Do you really think that Revelations was intended to be understood literally?
Just curious, how would this be an attack? Wouldnāt it ultimately support evolution?..bear with me hereā¦If the Garden is a representation of Paradise and the tree of life keeps those things in the Garden going indefinitely (before the fall), and life on earth progresses in an evolutionary manner with death part of the process and humans evolving as not Gods chosen - Eden a representation of Godās chosen (without sin and without weeds) - with Eden separated from earth in a spiritual realm, doesnāt that support Adam (not Eve) in Eden for a very long time as God goes about the business of creation using evolution over billions of years?
That would allow for the timing of scripture to fit with the timing of evolution. Then Eve comes along and the biblical historical clock starts at 4000 BC with everything pretty much already established on earth as far as life goesā¦with a large population of humans that are not Godās chosen.
The traditional argument of such people is that (1) evolution requires āmillions of years of dead thingsā, but (2) āThere was no death before the Fall. Therefore, the Theory of Evolution canāt be true.ā Simple as that. I hear this reasoning often from YEC friends and associates. (Not all of them, certainly. But many.)
3 Likes
No, neither is Genesis, just trying to fine the common ground. We had this argument a while back about longevity in the Garden, this was just a new thought.
Thanks @Mark10.45 Iād agree with this in answer to @John_Harshman. Itās personal to me as well, as I donāt write a lot of poetry, but by far the one Iām most proud of compares eating of the fruit of various trees through the Bible: the fruit of the tree of life in the garden, the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the fruit of the tree of the cross through communion, and the fruit in the new heavens and new earth.
I was thinking about how baring the way to the tree of life is comparable to baring unbelievers from communion, or from the new heavens and earth via hell. I see the Tree as a symbol of Life in God, where the reality is tied to the physical object.
Of course, plants would decay - they were to be eaten. Weāre not told of Godās plan, but absent the fall into sin, I think it can be assumed God would have ushered in the āsomething far betterā before populations exhausted food supply.
Criticism taken. My point was that Easter hymns have obvious reference to Jesusā conquering death; itās obvious this is physical death.
I read Romans 8 and the ultimate end of the world comes to mind. This world will pass and a new creation will replace the old. In that sense, Creation is subject to futility. It will pass away.
Also, the whole earth is under bondage because of the fall. The devil and his angels now rule over Godās creation making a mess of it. And we fallen human beings are a pain as well (because we also bring destruction to the earth). The world is not under the stewardship of someone who truly bears the image of God.
And so, creation is waiting for the liberty of the children of God which will come when Jesus Christ returns and redeems our body through the resurrection. This is the hope that all Christians share. This redemption will also redeem the world because it will finally be under the stewardship of God.
1 Like
If Genesis is not intended to be understood literally, how can we know anything about longevity in the garden, or anything about the garden, including its existence?
1 Like
I confused your second statement to be the same group, I see now how I misread it. Thanks.
1 Like
I think the imagery is the same, the inference is the same, the are obviously not literally the same. It seems possible thought, that the tree of life offers eternal life whether you eat the fruit or not. Eden and New Jerusalem are metaphorically similar. Thatās all, I am exploring ideas.
I am thinking out loud here, not stating opinion or belief, but inviting commentā¦
It seems to me that the bible employs a form of āpoetic literalismāā¦which doesnāt really make sense without exploring the literal and the poetic in tandem. The consistent theme of the battle of light and darkness in regard to good and evil is a good example. John uses that example frequently, going as far as declaring āGod is Lightā (1 John 4/John 3&8). Jesus says we (Christians) are the light of the world (Matt 5), and Paul (Eph 5) calls us to have no fellowship with darkness, but expose it. So, literally that would mean that we need to walk around with big spotlights making everything visible. Poetically it means that we need to be an example and do good, ultimately good wins as darkness cannot overcome the light. The poetic seems more reasonable than the literal, but only if you take the poetic direction literally will you get any benefit from the scripture. For instance, if you write it off as just fluff and poetry and cool phrases, you end up missing the applicable direction.
Spiritual darkness can be seen in my mind quite literally. I can sense it and avoid it and rebuke it. The concepts in Genesis and Revelation similarly make literal spiritual sense to me, but not literal natural sense. That God is in control of all, that He made us set apart to be in communion with Him for eternity. Those concepts need to be understood in the poetic sense to apply literal application.
Matthew 10:38-39 - And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
I know Jesus does not want me to literally carry a cross around for me to be found worthy, and I know that He does not want me to end my life, but rather put an end to my āselfā. So I understand what I need to do literally (deny my desires and serve Him) but I donāt gain that understanding without a poetic interpretation.
So I guess I would say that literal in a spiritual sense is different and causes disconnect with a literal non-spiritual view. But that just puts us again at an impasse in regard to requiring faith for understanding.
1 Like
That makes no sense to me. Perhaps youāre trying to say āonly if you take the poetic direction figuratively but also seriouslyā?
No it canāt. āDarknessā can be āseenā in your mind figuratively. I think youāre confused about what āliteralā means.
1 Like
@Mark10.45, I donāt want to misunderstand. When you write āseen in my mindā, do mean something along the lines of āperceived in my mindā?
