If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[Assyrian]

My understanding was that birth was the main source.

While the Roman Empire was expanding, I would have expected war to be the other main source.

it does condemn the main sources of slaves in 1st century society.

the best i can gather is that warfare was the primary means of slavery throughout the Greek and Roman eras. the problem is that good data, both on slave populations in the cities and source of slaves just isn't there. But my interest is certainly in 18 and 19thC US.

You are probably right there. I would have thought wars would produce a temporary glut on the market, but not provide the steady supply a market would need. Looking up Gill, it sounds like the private enterprise version was illegal in the empire.
I looked up for slavedealer on Perseus Tufts site, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/enggreek?lang=greek&lookup=slave+dealer&type=begin&options=Sort+Results+Alphabetically and they had 4 related words andrapodon andrapodizô andrapodismos and andrapodistês. Here are the Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (LSJ) definitions. The highlights are mine.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%237899
andrapodon [dra^], to,
A. one taken in war and sold as a slave, whether originally slave or free, captive, Hdt.3.125,129,5.31, etc.: orig. dist. from doulos, hosoi de êsan xeinoi te kai douloi . . en andrapodôn logôi poieumenos eiche Id.3.125 ; ta a. panta, kai doula kai eleuthera Th.8.28 ; ta a. ta doula panta apedoto X.HG1.6.15 .
II. low fellow, 'creature', Pl.Grg.483b, Thg.130b, X.Mem.4.2.39, D.Chr.31.109; of a female slave, Pherecr.16 D.
III. as a playful mode of address, Arr.Epict.1.4.14, al.--Hom., Il.7.475, has Ep.dat.pl. andrapodessi (as if from andrapous), where Aristarch. proposed to read andrapodoisi; but it is almost certain that the word was post-Homeric, and the line was rejected on that account by Zenod. and Ar.Byz. (Orig. pl.; formed on the analogy of tetrapoda, cf. tetrapodôn pantôn kai andrapodôn Foed.Delph.Pell.1 .B7. Sg. in X.Ath.1.18, etc.)

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%237889
andrapod-izô , pres. Act. first in Alciphr.3.40: Att. fut.
A. -i^ô X.HG2.2.20 : aor. êndrapodisa Hdt. , Th.:--Med., fut. andrapodieumai in pass. sense, Hdt.6.17:--Pass., fut. andrapodisthêsomai X.HG2.2.14 : aor. êndrapodisthên Lys.2.57 : pf. êndrapodismai Isoc.17.14 , part. andrapodismenos Hdt.6.119 : ( [andrapodon] ):--Prose Verb, enslave, esp. of conquerors, sell the free men of a conquered place into slavery,Hdt. 1.151, Th.1.98; paidas kai gunaikas Id.3.36 ; polin 6.62 :--Pass., to be sold into slavery, Hdt.6.106, 119, 8.29, X.HG1.6.14, etc.; polis hupo tôn barbarôn êndrapodisthê Lys.l.c.:--Med. also in act. sense, Hdt.1.76,al., Th.4.48, And.3.22, etc.
II. less freq. of individuals, kidnap, Pl.Grg.508e, X.Mem.4.2.14, Smp.4.36.
III. metaph., -izontes apo tou phronein tous neous Alciphr.3.40 .

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%237892andrapod-ismos , ho,
A. selling into slavery, enslaving, Th.2.68, Isoc.4.100, etc.; patridos D.1.5 .
II. of individuals, kidnapping, whether of free men or other people's slaves, hupodikos -ismou liable to action for kidnapping, Pl.Lg.879a, 955a.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%237894
andrapod-istês , ou, ho,
A. slave-dealer or kidnapper, Ar.Eq.1030, Pl.521, Lys.10.10, etc., cf. Poll.3.78; coupled with hierosuloi, toichôruchoi, etc., Pl.R.344b: metaph., a. heautou one who sells his own independence, X.Mem.1.2.6.
It looks like the primary meaning to the word andrapodon is actually a slave captured in war. The original pages have links to all the underlined words but I had to strip them out to get this to post.


In the context of the American civil war, I presume you have you seen Welsey's reading of 1Tim 1:10. (The words grandmother, suck and eggs, springs to mind here.)

Wesley: 1Ti 1:10 - Manstealers - The worst of all thieves, in comparison of whom, highwaymen and housebreakers are innocent. What then are most traders in negroes, procurers of servants for America, and all who list soldiers by lies, tricks, or enticements? John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible

These were produced between 1754 and 1765, before the abolition movement started. Gill writing around the same time kept his discussion to a biblical context. A century later the Presbyterian Albert Barnes seems to have taken a strong stand against the practice of slavery in his day and expanded the condemnation in 1Tim1:10 from slave trade to owning slaves as well. I have only glimpsed at his 1846 Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery http://www.tektonics.org/classics/barnslav.pdf

The British Methodist Adam Clarke writing in the early part of the 19 century was as scathing towards slavery as Wesley.

for men stealers; who decoyed servants or free men, and stole them away, and sold them for slaves; see the laws against this practice, and the punishment such were liable to, in Exo_21:16. This practice was condemned by the Flavian law among the Romans (i), and was not allowed of among the Grecians (k); the death with which such were punished was strangling, according to the Jews (l): John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Dr. John Gill (1690-1771)

For menstealers - The word here used - ἀνδρᾶποδιστής andrapodistēs - occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means one who steals another for the purpose of making him a slave - a kidnapper. This is the common way in which people are made slaves. Some, indeed, are taken in war and sold as slaves, but the mass of those who have been reduced to servitude have become slaves by being kidnapped. Children are stolen from their parents, or wives from their husbands, or husbands from their wives, or parents from their children, or whole families are stolen together. None become slaves voluntarily, and consequently the whole process of making slaves partakes of the nature of theft of the worst kind. What theft is like that of stealing a man’s children, or his wife, or his father or mother? The guilt of manstealing is incurred essentially by those who purchase those who are thus stolen - as the purchaser of a stolen horse, knowing it to be so, participates in the crime. A measure of that criminality also adheres to all who own slaves, and who thus maintain the system - for it is a system known to have been originated by theft. This crime was expressly forbidden by the law of God, and was made punishable with death; Exo_21:16; Deu_24:7. Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible Albert Barnes (1798-1870)

Men-stealers - Ανδραποδισταις· Slave-dealers; whether those who carry on the traffic in human flesh and blood; or those who steal a person in order to sell him into bondage; or those who buy such stolen men or women, no matter of what color or what country; or those who sow dissensions among barbarous tribes in order that they who are taken in war may be sold into slavery; or the nations who legalize or connive at such traffic: all these are men-stealers, and God classes them with the most flagitious of mortals. Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., (1715-1832) (published 1810-1825?)

Certainly the freebee commentaries that come with e-sword seem to chronicle the development of abolitionism in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Assyrian

 

[Scholar in training]

I don't know, Romans 12:20 seems to be a quotation from Prov 25:21&22, probably from the LXX. But even if Proverbs wasn't quoted, other books from that part of the Hebrew canon were, the book of Psalms for example.

