Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

Lee


If the tree of knowledge of good and evil was symbolical, then what were the other trees in the garden?
How could Adam and Eve distinguish it from the others, if it wasn't even really there?

Your last statement "At least you have accepted that the Bible contains some symbology now, so we are making progress." once again implies that I have stated categorically that there is no symbology in the Bible
which is simply not true
I don't know what I have to write and how many times I have to repeat things before it gets to you.

I wonder if you want me to stop writing because deep down inside you sense your point is weak?
Anyway, I will pass over for a bit to Stuart and Bret, because it seems I am getting on your nerves.
Unless you say something else I simply cannot refuse to reply to (you do have a knack for that)...


Lucien
PS, I read the Bible daily. In the morning before breakfast, after coming home from work and before going to sleep at night.
PPS, I don't use Google
PPPS, studying the Bible more and more so I can become like you? No thanks. I'll just read it and and take what is written as a given and at face-value. Am sure that is what most people did anyway before "modern science" demanded we read into the Bible instead of learning from what we read. But yeah, for all your brain-gymnastic requiring views you better keep up to speed with all the latest developments, because it might change tomorrow. But the Bible does NOT.

[Lucien]- 'I don't give a hoot about what people think of my posts.
I care for what God thinks of me and how I handle His Word.'

Then you need to change your ways and the way in which you are relating to others. The unfortunate part for all of us, is that you are not handling His Word the way that God wants you too. It hasn't sunk into your spiritual character yet. You are not interpreting the Bible correctly, you are distorting His Truth, and your are doing it in away that infuriates your co-heirs at times by insults, false accusations, and distorting known truths to support a fantasy world you have created for yourself and out of touch with reality. Don't you think more study time of both God Word and His creation would serve Him better instead of popping out posts, hurling insults, that distort the Truth contained in the Bible, and about God's Creation (Nature).

Your passion to serve God is misdirected in your posts since you have so far been unable to distinguish what is reality and what is symbolism. You have set up a false rules in your mind that Genesis contains no symbolism or the symbolism is secondary since the text is primarily an historical account. This is simply not true about Genesis and other books of the Bible, Genesis is historical but things like the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil were certainly meant to be symbolic of our natural urge to partake in evil activities. Eating its fruit is our inability to resist evil temptations and disobeying God's commandments. There was no actual tree! The author could explain to you (albeit in primitive Hebrew language) if he were with us today. According to your posted view on historical facts, how would he even know if there was a real tree or not since the author wasn't there at the time to actually see it. It was a passed down story through the ages at the time he recorded it. Inclusion of symbology in their text was part of their culture. The authors did not observe this rule of yours and there was no reason for them to obey it. The Old Testament and even God's own statements in it are ripe with symbology in a primary way and not just as a secondary meaning. Consider Job, it is a clear example of symbolism mixed with history. You really really need to study the Bible's cross relationships more and it's symbolism.

You are way off base with your assumption that especially Genesis 1, 2, 3 contain no symbology. At least you have accepted that the Bible contains some symbology now, so we are making progress.

Lee

Because the angel explained what it means (in words that the man could understand)!

Did you know, that this verse makes perfectly good sense in a literal meaning, as well as the secondary meaning?
In fact, because it makes sense in the plain, straightforward understanding, people can grasp the next level of meaning.

191,000 hits with Google.
And Google searches always reveal the truth, don't they Lee?

No bro, Google, nor scientists, always reveal the truth.
But God through His Word reveals the truth. And it shall set you free.

Why don't you give the principle 'let-Scripture-interpret-Scripture' a go, before consulting Google, science and other sources?

You also must have missed this entire paragraph in my previous post, as you seem to think I deny symbolism entirely:
"
Don't get me wrong here. I do understand things can have more than one meaning.
A good example is the parables Jesus used. A natural meaning and a spiritual one.
The natural was understood by all, but some (disciples) asked for what it means in relationship to the Kingdom of God.
Note that the natural meaning does not depend on the secondary meaning, and in fact, the spiritual meaning is built upon the first meaning.
"

I also thought I had been clear that historical, narrative prose must be taken as read.
I should have maybe pointed out (again) that there are poetic passages in the Bible that have metaphors and other symbols in them.

I have read the Bible Code books.
Interesting reading and the author believes in hidden codes in the original Hebrew text.
He believes the hidden codes, but not the plain meaning. Isn't that funny? It reminds me of you.


You stated in your previous post:
"Otherwise, it seems to me and others like me that these things are all in your imagination."
I am in good company then because God ensured these imaginations were recorded in Scripture.
The problem with telling people that large portions in the Bible are 'imagination' Lee, is that people will believe the Bible is a fiction-book. And what do you get? People don't believe in fairy-tales and thus don't believe Jesus.
John 3:12 says (Jesus speaking):
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

But let me try one on you, seeing that you think it is reasonable to ask for empirical proof, for something that happened in the past:
Prove to me that YOU were born of a woman, that you came out of her womb and were not popped into existence.
You cannot!
This event happened in the past, and cannot be re-lived.
You may be able to show me scans/photos, but these do not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it was you.
The ONLY way, is for revelation.
Revelation from your mother, your father, the doctors and nurses who were there during delivery (although the latter ones would probably not recognise you, unless you kept in touch after you were born).

