***Warning*** Long boring post ahead. Anyone interested in reading, please take caffeine first. I will not be responsible for you falling asleep face first and breaking your keypad.
Skip to the bottom for a summary of this post.
RickD wrote:
Tell us how you went to a seminary, studied, a change came, and then you pushed it all aside and believed evolution. I don't understand how you are arguing for correct interpretation of scripture, when you admit that you don't even believe what scripture says in some cases. What's the point of correct interpretation if you just toss it into the trash anyways?
Neo wrote:
Hah Rick! but there you are wrong my friend. I have always kept myself to see facts as they are. I didn't push it all aside. Remember I was a T.E, which was not common a beleif but still valid with the OEC framework. So for one your statement is wrong, I didn't throw it all aside. It came naturally at a very slow pace, took more than a year infact. To the point where I saw that to twist the scriptures to fit to NEW scientific findings, one was going against the original message and the purpose for it.
I didn't say you pushed it aside immediately. And I didn't say that you didn't struggle while pushing it aside. But you're the one who says that you believe scripture points to a YEC belief, yet you throw that belief aside, in favor of evolution.
If the Bible doesn't merit some things, for instance the use of yom as an extended period of time in Gen 1, then how can we just do that today?
If I believe it didn't merit an interpretation of a long period of time, I wouldn't believe it. But of course you know the fundamental disagreement with yom.
Its a bold position, mine that is, and quite unpopular. I understood the scriptures and I was very interested in evolutionary biology and having studied both I concluded that these just didn't gel together. The science is purely anti-creation and the bible is plainly anti-evolution and pro-creation. More so I realized what the authors of Gen 1 probably thought, they wrote down the story, which was handed down to them via oral traditions. Similar to how Luke wrote his Gospel. In Luke's case though the timeline was a few decades old. Incase of Gen 1, the stories being written down were centuries or more so a millennia old. Too much a of a gap to keep those fully intact.
Ok. Now you're touching on something different. You are saying that the authors of Genesis wrote what they believed were true, but they were probably wrong in what they believed. Which I hope you see, calls the inerrancy of scripture into question.
And then I studied how ancient Hebrews sang the scriptures and stories, a good way to preserve them in memory, for lessons and retelling. Oral tradition was a the only tradition until then which was a sure shot way to keep the basic story passing to the new generations. And Genesis 1 is extremely poetical, parallel poetical, infact. That is why there are two accounts, one a summarized one, details too balanced, expressions and wordings repeated and it was so and so and thus it was day x etc (probably the singing version), then the second account a detailed one and fantastic none the less, Adam names all the creatures and so on and so forth. The talking snake and the fruit. The angel guarding the garden.
But what you do get from the story was that the Authors meant it as severely literal. Its so hard to say its allegorical or means other than what it says that now I think that to even consider the possibility is incredible to say the least. And the produce of these stories are answers, answers to fundamental questions people would have naturally.
Sounds like you're believing in an allegorical interpretation, which is fine if you want to do that. But it contradicts what you said before, about the authors intent being literal.
How everything is made?
Are we above beasts?
e.g Why do we die? because we ate the fruit, leads to concept of punishment and our toiling time on earth.
why is there child labor pains?
why does the earth needs toiling?
why are snakes dangerous?
why do we wear clothes?
what we are to do to get god's favor? sacrifice.
How everything is made?
Yes. Scripture shows that God is the author of creation.
Are we above beasts?
Of course.
e.g Why do we die? because we ate the fruit, leads to concept of punishment and our toiling time on earth.
Why do we die, or why did Adam die? Adam was placed in the garden, which was separate from the rest of the earth. You can't say that scripture says there was to be no toiling outside the garden. Death already existed outside the garden. Animals and plants had been dying for millions of years. Otherwise there would be no ecosystem to sustain the earth.
why is there child labor pains?
Scripture doesn't say child labor pains were a result of her punishment, only an
increase of pain.
why does the earth needs toiling?
For plants to grow for food.
why are snakes dangerous?
Not sure where this one is going. Some snakes are dangerous because God created them with venom, or the ability to constrict their prey. Again, all part of earth's ecosystem.
why do we wear clothes?
So our wee wees won't get sunburned.
what we are to do to get god's favor? sacrifice.
Really? Then I'm doing it all wrong. I was under the impression that I couldn't gain God's favor. So I trusted what Christ did instead. I'm such a dope!
