Create one! You can to comment on current conversations, create new posts, add video, and customize your profile information in our community. We look forward to hearing from you!
Lou wrote:
Why do intellectually accept, without-a-doubt the miracles of Jesus; but have issues with the miracle that the Sun "stood still" at the request of Joshua?
I think there is a misunderstanding about what I was trying to say. I'm not denying that the event of the longer day happened. What I'm talking about is how it can be interpreted scientifically. Martin Luther was pointing out that scripture says the sun stood still, which taken literally means it is the sun that moves around the earth. He was using his literal interpretation of scripture to argue against science. He was wrong. The events may have happened but they were written from the perspective of an ancient cosmology and when we try to use passages as a literal guide for scientific inquiry we fail to see the deeper meaning that scripture contains.
How do you honestly determine when to take scripture literally or figuratively?
There are several questions to ask:
- How was it written? What are the literary devices used? (Is it poetic? Is it a letter to a church? etc)
- What did the words, in their original context mean to people at that time? For example, the number seven represented completeness. So in some contexts it literally means "seven" whereas in other contexts it is an adjective that means "in its fullness" even though the word itself still literally means "seven".
- Is a literal interpretation necessary for the meaning to be true?
- What can I learn from theologians? (those who have spent their lives trying to understand and explain the scriptures)
Are you really struggling with the interpretation of scripture (i.e. understanding context, biblical grammar, linguistics, theological hermeneutics)
Nope. I'm not saying I understand everything, I'm still learning like everyone else is. But there is nothing in particular that I "struggle" with.
are you honestly struggling with other conflicting worldviews (i.e. naturalism, Darwinian Evolutionism, etc.)?
From my understanding of your question, I'm not struggling with them. I understand and accept evolution, although I still have a theistic worldview. If I'm not answering your question, maybe you could clarify what you mean by "struggling".
To better understand why you would think this I have a few question.
1) According to who?
2) Why would we assume that it is literal until proven otherwise?
3) What would it take to "prove" that a passage is figurative?
So if you take the passage in Joshua 10, it should read like simple, historical narration. It was indeed a miracle Joshua prayed for divine assistance, and he received it.
I agree, it was a miracle that really happened. I would also like to point out that by failing to see the ancient cosmology behind the context of the language used, it can be misinterpreted to support the scientific claim that the sun revolves around the earth. This passage explains the faithfulness of Joshua and the reliability and power of God. There is no intention here to make a scientific statement about the physical world.
An accurate biblical worldview would present an omnipotent God. If God is capable of speaking the entire Universe into existence, I would think that he could indeed help Joshua because God has the power to stop the Earth, Moon, and Sun, and still maintain every other type of order in the Universe, even if it's beyond our limited "21st century scientific" understanding.
I agree.
By reading the first passage that you have posted I have a question. Did God literally not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment? I ask this because if God did not literally do this then how can we ever make sense of this passage?
I am a bit confused by your use of the word "literal". By "literal" do you mean physical? Or can something non-physical (i.e. spiritual) also be literal? Hell, as I understand it, is not a physical place, but a spiritual one (where souls dwell, not bodies).
By reading the second passage I have another question. Did the serpent literally beguiled Eve through his subtility? If Paul is talking about a non-literal Eve and non-literal serpent what is Paul literally talking about?
It was probably spiritual, so a spiritual beguiling. You can use metaphor and allegory to talk about spiritual things such as sin, which is what I think Genesis and Paul do.
So "nephesh" (or the other word as pointed out in the other posts): "means you will begin to die, die, and continue to die." Okay, so far so good, the word means to die, now: "So when Adam bit the apple, he began to die (physically) and he died (spiritually) and he continues to die (physically and spiritually)." Okay, in the very next sentence you lost me. How do you draw the conclusion that he died both physically and spiritually instead of just one or the other? You just said that "nephesh" means to "begin to die, die and continue to die", but in the definition that you wrote it does not specify one kind of death over another. Please elaborate how "nephesh", or the actual word from that passage, means both spiritual and physical death. When I read Genesis I see most of it as an allegory of the soul and man's falling into a state of sin, not physical falling/dying.
Did you know that Dictionaries also portray a foundational worldview through definitions establishing a system of values that may or may not be compatible with a Christian Biblical worldview? That is why objectivity in words and language are very important tools when establishing a personal worldview.
