Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis: is it to be taken literally?
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 226 of 301 (181430)
01-28-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Terry48420
01-28-2005 4:34 PM


Re: Reply to Proboscis
I can't speak for him, but I am an elder in the Church of Christ and everyone in my congregation is a six-day creationist and believes Noah's Flood is literal.
That's nice. I'm glad you put the part before the comma, or I might have thought you were saying "No True Christian (TM) can believe that way...."
It's interesting, isn't it, that you guys (or the C of C down here, at least) hold it as an article of faith that you can't have a piano in the church because it's not in the New Testament, but you will allow pews, and carpet, and central heat and air, and PA systems? There are quite a wide variety of folks with wildly divergent views on this sort of thing who all say they're Christians. As an outsider, I don't see much indication of which bunch, if any, has The Truth (TM). And if anybody I ever met walked the walk in addition to talking the talk, it was my dad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Terry48420, posted 01-28-2005 4:34 PM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Terry48420, posted 01-29-2005 9:12 AM Coragyps has replied

Terry48420
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 301 (181628)
01-29-2005 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Coragyps
01-28-2005 4:50 PM


Re: Reply to Proboscis
As an outsider, I don't see much indication of which bunch, if any, has The Truth (TM).
The Bible is truth according to Jesus in John 17:7 "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." Carefull Bible study will reveal the truth to you. Since your dad was a minister, I am sure you know at least some of the truth Coragyps.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Coragyps, posted 01-28-2005 4:50 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Coragyps, posted 01-29-2005 9:22 AM Terry48420 has not replied
 Message 244 by ramoss, posted 01-31-2005 10:14 AM Terry48420 has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 228 of 301 (181630)
01-29-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Terry48420
01-29-2005 9:12 AM


Re: Reply to Proboscis
So if I write a book and in it claim it's The Truth that makes it, in reality, The Truth.
Yeah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Terry48420, posted 01-29-2005 9:12 AM Terry48420 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by arachnophilia, posted 01-30-2005 2:10 AM Coragyps has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 229 of 301 (181766)
01-30-2005 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Coragyps
01-29-2005 9:22 AM


Re: Reply to Proboscis
So if I write a book and in it claim it's The Truth that makes it, in reality, The Truth.
Yeah.
personally, i like to claim that i am inspired by god in my refutations of their points. it really bugs the christians, because either i am inspired by god, and i'm right, or god's wrong, or saying "i'm inspired is meaningless" and i'm still right. any which way they lose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Coragyps, posted 01-29-2005 9:22 AM Coragyps has not replied

MiguelG
Member (Idle past 1976 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 230 of 301 (181810)
01-30-2005 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Terry48420
01-28-2005 3:34 PM


Re: Reply to Terry48420
I'd be interested to know what, in your opinion, was the central tenet of Christianity?
Terry: Christians are on a very slippery slope if they start deciding for themselves which parts of the Bible to believe and which to refect as myth.
Faith is very important, but so too are logic & empathy.
Without logic, we cannot live in the world around us.
Without empathy we cannot deal with others, nor understand how they feel, and if we can't do that then we cannot practice Christ's teachings of love.
All our faculties are given to us by God.
To squander them by taking everything in the Bible literally is tantamount to worshiping the text of the Bible rather than Word within it.
But that's just my opinion.
Cheers mate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Terry48420, posted 01-28-2005 3:34 PM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 1:22 PM MiguelG has not replied

Terry48420
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 301 (181846)
01-30-2005 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by MiguelG
01-30-2005 10:22 AM


Reply to MiguelG
I'd be interested to know what, in your opinion, was the central tenet of Christianity?
When Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was in Matt 22:36ff he said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." and the second greatest commandment was to "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Clearly love is a central tenent of Christianity. Faith is also right up there too. In Heb 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please Him..." The him there being God.
There are many things central to Christianity that are too numerous to get into here, but it seems that the second part of your question is about taking the word of God literally.
To squander them by taking everything in the Bible literally is tantamount to worshiping the text of the Bible rather than Word within it.
We don't worship the text or the Word within it. We worship God and study his revieled word to us in the Bible. The discussion is mainly about Genesis and the Creation and Noah's Flood accounts. Genesis is a book of history and I find nothing in them that would indicate that these accounts are not to be taken literally. After all, God put the sign on the rainbow in the sky to say that He would not flood the earth again. Surely this is not talking about a local flood because we have those all the time!
Christians before the time of Darwin almost all took Genesis literally. The only reason many don't today is because they have comprimised with the so called evidence of evolution and it's dating methods.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by MiguelG, posted 01-30-2005 10:22 AM MiguelG has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Coragyps, posted 01-30-2005 2:27 PM Terry48420 has not replied
 Message 233 by Brian, posted 01-30-2005 3:14 PM Terry48420 has replied
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2005 3:44 PM Terry48420 has replied
 Message 241 by Coragyps, posted 01-31-2005 7:36 AM Terry48420 has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 232 of 301 (181860)
01-30-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Terry48420
01-30-2005 1:22 PM


