The Flood

[AV1611VET]

This is the kind of stuff we Christians have to put up with:

You’re hypothetical question can only be answered by a hypothetical answer...

You are quite wrong.

No I am quite right.

And yet the answer was so simple, no one got it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's said, Nathan; that's very sad. But I have to admit, I was in your shoes --- once.

Then you traded down. Your point?

 

[NailsII]

Nails, I'm showing how it could be done, barring anything else to the contrary.

With your logic, we could add to the scenario ad infinitum, and never get the answer.

When giving the answer to the question, "What are 1 plus 1?", you don't say "2, unless something else gets added."

I'm sure Thaumaturgy understood me.

A fair point, and I accept that you believe that I deliberatly uddied the waters. However, I was merely trying to assert to you how difficult it is to produce a scientificly valid argument when there are other factors beyond your control which could skew all your measurements....

 

[Inan3]

I know it hurts when someone corrects you. And you think it is "tearing down", when in fact I merely educated you. You said Genesis' wording did not fit "allegory" when in point of fact it appears to do that quite nicely. Especially considering that I can find no evidence that "wording" defines allegory in any particular way.



No, actually you said:
(emphasis added)

But more importantly why? Were you unable to read the definition I posted earlier? I can re-post it if you like. Maybe I could post various other definitions for you:









So please tell me how the wording of Genesis does not fit allegory. I don't see any indication that "wording" has anything to do with it.

Maybe when you're at school taking your historical geology class you can audit another English lit class!

Or maybe you could do the unthinkable and provide some backing facts to support your contention.

See, it looks kinda like one of my posts...it has numerous instances of facts and links to SOURCES. And it helps that my sources are usually quite diverse and not just representing one webpage or one church's defintions!

(HINT: This is some of the skills you can develop when you get an appreciation for how science is done! We rely on supportable claims and copious support!

And I know this'll shock ya! But I'd gladly seriously consider any supporting evidence you have for your contention that Genesis somehow doesn't fit an allegorical construct!)

I know it's hard for Creationists to understand (because as a Good Fundamentalist they know that a Christian isn't perfect but never wrong), but I honestly feel bad when I misrepresent someone's point or post an error. I still feel bad for mistakenly posting several times an error I made in explaining a statistical point of order that probably none of the Creationists I was debating at the time even caught!

I've apologized to more creationists for things I've said than I have ever been apologized to for being told scientists are liars!

So please post your actual facts and we'll consider if Genesis simply couldn't be allegorical because of its wording. (So far I can't recall many creationists or fundamentalists actually rising to that sort of challenge. I look forward to being pleasantly surprised!)

ALLEGORY-a narrative in which characters and action represent abstract concepts different from the literal meaning of the story.(SOURCE)

According to the above definition, this post..uh..narrative...is an allegory (minus the moral lesson, of course)

 

[thaumaturgy]

ALLEGORY-a narrative in which characters and action represent abstract concepts different from the literal meaning of the story.(SOURCE)

According to the above definition, this post..uh..narrative...is an allegory (minus the moral lesson, of course)

So you aren't ever going to support you claim that the wording of Genesis doesn't fit an allegory, or even that allegory requires a specific wording.

No problem.

As usual, a creationist makes a claim, can't back it up and then acts as if they've made some point.

Same-ol' same-ol'.

And we are supposed to respect that approach, why?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you aren't ever going to support you claim that the wording of Genesis doesn't fit an allegory, or even that allegory requires a specific wording.

No problem.

As usual, a creationist makes a claim, can't back it up and then acts as if they've made some point.

Same-ol' same-ol'.

And we are supposed to respect that approach, why?

Thaumaturgy, once again the Allegorical Method of interpretation was made popular by the Alexandrian School.

Prior to that, no one interpreted the Scriptures allegorically except maybe for the Gnostics and other prodigal groups.

Egypt was declared off-limits to the Old Testament Jews, and we interpret the Scriptures as they did in the Antiochan School --- literally.

Jesus and His disciples interpreted Genesis 1 literally, and so should we.

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

This is all well-documented in a book called Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost.

