Adam And Eve - Just An Allegory?

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

 

I believe that Genesis 1 gives us an historical account of the creation of the world and I believe it is an inerrant account.  I cannot lay claim to any kind of time frame, whether the events occurred within a few thousand years or millions of years.  To me, that is really not the point of the story.

I believe the Bible and I believe this historical account as it is presented in the pages of Scripture.   It is a foregone conclusion that Genesis 1 is not a complete historical account.  There is missing information and it is also a foregone conclusion that it is not intended to be a scientific account, as well.  For that reason, trying to scrutinize it in the context of modern scientific precision is futile and rather nonsensical, as it makes no scienitific claims.

 

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. 

 

1.      In any given text, we always look for the literal meaning of the text.  Otherwise, what’a the point of interpretation? 

2.      The status quo does not go back to the beginning of the church.  The status quo begins with the authors of scripture themselves.  Every mention of any of the people or events of Genesis 1-3  by the New Testament authors is always in the context of a literal historicity.

3.      The burden of proof still lies with you to show that the original human authors of the text of Scripture had an allegorical view of Genesis 1-3 in mind when they referenced that part of the Bible.  

4.      The text is not allegorical becaue Augustine or Origen said so.  That is not how we arrive at truth.  The burden is your to show that the author wanted us to walk away from the text of Genesis 1-3 with the understanding that he was only making the story up as an allegory.

 

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.

 

It is not poetic.  It is not a poem.  That is where your argument fails.   To be sure I believe poetry does exist as a biblical genre and as a vehicle in Scripture to communicate divine truth.   However we are dealing with a Hebrew document and Hebrew poetic forms contains specific elements consistently:

1.      Parallelism – There are four kinds of Hebrew Parallelism:  Synomomous, Synthetic, and antithetic.   Genesis contains none of them in relation to the creation account.

2.      Chiasm – Once again, this poetic structure doesn’t exist

3.      As for other devices used in poetry, there are no metaphors, similies, no merisms, hyperbole, symbols ellipsis anywhere in the creation account.

There are simply no elements that we expect to find in Hebrew poetry in the creation account.  Further more the Hebrew structure of the account where each verse begins with, “v’omer Elohim  (and God said)  is not indicative of Hebraic poetic style at all. 

Given that there is no real case to be made for a poetic style there is also no case to be made that Genesis is written so much differently than Exodus.  So there is no problem for a literalist to have to grapple with.

 

Next, we move on to the idea of symbols. The literalist can only assume that a talking snake caused Adam and Eve to sin.

 

Not if I believe that the text is the product of an all-knowing, all-powerful God who doesn’t make mistakes or lie said that it happened and inspired men to write down that it happened.  When we say that all Scripture is inspired by God that includes the events surrounding the snake in Genesis 3.   I believe that Jonah was swallowed by a “great fish.”   I believe that God spoke to Moses through a burning bush that was not being consumed.  I believe that Jesus walked on water and fed thousands of people with five crackers and two small fish.  I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead and bodily ascended into heaven.   All of those things defy logic, scientific explanation and rational thought.   If I can believe that Jesus ascended bodiliy into heaven what makes it so hard to believe that satan spoke to eve through a snake???

 

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.

 

All of that is wrong.  We believe that satan spoke to Eve through the agency of the serpent.  We don’t see the serpent as an allegory.

 

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. 

 

None of the elements you list as indicative allegory occur when the Bible actually uses allegory, such as in I Corinthians10 or Gal. 4.   In those chapters we see a legitmate use of allegory as a teaching method.   You, on the other hand misuse allegory as a means of supplanting real history.

 

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.

 

A literal reading of Genesis doesn’t necessarily mean that YEC is historical fact.  You seem to ignore the fact that there are creationists who see the universe as millions of years old but still hold to a literal reading of Genesis 1.  They simply don’t see the days as 24 hour solar days.  The Bible doesn’t indicate that they were 24 hour days.  So one can hold to an older earth without giving any ground to the delusions of the evolutionists.

