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.
His position is that it is obviously a framework narrative. Perhaps the thing to ask him is:But you still haven't answered the question. Why do you need it to be a "framework narrative?"
I could make a good point here and support it with a verse from Psalms, but I'd probably get reported.(I wonder who do you think you are fooling with that technique? It's certainly not me.)
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 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?I could make a good point here and support it with a verse from Psalms, but I'd probably get reported.
I love what my pastor once pointed out: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?
Not really.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?
You lost me there, chief.Ophiolite said:Still, as I predicted would be the case, you have once again chosen to change the subject. How unsurprising.
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.
Why is it important to argue against it?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?
Who calls Genesis 1 and 2 "myths and legends"? higher academia?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?
myth
mɪθ/
noun
2.
- 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
a widely held but false belief or idea.
"the belief that evening primrose oil helps to cure eczema is a myth, according to dermatologists"
legend
ˈlɛdʒ(ə)nd/
noun
noun: legend; plural noun: legends
the wording on a map or diagram explaining the symbols used.
- 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.
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.
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’"
"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"
"A traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated."Now, let's look at legend.
There is nothing about the definition of "myth" or "legend" which precludes them being based on actual people or events."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?
Can you answer my question?There is nothing about the definition of "myth" or "legend" which precludes them being based on actual people or events.
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.Can you answer my question?
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).All of them produced by fundamentalist Evangelical scholars, no doubt.
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: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?
No, it's just that people believe different things about "what the Bible says."Seems we live in an odd 'age' where someone who believes what the Bible says is called a "fundamentalist".
It doesn't seem "odd" to everyone.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).
Figurative interpretations of the Genesis stories are almost as old as the book itself.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.
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.There is not a record of this - so we can only conclude that even the hypocrites of the day believed these events really happened.
Excellent, excellent post!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.
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?