YECist's tragically weak view of God

[Chief117]

I think you misunderstood me. There is no evidence for a global flood. But most TEists believe Gen 6-9 is about a historical LOCAL flood.

Ahh.. So it comes out. You don't take it literally then. I find it hard to believe that you believe in a "historical account" of Scripture that didn't happen the way the account is written. Peculiar.

Genesis 6-9 is 100% historical--the technical details in it nearly demand a literal rendering. Scripture didn't stutter either...the mountains were covered. The flood could not have been local. I'm sorry but that idea is ludicrous--a large blemish on the credibility of TE theory.

I'm glad you understand this!! Perhaps you could spread the word amongst your peers...

If you want me to...I have no problem with that. I'll even repeat it for new readers:

Everyone--Evolution is such a bad theory that it COULD NOT have happened apart from God's hand in it. And, nothing is impossible for God--nothing, not even Evolution. The question you need to wrestle with is "did God use Evolution?"

And we all know my position on that.

No, I don't believe Genesis 1-3 "contains" some truth but is a fairy tale. That is yet another misrepresentation of TEism that you've no doubt heard from people like AiG. I believe Genesis 1-3 is full of profound and authoritative truth communicated by means of a mythical narrative. A "myth" is not a lie or nonsense, it is just a type of literature.

You said you don't believe what I said...and then in my opinion substituted the words and said the exact same thing again. I mean, does anyone else see that? Or am I missing something? (I don't want to be rude or offensive...correct me if I'm wrong)

I would hope and pray, first of all, that you would mean metaphorical narrative as opposed to a mythical one...a myth is a fictitious story, a lie, or a half-truth according to my dictionary.

Again, I've not heard it from anyone--I read your comment and I summarized it to make sure I understood you. You say I don't, but it sure sounds like that is exactly what you believe to me. So I will just say it--I don't understand your position on Genesis. Especially as it is used as a foundation for other theologies and doctrines--like those I've quoted in the past, or that Adam is in the line of Christ, or that we shouldn't be divorced because of the creation account, or countless other arguments which suggest that Genesis 1-3 cannot be anything other than literal/history.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God


Seth is to Adam
as
Adam is to God
son.

how is Adam the physical son of God?
obviously the "son of" relationship in just this short piece is not the same for each connection.


where in Genesis does it call Adam the son of God?
how is Adam the son of God?
is this the same relationship as Seth bears to Adam?

of course not.
just a handful of words and the meaning of son is different.
yet there is no indication in the phrase that the meaning is not the same for the Seth to Adam relationship as for the Adam to God relationship.

 

[jereth]

I didn't get my information from YEC leaders.

I was referring to your statement:

The only reason for wanting to take it non-literally, that I am aware of, is to reconcile the Bible with the modern Evolutionary theory.

This is the lie told by YECist leaders, i.e. we screw around with the Bible just to make the scientists happy. It's sheer nonsense.

 

[jereth]

It certainly is historical narrative. Jesus and the apostles thought it was and they were Jews. I'm sure you wouldn't say they had it wrong, would you?

not a single YECist has ever produced a single Bible verse showing that Jesus thought of Genesis 1 as a historical story.

 

[jereth]

Well then we disagree on the basis of the text only then, I suppose. I would certainly like to hear how your study of Scripture can lead away from a literal taking of Genesis 1-3.

If you had the time and patience, you could read my personal Genesis website:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/jereth/jereth/genesis&origins/

You said you don't believe what I said...and then in my opinion substituted the words and said the exact same thing again. I mean, does anyone else see that? Or am I missing something? (I don't want to be rude or offensive...correct me if I'm wrong)

Statement 1: "Contains truth, but is a fairy tale."
Statement 2: "Teaches authoritative truth in mythical format"

There is a big difference. Statement 1 applies to Beauty and the Beast -- a completely fictitious, imaginary story, designed for primarily for entertainment, but also happens to contain a morsel of truth (i.e. a person's inner character is more important than their outward appearance). The "truth" is secondary to the fact that it is an entertaining fairly tale.

