No longer interpreting Genesis 1-2:3 literally...

Well... I thought I'd let some of you know that I no longer interpret Gen. 1-2:3 literally.  This change does not mean I interpret the rest of scripture any differently, I was simply given an actual biblical, historical, and cultural argument in favor of the text being figurative.

I changed because of parallelism (day 1 with 4, day 2 with 5, and day 3 with 6), a look at the use of numbers (7 and 3 are constantly reocurring), historical arguments (very few interpreted the text in a scientific manner until the Enlightenment), and cultural arguments (seemingly an argument against the creation myths of that day and an explanation of how much greater God is than their false gods). 

Instead of interpreting the text literally I sought to find the original intent of the author which I believe is to show how great God is to the surrounding culture as opposed to giving a scientific view of how the world came into being.  Essentially the author's intent has more sway than my own biases. However, I do believe the Genesis text after 2:4 to still be more literal in nature as I believe that is more in accordence with the rest of the Bible.

I've slowly been coming to the view recently which is largely why I haven't been debating the issue as much lately.  I'm not saying I'm now a Theistic-Evolutionist or anything of the sort.  I simply do not believe one has enough biblical evidence to make a strong case for Young Earth Creationism.

Over the last 6 years I've now been somewhat of an Agnostic Evolutionist, a Theistic Evolutionist, a militant Young Earth Creationist, and now I simply make the claim that God created all that is.

Where was you given this biblical, historical, and cultural argument? I'd like to see it ;)

I've always kind of thought it was just a figurative way to show how we should work for 6 days and rest 1 day. But just because it's figurative it doesn't cancel out the idea of it being literal. 

I kind of have a rather strong feeling you're going to get flak for this from others, but I for one commend you for holding your beliefs to the fire, as I believe that is an absolutely crucial activity for anyone wishing to be intellectually honest in life.

I'm still trying to figure everything out, myself. :P

I couldn't help myself.

Where was you given this biblical, historical, and cultural argument? I'd like to see it ;)

I've always kind of thought it was just a figurative way to show how we should work for 6 days and rest 1 day. But just because it's figurative it doesn't cancel out the idea of it being literal. 

Silenthps

I wish I could actually.  The argument was a 39 page paper by a friend of mine.  We are both in Senior Seminar (degree being Christian Studies) together and his topic was a critique of Six-Day Creationism.  If he posts it online I'll make sure I'll send a link. :P

Well on the one hand you're going to get expelled from the CWU for not adhering to their statement of faith and you'll be harassed by the YEC's. On the other you're still going be harassed by everyone else because you still don't believe in evolution.

I commend you though for being forthcoming. Does this mean that you believe that the earth is very old?

Well on the one hand you're going to get expelled from the CWU for not adhering to their statement of faith and you'll be harassed by the YEC's. On the other you're still going be harassed by everyone else because you still don't believe in evolution.

I commend you though for being forthcoming. Does this mean that you believe that the earth is very old?

domatron23

I honestly don't care about whether I'm expelled from the CWU as I simply do not agree with their "evangelism" methods.  I rarely see people argued into the kingdom if ever...

As far as whether I have support in my beliefs, I don't care to be honest.  I do not need people patting me on the back in order for me to do anything.

And with whether the earth is old or not, I don't know.  Even as a YEC I never believed the earth to be 6,000 years old however. 

Out of curiosity - sorry, I misread the message - how do you reconcile the idea that God made everything (and presumably that evolution does not occur) with the idea of an old Earth? It seems that one would basically invalidate the other, since the only criteria that would support an old Earth would also support the idea that evolution of at least some sort occurred.GabuEx

Though most of them didn't want to answer and fought to give an answer, majority of the people arguing for ID in the Dover case said they believed in an old earth.  I think it was an example of them wanting to believe it wasn't that old, but when they knew they would be held accountable for that belief and they knew the incontrovertible evidence was against them, they couldn't claim it as true.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Well on the one hand you're going to get expelled from the CWU for not adhering to their statement of faith and you'll be harassed by the YEC's. On the other you're still going be harassed by everyone else because you still don't believe in evolution.

I commend you though for being forthcoming. Does this mean that you believe that the earth is very old?

mindstorm

I honestly don't care about whether I'm expelled from the CWU as I simply do not agree with their "evangelism" methods.  I rarely see people argued into the kingdom if ever...

As far as whether I have support in my beliefs, I don't care to be honest.  I do not need people patting me on the back in order for me to do anything.

And with whether the earth is old or not, I don't know.  Even as a YEC I never believed the earth to be 6,000 years old however. 

Yeah I figured being booted from the CWU wouldn't aggrieve you too much. I was just noting though that your position is a lose-lose situation.