Another (why didn't I think of this before) example would be:
You assume there was an intermediate form between humans and apelike creatures. In fact, you assume there must be hundreds, if not thousands.
Prove to me that this is so by showing me a living example today!
You cannot.
You will probably attempt to convince people on this forum that there are legions of intermediate fossils.
Well, those have been (or will for future propaganda) classed in different groups (kinds) and even some have been demonstrated to be frauds/hoaxes.

Yet you demand that I give you a snake with a voice-box.
Voice-boxes are made of soft tissue. They don't fossilise very well. (not that I believe that the snake needed a physical voice-box, just as I challenged you to show that God the Father had physical voice-box since people heard Him in John 12:28.)
The way you speak is that you don't seem to believe in one-off historical events, unless they can be demonstrated today. What do you believe about anything in the past?

I cannot prove if King David existed, but neither can you. We have documented revelation though.
I cannot prove if Abraham existed, but neither can you. We have documented revelation though.
I cannot prove if Noah existed, but neither can you. We have documented revelation though.
I cannot prove if Adam existed, but neither can you. We have documented revelation though.

PS
I don't give a hoot about what people think of my posts.
I care for what God thinks of me and how I handle His Word.

Lucien,

It fascinates me how you are always finding new ways to insult and denigrate me publicly as you scramble to try to defend an eroding foundation for your misconceptions related to the Bible and reality. This time you have called me blind and associate me with cultists? Maybe you should read more.

If you simply do a Google search on 'Symbology in the Bible' you fill find almost 4 million references on this subject. So I am not the only Christian that believes the Bible contains a fair amount of it, many Biblical scholars do. Many books have been written on the subject of symbology in the Bible, citing many examples. There are various Christian and secular websites addressing this as well. There are many Biblical scholars that have devoted large amounts of their careers analyzing this symbology. Jesus created parables that included symbology. Revelations contains symbology, and Jesus points out some of it out to John related to lampstands and stars. God's conversions with the prophets contains symbology. Yet, you continue to dismiss this symbolism and state that each phrase must be taken literally and these things are real physical things. You even referred to a symbolic teaching of Jesus regarding a plank in the eye to attempt to refute my claim about symbolism being a key component of the text.

How can you possibly deny that the Bible does not contain a lot of symbology. This forces Christian to study God's Words to get the full meaning of what He wants to convey to us. A simple word for word literal reading won't produce the understanding that God wants us to have of the Bible.

I am afraid of what other readers might be thinking of your message, your understanding of the Bible, and Christians in general after your last post. Maybe you should refrain from further posts until you study this subject more extensively and discover that God through His authors convey a lot of His meaning through symbology.

Lee

A) laughable
B) inexcusable
C) regrettable
D) none of the above

Lee: "This same type of symbology is present in Genesis too: talking snakes, tree of life, tree of knowledge of good and evil, creating man from dust, Eve made from man's flesh, angels with fiery swords guarding Eden, the list goes on and on. Since the Bible is known to contain a large amount of symbology throughout it's books,"

Basically you are saying that large portions of the Bible do not mean what it says.

Lee again, contradicting himself: "Otherwise, it seems to me and others like me that these things are all in your imagination."


Are you really that blind, that you accuse me of imagining things, but you who read symbolical meanings into the text (eisegesis), do NOT imagine things?
A verse with beams and eyes comes to mind.

Don't get me wrong here. I do understand things can have more than one meaning.
A good example is the parables Jesus used. A natural meaning and a spiritual one.
The natural was understood by all, but some (disciples) asked for what it means in relationship to the Kingdom of God.
Note that the natural meaning does not depend on the secondary meaning, and in fact, the spiritual meaning is built upon the first meaning.

Frankly, to me it seems like you are saying that God has made it quite difficult to understand large portions of Scripture, and we need people like you to explain it to us.
And yet you have said more than once that your views are more likely to convert people to Christianity than the YE (literal) view?
Perhaps you have a very convincing character and people will fall for this, but I hope that people will read the Bible for themselves and the Holy Spirit directs them in their understanding where necessary.

i hate to say this Lee, but cults operate this way; Where a leader (not a leader according to Biblical principles at least) claims to have a special (previously not-understood) interpretation of Scripture.
The catholics in the old days operated similarly, where the Bible was only to be in Latin, and the priests would do the explaining.

Yes, I have read and re-read this post, and I suspect you will not like it.
But the more symbols you introduce in texts that are historical, narrative prose, the weaker the foundation of Scripture becomes and the more the door is opened to wacky people more persuasive than you and lead people astray (into sects and end up hurting themselves and/or others).