Bottomline, these stories are enriched with lessons. Lessons needed for the Hebrew line. Passing down from oral tradition these stories contained basic truths but not all truth. That Adam and Eve being the first humans, for one.
Since you believe scripture clearly teaches YEC, then I'm going to assume you believe scripture teaches the YEC belief that Adam was the first human. So, then I would naturally take the next step and assume that you believe the author was wrong about Adam being the first human. Which then leads me to think you believe scripture is wrong.
For instance I am open to idea that Adam and Eve were historical characters, maybe the ancestors who started the Hebrew line. But not that they were the first humans.
Were they specially created as you believe the bible states? Or, were they just evolved humans?
However the point being the stories were fundamental and Moses wrote those down probably thinking the same, that these things happened as is. I never can imagine he would make these up on the go. That is not even remotely possible. Next he did not mean it as an allegory because if it was allegorical then it went against the oral stories which the people knew, widespread. So he can't make them up, too many people know the stories and he can't call it allegory, there is no motive to do so and again these stories were widespread knowledge.
Again, I'm seeing a theme here. Moses believed what he wrote to be true, but he was wrong. And God allowed false beliefs to be promoted as true?
To come to evolution the facts are:
1. Adam and Eve were not first humans. No single couple was.
2. That everything living did not eat grass.
3. That death was there, doesn't matter if someone ate the fruit or not. So were earthquakes, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions etc.
1. Adam and Eve were not first humans. No single couple was.
According to evolution, yes. According to what you yourself said that scripture teaches, no. So in your mind, you concluded that evolution is correct, and scripture is wrong.
2. That everything living did not eat grass.
I don't disagree with that. Except to say that all animals ultimately do rely on plants somewhere in the food chain.
3. That death was there, doesn't matter if someone ate the fruit or not. So were earthquakes, tornadoes and volcanic eruptions etc.
I don't think the bible disagrees with that. Death, and natural disasters have always been necessary for life to be possible on earth.
No matter what these say about anything they completely fly in the face of Gen 1.
No matter what you say, that's just your interpretation. Plenty of people who understand Hebrew better than you or I disagree with you.
So you see my conundrum, on one hand I see the scriptures faithfully saying true to their spirit. On other hand the science is undeniable. Hence my conclusion that this story can't be real at least on some points.
As I've been consistent in telling you, it's a completely unnecessary conundrum. If God is the creator, and the author of scripture, there cannot be any contradiction. The only contradiction comes with a faulty interpretation of nature, scripture, or both. Unless you don't believe God is the creator of the universe, or the one who inspired scripture.
And please don't think it rude but what's the point of it anyway when you can't accept that yom in Gen 1 is just that, a 24 day period. I mean that's tossing out scripture in the trashcan. Just because liberally the word can, doesn't mean it should in every instance you prefer, be longer than 24 hours?
I don't think it's rude. I just don't understand how you can possibly believe what you do. It just makes no sense to me. And, I'm not getting into a discussion on yom. I understand that you believe what you think it means. But like I said, people who understand Hebrew much better that you, disagree.
Right there I charge you, you don't believe in the Bible in some cases.
Because I literally interpret yom in certain instances to mean something other than 24 hours, I don't believe in the Bible? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Along with, burning the witch and stoning the prostitute and the homosexual. Or turning the other cheek or being proud and be against divorce instead on when its only allowed to us, or to lie or boast or gossip. Sins we all do everyday, everyone of us, one sin or another, I mean really what's the point of believing in it, when by disobeying we throw the scriptures in the trashcan anyway?
What on earth are you talking about? Are you advocating going back to the OT law, otherwise scripture is trash?
I know what you will say, lying is not the same as not believing Gen 1 to be true through and through. And generally I agree with you but the end result is all the same. You don't stone a prostitute, you don't believe in it. You think that part of the Bible is what? irrelevant now? Is it really any different to what I am doing?
What? I don't believe anything in the OT is irrelevant. Neo, I have no idea what you're even trying to say here.
But again two wrongs don't make a right. I was not dazzled by the lastest science to just jump ship. Infact my analysis of the Bible further drove me to the conclusion that its very YEC. I agree, however just as you don't seem to be affected by "stoning the harlot" or "killing the homosexual", I am unaffected by Adam and his story be that fact or fiction. It makes no difference to me whether he was real or not. His story matters to me and the lessons it gives. It is only a minor point but the Author does indeed write these people as very real. It is the Author's source which is prone to introduce problems, and here the study of evolution came in, which I will deal latter on below.