A good point, and this illustrate the fluidity of language. There has been a lot of confusions about definitions in these forums, and that is because there is often no universally accepted "true" definition of most words!
Message was edited by: TTPAdmin1
By reading the first passage that you have posted I have a question. Did God literally not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment? I ask this because if God did not literally do this then how can we ever make sense of this passage?
I am a bit confused by your use of the word "literal". By "literal" do you mean physical? Or can something non-physical (i.e. spiritual) also be literal? Hell, as I understand it, is not a physical place, but a spiritual one (where souls dwell, not bodies).
By literal I am talking about a literal event in history. So let me re-phrase the question Was there a literal event in history when God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment? I ask this because if this event was not a literal historical event how can we ever make sense of it literally? And as for Hell, it will be a physical place for physical bodies in the end.
By reading the second passage I have another question. Did the serpent literally beguiled Eve through his subtility? If Paul is talking about a non-literal Eve and non-literal serpent what is Paul literally talking about?
It was probably spiritual, so a spiritual beguiling. You can use metaphor and allegory to talk about spiritual things such as sin, which is what I think Genesis and Paul do.
Could you please tell me how you came to define sin as rebellion? Is that your idea or someone else’s idea? I’ve even heard some people define sin as “a lack of self-esteem.” On what basis have you determined sin means rebellion? Where did you get that definition?
To see what I am drawing to by asking these questions read this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wwtl/chapter2.asp
So "nephesh" (or the other word as pointed out in the other posts): "means you will begin to die, die, and continue to die." Okay, so far so good, the word means to die, now: "So when Adam bit the apple, he began to die (physically) and he died (spiritually) and he continues to die (physically and spiritually)." Okay, in the very next sentence you lost me. How do you draw the conclusion that he died both physically and spiritually instead of just one or the other? You just said that "nephesh" means to "begin to die, die and continue to die", but in the definition that you wrote it does not specify one kind of death over another. Please elaborate how "nephesh", or the actual word from that passage, means both spiritual and physical death. When I read Genesis I see most of it as an allegory of the soul and man's falling into a state of sin, not physical falling/dying.
In the beginning God made a perfect world with no death (physical and spiritual). The moment Adam sinned, death (physical and spiritual) entered the world. When Adam sinned his physical body started to die (aging), he instantaneuosly spiritually died (Cut off from the source of life God) thus beginning spiritual death as well, he continually dies physically (aging), he continually remained in spiritual death (Cut of from the source of life God), and in time he will die physically. Every moment that a person physically lives is another moment closer to his/her physical death. Every moment that a person lives disconnected from God is another moment he/she remains dead spiritually. If you still cannot see the connection, then read the article on my previous post.
By literal I am talking about a literal event in history. So let me re-phrase the question Was there a literal event in history when God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment? I ask this because if this event was not a literal historical event how can we ever make sense of it literally? And as for Hell, it will be a physical place for physical bodies in the end.
Yes, God literally cast the angels into hell when they sinned. I think that angels are spiritual beings and sin is a spiritual act, and also that hell is a spiritual place. But why do you think that non-eternal bodies would rest in an eternal place (assuming you believe hell is an eternal place and bodies are non-eternal)? (I am sure there is some scripture that you are probably referring to, but I cannot think of any off the top of my head)
I have been reading a little about allegorical interpretations of the Bible to understand them a little better. One of the main arguments is that Genesis (indeed all of the Bible) was written in a way that the people of the time could understand. Today we read "the pillars of the earth" or "the sun stood still" and might say "that was metaphor or allegory, not literal". But at the time, some of these erroneous beliefs about the earth, sun, stars, etc. were common among people of the Middle East (including Jews). So to them these probably made perfect and literal sense, given the context of their knowledge about the world. Another example, this time from the New Testament, is the parable of the mustard seed. Jesus calls it "the least of all seeds", but today we know that there are other seeds that are smaller. But if we consider his audience - Jews 2000 years ago - that was the smallest seed that they had or knew of, so the parable made perfect sense to them.
