Question for non-literalists

[Assyrian]

You don't think there were allegorical interpretations of Genesis among first century Jews and their converts?

 

[vossler]

You don't think there were allegorical interpretations of Genesis among first century Jews and their converts?

Maybe in addition to the historical narrative, but certainly not in place of it, no.

 

[Assyrian]

That is not how Philo saw it. Genesis was not a literal description of creation, but was to be understood allegorically. Josephus took the six days literally but believed Moses was writing 'philosophically' in the story of Adam and Eve.

 

[vossler]

That is not how Philo saw it. Genesis was not a literal description of creation, but was to be understood allegorically. Josephus took the six days literally but believed Moses was writing 'philosophically' in the story of Adam and Eve.

From what I can tell Philo saw Genesis 2 & 3 potentially as allegorical but not Genesis 1. My research on Josephus' writing show him to clearly be a historical writer who at times used allegory to explain certain subjects. He certainly didn't come across as one who saw Genesis as primarily allegorical.

 

[Assyrian]

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION Part 1, II.
(2) "And on the sixth day God finished his work which he had made." It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days, or indeed at all in time; because all time is only the space of days and nights, and these things the motion of the sun as he passes over the earth and under the earth does necessarily make. But the sun is a portion of heaven, so that one must confess that time is a thing posterior to the world. Therefore it would be correctly said that the world was not created in time, but that time had its existence in consequence of the world. For it is the motion of the heaven that has displayed the nature of time.

(3) When, therefore, Moses says, "God completed his works on the sixth day," we must understand that he is speaking not of a number of days, but that he takes six as a perfect number.

ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION, II - Part 1
VII.
(19) "And God cast a deep trance upon Adam, and sent him to sleep; and he took one of his ribs," and so on. The literal statement conveyed in these words is a fabulous one; for how can any one believe that a woman was made of a rib of a man, or, in short, that any human being was made out of another?

It wasn't that Philo thought Genesis had both allegorical and literal meanings, he completely dismissed the literal interpretation.

Antiquities of the Jews

Preface
4 ...while our legislator (Moses) speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly. However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of every thing, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall wave the explication of; but if God afford me time for it, I will set about writing it (6) after I have finished the present work.

Book 1 CHAPTER 1
2. Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth.

So while chapter 1 may have been written 'plainly and expressly' Josephus believed chapter 2 was written 'philosophically', in other words, enigmatically or allegorically.

 

[Deamiter]

If it isn't innerrant then what parts are not in error and how do you know? How can you be sure?

As others have said, you can't. It's no different from any other Biblical interpretation -- there are many questions (theological, philosophical etc...) that we Christians discuss and study in order to come to a better understanding. That's what we're doing here at Christian Forums as a matter of fact.

:::: thwap ::::: <grin>
Inerrant in the original autographs.
(and actually this ties in - the various repeats in Scripture help us to gain understanding even of minor copyist errors)

Pure conjecture -- not only is this also not a Biblical principle, the reliance on a set of documents that you can be reasonably sure will never be found makes your position utterly untestable. What about passages like the last few verses in Mark that many scholars believe was written by an entirely different person at an entirely different time.

You can certainly say that you are certain of the correct interpretation one way or another, but you've constructed a belief system that ASSUMES that a document nobody living has ever seen is "perfect" even though we don't know how similar it is to our current Bible!

The Bible is a collection of works by Godly men that can be used to better understand the God who inspired these men in their faith.

 

[Assyrian]

Isn't it a bit of an assumption that there were 'original autographs'? Take Jeremiah (I am working from memory here) he wrote out a prophecy and it is destroyed, He then writes out another copy. Years later this is incorporated, with all his other prophecies and biographical details into a scroll we call the book of Jeremiah. Which is the 'original autograph' for the prophecy, the original, the copy or the final book?

Which is the original autograph of Psalm 23? What David wrote, or the final compilation of all the Psalms during the exile? What if David sang different versions of the Psalm over the years? Can we say that the version David wrote down from the luxury of Jerusalem was word for word the same as original version he sang by a campfire hiding from his enemies? After all, even Moses gave two different versions of the Ten Commandments in Exodus and Deuteronomy. Why couldn't David's psalm change too? Then can we be sure there were there no copying mistakes between David writing it down and the editor of the Psalms adding his copy to the collection?

Here's a scenario for John's gospel, lets accept it was John who wrote it. He writes his account and keeps it with him in Ephesus. Then an elder of another church visits and pleads for a copy he can bring back with him. John generously wrote it out again with the help of one of the deacons, only this time he remembers another little detail and includes the woman caught in adultery. We now have two scroll of John's gospel being copied and transmitted. Which is the inspired original autograph?

 

[shernren]

Pure conjecture -- not only is this also not a Biblical principle, the reliance on a set of documents that you can be reasonably sure will never be found makes your position utterly untestable. What about passages like the last few verses in Mark that many scholars believe was written by an entirely different person at an entirely different time.