When I said that Proverbs wasn't quoted verbatim, I meant that it wasn't quoted verbatim in the Gospels. Still:

However Sirach belongs to what the Catholic Church calls the second canon of scripture, the deuterocanonical books. None of them are quoted as authoritative in the NT. Possible allusions or similarities in thought between Sirach and the passages in the NT only show a common theological background, it is not a basis for accepting Sirach as scripture.

Do you read the link I provided? The quotations do not only contain similar ideas, they contain specific concepts and words. Several verses in John are parallel to verses in Proverbs, Wisdom, and Sirach.

 

[Assyrian]

I think this is in the wrong thread.

Do you read the link I provided? The quotations do not only contain similar ideas, they contain specific concepts and words. Several verses in John are parallel to verses in Proverbs, Wisdom, and Sirach.

Sorry I have trawled through supposed references to the apocrypha in the past and didn't find anything particularly convincing, I am afraid I don't really feel like wading though another link and looking up all the references. If there are any you feel are particulary relevant feel free to quote them. As I said there is a common theological language thought and symbolism, the NT was not wwritten in a vacuum, but I have seen nothing to suggest the apocrypha were quoted as though they were the Authoritative word of God.

 

[gluadys]

I think this is in the wrong thread.



Sorry I have trawled through supposed references to the apocrypha in the past and didn't find anything particularly convincing, I am afraid I don't really feel like wading though another link and looking up all the references. If there are any you feel are particulary relevant feel free to quote them. As I said there is a common theological language thought and symbolism, the NT was not wwritten in a vacuum, but I have seen nothing to suggest the apocrypha were quoted as though they were the Authoritative word of God.

It might be helpful if we knew what you considered signs of something being "quoted as though they were the Authoritative word of God." How does one distinguish such a citation from one that is quoted without implication that it is the Authoritative word of God?

 

[Assyrian]

Reply back in original thread http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24481965&postcount=319

 

[nolidad]

Well pardon my week long absence from the thread. With two of my children graduating and not being ablet o access the forum for several days and going to a sister church to helop inst=itute a minstry for discipling I have been busy! Well onto the debate!!!!

Willtor writes:

So, am I to conclude that you consider parables fables, too? (being that they are not scientifically or historically accurate)

Well first off I wonder why you put the word "too" there in reference to me. I do not know of anythiong I said I th9ought were fables int eh bible. But nevertheless in the loosest sense of the word "fable" yes I would hold the parables as nonliteral tales used to help give understanding to truths unfathomable for humans. BUT (and this is a big but) the Word of God and Jesus clearly sghow that these are to be not taken literally but are comparisonms by the use of the words "like and as".

Always the questioning of my motives.

I stand by my previous post because, frankly, I think it is the most important doctrine the Church has.

Well I can only respond to your words and not some psychic interpretation of your words. Your statement declaresd the bible is not teh Word of God but contains the Word of Gthat is serious heresy and is as old as origen and Arius.

"In all the sacred books, we should consider the eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given. In the case of a narrative of events, the question arises as to whether everything must be taken according to the figurative sense only, or whether it must be expounded and defended also as a faithful record of what happened. No Christian will dare say that the narrative must not be taken in a figurative sense."

Is this online?? This is a very generic statemetn and I cannot tell what the context of his statemetn is so how can I hope to understand what He is talking about.

I'm posting Athanasius because he is another example of a father who taught a figurative interpretation. As you pointed out before, Athanasius is not Augustine.

But asd I showed Athenasius beleived in the literal truth of Genesis. I also can give applicative teaching from Genesis that is not the literal but are things we can apply personally form the creation account.
But this in no way takes away fromt he fact thatr I like Athenasius beleived creation occurred just as it says in Gods Word!

The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, by St. Augustine

Than ks for this- I shall look it up ASAP.

As for Athenasius site-- we already delved into this and I showed you why you misunderstood him. He held to a literal interpretation of Genesis in the very site you qoute.


Assyrian writes:

Sure, this poetry is a description of a literal event, but it uses an awful lot of figurative language to describe it. You problem is you insist all the descriptions in Moses' poem of creation are literal. If Gen 1 is a poem as Jerome tells us, then the numbered days are the poetic refrain, as literal as God's nostrils or the chorus Miriam took up about throwing horse and rider into the sea...

First you err in describing Genesis 1 as a poem. It is not! Just because of the sing song style of describing the end of each day that does not make it Hebrew poetry. The whole style shows it to be narration.

Also I appreciate the many qoutes fromt eh OT you used to show anthropormorphic language, and very descriptive. The biggest problem is that you are thinking with a 21st century understanding of the english language and pushing it on the ancient Hebrew language. We see it as figures of speech in a chapter of poetic lyrics, but many of these ar ethe way they actually described events or what have you.

As I said-- for the Israeli to tell someone to meditate--he said to chew the cud-- the context told hiom whethter it was about a cow or about thinking on things. So if this is the big point of your argumetn to say Genesis one should be viewed equally-- your case falls apart based on your lack of understanding the Hebrew mindset and how they used words in normal conversation.

You need to back this up with actual quotes. Your 1950s Douay Rheims does not really help when for most of church history the bible was not available in the vernacular and the only ones to read it were people with the education to read Latin, who would also be familiar with Augustine and Aquinas and would have even more respect for their exegesis than you have for AiG.

I wish you would repeat this several times. I forget who it was but they denied the fact that teh bible was not readiuly available to the church laity untril after the printing press and the reformation.

Your question is really getting pretty weird:show me when the CHURCH itself held to a nonliteral Genesis before the mid 1800's (...as long as it is before the council of Nicaea in 325).

Well that is not my question and yes ytour misqoute of it is wierd. My question was and still is to show me when the church held to a nonliteral view of Genesis 1&2 before the mid 1800's. All I have received so far is a misrepresentation of Athenasius' words and a generic partial qoute from Augustine. Neither of these are declared official church positions. Though Augustine was a very influential writer-- everything he wrote was not church doctrine.

How about Origen?
Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars--the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that any one eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it.
De Principiis Book IV written c. 215

Well I wqill have to look up the exact dating of this book, but I do beleive that was during Origens heretical period when he later recanted of many of these writings. Shall I also pull up the qoute where Origen rejected Jesus' resurrection as literal and ascribe that as official church teaching as well?

Actually there is less of a tendency than you think, Jesus frequently told his parables without any explanations though we have the advantage of the gospel writer's label 'Jesus spoke his parable...' Jesus' listeners had no such explanation and were simply expected to keep up. Even with that, we have parables without any label that we are simply expected to recognise, such as the good Samaritan or the bread of life.

And you know that the tale of the good samaritan is non literal how???

As for labelling-- we don't need the added commentary--the words of Jesus show which accounts were descriptive of spiritual truths using physical analogies. But of far more importance is the fact that the parables were making comparisons showing the physical example is comparative. But according to theistic evolution--Genesis cannot be construed as parabolic because the accounts are not comparitive to what God was expalining they are far reemoved from the literal if evolution is true! Once again Genesis cannot be parabolic, cannot be used as even an account to describe HOW God created or anything at all with origins because it is opposite of what really happened if evolution is true!!

The language of parables is that of a simple historical account, but they are not meant literally

I refuse to accept you are that ignorant of simple grammar rules!

