Dinosaurs on the Ark?

[Job 33:6]

No dinos in the Ark, God destroyed them in the Flood. Many kinds of animals became extinct at that time, buried and preserved suddenly in the mud that hardened.

Other people here are saying that dinosaurs were indeed on the ark. How do you know that they were not on the ark?

 

[Lily of Valleys]

If you want to insert Mickey Mouse, be my guest, but that just sounds silly.

Of course it sounds silly, which is my point, how silly it would be if Paul were to use a fictional character that didn't exist to explain that was how sin came into the world.

But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:14)

Why does there need to be a person or people to blame for mankind's sin? Why can't we accept that we are sinful and not blame Adam and Eve? Also, I have posted before regarding my thoughts of Paul's referencing Adam in teaching the early Christians.

I don't disagree that we are all sinful, but the point is apostle Paul was trying to explain how death came through Adam and how life comes through Christ:

For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being. For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

You ask me why I can't understand your contention that it is literal? I do understand your argument, I just don't agree. On the other hand, literalists get all verklempt at the thought of taking Genesis as allegory.

First of all, I would have no problem taking Genesis as allegory as long as the rest of scripture agreed with it. Unfortunately, the rest of the scripture all say otherwise.

Secondly, I don't consider myself a "literalist" and I doubt if there exists anyone who would interpret the whole Bible literally either. I decide whether a passage is allegory or not by looking at the context and cross referencing other passages, to decide whether it is a poetry, parable, metaphor, prophecy, biography, testimony, historical event, etc. But treating the whole book of Genesis as allegory simply doesn't pass the test, even Jesus referred to them as historical events:

in order that this generation might be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who died between the altar and the temple building. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be charged with their blood! (Luke 11:50-51)

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate. (Mark 10:6-9)

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Of course it sounds silly, which is my point, how silly it would be if Paul were to use a fictional character that didn't exist to explain that was how sin came into the world.

But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the one who was to come. (Romans 5:14)


I don't disagree that we are all sinful, but the point is apostle Paul was trying to explain how death came through Adam and how life comes through Christ:

For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being. For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)


First of all, I would have no problem taking Genesis as allegory as long as the rest of scripture agreed with it. Unfortunately, the rest of the scripture all say otherwise.

Secondly, I don't consider myself a "literalist" and I doubt if there exists anyone who would interpret the whole Bible literally either. I decide whether a passage is allegory or not by looking at the context and cross referencing other passages, to decide whether it is a poetry, parable, metaphor, prophecy, biography, testimony, historical event, etc. But treating the whole book of Genesis as allegory simply doesn't pass the test, even Jesus referred to them as historical events:

in order that this generation might be charged with the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who died between the altar and the temple building. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be charged with their blood! (Luke 11:50-51)

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate. (Mark 10:6-9)

Ok, here we go again. First, the definition of allegory:
Allegory: a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Jesus and Paul can reference allegorical stories to teach a lesson because that is precisely what allegory is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus and Paul can reference allegorical stories to teach a lesson because that is precisely what allegory is.

The Bible alerts the reader to allegory, parables, poetry, types, dreams, visions, and anything else. In the cases where It does not, even a child can understand the difference.

And for the record, even allegories and types were real.

Such as Paul saying Mt. Sinai was an allegory, and the Tabernacle in the Wilderness being a type of Christ.

Both of those were real.

Jesus' parables were events He witnessed while growing up.

 

[Lily of Valleys]

Ok, here we go again. First, the definition of allegory:
Allegory: a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

Jesus and Paul can reference allegorical stories to teach a lesson because that is precisely what allegory is.

I have already read your definition of allegory in one of your previous posts and I knew what you meant when I was writing my previous post.

It doesn't seem like you have even carefully read the passages I quoted or Eryk quoted to try to understand what they mean before you simply wrote them off as allegory based lessons when they are clearly not.

For your information, here are some basic principles of Bible interpretation :

Principle 1: Interpretation must be based on the author’s intention of meaning and not the reader
Principle 2: Interpretations must be done in the context of the passage.
Principle 3: Interpret the Bible literally (or normally) allowing for normal use of figurative language
Principle 4: Use the Bible to help interpret itself
Principle 5: Interpretation must be distinguished from application
Principle 6: Be sensitive to distinctions between Israel and the church and Old Covenant and New Covenant eras/requirements
Principle 7: Be sensitive to the type of literature you are in

Lesson 6: Principles of Biblical Interpretation

 

[EpiscipalMe]

The Bible alerts the reader to allegory, parables, poetry, types, dreams, visions, and anything else. In the cases where It does not, even a child can understand the difference.

And for the record, even allegories and types were real.

Such as Paul saying Mt. Sinai was an allegory, and the Tabernacle in the Wilderness being a type of Christ.

