There are no "ASSUMPTIONS" to be made when one simply reads what is recorded. The text either declares something or it does not. The assumptions are made by the ones that believe the text of Holy Bible NOT to be what it indeed claims to be, THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD, and therefore, THEY ASSUME, it is their right to interpret it as they see fit. But this is not what the scriptures declare, they declare the entire text to be inspired (the Breath of God), "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION in RIGHTEOUSNESS: " -- 2 Tim. 3:16. This could not be made much clearer nor explicit, just what other "ASSUMPTION" is to be made, other than what is presented? You will find that TRUTH, does not change over time, what was true in the 1st century is true today. As truth is not a variable to be molded to suit ones ideology, that is unless one conforms to some LIBERAL train of thought, to believe that truth is only relative to what he/she beholds it be. And whats up with quoting exterior sources when trying to present your views of Christianity as valid, when the very source of that faith( the Holy Bible) is ignored? And any time the writings of the Holy Bible wish to be considered as Allegoric or symbolic, they very well declare as much, as exampled by the declarations contained within the Bible. Example, The Book of Revelation, the very fist verse declares this book to be "Signified" or symbolic -- Rev. 1:1. Also when the Christ taught in parables there was no doubt that what was being presented was indeed Allegoric in nature and being presented in parable truths, or generic realities of truth. -- Matthew 13:10-17, Mark 4:10-12, Luke 8:9-10, thus it indeed is absurd to conclude that the entirety should be considered allegoric. RWB

And the Gospel text indeed can be "examined", in its entirety. If the early chapters of the Book of Genesis are to be considered allegoric or symbolic in nature, then were does one draw the line in declaring what ever they wish to be merely symbolic? Where does the symbolism stop and the actual chronological history that Moses was trying to convey start? Was Adam the first man created by God, just before He created Eve, or is this symbolism? If this is considered a Fable then what are we to consider the other passages based upon this text? Such as Romans 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:21-22, or 1 Tim. 2:13? If Eve was not really the first to sin but only a symbolic example, what do we do with Paul's proof in l Tim. 2:14? Was Enoch really the seventh descendant form Adam as declared in Jude 1:14? Who was the first person in the genealogy of Jesus presented in Luke:3:23-38? Was there really a universal flood, as Peter described in ll Peter 3:5-7, when he was explaining how the earth will be destroyed by fire? And what about the words of Christ Himself, when he declares that man and women were made in the "BEGINNING", how can six million years after the creation of the earth be "declared" as in the beginning? Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6.

It is true that the Hebrew word "yorn" can be in used in consideration of a particular length of time and is not exclusive to being used to present a literal day, however if we are to believe the very authors of this Book, it must be considered as a literal day. Notice that when God established the week for the Israelites, this week was indeed mirrored from the week in Genesis' creation account, as they were told to keep the final (7th day) Sunday holy -- Exodus 20: 9-11. And one indeed would think that if anyone knew just was intended by the use of the word "yorn", it indeed would be the authors of the very text that some now wish to claim that is not what they meant....strange indeed. For indeed, did not the Christ himself rebuke and chastise the the Scribes and Pharisees for incorporating man made custom and tradition into their current religious doctrine, thus ignoring the Scriptures and making God's truth non-effect? Matthew 23, Matthew 15:3, 7-12, ".....Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Indeed, just what is the difference? Why should one accept an "idea" of man in consideration of Creation over God's Word? For that is all evolution is, an idea presented in the custom and tradition of man, an idea that cannot be proven, only speculated...or, indeed we would all be living under the physical law of evolution, not the speculation of such. Even the age of the earth cannot be scientifically validated, as the only example of a standard to date this age is indeed only a "theory" presented as a factual calibrated tool, of course we are speaking of Radio metric and carbon dating. This theory itself is based upon one of your "assumptions", that in itself cannot be validated as factual. That assumption is the consideration or non-consideration of external forces upon the decay process as all dates are based upon the "assumption" that we are working with the same standard as was present in the beginning, and this simply CANNOT BE PROVEN to present a TRUE CALIBRATION, only ASSUMED. If this method were indeed as accurate as is claimed, we would not have CONSIDERATIONS SUCH AS THESE

Unreliability of Radiometric Dating and Old Age of the Earth

First of all, RWB, welcome to I.F.-- I hope you enjoy yourself here.

Secondly, one very much may look at the creation accounts as allegory, which would not trash the Torah by any means. For example, the 12th century sage Moshe Maimonides (the RAMBAM) believed that the accounts were likely to be allegorical, and he taught as such long before we knew anything about evolution. When the issue of evolution became controversial in the 19th and 20th centuries, it wasn't very controversial at all in Jewish circles, as long as it was understood the God was the cause of all creation and that man is not just another animal.

