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.
I disagree.
.
Is that not what God does? Accommodate His infinite understanding to our limited, human perspective? When God talks about our development in the womb, He speaks of "knitting" us together -- not of replicating DNA, migrating neural crest cells, etc. What meaning would that have for His original Hebrew audience? They didn't even know what a cell was.
The Bible regularly uses accommodated language so that we might understand its teachings. Its geocentric language is a prime example of this, which you don't seem to want to address. Jesus' parables are another excellent example. Heck, Jesus Christ himself was an accommodation to human experience. I don't know what you have against conceptual accommodation -- the Bible is rife with it.
The two translations are a little different:
King JamesLuke 1:1-4 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.Yours
Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.I don't understand it as Luke "carefully researching all the stories," but that many folks were telling various stories. Luke, who knew from the beginning, and "had a perfect understanding," decided to write it so the truth would be known. So that Theophilus, and all readers, would be certain "of these things."
I would have to disagree Crawfish. One example would be Daniel who didn't understand what he was writing. The angel told him to close the book until the time of the end. To have all the books of the Bible be so compatible with the theme, the examples, the law, the same story repeated throughout when written by many different men, in different areas, different walks of life, over many generations....leaves no doubt as to the Author..
What do you think "researching" means? He didn't check out books from a library, he went and spoke to eyewitnesses and compiled their reports into an account.
You are implying something from the bolded KJV passages that simply isn't there in the original language. I guess a great thing about the KJV is that the language is so archaic and divorced from modern meaning that you can read quite a bit into it if you want. The first bolded part doesn't mean that Luke was divinely given perfect understanding, but that he had been hearing the stories for a long time and was well-suited to write this compilation. No other translation supports your viewpoint.
On the contrary. The biblical authors used existing styles that were known to them to write the text. For instance, the style of Proverbs was popular among kingships all over that part of world at Solomon's time; in fact, the first ones had been written about 500 years earlier. I could go on and on and on about stuff like this.
It's also not as easily resolved as you might think. When you start doing things like mapping biblical accounts from multiple places and evaluating them against each other, you start to see that simple consistency was not the object. There is a consistency of purpose, but often that places accounts at odds with each other - at least on the surface level.
I fully believe the bible is inspired by God. But it was written by men, with their full voice and their knowledge. Exceptions are the transcribed dreams and prophecy like from Daniel and Revelations, but those are exceptions and are explicitly called out.
Why 'should'? Some passages in the bible have literal and figurative meanings, the passover lamb, Hagar and Sarah. Other passages are purely figurative, Jesus' parables, the seven headed monsters in Revelation. If you know the passage has a figurative meaning, what makes you think it should also be taken literally as well. I can see where you could say it might have, but not should.Genesis can and should be seen both ways.
No of course not. There is no conflict between a literal interpretation of Jesus' parables and the figurative meanings either, it doesn't men they are also ment to be take literally too. In Genesis 2. the literal is just in conflict with the literal interpretation of the other creation account.The figurative will not conflict with the literal.
Assyrians do have a chequered history in the bible but I like God's promise to them in Isaiah 19:24 In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth. My real name translates as 'Oak' so I usually go for Isaiah 61:3 they may be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified.There are different types of birds, plants, beasts, trees, etc. in the two chapters. For instance....there are literal trees and then there are "trees of the field" and "trees in the garden of God"....
Isaiah 55:12 For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.
Ezekiel 31:3-7 Behold, the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent her little rivers unto all the trees of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. Thus was he fair in his greatness, in the length of his branches: for his root was by great waters.
(where have I seen that name before...Assyrian?Here, the Assyrian cedar tree, isn't the good guy.)
I don't think the phrase 'of the field' means the trees a figurative, just growing in the wild. Lev 26:3 "If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them, 4 then I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.31:8 The cedars in the garden of God could not hide him: the fir trees were not like his boughs, and the chestnut trees were not like his branches; nor any tree in the garden of God was like unto him in his beauty.
So, there are trees and then...there are trees. Same with beasts, fowl, plants, etc.
You talked of "allegorizing the earlier portion of the genealogical account of our LORD Jesus Christ." Presumably you are referring allegorizing Adam and Eve. But there isn't a genealogical account of Jesus Christ in scripture going back to Adam. You had to reconstruct it from rent genealogies.But, if we are shown the genealogy of Adam to Abraham in one...would it not be the same in the other that begins with that of Abraham? That isn't reconstructing to me. Rather it is 2 + 2.
But you don't know the line is from Adam to Christ if Luke's genealogy is only supposed... oh never mindNo...I have so much on my plate now Assyrian. I presently have three different threads in various stages of completion...one of which I started this morning because of the discussion we are now having on the two chapters of Genesis. For now, knowing the line is from Adam to Christ is the important factor.
No not really.The serpent being a beast of the field is a strong clue as to what beasts are, or...who they follow.
Just because there are two accounts of the creation does not mean there were two creations. Remember what it says in Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.Yes, God rested from "all His work which He created and made," [Gen.2:3] but...the man Adam wasn't yet "formed."
Genesis 2:1,4-5 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Everything was created including plants and herbs "of the field"...including "the host" of heaven and earth BEFORE it/they got here, "before it was in the earth," "before it grew." All souls are with Him and were created before our physical birth, before we are "in the earth, before it grew." Those in heaven and earth were created but not yet placed in flesh bodies.
I think the order suits the purpose of each creation account. In Genesis 1 it fits the poetic structure and the emphasis on man in the image of God as the pinacle of Gods creation. In Genesis 2 the story shows God purpose for man, taking care of creation and to show us God plan for marriage, the creation of the animals highlighted man loneliness and that only the woman God has created for man is the suitable partnerWhy are they shown in a different order? A mistake or a lesson?
My little pony?Speaking of rainbows....no, that's too much to throw into the mix.Another topic for another day.
Yes but not many are called Herb.Does mankind have seed?
The problem is not how pretty they are but when God created them in the two creation accountsI think my apple tree is a beauty.As for the trees He made to "spring up" in the second chapter they too are beautiful in His sight.
OK so you dont take Genesis 1 literally. That is cool. There is an interpretation of Genesis 1 called proclaimation days, and it places the days in heaven long before earths 4.5 billion year history when Gods proclaimation was worked out.The host of heaven and earth (all souls) were created before this age began. We are the "generations of the heavens and of the earth."
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
When was that day? When were we, the host, created? Remember, we were created before we were in the earth. The answer is...
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
He created us, our souls, our spirits, before this age began.
Just because it isnt mentioned doesnt mean it isnt how God did it. Passage that talk of God being the potter and us being the clay, dont mention we have a mother and father and a normal biological origin, but we still do.Good try. However, in Genesis we're told about both...beast and man, not about one becoming another.
Not sure what you are saying here.True, but it is more. Compare the physical/literal to being "the letter."
11 Corinthians 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
It was the earth that was commanded to bring forth living creatures after its kind, not the living creatures. When God commands his creatures to reproduce, he says be fruitful and multiply, he does not say be fruitful and multiply after your kind.I agree that Leviticus is naming the "kinds" of things we should avoid consuming. I do not agree that Genesis is speaking of the same thing....
Genesis 1:24-25 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Each of His creations were created to "bring forth" offspring of "their kind." And, they do. Humans have humans, birds have birds, fish have fish.
We are Vertebrates too. Why would you think we are mammals not primates or apes?I agree. A great deal of history happened before Moses was given the Torah. Although the Babylonians had a written language first doesn't mean they were around first...they just wrote it first.
Mammals yes...apes/primates...no.
.
What is between science and geocentrists and heliocentrist is...between them. What is between science and God is an entirely different matter.
Of course I could...and did. A circle is round. I have never considered a circle to be flat.