 

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.

 

I didn't say that the allegorical view was deisgned to make room for evolution. I said that it is an attempt (today) to make room for the Theory of Evolution.  .The allegorical view is an enabler for those who reject the historicity of Genesis and need a reason, something to fall back on. 

 

The Theory of Evolution (ToE) holds to a theory of origins that precludes a divine Creator, particularly the God of  Scripture.  The ToE is based on a philiosophical and methodoligical naturalism.  It holds that all we know came to be through a process that is impersonal, unguided, and wholly naturalistic in every way.   Dawkins embraces evolution because he believes that it makes an atheist a more complete and fulfilled atheist.  The ToE precludes God.  I have spoken to university professors of Biology, Micro and Marine Biology who are staunch advocates for Evolution and I asked them about “Theistic Evolution” and it was laughed off as “oxymoronic.”   It is the one thing they said to me that I actually agree with.

Theistic Evolution is oxymoronic because it requires both the Bible and the ToE to be modified in order to fit them together.   In other words, Thesitic Evolution is neither Theistic nor is it Evolutionary.   When you have to modify the ToE and the Bible, then you are faithful to neither.

It is an oxymoronic as claiming to be an atheistic Christian.

 

Continued on Next Post

[Guest shiloh357]

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. 

I did not ask you why my position regarding the fall is unsatisfactory.  You misstated my question.   The question I wanted you to answer is: Why is the Bible’s account of man’s fall unsatisfactory?

Instead of answering the question, you misrepresented the question so that you would not have to explain why the Bible’s account is unsatisfactory.   The reasons for rejecting the historicity of the biblical account of man’s fall, which you outline above demonstrate that you are more of a parrot in these matters than someone who is actually trained in biblical manuscripts.  The fact is that none of the reasons which you outline above are sufficient evidence for claiming that Genesis 1-3 is an alleogry.   You have nothing but other people whom you rest on as intellectual crutches for your belief, whereas, I on the other hand, can offer actual textual arguments to support my position.

 

Other threads are irrelevant to this debate as is my position on other issues. Debate the topic not me. Thanks. 

 

They are not irrelevant.  They speak to your over all worldview and how that worldview affects the way you are viewing Genesis.  I am not debating you at all. I am debating the framework of your position  in the light of how you have presented yourself since you have been here on Worthy Boards.  I am taking your relevant posting history into account as it touches on the issues raised in this thread.  Your views on other moral issues flavors how you approach the text of Scripture.

 

And lastly we address the Church Fathers. You can call them anti-Semites, etc. (despite lacking proof in regards to this point)

Origen of Alexandria (185-254 A.D.) – An ecclesiastical writer and teacher who contributed to the early formation of Christian doctrines.

We may thus assert in utter confidence that the Jews will not return to their earlier situation, for they have committed the most abominable of crimes, in forming this conspiracy against the Savior of the human race…hence the city where Jesus suffered was necessarily destroyed, the Jewish nation was driven from its country, and another people was called by God to the blessed election.

 

St. Augustine:

“Judaism is a corruption.  Indeed Judas is the image of the Jewish people.  Their understanding of the Scriptures is carnal.  They bear the guilt for the death of the saviour, for through their fathers they have killed the Christ.”

 

St. Gregory:

“ Jews are slayers of the Lord, murderers of the prophets, enemies of God, haters of God, adversaries of grace, enemies of their fathers’ faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men of darkened minds, leaven of the Pharisees, congregation of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of goodness.”

 

St. Jerome:

“....serpents, haters of all men, their image is Judas ... their psalms and prayers are the braying of donkeys..”