Both of those were real.

Jesus' parables were events He witnessed while growing up.

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that Jesus' parables were real events He witnessed.

I have already read your definition of allegory in one of your previous posts and I knew what you meant when I was writing my previous post.

It doesn't seem like you have even carefully read the passages I quoted or Eyrk quoted to try to understand what they mean before you simply wrote them off as allegory based lessons when they are clearly not.

For your information, here are some basic principles of Bible interpretation :

Principle 1: Interpretation must be based on the author’s intention of meaning and not the reader
Principle 2: Interpretations must be done in the context of the passage.
Principle 3: Interpret the Bible literally (or normally) allowing for normal use of figurative language
Principle 4: Use the Bible to help interpret itself
Principle 5: Interpretation must be distinguished from application
Principle 6: Be sensitive to distinctions between Israel and the church and Old Covenant and New Covenant eras/requirements
Principle 7: Be sensitive to the type of literature you are in

Lesson 6: Principles of Biblical Interpretation

Principle 1 - Genesis was intended as allegory. Jesus and Paul understood this.
Principle 7 - I am sensitive to Genesis being allegory.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is nothing in scripture to suggest that Jesus' parables were real events He witnessed.

Ya ... I said "while growing up."

I forgot He was there in the Garden with Adam & Eve, in Noah's Ark, in the rock in the wilderness, wrestled with Jacob, in the fiery furnace, etc.

Maybe He was looking the other way when those parables took place?

 

[DawnStar]

In my opinion there was a global flood. However I do not believe that Noah and his family were the only survivors. There are too many flood stories spread throughout the various civilizations of earth to believe only they survived. I believe a violent geological event caused a worldwide deluge. A sudden massive shift in tectonic plates worldwide - think of the continuing breakup of pangea - could cause this global event. Dinosaurs? Yes there were dinosaurs but they were gone long before the global deluge we are speaking of.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Ya ... I said "while growing up."

I forgot He was there in the Garden with Adam & Eve, in Noah's Ark, in the rock in the wilderness, wrestled with Jacob, in the fiery furnace, etc.

Maybe He was looking the other way when those parables took place?

So where is it in scripture that the parables were real events? Or, are you claiming facts not in evidence again?

 

[Papias]

They don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah, either.
So why should we defer to their opinion?

The context was AV calling a member "anti-Semitical" for reading the Torah non-literally. This pointed out that many of the Jews themselves read it non-literally, and so reading it non-literally is not "anti-Semitical". I said nothing about deferring to their opinion itself.

So did you already know that, because you were reading the thread? But if you already knew that, why say what you said?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[AV1611VET]

So where is it in scripture that the parables were real events?

Good question.

You must have a college degree.

When, for example, Jesus said:

Matthew 13:45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:

... no merchant man had ever sought goodly pearls, had he?

Jesus wasn't Confucius, just making up one-liners.

Or, are you claiming facts not in evidence again?

Evidence always seems to be absent when needed, doesn't it?

The cowards.

Looks like some of us can read between the lines and fill in some blanks though, doesn't it?

That's because we don't let our college degrees get in the way; nor do we need evidence.

Evidence can stay away.

It's like my pastor once asked, "Is your faith so weak you need to find Pharaoh's chariot at the bottom of the Red Sea?"

 

[AV1611VET]

The context was AV calling a member "anti-Semitical" for reading the Torah non-literally.

Who said I called a member anti-Semitical?

Link please?

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Good question.

You must have a college degree.

When, for example, Jesus said:

Matthew 13:45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:

... no merchant man had ever sought goodly pearls, had he?

Jesus wasn't Confucius, just making up one-liners.

Evidence always seems to be absent when needed, doesn't it?

The cowards.

Looks like some of us can read between the lines and fill in some blanks though, doesn't it?

That's because we don't let our college degrees get in the way; nor do we need evidence.

Evidence can stay away.

It's like my pastor once asked, "Is your faith so weak you need to find Pharaoh's chariot at the bottom of the Red Sea?"

So here is the lesson I get from literalists:
1) if I make an argument they don or agree with, then I am asked to quote the scripture. If I can't, then I am told that my interpretation is not scriptural.
2) on the other hand, if a literalist needs to fill in blanks and bend over backwards to make their interpretation work, then no problem.

See the double standard?

Who said I called a member anti-Semitical?

Link please?

Don't play dumb. You know who. You called my interpretation of Genesis anti-Semitic which is paramount to calling me an anti-Semite. You can recant and apologize, in which case we can drop it. Otherwise, own up to the insult you made.

 

[Speedwell]

I have already read your definition of allegory in one of your previous posts and I knew what you meant when I was writing my previous post.

