What do YEC's think of this . . .

[gluadys]

[/color]

Can I ask you how you interpret Paul's teachings on Adam? Such as
1 Corinthians 15:45
"So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"..." Paul here is refering to Genesis' teachings.

how about:
1 Timothy 2:13
"For Adam was formed first, then Eve."

How do you interpret this? [/color]

I interpret them as Paul referring to the story in Genesis 2 to make a theological point. That does not require the story to be history.

Do you agree with Paul that the Bible is good for teaching? Would that include teaching of literal historical events and people?

Yes. We can learn from history, just as we can learn from story.

Jesus quoted the books of Moses. The Prophets cover most of the rest of the Old Testament. Even in the books of Moses there are prophecies. David also prophecies in the Psalms. Are these excluded from being from God?

Who, but YECs, have ever implied that non-literal passages of scripture are excluded from being from God? Even YECs do not really say that a non-literal passage is excluded from being from God, when it is something they themselves do not consider literal. So why is this canard constantly lobbed at TEs when we merely disagree over whether certain passages are literal or not? Interpreting Genesis 2 as non-literal does not mean the interpreter considers it any less inspired scripture than a YEC interpreting the parable of the Good Samaritan as non-literal.

 

[Vance]

The Bible contains facts about God and what He has done, and the Creation is one of the facts that it contains. Exactly. But this is true whether it is told to us in a "literal historical narrative" literary style or a figurative literary style using symbolism, typology, etc.

YEC's tend to confuse reading the text as a different literary genre as somehow thinking it is not true or not wanting to believe something. Very odd.

 

[SBG]

You are asking me to show you a difference when there is none. That is what I am trying to explain. It does not change the meaning any if Adam and Eve are our physical ancestors or archetypes of all humanity.

It just seems to me that if one is take Genesis 1-11 as a myth that one would also interpret Paul's teachings on Genesis differently to keep in consistency with the myth.

Take the sentence “Frodo grasped the One Ring in fear as the wraiths flew overhead.” Is there a difference if Frodo is a real person or a fictional character in how one would read that sentence? No, there is no difference.

My point was, was Paul correct to teach that woman came from man? Scientifically, that is wrong, is it not? A man cannot bear a child nor a woman. Was Paul correct to teach that the first man to become a living being was Adam? Or to teach that Adam was formed first?

Again, my point with this is that if you hold to the evolutionary theory of common descent, Adam cannot be the man formed, nor could a woman come from a man. So how does a common descent believer interpret these?

If you aren't a common descent believer, then that is my fault for assuming you were.

No I am not saying that, I am in fact saying the lessons are the same whether the events are fictional or not. I am saying that we should not hinge our faith on the idea that they must be factual. That would be building on sand for your faith is only one discovery away from crumbling.

What lesson is to be learned about Paul's teachings that a woman came from a man, if this didn't really happen?

Don't forget that we do hinge our faith on something factual: Jesus Christ.

It would be illogical to me too which is why I never said it. Sadly we seem to be talking past each other but I hope that some reading this may understand.

I am not here to mock you or any other YED or OEC or anything, I am here to witness to what is in my heart. I could not mock YECs because I would be mocking what I was. I am just trying to show that we non-YEC’s are Christians too, that we are not throwing the Bible away and that there may be more than one way to look at the issues.

Many here do mock YECs, but YECs are also to blame. I don't think the majority of YECs here are saying that TEs are not Christians. Granted I have made comments about two individuals, but that was not based on the theory of evolution, but rather on one's teachings of Jesus Christ not being completely God and anothers of saying he didn't care what the Bible had to say he believes what he believes.

There are many others, who are TEs that I don't think throw the Bible away. I don't agree with their interpretation of Genesis, and I think it creates problems, not help solve any. I am sure they feel the same about YECs.

Neither I nor science has ever claimed “perfect” understanding, just the best understanding of the evidence that we have at hand. Only God can have perfect understanding.

But is it the best understanding? Or is it just the most accepted understanding?

We interpret everything we see and read, to claim that you are not interpreting by reading the Bible literally is to claim that you know the mind of God. I am willing to admit I may be wrong with my interpretations, are you willing to?

I too am willing to admit that I can be wrong. I think it is quite possible that God could have created everything in an instant. I just don't see any evidence for long ages or evolutionary developement from common descent. The Bible is very clear to me about what happens when God speaks. God spoke creation into being. The Psalmists states that when God speaks it has already been done. The Psalmist doesn't say it has started or it is in the process, but that is done, completed. So when God speaks, let there be light, the light is made and completed at the moment He speaks. That is what the Bible teaches as well as the universe being completed in six days.