 

John Chrysostom – Known in his day as the “golden tongued preacher”:

 

“I know that many people hold a high regard for the Jews and consider their way of life worthy of respect at the present time... This is why I am hurrying to pull up this fatal notion by the roots ... A place where a whore stands on display is a whorehouse.  What is more, the synagogue is not only a whorehouse and a theater; it is also a den of thieves and a haunt of wild animals ... not the cave of a wild animal merely, but of an unclean wild animal ... When animals are unfit for work, they are marked for slaughter, and this is the very thing which the Jews have experienced.  By making themselves unfit for work, they have become ready for slaughter. 

Jews are the most worthless of men - they are lecherous, greedy, rapacious - they are perfidious murderers of Christians, they worship the devil, their religion is a sickness ... The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation, no indulgence, no pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance. The Jews must live in servitude forever. It is incumbent on all Christians to hate the Jews.

I hate the Jews because they violate the Law. I hate the synagogue because it has the Law and the prophets. It is the duty of all Christians to hate the Jews.

 

(Homilies Against the Jews" in Patrologia Graeca)

 

Peter the Venerable:

Yes, you Jews. I say, do I address you; you, who till this very day, deny the Son of God. How long, poor wretches, will ye not believe the truth? Truly I doubt whether a Jew can be really human… I lead out from its den a monstrous animal, and show it as a laughing stock in the amphitheater of the world, in the sight of all the people. I bring thee forward, thou Jew, thou brute beast, in the sight of all men.

 

Martin Luther

 

Listen, Jew, are you aware that Jerusalem and your sovereignty, together with your temple and priesthood, have been destroyed for over 1,460 years?”. . . For such ruthless wrath of God is sufficient evidence that they assuredly have erred and gone astray. . . . Therefore this work of wrath is proof that the Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer his people, and neither is he any longer their God.

 

Now, compare the above with the words of Adolf Hitler: 

“I believe that I am today acting according to the purposes of the Almighty Creator. In resisting the Jew, I am fighting the Lord’s battle.”

 

 

 

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.

None of that really has anything to do with the issue at hand.  The early church fathers had a lot of egregious theolgoical errors that they held on to.  By the way, the canon of Scripture was already formed well before the 4^th century. 

 

 

It would be much more reasonable to hold that Christ himself held to this view rather than any other view.

No it would not be more reasonable.  Jesus treated Adam and Eve as literal historical people.  In fact Jesus treated every OT passage He referenced as literal and historical. You are violating historical propiety by trying to assign a value to Jesus’ teaching based on how those AFTER Him viewed Scripture.

 

 

 

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?

Because they didn’t write it.  I trust the Scriptures because it is the Word of God. My trust of Scripture doesn’t lie with the early church fathers at all.   Why would it?  I am under no obligation to trust them.  They had some very egregious theoligical errors on fundamental issues in Scripture particuarly as it related to Church and Israel, as demonstrated above.  They were virulent racists and for that I  give them no respect.

[Guest shiloh357]

I agree that poetry by itself doesn't negate historicity, but I have heard from those that do read and know Hebrew that the style of writing indicates that we are reading a literary mythology, or a proto-historical tradition. I know you want proof and are adamantly opposed, but I simply don't know enough to supply you with what you need. I happen to know a little about the psychology of "knowing", and I'm convinced that no matter what people show you it will not deter you as you firmly "know" you are right and that's that. "Knowing" is more than just knowing facts and consciously analyzing them, much of it is subconscious too and deeply held beliefs need more than facts to persuade. 

 

I know and read Hebrew too, and the kind of things we see in Hebrew poetry such as, Parallelism, chiasms, similies, metaphors, hyperbole are absent in Genesis.  Not only that chapter one has almost every verse beginning with “and the God said..” which is not poetic form.

I am not the kind of person that doesn’t accept good evidence. The problem is that you are a parrot and you claim evidence that you can’t produce.  I, on the other hand, can make actual textual arguments to support my position and am not reliant on other people to be my intellectual crutch.

 

What is so unique about the first chapters of Genesis that it couldn't have been written by humans?

 

The God of the Bible would not have been something that ancient near eastern people would have a point of reference for.  It’s like nobody in Europe in the 1400’s would have thought of a cell phone.  They had nothing in their experience to make that something they could have thought of.  