If asked, "please describe a circle in one word." My answer would be...round. Wouldn't yours?
Then why do you continue to talk about this? Is the earth round? If yes then....the circle of the earth meant just that.
If I don't see the earth as flat and you don't see the earth as flat and God doesn't see the earth is flat then...why are we still discussing this? The circle of the earth means the earth is round.
Okay 'ya got me. I'm wrong. The literal interpretation of the verse in question is that the earth is flat. God said it and it's so! Is that what you're looking for?
I agree. The earth was created long ago. Life, the life in this age, was created in six days, six thousand years.
I am not asked to give a scientific dissertation on the theory of relativity which would be completely out of my realm.
I am asked to speak His Word. I do. They have been quoted to you and now it is up to you to believe them...or not.
I'm not complaining....I'm laughing.There are times, such as this, when simplicity is such a joy.
Okay. I interpret the earth to be....round.
I try to...do you?
No. Stupidity and simplicity are different things. Simplicity is recognizing the roundness of a circle while stupidity is....well, let's just say it's something else entirely.
At least I try to understand instead of tossing it.
There is no need to obsess or feel threatened when it is written. What is, is. We accept it or we don't.
If He has provided...then what in the world could I possibly say to add to it?
Have I insisted that I have it or that it is written?
Only if we think it is in conflict with what is written, not if we think the literal interpretation misunderstood what God was saying.I can't see any Christian ever saying..."God lied." But, if you accept something as truth when it conflicts with what is written then...are you not saying, "God lied."
Cannot be both what? True and how God created? Of course it can. Just because people used to interpret the bible differently does not mean the earth doesn’t go round the sun. It is not putting lipstick and earrings on heliocentrism to say God created the solar system like that. It is simply good theology.Putting earrings and lipstick on evolution by saying...that is how God created, may make it prettier and easier to accept but it's still untrue. It cannot be both.
Oddly enough one of the problems TEs have with Creationism is that it is so deeply conformed to the world that it cannot see out. Now you do not have such a strong devotion to literalism as many creationist, but it is real factor in them not being able to see any other possible meaning in Genesis, it even comes up in you argument that if Genesis isn’t literally true it is a lie. This argument would have made no sense throughout most of the church history because they understood the value of metaphor and symbolism that God uses them to teach real truth. It is only in modern society where true value is place on scientific fact, that metaphor and poetry are devalued.He does warn against man's teaching on many levels, not just false prophets misleading the flock but...those of the world.
Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Six day creationism is a tradition of men, does that count? The only people I have heard on this website that argue philosophy are creationists. The rudiments of the world, or elemental spirits, refer to the pagan deities, planetary gods and goddesses said to control the world through astrology in pagan culture.Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
I see it as much more than that Crawfish. Please consider the following.....
Psalms 12:8 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."
etc etc etc
Ah, numerology. Ok when Christians do it, of course.
"The King James Version is completely wrong". That's seven words, therefore it's true.
Hey, this is fun!
I'm glad you are enjoying yourself Cabal. So am I.
There is a difference in you coming up with seven words and saying it's true and our Father imprinting the number seven throughout all the books, all the generations, with the various writers...I see this as astounding. Truly astounding.
We really need to try to avoid mixing up the image being true, with the meaning of the imagery being true.I say again...no, if it doesn't tell a false story. Imagery can mislead just as does a lie. It can depict a truth or a fabrication.
The proper translation, the KJV, tells us nothing of him researching or speaking to eyewitnesses.
Calculations would be nice to have, I bet there's some massive fudge factors involved, not least the subjectivity involved with some of those topics - there are such fudges with the genealogies, iirc.
Even then, some numerics extracted from the text has no bearing on the actual content, meaning or validity of the text.
Numerics are very important and do indeed have a bearing on the content and, as with given names, they tell a story. I would add that even though chapter and verse numbers were not of the original text you will find an amazing corelation between them and the content. The first one I noticed is....