Its because its a lose-lose situation that I commend you. You haven't considered what people will think you've only followed the evidence to its conclusion which is what an honest intellectual should do.

As for the age of the earth you're no longer constrained to a literal 6 day creation period which opens up some possibilities. However you are still constrained by the genealogies which you are still interpreting literally and therefore the young age of mankind which to be honest is still an untenable position.

Out of curiosity - sorry, I misread the message - how do you reconcile the idea that God made everything (and presumably that evolution does not occur) with the idea of an old Earth? It seems that one would basically invalidate the other, since the only criteria that would support an old Earth would also support the idea that evolution of at least some sort occurred.GabuEx

I haven't actually admitted the earth to be old.  I simply believe Genesis 1-2:3 cannot be argued in favor of Young Earth Creationism.  A young earth is therefore not required.  

Sure, evolution has some valid arguments, but I'm not quite convinced on a few issues.  However, I now acknowledge the possiblity of God using evolution but will not claim Theistic Evolution with certainty. I can only claim the Creationist stancce with certainty.  I therefore believe the earth to be anywhere from 10,000 years old to whatever age the evolutionist claims.  I may come to a conclusion one day. :P

Yeah I figured being booted from the CWU wouldn't aggrieve you too much. I was just noting though that your position is a lose-lose situation.

Its because its a lose-lose situation that I commend you. You haven't considered what people will think you've only followed the evidence to its conclusion which is what an honest intellectual should do.

As for the age of the earth you're no longer constrained to a literal 6 day creation period which opens up some possibilities. However you are still constrained by the genealogies which you are still interpreting literally and therefore the young age of mankind which to be honest is still an untenable position.

domatron23

If the goal is truth lose-lose isn't really an option.  But I know what you are getting at ;) 

It's interesting that you bring this up now, because I had a small debate with one of my Catholic acquaintances about the book of Genesis when I found out that he doesn't believe. I argued that since the Bible is (according to his beliefs) the word of god, then everything written in it is the truth and so the whole Adam & Eve thing is how we came to be. He argued that it's really just not important to look at the little details and that the point of the story is just that god created us. Have any thoughts on that?Forerunner-117

I still believe in a literal Adam and Eve as I believe the genre used after 2:4 to be interpreted literally (figurative people do not need geneologies for example).  I do not believe 1-2:3 can be hermenuetically interpreted to be literal due to the poetic nature of the text.  Did God create on these days with this chapter in mind?  If not, then how does one excuse the parallelism within chapter one?

Instead of interpreting chapter one literally I seek to gain the authorial intent... which I do not believe is literal.  The point I believe chapter one makes is the one that would have been obvious to the original readers: God is creater and is greater than the false gods of other religions and instead of seeking to be blessed, he seeks to bless us.

Everything after "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created" within 2:4 I believe to be literal in nature (fall of man in the garden for example). I'd think the entrance to sin in the world to be a little bit more important than the age of the earth. :P

I haven't actually admitted the earth to be old. I simply believe Genesis 1-2:3 cannot be argued in favor of Young Earth Creationism. A young earth is therefore not required.

Sure, evolution has some valid arguments, but I'm not quite convinced on a few issues. However, I now acknowledge the possiblity of God using evolution but will not claim Theistic Evolution with certainty. I can only claim the Creationist stancce with certainty. I therefore believe the earth to be anywhere from 10,000 years old to whatever age the evolutionist claims. I may come to a conclusion one day. :P

mindstorm

Hmm, sounds like you just don't know what to think. :P

Not intending that to be a jab - to be quite honest I don't know what to think about many philosophical issues either. All I can say is not to let others attempt to tell you what to think; people can supply you with information, but only you can come to the ultimate conclusion.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I haven't actually admitted the earth to be old. I simply believe Genesis 1-2:3 cannot be argued in favor of Young Earth Creationism. A young earth is therefore not required.

Sure, evolution has some valid arguments, but I'm not quite convinced on a few issues. However, I now acknowledge the possiblity of God using evolution but will not claim Theistic Evolution with certainty. I can only claim the Creationist stancce with certainty. I therefore believe the earth to be anywhere from 10,000 years old to whatever age the evolutionist claims. I may come to a conclusion one day. :P

GabuEx

Hmm, sounds like you just don't know what to think. :P

Not intending that to be a jab - to be quite honest I don't know what to think about many philosophical issues either. All I can say is not to let others attempt to tell you what to think; people can supply you with information, but only you can come to the ultimate conclusion.

