Logical Problems with Calvinism

[EmSw]

Really? The meaning of most of the parables weren't told to us.

The really spiritual reply would be to have just answered your questions and not told you about my true feelings.

I was quite honest with you as well. To a fault in fact.

Marvin, I hold nothing against what you have said about me. I guess if people only said nice things about me, I would be a little concerned.

If one doesn't know the meaning of the parables, what use are they? Do you think that there might be a spiritual side verses the natural side? Do you think every natural word Jesus used in the parables had a spiritual meaning? How can anyone know exactly what was meant spiritually in a parable unless it is revealed? Do you now know why I asked you for the meaning of your parable?

And, like Jesus, I condescended to explain the parable to you.

I don't think Jesus condescended to explain the parables. I think we was more than happy to explain them to His disciples.

The fact that you are very "serious" in what you said and asked following is exactly what bothers me about you.

Thinking of you as an idiot does seem a bit harsh and rash. But it really doesn't seem like you are playing with a full deck.

When I first started conversing with you some time ago and remember thinking that you weren't the sharpest tool in the shed.

But at times you have seemed quite lucid and convincing in your ideas - even though I disagreed with most of them.

But about the time I start to think that I had you wrong all along - you show up and prove me wrong by saying or asking some really dumb things.

Are you bi-polar by any chance?

Nah, I am not bi-polar, what you see is what you get with me. Even though one may perceive questions as dumb, Jesus calmly answered the lawyer's question, who tried to tempt Jesus. Jesus didn't tell him he didn't have a full deck, or wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. In fact, Jesus did say one word about him not being saved. Don't we all have a lot to learn in following Jesus?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Nope. I am not saying that. I am saying that I have given you a real world example rather than a parable. Which you keep rejecting.


The condition of a lot of believers, unfortunately.


All I can say is…get real. Accept the real world example of Paul himself.

Do you reject what Paul wrote about struggling between our 2 natures?

I do not care what you call it, my friend. Just give me a parable like the way Jesus did it so as to illustrate the spiritual goodness behind OSAS. In other words, create a truth in the physical world that parallels what you believe defends the goodness of OSAS. Again, you cannot use the quoting of Scripture. We are talking about a parable here. I want a parable in your own words.

Anyways, thank you;
And may God bless you this fine day.

Side Note:

However, please keep in mind that I know why you have been resistant in creating a parable to defend the goodness of OSAS. It is because you can't do it, my friend. Unless of course you want to take the challenge and create a parable and prove me wrong (that is).


....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Both are.

Okay good.

Now, that you understand that the words "Keep not his commandments" = "sin" in 1 John 2:4, we can read it like this....

"He that saith, I know him, and sins [keepeth not his commandments], is a liar, and the truth is not in him."

So this is the context of 1 John 1:8. It is saying that in the present tense he that says he knows him and yet sins is a liar and the truth is not in him. In other words, 1 John 2:4 is against the idea of one thinking they can sin and say that they know Him. This is added details or context one needs when reading 1 John 1:8. In other words, both 1 John 1:8 and 1 John 2:4 are saying that a person is ignoring their sin or they ignoring the fact that they are breaking God's Commands and claiming to know or have fellowship with Him. They are lying and the truth is not in them. For 1 John 1:6 adds the details needed for 1 John 1:8 in the fact that the believer is claiming to have fellowship with God while they are also walking in darkness. This is the context. 1 John 1:6 is connected to 1 John 1:8 which in turn is also connected to 1 John 2:4. The text is connected together and not separate.

But if your interpretation on 1 John 1:8 is true, then 1 John 2:4 would be a verse that would directly contradict it; And that is not possible because the Bible cannot be in error.

Again, the New English Translation should clear up any confusion for you on 1 John 1:8.