On the other hand, the garden of Eden story has much more in common with apocalyptic literature like the book Revelation with its tree of life, paradise, taking snake, bride and wedding. It reminds me very strongly of the parable in Ezekiel 16 where the cities of Jerusalem, Samaria and Sodom are personified without any explanation, just a Thus say the Lord God to Jerusalem. You could even insist on a literalist interpretation backed up by Jesus words to the 'daughters of Jerusalem'. The parable in Judges 9 has talking trees, but no one tells us that the story is a parable.

So now you are comparing Genesis to propheic vision???

I would really like to see any evidence of writers in the OT or New taking a six day creation literally. All we have are a couple of references in Exodus where the days of creation are used as an illustration for a different subject, the Jewish Sabbath rather than a teaching on creation, and they are used in the middle of a metaphor describing God as a weary labourer. Nowhere else does anyone mention a six day creation, even though it is meant to be foundational to our understanding of the bible. How can you claim all the OT authors as well as NT authors take the creation account literally when the six day creation is simply not mentioned by any other author.

Well your mistake is in saying the emphasis is on the days.

8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

God was saying I worked for six days in creating things and rested on teh seventh--now I want you to do what I did. I am amazed you see any other meaning form this simple statement than God saying-- follow my example!!

As for the authors beleiving in six day creation--that was the truth that Jews beleived and all the disciples before Pauls missionary movemetn were Jews or part Jew.

No where does it say any of the writers beleived in a triune God-- so do you say they were nontrinitarians? Did they reject the deity of Jesus because they did not write the word trinity out?

The only two references to a six days outside Genesis are stuck in the middle of an anthropomorphism from the author who gave us Psalm 90, which, though you don't seem to like the fact, is a poem discussing creation where Moses goes on to tell us a thousand years in Your eyes are as a day, yesterday, when it passes, and as a watch in the night Psalm 90:4. Throughout the OT the Jews keep referring back to Moses and Abraham as literal people, the foundation of their faith, but where are the references to a literal six day creation or clear references to a literal Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, or to a global flood?

Well Exodus 20 is not a peom--that was a transcription of God and MOses dialouging together. So because they did not keep rewriting there belief in a six day creation you say they did not beleive in it? When you talk with beleivers do you reiterate the apostles creed to each new beleiver you talk to in order for them to make sure you beleive these things?? C'mon you can sure do better than that!!!

 

[Willtor]

Well first off I wonder why you put the word "too" there in reference to me. I do not know of anythiong I said I th9ought were fables int eh bible. But nevertheless in the loosest sense of the word "fable" yes I would hold the parables as nonliteral tales used to help give understanding to truths unfathomable for humans. BUT (and this is a big but) the Word of God and Jesus clearly sghow that these are to be not taken literally but are comparisonms by the use of the words "like and as".

Well, I wouldn't use "fable" to describe them. Insofar as we are dealing with forms of literature, it might help to use terms in something resembling technical classifications. And not all parables use "like" or "as." (Luke 15:11-32)

Well I can only respond to your words and not some psychic interpretation of your words. Your statement declaresd the bible is not teh Word of God but contains the Word of Gthat is serious heresy and is as old as origen and Arius.

Again, the Word of God is Jesus Christ. That is my basis of faith.

Is this online?? This is a very generic statemetn and I cannot tell what the context of his statemetn is so how can I hope to understand what He is talking about.

It is in "The Literal Interpretation of Genesis" by Augustine. I posted a link. He is talking about the Genesis narrative. We should be long past this by now.

But asd I showed Athenasius beleived in the literal truth of Genesis. I also can give applicative teaching from Genesis that is not the literal but are things we can apply personally form the creation account.
But this in no way takes away fromt he fact thatr I like Athenasius beleived creation occurred just as it says in Gods Word!

I believe creation occurred just as it says in the Bible. I just don't take it as a factual account. As to what Athanasius thought, I've posted a link and I'll leave it to lurkers to decide whether "the place which the holy Moses called in figure a Garden" indicates a literal, historical interpretation or a figurative one.

 

[gluadys]

I refuse to accept you are that ignorant of simple grammar rules!

Grammar rules apply to all writing. How can they be decisive as to whether a story is a factual history or an edifying tale? Even the grammar of poetry is the same as that of prose. So please show how grammatical construction supports your point.

 

[Assyrian]

First you err in describing Genesis 1 as a poem. It is not! Just because of the sing song style of describing the end of each day that does not make it Hebrew poetry. The whole style shows it to be narration.

Many Jewish Rabbis both now and throughout history would beg to differ. Jerome the greatest hebrew scholar in the early church said that Moses described creation in 'the manner of a popular poet'.

Also I appreciate the many qoutes fromt eh OT you used to show anthropormorphic language, and very descriptive. The biggest problem is that you are thinking with a 21st century understanding of the english language and pushing it on the ancient Hebrew language. We see it as figures of speech in a chapter of poetic lyrics, but many of these ar ethe way they actually described events or what have you.

Now all you have to do is begin to recognise the figures of speech used to describe the real events in Genesis. You have no trouble in the Song of Moses yet when it comes to the description of creation in Genesis you switch to a wooden literalism and read it as a 21st century assembly manual instead of the rich poetry it is.

As I said-- for the Israeli to tell someone to meditate--he said to chew the cud-- the context told hiom whethter it was about a cow or about thinking on things. So if this is the big point of your argumetn to say Genesis one should be viewed equally-- your case falls apart based on your lack of understanding the Hebrew mindset and how they used words in normal conversation.

You are the one who insists that day has to mean day and cud has to mean cud. (Incidentally what Hebrew word is that?) I have no problem with the rich metaphor of the Hebrew language. I have no problem with Mose's use of metaphor in in his song of deliverance in Exodus. However what I did was point out the metaphors Moses used there because you seemed to think it was all literal.

I wish you would repeat this several times. I forget who it was but they denied the fact that teh bible was not readiuly available to the church laity untril after the printing press and the reformation.

Weren't they talking bout the early church when the laity spoke Latin or Greek? You would have to did out the reference though.

Well that is not my question and yes ytour misqoute of it is wierd. My question was and still is to show me when the church held to a nonliteral view of Genesis 1&2 before the mid 1800's. All I have received so far is a misrepresentation of Athenasius' words and a generic partial qoute from Augustine. Neither of these are declared official church positions. Though Augustine was a very influential writer-- everything he wrote was not church doctrine.

If Augustine's view on the Genesis days was official doctrine it wouldn't make any difference, you reject church doctrine from that period anyway, it being the Catholic Church and all that. What we do know is that Augustine and Aquinas were the most influential teachers at the time. Anyone with the education to read the bible in Latin will hve been influenced by them.

If you reject their views for being too Catholic, then you are going to have to reject everybody from that period. Which make a mockery of looking at how the church interpreted Genesis before the 1800s when you reject the vast majority of the period as heretical.

Well I wqill have to look up the exact dating of this book, but I do beleive that was during Origens heretical period when he later recanted of many of these writings. Shall I also pull up the qoute where Origen rejected Jesus' resurrection as literal and ascribe that as official church teaching as well?

If you can find it.

And you know that the tale of the good samaritan is non literal how???

Are you saying it is not?