Re: Reply to MiguelG
Christians before the time of Darwin almost all took Genesis literally.
Uhhh....wasn't Augustine before Darwin by about 1500 years?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 1:22 PM Terry48420 has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 233 of 301 (181869)
01-30-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Terry48420
01-30-2005 1:22 PM


Re: Reply to MiguelG
Hi Terry,
Christians before the time of Darwin almost all took Genesis literally.
I think you will be surprised to discover that this is incorrect. I used to believe this as well, but study the Church Fathers and you will get a surprise.
For example, the allegorical means of interpreting the Old Testament had previously been suggested by Philo Judaeus, but the main exponent of this approach was the Church Father Origen (186-255 CE).
When faced with an apparent difficulty in the text, Origen proposed that:
Whenever we meet with such useless, nay impossible, incidents and precepts as these, we must discard a literal interpretation and consider of what moral interpretation they are capable of, with what higher and mysterious meaning they are fraught, what deeper truths they were intended symbolically and in allegory to shadow forth. The divine wisdom has of set purpose contrived these little traps and stumbling blocks in order to cry halt to our slavish historical understanding of the text, by inserting in its midst sundry things that are impossible and unsuitable. The Holy Spirit so waylays us in order that we may be driven by passages which, taken in the prima facie sense cannot be true or useful, to search for the ulterior truth, and seek in the Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by God a meaning worthy of him (Quote in: Conybeare Frederick, C. (1910) History of New Testament Criticism, Watts & Co., London. pp.14-15)
Origen was particularly adamant about looking for hidden meanings behind the text. He acknowledged that some of the biblical text was not intended to be taken literally.
Who will be found idiot enough to believe that God planted trees in Paradise like any husbandman; that he set up in it visible and palpable tree-trunks, labelled the one ‘Tree of Life’ and the other ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ both bearing real fruit that might be masticated with corporeal teeth; that he went and walked about that garden; that Adam hid under a tree; that Cain fled from the face of God? (Conybeare: 10)
I have to thank Truthlover for helping me out with this last year as I was under the impression that early Christians took the Bible literally, but when I actually studied the Church Fathers then I found out that I was mistaken.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 1:22 PM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 7:58 PM Brian has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 234 of 301 (181876)
01-30-2005 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Terry48420
01-30-2005 1:22 PM


Genesis is a book of history and I find nothing in them that would indicate that these accounts are not to be taken literally.
What's your training, specifically, in myth studies?
For instance, did you miss the fact that God rests on the 7th day? Seven being a commonly used number in myths to connote "infinite" or "forever"?
Or the constant, poetical repetition of phrases: "And he saw that it was good"? Did you miss that, too? Repetition is a clear indicator that what we're reading is poetry, and hence, mythical.
Myths don't have labels on them that say "Bullshit." That would defeat the purpose of a myth, which is to be culturally true, not literally true. You have to read the signs to see they mythology, and they're there. They're staring you in the face, plain as day, if you know what you're looking for.
To say that there's nothing in Genesis that suggests its not literal is to betray a stunning ignorance of how cultures construct myths. The reason you see no indication of Genesis's mythical status is simply because you refuse to look for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 1:22 PM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 8:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Terry48420
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 301 (181920)
01-30-2005 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Brian
01-30-2005 3:14 PM


Reply to Brian
Origen was particularly adamant about looking for hidden meanings behind the text. He acknowledged that some of the biblical text was not intended to be taken literally.
The Apostle Peter said there would be false teachers in II Pet 2:1,2.
But there were false prophets also amoung the people, even as there shall be false teachers amoung you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that brought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
I do not claim that ALL believe as I do, but only most true Christians. And of course there is deeper or hidden meaning in most of the Bible, but that does not take away the plain literal meaining of the text. Especially the creation and flood accounts.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Brian, posted 01-30-2005 3:14 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Brian, posted 01-31-2005 1:51 PM Terry48420 has replied

