ByFaithAlone

The big bang theory though its sounds and look logical, goes contrary to the bible on creation. The theory is tided in with evolution. If you or anyone else accepts this theory then your telling me that you came from monkey, I certainly didn't (Genisis 1:26-27; then chap 4-5). why is it then men and animals stops evolve into something else? Yes I do believe we change and adopt to our environment, but not according to evolution and BIg Bang Theories Well D-9 and bary sort of dealt with this issue but the Big Bang Theory in no way implies evolution (in terms of the Darwinian theory) nor does evolution involve our coming from monkeys, we simply share an ancestor with the other primates.

Ok so I am going to try to condense the major points of difference between our positions. Firstly, we have to address this idea of literalism as you clearly seem to have a different approach to the word then I do. When I say literalism, I mean that you believe that the text of Genesis is not allegorical in nature and in fact happened at some finite time in the past. You believe that Adam literally existed a historic time ago in the context of a YEC universe which is less than 10000 years old. In other words you hold that Scripture is completely plain and straightforward in regards to describing creation and the origins of life and sin. If you do not hold to any or some of these points please let me know. Secondly, we must address the issue of the burden of proof with regard to interpretation. In regards to this issue I provide the quoted text below. Absent any non-literal information, the default understanding of the text is liteal. The literal understanding of the text is the status quo. You can’t provide any information from the author to show that he intends his account to be understood as anything other than a literal, historical account. As a result, the ONLY option available due to the lack of evidence to the contrary is a literal, historical understanding of the text. I am not the one who has the burden of proof.. You are the one arguing for a change in the status quo. The burden of proof falls to you, not me. If you can’t demonstrate that we need to alter our understanding of the text away from the default, literal position, then your argument fails. You state that the literal interpretation should be the default understanding of the text. The first question I would put to this is why do you make this assumption? Thankfully, you answer my question in your next sentence by saying that the literal understanding of the text is the status quo. Unfortunately, this is very problematic for your position. After all, the original status quo (let's say at the beginning of the church) was that of an allegorical Genesis. You however seem to only want to use the modern fundamentalist status quo. I would argue that this argumentation is not only flawed but that you have no basis for calling biblical literalism the status quo. In fact quite the opposite. Based on the interpretations of the past, biblical literalism is the new kid on the block and thus it holds the burden of proof. However, I regard myself as a relatively fair person so I have presented my case for an allegorical interpretation of Genesis despite the fact that it is the original status quo. I just want equal treatment from the true bearer of the burden of proof. I want reasons that you hold your a priori assumptions. Are there historical reasons for your interpretation? Scientific ones? Perhaps it is the writing style of Genesis which indicates the historical nature of the creation account? Please provide your reasoning. Next, in regards to textual indicators of allegory, I would like to note several things. The style of writing in the early Genesis chapters is never associated with the historic books of the Bible (1 Kings, etc) but is more similar to the epic poems of the ancient world (examples include the Odyssey or Iliad) in which major themes are given but actual history is not the goal of the writing. How do we explain this? If we recognize the conservative position of Mosaic authorship, why is it different from the historical writing style of Exodus for example. The literalist has no explanation for this. Next, we move on to the idea of symbols. The literalist can only assume that a talking snake caused Adam and Eve to sin. There is no reason to believe that Satan was the tempter. Similarly, we cannot even assume that God promises a Savior to Adam and Eve. All that is given to the literalist is a historic enmity between snakes and people. Even conservative fundamentalists recognize that Genesis prophecies a Savior and is allegorical in regards to the snake representing Satan. Other points often seen in allegory I have posted before in post 125 which you simply dismiss without reason. So the question I am forced to ask is why all these characteristics of allegory and metaphor exist in Genesis when other works regarded as historical do not have these issues. Now we have reached an interesting moment. My next points will regard your statement below. So why does Genesis as a historical narrative demand a YEC view? The truth is that you support evolution which is why you support the allegorical view. The allegorical view is an attempt to make room for Evolution in a Christian worldivew which is rather oxymoronic. First let me address your question. A historic narrative of Genesis implies that what happens in Genesis should be regarded as historic fact. Historical facts are truthful statements regarding how something occurred in the finite past. In the case of Genesis these historical facts would not only have to include Adam as a historic character but the creation as historical as described in Genesis or else we have some sort of special pleading. Thus, the YEC method of creation must be regarded as historic fact. In regards to evolution, yes I support it but the allegorical view is older then the theory of evolution so no it was not designed to make room for evolution. You also make the claim that evolution and Christianity are oxymoronic. Please substantiate this claim. In regards to original sin you ask why I regard your position regarding the Fall unsatisfactory and why did Jesus die for the sins of an allegorical man. I have answered both questions before but I will answer them again. In regards to your position on the Fall, I do not believe it to be a proper understanding of the Genesis account from a textual, historic or scientific view. My reasons for this have been outlined above. In regards to the death of Christ, the lack of a historic Adam does not mean that man is without sin or is not fallen. Christ died to pay for our sins and our fallen nature. In regards to the issue below: Given what I have seen in your posts in this thread and others, all three are relevant to you. Other threads are irrelevant to this debate as is my position on other issues. Debate the topic not me. Thanks. And lastly we address the Church Fathers. You can call them anti-Semites, etc. (despite lacking proof in regards to this point) but you ignore the bulk of the argument here. The issues are as follows: The vast majority of contemporaries of Christ both Jews and Christians held to an allegorical view of Genesis. On this issue, they seem to concur. Just as they concurred at the Council of Nicaea when forming the basic church doctrines, just as they formed the doctrine of the Trinity, the historical nature of the Resurrection, and the very canon itself you recognize as Scripture today. It would be much more reasonable to hold that Christ himself held to this view rather than any other view. If you do not trust the consensus of the early Church in regards to certain issues why do you trust the Scripture that the early Church formed? What reasons do you have for trusting the Bible if you do not trust the men who developed canon? Note that I am not saying that these men were perfect nor should we treat their words as canon. I am merely saying that when they all seem to reach a consensus or majority opinion regarding something in addition to the Jews of that era, it may be very much worth our time to consider their opinions as a historic and accurate representation of orthodox theology. P.S. If I missed anything of vital importance you want me to address let me know. I was trying to consolidate our ideas as best as possible.

