Paula

I wonder how many “heads” she’ll have in heaven? :-p

When I was working on my NT Letters, I had the impression that the phrase (not just the “word”) is an idiom meaning “This is something you can count on”, and it goes with the preceding sentence, not the following. From Robertson’s Word Pictures:

{Faithful is the saying} (pistos ho logos). Here the phrase points to the preceding words (not like #1:15) and should close the preceding paragraph.

As for wordplays, while Paul does make extensive use of them, I’m not convinced he ever used “word” that way. It is John who calls Jesus “the Word” and thus personifies it. Paul, on the other hand, always uses it as either that which is written or to refer to “the message” or saying.

But I do believe that the Twelve map to the 12 tribes of Israel, since neither group was replaced and also since both those groups are listed in the foundation and walls of the New Jerusalem. Everything concerning the Twelve precedes the coming of the Holy Spirit, as far as symbolism goes, or as I’ve argued many times, there would have to be twelve church leaders at all times.

That same main point about included vs. excluded can apply on many other topics as well. We read too much into things, partly because of tradition, and partly because we presume English upon Greek. A good example on this topic is when in Eph. Paul told husbands to love and wives to respect. He wasn’t saying wives do not need to love and husbands do not need to respect.

This is also the issue with the common claim that leaders must be men solely because Jesus only chose males in the inner group of twelve. Yet, inconsistently, nobody ever claims that there must always be twelve, or that they must all be Jews, or that they must speak Aramaic.

Would male supremacists actually presume that since, in the Great Commission, Jesus said to preach, teach, and baptize, that He must only have meant that Commission for men? Why not? Are women sinning if they “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every nation” as so many missionaries have done?

I often recall the illustration of children in a playground, and a couple of kids are misbehaving. If the teacher reprimands the misbehaving ones, does that mean all the other kids are free to misbehave? Then why, in 1 Tim. 2, do people presume that men are allowed to authenteo? Were only the women, and all of them, misbehaving in Ephesus? So many presumptions!

Forgot to supply link: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evolutio.htm

He was also the one Calvin got the great bulk of his theology from, especially the idea of total depravity; it is a Gnostic concept. Ironic that both Roman Catholicism and the Reformers should cite the same “father”.

It should also be pointed out that the idea of evolution did not originate with Darwin or in his time, but only that Darwin et al made it into a “science”. The Greeks had long held to some kind of evolutionary idea.

Nuttin senseless about it, TS. It’s male rule that’s senseless. And good point about many women keeping silent because they personally are not directly affected by keeping women from full participation of their gifts in the community of believers. Yet it does affect them– and men too– in that the Body is emaciated and has limbs that have atrophied from disuse. “When one part suffers, all the parts suffer with it.”

I give up, Don. I don’t know how else I can say “Please explain why Adam and Eve are literal but creation week is not, so we can use your method on other scriptures to see if it’s valid.”

I’m not asking you to adopt my view, and I did give reference to where you can read links on the YEC position. And I explained that I am well familiar with the OEC position; there is no need to keep repeating it.

If all I’ve written is not a response, then we’ve completely wasted our time and I deeply regret the effort. I will say no more, even if you address me.

Don,

You seem to presume that none of us YECs have ever studied OEC. Let me assure you that this is not the case. I spent years in boards just on that topic, debating every flavor of theory from pure evo to the various compromise theories. I’ve also spent years on matters of interpretation, logic, literature, and textual criticism. To say that those who disagree with you are unwilling to consider other possibilities is both unfair and untrue. Are you saying we’re not Bereans?

And I’m not saying you haven’t explained your personal conviction, but that you haven’t yet given an explanation as to how, from the text, you determine whether something is allegory, such that your method could be tested for consistency. This is indeed “your problem”, your responsibility.

You know I have a blog, and you can easily look up the category on Science to see what I have about that. Besides, we’re not here in this thread to find out why other people believe as they do, but why you do. We could sit here and line up experts till the cows come home but it still wouldn’t tell us what method YOU use to examine scripture and determine whether it’s an allegory or not. Will you read some of the massive amount of YEC literature I refer to in my blog? At this point I really don’t care; all I want to know is what interpretive method you use that can be applied to all scripture, which tells you whether something is an allegory. You, not somebody else. As for my own method, see The Fountain of Truth in my blog.

Again, I’m no newcomer to this topic of the age of the earth, nor to textual criticism. I’m only asking you to explain what it is about creation week that tells you it’s an allegory, while the account of Adam and Eve is not. Let’s just concentrate on that one point, okay?

Cheryl, it might be of interest to know that at least one person (ex-atheist.com) sees any alleged incongruities in the scriptures as paradox. But personally, I believe the gospels for example are simply four perspectives on one reality and that they do not contradict each other; instead, we must consider errors in our thinking or presumptions. The same goes for how I view Genesis; they are different perspectives on one reality. Just as the gospel writers each had a different goal in mind (not different facts but different choices in which facts to present and when), so also each treatment of creation week has a different purpose but all the same fact or reality.

I have also observed that for some people, saying exactly what they believe is not easy. But whenever I’ve had any such uncertainty, I just say “I don’t know” or “I haven’t decided yet”. However, in this case I think the question is “what is possible”: is it even possible to allow that the days of creation are anything but normal solar days from our experience and perspective? This same question could be asked on any controversy, such as Calvinism or Eternal Security.

My view is that I should be able to state my conviction on these issues without being accused of calling my opponent unfaithful to scripture. Too often this happens in debating male supremacists, as we all know. We simply disagree on what meanings are possible. So when I say I believe it is impossible for the days to be other than normal solar days, I’m not saying all who disagree are stupid or unfaithful to scripture; I’m just stating what I believe.

But in this particular case, Don is stating his personal conviction that the days are long ages yet without explaining what interpretive method allows it and can be tested on other parts of scripture, and this is frustrating to us. Another example is when I cite Rom. 5:18 and ask Calvinists what allows them to change the meanings of “all” and “many” within one sentence; whatever answer they choose cannot be applied consistently to other scriptures. Yet they stand by their interpretation, and they think I am unfaithful to the “plain reading” of scripture.

Just some observations. “-)

Post 43: What I mean is that a theory that is overly complex is probably inaccurate. The YEC view is the simplest; it does not read into the text but takes it according to the tone and context, which is matter-of-fact without any hint of allegory. If God wanted to make a list of things happening in order, I don’t know how else He could have put it. Other interpretations require much speculation.

I don’t understand your comments on posts 64 and 68, but that’s ok.

Post 81 comment: Again, nobody here has accused the other side of being unfaithful; I’m not sure why you keep saying this. But at least it illustrates the fact that since you feel we have misinterpreted your posts, you can understand when we say you have misinterpreted ours as well.

Post 92 comment: I don’t see why you think I misunderstood your post 91. But per the flow of the conversation, I am of the opinion that just when it seemed we could all drop it and go on to something else, you’d post again, Just my opinion, that’s all.

I did not comment on your post 93 because I had just said I was going to bow out. But then you named me so I had to respond. FWIW, when I see “there was evening and morning, the nth day” I take it as the Hebrew concept of a day beginning at sunset, not as how people today view such an expression.

Anyway, all I ever tried to say in this thread was that an interpretation method that cannot explain why one incident in a passage is allegorical but not another in the same passage, is a method that makes no sense to me. I look at the context of each (Adam and Eve, creation week) and see no literary cues to justify treating them differently. That’s just the way I see it, and the reason I keep asking for someone who holds this view to explain the difference. Until then, there is no point in discussing it further, because we have no common principle to appeal to.

Just as egals get dinked by comps for “not holding to Scripture” so do I feel dinked in this area by Cheryl and Paula but I find that such terminology does not advance the discussion between egals and comps and between young earthers and old earthers. The first thing is to ASSUME both are trying to be faithful and not express dinks.

Don, I already expressed my belief that nobody is doubting scripture here nor accusing the other side of such. Can you point to something I said that indicates otherwise? There was surely a great misunderstanding here.

What I have actually said is that I believe your approach to interpretation is inconsistent. I asked for an explanation of how Adam and Eve can be considered real and literal while the days of creation can be called allegory, but so far no such explanation has been given. I didn’t demand it but instead left it for another time.

If saying such things is perceived as a personal attack, once again we cannot communicate. And FWIW, I could turn around and accuse you of making a false accusation, but I won’t, because Christians need to learn how to separate the person from the argument. Until we all do, all such conversations will deteriorate into catfights.

