Lying carries a different nuance than fictional. Even lying itself was counter as righteousness at times. Was jesus lying when he used metaphors? No. Neither is the father.
1 Like
It is obvious. But that wasnât the question. Why arenât you mad at God for saying the same things the YECs say? Which things were what God accommodated to the Hebrews and thus, all this YEC/evolution debate is caused by God.
Unlike you, many of us see what God said was wrote as a mythology
Right here is what Christy says doesnât happen. She says âI havenât seen anyone here refer to Genesis 1 as âcock and bullâ or ânonsense.ââ
Well, while you didnât use the same words, to my Mythology is just another word for âcock and bullâ or untrue. Indeed, you make it clear that the dichotomy you see, Skova is between seeing it as mythology or literal and you reject literal. Thus, I would say to Christy: I think she are wrong in her assertion.
and they read it as a literal story that took place over a week and denies what basically every single scientist and all the data that disproves a 6 day universe made 6000 years ago without evolution.
Skova, your position might be a bit different from otherâs Christy keeps trying to say there is truth in that account you say is mythological, so in some sense it sounds to me that you donât believe God had anything to do with the writing/inspiration of Genesis 1. Am I close to being correct here?
Itâs angering because it drives so many people away from God. Itâs presented to young believers as either accept this literal 6 day creation that happened 6k years ago and God or disagree with all of it.
I agree with everything you say. I am one of 3 published YECs I know who have left YEC and become a strong voice against them for a while. Nicholas Rupke, who invented the polystrate fossil argument, became a prof of geology after ditching YEC. I published 30 YEC items over about 8 years and then became an evolutionist and Steve Robertson who wrote an ICR monograph no longer believes the YEC trope. I spent years trying to figure out if there was still anything to Christianity.
But the problem is, for those who say God accommodated his message to the Hebrews is then, that God himself started YEC and none of the accommodationalists are mad at God for doing that. If you believe the creation story is pure mythology, not inspired by god, then this criticism wonât apply to your views.
What would apply is the question of how much of the Bible must be untrue before one gives up Christianity? I asked a friend that question years ago. If the creation account is false, if there was no Flood, no miracles, no exodus⌠(all of which are widely believed to be false), then how much more of the Scriptural account needs to be false before the whole thing is tossed? I find that an interesting question given Nietzscheâs quote above.
1 Like
Mark, here is the tension between accommodatioanlism and what scripture says:
Hebrews 6:18 it is impossible for God to lie (NIV)
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie,
1 Samuel 15:29 "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie
Logically here is the problem. Do we Christians believe the above verses that God canât lie? Is accommodation lying by God? I say yes because it is something He would be inspiring that is not true.
The implications of a God who can prevaricate, or spin is that we could never really trust that we have the correct plan of salvation. Why? Well if god accommodates on nature and things about nature as in Genesis 1, is He accommodating on the plan of salvation? If so, the joke will be on us in the next world.
This is the logical misfit I see with accommodationalism I would prefer Skovoâs solution, that it is just mythology, to accommodationalism, but as I said to him, that leads to other questions like how much of the bible can be observationally false before we say the whole thing is trash?
This is why I believe that a historical/scientific reading of Genesis 1 is so important. Without it, the logical foundations for Christian theology collapse in my opinion.
I love this Christy, I actually answered that Doors bit and you either are not aware of it or ignore it. A question for accommodationalists - #64 by gbob
At least have the courtesy to act like I said something about this particular verse and state your case where you think I am wrong, but donât act like I am totally stumped by it
As to this:
God does all kinds of things that I would get upset at human beings for doing, so this doesnât seem all that relevant.
What you miss here with this âexcusatoryâ sentence is that it was God who accommodated YEC. He is the cause of the mess, but yall only get mad at Human YECs not Divine YECs. That is utterly inconsistent.
10 Then the disciples came and said to him, âWhy do you speak to them in parables?â 11 And he answered them, âTo you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says:
âYou shall indeed hear but never understand,
and you shall indeed see but never perceive.
15 For this peopleâs heart has grown dull,
and their ears are heavy of hearing,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should perceive with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their heart,
and turn for me to heal them.â
God doesnât seem to have any problem whatsoever with people making fools of themselves over His words if they want to close their eyes and ears to truth behind the literal meaning of the words. God apparently expects people to use the brains He gave them to do a little more digging for the truth than that.
14 âFor it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; 15 to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. 17 So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his masterâs money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, âMaster, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.â 21 His master said to him, âWell done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.â 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, âMaster, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.â 23 His master said to him, âWell done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.â 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, âMaster, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.â 26 But his master answered him, âYou wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.â
Apparently you have to take what God gives you and invest it with a risk of being wrong rather than simply giving it back exactly as it has been given you out of fear.
I donât think youâre totally stumped by it â I think you use very similar kinds of explanations that all the rest of us use:
Why would God make up a cock-and-bull story for Job? In these parts we call that a fishing tale.