Yes, well I guess I would simply ask how you think the Big Bang implies that no God exists? I agree with you Justin that the universe cannot created from nothing and by nothing. However, the Big Bang shows that the universe can come from nothing something long held by Christians (creatio ex nihilo). I would also contend that the Big Bang and related evidence is our strongest scientific proof for the existence of God.

Interesting you should say this considering that the Big Bang Theory was first postulated by two Christians and is considered the most theistic explanation for the universe ever to come out of science. Used in and with the Kalaam cosmological argument and arguments from contingency, the Big Bang Theory is used by the great apologists of this age including but not limited to William Lane Craig and John Lennox.

None of which are actual textual evidence of the nature requested. You supplied what others think, or thought, but your answer didn’t really engage the text at all. You can’t engage the text, because you know that the text doesn’t really provide us with anything cliaming that is an allegorical account. Nor does any other text of the NT. So you have to pretend that quoting Borg and Wright and claiming that some Jews and Christians viewed the text as allegorical counts as “textual criticism.” That is a really sorry line of argumentation. In regards to textual evidence see post 125 and above once again. So you would hold the position that Genesis is written in a poetic form yet is somehow still historical, was viewed as allegorical by the earliest followers of Christ taught by the apostles themselves and still believe it literal and is judged false in the scientific community (in the YEC interpretation) and yet judge it as a scientific explanation of the existence of the cosmos? Now that would be a sorry line of argumentation. Good for everyone you have ever met that hold the allegorical interpretation. However, they are not me nor should you make assumptions or bring up irrelevant information. The only relevant point you make here is evolution which is important as it as a scientific theory is successful at explaining how life came to exist in the present state and has a much better record then the "scientific" attempts of Kent Hovind and the YEC "scientists". Historical and textual criticsm from your perpsective is rather laughable, to be honest. The text is clearly written in a literalistic form to an honest and objective reader. The problem is that there are elements in the church that understand that the Bible as written can’t accommodate sin and cannot accommodate a view that supplants God as Creator. Enter the allegorical approach as a means of making room for sin and supplanting the authority of the Bible to define sin and the authority of God to judge sin and hold man accountable. Once again you ignore my argument and place a strawman in its place to define me as someone who desires to destroy the church and Christianity from the inside. Once again, if the text was intended as allegorical no authority or innerency has been harmed. I am sure we can both agree on this point even if we do not agree on if it was allegorical or not. The early was very corrupt. I am not a fan of the early fathers. Many of them were virulent racists and anti-Semites. They allegorized everything God said about Israel to apply to the Church in order to supplant the Jews as God’s chosen people and to provide a theological justifcation for 1,700 years of church sponsored persecution of the Jews. Allegorization didn’t work too well for the Jews. You seem to put a lot of weight on extra-biblical writings. You put a lot of faith in fallible men. That is where we differ. I believe the Bible and my trust is in Scripture and I believe it as written, because I believe God. My faith does not rest on them but on the pure Word of God. The Bible is foundation of my faith, not creeds. My faith is built on Scripture and Scripture treats the fall of man in Genesis as a literal and historical event. Others seek to subvert the Word of God to accommodate their corrupt and false doctrines. Yes the early church had flaws as does the modern church. Strawman regarding the Jews and attacking the character of the early church fathers is irrelevant to the debate. Additionally, please note the Jewish scholars and contemporaries of that time who held to the allegorical view most notably Philo who wrote extensively on it. You somehow fail to address him while calling the early church anti-Semetic which I will note is true of some not all of the early church. You trust in the canon developed by the very men whose writings you for some reason despise. These men, under the guidance of the Spirit, literally formed the Bible we know today. I do not treat their words as canon or without error. However, I recognize that they had the closest access to the teachings of Christ anyone could have - first and second hand accounts from the apostles and as the Bible does not go out of its way to spell out dogma or theology they set up, defined and defended the ideas of the Trinity, etc. in addition to defining canon itself. Your faith rests on the Word and I agree that is where we should go first. The Word will never be supplanted by outside writings. However, with that being said, let me remind you of my three reasons for believing in an allegorical Genesis: 1. Textual reasons, style, etc of Genesis (The Word) 2. The writings of the Church Fathers indicating allegorical interpretation (Historical Precedent and Church Tradition) 3. The advancement of scientific evidence which proves a YEC view to be false (Scientific Evidence and the Use of the Minds God has Given Us). The second two reasons, although after the Word are important.

