My Symbolic Challenge

[AV1611VET]

It's not my interpretation the world is clashing with.

Yup.

 

[River Jordan]

I beg your pardon?

I believe the name of the book is Manuscript Evidence, by Peter S Ruckman.

Do you have some quotes, excerpts, or anything else from that book?

 

[AV1611VET]

ok. Any idea what page of that book his reference is on?

From a previous post: Post 6

The exegesis of St. Augustine is marked by the most glaring defects . . . . He laid down the rule that the Bible must be interpreted with reference to Church Orthodoxy, and that no Scriptural expression can be out of accordance with any other . . . .

. . . . Snatching up the Old Philonian and Rabbinic rule which had been repeated for so many generations, that everything in Scripture which appeared to be unorthodox or immoral must be interpreted mystically, he introduced confusion into his dogma of supernatural inspiration by admitting that there are many passages "written by the Holy Ghost," which are objectionable when taken in their obvious sense. He also opened the door to arbitrary fancy.

And again:

. . . . When once the principle of allegory is admitted, when once we start with the rule that whole passages and book of Scripture say one thing when they mean another, the reader is delivered bound hand and foot to the caprice of the interpreter. He can be sure of absolutely nothing except what is dictated to him by the Church, and in all ages the authority of "the Church" has been falsely claimed for the presumptuous tyranny of false prevalent opinions. In the days of Justin Martyr and of Origen Christians had been driven to allegory by an imperious necessity. It was the only means known to them by which to meet the shock which wrenched the Gospel free from the fetters of Judaism. They used it to defeat the crude literalism of fanatical heresies; or to reconcile the teachings of philosophy with the truths of the Gospel. But in the days of Augustine the method had degenerated into an artistic method of displaying ingenuity and supporting ecclesiasticism. It had become the resource of a faithlessness which declined to admit, of an ignorance which failed to appreciate, and of an indolence which refused to solve the real difficulties in which the sacred book abounds. . . .

Unhappily for the Church, unhappily for any real apprehension of Scripture, the allegorists, in spite of protest, were completely victorious.

The previous study should make it obvious that the allegorical method was not born out of the study of the Scriptures, but rather out of a desire to unite Greek philosophy and the Word of God. It did not come out of a desire to present the truths of the Word, but to pervert them. It was not the child of orthodoxy, but of heterodoxy.

From Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 23-23.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have some quotes, excerpts, or anything else from that book?

No, but here's a review of the book from the Bible Baptist Bookstore:

Presents arguments for the King James text that have never been refuted, including evidence that the phony "Septuagint" never existed before A.D. 100. Proof from the Greek text to show that Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and associated manuscripts are Gnostic depravations from the pens of Origen and Eusebius. Proves that every Bible version since 1880 is a Roman Catholic perversion. 244 pages. Author: Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

 

[River Jordan]

No, but here's a review of the book from the Bible Baptist Bookstore:

Presents arguments for the King James text that have never been refuted, including evidence that the phony "Septuagint" never existed before A.D. 100. Proof from the Greek text to show that Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and associated manuscripts are Gnostic depravations from the pens of Origen and Eusebius. Proves that every Bible version since 1880 is a Roman Catholic perversion. 244 pages. Author: Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

That doesn't support your claims.

Also, I found the book online and the only time the word "evolution" appears in it is on pg. 41 as a bullet: Peter S Ruckman The Christian's Handbook Of Manuscript Evidence : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

So where does the book support your claims?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

From a previous post: Post 6

The exegesis of St. Augustine is marked by the most glaring defects . . . . He laid down the rule that the Bible must be interpreted with reference to Church Orthodoxy, and that no Scriptural expression can be out of accordance with any other . . . .

. . . . Snatching up the Old Philonian and Rabbinic rule which had been repeated for so many generations, that everything in Scripture which appeared to be unorthodox or immoral must be interpreted mystically, he introduced confusion into his dogma of supernatural inspiration by admitting that there are many passages "written by the Holy Ghost," which are objectionable when taken in their obvious sense. He also opened the door to arbitrary fancy.

And again:

. . . . When once the principle of allegory is admitted, when once we start with the rule that whole passages and book of Scripture say one thing when they mean another, the reader is delivered bound hand and foot to the caprice of the interpreter. He can be sure of absolutely nothing except what is dictated to him by the Church, and in all ages the authority of "the Church" has been falsely claimed for the presumptuous tyranny of false prevalent opinions. In the days of Justin Martyr and of Origen Christians had been driven to allegory by an imperious necessity. It was the only means known to them by which to meet the shock which wrenched the Gospel free from the fetters of Judaism. They used it to defeat the crude literalism of fanatical heresies; or to reconcile the teachings of philosophy with the truths of the Gospel. But in the days of Augustine the method had degenerated into an artistic method of displaying ingenuity and supporting ecclesiasticism. It had become the resource of a faithlessness which declined to admit, of an ignorance which failed to appreciate, and of an indolence which refused to solve the real difficulties in which the sacred book abounds. . . .

Unhappily for the Church, unhappily for any real apprehension of Scripture, the allegorists, in spite of protest, were completely victorious.

The previous study should make it obvious that the allegorical method was not born out of the study of the Scriptures, but rather out of a desire to unite Greek philosophy and the Word of God. It did not come out of a desire to present the truths of the Word, but to pervert them. It was not the child of orthodoxy, but of heterodoxy.

From Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 23-23.

ok. That's not exactly the form of argument you alluded to earlier in regard to Plato, but thanks for making the effort to explain your thinking.

 

[trophy33]

No, but here's a review of the book from the Bible Baptist Bookstore:

Presents arguments for the King James text that have never been refuted, including evidence that the phony "Septuagint" never existed before A.D. 100. Proof from the Greek text to show that Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and associated manuscripts are Gnostic depravations from the pens of Origen and Eusebius. Proves that every Bible version since 1880 is a Roman Catholic perversion. 244 pages. Author: Dr. Peter S. Ruckman

Ruckman married three times, the first two marriages ending in divorce...

Ruckman once said that he would have joined the Ku Klux Klan had they not been anti-Semitic, because he agreed with "everything else they say"

Peter Ruckman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh yeah, good old Alabama preachers. They are the experts.

 

[SelfSim]

Ruckman married three times, the first two marriages ending in divorce...

Ruckman once said that he would have joined the Ku Klux Klan had they not been anti-Semitic, because he agreed with "everything else they say"

Peter Ruckman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh yeah, good old Alabama preachers. They are the experts.

Good grief!

 

[AV1611VET]

So where does the book support your claims?

And what was my claim, Jordan?

Do you remember?

Spoiler: My Claim

Peter S Ruckman called Origen a walking, barefoot, bas****

 

[AV1611VET]

ok. That's not exactly the form of argument you alluded to earlier in regard to Plato, but thanks for making the effort to explain your thinking.

Sorry.

It was Philo of Alexandria, not Plato.

My mistake.

 

[River Jordan]

And what was my claim, Jordan?

Do you remember?

Spoiler: My Claim

Peter S Ruckman called Origen a walking, barefoot, bas****

Oh that's it? So no support for your claims about early Christian figures advocating non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 because of evolution.

Then I suppose your challenge has been answered. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 predate the discovery of evolution by a lot, which means those interpretations couldn't have been due to evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ruckman married three times, the first two marriages ending in divorce...

And Darwin married his first cousin.

Ruckman once said that he would have joined the Ku Klux Klan had they not been anti-Semitic, because he agreed with "everything else they say"

Peter Ruckman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And Darwin was convinced that the white race was more evolutionary advanced than the black race.

Oh yeah, good old Alabama preachers. They are the experts.

Let's play quid pro quo with authors, shall we?

 

[trophy33]

And Darwin married his first cousin.



And Darwin was convinced that the white race was more evolutionary advance than the black race.



Let's play quid pro quo with authors, shall we?

What does Darwin have to do with the biblical manuscripts, Christian morals, preaching etc.?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then I suppose your challenge has been answered.

My challenge is as follows, and I quote:

IS Genesis 1 reduced to symbols so that a literal teaching of creation can be replaced with a literal teaching of evolution?

As in the mod dern teaching of evolution.

If I take a course on mod dern theistic evolucifershun, would I have to reduce things in Genesis 1 to symbols, allegory, or what et cetera ever, in favor of mod dern evilution?

 

[River Jordan]

My challenge is as follows, and I quote:

IS Genesis 1 reduced to symbols so that a literal teaching of creation can be replaced with a literal teaching of evolution?

As in the mod dern teaching of evolution.

If I take a course on mod dern theistic evolucifershun, would I have to reduce things in Genesis 1 to symbols, allegory, or what et cetera ever, in favor of mod dern evilution?

Your challenge has been answered. No. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 predate the discovery of evolution by a very long time. Therefore those interpretations could not have anything to do with "replacing" a literal interpretation with "a literal teaching of evolution".

It's not complicated.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does Darwin have to do with the biblical manuscripts, Christian morals, preaching etc.?

Let's just skip all this mish mash.

You guys have tied up a perfectly valid thought-provoking question with your feeble attempts to critique something you don't even understand.

So I'll go ahead and do us all a favor and request thread closure at this time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your challenge has been answered. No. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 predate the discovery of evolution by a very long time. Therefore those interpretations could not have anything to do with "replacing" a literal interpretation with "a literal teaching of evolution".

It's not complicated.

10-4

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And Darwin married his first cousin.

And Darwin was convinced that the white race was more evolutionary advanced than the black race.

As was the social and expected norm of the time. He was from the mid 19th century.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My challenge is as follows, and I quote:

IS Genesis 1 reduced to symbols so that a literal teaching of creation can be replaced with a literal teaching of evolution?

As in the mod dern teaching of evolution.

If I take a course on mod dern theistic evolucifershun, would I have to reduce things in Genesis 1 to symbols, allegory, or what et cetera ever, in favor of mod dern evilution?

There's also the option of what we could call ancient Hebrew, metaphorical, cosmogonic language.

And being that, according to the text of Exodus, Moses was educated as an Egyptian, I would suppose by that internal biblical evidence, he knew how to use the prosaic language of his time to present a narrative to his readers that would let them know who the real Lord is and "who made who" in contrast to what Mesopotamians or Egyptians had been saying otherwise.

 

[trophy33]

Let's just skip all this mish mash.

You guys have tied up a perfectly valid thought-provoking question with your feeble attempts to critique something you don't even understand.

So I'll go ahead and do us all a favor and request thread closure at this time.

If you mean your OP question, that question is very nonsensical to me, not thought-provoking in any way. I reacted to it with a question what do you mean by "reducing", because its the literal, surface, technical reading that reduces deeper meanings. You did not answer.