Leviathan

[Mallon]

Yes, there ARE metaphors in the Bible. That does not mean the ENTIRE Bible is a metaphor. That's like saying 'if I use a metaphor the everything I say is a metaphor." You must look at the context of what is said.

I agree with you 100%. This is why, by looking at the cultural and scientific context of the first Hebrew people, I am perfectly content with the fact that they were more concerned about delivering spiritual messages relating to monotheism rather than scientific or historical ones. As such, I don't look to the Bible as a science text on origins or as a field guide to mid-eastern sea creatures, which is why I am perfectly content accepting evolution and the pre-human extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs.

Sorry, I don't use wikipedia as my source for Biblical answers. I go to my Pastor, and other church resources- people who have studied the Bible extensively, and also knows it in the original Hebrew language.

Wikipedia provides sources to more in-depth, scholarly work. You should check it out sometime. Although I would be curious to hear what your pastor (or rather WELS) has to say about the multiple authorship of Genesis. (The WELS Q&A you posted does not address the clear stylistic differences between Genesis 1 and 2 that I originally brought up.) Certainly, most "people who have studied the Bible extensively, and also know it in the original Hebrew language" reject strict Mosaic authorship.

How do you know how big the reeds and lotuses were back then?

I see. You're willing to believe anything, no matter how unfounded it might be (including giant, apatosaur-covering lotuses and reeds), so long as it lines up with your preconvictions. In that case, I think I'm done arguing with you on this one. Once we start invoking hypotheticals to defend out viewpoints, we're left with little solid ground for reasoned discussion.

 

[LutheranChick]

I see. You're willing to believe anything, no matter how unfounded it might be (including giant, apatosaur-covering lotuses and reeds), so long as it lines up with your preconvictions. In that case, I think I'm done arguing with you on this one. Once we start invoking hypotheticals to defend out viewpoints, we're left with little solid ground for reasoned discussion.

No, I am not willing to believe 'anything'. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God. This is called faith. I do NOT believe in interpetations that conflict with this, where man's faulty reason prevails over God's words.

 

[Vance]

No, I am not willing to believe 'anything'. I believe that the Bible is the inerrant inspired Word of God. This is called faith. I do NOT believe in interpetations that conflict with this, where man's faulty reason prevails over God's words.

I also believe that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. But I am not sure what you mean by "interpretations that conflict with this". I don't think anything about what Mallon or any other TE here is saying contradicts the idea of an inerrant and inspired Word of God. I believe everything the Bible says, I just think it says something different in many places than you think it says.

 

[LutheranChick]

I also believe that the Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. But I am not sure what you mean by "interpretations that conflict with this". I don't think anything about what Mallon or any other TE here is saying contradicts the idea of an inerrant and inspired Word of God. I believe everything the Bible says, I just think it says something different in many places than you think it says.

FOR EXAMPLE: Interpretations such as "and the evening and the morning were the [first, second, third, etc...] day" didn't REALLY mean literal days. This is very specific- God took great care to show us that he is talking 24 hour days. There are other places where the Bible speaks of 'days and nights' in talking about how many LITERAL days -this is consistent throughout the Bible. Matthew Chapter 4:1 "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry." I have never heard anyone say that THIS verse means that Jesus fasted for millions of years.

Yet some people prefer to take a verse from 2 Peter completely out of context: "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." and apply it to Genesis, saying that because of THIS verse, God MUST have meant to say that each day was a very very long time. And this is only the beginning. Once you take the literal meaning of "6 days" out, you have to reconcile Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—"

and on and on.... one ends up doing all kinds of verbal acrobatics to reconcile evolution with the plain simple words of God.

 

[Breetai]

Although I would be curious to hear what your pastor (or rather WELS) has to say about the multiple authorship of Genesis. (The WELS Q&A you posted does not address the clear stylistic differences between Genesis 1 and 2 that I originally brought up.)

The WELS rejects the documentary hypothesis as they say it severely undermines the Gospel.

Who's to say that one man cannot write in different styles, and use more than one title for something in order for various reasons? The entire reason behind the documentary hypothesis is an attempt to discredit the Bible as being the inerrant Word of God. That's not a big secret.

Certainly, most "people who have studied the Bible extensively, and also know it in the original Hebrew language" reject strict Mosaic authorship.