Bret, you're right, this is fun.  I believe what Eve said literally about Cain's birth relative to her birth. They were the same. 

Now the man had marital relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, "I have created a man just as the LORD did!" -Genesis 4:1

She popped out of her subhuman mother (more ape than human) as a baby, the same way she gave birth to Cain and gave credit to God for making it happen. 

I hope you meant this popping into existence as symbolical instead of literal. Otherwise the picture in my mind of God giving birth to Eve in the same way is TMI. So I think you'll agree that symbology is used at least in this verse in Genesis. 

[Bret]-'Why would you think that a fully formed human popping into existence being compared to
God's method of Creation would lend any credence to Evolution?'

I wouldn't if the being was mature, full sized and popped into existence from Adam's flesh. However, Cain was brought into the world as an infant through the normal natural birth process and Eve said it was the same as the way that God made her (literally). So it lends credibility to the case that Eve came into the world the same way: as a baby through natural birth. 

Lucien,

John had a vision about end times and Heaven. He 'saw' these visions in his mind's eye.   Visions are about entities of the spiritual dimensions. These things are not part of our natural world. There is a great deal of symbolism used in Revelations and by Bible authors in general.  

You need to separate the natural world and and its physical manifestations (reality) from spiritual entities that the prophets saw in their visions. The entities in the visions (like golden lamp-stands) are symbolic representations for things in the natural  world (like various groups of people in the Christian Church).  The golden lamp-stands didn't physically exist in the natural world. Much of Revelations contains symbology for various entities in the real world and real world to come. These symbols were included to convey God's meaning and add emphasis. They don't exist nor ever did in the natural world just because John saw them in this vision. 

This same type of symbology is present in Genesis too: talking snakes, tree of life, tree of knowledge of good and evil, creating man from dust, Eve made from man's flesh, angels with fiery swords guarding Eden, the list goes on and on. Since the Bible is known to contain  a large amount of symbology throughout it's books, the burden of proof is on you to show us how these entities can be physically manifested as you have claimed. I know of no one that has produced any evidence that these physical things ever existed. There are certainly no fossils that have been found to substantiate your position.  That is why I claim they are symbolic. If you are claiming that they are real physical entities it is up to you to produce some evidence (like snakes that can speak or trees that give you eternal life when you eat their fruit, etc). Otherwise, it seems to me and others like me that these things are all in your imagination.  The natural evidence here is all on my side since thousands of archeologists, botanists, and biologists have scoured the earth and never found anything close to any of the above listed items. These things must be symbolic as there is no physical evidence of them. This is why truth is tested (as the Bible tells us to do)!

Lee

Lee says: "I believe Ge 2:1, 2:5, 2:7, 2:9, 2:17, and 2:21-2:23 are additional examples of symbolism. If they aren't please explain why not?"


Lucien asks: why is the burden of proof on others to show why they are NOT symbolic?
Should any text not simply be taken as straightforward, literal reading first, before we decide to give ANY OTHER meaning to it? (the answer to this rhetorical question by the way is YES)
So non-literalists, the burden of proof is on you to show why these passages SHOULD be taken as symbolical.

Why? You ask...

Well, because I can read your posts and just make them mean that you agree with me. But if I take the straightforward, literal meaning of your post, you don't.

Let me try it by using an analogy.
My TV guide says that the BBC news is at 22:00.
If anyone believes that in fact it means to say a different time, well...
Firstly, that is their right.
Secondly, it could be possible a typo was made, or the translation (if it were applicable) was wrong.
But either way, the burden of proof would be on them to make their case. Not to simply state it ACTUALLY means to say something different and then claim that others should prove why not.

Hope people understand.

It is good for people to know why they believe something and it is good to know why people do not blieve something..
But my answer to your question why a passage would not be symbolical, I would answer:
Because I do not have a problem with the text as it is.

Rev. 4:8 says
Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under its wings.

You know what. i know eyes, and I know wings, and I can count to four (and even six) and I understand the principle of looking at a creature from different angles. So I have no problem with this verse.
(granted, I would not have come up with it myself, but John actually SAW these things)

Rev.1:
1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

I'm not sure exactly how you're finding comfort in this unusual translation of Gen 4:1 ???

4:1 Now1 the man had marital relations with2 his wife Eve, and she became pregnant3 and gave birth to Cain.
Then she said, “I have created4 a man just as the Lord did!”

Please stop me at the point where we disagree!

1). Adam and Eve were the 1st "Humans" to exist EVER!
2). Therefore ... Cain was the 1st baby ever born to "Humans"!
3). Eve had never seen anything ever come out of her body except urine & feces!
4). With no knowledge & zero experience at giving birth ... Eve was likely surprised by Cains arrival?
5). So ... when Cain just "popped" into existence ... Eve likened it to God's Creation!