As for labelling-- we don't need the added commentary--the words of Jesus show which accounts were descriptive of spiritual truths using physical analogies. But of far more importance is the fact that the parables were making comparisons showing the physical example is comparative. But according to theistic evolution--Genesis cannot be construed as parabolic because the accounts are not comparitive to what God was expalining they are far reemoved from the literal if evolution is true! Once again Genesis cannot be parabolic, cannot be used as even an account to describe HOW God created or anything at all with origins because it is opposite of what really happened if evolution is true!!

No it's not.

Genesis tells us nothing about how God Created things. It tells us that God created everything, it tells us why, but it doesn't say how he did it or even how long he took. It doesn't even seem to tell us the order in which things were created, or at least we have two different and completely contradictory orders of creation in Genesis 1 and 2.

So if Genesis doesn't tell us how God created, or how long it took, how is evolution the complete opposite of Genesis? It is like saying Psalm 139 contradicts modern obstetrics.

I refuse to accept you are that ignorant of simple grammar rules!

Your point?

So now you are comparing Genesis to propheic vision???

If the mantle fits...

Tell me, did any human being witness the creation of the world and say what happened? Or did God tell some one. If he did, what is this process called?

Well your mistake is in saying the emphasis is on the days.

8 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

God was saying I worked for six days in creating things and rested on teh seventh--now I want you to do what I did. I am amazed you see any other meaning form this simple statement than God saying-- follow my example!!

Except that Jesus rejected that literal interpretation. Sabbath observation was not instituted because God rested on the seventh day and made it special. The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. God instituted it because we need the rest, not the other way around. In fact Jesus denied his father ever stopped working (John 5:17).

In the account in Deuteronomy we have a completely different reason given for the Sabbath, it was to commemorate their freedom from slavery in Egypt. Again there is this anthropomorphic metaphor describing God actions.

God wanted to teach the Israelites the to rest on the Sabbath. That was the point in both Exodus and Deuteronomy, God's actions, describe in metaphorical terms were simply an illustration.

Why observe the Sabbath? Not as literalism teaches, because God rested on the seventh day and made it holy, but because we need the rest, more importantly, it is a matter of social justice, foreign workers servants and children and even animals need to be allowed to rest by their employers, and the word God used to describe resting and being refreshed echoes the word he used for wearly labourers being refreshed.

Exodus 23:12 Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.
31:17It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

As for the authors beleiving in six day creation--that was the truth that Jews beleived and all the disciples before Pauls missionary movemetn were Jews or part Jew.

Except no one bothered to mention it.

No where does it say any of the writers beleived in a triune God-- so do you say they were nontrinitarians? Did they reject the deity of Jesus because they did not write the word trinity out?

Well Exodus 20 is not a peom--that was a transcription of God and MOses dialouging together. So because they did not keep rewriting there belief in a six day creation you say they did not beleive in it? When you talk with beleivers do you reiterate the apostles creed to each new beleiver you talk to in order for them to make sure you beleive these things?? C'mon you can sure do better than that!!!

Exodus 20 is not a poem, but the mention of a six day creation is in the middle of a metaphor, an anthropomorphism illustrating the Israelite weekly rest. And technically, a dialogue between God and Moses would make the description prophecy.

I do not know of a single verse in the OT or New that teaches us God created the world in six literal days. There are however verses in both Old and New Testaments that warn us that God's 'days' may be metaphorical.

Thankfully, the biblical doctrines that lie behind the trinity, such as the deity of Christ and the unity of God are on a much firmer foundation than six day creationism.

Blessings Assyrian

 

[Scholar in training]

Sorry I have trawled through supposed references to the apocrypha in the past and didn't find anything particularly convincing, I am afraid I don't really feel like wading though another link and looking up all the references. If there are any you feel are particulary relevant feel free to quote them.

The list is found near the bottom of the page, and there is not just a jumble of verses; each verse is listed in its entirety.

As I said there is a common theological language thought and symbolism, the NT was not wwritten in a vacuum, but I have seen nothing to suggest the apocrypha were quoted as though they were the Authoritative word of God.

Repeating yourself does not rule out the obvious parallels between John's Gospel and Wisdom and Sirach. Also, in an earlier post you did not qualify "common theological language" as symbolism; you merely referred to it as "common ideas", which could mean anything.

 

[RichardE]

If I could just add, the Sabbath is also important so families can spend quality time together.

 

[nolidad]

Assyrian writes:

You need to back this up with actual quotes. Your 1950s Douay Rheims does not really help when for most of church history the bible was not available in the vernacular and the only ones to read it were people with the education to read Latin, who would also be familiar with Augustine and Aquinas and would have even more respect for their exegesis than you have for AiG.

I hate to break the news to you but a dhouay rheims with commentary and the nihil obstat and impremateur arte very helpful for they are oficial church books that give official church position!

1Tim 1:9 as knowing this, that law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and for any other thing contrary to the sound doctrine;

I don't know what translation you are using here but it is incorrect--the greek word is andro-phonos which means man murderer not a slave trader. But this is also written by Paul who wrote to Philemon concernign onesimus-- if Paul considered slavery sin before God he would not have sent onesimus back to Philemon.


Willtor writes:

Well, I wouldn't use "fable" to describe them. Insofar as we are dealing with forms of literature, it might help to use terms in something resembling technical classifications. And not all parables use "like" or "as." (Luke 15:11-32)

Well there is yoru problem-- you join with the group that considers this a made up story--while I accept it as a true account. What evidence do you present to prove this is just a nonliteral parable??

Again, the Word of God is Jesus Christ. That is my basis of faith.

But we wewre talking about the written word of God--not the living word of God (though the bible is a living word). You said the bible is a vessel for the word of God ( meaning it is not the word but contains the word). Paul said ALL scripture is God breathed--it is not the vessel for the word but is the word.

I believe creation occurred just as it says in the Bible. I just don't take it as a factual account.

This is a statement that is a non statement. If yo ubeleive creation occured as written oin Genesis then you would have to beleive that Gensisi is a factual account or you dont beleive in creation as Genesis says.

Gluadys writes:

Grammar rules apply to all writing. How can they be decisive as to whether a story is a factual history or an edifying tale? Even the grammar of poetry is the same as that of prose. So please show how grammatical construction supports your point.

Well could you be a little more specific? We have cited hundreds of verses and are debating th eliteralness of dozens.

 

[Willtor]

Well there is yoru problem-- you join with the group that considers this a made up story--while I accept it as a true account. What evidence do you present to prove this is just a nonliteral parable??

So, in your world, there are 3 types of literature: factual historical narrative, parable, and fable? I am aware of other forms of literature. Also, I don't join groups. This isn't a game. This isn't "you are on one team and I am on another." This is serious.

But we wewre talking about the written word of God--not the living word of God (though the bible is a living word). You said the bible is a vessel for the word of God ( meaning it is not the word but contains the word). Paul said ALL scripture is God breathed--it is not the vessel for the word but is the word.

No, I said it is a vessel for the Word of God (Christ), meaning Christ reveals himself through it. Whether we conclude that it is the written word of God (I think it is) is a conclusion, not a presupposition. We realize it is the written word of God because we discover that it is infallible in its revelation of God.

