You had a good question from a previous thread....
>Oh, another question that the Creationist or ID-ot brigade have failed to answer is; if suplhur-breast-plated locusts are figurative (they must be as there is no evidence for them), how come the Creation account and the Flood account (which there is no evidence for) are regarded as literal?
If a person's faith is founded on Jesus as the cornerstone and built on the same foundation as the apostles, this is consistent:
1) Jesus and the apostles taught that the historical accounts in Genesis were true, though they did not teach that they were comprehensive.
2) Since they taught this we accept this as a presupposition for the evidence, just as a naturalist rules out any notion of the supernatural.
3) Figurative or metaphorical literature is best exegeted by referencing other scripture, in context and by the historical/grammatical method. I.E., read scripture like any other literature but allow for the complete context, the type of literature, what the writing mean't to who it was written to and how it is viewed in light of the revelatory nature of the New Testament writers.
Old Earth creationists and Christians who accept evolution are being inconsistent with the Bible itself. They have decided to compromise scripture in favor of making their view more palatable to the secular realm.
Rex
An Answer for Abaddon...
by Shining One 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
peacefulpete
Many ancient Jewish authors did not insist upon the historicity of the OT stories. They felt free to reinterpret them and expand upon them. These writers felt the value was in the meaning or symbolism. Therefore the fact that they alluded to them does not imply they felt them historical. Given the similar way the writers of the Gospels used the OT stories (both by accepting the expansions of later writers and the creative reinterpretations) there is no reason to believe they understood them as actual immutable history. The stories had a life of their own outside the world of history and time. They felt them powerful and inspired but this did not require they be historical. In fact it seems only the less educated and naive of both Jew/Christians and pagans assumed that their legends of heros and gods had taken place in history on earth.
-
Woodsman
Shining one:
What do you mean by old earth creationist? And what theory of evolution do you mean when you say "evolution".
I think that since all the animals in the world today could not fit on the ark anyone who claims to be a Christian must accept that life evolves if they also believe that the flood account is real. In fact they would have to believe that life evolves even faster that scientists do because the Flood would have occured not that long ago. Or else they would have to have some supernatural explanation that is their own interpretation and not in the Biblical account for how all these animals fit in that ship, the dimensions of which are in the Bible.
I don't think Creation, intelligent design or the various evolutionary theories constitute a polarized issue. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Not all naturalists exclude the supernatural and not all creationists exclude that life can evolve.
I don't think the Bible prohibits life evolving. If I understand right it states that God made life in its basic forms and then life reproduced according to its kind. This leaves open that life can evolve after being created. It is also extremely lacking in any details of how all this creating happened. I wouldn't get too dogmatic about the process. I don't think the account was meant to be a reference book in any way. Maybe even allegory.
-
Narkissos
1) Jesus and the apostles taught that the historical accounts in Genesis were true, though they did not teach that they were comprehensive.
2) Since they taught this we accept this as a presupposition for the evidence, just as a naturalist rules out any notion of the supernatural.Did they specifically teach that, or did they simply echo a common assumption of their time/culture?
From a purely theological standpoint, and assuming that "Jesus and the apostles" really said what is ascribed to them, would God have given them supernatural knowledge of everything (history, paleontology, zoology, physics etc.) or a specific religious message, or inspiration, to be expressed within the epistemological frame of their time/culture? Does that make every literary/religious allusion by them more than a literary/religious allusion, i.e. a scientific assertion? I think you should learn some more about what Christian theologians have taught about "incarnation" and "inspiration" before (not) setting up such dubious dichotomies.
On a purely literary level you should also learn what is a reasoning a scriptura. If Jesus referred to the creation or the flood and that should make the creation or the flood historical, what about the author of Hebrews when he states that Melchizedek has no father and no mother (in the text, that is)? Do you really read that back into Genesis 14 and assume that Melchizedek had no father and no mother?
3) Figurative or metaphorical literature is best exegeted by referencing other scripture, in context and by the historical/grammatical method. I.E., read scripture like any other literature but allow for the complete context, the type of literature, what the writing mean't to who it was written to and how it is viewed in light of the revelatory nature of the New Testament writers.
Good. Just do that.
Old Earth creationists and Christians who accept evolution are being inconsistent with the Bible itself. They have decided to compromise scripture in favor of making their view more palatable to the secular realm.