Ancient near eastern religious paradigms had no concept of an eternal, noncoporeal, invisible, benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful, everywhere present God who loved humanity so much that He engineered a plan to redeem him.   In ancient mythology the gods of the pagans were the opposite of the God of the Bible because their gods resembled people not only physically but in character as well.

The God of the Bible is particularly offensive to human nature.  The idea that there is a God who is a sovereign Creator, Righteous Redeemer, Moral Lawgiver and Eternal Judge to whom we are all accountable didn’t exist in the ancient near eastern religious paradigm.  They didn’t view the gods that way.

If a person in ancient near east wanted to create allegory about the creation of the world, they would not have envisioned anything like the God of the Bible, and his allegory would have not have included a concept called sin or a fall of mankind from a relationship with God. 

 

I will also add that this question is tangential to the original purpose of the thread; I see no reason why the meaning should change from literal speech to figurative speech (or vice versa) depending whether or not man or God wrote it. 

 

It changes because the value system of men as well as the religious paradigm that existed at that time is completely contrary to what is presented in the Bible.   Human nature would never have produced the Bible as whole, anyway.  

 

 

What do you mean by a genre issue? Previously you said that genre is not a factor, and now you say writing style is not a factor. What is a factor? And please don't say the author's intent, because we can't know the author's intent without some evidence to back it up. And I think that is a point BFA is making, we can't call up the author and ask him what he means, there are no papers or text from the author about the meaning, so we have to look at things like the style of writing, the genre, history, culture, and tradition to determine the original intent. 

 

The text itself reads as a historical narrative.  That is clear to anyone who will read the text honestly.  The Hebrew construct from chapter one to the end of the book is one long historical narrative.

What did I say that genre was not a factor in??  Please copy and paste my exact words and the post number so I can review it.  Absent that I will simply take that comment as another attempt to misrepresent my comments to mean something I did not intend.

The problem is that there is nothing in the genre, writing style, history, culture or tradition that tells us that this text is it is allegorical.  Nothing.  In fact, up to this point, you have provided nothing along those lines.  You like to throw around terminology but at the end of day,  you don’t really know anything beyond what you can parrot from someone else.

 

Give me some credit, it's not like I completely slept through literature class.

 

Could’ve fooled me.  You really don’t understand literalism or how literalism works in a true literary setting and that is evident from your posts.  I have made the point that I am not a wooden literalist, but a literary one and that your view on how literalism works is skewed. 

 

I think part of the disconnect is that in your writing on this thread you don't distinguish between a given text that is written in a literal fashion (instead of figuratively) versus the paradigm of literalism which allows obvious metaphors and idioms to be read figuratively to ascertain their literal meaning. At least it has not been clear to me, and obviously not clear to BFA either. 

 

Oh, I have made that clear.  The historical narrative of Genesis is written in a literal fashion.  There are NO figurative elements to it at all.  You and BFA are simply unwilling to be honest about the text.

I gave the example of Jesus saying to cut off your hand if it causes you to sin.  The reason I know that he doesn’t mean for us to engage in self-mutiliation is because he is using hyperbole, an exaggeration to make a point. 

 

That has simply not been my experience at all dealing with liberals. I didn't think like that when I was a liberal Christian, and I honestly cannot recall anyone that does. To me it sounds like you've been listening to conservatives ranting about liberals, rather than hearing what liberals are actually saying. 

 

Nope.  Every liberal that has ever come on to this board and argued agaisnt the historicity of Genesis 1 has always been an advocate of evolution, homosexual marriage, abortion and an assortment of other oddities.   It has been my experience with liberals.  Oh, I am not saying they are necessarily on some kind of campaign necessarily, but they hold those views in common when they challenge the historicity of Genesis.