But seriously, I agree with you. I think figurative language can have truth to it. It seems we differ mainly in degrees of how far we think figurative language can stretch, which is probably the case for all interpretations.
I guess my point is just that since youâre obviously not ignorant of the beliefs and explanations of your conversation partners here, this continuous beating of the âcock-and-bull storyâ drum (and other insulting terms for othersâ beliefs) is pretty rude as well as a total misrepresentation of those views.
What right do I have to get mad at God for not forcing the inspiration he gave his ancient authors to completely correspond to a post-Enlightenment, 21st century Western standard? Thatâs a pretty arrogant thought.
I donât get mad at my parents for telling me that when a Mommy and Daddy love each other God gives them a baby. It wasnât exactly biological, but they knew Iâd get the details later, and for the moment it was more important that I see it in terms of love.
5 Likes
Iâm going to do smaller posts because somethings because confused.
This is the problem, you want everyone to agree to your paradigm that a mythological story means bull crap and lies.
Iâve not seen a single person here say that a mythological approach means lies except you. Just you.
I canât tell if youâre are being willfully ignorant or just canât grasp what everyone is saying repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly to you in a dozen ways. It seems, you simply cannot reason though what is being said and fathom the concept. Itâs escapes you to the point it seems that absolutely no one here can break it down into a more digestible concept for you.
This will be my last attempt at trying to explain this simple concept.
I donât believe God lies. I donât believe ancient people were retarded. I donât believe that the Bible is false. So if you draw that conclusion on anything I said then go ahead and realize itâs you are misunderstanding.
I have no reason to equate a non literal figurative story or concept as a lie. Literal vs non literal does not mean truth or lie. Something can be literally said and meant and be a lie, and something can not literally be said that still means a lie. Also, something literally can be said and itâs true and something can not literally be said and still equal truth.
A mythological approach does not equal truth or lie. It can mean either one depending on what itâs trying to say.
So I donât believe God lied. I think God spoke the truth using a figurative approach using a entire series of stories as metaphors to explain and point towards the truth.
This is the problem. You see mythological approaches as lies. I donât.
So when you read genesis 1 you donât take it to mean all of creation took place over a literal week. Instead of daily creation, you see it as proclamations where what is said is confined to whatâs not said and quite frankly it seems like even more of a leap than accepting genesis for the mythological approach that it is.
I believe that BioLogos even went over metaphors, parables, and mythological approaches in one of their podcasts.
Itâs not a lie when someone uses a mythological approach to explain a truth.
1 Like
Maybe so. But having a God who communicates in multilayered narratives which can impart meaning to people at various levels of development simultaneously doesnât seem so bad. Perhaps He expects those capable of understanding more to get the big picture and realize it isnât all about just communicating explicit things to those capable of reading physics or the law.
Honestly Iâm ignorant of scripture and have no clue what a god would do. What I think supports god belief is something intrinsic to each one of us, with no command central thinking through the kinds of issue youâre raising.
My best guess is you like the availability of the rationale for thinking God canât lie and therefore should always be taken literally because it results in God in a form that works well for your thinking-only preferred way of being. Doesnât mean you canât put together a good case for it with scripture but that isnât anything I can appreciate, though sometimes the metaphors are interesting as they can be in any religion or mythology (i.e., a religion no longer in practice).
1 Like
To add to that, for me, thinking of some stories as a fictional tale pointing towards a truth does not complicate anything for me to read scriptures and see what the gospel has to say about salvation. I feel Luke and Acts really lines it out well about salvation.
With due respect, I just looked for alternative meanings of the words, within the normal word choice. I didnât say it was saying the doors were what it meant to the original reader but it really is talking about something totally unrelated, like hotdogs.
Why would God make up a cock-and-bull story for Job? In these parts we call that a fishing tale.
But seriously, I agree with you. I think figurative language can have truth to it. It seems we differ mainly in degrees of how far we think figurative language can stretch, which is probably the case for all interpretations.
I donât think God did make up a cock and bull story for Job. I think the translator did that job quite handily by his idiotic word choice.
What right do I have to get mad at God for not forcing the inspiration he gave his ancient authors to completely correspond to a post-Enlightenment, 21st century Western standard? Thatâs a pretty arrogant thought.
Being mad at God isnât arrogance, it is honesty. At times in my life I havenât liked where he has led me.
Then define mythological and tell me what the truth is in genesis 1 which is different from a YEC reading. I am all ears.
I see this as a definition, which means you are using a word that is somewhat of a synonym for not true:
1. Of, relating to, or recorded in myths or mythology.
2. Fabulous; imaginary.
and myth can have the meaning
A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
A fictitious story, person, or thing:
if you donât want me to think it is fictitious, cease using words that mean fictitious.
I guess thatâs that. It simply escapes you and you can not grasp the concept many keep referring to. I used the same exact language about 45 minutes ago to explain it to my 13 year old cousin and she completely grasped it. I then explained it to my 10 year old niece and she understood it well enough that she brought up Santa about how Santa is not real but itâs a good story that teaches you that Christmas is about love and that parents are like the elves that work and Santa is like them giving you the gifts.