That misses the point. The point is that when the Bible DOES use allegory, it uses it for didactic purposes. In addition, the Bible tells us when allegory is being employed. Paul doesn’t use allegory to deny the historicity of Hagar and Sarah. He is not using allegory to claim that they were not real people and the events that surrounded them didn’t really happen. The difference here is that Paul uses allegory correctly. You are trying to use allegory to supplant the historicity of Genesis 1-3 and in doing so you are misusing allegory. You are using allegory as an interpretative method, which is not what it is designed to be or do. It is an excellent teaching tool, but it is not a reliable means of interpretation. By the way, if Genesis 1-3 is allegorical, who gets to determine what it is allegorical of? Who’s “interpretation” has the final say on what it is allegorical of?? Why is one guy’s allegorical “interpretation” any less valid than a scholar’s allegorical “interpretation?” It is a highly subjective and thus unreliable approach to the Bible. No I don't think I have missed the point at all. You provide a strawman to compare with the early chapters of Genesis. You provide chapters that as I said before to my knowledge have no history of being treated as allegorical. As compared to Genesis which does have this historical precedent. In regards to allegorical and metaphorical text, I strongly disagree that the Bible always clearly states before it uses allegory or metaphor. Isaiah does not say that he will use it nor does he describe things in a plain manner to the Jews but rather the prophecies he makes are in poetic form making strong allegorical and metaphorical inferences. Yes, I understand that you still believe humanity to be fallen. My question would be, why is the Bible’s explanation of fall unsatisfactory for you? Why the need to introduce the text as allegorical and why is the notion of it being historically factual such a problem for you? If the story of Adam was merely allegorical then we are forced to accept the fallen nature of man, the presence of sin, the need for redemption in a vacuum. We simply accept those things as true with no real reason to accept them. It comes from the fallacy that you can separate redemption from Genesis 1-3. The literal death, burial and resurrection of Jesus is precipitated and made necessary by the literal fall of Adam in the Garden. That is what the Bible says to an honest and objective reader. Why introduce an allegorical interpretation? Three reasons: the style of Genesis, the historical nature of its interpretation and the scientific knowledge we have that shows that a YEC view is blatantly wrong. Those are the reasons I support allegory. One textual, one historical and one scientific. In regards to the fallen nature of man, there is reason to accept the validity of this without a historic Adam. We can examine the world in which we live and realize that it is not the most perfect it could be in regards to morality. We can recognize that man creates atrocities against one another and sins against brothers. That is how we accept our fallen state and that is why we still need a Savior who will represent us in front of God.

I don’t need a historical precedent for that. The purpose of interpretation is to ascertain the meaning the author has supplied in the text. This requires engaging the text in an objective manner. Interpretation is always “literal.” We want to know what the text means and what the author was wanting to communicate. The author supplies the “literal” meaning of the text. Otherwise, what’s the point??? The manner of Paul’s writing in Romans 5:12-21 indicate that Paul believed the Adam was a literal, historical person. There is NOTHING in the text of that passage to indicate that Paul saw Adam as anything other than a literal person. This is also true of Matt. 19 where Jesus treats Adam and Eve as literal, historical people when talking to the Pharisees about marriage. You say interpretation is always "literal" and in this lies the basic flaw of your position. Interpretation, even biblical interpretation is not always literal. Is Jesus a literal lamb, bright morning star, root of a tree named Jesse? No of course not. These passages are not taken literally but metaphorically representative of Christ's nature. Interpretation is based on the writing of the text. If the text is written in the nature of a prophecy we will interpret to account for it. If the text is written in the nature of a letter to an early church we account for this too. However, most evangelical fundamentalists seem to have a very difficult time applying this principal to Genesis which appears to be written in the poetic style of an epic poem. And thus the rest of the argument that you make falls. You claim that Paul and Matthew believed Adam as literal and historical not on the basis that you find anything in the text that indicates that but rather due to an a priori assumption that Genesis is intended in a literal manner without providing evidence for that opinion either. You are simply begging the question. That is, you assume Genesis to be literal before arguing that Genesis is in fact literal. Meanwhile, the allegorical interpretation is supported by writing style, science and contemporaries of Christ and the apostles. No, that is not the purpose of the genealogy. Genealogies were for the purpose of establishing property rights. Telescoping in Matthew’s genealogy doesn’t mean that Adam could be anywhere on the pat of history. Matthew’s purpose was to show how Jesus could be qualified to be the Messiah to sit on David’s throne even though he traces Joseph’s ancestral line back through Jeconiah. Joseph was David’s descendent through Jeconiah from whom no one of his line would sit on the throne of David. Mary was a descendent of David through Nathan and thus could have a son qualified to sit on David’s throne. Luke’s genealogy doesn’t telescope and goes all the way back to Adam. That Adam is included in the genealogy of Jesus demonstrates that he is not an allegorical figure but a real, historical person. That should be self-evident. That alone torpedoes this allegorical nonsense. You somehow manage to ignore the plain differences and apparent contradictions that exist between the accounts of the genealogy of Matthew and Luke. This does not make sense if both accounts are as you claim completely literal. One of them has to be wrong in terms of a purely historical account of Christ's genealogy. Or perhaps a more fitting explanation is that the genealogies are intended to show the sinful generations that have come before Christ, noting important figures of history of note within the Jewish faith which shows the need for a Savior and reminds the Jewish people of the covenant God gave there ancestors. Actually those passages ALL treat Adam as a historical person, not as an allegorical figure. The only legitimate interpretation IS the literal interpretation. All interpretation is literal no matter if you are talking about the Bible, the newspaper, a cookbook, a historical novel. To act as if those passages do not treat Adam and Eve as literal people is nothing short of intellectual suicide on your part. See my response above to the fallacious argument you present here, once again an a priori assumption that does not take into account the genre or writing style. None of that has anything to do with an allegorical interpretation. By the way, “allegory” is not an interpretative method. You are really confusing terms. Allegory is most often used to teach a lesson, (as in Gal. 4) It is not meant to be a means of deducing the meaning of a given text. There is no such thing as an “allegorical” style of writing. Honestly, where do come up with this stuff??? I can be poetic, I can make a statement of prose and not be allegorical at all. There are NO textual indicators whatsoever in the first chapter of Genesis that allegory is being applied by the author. The Bible indicates when allegory is employed elsewhere, but no indicators are given in this text, so your argument really doesn’t hold water. Language and writing style have a lot to do with whether or not a text should be taken as allegorical. If it is poetic in nature rather than historical, as I contend the early chapters of Genesis are (written in an epic poem style), then it is more reasonable to believe the allegorical view. Textual indicators such as metaphors and symbols used within the text such as the snake for Satan something widely agreed on by most if not all Christians were provided to you before but you provided no counterargumentation but merely say they don't hold water for no reason then your own a priori assumptions. Yes and none of those are textual responses on your part. I asked for actual textual indicators. You provide me with answers that assume an allegorical approach to the text and the views of so-called “scholars” and never really engaged the question I asked. The truth is that you can’t really offer up anything from the text that tells us that the author wants us to see this as an allegory. In addition, you cannot provide one shred of NT corroboration that tells us that the NT writers didn’t take Adam as a literal person. You are assigning that value to them with no real textual evidence to support your claims. Your argument is void. So internal notes of symbols, metaphors, etc do not count as textual indicators in your book? Nor the poetic language of the original language? If the NT authors already regarded the text as allegorical then there would be no need for them to spell it out. This is why I provide contemporaries of the early apostles and church, the earlier ones taught by the apostles themselves or Jews of the era who provided the common Jewish understanding of Genesis. It would be highly illogical and unreasonable to believe that the apostles and in turn Christ himself did not hold the allegorical view when the people that they taught clearly did and wrote extensively on.