You can certainly say that you are certain of the correct interpretation one way or another, but you've constructed a belief system that ASSUMES that a document nobody living has ever seen is "perfect" even though we don't know how similar it is to our current Bible!

The Bible is a collection of works by Godly men that can be used to better understand the God who inspired these men in their faith.

I agree, and since laptoppop hasn't come back to tell me just where I can get my hands on these original autographs I will have to voice my concerns anyways.

The problem with relying on an original autograph as the vessel of being infallible/inerrant is that we have no access to the original autograph. This is very important. Without access to the original autograph, for example, "word" arguments completely lose their foundation.

For example, one "proof" for the Trinity involves the fact that Genesis 1 has "Let us (elohim) make man in our image." But then again, how do we know that this is in the original autographs? After all, maybe a sleepy copyist accidentally wrote "elohim" where he should have written YHWH. Worse still, maybe it was an emendation by one of those anti-Gnostic Christian heretic-fighters. How can we know that the original autographs has "us" there?

Again, John 1 has "and the Word was God" - kai logos en theos. When I was trying to learn some basic Koine Greek, one of the arguments for the Trinity (if I recall, it was from Luther) stated that the word order given showed that Jesus was God, and at the same time that he was "not exclusively God" (in the sense that the Father and the Holy Spirit are also God). One order would have read "And God was the Word", and another would have read "And the Word was a god". But how do we know that the order we have today is the same order of the original autographs? After all, it doesn't take a lot of carelessness to mix a few words up, especially when one is busily trying to defend a controversial doctrine that a few heretics are trying to take down.

You can see that infallibility of the original autographs really doesn't get us anywhere, for the simple reason that the original autographs are really nowhere to be found (or, as Assyrian pointed out, may not even exist). Some degree of infallibility and/or inerrancy has to be assigned to the Bible I'm holding right here right now in my hands, I can't mediate that infallibility and/or inerrancy on the basis of some old papyri nobody can locate or read now.

And yet the Bible I'm holding right here right now has copyist errors, you say.

 

[Assyrian]

I looked up that passage in Jeremiah I mentioned last night.

Jer 36:2 "Take a scroll and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah and all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah until today.

Jer 36:21 Then the king sent Jehudi to get the scroll, and he took it from the chamber of Elishama the secretary. And Jehudi read it to the king and all the officials who stood beside the king.
22 It was the ninth month, and the king was sitting in the winter house, and there was a fire burning in the fire pot before him.
23 As Jehudi read three or four columns, the king would cut them off with a knife and throw them into the fire in the fire pot, until the entire scroll was consumed in the fire that was in the fire pot.

Jer 36:32 Then Jeremiah took another scroll and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah, who wrote on it at the dictation of Jeremiah all the words of the scroll that Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire. And many similar words were added to them.

So the second version of the scroll had more on it than the first. It could also explain how Mark and John seem to have two endings...

Perhaps we shouldn't see the word of God as set in stone. (Of course the Ten Commandments were set in stone, but that didn't stop Moses editing them.) Instead as Hebrews 4:12 tells us, the word of God is living and active. Maybe we shouldn't be surprised it can grow, withstand copyist errors, be translated into other languages, be translated literally, dynamic equivalently, or even paraphrased, and still be God's living and active word.

 

[vossler]

It wasn't that Philo thought Genesis had both allegorical and literal meanings, he completely dismissed the literal interpretation.

So while chapter 1 may have been written 'plainly and expressly' Josephus believed chapter 2 was written 'philosophically', in other words, enigmatically or allegorically.

It would appear from your posted comments that Philo thought all of Genesis as allegorical and Josephus at least Genesis 2. So I guess the question then becomes because Philo apparently saw Genesis 1 as allegorical does this now add legitimacy to such an interpretation? I suppose if one operates under the theory that if one or two saw something that others didn't and then at a much later time more saw what the one or two saw then the theory of the first has stood the test of time. Wish means we now have at least two and probably many different legitimate interpretations of Genesis 1. Given that none can be proven beyond a shadow of the doubt they're all completely valid and if one is called upon by a Christian other Christians should honor and respect the interpretation.

I don't know if this is your line of thinking, is this somewhat correct?

 

[vossler]

As others have said, you can't. It's no different from any other Biblical interpretation -- there are many questions (theological, philosophical etc...) that we Christians discuss and study in order to come to a better understanding. That's what we're doing here at Christian Forums as a matter of fact.