For it says,

"If we say we do not bear the guilt of sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us."
(1 John 1:8) (New English Translation).​

The Expanded Bible says the same thing,

"If we say we ·have no sin [or have no sin nature; or are not guilty of sinning], we are ·fooling [deceiving] ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
(1 John 1:8) (Expanded Bible).​

Do you have any idea what Jesus' point was to Peter when He was washing their feet and Peter refused. So Jesus said "Peter said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” John 13:8.

Then Peter said: "Simon Peter said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” v.9

So Jesus replied: "Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you." v.10

Jesus' point was that saved people have already been bathed (or cleansed). But they still need their feet cleaned. And He affirmed that Peter was "clean".

Do you not understand any of this? Jesus was speaking of fellowship when He spoke of "having no part with Me". Not about salvation.

No. First, this passage in John 13 is not talkng about fellowship. Jesus says that one of them is not clean (i.e. Judas).

"He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you" (John 13:10).​

Judas was clearly not a saved man, so it is clear that being "clean" or "not clean" is referring to salvation here.

Second, when Christ said, to Peter, "you have no part with me", we can see similar wording of to "have part" that is used by John in Revelation. John says, "Blessed and holy is he who has his part in the first resurrection. John says elswhere in Revelation, "But the fearful, unbelieving, abominable.... shall have their part in the lake of fire, which is the second death." In other words, to "have part" is connected to spiritual life and spiritual death in the BIble. So it makes sense that similar language would be used when Jesus spoke to his disciples about being clean or unclean. For nothing that defiles or is unclean can enter the city of New Jerusalem (Which is where God's people will reside) (See Revelation 21:27).

Three, actually, there are several passages that tell us that you cannot be out of fellowship with God and be saved.

#1. 1 John 5:12 says He that has the Son has life and He that does not have the Son does not have life. Life is associated with eternal life or salvation.

#2. John 17:3 says eternal life is in knowing the one true God, Jesus Christ. Knowing implies a fellowship. So if you don't know Jesus, then you don't have life (Salvation).

#3. Romans 8:9 says if he a man does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him.

#4. Psalm 73:27 says God will destroy all those who abandon Him (or go a whoring from Him).

#5. John 15:6 says if a man does not abide in Him, he is cast forth and burned.

#6. 1 John 1:7 says if we walk in the Light as He is in the Light, the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin.

#7. Romans 11:21-22 says if you do not continue in his goodness you will be cut off. For if God spared not the natural branches (i.e. the Jews), take heed that he can do the same to you (i.e. Gentile believers). The analogy here is that you are branch and Christ is the tree. We need to continue in Christ's righteousness or goodness, not our own righteousness or goodness, or we will be cut off because of unbelief.


...

 

[Hoghead1]

I am very familiar with AIG, Jason0047, and I find its material to be highly questionable from both a scientific and a theological standpoint.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am very familiar with AIG, Jason0047, and I find its material to be highly questionable from both a scientific and a theological standpoint.

Well, I am no huge supporter of Answers in Genesis. There is much I disagree in what they believe. I disagree with their claims that Adam and Eve were initially created immortal. I disagree with the fact that they hold to the Sethite view. In fact, I find the whole concept of a Creation Ministries to be some what anti-Biblical. For God did not call us to defend the Creation. God calls us to preach the gospel and to defend the faith (i.e. in being righteous and holy). But that does not mean some things that they don't say about the Bible are not true, though. For example: I believe in a Young Earth; And they do support that in ways they are sound at times. I also believe God can still use this ministry even if it is not exactly something God has commissioned his saints to do exactly. For a large life size ark with real animals, etc. will no doubt be a great witnessing tool to bring people to Christ. But just because I posted a video by them does not equate that I agree with everything they say and teach (or even stand for). I merely agree with what was said in the video. There is no reason to read into it any more than that, my friend.


...