This is a statement that is a non statement. If yo ubeleive creation occured as written oin Genesis then you would have to beleive that Gensisi is a factual account or you dont beleive in creation as Genesis says.

You are proposing a false dichotomy. I don't deal in such things.

 

[nolidad]

Assyrian writes:

Many Jewish Rabbis both now and throughout history would beg to differ. Jerome the greatest hebrew scholar in the early church said that Moses described creation in 'the manner of a popular poet'.

And many rabbis today and throughout history would disagree with you as well!

From Keil and Delitszch:

enesis 1 -

The Creation of the World - Genesis 1:1-2:3​

The account of the creation, its commencement, progress, and completion, bears the marks, both in form and substance, of a historical document in which it is intended that we should accept as actual truth, not only the assertion that God created the heavens, and the earth, and all that lives and moves in the world, but also the description of the creation itself in all its several stages. If we look merely at the form of this document, its place at the beginning of the book of Genesis is sufficient to warrant the expectation that it will give us history, and not fiction, or human speculation. As the development of the human family has been from the first a historical fact, and as man really occupies that place in the world which this record assigns him, the creation of man, as well as that of the earth on which, and the heaven for which, he is to live, must also be a work of God, i.e., a fact of objective truth and reality. The grand simplicity of the account is in perfect harmony with the fact. "The whole narrative is sober, definite, clear, and concrete. The historical events described contain a rich treasury of speculative thoughts and poetical glory; but they themselves are free from the influence of human invention and human philosophizing" (Delitzsch). This is also true of the arrangement of the whole. The work of creation does not fall, as Herder and others maintain, into two triads of days, with the work of the second answering to that of the first. For although the creation of the light on the first day seems to correspond to that of the light-bearing stars on the fourth, there is no reality in the parallelism which some discover between the second and third days on the one hand, and the third and fourth on the other. On the second day the firmament or atmosphere is formed; on the fifth, the fish and fowl. On the third, after the sea and land are separated, the plants are formed; on the sixth, the animals of the dry land and man. Now, if the creation of the fowls which fill the air answers to that of the firmament, the formation of the fish as the inhabitants of the waters ought to be assigned to the sixth day, and not to the fifth, as being parallel to the creation of the seas. The creation of the fish and fowl on the same day is an evident proof that a parallelism between the first three days of creation and the last three is not intended, and does not exist. Moreover, if the division of the work of creation into so many days had been the result of human reflection; the creation of man, who was appointed lord of the earth, would certainly not have been assigned to the same day as that of the beasts and reptiles, but would have been kept distinct from the creation of the beasts, and allotted to the seventh day, in which the creation was completed - a meaning which Richers and Keerl have actually tried to force upon the text of the Bible. In the different acts of creation we perceive indeed an evident progress from the general to the particular, from the lower to the higher orders of creatures, or rather a steady advance towards more and more concrete forms. But on the fourth day this progress is interrupted in a way which we cannot explain. In the transition from the creation of the plants to that of sun, moon, and stars, it is impossible to discover either a "well-arranged and constant progress," or "a genetic advance," since the stars are not intermediate links between plants and animals, and, in fact, have no place at all in the scale of earthly creatures.
If we pass on to the contents of our account of the creation, they differ as widely from all other cosmogonies as truth from fiction. Those of heathen nations are either hylozoistical, deducing the origin of life and living beings from some primeval matter; or pantheistical, regarding the whole world as emanating from a common divine substance; or mythological, tracing both gods and men to a chaos or world-egg. They do not even rise to the notion of a creation, much less to the knowledge of an almighty God, as the Creator of all things.
(Note: According to Berosus and Syncellus, the Chaldean myth represents the "All" as consisting of darkness and water, filled with monstrous creatures, and ruled by a woman, Markaya, or ̔Ομόρωκα (? Ocean). Bel divided the darkness, and cut the woman into two halves, of which he formed the heaven and the earth; he then cut off his own head, and from the drops of blood men were formed. - According to the Phoenician myth of Sanchuniathon, the beginning of the All was a movement of dark air, and a dark, turbid chaos. By the union of the spirit with the All, Μώτ, i.e., slime, was formed, from which every seed of creation and the universe was developed; and the heavens were made in the form of an egg, from which the sun and moon, the stars and constellations, sprang. By the heating of the earth and sea there arose winds, clouds and rain, lightning and thunder, the roaring of which wakened up sensitive beings, so that living creatures of both sexes moved in the waters and upon the earth. In another passage Sanchuniathon represents Κολπία (probably פּיחקול, the moaning of the wind) and his wife Βάαυ (bohu) as producing Αὶών and πρωτόγονος, two mortal men, from whom sprang Γένος and Γενεά, the inhabitants of Phoenicia. - It is well known from Hesiod's theogony how the Grecian myth represents the gods as coming into existence at the same time as the world. The numerous inventions of the Indians, again, all agree in this, that they picture the origin of the world as an emanation from the absolute, through Brahma's thinking, or through the contemplation of a primeval being called Tad (it). - Buddhism also acknowledges no God as creator of the world, teaches no creation, but simply describes the origin of the world and the beings that inhabit it as the necessary consequence of former acts performed by these beings themselves.)

In contrast with all these mythical inventions, the biblical account shines out in the clear light of truth, and proves itself by its contents to be an integral part of the revealed history, of which it is accepted as the pedestal throughout the whole of the sacred Scriptures. This is not the case with the Old Testament only; but in the New Testament also it is accepted and taught by Christ and the apostles as the basis of the divine revelation. The select only a few from the many passages of the Old and New Testaments, in which God is referred to as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and the almighty operations of the living God in the world are based upon the fact of its creation: In Exo_20:9-11; Exo_31:12-17, the command to keep the Sabbath is founded upon the fact that God rested on the seventh day, when the work of creation was complete; and in Psa_8:1-9 and 104, the creation is depicted as a work of divine omnipotence in close adherence to the narrative before us. From the creation of man, as described in Gen_1:27 and Gen_2:24, Christ demonstrates the indissoluble character of marriage as a divine ordinance (Mat_19:4-6); Peter speaks of the earth as standing out of the water and in the water by the word of God (2Pe_3:5); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, "starting from Gen_2:2, describes it as the motive principle of all history, that the Sabbath of God is to become the Sabbath of the creature" (Delitzsch).
The biblical account of the creation can also vindicate its claim to be true and actual history, in the presence of the doctrines of philosophy and the established results of natural science. So long, indeed, as philosophy undertakes to construct the universe from general ideas, it will be utterly unable to comprehend the creation; but ideas will never explain the existence of things. Creation is an act of the personal God, not a process of nature, the development of which can be traced to the laws of birth and decay that prevail in the created world. But the work of God, as described in the history of creation, is in perfect harmony with the correct notions of divine omnipotence, wisdom and goodness. The assertion, so frequently made, that the course of the creation takes its form from the Hebrew week, which was already in existence, and the idea of God's resting on the seventh day, from the institution of the Hebrew Sabbath, is entirely without foundation. There is no allusion in Gen_2:2-3 to the Sabbath of the Israelites; and the week of seven days is older than the Sabbath of the Jewish covenant

I think I can get some qoutes from Eddersheim who was a 19 th century Hebrew scholar as well!

