Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Question for Christian old-earth evolutionists
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Didaskomenos" data-source="post: 382581" data-attributes="member: 832"><p>No. I am not an inerrantist.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is no parable in Genesis. Metaphor does not mean allegory. See below.</p><p></p><p>I contend that the mythological elements of Genesis were obvious to the people as myths. The Israelites may or may not have known that the creation account was historically inaccurate, but were probably aware that the story was concocted to give a particular subject (the existence of the world) meaning.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, they are meant to convey Jesus' worthy heritage and exceptional pedigree. The writers probably believed that Adam was a historical figure. There probably was a human(oid) creature to whom God-consciousness was first endowed, and we are the descendents of that prehistorical "Adam." But even if not, this does not disrupt the genealogies' contention that Jesus was a son in a royal line of the tribe of Judah, a descendent of David.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Probably not. The point of my comments about parables is that it does not matter. The story is as "true" as if it really occurred.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Good question. It follows along the theory that God wanted the creation story to be told in the way that it was. For whatever reason, he has chosen to let the myth be told, and in some ways constructed the religion of his people around it (the same goes for Jesus being the "second Adam"). I do not have a complete answer on this. Another possibility is that this was a Mosaic or Levitical device to explain their 7-day week in terms of their own ancient myth.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That passage is a perfect use of the Genesis story as myth. You need to read this passage by Lewis:</p><p></p><p>"In the enjoyment of a great myth we come nearest to experiencing as a concrete what can otherwise be understood only as an abstraction. At this moment, for example, I am trying to understand something very abstract indeed - the fading, vanishing of tasted reality as we try to grasp it with the discursive reason. Probably I have made heavy weather of it. But if I remind you, instead, of Orpheus and Eurydice, how he was suffered to lead her by the hand but, when he turned round to look at her, she disappeared, what was merely a principle becomes imaginable. You may reply that you never till this moment attached that 'meaning' to that myth. Of course not. You are not looking for an abstract 'meaning' at all. If that was what you were doing the myth would be for you not true myth but a mere allegory. You were not knowing, but tasting; but what youre tasting turns out to be a universal principle. The moment we state this principle, we are admittedly back in the world of abstraction. It is only while receiving the myth as a story that you experience the principle concretely." (from <em>God in the Dock</em>)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have addressed your concerns elsewhere. 1) I do not think that the biblical writers were omniscient, and we must therefore allow that they might have thought the Genesis story was an historical account. 2) The "deeper" meaning of Genesis 1-11 is <em>too</em> deep for a simple solution like you want. It is not an allegory in which every component of the story has a 1:1 relationship to something in reality. I do know that the point of the creation story is that God created the earth. It has an infinite number of other applications (as all myths do), but that was the point of the myth - to explain the world's existence. It is not all "a big parable."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Didaskomenos, post: 382581, member: 832"] No. I am not an inerrantist. There is no parable in Genesis. Metaphor does not mean allegory. See below. I contend that the mythological elements of Genesis were obvious to the people as myths. The Israelites may or may not have known that the creation account was historically inaccurate, but were probably aware that the story was concocted to give a particular subject (the existence of the world) meaning. Yes, they are meant to convey Jesus' worthy heritage and exceptional pedigree. The writers probably believed that Adam was a historical figure. There probably was a human(oid) creature to whom God-consciousness was first endowed, and we are the descendents of that prehistorical "Adam." But even if not, this does not disrupt the genealogies' contention that Jesus was a son in a royal line of the tribe of Judah, a descendent of David. Probably not. The point of my comments about parables is that it does not matter. The story is as "true" as if it really occurred. Good question. It follows along the theory that God wanted the creation story to be told in the way that it was. For whatever reason, he has chosen to let the myth be told, and in some ways constructed the religion of his people around it (the same goes for Jesus being the "second Adam"). I do not have a complete answer on this. Another possibility is that this was a Mosaic or Levitical device to explain their 7-day week in terms of their own ancient myth. That passage is a perfect use of the Genesis story as myth. You need to read this passage by Lewis: "In the enjoyment of a great myth we come nearest to experiencing as a concrete what can otherwise be understood only as an abstraction. At this moment, for example, I am trying to understand something very abstract indeed - the fading, vanishing of tasted reality as we try to grasp it with the discursive reason. Probably I have made heavy weather of it. But if I remind you, instead, of Orpheus and Eurydice, how he was suffered to lead her by the hand but, when he turned round to look at her, she disappeared, what was merely a principle becomes imaginable. You may reply that you never till this moment attached that 'meaning' to that myth. Of course not. You are not looking for an abstract 'meaning' at all. If that was what you were doing the myth would be for you not true myth but a mere allegory. You were not knowing, but tasting; but what youre tasting turns out to be a universal principle. The moment we state this principle, we are admittedly back in the world of abstraction. It is only while receiving the myth as a story that you experience the principle concretely." (from [I]God in the Dock[/I]) I have addressed your concerns elsewhere. 1) I do not think that the biblical writers were omniscient, and we must therefore allow that they might have thought the Genesis story was an historical account. 2) The "deeper" meaning of Genesis 1-11 is [i]too[/i] deep for a simple solution like you want. It is not an allegory in which every component of the story has a 1:1 relationship to something in reality. I do know that the point of the creation story is that God created the earth. It has an infinite number of other applications (as all myths do), but that was the point of the myth - to explain the world's existence. It is not all "a big parable." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Question for Christian old-earth evolutionists
Top
Bottom