From what I can gather this means that as we each search out the answers to the questions, if we come to different conclusions that's o.k. because there is no real way of knowing the absolute truth. Truth is relative to my understanding and yours, we come together to seek it and sometimes we find the same answers and other times we don't, yet neither of us can claim to know the real truth because it's never been 100% revealed. Is this somewhat correct?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

From what I can gather this means that as we each search out the answers to the questions, if we come to different conclusions that's o.k. because there is no real way of knowing the absolute truth. Truth is relative to my understanding and yours, we come together to seek it and sometimes we find the same answers and other times we don't, yet neither of us can claim to know the real truth because it's never been 100% revealed. Is this somewhat correct?

let's see where this leads.

we come to different conclusions, does this mean that there is no absolute truth? or that there is no way to know it? or that there is no way to know it completely and without error?

if truth can be found, if we claim that this truth has lead us in different directions and therefore we disagree, does not mean that the truth is at fault? or is the method of our discovery of it to blame? or our holding to it or something else with regards to us as the truthfinders?

flip it around.
denominations disagree.
even churches that: claim to be following the Bible, claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit, claim to have found the truth, claim to be able to explain the truth propositionally.
yet with all of these things they still disagree, over very basic and essential doctrines.
how can we explain these disagreements without blaming it all on everyone else but me is a relativist?

1:so is it a problem with the truth out there?
2:how we claim to know it?
3:how we claim to have it?
4:how we claim to explain it?

1 is an ontological problem.
2 is an epistemological problem.
3 is a problem of having possession of the truth, which says more about the claimant that it does about the truth.
4 is a language problem

how do we go about figuring out which or which combination are at the heart of our disagreement?

just saying that truth is absolute and disagreement between us means you must be a relativist is not an adequate analysis.

 

[Assyrian]

It would appear from your posted comments that Philo thought all of Genesis as allegorical and Josephus at least Genesis 2. So I guess the question then becomes because Philo apparently saw Genesis 1 as allegorical does this now add legitimacy to such an interpretation? I suppose if one operates under the theory that if one or two saw something that others didn't and then at a much later time more saw what the one or two saw then the theory of the first has stood the test of time. Wish means we now have at least two and probably many different legitimate interpretations of Genesis 1. Given that none can be proven beyond a shadow of the doubt they're all completely valid and if one is called upon by a Christian other Christians should honor and respect the interpretation.

I don't know if this is your line of thinking, is this somewhat correct?

No, the question was why Paul and the NT writers never thought a six day creation important enough to mention.

Your response was, more or less, that maybe the issue never came up. That is a reasonable answer. The bible never mentions Stem Cell research. The issue simply never arose then. That doesn't mean it is unimportant or that we can't use biblical principles dealing with it.

But as we have seen, allegorical interpretations of Genesis were current in first century Judaism. The new churches the epistles were written to were composed of Gentiles who had never heard the Genesis creation accounts, and Jews and proselytes who knew Genesis and interpreted it allegorically or at least were familiar with the allegorical treatment.

So why didn't Paul set them straight?

It was not that creation never came up in his letters. It did frequently. He emphasised Christ as creator of everything, again and again. But no mention of doing it all in six days.

I can only think that either Paul agreed that the days were figurative, or that he simply saw it as very unimportant, the issue was who created, not how long it took.

I suppose if one operates under the theory that if one or two saw something that others didn't and then at a much later time more saw what the one or two saw then the theory of the first has stood the test of time.

I think it highly unlikely there were just two people interpreting Genesis allegorically. We have very little Jewish writings from the first century, the fact that the two main examples both saw Genesis allegorically suggest the view was widespread. Again Jospephus was a priest in Jerusalem while Philo was a Hellenistic Jew living in Alexandria, suggesting these views were widespread. Add to that the influence of of a writer of Philo's stature and we can be pretty sure these views were widespread throughout the Jewish world.

There is a sense of the idea having stood the test of time I suppose. At least if the ideas had been wildly outrageous to people of his own time, it would not have flourished like it did. Instead it grew, not just among fellow Jews but in the church too. We see it in writings from the second century until it become the dominant interpretation after the time of Augustine.

It also provides at least a test of time for our ideas. A figurative interpretation of Genesis is not simply a modern idea that would have been incomprehensible to people in biblical times. Even if it were, it might still be right. Our interpretation of the geocentric passages would have seemed very odd to the early church, but it is still correct. However the figurative interpretation of Genesis apparently made good sense to Jews and Christians back then too.

 

[vossler]

No, the question was why Paul and the NT writers never thought a six day creation important enough to mention.

Your response was, more or less, that maybe the issue never came up. That is a reasonable answer. The bible never mentions Stem Cell research. The issue simply never arose then. That doesn't mean it is unimportant or that we can't use biblical principles dealing with it.

Probably because it wasn't much of an issue, there probably weren't but a handful of people who thought along those lines. I'm sure that a six day creation was a given and not something Paul or any of the other apostles thought about.

But as we have seen, allegorical interpretations of Genesis were current in first century Judaism. The new churches the epistles were written to were composed of Gentiles who had never heard the Genesis creation accounts, and Jews and proselytes who knew Genesis and interpreted it allegorically or at least were familiar with the allegorical treatment.

One or two writers doesn't make an established alternative.

So why didn't Paul set them straight?

It wasn't a pertinent issue, the people he came across probably never even considered it.

I can only think that either Paul agreed that the days were figurative, or that he simply saw it as very unimportant, the issue was who created, not how long it took.

