Why a literalist presumption?

[Marshall Janzen]

Barring some extremely significant scientific discoveries that completely shatter our concept of the life of the universe and earth, the only two theories I am torn between are Gap Theory and Theistic Evolution.

Yeah, Gap Theory does have some things going for it. I really liked the epic nature of the story it told. Satan falls and corrupts animals, turning them into the likes of the dinosaurs before God sends his judgement and starts over again. It's almost like something Tolkien would write!

I do believe that homo sapien sapiens are unique creatures divinely and actively created by God for a purpose, approximately 6000 years ago. It is very accurate and can be proven anthropologically that modern man has persisted for only these few thousands of years.

Isn't there a lot of evidence for ancient civilizations (Egypt, China, etc.) that go back further than that?

The fact that the universe is what, about 16.5 billion years old

13.7

To have created the universe not just static, but with a brilliant array of laws that allow it to maintain itself in near perfect harmony is amazing.

Agreed!

 

[shernren]

1. The bible makes clear distinction as to what is a parable and what is literal truth. Items such as "This parable spake Jesus unto them" are a good way to know when a parable is coming up. When a story goes to such detail as to list names (Noah as opposed to "the prodigal son" for example), number of days, exact measurements etc. it most likely isn't a parable.

The distinction isn't always that clear. I lost the list i checked out last time, but give a quick glance through Luke (say) and you will see that in fact, not many of the parables are actually very clearly delimited. It's only the minority of parables that have a "Look out, this is a parable" tag to start off.

Here's a good example. Take the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus. (Luke 16:19-31) Firstly, Jesus didn't start with "This is a story about ..." or "The kingdom of heaven is like..." He just said simply "There was ..." : factual or parable? How do you know?

Furthermore, in the parable Jesus actually names people. There is Abraham, and Lazarus. Isn't that supposed to be historical? And what do the little details mean: why does Jesus mention the dogs licking his sores? Why does Jesus mention 5 brothers, instead of 4 or 6 or 2, or just saying "brothers" without specifying? Aren't these all small important details?

 

[Jon_]

Yeah, Gap Theory does have some things going for it. I really liked the epic nature of the story it told. Satan falls and corrupts animals, turning them into the likes of the dinosaurs before God sends his judgement and starts over again. It's almost like something Tolkien would write!

Indeed, it is rather romantic in a morbid kind of way.

Isn't there a lot of evidence for ancient civilizations (Egypt, China, etc.) that go back further than that?

The nature of this evidence has always been hotly-contested. The issue is whether modern man was created particular or if he evolved from previous species. Now, we know that there were previous humanoids that existed on the earth. However, despite their amazing intellect, the ability to shape and use tools, the ability to create art, we cannot rightly conclude that they, as creatures, had souls. Of course, the defining nature of man is two things: 1) Created in God's image; 2) Has a soul.

Perhaps humans in their current form did indeed exist prior to the creation, but they did not exist according to the Genesis account of man. Instead, they would have been wild, inhuman creatures, living amorally like any other creature. It would not have been until God imbued Adam with a soul and a covenant that modern man came into existence.

13.7

That's the number. I always forget it for some reason.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[TwinCrier]

The distinction isn't always that clear. I lost the list i checked out last time, but give a quick glance through Luke (say) and you will see that in fact, not many of the parables are actually very clearly delimited. It's only the minority of parables that have a "Look out, this is a parable" tag to start off.

Here's a good example. Take the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus. (Luke 16:19-31) Firstly, Jesus didn't start with "This is a story about ..." or "The kingdom of heaven is like..." He just said simply "There was ..." : factual or parable? How do you know?

Furthermore, in the parable Jesus actually names people. There is Abraham, and Lazarus. Isn't that supposed to be historical? And what do the little details mean: why does Jesus mention the dogs licking his sores? Why does Jesus mention 5 brothers, instead of 4 or 6 or 2, or just saying "brothers" without specifying? Aren't these all small important details?

We will have to differ on this as I don't see the Lazarus and Rich Man as a parable. He left off the actual name of the "rich man" no doubt to avoid troubling his family and friends left behind, but this story is a cornerstone verse for belief in a literal hell. It's good that you are asking so many questions about these verses, and I pray the Holy Spirit will lead you to the answers.

 

[Vance]

And you already have them?

Typical.

 

[shernren]

We will have to differ on this as I don't see the Lazarus and Rich Man as a parable. He left off the actual name of the "rich man" no doubt to avoid troubling his family and friends left behind, but this story is a cornerstone verse for belief in a literal hell. It's good that you are asking so many questions about these verses, and I pray the Holy Spirit will lead you to the answers.

Well, I suppose you could assume that it is a retelling. But if it could be conclusively proven that there could not have been such a Lazarus and Rich Man, would that make Jesus a liar? Hmm.

I don't think this parable is needed to justify a belief in a literal hell. In fact, I would say that Jesus did not intend us to read anything into what hell will be like from this parable alone. But then again, that's a different forum.

