The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

gluadys · #**391** 2nd February 2008, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by RichardT

It's the way it's written in the hebrew. In hebrew, there's a different sentence structure for poetic or historical narrative (I forgot what the structure was). Genesis has the historical narrative sentence structure.

Being narrative and even being historical does not mean it is not poetry.

http://christianforums.com/showpost....9&postcount=14

By the same token, being prose narrative does not mean it is history either.

Hebrew certainly discriminates between prose and poetry. But how well does it discriminate between poetic prose and narrative poetry?

And how do you determine when any of these forms is referring to history?

It is simply false, in any language, to say "narrative=history" and "poetry=/=history".

Vance · #**392** 2nd February 2008, 07:10 PM

And, to add to what Gluadys said, don't equate non-poetic prose with literal historical narrative. You can have a figurative, symbolic and typological prose account of past events.

artybloke · #**393** 4th February 2008, 06:23 AM

The parables are prose, are they not?

Well, I was in Quaker Meeting this Sunday, and one of our members gave a testimony by reading from the Parable of the Good Samaritan, and proceeded to give his interpretation. He asked the question, who, for us, is the man who has fallen among theives? He said it could well be the asylum seeker. Throughout the rest of the meeting, I and about six others gave alternate readings. I asked who the Samariton was, someone else asked if Jesus had actually answered the question that the man had asked, and decided, no he hadn't, etc... One man compared the story to Jesus' escape to Egypt, where he would have been himself an "asylum seeker."

All in all, it was an object lesson in biblical interpretation - indeed, literary interpretation. Everybody who heard that story heard it slightly differently, and came to it with a different set of questions. Not one of their interpretations was "wrong." They all had something to add to the meaning of the parable.

That's what I mean when I say that the Creation narratives are "poetic". It doesn't matter whether they are "narrative" in structure or "poetic" in structure.

It was what we call in Quaker circles a "gathered" meeting. The Spirit was truely with us yesterday.

Gukkor · #**394** 4th February 2008, 11:50 AM

I've always thought that I'd fit in very well among Quakers, were it not for my lack of pacifism

artybloke · #**395** 5th February 2008, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by Gukkor

I've always thought that I'd fit in very well among Quakers, were it not for my lack of pacifism

In the words of George Fox (to the ex-soldier William Penn) "Wear thy sword as long as thou canst."

Not being a pacifist shouldn't stop you from attending a Quaker meeting; if you think you'll find it beneficial, you'll be most welcome.

Ben12 · #**396** 29th February 2008, 09:53 AM

I am not sure what category I would be in but I do not put a timeline on the earth (to include the Garden of Eden) and the universe; or God. God has always been here and will always be here.

When it comes to Adam and Eve I know they are literal (but the message is spiritual), nor will I limit them to 6000 years. Especially the part of Adam that was made in God’s Image.

I do find it strange that science can only go back 4-5000 thousand years when it comes to man in civilization. Many of their so called early man fossils they find are far too apelike to take serious.

I believe there is one Adam but two totally different different natures of Adam in Genesis; one made after God’s image (spirit); and one who God changed to a living soul and later carnal flesh.
Gen 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Then in the next chapter and who how short or long this period is:
Gen. 2:7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Then we get the deep sleep:
Gen: 2:21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
Gen 3:6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat

gluadys · #**397** 29th February 2008, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Ben12

I believe there is one Adam but two totally different different natures of Adam in Genesis; [/color]one made after God’s image (spirit); and one who God changed to a living soul and later carnal flesh.

Interesting. Have you checked out cleminson's Genesis Enigma series in the TE sub-forum. It looks like you two have some ideas in common.

btw, I don't personally accept this idea either as you express it or as cleminson does. To me it requires an unacceptable distortion of the text.

Ben12 · #**398** 29th February 2008, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by gluadys

Interesting. Have you checked out cleminson's Genesis Enigma series in the TE sub-forum. It looks like you two have some ideas in common.

btw, I don't personally accept this idea either as you express it or as cleminson does. To me it requires an unacceptable distortion of the text.

I see no distortion of the text; Genesis is the foundation point of all scripture; if you cannot find reference to a belief in Genesis there is error in the belief. I do not follow religious dogma so no I have not read “Clementon’s Genesis Enigma”.

gluadys · #**399** 29th February 2008, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Ben12

[color=black]I see no distortion of the text;

Of course, you don't, but I do.

Genesis is the foundation point of all scripture; if you cannot find reference to a belief in Genesis there is error in the belief.

Could you clarify this? Do you mean another Christian belief? Another belief based in scripture?

I do not follow religious dogma so no I have not read Clementon’s Genesis Enigma”.

It's cleminson, not Clementon. And it is not dogma. It is just an interesting point of view like yours. I thought you might like to take a look at it because of the similarity with your own view.

Ben12 · #**400** 29th February 2008, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by gluadys

Of course, you don't, but I do.

Could you clarify this? Do you mean another Christian belief? Another belief based in scripture?

It's cleminson, not Clementon. And it is not dogma. It is just an interesting point of view like yours. I thought you might like to take a look at it because of the similarity with your own view.

What I mean is Genesis is the foundation, the beginning of the Bible; it was divinely written by men inspired by God’s Spirit. So if you have some doctrine, creed or idealism and you cannot glean the example in Genesis; then it is error.

Take religion? What was the first religious act?

If you have a problem with what I quoted; then what is it. I mean to say to have a problem and not express what it is a bit vague.

If you want to correct me thank you, but common names start a capital letter.

Besides I do not waist my time reading about some long dead church members opinion; God’s Word is progressive.