Luke 1:3 It seemedG1380 [G5656] good to me alsoG2504, having had perfectG199 understandingG3877 [G5761] of all thingsG3956 from the very firstG509, to writeG1125 [G5658] unto theeG4671 in orderG2517, most excellentG2903 TheophilusG2321,Only with the KJV are we able to go to the Strong's Concordance to find the meaning in Greek and Hebrew...as I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar I use that avenue. I don't use other translations for their attempt to make it easier to understand simply muddied the waters. Purposely? In some cases I would say yes. "Beware the scribes."
1 Wycliffe Bible 1395I see it as much more than that Crawfish. Please consider the following.....The King James was the seventh translation...I believe stamped as the one chosen by our Father with seven purifications. The number seven means, spiritual perfection and completeness.
Psalms 12:8 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."
From a study by Panin.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The results of our complete Bible investigation and analysis is thus:
The NUMBER of WORDS in the VOCABULARY will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of WORDS that begin with a vowel will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of WORDS that begin with a consonant will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of WORDS that begin with each letter of the language's alphabet will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of WORDS that occur more than once will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of WORDS that occur in only one form will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of WORDS that occur in more than one form will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of WORDS that occur in more than one form will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of WORDS that are nouns will divide evenly by SEVEN (***).
The NUMBER of WORDS that are not nouns will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of LETTERS in the vocabulary will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of LETTERS that are vowels will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of LETTERS that are consonants will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of PROPER NAMES will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of MALE PROPER NAMES will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER of FEMALE PROPER NAMES will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The TOTAL NUMERIC VALUE OF ALL THE WORDS will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMERIC VALUE OF THE VARIOUS FORMS in which the words occur will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER OF WORDS THAT ARE FOUND IN ONLY ONE BOOK OF THE BIBLE will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER OF PROMISES FOUND in the BIBLE will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER OF GENERATIONS FROM ABRAHAM TO JESUS CHRIST will divide evenly by SEVEN.
The NUMBER OF DISPENSATION OF PERIODS is SEVEN.
The BOOK OF REVELATION outlines SEVEN PLAGUES that will be made on the Earth and its Peoples.
SECTION 5
Using our pencil and a lot more paper, we find:
Feature 9: The sum of the Numeric Values of the 26 authors named as Biblical writers which was shown above as 7,931 (103x11x7) is a multiple of SEVEN as well as eleven.
Feature 10: The sum of the Numeric Values of the 26 writers (7,931) is a multiple of 11. Of this number, the 21 (3x7) writers of the Old Testament have a sum of 3,808 (544x7) and the New Testament writers have a sum of 4,123 (589x7).
Feature 11: The Old Testament writers have a sum of 3,808 and of this number, 2,933 (419x7) belong to the writers of the Law and the Prophets, from Moses to Malachi, and 1,190 (170x7) belong to the writers of the hagiography, from David to Nehemiah.
Feature 12: Seven of the 21 (3x7) Old Testament writers are expressly named in the New Testament; these are Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea, and Joel.
Feature 13: The sum of the Numeric Values of the Old Testament writers named in the New Testament is 1,554 (222x7).
Feature 14: The Numeric Value of Moses, who heads the list, and John, who closes it, is 345 and 1,069, respectively. The sum of these two numbers is 1,414 (202x7).
``````````````````````````````````````
Knowing that, I would accredit it with much more than God simply placing ideas in the heads of the writers.
.
Why 'should'? Some passages in the bible have literal and figurative meanings, the passover lamb, Hagar and Sarah. Other passages are purely figurative, Jesus' parables, the seven headed monsters in Revelation. If you know the passage has a figurative meaning, what makes you think it should also be taken literally as well. I can see where you could say it might have, but not should.
No of course not. There is no conflict between a literal interpretation of Jesus' parables and the figurative meanings either, it doesn't men they are also ment to be take literally too. In Genesis 2. the literal is just in conflict with the literal interpretation of the other creation account.