Well, even though NT authors believed Adam was real, it makes no difference to you? I hope you see where this logically leads. The NT authors also thought Jesus was real. And our need for redemption was real. I'm not saying that you don't believe we need redemption. I'm just asking you to follow your belief that it doesn't matter if Adam was real.
And thus the scriptures do matter to me. It is out of my respect for those scriptures, that unlike PC's for example, I am not trying to alter the meaning of the words just so it can fit in with the latest scientific findings of the day. I am sure you don't think you are disrespecting scripture even when you don't accept the textual analysis and basis of why yom in Gen 1 can't be penned as more than 24 hours.
Neo, that's just not true. I do not alter the meaning of words to fit science. You seriously believe that? Then you really have no idea what you're talking about. And again, I believe scripture literally teaches that yom does mean something other than 24 hours, in certain cases.
But in one way you are plucking the speck of your brother's eye and leaving your plank there in your eye. But since you don't feel that way its different from you, nor do I think its intentional from you. The only difference between your's position and mine, is that I am not ashamed of the eventuality and consequences of my position.
This quote is extremely telling, and troubling. You are claiming that I am ashamed of the consequences of my position. My position is that I believe God created the universe, and He inspired scripture. And when properly understood, there is no contradiction to what nature tells us, and what scripture tells us. I am ashamed of believing in what I see in nature, and my literal interpretation of scripture? You think I'm ashamed of that?
My faith in this position is only based on my honesty with which I came to it. I can say I tried with my best and came to this difficult position (and believe me it is dificult). However I am willing to call it as it is, anti-creation, against the Gen 1 story but sincere nonetheless.
And this is where I'm supposed to applaud you for your sincerity? You believe as a Christian, that scripture is wrong, because it disagrees with evolution. And I'm the one who's ashamed of my position?
You however have to do quite a bit of semantics to get to that long yom you always stress upon. And I call it unbiblical but the problem is, unlike me you are ashamed to accept that and so you don't. You call it biblical. And that just tells me you are not ready to accept the consequences. You will have to give up your core beliefs just to accept that, and as Jac said, if you invested in this belief, it will be hard to let go.
Neo, I believe scripture LITERALLY teaches that yom means something other than 24 hours, in certain cases. And again, I may be wrong, but I'm certainly not ashamed of myself for taking a literal interpretation of scripture. That's just absurd. And FYI, my "core beliefs" are the gospel of Jesus Christ, which I get from scripture, which I actually believe to be true. My "core beliefs" have nothing to do with a non-essential creation belief that I have.
I may be very wrong. I give you that. But there is nothing wrong with my method. Your method in my opinion however is flawed but you keep to it anyway.
So, my method of interpreting scripture literally as I see it, is flawed. But your method of believing your interpretation of your "anti-creation"(your own words) version of evolution, OVER your interpretation of scripture is ok?
And the thing is I am really not trying to blame you for anything. The reason I chose you or (PC's) as an example to use in my points is nothing else but that, that we are conversing and it represents your position
Thanks for clearing that up. Otherwise, from what you wrote, I would've thought you were blaming me for intentionally twisting scripture to fit what I believe science says, being ashamed of my beliefs, believing that it does make a difference if Adam was real, because that belief is important to NT teachings on sin and redemption, intentionally keeping my interpretation of scripture, even though it's flawed, etc.
I sure am glad you aren't blaming me...
There is nothing personal here Rick, I have written in a good mood and consider it iron on iron and nothing else. I know these debates get personal but I don't want that. You asked and I have replied with my honest thoughts. These however do not represent the bond we share and that to me is more precious.
I bid you a good day.
Nothing personal from my end either. More than anything I'm just trying to understand your rationale for believing what you do. And, I'm really no closer now, than before.
Summary:
1) According to Neo, I am ashamed of my Progressive Creation belief. The belief which I arrived at because I believe God is the author of both nature and scripture, and I think PC best shows that.
2) Neo believes scripture clearly points to YEC as being true. But, since that interpretation is at odds with Neo's "anti-creation"(Neo's words) evolutionary beliefs, he's concluded that even though authors believes what they were writing was true, he now knows they were wrong. And what they were writing is wrong. Therefore tossing the inerrancy of scripture right out the window.
