Where Did Humans Come From?

[JAL]

Could you show us that if the text somewhere repeats a figurative text, that converts it to a literal text? How do you figure that?



Your assumption is that if it's repeated elsewhere it can't be figurative. Can you support that assumption with a reasonable argument?

No, I haven't assumed literalism of Genesis 1. Merely I opine it. Both sides of the debate are plausible.

However, if one does take it literally, it challenges the traditional view of God - it pictures a God who works/labors/suffers and then finds Himself in want of rest.

 

[FaithT]

Do you have to deny things that are true to stay LCMS? Do you have to do so to revert to being Catholic. We have a saying that truth prevails. How much truth needs to be held as untrue?

Do you mean that what’s taught in Catholicism is the truth? because Im not so sure about that.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, I haven't assumed literalism of Genesis 1. Merely I opine it. Both sides of the debate are plausible.

So merely repeating a figurative passage converts it to a literal one, because you opine it?

We'll have to disagree on that.

 

[JAL]

So merely repeating a figurative passage converts it to a literal one, because you opine it?

We'll have to disagree on that.

Evidently I'm not supposed to have any opinions - except those advocated by TB the Infallible One.

I think we'll have to disagree on THAT.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evidently I'm not supposed to have any opinions - except those advocated by TB the Infallible One.

And you're back to inventing weird things you want me to believe.

You're consistent, at least.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Do you mean that what’s taught in Catholicism is the truth? because Im not so sure about that.

You have to make your own determination. In this thread you express your discomfort about LCMS teaching that doesn’t totally fit paleontology. Where are you going to fit yourself?

 

[FaithT]

You have to make your own determination. In this thread you express your discomfort about LCMS teaching that doesn’t totally fit paleontology. Where are you going to fit yourself?

Well, my LCMS pastor has welcomed me with open arms despite my questions about human origins and the age of the earth. And then again, I could be wrong about the origin of man, so there’s that, too. Because I don’t necessarily agree with Catholicism and really dislike going to Mass, but do love going to Communion. I was going to go with a friend of mine yesterday and went to confession first, knowing I probably couldn’t be absolved until I was sure I was going to come back to the RCC. And of course I wasn’t. But at least I was honest with the priest. That’s more than I can say for some people there who aren’t following the rules and taking Communion anyway, like the divorced, remarried Catholics.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well, my LCMS pastor has welcomed me with open arms despite my questions about human origins.

Nice to have someone you can discuss this with.

And then again, I could be wrong about the origin of man, so there’s that, too.

Yes, there is always that. I find it's an area where despite my degree in Biology, with a concentration on evolution, I should not be dogmatic. I think I know the truth, and it is consonant with my understanding of paleontology and biochemistry and genetics, but I'm not going to be dogmatic about it. Happily for me I don't have to be dogmatic the other way and unlearn what I have learned in those fields to be a Catholic.

Because I don’t necessarily agree with Catholicism and really is like going to Mass, but do love going to Communion. I was going to go with a friend of mine yesterday and went to confession first, knowing I probably couldn’t be absolved until I was sure I was going to come back to the RCC. And of course I wasn’t.

And yet you are having those conversations, which is good.

But at least I was honest with the priest. That’s more than I can say for some people there who aren’t following the rules and taking Communion anyway, like the divorced, remarried Catholics.

It's hard to be a serious Catholic with all the slop that passes for being Catholic. But then today's Gospel tells us not to be too proud about how good we are. Happily I have always thought I was the tax collector and not the Pharisee.

 

[FaithT]

Nice to have someone you can discuss this with.

Yes, there is always that. I find it's an area where despite my degree in Biology, with a concentration on evolution, I should not be dogmatic. I think I know the truth, and it is consonant with my understanding of paleontology and biochemistry and genetics, but I'm not going to be dogmatic about it. Happily for me I don't have to be dogmatic the other way and unlearn what I have learned in those fields to be a Catholic.

And yet you are having those conversations, which is good.

It's hard to be a serious Catholic with all the slop that passes for being Catholic. But then today's Gospel tells us not to be too proud about how good we are. Happily I have always thought I was the tax collector and not the Pharisee.

Yes, and there’s a pastor on here who posts sometimes who has been helping me.

 

[BobRyan]

@BobRyan,

I want to back up my last post by introducing another angle on Exodus 20:11. Suppose I said to my son, "Follow my example of hard labor", but in fact I happen to be someone who never worked a day in his life. That would make me a total hypocrite and a liar, right?

Yes - but that is not what we see in Ex 20:11

. Enter Exodus 20:11, where God sets forth HIS example of labor/suffering .

There is no "God labors and suffers for six days" in Genesis or in Exodus 20

It is an entertaining insert - but not compelling as it would be had the text actually said it.

Our God is the Great Creator and He enjoys the work of His hands - His vocation. Just as many people today enjoy their vocation rather than hating it or suffering it.

See post 299.
Again, be consistent. There is only one viable definition of merit. The cross merits no praise without labor/suffering.

No part of the Genesis 1-2 account of creation represents it as God suffering through it or suffering as did Christ on the cross -- not even remotely.... that is quite a stretch.

 

[BobRyan]

I think @BobRyan makes a good point at Exodus 20:11. After all, Yahweh was speaking out loud and seems to say, "Work six days in your week even as I worked six days in my week." The force of His command seems blunted if He never did so.

