Creation???

[nebula]

You are a lot better at mind circles than I am, so I'm not going to bother. I'm an A + B =C thinker. I don't do mental gymnastics.

All I'm going to say is that you are not coming close to understanding or addressing what I'm seeing played out.

P.S. Why don't you read Gen. 1 for what God has to say about our relationship with Him and His plan of redemption. It's in there if you know what to look for.

[~candice~]

P.S. Why don't you read Gen. 1 for what God has to say about our relationship with Him and His plan of redemption. It's in there if you know what to look for.

When I teach my 2 year old about the boy who cried wolf, I intend for her to walk away with the understanding that she is not to cry help without sufficient cause, I do not intend for her to debate her friends about the species of wolf, whether it was figurative or literal, or the colour of it's eyes.

[Fez]

P.S. Why don't you read Gen. 1 for what God has to say about our relationship with Him and His plan of redemption. It's in there if you know what to look for.

When I teach my 2 year old about the boy who cried wolf, I intend for her to walk away with the understanding that she is not to cry help without sufficient cause, I do not intend for her to debate her friends about the species of wolf, whether it was figurative or literal, or the colour of it's eyes.

Well put!!!

And can that not be said for the reading of most scripture.....

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

You are a lot better at mind circles than I am, so I'm not going to bother. I'm an A + B =C thinker. I don't do mental gymnastics.

O please.

A + B = C hey?

OK, how's this for straight forward. God said He created in six days and tells us what He created on those days.

Who's playing the mental gymnastics?

I'm taking the Bible for what it says and you want to figure out what it means despite what it says.

All I'm going to say is that you are not coming close to understanding or addressing what I'm seeing played out.

You can assert anything you want, but if you can't even pretend to put together an argument to demonstrate your assertion then it's not meaningful in any way.

Neb, you put forth what you perceived to be a problem and that now you're proving entirely unwilling or incapable to maintain.

I've got to ask, I was willing to answer your question, but it really seems to have just been more of a slight than an inquiry and now you're not even willing to discuss the issue because it's gone beyond your cursory dismissal, so what really was the value of asking? You were just trying to take a poke, weren't cha?

P.S. Why don't you read Gen. 1 for what God has to say about our relationship with Him and His plan of redemption. It's in there if you know what to look for.

Let me ask you a question - does believing that Jesus literally came down to earth, lived and died and was literally resurrected from the dead undermine or enhance the immaterial implications of His sacrifice on our relationship with God?

If the answer is enhance, why then would you create the false dichotomy elsewhere in the Bible that if something is accurate to reality, it then undermines it's redemptive significance or our ability to recognize it as such?

You can't afford the cost of your assertion, because your approach is enthusiastically embraced by my B'haia friend who rejects that the Bible is literal and dismisses the flood, the divinity of Jesus and even the resurrection while still accepting Jesus as a prophet.

You introduced the supposed problem, you introduced the supposed cultural barrier of Hellenism, etc., and when I simply point out that these supposed issues really aren't all that solid then you accuse me of mind games. I have to admit, I expected a bit more and thought you might actually be asking a question to which you were inviting an open discussion.

Let me know if you want to pick up with a meaningful discussion instead of just taking a dig and we’ll start over.

God bless.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

P.S. Why don't you read Gen. 1 for what God has to say about our relationship with Him and His plan of redemption. It's in there if you know what to look for.

When I teach my 2 year old about the boy who cried wolf, I intend for her to walk away with the understanding that she is not to cry help without sufficient cause, I do not intend for her to debate her friends about the species of wolf, whether it was figurative or literal, or the colour of it's eyes.

Sure, but did the authour of the boy who cried wolf ever receive an authoritative commandment that 'Every word of 'Cried wolf' is flawless', or the boy shall not live on sheep alone but on every word that proceeds from 'cried wolf', or that 'cried wolf' is living and active, sharper than any shepherd’s crook and capable of discerning even the motives of little boys?

Kidding aside though, without knowing your beliefs, I could just as readily have understood this post to be written by an atheist/eastern mystic/new age pagan/ agnostic/etc/ who was brushing scripture in its totallity off as a morality tale - and why not?

If you're taking this stance here, what justifies the inconsistency in taking the rest of the Bible differently?

Paul spoke in the rhetoric of Hellenistic diatribe - such was never expected in that culture to be communicating a one-to-one comparison of real events to the truth they were supposed to communicate. Secular scholars see the NT as written in the same 'historical' format as other Hellenistic influenced works in the Ancient Near East like Alexander's conquests, which involved incidents of prophetic oracles, talking snakes and crows, etc.