As far as the times when Jesus refers to the Old Testament and creation as literal historical events, I would say the same thing: he is speaking to people that had those ideas about cosmology, geology, etc., so to them his statements made perfect sense. So going back to "natural reading", shouldn't this context be considered as well when reading the Bible? You probably disagree about Genesis being written with the ideas of the people of the time, but how then do you reconcile Jesus's apparently false claim that the mustard seed is the smallest if you disregard that it was said in the context of the ideas and knowledge of the time?
I see Genesis, indeed much of the Bible, as allegory about the nature and will of God, the breaking of our relationship with him, and finally our reconciliation to him. "The tree of knowledge of good and evil" is sometimes translated as "the tree of conscience". We are not born knowing good and evil, but we learn, and eventually we become conscious of what is good and evil. So perhaps in growing up we fall away from God, because at a certain age we become conscience of good and evil. Anyway, just a little idea I had while reading a bit. I haven't thought those middle sentences all the way through, but I thought it could be an interesting way of thinking about that part of Genesis.
Could you please tell me how you came to define sin as rebellion? Is that your idea or someone else’s idea? I’ve even heard some people define sin as “a lack of self-esteem.” On what basis have you determined sin means rebellion? Where did you get that definition?
Sin is acting (or thinking, a spiritual "action") against the will of God, so in the sense that it is against God's will I would call it rebellion. We see this many times in the Bible: people ignoring God's will and sometimes even outrightly contradicting it, and they are punished for it.
In the beginning God made a perfect world with no death (physical and spiritual). The moment Adam sinned, death (physical and spiritual) entered the world… … …If you still cannot see the connection, then read the article on my previous post.
Ahh, okay I see, this was a fault on my part. I forgot to consider your view that the world was perfect before the fall (physically and spiritually), so of course it would follow that the death that came after the fall was both kinds.
Philadiddle wrote:
I think there is a misunderstanding about what I was trying to say. I'm not denying that the event of the longer day happened. What I'm talking about is how it can be interpreted scientifically. Martin Luther was pointing out that scripture says the sun stood still, which taken literally means it is the sun that moves around the earth. He was using his literal interpretation of scripture to argue against science. He was wrong. The events may have happened but they were written from the perspective of an ancient cosmology and when we try to use passages as a literal guide for scientific inquiry we fail to see the deeper meaning that scripture contains.
It's a misconception to think that the 16th century church (or Martin Luther) were the "primary authority" to interpret a geocentric model of the universe. History demonstrates that it was most astronomers, scientists and natural philosophers (i.e. Greeks, Muslims and Christians) of that period who held to a Ptolemaic system based on ancient Greek astronomy.
However, the description in Joshua 10 clearly demonstrates that God (i.e. the supernatural) can intervene in the affairs of this universe without a naturalistic or scientific explanation. So if the Sun "stood still"… all we can say is that God did it (based on this historical event captured in our trustworthy bible). Even in our limited "21st century scientific" understanding, the view of a heliocentric model in a strict sense is incorrect. According to the theory of relativity, all motion is relative where neither the sun, the earth, nor any reference point can be considered absolutely motionless.
Is a literal interpretation necessary for the meaning to be true?
My simple answer to your direct question is simply YES! It would be incoherent and intellectually dishonest to accept "theological truths" without accepting the direct association to their literal historical truths.
What can I learn from theologians? (those who have spent their lives trying to understand and explain the scriptures)
There are various things that you can learn from theologians. They are meant to be guides and subject matter experts based on their scholarly work in such topics like Biblical hermeneutics, Expository method of learning, Greek and Hebrew interpretation, Biblical history, Biblical anthropology, Apologetics, etc. etc.
In a biblical worldview, the rule of interpretation is that a passage is to be considered literal until proven figurative.
1) According to who?
One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ and his disciples took it literally. Whenever Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation.
2) Why would we assume that it is literal until proven otherwise?
Because that is how the author(s) intended to communicate and to be read naturally and straightforward.
3) What would it take to "prove" that a passage is figurative?
Although we should take the Bible literally, there are sections that contain non-literal figures of speech, poetic language or prophetic symbology.
We should also learn how to identify and distinguish between historical narrative styles and the doctrinal teachings by the straightforward way that it's written.
This is where you can refer to a scholar/theologian when you run into doubts or concerns.
Desicess offers a more detailed explanation in this other post. I highly recommend it.
