Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[Ophiolite]

But you still haven't answered the question. Why do you need it to be a "framework narrative?"

His position is that it is obviously a framework narrative. Perhaps the thing to ask him is:

• What features lead him to believe it is a framework narrative?
• Can he demonstrate that these features are present in the original text? (i.e. not the KJV)

Edit: remove redundant "is".

 

[AV1611VET]

(I wonder who do you think you are fooling with that technique? It's certainly not me.)

I could make a good point here and support it with a verse from Psalms, but I'd probably get reported.

 

[Speedwell]

I could make a good point here and support it with a verse from Psalms, but I'd probably get reported.

You could answer my question instead--or Ophiolites if you prefer. It's a serious question: You obviously think Gen 1 & 2 are supposed to be a continuous narrative; you have hit on the idea of a "frame story" to make that seem plausible. But why do you think they need to be a continuous narrative in the first place?

 

[Ophiolite]

I could make a good point here and support it with a verse from Psalms, but I'd probably get reported.

If it is a point directed at me I would be very unlikely to report it. If, on the other hand, you make an unwarranted attack on a dead person that was suffciently egregious and cruel, then I would report it. Does that strike a chord?

Still, as I predicted would be the case, you have once again chosen to change the subject. How unsurprising.

Forum rules require us to address content not the poster. When you actually post some meaningful content I shall be happy to follow that rule. In the meantime I shall continue to point out the cynical and manipulative nature of your posts.

 

[AV1611VET]

You could answer my question instead--or Ophiolites if you prefer. It's a serious question: You obviously think Gen 1 & 2 are supposed to be a continuous narrative; you have hit on the idea of a "frame story" to make that seem plausible. But why do you think they need to be a continuous narrative in the first place?

I love what my pastor once pointed out:

In Genesis 1, we see God just simply speaking and the entire unverse is up and running.

But in Genesis 2, He inserts this parenthetical whereby He explains how He built this chapel (Garden), then created and led Adam's wife-to-be to him and married them.

Just like a father leads his daughter down the aisle today in a Christian ceremony.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it is a point directed at me I would be very unlikely to report it. If, on the other hand, you make an unwarranted attack on a dead person that was suffciently egregious and cruel, then I would report it. Does that strike a chord?

Not really.

What dead person are you referring to? or do I want to know?

Still, as I predicted would be the case, you have once again chosen to change the subject. How unsurprising.

You lost me there, chief.

As I see it, I only have two alternatives:

1. The academic approach: treat Genesis 2 as another creation account that contradicts Genesis 1.

2. The theological approach: treat Genesis 2 as a framework story that is parenthetical to Genesis 1.

And guess which one I'm going to take?

 

[Aman777]

2. The theological approach: treat Genesis 2 as a framework story that is parenthetical to Genesis 1.

Amen. Genesis One is an outline of ALL the 6 Days/Ages of creation. Genesis Two begins with the future 7th Day. At Genesis 2:4, the narrative shifts back to the 3rd Day when Adam was formed of the dust of the ground. The entirety of the rest of the Bible refers BACK to the first 34 verses of Genesis. That's God's Truth Scripturally.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Amen. Genesis One is an outline of ALL the 6 Days/Ages of creation. Genesis Two begins with the future 7th Day. At Genesis 2:4, the narrative shifts back to the 3rd Day when Adam was formed of the dust of the ground. The entirety of the rest of the Bible refers BACK to the first 34 verses of Genesis. That's God's Truth Scripturally.

Why is it important to argue whether Genesis One or Genesis Two is the definitive account of creation when we know from evidence that neither of them have any bearing on reality?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it important to argue whether Genesis One or Genesis Two is the definitive account of creation when we know from evidence that neither of them have any bearing on reality?

Why is it important to argue against it?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Why is it important to argue against it?

Because if enough people decide to believe myths and legends over reality (often disregarding science along the way to protect their easily disproved beliefs), then this affects everyone.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because if enough people decide to believe myths and legends over reality (often disregarding science along the way to protect their easily disproved beliefs), then this affects everyone.

Who calls Genesis 1 and 2 "myths and legends"? higher academia?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Who calls Genesis 1 and 2 "myths and legends"? higher academia?

I just did. Now let's see if I can justify that. First, let's look at a definition of the world 'myth'.

myth
mɪθ/
noun

1. 1.
   a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
   "ancient Celtic myths"
   synonyms: folk tale, story, folk story, legend, tale, fable, saga, allegory, parable, tradition, lore, folklore; More
   

2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.
"the belief that evening primrose oil helps to cure eczema is a myth, according to dermatologists"

Both entries fit perfectly.

Now, let's look at legend. I'll include the full definition, but note that only the first meaning fits here.

legend
ˈlɛdʒ(ə)nd/
noun
noun: legend; plural noun: legends

1. 1.
   a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated.
   "the legend of King Arthur"
   synonyms: myth, saga, epic, folk tale, folk story, traditional story, tale, story, fairy tale, narrative, fable, romance; More
   
   • historical
     the story of a saint's life.
     "the mosaics illustrate the Legends of the Saints"
2. 2.
   an extremely famous or notorious person, especially in a particular field.
   "the man was a living legend"
   synonyms: celebrity, star, superstar, icon, famous person, great, genius, phenomenon, luminary, giant, big name; More
   
   
3. 3.
   an inscription, especially on a coin or medal.
   synonyms: caption, inscription, dedication, motto, slogan, device, heading, head, title, wording, subtitle, subheading, rubric, colophon
   "‘the most distinguished address in Ireland’ boasted the legend on the desk notepad"
   • a caption.
     "a picture of a tiger with the legend ‘Go ahead make my day’"

the wording on a map or diagram explaining the symbols used.
"see legend to Fig. 1"
synonyms: explanation, key, code, cipher, table of symbols, guide, glossary
"the experimental conditions were as described in the legend to Figure 5"

Yep. Again a perfect fit. So, yes, the Bible is myths and legends.

