Question for non-literalists

[EnemyPartyII]

Judging Augustines scientific beliefs seems a little unfair, giving the context of his education at the time

 

[Saucy]

Hey, while some of you are talking about geneologies, isn't it true that one of the gospel geneologies trace Jesus' line all the way back to Adam? If this geneology is wrong, the part of the gospel account is wrong, throwing off all credability!

 

[Deamiter]

Judging Augustines scientific beliefs seems a little unfair, giving the context of his education at the time

Indeed -- which is why I am purposefully avoiding Cal's repeated objections that Augustine accepted a young earth. He simply had no reason to think otherwise! However, his standards for the interpretation of scripture lean heavily toward it being literally SPIRITUALLY true, and where he DID see scientific understanding (as much as existed in his day) conflict with a particular interpretation of scriptures, he looked not to discredit our knowledge of the universe, but to find the truth God intended in the passages.

Hey, while some of you are talking about geneologies, isn't it true that one of the gospel geneologies trace Jesus' line all the way back to Adam? If this geneology is wrong, the part of the gospel account is wrong, throwing off all credability!

First off, this is the second slippery slope argument in the thread so far. An error in the Bible (for example regarding Judas' death or the number of people Jesus fed on the mount) does not detract from the greater truth any more than a typo in a scientific paper (or a bigger mistake in units) discredits the research itself! The Bible was written by many fallable men who were certainly inspired by God, but did not have the words whispered into their ears (as Muhammad claimed of the Koran).

Secondly, you seem to have responded without reading the entire thread. There were at least two responses to this issue before my own in post 49 (below). You might start a new thread if you want to get into it deeply though since it's a topic that's worth more than a sidenote.

And on the subject of geneologies, if you do a little study of the cultures surrounding the ancient near east, you'll find that it was very common for people to track their geneologies back to mythical figures. Off hand I know this was done in Babylon, Assyria, Egypt and later in Greece and Rome... A family's earliest ancestors defined a family's allegiance and role models, but were hardly seen as literal ancestors!

 

[Adammi]

MOMMMMMYYYYY!!!!! Brother stole my cookie!!!!!

 

[Calminian]

I think you missed the point. Augustine did not accept a 6-day creation. He did not believe that God created light, then plants, then humans. Therefore, he clearly did not accept Genesis as a literal, historical narrative.

Notice the leap on logic here. Augustine did not accept 6 literal days therefore, he rejected the entire book of Genesis as historical narrative.

Come on guys, leave poor Augustine alone. He can be used in no way to support your view. He believed creation was a miracle, not a product of natural processes. He understood miracles. He understood original sin. He believed the earth was less then 10,000 years old despite all of the old age theories of his day. You guys keep saying he had no reason to believe otherwise. Do you not realize ancient earth concepts are not new? Can't you let the guy rest in peace?

 

[Calminian]

Hey, while some of you are talking about genealogies, isn't it true that one of the gospel genealogies trace Jesus' line all the way back to Adam? If this genealogy is wrong, the part of the gospel account is wrong, throwing off all credibility!

I think all that matters is we conform the Bible to current naturalistic scientific theories. Thus even clear detailed genealogies must be turned into some kind of allegory.

 

[laptoppop]

I think all that matters is we conform the Bible to current naturalistic scientific theories. Thus even clear detailed genealogies must be turned into some kind of allegory.

I think you missed adding something like: to this post. <grin>

 

[Mallon]

Notice the leap on logic here. Augustine did not accept 6 literal days therefore, he rejected the entire book of Genesis as historical narrative.

For what it's worth, I don't think the leap is as big as you make it to be. Augustine didn't accept the historicity of the creation account, so according to him, at least part of Genesis wasn't meant to be taken literally. I know this isn't what Deamiter said, though I don't think your interpretation of his comments accurately reflect his meaning, either.

 

[Mallon]

I think all that matters is we conform the Bible to current naturalistic scientific theories. Thus even clear detailed genealogies must be turned into some kind of allegory.

Well, given the incongruence of many of the genealogies of the Bible, they were evidently recorded for some reason beyond simple historical account.

 

[vossler]

First off, this is the second slippery slope argument in the thread so far. An error in the Bible (for example regarding Judas' death or the number of people Jesus fed on the mount) does not detract from the greater truth any more than a typo in a scientific paper (or a bigger mistake in units) discredits the research itself! The Bible was written by many fallable men who were certainly inspired by God, but did not have the words whispered into their ears (as Muhammad claimed of the Koran).