It's quite the stretch to claim that "most people who have studied the Bible extensively... reject strict Mosaic authorship." Within Lutheranism (since this thread seems to only involve Lutherans!!!), the only major branch that supports the JEDP idea in substantial numbers is the ELCA and its affiliates.


I see. You're willing to believe anything, no matter how unfounded it might be (including giant, apatosaur-covering lotuses and reeds), so long as it lines up with your preconvictions. In that case, I think I'm done arguing with you on this one. Once we start invoking hypotheticals to defend out viewpoints, we're left with little solid ground for reasoned discussion.[/quote]

There are other places where the Bible speaks of 'days and nights' in talking about how many LITERAL days -this is consistent throughout the Bible

That is true. Why would the creation saga in Genesis be any different, especially considering that it ties the days in with specific cycles and the Hebrew day-counting system?

 

[shernren]

I saw your 'evidence' as very weak.
How do you know how big the reeds and lotuses were back then?

How do you know dinosaurs even ever existed?

I think we call them fossils.

 

[Vance]

FOR EXAMPLE: Interpretations such as "and the evening and the morning were the [first, second, third, etc...] day" didn't REALLY mean literal days. This is very specific- God took great care to show us that he is talking 24 hour days. There are other places where the Bible speaks of 'days and nights' in talking about how many LITERAL days -this is consistent throughout the Bible. Matthew Chapter 4:1 "Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry." I have never heard anyone say that THIS verse means that Jesus fasted for millions of years.

Yet some people prefer to take a verse from 2 Peter completely out of context: "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." and apply it to Genesis, saying that because of THIS verse, God MUST have meant to say that each day was a very very long time. And this is only the beginning. Once you take the literal meaning of "6 days" out, you have to reconcile Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—"

and on and on.... one ends up doing all kinds of verbal acrobatics to reconcile evolution with the plain simple words of God.

Well, a few things.

First, the two interpretations you are talking about, literal or figurative, having nothing at all to do with whether you think the Bible is inerrant and inspired.

Second, what is "plain and simple" to you is based on your cultural and educational background. To a bronze age Israelite, the "plain and simple" reading would almost assuredly have been very different. They would have read it NOT as a literal historical narrative, but as an account of literal past events using symbolic, figurative and typological language. That is how they preferred their stories about the past. So, should I go with what is plain and simple to you, or how they would have read it, plainly and simply? Personally, I don't think it sounds like literal historical narrative in the least, any more than Revelation sounds like a literal narrative of the future.

Third, the true acrobatics are left to the literalist who has to reconcile so many passages that do not fit very well together when read as strict literal historical narrative. In fact, when you are willing to read the text in the way that the original authors intended, there are no acrobatics needed at all.

Lastly, why do you think that all of those who accept evolution must read the word "day" as meaning a longer period of time? Many here sure don't. I think the word "day" is being used in the 24 hour sense, but that it was simply a literary device to structure out the process of God's creative work. Augustine agrees with me on that one.

 

[Mallon]

FOR EXAMPLE: Interpretations such as "and the evening and the morning were the [first, second, third, etc...] day" didn't REALLY mean literal days. This is very specific- God took great care to show us that he is talking 24 hour days.

The Bible is equally clear that Leviathan shoots fire from its mouth, but here you are using the same "verbal acrobatics" you accuse evolution creationists of in trying to defend the tangibility of Leviathan (saying that it actually just blew mist from its nostrils, which looked like smoke). Do you not see how hypocritical you are being?

(Incidentally, I agree that the Genesis creation days were 24 hours long. What I disagree with is your equally fallible human interpretion that this was an historical event rather than allegorical vessel used to tell of God's creative power. I am an accomodationalist; not a concordist like yourself.)

 

[Vance]

The Bible is equally clear that Leviathan shoots fire from its mouth, but here you are using the same "verbal acrobatics" you accuse evolution creationists of in trying to defend the tangibility of Leviathan (saying that it actually just blew mist from its nostrils, which looked like smoke). Do you not see how hypocritical you are being?

(Incidentally, I agree that the Genesis creation days were 24 hours long. What I disagree with is your equally fallible human interpretion that this was an historical event rather than allegorical vessel used to tell of God's creative power. I am an accomodationalist; not a concordist like yourself.)

To clarify, I would say that God's creative process was definitely a "historical event", just that the 24 hours days were not meant to be a historically literal account of how that historical event played out.

I would bet that is what you meant, I just wanted to fine-tune that a bit. You can correct me if I got you wrong.