In Christ,
Lou
Lou wrote:
It's a misconception to think that the 16th century church (or Martin Luther) were the "primary authority" to interpret a geocentric model of the universe. History demonstrates that it was most astronomers, scientists and natural philosophers (i.e. Greeks, Muslims and Christians) of that period who held to a Ptolemaic system based on ancient Greek astronomy.
However, the description in Joshua 10 clearly demonstrates that God (i.e. the supernatural) can intervene in the affairs of this universe without a naturalistic or scientific explanation. So if the Sun "stood still"… all we can say is that God did it (based on this historical event captured in our trustworthy bible).
I think that you are still misunderstanding me. I am agree with you that the sun "stood still". What I'm saying is that the phrasing "stood still" was written from the perspective of the ancient Hebrews who thought that it was the sun that moved around the earth. Therefore, a strict literal (natural) interpretation would support a geocentric model. This is exaclty what the church has done in the past.
Lou wrote:
Even in our limited "21st century scientific" understanding, the view of a heliocentric model in a strict sense is incorrect. According to the theory of relativity, all motion is relative where neither the sun, the earth, nor any reference point can be considered absolutely motionless.
Relativity is concerned with relative motion. When looking at the earth relative to the sun, it is the earth that revolves around the sun. The sun is moving relative to other stars because the universe is expanding. But this point doesn't really affect what we are talking about.
Is a literal interpretation necessary for the meaning to be true?
My simple answer to your direct question is simply YES! It would be incoherent and intellectually dishonest to accept "theological truths" without accepting the direct association to their literal historical truths.
So the truths that Jesus explained through parables are actually historically accurate stories? Or was Jesus lying? I always thought that parables weren't literal history, but you can explain why I'm wrong if you like.
The intention of the question I asked was to look at each passage on a case by case basis. Making a blanket statement such as yours just doesn't work.
What can I learn from theologians? (those who have spent their lives trying to understand and explain the scriptures)
There are various things that you can learn from theologians. They are meant to be guides and subject matter experts based on their scholarly work in such topics like Biblical hermeneutics, Expository method of learning, Greek and Hebrew interpretation, Biblical history, Biblical anthropology, Apologetics, etc. etc.
Exactly, and that is where my understanding of a figurative creation account comes from. It wasn't an offhand conjecture that I made up on my own.
In a biblical worldview, the rule of interpretation is that a passage is to be considered literal until proven figurative.
1) According to who?
One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ and his disciples took it literally. Whenever Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation.
It is your opinion that it is "clear". This particular topic would require a much more thorough explanation on my part so I'll come back to it in a later thread.
2) Why would we assume that it is literal until proven otherwise?
Because that is how the author(s) intended to communicate and to be read naturally and straightforward.
Sometimes a "natural" reading can lead us astray because we fail to see the deeper meaning behind it. There are a lot of references to things that were important or symbolic to those people at those time. Taking the bible and reading it like a newspaper is what critics do. Just search the web for criticisms of the bible and you will find page after page of "naturally read" scriptures that appear to be erroneous. However, most of those critics can be answered by looking beyond a "natural" reading. Putting the bible in the context of the culture, including cosmology, trade systems, the meaning of numbers, and even myths from surrounding cultures is where we should start. In the same way that you think man is fallable at interpretting nature, man is so much more fallable at interpretting a document from thousands of years ago so a "natural" newspaper style reading of the bible is certainly not a good starting point.
3) What would it take to "prove" that a passage is figurative?
Although we should take the Bible literally, there are sections that contain non-literal figures of speech, poetic language or prophetic symbology.
We should also learn how to identify and distinguish between historical narrative styles and the doctrinal teachings by the straightforward way that it's written.
This is where you can refer to a scholar/theologian when you run into doubts or concerns.
So what if the creation account and flood account are poetic styles that don't represent how a historical text would have been written? What if they are full of symbolism that is meaningful to that culture at that day in non-scientific ways? What if scholars understand the creation/flood accounts to be figurative because of the way they are written, and the context of the surrounding cultures?
God bless,
Phil
I don't respond to plagiarized posts. It makes it appear as though he's put a lot more into the conversation than he actually has. If I'm going to spend time responding to a post I want to respond to someone who has been putting their own time into this. (This is especially true if a post is pawned off as their own work when it was just cut and paste).
