A question for accommodationalists

Faith & Science Conversation
325

Simple, God provided truth via a fictional story that does not require natural truth (see the parables of Jesus). That has been pointed out many times and you simply refuse to accept it. It doesn’t match your requirement for God’s communication. That is fine. That is you but don’t be surprised when others don’t agree with you. And arguing others are wrong is getting you nowhere, but you seem to enjoy that.

The main reason I don’t accept your version of events is the great violence you do to the story in Genesis in order to force fit it to science.

2 Likes
326

What are parables? (Sorry, it looks like that may have been covered previously.)

327

Yes, you’ve equated fiction with untruth. Do that and sure, God lies, all novelists lie, Jesus lied every time he used a metaphor, symbolism or parable. It might seem logically sound, but only because you’ve made “lie” into something far more sweeping than what those Scripture passages refer to.

The same God who cannot lie loved telling fictional stories, if we believe Jesus is God. So either God can lie after all, or your idea of what makes a person a liar is inadequate.

(And no, Jesus’ parables aren’t always marked as such, and it wouldn’t change that they are a fictional genre even if they were all clearly marked.)

5 Likes
328

I don’t see where you have definitively said how they do not fall your use of ‘lie’.

1 Like
329

Bill, I don’t think you have been paying attention. Genesis 1 IS about natural truth–If it isn’t about natural truth then we can’t claim God created the Heavens and the Earth. Do you really want to give up that Christian doctrine?

Yall, think I am frustrating, but this is what frustrates me. Getting asked the same question 100 times over, when it has been answered. lol If Genesis 1 is fictional, then God didn’t create the universe. Somehow that seems to escape everyone along with the implications flowing from that.

330

Marshall, we are not talking ‘metaphor’ here. “In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth”. Is that metaphorical? Is it fictional? If it isn’t, then why do we get to claim that the verses that follow it are fictional. If it is fictional, then why do we proclaim God as the Creator?

I don’t like the idea of choosing verse 1 to be historically true and 2-31 as fictional. That doesn’t seem coherent or logically defensible.

As to lies, again, If there were a clearly stated moral of Genesis 1 account, I might be able to go with you on true but fictional. There is a clear moral to the story of the 10 virgins. But be that as it may, there are probably 10 different versions of what Genesis 1 says on your side of the fence. No one knows what the moral is, and if it is fictional, then so is the creation of the universe by God.

I will stand that on the idea that when God clearly speaks about Nature, and tells intentional falsehoods, that that, is the dictionary definition of a lie–intentional untruth. It is sad to me that you all put God into that box which atheists use with abandon and delight to ridicule our faith–it isn’t just the YECs they ridicule.

331

And if heaven isn’t actually a big house with many rooms, then Jesus didn’t really go to prepare a place for us? This goes way up-thread:

Great example for seeing that nonliteral genres ≠ telling falsehoods. Although Jesus spoke of “my Father’s house,” what awaits us is not just a room in a house. Elsewhere, the same reality is pictured as a city. But it’s not just a city either. Both house and city convey some information the other image loses, and the reality transcends them both. For instance, a house conveys the familial closeness of living with God that a city can’t capture.

When God speaks to us about real things using multiple images, the worst thing we can do is try to decide which image is right and which can be discarded. We need them all – not only because they self-correct each other, but due to how their literal incompatibility points us beyond their physical details to a reality that transcends them all. Multiple images show up for heaven and the kingdom of God, and they also show up for creation. We need both of the creation accounts that begin Genesis, and the ones in Job and Psalms and elsewhere as well. Each one contributes to our understanding, but only when we allow them to be pointers to something beyond words rather than straightforward physical observations.

5 Likes
332

I think the technical term is a merism, where two extremes are used to refer to a whole that incorporates everything between them as well. (The Wikipedia example is “searched high and low” which means searching everywhere, including at eye level.) So yes, I think even this statement is nonliteral, even though I also believe it points to something true.

