Evolution vs. Theology

[Papias]

mark wrote:

Let's see, the genealogies are explicit proof of not only an historical narrative but a living history. The fact that God is the God of the living and not the dead and certainly not of myths. Then there is the resurrection of the dead at the heart of the Gospel, inextricably linked to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That not only implies historicity, those are explicit proof texts, inextricably linked to New Testament salvation.

um, mark, you and I have discussed at length, on multiple occasions, the fact that the genealologies contradict each other if taken as literal history. Here they are again:

Mt Gen# .................Gospel of Matthew has............... 1st Chron. Has:
1..............................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, ...Solomon's son was
2 .............................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,...... Rehoboam,
3 .............................Abijah ...........................................Abijah his son,
4..............................Asa ..............................................Asa his son,
5 .............................Jehoshaphat .................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6............................. Jehoram ......................................Jehoram his son
................................Skipped..................................... Ahaziah his son,

................................Skipped .....................................Joash his son,
................................Skipped .....................................Amaziah his son,
7......................Uzziah the father of Jotham, ................Azariah his son,
8............................ Jotham ........................................Jotham his son,
9 ............................Ahaz ...........................................Ahaz his son,
10...........................Hezekiah ....................................Hezekiah his son,
11.......................... Manasseh ...................................Manasseh his son,
12 ..........................Amon .........................................Amon his son,
13.......................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, .......Josiah his son.


Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that the Angican Bishop Ussher and YECs are in error in using it to establish a 6,000 year age for the earth.

Now, given that we have such a history discussing this, I'm trying to square that with your post above. You know that they don't fit literally, yet you talked as if they had to be literal history. Did you just forget about that aspect?

in Jesus' name-

Papias

P. S. Taking your good advice from before, I've tried to straigten the columns. Do they look better?

 

[mark kennedy]

None of the Lexicons or bible verses support your equation based definition of day. Why don't you stop pretending they do?

Actually they all do including the clear meaning of the text in Scripture in English. The only problem being a Theistic Evolutionist means you can argue to the contrary in circles endlessly.

And yet Peter only describes his eyewitness report of the transfiguration as not being a cleverly devised fable. You have made no attempt at defending you claims with an exegesis of the passage or to defend you misunderstanding of 'private interpretation', just a hand waving 'inextricably linked' and ad hom accusations.

What Peter is saying in the passage is that neither the New Testament witness nor the prophecy of old were of private interpretation. These divinely inspired revelations from redemptive history are eye witnesses.

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. (2 Peter 1:16)​

While you argue incessantly against those who would believe the clear testimony of Scripture others of your persuasion dismiss the witness of Scripture from the Old Testament as myth, metaphor and fables. Peter is crystal clear the Old Testament revelation is redemptive history:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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. (2 Peter 20,21)​

So shouldn't you be careful you aren't twisting the meaning of 2Peter as well?

Peter is clear that he affirms the historicity of Genesis, speaking directly of the Flood making direct connections to the Gospel in no uncertain terms:

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:6,7)​

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15, 15)​

Salvation and the historicity of Genesis are inextricably linked. I've seen how you twist the testimony of Paul as well. Shamelessly dismissing Adam as metaphor when Paul clearly describes him as the first parent of humanity in his exposition of original sin. Then, like now, you argued in circles around the obvious which is typical of the rhetoric of Theistic Evolution.

Goodness Mark not even an attempt to understand what I wrote. How can you refute something when you don't know what you are talking about?

On the contrary, I know the Scriptures and the relevant scientific literature pertaining to the theology of origins. I know exactly what your saying, I just don't agree with it because you argue against the clear testimony of Scripture in favor of arguments of science, falsely so called, namely, Darwinism.

You don't get to call something literal when you don't even understand the difference between literal and real.

I know the difference between literal and figurative language and so do you. Now you want to separate what it means for something the be 'literal' and 'real', words that are clearly synonymous. This semantic shell game is a fallacious diversionary tactic mean to conflate the Scriptures and twist them into legends and myths. A practice that cannot be confused with the genuine article of faith. Redemptive history and the New Testament promise of salvation are inextricably linked. To worship Christ as Savior is to worship Christ as Creator.

Still no sign of you claim the day is defined by the equation "evening plus morning equals day". I can see why you want to change the subject to "Darwinian naturalistic assumptions", but wouldn't it be better to be honest and admit the equation based definition is simply a mistake?

Yet another audacious circular argument denying the clear meaning of Scripture, twisting them around to mean whatever you want them to mean. Your only source authority is you and I don't need you permission to accept the clear testimony of Scripture.

Isn't repeating the question asking you to answer it?

No, it's fallacious rhetoric intended to run the conversation in circles. No matter what is said the question is asked again and again in circles. It's an argument that never happened and you have been shown repeatedly from the clear meaning of the text in common sense terms to the Lexicon and Dictionary definitions. It's called begging the question of proof and it's an argument that never happened.

How I argue is by taking your arguments apart and keeping on the subject when you try to wriggle out with personal accusations.

Nothing personal about it, your arguments are flawed attempts at changing the meaning of words. This semantical shell game doesn't fool anyone including you and I'm just pointing out what is painfully obvious from your arguments.

Euphemism? I know some people consider it an extended metaphor or allegory. Doesn't change my argument, it isn't literal.

You know very well that Jesus is speaking figuratively of himself as the 'Good Shepherd', you don't get to equivocate that with an historical narrative, it's foolish to try. Arguing it in circles is a mockery of the text, not a sound exposition of Scripture.

Shernren here on CF actually. And the elevation of literal meaning as the only worthwhile truth dismissing figurative and metaphor as worthless is very post enlightenment/modernist.

There's nothing post modern about the historicity of Genesis, reducing Scripture to myth and metaphor is the practice of post modernist rhetoric. The Church and the ancient Hebrews have always understood the Genesis account to be literal history and always will.

Lol. Actually I am happy with there being many different ways to interpret Genesis. Once Christians realise there are other interpretation there is simply no reason to hang on to scientifically bankrupt Creationism. It is creationists who have to insist there is only one interpretation and that Genesis has to be literal.

