Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So God's original design (before sin entered the world) was for humans to live a period of time and then die a physical death?
What was the point of life then?
That's your opinion and assumption based on your interpretation of the collective evidence. I, too, have opinions based on my theological and philosophical beliefs.
I believe that God actually and really created in six literal days and that the author of Genesis one is recording true events in exact detail.
This again is based on how you've interpreted the collective evidence - which is directly influenced by your philosophical and theological perspective.
Again I, too, have my own opinion. I believe that the preponderance of early and global flood myths not only came from a real event but that this event was the same global flood mentioned in Genesis. Not some large localized flood in Iraq.
I don't care what you wish to call it. I'm suggesting it actually happened the exact way it was reported to us by the author(s) of Genesis.
There's a difference between a conclusion "based on the collective evidence" and "opinions based on my theological and philosophical beliefs". What you are saying is that you pick the beliefs ahead of time and do not care about the evidence. It may be "opinion" but it is informed opinion based on evidence. In contrast, your opinion is based only on what you want things to be. That's not an adequate basis for finding truth.
He can't be, because the details in Genesis 2 contradict the details in Genesis 1, when both are read literally.
No, it's not. Instead, the philosophical and theological perspective is influenced by the evidence.
Then you deny God created.
## And a great many do. There have been all sorts of changes in the use and understanding of the DH over the years, & there is a long history of mistaking debate about it and refinement of it with rejection of it. That is what one would expect - the same can be said for "Q", & Marcan priority.That's your opinion and assumption based on your interpretation of the collective evidence. I, too, have opinions based on my theological and philosophical beliefs. I believe that God actually and really created in six literal days and that the author of Genesis one is recording true events in exact detail.
On a side note: the status quo in academia on who authored Genesis has been changing in the last ten years. Many theologians and Biblical scholars no longer accept the documentary hypothesis as feasible.
And...?This again is based on how you've interpreted the collective evidence - which is directly influenced by your philosophical and theological perspective.
## And I disagree with you. You have your opinions - others have theirs. Why is that remarkable ? Isn't that to be expected ? I don't understand the defensiveness in your post.
Again I, too, have my own opinion. I believe that the preponderance of early and global flood myths not only came from a real event but that this event was the same global flood mentioned in Genesis. Not some large localized flood in Iraq.
I don't care what you wish to call it. I'm suggesting it actually happened the exact way it was reported to us by the author(s) of Genesis.
## That is what James Barr said almost 30 years ago - that there were indeed changes, but not in the direction of suggesting fewer authors; in the direction, rather, of suggesting there were more.While that's true, what you've written could be misleading. The main realization from the documentary hypothesis (DP) was that no single author, and certainly not moses, wrote the pentateuch. The newer hypotheses, and there are scores of them, agree that moses didn't write the pentateuch, and nearly always have many authors writing it. The main departure from the DP is that they often have MORE separate authors, such as the Fragmentary Hypothesis.
##I've seen many uninformed Christians state that the DP is outdated as a way to suggest that modern Bible scholars are going back to the idea that Moses wrote it, when in fact that's not the case at all, and the newer ideas that now compete with the DP are, like the DP, rejections of authorship by Moses, or even by a single person.
Jig, you don't have to take my word for it either, here is one example of a review of current thought:
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/10_126.pdf
Jig, in light of that, do you agree that modern Bible Scholars are practically unanimous that Moses didn't write it, and that many authors are involved, over a long period of time?
Papias
## Claus Westermann, in volume 1 of his commentary on Genesis, observes that at least 250 Flood stories are known. What people seem not to notice is that the fact of there being such a story tells us nothing about its origin, nor whether it is the only one from its culture, nor about the function it fulfilled in the society it was found in; as he is careful to point out.There's a difference between a conclusion "based on the collective evidence" and "opinions based on my theological and philosophical beliefs". What you are saying is that you pick the beliefs ahead of time and do not care about the evidence. It may be "opinion" but it is informed opinion based on evidence. In contrast, your opinion is based only on what you want things to be. That's not an adequate basis for finding truth.
He can't be, because the details in Genesis 2 contradict the details in Genesis 1, when both are read literally.
No, it's not. Instead, the philosophical and theological perspective is influenced by the evidence. If you think it works the way you stated, then the disciples could never have founded Christianity. After all, their philosophical and theological perspective was that of being Jewish, and Jesus did not fit the criteria for being the Messiah. It was that discrepancy between Jesus and the theological perspective that led Jews to reject Jesus as Messiah.
But instead, the disciples went with the "collective evidence" of seeing and talking to the risen Jesus and changed their philosophical and theological perspective.