Why would you think that a fully formed human popping into existence being compared to
God's method of Creation would lend any credence to Evolution?

If a pile of her excrement had slowly evolved into baby Cain over Billions of years ...
then your comparison would have been spot-on!

You were right about one thing though ...
This was really fun! (maybe a little gross?)... But FUN !!!


20 Bret*11

Stu, 
Now you accuse me of 'misdirecting the conversation'.  I have no intention of anything like that.  I'm just trying to establish that there is some level of symbolism in Genesis and that there is not a clear consensus in which verses it is located. This is absolutely fundamental to everyone's individual case on evolution. This is because each person blogging is interpreting scripture differently; some symbolically, some all historically and literally (as in physically manifested) and some partially symbolic and literally.     Then each tries to build their case for or against evolution based on their interpretation. 

You continue to be in violent agreement with me by lecturing me (in a condescending way I might add) about things I agree with you about as if I don't.  

The key point of contention now is: Which verses are symbolic and which are not? You originally stated that all of Genesis was literal and made me think that you were disallowing any symbology in Genesis.  You have now explained this and agree that it contains some unspecified symbolism like the talking snake as a metaphor for Satan and believe it to be historical.  I agree with you but others do not; they believe there was a physically manifested talking snake (literally)!   Lucien's latest reply was hysterical, not historical, to me and should not to be associated with miracles! You might want to lecture them instead. 

I contend that at least Ge 2:7  is symbolism for God creating man through evolution (progressive creationism), He gave him a unique spiritual life, and He uses some of the same atoms that He used to make the earth. This is the key point God wants to make and  not exactly how He did it . 

[Bret]- Did the Holy Spirit (God) inspire the Words of the text written in the Bible or not?  

Yes, God 'spirited' each individual person in his own unique way to write each book in his own primitive language starting in Moses' Day. Before then, these historical accounts were passed along from generation to generation verbally.  Each has been translated to modern languages in various ways by various groups. 

One additional issue with modern languages is that there are several  words that convey specific meaning that the primitive language did not have and that forces modern translations into choosing often a modern word like day or fathered that the original general primitive terms like yôm or yalad with general meanings were not intending to convey. We have addressed these two cases extensively of course but to no consensus. 

[Bret]- If so ... to what degree of control did God have on the finished product?

The amount that He wants to have. It seems that He allows mankind quite often to dig themselves into a pit so that they can learn what evil is all about. This seems to be the case for the Bible as well.   In some cases He doesn't seem to be interested in the translation and in other cases a lot. For instance, He didn't seem to be involved in the Koran as the illiterate Mohammed tried to bring Christianity into the middle east. Nor does it seem He was much involved with the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith initiated its beginning and teachings. On the other hand, the NET seems to be very close to the correct translation for verse 4:1.  God must have inspired the translator to take some license with that translation since it  substantiates progressive creationism. I thought you might have some fun with this one so there it is, enjoy!

All,
As Stu defines 'literal' to include symbology, I don't believe that  Genesis would force disbelief in evolution especially the progressive creationist variety. I can certainly understand how Darwinism would be excluded since it is based on contingency/ random chance directed processes without God's involvement.   

Since the text contains some symbolism and the specific verses  are defined by the individual reader according to Stu (since He asks others on their view about the snake),  it helps to make my point that symbolism is present and it is not at all clear where it appears in the verses. Although, some cases seem very obvious to me while not to others.  I believe Ge 2:1, 2:5, 2:7, 2:9, 2:17,  and 2:21-2:23 are additional examples of symbolism. If they aren't please explain why not? If not, why can the talking snake be symbolic but not making Adam from dust or growing Eve from Adam's flesh?

Lee

The snake's voice-box was part of its leg which it obviously lost due to its curse to crawl on its belly.
And as the problem with slow deposition over thousands and millions of years does not preserve very well, we will never find it again!

Lee -- The biblical doctrine of inspiration and the principles of hermeneutics predate science. In fact, theology, which not too long ago was known as the queen of the sciences, gives the philosophical (as well as theological) basis to science. I strongly urge you to study and understand these principles before you argue how the Bible came to be and what the meaning of biblical literalism is. Science does not trump theology -- it is subservient to it. As a Christian preparing to take your case to a theologically sophisticated audience, I urge you to be more humble and cautious in your argumentation.

Inspiration means that all Scripture (each and every passage, sentence, word) is given by God. It is a "spiration" (an out-breathing) of God, (2 Tim 3:16); it is not the weak "inspiration" definition you give it. God the Holy Spirit superintends the production of all Scripture through the personality of human agency, so it shows the signs of humanity. But the result is a supernatural product (2 Peter 1:20,21). You can choose not to believe this, but that is where Bret, Lucien and myself are arguing from.

