Examining Genesis...

Calypsis4 · #81 24th June 2009, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by crawfish

Who are you to pick and choose how literally to take a verse?

Who are you to 'pick and choose' to reject what Moses, Jesus, and the writers of scripture told us about the history of the creation?

I just believe what they told us. TE's don't.

Mallon · #82 24th June 2009, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

I just believe what they told us. TE's don't.

Evolutionary creationists also don't believe that the earth is flat and that the sky is solid like Job tells us, or that the earth is immobile and sits on a foundation of pillars like the Psalms tell us.
Aye, we're terrible Chrisitians.

Calypsis4 · #83 24th June 2009, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Mallon

How does citing the Genesis creation account make it historical?
If I cited one of Jesus' parables, would that suddenly make it historical?
Not sure I understand your reasoning here.

1. Because what is said in the plain text is explained by both Moses, the prophets, Jesus, and the writers of the N.T. No one has a right to declare it non-historical when they all made it plain that the creation was literal and the characters mentioned did things that had such an effect upon everything that happened subsequent to the six day creation and fall of man.

2. The family lineage of Jesus Christ cannot be mythologized or spoken of as in error if He is truly heir to the throne of David as Isaiah 9:6 tells us. What Luke said about his family before Abraham matches exactly the antediluvian fathers as mentioned by Moses in Genesis 5. The Jews who kept the archives in Jerusalem did not enter mythological characters into family lineage. Luke knew this and by inspiration of the Holy Spirit he included all 77 names from Jesus back to Adam. It was a complete list that agreed completely with what Moses revealed.

3. Concerning Jesus parables; the Holy Spirit informs us that He spoke in parables. (Matthew 13:3, 10, 13, 34, 35,) etc. That is not a problem. But nowhere do the scriptures suggest or even hint that the history of Genesis is parable or mere poetry.

Any other position is unbelief and it places God's Word in question.

Mallon · #84 24th June 2009, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

1. Because what is said in the plain text is explained by both Moses, the prophets, Jesus, and the writers of the N.T. No one has a right to declare it non-historical when they all made it plain that the creation was literal and the characters mentioned did things that had such an effect upon everything that happened subsequent to the six day creation and fall of man.

I agree that that explanation makes sense under a concordist hermeneutic. But again, who is to say that we should be operating under a concordist hermeneutic? The ancients certainly didn't. So why should we?

2. The family lineage of Jesus Christ cannot be mythologized or spoken of as in error if He is truly hier to the throne of David as Isaiah 9:6 tells us. What Luke said about his family before Abraham matches exactly the antediluvian fathers as mentioned by Moses in Genesis 5. The Jews who kept the archives in Jerusalem did not enter mythological characters into family lineage. Luke knew this and by inspiration of the Holy Spirit he included all 77 names from Jesus back to Adam. It was a complete list that agreed completely with what Moses revealed.

So which genealogy am I supposed to "believe"? The one presented in the Old Testament or the one presented by Matthew? Because they don't agree. Many Bible scholars have argued that they don't agree because Matthew was more interested in presenting numerology rather than an accurate depiction of Christ's lineage. Could it be that assuming a concordist hermeneutic misses the intention of Scripture?

Calypsis4 · #85 24th June 2009, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Mallon

Evolutionary creationists also don't believe that the earth is flat and that the sky is solid like Job tells us, or that the earth is immobile and sits on a foundation of pillars like the Psalms tell us.
Aye, we're terrible Chrisitians.

1. The Bible doesn't teach the earth is flat. I am well aware of the 'proof texts' for this false charge, (Isaiah 11:12, Rev. 7:1 etc.) but those expressions are no different than common coloquial expressions used by writers and/or speech givers in our day. Ex: An announcer for the Olympics; "Ladies & gentlemen, I now present to you the greatest athletes of the world coming from the four corners of the earth". Would anyone presume to believe that such a person is promoting the idea that the world is flat? No. That would be silly. The 'four corners of the earth' is merely a way of saying, "North, east, south, and west."

2. Job does not teach the sky is solid, unless one understands him to refer to the vapor canopy that God placed somewhere outside of the firmament mentioned in Genesis. No one knows for certain just where that is.

3. That the earth is 'immovable' does not mean it is not in motion but merely that it never moves out of the orbit that God designed for it from the creation. When I was a child I was once told to not 'move' from our property or I would get in trouble when my parents returned. I obeyed. I did not 'move' from the property but I 'orbited' the property quite a few times while they were absent. The same principle holds here.

You must consider these possiblities in the interpretation of scripture for God's Spirit made use of all grammatical expressions in the revelation of divine truth as are available to men in human language.

4. The foundations (pillars) are real but they are invisible. We don't know exactly what they are or how they work. But like the great wheels mentioned in Ezekiel we simply don't have enough information about them to go beyond the bare concept we are given.

The point is that ALL of God's Word is significant and there are no expressions made in the Bible that hang upon empty, poetic nothingness. But the fact that we don't have enough knowledge about those ideas that are mentioned does not justify rejection of them.

crawfish · #86 24th June 2009, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

Who are you to 'pick and choose' to reject what Moses, Jesus, and the writers of scripture told us about the history of the creation?

I just believe what they told us. TE's don't.

I'm not the one putting words in their mouth, taking scripture out of context, and applying meaning where meaning wasn't intended. In your attempt to interpret scripture literally, you decide to take something a little less than literally in order to support your overall point. I am just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in that.