The verb āto seeā in English has a very wide semantic field, and that can mean that defining the exact boundaries of literal versus a figurative sense of āto seeā can be difficult. But to literally perceive spiritual darkness might be less prone to that complication.
I donāt want to put words in your mouth. I ask only in pursuit of clarification of whether Iām understanding your statement accurately.
Iāve certainly had some personal experiences of observing some rather shocking instances of spiritual darknessāof great evil that was extremely sobering.
litĀ·erĀ·al
/ĖlidÉrÉl,ĖlitrÉl/
adjective
taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
ādreadful in its literal sense, full of dreadā
(of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.
No, I understand. Darkness in its literal sense is without light, I can pick up on spiritual darkness literally.
Maybeā¦still processing what I meanā¦thanks for the feedback.
Thisā¦I am learning that I have the gift of prophecy. I donāt understand it fully. I donāt know how to use it. I am starting to understand it as similar to animal instinct (I posted a question regarding how science sees animal instinct elsewhere), and in the same respect seems like I can perceive things that others donāt. Specifically in regard to spiritual darkness and light, I can observe it without knowing or interacting with a person. It is strange in a church setting and more so at bible college where you would think that everyone is spiritually good, but nope.
I like discussing with @John_Harshman because he is very precise and appropriately skepticalā¦I am also skeptical of my new found awareness, so just trying to flesh it out so to speak. None of this makes sense, but if I trust and believe that God is directing me, I am given insight that I would otherwise not be aware of. When I say that I can āseeā spiritual darkness, I do mean that literally, I can see it on people, but not in terms of color or āauraā or even what we consider vision, but it is rather obvious even on people I donāt know. Maybe feel is a better term than see, perceive certainly works. The same goes for spiritual light. Iām trying to explain, but I know falling short, and definitely not something I can prove scientifically with any manner of accuracy.
We had an earthquake in L.A. yesterday evening. In the morning I felt it coming and made a comment to a friend, but nothing serious or regarding any sort of certainty or time frame, just that I felt an earthquake coming. Then it came that night. That kind of thing happens frequently for me, enough to consider more than coincidence. I canāt explain it properly yet, maybe never will. I think I ignore the sensations more than I should because I am a rational person and it all seems so, I donāt know, magical/weird/crazy/irrational.
You can carry on like this and we can possibly endure it, but you should in no wise equate what you are describing like this:
Based on what you are describing about yourself, I can pretty much tell you that you are completely confused about what āthe gift of prophecyā is. You donāt have it. You actually may need to seek some professional help to get a better grip on what you think you āseeā. Donāt let it go on too long. It could become dangerous.
1 Like
Thanks for the concern, I know it sounds ridiculous, I am pretty confident in my mental stability. Becoming a new creature in Christ is confusing at times, I am exploring, donāt take it too seriouslyā¦I donāt.
1 Like
It would be more brotherly if you can avoid psychiatric analysis of people (especially considering the fact that you are talking to someone on the internet and you are not qualified to make a judgement on this anyway!).
The gift of prophecy in the church is understood differently by different churches and individuals. I think yourself and @Mark10.45 are probably working with different definitions and systematic theologies in mind. This would be especially true if you are a cessationist and @Mark10.45 is a continuationist.
Peace.
3 Likes
My brothers and I are all amused.
Dad was so good at making people debate, people are still doing it after he passed.
Heād be proud 
13 Likes
John, it is interesting to read your reply āI believe that everything you said in your initial post is untrue.ā
How did you come to that conclusion? Is this just an opinion?
I do believe the Scripture to be true and not contradicting real observational facts in nature. It is the interpretation of certain scientists that āseemsā to contradict. We all have our presuppositions. No one is truly neutral when interpreting the evidence. God has never been wrong, but scientists have, even famous ones
I donāt think my understanding of Scripture is incorrect, although I wonāt claim 100% dogmatic certainty. I seek to understand Godās most reliable prophetic word. I take Prov 25:2 to heart āIt is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of kings to search it out.ā
I use Godās permission to search for answers in nature based on Rom 1: 20 āFor his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.ā
(btw, in Russian this verse uses a word suggesting the idea of ālooking/examining intensely at somethingā, as if using a telescope (astronomy) & microscope (biochemistry, biology etc)
I am open for correction. I hope you are also open to be corrected.
I donāt believe the Holy Spirit was intending to confuse or mislead us when He gave us the Scriptures.
God is not the author of confusion (1Cor 14).
āSanford and Rupert are not reliable guides to the scientific literatureā
I would respectfully disagree. John Sanford is more than reliable in guiding one in understanding scientific literature. One doesnāt have to be a PhD expert in every field of science in order to use common sense, logic, past rigorous training in other fields, and some help from the experts in a said field to understand well the scientific literature. John S. is more than competent in reading scientific literature and help guide people through it.
Revolution in science appears to be coming from outsiders, who have a fresh perspective.
Josh is a good friend of James Tour, with whom he disagrees on the topic of evolution but he doesnāt use such assertions as you have made about Sanford & Rupert. At least I am not aware of any. Tour is not a biologist, but a top notch synthetic chemist. Josh doesnāt discount Tourās knowledge just because heās not a biologist.
Both Tour and Sanford surely know their stuff very well and have proven themselves as top scientists & who DARE to dissent from the āmainstreamā.
God bless you richly.