Literal interpretation (hermeneutics) does not mean, as you use it, "scientific reality," i.e., the scientific method -- observation, formulation, test, etc. of physical objects -- although Scripture can and does describe physical reality in many places (and it many places it does not). If I were testing scientifically for a talking snake in a garden, it would have to have a voice box. But that is not the intention of biblical literalism. As I explained in my last post, the literal meaning of Scripture is that it is to be read as literature; and that it uses all the literary forms -- historical, symbolic, personification, metaphor, etc. Biblical literature is to be interpreted as a communication from God using the normal rules of grammar. In order to understand what God is communicating, the reader starts by asking, "What kind of passage is this?" The Song of Solomon is poetry; Genesis is historic -- both use symbolism and that does not destroy its literalism. God is communicating wisdom to us, not giving a scientific treatise on the cosmological constant.

As I said, the point of the serpent passage is to describe the tempting and disobedience of Eve. A symbolic snake works well in making the point. If however, God chose to make the snake talk, that would require a miracle. I don't see His purpose in doing that so I choose to see the snake symbolically. If Bret and Lucien think it was a physical snake, then they would view it as a miracle (BTW -- what do you guys think?). Either way I think (they may not) that we all end up with the same understanding of the meaning of the passage. You, on the other hand, wanting to define literalism as a physical scientific reality, misdirect the conversation. That's why we end up (according to you) in "violent disagreement."

Stu

Lee ...

You said: I shouldn't need to remind the YEs that human authors wrote every book of the Bible
based on what they saw or heard in their minds, God didn't write the words,
and their understanding of what God or Angels said in their native ancient languages
was sometimes passed down through many generations verbally before someone in Moses
time period wrote Genesis.

If this is your honest opinion of the Bible? ... then I'm not even sure why we've spent
so much time (in the past) debating the exact meaning of certain Words or Passages?

This is NOT an attack! This is a valid (and extremely important) question to you!

Did the Holy Spirit (God) inspire the Words of the text written in the Bible or not?

If so ... to what degree of control did God have on the finished product?

At what point in Human (Biblical) History did Man acquire the ability to write things
down ... in a common knowable language? (Adam, Noah, Abraham, or Moses?)

I believe (based on what you've said)... that these are ALL valid questions!
I will give you the BBC answers to these same questions ... after you answer them!
Of course ... we're not going to agree ... but isn't the point of this debate to
try and understand what each other believes to be true ... and why?

I was going to Post the other areas of debate separately (Now)... but I think maybe
we should try to stay a little more focused on each one ... so I'll wait!



20 Bret*11

and agree that Lee has been well composed and we are having some thought-provoking discussions.

But Lee, if you are allowed to ask whether or not the snake had a voice-box, surely me asking the same about God the Father (John 12:28) would be just as legitimate?

Lee ...

Not quite sure why you think that Lucien or myself has gone all apoplectic on you?
I see some passionate point making here ... but nothing beyond the pale?
Recently (up till now)... you've managed to show greater than usual restraint ...
as it pertains to condescending pretense towards us BBC's (Bible Believing Christians)!
I know that Stu has taken a couple of personal swipes at you recently ... but I have
actually defended you more often (recently) than attacked!

Please ... let's try to stay focused on the issues & questions at hand here!
I will try to separate each of these points of contention out into separate Posts!
Feel free to add something (anything) that I may have overlooked!



20 Bret*11

The YEs are so upset and swinging so hard that that hammer has flown off in the wrong direction.  I must have touched a key nerve. I certainly haven't been surfacing anything other than internal conflicts of the Bible based on a literal reading of it or things that don't exist in the real world if we read these passages literally. The YEs believe that all of Genesis is totally literal and that none of the verses are symbolic. None! If anyone claims that some verses are not literal but symbolic of spiritual entities, their defense is God said it so it must be literally true  and really existed since He is not a liar and then claim the person that said this terrible thing is in direct opposition to God. Have I got this right? Is this iron clad logic or what? I think that is the essence of the rebuttal based on the posts. 

I shouldn't need to remind the YEs that human authors wrote every book of the Bible based on what they saw or heard in their minds, God didn't write the words, and their understanding of what God or Angels said in their native ancient languages was sometimes passed down through many generations verbally before someone in Moses time period wrote Genesis.  

I am almost afraid to ask my next question. 3) Does anyone reading this blog think there is a real world out there with cause and effect through physical laws and also believe that any of the old testament contains symbology in it's verses that represent things beyond the physical world? Anyone? Anyone? Obviously my attackers do not! 

Stu, my original post was addressed only to you (for good reason) surely you must believe that the Bible particularly Genesis contains a sliver of symbology?!? Reality and physical laws have no meaning for the YEs, surely you must place some value on them being a physics graduate. 

Lee

Does He, Lee?

We know He spoke (and still does) even in audible voice. I just read it in John 12:28 this morning.
How can this be, since He is spirit?
Lee? How can this be?


