Is God a liar?

[SolomonVII]

Viewing the Genesis creation accounts as an allegory rather than as an actual event is not in any way rejecting the Bible or any part thereof.

I suppose so.
What about the rest of Genesis though?
What about the miracles of Moses, or the Exodus from Egypt, or Jonah in the belly of the whale?
The Virgin Birth?
Or the conquest of Canaan.
I mean, most historians study the stories of Abraham and see a culture that resembles one of the times of David or thereabouts, and not the kind of culture that existed in Canann in the times of Abraham?
I mean, I don't have a problem with all of that, but it is like pulling at a thread in a sweater. You think you are removing a snag, but soon enough you end up with a handful of yarn, and a draft chilling your back where the sweater used to be.
Does it ever come to the point for you where you might start to think that rather than hammering out the truth what is closer to the truth is that your pulling down the faith of people who still believe in the Creator, as we all purport ourselves to believe in?
You kick one devil out and seven rush into to take its place, unless you have a strong theology to fill the void left behind.
The first books of the Bible are one long narrative with chapters connecting and building off one another. Is there any reason to surmise that there is some chapter and verse where the allegory tapers off and a modern history begins?

 

[Archivist]

I suppose so.
What about the rest of Genesis though?
What about the miracles of Moses, or the Exodus from Egypt, or Jonah in the belly of the whale?
The Virgin Birth?
Or the conquest of Canaan.
I mean, most historians study the stories of Abraham and see a culture that resembles one of the times of David or thereabouts, and not the kind of culture that existed in Canann in the times of Abraham?
I mean, I don't have a problem with all of that, but it is like pulling at a thread in a sweater. You think you are removing a snag, but soon enough you end up with a handful of yarn, and a draft chilling your back where the sweater used to be.
Does it ever come to the point for you where you might start to think that rather than hammering out the truth what is closer to the truth is that your pulling down the faith of people who still believe in the Creator, as we all purport ourselves to believe in?
You kick one devil out and seven rush into to take its place, unless you have a strong theology to fill the void left behind.
The first books of the Bible are one long narrative with chapters connecting and building off one another. Is there any reason to surmise that there is some chapter and verse where the allegory tapers off and a modern history begins?

Actually Jonah wasn't in the belly of a whale. The Bible says he was swolliwed by a great fish not a whale. Perhaps he was, but some scholars say that simply means that he was wrestling with a great problem. Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt? Maybe, or perhaps that simply means that she was made barren.

Do you really believe that bats are birds, or did the people of that time simply consider anything with wings to be a bird? I think much is simply a matter of interpretation, and we are all entitled to our own interpretation.

The virgin birth? The Miri Les of Jesus? Of course I believe in those absolutely.

 

[JacksBratt]

And we know what a story is, and how certain KINDS of stories are used to teach truths, such as parables, fables, and myths. How is it that you don't recognize Genesis 1 as a story? Were it anywhere outside of the Bible, you would immediately recognize that it was not meant to be taken literally.

I know it is literal due to the simple facts:
It's the first book of God's message to us. I don't believe God would start His books of "truth" with a myth.
It has real names of real people, which is untrue of parables. In fact, it has none of the characteristics of a parable. That is like saying "The Raven" by Edgar Allan Poe, is a Haiku.
Tell me one "fable" that is presented in the Bible.
The timeline is reinforced, reiterated and restated in the New Testament. By Christ Himself and by the writers of these books.

God has all the ability to do it.
God said He did it.
God did it.

 

[Archivist]

I know it is literal due to the simple facts:
It's the first book of God's message to us. I don't believe God would start His books of "truth" with a myth.
It has real names of real people, which is untrue of parables. In fact, it has none of the characteristics of a parable. That is like saying "The Raven" by Edgar Allan Poe, is a Haiku.
Tell me one "fable" that is presented in the Bible.
The timeline is reinforced, reiterated and restated in the New Testament. By Christ Himself and by the writers of these books.

God has all the ability to do it.
God said He did it.
God did it.

There is a difference between a myth and an allegory.

And, again, you are entitled to you interpretation just as I am entitled to my interpretation. I don't deny anyone the right to believe in a literal Garden of Eden.

 

[SolomonVII]

[QUOTE="Archivist, post: 70770022, member: 28206Actually Jonah wasn't in the belly of a whale. The Bible says he was swallowed by a great fish not a whale. [/QUOTE]
I am aware of that. It doesn't really change the point being made though, does it?

Perhaps he was, but some scholars say that simply means that he was wrestling with a great problem. Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt? Maybe, or perhaps that simply means that she was made barren.

