I am sorry but I do not follwo either of your assertions here. I do not see how my views on biblical commentary can affect Evolution, which is ostensibly being taught as out of God’s hands.
And I am not disputing what God did, only the claimed motivations imposed on HIm. The bible authors had no more right to impose or second guess God’s motivations than did the so called comforters of Job.
Richard
What you are describing is the Marcion heresy.
Not really… I don’t think he is saying they are two different gods. The Marcion heresy is an actual rejection of the God of the Old Testament and there has been no hint of anything like that from Richard.
There can be a number of reasons why the character portrayed looks different between OT and NT. And it does look different to most people. I think it is like the different way parents treat their children in the different stages of their development. God changes to meet the needs of people who are changing. After all, God always has to reach down to where we are – otherwise there is no hope for us.
He said they are different characters.
If you read it properly you will see that there are not two different Gods, or any hierarchy, or dimorphism. It is the way the same God is portrayed. The same God viewed from a different perspective which is the whole point of the bible. The view of God changes from Genesis through the prophets to the Gospels and Epistles. Same God. Different viewpoints and understanding. That is not a heresy And I will thank you for not calling me one.
Richard
Okay then. Maybe you should write more clearly.
Hmmmmm. But their movements from their frame of reference is undetectable over a night. The earthly vantage point is tacit in sky. Perhaps demonstrating that one’s unexamined assumptions create subjectivity, carry hidden meaning: bias? As in the assumption of metaphor as literal that always precedes the historical-grammatical hermeneutic.
Of course the stars move across the sky every night from our frame of reference. I see Orion in the eastern sky early evening, and can note him in the west at bedtime, with his loyal dogs. But of course the dogs are metaphorical.
Just because something is biased doesn’t make it a metaphor. And there is no assumption that metaphors are literal with the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Metaphors are figurative. Maybe you mean assumption that metaphors describe something true? Figurative/Literal distinctions don’t relate to truth value.
That ain’t the way round I expressed it and it’s not commutative. Metaphor is loaded with bias. Cultural if nothing else. And it’s a lot else. And there is every assumption that metaphors are literal with the historical-grammatical hermeneutic: salvation is a metaphor for a big start. Salvation is figurative. And no I don’t mean that metaphors describe something true, though in drama and literature they do and therefore do relate to truth value, I mean that salvation, a metaphor, is regarded as true, when its truth is not in any way literal.
Of course. But if they saw the stars as moving across the sky (your example of bias) because of their culturally (and geographically) biased perspective, it’s still not a metaphor.
LITERAL DOESN’T MEAN TRUE!!! Literal means relying on primary sense meanings, not figurative meanings. “I’m starving” literally means I’m dying of malnutrition and figuratively means I’m very hungry. Both meanings could be either true or false depending on how the statement corresponds with facts. Figurative is the opposite of literal. It is an oxymoron to say metaphors are literal, because metaphors are figurative.
thanks for that. As you can see, my Christianity is anything but conventional. Having your head smashed to bits clearly gives you a different view of everything.
its like me saying “if only they were using the bible literally”, meaning reading it as the poetic language it represents. After all, it’s meant to paint pictures in the minds of people who could not read or write. The problem in modern times is that the poetic language is encountering people who can not think.
Why must it have been written as a metaphor? Why could it not be just based on the common view? It was sufficient for its day. It is only since science got involved that people have looked for any other meanings.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth… most of the rest is poetic padding. God created rather than things created themselves (Oops Evolution) The exact sequence and minute details are not what is looked for here.
On the 7th day God rested…
In the comparable Babylonian story there are 8 days and no rest. But, if you look, in the Genesis version God does 2 things on 2 days, to give Him time to rest on the 7th.
By coincidence the modern view is that Genesis 1 was written during the exhile in Babylon
Richard
Or who think Occam’s razor applies to figurative expressions and the excluded middle to metaphors. 
No, it’s relative if not subjective, especially if you’re not aware of the relativity. Which puts metaphor in the same ballpark. No?
DIDN’T SAY IT DOES!!! Did I? I said that metaphors (like salvation (and sin and judgment and damnation), which are also allegories are they not?) are (assumed to be) literal (when used by,) with the historical-grammatical hermeneutic.
No. Metaphor doesn’t mean “something subjective.” It means using one concept as a vehicle for describing or understanding a different concept. Electricity is a current is a metaphor that uses the vehicle of flowing water to explain/describe the behavior of electrons. There is nothing “subjective” about the idea. What makes it metaphorical is the linking of two unrelated domains because they have something in common.
Saying “metaphors are literal” doesn’t make sense. No, the historical-grammatical hermeneutic does not imply that Jesus “literally” paid money to the Devil (ransom metaphor), that people were “literally” held in physical bondage as slaves to a slave owner named Sin (freedom from slavery metaphor), that people were “literally” released from a guilty verdict in a court of law (legal metaphor). No one is assuming metaphors are literal.
Concepts are subjective. Current as metaphor doesn’t explain the behaviour of electrons. How do you subjectively imagine they behave? What do they have in common? The metaphor is linking one simple concept to another far more complex one and debasing it. Metaphor is fundamentally subjective. The process of metaphorization is. Can you demonstrate objective metaphor?
Correct. Until the last sentence. Salvation is a metaphor. As I said. Damnation is a metaphor. As I said. Sin is a metaphor. As I said. What’s the grammatical, linguistic, philosophical term for linking, nesting two metaphors?
All of this is relevant to hermeneutics of course. The entire enterprise of the Bible and all belief based on it.
Now there.s a sweeping statement (with venom) if ever I heard one. What are you trying to say that Hermeneutics is a con? (In some case I might even agree but not as a generalisation)
Perhaps you would prefer to read the bible as literally as Possible? I have heard people try to apply Ockham’s Razor to the bible. It doesn’t work. The Bible itself talks about parable and metaphor in relation to God’ dealing with us. And besides, literalism is the generator of YEC. And you do not support YEC do you?
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.