I think in this statement presupposes that Christ (and the people of the day) thought of Adam as a historical figure. If Christ, Paul, etc. thought of Adam as allegorical and this was a common understanding, there would be no need to say "Adam, the allegorical first man" in the passages as it would be assumed. What if contemporary thought is found in the writings of contemporary Philo or early Christians who held to an allegorical interpretation of Genesis? I think the root of the problem with the arguments presented against the allegorical view are as follows. (1) They assume Christ viewed Adam as literal when contemporary Jews and early Christians hold the allegorical view. (2) They assume that literal interpretation is the only consistent way to maintain biblical inerrancy when inerrancy simply means that the Bible exists without error in the original language and manner in which it was written. If a particular passage was written in an allegorical manner it could still be inerrant. These arguments against the allegorical interpretation assume that Genesis was intended as literal before arguing that Genesis is literal. This is simply fallacious as it begs the question (assumes the conclusion in the premises). The first problem here is that you accusing us of making "assumptions." Our arguments against the allegorical view are not based on assumptions. If anything it is the allegorical view that is running with assumptions and not with any part of the biblical text. In fact, the allegorical argument cannot be made from Scripiture, which is why when people like you post on this stuff, you cannot appeal to the Bible itself to make arguments about your view of the Bible. Here are some questions for you, BFA: 1. If Adam was a non-literal allegorical figures then why does Luke include Adam in Jesus' geneaology? (Luke 3:38) 2. Following are all of the references to Adam and Eve in the NT. Please indicate in which passage there is an intended allegorical meaning and also demonstrate from these passages how the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were not literal, historical characters. (Luk 3:38 Rom 5:14 1Co 15:22 1Co 15:45 II Cor. 11:3, 1Ti 2:13 1Tim 2:14 Jud 1:14) I would like to see which of these verses support the allegorical assumption made by you. 3. What other people after Paul believed regarding the historicity of Adam is useless argument. Biblical interpretation is based on engaging the text, not based on regurgitating what this or that person believed. So I am asking you to engage the text of Genesis and please provide from the text of Gen. 1-3 all of the internal textual indicators including indicators from the original Hebrew that would lead a thoughtful reader to conclude that the story is not meant to be understood as a literal historical account. In other words show me from the text of Genesis where the author is saying, "hey, don't take me literally, view this as a fictional, non-literal, allegorical account." Your claims must be rooted in the text of Scripture, as that is where the authority for making either literal or allegorical claims are being made. Paul uses allegory and says so in Gal. 4 when he speaks of Hagar and Sarah. Why would Paul's reference to Adam be assumed as allegorical? You are assuming that EVERYONE viewed it that way, but the truth is that you are overstating that claim. You can point to few selected sources that view it as allegorical, but that is bu no means an indicator that everyone saw it that way. The allegorical view is not a majority opinion. Why, If the story of Adam was allegorical and the fall of man never really happened and had nothing to do with origin of sin, would the Bible waste time tying the death of Jesus to a fictional story. Why does Paul spend half a chapter telling us that Jesus' death on the cross was meant to rectify Adam's disobedience, if such disobedience never happened. Paul makes it VERY clear in Romans 5:12-21 that Jesus is reversing the curse that came upon mankind because of Adam's disobedience. He says in I Cor. 15 that in Adam all die but in Christ all are made alive. Why make such a juxtapostiional claim if isn't really true. How can Adam be the federal head of humanity in the Bible if Adam never existed? In regards to the issues of assumption, the assumption you are making is a literalistic interpretation of the text. You assume that Christ, Paul, the apostles and the writers of the Bible believed in a literalistic interpretation of the text with no reasons or historical precedent. In regards to your questions leveled against the allegorical view: 1. I have already answered the issues regarding genealogy and I will do it again. Note the differences between the two genealogies in Matthew and Luke, names omitted, etc. Why is this? At the very least telescoping most be involved in which case Adam could be anywhere along the path of history. However, I think a more reasonable explanation is that these people were all propagators of sin and also important to the Hebrew idea of covenant with God. This propagation of sin and also