Allegory in the Bible and Creationism

[Erasmus00]

Rather then post this in another thread, I thought I'd ask the question here. Allegory in the bible is everywhere, especially the new testament where Jesus often speaks in parables. Why then should we take the creation story to be literal, and not allegorical, truth?

-Will

[Southtown]

Good question. I think the answer lies in how the NT writers interpreted it, being Jewish themselves. Unless evidence backs it up, the bible will remain the sole interpreter of itself. So far I think it's pretty dead on...

“

This is now, beloved, the second epistle that I write unto you; and in both of them I stir up your sincere mind by putting you in remembrance; that ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandments of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles: knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for, from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”

—

2 Peter 3:2-7 asv

[TRoutMac]

Rather then post this in another thread, I thought I'd ask the question here. Allegory in the bible is everywhere, especially the new testament where Jesus often speaks in parables. Why then should we take the creation story to be literal, and not allegorical, truth?

 

Allegory in the Bible exists, true. But where it exists, it is identified as such. In addition, studying the Bible in the proper historical context reveals what were common idioms and figures of speech at that time and what was not, which adds another layer of support. Southtown is also quite correct to say that interpretations of the Genesis account within the New Testament provide reinforcement for the idea that it should be taken literally. Understand, none of this proves the veracity of the Bible… ultimately, that is taken on faith.

 

As you know, I relish the opportunity to point out instances where people who would criticize, for example, Intelligent Design as an "argument from ignorance" or a "God of the Gaps" theory make exactly that mistake when looking at, for example, the Bible. And this is just such an instance. It would seem that many people, perhaps you included, when faced with a text for which they believe they have no logical explanation for automatically shove it into the category of "allegory". If you don't understand it or cannot conceive of it, then it must be allegory. Argument from ignorance.

[Erasmus00]

Allegory in the Bible exists, true. But where it exists, it is identified as such.

 

Certianly there are times where it IS identified as such. However, there may be other allergories that aren't immediately identified.

 

And this is just such an instance. It would seem that many people, perhaps you included, when faced with a text for which they believe they have no logical explanation for automatically shove it into the category of "allegory". If you don't understand it or cannot conceive of it, then it must be allegory. Argument from ignorance.

 

No. My argument isn't one from ignorance. I look at the bible as largely a book about how to live your life, morals, ethics. It's primary purpose, it would seem, is not historical. As such, a creation allegory could be more powerful then a literal truth.

 

Also, my question was directed at those who take the bible as word for word truth. I'm not one of them. I believe it was written by man, and man is imperfect. There are parts of the bible that my sense of morality/ethics simple won't let me believe. I believe that sense of ethics comes from God or what have you, so the bible must not be exactly the word of God.

-Will

[Southtown]

You're right, Will. The bible believers can live holy lives completely oblivious to the origins debate. There is a tendency for believers to get a little more committed to the issue than is required by scripture.

[Uber Dwayne]

It's primary purpose, it would seem, is not historical. As such, a creation allegory could be more powerful then a literal truth.

All though living a moral life is a big theme in the Bible, it does not neccessarily negate the historical aspect as well. The jewish people held records of Geneologies, and held the identity of that person from previous generations. for example, bob, the son of Joe. We can also see numerous chapters in the bible completely devoted to Geneologies. A the son of B the son of C, who begat D, and so on and so forth.

 

Not withstanding, if the Genesis account was to be interpreted as allegory, why then would Moses have said "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Ex 20:11

Do you think that God would have corrected Moses and said, "You know Moses, Your wrong, thats actually an allegory, you should really correct that to say 6 billions years I worked and for that last billion years I've been blessing my creation." Does that then give Jews and Christians a like the justification to sit around and collect unemployment for the rest of our lives?

 

Once again, there is nothing in the bible that exemplifies the Genesis account as being an allegory. If there is, I'd certainly like to see it. au contraire, further study seems to dictate otherwise

[TRoutMac]

Not withstanding, if the Genesis account was to be interpreted as allegory, why then would Moses have said "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Ex 20:11

Do you think that God would have corrected Moses and said, "You know Moses, Your wrong, thats actually an allegory, you should really correct that to say 6 billions years I worked and for that last billion years I've been blessing my creation." Does that then give Jews and Christians a like the justification to sit around and collect unemployment for the rest of our lives?

 

Very well-put. The sabbath day was given to Israel as a day of rest because the 7th day was a day of "rest" for God after creation. If the 7th "day" of creation was actually a billion years, then the sabbath day ought to also be a billion years.

 

Once again, there is nothing in the bible that exemplifies the Genesis account as being an allegory. If there is, I'd certainly like to see it. au contraire, further study seems to dictate otherwise

 

Well, I agree completely with you. However, some folks around here are so certain that science is perfect (or so it would seem) and never makes big, embarassing mistakes, (evolution, the age of the Earth, geocentricity, etc) that they'll try to claim that science itself "exemplifies the Genesis account as being an allegory". I believe, however, that honestly pursued and interpreted, scientific evidence would eventually align to support the Biblical account, and I think it's pretty obvious that's happening even today.