I'm rather confident with most knowledge especially related to the Bible, I'm just rethinking one aspect of my thought processes. :P

In other words, I'll still argue in favor of the resurrection of Jesus Christ until the ends of the earth. :D

I'm rather confident with most knowledge especially related to the Bible, I'm just rethinking one aspect of my thought processes. :P

In other words, I'll still argue in favor of the resurrection of Jesus Christ until the ends of the earth. :D

mindstorm

Well if you can rethink one part of the Bible, surely you can rethink other parts... :P

But seriously though, I'm not about to pile on; I've been through transitions where something you previously held as truth is something you aren't sure about anymore. If you ever do want to talk about the age of the Earth, about evolution, or whatnot, feel free to contact me; I'd be happy to let you know what I currently know about those topics.

Well I wouldn't hold anything against ou even if you still interpreted it as literal, but its good to see your coming to stronger conlusions (for yourself), thats the best thing.

I more or less think the genesis creation was written as a myth, and it is somewhat similar to the pandora myth, though exceptionally different at the same time. Do you still interpret other parts in genesis as literal? Such as teh flood? and stuff like that?

The only person I specifically beleive to be real (or persons) in the book is Abraham and his two sons.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Well on the one hand you're going to get expelled from the CWU for not adhering to their statement of faith and you'll be harassed by the YEC's. On the other you're still going be harassed by everyone else because you still don't believe in evolution.

I commend you though for being forthcoming. Does this mean that you believe that the earth is very old?

mindstorm

I honestly don't care about whether I'm expelled from the CWU as I simply do not agree with their "evangelism" methods.  I rarely see people argued into the kingdom if ever...

As far as whether I have support in my beliefs, I don't care to be honest.  I do not need people patting me on the back in order for me to do anything.

And with whether the earth is old or not, I don't know.  Even as a YEC I never believed the earth to be 6,000 years old however. 

The opening post, and this response are the reason I was kicking myself for not inviting Mindstorm in here much earlier.  Regardless of your change in thought/beliefs, this is a very clear description of the

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I haven't actually admitted the earth to be old. I simply believe Genesis 1-2:3 cannot be argued in favor of Young Earth Creationism. A young earth is therefore not required.

Sure, evolution has some valid arguments, but I'm not quite convinced on a few issues. However, I now acknowledge the possiblity of God using evolution but will not claim Theistic Evolution with certainty. I can only claim the Creationist stancce with certainty. I therefore believe the earth to be anywhere from 10,000 years old to whatever age the evolutionist claims. I may come to a conclusion one day. :P

mindstorm

Hmm, sounds like you just don't know what to think. :P

Not intending that to be a jab - to be quite honest I don't know what to think about many philosophical issues either. All I can say is not to let others attempt to tell you what to think; people can supply you with information, but only you can come to the ultimate conclusion.

I'm rather confident with most knowledge especially related to the Bible, I'm just rethinking one aspect of my thought processes. :P

In other words, I'll still argue in favor of the resurrection of Jesus Christ until the ends of the earth. :D

Reason 101 I'm kicking myself for not inviting you in here sooner.  Thank you Cameron for sharing this, and explaining your thought process.  Very interesting.

Well... I thought I'd let some of you know that I no longer interpret Gen. 1-2:3 literally. This change does not mean I interpret the rest of scripture any differently, I was simply given an actual biblical, historical, and cultural argument in favor of the text being figurative.

I changed because of parallelism (day 1 with 4, day 2 with 5, and day 3 with 6), a look at the use of numbers (7 and 3 are constantly reocurring), historical arguments (very few interpreted the text in a scientific manner until the Enlightenment), and cultural arguments (seemingly an argument against the creation myths of that day and an explanation of how much greater God is than their false gods).

Instead of interpreting the text literally I sought to find the original intent of the author which I believe is to show how great God is to the surrounding culture as opposed to giving a scientific view of how the world came into being. Essentially the author's intent has more sway than my own biases. However, I do believe the Genesis text after 2:4 to still be more literal in nature as I believe that is more in accordence with the rest of the Bible.

I've slowly been coming to the view recently which is largely why I haven't been debating the issue as much lately. I'm not saying I'm now a Theistic-Evolutionist or anything of the sort. I simply do not believe one has enough biblical evidence to make a strong case for Young Earth Creationism.

Over the last 6 years I've now been somewhat of an Agnostic Evolutionist, a Theistic Evolutionist, a militant Young Earth Creationist, and now I simply make the claim that God created all that is.

mindstorm

You've got courage my friend, it's great to see someone constantly exploring and questioning their beliefs, and even more impressive to see one keep such an open mind to allow such a change in the face of such powerful beliefs, especially one who is dedicating his life to that path.

Kudos man, kudos.