Oh, and not answering my 'babble', should I take that as me being right?
(of course not, that would be poor logic. Does it mean I am wrong? ...)

Lee's Conclusion:
Obviously no one blogging here has any logical reasoning to support their claims that the talking snake or trees are real and not symbolic of spiritual entities, otherwise they would have stated it by now. I am forced to conclude that Genesis 2 & 3 are allegory about God's Spiritual development plan, since you have conceded that some verses could be symbolic and no one is providing compelling reasoning to the contrary.

If you've ever actually studied "Logic" as a subject ... then you would understand that
arguing for a victory based on your perceived lack of a counter argument being offered
by your opposition is a classic form of Flawed Logic known as "Arguing against Silence"!

That said ...
The Logic that Bible Believing Christians use to back up most every argument (with VERY
few exceptions)... is that that's what God said that happened !!!
WHY would God tell us a fable (basically ... a LIE!)... when He could just as easily have
told us the EXACT truth about what happened at the time?
What REALLY did happen then Lee?
Something MUST have actually happened !!!
Your reason for NOT believing this passage is because YOU don't believe that God can
manage to produce any kind of audible sound without the use of a fully Evolved voice-box?
God ... the Creator of EVERYTHING in Heaven & Earth & Beyond ... and without Him
*** NOTHING WOULD EXIST *** !!!
This same God is unable to make/allow a Serpent to be possessed and Speak aloud ???

Let me help you out ... just a little bit here!
Your answer should be that:
Because God chose to use the most cruel, inefficient, and dreadfully SLOW process
imaginable to create Mankind (as well as everything else)... He decided to cover this
up by force-feeding us fanciful fables ... and virtually destroying ALL of the physical
evidence of this egregious error in judgment!

You're welcome!


20 Bret*11

Lucien, sure there was a human catastrophe in Japan because of the earthquake and tsunami. But ask yourself and check it out yourself if necessary: did the topography of Japan change drastically as a result? The answer is no. Homes were lost, many people died sadly, the entire nation moved several feet east and the coast tilted down on the east side temporarily  a few feet but the same mountains and mountain ranges are still there, the same valleys and rivers are still there carrying the silt from these mountains into the sea and will be for tens of millions of years to come before the mountains are completely eroded. Ten of thousands of major earthquakes and tsunami's will continue to hit the east coast of Japan before the mountains, valleys, and rivers gradually disappear over a long time as the Japanese landscape (topology) slowly changes a few feet each century. This is gradualism and that is what the earthquake and tsunamis produce relating to the topology.  For people it is certainly a cataclysm, for the Japanese topology it is business as usual. I wish the YEs would understand this and accept gradualism and plate tectonics because it is a real gradual process affecting the earth's crust and topology. 

Lee

PS It is obvious that you are lost on the points that I was making to Stu about inerrancy preservation and the need for symbolic interpretation to protect it so I will not bother to respond to the babble you posted which thoroughly misrepresents my views and confuses the issues. If you want to debate this be rational and stop the baseless insinuations.

Lee: "as we are finding out through science, evolution is the real truth of how humans got here."
So science determines, not Scripture.



Re your conclusion in your reply to Stu.
You claim that none of us has provided a logical reason for the snake being literal, etc.
Only to be shown how little you really understand of good logic.
You say you are "forced to believe in symbolism" which is really an argument from silence and thus very poor.
If you want logic, how about:
God says snake, Lee says not snake.
Both cannot be right.
God says talking donkey, Lee says no talking donkey.
Get the idea?
So to claim that you must be right because (in your opinion) the others have not given any good arguments is weak reasoning from silence.
We could very well ask you how Eve (or Balaam) communicates with a talking serpent (donkey).
I would be very curious how you can logically explain a real woman/man having a symbolic conversation.
Now before you come back with she must have imagined it, beware!
Eve was deceived, and seeing she had not fallen yet, this is an impossibility. Because if she could deceive herself before being corrupted, then the sin means nothing?

Anyway, your statement that there are at least two ways for God to manipulate the natural laws and you know what they are, frightens me. Fortunately you put at least the words "at least" in there, but still...
With so many much more brilliant scientists than you, who still struggle with quite a few more things in space than two "joysticks"?
I can understand where Stu is coming from, as I too believe (simpleton me) that God's ways are mysterious.
Is 55:8
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Realising that Jesus did not restore sight in the same way twice may give us an insight in that He is certainly diverse?

The point being that the observable aftermath was catastrophic. Destruction and deposition of layers in minutes/hours.
A trigger event started this.
YE's do not say the build up to the Flood was catastrophic too. in fact, did not Noah have a 100 year to preach and prepare?
Gladly you do accept (now?) that catastrophism are actually the critical factor in shaping the landscape, and not slow/gradual build up of pressure.
If you now takes this new insight and apply it to how the Bible describes the Noahic Flood as a global disaster, don't you think that it much better explains the canyons/sedimentary layers/fossil graveyards, including soft-tissued creature, as opposed to saying that Noah's local flood did not make any distinctive change to the toplogy?
Be honest here...

