To Christians who aren't creationists

[Ryft]

I always find it curious when it takes several thousand years for the text to be "interpreted" correctly.

Um, okay. I am glad you find it curious.

I am even more curious about how easily all of their forebears are dismissed as wrong without consequence, and such easy dismissal of features which define a faith for thousands of years.

Sorry, who easily dismissed what forebears and their beliefs? Are you raising some kind of criticism of Walton and his work? I am lost here.

Even moreso how heresy becomes mainstream in light of scientific advances, and take specifically into account those very advances into the faith.

Sorry, what heresy? What scientific advances? Could you give me a page reference if you are addressing either of Walton's books? If you are not addressing Walton or his thesis, then why was this addressed to me?

What needs would a being such as a God have for ceremony?

Where did Walton say that God had a need which ceremony gratified?

Evolution certainly does not allow for 900-year-old men ...

Um... how so? Evolution happens at the level of species populations, not individuals. It's one thing to say there is no scientific evidence for 900-year-old men, but you said evolution does not allow it.

... and geology does not support a worldwide flood.

True. And this is relevant to evolution how? I get how it is relevant to geology, but ... evolution? It is not immediately obvious. Explain.

It is born out of simple interest in how these biblical events are explained in context of modern science.

I get that. I really do. However, it is not what was asked. My response addressed what was asked.

I have no wish to attack your point of view, and I hope you see these points as requests for clarification.

Well, to be honest, I am not sure how any of the above even could attack my view (that being Walton's view in this case). At this point it seems none of it was even addressing it.

---

---

Ryft, you said (in the other thread) that it is important to understand the Bible as it was meant to be understood by the original readers. In other words, you are trying to look at it not in the eyes of 2,000 years of theology but in the eyes of the audience who first received it.

So far so good.

Keeping this in mind, you also talk about how clearly the creation story is symbolic.

That may be what you heard, but it is not what I said. Perhaps you are crediting me with something ChadWooters said.

It wasn't meant to be taken as a literal scientific account.

Given what you mean by science, such a thing did not even exist among the Israelites of the ancient Near East. So of course a literal reading of the text would not find a scientific account.

It seems to be your reasoning that symbolism and literalism are exclusive.

Except I did not say anything about symbolism, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

If an account has lots of symbolic imagery, then it wasn't meant to be taken as if anything in the account actually happened in history.

Given Walton's thesis, which part was not to be thought of as having happened in history? What "action or object wasn't meant to be taken as actually occurring"?

But would the first readers have made this distinction?

We will get to this part once your questions are intelligible and apply to what I (and Walton) actually said.