A case based on assumptions.This is what I call intellectual terrorism -- hijacking the Christian faith into the fundamentalistic agenda, and accusing Christians who reject this agenda of being disloyal.
Perhaps you could wonder whether this kind of "all-or-nothing" stance is not the most effective in discrediting Christianity as a whole.
-
Shining One
Narkisos,
1) No amount of semantics are going to change what consistent exegeis of scripture says are literal events. You are being inconsistent if you deny the literal reality of Jesus' words regarding the events of Genesis.
2) Evolution puts God 'out of a job'. Evolution causes denial of major portions of the foundation of scripture. Evolution also has been shown to be hogwash.
3) Your case is not made by citing an example of a revelator (like the author) of Hebrews using a metaphor.
4) If my assertions are 'intellectual terrorism' then yours are 'intellectual sucicide bombing' as you deny and cast doubt on the foundational teachings of scripture. You seem to accept any notion that opposes the divine inspiration of scripture. Why in the world would a person go to seminary, get taught that scripture is not what it claims it is, then continue to study and expound on a book they do not believe in?
Rex -
peacefulpete
Why in the world would a person go to seminary, get taught that scripture is not what it claims it is, then continue to study and expound on a book they do not believe in?
Your kidding right? As we have explained, a great many readers of the Bible, both anciently and today, find meaning in the symbolism and word pictures without assuming historicity. I'm sure there are many theologians who pursue bible scholaship out of love for the book. A great many of others have found the research intellectually stimulating. Others are con-men. -
Narkissos
Rex,
You didn't deal with my questions.
(Never mind.)
-
Shining One
Narkisos,
Jesus claimed to be God and He was a man. I do not need to go into the proofs for that. Jesus was the one who created all things: He wrote the book. A theologian who claims to be a Christian, yet denies the ability of Jesus to see beyond the common assumptions of the age of His incarnation is hilariously inconsistent! As I said, he has compromised the truth of the revelation of Jesus Christ in favor of 'being credible' with skeptics and other unbelievers.
Your problem is the same as theirs. You are an unbeliever. I am not trying to be arrogant, just honest. Please don't be offended at my saying that. I respect your knowledge and learning but the Holy Spirit works in other areas that are key to understanding the gospel message. Insightful Christians know when they are being taught by an unbeliever in seminary and do take that into account. Yes, logical fallacies abound here. So shoot me! LOL
Rex -
Narkissos
Once again, Rex, I suggest you really study systematic theology. Christian, Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical theology if you like. If you don't, I won't shoot you, but an orthodox theologian might.
Jesus claimed to be God
Which Jesus claimed what, which Jesus said what? (Critical question, you can drop it)
Jesus was the one who created all things: He wrote the book.
Besides the well-known fact that Jesus did not write anything, this is terrible theology. In the Nicene-Chalcedonian synthesis, the Father created all things through the Son / Logos. The Son / Logos emptied himself (check "kenosis") and assumed (check "enhypostasy") human nature (check "anhypostasy"). The question is (and you can't evade it), what in Jesus' "knowledge" was the Son / Logos' "innate knowledge" and what belonged to the cultural setting in the package of "human nature"? This is vital to an orthodox reading of the Gospels. Who "grew in wisdom" when the young Jesus grew in wisdom? Who didn't know the day and hour? Who thought he would find figs on the fig tree when it was not the season? Who learnt obedience and was perfected?
Can you see how ridiculous it is -- always from a theological standpoint -- to claim the divine authority of the "creator of all things" for the historical validity of statements which reflect nothing else than the average understanding of any 1st-century Jew?
Well, actually I doubt you can.
-
Abaddon
OK Rex, fair enough, you've actually responded to me decently so I will return the courtesy; after all it is Christmas.
If a person's faith is founded on Jesus as the cornerstone and built on the same foundation as the apostles, this is consistent:
1) Jesus and the apostles taught that the historical accounts in Genesis were true, though they did not teach that they were comprehensive.
2) Since they taught this we accept this as a presupposition for the evidence,
In other words, because words attributed to a character you believe was historical and in a position to know due to his divine nature confirm the Genesis Creation and Flood accounts, you believe in them too.
Fine for you maybe, but you are confirming the authentic nature of the Flood and Creation accounts by drawing on quotes from the same groups of texts. This is like basing a claim about the corrupt nature of Jews as depicted in The Merchant of Venice on quotations from another Shakespeare play. Or using "All scriptures are inspired and beneficial" as a quotation to prove Biblical inspiration.