Indeed - the idea that God's picks the "most untrue part" (supposedly) of the Gen 1:3-2:3 "account" of creation -- and then inserts it as the literal basis for an imperative in legal code in Ex 20:11 -- is a very very thin strand of logic that is very difficult to take seriously. (Notice that it gets reference a lot on this thread - and avoided like it is a 'hot potato' in response)

No wonder the scholars in the area of Hebrew and OT studies in all world class universities don't consider such arguments seriously.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject the idea that what it says is actually true. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’​

===============
My Comment: And that poses a problem for Christians who need the bible to "say something else"

So then it is very hard to "spin" this into "only creationists see that point" or "only people who accept the Biblical account of creation see it as opposing evolutionism's doctrine on origins"

 

[BobRyan]

However, if one does take it literally, it challenges the traditional view of God - it pictures a God who works/labors/suffers and then finds Himself in want of rest.

There is no "suffers" in the genesis account. I don't know how one eisegetes that into the text.

 

[JAL]

There is no "suffers" in the genesis account. I don't know how one eisegetes that into the text.

Then God's ways are LOWER than our ways - lower than the earth is beneath the heavens. He expects praise for doing NO LABOR/SUFFERING for six days, meanwhile we labor/suffer for 50 years.

 

[BobRyan]

Then God's ways are LOWER than our ways

The logic that claims that if God did not suffer in creation week as He did on the cross to save mankind --- then "God's ways are lower than ours" -- is very very thin.

How in the world do you come up with that???

He expects praise for doing NO LABOR

It does not say he did "no work" How in the world do you come up with that???

When we work at our vocation and enjoy it - each week - we do not "suffer as did Christ on the cross" or in any way remotely like it.

 

[JAL]

The logic that claims that if God did not suffer in creation week as He did on the cross to save mankind --- then "God's ways are lower than ours" -- is very very thin.

How in the world do you come up with that???

How is that thin? How would you describe someone who never labored/suffered a day and his life, expects all the praise and glory, and thus robs it from the people who labored/suffered for 50 years? I'd call that person a COLOSSAL JERK whose ways are lower than my ways - as low as the earth is beneath the heavens.

 

[FaithT]

Nice to have someone you can discuss this with.

Yes, there is always that. I find it's an area where despite my degree in Biology, with a concentration on evolution, I should not be dogmatic. I think I know the truth, and it is consonant with my understanding of paleontology and biochemistry and genetics, but I'm not going to be dogmatic about it. Happily for me I don't have to be dogmatic the other way and unlearn what I have learned in those fields to be a Catholic.

And yet you are having those conversations, which is good.

It's hard to be a serious Catholic with all the slop that passes for being Catholic. But then today's Gospel tells us not to be too proud about how good we are. Happily I have always thought I was the tax collector and not the Pharisee.

What is your theory as to how man came to be? And what’s your opinion on my OP?

 

[JAL]

It does not say he did "no work" How in the world do you come up with that???

When we work at our vocation and enjoy it - each week - we do not "suffer as did Christ on the cross" or in any way remotely like it.

No suffering, no merit, no meriting of praise. You're putting words in my mouth in strawman fashion. My formula doesn't say it has to be the SAME INTENSITY of suffering as the cross on a daily basis, just to acquire merit! What I have argued is that God's holiness is the product of laboring/suffering 13 billion years to acquire/achieve it - but no, presumably not every moment was equal to the cross in excruciation.

When we work at our vocation and enjoy it - each week - we do not "suffer as did Christ on the cross" or in any way remotely like it.

That's fine. If you love your job SO MUCH that no suffering is involved, it grants you no merit. Actually that's not even possible, however, because every moment you live on planet Earth, you must suffer/labor against the agony of various temptations, even when you're doing something you love.

Also if you ever tire at work, that counts as labor/suffering.

 

[The Barbarian]

That's fine. If you love your job SO MUCH that no suffering is involved, it grants you no merit. Actually that's not even possible, however, because every moment you live on planet Earth, you must suffer/labor against the agony of various temptations, even when you're doing something you love.

Also if you ever tire at work, that counts as labor/suffering.

Hmmm... if one joyously gives to others and aids the sick or oppressed, that is the way God expects you to do it. If done grudgingly, or in the expectation of a reward, you get no merit.

These things condition your soul to be fit to have fellowship with God.

 

[JAL]

Hmmm... if one joyously gives to others and aids the sick or oppressed, that is the way God expects you to do it. If done grudgingly, or in the expectation of a reward, you get no merit.

Sure. Motive is already included in my formula:

"Merit is a status attained by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time."

I don't know if the formula needs more refinement - but the main elements of merit are already there.

 

[coffee4u]

I have listen to and read the work of many professors, anyone who insists on taking the bible literally is not a bible scholar.

If you do not believe Jesus came literally in the flesh and died for your sins you are lost. Once you decide this bit here can't be literal truth and this bit over here surely can't be, you have stepped on a slippy slope. If a donkey didn't really talk then how can you stand there and say Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified died and buried 3 days then rose again? It is all scripture. If you have cast doubt on one section you cast doubt on all sections. If you want to spiritualize away a section then what is stopping you spiritualizing away the virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection?
God is either to be wholly trusted with out mind, heart or soul or not at all.

A professor is simply another human being, as prone to making mistakes as anyone.
The only word to listen and heed is scripture itself.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight