ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
He was wrong. His knowledge of science was insufficient to understand the world/universe as it really exists. I suspect if Moses lived today he would be educated and feel comfortable with a 4.5 billion year old earth with an evolving biota.
He was wrong. His knowledge of science was insufficient to understand the world/universe as it really exists. I suspect if Moses lived today he would be educated and feel comfortable with a 4.5 billion year old earth with an evolving biota.
Or else he might have heeded the words of Peter:
2 Peter 3
God’s Promise Is Not Slack 1 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), 2 that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, 3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
[url="http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2872007&postcount=165"]
Well, no. The creation account wouldn't need to be an allegory of itself.
But this question I ask goes forever unanswered. There is no doubt that allegory can be read into the creation account. It might even be deliberate. But what evidence is this fact that the account is not meant to be understood as it is plainly written?
Not only an allegory of itself, but also a double allegory. It just could never be a literal account.
The Double Allegory of Creation
There are three stages for the account of Creation in Genesis: Two allegories and the Reality which the allegories point to: Man as the theme of Creation.
The first allegory in the Genesis account of Creation is in the letter of the account, and here abide the masses of religious people for taking the account at its face value. I mean, Adam and Eve in the Garden being provided by God with all their needs, being told what's allowed and forbidden in the Garden, being misled by the serpent into eating of a forbidden tree, and eventually being punished with different kinds of punishments respectively on all three of them, etc. Just literally as it is written.
The second allegory has still the same elements and God is still figured anthropomorphically, but the meaning of the actions and behaviour depicts a more logical version of what happened in the Garden. And here abide those who can think more logically, abbeit not in the archtype level of Reality. In this phase of the account of Creation in Genesis, after God created Adam and Eve, He granted them with freewill and expected to be served and sought after by them, but the thing was not working. God would have to search for them and that was not the right method. They would have to become proficient and leave the Garden in order to seek for God in terms of growing in knowledge out in the greater world.
Then, among the many fruit trees in the Garden, God planted a most beautiful of all the trees with fruits much more alluring, and right in the middle of the Garden, so that it would easily call their attention. It was the tree of knowledge. But it was not working. Then, God told them that the fruit of that tree was forbidden under penalty of death, but just in the hope that the warning would make them curious and go for it. It was not working either.
Nex, God doubled in Eve the emotion of curiosity so that she would go for it and entice Adam into eating of that tree. However, God had underestimated Eve's emotion of love. She had fallen in love with her man and she would never risk loosing him for no stupid fruit even if it looked the most appetitizing of all. Obviously, it didn't work.
The next step was to use the services of the serpent to persuade Eve that she had misunderstood the prohibition. That what would die in them was not themselves but their stupid innocence and naivete. Then, the serpent showed up on the very tree and somehow called for Eve's attention. As she approached, the dialogue started. To instigate the conversation, the serpent started with a question which surely would require an explanation. "Is it that you guys cannot eat from the trees in the Garden?" Bingo! Eve was locked in. The serpent got Eve to talk by explaining that only from the tree of knowledge, they were forbidden. "Why?" the serpent retortted. "Because we would die," she said. "Nonsense!" said the serpent. "You have misunderstood the whole thing. God meant to say that you two will become like gods, knowing good from evil."
Now, imagine, Eve must have thought, her man like a god! Without much ado, Eve reached for the fruit, ate it and told Adam that it was okay. Adam thought for a second and came to the conclusion that even if it was not okay, he would rather die with her beloved who had just enjoyed half of a fruit. Then he ate the other half and went on eating more. The serpent was right. They did not die. And the first knowledge they acquired was of how much they did not know. I mean, that they were naked, completely destitute of knowledge.
It didn't take too long for God to appear in the Garden to collect the fruit of His enterprise. It had finally happened what He wanted without His having to do anything against man's freewill. Then, He formally defined some punishments to everyone according to their nature anyway, and got them out of the Garden into the greater world out there, so that they would grow in knowledge by seeking for God, which would be the right method.