 

[Mallon]

The WELS rejects the documentary hypothesis as they say it severely undermines the Gospel.

In what way? How does the multiple authorship of the Torah undermine the gospel in any way?

Who's to say that one man cannot write in different styles, and use more than one title for something in order for various reasons?

I admit it's fully possible. The author may very well have just changed over to a different writing style in penning the opening chapters of Genesis. But that strikes me as an overtly ad hoc explanation, don't you you agree?

It's quite the stretch to claim that "most people who have studied the Bible extensively... reject strict Mosaic authorship." Within Lutheranism (since this thread seems to only involve Lutherans!!!), the only major branch that supports the JEDP idea in substantial numbers is the ELCA and its affiliates.

... which is by far the largest Lutheran denomination in the world and accounts for the majority of Lutherans, I would think.

That is true. Why would the creation saga in Genesis be any different, especially considering that it ties the days in with specific cycles and the Hebrew day-counting system?

I'm not debating that. You won't often see evolutionary creationists argue for day-age creationism. What I disagree with is that those days have to be read as historical fact in order to hold meaning.

 

[Mallon]

To clarify, I would say that God's creative process was definitely a "historical event", just that the 24 hours days were not meant to be a historically literal account of how that historical event played out.

I would bet that is what you meant, I just wanted to fine-tune that a bit. You can correct me if I got you wrong.

I disagree. Again, I take an accomodationalist approach to Scripture, rather than a concordist approach. You can read more here:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

It makes no difference to me whether the first Hebrew people actually believed in a young earth or geocentric solar system, since this is likely the most comprehensible vehicle though which God could have delivered His message of salvation to a bunch of sheep herders. God's truths are timeless, not timely.

 

[Vance]

I disagree. Again, I take an accomodationalist approach to Scripture, rather than a concordist approach. You can read more here:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm

It makes no difference to me whether the first Hebrew people actually believed in a young earth or geocentric solar system, since this is likely the most comprehensible vehicle though which God could have delivered His message of salvation to a bunch of sheep herders. God's truths are timeless, not timely.

Yes, of course accommodationalist and not concordist. My point is that God is accommodating the method of telling about His Creative process, but that creative process DID happen. It was a literal, historical event. God created the universe and everything in it. That is something that happened in history, so it is a historical event, literally. But, how does God choose to describe that literal historical event? He chooses the style of writing common to the day, which is a very non-literal style, a genre using figurative language, symbolism and typology. God accommodates the telling about the literal history of Creation by using a non-literal style that could carry the ultimate truths of that historical event to all generations.

 

[juvenissun]

The Bible is equally clear that Leviathan shoots fire from its mouth, but here you are using the same "verbal acrobatics" you accuse evolution creationists of in trying to defend the tangibility of Leviathan (saying that it actually just blew mist from its nostrils, which looked like smoke). Do you not see how hypocritical you are being?

Do you only say this to a YEC who is not very good in geoscience? Why don't you comment on my suggestion to the fiery breath of Leviathan?

 

[Mallon]

Yes, of course accommodationalist and not concordist. My point is that God is accommodating the method of telling about His Creative process, but that creative process DID happen. It was a literal, historical event. God created the universe and everything in it. That is something that happened in history, so it is a historical event, literally. But, how does God choose to describe that literal historical event? He chooses the style of writing common to the day, which is a very non-literal style, a genre using figurative language, symbolism and typology. God accommodates the telling about the literal history of Creation by using a non-literal style that could carry the ultimate truths of that historical event to all generations.

Can't find fault with that. I suspect that even some early Hebrews may have understood the creation story literally, but the point I'm trying to get across is that God really doesn't care whether we interpret the story literally or not. The point is that God cares that His message contained within the vessel of the story gets across. That message is that God is the one and only god, that He is the all-powerful creator, that humans are sinful, and that God has a plan to save us from that sin.

 

[Mallon]

Do you only say this to a YEC who is not very good in geoscience? Why don't you comment on my suggestion to the fiery breath of Leviathan?

Sure. I think it's little more than an ad hoc, knee-jerk apologetic designed to defend what is a strained literal interpretation of an obviously fantastic creature. What this has to do with "geoscience", I have no idea.

 

[juvenissun]

Sure. I think it's little more than an ad hoc, knee-jerk apologetic designed to defend what is a strained literal interpretation of an obviously fantastic creature. What this has to do with "geoscience", I have no idea.