The question as to how to perceive some other accounts also showed up in the 2nd church over the issue of the parables of Jesus. One camp argued that the events depicted by the parables must have actually happened since Jesus would not lie, but the other camp said that the purpose of the parables was not history but to put forth teachings. The latter camp that won out.

Shalom & welcome again,
Vern

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Your point of view can be appreciated, but this still does not justify how some 12th century "custom" of accepting The first five Books of Gods revelations as allegory is expected to trump the actual words of what is actually written, and defined even in the The Commandment of God, as even the 4th commandment was in fact mirrored from this supposed "allegory". As I said, we approach the word of God from two entirely different points of view, apparently you may find it acceptable for man to alter what is written by man made custom and or tradition, but I on the other hand choose to take the writings of the Holly Scriptures at their professed face value as claimed, and until such time as proof actual and not custom, tradition, nor theory can invalidate that which is written, I will continue to accept this word as the sole basis for my doctrine of faith.

And it is nothing personal, but those that still hold to the tradition of the Old Covenant do not present a very good example that one in fact should try to emulate nor take their word as valid, for indeed my personal faith in the "ENTIRE" revealed word of God, declares those that have not accepted the entire word of God are in fact denying the reality of the Old Faith. Thus,by what authority should I accept the custom of a peoples that were found supposedly ignorant of not even recognizing "GOD" in the flesh when He presented Himself to them? And now I am supposed to accept their custom that describes Gods Word as only fables so they might be accepted in the eyes of man rather than the eyes of God?

As I said, there is nothing personal, and we all are made in the image of the Living God and we all do possess the ability of "free will", that lets us direct our own fate, as your free will has directed yours and mine has directed me to accept the entirety of the scriptures just as they are presented, not only in the New Testament, but also the Old. As the NT declares that all Scripture is divine in its inspiration( 2Tim.3:16-17) and the OT tells us, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them FROM THIS GENERATION FOR EVER."-- Psalm 12:6-7. It is for this very reason that I can not even fathom the idea that God has lied and has allowed fallible man to corrupt His word, after such promises, as you suggest that I take the advise of some Jewish custom that first was presented in the 12th century. I must respectfully decline and continue to base and accept ALL doctrine from the Scriptures, and not from man made custom nor tradition of what ever good willed nature they may be presented in. Thank You for responding, but no thanks. RWB

Well, that itself, is an assumption. It assumes that the straightforward reading of a 21st century American would be the same as the straightforward reading of a 2nd century Greek. And it assumes that the straightforward common sense reading is the most important and meaningful reading. Neither of these assumptions can be sustained logically or theologically.


To be sure. But it is an assumption that the dictionary meaning is the declarative meaning. For most of Church history, scholars sought out the meaning underneath the literal text as of greater spiritual importance.


Well, this is just filled with a great many assumptions about inspiration.

Assumption #1: An inspired text does not need to be interpreted. A false assumption, as all texts need to be interpreted. Even deciding to take the text at face (aka literal) value, is an interpretive decision. Interpretation is essential to understanding any spoken or written communication and is especially needed if one reveres a text as inspired.

Assumption #2: Interpretation means dividing scripture into "inspired" and "non-inspired" sections. Again a false assumption. Understanding the different types of inspired literature doesn't make them any less inspired.

Assumption #3: Truth is never presented in anything other than factual description. Clearly a false assumption when applied to scripture. Jesus gives us a prime example of presenting truth through fiction in the parables. The Psalmists provide truth in beautiful poetry. The prophets in visionary images. There is no need for a text to be a factual description in order for it to present us with truth. Truth comes in many forms, and inspiration may move the biblical authors to present truth in many ways including, but not limited to, factual description.


Well, I didn't. But there is nothing wrong with exterior sources per se. Scripture again gives us the example to follow when biblical authors refer to exterior sources such as the Books of Jasher and Enoch.


Not many people would take all of scripture to be non-historical. But many people do set a high-value on a literal and historical reading of scripture that views scripture through the lens of a modernist world-view that was not shared by the biblical authors. Forcing this modernity onto an ancient text distorts much of the intended meaning, which is more in line with a less empirical and more metaphysical understanding of reality.


Again, characterizing something as "merely" symbolic, indicates scorn for what was highly valued by Christian and Jewish scholars prior to the advent of modernistic, science-based thought. It suggests that if something is symbolic, it is only fit to be discarded.

But symbols are very powerful conveyors of ideas (both true and false). They are ways of capturing the imagination and exposing it to the teaching presented in a vivid way that will not soon be lost to the memory.

