Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agreed. But how did He do it? And don't just say, "He's God; He just did." Yes, I know, but the works of God are evident in creation. (See Romans.) The methods of creation are evident in the world around us -- where we came from, how the world came to be, etc. Studying that does not negate God in any way.
But the Bible is not a science book. It never makes any such claim of itself.
Totally agree with this entire post, and especially the paragraph above.
I take the talking snake, etc. to be LITERAL, but thats just IMHO.
You know, I could almost buy the fact of a talking snake -- possessed by a demon or something.
But how do you explain Adam and Eve's reaction???? Adam named all the animals, including this serpent presumably. If a single one of them could talk, you'd think that might have come up. Yet when this snake starts talking, why is there initial reaction not, "Why is this snake talking???"
I know that if I went home today and found out that my lab had developed the ability to speak, I would be totally and completely freaked out. Because I have never once carried on a conversation with an animal.
1.) Some of you are confusing allegory with metaphor. Not a big deal really. I think your meaning is still coming through. Still, I'd really hesitate to call Genesis an allegory in any way. But metaphorical? You betcha.
Semantics, but I'll stand by what I've said. For all intents and purposes, an allegory, much like a parable, is just an extended metaphor. To me, at least the Adam and Eve story, with all its overtones of obedience, the birth of knowledge, the struggle between right and wrong, the emergence of "sin," and so on, is clearly allegorical ... lots of lessons are packed in there with religious and moral significance, with the main characters representing things that lie beyond the story itself. You've got the personification of abstract ideas, and layers of meaning ... and clearly, it can be read as literal or symbolic. The characters symbolize grand concepts relating to human existence. Does that push it into the realm of allegory? For me it does.
Anyway, here's something for literalists to ponder. Consider that Jesus used lots and lots of parables to illustrate his teachings to his followers. If he used metaphor so freely to get his points across, why is it so outlandish to assume that the writers of the Old Testament might also have used metaphorical tools in the same way? If it was good enough for the Son of God, it must have been good enough for God's scribes in the Old Testament. Right?
Nah. Evolution is simply science's way of trying to figure out the way things work from the evidence presented. And the evidence is pretty overwhelming, from the sheer variety of animals on Earth today, to the fossil record, to the DNA evidence. If evolution is not true, then God sure put forth a lot of evidence trying trick us.
Well, variation, mutation and speciation do happen. It's observable. That is not evolution from molecules-to-man, particles-to-people. Evolutionists say that's proof of evolution, but IMO, it is what it is - dogs beget dogs, fish beget fish, etc.
IMO, DNA evidence contradicts evolution. Evolution requires added info within DNA to add anything to one creature to begin to change it to another creature. There is no scientific evidence today that can demonstrate any upward gain of info in DNA, only a loss or mutation, which is downward and opposite of what evolution claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
But there you lose me. If you tell me that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God, I'm with you. But if you try to tell me that every word and line is absolutely 100% literal, then you've lost me, because it is so plainly and self-evidently not. The Bible is FILLED with metaphoric language -- trees clapping their hands, talking snakes, hardened hearts, covered ears, three headed dragons, monsters that would give Harryhausen nightmares, etc.
It's not allegory, but much of it is metaphor. The Bible is certainly all true, but that does not mean it is all literal. Big difference.
I suppose I didn't make myself clear. I agree that the Bible contains poetry, allegory, and metaphoric language and where it does it is to be interpreted as such. However, I beleive Genesis is historical narrative prose and does not need metaphoric interpretation, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
No. We are affirming that the Bible is not a science textbook, any more than it is a cookbook. The Bible is a testament of faith and a record of God's redemption of mankind.
I agree the Bible is not a science textbook. But the Bible is truth upon all topics which it does speak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Agreed. But how did He do it? And don't just say, "He's God; He just did." Yes, I know, but the works of God are evident in creation. (See Romans.) The methods of creation are evident in the world around us -- where we came from, how the world came to be, etc. Studying that does not negate God in any way.
But the Bible is not a science book. It never makes any such claim of itself.
We may never know the exact "how" this side of heaven. Science will not know because it's their speculation as well. Science has shown us DNA is integral in living things. This tells me that God used DNA throughout His creation because He knew the future and it was the best way for creatures that would have limited resources after the fall to be able to reproduce after their kind. But merging the Bible with evolution insinuates God didn't know how to create so he made one thing, let it reproduce, took one of the offspring and fiddled with it, made it into something else, etc., etc., until * poof * here was man.
