LOL!! The retelling was amusing and completely accurate. Whether the account is a “parable” or not, I don’t know. I think not, since “parable” is a somewhat well-defined term that is (as I understand it) different from “myth” or “fable” or “hilariously mutated made-up fireside story.” And how exactly the retelling of story can be “demeaning” is beyond me.
I have. Many times. And it doesn’t read like any other historical account in the OT. In fact the first 11 chapters don’t read like the history in Kings for example. I am not sure I would call it a parable but it is definitely not straight history.
2 Likes
What is demeaning about it? Myths and parables have long been a way that humans communicate deeper truths. When an account has talking snakes, characters that are super obvious archetypes (Adam means “Man”), and fruits that impart eternal life it is pretty obvious that it is a myth. [quote=“J.E.S, post:214, topic:36407”]
I would strongly suggest that one read the actual account, and then determine if it is a parable or not.
[/quote]
I have read it, many times. It reads perfectly as a parable.
1 Like
@BradKramer can move this to the other thread, if he wishes.
Since this is the statement in question, it deserves repeating. You are not putting faith in the word of God, you are equating your interpretation and the word of God. To put it plainly, your equation is: “My Interpretation = the Word of God.”
Should I show you, from Scripture and through sound reasoning, why such a statement is prideful beyond belief?
Fine. I will play along. Let’s try a thought experiment. Suppose, just for a minute, that I was able to show you through Scripture and sound reasoning, that you were wrong in your YEC beliefs. After deleting all of your Internet presence, you might not abandon your faith, in which case you would have to come to a new understanding of Genesis 1-11.
Is your new understanding also the word of God? Does this mean the word of God is subject to change, like our fallible human understandings? Is it possible to change your understanding of Genesis at all, if you equate your interpretation to the very word of God?
Your interpretation is fallible, just like mine and everyone else’s. If you cannot see this, if you think you speak with the very authority of God himself whenever you open your mouth to expound the Scriptures, then I cannot help you.
Edit: Forgot the Scripture! The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever. Is. 40:8
1 Like
The Word of God says if your hand causes you to sin, you should cut it off. That’s what it says. We have to figure out what it means. It is not demeaning to the word of God to take into consideration the context and Jesus’ communicative intent in that verse when we try to figure out what it means. Maybe somebody thinks it means we should literally mutilate ourselves to avoid temptation and claims that is the Word of God. I would argue that is not the best interpretation. Same with Genesis. Yes, it says the heavens and earth and everything in them were created in six days. That is what is says. But what it means is more complicated and debatable. It’s not demeaning to Scripture to take into consideration the context and the communicative intent as we figure out what that passage is supposed to mean for us.
6 Likes
The biggest two presuppositions are these: First, that Genesis is intended to communicate “eyewitness” information about the duration and method of God’s creation. Second, that information is communicated in such a way that one-to-one correspondences can be made between terms in Genesis and modern scientific concepts.
These two presuppositions control the way a person reads the text. It is no surprise that people find exactly what their presuppositions demand they find.
I want to return to the historical angle, because I think it’s vital. The history of conversation about Genesis and science can be summed up as this: Genesis is a theological masterpiece but a terrible scientific text. The theology of Genesis—that the universe is the free and good creation of an omnipotent and wise God—has had a massive impact on the development of the modern world, and particularly the rise of modern science. But every single time people have tried to use Genesis as a guide to science, it has failed. Every. Single. Time. So perhaps the lesson is that Genesis was not intended to give us that sort of information? Perhaps its depiction of creation is meant to communicate a different sort of truth than just a literal chronology of events? Perhaps its our own presuppositions which need to be adjusted?
This book has been extremely helpful for me: Amazon.com. Written by two professors at a conservative Bible college.
Sure, it can be understood in different ways. That’s the point. But lots of people in church history have thought the most “natural” reading is of a solid dome that separates the “waters above” from “waters below.” This also makes the most sense in the cultural context in which Genesis was written. More on that here: http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-that’s-not-the-point
The firmament/expanse question has been debated here on the Forum at great length, so I’m not going to beat the dead horse any more than this. Here’s the biggest thread:
4 Likes
Could you repeat what you’ve said in these other posts here please, or at the very least link to them? I ask this not just for myself but for the benefit of anyone else who stumbles on this thread.
@jammycakes
Certainly. In the book of Exodus, God Himself says that He created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th day (in reference to working 6 days and resting on the seventh). Also, after the creation days, it says “and there was evening and there was morning on the # day.”