covenant of God would be true of Adam, whether or not he was believed to be allegorical in the day. The entire point of the genealogy, is to show that the representative for man in the Second Adam (Christ) has come to pay for sin. 2. In regards to the passages you mention, I am not going to go through them all to prove them all allegorical. Why you ask? Simply because all of them simply mention Adam, neither as a historical figure nor as an allegorical one and it would be fallacious to make that assumption as neither of us can prove using those particular passages either allegory or literalism. The verses that support an allegorical interpretation are the first few chapters of Genesis, the language and writing style in which they were written and the historical, orthodox (traditional) approach to interpreting these passages. I would contend that if all these fall into place and support the allegorical view it would be very much unreasonable and illogical to think that the New Testament authors held to a different view when so many of the early church and Jews of the day held a completely distinct view. 3. In regards to question 3, I provided you an answer to this specifically regarding the language of the text, other allegorical instances not disputed (such as the snake being Satan), the writing style, etc. in post 125. You simply said these weren't enough ignoring my arguments without warrant based on your own personal bias towards what the text has to say. So that makes 2 out of the 3 questions I have been asked before and answered. In regards to Galations 4, Paul was referring to a section of Genesis not written in nearly the poetic style of the early chapters of Genesis and characters which have never to my knowledge (from a historical view) been treated as allegorical so of course he specified. However, linking that to Adam is a weak argument and a strawman as Adam is found in the poetic early chapters of Genesis and from a historical view he was treated as allegorical. Your attempt to link the two fails as they do not share enough in common with regards to historic interpretation. In regards to Adam being allegorical and the Fall you mistake the position of the allegorical interpreter. We still believe that humanity is Fallen so after you say, "Why, If the story of Adam was allegorical and the fall of man never really happened and had nothing to do with origin of sin" you have already lost me and are not talking about my position. This last statement angers me the most. In regards to intellectual merit I have provided the following: 1. My textual criticism of the text 2. The textual criticism of Jews that were contemporaries of Christ 3. The textual criticism of the early Christian church 4. The textual criticism of modern scholars ranging from the liberal Marcus Borg to the conservative NT Wright I have answered every question you have put to me regarding allegorical interpretations and problems that you see with it in the most respectful way I can. At every turn I am greeted by the phrase (more or less), "that isn't good enough." This constant answer is not based on reason but rather an a priori assumption that literalism is the only correct method of interpretation. That is not intellectual. It is stubbornness and fallacious argumentation. In regards to liberal scholarship I would like to address a few issues. First of all, how in the world do you somehow always manage to drag homosexuality into this? I mean, I am somewhat in awe of you on this issue. Whenever the water gets choppy threatening to wreck your literalism boat, you say that somehow it will bring about the end of all conservative Christianity holds dear and that the very Bible itself will be reduced to a big Jesus Loves You Hallmark card. How do you make this leap in logic? Returning to the issue of liberal scholarship, I am unsure how you classify NT Wright as liberal when he defends your views on marriage, is one of the most adamant supporter of historic miracles and the Resurrection. Not to mention the numerous members of the early church. In regards to accepting the Bible as written, I agree. However, you are assuming that the Bible in this case Genesis, is written in a literalistic manner when historical interpretation and textual criticism, from my perspective, are against you. If the early chapters of Genesis are intended in an allegorical manner, then accepting the Bible in the way it is written would entail believing in an allegorical understanding of the text. And the issue regarding the corruption of the church. If the church was corrupted by allegorical interpretation, then your Bible is corrupt as are your creeds. The very men who formed the canon with the guidance of the Spirit and who wrote the Nicene Creed provided the basic doctrine for the Church also held to the allegorical view. If you think these men are corrupt, then the very basis of your faith is also corrupt. Those who hold an allegorical view would never seek to corrupt the church. We merely seek a historical and traditional understanding of what Genesis meant.

