A question about dinosaurs

[Resha Caner]

I'm not talking about people undermining scripture but good quality committed Christian scholars.

Is Kuhn one of your "good quality committed Christian scholars"?

sure you can find scholars who think they are the same person along with one's who don't and one's in between. What you can't then do is treat it as something we know.

Either you read too quickly or I was too brief. Your response indicates a lack of understanding of my post.

Taking something as other than factual- literal is not disbelief

It is if the text was intended to convey history. One unique aspect to Christianity is its continual claim that God does more than give us theological parables to ponder. He actually gets involved.

If the genealogy is not historical, then it cannot be trusted that Jesus was a descendant of David - and the OT makes it clear that the Messiah would be such a descendant.

one scholar is too little data to make that conclusion from.

It's better than what you've given me, which is nothing. Further, I'll mention again that there seems to be a misunderstanding. The source provides a summary of both sides of the argument before making its conclusions. Therefore, I expect it would be possible to glean a list of scholars both supporting and opposing the conclusion from Kuhn's bibliography.

I'm going to take the Noah story on it's own terms, not try to conclude what it is backwards from a lot of hypothetical assumptions and speculations about the author of the third Gospel. Just as I'll take his gospel on it's own terms.

Which means what? Dismissing any indications that it is history? You claim it is presented as a parable. But the Bible makes it quite clear when a parable is intended. That intent is called out explicitly in Psalms, Ezekiel, and Hosea (as well as in the NT) that a parable is about to be presented. There is no shift in narrative style nor any explicit indication of a parable when the story of Noah begins. Rather, the genealogies, the place names, and other clues indicate it is history. Therefore, unless you mean to say that the entire Penateuch is a parable, and that you have scriptural citations stating Jesus is only a "spiritual" descendant of Noah, you are the one forcing the text to say what it does not.

You continue to avoid my questions and make unsupported statements. I have no interest in continuing our conversation until you do me those courtesies.

 

[ebia]

Is Kuhn one of your "good quality committed Christian scholars"?

I don't know him, but I take it he is, yes.

Either you read too quickly or I was too brief. Your response indicates a lack of understanding of my post.

It is if the text was intended to convey history.

Globally, yes. But that doesn't imply that every part of the text is history in a modernist sense.

One unique aspect to Christianity is its continual claim that God does more than give us theological parables to ponder. He actually gets involved.

absolutely

If the genealogy is not historical, then it cannot be trusted that Jesus was a descendant of David -

does not follow.

Which means what? Dismissing any indications that it is history? You claim it is presented as a parable. But the Bible makes it quite clear when a parable is intended.

at best that would be circular reasoning.

There is no shift in narrative style nor any explicit indication of a parable when the story of Noah begins. Rather, the genealogies, the place names, and other clues indicate it is history.

none of those things necessarily indicate history as you've already noted yourself and there are plent of shifts in style thoughout Genesis,

You continue to avoid my questions and make unsupported statements. I have no interest in continuing our conversation until you do me those courtesies.

what you do is up to you