Terry48420
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 301 (181922)
01-30-2005 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by crashfrog
01-30-2005 3:44 PM


Reply to crashfrog
For instance, did you miss the fact that God rests on the 7th day? Seven being a commonly used number in myths to connote "infinite" or "forever"?
Or the constant, poetical repetition of phrases: "And he saw that it was good"? Did you miss that, too? Repetition is a clear indicator that what we're reading is poetry, and hence, mythical.
Hebrew poetry does repeat thoughts and use numbers with meaning like 3, 7, 10, 12 and etc. Just because it is poetry does not automatically mean it is mythical (by mythical I assume you mean not literal and not factual). The number 7 can mean forever as you say, but in the context of creation it is also counting days and setting that up as an example of the Sabbath rest of the Jews. EX 20:11

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2005 3:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2005 8:54 PM Terry48420 has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 237 of 301 (181927)
01-30-2005 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Terry48420
01-30-2005 8:20 PM


Re: Reply to crashfrog
Just because it is poetry does not automatically mean it is mythical (by mythical I assume you mean not literal and not factual).
No, by "mythical" I mean it's a body of knowledge developed by a culture to answer certain questions within a narrative framework, in a means easy to recount to subsequent generations.
So, yes, because it is poetic, it is mythical. See, this was what I meant. You say that you find nothing that tells you you're supposed to take it mythically, but that's because you don't know anything about myths. "Myth" doesn't mean "lie."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 8:20 PM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 9:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Terry48420
Inactive Member


Message 238 of 301 (181936)
01-30-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by crashfrog
01-30-2005 8:54 PM


Re: Reply to crashfrog
No, by "mythical" I mean it's a body of knowledge developed by a culture to answer certain questions within a narrative framework, in a means easy to recount to subsequent generations.
I have seen this definition of myth before, but that is not the way most people commonly use the word myth. Most people assume that myth is fictional stories not factual.
"Myth" doesn't mean "lie."
So if myth does not mean lie, then you must believe the genesis account of creation is factual and literal like I do. Or are you just mudding the waters with myth when you really do mean not factual and not litteral.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2005 8:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2005 10:43 PM Terry48420 has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 239 of 301 (181950)
01-30-2005 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Terry48420
01-30-2005 9:14 PM


Re: Reply to crashfrog
I have seen this definition of myth before, but that is not the way most people commonly use the word myth. Most people assume that myth is fictional stories not factual.
Which is not a very useful definition, now is it?
So if myth does not mean lie, then you must believe the genesis account of creation is factual and literal like I do.
Only an idiot would suggest, as you do, that all that are not lies are true. Again, your inability to distinguish between those things that are literally true, and those things that are only metaphorically true, is how I know that you're incapable of recognizing the markers of the myth of Genesis that you say aren't there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 9:14 PM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 7:03 AM crashfrog has replied

Terry48420
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 301 (182002)
01-31-2005 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by crashfrog
01-30-2005 10:43 PM


Re: Reply to crashfrog
Only an idiot would suggest, as you do, that all that are not lies are true. Again, your inability to distinguish between those things that are literally true, and those things that are only metaphorically true, is how I know that you're incapable of recognizing the markers of the myth of Genesis that you say aren't there.
I am not the idiot that you may think. I am only trying to define the terms used. By your/our definition of myth I agree that Gen 1 is a myth, but I do contend that it is literally true and not simply metaphorically true.
If the order of creation and the use of the word day (yom) in conjunction with a number of the day and the phrase evening and morning does not literally mean one 24 hour day then why put it in there. God could have said the first age, the second age, and etc. and described a developmental process of goo to you evolution, but He did not. God used devine fiat to create full grown plants and animals after their kind. Things naturally reproduce after their kind. This only allows for adaptations for survival within the kind, not goo to you evolution.
The days are not even in the right order to go along with evolution. The earth is older than the sun (day 4), birds are older than any other land animal (day 5 and day 6 respectively). Trees (day 3) even come before the sun (day 4).
I'm supprised that you claim it to be metaphorically true other than the fact that the universe had a beginning. Because all the details contradict big bang and evolutionary assumptions. If it is only metaphor of some kind of beginning, then it could have stoped at Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.". We know however that God did not stop there.
Even though the Bible is not a science book, when ever it gives a scientific fact it is always correct. That is why I take Genesis literally.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2005 10:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by crashfrog, posted 01-31-2005 11:29 AM Terry48420 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024