Thanks GE

I think in this statement presupposes that Christ (and the people of the day) thought of Adam as a historical figure. If Christ, Paul, etc. thought of Adam as allegorical and this was a common understanding, there would be no need to say "Adam, the allegorical first man" in the passages as it would be assumed. What if contemporary thought is found in the writings of contemporary Philo or early Christians who held to an allegorical interpretation of Genesis? I think the root of the problem with the arguments presented against the allegorical view are as follows. (1) They assume Christ viewed Adam as literal when contemporary Jews and early Christians hold the allegorical view. (2) They assume that literal interpretation is the only consistent way to maintain biblical inerrancy when inerrancy simply means that the Bible exists without error in the original language and manner in which it was written. If a particular passage was written in an allegorical manner it could still be inerrant. These arguments against the allegorical interpretation assume that Genesis was intended as literal before arguing that Genesis is literal. This is simply fallacious as it begs the question (assumes the conclusion in the premises).

I hope they have fun shifting through hours and hours of cat videos and memes to find anything useful... welcome to the internet lol

The actual papal view on the subject is that if one knows in their heart that the RCC is the "true" church and ignores the call of the Spirit to join the RCC, they will not receive salvation. Here is the answer they give on Catholic.com "The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following historic Christian theology since the time of the early Church Fathers, refers to the Catholic Church as "the universal sacrament of salvation" (CCC 774–776), and states: "The Church in this world is the sacrament of salvation, the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC 780). Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching. Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned. The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847). Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics. These can be saved by what later came to be known as "baptism of blood" or " baptism of desire" (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism). The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God. However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity." From my experience it seems that most Catholics and recent popes consider a majority of Protestants to be living in "innocent ignorance" as we do not recognize with our hearts the Catholic church is the "true" church. However, they consider those who purposefully sought to divide the RCC such as Luther and Calvin to be damned.

WarmRoom - Have you seen the TED talk given by the atheist Alain de Botton? He also rejects the extreme views of Dawkins and Hitchens that religion is by definition harmful and he actually seeks to incorporate philosophical religious ideas (love thy neighbor, forgiveness, etc) to better the world while at the same time rejecting the concept of God. He calls it atheism 2.0 and the talk is fairly interesting.

We can deduce several things about the nature of the cause. First let me clear up the issue of is it still around. The argument I presented was in the language that philosophers tend to use. The idea of necessity implies that something exists and does not come into or go out of existence. It is logically necessary. So yes it is still around. The attributes of the cause - creative, powerful, intelligent, existing without space or time constraining it. Arguing for the more aspects of the Christian concept of God being the cause will take more arguments but if you wish I can delve into those.

Hello my friend. I would like to provide the actual argument that you are searching for. Hawking claims the universe was created from nothing. This is supported by science and I think ironically enough is a great help to the theistic position. Big Bang cosmology holds that the universe was created at a single point in space time where space and time literally came into existence. This means that space and time have a definite beginning. A mathematical proof of this was provided by Guth, Vilenkin and Borde in 2003 (maybe 2002- I can find the paper or summary of the findings if you wish). Therefore I would present to you the theistic argument for God's existence. Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist is a contingent being. Premise 2: Contingent beings have causes that are either contingent (in which case those contingent causes also have causes) or necessary. Premise 3: The universe began to exist Premise 4 (1, 3): The universe is a contingent being Premise 5 (4, 2): The universe has a cause. Furthermore to prevent infinite regress we must have some sort of necessary initial cause (i.e. a non-contingent cause) to prevent infinite regress. This implies some sort of necessary being that exists outside our perception of space time and is able to powerfully interact with space time (assumed as this cause created space time). This is what the theist calls God. Perhaps you have questions on this argument. Please present them. Thank you for your time and welcome to Worthy.

Although I do not agree with the comparison between Satan and the atheistic community, I think the article was trying to point out, in a biased way to be sure, that the new atheism movement started by people like Dawkins does what most atheists like you find abhorrent, that is, they actively seek to "convert" people to a form of philosophical naturalism by ridiculing religious beliefs. Most atheists aren't like this and are content to as you say, "have the non-believer come to us" but Dawkins and his movement are actually "coming to them."

Don't forget star dust. Thank God for star dust :-). We are all born of star dust. Something quite beautiful to think about.

Although I think Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett and the late Hitchens severely overstep themselves by making philosophical claims for which they have little backing and promoting philosophical naturalism and materialism, we must also recognize that these are the most extreme of the new atheism movement which Dawkins has spearheaded in order to wipe out religion. Fortunately most professional atheist philosophers and scientists have recognized this approach as intellectually bankrupt and pointless. Just wanted to clear this up. Atheists do not have to prove the non-existence of God. They lack a belief in God but that does not mean that they make an affirmative claim that God does not exist. They do however, have to substantiate any philosophical claims they make such as the materialism and naturalism argued by Dawkins and others like him.

That question will be answered in the days and weeks to come. Sounds great. Thank you. I will not be able to respond for about a week but I will try to get back at it after that. Thanks for your patience.

Hello all, As many of you may know, I hold an allegorical interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis which I believe to be both an orthodox and reasonable position for a Christian to hold. Something caught my eye with these points below by Shiloh on the first post: The origin of sin and the sinfulness of man; The institution of marriage; Moral absolutes; justice; God as man’s eternal Judge; The origin of death and suffering; Personal modesty; The existence of God; God as Creator of the universe and the source of all life; God as man’s righteous and merciful Redeemer; The sovereignty of God; The omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of God ​ I am confused on this Shiloh. I think even if one accepts an allegorical view of Genesis, these themes per se are still present. How does taking an allegorical view invalidate the existence of God or his sovereignty for example? I think most Christians who hold the allegorical view of Genesis would still say that Genesis still displays these ideas and they are still scriptural. We would still hold to a Fall some finite time in the past and the concept of original sin. I fail to see conflict.