My point is that a parable may not be that clear-cut-ly different from a retelling. There might not have been a clear and fundamental difference to the audience, I suspect. What about the Prodigal Son? It's obviously a parable, seeing as it comes in tandem with the other two parables of the Lost Coin and the Lost Sheep, and as this sort of family would be clearly impossible in the Middle East culture of the day (in fact, even in Eastern culture to this very day). And yet Jesus started: "There was a man who had two sons." Was He telling a true incident - or a parable?

 

[TwinCrier]

Well, I suppose you could assume that it is a retelling. But if it could be conclusively proven that there could not have been such a Lazarus and Rich Man, would that make Jesus a liar? Hmm.

I don't think this parable is needed to justify a belief in a literal hell. In fact, I would say that Jesus did not intend us to read anything into what hell will be like from this parable alone. But then again, that's a different forum.

My point is that a parable may not be that clear-cut-ly different from a retelling. There might not have been a clear and fundamental difference to the audience, I suspect. What about the Prodigal Son? It's obviously a parable, seeing as it comes in tandem with the other two parables of the Lost Coin and the Lost Sheep, and as this sort of family would be clearly impossible in the Middle East culture of the day (in fact, even in Eastern culture to this very day). And yet Jesus started: "There was a man who had two sons." Was He telling a true incident - or a parable?

The prodigal son is a parable... though I have personally seen that exact story repeated in many families, including some prodigal with daughters. In fact I'm willing to bet that those other parables you mention happen from time to time. I've never lost a coin, but car keys and watches. I think we can all agree that even the best of shepherd will on occasion lose a sheep. I think that is what separates a parable from a fairy tale. The examples Christ gives in parables happen to just about every person. I can relate to them even in this day and age. Can't say I've ever been resued from a dragon by Prince Charming though.
I'm glad I'm not basing my faith on a book of mostly fables. I'm as sure I will see Adam and Noah in heaven as I am sure I will see Jesus Christ.

 

[Remus]

The prodigal son is a parable... though I have personally seen that exact story repeated in many families, including some prodigal with daughters. In fact I'm willing to bet that those other parables you mention happen from time to time. I've never lost a coin, but car keys and watches. I think we can all agree that even the best of shepherd will on occasion lose a sheep. I think that is what separates a parable from a fairy tale. The examples Christ gives in parables happen to just about every person. I can relate to them even in this day and age. Can't say I've ever been resued from a dragon by Prince Charming though.
I'm glad I'm not basing my faith on a book of mostly fables. I'm as sure I will see Adam and Noah in heaven as I am sure I will see Jesus Christ.

Very good poing TC.

 

[Vance]

Good thing none of us bases our belief on a book that is mostly fables. Personally, I don't think there are any fables in Scripture.

 

[shernren]

The prodigal son is a parable... though I have personally seen that exact story repeated in many families, including some prodigal with daughters. In fact I'm willing to bet that those other parables you mention happen from time to time. I've never lost a coin, but car keys and watches. I think we can all agree that even the best of shepherd will on occasion lose a sheep. I think that is what separates a parable from a fairy tale. The examples Christ gives in parables happen to just about every person. I can relate to them even in this day and age. Can't say I've ever been resued from a dragon by Prince Charming though.
I'm glad I'm not basing my faith on a book of mostly fables. I'm as sure I will see Adam and Noah in heaven as I am sure I will see Jesus Christ.

To digress, I hope I'm not insulting anyone, but do you realize what the story of the Prodigal Son involves? It is superhuman love in full strength. The younger son effectively wished his father was dead by asking for his inheritance, fulfilling the father's will, which only comes into effect upon death. The elder son didn't stand up to defend the father, and the elder son didn't care about the younger brother. The younger brother comes back in tatters, and the father shames himself both by association to that tattered young man, and by running to the young man (an action that has no real Western analogy: can you imagine a man running in a bathrobe and how his legs would be exposed? because that was what the men of that day wore, if I'm not mistaken), and by restoring the inheritance. The elder son grumbles and publicly rebels against the father by not greeting the guests (a capital insult) and the father goes out and pleads with him too!

I've never heard anything that fantastic, with all its cultural connotations, happen in real life, and frankly I can't imagine anybody besides God the Father showing such love. The father would either have disowned them both or had a coronary on the spot!

My point is, do we care about whether these things were historical? If it could be shown (which is what I've tried to do here) that the parables could never have possibly happened, would it make Jesus a liar? Not at all: for the nature of the parable is that it is real and true whether or not it is historical, by virtue of the principles it embodies. It forms a part of how we view our world.

Now why can't that be same of the Creation passages as well?

 

[TwinCrier]

I guess it's up to each person to decide what parts of the bible they feel are just too fantastic to believe. I recently read of stuff from Bishop Spong that dismiss both the virgin birth and the resurection as fable, yet he considers himself to be Christian. I don't see any harm in believing parts of the bible as true that were meant as parable. "IF" the whole flood thing or creation story are just fables, their is no sin in believing they happened, however, to deny the resurrection would definately have effect on a person's salvation. The bible is just too small of a book to dismiss everything that seems spectacular. I believe that God parted the Red Sea and raised Christ from the dead. I know, I know, not everyone does.... but I don't have to answer to God for everyone, just me.