A long time ago I remember my Ancient Greek History professor mentioning that the NT was the natural bi-product of the union of Hebrew theology and Greek philosophy, and let me tell you, that case is pretty consistent and compelling. I guarantee that using that precedent, from the nature of contemporary literature it would be easier for me to show why the NT should be taken as metaphoric and widely embellished than it would for you to show that it shouldn’t. The reason we don’t is because God told us things in advance so we’d know they were from Him, and those things came to pass just as decreed so we can see the reliability of the Creator and the absolute, uncompromising truth of His word as stated: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16).

The point being, the style of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is not unique to poetic, hyperbolic, or symbolic representations of truth any more so than the rest of the text, in which we invest total, unwavering faith. The more you study ancient history, the less privilege you have to pretend that the NT was written in a genre that was culturally accepted as a direct one-to-one historical narrative style, since that sure ain't what everyone else was doing, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander (if a barn-yard metaphor won't convince you, then nothing will...) and if you open up the hermeneutic door to say that the point of Genesis 1 was not to communicate something that happened but the symbolism of what happened then you've no firmer footing to resist the JW or Mormon who rejects the divinity of Christ than your personal take on scripture.

[nebula]

You are a lot better at mind circles than I am, so I'm not going to bother. I'm an A + B =C thinker. I don't do mental gymnastics.

O please.

A + B = C hey?

OK, how's this for straight forward. God said He created in six days and tells us what He created on those days.

Who's playing the mental gymnastics?

I'm taking the Bible for what it says and you want to figure out what it means despite what it says.

How can one do exegesis without trying to figure out what it means?

Sometimes you have to question traditional interpretations in order to dig for truth. Maybe you'll end back at square one, but you will have learned much in the process.

All I'm going to say is that you are not coming close to understanding or addressing what I'm seeing played out.

You can assert anything you want, but if you can't even pretend to put together an argument to demonstrate your assertion then it's not meaningful in any way.

Debating is not one of my strongpoints. My response was an attempt to say I did not feel like trying to continue debating and why. If you want to look down your nose at me for that, fine.

[nebula]

Neb, you put forth what you perceived to be a problem and that now you're proving entirely unwilling or incapable to maintain.

I've got to ask, I was willing to answer your question, but it really seems to have just been more of a slight than an inquiry and now you're not even willing to discuss the issue because it's gone beyond your cursory dismissal, so what really was the value of asking? You were just trying to take a poke, weren't cha?

No, you didn't prove anything. I've heard that response before, and as yet I have not heard a defense for that case that lays it out in the vein I'm perceiving the issue. I've been down that road enough times that I don't feel like going down it again.

I am sorry that offends you and makes you feel puffed up.

P.S. Why don't you read Gen. 1 for what God has to say about our relationship with Him and His plan of redemption. It's in there if you know what to look for.

Let me ask you a question - does believing that Jesus literally came down to earth, lived and died and was literally resurrected from the dead undermine or enhance the immaterial implications of His sacrifice on our relationship with God?

I am not understanding your train of thought. "Immaterial implications" - huh?

If the answer is enhance, why then would you create the false dichotomy elsewhere in the Bible that if something is accurate to reality, it then undermines it's redemptive significance or our ability to recognize it as such?

If you believe Genesis 1 to be an historic narrative, this case makes sense.

But if you believe Genesis 1 to be a different form of narrative, this case misses the point. A couple examples of what I mean are found here: The Framework Interpretation of Genesis 1

You can't afford the cost of your assertion, because your approach is enthusiastically embraced by my B'haia friend who rejects that the Bible is literal and dismisses the flood, the divinity of Jesus and even the resurrection while still accepting Jesus as a prophet.

This is truly a poor way to make your case.

You introduced the supposed problem, you introduced the supposed cultural barrier of Hellenism, etc., and when I simply point out that these supposed issues really aren't all that solid then you accuse me of mind games. I have to admit, I expected a bit more and thought you might actually be asking a question to which you were inviting an open discussion.

I'm not accusing you of mind games. That isn't what I meant by mental gymnastics. I meant that as a way of weaving debates, as with philosophy, that leave straight-forward people like me feeling a little confused.

Let me know if you want to pick up with a meaningful discussion instead of just taking a dig and we’ll start over.

Not if you are going to be a bully about it.

Edited August 4, 2011 by nebula

[~candice~]

P.S. Why don't you read Gen. 1 for what God has to say about our relationship with Him and His plan of redemption. It's in there if you know what to look for.

