Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
vossler said:Sure, just like you and I are. If I can observe something that nature provides then I can consider it a part of God's revelation.
stumpjumper said:That's not a fully accurate representation of the Pharisaical approach to scripture. Jewish interpretation of scripture frequently used the allegorical meaning to a passage over its literal. Sometimes passages were viewed as both allegorical and literal.
stumpjumper said:But' lets focus on what Paul had to say as recorded by Luke. In Acts Paul is saying that from one man God created all the nations on the earth. Well, that could still be biologically true if looked at through evolution. Universal common descent means that we all share the same biological origin (even though it did not start out as a male mud-pie). Now that could be a way to connect that passage to our biological history but I doubt that that was Paul's intention. Paul was preaching in Athens and saying that God does not reside in a Temple; that our God is the Creator of all. Paul was laying out God's sovereignty not teaching a literal history.
stumpjumper said:We are talking about Paul here. In Paul's letters he used 89 references to OT scripture and many of those he reworded to fit his need sometimes drastically changing the literal meaning of the text. Also, in Galatians 4:24 Paul specifies that he is giving an allegorical meaning to an OT passage. If Paul stated in the text that some scripture has allegorical meaning and he reworded other passages to fit his need, would not it make sense to deduce that Paul's view of scripture was that it had allegorical meaning.
In Galatians 4:24 Paul was showing how Hagar and Sarah represent allegorical covenants and that this passage represents a metaphor of God's relationship with the world. If I were to read the original passage I doubt that I would initially view it as allegory. Yet, when I view the Creation story in Genesis, the story of Noah, and the Tower of Babel I see that they were most likely written as allegory. If Paul interpreted the passage of Sarah and Hagar in an allegorical fashion why would he not view those others as allegory as well. Especially when it appears that they are meant to be read as such?
stumpjumper said:I think that you are equating TE's with atheistic views of evolution. The Creation narrative is written in a mythical fashion but it points to a literal God as creator. It just left out the Big Bang, long ages of earth, and all those extinct creatures that came before us (which does not really mean that much because the author of Genesis was more likely concerned with relaying a message about our ontological origin not the biological method).
I don't view scripture in an either or fashion. I just look at some passages as clearly written in an allegorical fashion. The method of creation matters not. What matters is that we were created and that God did the creating and he views his Creation as good.
stumpjumper said:If God created then world then the world does speak for God. Being created in God's image means being able to appreciate the beauty of the world and experience loving relationships with each other and God. I don't see how uses God's creation to speak for God is making a liar out of Paul. Please elaborate.
stumpjumper said:I'm out of time. Have a good day.
I just read Critias' response and rather than restating his points, I'll just ditto them. His thoughts are exactly like my own. Kind of scary.gluadys said:Ok. You have both made it clear that it doesn't matter what the scientific consensus is. You disagree with the scientific position on these matters because of what scripture says, as you understand scripture.
Does this mean you agree that when nature is investigated scientifically the evidence really does lead to the conclusions scientists have come to?
IOW, the scientists have not misinterpreted the evidence. It really does point to an old universe, an old earth, evolution, common descent and possibly a natural process of abiogenesis. But even though they have not misinterpreted the evidence, they are still wrong based on the word of scripture.
Is that the position you are taking? Just asking for clarification.
vossler said:I just read Critias' response and rather than restating his points, I'll just ditto them. His thoughts are exactly like my own. Kind of scary.
Critias said:I agree, but what TEs do is say it is allegorical not literal. What the Jews did was say it was both, but the allegorical holds the meaning that we need to understand. They did not reject the literal-ness of the passage, they just focused more on what God is trying to say to them through history.
TEs want an either or, instead of the fullness of the text.
You see, you are doing the same here. You are presenting this as if Paul couldn't be talking about history showing how God has worked through it.
Paul was presenting a real God to the Athenians, not one who works through mythology, but through real history.
Ok. First, you need to present where Paul says in Galatians 4:21-27 that what he is talking about - the history of Abraham, his two sons and the convenant and Hagar & Sarah - did not happen in real history.
These things are an allegory, wherein, beside the literal and historical sense of the words, the Spirit of God is pointing out something further. It is not being used to teach that Sarah and Hagar were not real people in real history.
It is the TEs who would like to suggest that it is only allegorical and not historical. It is as if TEs want a God who works only in myths and not in history and in our real lives.
What of the Hebrew language makes you think Genesis 1-3 is a mythical writing? And what basis do you use to make this assumption? Obviously you must have some Ancient Hebrew writings that are mythical to compare them to to make this assertion.
stumpjumper said:Yes, that is true in some cases but not all and it varies by which sect of ancient Judaism one looks at. The Essenes were very liberal in their view of scripture (I also have good reason to believe that the Gospel of John was written earlier than originally thought and under in the Qumran Essene community). The Sadducees and the Pharisees both viewed scripture differently in ancient times. Point being there is no consensus on how to interpret OT writings.
stumpjumper said:Well yes Paul was presenting a real God. A real God that was incarnate and that lived, died, and was resurrected. That is the real God Paul had on his mind when talking to the Athenians. The story of our Creation is just icing n the cake.
stumpjumper said:I don't doubt that Sarah and Hagar were real people. I just see that Paul was looking at the allegorical meaning of that story in that passage and that it would not have been quoted if not for an allegorical message. So if Paul quoted that passage for an allegorical meaning, how do you know that Paul and the other NT writers were not focused on the allegorical meanings of the other NT passages that they quoted.