Bret, it seems you have gotten half of the message that Nature has provided in Japan. Hundreds of years of pressure build-up in the subduction zone off the coast of Japan accumulated prior to the slippage of the Pacific  plate under the continental plate. This is another example of the gradual plate movement that modern geophysicists know exist. While the center of the plates move at a gradual regular and measurable rate, the edges or boundaries contact other plate boundaries that are moving in various other directions. The friction at these contact surfaces stops the relative motion and this enormous pressure builds up until the boundary pressure overcomes the frictional forces causing slippage to occur in these cataclysmic events. As  you are aware this pressure/ energy can be equivalent to billions of tons of TNT. However, the fundamental cause of any of these quakes (and volcanos as well) is plate tectonics with motion in the centimeter per year range that produce pressures that eventually rupture faults or flow lava from volcanoes. 0verall plate motion is definitely gradual.   You should praise Lyell for his initial discovery of gradualism as it works hand in hand with catastrophism to create the land masses, islands, mountain ranges, oceans, deserts, and fertile valleys of God's wonderful planet Earth!  It looks like you might have had an epiphany related to accepting plate tectonics after seeing what has happened in Japan. . 

Also, here are the answers to your questions:


[Bret] - '1). When God "spoke" to Moses up on the mountain ... was this audible?'

Since God is able to in-dwell us and speak directly to us mentally without the need for hearing audible sound waves through our ears, my take on this communication from God was that it was not audible even though Moses recorded it as God spoke. To me this speaking was symbolic and not literal. Though I do believe that Moses  spoke audibly to God in the vicinity of the burning bush for the record.  I don't believe  the bush was really burning though. I believe it was illuminated by God's presence and not consuming itself from fire; otherwise how could it last long enough for Moses to climb up the mountain to see it. So the burning bush was symbolic as well. 

[Bret] - '2). If rivers rarely change their course ... then why aren't there more Grand Canyons?
(unless ... these rivers are only thousands of years old ... instead of billions!)'

You have made a presumption that land masses stay at the same elevation indefinitely and this is not the case.  The Colorado River that cuts through the Grand Canyon has only been cutting for 17 millions of years according to the experts. That area of  continental plate has been above sea level for that time period.  Eventually the cutting will stop as the river elevation reaches sea level and gradual forces of erosion remove the plateau around the Grand Canyon over many millions of years.   Over tens of millions of years,  plate tectonics tilt, cut,  lower, and raise continental plates on a continuous basis at a vertical rate of up to tenths of centimeters per year on the average and near boundaries (like mountain ranges) at higher rates.   Over tens of millions of years, land surfaces lift and later drop, rivers begin to flow then  stop, seas become fertile plains then turn into mountain ranges, and mountains erode into sediments below sea level over long periods of time. 

These are natural cycles discovered by Charles Lyell based on geologic evidence from the outer earth layers of rocks and sediments.  This is a result of plate tectonics and plate collisions with other plates. This action of course is a result of magma movement in the earth's mantle caused by heat flow outward from radioactive decay of isotopes in the planet core and mantle.  The motion of this very viscous magma on large scales in the outer mantle layers drives laterally the plates that make up the crust at rates up to a few centimeters per year in various directions and the vertical lifting or lowering of the plates and the boundaries ( like subduction zones).

Lee

Symbolism Vs Literalism

[Stu]-' It is not important whether the snake is symbolic or an actual talking snake. ....   The point is, did these events actually take place in history? '

It seems we are in violent agreement on this.  You seem to be lecturing me and angry at me for making the same point. We also agree on this account being historical related to disobedience to God in the Garden as I have already stated. We also agree that the verses could be a mixture of symbolism and literal historical documentary to get God's meaning across. 

So why do you contradict yourself by opening with  'The Bible being interpreted in its literal sense has been the orthodox view since the beginning of Christianity. '? You seem to have a different definition of 'literal' than me and who are conservatives /orthodox experts of the Biblical meaning. To me a literal interpretation of the talking  snake verse means the snake actually vocalized the words stated in the Bible. What is your definition of literal?  You are also taking a literal interpretation of God forming man from the dust by saying He popped him into existence directly from the dust. This narrow strict literal interpretation of scripture now forces the process of how God made Adam to be a certain way in your view, whereas a symbolic interpretation of this verse permits evolution to take part in the process. Since we are debating this topic, how can you even suggest that it is not important whether the snake literally talked or not. Your entire case against the evolution rests whether or not the Bible contains symbolism in Ge 1, 2, & 3.