It is dangerous to devalue symbolism, because then symbols are not properly understood, and tend to influence us subconsciously in ways we might not want. Christian teachers like St. John Chrysostom spent a lifetime discovering and transmitting the rich symbolism of the scriptures to their students, so that they would know the depths of its truth.

I can only feel pity for people who have been so inculturated into an anti-symbolism rhetoric about scripture that they resist seeing the symbols in it. They miss so much of what scripture is there to teach us.


We don't know that Moses was trying to convey a chronological history. It would be a highly unusual undertaking for a teacher of his era. History as chronology doesn't start to appear in literature until much later.


Your question cannot be answered accurately as stated because it is based in the assumption that the account is a factually accurate description of historical events.

We can say that literally, no, Adam was not created just before Eve, for the animals were created after Adam but before Eve.

However, the assumption that the literal reading is a factually accurate description of real-time history begs the question. One must first show why this assumption ought to be accepted.

Also, there is still the implication that if it is "symbolism" it is not "true" and/or not "inspired". That is far from the case, for there is no need to limit inspiration to the writing of historically factual descriptions. Symbolism can be just as true and inspired as history. Sometimes more so.


Each of these is worth at least a whole post in itself. All the questions are based on a modernist reading of the text as factual description, as if observable factual data were the only truth worthy of the name. Hardly an appropriate attitude for anyone with spiritual concerns which elude the physical senses. A little like Nicodemus asking how a grown man could re-enter his mother's womb. The symbolism of the Spirit eluded him because he was focused on biology.


Of course. That is the literal meaning. Don't forget, however, that this does not imply that the account is a factually accurate description of history. Literal meanings are found in all texts. And the text can be non-historical even when it is not an explicit allegory. Personally, for Genesis 1, I like the Framework Interpretation, which actually works well with both a historicist and non-historicist position.


Right again. The author of these passages was writing to an Jewish population under siege from an ascendant Babylonian empire, culturally as well as militarily. So he firmed up the traditional observation of the Sabbath by grounding it in creation. The writer of Deuteronomy, by contrast, links the Sabbath with the exodus from Egypt. This may represent an earlier tradition.



That is really quoting out of context. Jesus was speaking of greed and hypocrisy, not the interpretation of scripture.


Well, now you are moving on to a different conversation. To deal with this properly, I would have to insist that you actually learn what the theory of evolution is and how it has been substantiated by mountains of evidence. As long as you speak from a basis of delusions about evolution, there is little hope for communication.

We are, in fact, living under the physical law of evolution. And I submit that any theology of creation that does not take into account the actual nature of the created order is probably deficient as a theology. And therefore, probably misreading the scriptural accounts of creation.


Unless you have credentials in physics that you have not disclosed, I expect most of your information about radiometric dating is also based on delusions. It is, unfortunately, very easy to make pseudo-scientific nonsense sound scientifically valid to people who have little or no expertise in science.

Some sound grounding in science usually shows up the worthlessness of presentations such as these.

First of all, I never said the first five books are allegory. Secondly, the commentary mentioned that deals with the creation accounts as allegory is not necessarily "custom", so I have no idea where you got that from.







If one considers certain items to be allegory, that no more "alters" Torah any more than considering Jesus' parables to be not necessarily taken as literal events as "altering" the N.T.





First of all, something you should know about this website is that we really try not going around trashing each other's religion or philosophical beliefs. If you wish to do so, let me recommend you abandon this forum and go elsewhere. Even though one may disagree with another's religion that doesn't mean that one should stereotype it and condemn it, nor should one demean and trash another person here.

This site has been a very nice one because people here are respectful of one another and of their beliefs. I pretty much can tell you right up front that if you continue to post items as judgmental and demeaning as this one, people will begin to ignore you. I don't care if one is Jewish, Christian, or Whatever, respect is something that permeates most faiths and philosophical teachings.





Not worthy of comment other than to say that you've not only condemned an entire religion, but all the members of that faith as well.






An allegory is not the same as a lie. On top of that, I never gave you any "advise" on this-- only an opinion.





I wasn't selling.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

As I said, the assumption again would be yours indeed. As, IN FACT, the words of scripture that are in use today, are translated from the 'Septuagint' Old Testament which was translated form the original Hebrew text, and in fact was that which was "primarily" referenced by the authors of the New Testament, which by majority (some 5200 copies), that are accounted for was written in 'Koine Greek', the universal language of the 1st century. And this cannon process of keeping the translations almost 'verbatim' can be validated by the fact of the discovery made when the "Dead Sea Scrolls' were found, in tact and containing this same translation (The Septuagint) of 'ENTIRE" books of the Old Testament, proving that the same cannon process kept in tact for a period of over some 1000 years the original truths found in the scriptures. Simply because up until the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest known copies of entire books of the Old Testament were dated in the 7th century AD, and with the Dead Sea Scrolls containing verified dates, some of which date to 400 BC, with the words found practically "unchanged" indeed confirms that the cannon process kept the scripts intact.