So why do you regard the rest of the bible in the complete literal sense as well? Wouldn't those now be left up to interpretation? Who knows what the intention of those author's were...helium_flash

I think the intent of many books in the bible is clear, such as the gospels, the epistle, wisdom books and the Tanakh (five books of Moses right?). Other books I think can be alot more difficult to interepret, such as Job, Jonah, Revelation and etc. At least in my opinion. But the main point is just because you think one book is literal you don't have to think them all as such, that is a huge mistake.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]So why do you regard the rest of the bible in the complete literal sense as well? Wouldn't those now be left up to interpretation? Who knows what the intention of those author's were...123625

I think the intent of many books in the bible is clear, such as the gospels, the epistle, wisdom books and the Tanakh (five books of Moses right?). Other books I think can be alot more difficult to interepret, such as Job, Jonah, Revelation and etc. At least in my opinion. But the main point is just because you think one book is literal you don't have to think them all as such, that is a huge mistake.

But I also believe that even a book of the Bible which is generally literal, could as well have allegorical comments or statements. It doesn't have to be literal or allegorical as a whole.

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]So why do you regard the rest of the bible in the complete literal sense as well? Wouldn't those now be left up to interpretation? Who knows what the intention of those author's were...123625

I think the intent of many books in the bible is clear, such as the gospels, the epistle, wisdom books and the Tanakh (five books of Moses right?). Other books I think can be alot more difficult to interepret, such as Job, Jonah, Revelation and etc. At least in my opinion. But the main point is just because you think one book is literal you don't have to think them all as such, that is a huge mistake.

[QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]So why do you regard the rest of the bible in the complete literal sense as well? Wouldn't those now be left up to interpretation? Who knows what the intention of those author's were...helium_flash

I think the intent of many books in the bible is clear, such as the gospels, the epistle, wisdom books and the Tanakh (five books of Moses right?). Other books I think can be alot more difficult to interepret, such as Job, Jonah, Revelation and etc. At least in my opinion. But the main point is just because you think one book is literal you don't have to think them all as such, that is a huge mistake.

Oh I do.  I take an extremely small amount literally from the book of Revelation as well as commands for us to be salt of the earth for example.  I do not believe we are to literally become salt. :P

Other books like Leviticus I take to have both a literal and a there-is-something-greater-than-this meaning.  Basically, the truth mentioned is a foreshadowing of something greater (blood shedding of animals foreshadowing the blood shedding of Christ).

One of the hardest rewarding classes I've taken while in college was Hermeneutics (interpreting the Bible).  The major points taught is understanding literary, historical, and immediate context as well as gaining the intent of the author.  The original understanding of the original audience is also a must.  The Holy Spirit and prayer should also be a guide in not only interpretation but especially in the application of the text.  I seek to do this in not only Genesis 1-2:3 but the entire Bible.  The class actually required me to write a 30 page paper on about 9 verses of scripture in order to gain this knowledge if that tells you anything...

Other books I think can be alot more difficult to interepret, such as Job, Jonah, Revelation and etc. At least in my opinion. But the main point is just because you think one book is literal you don't have to think them all as such, that is a huge mistake.
123625

But WE'RE not the interpreter. The Holy Spirit IS. :( 

Take the coal out of the fire . . . . . .Lansdowne5

[QUOTE="123625"]

Other books I think can be alot more difficult to interepret, such as Job, Jonah, Revelation and etc. At least in my opinion. But the main point is just because you think one book is literal you don't have to think them all as such, that is a huge mistake.
Lansdowne5

But WE'RE not the interpreter. The Holy Spirit IS. :( 

Yes and no.  If the Holy Spirit were the interpreter completely then there is no reason why there would be so many different translations.  My personal conviction is the Holy Spirit convicts more than gives knowledge (as well as gives wisdom, abilites, etc.).  This difference in roles means the Holy Spirit does more in the application process than the interpretation process.

In other words, I'll still argue in favor of the resurrection of Jesus Christ until the ends of the earth. :D

mindstorm

Wouldn't you have said that about a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 a few years ago? 

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

In other words, I'll still argue in favor of the resurrection of Jesus Christ until the ends of the earth. :D

Lansdowne5

Wouldn't you have said that about a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 a few years ago? 

Not really... I've always believed the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be more imporant than the age of the earth.  ...I hope you do too.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

In other words, I'll still argue in favor of the resurrection of Jesus Christ until the ends of the earth. :D

Lansdowne5

Wouldn't you have said that about a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 a few years ago?