Quite a leap your making there. Yes he saw it as unimportant because it wasn't an issue. Somewhat like no one today really mentioning whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. If it is an issue it is on the fringe of religion.

I think it highly unlikely there were just two people interpreting Genesis allegorically. We have very little Jewish writings from the first century, the fact that the two main examples both saw Genesis allegorically suggest the view was widespread. Again Jospephus was a priest in Jerusalem while Philo was a Hellenistic Jew living in Alexandria, suggesting these views were widespread. Add to that the influence of of a writer of Philo's stature and we can be pretty sure these views were widespread throughout the Jewish world.

Richard Dawkins is an influencial writer and his views aren't really held with that high of regard in Christian circles.

There is a sense of the idea having stood the test of time I suppose. At least if the ideas had been wildly outrageous to people of his own time, it would not have flourished like it did. Instead it grew, not just among fellow Jews but in the church too. We see it in writings from the second century until it become the dominant interpretation after the time of Augustine.

It also provides at least a test of time for our ideas. A figurative interpretation of Genesis is not simply a modern idea that would have been incomprehensible to people in biblical times. Even if it were, it might still be right. Our interpretation of the geocentric passages would have seemed very odd to the early church, but it is still correct. However the figurative interpretation of Genesis apparently made good sense to Jews and Christians back then too.

What about my statement "Given that none can be proven beyond a shadow of the doubt they're all completely valid and if one is called upon by a Christian other Christians should honor and respect the interpretation." How do you feel about that?

 

[shernren]

Probably because it wasn't much of an issue, there probably weren't but a handful of people who thought along those lines. I'm sure that a six day creation was a given and not something Paul or any of the other apostles thought about.

It wasn't a pertinent issue, the people he came across probably never even considered it.

Quite a leap your making there. Yes he saw it as unimportant because it wasn't an issue. Somewhat like no one today really mentioning whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. If it is an issue it is on the fringe of religion.

People he came across, like these?

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
(Acts 17:16-21 NIV)

A six-day creation would have been an issue with the Epicureans. Or with the Stoics. And according to Ken Ham, "Creation Evangelism" is one of the most powerful methods around:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/evangelism.asp

So what did Paul do when he met them? Did he tear apart their long-age presumptions? Did he show convincingly that the God of the (then) 4,000-year-old universe is not the God of an old universe who permits death and destruction before the Fall? No:

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.
(Acts 17:22-34 NIV)

Nope, not a whisper of the six-day creation. The only point Paul presses that has anything at all to do with creationism is that man is the "offspring" of God, which in any case is not literally true, and which even TEs agree with that God created man in His image.

But it was an issue for the writer of 2 Peter:

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
(2 Peter 3:3-9 NIV)

There were people who were deliberately forgetting the creation account, so it was an issue, not something on the fringe of religion or such. And what is Peter's advice? "Do not forget that with the Lord a day is 24 hours, and evening and morning a day"? Here where the author has an incredibly clear shot at the whole literal-allegorical dilemma, where he is directly addressing people throwing heresy right at the doctrine of creation, what does he say?

"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Doesn't that sound familiar?

 

[Assyrian]

Great post shernren.

Probably because it wasn't much of an issue, there probably weren't but a handful of people who thought along those lines. I'm sure that a six day creation was a given and not something Paul or any of the other apostles thought about.

I've shown you clear evidence that the two main Jewish authors of the first century interpreted Genesis allegorically. If you want to claim they were the exception and that literal interpretation was a given, you need to provide a bit of evidence to back your case.

Richard Dawkins is an influencial writer and his views aren't really held with that high of regard in Christian circles.

But Philo was a Jewish writer and his influence was in the Jewish circles the church grew out of. And while the OT heritage was treasured, Jewish ideas that the NT writers disagreed with were dealt with. Even though Dawkins has no influence in the church, his claim 'there is no God' is regularly contradicted in Christian circles.

What about my statement "Given that none can be proven beyond a shadow of the doubt they're all completely valid and if one is called upon by a Christian other Christians should honor and respect the interpretation." How do you feel about that?

Just because we don't know which is right doesn't mean they are all completely valid. Some issues, Calvinism and Arminianism may prove to be 'blind men describing an elephant' and both views turn out to be true. I don't think YEC/TE could fit into that category. More often one side will be right, or a least much nearer to the truth, and the other wrong. Or both could be way off.

There are things that are clearly important and we are told to 'contend for the faith'. There are also disputable matters and we really do need to treat people who hold the other viewpoint with honour and respect. Unfortunately, one persons disputable matter is very often another's 'faith once delivered'

The two verses in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 are the only reference we have of a six day creation, and these are in the middle of a metaphoric illustration of the Sabbath where God is described as having rested and been refreshed.

Now these six days can be read literally, God worked six literal days and so should we. Equally, the days could be as metaphorical as God being refreshed after a nice rest. The bible doesn't tell us either way. So from a biblical view point, either interpretation is reasonable and beleivers should recognise their own fallibility and respect the other viewpoint.