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, let's look at legend.

"A traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated."

Now tell me what you would call something that actually happened, but is assumed to be a myth or legend by someone not believing it ... yet it actually happened, making said person wrong?

What would you call that?

 

[Speedwell]

"A traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated."

Now tell me what you would call something that actually happened, but is assumed to be a myth or legend by someone not believing it ... yet it actually happened, making said person wrong?

What would you call that?

There is nothing about the definition of "myth" or "legend" which precludes them being based on actual people or events.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is nothing about the definition of "myth" or "legend" which precludes them being based on actual people or events.

Can you answer my question?

 

[Speedwell]

Can you answer my question?

No. "Myth" and "legend" are definitions of literary forms, not "right" or "wrong." Like a poem is a poem, whether it is about a made-up person or a real one.

 

[NobleMouse]

All of them produced by fundamentalist Evangelical scholars, no doubt.

Seems we live in an odd 'age' where someone who believes what the Bible says is called a "fundamentalist". Further, it would seem odd that if these events from Genesis and the OT were somehow untrue or allegories that Jesus would not have referenced the creation of Adam & Eve, being male and female in the beginning at their creation (Matthew 19:4), that He would go on to reference Jonah being in the belly of the great fish in His own time he would spend in a tomb (Matthew 12:40), and further go on to reference Noah in likeness to His 2nd coming (Matthew 24:37).

If I were a scribe or a pharisee back in Jesus' day, I'd have laughed Him right out of the synagogue if these events never happened, that they were just allegory. There is not a record of this - so we can only conclude that even the hypocrites of the day believed these events really happened. Further, these would be the worst references Jesus could have ever made if they didn't actually happen... as if to say, "Oh hey, remember when God blotted out all the life on land with a flood, like it says in my Father's word, but didn't really happen... yeah, that's what it's going to be like when I come back for My church... like a thief in the night baby, be ready!!" People would just be like [shoulder shrug], "not sure what's wrong with this guy, must've spent too much time out in the sun."

God was there when these things happened, it's in His word, and it seems Jesus (the word made flesh) was a bit of a "fundamentalist" when it came to the Father's word.

 

[Ophiolite]

You lost me there, chief.

As I see it, I only have two alternatives:

1. The academic approach: treat Genesis 2 as another creation account that contradicts Genesis 1.

2. The theological approach: treat Genesis 2 as a framework story that is parenthetical to Genesis 1.

And guess which one I'm going to take?

I apologise. I thought you were being deliberately evasive. I accept that it is equally likely you just have a poor attention span. I'll bring you up to date. In post#860 I said this:
"The Genesis contrasts are contradictory. If you choose to assert otherwise you need to provide a more detailed and reasoned post than any I have ever seen from you. If it helps I expect you just to change the topic and move on."

Your response above ignores that discussion and reframes the issue with a false dichotomy. I think that falls into the category of changing the topic.

 

[Speedwell]

Seems we live in an odd 'age' where someone who believes what the Bible says is called a "fundamentalist".

No, it's just that people believe different things about "what the Bible says."

Further, it would seem odd that if these events from Genesis and the OT were somehow untrue or allegories that Jesus would not have referenced the creation of Adam & Eve, being male and female in the beginning at their creation (Matthew 19:4), that He would go on to reference Jonah being in the belly of the great fish in His own time he would spend in a tomb (Matthew 12:40), and further go on to reference Noah in likeness to His 2nd coming (Matthew 24:37).

It doesn't seem "odd" to everyone.

If I were a scribe or a pharisee back in Jesus' day, I'd have laughed Him right out of the synagogue if these events never happened, that they were just allegory.

Figurative interpretations of the Genesis stories are almost as old as the book itself.

There is not a record of this - so we can only conclude that even the hypocrites of the day believed these events really happened.

Of course they did--there was simply no other information available about what had actually happened. The question is, did they all believe that the 100% factually accurate historicity of Genesis was the most important thing about it? People didn't write that kind of history in those days so there is no reason they would have expected it of the Bible, even a divinely inspired Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seems we live in an odd 'age' where someone who believes what the Bible says is called a "fundamentalist". Further, it would seem odd that if these events from Genesis and the OT were somehow untrue or allegories that Jesus would not have referenced the creation of Adam & Eve, being male and female in the beginning at their creation (Matthew 19:4), that He would go on to reference Jonah being in the belly of the great fish in His own time he would spend in a tomb (Matthew 12:40), and further go on to reference Noah in likeness to His 2nd coming (Matthew 24:37).

If I were a scribe or a pharisee back in Jesus' day, I'd have laughed Him right out of the synagogue if these events never happened, that they were just allegory. There is not a record of this - so we can only conclude that even the hypocrites of the day believed these events really happened. Further, these would be the worst references Jesus could have ever made if they didn't actually happen... as if to say, "Oh hey, remember when God blotted out all the life on land with a flood, like it says in my Father's word, but didn't really happen... yeah, that's what it's going to be like when I come back for My church... like a thief in the night baby, be ready!!" People would just be like [shoulder shrug], "not sure what's wrong with this guy, must've spent too much time out in the sun."

God was there when these things happened, it's in His word, and it seems Jesus (the word made flesh) was a bit of a "fundamentalist" when it came to the Father's word.

Excellent, excellent post!