[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism denies the fall.

[Silmarien]

The lists of genology makes it hard to view Genesis as an allegory. Both the children of Cain and then the decendebts of Seth Adam and Eve's third son going from Adam to Noah. Noah to Abraham and the books later that follow suit listimg genology, it is very difficult to see that in an allogerical way.

Proverbs, Psalms, and Revelations I can see it that way. So the argument if an allgeory can word for a book in the bible. But it just tskes a lot of extra explaination to fit Genesus in that boat. I've no reason to apply that reasoning to Genesis to a view that is not mentioned in the bible about Genesis.

I think that many people who are going to view Genesis 2 as allegorical are inclined to view everything through Noah's Ark and perhaps beyond in the same light, so it's entirely consistent to accept or reject the whole thing as historical.

I imagine it would also be possible to think that Adam was a real person and that his story simply became allegorized. I find it difficult to believe that Genesis 2 was meant to be taken entirely literally due to the anthropomorphism involved. That becomes very theologically problematic.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I think that many people who are going to view Genesis 2 as allegorical are inclined to view everything through Noah's Ark and perhaps beyond in the same light, so it's entirely consistent to accept or reject the whole thing as historical.

I imagine it would also be possible to think that Adam was a real person and that his story simply became allegorized. I find it difficult to believe that Genesis 2 was meant to be taken entirely literally due to the anthropomorphism involved. That becomes very theologically problematic.

Personal interpations can become simplified or complex, and say what the bible does not say, or neglect what was said. But in what I understand of the bible, there is nothing in a later verse that corrects the stories in Genesis, or paints them in an allogicarial light.

So with that in mind, please don't site that people believe it yhis way without explaining why they vone yo thosd vonclusions. And expecially warry on presenting that argument if those explainations don't hold a biblical foothold of one verse or another explaining the reasoning.

 

[Cygnus]

Why would we doubt the words of God as He gave them to us? It is written. Therefore it must be so.

Some people believe in an old earth evolutionism view of creation. They tend to filter their bible through their scientific view.

 

[Cygnus]

due to the anthropomorphism involved. That becomes very theologically problematic.

Can you explain?

 

[Silmarien]

Personal interpations can become simplified or complex, and say what the bible does not say, or neglect what was said. But in what I understand of the bible, there is nothing in a later verse that corrects the stories in Genesis, or paints them in an allogicarial light.

So with that in mind, please don't site that people believe it yhis way without explaining why they vone yo thosd vonclusions. And expecially warry on presenting that argument if those explainations don't hold a biblical foothold of one verse or another explaining the reasoning.

I can give you an explanation, but the problem with demanding biblical footing is that the Bible doesn't specifically address how it's to be interpreted. It claims divine inspiration but doesn't explain how exactly that works, and different traditions interpret that in a variety of manners.

The Bible doesn't always state whether or not something is supposed to be taken literally. Look at a line like "I am the bread of life"--it obviously doesn't need a footnote to let people know that's a metaphor. The problem is that things are not always so clear cut, so where do you draw the line between where the passage itself suggests a non-literal reading and where it does not? I'm of the opinion that Genesis 2 actually requires at least some degree of allegorization, because the anthropomorphism involved in God physically walking around the Garden of Eden diminishes the concept of God. And this is not new--favoring allegorical readings of Genesis to resolve this particular theological concern goes back at least 2000 years to Philo of Alexandria.

Of course, the modern issues involved are pretty serious, and not just because of evolution. There's archaeological evidence to take into account as well, such as the similarities between Genesis and Sumerian creation myths. I compare the two side by side and the Genesis account is much more profound, but I have a difficult time saying that the two are not linked in some way. Which makes me think that divine inspiration in Genesis is happening at a level that's deeper than the surface.

 

[calvin]

I can give you an explanation, but the problem with demanding biblical footing is that the Bible doesn't specifically address how it's to be interpreted.

Hello calvin here
2 Tim 3:16 comes to mind. If all writing inspired by God is profitable........
then the Bible can be allowed to interpret itself.
In an earlier reply to you regarding gender and origins. I pointed out why IMO Adam was created with all required bits and pieces to make him masculine gender. I used Jesus' teaching on the matter to form my understanding (interpretation) that I shared with you Might have been another thread, not sure.
to be continued

 

[calvin]

The Bible doesn't always state whether or not something is supposed to be taken literally. Look at a line like "I am the bread of life"--it obviously doesn't need a footnote to let people know that's a metaphor.