Contrary to your claim that symbolism is unimportant, I claim that the  each passage's symbolic or literal interpretation has been a major source of contention among the various Christian factions for centuries and currently of great relevance in our debate on evolution.   We have many times discovered in the age of the earth debate that these symbolic versus literal interpretations of either day or begat also have pivotal relevance. I don't see, at all, how you can make your claim that it's unimportant.  Especially with your claiming that man was literally created from mud and popped into existence by God while I claim that this same passage can be interpreted symbolically to mean that God slowly evolved mankind out of the molecules in dust into lower life forms, later  into monkeys, and then into mankind. It is your strict narrow literal interpretation of the Ge 2:7 that forces a major conflict with all of science while my interpretation doesn't and as we are finding out through science, evolution is the real truth of how humans got here.   Your literal interpretation that excludes symbolism leads to conflict and loss of Christian credibility!  

I think that you'll agree with me that the important aspect of Ge 2  is that God made man and mankind is foremost in God's plan. That God wants to (spiritually) be with mankind and for mankind to be obedient to Him.   That mankind is made from the same atoms that exist in dust and that women are made out of the same flesh as man. To read more into these passages leads to distortion of the truth that God wanted to convey through this allegory. 

Control of Creation

[Stu]-'Don't put God in box.'

I don't know how many times I have to state this but here I go again. See "Response To Fixed Laws Feedback"  Aug 15, 2009, Chasing After Miracles, "While the Tough Questions Just Drift Away" March 25, 2010, et al.   I have never put God in a box by insisting on fixed laws but you keep saying it like you don't read my posts. The natural laws come equipped with at least two 'joy stick' controllers for God's use only: the Cosmological 'Constant' related to gravitational forces throughout the cosmos and Hidden Variables in the quantum mechanical dimensions of our world. I think this is exceedingly clever of God and gives him control of everything going on in our universe.   He doesn't have to change the laws of physics to make people float or change water to wine.   I already have but will explain them again if necessary to get this across because it is important for our readers and you to understand this. These controls are right there in the fixed laws of heaven and earth. Why do you keep saying that I am tying God's hands and putting Him in a box. That's not true so stop it!  These controls would permit miracles as described in the Bible while maintaining fixed laws as God stated as His covenant. I think our issue on this is that you are not understanding the Cosmological 'Constant' or the 'hidden variables' of quantum mechanics and what they can do. If it is that you don't like this solution please let me know why you disagree with it.  Perhaps, the orthodox church you site were unfamiliar with the physical laws sufficiently to see the potential of the controls built into the laws. In their defense these laws were only known within the past one hundred years. You don't have this excuse however since I have explained it to you more than twice now. 

Conclusion
 Obviously no one blogging here has any logical reasoning to support their claims that the talking snake or trees are real and not symbolic of spiritual entities, otherwise they would have stated it by now. I am forced to conclude that Genesis 2 & 3 are allegory about God's Spiritual development plan, since you have conceded that some verses could be symbolic and no one is providing compelling reasoning to the contrary.  

It seems like its time to move on to the debate on evolution since no one can provide any reasonable answers or justification why these chapters must be totally literal other than just stating that is the traditional orthodox and conservative way.    It is too bad that no one could or would address these issues and internal conflicts for the literal interpretation side only.   I will give credit to Lucien for at least trying to address a couple of the issues I surfaced. 

Since I believe in the inerrancy of scripture, I am now forced to conclude that these Genesis chapters (2&3) must be symbolic to preserve inerrancy, consequently, the popping of Adam into existance from dust and the two trees in the garden  with fruit are allegory. Sorry, but that is how I see it from a debate standpoint. The literalists had a chance and provided nothing of substance to support their literal interpretation; they only rationalized their position claiming orthodoxy or saying that is the way it has been interpreted traditionally.  

As a result, a literal interpretation of Genesis is not adequate justification for rejecting all evolution theories.  The extent of symbolism in Genesis 2 cannot be quantitatively determined at least by the posters here and the literal reading of Ge 2 &3 conflicts with other Bible passages and what is known about the real world that God  has made and we study extensively. 

Lee

Evidence that Geological features that we find in the World
are MAINLY a result of Cataclysmic events!

The 9.0 magnitude quake (the fourth-largest recorded since 1900)
was caused when the Pacific tectonic plate dove under the North American plate,
which shifted Eastern Japan towards North America by about 13 feet.
The quake also shifted the earth's axis by 6.5 inches, shortened the day by 1.6 microseconds,
and sank Japan downward by about two feet. As Japan's eastern coastline sunk,
the tsunami's waves rolled in.

This ALL happened in less than 5-minutes! ... NOT 5-billion years!

Also ... these Tsunamis are a series of waves coming in & going back out to sea!
They move HUGE amounts of soil & debris back & forth ... creating several NEW layers
of sediment for miles & miles ... in a very SHORT period of time!
Gradualism claims these same results are only possible over millions of years!
Volcanoes can do even more amazing things in a matter of days or weeks!
Charles Lyell was a loon with an agenda ... NOTHING more!

My Prayers go out to our Japanese friends!


20 Bret*11