You can huff and puff all you want about me being wrong, but what you can't do is accuse us of making claims and not backing them up.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is for you, Thaumaturgy, from Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 17-18:

The allegorical interpretation of the sacred Scriptures cannot be historically proved to have prevailed among the Jews from the time of the captivity, or to have been common with the Jews of Palestine at the time of Christ and his apostles.

Although the Sanhedrin and the hearers of Jesus often appealed to the Old Testament, yet they give no indication of the allegorical interpretation; even Josephus has nothing of it. The Platonic Jews of Egypt began in the first century, in imitation of the heathen Greeks, to interpret the Old Testament allegorically. Philo of Alexandria was distinguished among those Jews who practised this method; and he defends it as something new and before unheard of, and for that reason opposed by the other Jews. Jesus was not, therefore, in a situation in which he was compelled to comply with a prevailing custom of allegorical interpretation; for this method did not prevail at the time among the Jews, certainly not in Palestine, where Jesus taught.

 

[Phred]

You can huff and puff all you want about me being wrong, but what you can't do is accuse us of making claims and not backing them up.

If he can't I can. That's all you do.

 

[AV1611VET]

If he can't I can. That's all you do.

And you've read every single one of my posts?

 

[AV1611VET]

*tick*tock*tick*tock*

 

[Inan3]

Can anyone spot the evidence I gave in my answer?

I'll rep the first person who can --- and backs it up with a Bible verse.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Inan3]

This is for you, Thaumaturgy, from Things to Come, by J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 17-18:

The allegorical interpretation of the sacred Scriptures cannot be historically proved to have prevailed among the Jews from the time of the captivity, or to have been common with the Jews of Palestine at the time of Christ and his apostles.

Although the Sanhedrin and the hearers of Jesus often appealed to the Old Testament, yet they give no indication of the allegorical interpretation; even Josephus has nothing of it. The Platonic Jews of Egypt began in the first century, in imitation of the heathen Greeks, to interpret the Old Testament allegorically. Philo of Alexandria was distinguished among those Jews who practised this method; and he defends it as something new and before unheard of, and for that reason opposed by the other Jews. Jesus was not, therefore, in a situation in which he was compelled to comply with a prevailing custom of allegorical interpretation; for this method did not prevail at the time among the Jews, certainly not in Palestine, where Jesus taught.

http://www3.telus.net/csabc/StraightForward.html

 

[AV1611VET]

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Hi, Inan ---

Actually, it was the word "faith" in my post --- reps for trying, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

http://www3.telus.net/csabc/StraightForward.html

Excellent link, Inan3! Thank you!

Thaumaturgy, q.v. Inan3's link, please.

 

[Inan3]

Hi, Inan ---

Actually, it was the word "faith" in my post --- reps for trying, though.

I had noted the reference to faith and I was going to give both Heb 11:1 and 2 Pet 1:21 but I didn't think it fair to use both so I chose the one because of your several references to the Holy Ghost. Thanks for the reps anyway. Next time I'll go with my first thought.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for the reps anyway. Next time I'll go with my first thought.

You deserved 'em ---

 

[Nathan Poe]

Can anyone spot the evidence I gave in my answer?

Actually, it was the word "faith" in my post --- reps for trying, though.

So, your evidence is that you really, really, really believe it?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, your evidence is that you really, really, really believe it?

[bible]Hebrews 11:1[/bible]

The things unseen, as distinguished from the things hoped for, are, in an extended sense, the creation of the world from nothing, the destruction of the world by the deluge, the miraculous conception of Christ, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension to glory, his mediation at the right hand of God, his government of the universe, &c., &c., all which we as firmly believe on the testimony of God's word as if we had seen them. But this faith has particular respect to the being, goodness, providence, grace, and mercy of God, as the subsequent verses sufficiently show.

 

[Patashu]

[bible]Hebrews 11:1[/bible]

That's a yes, then?

 

[Baggins]

That's said, Nathan; that's very sad. But I have to admit, I was in your shoes --- once.

What went wrong so that you ended up as a sophist who redefines words and eve then can't make his arguments stand up to scrutiny?

Where did it all go wrong AV?