G'day,
calvin here
Why would you think that to be a metaphor?
Jesus said that He was the 'bread of life', He never ever said that He was a loaf of multi-grain bread thick sliced for toasting.
Joh 6:31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
Joh 6:32 Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
Joh 6:34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”
Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.Esv

Jesus Himself explains that He is indeed the bread from the Father.
'They' (the crowd perhaps?) had no trouble understanding that He was not talking about a baked lump of flour and water.
Also, this comes to mind :Joh 1:4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. Esv.
There is no room for metaphor here IMO.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm not sure if we're defining "metaphor" in the same way. Because using the word "bread" while not talking about a baked lump of flour and water is specifically what makes that line metaphorical. (Well, technically I would consider it mystical language rather than metaphorical, but I don't think that distinction is terribly meaningful unless you read mysticism.)

2 Tim 3:16 comes to mind. If all writing inspired by God is profitable........
then the Bible can be allowed to interpret itself.

The problem is that "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" says nothing whatsoever about whether or not the Bible ought to be interpreted literally. That's something that people tend to read into that line, so in this particular instance, we're back at people interpreting Scripture, not Scripture interpreting itself.

 

[Jim Parker]

the Bible can be allowed to interpret itself.

The Bible is not a living being that does anything by itself.
It doesn't open itself or read itself and it doesn't interpret itself.
PEOPLE interpret what is written in the Bible.

 

[calvin]

The Bible is not a living being that does anything by itself.
It doesn't open itself or read itself and it doesn't interpret itself.
PEOPLE interpret what is written in the Bible.

Yes, people interpret what is written in the Bible; that is why so many people have got it wrong.
Beyond the Bible being left free to interpret itself, those who know the truth, are those who seek guidance from the Holy Spirit, not from other men/women.

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. Esv.
You do not know or understand these things?

 

[calvin]

unless you read mysticism.

Hello, calvin here
not lately.
A small clip from a wiki article on the word metaphor::
"A metaphor is a figure of speech that refers, for rhetorical effect, to one thing by mentioning another thing.[1] It may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two ideas."
There is no similarity between a lump of baked dough and the Christ of God.
We eat a lump of baked dough and extract some beneficial things; starch, sugar and so on, expelling what is left later on. Mostly it will remain for about 24hours and it is gone.
With Christ, how different. With Christ He remains with us forever.
Also, when Jesus said that He was the bread of life, was that for rhetorical effect? or was it to invite more questions and open the way for further teaching.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I can give you an explanation, but the problem with demanding biblical footing is that the Bible doesn't specifically address how it's to be interpreted. It claims divine inspiration but doesn't explain how exactly that works, and different traditions interpret that in a variety of manners.

The Bible doesn't always state whether or not something is supposed to be taken literally. Look at a line like "I am the bread of life"--it obviously doesn't need a footnote to let people know that's a metaphor. The problem is that things are not always so clear cut, so where do you draw the line between where the passage itself suggests a non-literal reading and where it does not? I'm of the opinion that Genesis 2 actually requires at least some degree of allegorization, because the anthropomorphism involved in God physically walking around the Garden of Eden diminishes the concept of God. And this is not new--favoring allegorical readings of Genesis to resolve this particular theological concern goes back at least 2000 years to Philo of Alexandria.

Of course, the modern issues involved are pretty serious, and not just because of evolution. There's archaeological evidence to take into account as well, such as the similarities between Genesis and Sumerian creation myths. I compare the two side by side and the Genesis account is much more profound, but I have a difficult time saying that the two are not linked in some way. Which makes me think that divine inspiration in Genesis is happening at a level that's deeper than the surface.

I would caution you against leaning on explainations that don't have a bibical footing used to further explain the bible. I understand what your saying concerning not being told how to interpt the what it say. Even if we take parts of it literally, often those parts are also good for teaching more then just the literal meaning. The problem though is that opinions are like belly bottons. Everyone has one. Interptations are the same way. So with this in mind, the only authority I find of value to interpt the bible is other parts of the bible. Let the words speak on their own authority, instead of trying to make the words say something else on the authority of a scholar or a historian.

