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.
Now, put your tongue back in your mouth. Its a sign of not being filled with the Spirit.
And calling others city slickers and country bumpkins is ... oh, just being insufferably right.
I get it.
Ever find a city slicker mentality that believes in Creationism? Its not hip to think that way.
I wish I could watch behind a one way mirror when evolutionists stand before Him. Young earth Creationists at least realized that one must stick with the Word of God. That much they get right. Just like Origen. That much he did get right.
Nice posts on Origen.Okay, I've done Origen, who wants to do the rest?
Maybe Origen should have got the first Darwin award, but them again the story is questionable.(Having said that, it is said that the poor man castrated himself. It probably would have done him better if he had taken "Be fruitful and multiply" literally ...)
Looks like you have a better understanding of that Hebrew idiom than Origen did. Your post just supports shernren's point that Origen did not know Hebrew.I am not sure what you found is even a valid criticism. The "house of Abraham" is a way to speak of a family of men. Besides.. Every scholar has his critics. Let's not get diverted away as you desire to.Another example is given here:In his second Homily on Exodus Origen finds a problem with Exodus 1:21 which reads in his Bible: "Because the midwives feared God, they made houses for themselves." This leads him to comment:
This statement makes no sense according to the letter. For what is the relationship that the text should say, "Because the midwives feared God, they made houses for themselves."? It is as if a house is built because God is feared. If this be taken as it stands written, not only does it appear to lack logic, but also to be inane. But if you should see how the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, teaching the fear of God, make the houses of the Church and fill the whole earth with houses of prayer, then what is written will appear to have been written rationally."
Of course the solution becomes obvious when one translates the Greek word oikias correctly in this context as "families" instead of "houses". The verse then reads: "And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own." (NIV).
What Origen did discover was an example of what many others also saw long before Darwinism was born. That is the point.
Now, put your tongue back in your mouth. Its a sign of not being filled with the Spirit.
In Christ... GeneZ.
Oh yes - I used to be a creationist when I was 15, and I thought I was smarter than any other 15-year-old on the planet because I knew the true origins of the universe.
I was the most scientific of all my friends for knowing that the chemicals in a bombardier beetle's belly spontaneously explode if mixed together (and therefore the whole system couldn't have evolved); my classmates didn't even know what hydrogen peroxide was. I was the science whiz and everybody knew it.
(Though I can't help but wonder if there is any 15-year-old on the planet who doesn't think it revolves around them; quite a fair few never outgrow this anti-Copernican lunacy.)
Pride cuts all ways. Some YECists are proud, some TEs are proud. As for gap theorists?
Oh, I'm sure Origen was a firm believer in the literal interpretation of Scripture.
[De Principiis 4.1.11,12; emphasis added]
Each one, then, ought to describe in his own mind, in a threefold manner, the understanding of the divine letters, that is, in order that all the more simple individuals may be edified, so to speak, by the very body of Scripture; for such we term that common and historical sense: while, if some have commenced to make considerable progress, and are able to see something more (than that), they may be edified by the very soul of Scripture. Those, again, who are perfect, and who resemble those of whom the apostle says, We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who will be brought to nought; but we speak the wisdom of God, hidden in a mystery, which God has decreed before the ages unto our glory; all such as these may be edified by the spiritual law itself (which has a shadow of good things to come), as if by the Spirit.
... This point, indeed, is not to be passed by without notice, viz., that there are certain passages of Scripture where this body, as we termed it, i.e., this inferential historical sense, is not always found, as we shall prove to be the case in the following pages, but where that which we termed soul or spirit can only be understood.
What? Could Origen possibly believe that some portions of Scripture simply are not historical?
Could he possibly believe that someone who interprets Scripture non-literally is more advanced than someone who interprets it literally?
Nice posts on Origen.
I like Origen, and I like the way he felt free to explore scripture and wander off into wild speculations about the meaning of life. What I do not understand is believers latching on to one of his wilder statements and building a whole system of theology on it that you have to accept or you are a worldly second class Christians who can't hear the Holy Spirit. But maybe I misunderstand Origen and he was a grumpy and intolerant as the rest of us.