Statement 2 applies to Genesis. Written for the express purpose of communicative theological truth about a true event -- i.e. creation. However, the selected vehicle for communicating this truth is a mythical story. Here it is the truth that is primary, the vehicle is secondary.

 

[chris777]

not a single YECist has ever produced a single Bible verse showing that Jesus thought of Genesis 1 as a historical story.

what is so heart breaking is this is the EXACT same excuse that I hear from homosexuals defending their own sin.

the text is pretty clear unless of couse the reader refuses to take it at face value, and actively chooses to bend it to their own point of view

 

[rmwilliamsll]

what is so heart breaking is this is the EXACT same excuse that I hear from homosexuals defending their own sin.

the text is pretty clear unless of couse the reader refuses to take it at face value, and actively chooses to bend it to their own point of view

the difference being that there are several verses explicitly condemning homosexual activities and there are none explicitly saying that Adam is historical or Jonah is historical or Job is historical.

in fact, i wouldn't expect to see such statements as the very concept of history is a modern one. even then Greek and Roman conceptions of history are substantially different than ANE ones. so there is not a consistent conception of history throughout Scripture but rather an evolving one. (google progressive revelation)

i think the easiest way to illustrate this is to look at a continuum

image a traffic accident near your house

there is a policeman's report
this forms the basis for a newspaper story and an insurance claim

then there are several different eyewitness accounts
they vary, participants from a couple of bystanders, they all saw and reported slightly different recollections

now several years later a novelists decides to write a book using this accident as a scene in her book.

think the movie Crash
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...e/002-7260422-8725602?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance

she interviews people who were there, including you who read the newspaper and talked to friends about it.

she interviews a now adult child of one of the victims who died several months afterwards.

Now the novelist writes a historical novel, based on the facts but it is a work of fiction.

then someone takes the novel and writes a screen play.


now line up these from most factual to least, from police report through the various eyewitnesses to later recollections to stories people heard about it, through the novel to the screen play.

each writings has a distinctly different purpose and the facts and organization are shaped by these purposes and needs.

Scripture varies were on this continuum it falls.
Luke and Acts are secondhand accounts.
revelation is a vision.
nehemiah reads most like a textbook.

the issue is where does Gen 1 and Gen 2-5 fit into this scheme?

 

[Assyrian]

I think you misunderstood me. There is no evidence for a global flood. But most TEists believe Gen 6-9 is about a historical LOCAL flood.

Ahh.. So it comes out. You don't take it literally then. I find it hard to believe that you believe in a "historical account" of Scripture that didn't happen the way the account is written. Peculiar.

Genesis 6-9 is 100% historical--the technical details in it nearly demand a literal rendering. Scripture didn't stutter either...the mountains were covered. The flood could not have been local. I'm sorry but that idea is ludicrous--a large blemish on the credibility of TE theory.

It is more a question of translation than interpreting it literally or not. Is the writer talking about the whole earth being flooded, or the whole land? It is the same Hebrew word erets. Is he talking about mountains or hills? What did the writer mean by 'under the whole heaven'? Was it inside the earth's atmosphere that circles the whole planet? Or under the sky above him, from horizon to horizon? That is actually a more literal interpretation and is the way the phrase was used in the OT.

 

[chris777]

the difference being that there are several verses explicitly condemning homosexual activities and there are none explicitly saying that Adam is historical or Jonah is historical or Job is historical.

and where exactly are the verses stating they are allegorical myth?

in fact, i wouldn't expect to see such statements as the very concept of history is a modern one. even then Greek and Roman conceptions of history are substantially different than ANE ones. so there is not a consistent conception of history throughout Scripture but rather an evolving one. (google progressive revelation)

now line up these from most factual to least, from police report through the various eyewitnesses to later recollections to stories people heard about it, through the novel to the screen play.

each writings has a distinctly different purpose and the facts and organization are shaped by these purposes and needs.

I assume from your statements you do not believe scripture was divinely inspired, and that everything is based on each persons "experience"

Scripture varies were on this continuum it falls.
Luke and Acts are secondhand accounts.
revelation is a vision.
nehemiah reads most like a textbook.

the issue is where does Gen 1 and Gen 2-5 fit into this scheme?