Just so I'm clear and don't misconstrue your words here; are you saying that you believe the Bible has errors?

 

[Mskedi]

Just so I'm clear and don't misconstrue your words here; are you saying that you believe the Bible has errors?

Do you think it doesn't? At the very least, translation errors abound.

But to say that the Bible is not entirely to be taken literally is not to say that it contains errors -- it just means we're reading it wrong. I mean, we get truth out of parables which we readily admit aren't historically true -- why not get truth out of these old testament stories?

 

[Mallon]

I mean, we get truth out of parables which we readily admit aren't historically true -- why not get truth out of these old testament stories?

YECs have this uncanny ability to tell which parts of the Bible are allegory and which are literal history. It's a secret they won't share, though. I've often asked about their powers of interpretation, but have only received "It's obvious to me" in response. Happend just today, in fact!

 

[Deamiter]

For what it's worth, I don't think the leap is as big as you make it to be. Augustine didn't accept the historicity of the creation account, so according to him, at least part of Genesis wasn't meant to be taken literally. I know this isn't what Deamiter said, though I don't think your interpretation of his comments accurately reflect his meaning, either.

Gosh, I've never claimed that the entire book of Genesis is allegory. I know I didn't carefully qualify my use of "Genesis" with "part of Genesis" but I certainly didn't say Augustine rejected the historicity of "the entire book of Genesis."

However, the fact still remains that Augustine did not read MUCH of Genesis as solely a historical narrative (and he certainly didn't think Genesis 1 and 2 happened the way YECs say is "plain reading". Didn't you notice his discussion of the Ark's dimensions as a prophecy of Jesus's manhood as you were reading through his works?

 

[laptoppop]

Whether the dimensions of the ark were also indicative of other things has no bearing on if the ark itself existed in the context of a global flood.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The Ark... that one tiny window for all those animals... *sigh*

I still wonder about the poor penguins having to march all the way from Antarctica to the launch site and then back again from Arrarat

 

[laptoppop]

The Scripture is not exhaustive in describing the design of the Ark - there's lots of room for various designs. In particular, it is not clear how the Ark was vented - some people envision a "moon pool" in the center of the Ark, which could not only provide additional stability, but could pump huge amounts of air in and out to keep it fresh.

It is also not clear at this time exactly which animals were "kinds" carried onboard the ark, and which developed afterwards. There is no problem with various kinds of dogs, for example, developing after the flood. Perhaps the cold-weather variants of the penguin developed after the flood. In any case, the Scripture talks about God causing the animals to board, not Noah. The animals "came to Noah" as he was onboard.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The animals "came to Noah" as he was onboard.

Exactly! Including, presumably, penguins from Antarctica, and kangaroos from Australia. I'll be honest and admit I have less sympathy for the 'roos, as they can MOVE... but then I think about the poor koalas and trundling wombats... its an awfully long walk for them too

Perhaps the cold-weather variants of the penguin developed after the flood.

As oposed to warm-weather variants???

Um... isn't that awfully close to evolution?

 

[laptoppop]

As oposed to warm-weather variants???

Um... isn't that awfully close to evolution?

Nah, just variation within a kind as opposed to penguins becoming something other than penguins.

 

[vossler]

Do you think it doesn't? At the very least, translation errors abound.

I was hoping that Deamiter was going to answer this question, but it appears he won't.

No I don't think the Bible has errors, it is inerrant.

 

[shernren]

Come on guys, leave poor Augustine alone. He can be used in no way to support your view. He believed creation was a miracle, not a product of natural processes. He understood miracles. He understood original sin. He believed the earth was less then 10,000 years old despite all of the old age theories of his day. You guys keep saying he had no reason to believe otherwise. Do you not realize ancient earth concepts are not new? Can't you let the guy rest in peace?

Ancient earth concepts are pretty new. In antiquity people either believed that the earth was created recently, since they could not imagine any natural processes persisting for an extremely long period of time, or that the earth had not been created at all, and that there had been no fixed beginning to the earth's history.

So the options open were either "The world began a short time ago" or "The world did not begin", as far as I know, and so guess which one Augustine chose? The option that "The world began a long time ago" had no clear support, evidence or proponents before modern science came along. If he had seen today's evidence, who's to say that he would not have gladly reconciled the doctrine of creation (which the idea that the world was uncreated rejected) with the science of evolution and the old universe?