I choose to believe that when the Bible says six days, that it is six days.

 

[SBG]

Who, but YECs, have ever implied that non-literal passages of scripture are excluded from being from God? Even YECs do not really say that a non-literal passage is excluded from being from God, when it is something they themselves do not consider literal. So why is this canard constantly lobbed at TEs when we merely disagree over whether certain passages are literal or not? Interpreting Genesis 2 as non-literal does not mean the interpreter considers it any less inspired scripture than a YEC interpreting the parable of the Good Samaritan as non-literal.

Gluadys, that wasn't directed at all TEs, just to the person I was responding to. I was pointing to the fact that all Scripture is from God, he had said the passage was only refering to parts of Scripture. I believe we came to an agreement that all Scripture is from God as the Bible says.

It wasn't meant for you or another to take personally, rather it was a conversation between Lewis and myself. My apologies if that was not clear.

 

[SBG]

The Bible contains facts about God and what He has done, and the Creation is one of the facts that it contains. Exactly. But this is true whether it is told to us in a "literal historical narrative" literary style or a figurative literary style using symbolism, typology, etc.

YEC's tend to confuse reading the text as a different literary genre as somehow thinking it is not true or not wanting to believe something. Very odd.

That is simply not true. By the statement above, you are suggesting that all YECs don't believe that Jesus' parables contain any truth in them.

Did Paul use one of Jesus' parables to talk about how sin came into the world? No. Paul talked about sin, a real literal human condition, with a real literal event - through one man sin came into the world - with another real literal event - Jesus Christ dying for the sins of all mankind.

Theologically speaking, it doesn't make sense to take two literal accounts and say one of those literal accounts came through a mythical person, and the other literal account was done by a literal Savior. Furthermore, it doesn't follow that if sin came into this world by many men that Paul says it came into the world by one man.

Scientifically speaking, Paul would be completely wrong to say that a woman came from a man. That is impossible, because a man cannot give birth. So again we would find Paul to be in error, if we make Genesis out to be completely a myth.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

It just seems to me that if one is take Genesis 1-11 as a myth that one would also interpret Paul's teachings on Genesis differently to keep in consistency with the myth.

Okay so we can understand each others points better how about you tell me how you would read those quotes differently if you thought that the Genesis story was a parable instead of literal history.

My point was, was Paul correct to teach that woman came from man? Scientifically, that is wrong, is it not? A man cannot bear a child nor a woman. Was Paul correct to teach that the first man to become a living being was Adam? Or to teach that Adam was formed first?

In the context of the parable of creation which those who he was speaking to knew, yes if I reference a parable I must stay within the context of the parable I am referencing.

Again, my point with this is that if you hold to the evolutionary theory of common descent, Adam cannot be the man formed, nor could a woman come from a man. So how does a common descent believer interpret these?

Again the physical world does not matter when it comes to making a theological point in a parable. The message is independent of facts given in a parable and is not falsified when the facts given in said parable are not correct.

What lesson is to be learned about Paul's teachings that a woman came from a man, if this didn't really happen?

The same lessons, literal truth does not matter when one is dealing with lessons to be learned in a parable.

Don't forget that we do hinge our faith on something factual: Jesus Christ.

Why would I forget such a thing, it is not my position that we must throw out the Bible and give up the faith if there is one thing not literal in the Bible.

Many here do mock YECs, but YECs are also to blame. I don't think the majority of YECs here are saying that TEs are not Christians. Granted I have made comments about two individuals, but that was not based on the theory of evolution, but rather on one's teachings of Jesus Christ not being completely God and anothers of saying he didn't care what the Bible had to say he believes what he believes.

Then why accuse me of mocking you when I never said any such thing?

There are many others, who are TEs that I don't think throw the Bible away. I don't agree with their interpretation of Genesis, and I think it creates problems, not help solve any. I am sure they feel the same about YECs.

And this has what to do with anything?

But is it the best understanding? Or is it just the most accepted understanding?

Yes so far it is our best understanding of the evidence; it may change as further evidence comes to light, but until then are we to wait around in caves until we have perfect consensus or perfect understanding? No. Tell me if you have a better way to test the natural world to find out what is true and what is not.