I have seen how you handle both and you offer substantive arguments for and from neither. That's not your fault, defending the fallacious logic of Darwinism has made you dependent on the rationalizations from a worldview that categorically rejects miracles. It has no place in Christian theism and trying to make it fit deprecates Christian theism and the genuine article of science.

I was addressing your ad hom that my interpretation is based on Darwin.

Darwin defined Darwinism in no uncertain terms, there is no ambiguity in the content or the principles Darwinian natural selection includes.

I was discussing with Sayre how fear pays a large part in Creationists' unwillingnesss to examine their own beliefs. You assumed fear must be 'fear of the Lord' and I pointed out there were fears in the bible the Lord is not pleased with.

Ok, so it's alright for him to dismiss the Old Testament Patriarchs as mythical figures but you going to ridicule Creationism for being intellectually bankrupt. Typical

Appreciate the olive branch Mark. If you want to look to some of my ideas I've linked to my Simian in the Temple blog in http://www.christianforums.com/t7792111/

I've seen it, it's about what I would expect.

If you want to build on that I seriously suggest you look into the distinctions I have been making between real and literal.

That was a serious offer and you have every right to refuse, it makes very little difference to me. I know what your trying to do and how to eliminate the logical fallacies from you arguments in a way that is benign and substantive. What you are going to have to come to terms with is the obvious flaw in your logic, that self contradictory semantical shell game you used right there.

The terms 'real' and 'literal' are synonymous. This is the essence of your error and I'm through chasing it in circles. The first order of business when dealing with something as profoundly philosophical as the theology of origins is to define your terms. They have to be unequivocal, precise and recognized meanings from the primary source authorities. That's your whole problem, you never laid the foundation so it's no wonder what you tried to build was never squared and fell by it's own weight.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that the Angican Bishop Ussher and YECs are in error in using it to establish a 6,000 year age for the earth.

There is nothing symbolic about genealogies, Matthew presents Jesus genealogy because the Messiah had to be from the House of David. There is one minor difficulty in the list from the time the Jews returned from Babylon which is easily resolved, something you should have done a long time ago. Dismissing it as symbolic is an absurdity that neither the RCC or any reasonable Christian scholarship would approve of. The age of the earth is irrelevant, the substantive content of the genealogy is clearly focused on historic lineage. That is about as obvious an exposition of the Scriptures gets and you miss that in Genesis which is why you fumbled it in Matthew.

Now, given that we have such a history discussing this, I'm trying to square that with your post above. You know that they don't fit literally, yet you talked as if they had to be literal history. Did you just forget about that aspect?

It does fit literally, nothing in Christian scholarship warrants dismissing a genealogy as symbolic, it's absurd.

P. S. Taking your good advice from before, I've tried to straigten the columns. Do they look better?

The list is fine, a nice improvement I might add. It's the treatment of the text that is flawed. Why don't you take a look around New Advent and see what the RCC does with this genealogy and get back to me.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

A historical narrative is simply a narrative that says it happened as history! It's not complicated. If it were a parable then it would tell you such. It does not, for very good reason - it's not parable.

Well, there is no biblical narrative that says that. (Please cite a text if you disagree.)

 

[Sayre]

If what you're saying is true then ultimately everything in the Bible is possibly a "parable" or a "myth." For example, you would have to demonstrate that Christ walking on water is historical fact - I could claim it is just a parable and you couldn't refute me. The same applies to other things like Christ's resurrection from the dead, and so forth.

So this approach really makes mincemeat out of Scripture.

So a question for you is - how do you know that Jesus isn't literally a Shepherd?

 

[gluadys]

That is actually the whole point, of course you know the difference between allegory and literal, myth and history. The concepts, the context and the content are unequivocal, even when figurative language is used.

Do you know the difference between allegory and myth? Much myth is in narrative form. How do you tell it from history? Much allegory is also in narrative form. How do you tell it from history? Do you know the difference between history and literal? There is plenty of narrative text intended to be understood literally which is not intended to be history. How do you tell when such narratives are history?

That's not true, it can be a stand alone narrative and still be an historical narrative.

Of course it can be. But if you have nothing but a stand alone text, how do you tell if the narration is about history?

There will be distinguishable features that identify a writing as being historical as opposed to allegory and you already know that, you opened the post emphasizing that you could.

No, I don't know that. That is why I am asking. What are the distinguishable features that tell me a narrative is recounting history? If I have a paragraph in front of me describing a battle, how do I tell from the text alone that it is about a battle that actually, historically occurred rather than a scene from a novel?

How about the fact that cinematography and a stage play are obviously different then the work of an historian. The ancient Hebrews produced and preserved a great deal of literature, some poetic and some historical, don't pretend there is no way of telling the two literary styles apart.

What I am saying is that "historical" is not a literary style. Narrative is a literary style (or rather genre). Drama and screen plays are literary genres. All of these can be about history. But the genre itself doesn't tell you that it is about history. We do not know from Shakespeare's play or a Hollywood movie that Julius Caesar or Mark Anthony are historical characters.

So what does tell us it is history?

The genealogies, from which Genesis derives it name, should be telling you something and I think it does.

What tells us the genealogies are historical?

Now whether or not you think that history is reliable, factual or accurate is a matter of opinion. Genesis isn't that hard to understand, you either believe it or not, trying to water it down by calling it figurative is disingenuous at best.

Don't change the topic. I have no quarrel with the history. What I am challenging is the concept that there is a literary category of writing by which one can identify a text as being about actual history with no external cues to say it is history. What does it mean to say some text "reads like a historical narrative"? How does a historical narrative read differently from other narratives?

Why, so you can just keep asking the question in circles? You know a little something about literature so maybe you would like to tell me, how does one discern the difference between an historical narrative and an allegory.

Do you mean how does one tell the difference between a literal narrative and an allegorical narrative? Actually, it is not easy. Take the parable of the Sower. Nothing in the text itself tells us it is allegorical. Nothing tells us it is a parable. Jesus doesn't use any introductory phrase such as "The kingdom of God is like...." He just starts right in saying "Look, a sower went out to sow...." There is no figurative language at all. The only reason we know it is an allegory is that the disciples asked for an explanation and Jesus gave them an allegorical explanation. So it is context from outside the story that tells us it is an allegory.