That is not what he meant. He said the the historical sense may not be found. That is because the Greek and Hebrew of the Bible has tenses that infer starting at a point of time and then continue on forever. That something is stated as so as happening in the past, yet the Greek would also indicate its just as fresh for today. Also, some passages infer eternal qualities that have no beginning nor end, yet refer to a beginning so we could begin with a frame of reference with our undeveloped limited human reasoning. In the truest sense, John 1:1, would more accurately be read... In the beginning -which was not a beginning - was the Word. The Word was eternally existing! It can have no beginning. But? Historically? We refer to a beginning as to grasp the concept. Same holds true with Genesis 1:1. Day One was not even created when God created the Heavens and earth. Time did not yet exist. Yet? We refer to it as the beginning. Its language of accommodation so believers who are young in the Lord can readily grasp.
Looks like you have a better understanding of that Hebrew idiom than Origen did. Your post just supports shernren's point that Origen did not know Hebrew.
Seriously, genez. Did Origen's examples pertain to the use of the aorist tense? (I know Greek too.)
What's that hill made of? I do not want it.
For someone who does not want the hill you've fought a lot over it, my feisty little friend. Come now. Is it wrong to acknowledge a little pettiness in your own self?
Origen was one of MANY scholars who saw what it says in the Hebrew in THIS PASSAGE. Whatever Origen may have had to say on different matters is not the reason he was quoted.The reason I've made such a big deal over Origen is that he simply did not interpret the Scriptures literally. That is miles away from what Custance is suggesting, namely that he interpreted the Scriptures literally and found a gap in Genesis 1:1-2.
In spite of that, he found the GAP. Being such a moron as you wish to portray him to be? Then, what excuse do you have for not getting even as much as he was able to?Origen found a gap, sure. It was the same reasoning that led him to conclude that all of Genesis 1-3 could not have literally occurred, that the temptation of Jesus was an allegory, and that the Law of Moses couldn't possibly be fulfilled because it referred to goat-stags and griffins.
(Indeed, Jude 6 should suggest to the responsible exegete that angels who "left their proper dwelling" were immediately punished - therefore fallen angels can't be the evil spirits running around today, for they are all already in eternal chains under gloomy darkness awaiting final judgment.)
Well if you can't answer my points, ignoring me is certainly one option. There is not much point though in simply claiming I am 'far off base', or that I distort what you say, without actually backing your claims up with evidence or some sort of coherent argument.You think I ignore you? I do read what you say. But you are so many times far off base (and confident of what you speak) that I am wondering if I really should begin ignoring you. What I said did not support what you claim. You continuously find a distorted way of seeing what I say, and then expect me to defend my words. That's the problem. The real problem. Might as well just ignore you.
I think from henceforth, that is a good idea.
I am happy to answer bad exegesis and bad arguments when I see them. What I find strange is that you think people live in dread of the Gap Theory when you are the one who has to ignore their replies, or that answering your claims means people are 'running away from the Gap found in Genesis'. This is a discussion forum, you shouldn't be too upset if other people don't accept all your claims simply because you say so and actually answer you arguments.Love that option being there. Perhaps, you should try putting me on ignore as well? But I have a feeling you take pleasure in distorting my words as a ploy. So be it. In Christ, GeneZ
I think shernren was surprised that you think Origen was discussing verb tenses in the passage. I certainly was. Origen was talking about the historic sense of scripture, not the historic tense. Shernren simply questioned you on you reading of the Origen passage, that is hardly mudslinging.There are various ways in which the Greek can express events. In ways we do not find in our language today. There is a form of aorist that can take an event which occurred in time, preserving it out of time, and view it existing as it was in that point of time forever. (That covers how we were saved, by the way) But, that is not what I am referring to. Having sat under studied men, and read others, there are various means for both the Hebrew and Greek to express timelessness, or, a beginning but no end. That was something Origen had to face, as all Bible scholars must.
I did answer the question concerning Origen. Now its into a mudslinging maneuver as to discredit my word.
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?