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, but some of us do not believe in YEC, largely because we find the case they make for it to be completely flawed scientifically and biblically. For example, I find Genesis contains two highly contradictory creation accounts. I have yet to see AIG or other apologetic sites resolve any of these contradictions. Also their evidence for the ark is highly suspect as well. And where do they provide any solid scientific arguments for YEC? If you feel you see some, please let the rest of us know.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, but some of us do not believe in YEC, largely because we find the case they make for it to be completely flawed scientifically and biblically. For example, I find Genesis contains two highly contradictory creation accounts. I have yet to see AIG or other apologetic sites resolve any of these contradictions. Also their evidence for the ark is highly suspect as well. And where do they provide any solid scientific arguments for YEC? If you feel you see some, please let the rest of us know.

In Mark 10:6, Jesus referred to the beginning of creation God made them "male" and "female" and then He refers of how they were joined together and became one flesh. This is clear account of what we see in Genesis chapter 2 (Which is taken from Genesis chapter 1). Also, there are not two creation accounts. This is a common misconception that is made by new readers. Genesis chapter 1 and the beginning of chapter 2 is a summary of the creation account. The bulk of Genesis chapter 2 is merely an explanation of the details of what happened on day 6 from Genesis chapter 1.

Anyways, here is a set of verses that I created that explains God's Story in the beginning.
(That I attempted to keep chronological without sacrificing on the Story).

Story #1 - God's Story (the Word)
(From Everlasting to the Beginning and Beyond):
(Early Story Introduction)

Chapter 1: - From Everlasting to the Beginning.

From everlasting to everlasting, thou art God (Psalm 90:2).

One God (1 Timothy 2:5).

None else beside him. (Deuteronomy 4:35).

The true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king (Jeremiah 10:10)

For God is the King (Psalm 47:7).

God is love (1 John 4:8)

God is Spirit (John 4:24).

God is Light and in Him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5).

For the LORD is good; (Psalm 100:5).

Holy, is the LORD (Isaiah 6:3).

The Almighty, ... excellent in power, and in judgment, .... (Job 37:23)

He is mighty in strength and wisdom. (Job 36:5)

His understanding is infinite. (Psalm 147:5).

The LORD is righteous in all his ways (Psalm 145:17).

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: ... a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he (Deuteronomy 32:4).

In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth (Genesis 1:1)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1). For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:3)

For this God is our God for ever and ever: (Psalm 48:14)


Chapter 2: - God's Creation.
(A Continuation of Story #1 - God's Story (The Word))

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. (Genesis 1:1-11).

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. (Genesis 2:5-6).

And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; .... (Genesis 2:8-a).

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land isgood: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. (Genesis 2:9-14).​

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Genesis 1:12-19).

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.(Genesis 2:18). (a) And out of the ground the LORD God formed ... (d) every fowl of the air; (Genesis 2:19-a & Genesis 2:19-d). (c) "...and..." (Genesis 2:19-c)​

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (Genesis 1:20-24).

(a) And out of the ground the LORD God formed (b) every beast of the field, (Genesis 2:19-a, Genesis 2:19-b).​

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:25-26).


...

​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Story #2 - Adam and Eve's Story
(Early Story Introduction)

Chapter 1: - The Origin of Adam and Eve.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7).

And... a garden eastward in Eden; ... there he put the man whom he had formed. (Genesis 2:8).

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying,
"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Genesis 2:15-17).

(b) And ... the LORD God ... (c) brought ....(b) every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air... (c) and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. (Genesis 2:19-b, Genesis 2:19-c). And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. (Genesis 2:20).

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And Adam said,
"This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:21-25).


Story #1 - God's Story (the Word) (Continued).
(We resume in Chapter 2 of God's Story):

Chapter 2: - God's Creation (Continued)

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them,

And God said unto them,
"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

And God said,
"Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat" :

And it was so.

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:27-31).

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, (Genesis 2:1-4).


Story #3 - The Devil's Story
(Early Story Introduction)

Chapter 1: - The Fall of Lucifer.

Thus saith the Lord GOD;

"Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, ..." (Ezekiel 28:12-17).​

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, ... For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12-15).