Tanx Pink! 🙂

And I’m sure there are many causes (excuses?) for all the nonsense going on in the name of Christ these days. There are plenty of men and women who have no interest in controlling others, but these popular teachers and authors are actively trying to goad men into wanting control, and women into serving men’s whims, all while denying they’re doing it.

God’s balance of justice and mercy will be perfect, a fact that gives me great peace. But in the mean time, I will hate what God hates and stand up for His honor against all who would sully His Name, whether it be misogyny, Calvinism, salvation by works, or anything else. Jesus’ sacrifice was wide enough to cover all sin, deep enough to reach to the lowest and the oppressed, and high enough to bury the pride of man. No one can tell me that Jesus didn’t do enough, or didn’t include women.

Pink, you just illustrated why people don’t understand my rage at this great injustice. I agree with you that while many are deceived, many more are not, but above all NOBODY in this country, in this internet age, has any excuse not to read and study scripture on their own. Nobody is excused from being a Berean! If the “church fathers” had no excuses because they “claimed to see” (are held to be teachers), then much less do any of today’s teachers have the right to use deception as a defense. And their followers, regardless, are individually responsible for making use of the resources available to them. Teachers will be judged more strictly, but that doesn’t mean students are not judged at all.

It’s ironic really, but there are many proud men who boast of their “Damascus Road experience” as if it qualifies them to lead. But a genuine experience like that from God will not cater to pride and ego, but cause pain and conflict leading to a servant’s heart. Paul was brought low, not in a false humility that says “I’m your boss only because God has laid this heavy burden upon me” (which is supposed to garner sympathy), but in true abasement. In other words, Paul experienced what some have called “two by four counseling” (being hit with a 2×4).

In your interview, Paul has brought Doug to the point of pain and conflict, an approach not lightly endured today. The churches have been quite unwilling to confront sin but instead have accommodated it, thinking scripture forbids us from “dividing” or “quarreling”, as if that’s what confrontation of sin is. Doug’s reaction to this lesson is critical; will he humble himself and lay down perceived societal privilege as Paul and Jesus did, or will he cling jealously to the seat of power and go on thinking himself superior to half the human race?

Don, if you can look at those verses and see anything but a literal solar day, we can’t possibly communicate on this. That sort of approach to any text would render most communication useless.

And it seems that any time we come to a decent stopping point for this, you start it back up again. So I’m just going to bow out and not respond anymore, and no, that doesn’t mean I don’t have counter-arguments; it’s just obviously not going anywhere.

Yes, we all have a high view of scripture. But my point is that even when we think our own view is flawless, we cannot say that those who still disagree are doing so for some negative reason. Yet at the same time, we must have consistent and well-defined methods of interpretation or we are simply molding the scriptures to our personal taste. This is a major issue on the topic of women in ministry, as well as many others.

I still would like to see a defense of the method that allows Adam and Eve to be literal while not the creation week narratives. Perhaps another time. Until then, I too remain steadfast in my view that those narratives are literal, since I can see no way to consistently claim allegory for them without claiming it for any given scripture, and also since I believe that theories of an old earth can be defeated with science alone.

in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

Where is the number? My point here is that there is a world of difference between “the day of the LORD” and “evening and morning, the nth day”. It is the combination, the phrase as a whole, not merely the word “day”, that matters. This is an important detail that needs to be considered, as a general interpretive principle.

God’s Sabbath rest from his creating work continues to this very day

This is a common claim: If the seventh day is the day God rested from creative work, and if God still speaks of people entering his rest, then this must still be the seventh day. But that would mean all people, not just the righteous, have entered God’s rest. And it is clearly stated in Heb. that a”Sabbath” still remains, meaning it hasn’t started yet. This passage states that only the righteous can enter it, along with all other scriptures regarding salvation. So the rest spoken of in this context cannot be equated with that of the seventh day of creation. “Today” here is held in contrast to ancient Israel, not to creation week. Notice also that “God specified another day called Today.” Not all the “Todays” are the same.

