|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis: is it to be taken literally? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Terry48420 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
So if I write a book and in it claim it's The Truth that makes it, in reality, The Truth.
Yeah.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MiguelG Member (Idle past 2005 days) Posts: 63 From: Australia Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Terry48420 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Christians before the time of Darwin almost all took Genesis literally.
Uhhh....wasn't Augustine before Darwin by about 1500 years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4988 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Terry48420 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Terry48420 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Terry48420 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Terry48420 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024