You will find that post #10 on that thread is originally from here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0804.asp
(scroll down and you'll find it)
Post #8 about the natural reading of scripture is from "The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate" By Dr Jason Lisle
(starting on page 175)
Phil, I have deleted the offending posts, and have warned Desicess about the importance of citing borrowed passages. If it happens again (since you first noticed this), then I will ban him (or anyone else who reposts work not their own without citation).
For now, I must assume he understands, and I suggest we just drop it.
TTPAdmin1
Phil and TTPAdmin,
I apologize for not citing the posts I will remember to place them with the post next time. Phil the reason why I posted articles is for you to read them. I remember posting with you months ago and I remember you were extremely bias against YEC and AiG. I was not sure if you would even bother reading any articles from their cite. But if you are open to read some of those articles I am glad. I have read alot of your articles as well and I will not accept them. My decision to know and accept YEC as true is more than an intellectual decision, but it was a moral decision. I know that if I do not accept God's Word as true and inerrant then I am taking what He said and making it my own. I know that if I make His Word my own then I set myself on a pedastal above Him. You have an issue with pride. You will not budge for no one. You do not have a biblical worldview you have Phil's worldview.
Respectfully,
Desicess
Philadiddle wrote:
I think that you are still misunderstanding me. I am agree with you that the sun "stood still". What I'm saying is that the phrasing "stood still" was written from the perspective of the ancient Hebrews who thought that it was the sun that moved around the earth. Therefore, a strict literal (natural) interpretation would support a geocentric model. This is exaclty what the church has done in the past.
I do understand what you're saying…but you're still incorrect with your interpretation. The "stood still" event is not claiming a geocentric model as if the Bible were to give us a science or cosmology lesson. The language is used for illustrating a point of view (i.e. vantage point) from the earth. If you read it naturally, you would understand that this is language to describe ordinary observation that is even used today with our 21st century knowledge of the universe.
The historcal narrative of Joshua 10 should not be interpreted to be an "ancient cosmology" any more than today's references to the rising or setting of the sun.
So the truths that Jesus explained through parables are actually historically accurate stories? Or was Jesus lying? I always thought that parables weren't literal history, but you can explain why I'm wrong if you like.
The intention of the question I asked was to look at each passage on a case by case basis. Making a blanket statement such as yours just doesn't work.
You are using an erroneous and incoherent analogy by using the parables of Jesus with your questions. You are actually making my case by demonstrating what NOT to do.
The events or characters in the parables are indeed non-historic, used by Jesus for teaching purposes. If you were to read those passages naturally and in a straightforward manner, it would be obvious to the reader the differences between a story to teach a moral lesson (i.e. parable) versus a story of an historical event (i.e. historical narrative).
The correct analogy is demonstrated by these examples:
To accept the "theological truths" (i.e. parables, beatitudes, rebirth, discipleship, etc.) of Jesus, you must also accept the literal historical accounts (i.e. virgin birth, miracles, bodily resurrection) of Jesus Christ.
To accept the "theological truths" (i.e. creation, sabbath, righteousness, sin, curse, death, stewardship, marriage, judgment etc.) of Genesis, you must also accept the literal historical accounts of the 6-day creation narrative, Adam & Eve, Noah's Ark and the worldwide flood.
It would be intellectually dishonest and incoherent to think otherwise, as previously illustrated.
Exactly, and that is where my understanding of a figurative creation account comes from. It wasn't an offhand conjecture that I made up on my own.
The majority of living Christian leaders, theologians and mainstream evangelical doctrine teaches a "non-figurative" creation account.
I know that these claims are not only your own interpretation of scripture, but where, from whom and how do you get your one-on-one biblical discipleship?
It is your opinion that it is "clear". This particular topic would require a much more thorough explanation on my part so I'll come back to it in a later thread.
You are incorrect by saying that it's only my opinion. The fact is that Jesus' testimony regarding a literal historical interpretaion is loud and clear. He confirmed the historicity of many accounts in the Old Testament such as the account of Adam & Eve (Matthew 19:1-6), Noah and the great flood (Matthew 24:37)
…and you can also find the geneologies of Jesus going back to Adam in Luke chapter 3.