Now, the third phase or Reality, the account of Creation is supposed to point to. I mean, the Humanistic approach, which is the purpose of the double allegory. The riddle points to the three phases in the development of man: Childhood, adulthood, and old age. Here, only the enlightened with Philosophical training dwells. I mean, the Theist who is big enough not to let him or herself be intoxicated by blind faith. In this class we can find also Atheists and Agnostics but under the subclass of sarchasm for not being able to harmonize enlightenment with the conception of God free of anthropomorphism.
Childhood is understood by that phase in the Garden when God would have to provide man with everything. That's the phase when we are dependent on our parents or on others for all our needs. That's the phase of walking on our four legs.
Adulthood is applied to that time when man ate of the tree of knowledge and became conscious of himself. That's when we actually become an adult and responsible for our own actions. I mean, when we can stand on our own two legs, so to speak.
Regarding the phase of old age, the allegory of Creation does not go into details, but it's when we become dependent again on others, especailly our children to take care of us. I mean, the phase of walking on two legs and a cane.
Ben, what do you think Moses really meant in Exodus 20, when he said God created the world in six days?
I don't think I could have made it more clear in the thread. Moses did not have to explain that those six days were of six periods of time. This was perhaps reserved for us to find out as our intellect evolved. Besides, Moses was dealing with unlearned slaves for generations throughout 430 years. IMHO, Moses was aware of the truth as far as the creation of the universe was concerned.
Ben
First we have no way of knowing how long the first two days of creation were. Time, as we know it, did not exsist until the Sun and Moon were created. The first two days could have been millions of years old. Ponder over that theory and see what you come up with.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk
Psalm 1[/color] and Job 28:28
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Joh 4:23 "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
Try this, sawdust for brains: Genesis may well have valid allegorical application. How is this fact evidence that the events described are not meant to describe reality?
Genesis certainly has some poetic structure. How is this fact evidence that the events described are not meant to describe historical reality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada
Not only an allegory of itself, but also a double allegory. It just could never be a literal account.
Why not?
The
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada
Double Allegory of Creation
There are three stages for the account of Creation in Genesis: Two allegories and the Reality which the allegories point to: Man as the theme of Creation.
The first allegory in the Genesis account of Creation is in the letter of the account, and here abide the masses of religious people for taking the account at its face value. I mean, Adam and Eve in the Garden being provided by God with all their needs, being told what's allowed and forbidden in the Garden, being misled by the serpent into eating of a forbidden tree, and eventually being punished with different kinds of punishments respectively on all three of them, etc. Just literally as it is written.
Why shouldn't this be taken at face value?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada
The second allegory has still the same elements and God is still figured anthropomorphically, but the meaning of the actions and behaviour depicts a more logical version of what happened in the Garden. And here abide those who can think more logically, abbeit not in the archtype level of Reality. In this phase of the account of Creation in Genesis, after God created Adam and Eve, He granted them with freewill and expected to be served and sought after by them, but the thing was not working. God would have to search for them and that was not the right method. They would have to become proficient and leave the Garden in order to seek for God in terms of growing in knowledge out in the greater world.
What in the world are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada
Then, among the many fruit trees in the Garden, God planted a most beautiful of all the trees with fruits much more alluring, and right in the middle of the Garden, so that it would easily call their attention. It was the tree of knowledge. But it was not working. Then, God told them that the fruit of that tree was forbidden under penalty of death, but just in the hope that the warning would make them curious and go for it. It was not working either.
What gives you the right to speak for God and declare what his motives were?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada
Next, God doubled in Eve the emotion of curiosity so that she would go for it and entice Adam into eating of that tree. However, God had underestimated Eve's emotion of love. She had fallen in love with her man and she would never risk loosing him for no stupid fruit even if it looked the most appetitizing of all. Obviously, it didn't work.