Or again take the parable of the Good Samaritan. Again a straightforward narrative with no use of poetic or figurative adornment. And this time there is not even an allegorical explanation appended. That didn't stop the church fathers from considering it an allegory and working out the allegorical symbolism. Were they imagining the allegory?

Better yet, why don't you tell Sayre because he seems very confused. I have a hermeneutic criteria, do you?

I don't think you do, because your hermeneutic seems to depend on "historical" being an identifiable type of narrative. Yet you can't seem to identify what distinguishes a historical narrative from other narratives.

There is actually very little figurative language in Genesis, parallelisms certainly, but there is nothing indicating a parable.

So, you don't actually find any distinguishing marks of history. You just operate on the principle that if you can't identify is as something else, it must be history.

It's a genealogy, what lands or travels are mentioned are extraneous to that obvious fact.

His interpretation was that the names of persons were actually names of lands. Lands and persons often have the same names, so its maybe plausible.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you know the difference between allegory and myth? Much myth is in narrative form. How do you tell it from history? Much allegory is also in narrative form. How do you tell it from history? Do you know the difference between history and literal? There is plenty of narrative text intended to be understood literally which is not intended to be history. How do you tell when such narratives are history?

Do you know the significance of the lineage represented by the genealogies of Genesis, Matthew and Luke? Historicity is a non-negotiable fact of Christian theism and there is an unbroken continuum between creation and salvation in the witness of redemptive history from the past, the present and in the very near future. I long ago decided not to chase those kind of questions in circles because it always ends up being repeated in circles. The clear meaning of Scripture is not disturbed by the language of the text but rather, an inability to accept the substance of the content.

Of course it can be. But if you have nothing but a stand alone text, how do you tell if the narration is about history?

The genealogies should be giving you a clue, Christian scholars have been elaborating on that feature at length throughout church history. What you and your cohorts are trying to do is to dismiss the historical narrative from pure undiluted presupposition, what the clear testimony of Scripture has made obvious. Redemptive history is recorded in the witness of Scripture and to dismiss it as mythology is a clear departure from the sacred content.

Instead of correcting Theistic Evolutionists for calling Genesis mythology your arguing in favor of that persuasion. If that's where your trying to take me your going to find out that Christian theism is inextricably linked to the historicity of God's righteous deeds from the Creation of life to the redemption of the purchase price. You don't get to dismiss the Scriptures as mythology no matter how superior Darwinian logic might make you feel.

No, I don't know that. That is why I am asking. What are the distinguishable features that tell me a narrative is recounting history? If I have a paragraph in front of me describing a battle, how do I tell from the text alone that it is about a battle that actually, historically occurred rather than a scene from a novel?

I think you do know, or at least you should. When someone can't discern between the historical narrative of Genesis in spite of the New Testament witness concerning them there is a fundamental problem. When you can't tell the difference between a euphemism and it's equivocated with divine oracles of the Creation and the Patriarchs we are not talking about literary features any more. There is something prevailing in the transcendent nature of Darwinian logic that knows no bounds. When it starts to twist the understanding of the Scriptures to conform the thinking to those naturalistic assumptions it is no longer a description of a naturally occurring phenomenon. This presuppositional logic is a dangerous influence on Christian theism. An apologetic defense of the Scriptures is warranted.

What I am saying is that "historical" is not a literary style. Narrative is a literary style (or rather genre). Drama and screen plays are literary genres. All of these can be about history. But the genre itself doesn't tell you that it is about history. We do not know from Shakespeare's play or a Hollywood movie that Julius Caesar or Mark Anthony are historical characters.

So what does tell us it is history?

You think the Levites starting with Moses were writing novels? You really want to compare the theatrics of the political intrigue, loosely based on history with the historical narratives of Scripture? You might want to rethink that approach.

What tells us the genealogies are historical?

What tells us any document is historical?

The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.​

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

Don't change the topic. I have no quarrel with the history. What I am challenging is the concept that there is a literary category of writing by which one can identify a text as being about actual history with no external cues to say it is history. What does it mean to say some text "reads like a historical narrative"? How does a historical narrative read differently from other narratives?

You want to challenge my concept of history but you are comfortable with Sayre calling the Old Testament mythology? Let's start where all Christian theism must, how do you know that the history of the Gospels actually happened? By what criteria do you make that determination?

Do you mean how does one tell the difference between a literal narrative and an allegorical narrative? Actually, it is not easy. Take the parable of the Sower. Nothing in the text itself tells us it is allegorical. Nothing tells us it is a parable. Jesus doesn't use any introductory phrase such as "The kingdom of God is like...." He just starts right in saying "Look, a sower went out to sow...." There is no figurative language at all. The only reason we know it is an allegory is that the disciples asked for an explanation and Jesus gave them an allegorical explanation. So it is context from outside the story that tells us it is an allegory.

Again, a parable is marked by a qualifying 'like' or 'as', it's a common sense reference point clearly indicating that it's a parable. All figurative language in Scripture has this kind of a point of reference readily discernible in the immediate context. Asking in circles what these literary features are is a stubborn refusal to acknowledge them, not a serious attempt at an exposition.

Or again take the parable of the Good Samaritan. Again a straightforward narrative with no use of poetic or figurative adornment. And this time there is not even an allegorical explanation appended. That didn't stop the church fathers from considering it an allegory and working out the allegorical symbolism. Were they imagining the allegory?

You tell me, how do we know it's a parable?

I don't think you do, because your hermeneutic seems to depend on "historical" being an identifiable type of narrative. Yet you can't seem to identify what distinguishes a historical narrative from other narratives.

I have no problem identifying the literary features, you just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the obvious. We are not learning anything about the Scriptures here, your just revealing something about yourself. I say again, how are parables in the New Testament clearly indicated in the immediate context?

So, you don't actually find any distinguishing marks of history. You just operate on the principle that if you can't identify is as something else, it must be history.