But while the bible can be read either way, scientific evidence has shown the world was not made in six days 6000 years ago. It is clear that the literal reading was a mistake. Now the church is divided, one side seeing science being used to compromise what they see as the clear teaching of scripture, the other seeing Christianity being brought into disrepute by the claim the bible teaches something that is clearly wrong.

 

[vossler]

People he came across, like these?

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
(Acts 17:16-21 NIV)

A six-day creation would have been an issue with the Epicureans. Or with the Stoics. And according to Ken Ham, "Creation Evangelism" is one of the most powerful methods around:

Of course when he came across people like this he didn't focus on the smaller things but went straight for what was most important, Jesus Christ. This in no way gives credence to the fact that they were talking about a creation account at all, but other more pertinent issues, at least for them, like happiness and contentment. These were hardly creation account issues.

So what did Paul do when he met them? Did he tear apart their long-age presumptions? Did he show convincingly that the God of the (then) 4,000-year-old universe is not the God of an old universe who permits death and destruction before the Fall? No:

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone--an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.
(Acts 17:22-34 NIV)

Nope, not a whisper of the six-day creation. The only point Paul presses that has anything at all to do with creationism is that man is the "offspring" of God, which in any case is not literally true, and which even TEs agree with that God created man in His image.

Exactly, the six-day creation wasn't something they wanted to hear about. They were far more interested in happiness and contentment. On this accord Paul hits them right where he should, with Jesus Christ, and Him alone.

But it was an issue for the writer of 2 Peter:

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
(2 Peter 3:3-9 NIV)

There were people who were deliberately forgetting the creation account, so it was an issue, not something on the fringe of religion or such. And what is Peter's advice? "Do not forget that with the Lord a day is 24 hours, and evening and morning a day"? Here where the author has an incredibly clear shot at the whole literal-allegorical dilemma, where he is directly addressing people throwing heresy right at the doctrine of creation, what does he say?

"With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Doesn't that sound familiar?

It's quite interesting that you bring these verses as a defense for evolutionary thinking. Notice verse 5 states: "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God" The earth was formed through water by the word of God, not evolution but God's word. This implies to the reader it happened suddenly, by divine fiat. He said it and it happened.

Then verse 8 "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." was a sole reminder to the reader that God isn't constrained by time like we are and that our salvation isn't to be trifled with. In other words don't wait, come to God now before it is too late. In no way shape or form is this something to which one can hang evolutionary theory off of. I'm surprised shernren that you, as learned as you are, would attempt this.

I've shown you clear evidence that the two main Jewish authors of the first century interpreted Genesis allegorically. If you want to claim they were the exception and that literal interpretation was a given, you need to provide a bit of evidence to back your case.

You've shown one Jewish author of the first century interpreted Genesis 1 as allegorical.

In Mark 10:6 Jesus states: But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' This implies a short and recent creation. Then why is it that when Jesus was being reprimanded for healing someone on the Sabbath the ruler of the synagogue states “"There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day." These are the same six days that Jesus refers to Moses in John 5:46-47 “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" What did Moses say? Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

My research even shows that the Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources even seem to argue as to what happened during specific hours of the sixth day. If they were even considering something other than that, that theory would be present in those same sources. To believe something other than six literal normal days, as it is clearly written, within Scripture would require the burden of proof to be upon those who wish to argue otherwise. Let’s remember only Philo argued for an allegorical 6 day creation, not Josephus. As it stands right now that’s as close as you’ve got anything to show that it was an interpretation that any Jewish scholar would or should take seriously.

Just because we don't know which is right doesn't mean they are all completely valid. Some issues, Calvinism and Arminianism may prove to be 'blind men describing an elephant' and both views turn out to be true. I don't think YEC/TE could fit into that category. More often one side will be right, or a least much nearer to the truth, and the other wrong. Or both could be way off.

I'd hate to leave something that is clearly written as ambiguous as that.

The two verses in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 are the only reference we have of a six day creation, and these are in the middle of a metaphoric illustration of the Sabbath where God is described as having rested and been refreshed.

I see nothing to lead one to believe the creation week is to be viewed as metaphorically, just our work week.

Now these six days can be read literally, God worked six literal days and so should we. Equally, the days could be as metaphorical as God being refreshed after a nice rest. The bible doesn't tell us either way. So from a biblical view point, either interpretation is reasonable and beleivers should recognise their own fallibility and respect the other viewpoint.

No one Truth, just yours and mine.

But while the bible can be read either way, scientific evidence has shown the world was not made in six days 6000 years ago. It is clear that the literal reading was a mistake. Now the church is divided, one side seeing science being used to compromise what they see as the clear teaching of scripture, the other seeing Christianity being brought into disrepute by the claim the bible teaches something that is clearly wrong.

Again, both are seemingly right, at least that's the impression one would get by reading modern writings. Each interpretation has its valid points, but in the end no one really knows. What really bothers me is how the Bible can be held in disrepute by man's interpretation of scientific evidence. That one is way beyond my understanding level.

