To Christians who aren't creationists

[NoMoreFaith]

My view takes after the exegetical model described by Old Testament scholar and professor John H. Walton of Wheaton College, ... which he introduces in The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (InterVarsity Press, 2009) and lays out in exhaustive detail in the far more technical Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Eisenbrauns, 2011).

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

I'm even more curious at 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.

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

The Genesis account presupposes the material construction phase, as it were, in its revelation of the inauguration phase—with the building ready, the ceremony ushers in the creation of the cosmos as temple over a seven-day period culminating with God coming to rest in it and the beginning of redemptive history with Adam who was "chosen from among the animals" (to steal the title of Joshua M. Moritz's brilliant dissertation on the meaning of imago Dei).

What needs would a being such as a God have for ceremony? The concept of ritual is peculiarly human one, usually derived from a useful source and degraded into an essentially meaningless repetition of action symbolically.

This sort of behaviour makes God a curiously sentimental type, which begs the question, what symbols are being represented, and for whose benefit other than self-gratification.

Was Noah's flood universal or local? How did men live to 900 years old? Or did they? Was the tower of Babel a real event? If so, does it account for all the languages of mankind?

Irrelevant to your question about the Genesis creation account and how evolution can be allowed.

Not entirely, merely slightly non-sequitor. Evolution certainly does not allow for 900 year old men, and Geology does not support a worldwide flood, all these things you know. Its born out of simple interest in how these biblical events are explained in context of modern science.

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

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

Or to recover what was lost. The text as written reflects the perspective of ancients who thought and spoke in metaphor and could read images the way we read words. I say we need to recover the language of value and meaning that has been lost in the vain quest to force the text into a modern scientific/historical paradigm. The evangelicals forget that the bible's message concerns spiritual matters of life and faith. Not explaining or describing physical phenomena. In this respect, literalists are every bit as materialistic as the actual materialists they oppose.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

@Ryft and @ChadWooters

Again, thanks for sharing your interesting understanding of the creation accounts. I don't have time right now to address all your points but there is one that is really bugging me and if I can get it answered, then maybe the conversation will go along better.

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, your trying to look at it not in the eyes of 2000 years of theology, but in the eyes of the audience who first received it.

Keeping this in mind, you also talk about how clearly the creation story is symbolic. It wasn't meant to be taken as a literal scientific account. It seems to be that your reasoning is that symbolism and literalism are exclusive. If an account is has lots of symbolic imagery, then it wasn't meant to taken as if anything in the account actually happened in history. But would the first readers have made this distinction?

Symbolism is not necessarily exclusive to literalism. An action or object in a story may have lots of symbolic imagery, but it doesn't necessarily mean that said action or object wasn't meant to be taken as actually occurring.

Let's say that whoever the first recipients were read the creation story understanding it with all the temple symbolism the way you think it was meant to be taken. Do you think that the Jewish readers back then would go "Look at all this symbolism about God, the earth as temple, and man. Isn't it beautiful? But remember, this is all just symbolism. The earth really isn't a temple. The sky really isn't made of metal. God probably did it this way: [insert whatever would been considered as the literal origins of earth back then]."

Are you saying that the first readers really did not look at the sky and think it was metal? Did they not really think of the earth as having four corners with angels at each end? Did they really not think of the earth as being the center of the universe?

If you say that it doesn't matter whether the first readers really thought of the earth and the sky that way, as long as they recognized the symbolism, then you're violating your principle of understanding the text the way the original readers took it.

To summarize: show me that the creation story was meant to be taken symbolically but not also literally.

[DeeTee]

...

God didn't lie in the Torah nor the Tanakh. YOUR rebuttal fails miserablely.

Actually, Jews could discount Christianity for your reasons since the NT adds onto their book just like the Book of Moron adds onto the OT and NT. What if Christianity is the cult and Judaism is the one true religion?

And there are plenty of Eastern religions that aren't connected to the Abrahamic tradition. They have their own holy writings and founders.

I am sure you meant the Book of Mormon not Moron. Anyways, I have a little time this morning so I thought I would try to stay caught up.

The book of mormon DOES NOT add on to the OT & NT. it has nothing to do with either book and is not a continuation of either. It is a highly plagerized work which cannot be verified as it has no mss. history.