It doesn't seem like you have even carefully read the passages I quoted or Eryk quoted to try to understand what they mean before you simply wrote them off as allegory based lessons when they are clearly not.

For your information, here are some basic principles of Bible interpretation :

Principle 1: Interpretation must be based on the author’s intention of meaning and not the reader
Principle 2: Interpretations must be done in the context of the passage.
Principle 3: Interpret the Bible literally (or normally) allowing for normal use of figurative language
Principle 4: Use the Bible to help interpret itself
Principle 5: Interpretation must be distinguished from application
Principle 6: Be sensitive to distinctions between Israel and the church and Old Covenant and New Covenant eras/requirements
Principle 7: Be sensitive to the type of literature you are in

Lesson 6: Principles of Biblical Interpretation

Those are pretty good rules, as far as they go. It's too bad creationists don't follow them

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't play dumb.

And don't lie.

You called my interpretation of Genesis anti-Semitic which is paramount to calling me an anti-Semite.

Last I checked, you don't have a monopoly on that interpretation.

And if I think the allegorical method of interpretation is anti-Semite, by golly that's my prerogative, and you or anyone else aren't going to take that away.

In case you haven't noticed, this is a free country, and I'll believe what I want.

And if you don't like it, you can leave.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

And don't lie.
Last I checked, you don't have a monopoly on that interpretation.

And if I think the allegorical method of interpretation is anti-Semite, by golly that's my prerogative, and you or anyone else aren't going to take that away.

In case you haven't noticed, this is a free country, and I'll believe what I want.

And if you don't like it, you can leave.

You are free to call allegorical interpretation of Genesis anti-Semitic. I don't like it, but I won't leave. I will defend my position. But don't pretend that you didn't call me and another allegorical interpreters anti-Semitic. Own your insult.

PS - You don't have a monopoly on a biblical interpretation either.

 

[AV1611VET]

But don't pretend that you didn't call me and another allegorical interpreters anti-Semitic. Own your insult.

I reported your actions and said closing this thread isn't going to help, as you'll just take it to another one.

You need staff action, in my opinion.

 

[KWCrazy]

The context was AV calling a member "anti-Semitical" for reading the Torah non-literally.

I thought the whole anti-Semitic argument was nonsense and unworthy of discussion.
My comment was directed at the statement that was used as a source for the Jewish position in regards to the accuracy of the Torah rejection the authenticity of any of it. Such commentary shows a complete lack of reverence for the Holy word. Jews are not Christians. We expect them to deny the authenticity of the Gospels. We do not expect them to reject their own doctrine. Is there anything left that they stand for? This is not directed at all Jews, just the ones who believe as the article attested.

 

[Papias]

Who said I called a member anti-Semitical?

Link please?

OK, you are pointing out that you called the method "anti-Semitical", not that you called *a member* who was using that method in the conversation with you at the time on this thread "anti-Semitical" - that was in post #404. Yes, that's often an important distinction, so I give you that point - you didn't call a member "anti-Semitical". (if anyone wants to see the words used, here it is)

Thanks for pointing out how anti-Semitical the allegorical method truly is.

However, the point of my most recent post was the same in either case - that no one claimed that the Jews were authoritative, and that KWCrazy was moving the goalposts.

**************************************

I thought the whole anti-Semitic argument was nonsense and unworthy of discussion.

Which is why you continued the discussion by responding to it?

My comment was directed at the statement that was used as a source for the Jewish position in regards to the accuracy of the Torah rejection the authenticity of any of it.

Which no on on this thread did (again- no on used the USCJ as an authority to show that their method is correct). So your argument is with the theologians at the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. So then why try to argue with them here - I don't think any of them are reading this thread. Their website is United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism : USCJ. Go ahead and write to them.


In Christ- Papias

 

[KWCrazy]

So here is the lesson I get from literalists:
1) if I make an argument they don or agree with, then I am asked to quote the scripture. If I can't, then I am told that my interpretation is not scriptural.

That pretty much is the definition of Scriptural isn't it; that it has its roots in Scripture?

2) on the other hand, if a literalist needs to fill in blanks and bend over backwards to make their interpretation work, then no problem.

I don't have a problem with anyone filling in blanks with their opinion. I have a problem with them proclaiming their opinion to be factual. I was raised to believe in an old earth but could never find any evidence of it the Scriptures; rather I found a number of convincing and inter-related evidences for a young earth. I rejected the old earth teaching because no evidence for it could be provided through the Scriptures.
If you say, "I believe Genesis to be allegory," we might try to change your mind but in the end you have the right to your own opinion, and to accept or reject the evidence presented. If you proclaim that Genesis is allegory and the creation of man didn't happen that way then we are going to respond to what we see is an outright lie. I have my own thoughts on many things which the Bible neither confirms nor disproves, but without Scriptural backing these are only my ideas.