Assyrians do have a chequered history in the bible but I like God's promise to them in Isaiah 19:24 In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth. My real name translates as 'Oak' so I usually go for Isaiah 61:3 they may be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified.
I don't think the phrase 'of the field' means the trees a figurative, just growing in the wild. Lev 26:3 "If you walk in my statutes and observe my commandments and do them, 4 then I will give you your rains in their season, and the land shall yield its increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.
Joel 1:12 The vine dries up; the fig tree languishes. Pomegranate, palm, and apple, all the trees of the field are dried up, and gladness dries up from the children of man.
When Adam was kicked out of the garden God said of the ground he was going to till, Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles will it bring forth to you; and you will eat the herb of the field.
Not that I don't agree with you taking the passage figuratively, just they you shouldn't read too much into phrases like that.
You talked of "allegorizing the earlier portion of the genealogical account of our LORD Jesus Christ." Presumably you are referring allegorizing Adam and Eve. But there isn't a genealogical account of Jesus Christ in scripture going back to Adam. You had to reconstruct it from rent genealogies
But you don't know the line is from Adam to Christ if Luke's genealogy is only supposed... oh never mind
WW - The serpent being a beast of the field is a strong clue as to what beasts are, or...who they follow
No not really.
Exodus 23:11 but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the beasts of the field may eat. You shall do likewise with your vineyard, and with your olive orchard.
1Sam 17:44 The Philistine said to David, "Come to me, and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the field."
2Sam 21:10 Then Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth and spread it for herself on the rock, from the beginning of harvest until rain fell upon them from the heavens. And she did not allow the birds of the air to come upon them by day, or the beasts of the field by night.
Psalm 8:6 You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, 7 all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field,
They are just wild animals, they can be used figuratively, like anything can, but beast of the field is not a hint we are talking figuratively. In Genesis 3 the snake is treated completely as a snake, ending up licking its tongue in the dust and slithering on the ground. The fact we are told the snake is really a fallen angel, tells us the story itself which treats the snake as a natural snake, is actually a parable.
Just because there are two accounts of the creation does not mean there were two creations. Remember what it says in Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
I think you are reading too much into stylistic differences in vocabulary again.
Genesis 1 uses the word 'created' while Genesis 2 says 'formed',
Genesis 1 often uses made, but you also get it in Genesis 2.
So while Gen 1 says God made the beasts of the earth,
and Gen 2 say the Lord God formed the beasts of the field,
Gen 3 describes the serpent as a beast of the field God made.
Genesis 1 describes God making man in his image and creating man in his image male and female,
Genesis 2 describe the Lord God forming man and making the woman.
While the different words used may highlight different aspects of God creating, they are basically synonyms and interchangeable. The choices reflect the styles and vocabulary of the writers.
I think the order suits the purpose of each creation account. In Genesis 1 it fits the poetic structure and the emphasis on man in the image of God as the pinacle of Gods creation. In Genesis 2 the story shows God purpose for man, taking care of creation and to show us God plan for marriage, the creation of the animals highlighted man loneliness and that only the woman God has created for man is the suitable partner
The problem is not how pretty they are but when God created them in the two creation accounts
OK so you dont take Genesis 1 literally. That is cool. There is an interpretation of Genesis 1 called proclaimation days, and it places the days in heaven long before earths 4.5 billion year history when Gods proclaimation was worked out.
Just because it isnt mentioned doesnt mean it isnt how God did it. Passage that talk of God being the potter and us being the clay, dont mention we have a mother and father and a normal biological origin, but we still do.
Not sure what you are saying here.
It was the earth that was commanded to bring forth living creatures after its kind, not the living creatures. When God commands his creatures to reproduce, he says be fruitful and multiply, he does not say be fruitful and multiply after your kind.
We are Vertebrates too. Why would you think we are mammals not primates or apes?
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?