The only way one can claim to be a Christian and advocate for evolution and gay marriage is to revise the Bible enough to make certain claims of Scripture irrelevant and to deny the authority of the Bible to define and sin and demonize those who hold to the Bible’s definition of what is or is not sinful as dumb stooges, evil or as haters and so forth.

 

You said that the Bible, namely Jesus, uses parables to get across spiritual truths. Here we have a fictional story wrapped up in the language of the parable used to convey a truth.

 

But Genesis 1 does not claim to be a parable.  When parables are used, the Bible indicates that the following text is a parable.  The story doesn’t read like any parable in Scripture. There is nothing in the NT that Genesis was just a parable. That is you assigning a value to the text of Genesis that you don’t have permission from the author to do. 

 

Hypothetically, lets say Genesis is fiction, what would be the meaning behind this fictional story? I submit that it would not change from the basic principles already gleaned from the text

 

Why allegorize a text to mean what it already meant before you tried to change it into another genre.

 

The allegorical theory is an attempt to  remove the Bible’s authority to tell us how the earth was created.  If it can be allegorized to simply teach spiritual lessons and is not to be seen as a means of understanding how the world came into being, then it opens it up to the Evolutionists to fill in the void.   Stephen J. Gould made the point that if Christians wanst to read the Bible as a source of hope, peace and inspiration that’s fine, but don’t use the Bible to explain origins.  He argued that Genesis should be discarded as history and that origins should be the domain of science only.

[Guest]

 

.... The allegorical theory is an attempt to  remove the Bible’s authority to tell us how the earth was created. 

 

If it can be allegorized to simply teach spiritual lessons and is not to be seen as a means of understanding how the world came into being, then it opens it up to the Evolutionists to fill in the void.  

 

Stephen J. Gould made the point that if Christians wants to read the Bible as a source of hope, peace and inspiration that’s fine, but don’t use the Bible to explain origins.  He argued that Genesis should be discarded as history and that origins should be the domain of science only.....

 

 

Matchmaker

 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

 

Matchmaker

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

I'll Bring The Veil http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/fiddlerontheroof/tradition.htm

 

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

 

For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 2 Corinthians 4:3-5

 

~

 

Yeap!

 

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:18-20

 

He Said She Said

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

 

And Then There

 

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Psalms 19:1

 

Is God

 

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8

[Guest]

 

....Inspiration doesn't entail infallibility in the writings. God could inspire the authors such that basically he was using the authors as nothing but vehicles by which stuff was written physically down. That doesn't strike me as likely. If God allowed for them to use their own concepts to describe things, as seems reasonable, then I have a reason to think that we aren't looking at scientifically accurate accounts, unless God explicitly wanted us to learn that from these accounts. That, however, does not seem to be what it is about.

 

I never suggested that interpretation is about the 'reader' or was a free for all. I agree that there is a proper way to read texts and we ought to aim for it. I'm merely  unconvinced that you  have the proper reading.

 

Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:31

 

~

 

Dear One May I Suggest

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

The Whole Truth

 

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6

 

~

 

PS: Dear One You Wouldn't Be The First To Try And Change God's Word

 

“This is what the LORD says about the prophets who are causing my people to go astray, who are calling out ‘Peace’ when they’re being fed, but who declare war against those who won’t feed them:

 

‘You will have nights without visions, and darkness without prophecy. The sun will set on the prophets, and the day will darken for them.

 

Those who see visions will be put to shame, and the diviners will be disgraced— every one of them— they will cover their faces, because there will be no answer from God.’” Micah 3:5-7

 

Or The Last

 

I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. John 5:43

 

Believe And Be Blessed Beloved

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

Love, Joe

[Guest shiloh357]

Inspiration doesn't entail infallibility in the writings. God could inspire the authors such that basically he was using the authors as nothing but vehicles by which stuff was written physically down. That doesn't strike me as likely. If God allowed for them to use their own concepts to describe things, as seems reasonable, then I have a reason to think that we aren't looking at scientifically accurate accounts, unless God explicitly wanted us to learn that from these accounts. That, however, does not seem to be what it is about.