How many literal interpretations are there? Does everyone who insists Genesis 1 reveals details of physical reality come to your reading? If not, this is no mark in favour of “your side of the fence.”

The major readings that don’t focus on finding a modern description of reality in the text tend to be more stable and compatible with each other. Is Genesis 1 about a temple, the human work week, or polemicizing cultural views of gods and humans? Yes, all the above and more. Those are all mutually enriching ideas that can find support in how other biblical texts make use Genesis 1 and its imagery.

On the other hand, is Genesis 1 the literal first week 6000 years ago, an account of a week of planning the universe prior to its creation, an initial creation event followed by a long degredation and week of re-creation, or snapshots from six days spread across billions of years of creative work? If any one of those is right, the others are way off-base.

3 Likes
333

Genesis 1 is about God creating. How God did that creating is not part of what He is trying to communicate. You are the one that makes it into a “How done it” when it should be a “Who done it”.

334

Of parables again, first most are labeled as such, secondly, those that are not labeled as such are describing things that likely did happen at some time–They are not describing ant-man kind of falsehoods. Genesis 1:1 talks about God creating the heavens and the earth. That is what a logician calls a propositional statement. It is either true or false. Christians seem quite happy, universally to describe that verse as true, but then about half of the Christians decide v 2-maybe chapter 12, carry no historical/scientific information. What gives us the right to pick and chose what we want, to proclaim Gen 1:1 as a real statement of a creative God in space-time and then deny the rest. This is cafeteria style Christianity

335

The only reason I was asking was because the way I understood you to be using the term, parables would have come under ‘lying’.

336

Marshall, I have said several times, and it is included in my Days of Proclamation view, that describing either pre-temporal Heaven, or what we will experience in Heaven, our words won’t do it justice, and we know that. Our words were not evolved to describe heaven, so this doesn’t bother me. Just think if the verse that says, “Eye has not seen, nor ear has heard and what no human mind has conceived…”
Our imaginations are limited by our language. Not only can we not imagine what heaven is like, we can’t describe it either. Thus, I won’t give you a win on this ‘house with many room’s business’ unless you can tell me that we CAN conceive of what God has instore for us.

I will give you a worse one for my position; it is the mustard seed, but, the fact that it is specified that the farmer sowed it in his fields raises the question of whether or not it is the smallest of all the seeds local farmers used. In such a case, the problem with that verse is us, not Jesus.

You quote me as saying this:

gbob:

can I ask why we would believe Jesus when he said “in my Father’s house there are many rooms”? Is that just a made up parable? A fanciful fiction to make us feel good?

and I don’t think I did. I think that is from someone else. If I did, I will claim insanity. lol

In another post, you wrote:

I think the technical term is a merism, where two extremes are used to refer to a whole that incorporates everything between them as well. (The Wikipedia example is “searched high and low” which means searching everywhere, including at eye level.) So yes, I think even this statement is nonliteral, even though I also believe it points to something true.

I have had only one other person claim that Genesis 1:1 isn’t literal. I don’t see at all the analogy between your merism and Gensis 1:1. It seems to have none of the traits inherent in search high and low, which in fact, when something is lost, that is exactly what I do. look high on the counters and low on the floor to see if my cat ran off with it. While you think Genesis 1:1 is true, others seem to indicate that Gen 1 is fiction. They don’t correct me and say, ‘no no, Genesis 1:1 is true and the only verse that is true.’ so all I can do is go off the inclusion of that verse in our Genesis 1 discussion.

Literal interpretations? I would say 2. I don’t think Framework theory is a literal interpretation, because it doesn’t match geologic reality. Of course you will disagree. lol

Marshall, you know I don’t hold to 6000 years, and I don’t hold that because the Hebrew word Yeled, is not of necessity a father-son relationship. Once that father-son relationship is gone in the genealogies, 6k years is done for. Yeled is used of a man who spawned a tribe–which would be quite surprising to that guy’s wife as people hopped out of her womb like clowns out of a clown car.