Our wisdom is good enough to keep in mind and consider, but it is of a lesser authority then the bible itself. You're right though that this issue goes beyond the issue of evolution. Trusting the bible as a whole comes into play here.

Consider Abragam's wife Sarah. After God promised them a son she accepted the promise to be true, but did not think God would use her as the mother of the child. She was too old to have children. So she advised Abraham on another interptation of the promise to use her slave girl as a surrogate mother. God corrected her and Abraham, and showed them that He can do what He says even to make Sara not be barren any more.

My point in this is that if we interpret the bible in a way that adds to it or removes from it we should be aware that we are in dangerous territory and likely also wrong. God can do all things, and His words in scripture are said to be Spirit breathed. We should trust Him in the matters he speaks on. Literally when it reads in a literal way. And comparatively from one verse to another as well.

 

[Free]

Yes, people interpret what is written in the Bible; that is why so many people have got it wrong.
Beyond the Bible being left free to interpret itself, those who know the truth, are those who seek guidance from the Holy Spirit, not from other men/women.

That is not what the Bible teaches. We are to ask for guidance from God but that guidance most often comes from others more learned and wise than ourselves. There is a reason Paul wrote, on more than one occasion, that God gave some to be teachers. And that does not negate any actual work and effort in studying on our part.

 

[Free]

Hello, calvin here
not lately.
A small clip from a wiki article on the word metaphor::
"A metaphor is a figure of speech that refers, for rhetorical effect, to one thing by mentioning another thing.[1] It may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two ideas."
There is no similarity between a lump of baked dough and the Christ of God.
We eat a lump of baked dough and extract some beneficial things; starch, sugar and so on, expelling what is left later on. Mostly it will remain for about 24hours and it is gone.
With Christ, how different. With Christ He remains with us forever.
Also, when Jesus said that He was the bread of life, was that for rhetorical effect? or was it to invite more questions and open the way for further teaching.

"Bread of life" is a metaphor.

 

[calvin]

That is not what the Bible teaches

And you know this how?

We are to ask for guidance from God but that guidance most often comes from others more learned and wise than ourselves.

That would certainly be true if we closed our minds to the Holy Spirit of God in favour of fallen men.
Are you not putting yourself forward as one more learned and wise by posting as you have just done?

 

[Cygnus]

The Bible is not a living being that does anything by itself.
It doesn't open itself or read itself and it doesn't interpret itself.
PEOPLE interpret what is written in the Bible.

Jim, what is meant is that other portions of scripture explain other portions of scripture.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I think that many people who are going to view Genesis 2 as allegorical are inclined to view everything through Noah's Ark and perhaps beyond in the same light, so it's entirely consistent to accept or reject the whole thing as historical.

I imagine it would also be possible to think that Adam was a real person and that his story simply became allegorized. I find it difficult to believe that Genesis 2 was meant to be taken entirely literally due to the anthropomorphism involved. That becomes very theologically problematic.

I'd like to continue this line of conversation, but I think it goes past the topic of evolution and the fall. If you're willing I stated a thread on interptating Genesis in the Apologies forum section.

 

[Free]

And you know this how?

As I said in my post, "There is a reason Paul wrote, on more than one occasion, that God gave some to be teachers."

That would certainly be true if we closed our minds to the Holy Spirit of God in favour of fallen men.

You are presenting a false dichotomy and I don't think there is a serious scholar throughout Christianity's history who would agree with you.

Two questions:

1. Are you fallen?
2. Do you deny that Paul said God has given some to be teachers?

Are you not putting yourself forward as one more learned and wise by posting as you have just done?

On this particular matter, I think you're wrong. I'm very certain you're wrong.

 

[Jim Parker]

Beyond the Bible being left free to interpret itself,

Exactly how does an inanimate object have self awareness?

those who know the truth, are those who seek guidance from the Holy Spirit, not from other men/women.

Please explain why those who are guided by the Holy Spirit to know the truth do not agree on what the truth is.

 

[Barbarian]

Exactly how does an inanimate object have self awareness?

Perhaps they think it's a living document. (sorry couldn't resist)