This for many people simply isn't a sound enough basis to go against the vast majority of modern science, including very simple reliable evidence (such as bristlecone pines) that preclude either the Biblical dating and/or the claimed global extent of the event.
I say "the Bible is not accurate or literal as regards the Flood and Creation accounts, there is physical evidence that shows this is not so", and you say "it is accurate, as in the Bible Jesus and the Apostles regard the stories as true, and they would know, so therefore it is true". Essentially you are making a circular argument.
If a document's accuracy is in doubt you have to show how the documents claims can be verified EXTERNAL to that document.
Obviously we all accept your right to presuppositions. If we ignore the fallacious nature of your argument (technical term, not insult) there are still problems. Jesus used illustrations, i.e. non-literal stories. Maybe he also used allegories created by previous writers in illustrations? Your assumption of Jesus' divinity means you assume he wasn't a human of that faith and period who WOULD believe in the old stories even if they were not true. If this was the case Jesus (a man) citing the Flood and Creation accounts means nothing as regard them actually happening.
just as a naturalist rules out any notion of the supernatural
Straw man Rex; let's keep this nice. SOME naturalists might rule out the supernatural as an initial assumption. Others may conclude that they find no evidence for the supernatural even though they would like to find evidence for the supernatural (me, for example), others still might not care if there was supernatural or not but find no evidence for it.
3) Figurative or metaphorical literature is best exegeted by referencing other scripture, in context and by the historical/grammatical method. I.E., read scripture like any other literature but allow for the complete context, the type of literature, what the writing mean't to who it was written to and how it is viewed in light of the revelatory nature of the New Testament writers.
What Nakisssos says seems an appropriate response here
Old Earth creationists and Christians who accept evolution are being inconsistent with the Bible itself. They have decided to compromise scripture in favor of making their view more palatable to the secular realm.
They are being inconsistent with YOUR interpretation of the Bible. Whether something is seen as allegorical or literal is all part of interpretation.
Unless you will claim here and now that you have an inherently right and true interpretation of the Bible, surely rather than casting slurs like "They have decided to compromise scripture in favor of making their view more palatable to the secular realm" one should accept that what you have is a difference of opinion. To go beyond that would to be imply you can look into a man's heart and judge. As a Christian you are no doubt aware that this is something you simply should not do.
Is a difference of opinion enough to make you break your Christian principles?
I would REALLY like you to answer this question.
1) No amount of semantics are going to change what consistent exegeis of scripture says are literal events.
Apart from others whose exegeis of scripture differs in all sincerity from yours. You seem unaware that one of your presuppositions is that Rex cannot be wrong.
2) Evolution puts God 'out of a job'.
Straw man. AGAIN. YOUR interpretation of the Bible and YOUR interpretation of evolution leads you to believe this. Others have a totally different opinion and do not feel god is affected in anyway by belief in evolution.
Why in the world would a person go to seminary, get taught that scripture is not what it claims it is, then continue to study and expound on a book they do not believe in?
A simple question.
- Some Christians believe that god has been in contact with man over the years.
- They believe the Bible is an artifact of a people god was in contact with.
- It represents that peoples' idea of god, and the development of that idea. As such, and as it is not the product of divine dictation (as the errors within show), it's stories and views are shaped by the culture it comes from.
- The Bible is not the foundation of such Christian's faith. They believe in GOD, not THE BIBLE.
Your belief in god is based upon a physical object. In a way, the faith of those whose faith is based on their personal relationship with god is stonger than those whose faith is based upon a book.
Those who assume upon the Bible's accuracy and thus base their faith on the book must respond to any criticism of the Bible as their faith is based on that physical object. A Christian who worships god in spirit is not forced to defend the Bible against modern analysis.
If sincere believers in god in the past allowed their upbringing to influenece how they saw god and history, and their views (be it about the assignment of virgin girls as war booty or on how the world came about) are incompatable with modern standards of humanity or science, it's not surprising.
You wouldn't expect a bronze-age goat herd to know anything about the development of life on Earth or to have an appreciation for the equality of men and women.
It doesn't mean god did not guide those people at that time, or that god doesn't exist, or that those who wrote the book were not sincere. It just means humans are humans.