337

Don’t have a problem with asking Dale. I think there is such a big difference between the parables, which are all scenes of everyday life and happened over and over again and often, with Genesis 1 which. doesn’t.

338

So an interpretation is literal if it doesn’t describe history? Literal doesn’t have anything to do with “describing history” and metaphorical or figurative doesn’t mean “describing something that never happened” or “related to unreality or fiction.” Part of the failure to communicate here is your insistence on using labels incorrectly.

1 Like
339

The longer I follow Jesus and serve in full-time ministry, the more skepticism I develop towards stances that insist on “only one right perspective or interpretation.”

340

there are two ways of being literal. 1. match the widely accepted meaning of the words–i.e. YEC, or 2 match historical/scientific events.

Sigh, Christy, I am not great at technical names in literature but I think you mean allegory not metaphor. Metaphor is something like "a sea of troubles’. it is a short phrase. An allegory probably fits more what you are trying to say.

Allegory: the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence

Allegorical most certainly does mean describing something that never happened. Icarus is a metaphor for hubris–flying too close to the sun. It never happened, but it is a wonderful metaphor. The Lord of the Rings is a wonderful metaphorical story about the struggle between good and evil. It never happened. Hate to break it to you but Frodo never existed.

From what I see, metaphor is not what you want because it isn’t expressing what you are saying

examples of metaphor:

  • My brother was boiling mad . (This implies he was too angry.)
  • The assignment was a breeze . (This implies that the assignment was not difficult.)
  • It is going to be clear skies from now on. (This implies that clear skies are not a threat and life is going to be without hardships)
  • The skies of his future began to darken .

figurative also doesn’t seem to apply. Here are examples of that form of speech

  • He has learned gymnastics, and is as agile as a monkey.
  • When attacked in his home, he will fight like a caged tiger.
  • Can you dance like a monkey?
  • Even when he was told everything, he was acting like a donkey.

So, I think it is allegory to which you really refer, and it clearly says fictional.

341

So you would say there are many right perspectives for what Jesus said, "no man comes to the father except through me?

Secondly, your skepticism is not per se, evidence or logic. Your skepticism is about you, not about the Bible.

342

That may be the truest sentence of your entire post … which makes it amazing that you follow it with …

while speaking to a professional linguist / translator like Christy. I think we can all rest assured that she is using these words precisely, accurately, and is saying exactly what she means. The confusion is (and remains) entirely yours, not at all hers. You would do well to begin learning from her.

3 Likes
343

This is the most amazing thing. On this thread, I am the one arguing for a God who doesn’t tell intentional untruths, It seems to me that most others are arguing FOR a God who tells intentional untruths, indeed cheering for a God who tells intentional untruths. They do this without really thinking through the consequences of following a God who tells any kind of untruth.

I think we all have probably had bosses who set us up or tell us intentional untruths. Do we want to work for them? My first ‘retirement’ came from just such an incident. I was the Exploration Director for China when our company was taken over by another. The CEO publicly announced they were selling China. We had a great prospect waiting to be drilled and I wanted to show that to the CEO, which was my job. My boss told me to work with John the landman, help him with a 5 minute presentation and to let John present the prospect to the CEO (he didn’t understand the prospect cause he is a lawyer, not a geoscientist), and told me not to attend the meeting with the CEO. I said, “I’m the Exploration Director for China, you really don’t want me there?” “No.” Ok, I went on vacation and via phone and email worked with my friend John. Then on Friday before the Monday meeting my boss calls and tells me to come to the meeting, not to present. but to answer questions. Now I’m mad, I have to mentally get out of vacation mode and back into work mode. I needed to finish taking my vacation for that year or lose it, but ok, I showed up Monday morning.

Five minutes before we were to walk in to see the CEO, my boss comes out and says:

“Ok, guys you have 30 minutes, Glenn, how long is your presentation?”