Evolution insists there was millions of years of death and disease and decay before sin entered the world. If this is so, and you reconcile evolution with the Bible, then when God prepares the new heaven and new earth and restores them to the time before sin, we'll still have death and bloodshead?? Doesn't compute with me.
Semantics, but I'll stand by what I've said. For all intents and purposes, an allegory, much like a parable, is just an extended metaphor. To me, at least the Adam and Eve story, with all its overtones of obedience, the birth of knowledge, the struggle between right and wrong, the emergence of "sin," and so on, is clearly allegorical ... lots of lessons are packed in there with religious and moral significance, with the main characters representing things that lie beyond the story itself. You've got the personification of abstract ideas, and layers of meaning ... and clearly, it can be read as literal or symbolic. The characters symbolize grand concepts relating to human existence. Does that push it into the realm of allegory? For me it does.
I see what you're saying, but strictly speaking an allegory is intended to convey a pretty narrow meaning defined by the author. For example, Pilgrim's Progress is a straight-up allegory, its meanings cloaked in a story. It is basically the author wagging his finger at you, but doing it with a smile to soften the blow. The Lord of the Rings on the other hand is in no way allegorical, but it is filled with many meanings and truths.
In fact, it was Tolkien who wrote, "I think that may confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader and the other in the purposed domination of the author."
Much of the Bible is applicable metaphor. This was certainly THE preferred teaching method of Jesus. Why? Because teaching through story allows the Truth to get through to every kind of person from every different background. It isn't so much hammering the nail on the head as building an entire house with many rooms from many different materials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YoAdrian
Anyway, here's something for literalists to ponder. Consider that Jesus used lots and lots of parables to illustrate his teachings to his followers. If he used metaphor so freely to get his points across, why is it so outlandish to assume that the writers of the Old Testament might also have used metaphorical tools in the same way? If it was good enough for the Son of God, it must have been good enough for God's scribes in the Old Testament. Right?
I see what you're saying, but strictly speaking an allegory is intended to convey a pretty narrow meaning defined by the author. For example, Pilgrim's Progress is a straight-up allegory, its meanings cloaked in a story. It is basically the author wagging his finger at you, but doing it with a smile to soften the blow. The Lord of the Rings on the other hand is in no way allegorical, but it is filled with many meanings and truths.
OK, I follow you. Makes more sense when it's explained that way. I'll gladly and humbly stand corrected.
I agree with that last post YoAdrian. Whenever I hear circular arguments (unless it's me telling my kids to do something because I said so), it makes me cringe. "The bible is the word of God". Why? "Because God said so". That to me sets up suppression of free thought.
To me, Nature and Natural Science is part of the Universe just as the stars and the Sun. I don't understand why there is a need to say that Science is wrong because it doesn't agree with the Bible. The Bible was written originally for people that did not understand Nature as we do. Would they have understood the expanding vastness of the universe? Or erosion or DNA or rocket power or the construction of the Atom?
They wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. Would they have understood the internal combustion engine or railroad travel? That's Science. The Bible doesn't mention it. But it is Science at work. Do we refuse to get into our cars just because Jesus walked everywhere except when he rode donkeys? Of course not. But when we are expected to ignore things like fossils, and erosion, just because it doesn't fit what is written in Genesis, I think we are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
The Bible was written to be understood by the people that existed at the time it was being put down. Mankind has made progress. Why not the interpretation of the Scripture?
To me, Nature and Natural Science is part of the Universe just as the stars and the Sun. I don't understand why there is a need to say that Science is wrong because it doesn't agree with the Bible. The Bible was written originally for people that did not understand Nature as we do. Would they have understood the expanding vastness of the universe? Or erosion or DNA or rocket power or the construction of the Atom?
They wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. Would they have understood the internal combustion engine or railroad travel? That's Science. The Bible doesn't mention it. But it is Science at work. Do we refuse to get into our cars just because Jesus walked everywhere except when he rode donkeys? Of course not. But when we are expected to ignore things like fossils, and erosion, just because it doesn't fit what is written in Genesis, I think we are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
The Bible was written to be understood by the people that existed at the time it was being put down. Mankind has made progress. Why not the interpretation of the Scripture?
Brilliantly put!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