Not being connected or having their own religious writings doesn't make them correct. As Paul said, 'if any man or ANGEL brings a different gospel than the one Jesus and the Apostles brought...'

all false religions from Islam down to Buddhism to Mormonism bring a different gospel than Jesus and the Apostles and gives us a clear picture of how to tell the difference between the two (true and false beliefs).

---

show me that the creation story was meant to be taken symbolically but not also literally

I am not going ot butt in on this conversation but I wanted to point out just 1 thing.

The creation account was meant to be taken literally ONLY. There are lesons in there that would be lost if it were allowed to be taken symbolically.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@Ryft and @ChadWooters...your reasoning is that symbolism and literalism are exclusive. If an account is has lots of symbolic imagery, then it wasn't meant to taken as if anything in the account actually happened in history...show me that the creation story was meant to be taken symbolically but not also literally.

You are right to say symbolism and literalism need not be exclusive. Legends are often built on real people and historical events. And I think the ancients were aware of the temple plan symbolism just as Medieval master builders designed cathedrals to in cross-shaped plans according to sacred geometry. Before people knew that the earth was round and in orbit around the sun, they said 'sun rise' and 'sun set'. They took flat earth cosmology for granted because is matched their daily experience. Today, we know better, yet we still say 'sun rise' and 'sun set'. The actual cosmology is not important to what we mean to express. The scriptures take the form they do because the writers were more concerned about 'why' than about 'how'. The took the factuality of the creation story was of secondary concern to the ancient Hebrews and Isrealites, otherwise they would have produced essays like their Greek counterparts.

The New Church acknowleges the reality that religions are corrupted over time as our understanding migrates away from the spiritual import of the text and increasingly relies on the material surface meanings. For this reason additional revelations (like those through Swedenborg) are needed to remind us of life's spiritual dimension. And this is accomplished primarily through symbols that correspond to spiritual realities.

A post-modern culture like ours believes in the 'open interpretation' of symbols. We think any text can be read to mean pretty much anything we want it to mean. When talking about bible symbolism, we face a challenge because in our minds symbolic meanings are so plastic. Why should we take biblical symbols anymore seriously than those of Greek mythology? New Church theology makes a distinction between arbitrary symbols and those that correspond to spiritual realities. No doubt the mythologies of other cultures do reflect many of the some spiritual realities and even a good secular novel can too. Biblical symbolism is different because it is so dense. With study it reveals it's consistency and applicability, so much so that to me it strongly suggests a divine origin.

[NoMoreFaith]

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

Or to recover what was lost. The text as written reflects the perspective of ancients who thought and spoke in metaphor and could read images the way we read words. I say we need to recover the language of value and meaning that has been lost in the vain quest to force the text into a modern scientific/historical paradigm. The evangelicals forget that the bible's message concerns spiritual matters of life and faith. Not explaining or describing physical phenomena. In this respect, literalists are every bit as materialistic as the actual materialists they oppose.

That doesn't explain the necessity of interpretation unless you assume the creator is ambivalent about whether we believe in him or not.

Your lofty goal, simply confirms an absentee deity in that "truth" has been allowed to be a shadow of what was originally meant by ancient metaphor. This requires leaps of imagination, one that does not presuppose the texts are taken from direct communion with a deity.
That isn't actually a criticism btw, most ancient history is composed of leaps of imagination which seeks evidence to affirm the likely truth of the proposed imagined scenario.

In terms of being able to recreate this scenario, several thousands years is a long time when much of the period contains little solid written record that makes discerning fact from fiction impossible.
Imagine trying to discern Batman in 4000 years, without the wealth of written record. And Batman doesn't even WANT you to believe in him.

It still remains curious regardless of your aims, to seek affirmation of your deity using methods that by default require the rejection of things that contradict your views and accepting those that do.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The creation account was meant to be taken literally ONLY.

Are you suggesting that the Song of Songs and Revelations should also be taken literally? I take it you are half blind having plucked out one of your sinful eyes already.

---

That doesn't explain the necessity of interpretation unless you assume the creator is ambivalent.