 

[Assyrian]

The list is found near the bottom of the page, and there is not just a jumble of verses; each verse is listed in its entirety.


Repeating yourself does not rule out the obvious parallels between John's Gospel and Wisdom and Sirach. Also, in an earlier post you did not qualify "common theological language" as symbolism; you merely referred to it as "common ideas", which could mean anything.

NT writers do quote from the OT, they don't quote from the apocrypha. The web page gave parallels with the apocrypha, but no quotations, unless I missed one. It gives parallels with Philo too. Now I like Philo, but I don't think he was inspired scripture. So I think we can safely say the NT writers treat the apocrypha the way they treat Philo, but not the way they treat the OT.

 

[nolidad]

Assyrian continues:

Now all you have to do is begin to recognise the figures of speech used to describe the real events in Genesis. You have no trouble in the Song of Moses yet when it comes to the description of creation in Genesis you switch to a wooden literalism and read it as a 21st century assembly manual instead of the rich poetry it is.

I consider them both treasure troves of biblical language. But the song of moses is constructed as poetic song while Gensis 1 is not constructed in poetical style (with the exception possibly being the repetition of the there was an evening and a morning...)

You are the one who insists that day has to mean day and cud has to mean cud. (Incidentally what Hebrew word is that?) I have no problem with the rich metaphor of the Hebrew language. I have no problem with Mose's use of metaphor in in his song of deliverance in Exodus. However what I did was point out the metaphors Moses used there because you seemed to think it was all literal.

I never implied that the song of deliverence was all linguistically literal. The construct and style clearly show us the anthropormoirphisms-though I would disagree with some of the definitions given to some of the verses as being merely anthropormorphic or mere descriptive. But once again the construction of Gensis one is vastly different than the Exodus passage or the psalms which tell us they are narratives and not poetry which used great figures.

I was talking about eh first century church which was pretty much drawn on Jewish and gentiles lines. The Jews would have little or no copies of the OT as the cost of them was very prohibitive and the scribes only copied for synagogue replacemetn anyway. The gentile church would have the same problem as there were few scribes in the first century and OT's would be almost nonexistent in gentile churches and the NT was being written and churches would only have trhe letters to them and possibly a copy of letters to neighboring towns. There just wasn't many scriptures around even int eh fourth -15th centuries.

If Augustine's view on the Genesis days was official doctrine it wouldn't make any difference, you reject church doctrine from that period anyway, it being the Catholic Church and all that. What we do know is that Augustine and Aquinas were the most influential teachers at the time. Anyone with the education to read the bible in Latin will hve been influenced by them.

irrelevant smokescreen to the question! Yes Augustine was influential (as were Origen and Arius in their apostate writings) but I asked for official church position and you have failed to show a nonl;iteral interpretation of Genesis was the church stance. Your throw out line of me "rejecting church doctrine form that period anyway" is neither factual nor germaine to the question at hand.

If you reject their views for being too Catholic, then you are going to have to reject everybody from that period. Which make a mockery of looking at how the church interpreted Genesis before the 1800s when you reject the vast majority of the period as heretical.

I never rejected their views as being "way to catholic". I have asked for you to prove their views became the official teachjing of the "catholic church". Which you have failed to do and will continue to do because though Augustine was a very influential figure of Romanism-- the RCC stillheld to a literal 7 day creation as their officail position on creation.

Are you saying it is not?

There is absolutely nothing in the text nor its context to tell me or sho wme that teh account of the good samaritan should be viewed as a made up story to show a good mroal lesson or whatever. Why do you take it as a nonliteral event? What evidence do yo upresent?

Genesis tells us nothing about how God Created things. It tells us that God created everything, it tells us why, but it doesn't say how he did it or even how long he took. It doesn't even seem to tell us the order in which things were created, or at least we have two different and completely contradictory orders of creation in Genesis 1 and 2.

1. God spoke them all into existence in 24 hour periods! It has been dubbed either ex-nihilo or ex-deo.

2. Genesis tells us He created everything that exists in 144 human hours or six days.

3. reread Genesis 1 and you will see the order of creation.

day 1: light and seperating light from dark
day 2: creation of the atmosphere
day 3: calling forth the dry land and the creation of plant life
day 4: creation of the stars, sun and moon.
day 5: creation of marine and avian life
day 6: creation of earth animals and man!

Was that so hard to put in order??? That is taken rtight from Gods Word!

So if Genesis doesn't tell us how God created, or how long it took, how is evolution the complete opposite of Genesis? It is like saying Psalm 139 contradicts modern obstetrics.

Well this is now a nonstarter as I just showed this wrong!!

Tell me, did any human being witness the creation of the world and say what happened? Or did God tell some one. If he did, what is this process called?

Part one: NO!! noone was around but God!
Part two: This is a toughie--its called COMMUNICATION

Except that Jesus rejected that literal interpretation. Sabbath observation was not instituted because God rested on the seventh day and made it special. The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. God instituted it because we need the rest, not the other way around. In fact Jesus denied his father ever stopped working (John 5:17).

wOW ARE YOU FOR REAL??? You really should look into history and realize Jesus wasn't negating the rest on the seventh day but He was rejecting the over 1600 man made rules the Jews made governing behavior on the sabbath--jsut simply read the context in which Jesus said this in and yo ucan get quitre a revelation!!

In the account in Deuteronomy we have a completely different reason given for the Sabbath, it was to commemorate their freedom from slavery in Egypt. Again there is this anthropomorphic metaphor describing God actions.

Different Sabbath sorry!

Why observe the Sabbath? Not as literalism teaches, because God rested on the seventh day and made it holy, but because we need the rest, more importantly, it is a matter of social justice, foreign workers servants and children and even animals need to be allowed to rest by their employers, and the word God used to describe resting and being refreshed echoes the word he used for wearly labourers being refreshed.

Well that is you rview of keeping a day off--God had His and it is different than yours. Gods could have said that but He said take one day in seven off cause I set up the week, worked six days, took the seventh off-made it holy-now you do the same!!! Now if you can email a copy of your secret dictionary that shows that wheh God said somoething that He actually meant all what you say I could learn to tranlate scripture like you!!! Other wise I figure God knew what He was sying. He said what He meant and meant what He said!!

Except no one bothered to mention it.

Well we ar enow 96 pages into this debate and you haven't once metioned the trinity or the physical resurrection--so you must not beleive in those two doctrines.

Exodus 20 is not a poem, but the mention of a six day creation is in the middle of a metaphor, an anthropomorphism illustrating the Israelite weekly rest. And technically, a dialogue between God and Moses would make the description prophecy.

Sorry but you are wrong-- it is int he middle of God dictating to Moses the thing we call the ten commandments. Now why do you think Moses didn't actually hear God?? Do you think God is a mute???

I do not know of a single verse in the OT or New that teaches us God created the world in six literal days. There are however verses in both Old and New Testaments that warn us that God's 'days' may be metaphorical.

So maybe then when Jesus said He would rise in three days--maybe that was a metaphor for three thousand years or maybe we should take His physical resurrection literally?? If you looked at Gensis 1--it is pretty clear God left no mistake that He meant 6 literal 24 hour days. If you cannot see that then I guess I will do to your words what you do to Gods--allegorize anything I wish.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys writes:

Grammar rules apply to all writing. How can they be decisive as to whether a story is a factual history or an edifying tale? Even the grammar of poetry is the same as that of prose. So please show how grammatical construction supports your point.

