Creation

[one.opinion]

13 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

I have read the thread. I understand what you are saying. I just dont happen to agree with you.

I know you have read it, maryjane. Thank you for making the effort. My comment was to a different poster.

It ok to disagree on passages. It should be reasonable for brothers and sisters in Christ to disagree with things non-essential issues peaceably. But -- can you truly say that God and Adam were watching the beasts, livestock, and birds parade by in the expectation of finding a help-meet? Because that's what a literal interpretation of the passage indicates.

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, true science is able to look at the world that God made and ascertain that it was created by an all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful Creator.  His signature is all over creation.

I am able to do that, but science, at its essence, cannot. Science is limited in the scope of what it can answer. It is just as wrong to say that "science disproves God" as it is to say "science proves God". All science can do is analyze the physical aspects of God's creation - it cannot answer questions like "does God exist?"

When I look around at the beauty and incredible intricacy of His creation, I go beyond science to see the "bigger picture" that strongly calls me to believe in the existence of an omnipotent Creator. But that realization delves into the metaphysical, not the physical. 

7 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, you have not, not one.

I realize that you have not accepted my examples. I have also noticed that you have not successfully defended the passages as literal. Regardless, what you should be saying instead of "you have not produced any examples" is "you have not produced any examples that I agree with".

 

10 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

When I say textual evidence, I mean something in the grammar, syntax and recognizable idioms or figures of speech that indicate that the author intended something other than a literal event.

Thanks for explaining this. We've been going on about Genesis 2 today, but to me, Genesis 3 is an even better example.

Quote

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

Is this referring to a real snake, or to Satan?

If it is a real snake, then that implies that God created an evil animal that tempted Eve.

If it is Satan, then it is clearly metaphorical.

To me, if we are left with only those two options, then this is clearly not a literal depiction of events.

 

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, maryjayne said:

God isnt mentioned. Hence my belief that God was standing back and letting Adam realise something. But that is my interpretation, based on the use of the word Adam twice in that scripture. God brought them, the rest was down to Adam.

This is true, I shouldn't have included God as a direct observer of the animal parade. However, a literal reading still indicates that Adam was naming them AND perusing them for a good "help meet".

[Guest shiloh357]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

I am able to do that, but science, at its essence, cannot. Science is limited in the scope of what it can answer. It is just as wrong to say that "science disproves God" as it is to say "science proves God". All science can do is analyze the physical aspects of God's creation - it cannot answer questions like "does God exist?"
 

Actually science, done properly would glorify God, as God's signature is upon all that He has made.   Nothing we observe simply comes into existence.  We never intuitively observe anything coming into existence without a maker.   So, based on observation creation has a Creator, a Person who designed it and brought into existence.   Science is not limited to simply observing something and having no explanation to why it is exists.    It is scientists who put that artificial limitation on science.   If science were done for God's glory, it would readily reveal the wisdom and power of the Creator.

Quote

I realize that you have not accepted my examples. I have also noticed that you have not successfully defended the passages as literal.

Your examples don't speak to literal or non-literal.   Your examples are simply assigned the value of "non-literal" because you have chosen to view them that way.    Your examples don't meet any criteria for non-literal, as nothing in the texts indicates anything but a literal historical account. 

If you cannot demonstrate any  figurative devices, the text is by default, understood as written.   I don't have to defend a literal interpretation, because the literal interpretation is the default state.  The onus is on you to demonstrate that the status quo is wrong.  So far, you have failed.

 

Quote

Regardless, what you should be saying instead of "you have not produced any examples" is "you have not produced any examples that I agree with".

I am making an objective claim.   You have produced NO examples of any non-literal devices employed by the author that demand the text be understood at any juncture, as non-literal.   It is not about me agreeing or disagreeing with you.  You simply cannot provide any textual evidence for your textual claims.

Quote

 

Thanks for explaining this. We've been going on about Genesis 2 today, but to me, Genesis 3 is an even better example.

Is this referring to a real snake, or to Satan?

 

Both.

Quote

 

If it is a real snake, then that implies that God created an evil animal that tempted Eve.

If it is Satan, then it is clearly metaphorical.

 

It was a real snake animated by Satan.  Really, really simple.  

Quote

To me, if we are left with only those two options, then this is clearly not a literal depiction of events.

Metaphors compare two things.  