Imagine the reverse. Why wouldn't we attempt to interpret scripture unless we were ambivalent about knowing our creator. (Assuming of course that we allow the possibility of divine revelation)

Imagine trying to discern Batman in 4000 years...

The Caped Crusader would still be considered a bad ass!

...using methods that...require the rejection of things that contradict your views and accepting those that do.

That is the ever present danger of interpretation, yet not a reason to abandon the effort, because it seems God wants us to struggle. Dr. George Dole said it better than I:

"We have a mistrust of imagery because, by comparison with the languages of science or even formal theology, it seems undisciplined. It [scripture] makes suggestions, it invites the mind to imagine and seems to exert little control over the imagination it has set loose. Yet I would insist, the Bible is an imaginative book. There are very few abstract terms in biblical Hebrew; and while the Greeks had developed a philosophical vocabulary by the time of Christ, the Gospels make little use of it. Jesus told stories, used imagery. For him, the concrete was the vessel for the intangible...he paid his disciples the profound compliment of provoking their minds rather than satisfying them."

I am an artist. Long after completing a painting, I often find clear and obvious symbolism in my pictures. These symbols relate to the events happening my life when I made the painting, meanings I was unaware of and which I did not intentionally place there. The painting's significance was in the painting from the start, I just did not recognize it until later.

It's not that I reject the surface or literal meaning of the text, I just don't care. It's not important to me 'how' the world was created, I'm more interested in 'why?'. 'Why? is the most human question to ask and yet impossible to approach scientifically.

[The Grand Nudger]

God is also just a symbol Chad. You're asking "why?" to a cave painting, and hoping that the cave painting itself will somehow answer.

[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.

[NoMoreFaith]

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.

That depends. Are you claiming that Walton's view of the creation of a temple is what was understood by those most intimately associated with the writing of genesis.
The distinction between function and material seems to be a new interpretation which discards all previous christian theology over the last 1000 years. It seems remarkably simple to dismiss the christian scholars with "They're wrong, this is how it SHOULD be interpreted". Its a book.. not quantum mechanics, it shouldn't be this difficult, especially if we consider that most people consider that the deity wants to be believed in.

It appears, to the casual observer, that this is merely a wide ranging interpretation of Genesis, in order to exempt the ancient myth from scientific mockery.

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?

The "ancients" to give them a broad description, knew nothing about the cosmos, the age of the earth, geology, and the wide range of information which tells us how mind-blowingly old this universe and world really is. Each and every step towards a knowledge of this world set the bible further and further away from reality.

Walton's views take into account all these advances once considered heresy. You're erudite enough to recognise at least Galileo's "heresies" but great number of things we know about the universe was considered heresy at some time, now absorbed by apologists.

At least they are taking into account, that if the natural world contradicts your faith, you should amend your faith, because the natural world is not for changing.

But on a certain level, its seems to cheapen, and dismiss some great christian thinkers through the ages.
While I'm sure its an impressive work, it can more or less be summarised by the old "It's symbolic" point of view, rather than claims of biblical literalism.

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

You did. If you are representing Waltons view, I can only respond to your own statements of clarity regarding them.

...the ceremony ushers in the creation of the cosmos as temple over a seven-day period culminating with God coming to rest in it

The usage of the word Ceremony leads inevitably to gratification through ritual.

You will have to bear in mind, that I am not in a position to interpret ceremony in any other way than a formal dictionary way, it confuses me when christian apologists start using well known words in ways that don't conform to standard definition.

Ceremony itself is a prescribed function, created by ritual or convention, which would create the question, whom prescribed it, and if the obvious answer is God, then we come to self-gratification inevitably.

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.

I assume we are working from the same premise that man evolved in the way that is at least partially understood.
The claim for ancient men must therefore be taken in context of the lifespan of the human species.
While I'm willing to accept the possibility that a mutation could maybe alter an "anti-aging" gene, the possibility seems remote given modern understanding of how aging works, and why we die of old age.
Its not a question of no evidence, but evolutionary theory does not take into (unlike what creationists seem to spout) instant macro-evolution.

We know from investigations into fossilized proto-human teeth that early man lived a "live fast and die young" type existence.
The existence of a modern man whom could live for hundreds of years would be a substantial blow to the theory of evolution.