This response was a bit rushed, I told my wife I'd take her shopping and I'm here on the computer doing nothing, at least to her. Sorry.

 

[shernren]

Of course when he came across people like this he didn't focus on the smaller things but went straight for what was most important, Jesus Christ. This in no way gives credence to the fact that they were talking about a creation account at all, but other more pertinent issues, at least for them, like happiness and contentment. These were hardly creation account issues.
Exactly, the six-day creation wasn't something they wanted to hear about. They were far more interested in happiness and contentment. On this accord Paul hits them right where he should, with Jesus Christ, and Him alone.

But happiness and contentment weren't issues for them, they "spent their time doing nothing but but talking about and listening to the latest ideas". That doesn't sound like people who think about happiness and contentment (such as, say, the Lystrans, to whom Paul presented God as the one who gives rain and harvest and gladness), it sounds like people who dig deep and hard into philosophy to justify what they believe. If their pagan beliefs were really so die-hard based on evolutionary thinking (as AiG and other creationists groups imply, that atheism fundamentally stems from evolutionism), they would certainly have discovered it in all their time talking about and listening to the latest ideas, and certainly Paul would have heard some of it.

The clincher for me is that Paul does talk about creation, but not enough. Look: The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' This is about creation! This is about human origin! And yet Paul says nothing at all about six-day creation. If six-day creation and an allegorical interpretation of Genesis were big issues for Paul why would he not have mentioned them, at the same time that he was telling them essentially why God made man? According to you creationists, you cannot have a correct view of man's origins without acknowledging that the universe is 6,000 years old created in 6 days. But in that case, to give one without the other would be illogical. It would be like describing Star Wars without ever mentioning Yoda and Darth Vader.

It's quite interesting that you bring these verses as a defense for evolutionary thinking. Notice verse 5 states: "For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God" The earth was formed through water by the word of God, not evolution but God's word. This implies to the reader it happened suddenly, by divine fiat. He said it and it happened.
Then verse 8 "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." was a sole reminder to the reader that God isn't constrained by time like we are and that our salvation isn't to be trifled with. In other words don't wait, come to God now before it is too late. In no way shape or form is this something to which one can hang evolutionary theory off of. I'm surprised shernren that you, as learned as you are, would attempt this.

Oh, I'm not learned, I'm only 19 yo. Don't forget that. I like being a teen and I only have less than a year left so don't spoil it! XD

You were trying to make a point that six-day creation wasn't mentioned by the NT writers because the doctrine of six-day creation wasn't an issue for them. I responded by pointing out that Peter (or the author of 2 Peter; I really don't know whether or not 2 Peter was a forgery or written by the real Peter, but it is canonical, and it makes no difference to me or my points who the author was) did write about creation, and in the one place where he could have put in a successful poster for six-day creation ("and do not forget that with the Lord a day is twenty-four hours!") he instead seems to open a backdoor for long-age interpretations. So you can hardly accuse me of "hanging evolutionary theory" off that verse, I was just pointing out how suspiciously out of place it seems for an author talking about creation from a Biblical perspective.

Having said that, we evolutionists have no problem with divine fiat.

In Mark 10:6 Jesus states:

But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' This implies a short and recent creation. Then why is it that when Jesus was being reprimanded for healing someone on the Sabbath the ruler of the synagogue states “"There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day." These are the same six days that Jesus refers to Moses in John 5:46-47 “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" What did Moses say? Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

I often wonder why Mark 10:6 is often quoted by creationists when it shows Jesus doing something bold to the Torah that they wouldn't even dream of.

Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

(Mark 10:1-9, NIV)

v6 itself is no severe threat to an evolutionary view. "The beginning" of creation can easily be seen as the timeframe within which creation was made ready for man, since what follows is an anthropocentric view; it is true that from the beginning of mankind man has always been made male and female; Jesus intends to say that it was always God's express plan for man to carry out monogamous marriage, and TEism has no problem with that; even in a creationist view, man was created not at the "beginning" of creation but only on the sixth day, and from pre-existing matter at that.

But look very carefully at what is happening here. Jesus is doing nothing less than reinterpreting Moses' command to issue a certificate of divorce. The original reads:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
(Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

Now, is there any indication whatsoever in the passage that issuing a certificate of divorce is a response to man's hard-heartedness? No! There is no "By the way, this is not what God intended, it's a stopgap measure because you guys are wicked through and through" disclaimer, the passage rolls right along and reads no differently from what comes before and after.

While we're at it, the image of issuing a certificate of divorce is used of God Himself:

This is what the LORD says: "Where is your mother's certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.

(Isaiah 50:1, NIV)

I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery.

(Jeremiah 3:8, NIV)

Now, not only is Jesus suggesting that Moses' command was only issued as a response to man's sin, by attacking that image He is implying that same hard-heartedness in God. No wonder the Pharisees were incensed!