Reference is made to creation week and specifically portrays the seventh day as symbolizing God’s rest. But note the direction of the symbolism: the literal seventh solar day is a symbol of God’s rest; God’s rest is not a symbol of the seventh day. And God’s rest will never end; the writer has repeatedly pointed out that the opportunity to enter God’s rest (Today) is temporary, but the rest itself is eternal.

I mention these two points simply to illustrate that there are indeed problems with these particular lines of reasoning; they are hardly airtight. But of course we can always see the holes in other people’s arguments better than those in our own. But I will say that whenever one claims allegory, one must make sure it is consistent; hence the charge that if creation week is allegorical then there is no reason to omit the accounts of Adam and Eve as well. We need consistency above all, or there is as Cheryl mentioned a rubber standard. Personally, I would be most interested in studying the rationale for treating the “eve/morn day n” as allegory while not so treating the accounts of Adam and Eve.

I’m pretty sure you did, but ya know what? I don’t even think it’s worth researching, because I know you, and we all say things in the heat of battle that we don’t even realize. Where I draw the line is when there’s a pattern of personal attack from the same individual, a pattern you don’t show. The important thing is always consistency and equal treatment. As long as we live by our own rules and do so the majority of the time, that’s good.

And I’m sure I can say for all of us “regulars” here that we have the same love for you and the fearless, relentless defense you make for Christianity in general and women in particular. It’s not easy; and neither is it easy to always see where we are to be flexible and where we dare not be flexible. I see a great need in Christianity to go back to the foundations of the faith, and for training in methods of textual analysis.

I don’t think the issue here has been so much about OEC/YEC as it has been about how scripture can be interpreted. And it is not at all as simple as “this is how the Hebrews take it” either. One must consider standard textual criticism of any document, including rules of grammar, historical setting, author, intended audience, etc. It is no more accurate to throw out “Greek thought” as it is to throw out anything else.

And I think it’s a cheap shot to accuse Cheryl of ignoring your point. I have my issues with her on other topics but I always made it clear that I would not accuse her of “seeing only what she wants to see”, even when that very accusation was made toward me. And in all fairness, I could easily say that you seemed to keep pressing the issue as more of a personal effort to promote OEC than to challenge Cheryl’s interpretational methods. We all have our blind spots, and unless everyone who makes such accusations is prepared to take them in return, it would be best not to make them at all.

That said, I will only add that what “evening and morning, the nth day” means TO ANY READER TODAY is irrelevant. The important thing is what it meant in Hebrew during the time it was written, and whether this meaning is consistent with this same pattern found elsewhere in scripture. While I don’t have the research here in front of me, I’ve read that this pattern with the numbers always indicates normal Earth days as we know them. And of course, when we consider the Ten Commandments with its statement about the 7-day week being based upon creation week, there is far less speculation involved in taking it as literal.

See what you did to me by mentioning “enemies”?

The power I wield! 🙂

Which is actually a good point to remember whenever someone blames wives for their husbands’ sins (“that woman you gave me…”). Only they really believe it, while you and I know we’re joking around.

Aw, I was just being my snarky self there Cheryl. 🙂 I keep in mind the “remnant” principle; it seems to be the norm. I actually used to worry about too little persecution since scripture promises it to believers!

(Ha! The security word is “pain”)

Tanx Cheryl 🙂 Sometimes I only compare my list of friends to my list of enemies.

No problem, Greg. 🙂 I was afraid I stepped on the toes of one of my small group of friends.

Yes, I hope also that I didn’t give the wrong impression when I made reference to “the poetic argument”. I was referring to the habit of some (not anyone here) to make poetry an excuse to interpret anything any way one wants.

A good illustration of the other extreme is Calvinism’s citation of Psalm 51:5 as doctrine instead of poetic exaggeration. This is clearly poetry and not a statement of doctrine, yet Calvinism uses it as a proof text for Total Depravity. So we can see the contrast between true poetic expression here with the sequential, matter-of-fact narrative of Genesis. And sequence is stated clearly, along with the numbering of each day as corresponding to evening/morning.

Point being, that there is a critical difference between poetry to convey an emotion, and poetry to describe a fact.

Another perspective on “the sun stood still”:

It’s no different than saying “sunrise” or “sunset”. Even in the most literal context, where we really mean the time we first see the sun or the last time we see it in a day, the expression itself is figurative. The figure of speech itself is poetic if you will, but the reference is to something very literal. This is standard textual analysis.