Exactly.
Maybe, maybe not. Story after story can be rejected as literal applying the same methodology as is applied to Genesis.
What chapter and verse switches from allegory to historical recount? Which generations of descendants of Adam become historical figure, and which remain allegory, or something other?

Do you really believe that bats are birds, or did the people of that time simply consider anything with wings to be a bird? I think much is simply a matter of interpretation, and we are all entitled to our own interpretation.

I am perfectly fine with whales being described as fishes or bats being described as birds. Or not. I am not sure what you are trying to say regarding all that.

The virgin birth? The Miracles of Jesus? Of course I believe in those absolutely.

And yet, applying the same kind of interpretations to Jesus and NT extraordinary events as are applied to Genesis, allegory becomes a very possible understanding of virtually any and every miracle or extraordinary sequence of events.
That is the door being opened with the line of question of God being a liar and giving us science that contradicts the happpenings of the Bible that lie outside of science and our ordinary experiences with reality.[/QUOTE]

 

[Archivist]

[QUOTE="Archivist, post: 70770022, member: 28206Actually Jonah wasn't in the belly of a whale. The Bible says he was swallowed by a great fish not a whale.

I am aware of that. It doesn't really change the point being made though, does it?


Exactly.
Maybe, maybe not. Story after story can be rejected as literal applying the same methodology as is applied to Genesis.
What chapter and verse switches from allegory to historical recount? Which generations of descendants of Adam become historical figure, and which remain allegory, or something other?


I am perfectly fine with whales being described as fishes or bats being described as birds. Or not. I am not sure what you are trying to say regarding all that.

And yet, applying the same kind of interpretations to Jesus and NT extraordinary events as are applied to Genesis, allegory becomes a very possible understanding of virtually any and every miracle or extraordinary sequence of events.
That is the door being opened with the line of question of God being a liar and giving us science that contradicts the happpenings of the Bible that lie outside of science and our ordinary experiences with reality.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Please. I have never said that God is a liar, nor would I ever do so.

You are entitled to your interpretation of scripture just as I am entitled to my interpretation. If you want to believe that the Garden really existed, that Jonah was swolliwed by a whale, that bats are birds then by all means do so.

 

[SolomonVII]

You are entitled to your interpretation of scripture just as I am entitled to my interpretation. If you want to believe that the Garden really existed, that Jonah was swolliwed by a whale, that bats are birds then by all means do so.

Of course we all are entitled to our own interpretations. Well kinda anyway.

And, as I have already stated before, Genesis as allegory is not really problematic to me. I am not even arguing against how you are interpreting it.

And again, Bird-like mammals being described as birds, or the difference between whales and fish have nothing to do with the point I am making.
Those are questions concerning the field of taxonomy, and having nothing to do with Biblical interpretation.

The real question is not about whether we are all entitled to our own personal interpretations, but specifically, at what point in Genesis does the allegory end, and the history begin?

Or, in the spirit of the OP question; God would be lying by creating a world where evolution appears to be the case, thereby making Genesis allegory for all who say that he is not a liar.

But are not all miracles contrary to science in the same way that literal Genesis creation story would be? Would not God also be lying therefore by making it appear that laws of nature are immutable, in a world where miracles are actually the literal truth?
Ought not our interpretations of Virgin Births and Resurrections fall under the allegory category therefore too, if we want to keep God honest, that is?

It is not an easy question. I certainly do not have the answer, or an adequate theology to fill in the void of accepting that much of what was once accepted as history in the Bible is now regarded as allegory and literary licence, etc.
But to the extent that anyone does accept miracle in the light of the OP question, their reasoning does lead to the proposition that God is making things appear different than what they really are, and therefore, he is really must be deceiving us on some level.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is not an easy question. I certainly do not have the answer, or an adequate theology to fill in the void of accepting that much of what was once accepted as history in the Bible is now regarded as allegory and literary licence, etc.

As you know, Christians at least since St. Paul and St. Augustine were aware that it was not meant to be a literal history.

 

[Open Heart]

I don't believe God would start His books of "truth" with a myth.

Why not? Myth is the most powerful form of literature there is. Myth teaches us eternal truths in a way that it gets past our internal biases. God starts out his Word with a "Big Bang" in more ways than one!

 

[JacksBratt]

Why not? Myth is the most powerful form of literature there is. Myth teaches us eternal truths in a way that it gets past our internal biases. God starts out his Word with a "Big Bang" in more ways than one!