Now, why am I making such a big fuss about this? Because essentially the creationist complaint boils down to whether or not it is valid to reinterpret the scientific sense of the Torah. But here we see Jesus doing something more radical: He is reinterpreting the moral content of the Torah, and saying that this particular command is an accommodation to their moral primitivity at that time.

It's mind-boggling. Imagine if somebody were to say that "The Ugly Duckling is not good for children because it teaches them that animals talk", that would be a silly and useless accusation. But compare that to someone saying "The Ugly Duckling is not good for children because it equates beauty with worth" and suddenly the first complaint seems trivial.

In the same way, the TE reinterpretation comes across as trivial when compared to the boldness of what Jesus Himself did with the Torah. Jesus suggested that the Torah wasn't enough in certain moral areas; that a command to murder forbids sinful anger, the forbidding of adultery also forbids sinful sexual thoughts, and that the Sabbath is made for man instead of man for the Sabbath (which AFAIK is never put across as such in the OT). No wonder people wanted Him dead. And yet this is the same Man who came to "fulfill the Law" and warn that not a dot of it would pass away even though heaven and earth would.

Really, the reinterpretations TE suggests are trivial put next to the reinterpretations Jesus undertook.

 

[Assyrian]

You've shown one Jewish author of the first century interpreted Genesis 1 as allegorical.

I have shown 1 Jewish author from the first century who interpreted Gen 1 allegorically, but two authors working quite independently, who thought large sections of the Genesis creation accounts were meant allegorically. This is two out of really very few first century Jewish authors.

In Mark 10:6 Jesus states: But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' This implies a short and recent creation.

Is that from the beginning of the creation of the world, or from the beginning of their creation? After all, Jesus is talking men and women here, not God creating the world.

Look at Matthew's take on what Jesus said. Matt 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female. He was talking about how God made mankind not the planet.

Then why is it that when Jesus was being reprimanded for healing someone on the Sabbath the ruler of the synagogue states “"There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day." These are the same six days that Jesus refers to Moses in John 5:46-47 “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?" What did Moses say? Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

I love that passage in John.

John 5:16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.
17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."

Apparently Jesus didn't take that passage in Exodus all that literally, and he should know. He and his Father never really rested on the seventh day. If the description of the seventh day in Genesis and Exodus wasn't literal, what basis is there to think all the other days do have to be literal?

My research even shows that the Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources even seem to argue as to what happened during specific hours of the sixth day. If they were even considering something other than that, that theory would be present in those same sources. To believe something other than six literal normal days, as it is clearly written, within Scripture would require the burden of proof to be upon those who wish to argue otherwise. Let’s remember only Philo argued for an allegorical 6 day creation, not Josephus. As it stands right now that’s as close as you’ve got anything to show that it was an interpretation that any Jewish scholar would or should take seriously.

From what I have read, there seem to have been a wide range of Talmudic approaches to Genesis 1.

• We have the straight literal six days,
• It was a literal six days and contain all the ages of the world, (how that work I don't know),
• It was a parable,
• That humans were around for 974 generations before Adam (because God's covenant was to a thousand generations and Adam was only 26 generations before Moses),
• Or that the six days of creation did not exist in time at all.

However the Talmud was written over hundreds of years from the beginning of the third century. We were looking at first century Jewish authors, a very small pool, so far 100% had taken parts of Genesis 1-3 as allegory.

I'd hate to leave something that is clearly written as ambiguous as that.

?

I see nothing to lead one to believe the creation week is to be viewed as metaphorically, just our work week.

Not even the fact that the description is a metaphor and God doesn't really get tired? That God isn't refreshed after having a rest?

No one Truth, just yours and mine.

?

Again, both are seemingly right, at least that's the impression one would get by reading modern writings. Each interpretation has its valid points, but in the end no one really knows. What really bothers me is how the Bible can be held in disrepute by man's interpretation of scientific evidence. That one is way beyond my understanding level.

Each interpretation has seemingly valid points because the bible doesn't speak clearly on the issue. But there are lots of things the bible doesn't speak clearly on, and God timetable is just one example. People have been reading their bibles and interpreting clearly that the Lord was coming back very soon, since the first century.

Why should the bible be held in disrepute if it never meant to tell us how old the earth is, and that it was only a mistaken interpretation that said it was just 6,000 years old?

Incidentally, modern six day creationism great out of the Seventh Day Adventists, which formed after the Great Disappointment, when the Millerite prediction of the Lords return in 1844 failed. OK its a genetic fallacy, but it shows the movement had a poor track record in biblical timetables. It is also a very good warning of what happens when we think we have God tied down with our clear interpretations. They overlooked the one thing Peter told them not to overlook. 2Pet 3:8 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. It applies just as well to the creation, after all Peter is quoting Moses' creation psalm.

This response was a bit rushed, I told my wife I'd take her shopping and I'm here on the computer doing nothing, at least to her. Sorry.

If you are not back in 5 days we'll send a search party.