Sometimes a "natural" reading can lead us astray because we fail to see the deeper meaning behind it. There are a lot of references to things that were important or symbolic to those people at those time. Taking the bible and reading it like a newspaper is what critics do. Just search the web for criticisms of the bible and you will find page after page of "naturally read" scriptures that appear to be erroneous. However, most of those critics can be answered by looking beyond a "natural" reading. Putting the bible in the context of the culture, including cosmology, trade systems, the meaning of numbers, and even myths from surrounding cultures is where we should start. In the same way that you think man is fallable at interpretting nature, man is so much more fallable at interpretting a document from thousands of years ago so a "natural" newspaper style reading of the bible is certainly not a good starting point.
Please provide an exact bible reference to support your claim of a "deeper meaning behind" an event that was meant to be symbolic, based on other cultures or outside influences with supporting evidence.
...and who's comparing a natural reading of the bible with a natural reading of a newspaper? These is an incorrect analogy.
You're also suggesting that we should start with the "surrounding cultures" as if the Bibles' historical accounts were influenced by many other different "myths" instead of through the means of Special Revelation (i.e. by direct and divine voice or writing).
If you question the integrity of God's word in some or specific areas of the Bible, you are then compromising the inerrancy (infallibility) of ALL scripture.
At this point, your personal worldview becomes inaccurate and incoherent, which does not reflect the truth of scripture or the correct biblical worldview.
So what if the creation account and flood account are poetic styles that don't represent how a historical text would have been written? What if they are full of symbolism that is meaningful to that culture at that day in non-scientific ways? What if scholars understand the creation/flood accounts to be figurative because of the way they are written, and the context of the surrounding cultures?
As previously explained and illustrated… a figurative account of creation, flood, etc. would result in intellectual dishonesty and an incoherent worldview. It also compromises the integrity and trustworthiness of scripture.
This is not an issue against science or cosmology, but it's about an all-inclusive worldview based on the full authority of scripture. The Bible is not a scientific, nor religious, nor theological textbook… It's a revelation from God directly to us. The Bible can be completely accurate scientifically and historically without its purpose being to teach science, cosmology, history or even theology.
In Christ,
Lou
Dr_Strangelove wrote:
Yes, God literally cast the angels into hell when they sinned. I think that angels are spiritual beings and sin is a spiritual act, and also that hell is a spiritual place. But why do you think that non-eternal bodies would rest in an eternal place (assuming you believe hell is an eternal place and bodies are non-eternal)? (I am sure there is some scripture that you are probably referring to, but I cannot think of any off the top of my head)
Sin is more than a spiritual act… It's disobedience against God. It's an act of the stubborn self-will… An attitude of active rebellion or passive indifference.
.. and "those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus... will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord..." (2 Thessalonians 1:8,9)
The biblical worldview of humanity claims that we have an eternal soul and an eternal body. So therefore, there will be both physical and spiritual suffering in hell.
Let me know if you need scripture passages to defend this claim.
Dr_Strangelove wrote:
I have been reading a little about allegorical interpretations of the Bible to understand them a little better. One of the main arguments is that Genesis (indeed all of the Bible) was written in a way that the people of the time could understand. Today we read "the pillars of the earth" or "the sun stood still" and might say "that was metaphor or allegory, not literal". But at the time, some of these erroneous beliefs about the earth, sun, stars, etc. were common among people of the Middle East (including Jews). So to them these probably made perfect and literal sense, given the context of their knowledge about the world.
The number one problem and major challenge for those who want to discredit the inerrancy and/or authority of the biblical worldview is the blatant refusal of distinguishing between sections that are clearly historical narratives, or doctrinal teachings from non-literal figures of speech such as poetic language, proverbial expressions, idiomatic phrases or prophetic symbology.
You make it sound like ancient people were not sophisticated enough to make this distinction. But you'd be surprise that even ancient Jews took "the pillars of the earth"
as poetic language or a non-literal figure of speech, instead of interpreting an "ancient cosmology".
… and we've already established that "the sun stood still" is not metaphor or allegory, but language to describe ordinary observation that is even used today with our 21st century knowledge of the universe (i.e. the rising or setting of the sun).