There is no reason to believe that Genesis is an allegory, myth or anything but the truth.

The only thing that gives any reason for it to be anything but the truth is the observations of men and their extrapolation and assumptions based on that.

However, we know what God thinks of the "wisdom" of men.

So, you can believe God. Or you can believe the assumptions of men who believe there is no God.

God said He did it
God certainly has the ability to do it
Only men say He didn't do it.

 

[SolomonVII]

The myth of the Virgin Birth, and the myth of the Resurrection

vs.

The miracle of the Virgin Birth and the miracle of the Resurrection......

Myth is more powerful literature?
Really?!!!

 

[Open Heart]

There is no reason to believe that Genesis is an allegory, myth or anything but the truth.

Sure there is. It's called recognizing a genre. You do it the same way you realize that "the rivers clap their hands" in Psalms is figurative speech.

 

[JacksBratt]

Sure there is. It's called recognizing a genre. You do it the same way you realize that "the rivers clap their hands" in Psalms is figurative speech.

Really? This scripture is as far fetched to you, to the point that it is comparable to "rivers clapping their hands"?

Did Christ not create everything?
Is He not all powerful?
Did He not heal a little girl from a long distance?
Did a woman not get healed by merely touching His robe?


Does a river have hands?

hmm that about ends that comparison.

Comparing the example you stated to Genesis, is not a comparison. There is absolutely no reason to assume, depict, conclude or surmise that the creation account is outside of God's ability or that it was not accomplished just as it was stated.

There is also no reason to indicate that it is anything but written as fact.

 

[Speedwell]

Really? This scripture is as far fetched to you, to the point that it is comparable to "rivers clapping their hands"?

Did Christ not create everything?
Is He not all powerful?
Did He not heal a little girl from a long distance?
Did a woman not get healed by merely touching His robe?


Does a river have hands?

hmm that about ends that comparison.

Comparing the example you stated to Genesis, is not a comparison. There is absolutely no reason to assume, depict, conclude or surmise that the creation account is outside of God's ability or that it was not accomplished just as it was stated.

There is also no reason to indicate that it is anything but written as fact.

Millions of Christians have reasons which have nothing to do with modern science. One wonders how you think Christianity managed to survive for almost 2000 years before YECism was invented.

 

[SolomonVII]

Millions of Christians have reasons which have nothing to do with modern science. One wonders how you think Christianity managed to survive for almost 2000 years before YECism was invented.

I am not sure what you mean. It is my understanding that a creation measured in thousands or years rather than millions or billions was the default, common sense position up until the nineteenth century. Hinduism may have had an ideal or eternal cyclical existence, but sacred history was the western default position.
If you mean that people didn't really give much thought to confining themselves to using the Bible to assert young earth creationism, then I agree. Christians, and Jews, were much more interested in the spiritual and moral understandings that come from the Bible, and allegory and metaphor and symbolism and discovering the Bible through literary devises and using the Bible to interpret the Bible were what was important.
But in terms of of understanding the Bible as the credible source on history and the creation of the natural genesis, it has always been my understanding that YEC was always the assumed, default position. People may not have examined that, since it was of little importance, but it was when that version of historic events was subjected to criticism that some people began to balk.

 

[Speedwell]

I am not sure what you mean. It is my understanding that a creation measured in thousands or years rather than millions or billions was the default, common sense position up until the nineteenth century.

Of course it was, because it was generally thought that the Bible represented the only information we had on the subject.

Hinduism may have had an ideal or eternal cyclical existence, but sacred history was the western default position.
If you mean that people didn't really give much thought to confining themselves to using the Bible to assert young earth creationism, then I agree. Christians, and Jews, were much more interested in the spiritual and moral understandings that come from the Bible, and allegory and metaphor and symbolism and discovering the Bible through literary devises and using the Bible to interpret the Bible were what was important.
But in terms of of understanding the Bible as the credible source on history and the creation of the natural genesis, it has always been my understanding that YEC was always the assumed, default position. People may not have examined that, since it was of little importance, but it was when that version of historic events was subjected to criticism that some people began to balk.

And that is the key question: how important was it? How many believed, like the YECs do today that the 100% literal historic and scientific accuracy of Genesis was absolutely indispensable to Christianity and a litmus test of faith? Even to the leading Evangelical theologians of the 19th century (like Hodge and Warfield) who opposed Darwinism, the age of the Earth was not all that important.