I too am willing to admit that I can be wrong. I think it is quite possible that God could have created everything in an instant. I just don't see any evidence for long ages or evolutionary developement from common descent. The Bible is very clear to me about what happens when God speaks. God spoke creation into being. The Psalmists states that when God speaks it has already been done. The Psalmist doesn't say it has started or it is in the process, but that is done, completed. So when God speaks, let there be light, the light is made and completed at the moment He speaks. That is what the Bible teaches as well as the universe being completed in six days.

No scientific theory argues that God could or could not have spoken anything. Science cannot deal with the metaphysical only the physical.



On the issue of time, what is time to an immortal being that is outside of it? What portion of eternity is 14 billion years? The Psalmists and any other writer of the Bible are not proven wrong that time matters not to God just because it may seem a long time to you and me.

I choose to believe that when the Bible says six days, that it is six days.

An I choose to accept that there may be an alternative reading, as long as it isn’t a salvation issue there should be no problem with us getting along.

 

[Vance]

It must always be remembered that it is very possible to refer to a past figurative account of literal events in the same way one would refer to historically narrative accounts of past events. If a culture has developed a figurative way of discussing those literal events (starting with the way it was first told and first written down), then it would eventually become simply the way you discussed those events. They would not need to explain that it was a figurative account being compared to more recent literal events since the audience would know about it.

Think about two modern historians of ancient literature. They would very likely speak of Achilles and Agamemnon exactly as they would speak of historical figures. They might even compare them to very historical figures of more recent times, such as X is the new Achilles, etc. We must consider whether Paul is doing the same.

 

[SBG]

Okay so we can understand each others points better how about you tell me how you would read those quotes differently if you thought that the Genesis story was a parable instead of literal history.

That is the thing for me, I could not read them differently. Paul speaks of a literal human condition that came through a literal event by a literal man. That is what it says to me. Further investigation into the Bible also shows me that it was a six day creation. Twice in Exodus the authors speaks of it as such, once being written by God Himself.

That it is why I am asking for your interpretation, because I just don't see how you can view it differently to suggest that it wasn't a literal man that brought sin into the world. And that it wasn't a literal man that a woman was created from.

In the context of the parable of creation which those who he was speaking to knew, yes if I reference a parable I must stay within the context of the parable I am referencing.

I don't see creation as a parable, but I see you do. Usually parables don't include names of people.

So if you are staying within the context of what is written, I must ask, is sin a mythical human condition or a literal one? And if sin is a literal condition, why then did Paul not stay in the context of a mythical creation account?

Again the physical world does not matter when it comes to making a theological point in a parable. The message is independent of facts given in a parable and is not falsified when the facts given in said parable are not correct.

But again, if the whole creation account, Genesis 1-3, is a parable, then is sin a literal human condition or just a mythical condition?

Did Jesus save us from something that is purely mythical or an actual, literal, human condition?

The same lessons, literal truth does not matter when one is dealing with lessons to be learned in a parable.

But in this case it does because the beginning of sin is part of Genesis 1-11 that is claimed to be mythical or a parable.

Why would I forget such a thing, it is not my position that we must throw out the Bible and give up the faith if there is one thing not literal in the Bible.

I never stated it was. I apologize if that is what you interpreted from what I said.

Then why accuse me of mocking you when I never said any such thing?

I never accused you of mocking anyone. I said you can mock me or YECs, not that you did or have. Please look at what I did say.

And this has what to do with anything?

I was making a point of what I believe. I apologize, since it seems that was not something you were interested in.

Yes so far it is our best understanding of the evidence; it may change as further evidence comes to light, but until then are we to wait around in caves until we have perfect consensus or perfect understanding? No. Tell me if you have a better way to test the natural world to find out what is true and what is not.

And when it does change, does your interpretation of the Bible change also?
Do you think that is how God meant for us to read the Bible, to keep changing how we read it to suit the theories outside of it? That God's Word is ever changing?

No scientific theory argues that God could or could not have spoken anything. Science cannot deal with the metaphysical only the physical.

On the issue of time, what is time to an immortal being that is outside of it? What portion of eternity is 14 billion years? The Psalmists and any other writer of the Bible are not proven wrong that time matters not to God just because it may seem a long time to you and me.

Well this gives me much more insight to your view, so I thank you. As I said, I prefer to believe what is written that came from God, that when it says God created everything in the universe in six days, that He did it in six days.