Isnt it convienent to go back and discount something that happened well before your lifetime as irrelevant.

Are you people that discount the scriptures even Christian?

I looked on one of the sites linked to a thread and it mentions mohamed and joseph smith who are NOT prophets
I just dont get it, its like you are blinded by your reliance that scientific "laws" are immutable.
I suppose you doubt the miracles of Jesus as well?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I assume from your statements you do not believe scripture was divinely inspired, and that everything is based on each persons "experience"


and you would be wrong.


I suppose you doubt the miracles of Jesus as well?


why would how i interpret Gen 1 effect what i believe about the miracles of Jesus? they are distinct and not logically related in any way i can see.

Are you people that discount the scriptures even Christian?


1. i don't discount the Scriptures, i struggle to understand them.
2. why the need to cast people out of the church who ask questions? all i did was ask questions about genre. and offer an example of how historical exists on a continuum from police report striving for factual accuracy to historical novel which has entertainment as a primary purpose (maybe selling books as well)

from that you have determined:
(you believe) the verses stating they are allegorical myth
you do not believe scripture was divinely inspired
you people that discount the scriptures even Christian
you are blinded by your reliance
you doubt the miracles of Jesus as well



sure appears to be a lot of misdirected personal attacks here.
especially considering i am one of a handful of conservative TE's here, who might be sitting in your pew next Sunday.

 

[chris777]

not a single YECist has ever produced a single Bible verse showing that Jesus thought of Genesis 1 as a historical story.

Their have been plenty produced, they are just ignored, just as homosexuals ignor or reinterpret blatant plain scripture with some sort of "enlightened" (but blind) frame of reference.

Jesus referes to it historicaly never alluding to them being anything but history, the epistles are the same, they never cast them in the light of "myth" or allegory, only the "modern" "evolved" "enlightened" ones do.
like I said earlier are you people even Christians? and if so what parts of scripture do you even believe as true?

Do you even believe Jesus died and was ressurected physically? and yes it is backed up as FACT WITH WITNESSES
Do you dispute that as well?
I just don't get it I seem to come across people that question scripture less in secular boards, The whole reason I found this board was to look for people who actually believe the scriptures yet There just seem to be so many that don't on these boards, Am in in the wrong sections or the wrong board?

Is there a place that I can find a statement of your beliefs, that doesn't take 50 pages to sift through?

I believe the Bible is completely literal, it does not state dates, so I am not going to say the worls is so and so thousands of years old, but after careful study of evolution, and yes I was a TE BEFORE I became a christian, as before I was ignorant of what the scriptures actually said. And upon further and further research, I have REJECTED all evolution as false secular reasoning, as well as an adapted form of reincarnation.
(Look at the functions ) not the lables
just because someone can write a 20000 page dissertation on a subject doesnt make it true, I just cant grasp where you are coming from, if you are in fact in possession of ALL the information both scientific and scripture.

 

[Mallon]

I see a lot of talk, but no verse citations.

 

[Chief117]

I see a lot of talk, but no verse citations.

True. But it is sort of a dead horse in debates between YECs and TEEs.

For example, Jesus does acknowledge a six day (being of the approx. 24 hour variety) creation:

"And God spoke all these words: ...

"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. ... For [or because] in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:1, 8-11)
​

Last time I checked, Jesus was part of the Godhead, so He spoke the words above. Secondly, Jesus created everything that has been created, so I imagine that He would know. Thirdly, the Hebrew word 'yom ALWAYS means a literal, 24 hour day of light and darkness as we now experience whenever it is modified. In this passage, 'yom is modified by the numeral "6", thereby requiring a literal interpretation.

And as far as Jesus and the apostles making reference to a literal creation, the evidence is in abundance. Many of which I have stated throughout this thread. LIke someone above said, they are usually ignored or brushed away. I can restate a few just to avoid the accusation that I don't have any:

"Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason..." (Matthew 19)
​

Jesus begins his argument by stating "haven't you read...?", thereby implying that you ought to take the Genesis in a straightforward, literal way. Furthermore, if the creator did NOT make them male and female (i.e. as TE/Evolution teaches), then Jesus' argument makes absolutely no sense and doesn't stand. He clearly does not make any implication that Adam and Eve were fictional characters, but rather implies that they really walked the earth.

Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come." (Romans 5:14)
​

If Adam were not a literal, historical character, then what is meant by the phrase, "from the time of Adam to the time of Moses." CLEARLY, Adam is as real a character as Moses is, and I doubt anyone with a brain would suggest that Moses were a mythical character.

There are many other passages but I feel as if I'm repeating myself. Again.

 

[Chief117]

It is more a question of translation than interpreting it literally or not. Is the writer talking about the whole earth being flooded, or the whole land? It is the same Hebrew word erets. Is he talking about mountains or hills? What did the writer mean by 'under the whole heaven'? Was it inside the earth's atmosphere that circles the whole planet? Or under the sky above him, from horizon to horizon? That is actually a more literal interpretation and is the way the phrase was used in the OT.

The problems of a Local flood are beyond numerous. Not only that, but the clear implications of a mere local flood truly do, without any biased opinions forcing or guiding it, make God a complete and total idiot--not to mention a liar.

First of all, to "re-interpret" Noah's flood one cannot merely reject the Genesis account. Other Scriptures support the global flood as well:

"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." (2 Peter 3:5-7)
​

First of all, notice that Peter supports the literal rendering of Genesis 1 by pointing out that the earth was "formed out of water and by water."

Secondly, notice that he makes it abundantly clear that the whole world was "deluged" (flooded) and destroyed. Just as the WHOLE earth was created, by these same waters, the WORLD was flooded and destroyed.

As if that were not enough, Peter suggests that just as the world was judged and destroyed then, so also is the present world being kept for judgment and fire. Theologically, Christians believe that it is literally the WHOLE WORLD that will be judged, not just a small section of land.

Another reason the local idea is unlikely when reviewed with other Scripture:

"..if [God] did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others; ..." (1 Peter 2:5)
​

Only 8 people survived the flood, both according to the Genesis account and Peter. If the flood were local, such a concept would not make any sense whatsoever. Many animals and people would have been around the world, unaffected by a local flood.

And then you've got all the problems and complaints that sites like AIG have excellent arguments for. I will summarize some of the complaints, but you can read it for yourself.

1. If the flood were local, Noah wouldn't need to build an ark. He could have merely relocated instead of spending nearly 100 years building a boat.
2. Noah would not need to collect a few of each kind of animal. The local region to be flooded just would have been repopulated by animals from surrounding regions.
3. If the flood were local, why did it need to carry birds? They could have just flown to a new area.
4. If the flood were local, then God is a LIAR. God promises at the end of the flood to never send such a flood again (Gen 9:11). Yet MANY (local) floods have happened since Noah's day.

In all honesty, I would rather you take the position that Genesis is "mythical." I hate the concept, I'd think you were wrong, but at least it would be somewhat defensible. The idea of a local flood makes God an idiot and a liar.

Of course, the most logical conclusion, and only one that harmonizes with all of Scripture, is that the ENTIRE globe was flooded. And that is the story that I adhere to. I believe God did it the way He said He did.

God bless.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

hirdly, the Hebrew word 'yom ALWAYS means a literal, 24 hour day of light and darkness as we now experience whenever it is modified.


Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


and the word yom appears twice in this verse.
the first time it is the period of light and the second it is the period marked with an evening and a morning.


i suspect you mean by the phrase "whenever it is modified", whenever yom appears as the object of a ordinal numeral.
but that as well is not true, Gen 1:5 is the exception for the 1st chapter of Genesis where the other numerals are ordinal and yom in Gen 1:5 is cardinal.