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

[QUOTE="123625"]

Other books I think can be alot more difficult to interepret, such as Job, Jonah, Revelation and etc. At least in my opinion. But the main point is just because you think one book is literal you don't have to think them all as such, that is a huge mistake.
mindstorm

But WE'RE not the interpreter. The Holy Spirit IS. :( 

Yes and no.  If the Holy Spirit were the interpreter completely then there is no reason why there would be so many different translations.  My personal conviction is the Holy Spirit convicts more than gives knowledge (as well as gives wisdom, abilites, etc.).  This difference in roles means the Holy Spirit does more in the application process than the interpretation process.

"God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches ALL things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." - 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 

The Words were written by the power of the spirit. It follows that he is the one who would be able to interpret them to us. As the verses above assert. :)

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

In other words, I'll still argue in favor of the resurrection of Jesus Christ until the ends of the earth. :D

mindstorm

Wouldn't you have said that about a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 a few years ago? 

Not really... I've always believed the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be more imporant than the age of the earth.  ...I hope you do too.

Of course.....but we are called to live our lives by EVERY word, and to teach the WHOLE counsel of God. :) 

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

Yes and no.  If the Holy Spirit were the interpreter completely then there is no reason why there would be so many different translations.  My personal conviction is the Holy Spirit convicts more than gives knowledge (as well as gives wisdom, abilites, etc.).  This difference in roles means the Holy Spirit does more in the application process than the interpretation process.

Lansdowne5

"God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches ALL things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." - 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 

The Words were written by the power of the spirit. It follows that he is the one who would be able to interpret them to us. As the verses above assert. :)

I simply believe the Holy Spirit gives wisdom, not knowledge.... There is a difference here.

Btw, how is forcefully interpreting a text literally a movement of the Holy Spirit? o.0

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

Yes and no.  If the Holy Spirit were the interpreter completely then there is no reason why there would be so many different translations.  My personal conviction is the Holy Spirit convicts more than gives knowledge (as well as gives wisdom, abilites, etc.).  This difference in roles means the Holy Spirit does more in the application process than the interpretation process.

mindstorm

"God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches ALL things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." - 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 

The Words were written by the power of the spirit. It follows that he is the one who would be able to interpret them to us. As the verses above assert. :)

I simply believe the Holy Spirit gives wisdom, not knowledge.... There is a difference here.

And is that a belief based on Scripture? If so, which verses?

Btw, how is forcefully interpreting a text literally a movement of the Holy Spirit? o.0

mindstorm

What do you mean by "forcefully" . . . ?

But WE'RE not the interpreter. The Holy Spirit IS. :(

Lansdowne5

If this were the case alot of us are neglecting the Holy spirit, (so many different understandings of bible can't mean they all came from teh Holy spirit). But I do partly agree with you, but dissagree with you.

I'm not trying to criticize, but this either means two things, none of us accept the holy spirit enough for the perfect interpretation, or there is one right dominition above all. I personally think its teh former.

[QUOTE="Silenthps"]

Where was you given this biblical, historical, and cultural argument? I'd like to see it ;)

I've always kind of thought it was just a figurative way to show how we should work for 6 days and rest 1 day. But just because it's figurative it doesn't cancel out the idea of it being literal. 

mindstorm

I wish I could actually.  The argument was a 39 page paper by a friend of mine.  We are both in Senior Seminar (degree being Christian Studies) together and his topic was a critique of Six-Day Creationism.  If he posts it online I'll make sure I'll send a link. :P

btw i actually don't agree with the CWU's evangelism either in soo many ways. Soo if you get kicked out, you still got my support ;)

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="Silenthps"]

Where was you given this biblical, historical, and cultural argument? I'd like to see it ;)

I've always kind of thought it was just a figurative way to show how we should work for 6 days and rest 1 day. But just because it's figurative it doesn't cancel out the idea of it being literal.

Silenthps

I wish I could actually. The argument was a 39 page paper by a friend of mine. We are both in Senior Seminar (degree being Christian Studies) together and his topic was a critique of Six-Day Creationism. If he posts it online I'll make sure I'll send a link. :P

btw i actually don't agree with the CWU's evangelism either in soo many ways. Soo if you get kicked out, you still got my support ;)

You mean the whole 6-day creation, Adam and Eve etc?Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]You mean the whole 6-day creation, Adam and Eve etc?SSBFan12

And now the CWU are pissed. Surprise surprise. :roll:Funky_Llama

Yeah...

Mindstorm, I meant to post something encouraging earlier but forgot to. Anyways, I've always regarded you as one of those civilized people who can discuss their religion openly without forcing it down others' throats. So all power to you for making an informed decision and keep doing what you're doing I guess. Judging by the values given to me by my Lutheran upbringing you're ten times the Christian of most of the other supposedly devout believers on OT.