 

[Vance]

I guess it's up to each person to decide what parts of the bible they feel are just too fantastic to believe. I recently read of stuff from Bishop Spong that dismiss both the virgin birth and the resurection as fable, yet he considers himself to be Christian. I don't see any harm in believing parts of the bible as true that were meant as parable. "IF" the whole flood thing or creation story are just fables, their is no sin in believing they happened, however, to deny the resurrection would definately have effect on a person's salvation. The bible is just too small of a book to dismiss everything that seems spectacular. I believe that God parted the Red Sea and raised Christ from the dead. I know, I know, not everyone does.... but I don't have to answer to God for everyone, just me.

No one here is saying the Creation accounts or the flood accounts are fables. No one is saying that they should be "dismissed". And I definitely have no problem with ANYTHING being too fantastic or unbelievable. I think you are under the mistaken impression that those who read certain texts as figurative rather than strict literal history do so because they are not "believable" or would require the supernatural, etc. I know this is not the case for me, and I have never heard ANY TE on this forum indicate that such is a reason for their interpretation.

After all this time, you either still don't understand why TE's interpret Scripture the way they do, or are just so much more comfortable with the strawman version that you cling to it.

 

[TwinCrier]

Or maybe you just take everyting WAAAAY to personally. I not only didn't mention you, I didn't mention anything you posted. You know Vance, you don't speak for all TEs.

 

[Vance]

But what you are saying about what others believe doesn't apply to anyone here, that I have seen (other than possibly Karl in some respects). So, what is your point, if not addressing what others here believe?

 

[TwinCrier]

I am addressing what others believe, just not what EVERYONE believes and certainly not what you believe. You do not believe in a six day creation, I do. Beyond that I cannot say what parts of the bible you or any other TE believes. My point is that "I" would rather believe something that the bible says than not. For some, a literal interpretation of some or all of Genesis isn't believable for whatever reason. I do believe it.

 

[Vance]

I am addressing what others believe, just not what EVERYONE believes and certainly not what you believe. You do not believe in a six day creation, I do. Beyond that I cannot say what parts of the bible you or any other TE believes. My point is that "I" would rather believe something that the bible says than not. For some, a literal interpretation of some or all of Genesis isn't believable for whatever reason. I do believe it.

Again, your phrasing still gives you away. You say "I would rather believe something the Bible says than not" after referring to the six day creation. This seems to indicate that those don't accept the six day creation don't "believe what the Bible says." You know that for most of us, almost all of us, actually, a disbelief in a six day creation is not at all a disbelief in what the Bible says. It is simply a disbelief in what YOU think the Bible says.

And, most of us here don't reject a literal interpretation because it is not "believable", any more than you reject a parable as historical because the parable is not believable. You know that the good samaritan is not an historical story, but you would not say that you come to this conclusion because it is not "believable".

There may be a few TE's who reject a particular Biblical account because it is something they find too fantastic or unbelievable. Almost all TE's here, though, have explicitly denied that this is their reason for their interpretation.

 

[TwinCrier]

Yes, I know. Your reason is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the scientific evidence refutes a literal 6 day creation. God could have created the world in 6 days BUT science shows us that the words of the bible are not to be taken literal in this particular instance.

 

[Vance]

Yes, I know. Your reason is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the scientific evidence refutes a literal 6 day creation. God could have created the world in 6 days BUT science shows us that the words of the bible are not to be taken literal in this particular instance.

See, this is what I am talking about. I have explained to you at least half a dozen times that I had concluded it was meant to be read figuratively BEFORE knowing the scientific evidence, and while I still assumed that the YEC science I had been given was correct. The reasons for reading it figuratively are the OP of this VERY THREAD, and you will not see science mentioned there at all.

Now, either you are just ignoring what I am saying (every time I say it) or you just find it easier to deal with someone with "scientific reasons" for believing differently than you do, so you just continue to cling to that strawman version.

 

[TwinCrier]

I understand what you are saying, it's the same thing you say all the time. I just think you're wrong. Very, very wrong.

 

[Vance]

I understand what you are saying, it's the same thing you say all the time. I just think you're wrong. Very, very wrong.

That is fine, and I am glad you acknowledge that I say it all the time. The question is, if I say it all the time, and you understand it, why would you say something completely different here:

"Your reason is (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the scientific evidence refutes a literal 6 day creation. God could have created the world in 6 days BUT science shows us that the words of the bible are not to be taken literal in this particular instance."

So, it goes something like this:

I say my reason is A.
I say my reason is A.
I say my reason is A.
You say my reason is B.
I say no, my reason is A.
You say, right, I know, you say all the time it is A.

Something there doesn't make sense.

The point is very simple. If I were to find out tomorrow that there is convincing scientific evidence that the earth is young and that evolution did not happen, I would still believe that the Creation accounts were not meant to be read literally. The scientific issues are, ultimately, not part of the interpretive equation for me since I don't believe that Genesis attempts to make any direct and literal statement regarding the method or timing of Creation.

So, I accept the scientific principals because of my interpretation, not the other way around. At the same time, I think it is perfectly appropriate to follow Augustine's lead and let the scientific principals inform interpretation when the two seem in conflict, but I have no need to do this.