Story #2 - Adam and Eve's Story (Continued).
(We are continuing on after Chapter 1 of Adam and Eve's Story):

Brief Recap: In the 1st Chapter of Adam and Eve's Story we see Adam & Eve's creation and God commanding them not to eat of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil."

Chapter 2: - The Fall of Adam and Eve.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

And he said unto the woman,
"Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

And the woman said unto the serpent,
"We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

And the serpent said unto the woman,
"Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him,
"Where art thou?"

And he said,
"I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself."

And he said,
"Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"

And the man said,
"The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

And the LORD God said unto the woman,
"What is this that thou hast done?"

And the woman said,
"The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

And the LORD God said unto the serpent,
"Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

Unto the woman he said,
"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

And unto Adam he said,
"Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

And Adam called his wife's name
"Eve";

Because she was the mother of all living.

Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

And the LORD God said,
"Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever":

Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (Genesis 3:1-24).


...

 

[Job8]

And where do they provide any solid scientific arguments for YEC?

The Bible is as solidly scientific as any other book. That's where you will find a young earth. After all who created the universe and who placed scientific laws into the universe? Can anyone be more scientific than God, who created mathematics and science? The same Creator also created everything within six literal 24-hour days, and embedded that truth in the Ten Commandments.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't accurate, Jason. The notion of two contradictory creation accounts is central in modern biblical scholarship. Let me share with you a bit more on this Genesis issue.

1. 
   
   
   
   

When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.



Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.



Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

“The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.



Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.



There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.



There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.



There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.



Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.



P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That isn't accurate, Jason. The notion of two contradictory creation accounts is central in modern biblical scholarship. Let me share with you a bit more on this Genesis issue.

When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.



Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.



Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

“The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.



Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.



There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.



There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.



There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.



Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.



P.S. Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.

You sound more like an unbeliever in the Scriptures than a believer, my friend. I believe the Bible is 100% accurate and true in what it says. Please go back and re-look at my two posts I created. I provided a chronology of the events of what I believe is the beginning of God's Story.


....

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't know what you mean by believer here. I am a theologian. I have a doctorate in theology from the conjoint program between a major university and a PCUSA seminary. I also have a very strong background in biblical studies. I read your case and then presented my reasons, above, why Genesis is contradictory. Modern biblical scholarship would agree with me on this. Now, if you ant o disagree you certainly can. But then you need to provide solid rebuttals to my points above, which you have yet to do.

 

[Hoghead1]

Woah! That's way off, Job8. The Bible is nowhere near a scientific account. it's language is anything but scientific. Furthermore, God is not a scientific question, to begin with.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't know what you mean by believer here. I am a theologian. I have a doctorate in theology from the conjoint program between a major university and a PCUSA seminary. I also have a very strong background in biblical studies. I read your case and then presented my reasons, above, why Genesis is contradictory. Modern biblical scholarship would agree with me on this. Now, if you ant o disagree you certainly can. But then you need to provide solid rebuttals to my points above, which you have yet to do.

Well, truth is not taught in Bible College but truth is taught by the Holy Spirit. By what you said so far, it makes me think you are in doubt about God's Word in what it actually says. Oh, and it is absolutely positively ridiculous to claim to be a believer in Jesus Christ and also say that there is no Scientific evidence backing up the Holy Scriptures, too.

Unless the word "Theologian" is just a cover or smokescreen as to say you believe in Jesus and the Bible but you really don't. I say this not to be mean, but I say this because I honestly believe you are having serious problems in believing God's Word (by what you said so far).

Anyways, here is a list of Biblical Evidences that should hopefully leave you speechless if you do not believe in Jesus or the Bible.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/general-list-of-biblical-evidences.7833944/


....

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The Bible DOES say we are to be imitators of Christ; And we DO KNOW that Christ spoke in parables. So it is a logical conclusion that if one were to imitate Christ in the good things He did, then telling parables would be a part of that. .....

Based on this logic you should try to get yourself nailed to a cross, forgive sins and turn water into wine.