 

 

If the inspiration comes from an infallible, all-knowing God, then we can reasonably deduce that such inspiration is without any mixture of error.  The Bible tells us that He is an infallible all-knowing God and that all Scripture contained in the Bible is from Him. 

 

The problem here again, is that the Bible isnt making scientific claims.  So to hold the Bible to modern scientific precision, when the Bible isn't attempting to scientific by our modern standards in the first place is not a very honset or fair approach to the text.

 

I never suggested that interpretation is about the 'reader' or was a free for all. I agree that there is a proper way to read texts and we ought to aim for it. I'm merely  unconvinced that you  have the proper reading.

 

 

That's because you are still trying reason about the Bible with the logic used by an unbeliever.   It's interesting because if I didn't know you were a Christian, I would think I was arguing with an atheist.    So I am nont surprised that you can't bring yourself to be honest about the text and that your arguments are the same ones I have refuted when dealing with unbelievers who know next to nothing about the Bible.

[Guest shiloh357]

We can't be experts in everything, and few of us are experts in anything at all.

 

This is not about being an expert.  It is about not being able to supply any evidence for your claims.  I can provide textual evidence for my claims and I have done so.  You cannot provide a shred of evidence for your claim.  You simply repeat what others say.

 

It's an age old question, how do we determine the truth of something if we are not experts in said field? There are a few tricks you can learn, and one of them is the general consensus of experts. In my experience everyone from liberals to conservatives (even those that take a literal approach to Genesis) accept that Genesis is poetry.

 

The difference is that I can demonstrate that it is not poetry and I have listed to BFA several reasons why it is not poetry.  I don’t have to rely on what others say, I can engage the text myself and I have the ability and the resources to fact check the claims you parrot from others.  Most of the time, you’re wrong.

 

That you don't accept this sends a red flag up right away, and I'm left guessing what else is odd about your understanding. Sure you know much more about the subject than I do, but that is not a very persuasive argument in my view given the context.

 

The thing is, I think for myself and I do my own research.  I don’t have to be an intellectual slave to what someone else says.  I have had enough experience with people who have advanced degrees to know that sometimes those degrees are not always an accurate reflection of a person’s intellectual competence in a given area.

 

There are always dissenters to the general consensus that are experts, and you may be one of them. Just because I cannot personally go toe to toe with you on theology or literary analysis doesn't mean you are ultimately right.

 

That  is true, but I am not basing the accuracy of my claims on anything other than objective facts that you are doing your best to avoid.  There are a lot of debates that I stay out of because I am not competent to debate the topic.  I do not possess the skills or the knowledge to engage such debates.   That to me, is commonsense.   If I can’t go “toe-to-toe’ with someone on a topic,  I avoid debating the topic.   I recognize my limitations and don’t run out and debate topics that I don’t anything about.  You should do the same.

 

Everything you've said about Genesis not being poetry, I've heard the exact opposite from others that do know Hebrew 

 

No, you haven’t.   No one who actually knows Hebrew can claim any kind of hebraic poetry forms in the text, because they are simply not there.   There is no parallelism, no chiasm, nothing that would indicate any kind of poetic styles are present and I openly defy anyone who claims to know Hebrew to point them out. 

 It’s not a he said/she said argument.  I can actually engage the Hebrew text and my claim is that the people who claim to know Hebrew that you are citing are either liars or they are imcompetent.

 

For example there is an Ivy league professor of biochem that is an AIDS denialist, if your average person were to debate him they would lose, but that doesn't mean the average person is wrong. Instead we have a case where a guy knows his stuff but has really weird and very fringe ideas, the expert consensus is that this guy is wrong. Perhaps an extreme example, but it does serve to demonstrate that there are no shortage of people with real knowledge who also just draw the wrong conclusions. Other examples would include actual scientists that take Intelligent Design seriously, like Behe. Just because they would win a debate against a lay person really has no meaning. 