When Jesus said, "I am the door."  Jesus was using a metaphor.  We know that Jesus is not wooden with hinges.

When Jesus said, "I am the light of the world,"  He was employing a metaphor, and was alluding the lamps called "the light of the world" in the court of the women. 

When Jesus referred to James and John as "the sons of thunder,"  He was using a metaphor.

When Jesus said that he longed to gather Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks underneath her wings, he was employing a metaphor.

When Jesus was talking about speck in your brother's eye and the mote in your eye, he was employing a metaphor.

Metaphors are found in doctrinal or teaching material, prophetic material, poetic material, but not in the historical accounts.

The problem with the metaphor argument that you are making is that you are using "metaphor" to explain away an event, not to make a comparison.  You are using "metaphor" to mean that something that is purported to happen didn't happen as written, and that is not how metaphors work.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

17 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

This is true, I shouldn't have included God as a direct observer of the animal parade. However, a literal reading still indicates that Adam was naming them AND perusing them for a good "help meet".

No, that is NOT what the text says, as all.    You are misrepresenting the text.

[one.opinion]

35 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, that is NOT what the text says, as all.    You are misrepresenting the text.

I agree that it is not what the text indicates. However, that is exactly what a strictly literal interpretation would mean.

[enoob57]

35 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I agree that it is not what the text indicates. However, that is exactly what a strictly literal interpretation would mean.

That which has No Causal agency has spoken for the purpose that we might be able to reason with Him, that we might be motivated to know Him through His Word.... therefore He wrote so as to provide what could not be ascertained by empirical means the happenstance of the event. 'Thus sayeth The Lord'... now you want to reform the very grammar to fit what a fallen mind in a fallen and cursed world ascertains by assumption! Really... that's your presentation evidence for the purpose of non-literal violating even the grammar itself?

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I agree that it is not what the text indicates. However, that is exactly what a strictly literal interpretation would mean.

No, that is not a literal interpretation at all. It is you attempting to mythologize the text.  The literal interpretation is that God brought the animals to be named by Adam and among those animals was no suitable companion.  You are adding to the Word of God and inserting a meaning in order to make the text appear to say something it doesn't say.  It's a less than honest treatment of the text.

[Guest shiloh357]

5 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

That is what I was asking him when I asked for him to "provide an example of a non-literal passage", and he simply implied that I hadn't read the topic. So I'm done even trying to talk to him on this.

 

Yes; the Lord is perfectly capable of making Himself understood, and in Scripture, the text is plain on its' meaning in this passage. Since Genesis is a historical account, there is no indication of the book being otherwise unless we are also willing to allegorize the flood, the promise to Abraham and Israel's travel to Egypt (amongst other things). Not to mention that it would be patently dishonest of the Lord (which He is not capable of) to give mythology in an account that is historical (as is the other books of the Torah).

 

Exactly.  This is about Evolution.   If Evolution were true, and God used Evolution, then no one would feel the need to offer up alternative "interpretations"  of the text.   There would be no need to "reconcile" the Bible with Evolution if Evolution were true.   It is precisely because the Bible, as written, cannot be reconciled with Evolution that evolutionists must disbelieve the Bible as written and attempt allegorize Genesis 1-3 in order to modify the Bible to accommodate Evolution.

But you raise an excellent point. Why is it ONLY Genesis 1-3 that they want to allegorize?   Why don't they make that argument about the rest of Genesis?   Why not the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?  Why not the birth of Isaac?   Why not Abraham's attempted sacrifice of Issac on Mt. Moriah?    Why aren't God's promises to Abraham about the Land of Canaan allegorized?  

And why stop at Genesis?   Why aren't other historical accounts allegorized like the ten plagues, the parting of the Red Sea or manna in the wilderness?   Why don't they allegorize the life and miracles of Jesus?   Why isn't the resurrection of Jesus just a metaphor?

They cannot apply the same rule and textual standards to other historical texts because the "metaphor" argument is only meant to discredit anything that stands in the way of Evolution.  

If you don't want to believe something in the Bible, just declare it a "metaphor" and you can make the Bible mean whatever you want it to mean.   It leads to an incoherent theology.

[JohnD]

On 11/12/2018 at 5:57 AM, Pencil24 said:

Creation makes sense to me. How do you combine people that evolution is not accurate?

Google the Institute for Creation Research

or Answers in Genesis

there are several ministries that can answer this

more thoroughly.