10,000 Clergy Preach Darwin Over Scripture.

[RedNick261]

Even a casual reader would ascertain that by all intents of context, use of language and confirmation in later revelation the account of Genesis consistently means what it plainly says. You may believe it or not but you cannot claim the Bible is equivocal about it. Why some Christians do not trust the Holy Spirit on this revelation is a mistery to me.

Correction. ONLY a casual reader (or someone whose faith hinges on reading allegory at face value) would ascertain such a thing. Any type of an honest exegetical hermeneutic would reveal that there are at least questions regarding the intention and meaning of the Genesis accounts of Creation. And it's spelled, "mystery".

[Jorge S]

Even a casual reader would ascertain that by all intents of context, use of language and confirmation in later revelation the account of Genesis consistently means what it plainly says. You may believe it or not but you cannot claim the Bible is equivocal about it. Why some Christians do not trust the Holy Spirit on this revelation is a mistery to me.

... Any type of an honest exegetical hermeneutic would reveal that there are at least questions regarding the intention and meaning of the Genesis accounts of Creation. And it's spelled, "mystery".

Please, enlighten me with the exegesis that supports the allegorization of Genesis.

[RedNick261]

I've posted several times the reasons that, when using all of the proper tools of exegesis, the possibility of Genesis (and, in light of other facts, the probability) being allegorical is very reasonable. The greatest example of this is the historical context of the verses: written no less than 2000 years after the supposed event would have taken place, the fact that there were NO eyewitnesses to the event, the fact that the culture who was the original recipient of the text didn't have the cultural or intellectual faculties to understand scientific things or large numbers... etc. You can deny it all you want, but the facts remain the same.

[RedNick261]

no decent scholar

In your opinion. For one, Dr. Kenneth Maahs (Eastern University, my professor for OT, NT and Hermeneutics) seems to be well qualified to study and interpret Scripture and he seems to say that allegory is pretty clear. He's the most personal reference I would offer for the defense of Genesis 1&2 as allegory (and the rest of the references in Exodus, etc. as reference to allegory). Scripture never comes out and says, "by the way, Genesis was allegory". However, it never comes out and says that any part that you would say is allegory is so, either, so your question, and thereby your point, is invalid. You're looking for a circular argument and you're not going to get it from me.

QUOTING DIRECTLY FROM GENESIS

Do you reference the prodigal son? How about Song of Songs? Or, perhaps, some of the imagery in the Psalms? Does the allegorical nature of any of those teachings detract from its usefulness for teaching? Do you qualify your statements that employ these stories with a disclaimer? Maybe Christ was just a good preacher who didn't feel the need to teach a science lesson but to teach from the allegory that was already understood (and communicated the clear message that God is the Creator and set all things in motion).

Your last statement was a personal affront and I refuse to play those games with you anymore. I would ask that you refrain from throwing in personal attacks and stick to the topic and argue based on the merits of your arguments.

[RedNick261]

completely out-of-context, that was obviously a parable

It's context doesn't indicate that it's a parable! Jesus did not say, "this story isn't true, but it communicates a valuable message." He simply told the story. People understood (because it was customary to teach, as it still is today, in parable, allegory or metaphor). You use a proper hermeneutic when it seems to serve your own purposes, but when it challenges what your Sunday school teacher taught you, it's heresy or purposeful misinterpretation. Nice double standard, buddy.

I could name hundreds that disagree...still waiting for scriptural basis from you

I've already told you that there isn't a specific verse in Scripture that states that Genesis 1 & 2 are allegory. That's what you're looking for, but you're not going to get it because it isn't there - in the same way that the prodigal son is not qualified as allegory, or the parable of Lazarus, or any of the other parables. See, Jesus and the other Biblical authors assumed that their readers/hearers would use their God-given ability to reason... apparently, you missed that part.

As far as the "one guy" thing... that's just one example. For every half-cracked Creation "scientist" or "theologian" you mention (all of the ones you've mentioned so far have been shown for who they really are by Myco and others), there are plenty of scientists and theologians who would verify at least the possibility (if not the probability) that Genesis 1 & 2 are allegory and that any reference after that point to the events were referencing the allegory for teaching moral lessons, not history or science.

By the way, your verse doesn't even insinuate that Genesis 1 and/or 2 were literal... the only thing it references is that "Adam and Eve" were created, and I (nor Myco or many others, I'm sure) would disagree with that, on its premise that Adam and Eve represent mankind and womankind.

[RedNick261]

he did not say anything to them without using a parable.

So, then, by your own admission, when Jesus referenced the Genesis accounts, He was speaking in parable. I kid, partially.

and it is very clear what was said to the crowds was a parable, because the stories were not connected with specific persons or actual places and events, which is absolutely NOT the case with the narrative of Genesis 1...completely different context

By what authority or on what evidence do you say that?

and also because Genesis 1 and 2 are not parables/allegories...Jesus, when He was with His disciples privately, often explained the parables to them and clearly defined them as such, this is apples and oranges...sorry, your attempt at comparison fails miserably

Yet another baseless assumption. You've yet to offer anything even remotely compelling to suggest that Genesis 1 or 2 are literal. You, also, cannot say that the comparison of that account to the parables is somehow invalid. They are absolutely comparable. I've shown how, you've not shown how they would not be comparable.