This is more outrageous psychoanalyzing of the creator of the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada
The next step was to use the services of the serpent to persuade Eve that she had misunderstood the prohibition. That what would die in them was not themselves but their stupid innocence and naivete. Then, the serpent showed up on the very tree and somehow called for Eve's attention. As she approached, the dialogue started. To instigate the conversation, the serpent started with a question which surely would require an explanation. "Is it that you guys cannot eat from the trees in the Garden?" Bingo! Eve was locked in. The serpent got Eve to talk by explaining that only from the tree of knowledge, they were forbidden. "Why?" the serpent retortted. "Because we would die," she said. "Nonsense!" said the serpent. "You have misunderstood the whole thing. God meant to say that you two will become like gods, knowing good from evil."
Now, imagine, Eve must have thought, her man like a god! Without much ado, Eve reached for the fruit, ate it and told Adam that it was okay. Adam thought for a second and came to the conclusion that even if it was not okay, he would rather die with his beloved who had just enjoyed half of a fruit. He then ate the other half and went on eating more. The serpent was right. They did not die.
They most certainly did. They started dying immediately. It took 900 years to finish the task though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada
And the first knowledge they acquired was of how much they did not know. I mean, that they were naked, completely destitute of knowledge.
It wasn't empirical, scientific knowledge that they lacked and then gained afterwards; it was knowledge of good and evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada
It didn't take too long for God to appear in the Garden to collect the fruit of His enterprise. It had finally happened what He wanted without His having to do anything against man's freewill.
Outrageous! It is blasphemy to presumptively speak for God you know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada
Then, He formally defined some punishments to everyone according to their nature anyway, and got them out of the Garden into the greater world out there, so that they would grow in knowledge by seeking for God, which would be the right method.
Now, the third phase or Reality, the account of Creation is supposed to point to. I mean, the Humanistic approach, which is the purpose of the double allegory. The riddle points to the three phases in the development of man: Childhood, adulthood, and old age. Here, only the enlightened with Philosophical training dwells. I mean, the Theist who is big enough not to let him or herself be intoxicated by blind faith. In this class we can find also Atheists and Agnostics but under the subclass of sarchasm for not being able to harmonize enlightenment with the conception of God free of anthropomorphism.
On what basis do you give this meaning to the passage? This is one of any numerous possibilities when you came make things up as you go along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Masada
Childhood is understood by that phase in the Garden when God would have to provide man with everything. That's the phase when we are dependent on our parents or on others for all our needs. That's the phase of walking on our four legs.
Adulthood is applied to that time when man ate of the tree of knowledge and became conscious of himself. That's when we actually become an adult and responsible for our own actions. I mean, when we can stand on our own two legs, so to speak.
Regarding the phase of old age, the allegory of Creation does not go into details, but it's when we become dependent again on others, especailly our children to take care of us. I mean, the phase of walking on two legs and a cane.
Ben
I see you have an outstanding imagination, but why should your little fairy tale be regarded as reality?
I am disappointed in the great Astrophysicist Carl Sagan for committing the same mistake of most literal interpreters of the Genesis account of creation, as to criticise our People for believing that the universe is only six thousand years old. (Cosmos p. 259) Since He has been dead already, I would like to share with his disciples still left behind, the following piece of wisdom.
No, we, the Jewish People, save exceptions, do not advocate that the universe is only six thousand years old. This idea comes from the need to establish the weekly cycle, which would end with the establishment of the Sabbath day of rest; and for us, mind you, and not for God, Who has never ceased creating, hence the expansion of the universe. But it seems that Jewish prejudice insists on Jewish literal interpretation, perhaps to curb Jewish excesses of wisdom.
Since a day in prophecy is compared to a period of time, which could run into thousands, millions, or billions of years, the six days of creation can very well be interpreted as six periods of thousands, millions, or billions of years.
The order of the days IMO, is not relevant, as it is meant to culminate with man, as the crown of creation. It is only obvious that the sun was in the sky for light by day and the moon and stars for lights by night, to account for the first three days. Anyways, the whole thing is just an allegory to other ends than to creation itself. The bottom line to this thread is to bring to light that we do not take the six days of creation in the literal sense of the word.
Ben
And of course intelligent Christians don't take it as meaning 24 hour periods as we know today either.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
December 28th, 2011, 03:29 PM
Linear Mode