Dr_Strangelove wrote:
Another example, this time from the New Testament, is the parable of the mustard seed. Jesus calls it "the least of all seeds", but today we know that there are other seeds that are smaller. But if we consider his audience - Jews 2000 years ago - that was the smallest seed that they had or knew of, so the parable made perfect sense to them
In the parable of the mustard seed, Jesus was not giving a lesson about the scientific literalness and size of plant seeds, but he was only using a common Jewish proverbial expression for illustration purposes. We still use proverbial expressions all the time in with our 21st century knowledge to make a point such as:
"An apple a day keeps the doctor away". (To be scientifically precise, this claim may also apply to other fruits and vegetables.)
“It takes nine months to have a baby, no matter how many people you put on the job” (To be scientifically precise it's really 40 weeks which is more than 9 months.)
Do you now understand the context of the passage?
Dr_Strangelove wrote:
As far as the times when Jesus refers to the Old Testament and creation as literal historical events, I would say the same thing: he is speaking to people that had those ideas about cosmology, geology, etc., so to them his statements made perfect sense. So going back to "natural reading", shouldn't this context be considered as well when reading the Bible? You probably disagree about Genesis being written with the ideas of the people of the time, but how then do you reconcile Jesus' apparently false claim that the mustard seed is the smallest if you disregard that it was said in the context of the ideas and knowledge of the time?
It's crystal clear by the straightforward way that it's written, that when Jesus or his disciples referred to Old testament events, he was using historical narrative language. And his intentions were not to teach cosmology or geology, but to make connections to past historical events and characters.
Again, the mustard seed illustration was a common proverbial expression for that culture, NOT a false scientific claim.
Dr_Strangelove wrote:
I see Genesis, indeed much of the Bible, as allegory about the nature and will of God, the breaking of our relationship with him, and finally our reconciliation to him. "The tree of knowledge of good and evil" is sometimes translated as "the tree of conscience". We are not born knowing good and evil, but we learn, and eventually we become conscious of what is good and evil. So perhaps in growing up we fall away from God, because at a certain age we become conscience of good and evil. Anyway, just a little idea I had while reading a bit. I haven't thought those middle sentences all the way through, but I thought it could be an interesting way of thinking about that part of Genesis.
The problem with your interpretation of Genesis and other biblical passages, is your refusal to make the distinction between the different literary styles of writing based on culture, linguistics, anthropology and/or historical context. Sometimes, even your worldview bias prevents you from seeing it objectively.
Chuck Colson and Nancy Pearcy wrote an excelent book How Now Shall We Live? In this book they cite numerous stories of how a Biblical Worldview changes prisons, neighborhoods, families, Dr./patient relationships. The point they make is our worldview is what will influence our spheres of influence. As christians we should be reflecting Christs viewpoint,ie., love our neighbors.
As soon as I read your post, this is the verse that struck me.
"Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness..." (Matthew 6:33)
To give it context, Jesus says:
"Therefore I tell you...do not worry about your life....look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable then they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his spendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown in the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry...saying "What shall we eat?" or "What shall we drink?" or "What shall we wear?" For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (Matthew 6:25-34)
"Seek first his kingdom." His...no one else's. The foundation of this passage is "faith" vs "little faith." Little faith produces worry, doubt, or unbelief, but great "faith" produces total dependence of the Father concerning every aspect of His nature. I see so many things in this passage: Seek first my kingdom...and you will see that I AM your Provider. Seek first my kindgom...and you will see I AM your Peace. Seek first my kindgom, and you will see that I AM a Giver. Seek first my kindgom...and you will see that I AM Creator....Seek first my kindgom...and you will see I AM Omniscient. Seek first my kingdom...and you will receive and experience all these things that I AM.
"Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness." No one else's perspectives, no one else's theories, no one else's solutions, no one else's paradigms, no one else's will, no one else's wisdom, no one else's religion, no one else's advice...no one else's worldview. His. Seek it first...not second...not third...but FIRST.
Hello,
I just wanted to add (I did not read all the posts for this topic...there were too many. But as I scanned through it, I saw this question. If someone already answered with this, I apologize).
Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man (Adam) and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned----"
A concise definition of sin: "Everything that does not come from faith is sin." (Romans 14:23)
Adam and Eve sinned because they did not believe God. They were deceived by Satan's logic. Logic and faith do not co-exist. Therefore, sin entered the world through one man's lack of faith. Our actions have consequences. I dont' see any other interpretation. It's quite literal and quite simple.