You are getting caught in that downward spiral, better pull up before it sucks you down. Fallacious logic doesn't work on me.

His interpretation was that the names of persons were actually names of lands. Lands and persons often have the same names, so its maybe plausible.

Let's start with what is clear then we can discuss what is plausible.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[ChetSinger]

I like talking about genealogies, and have a question for the TE's on this thread.

Do you believe that when Jesus spoke of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that he believed them to be flesh-and-blood historical personages? And to have lived the lives ascribed to them? Or not? I'm curious.

 

[Sayre]

I like talking about genealogies, and have a question for the TE's on this thread.

Do you believe that when Jesus spoke of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that he believed them to be flesh-and-blood historical personages? And to have lived the lives ascribed to them? Or not? I'm curious.

Great question! I don't think we are told that much detail.

 

[gluadys]

Do you know the significance of the lineage represented by the genealogies of Genesis, Matthew and Luke? Historicity is a non-negotiable fact of Christian theism

No, it is a non-negotiable belief. However, the question I am asking is not theological, but hermeneutical.

How do you tell, from the text of the genealogies themselves, that they are referencing historical persons?

It is one thing to establish the history of a person listed in a genealogy through external evidence; but your claim (and that of anyone who builds their case on the "historical narrative" nature of biblical texts) is that you don't need such external evidence. The text alone tells you by its "distinguishing marks".


Well, what distinguishing marks do these genealogies have that makes "history" leap out from them as opposed to a genealogy I might find in an epic novel spanning several generations?

The genealogies should be giving you a clue,

Maybe they should, but they don't. So how be you let me in on the secret. What is the clue to their historicity?

I think you do know, or at least you should.

Well, I don't. And believe me, I do know something of literature and composition. I can certainly distinguish narrative from drama, exhortation, didactic writing, essays, lyricism, etc. I also know that narrative may be in the form of poetry, song, reportage, parable, anecdote, etc. The content of narrative may be a fictional story, an allegory, a myth or legend, science, gossip, travelogue, biography or history. It may be found in a letter, a sermon, an epic poem, a novel, a textbook, and so on.

What I don't know is how to establish that a narrative is about history without looking to external evidence that it is. So what does it mean to say that a text "reads like historical narrative"? And even if it does, how does that establish that it IS about historical events?

You think the Levites starting with Moses were writing novels? You really want to compare the theatrics of the political intrigue, loosely based on history with the historical narratives of Scripture? You might want to rethink that approach.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort. Most of Leviticus is not narrative anyway. It is a collection of laws and rituals. There is no story being narrated in Leviticus.

What tells us any document is historical?

That is the question. In particular, what distinguishing characters in the text itself, tells us any document is historical? So far I have seen no answer from you or anyone else.

The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule.

Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.​

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

Not quite the answer needed. This speaks to establishing the genuine, unadulterated antiquity of a text. It does not speak to establishing the historical accuracy of its contents. By this rule, the Enuma Elish is a genuine document of ancient Babylon, not a pseudo-ancient document composed millennia later and passed off as an ancient treasure. But I doubt you would consider the Enuma Elish to be accurate history.

You want to challenge my concept of history

No, not at all. That is not the issue at all.

The issue is "What tells us any document is historical?" Or more precisely, what in the document itself, as a stand-alone piece of evidence, tells us it is historical in the sense that it speaks of actual historical events?

Let's start where all Christian theism must, how do you know that the history of the Gospels actually happened?

I don't.

I believe it happened. I don't know that it did.

What makes you think that you know?

Again, a parable is marked by a qualifying 'like' or 'as', it's a common sense reference point clearly indicating that it's a parable.

First, that is not true of all parables. I mentioned two well-known parables which have no such indication (the Sower, the Good Samaritan). Second, parables are still narratives. Either of these stories, out of context, as stand alone documents are indistinguishable from history. In fact, it is not that uncommon for people to assert they are historical.

All figurative language in Scripture has this kind of a point of reference readily discernible in the immediate context. Asking in circles what these literary features are is a stubborn refusal to acknowledge them, not a serious attempt at an exposition.

First, again, that is simply not true. Second, it is irrelevant. Figurative language can be found in all contexts, including historical narrative. Figurative language does not make a history non-historical.

You tell me, how do we know it's a parable?

Usually because the gospel writer tells us it is a parable. Occasionally because Jesus does. However, these indications do not come from the parable itself. If we had only the parable (as often those who listened to Jesus did) we might not know it is a parable.

 

[Achilles6129]

So a question for you is - how do you know that Jesus isn't literally a Shepherd?

Because Christ only calls himself a shepherd in a parable!

 

[ChetSinger]

Great question! I don't think we are told that much detail.

Thanks for answering. I think we are told that they're historical, in part because of that passage in Mark 12 that Mark quoted earlier. I'm sure you're familiar with it:

And Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection. And they asked him a question, saying,...

...Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God?

For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?

He is not God of the dead, but of the living. You are quite wrong.”

We're not Sadducees who deny the resurrection, so the gist of Jesus' answer isn't directed at us. But in the last two sentences of his answer Jesus identifies God as the God of the living, by way of being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. His answer affirms that the three of them were (and are) living, because their God is God of the living. That is, at least, if we ourselves are hoping to experience actual life after dying. I don't see allegorical characters making sense here unless the afterlife itself is allegorical. What do you think?

 

[mark kennedy]

No, it is a non-negotiable belief. However, the question I am asking is not theological, but hermeneutical.

We'll see...

How do you tell, from the text of the genealogies themselves, that they are referencing historical persons?

I think their living descendants being with us to this day, maintaining their bloodline, religion, national identity and Sacred text is a very big deal. There is nothing like this from antiquity, the Scriptures are primary source documents, their histories are rightfully regarded as true until there is a good reason to think otherwise.

It is one thing to establish the history of a person listed in a genealogy through external evidence; but your claim (and that of anyone who builds their case on the "historical narrative" nature of biblical texts) is that you don't need such external evidence. The text alone tells you by its "distinguishing marks".