[Jorge S]

I've posted several times the reasons that, when using all of the proper tools of exegesis, the possibility of Genesis (and, in light of other facts, the probability) being allegorical is very reasonable. The greatest example of this is the historical context of the verses: written no less than 2000 years after the supposed event would have taken place, the fact that there were NO eyewitnesses to the event, the fact that the culture who was the original recipient of the text didn't have the cultural or intellectual faculties to understand scientific things or large numbers... etc. You can deny it all you want, but the facts remain the same.

Do you consider Genesis an allegory as a whole or only certain portions thereof?

[The Lorax]

completely out-of-context, that was obviously a parable

It's context doesn't indicate that it's a parable!

Scripture bites YZ again.

[RedNick261]

Do you consider Genesis an allegory as a whole or only certain portions thereof?

I haven't arrived at any definite conclusion. I would say that evidence points to many of those things having been written pre-recorded-history as allegory (which would be everything up to Egypt). If you were to hold a gun to my head and tell me that I had to make a claim as to what is allegory or not, I would probably say that at least the Creation through the Flood were allegory, at least to some extent.

One thing you seem to be overlooking is the fact that God inspired the Bible to be written. God was on hand when all things occurred, and God, Himself made certain that what was written in His Book was accurrate. When Jesus was on earth he said, when praying to his Father; Your word is truth, John 17:17.

And yet later writings (particularly Paul) make reference to the fact that it was the writer who was influencing the writings. All Scripture is inspired, but it's hardly wise or prudent to insist that every word of Scripture was penned supernaturally by God.

The Bible was written over 2,500 years before Moses started writing the Holy Scriptures

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by this statement.

The Bible alone tells us why there is a RAINBOW in the clouds, Gen 9:12-17.

I guess the crystal-like reflective properties of the water vapors has nothing to do with that?

The fact is about 1/3 of the Bible is prophecy. No human being can know what is going to happen, even one day in advance, but God has provided prophecy that came true in short time and some that came true thousands of years later, and some that will shortly come true, Matt 24:14.

Prophecy is a very broad description. I would assume that you are talking about unconditional predictions about the future, which would equate to a far less than 1/3 of the Scriptures. Most of the prophets of the Old Testament were conditional - that is, they prophecied of events that would happen (punishments) for disobedience. Apocalyptic prophecy is found in very few, very specific places (primarily Daniel and Revelation, with a few scattered verses in Jesus' and Paul's teachings).

That is all besides the point, though. I'm not arguing that God didn't have His hand in the writing of the Scriptures... what I am saying is that humans are still the authors and editors.

Notice there was a thick cloud mass around the earth, called a swaddling band, in the Bible, Job 38:9, Prov 8:28. When this cloud mass dissolved at the time of the flood

What evidence do you have for any of this? Neither of those verses speak of a "swaddling band".

Science, especially evolutionary people cannot even begin to explain why human beings have a brain that can learn and remember information for thousand of years, maybe forever, when man lives only a few deecades. Evolution says there must be a need for evolution to produce advances. Science has no explanation for our love of beauty, for music, for art, and the quest for knowledge of our creator. They have no explanation for the concept of love, and for the idea of putting the other person first.

Evolution explains how the brain developed physically, psychology explains how it works. Does this somehow lessen or diminish God's influence or knowledge or creating power over these things? No! In fact, it simply explains some of the complexities of His creation. Will science explain EVERYTHING about it? No, and it doesn't even really seek to do so.

But according to you everything just happened. Do you have any idea of the blasphemy of giving the honor and glory of the things created to an ignorant and uncaring mother nature, instead to the Supreme God and Creator of all things

I have never said, and would never say, anything of the sort. I've never insinuated that everything "just happened". In fact, I believe that, in light of the evidence, evolution is a highly organized system created by God and through which His glory is displayed.

[Jorge S]

Hi, brother.

Every sentence of your post is so controversial that we could argue and counter-argue for longer than the yet-to-be-proven evolutionary timeline has in offer. And that is really a very long time!

It's then probably best to start with the conclusion: if Genesis is entirely symbolic you and me are wasting our precious lives by being Christians.

a part of the problem here might be that the Genesis account is incomplete, it is not the full story of what took place at creation but only the limited portion that we could understand and use. the part that could be expressed in words.

Genesis had to be incomplete for reasons more valid than communication handicaps. It's a book that condenses around 1600 years of early human history - and a peculiar history at that! because it concentrates on the announcement and implementation of God's redemptive plan. Therefore it contains what God saw appropriate to reveal, starting with His Authorship of the world and the reasons why humans lost its former glory.

sort of like Revelation describes things that the language used by the inspired writer had no words for.

You would have had to be the 'inspirer' of the writter yourself in order to know those things John did not have words to express. Interestingly, though, Revelation is a Book that draws all its symbolism from the OT books, starting with Genesis, while Genesis does not have any symbolic referent elsewhere for it is in itself a statement of facts from which everything derives.

human created language is inadequate to completely describe the entire event/process, but some languages are better than others at describing certain PORTIONS of the event/process.

Genesis teaches that language was created by God. His Spirit is said to have inspired the Bible writers. With Moses, in particular, there was a bigger deference: Exodus 33:11 "And Jehovah would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend." Sometimes in the presence of witnesses: Exodus 19:9 "And Jehovah said to Moses, Lo, I come to you in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with you, and believe you forever." Witnesses that were being covenantally bound to His Word: Exodus 24:3-4 ...And all the people answered with one voice and said, All the words which Jehovah has said, we will do. And Moses wrote all the Words of Jehovah,