Jennifer
""Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness." No one else's perspectives, no one else's theories, no one else's solutions, no one else's paradigms, no one else's will, no one else's wisdom"
I think you are forgetting something when you say "no one else's theories, no one else's solutions, no one else's paradigms, no one else's wisdom". You are forgetting that God really is Creator. Therefore God has 2 books: scripture and Creation. Science reads God's second book, Creation. So when scientists -- all of whom were Christians and many of whom were ministers (thus seeking His kingdom) -- found that God was telling them, in His Creation, that creationism was wrong and evolution correct, they said so. They were seeking the kingdom, and were seeking to understand a bit about God by understanding how God created.
Since science studies God's Creation, it is not "someone else's theories", "someone else's solutions", or someone else's wisdom", it is God's theories, God's, solutions, God's paradigms, and God's wisdom. God did not create by a human interpretation of Genesis 1-8. God created by the processes discovered by listening to God in God's Creation.
"I see so many things in this passage: "
And I submit that some of the things you "see" are not there. The last 3 "Seek first my kindgom...and you will see that I AM Creator....Seek first my kindgom...and you will see I AM Omniscient. Seek first my kingdom...and you will receive and experience all these things that I AM. " are not there. The passage is about the first: "Seek first my kingdom...and you will see that I AM your Provider. " Jesus is telling his audience (and we are part of it) that we do not need to chase after material goods and wealth. God will provide.
Beyond that, you are reading things into the passage that are not there. There's nothing there about God as Creator or God as omniscient. "knows that you need them" is not omniscience, but the simple wisdom to know what humans need to survive: eat, drink, wear. Nor does the passage promise to receive "all these things" that God is. For starters, that is impossible. God is infinite. We are finite. We cannot experience the totality that is God.
IMO, it is dangerous to read more into a Biblical passage than is there. Matthew 6:25-34 is a very valuable passage with very valuable messages: trust God and do not worry about material things. Taking it beyond those messages leads into the error of "someone else's theories, perspective, wisdom, worldview, etc.".
Hello,
I like what you say about God having two books, creation and the Bible. I like how you worded that. I totally agree. I don't mean that we cannot use other's theories to understand God's creation, but we do that from a Top Down approach, not a Bottom Up approach. Looking at creation and then deveoping theories from what we see is the wrong approach. Seeking God's kingdom first and allowing science to explain the Bible is the only way to find untainted, pure truth. I can see why my blog could have been worded better.
I do disagree with you, though, about what you say about Matthew 6. Your understanding is very literal...mine is not. You can have that view...and I respect that view. I tend to read the bible to know God's heart...to know His ways...and so when I read Scripture, often times it is not a "compartementalized approach." I am not saying your interpretation is wrong...it is very literal and not controversial at all. And that is fine. But I am saying that I can have "layers" to my understanding based on the Bible that I may not have laid out point by point. I don't read the Scriptures or even write my blogs to "prove" anything. I am a completely convinced, totally "sold out" believer and follower of Jesus Christ...and that is the way I approach reading the Bible. All of those characteristics of God ARE true, and so it is entirely possible for someone to read Matthew 6 and "see that." I just completely disagree with you on that point.
I say this sincerely and with a gentle spirit: I am not a scholar...I am a daughter of the Most High. And the God I have come to know through the Scriptures and in my personal journey IS all those things AND MORE. It may be deeper than what you see, but it is a reflection of the depth of what is years of reading the Bible and experiencing God personally. Those things are all "hid" in my heart. It's hard to "compartmentalize" when I read the bible. It's hard to compartmentalize God's infinite character and heart.
Having said that, thanks for taking the time to write down your thoughts. I mean it. It gave me a chance to clarify for those who "study" the Word in maybe a bit of a different way than I. Sometimes I dive into the word from a "studious" perspective; other times I just listen for what God has to say to me. And that is what He spoke to me that day as I read Matthew 6.
Hebrews 8:10: "After those days, says the LORD, I will put My laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be My people."
I am, by God's grace and mercy, so thankful that I can even have a converstation like this...knowing that once I was lost and had abosolutely no desire to dig into God's Word. That is a mirace in and of itself.
Jennifer