 

That is not at all analagous to this situation.   The rules of literary analysis are not something you have to go to the moon to find.   They are rules all of us use every day in other contexts such as when we are reading the newspaper, studying a college textbook, reading a fictional novel and so forth. 

We naturally adjust our understanding to accommodate the intent of the author.   We don’t have to call the author on the phone and ask him what he meant.  We can deduce his intent from the type of text we are reading.   Yet for some reason, when it comes to the Bible, we are suddenly unable to ascertain what the author means???   That is simply ridiculous.  We have no problems with understanding the intent of the author in any other piece of literature, but suddenly liberals come along and feel they have to muddy the water about what the Bible means.   It is really laughable.   It’s why I give no respect to the liberal perspective on the Bible.   I would have to dumb myself down in order to swallow the tripe that liberals try to put forth.

 

 

I think you are imposing modern concepts to the ancient work of Genesis.

 

No, I am not.  I am comparing how the Bible presents God vs. how ancient mythology presented their gods.

 

There's really no point in bringing up my reasons, nothing you haven't heard before; I'll say "x" and you'll just go on a rant about how it is all wrong, pointless really. I think it is time to just agree to disagree on this point. 

 

You can’t bring up any reasons because my comparison of the God of the Bible with how ancient mythological acted is bullet proof.  You can’ refute it, but you need a face-saving way to deflect attention from your inability to accept what factually true.   I have no need to agree to disagree because the facts are on my side. 

 

I never said you were a wooden literalist, and I don't think anyone here is calling you such. There is obviously a language barrier between us and between you and BFA. Perhaps it would be best to not get hung up on the definition of "literal" and focus on the ideas me and BFA are trying to convey. 

 

No, we need to get down to what literal means.  And yes you and BFA have been treating me like wooden literalist.  When I presented the literary concept of literalism, you claimed you had not heard this before.  As a literalist, I am supposed to believe that the world was created in six 24 hour solar days, even though the text doesn’t make that claim.  I am supposed to be wooden in how I understand the text.  That is what I have been getting from you and BFA for some time.

 

Your entire denigration of the literalist approach to Genesis has been hung up on a wooden, hyper literal interpretation of the text.  That is how it has been characterized over and over again.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

It is a bit concerning that you assert your correctness and those that don't conform to your view are thus 'not honest'. 

More accurately, what I am saying is that you are taking a text that is clearly written as an historical account and are trying your hardest to make it something else.  

 

You don’t want it to be historical (because of the implications for  evolution) and so you deny that the author was even trying to give us a historical account, even though you have NO evidence to support such an incredible claim.  You even try to conjure up the silly notion that  “poetic” = “non-literal.”   It is really rather laughable and I would personally be rather embarrassed to have to resort to such weak arguments to support my claims. 

 

You are not being honest about the text at all. And anyone can see it.  You deny what is right in front of you.  That’s called intellectual suicide.

 

 

My question is more like how do you know Jesus was speaking figuratively? 

Jesus is talking about sin.  The way we know that He doesn’t mean for us to physically maim outselves is that maiming ourselves wouldn’t solve the problem.   Jesus, in dealing with sin is talking about our hands (the things we do, our actions/conduct) and our eye (those things in our lives that we allow to influence or guide us in terms of our character).  Jesus is using hyperbole to tell us that we need to turn our eyes from looking at things that would influence us away from God and we should cease from sinful conduct.  It's like when my dad told me if did something he didn't like he would "skin me alive."   I intuittively recognized the hyperbole in the statement and I clearly understood that he meant that I would be in big trouble, not that he was going to actually skin me alive.

 

 

You didn't answer the question at all. I'm not asking you to believe that the text is allegory, rather hypothetically if the text is figurative, what would it be telling us? 

Your question is a nonstarter because a text cannot be “figurative.”  It can be fictional or nonfictional, but it cannot be figurative.  You are misusing the term.  “Figurative” refers to literary devices within a given text, not a genre of literature.  There is no genre called “figurative.”  The text can be poetic, it can be prose, it can historical, prophetic, proverbial, parabolic, and so forth but it cannot be figurative.