 

[vossler]

But happiness and contentment weren't issues for them, they "spent their time doing nothing but but talking about and listening to the latest ideas". That doesn't sound like people who think about happiness and contentment (such as, say, the Lystrans, to whom Paul presented God as the one who gives rain and harvest and gladness), it sounds like people who dig deep and hard into philosophy to justify what they believe. If their pagan beliefs were really so die-hard based on evolutionary thinking (as AiG and other creationists groups imply, that atheism fundamentally stems from evolutionism), they would certainly have discovered it in all their time talking about and listening to the latest ideas, and certainly Paul would have heard some of it.

A quick check in Wikipedia for both Epicurean and Stoicism philosophy seems to indicate they were contrasting ideas of the single idea of one's personal social well being. They hardly appeared to be people concerned with creation or anything of that nature. Why do you assume that talking about the latest ideas somehow included creation?

The clincher for me is that Paul does talk about creation, but not enough. Look: The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' This is about creation! This is about human origin! And yet Paul says nothing at all about six-day creation. If six-day creation and an allegorical interpretation of Genesis were big issues for Paul why would he not have mentioned them, at the same time that he was telling them essentially why God made man? According to you creationists, you cannot have a correct view of man's origins without acknowledging that the universe is 6,000 years old created in 6 days. But in that case, to give one without the other would be illogical. It would be like describing Star Wars without ever mentioning Yoda and Darth Vader.

Paul, rightly so, isn't concerned about 6 days here, that plays no role in what he had to say. His focus is on the Creator not His creation.

Oh, I'm not learned, I'm only 19 yo. Don't forget that. I like being a teen and I only have less than a year left so don't spoil it! XD

lol! I'll try to remember that as long as you remember that you probably know far more than most 50 year olds on the topics of which you speak. So yes you are most certainly learned, now if you were to say you weren’t experienced, well then I could most definitely agree.

You were trying to make a point that six-day creation wasn't mentioned by the NT writers because the doctrine of six-day creation wasn't an issue for them. I responded by pointing out that Peter (or the author of 2 Peter; I really don't know whether or not 2 Peter was a forgery or written by the real Peter, but it is canonical, and it makes no difference to me or my points who the author was) did write about creation, and in the one place where he could have put in a successful poster for six-day creation ("and do not forget that with the Lord a day is twenty-four hours!") he instead seems to open a backdoor for long-age interpretations. So you can hardly accuse me of "hanging evolutionary theory" off that verse, I was just pointing out how suspiciously out of place it seems for an author talking about creation from a Biblical perspective.

With an evolutionary worldview I could see how in an effort to find something to support the theory one come to such a view. The way I see it, given his audience and their apparent openness to new ideas it would have been a wonderful opportunity to introduce the truth of the evolutionary process and God's role in it, yet he didn't. Given that his audience probably never even entertained the idea of an evolutionary process they would have probably been stumbling over one another in order to hear first hand such incredible news. The world was God's (through Peter) oyster, why didn't He take advantage of it? The timing couldn't have been better, right?

Having said that, we evolutionists have no problem with divine fiat.

That's good to hear; progress, however slow, is being made.

I often wonder why Mark 10:6 is often quoted by creationists when it shows Jesus doing something bold to the Torah that they wouldn't even dream of.

Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away." "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

(Mark 10:1-9, NIV)

v6 itself is no severe threat to an evolutionary view. "The beginning" of creation can easily be seen as the timeframe within which creation was made ready for man, since what follows is an anthropocentric view; it is true that from the beginning of mankind man has always been made male and female; Jesus intends to say that it was always God's express plan for man to carry out monogamous marriage, and TEism has no problem with that; even in a creationist view, man was created not at the "beginning" of creation but only on the sixth day, and from pre-existing matter at that.

Sure with an evolutionary worldview one can see a lot of things easily. Call me crazy if you will, but in my mind the beginning is, well the beginning. It certainly isn't a point along the way.

But look very carefully at what is happening here. Jesus is doing nothing less than reinterpreting Moses' command to issue a certificate of divorce. The original reads:

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
(Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

Now, is there any indication whatsoever in the passage that issuing a certificate of divorce is a response to man's hard-heartedness? No! There is no "By the way, this is not what God intended, it's a stopgap measure because you guys are wicked through and through" disclaimer, the passage rolls right along and reads no differently from what comes before and after.

Excuse my ignorance, but before I say something totally off base or not within the realm of your point, maybe you could explain to me exactly what you’re trying to prove here. Is it solely that in your mind Jesus took a lot of liberty with Scripture or is there more to it?

Now, why am I making such a big fuss about this? Because essentially the creationist complaint boils down to whether or not it is valid to reinterpret the scientific sense of the Torah. But here we see Jesus doing something more radical: He is reinterpreting the moral content of the Torah, and saying that this particular command is an accommodation to their moral primitivity at that time.

Really, the reinterpretations TE suggests are trivial put next to the reinterpretations Jesus undertook.

Even if this were true, it’s hardly a fair comparison. Jesus is entitled to make changes, man most certainly is not!