The problem here is that there is not a "preponderance" of global flood myths. Most peoples do not have one. Richard Andre did a comprehensive collection of myths about the floods. It was Die Flutsagen: Ehnthographisch Btrachtet, 1891. Andre had nearly 90 deluge traditions. Of these, 26 arose from the Babylonian story and 43 were independent. He noted a lack of deluge traditions in Arabia, Japan, northern and central Asia, Africa, and much of Europe. He concluded that not everyone had descended from survivors of a single deluge, otherwise the traditions would all have been much more identical and there would be deluge traditions in every society instead of a minority.
As it happens, the stories in Genesis 6-8 (and there are 2 flood stories intertwined) come from the Epic of Gilgamesh. They are a re-working of that story to make it theologically serve the Hebrew people during the Exile.
Then you deny God created.
## What do you make of the fight with the monster Rahab ?All evidence must be interpreted. All interpretation is based on an underlying foundation of personal philosophical beliefs. There is no escaping it.
Depends on the hermeneutic you are using. I read the account literally and see no contradiction.
## And the same holds for the contents of Genesis. It does not claim to be history, so there is no reason (that I know of) why it *must* be treated as history, and several why not. Why can't the contents of Genesis 1 to 11 be (inspired) myths or fairy-tales ? That in no way deprives them of their theological message - it means only that they are not accounts of actual events befalling actually historical individuals. IOW, it changes their supposed literary genre - from history, to myth.All evidence is neutral; it does not speak for itself.
I'm not the one in denial.
For someone who like to keep asking questions, you are not very good at answering them yourself.So God's original design (before sin entered the world) was for humans to live a period of time and then die a physical death?
What was the point of life then?
What does the bible say God's original purpose was?
For someone who like to keep asking questions, you are not very good at answering them yourself.
You mean you weren't just trying to pick holes in TE? Not that there's anything wrong with that. But this is a discussion forum, not a police interview, so asking questions should be a two way street.I want to be sure I understand your position better. You already seem to know what I believe.
answer my question:What does the bible say God's original purpose was?
Technically, "glorify God and enjoy Him forever" is the Westminster Catechism rather than scripture. With the rest you fell into the trap I warned you about of trying to work out God's purpose from your interpretation of Genesis rather than what what the bible tells us God's purpose was. Your points are true enough, God does want us to have fellowship with one another, work and have dominion over the earth, but they are not what the bible tells us God's purpose was from before the foundation of the world.Our 'purpose in life', as God originally created man, is 1) glorify God and enjoy fellowship with Him, 2) have good relationships with others, 3) work, and 4) have dominion over the earth. But with man's fall into sin, fellowship with God is broken, relationships with others are strained, work seems to always be frustrating, and man struggles to maintain any semblance of dominion over nature.
The 'purpose of man' is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
This is why I feel your understanding that physical death was part of God's original plan is odd. What would be the point of creating man only to have him live for a short amount of time on Earth?
Life is pointless if death exists because life can only have meaning if it never ends.
## It was officially clarified about 100 years ago by the Pontifical Biblical Commission that his existence could not be safely denied. It published many documents, which though very traditional in outlook did allow for the possibility that the positions they rejected might in due course be validated.Hairy, doesn't the Roman Catholic Church have a position stating that Adam was a real historical person?
My question just shows the irrational implications of believing that mental capacity to sin against God somehow evolved in humans. Either you're capable or you're not, there is no middle ground. There must be a line that was crossed. Did the humans on the non-capable side still need Jesus? Or were they like dogs and geese?
Everyone spoke the same language up until the 4th generation after the flood.
Adams life overlapped with Methusalah, who in turn overlapped with Noah and Shem, and Shem lived till days of Abraham.
What language did they/God communicate in.?
Would Shems language have been confused or retained at Babel?
Science says that Adam was a real historical person, they just can not verify that Adam and Eve lived at the same time. But all people have a most recent common ancestor. Most of the Middle east (Hebrew & Arab) call upon Abraham as their common ancestor, but the geneology can be traced from Abraham back to Adam.Hairy, doesn't the Roman Catholic Church have a position stating that Adam was a real historical person?
Abraham was a Chaldean from the city of Ur. That is in the area that is now Iraq. The Chaldeans later became a part of Babylon. Their major city today is Baghdad. A city Bush did not seem to have any problems droping bombs on. The Chaldeans were advanced in Science, but Abraham was called by God to come out from among them and not to partake in their sin. Abraham like Moses was fully trained in all the science/education of their day.Did Abraham speak Hebrew? Or did he change his language after he changed his name?
Eve came from Adams rib. So she did not have a mother, unless you consider her mother in law to be her mother.So at one point in time a mother incapable of sin gave birth to a child capable of sin?
Did his mother have a soul capable of going to Heaven? Or did she miss out by one generation, even though she was 99.99 percent similar to her child?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?