 

BFA claims that the text is “figurative” and by that he means “allegorical.”  The literary problem is that for a text to be allegorical, there has to be something, a real event to allegorize.  Allegories don’t just hang in space by themselves.  Allegory is a teaching method,  a means of teaching moral lessons.   BFA and others are using allegory as a means of supplanting the historicity of Genesis 1-11.  That is a misuse of allegory.  Allegory takes literal people and physical objects and causes them to stand for something else in order to make didactic point.   BFA is not doing that in this thread.  He is claiming that the story itself is an allegory and is thus a fictional story.  The problem is that it is not even written like an allegory is written.  The allegorical approach to the text is really a very poorly reasoned approach and simply has no legs to stand on if we are honest about the text and about the Bible as a whole.

[ByFaithAlone]

Once again I am going to attempt to synthesize the main problems I have with the positions held by Cobalt and Shiloh. There are three major points of contention from my perspective. 

 

Literal View of Genesis

 

You hold that the creation account was historical. Defining historical as something factual that occurs in the past, this can only lead me to believe that a YEC view must be held. Humanity must be regarded (based on the ages of the people in the Bible) as under 10000 years old. These are historical and scientific claims. As it happens, both on a scientific and historical level, these opinions have no weight. No historian or scientist in his right mind would contend that the earth and humanity itself is under 10000 years old. It would be the height of folly to make such claims when we have bones that can be accurately dated to an older age. Simply put regarding Genesis as historical disregards the facts that we see in nature. Unless God is intentionally trying to deceive us (something I do not believe to be a part of his nature) I see no reason to hold Genesis as historical and literal.  

 

I would therefore hold that the following premises

(1) The literal/historical view of Genesis implies a young earth/humanity

(2) Scientists and historians reject the idea of the earth and humanity being under 10000 years old

(3) Either (a) God is deceptive in his manner of creation or (b) the Earth/humanity is not 10000 years old

(4) Deception is not the nature of a holy and loving God

(5) Therefore (3, 4) the Earth /humanity is not 10000 years old  

(6) Therefore (1,5) the literal/historical view of Genesis is wrong

 

Regarding the Church Fathers

 

Somehow you keep forgetting that both Jews and Christians held the view that Genesis was allegorical at this time. Could you stop ignoring them?

 

Regarding canon, you hold that the NT canon is older than the 4th century. This is just wrong. Canon did not exist in a codified form until the early 4th century. Granted there were lists of potential NT canon earlier from individual scholars but NT canon was not codified until the ecumenical councils and possibly the first Council of Nicaea.   

 

Regarding the relevance of discussing the Church Fathers, I would contend that it is logical to hold to the following premises 

(1) The apostles held to beliefs regarding the OT similar to Christ 

(2) The apostles would teach these OT views to the ones they accounted and form their own disciples 

(3) The vast majority of people who learned directly from the apostles held to an allegorical view of Genesis and was consequentially expounded to future generations

(4) It is reasonable to hold that the apostles most likely held to these allegorical views.

 

P.S. How in the world do you think Martin Luther is a Church Father? This somewhat explains your confusion in regard to this issue. 

 

A Priori Assumptions and Begging the Question 

 

Your arguments all assume that the writers of the NT held to the literal view of Genesis. For this you provide no justification. You make this a priori assumption and use it to disregard other arguments. This is simply fallacious. 

[Tinky]

 

 

Somehow you keep forgetting that both Jews and Christians held the view that Genesis was allegorical at this time. Could you stop ignoring them?

 

 

I wouldn't give two hoots for any "church father" who didn't believe in a literal Genesis. A literal Genesis is foundational to the rest of Scripture.

 

 

And the simple fact that Jesus adhered to a literal Genesis is enough to bury the allegorical crowd.