Just as the parable has a 'like' or 'as', genealogies have a 'begat'. They are obviously genealogies, Genesis derives it's name from them for that reason. We don't need secondary sources for bearer bonds or T-bills because they are primary source documents. I don't need certification for my T-Bill, I just need a genuine T-Bill. The problem your going to run into by looking for secondary confirmation is that there is nothing like the Hebrew OT from antiquity. Everything we have from their contemporaries are dead languages, dead religions and dead cultures. Attached to the Scriptures are two profoundly persuasive communities that speak volumes for their authenticity.

Well, what distinguishing marks do these genealogies have that makes "history" leap out from them as opposed to a genealogy I might find in an epic novel spanning several generations?

Round around it goes...

Maybe they should, but they don't. So how be you let me in on the secret. What is the clue to their historicity?

Like I said, no matter what the answer you just repeat the question. It's not a substantive argument, it's an argument that didn't happen.

Well, I don't. And believe me, I do know something of literature and composition. I can certainly distinguish narrative from drama, exhortation, didactic writing, essays, lyricism, etc. I also know that narrative may be in the form of poetry, song, reportage, parable, anecdote, etc. The content of narrative may be a fictional story, an allegory, a myth or legend, science, gossip, travelogue, biography or history. It may be found in a letter, a sermon, an epic poem, a novel, a textbook, and so on.

I know you do, that's why you should know an historical narrative when you see one and I think you do.

What I don't know is how to establish that a narrative is about history without looking to external evidence that it is. So what does it mean to say that a text "reads like historical narrative"? And even if it does, how does that establish that it IS about historical events?

Does the New Testament witness account for anything because the genealogies are confirmed in the Gospels, not once but twice. I haven't heard a theistic Evolutionist argue against the historicity of the New Testament yet so why not apply the same criteria you used to determine that the New Testament Gospels were historical narratives.

So tell me, what conclusively determined that for you. How do you know the New Testament witness represents literal history? Or do you think they are myths?

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort. Most of Leviticus is not narrative anyway. It is a collection of laws and rituals. There is no story being narrated in Leviticus.

Yes there is a narrative in Leviticus that runs concurrent with the Laws of Sacrifice, Feasts and Holiness Code there is a definite narrative. The ordination of the priests, the inauguration of the feasts, the dedication of the Tabernacle. The historicity of the Pentateuch isn't subject to private interpretation, the distinctive features of an historical narrative are evident and obvious.

That is the question. In particular, what distinguishing characters in the text itself, tells us any document is historical? So far I have seen no answer from you or anyone else.

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't you just say you knew how to distinguish between different kinds of literature. Do you not know how to identify the literary features of an historical narrative, is that the problem?

Not quite the answer needed. This speaks to establishing the genuine, unadulterated antiquity of a text. It does not speak to establishing the historical accuracy of its contents. By this rule, the Enuma Elish is a genuine document of ancient Babylon, not a pseudo-ancient document composed millennia later and passed off as an ancient treasure. But I doubt you would consider the Enuma Elish to be accurate history.

No I would consider it a myth from a dead culture, dead language and a dead religion. An artifact from antiquity that has not been in the custody of those we would expect a primary source document to be in the custody of. It's a relic, the Scriptures have remained in the care of living cultures from the time they were originally authored, the Hebrew and Christian communities respectively.

The issue is "What tells us any document is historical?" Or more precisely, what in the document itself, as a stand-alone piece of evidence, tells us it is historical in the sense that it speaks of actual historical events?

I've answered that every time you have asked in a number of different ways and you just repeat the question in circles.

Predictable.

I don't.

I believe it happened. I don't know that it did.

What makes you think that you know?

And consistent to the point of being pedantic.

First, that is not true of all parables. I mentioned two well-known parables which have no such indication (the Sower, the Good Samaritan). Second, parables are still narratives. Either of these stories, out of context, as stand alone documents are indistinguishable from history. In fact, it is not that uncommon for people to assert they are historical.

You never answered the question or accepted my answer when you asked how to identify parables. What is the distinguishing feature of a parable in the immediate context usually?

First, again, that is simply not true. Second, it is irrelevant. Figurative language can be found in all contexts, including historical narrative. Figurative language does not make a history non-historical.

Not in Genesis 1.

Usually because the gospel writer tells us it is a parable. Occasionally because Jesus does. However, these indications do not come from the parable itself. If we had only the parable (as often those who listened to Jesus did) we might not know it is a parable.

Buzzzzzz! Sorry, wrong answer! 'Like' or 'as' for an explicit description of a parable. There are implicit features to figurative language but if you can't honestly admit the obvious what benefit will be derived from exploring the obscure?

So that's the hermeneutic your using, fallacious rhetoric...seriously?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Sayre]

Thanks for answering. I think we are told that they're historical, in part because of that passage in Mark 12 that Mark quoted earlier. I'm sure you're familiar with it:


We're not Sadducees who deny the resurrection, so the gist of Jesus' answer isn't directed at us. But in the last two sentences of his answer Jesus identifies God as the God of the living, by way of being the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. His answer affirms that the three of them were (and are) living, because their God is God of the living. That is, at least, if we ourselves are hoping to experience actual life after dying. I don't see allegorical characters making sense here unless the afterlife itself is allegorical. What do you think?

That's a good point. I think those characters are based in history but it is not necessary that every story told about them was literal. This isn't a binary all or nothing type situation. The events prior to the Exodus are largely exaggerated or mythical.

Prior to Abraham I think there is very little actual history. Noah almost certainly didn't exist. I'm open to Abraham being a complex composite of real people with exaggerated stories. I'm also open to Abraham being a theological construct representing a nation rather than one person. Either way the point remains that through Christ we have a promise of a resurrection just like the those before Christ.

 

[KWCrazy]

Prior to Abraham I think there is very little actual history.

The only written history is the Bible, so if you reject that there isn't any history. In fact, There's really no evidence other than the Bible that anyone existed before Abraham. Maybe he made it all up?

Noah almost certainly didn't exist.