Well could you be a little more specific? We have cited hundreds of verses and are debating th eliteralness of dozens.

No, I can't be since I don't see how this could be. You are the one that implied basic grammar can indicate the literalness or not of a text. I am asking you for an example where this is the case.

 

[Scholar in training]

NT writers do quote from the OT, they don't quote from the apocrypha.

Please define "quote", because I have not yet seen that happen. You are aware that allusions are one way to "quote" something in a society without MLA and ALA standards? After all, I have used the words "quoted verbatim" instead of "quoted" for a reason.

The web page gave parallels with the apocrypha, but no quotations, unless I missed one. It gives parallels with Philo too. Now I like Philo, but I don't think he was inspired scripture. So I think we can safely say the NT writers treat the apocrypha the way they treat Philo, but not the way they treat the OT.

Notice that, even though I accept the acoprypha, I have been speaking specifically of SIRACH AND WISDOM, not the entire apocrypha as you have. I have concentrated on these two books because most of the verses alluding to the apocrypha come from them.

If we want to look at a very clear parallel between Jesus' words and Wisdom literature, however:

Matthew 11:29-30 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.

Sirach 6:19-31 Come to (Wisdom) like one who plows and sows. Put your neck into her collar. Bind your shoulders and carry her...Come unto her with all your soul, and keep her ways with all your might...For at last you will find the rest she gives...Then her fetters will become for you a strong defense, and her collar a glorious robe. Her yoke is a golden ornament, and her bonds a purple cord.

Sirach 51:26 Put your neck under the yoke, and let your soul receive instruction: she is hard at hand to find.

 

[nolidad]

gluadys asks:

No, I can't be since I don't see how this could be. You are the one that implied basic grammar can indicate the literalness or not of a text. I am asking you for an example where this is the case.

My bad I did not understand the question but now I do.

Okay here are two biblical examples of seeing literalness versus non-literal writing.

First the nonliteral:

From Matthew 13:

The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

We know that teh kingdom of heaven is not leaven by the use of the term "like unto". Jesus here is spinning a tale to explain a concept.

Now the literal:

From Luke 16:

19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,


We know this is a true story because of the term "there was a man" which tells us there was a man!

That is one of the many ways we can know in the bible things that arew to be taken literally and things that are nonliteral but made up accounts to reveal a moral etc.


willtor exclaims:

So, in your world, there are 3 types of literature: factual historical narrative, parable, and fable? I am aware of other forms of literature. Also, I don't join groups. This isn't a game. This isn't "you are on one team and I am on another." This is serious.

First off why do you even make this assumption of me? It has nothing to do with the question I asked you? And in my world there are more than three types of literature. NOw let me repost teh question I asked you and see if you can have a whack at answring it instead of throwing diversions like this.

Here we go again:

Well there is yoru problem-- you join with the group that considers this a made up story--while I accept it as a true account. What evidence do you present to prove this is just a nonliteral parable??

No, I said it is a vessel for the Word of God (Christ), meaning Christ reveals himself through it. Whether we conclude that it is the written word of God (I think it is) is a conclusion, not a presupposition. We realize it is the written word of God because we discover that it is infallible in its revelation of God.

So as I dop not isunderstand-- do you accept teh bible as the infallible inerrant written word of God?

You are proposing a false dichotomy. I don't deal in such things.

Then you should reread your statement you wrote! For it is you who declared you beleived inthe genesis accoujnt of creation--just that it is not factual!.

Your post #947 6/7/06 7:39PM.

I believe creation occurred just as it says in the Bible. I just don't take it as a factual account. As to what Athanasius thought, I've posted a link and I'll leave it to lurkers to decide whether "the place which the holy Moses called in figure a Garden" indicates a literal, historical interpretation or a figurative one.

If you beleive creation occurred just as written inthe bible then you must beleive it is factual as written otherwise you do not beleive it occurred as written int he bible!

The bible is clear that creation occurred by God simply speaking things into existence in 6 24 hour days approximately 6,000 years ago. That is what is written. If you beleive in somoething else- then whatr you beleive is your interporetation of the words written and not the words that are written.

 

[Assyrian]

I hate to break the news to you but a dhouay rheims with commentary and the nihil obstat and impremateur arte very helpful for they are oficial church books that give official church position!

You still haven't backed you claim up with any quotations, and you could also do with learning what Nihil obstat and Imprimatur mean.

I don't know what translation you are using here but it is incorrect--the greek word is andro-phonos which means man murderer not a slave trader. But this is also written by Paul who wrote to Philemon concernign onesimus-- if Paul considered slavery sin before God he would not have sent onesimus back to Philemon.

The translation is the WEB, the ESV say enslavers. The Greek word is andrapodistēs, the one you mentioned, androphonos, comes from the previous verse, manslayers or murderers. As for Onesimus, what do you think the phrase no longer as a slave (Philemon 1:16) means?

And many rabbis today and throughout history would disagree with you as well!

From Keil and Delitszch:

enesis 1 -

The Creation of the World - Genesis 1:1-2:3​

The account of the creation...There is no allusion in Gen_2:2-3 to the Sabbath of the Israelites; and the week of seven days is older than the Sabbath of the Jewish covenant

I think I can get some qoutes from Eddersheim who was a 19 th century Hebrew scholar as well!

I am not sure the reason for the long spiel from K&D, we were talking about Jewish Rabbis not Jewish Christian commentators. The Talmud describes Genesis 1 as a poem, and modern Rabbis both conservative and liberal have the same view.

Did you know Delitzsch wrote another commentary in 1897 the New Commentary on Genesis? Apparently he changed his mind and went in for non literal 'analogical days' interpretation of Gen 1 as well as a local flood.

I consider them both treasure troves of biblical language. But the song of moses is constructed as poetic song while Gensis 1 is not constructed in poetical style (with the exception possibly being the repetition of the there was an evening and a morning...)

You think that was the only repetition? The evening and mornings are just the chorus, the whole thing is poetic.

I never implied that the song of deliverence was all linguistically literal. The construct and style clearly show us the anthropormoirphisms-though I would disagree with some of the definitions given to some of the verses as being merely anthropormorphic or mere descriptive. But once again the construction of Gensis one is vastly different than the Exodus passage or the psalms which tell us they are narratives and not poetry which used great figures.

I am not sure I described anything as 'merelyanthropomorphic' or 'mere descriptive'.

I pointed out some of the testimony to the poetic character of Genesis. You said even if he did does that make poetic style of writing nonliteral and gave the example of the song of Moses, which while it described a literal event, did so in some very figurative language.

What I find fascinating is the way YECs read figurative language and take it in their stride. They don't even notice that it is figurative and that they are interpreting it figuratively. Which is the way it should be. But then they come to a passage like Genesis 1 that they have been told has to be interpreted literally, and all the subtlety of their linguistic abilities disappears out the window.