 

[Hoghead1]

Leave me speechless? It left me laughing. This is nothing other than more creation-science silly nonsense. period. Also, the issue here is not whether or not I or anyone else believes in Jesus and the Bible ; the issue is whether we share your interpretation of Scripture. Now, I presented you with a solid case why I do not hold with the inerrancy of Scripture; and if you are truly interested in a serious theological dialogue, then you shod go through my case point by point and offer as best a rational rebuttal as you can. So far, you have not done anything near that. Trying to argue that I or someone else who disagree with out is snot a rue believer is an irresponsible bogus response in any serious theological dialogue. So please stick to the rules.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Based on this logic you should try to get yourself nailed to a cross, forgive sins and turn water into wine.

First, insulting others is not becoming of the saints. Second, your example does not in any way shape or form describe my belief in Christ in the slightest. I believe Jesus died, was buried, and was risen again for my past sins when I repented of my sins and accepted Him. If I were to sin again, Jesus is there as my advocate whereby I can confess my sin to Him and be cleansed of my sin again by what He did. Also, Jesus lives in me and does the good work within my life. So I cannot take credit for any good in my life. All glory goes to Jesus Christ for my salvation. My cooperating with Jesus in no way nullifies His plan of salvation unless you are asserting you were forced against your will into coming into God's Kingdom or something.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Leave me speechless? It left me laughing. This is nothing other than more creation-science silly nonsense. period. Also, the issue here is not whether or not I or anyone else believes in Jesus and the Bible ; the issue is whether we share your interpretation of Scripture. Now, I presented you with a solid case why I do not hold with the inerrancy of Scripture; and if you are truly interested in a serious theological dialogue, then you shod go through my case point by point and offer as best a rational rebuttal as you can. So far, you have not done anything near that. Trying to argue that I or someone else who disagree with out is snot a rue believer is an irresponsible bogus response in any serious theological dialogue. So please stick to the rules.

First, if the evidences left you laughing then I realize that you do not believe in Jesus and the Bible and that means I am going to pray for you. Two, it does matter if you are a real Christian or not. This section of this website you are talking in is exclusive to "Christians Only." Which means, if a you do not consider yourself a real Christian, you are not allowed to talk here in this part of the website. Three, you are way off topic the point of your discussion here. This thread is in no way related to the discussion of Young Earth Creationism or Evidences that support God's Word. The discussion of OSAS or Eternal Security we have been having is under the umbrella of the belief known as Calvinism. Your topics are not related in any way. Four, there is no point in dicussing the Bible in a debate with a person who does not believe the Bible. You first have to have faith and believe the Bible in order for there to be any kind of progress or head way in believing that the Scriptures are true.


....

 

[jimmyjimmy]

First, insulting others is not becoming of the saints. Second, your example does not in any way shape or form describe my belief in Christ in the slightest. I believe Jesus died, was buried, and was risen again for my past sins when I repented of my sins and accepted Him. If I were to sin again, Jesus is there as my advocate whereby I can confess my sin to Him and be cleansed of my sin again by what He did. Also, Jesus lives in me and does the good work within my life. So I cannot take credit for any good in my life. All glory goes to Jesus Christ for my salvation. My cooperating with Jesus in no way nullifies His plan of salvation unless you are asserting you were forced against your will into coming into God's Kingdom or something.

Missed my point completely. You said: "The Bible DOES say we are to be imitators of Christ; And we DO KNOW that Christ spoke in parables. So it is a logical conclusion that if one were to imitate Christ in the good things He did, then telling parables would be a part of that."

You said that because Jesus spoke in parables, you should speak in parables (which, BTW is one of the strangest things I have read on CF, and I've read some straaaaaaange things here). So I replied: Based on this logic you should try to get yourself nailed to a cross, forgive sins and turn water into wine.

I'll add that you should also get 12 disciples, and walk around Galilee dressed in a seamless robe.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If one doesn't know the meaning of the parables, what use are they?

Jesus told us why He used them and who they were for:

Matt 13:13 - “Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.