First off my friend, recognize that this thread is monstrously old and it might have been a better idea to have started a new one. Secondly, recognize that some of the people you are talking about support a Christian worldview and some, such as Justin don't even support the big bang. Lastly, I find it interesting that you take issue with the Big Bang, the best scientific evidence Christianity has for the position creation ex nihilo since the beginning of scientific inquiry. Funny 1: bang in reference to what exactly? Funny 2: of course, before you claim inflation, you’d actually have to PROVE it. That and that alone would be SCIENTIFIC, don’t you think? And I’m not sure HOW you can prove it, since even core mainstream institutions like ESA admit that not only it’s not proven but it CANNOT be proven… Bottom line: your FAITH in big bang seems boundless. Certainly worthy of a better cause. Like, I don’t know, God? Regardless, thank you for PROVING yet again how much FAITH it takes for one to believe in the mainstream pseudoscience… In regards to Funny 1: Big bang is a name it does not refer to a sound or anything like that. Bang refers to the idea of rapid expansion known as inflation. In regards to Funny 2: Could you provide your quote and the article or scientific journal where you found it? Thanks. In regards to evidence for cosmological inflation I place the following humbly at your feet: The WMAP mission of 2006 where a probe examined the cosmic microwave background radiation. This probe examines the radiation that is present in the universe to look into the earliest ages of the universe. NASA describes it in simple terms as taking baby pictures of the universe. Here is a brief description of the program as given by NASA. "The WMAP science team has determined, to a high degree of accuracy and precision, not only the age of the universe, but also the density of atoms; the density of all other non-atomic matter; the epoch when the first stars started to shine; the "lumpiness" of the universe, and how that "lumpiness" depends on scale size. In short, when used alone (with no other measurements), WMAP observations have improved knowledge of these six numbers by a total factor of 68,000, thereby converting cosmology from a field of wild speculation to a precision science. WMAP's "baby picture of the universe" maps the afterglow of the hot, young universe at a time when it was only 375,000 years old, when it was a tiny fraction of its current age of 13.77 billion years. The patterns in this baby picture were used to limit what could have possibly happened earlier, and what happened in the billions of year since that early time. The (mis-named) "big bang" framework of cosmology, which posits that the young universe was hot and dense, and has been expanding and cooling ever since, is now solidly supported, according to WMAP. WMAP observations also support an add-on to the big bang framework to account for the earliest moments of the universe. Called "inflation," the theory says that the universe underwent a dramatic early period of expansion, growing by more than a trillion trillion-fold in less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second. Tiny fluctuations were generated during this expansion that eventually grew to form galaxies. Remarkably, WMAP's precision measurement of the properties of the fluctuations has confirmed specific predictions of the simplest version of inflation: the fluctuations follow a bell curve with the same properties across the sky, and there are equal numbers of hot and cold spots on the map. WMAP also confirms the predictions that the amplitude of the variations in the density of the universe on big scales should be slightly larger than smaller scales, and that the universe should obey the rules of Euclidean geometry so the sum of the interior angles of a triangle add to 180 degrees." I could direct you to more scientific papers on the subject if you so desire. In regards to Bottom Line: I am a Christian so I do believe in God and I could provide good scientific and philosophical reasons to believe in God while the Big Bang. MathEmatically illogical? Really? Buddy, you could use maths to prove as well disprove ANYTHING. Really? You have a problem with Borde et al which is one of the largest proofs given to the scientific and Christian idea of creation ex nihilo? You do realize I support a Christian position, don't you? As to using mathematics to disprove anything, I would like you to prove mathematically that 2+2 =/= 4. If you could do that, it would be great. Until then, stop making foolish and grandiose claims. Thanks. So our universe is multiverse? Really? Sure you still have to PROVE that, prior to actually claiming it, but that doesn’t seem to deter you from your bold trips into imagination, does it? I do not believe that are universe is a multiverse. Please read the full statements I make or consult me before assuming positions I do not hold. I simply stated that any inflationary universe (such as ours - which I believe exists by the way) or inflationary multiverse (which I personally see no evidence for and perhaps some evidence against) must have a distinct space time beginning point by Borde et al. Lastly, sarcasm does not make your comments or arguments any better especially when they are so flawed. Please bring reason to the table, not jibes. Thanks for your time.

I think that ironically a Christian can and should agree with the idea that the universe was created out of nothing (ex nihilo) however Hawking is arguing that the universe came about from nothing and by nothing. The first part is fine on scientific, philosophical and theological reasons and creation ex nihilo is a widely held Christian position. This second bolded part poses a problem on philosophical and scientific levels.