In this passage, 'yom is modified by the numeral "6", thereby requiring a literal interpretation.

please note, number is not a sufficient description the proper terminology is ordinal and cardinal. this is so you can find the essays which know what they are talking about with google.

there is an excellent discussion of this issue at:
http://www.ldolphin.org/haseldays.html

The term yom in Genesis 1 has no prepositions; it is not used in a construct relation and it has no syntactical indicator expected of an extended, non-literal meaning. Thus, in Genesis 1 yom can mean only a literal "day" of 24 hours.

use your find function and read the section this quote is from.

even after all this discussion of yom being a 24 hr period
you still have not shown that we are to take Gen 1 as a scientific and historical record of what happened rather than a section of Scripture which is using the Sabbath Creation week as a literary framework.

 

[Chief117]

I'm sorry, but I find your posts exceedingly hard to read.

i suspect you mean by the phrase "whenever it is modified", whenever yom appears as the object of a ordinal numeral.
but that as well is not true, Gen 1:5 is the exception for the 1st chapter of Genesis where the other numerals are ordinal and yom in Gen 1:5 is cardinal.

First of all, there are multiple modifications to 'yom throughout the whole chapter. As if the writer wanted to make sure that no one, like TEs, would come and deny his intent and meaning, he modifies the word multiple times and ways.

If 'yom is modified by "evening and morning", it can only be a literal 24 hour day.

If 'yom is modified by either an ordinal or cardinal number it is a literal 24 hour day.

even after all this discussion of yom being a 24 hr period
you still have not shown that we are to take Gen 1 as a scientific and historical record of what happened rather than a section of Scripture which is using the Sabbath Creation week as a literary framework.

And this is an example of what I mean. Your posts are as scattered and unorganized as thoughts flying through one's head. It's as if separate thoughts have no clear beginning or end, but just flow together....

I don't mean that to be harsh but I honestly do not know what you are trying to get at.

The only reason I brought up the discussion on "day" was so that no one would use that to argue against my using Exodus 20 as a valid commentary on Genesis.

I have provided ample evidence throughout this forum, and very little comment or debate on any of it. I suggest you go back and read my posts or ask a direct question, rather than make the fallacious claim that "I haven't provided any evidence."

God Bless.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

since my posting are hard to follow i'll repeat a single point

the Hebrew word 'yom ALWAYS means a literal, 24 hour day of light and darkness as we now experience whenever it is modified.


Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


and the word yom appears twice in this verse.
the first time it is the period of light and the second it is the period marked with an evening and a morning.


yom is used twice in Gen 1:5, and it means two different periods of time. so obviously it does not always mean a 24 hour day.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

since my posting is hard to follow i'll make just one simple point.

Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

God called yom the period of time the light is on, and He called night the period of time that it is not light but dark.

Please note, yom is not defined by God to be 24hrs. but rather a period of time that varies from place to place on the earth and from season to season in the same place.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

since my posting is hard to follow i will make a single and simple point


rather than make the fallacious claim that "I haven't provided any evidence."




since you quoted my posting twice in the message where this quote occurs i assumed you were still speaking to me in particular, not having seen any transition.

however, this phrase "not provided any evidence" is not in any of my messages in this thread, nor is it hinted at in anything i said, but rather appears to be from jereth in http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=26103092&postcount=26

perhaps i could understand to whom you are addressing your comments if you made it more explicit. as is it appears that you are still talking to me.

 

[Chief117]

rather than make the fallacious claim that "I haven't provided any evidence."
since you quoted my posting twice in the message where this quote occurs i assumed you were still speaking to me in particular, not having seen any transition.

however, this phrase "not provided any evidence" is not in any of my messages in this thread, nor is it hinted at in anything i said, but rather appears to be from jereth in http://www.christianforums.com/showp...2&postcount=26

perhaps i could understand to whom you are addressing your comments if you made it more explicit. as is it appears that you are still talking to me.

Oddly, this was my mistake. My quotation marks were not in reference to something you said...if you read several of my posts you'll notice I tend to "overuse" quote marks. I use them as a means of drawing emphasis...

I guess its because I write pretty much the same as I talk, and as I run thru my comments, if I use "air quotes", I put them in the text too.

Basically, I was just trying to "pre-empt" counter-arguments. Nonetheless, on a second glance at what you did say: " you still have not shown...". This is probably what I was going after.