When I teach my 2 year old about the boy who cried wolf, I intend for her to walk away with the understanding that she is not to cry help without sufficient cause, I do not intend for her to debate her friends about the species of wolf, whether it was figurative or literal, or the colour of it's eyes.

Sure, but did the authour of the boy who cried wolf ever receive an authoritative commandment that 'Every word of 'Cried wolf' is flawless', or the boy shall not live on sheep alone but on every word that proceeds from 'cried wolf', or that 'cried wolf' is living and active, sharper than any shepherd’s crook and capable of discerning even the motives of little boys?

Kidding aside though, without knowing your beliefs, I could just as readily have understood this post to be written by an atheist/eastern mystic/new age pagan/ agnostic/etc/ who was brushing scripture in its totallity off as a morality tale - and why not?

If you're taking this stance here, what justifies the inconsistency in taking the rest of the Bible differently?

Paul spoke in the rhetoric of Hellenistic diatribe - such was never expected in that culture to be communicating a one-to-one comparison of real events to the truth they were supposed to communicate. Secular scholars see the NT as written in the same 'historical' format as other Hellenistic influenced works in the Ancient Near East like Alexander's conquests, which involved incidents of prophetic oracles, talking snakes and crows, etc.

A long time ago I remember my Ancient Greek History professor mentioning that the NT was the natural bi-product of the union of Hebrew theology and Greek philosophy, and let me tell you, that case is pretty consistent and compelling. I guarantee that using that precedent, from the nature of contemporary literature it would be easier for me to show why the NT should be taken as metaphoric and widely embellished than it would for you to show that it shouldn’t. The reason we don’t is because God told us things in advance so we’d know they were from Him, and those things came to pass just as decreed so we can see the reliability of the Creator and the absolute, uncompromising truth of His word as stated: "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16).

The point being, the style of the first 11 chapters of Genesis is not unique to poetic, hyperbolic, or symbolic representations of truth any more so than the rest of the text, in which we invest total, unwavering faith. The more you study ancient history, the less privilege you have to pretend that the NT was written in a genre that was culturally accepted as a direct one-to-one historical narrative style, since that sure ain't what everyone else was doing, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander (if a barn-yard metaphor won't convince you, then nothing will...) and if you open up the hermeneutic door to say that the point of Genesis 1 was not to communicate something that happened but the symbolism of what happened then you've no firmer footing to resist the JW or Mormon who rejects the divinity of Christ than your personal take on scripture.

Wow

My point was that we should read it to understand the message He has given us in it, and not focus on the issues that He didn't make a focus. It's clear that Genesis refers to the Lords Creative work, but His focus on is man's relationship with God and sin, and revealing (albeit dimly) His plan for redemption.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

How can one do exegesis without trying to figure out what it means?

It says what it means, and it means what it says.

Again, you can't just look at the resurrection and say "But what does it mean?" to suggest that it didn't occur as reported.

The resurrection has infinitely profound meaning, but does that do anything to suggest the event didn't occur? No.

In and of itself what you're presenting here isn't an argument as what you're asking has no clear contention with my position.

Sometimes you have to question traditional interpretations in order to dig for truth.

I'm a former Christian-hating naturalist, turned Christian evolutionist, turned YEC.

I had huge struggles coming to terms with Christianity first, and young earth creationism second, but simply could not support either assertion in light of a systematic scrutiny of God's word, even though I hotly and hostily opposed both Christianity and young earth creationism respectively.

So ya, I've questioned and what I found when I dug for the truth is that despite all of my preconceptions and struggles to affirm the contrary "Thy word is Truth" (John 17:17) and that all the ways that "seemth right to a man, the end therein is death" (Proverbs 14:12).

Maybe you'll end back at square one, but you will have learned much in the process.

Look, if you don't actually want to follow up with the question you asked with a meaningful conversation that's fine, but don't pretend that you're justified in dismissing the conversation on the grounds that I would be edified for looking into it further, as though you had some idea of the process through which I've reached this conclusion.

You're dismissing my interpretation here by indicating it stems from ignorance, even though my position is that God is capable of communicating the truth through accurate representation of reality (which you also believe, I'm sure), and does consistently throughout scripture (which really only means that we're consistent in our approach).

Let's not pretend that you asked that question about how YEC's could reconcile the Bible to reality and wrote off my response as mental gymnastics without any real consideration as though it was for my edification. You're simply not acquanted with the extent to which I've looked into the cultural implications of creation accounts in the Ancient Near East, the literary devices and genres employed, the references made in the rest of scripture under different context which confirm the Genesis account as accurately portraying what occured as a historical narrative, or any other relevant considerations.