So I am back. Sorry for the delay. A brief note to start me off: Nope. We are not. I have never met him before. One of our many differences is the following: D9 fences foil if my memory serves me correctly from previous discussions. I fence epee. Apology accepted. Simple, really. 1. Show the internal textual indicators in Genesis 1-11 where the author indicates that the text is allegorical 2. Show the internal textual indicators in Genesis 1-11 where the author indicates what the text is allegorizing. What is the text an allegory about, and where does the author mention that? 3. Show the Old and New Testament corroboration with the author of Genesis that the text is alleorical. The New Testament makes several references to Genesis, Adam and Eve, the Fall of man in the Garden, etc. Show where Jesus, Paul or any other NT writer indicates that the text of Genesis 1-11 was meant to be allegorical. I am not interested in what other people in history thought or think. If the text is allegorical then you should be able to easily meet the requirements of textual arguments, and those three mentioned above in particular. Here are some common ideas that come across in allegory and the epic form particularly: (a) Poetic style - in the original language, Genesis resembles other epic poems such as the Greek Iliad or Odyssey. This idea is affirmed by multiple Jewish and Christian sources from all periods of time (b) The use of archetype - the idea that characters represent or are the symbolic basis for the people we are - Adam and Eve are characters whose actually lives are not mentioned frequently in the Bible. Only major events symbolic to the human race (creation, the Fall, sex, children and death) are mentioned. We know nothing of there personalities in contrast to Christ, Moses, Paul, etc. Instead, Adam and Eve represent humanity in the Fall. and © Symbolic use of objects and animals - the fruit is a prime example of a symbolic object as it represents the temptation away from God. The acceptance of the fruit is man's free action to go against God's will. Another is the snake which even the most literalistic Christians take to be Satan, the tempter who is trying to bring God's people away from him. (d) Allegories often have a central message that they are trying to get across symbolically - in this case that message is the need for a Savior due to humanities fallen state within God's creation. Here is an excellent article by NT Wright exploring some other nuances in these passages: http://ntwrightpage....on_Covenant.htm In regards to what the authors of the Old and New Testament thought about what was written, there is no definitive statement that blatantly says, Adam was literal or Adam was allegorical. However, the authors do indicate that Adam was a representative for man itself (in regards to sin, etc), that the snake in the Garden was the Devil, that the "offspring" of Eve was Christ who crushed Satan's power through the crucifiction and did not literally crush the snakes head. All of these ideas are allegorical in nature and widely held by all Christians. I will once again mention the early church and Jews of that era as I value the opinions of those who lived in the time of Christ as most likely those beliefs closest in line with the Jews of his day. I don't understand why you don't accept this as a valid argument. It seems to me as though you are opposed to the idea of Christian tradition as it is often so closely tied with Catholic or Orthodox theology but that is just my perspective. Could you provide some valid reasons for why a vast majority of early Christians (and in fact most Christians up until the fundamentalist and Awakening movements of the 1700s and 1800s) believed in an allegorical Genesis along with the Jews of that era? Is it all a mass liberal conspiracy again or is there some other reason? Yeah, none of that really demonstrates that the text of Genesis is allegorical. I layed out what needs to be provided to demonstratre that the text is allegorical. I am not interested in what people like NT Wright think. I am not interested in what you claim early Christians thought. You are making a textual argument and you need to provide textual evidence. Absent that your allegorical argument cannot be taken seriously and should be rejected by clear thinking and genuine followers of Jesus. Ok... so I provided the following ideas as textual evidence... The writing style of Genesis which includes: 1. The use of archetype 2. The use of symbolic language 3. The use of poetic language in original form I also provided an article from NT Wright which explains a few other textual indicators. Then you blow me off by saying, "Yeah, none of that really demonstrates that the text of Genesis is allegorical." You say you aren't interested in what scholars claim or what the early church had to say on the matter. Basically, you are saying that you won't accept any evidence as long as it does not support your view. This seems somewhat problematic. Anything that I present will simply be disregarded. This does not appear to be an honest debate from my perspective. I also wonder why you reject these sources. Do you have any reasons to reject the thoughts of Augustine, Josephus, Origen, etc. from the past or Borg, Wright or Lennox in the present? Is it simply because they disagree with you? That seems a rather lame answer and foolishness in the extreme. For what I hope is the last time this is a fallacious slippery slope argument. Just because one section of the Bible is allegorical doesn't mean all of it is. If Genesis is intended as an allegorical creation account for various textual, scientific and historical reasons, then it in no way hurts the inerrancy of it or the rest of the Bible. Stop bringing up this argument. It is a very poor one. Actually, Tinky is spot on. The Bible is a layered system of progressive revelation. It is is also an interlocking system of doctrinal teaching. You cannot allegorize Genesis 1-11 without doing major damage to the NT. If Adam and Eve were not real people, if the fall of man is not literal history, if the entire first 11 chapters of Genesis are nothing but an allegory, then sin doesn't exist. The fall of man never occurred and there is no sinfulness in man. Well. This is the slippery slope problem. Let me lay out a theistic evolution response to this. 1. Adam and Eve are allegorical but the Fall from God is still conveyed as a theme in Genesis 2. In other words, man is seperated from God and in sin 3. Therefore, man is in need of a Redeemer in Christ ...and here we are with a need for a Savior as we are still sinful. No harm done to the theological idea of redemption. Hopefully that clears up the slippery slope fallacy but I bet I will hear it about 500 more times. BTW, my responses might die off for a bit. Finals week is this week (hopefully I do well) and then I am off to a summer conference for a week. I will respond as much as I can.

Sorry to everyone that I haven't responded to you all for a bit. I will be responding soon. Thank you for your patience.

Well then, the book of Revelation is also written in an "epic" style - is any of that actually true? Well Golly, just because the Bible says Paul spoke of Jesus being physically resurrected doesn't mean that's what he really meant - Paul was obviously speaking allegorically, because the Jews and the early church didn't actually believe in bodily resurrection. (Boy, dismissing arguments the way you do is pretty easy and fun! No wonder you do it so much!) But yet again, Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, et al., are specifically spoken of by Jesus Christ - God Himself - as actual people, and the genealogies written in the Bible also say they were actual people - so, aside from your personal belief and bias, you really have no leg to stand on. Ok. So time to deal with strawman arguments... 1. Revelation - written in a prophetic, not epic manner. Similar to Isaiah or Jeremiah for example. No comparisons can be drawn between its writing style and that of Genesis. 2. There is a distinct difference between having evidence that the early church held to one's view (by presenting the works of Augustine, Josephus, Origen, etc) and evidence that textual criticism supports your idea (see NT Wright, Marcus Borg) and just throwing random sentences out there with no backing. Both secular and religious textual criticism in this area supports a physical Resurrection while the early church firmly held to this idea. Please bring up evidence instead of using strawmen. 3. The issues of genealogy and Paul talking about Adam was addressed with evidence. You can keep restating your points but counterarguments would be nice. Please stop misrepresenting my position and restating yourself without evidence. Thanks.