You are avoiding the question. If you do not know, then simply say I don't know. No one expects anyone else to know everything.

I think the key to this feature could be on one physiological process: Could some dinosaur species produced hydrogen gas or related flammable compound as a waste product. If yes, then we have the answer right there. In modern species, it seems we do have a few rare species doing that (a beetle that shoots missile-like explosive liquid?). I think it could be extremely difficult to investigate the physiology of dinosaurs since we are not even sure that if they were warm blooded or not. So, I think we certainly can not rule out the possibility that some dinosaur species might exhale some hydrogen or hydrocarbon gas in their breath.

-------

Notice that I am talking about science. But it is guided by the Scripture. If you don't like that, you may skip the Scripture part and just discuss the science with me.

 

[Breetai]

In what way? How does the multiple authorship of the Torah undermine the gospel in any way?


I admit it's fully possible. The author may very well have just changed over to a different writing style in penning the opening chapters of Genesis. But that strikes me as an overtly ad hoc explanation, don't you you agree?


... which is by far the largest Lutheran denomination in the world and accounts for the majority of Lutherans, I would think.


I'm not debating that. You won't often see evolutionary creationists argue for day-age creationism. What I disagree with is that those days have to be read as historical fact in order to hold meaning.

I'll respond later when I have time.

The same idea come in when discussing possible multiple authors of Isaiah, the dating of Daniel, etc.

 

[Mallon]

So, I think we certainly can not rule out the possibility that some dinosaur species might exhale some hydrogen or hydrocarbon gas in their breath.

The thing is that what you are proposing is entirely untestable. Sure, maybe dinosaurs spat flames. Heck, maybe they shot lasers from their eyes or farted rainbows. But as I told our sister LutherChick, if you're going to build your entire case on an unprovable, untestable hypothetical with no modern analogue, then there's little reason to continue our discussion.

Notice that I am talking about science.

No, you are not. Because what you are proposing is untestable, and hence, unscientific. You're dreaming and nothing else.

 

[Vance]

I'll respond later when I have time.

The same idea come in when discussing possible multiple authors of Isaiah, the dating of Daniel, etc.

Not to get too far off-topic, but with Isaiah and Daniel I often see two different methodologies at work, one which I think it acceptable and one which is not persuasive in the least.

With Isaiah, I most often see the reason for three Isaiahs being based on writing style and theme, and the historical settings. I have no strong opinion either way, but I don't have a huge problem with the idea that the book may contain material from three different authors. It would not undermine the validity, inspiration or even inerrancy for me in the least.

But, with Daniel, I often see something very different. The reason for the dating issues often arise from prophesy about future events actually taking place. The reasoning is that it is impossible to predict the future that accurately, so the choice is either that it was a series of lucky guesses, incredibly keen historical insight, or simply that it was actually written much later, after the predicted events. This, of course, entirely ignores the idea that God could inspire such accurate prophecies. So, since it's conclusions are based entirely on the impossibility of a miracle, I have no reason to believe them, since I fully accept the concept of the miraculous. It would take some other evidence to convince me. And this is where the situation differs from the old earth/evolution issues: there IS no other evidence.

 

[shernren]

Not to get too far off-topic, but with Isaiah and Daniel I often see two different methodologies at work, one which I think it acceptable and one which is not persuasive in the least.

With Isaiah, I most often see the reason for three Isaiahs being based on writing style and theme, and the historical settings. I have no strong opinion either way, but I don't have a huge problem with the idea that the book may contain material from three different authors. It would not undermine the validity, inspiration or even inerrancy for me in the least.

But, with Daniel, I often see something very different. The reason for the dating issues often arise from prophesy about future events actually taking place. The reasoning is that it is impossible to predict the future that accurately, so the choice is either that it was a series of lucky guesses, incredibly keen historical insight, or simply that it was actually written much later, after the predicted events. This, of course, entirely ignores the idea that God could inspire such accurate prophecies. So, since it's conclusions are based entirely on the impossibility of a miracle, I have no reason to believe them, since I fully accept the concept of the miraculous. It would take some other evidence to convince me. And this is where the situation differs from the old earth/evolution issues: there IS no other evidence.

Except that some secular scholars prominently use the prophecy of Cyrus' name as a dating tool in precisely the "supernatural predictions don't happen" style you reject. I reject that style too!