But there is more to YECism than the age of the Earth. There are distinctive interpretive tools--literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretability and plenary verbal inspiration. Interestingly enough, these were originally adopted not to defend against Darwinism, but to preserve their doctrine (primarily Darbyism) from Higher Criticism.

 

[Aman777]

Of course it was, because it was generally thought that the Bible represented the only information we had on the subject.
And that is the key question: how important was it? How many believed, like the YECs do today that the 100% literal historic and scientific accuracy of Genesis was absolutely indispensable to Christianity and a litmus test of faith? Even to the leading Evangelical theologians of the 19th century (like Hodge and Warfield) who opposed Darwinism, the age of the Earth was not all that important.

But there is more to YECism than the age of the Earth. There are distinctive interpretive tools--literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretability and plenary verbal inspiration. Interestingly enough, these were originally adopted not to defend against Darwinism, but to preserve their doctrine (primarily Darbyism) from Higher Criticism.

What is amazing is that the YEC have by FAITH, told the world the Truth for thousands of years now. They have proclaimed that in 6 of God's Days, everything which will exist physically, was made. That is exactly what Genesis chapter one states and that is God's Truth. What is interesting is that we live today at Gen 1:27 because God is STILL creating Adam (mankind) in His Image or Spiritually in Christ. Today is the 6th Creative Day/Age and its end in at least a thousand years away. Amen?

 

[SolomonVII]

Of course it was, because it was generally thought that the Bible represented the only information we had on the subject.
And that is the key question: how important was it? How many believed, like the YECs do today that the 100% literal historic and scientific accuracy of Genesis was absolutely indispensable to Christianity and a litmus test of faith? Even to the leading Evangelical theologians of the 19th century (like Hodge and Warfield) who opposed Darwinism, the age of the Earth was not all that important.

But there is more to YECism than the age of the Earth. There are distinctive interpretive tools--literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretability and plenary verbal inspiration. Interestingly enough, these were originally adopted not to defend against Darwinism, but to preserve their doctrine (primarily Darbyism) from Higher Criticism.

You asked the (slightly rhetorical) question of howsoever did Christianity manage to survive for thousands of years before YEC?
I think that you have given yourself an answer that it did so without having to deal with Higher Criticism and the elevation of natural sciences that have so vigorously challenged the basic assumptions of the Christian worldview from the times of the Reformation onwards, and that reached a particular fever pitch in the nineteenth century.
To be perfectly clear, that Higher Criticism and world view based in materialistic naturalism does far more than challenge the basic presumptions that were always presumed to be historically and factually true in the Genesis account. Literally EVERYTHING, every faith claim has been rigorously challenged not just man and womankind being modeled from clay and ribs in a twinkling, but the virgin birth, the resurrection, every and any miracle ever recorded.
I concur that your history is quite correct that YEC, and the rise in literal fundamentalism in general is a relatively modern reaction to these forms of higher criticism.
But the more honest question is not how did Christianity survive before YEC, but how Christianity will survive after HC? The days of large swaths of Christian believing in a metaphoric resurrection and a former Christian population that is now a third atheist has already arrived.
I suppose we can all roll our eyes condescendingly at those still clinging to the more traditional understanding of a young earth, but that is no different than the third of our acquaintances performing the same eye roll for us believing in a Creator at all.
To the extent that we are believers in the Creator, we are clinging to the same lifeboat...
Is it really the best use of our time to eat our own?

 

[Speedwell]

Literally EVERYTHING, every faith claim has been rigorously challenged not just man and womankind being modeled from clay and ribs in a twinkling, but the virgin birth, the resurrection, every and any miracle ever recorded.

When was there a time when they were not?

The days of large swaths of Christian believing in a metaphoric resurrection and a former Christian population that is now a third atheist has already arrived.

I question that assessment and want to see some back-up. How many RCs, Orthodox or Oriental Christians believe in a "metaphoric resurrection?" Not all non-YECs are wishy-washy American or Western European mainline Protestants.

I suppose we can all roll our eyes condescendingly at those still clinging to the more traditional understanding of a young earth, but that is no different than the third of our acquaintances performing the same eye roll for us believing in a Creator at all.

I don't care what YECs believe. I just don't want it taught in public school science classes. I also don't particularly appreciate the "You're not a real Christian" attitude and think that a Christians only forum is the right place to work that out.

To the extent that we are believers in the Creator, we are clinging to the same lifeboat...

The YECs don't think so and will be happy to pry our fingers off the gunwale when the time comes.

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't care what YECs believe. I just don't want it taught in public school science classes.

I don't care if YEC is taught in schools or not, but neither should the TOE.....