There are no passages of the Scriptures which support your position, so must must, then, reject everything in the Bible in the same way people say that if you reject molecules to man you have to reject all of science. Molecules-to-man is, after all, the cornerstone of all science.

I'm open to Abraham being a complex composite of real people with exaggerated stories.

Why should he exist at all? If you reject the Bible as a book of myths and fairy tales, why accept any of it as fact? I don't consider Hansel and Gretel to be real people, why would you consider Abraham a real person?

Either way the point remains that through Christ we have a promise of a resurrection just like the those before Christ.

Christ believed that the Scriptures were the inspired word of God. You believe it to be a collection of myths and fables, so in your mind Christ must have been a primitive uneducated creationist. If you reject everything He believed, doesn't it stand to reason that you should reject everything He said; everything He claimed to know? You seem to want to reject almost everything written in the Bible except the passages that sound good to you. News flash: If Jesus lied about Abraham, Caine and Able, Noah, Job, Jonah and the accuracy of the Scriptures, then He was also lying about salvation. How can you believe that Jesus was the son of God and yet claim that all the things He taught including His respect for every jot and tittle of the Scriptures was wrong? Jesus believed in Noah but you know better?

This is the problem with rejecting the Scriptures. You start by denying that a man floated an ax head and end up with no reason whatever to believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Where do you draw the line? There are 333 miracles in the Bible. How many are outright lies? How many are myths? Why would we believe any of them if we doubted most of them? Your position is untenable; either the Scriptures are the word of God or they aren't. If Jesus attested to the veracity of a falsehood then He could not be the son of God and you have no salvation.

Personally, I believe the Scriptures because my Lord and Savior said they were true and accurate. His word contains more truth than all the science books in the world combined.

 

[gluadys]

We'll see...



I think their living descendants being with us to this day, maintaining their bloodline, religion, national identity and Sacred text is a very big deal. There is nothing like this from antiquity, the Scriptures are primary source documents, their histories are rightfully regarded as true until there is a good reason to think otherwise.

So you do not conclude that the genealogies are history from the text of the genealogies themselves; you appeal to external evidence such as living descendants.

Ergo, there is no literary indication in the genealogies that distinguishes them from fictional genealogies.

I expect the same is true of everything you call "historical narrative". There are no distinguishing literary marks which determine that a narrative is historical. One has to appeal to external evidence to establish its connection with history.

Just as the parable has a 'like' or 'as', genealogies have a 'begat'. They are obviously genealogies, Genesis derives it's name from them for that reason.

Changing goalposts. Of course they are genealogies. The question, however, is whether their form tells us they are historical. Plainly the answer to that is "no". For you had to resort to external evidence to identify them as historical.

We don't need secondary sources for bearer bonds or T-bills because they are primary source documents. I don't need certification for my T-Bill, I just need a genuine T-Bill.

But how do you establish that the T-Bill is genuine and not a forgery?
And how do we establish that a narrative is genuine history?

The problem your going to run into by looking for secondary confirmation is that there is nothing like the Hebrew OT from antiquity. Everything we have from their contemporaries are dead languages, dead religions and dead cultures. Attached to the Scriptures are two profoundly persuasive communities that speak volumes for their authenticity.

Again you go to external evidence. You are no longer arguing that the text itself is sufficient to tell you it is historical.

Like I said, no matter what the answer you just repeat the question. It's not a substantive argument, it's an argument that didn't happen.

You have not given any answer yet. You have not produced a single literary mark by which one can know that a particular narrative is about historical events. Yet you claim to be able to recognize a so-called literary form you call "historical narrative". How can there be a recognizable literary form with no identifiable literary characteristics?

I know you do, that's why you should know an historical narrative when you see one and I think you do.

Your thinking is mistaken. I can identify narrative. I cannot, by literary form alone, distinguish historical from non-historical narrative--especially when an author takes care to introduce a lot of verisimilitude into his work, intentionally making it appear to be historical. For example, I just finished reading Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. I have, of course, external evidence that it is fictional, but if I were to rely solely on the text of the story itself, there is nothing in it that could not be history.

Does the New Testament witness account for anything because the genealogies are confirmed in the Gospels, not once but twice.

No, on two bases. First, it is external evidence. This is not an appeal to the literary form of the genealogies themselves. Second, if a fictional document is recorded in a historical document, it is still fictional.

I haven't heard a theistic Evolutionist argue against the historicity of the New Testament yet so why not apply the same criteria you used to determine that the New Testament Gospels were historical narratives.

I use external evidence to determine that the New Testament Gospels were historical narratives. I don't use literary form, because, so far as I know, literary form does not distinguish history from non-history.

It is your claim that you can deduce from the text itself that the narrative is speaking of history. I am asking how you do that. So far you have not established that it is possible. You have not established that you can conclude "historical" via a hermeneutic study of the text.

So tell me, what conclusively determined that for you. How do you know the New Testament witness represents literal history? Or do you think they are myths?

I have no conclusive evidence that the New Testament represents literal history. What evidence I do have does not come from the text itself, and is not conclusive.

Yes there is a narrative in Leviticus that runs concurrent with the Laws of Sacrifice, Feasts and Holiness Code there is a definite narrative. The ordination of the priests, the inauguration of the feasts, the dedication of the Tabernacle.

LOL. You apparently don't even know what a narrative is, yet you claim to be able to distinguish narratives about history from non-historical narratives with no recourse to anything but the text.

There are three passages in Leviticus which are narratives: chapters 8-9 record the consecration of Aaron as High Priest and the inauguration of his priestly duties. Chapter 10 recounts the fate of Nadab and Abihu when they offered unholy fire on the altar. In chapter 24 there is a brief narrative about a blasphemer. Nothing else in this text is narrative. The text as a whole is not a narrative. It is more like an instruction manual for priests.

You might consider what makes the passages above narrative when the rest is not. What identifies these sections as narrative. What identifies the rest as non-narrative?

The historicity of the Pentateuch isn't subject to private interpretation, the distinctive features of an historical narrative are evident and obvious.

They might be, if you could tell us what those distinctive features are. That is the question you have never answered, even once. What are the distinctive features, not just of narrative but of historical narrative in particular.

