Theistic Evolutionists have done is find a harmony between the two interpretations. Fortunately science provides an excellent tool for interpreting God's creation. Science CANNOT deny God's creation, it can only study it.

So, my advice is to listen to both religion and science. One is the study of the Word and the other is the study of the Creation. In this instance they can agree that the world is not young. In instances where they cannot agree perhaps we should check OUR interpretation of one or the other.

 

[pressingon]

That's the point. We have to trust man's judgement on everything. Let me elaborate.

God has given us everything we see around us. Specifically he gave us his Word and his Creation (keep in mind that TE's accept God's creation, but challenge the HOW of that creation).

BOTH the Word and the Creation need to be interpreted. That's what science is, interpreting the data. That's what religion is, too, interpreting the messages.

I would agree with you in part. We are relying on man's judgment in the development of viewpoints and opinions on these issues... acceptance of one as truth depends upon faith, hopefully faith as led by the Holy Spirit.

What Theistic Evolutionists have done is find a harmony between the two interpretations. Fortunately science provides an excellent tool for interpreting God's creation. Science CANNOT deny God's creation, it can only study it.

YEC's would state a similar position... that their position presents harmony between the Word and interpretation of observed evidence.

So, my advice is to listen to both religion and science. One is the study of the Word and the other is the study of the Creation. In this instance they can agree that the world is not young. In instances where they cannot agree perhaps we should check OUR interpretation of one or the other.

I couldn't agree more. If the interpretations don't agree, one (or even both) is incorrect. The heart of the matter, of course, is which -- the scientific interpretation that supports evolution or the Biblical interpretation that supports Creation. We still have the Holy Spirit to guide us in that matter:

"[sup]13[/sup]But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." (John 16:13, NIV)

All of this being said, I've suggested to phylaax to review both sides of the issue, and have presented a link outlining the YEC viewpoint. Could a Theistic Evolutionist please present a link detailing your views? As much fun as it is to discuss the issue here, I really think that reviewing outside information would be more beneficial to the readers of this thread who are yet undecided on the matter, as more complete viewpoints are presented on these external sites than get presented in debates here.

 

[Bushido216]

Heh, not only did I just post my position, but I'm pretty certain you didn't read it.

You just turned it into a Bible vs. Science issue. It's not. Read my post again if you wish. If not, I'll sum it up.

There are many interpretations of both the Word and the Creation. Science is self-corrected, fortunately, but Religion is not. A correct intrepretation of Creation will lead to a correct intrepretation of the Word and vica versa. The Creationist view has been shown false, erego we toss it aside and look for interpretations that 1. match and 2. don't mismatch with other evidences.

 

[pressingon]

Heh, not only did I just post my position, but I'm pretty certain you didn't read it.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and chalk that comment up to a misunderstanding of what I've posted rather than to an intentional backhanded insult. Please re-read my post considering the clarifications contained in this post.

You just turned it into a Bible vs. Science issue. It's not. Read my post again if you wish. If not, I'll sum it up.

It's never been my viewpoint that the Bible and science are in opposition to one another, and certainly not my intent to present that through my posts here. In fact, I believe the two are intimately entwined....

In re-reading my post, I guess I can see where you might get that interpretation though (wasn't that what we were just talking about anyway, interpretations?):

We are relying on man's judgment in the development of viewpoints and opinions on these issues... acceptance of one as truth depends upon faith, hopefully faith as led by the Holy Spirit.

If the interpretations don't agree, one (or even both) is incorrect. The heart of the matter, of course, is which -- the scientific interpretation that supports evolution or the Biblical interpretation that supports Creation. We still have the Holy Spirit to guide us in that matter:

"13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." (John 16:13, NIV)

I believe that faith (general term, not just religious faith) is inherently important in what we hold to be true, whether those truths be scientific or spiritual in nature, primarily because we cannot absolutely PROVE anything. We can demonstrate that scientific laws are consistent in the present, but that does not give absolute proof that they have been and always will remain constant. As such, we have faith that these laws are indeed absolutely true. Similarly, we can demonstrate to ourselves that God exists based on a variety of evidence (personal experiences, observations in nature, etc.), but we cannot give absolute proof that He does. Faith is also required.

With that in mind, and knowing that by faith we accept Christianity as true, we accept as truth that we receive the Holy Spirit from God as part of our salvation experience. By faith, we believe that a very real Holy Spirit guides us to truth. If this is true, why then would we not allow our religious faith to help us form the basis of our scientific faiths as well? Prayer, meditation, Scripture reading... all should come into play in determining truth.

That being said, don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that because we have faith that a certain interpretation of the Bible is true, we skew our science to support that belief. What I am saying is this (which is exactly what you stated, if I'm not mistaken): in instances where they do not agree, perhaps we should check our interpretation of one or the other. How does that apply? Creationists tend to check our interpretation of scientific evidence... Theistic evolutionists tend to check their interpretations of the Bible. Hopefully both sides are prayerfully allowing God's guidance to play a part in what they re-examine (of course that cannot be true, as that would mean God is contradicting himself, but we can't know absolutely which side corresponds to absolute truth..... but I digress).

Hopefully, this helps, but I'm afraid I've just muddied the waters further. We're already off-topic far enough, so let's try to get this back to phylaax's original question. A new thread would be appropriate if something we've gone off-topic about needs to be discussed further.

Anyway, on to my final request, one I'm repeating for the third time... Please post a link to an external website with detailed information from the Theistic Evolutionist viewpoint that addresses phylaax's original question. It's not that you're not doing a good job explaining, but simply that external sites contain far more information from both sides for the reader of this thread to consider than can possibly be posted within this thread. I have presented a link that could give hours of reading about the YEC viewpoint... for the sake of the reader who's undecided, a Theistic Evolutionist link with a similar amount of information is needed so both sides can be considered equally. I'll even post them together for convenience, if you'll just provide the link for the TE viewpoint (I would find one myself, but since I don't hold to that belief, it really wouldn't be appropriate as I could not accurately assess its characterization of that belief).

Anyway, that's enough for me for today.