The TRUTH is, Jesus didn't make the statement in order to prove some historical point. He was making a theological point, and using a bit of hyperbole to do it (as he did elsewhere). You are putting words and meaning in Jesus' mouth.

Mallon · #87 24th June 2009, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

1. The Bible doesn't teach the earth is flat. I am well aware of the 'proof texts' for this false charge, (Isaiah 11:12, Rev. 7:1 etc.) but those expressions are no different than common coloquial expressions used by writers and/or speech givers in our day. Ex: An announcer for the Olympics; "Ladies & gentlemen, I now present to you the greatest athletes of the world coming from the four corners of the earth". Would anyone presume to believe that such a person is promoting the idea that the world is flat? No. That would be silly. The 'four corners of the earth' is merely a way of saying, "North, east, south, and west."

Sure it does. Job tells us that it's shaped like a piece of clay stamped beneath a seal. Other verses tell us that the entire world can be seen from a high vantage point (a tree or a mountain). That can't be done on a sphere.
And you say I don't believe the Bible!

2. Job does not teach the sky is solid, unless one understands him to refer to the vapor canopy that God placed somewhere outside of the firmament mentioned in Genesis. No one knows for certain just where that it.

Sure he does. He says it's "hard as a mirror cast of bronze." That's in keeping with a literal interpretation of the word "firmament". And if we claim to believe the Bible, we have to take it literally like you say, right?

3. That the earth is 'immovable' does not mean it is not in motion but merely that it never moves out of the orbit that God designed for it from the creation. When I was a child I was once told to not 'move' from our property or I would get in trouble when my parents returned. I obeyed. I did not 'move' from the property but I 'orbited' the property quite a few times while they were absent. The same principle holds here.

The literal meaning of the word "immovable" is just that -- something that does not move. The Bible tells us this explicitly many times. And it also tells us why the earth doesn't move: because it sits on pillars.
Interpret things any other way and you're going back on what you said earlier about believing the Word of God by reading it literally.

crawfish · #88 24th June 2009, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Calypsis4

1. The Bible doesn't teach the earth is flat. I am well aware of the 'proof texts' for this false charge, (Isaiah 11:12, Rev. 7:1 etc.) but those expressions are no different than common coloquial expressions used by writers and/or speech givers in our day. Ex: An announcer for the Olympics; "Ladies & gentlemen, I now present to you the greatest athletes of the world coming from the four corners of the earth". Would anyone presume to believe that such a person is promoting the idea that the world is flat? No. That would be silly. The 'four corners of the earth' is merely a way of saying, "North, east, south, and west."

Are you suggesting the bible uses hyperbole and symbolism?

Calypsis4 · #89 24th June 2009, 03:29 PM

In answer:

Originally Posted by Mallon

I agree that that explanation makes sense under a concordist hermeneutic. But again, who is to say that we should be operating under a concordist hermeneutic? The ancients certainly didn't. So why should we?

Because the Lord Jesus Christ said so, that's why.

Example:

37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Notice that Jesus compared the destruction of the world by the flood with the destruction of the world by His literal 2nd coming. It is dishonest to conclude that Jesus, who wanted his followers to take his 2nd coming seriously and literally, would compare the most important event in the future of the world with a storybook tale that never actually happened. Everything in His language and in the language of the writers of scripture tells us that Genesis is literal throughout. It is history and no one can change that.

Going further, Christ speaks of Adam, Eve, Abel, and Noah in the same sense that he spoke of Abraham, and Lot and his wife. There are no hints that they were not all historical characters whose lives and actions had great bearing on the world and left a mark in human lives unto this day.

So which genealogy am I supposed to "believe"? The one presented in the Old Testament or the one presented by Matthew? Because they don't agree. Many Bible scholars have argued that they don't agree because Matthew was more interested in presenting numerology rather than an accurate depiction of Christ's lineage. Could it be that assuming a concordist hermeneutic misses the intention of Scripture?

If you are a Christian you are supposed to believe all of them. The errors are only in your imagination. Jesus said there are no errors in His holy Word. ("the scripture cannot be broken..." etc. John 10)

But the truth is that the chronolgies in scripture are given are from a different perspective in each account. Genesis 5 Moses gives us the antedilivan fathers who lived up until Noah. Matthew gives Christ family lineage on Josephs side of the family. Luke gives the perspective of Christ's family from Mary's side of the family as it can be traced all the way back to Adam. So the lists are not going to have all the same name on each. End of line.

Calypsis4 · #90 24th June 2009, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by crawfish

I'm not the one putting words in their mouth, taking scripture out of context, and applying meaning where meaning wasn't intended. In your attempt to interpret scripture literally, you decide to take something a little less than literally in order to support your overall point. I am just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in that.

The TRUTH is, Jesus didn't make the statement in order to prove some historical point. He was making a theological point, and using a bit of hyperbole to do it (as he did elsewhere). You are putting words and meaning in Jesus' mouth.

No, I reject that. His words were reality past and He was warning about reality future. When parabolic or symbolic expressions are made we are usually informed, just as I noted earlier. But the body of scripture is historical/literal and we are responsible for believing what He says about the past. If we won't believe what He says about the past as it pertains to the creation, life, death, the curse, and the consequences of mans sin in the destruction of the flood then what would compel us to believe what Jesus told us about life, death, heaven, hell, and the consequences of sin that are mentioned as it pertains to the future?

If we can't believe what God's Word so plainly told us about the past then why have any confidence that it tells us the truth about the future? Perhaps eternal life itself is a mere 'poetic' expression. The position you are espousing is unbelief.