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't you just say you knew how to distinguish between different kinds of literature. Do you not know how to identify the literary features of an historical narrative, is that the problem?

Yes, that is the problem. I can get as far as distinguishing narrative from other genres. And I can differentiate narrative prose from narrative poetry.

What I do not know is how to identify historical from non-historical narrative by literary features. What literary features are you speaking of?

No I would consider it a myth from a dead culture, dead language and a dead religion. An artifact from antiquity that has not been in the custody of those we would expect a primary source document to be in the custody of.

Enuma Elish was discovered written on cuneiform tablets in the library of Asshurbanipal. Not sure why you would say this is not where we would expect to find a primary source document. Since you apparently agree it came from an ancient culture, however, you apparently agree it is an authentic document of that culture. So it is a genuine antiquity, an antique narrative, but, in your view, not historical narrative. So far, so good.

Now what literary features differentiate it from the biblical narrative of creation? Note: this is not a question about content--we know the stories have different characters and events. Nor is it a question about external evidence--such as whether or not the culture still exists. Please confine your answer to literary features, since this is the basis of your claim to be able to distinguish historical from non-historical narrative.

It's a relic, the Scriptures have remained in the care of living cultures from the time they were originally authored, the Hebrew and Christian communities respectively.

Again, this is an appeal to external evidence, not internal literary marks in the text itself.

I've answered that every time you have asked in a number of different ways and you just repeat the question in circles.

Yes, you have answered in many ways that avoid the crux of the issue: the claim that there is a form of narrative, dubbed "historical" which can be distinguished from non-historical narrative by its literary features alone without recourse to external evidence.


How many literary features of this so-called genre have you supplied? Not one yet.

Buzzzzzz! Sorry, wrong answer! 'Like' or 'as' for an explicit description of a parable.

Correct answer. "like" and "as" explicitly identify a simile. Jesus uses these terms when he teaches about the kingdom of God through a simile. When he is not using a simile, he does not introduce his parables in this way. Then we only know his stories are parables because the gospel-writers so identify them. Parables do not in explicitly identify themselves as non-historical. David certainly thought Nathan was presenting him with history when he told of the rich man who stole the poor man's one lamb.

 

[gluadys]

Why should he exist at all? If you reject the Bible as a book of myths and fairy tales, why accept any of it as fact?

This gets to the heart of the difference between a literalist and a non-literalist approach to scripture. The literalist accepts only what he is convinced is fact. (A hangover from modern, positivist philosophy--not a traditional Judeo-Christian philosophy.) Because he only accepts fact as truth, his reaction to myth is to reject it. And he projects this rejection onto non-literalists.

It never occurs to him that what TEs are doing is accepting the Bible as (in part) a book containing myths--that myth as well as fact can be true and received just as seriously and reverently and as authoritative truth as any fact can be.

 

[KWCrazy]

It never occurs to him that what TEs are doing is accepting the Bible as (in part) a book containing myths--that myth as well as fact can be true and received just as seriously and reverently and as authoritative truth as any fact can be.

How and where does one draw the line regarding which things they choose to believe and which things they choose to reject? Do they look at all the miracles and say, "No, this one doesn't work for me," or "Yes, I guess I can believe this one?" God created man in His image. We don't get to return the favor. We don't get to recreate our own private religion and call it Scriptural. I have often challenged TE to produce passages of Scripture to buoy their arguments, and they never can. Why? Because TE is unscriptural.

 

[Assyrian]

Actually they all do including the clear meaning of the text in Scripture in English. The only problem being a Theistic Evolutionist means you can argue to the contrary in circles endlessly.

Are you still pretending you have shown your equation in the Lexicons? No arguing in circles, I am just waiting for you to justify your claim day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day"

And yet Peter only describes his eyewitness report of the transfiguration as not being a cleverly devised fable. You have made no attempt at defending you claims with an exegesis of the passage or to defend you misunderstanding of 'private interpretation', just a hand waving 'inextricably linked' and ad hom accusations.

What Peter is saying in the passage is that neither the New Testament witness nor the prophecy of old were of private interpretation. These divinely inspired revelations from redemptive history are eye witnesses.

For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. (2 Peter 1:16)​

While you argue incessantly against those who would believe the clear testimony of Scripture others of your persuasion dismiss the witness of Scripture from the Old Testament as myth, metaphor and fables. Peter is crystal clear the Old Testament revelation is redemptive history:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 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. (2 Peter 20,21)​

You are still conflating Peters description of the transfiguration as not being a myth with his reference to the OT prophets. You haven't made any attempt to understand what Peter mean by 'private interpretation' either. 'Crystal clear' is another phrase you should watch for alongside your 'inextricably linked'. You use them when you can't make a solid case for you claims. Where is the exegesis of the passage I asked for?

Peter is clear that he affirms the historicity of Genesis, speaking directly of the Flood making direct connections to the Gospel in no uncertain terms:

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:6,7)​

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15, 15)​

Salvation and the historicity of Genesis are inextricably linked. I've seen how you twist the testimony of Paul as well. Shamelessly dismissing Adam as metaphor when Paul clearly describes him as the first parent of humanity in his exposition of original sin. Then, like now, you argued in circles around the obvious which is typical of the rhetoric of Theistic Evolution.

Lets stick to 2Peter 1 for now instead of changing the subject to the chapter 3. I am still waiting for you to back up you claims about cleverly devised myths and private interpretation. Cut the claim about 'inextricably linked' and ad homs and give us some exegesis to back up you views.

On the contrary, I know the Scriptures and the relevant scientific literature pertaining to the theology of origins. I know exactly what your saying, I just don't agree with it because you argue against the clear testimony of Scripture in favor of arguments of science, falsely so called, namely, Darwinism.

If you know exactly what I am saying why not address it and refute it? Why not show by your refutation you understand what I said? Here it is again for you:

Yes it is absurd. I would have thought by now you'd be able to distinguish between events being real and descriptions of events being literal or figurative. Christ really created the heavens and the earth, but that doesn't tell us whether the descriptions of his work of creation are real or figurative.
​

You don't get to call something literal when you don't even understand the difference between literal and real.