So if “the sun stood still”, what matters is that there was a literal miracle where the sun, from our perspective, did not move. Likewise, in creation week everything is from our perspective. And while we can’t get into complex theories of space-time here, there is no scientific reason to deny that what may have taken a gazillion years out in space, from that vantage point, could have appeared from Earth to take a day.

But while this deals with distant starlight in a young universe, it does not impinge upon the fact of “our perspective” as to the length of creation days. The Hebrew wording– “evening and morning, day [n]” (the two terms together rule out vague periods of time) is clearly indicative of literal solar days from our common experience, from our perspective; whatever happens on Earth is from that perspective. So if Moses was told by God to write “evening and morning, day [n]”, then that is what literally happened here on Earth. Not even the poetry defense can stand against that.

If we focus in on the myths first and line up God’s revelation to these myths we will narrow our interpretation to God’s creation account as seen through man’s eyes. We would then be testing God’s word by the words and myths of men. This is the opposite of how scripture should be tested.

That is the crux of Bible interpretation. The traditional and modern approaches have been “what this verse means to me” when it should always have been “what God said, what the possible range of interpretations are, and only then how I can apply it today”. I agree that the Bible is not a reaction but a revelation. God wrote it for a reason.

As for what is possible in a given text, the common practice of refusing to rule out anything even when the text itself does, is a gateway to error. All falsehood needs is for the door to be cracked a little. So when I say I disagree with an interpretation, I’m saying that it seems inconsistent with the whole of scripture.

If a word or phrase can mean anything, then it means nothing. There are legitimate boundaries in textual criticism, and we need to know where those are. But such knowledge will not be gleaned from randomly-chosen websites whose theories sound good at first hearing. My favorite verse is Prov. 18:17, and it has served me well. When the range of meaning is in dispute, we must consult experts to find the boundaries. Even experts disagree at times, but we dare not call any meaning possible– or impossible– until we’ve done our research and compared it with others.

So while it’s fine for each one to have a personal conviction, it is dangerous ground unless we’ve done our homework.

Oh, and Lin… we gotta hang out sometime. Computers, fast cars, football, theology, despising shopping… I’m game!

And my husband and I are very much alike. We are both into computers and electronics, but I’m more into software and he’s more into hardware (now, don’t anybody take that wrong!). We like movies about science fiction or action/adventure, won’t eat fancy food, and are happiest in blue jeans and tees. When somebody belches we say “Good one!” When there is injustice we’d both like to punch the perpetrator. When someone is hurt we hug them. We’re just us, and we don’t give a hoot about roles.

Excellent point, Lin. I have long believed that the cause of certainly a large portion of homosexuality is the result of trying to make all men this and all women that. I don’t know of any exceptions to the observation that even in homosexual couples, there is a “male” personality and a “female” personality, with those terms matching what society deems should define each. One person is aggressive, strong, perhaps mechanical or something like that, while the other is sensitive, passive, gentle, artistic, etc. And if there is a great mismatch between one’s personality and society’s expectations, with enough pressure or negative experiences, it could push someone over the edge.

Why can’t the control freaks just let people be? How many strict role pushers will find out to their horror on judgment day that they were the cause of much perversion and abuse? It is no secret that many atheists, some famous, were raised in extremely strict “Christian” homes.

And I too could cite testimonies of old-earthers who were dragged kicking and screaming into YEC because of science and the Bible. Back and forth it goes, where it stops, nobody knows…

Personally, I think it should stop at Ockham’s Razor. The non-YEC theories just have too many multiplied entities for me.

Greg, you always have something positive to say, and that means a lot. Tanx buddy! 🙂

Cheryl and Pink, that’s a critical observation, that the Bible is NEVER giving strict roles to play but practical advice on how believers should conduct themselves within flawed human institutions. What the hierarchical types see in scripture is what their “glasses” show them, what they are designed to show them. But if one removes those silly pink/blue, boss/underling lenses, one sees emphasis on particular problems and not Pharisaical nitpicking.

With Andrew Jackson (originally said to international bankers) I would say to the male supremacists, “You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out. If Christians only understood the rank injustice of your hierarchical system, there would be a revolution before morning.” (my paraphrase, adapted for the topic)