More on this later, but I would like to reemphasize one thing (on this thread for anyone who stumbles upon it):
I am not so close-minded as to say I can’t be wrong. If any of you can prove to me through scripture and sound reasoning that I am wrong in my YEC beliefs, then I will delete my posts myself. So, this is what it has come to but in a good way). Let us use scripture to interpret scripture, and see if/where it says that the days in Genesis are not literal days.
@jpm
@Christy
@BradKramer
2 Likes
How exactly would you use Scripture to show Jesus doesn’t want you to cut your hand off, even though he told you to?
5 Likes
The actual account was written in Hebrew. Have you read it in Hebrew?
1 Like
Then lead the way and use scripture to interpret the scripture regarding the firmament and the origin of rain.
5 Likes
Hello James,
I actually agree with you that scripture does not allow an interpretation of the days in Genesis 1 as anything other than 24-hour periods of time. There is more than evidence than the 2 passages in Exodus, and I’ll produce if should anyone like. Then we have 2 choices for the genre of the passage. Either it is literal history or tradition/myth. What’s not allowed is concordance.
Richard
How would evening and morning be determined prior to the existence of the sun, moon, and stars (day 4)?
2 Likes
I would like to hear your other verses, @Richard_Wright1 (by the way, the name’s Jonathan ;))
That is a very interesting question, @cwhenderson, one that I have been pondering lately. Interestingly, Genesis 1 implies (as God first created light, and called the light day and the darkness night) that the time span of a day is set by God, and he created the sun and the heavenly bodies to mark it.
There are some thoughts on this in this other new thread, if you’re interested: Teaching Genesis Creation at U of Montana this fall - #4 by mtp1032
Hi Jonathan!
Sorry about the name mix-up.
This is from my 39-page apologetic paper comparing the Day Age and Framework theories of interpreting Genesis 1:
“However, every time that, “yom” appears with a number, 410 times outside of Genesis 1, it is translated as a literal 24-hour day in the Old Testament. Also, the Hebrew words for, “morning” and, “evening” used together, which occurs 38 times, always represent a regular day, as do the combinations of “yom” plus, “morning, used 23 times, and, “yom” plus, “evening” which is used 52 times.”
1 Like
Ever notice how the “And there was evening and there was morning, a Xth day” for each of the first 6 days? Where else have you ever seen a repeating piece of text? Try a hymn. Genesis 1 is a poem and literal history is not normally written in the form of poetry. There are other features of the Hebrew that also point to poetry, but this is the easiest for an English reader to see. Poetry can contain historic true but I don’t believe any of the other history in the OT is written in poetry.
4 Likes
If the Bible is the Word of God, then Who is Jesus Christ?
John 1:1-4 (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 1:14-15 (KJV)
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only Begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
1 Like
Ah, the good old “yom with a number” rule, which first appeared in material published by the Institute for Creation Research in the 1970s, only ever crops up in YEC attacks on the day-age, framework and gap interpretations, and is not recognised as a valid rule of Hebrew grammar by any Hebrew scholar outside the YEC community.
Bravo, Roger. We must not lose sight of what we really mean when we call ourselves Christian. In my view, we should acknowledge the fact that the authors of Genesis (and other books of the O.T.) were people of great intellect, and God chose to reveal to them as much of His nature as their experiences on this earth had prepared them for. This initial covenant was sufficient to guide the Israelites to lead better lives (as a nation) than the heathen peoples surrounding them. However, as we Christians believe, the implications of that first covenant were not clearly understood–or sufficiently taken to heart, and thus a _New Covenant_ was required, one in which “_the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”_Jesus himself was careful NOT to imply that his gospel was meant to replace the O.T. But is it possible to over-emphasize its relevance to modern times?
I greatly admire O.T. scholars, such as Richard Wright, whose studies give us the best perspective possible of what the original text must have meant to the original readers. But, for whatever good effect it had, the O.T. still fell short–at least in the eyes of Christians–and it necessitated Jesus’ mission and his suffering to set us straight.
IMHO the materialistic society in which we now live poses moral problems inconceivable to our forebears who made the earlier covenants with God. Sure, the basic core principles remain, but in determining how they actually apply we could use some new revelation. Studies on how many times ‘yom’ was used and in what context may be of intellectual interest, but of far greater importance is to guide bioethicists in how much freedom should be allowed to scientists using CRISPR-C9, for example, in altering the human genome to cure disease (e.g. such as cancer or Huntington’s). How should humankind avoid the danger expressed as: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Personally I believe God has invited humans to become co-creators with Him, at least in the spiritual realm, the Noosphere. But I am truly frightened that we will ‘screw up’ in doing so in the Biosphere.
Al Leo