I think I am starting to see your issue in that some passages like Abraham's wives have allegorical meaning while holding literal history. But, when quoted by NT authors it was the extra-literal meaning that was focused upon.
stumpjumper said:I still view real history in the early part of Genesis. I view our Creation as real history, there was a real scattering of the people, and we all have a fall and sin. I just don't need a strict literal reading to find that real history.
This might be a problem of semantics. I call the Genesis creation story a mythical creation story even though I view it as a historical account of our past. The myth is in the writing; the history is in the result and what the writing alludes to.
stumpjumper said:Have you read Robert Alter's The Five Books of Moses ? It is a balanced approach to the debates about Biblical history. Alter shows the evolution of ancient Hebrew and how the meanings of the stories changed over time. So, Alter has compared ancient Hebrew writings and he believes that there were real patriarchs like Daniel, Solomon, and others while the stories in Genesis are mythical even though they represent real actions by our Creator.
stumpjumper said:I also believe that man can make mistakes. I view the writers of the Bible as men even though they were speaking for God.
This might be a problem of semantics. I call the Genesis creation story a mythical creation story even though I view it as a historical account of our past. The myth is in the writing; the history is in the result and what the writing alludes to.
What becomes the issue is that most TEs here take the perspective that if a piece of Scripture can be understood allegorically then it is not literal. We can talk about Genesis 1-3 being an allegory, but for me it is also literal. TEs suggest it is either or. I believe it is both.
vossler said:It is most certainly is necessary for me
Once again, when evolutionists are confronted with the statement Word of God they start going down the path (youre not there yet) of calling those that honor and respect Gods Holy Bible blasphemers or idolaters. I show respect, reverence and honor for the Words of the Bible and evolutionists treat it as some sort of slap in the face of God. Go figure? Yet, these same evolutionists will take Gods written Word and completely change its meaning, finding themselves somehow righteous in the process. Whew, thats a lot to try and understand. Thankfully, this isnt something for me to judge.
Yet, for trials such as these I am destined and can take comfort of in Jesus Words.
John 16:33: I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." Just as Jesus has overcome the world, so shall I.
James 2: 2-3 goes on to say: Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. I may not like being called names but I will count it all joy, because greater is He who is in me the he who is in the world
2 Thessalonians 1:4 then gives me the order to boast when it states: Therefore, among God's churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring. So every time Im called a blasphemer or idolater I will boast in my faith how Jesus has delivered me and how I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me
Only a divine revelation.
shernren said:For me at least it is not an either-or. I don't believe that the Creation story is unhistorical purely because it is allegorical/mythical; I believe that the Creation story is unhistorical because the evidence from the natural interpretation of creation seems to discount a historical way of looking at it, and thus the allegorical approach is the best approach.
By contrast, I have no problem believing that the story of Abraham's wives, say, is both historical and allegorical.
Critias said:Ok. Maybe you are incapable of understanding that when we say God's Word, we are speaking of the Bible and not Jesus. Maybe it is too much for you to understand that Logo does not always mean Jesus in the New Testament.
Maybe you just feel better to be our accuser. And I suppose John, Peter and Paul are all Idolaters as well because they used the word Logo to refer to a word or words instead of Jesus.
When one says God's written Word, I think many are quite aware of what is being meant.
Well, if that is problem for you, that we have great respect for what God says, I would tell you to look real hard inside yourself and see why you have such disdain for those who look to God and what He says with reverence. Because that is not the sign of the Spirit when one is offended because another fears God.
Critias said:True, but Jesus, being the Authority in all matters, did refer to Genesis as a real historical account.
I don't think this is true. I think there is a greater stumbling block, being Jesus Christ, that non-believers don't want to have anything to do with thus blame it on YECs belief and testament to the creation account.
I personally think non-believers do not want to come face to face with their own sinful nature and the realization that they need a Redeemer. That they are held accountable for what they do in this life. Thus blame creation and instead of dealing with the real issues.
What concerns me about TEs is that the acceptance of evolution leads to the changing of how the Bible was suppose to be understood. That is my position and I feel that there is enough evidence within the writings of the Apostles, Church Fathers and Jesus Christ to support this.
What becomes the issue is that most TEs here take the perspective that if a piece of Scripture can be understood allegorically then it is not literal. We can talk about Genesis 1-3 being an allegory, but for me it is also literal. TEs suggest it is either or. I believe it is both.