I made one attempt to say, “You said this was John presenting.” which he denied, so I said, 15 m, ran back to my computer, slapped 15 slides together, walked in and sold the CEO on keeping China. John didn’t even present. I came home and told my wife, I couldn’t work for a son of a snake like my new boss because some day, he would tell me to come to a meeting as a participant and I would be the main presenter–totally unprepared. I took that opportunity to retire.

I tell this story because not a single person would want to work for a boss who does that kind of stuff. Yet, many seem to want a God who can’t be trusted not to tell intentional untruths. When God tells intentional untruths, there is no way to limit it to just Genesis 1-11. Doubts about God telling intentional untruths in the New Testament should arise in the minds of anyone who puts 2 and 2 together. My guess is that if yall had a boss like the one above, the next time he told you something you would doubt him. For some strange reason many here seem to want to still trust an untruth-telling God. That seems hopelessly naïve to me. Could we really trust an intentional untruth telling God to tell us how to get to heaven?

I have been erroneously told that no one is saying the Genesis 1 account is fiction, yet two guys had the guts to acknowledge that it is fiction, but still think it is true. I appreciate their honesty. Everyone seems to think that the fiction has ‘truth’ in it, but there is no agreement as to what that truth is. While it may have a moral truth, none of the words in Genesis 1 state that moral truth, instead it continues droning on about how the world was created, but in a way few think is real.

Many seem to be under the mistaken impression that if they can find and prove other places in the Scripture where God or Jesus told intentional untruths, it makes their case for accommodationalism. I have been asked about doors on seas and mustard seeds and parables, as if proving the Bible wrong there proves accommodation. It does no such thing! What that would prove is that even more of the Bible is false. Would we still believe Christianity if everything in the Bible was false? I certainly would hope not.

I will confess I don’t understand why Christians would avidly defend and try to proselytize the concept of a God who intentionally fails to tell them the truth. But that is what I find here. I for one, would see no point to Christianity in such a case.

This thread started with a question about whether I should tell my former Hindu friend, who became a Christian BECAUSE of Genesis 1:1, that there is no truth in Genesis 1:1 (Hinduism has no temporal origin to the universe). If an accommodationalist is to live according to their beliefs, they should want her to know the truth, not to live believing the falsehood that Genesis 1:1 is true.

But surprisingly few wanted me to tell her, fearing I think that she would fall away from Christianity. But they have no qualms about telling me that the early part of the scripture is not true. I wonder why that is? Is her soul worth more than Mine? Is it that she is less irritating to the present crowd? Isn’t truth important? If it is important to convince me that Genesis 1 is historically false why was it not important to convince her? Again, inconsistency in words deeds and actions.

God accommodates YECism to the ancient Hebrews and that is ok, it has deep truth, but when a YEC says the same things God said, all H breaks lose upon him and the YEC is reviled for saying what God clearly said. Inconsistency!

I don’t see intellectual consistency in accommodation. I see intellectual compartmentalization whereby one gets to pick and choose what one has to deal with. It is kinda like a doctor in an operation, throwing out body parts, and exclaiming, “He really doesn’t need this thing” as he tosses that organ into the trash. One wouldn’t want to have a doctor like that, why do we want that kind of thinking in our theology?

I am going to leave this thread now and go learn a new programming language. It will be a more productive use of my time. It will probably result in a more productive use of your time.

344

I know exactly what I am talking about. Metaphor is anytime you use one image or conceptual domain to describe or understand something about another image or conceptual domain. “Literal meaning” is the meaning you get when no pragmatic inferences are involved in the interpretation.

Allegory is a literary genre. Neither “literal” or “metaphor” are literary genres. They are labels used to describe language use.

Thanks for that mansplaining bit about the difference between metaphor and figurative, but I think you just made all that up. I’ve read hundreds of pages of linguistics textbooks on this topic. Metaphor is a kind of figurative language.

6 Likes