Debating is not one of my strongpoints. My response was an attempt to say I did not feel like trying to continue debating and why. If you want to look down your nose at me for that, fine.

If that's what you wanted to say, then it seems to me that I would best understand your purpose if you'd expressed it as such, but you didn't.

So instead of supposing your meaning, I'm addressing what you did say. It's kind of my approach, and I try to be consistent.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Neb, you put forth what you perceived to be a problem and that now you're proving entirely unwilling or incapable to maintain.

I've got to ask, I was willing to answer your question, but it really seems to have just been more of a slight than an inquiry and now you're not even willing to discuss the issue because it's gone beyond your cursory dismissal, so what really was the value of asking? You were just trying to take a poke, weren't cha?

No, you didn't prove anything.

I didn't say that I did. What I said is that you're proving unwilling to discuss.

I've heard that response before, and as yet I have not heard a defense for that case that lays it out in the vein I'm perceiving the issue. I've been down that road enough times that I don't feel like going down it again.

Then may I suggest that it may be unwise to ask a question to which you don't what to hear the response.

Was it unwarrented of me to suppose that you might actually want to hear and answer when you invite one?

I am sorry that offends you and makes you feel puffed up.

I didn't say I was offended or puffed up so no apology needed, but I'm not going to pretend that you're correct in indicating that my position, that the Bible records events in reality as they occured, stems from ignorance.

Say what you want about me, but I believe the Bible is written to be understood as it is written, so please don't slight that method of interpretation without being willing to engage in a meaningful discussion.

I am not understanding your train of thought. "Immaterial implications" - huh?

The meaning behind the events.

Your argument seems to be that we need to see the meaning behind the events not focus on the events themselves, and therefore it seems to be implied that therefore the events need not have occured as recorded.

What I'm saying is that Jesus' acutal resurrection was reality, even though the deeper meaning is what is reallly important. Just because an event has a very profound meaning doesn't do anything to suggest that therefore the event itself didn't need to occur, as long as the meaning was communicated. If Christ did not really die we are to be pitied above all people.

We have no grounds to dismiss events in the Bible as reality, just because they have profound meaning. That would relegate the Bible to the mythology of all the false religions of the world.

If you believe Genesis 1 to be an historic narrative, this case makes sense.

But if you believe Genesis 1 to be a different form of narrative, this case misses the point. A couple examples of what I mean are found here: The Framework Interpretation of Genesis 1

I could provide lots of examples of why the NT should be accepted as a historical narrative in the same vein as the narratives of Alexander the Great conqests, which are accepted as embelished to include supernatural phenomenon and prophecies that are totally rejected by contemporary historians.

If you don't take Genesis 1-11 as historical, why stop there? All ancient documents were embellished and propagandized.

This is truly a poor way to make your case.

OK, how should I have made my case?

I'm not accusing you of mind games. That isn't what I meant by mental gymnastics. I meant that as a way of weaving debates, as with philosophy, that leave straight-forward people like me feeling a little confused.

I'm not sure how you've tried to spin it this way, but I'm arguing for the straight forward reading of the text. Believing that it was written to mean what it says and say what it means.

You're introducing the idea of trying to dig out what it means, which is weaving something that goes above the straight-forward way of approaching the text.

I tried to answer straight-forwardly by simply quoting the verse and pointing out what it says and stating that therefore I believe that's what happened and I didn't see a conflict, to which you pushed back with a call to digging a bit deeper and so I consented and followed your lead.

Look, this is getting blown way out of proportion, but I just don't think it's respectful to a legitimate Biblical assumption (that the Bible reliably communicates what occured) to put out questions you don't really want answered. I'm really just getting the feeling you're trying to mark it as ignorant and I don't think YEC's should have to feel like they're getting that from other Bible believing Christians who contend for the truth.

It doesn't matter to me personally so as far as I'm concerned you and I are good as gold with one another, but there are YEC's here who haven't necessarily looked into everything and I don't want them to feel embarassed about an approach that I think is Biblical.

Not if you are going to be a bully about it.

I think you're misinterpreting my purpose here. I was getting a pushy vibe from your response there and I'm just trying to show that the we're not YEC because we just haven't looked into it yet.

Look Neb, I'm not trying to cause contention here, but I just don't think this was all in the best spirit. I though you were asking a question and I was providing a response, but it seemed to me that you just wanted to get a 'so there' in.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it looked like.