The NT writers, when allegorizing Scripture did not dismiss it as not being literal. The many TEs I have spoken with do when they allegorize Scripture.
It seems you do as others here, dismiss a literal Genesis because you see it as allegorical. That God did not create in six days.
I agree. I am just under the impression that when the Spirit is moving someone to speak, they don't speak lies and untruths.
vossler said:Yes I would.
I believe it possible the earth and universe is older than 6,000 years but I don't necessary agree with their much needed 4.5 billions year date.stumpjumper said:I am wondering if Young Earth Creationists dismiss evolution on scientific grounds or solely because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Let's look briefly at the five main claims of evolution and all of these claims are disputed by YEC.
1.) The universe and the earth is very old.
this is the old 19th century claim that a simple cell can produce a complex life form. Darwin could easily used this argument as science since in his day cells are thought to be very simple ; like Jell-O. Today they know that this view is totally wrong; the cell is extremely complex from the beginning with many "which came first..." paradoxes. So this view is totally based on faith today since evolutionists doesn't have any example to simple to complex in nature when it comes to the cell/life.2.) Life has progressed from relatively simple to relatively complex life.
there more reason to believe the evidence fits All life shares a common creator/designer so it's Universal common design. With examples of very complex human design like a sonar can't come close to match the sonar build into bats.3.) All life shares common ancestors. Universal common descent.
there very good reason to doubt these since evolutionist has to rely on supernatural-selection powers and extremely smart genetic mutations.4.) Genetic mutation and natural selection account for the diversity of life.
It's more like life orginated vs evolution without a engine or a driver. The cell has factories,machines,motors along with information in it's DNA in which allows it to adapted to it's environment.5.) Life originated via natural processes.
seebs said:I am well aware of how you intend it. However, in English, capital letters make proper nouns, and a proper noun refers to a specific thing.
Every time the KJV uses "Word" with a capital W, it is referring to Jesus. Every. Single. Time.
seebs said:Now, you may argue that you are wise and subtle, and able to maintain this distinction, and it may be so.
But other people are not. And when people see this usage, and conclude from it that the Bible is eternal, or that the Bible is the same as Jesus, they do so because a stumbling-block has been placed in front of them.
seebs said:No. Not unless they somehow marked it as referring to the proper noun, instead of the general; which, it seems, they did not.
seebs said:Many are. Some are not.
Here's the thing: There is no benefit to this usage. It does not improve things. Using the capital W has been shown to genuinely confuse some of the weaker bretheren. Why would we continue in it, knowing that it creates such a confusion?
It is not "respectful" to choose a usage which we know leads some people into grave error.
seebs said:But I am not offended that you "fear God". I am offended that you are making a conscious decision to use terminology which confuses many people, and which is absolutely indistinguishable from the terminology of bibliolators.
I have met people, at CF, who genuinely believe that the Bible is part of God. They believe this because they see so many people calling it "the Word".
Critias said:I am aware of what the KJV does with "Word" being it is capital for Jesus Christ. I am also aware that in the Greek "Word" is not a proper noun in its usage.
gluadys said:The usage applies only to translation. In the original Hebrew and Greek there was no differentiation of upper and lower case letters. I believe this is still true of Hebrew. The differentiation of upper and lower case letters is a medieval development.
gluadys said:OTOH "Logos" is used as a proper noun in Greek. In addition to its common use meaning "word, logic, study, reasoning" it was used in philosophy to designate the expression of the Mind of the Absolute. In Platonic philosophy all things originate from the Absolute. The Absolute in itself is complete in itself, totally at rest, unchangeable, perfect. The Absolute needs nothing from outside itself. The Absolute does not create. Rather it overflows with being and all contingent beings emanate from the Absolute. The first and highest level of emanation from the Absolute is the outward expression of the Mind or Reason of the Absolute. And from this all other things emanate in increasingly imperfect forms until one gets to inert matter--the polar opposite of the Absolute. "Logos" as a proper noun refers to this first emanation of the Absolute, identified with the Mind/Reason which generates and sustains all things.
Critias said:In the original Greek - Ancient Greek - there are capital and lower case letters. Lamda upper case looks like an upside down capital v.
The point that seebs was making was about using a capital to show it as a proper noun. Greek, having capital letters, does not use it in John 1:1 for Logos.
Secondly, if seebs and/or you have a problem with people refering to the Bible as God's Word, then there are hundreds of seminary schools, theologians, and Early Church Fathers that you must also call as idolaters.
vossler said:Once again, when evolutionists are confronted with the statement Word of God they start going down the path (youre not there yet) of calling those that honor and respect Gods Holy Bible blasphemers or idolaters. I show respect, reverence and honor for the Words of the Bible and evolutionists treat it as some sort of slap in the face of God.
vossler said:(a while back)
Since the Bible is the Word of God then it is co-equal with Him because it came from Him.
vossler said:(in the same thread)
Since the Words of the Bible came from God then they are equal to Him. It's no different than if I state my name then my name is who I am.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?