I know the difference between literal and figurative language and so do you. Now you want to separate what it means for something the be 'literal' and 'real', words that are clearly synonymous. This semantic shell game is a fallacious diversionary tactic mean to conflate the Scriptures and twist them into legends and myths. A practice that cannot be confused with the genuine article of faith. Redemptive history and the New Testament promise of salvation are inextricably linked. To worship Christ as Savior is to worship Christ as Creator.

Calling it a 'semantic shell game' or a 'fallacious diversionary tactic' is not the same as understanding my point or refuting it. As long as you continue to confuse real and literal you arguments for demanding a literal Genesis has no credibility.

Yet another audacious circular argument denying the clear meaning of Scripture, twisting them around to mean whatever you want them to mean. Your only source authority is you and I don't need you permission to accept the clear testimony of Scripture.

Nothing to do with my authority or lack of it. I am asking you for some sort of authority to back up your declaration that day is defined by the equation "evening and morning equals one day"

No, it's fallacious rhetoric intended to run the conversation in circles. No matter what is said the question is asked again and again in circles.

Is it a question or not, because you claimed I wasn't asking you anything.

It's an argument that never happened and you have been shown repeatedly from the clear meaning of the text in common sense terms to the Lexicon and Dictionary definitions. It's called begging the question of proof and it's an argument that never happened.

It would never have happened if you simply admitted you didn't have any basis for equation. Instead you pretend to back it up from Lexicons that say noting of the sort. It wouldn't keep happening if you simply admitted you got it wrong. Instead you keep arguing by pretending to have answered me.

Nothing personal about it, your arguments are flawed attempts at changing the meaning of words. This semantical shell game doesn't fool anyone including you and I'm just pointing out what is painfully obvious from your arguments.

Simply claiming I use 'flawed arguments' and 'semantic shell game' isn't the same as coming up with a real argument. You make claims like defining day with an equation, that Peter said the OT wasn't a myth and you misunderstanding of 'person interpretation'. I point out the problems and the only response you can come up with is rhetorical huffing and puffing. Please Mark, come up with some substantive arguments, at least try to discuss the issues.

You know very well that Jesus is speaking figuratively of himself as the 'Good Shepherd', you don't get to equivocate that with an historical narrative, it's foolish to try. Arguing it in circles is a mockery of the text, not a sound exposition of Scripture.

No I use the Good Shepherd to show figurative descriptions aren't always labelled figurative, and to distinguish between real, literal and figurative.

There's nothing post modern about the historicity of Genesis, reducing Scripture to myth and metaphor is the practice of post modernist rhetoric. The Church and the ancient Hebrews have always understood the Genesis account to be literal history and always will.

You are confusing modernism and post modernism.

Lol. Actually I am happy with there being many different ways to interpret Genesis. Once Christians realise there are other interpretation there is simply no reason to hang on to scientifically bankrupt Creationism. It is creationists who have to insist there is only one interpretation and that Genesis has to be literal.

I have seen how you handle both and you offer substantive arguments for and from neither. That's not your fault, defending the fallacious logic of Darwinism has made you dependent on the rationalizations from a worldview that categorically rejects miracles. It has no place in Christian theism and trying to make it fit deprecates Christian theism and the genuine article of science.

No attempt to address my point, just more rhetorical huffing and puffing about 'fallacious logic' etc.

When I adopted theistic evolution it was based on a literal Intermittent Day interpretation of Genesis. I have since changed to a figurative interpretation, not because of Darwin, or natural processes, but because it is simple a better reading of the text.

Darwin defined Darwinism in no uncertain terms, there is no ambiguity in the content or the principles Darwinian natural selection includes.

That's noting to do with your response being an ad hom based and nothing to do my original point of why I adopted a figurative interpretation of Genesis

Ok, so it's alright for him to dismiss the Old Testament Patriarchs as mythical figures but you going to ridicule Creationism for being intellectually bankrupt. Typical

You still didn't address my point.

I've seen it, it's about what I would expect.

I though you were offering to discuss my views, olive branch and all that.

That was a serious offer and you have every right to refuse, it makes very little difference to me.

Different issue Mark. Your "connection between creation and salvation from classic Christian apologetics" falls apart because you do not understand the difference between literal and real.

I know what your trying to do and how to eliminate the logical fallacies from you arguments in a way that is benign and substantive. What you are going to have to come to terms with is the obvious flaw in your logic, that self contradictory semantical shell game you used right there.

The terms 'real' and 'literal' are synonymous. This is the essence of your error and I'm through chasing it in circles. The first order of business when dealing with something as profoundly philosophical as the theology of origins is to define your terms. They have to be unequivocal, precise and recognized meanings from the primary source authorities. That's your whole problem, you never laid the foundation so it's no wonder what you tried to build was never squared and fell by it's own weight.

Have a nice day
Mark

You are confusing looser uses of literal ''when Dad heard about the car he literally exploded' with it grammatical use describing non figurative language and literature. You are also confusing literal accounts with the reality they describe. When you say the creation is literal, you mean the creation really happened. Only a description of the creation in words can be 'literal' in the proper grammatical meaning of the words. Because of your confusion, you cannot separate the reality of God's act of creation with the description of the creation in Genesis. So you think because creation is mentioned in the creeds, it must mean Genesis is literal. No, the creeds simply affirm God reall did create the heavens and the earth, not that Genesis is to be interpreted literally.

 

[gluadys]

How and where does one draw the line regarding which things they choose to believe and which things they choose to reject?

You still haven't got it. When it comes to scripture, TEs don't draw any line between choosing what to believe and what to reject at all. We accept all of it, some as history, some as law, some as poetry, some as teaching, some as miracle stories, some as parables, some as apocalyptic imagery, some as prophecy, some as myth. None of it is rejected. We don't think any scripture is to be rejected on the basis of the literary form it is presented in.

You are the one who says only what is presented in the form of fact is to be accepted and all else rejected. We say don't reject any of it, factual or otherwise, because it is all inspired truth from God.