[TRoutMac]

Also, my question was directed at those who take the bible as word for word truth. I'm not one of them.

 

Yes, I understand. And of course, that is entirely your prerogative. I do accept the Bible as truth, and do believe it was divinely inspired.

 

There are parts of the bible that my sense of morality/ethics simple won't let me believe. I believe that sense of ethics comes from God or what have you, so the bible must not be exactly the word of God.

 

Well, yes… if there are things in the Bible that offend your sense of morals and ethics, then either of two things is true: Either the Bible is not really the Word of God, or you've placed yourself in a position of telling God how He should run things. I can understand why you would assume it is the former.

 

Actually, and to be fair, there is a third, very strong possibility: that you simply haven't understood [the things which offend you] in their proper historical (and Biblical) context.

[Edge]

Well, I agree completely with you. However, some folks around here are so certain that science is perfect (or so it would seem) and never makes big, embarassing mistakes,

Science is not perfect, it changes to the evidence that it is found over the Universe. Nothing is absolute in science; however, what we have now as "science" is the best explanation we have.

 

Back in the day the conservation of matter and the conservation of energy principles were taken as absolutes... until Einstein showed that they were related with E=mc^2... was that an embarrasing mistake?

 

I believe, however, that honestly pursued and interpreted, scientific evidence would eventually align to support the Biblical account, and I think it's pretty obvious that's happening even today.

It may be supporting the Biblical account, but I don't think it does support the literal interpretation of the Biblical account.

[Vending]

troutmac, have you ever read an article intittled "The Age of the Earth: Ruminations of a Reluctant Old Earth Creationist"? I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the article. I thought it was well written and thought out. Particularly interesting was the idea that either the earth is old or God must have created it in such a way that it appears old to us. You are left then with the conclusion that God diliberately has tried to trick us (or he mis-understands us) or the earth really is quite old. At least that is how i understood his argument.

 

Anyway, the link is as follows...

 

http://lordibelieve.org/time/AgeEarthTC.htm

 

If you have time, i would love to hear your thoughts, since you seem to be willing to think about things. :Alien:

[TRoutMac]

troutmac, have you ever read an article intittled "The Age of the Earth: Ruminations of a Reluctant Old Earth Creationist"? I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the article. I thought it was well written and thought out. Particularly interesting was the idea that either the earth is old or God must have created it in such a way that it appears old to us. You are left then with the conclusion that God diliberately has tried to trick us (or he mis-understands us) or the earth really is quite old. At least that is how i understood his argument. If you have time, i would love to hear your thoughts, since you seem to be willing to think about things.

 

Thanks, Vending. I haven't read the article yet (but I will) but I will say that the conclusion you describe above (that God diliberately has tried to trick us) regarding the age of the Earth is a reasonable conclusion from a certain viewpoint. If you are convinced that science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old, then that conclusion is entirely reasonable.

 

The question is, however, has science really demonstrated this beyond any reasonable doubt? I personally do not believe it has.

 

Probably the best support for an old Earth is the starlight argument. Radiometric dating methods are hardly even worth mentioning, they are so flawed. They are based on compounded assumptions, none of which are empirically verifiable. They are extrapolations.

 

The argument involving starlight, from my perspective, appears to be the strongest argument for an old Earth. This argument says that if we see light today from a star whose distance to Earth is known, we know that the universe is at least as old as the time it would take light to travel from that star to Earth. Seems like a reasonable argument, except for one little problem… for that argument to work, the speed of light has to be fixed along its entire route from the star to Earth, as does the progression of time. The theory of relativity, however, says that (and atomic clocks confirm it) the passage of time speeds up as you move away from a source of gravity. Since we have to measure the speed of light against the standard of time, and time appears to advance at different rates according to the proximity to a source of gravity, then doesn't that mean that we don't really know how much time that light took to get here? Doesn't this pose a serious threat to the starlight argument?

[SakmonKi]

I said this in another thread, but it bears repeating here. An old universe is not inconsistent with the Genesis account. The Hebrew word for "day" can be translated as an undetermined period of time. The word is translated as "day" most often because that's how it is used throughout most of the Old Testament. But it's not the only rendering. And yes, allegory is used often in the Bible, and it is pointed out as being allegory. I think in this instance it may be both. I think the main point of the chapter is that God created everything with little effort on His part. He just spoke and it was. So stand in awe.

 

As far as the purpose of the Bible is concerned, it has moral teaching in it. It even agrees with a lot of world religions on what it considers to be right and wrong. But the main difference between the Bible and other sacred books is that it places the One God above anything else in the universe. Other religions place man as the "main character". Most lead people to believe that they can either become like a god or are gods. Or that there is something you can do to earn your way into God's favor (aka salvation by works) — which of course, is another way to centralize man.