An I choose to accept that there may be an alternative reading, as long as it isn’t a salvation issue there should be no problem with us getting along.

Well God gave us such a small amount of what is written about Him. If you feel qualified enough to say what parts are essential and what parts are not, all the more power to you.

 

[SBG]

It must always be remembered that it is very possible to refer to a past figurative account of literal events in the same way one would refer to historically narrative accounts of past events. If a culture has developed a figurative way of discussing those literal events (starting with the way it was first told and first written down), then it would eventually become simply the way you discussed those events. They would not need to explain that it was a figurative account being compared to more recent literal events since the audience would know about it.

Think about two modern historians of ancient literature. They would very likely speak of Achilles and Agamemnon exactly as they would speak of historical figures. They might even compare them to very historical figures of more recent times, such as X is the new Achilles, etc. We must consider whether Paul is doing the same.

Then you will have to answer if sin is a figurative condition or a literal condition.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

[/color]



That is the thing for me, I could not read them differently.

You cannot see them in a different way or will not? Either way it does not matter because there is no different way that they would come out in meaning if you accept Adam as a literal person or as an example of the human condition.

Paul speaks of a literal human condition that came through a literal event by a literal man. That is what it says to me.

How would you have said it differently if you were referring to Genesis as a parable to make the same point?



If I were to say “That person is as strong as Heracles.” Would you assume I believe that Heracles is real person? How would you tell if I believed that or not from that sentence? What difference would it make in that sentence if I believed in Heracles or not?

Further investigation into the Bible also shows me that it was a six day creation. Twice in Exodus the authors speaks of it as such, once being written by God Himself.

And several times it is referred to as the Day (singular) of creation. But still this does not matter. Whether the verses referenced are literal or parable the meaning does not change for the reader.

That it is why I am asking for your interpretation, because I just don't see how you can view it differently to suggest that it wasn't a literal man that brought sin into the world. And that it wasn't a literal man that a woman was created from.

And I keep trying to tell you, there is no difference in the reading if the characters are literal or not. If you feel that it somehow makes a difference tell me how and show me why.

I don't see creation as a parable, but I see you do. Usually parables don't include names of people.

And again sometimes they do, so it seems we cannot tell parable from non-parable with the inclusion of real names and events and things.

So if you are staying within the context of what is written, I must ask, is sin a mythical human condition or a literal one? And if sin is a literal condition, why then did Paul not stay in the context of a mythical creation account?

With in the context either interpretation (literal or parable) works, there is no different or defining context that we can point to that one form uses and the other does not.

But again, if the whole creation account, Genesis 1-3, is a parable, then is sin a literal human condition or just a mythical condition?

Again with either reading the message about sin is unaffected by the literalness or non-literalness of Adam.

Did Jesus save us from something that is purely mythical or an actual, literal, human condition?

You keep on asking the same question that I have answered over and over again. Tell my why you are ignoring my answer. Is it not the one you want me to give? Does it not make me look evil enough for you? Is it unsatisfactory to you somehow?



Tell me what you think is wrong with my answer so we can deal with the issues instead of asking the same thing over and over again.

 

[Vance]

Why does something told in figurative language have to be less substantial and real than something told in historical narrative? I am not sure "parable" is the best word to describe the literary genre of the Creation accounts, but it is closer to that than primarily a strict historical narrative.

Something happened, some series of events by which Man is in a condition of REAL SIN. WHATEVER the events were, the root cause was (and is) selfishness and pride.

So, we have these events. Real, literal, historical events (and, very possibly, an overlay of ongoing events), resulting in real, literal sin. Not just parables or fairy tales. Something actually happened. The question is how to tell about these events, and how to talk about them. There are a wide variety of choices of oral and then literary presentation, everything from strictly historical narrative to the most figurative and symbolic representations.

What literary style did God inspire to be used, or even allow to be used, when He had such a wide variety? Should we not consider it most likely that He would inspire/allow these events to be told using the literary style common to the culture and time? If this was a figurative presentation of those events, is this a less valid and useful method of telling about them? Isn't what's important about the events the theological truths about Man's relationship to God, God's relationship to the universe, etc? Can't those truths be conveyed just as well in a figurative, symbolic and typological account? Maybe even more powerfully?

In ancient times, they would rarely just provide an account of the events. They would, instead, tell a story about the events. This worked for them. They did not consider it "embellishment" or "untrue" or "inaccurate" since the purpose of the story was to tell the essential truths, not recount historical details.