I was talking about eh first century church which was pretty much drawn on Jewish and gentiles lines. The Jews would have little or no copies of the OT as the cost of them was very prohibitive and the scribes only copied for synagogue replacemetn anyway. The gentile church would have the same problem as there were few scribes in the first century and OT's would be almost nonexistent in gentile churches and the NT was being written and churches would only have trhe letters to them and possibly a copy of letters to neighboring towns. There just wasn't many scriptures around even int eh fourth -15th centuries.

Then we were talking about very different things, You were talking of the availability of copies of scriptures in the first century, though at least the copies available were understood by the people in the congregation listening to them. I was talking about the Dark and Middle Ages when the problem was that most people didn't even speak the same language the scriptures were in. You had to be educated to read Latin.

irrelevant smokescreen to the question! Yes Augustine was influential (as were Origen and Arius in their apostate writings) but I asked for official church position and you have failed to show a nonl;iteral interpretation of Genesis was the church stance. Your throw out line of me "rejecting church doctrine form that period anyway" is neither factual nor germaine to the question at hand.

Talk of the smog call the kettle steamy. You rejected Augustine's testimony because his heretical teachings led the church into the dark ages, but you do want the church's official position.

In fact you didn't start off asking for the official position, you just wanted the predominant view. It is only when we showed you that Augustine and Aquinas's views were the predominant view throughout most of church history that you start asking for the official view. The Catholic Church doesn't have an official view on how to interpret the days in Genesis, it is not a matter of dogma. But the predominant view would have followed Augustine and Aquinas.

Incidentally you keep up your slur against Origen, linking him with Arius now, but you still haven't backed up your claim.

I never rejected their views as being "way to catholic". I have asked for you to prove their views became the official teachjing of the "catholic church". Which you have failed to do and will continue to do because though Augustine was a very influential figure of Romanism-- the RCC stillheld to a literal 7 day creation as their officail position on creation.

Based entirely on your misreading of nihil obstat and imprimatur.

There is absolutely nothing in the text nor its context to tell me or sho wme that teh account of the good samaritan should be viewed as a made up story to show a good mroal lesson or whatever. Why do you take it as a nonliteral event? What evidence do yo upresent?

You need to learn to recognise parable and figurative language in the bible through familiarity, the way the disciples learned, listening to Jesus teach. If you try to rely on a set of grammatical rules they will fail you, as they do now when you look at the parable of the good Samaritan.

1. God spoke them all into existence in 24 hour periods!

Where does it say that?

It has been dubbed either ex-nihilo or ex-deo.

Sounds like your teachings come from Medieval Church Latin rather than from scripture here. Tell me which living creatures does Genesis say were created ex nihilo?

2. Genesis tells us He created everything that exists in 144 human hours or six days.

No it doesn't.

3. reread Genesis 1 and you will see the order of creation.

day 1: light and seperating light from dark
day 2: creation of the atmosphere
day 3: calling forth the dry land and the creation of plant life
day 4: creation of the stars, sun and moon.
day 5: creation of marine and avian life
day 6: creation of earth animals and man!

Was that so hard to put in order??? That is taken rtight from Gods Word!

Yes the order in that account is very clear, plants, animals, man and woman.

Then we read Genesis 2. The order is very clear here too: man, plants, animals and then woman.

Well this is now a nonstarter as I just showed this wrong!!

Not very successfully. Would you please show us how God created living species in Genesis, and how that contradicts evolution?

Part one: NO!! noone was around but God!
Part two: This is a toughie--its called COMMUNICATION

And what do we call it when God communicates to us through a prophet like Moses?

wOW ARE YOU FOR REAL??? You really should look into history and realize Jesus wasn't negating the rest on the seventh day but He was rejecting the over 1600 man made rules the Jews made governing behavior on the sabbath--jsut simply read the context in which Jesus said this in and yo ucan get quitre a revelation!!

That might have been the way you would deal with the accumulation of human tradition, but Jesus went much deeper and overturned the literalist interpretation that gave rise to those 1600 rules.

The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath Mark 2:27. Does that contradict some man made rule? Or the literal reading of Exodus 20:8-11 that we rest because God rested on the seventh day and made it holy? Jesus said he and his father never stopped working John 5:17 "My Father is working until now, and I am working." What particular man made rule did that contradict? Or was he saying God did not literally stop working and have a rest on the seventh day?

Different Sabbath sorry!

The same ten commandments. It is interesting that while the days of creation are given as an illustration for the Jewish sabbath in Exodus, when Moses repeats the ten commandments in Deuteronomy, he gives a completely different reason for it. Apparently, what was being taught was Sabbath observance, the six 'days' of creation and the freedom from captivity were simply illustrations. Which means there is nowhere that actually teaches a literal six day creation, it is simply used as a metaphorical illustration to teach something else.

Well that is you rview of keeping a day off--God had His and it is different than yours. Gods could have said that but He said take one day in seven off cause I set up the week, worked six days, took the seventh off-made it holy-now you do the same!!! Now if you can email a copy of your secret dictionary that shows that wheh God said somoething that He actually meant all what you say I could learn to tranlate scripture like you!!! Other wise I figure God knew what He was sying. He said what He meant and meant what He said!!

No secret dictionary, just the book of Hebrews which tells us the real Sabbath, God's seventh day rest, is a rest we can enter into by faith today, not a day off God took 6000 years ago.

It is such a great sound bite, God said what he meant and meant what he said. But how can you tell the six days are literal but the resting and being refreshed aren't? Did God mean it literally when he said he was refreshed after having a rest? I though God didn't get tried.

Well we ar enow 96 pages into this debate and you haven't once metioned the trinity or the physical resurrection--so you must not beleive in those two doctrines.

The thing about doctrines is you have to have somewhere that actually teaches them. I can understand that not every writer is going to mention every doctrine, but six day creationism is completely missing. It is only suggested by Moses, but that is in the middle of an anthropomorphism, and he goes an tells us not to read God's days too literally. No one else even brings it up.

Six day creationism has all the scriptural support of purgatory, which I didn't mention either, nor did I mention transubstantiation, which has much more of a basis in scripture if you want to take things literally.

Sorry but you are wrong-- it is int he middle of God dictating to Moses the thing we call the ten commandments. Now why do you think Moses didn't actually hear God?? Do you think God is a mute???

Why do you think Moses was called a prophet?

So maybe then when Jesus said He would rise in three days--maybe that was a metaphor for three thousand years or maybe we should take His physical resurrection literally?? If you looked at Gensis 1--it is pretty clear God left no mistake that He meant 6 literal 24 hour days. If you cannot see that then I guess I will do to your words what you do to Gods--allegorize anything I wish.

I think if Jesus waited three thousand years before is resurrection, Peter John and Mary Magdalene would have died of old age in the meantime.

I don't have to allegorize anything. Genesis never says says God created the world in six days, or if it does, I have completely missed the verse. It uses the word day in three or four different ways in just the first two chapters and even if you take the days in chapter one literally, we are not told they are consecutive. They only begin when each work of creation is complete and we are not told how long the works of creation take. At least one day had passed before we read 'there was evening and there was morning day one'. Before we even get to 'a fourth day' we already have the sun moon and stars marking out seasons, days and years.

All you have to base you six day creationism on is a metaphor the writer told us not to take literally.

Assyrian