Also, it would be up to you to prove that a 'true translation' into any known language would demonstrate a loss to the truth presented in modern translations, your assumptions are merely that, ASSUMPTIONS. Its very easy to compare the Koine Greek to modern translations. Thus, all you would have to do is present a passage by passage example of just what "truth" has been found lacking in our modern translations which are in fact based upon the very same Septuagint quoted and referenced by the Saints, such as Peter, John, Paul, etc. We shall be patiently awaiting this "PROOF", in something other than your "OPINION".

As I said, its a very easy thing to make a comparative finding of factual demonstration of adhering to the original text. In fact we find the words presented in my translation of choice (The New American Standard) to be of the exact same understanding of any of the other true translations. They have though the course of history been a few spelling errors, and a very few misplaced words, but as said earlier, the variance maintained a .5% factor of staying in compliance with the original text, offered in the Septuagint, that has been dated between the 3rd and 4th century BC. Another thing that I personally find interesting is the insistence that some of the translations, especially the cannon, are found lacking, and this justifies some more modern interpretation of the truth, that was once delivered by the Saints.--Jude 1:3 Many such denominations must present this OPINION to continue to hold on to their misrepresented ideologies concerning the word of God. Some that claim to have more modern revelations, claim to have the only true word of God, yet declare that their faith is only a continual new revelation from God. But the New Testament indeed does not demonstrate the reality of such claims as MORE revelations to come, when it declares that ALL truth was presented to the Saints of the 1st century, thus the fact of logic declares that ALL of anything can only be presented ONE TIME.

And by what Authority do you declare that a person MUST have a degree of any example to believe the words of God over the idea's of men, very liberal of you to DEMAND such a thing indeed, as I stated before. I would rather accept the word of God over the THEORIES of Men, especially from those that cannot even define by what process the human body is quickened , as by example LIFE has never been a product of demonstration in any experiment. Yet we are to accept all their idea's about where this LIFE comes from and what gestates it? And you DEMAND AS MUCH....really? I do notice ONE THING, it is "YOU" that must go to other sources in an attempt to validate your example of truth, as you refuse to stay withing the declared example of God's truth...the HOLY SCRIPTURES. I DO NOT HAVE TO GO ELSEWHERE TO DECLARE MY FAITH, for indeed I can prove what I believe via the Words of Gods revelation, of which we are commanded to be sanctified in, for this the place where the truth is declared and to be found, THE WORDS OF GOD, not in some man made textbook---John 17:17.

I will give you the same respect, Thanks but no Thanks, as I accept Gods words as truth, and mans idea's as just that...IDEAS, THAT CANNOT BE PROVEN, only speculated. As I said before, you must first PROVE your position that is now only validated by the ideology of THEORY, and not with FACTS, if it were true then perhaps, you might have some validity in making such ABSURD claims, and present them as FACTS, which indeed they have not been proven as such. When it is you that presents theory only as superior to Gods words, and declare by demand that I must accept them? And you call what I presented as Pseudo? When the information indeed came from known valid scientific sources? Again, really? Have a good day. When you can PROVE though the LAW OF EVOLUTION that which you espouse as truth, do not fail to address me, I will indeed been a knee to the intelligence that you currently claim, but can not prove. RWB

Since I said nothing at all about translations, I don't know why you raise the subject or lay a burden of proof on me.




I never made that declaration either. However, if you presume to instruct anyone on radiometry, I expect you to have studied the physics well enough (even as an amateur) to explain it properly and not be an unwitting purveyor of pseudo-science. For example, the link you posted spoke of radio carbon being used to date a dinosaur bone and limestone--something anyone who has studied the topic would know cannot be done.


Again, I do not know how you notice this, since I have not referred to any other source.


As I said, I would first have to insist that you rid yourself of the false notions you have absorbed about evolution and learn it from scratch. Then you would have the basic information you need to evaluate the evidence.

The Hebrew word for "day" is "yom". Also, the final day of the week (Shabbat) is from Friday night sundown to Saturday night sundown.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

It doesn't disprove religion because it is one of the reasons I believe in God.

__________________
"I fully comprehended the power of the human mind at the exact moment I came to the realization that I'm totally insane and have no idea what I'm talking about."