I guess I wonât my time trying to explain it you. I canât see you understanding it and part of me feels that it has to be willful ignorance on not getting it.
I guess thatâs that. It simply escapes you and you can not grasp the concept many keep referring to. I used the same exact language about 45 minutes ago to explain it to my 13 year old cousin and she completely grasped it. I then explained it to my 10 year old niece and she understood it well enough that she brought up Santa about how Santa is not real but itâs a good story that teaches you that Christmas is about love and that parents are like the elves that work and Santa is like them giving you the gifts.
Nice! I didnât chose the words you used, you did. Take responsibility for it. When I look up myth/mythology, they all say, untrue, fiction, etc. No one has the right to a private meaning of a word if they want to communicate properly.
So, I am supposed to believe that mythology doesnât mean fictional as the dictionary says, but it means really really true, but not observationally true? And this applies to the myths of the Greek and Roman world exactly how? Are those myths true in an observational sense? no.
Here is another definition of myth: a belief or set of beliefs, often unproven or false, that have accrued around a person, phenomenon, or institution
It does mean fiction. Iâve used the words fictional does not equal lie several times. Itâs a story that blends fiction and nonfiction together to point towards the truth with a very mythological approach to the first several chapters.
No one goes to the library and ask where are the lie book sections.
Nuances of words are just as important as the literal definition.
It does mean fiction. Iâve used the words fictional does not equal lie several times. Itâs a story that blends fiction and nonfiction together to point towards the truth with a very mythological approach to the first several chapters.
Ok, at least we are now in agreement on myth. But your statement above misses an important logical step. The statements in Genesis are made by God supposedly. And God said. over and over. If Hebrews, Numbers and one other verse is correct, God canât lie. When God says fictional things about nature, I think God is lying. that is where the âlyingâ word comes from.
Logically there are a couple of ways out of this. 1. This is not an God-inspired text. 2. find a way to make it real, 3. ditch the verses that say God canât lie. These are the only three options I see for achieving coherency between the competing claims of God not lying, and the verses of Genesis which donât, on the surface match what we believe we know about reality. There is one other but I donât want to get into Wheelerâs view of quantum right now.
I understand your view.
I go with a fourth option. God uses fictional stories through mythology, parables, metaphors, and ect in addition to just literal truths and that truth does not mean literal. That none of it is a lie. God did not lie, he told a fictional tale to express the concept that he is our creator and he loves us and that we have grace and justification through the one who will crush the serpents head. Though, I donât think itâs a literal snakes head being crushed. I also think thatâs a metaphor.
3 Likes
bark:
-
the abrupt, harsh, explosive cry of a dog.
-
the external covering of the woody stems, branches, and roots of plants, as distinct and separable from the wood itself.
See BARK Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
The word âmythologyâ sometimes means âfabulous; imaginary.â
In a technical sociological or literary context, it does not.
So maybe you are understanding people to mean something they absolutely do not mean.
For example: âa set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered.â See MYTHOLOGY Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
1 Like
Key word being âIâ. Since you are not God and donât know the mind of God you really donât know what it is God is intending to convey and that makes all the difference in lie vs truth. If God is not intending to convey ânatural factsâ then Genesis 1 can be a myth without implying God is telling a lie.
2 Likes
I could go that way except for the fact that it starts putting fictional stories in Godâs mouth. To me, that is a worse slippery slope than leaving YEC was. If we canât tell what is and isnât fictional, with a coherent, consistent, rule, then how do we know what is fictional and what isnât. I donât believe we humans are that good at detecting when God would be telling us fictional stories and when he isnât. God is generally considered smarter than us and thus I presume better able to fool us.
Is it a fictional story when God says, "This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased? If it is, Christian theology is deep in the cow patties. This is why I donât want to go that route. Of course there are other problems one can point to, but why multiply the problems and issues?
Further it bothers me that we chastise our YEC brothers and sisters for doing and saying what God said. It seems to me that if the fictional story (as I see you putting it) was good enough for God it should be good enough for us. Donât get me wrong, I know geology doesnât support YEC. The question I keep asking myself is why didnât God simply say something different than what appears on the surface to be YEC? He didnât have to say what he said. Nothing constrained him that I can see. Out of a world of possible alternative stories that could have been said, he said what he said and get mad at YECs for saying what God said.
This is why I chose to look for a way to make Gen 1 read consistently with modern science. No, we donât know all things and our science isnât the final science, but I donât live in future times and consider our job is to deal with the issues of our times.
1 Like
No, Keyword isnât âIâ Letâs use Skovaâs definition:
God uses fictional stories through mythology
The key word is the dictionary meaning of lie, meaning, bolded part.
Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
I focused on the bolded part to avoid some red-herrings here. Lets call a lie an intentional untruth. I donât know how, given Skovaâs definition we avoid that God told an intentional untruth, given that it is fictional. I donât believe anyone is saying it was an unintentional fictional statement (which wouldnât be a lie, but would possibly mean a clueless God).
1 Like