Evolution

[pgp_protector]

I disagree.


.

So you can't that's fine, but because you can't doesn't mean that others can't.

Evidence. Me.
I don't rejected them, and I accept evolution.

 

[1whirlwind]

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.

What the original Hebrew audience knew isn't what matters Mallon. He feeds us in due season exactly what He wishes to feed us as we mature.

Psalm 104:27 These wait all upon thee; that Thou mayest give them their meat in due season.

​

They heard and saw what they were intended to understand...as are we. The knitting together, to me, speaks of the family of God, His One body being joined as it's fed His truths...not us individually being created in the womb.

Colossians 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

​

The words we read, the story told, has never changed to accommodate each generation...nor does it need to.

John 1:1-2 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

​

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.

Any language, metaphor, parable, figurative turn to explain His teachings is, as you say, to help us understand. The point I'm making is that in those teaching methods He would not tell a lie to teach. We have His account of creation in Genesis. I have asked...is there any hint, any suggestion in parable, metaphoric terms to lead us toward evolution in place of creation? Any mention of an evolutionary process instead of creation? He need not have detailed the process but could easily have explained how man slowly evolved into His image over time. He didn't do that.


.

 

[crawfish]

The two translations are a little different:

King James

Luke 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."

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.

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..

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.

 

[1whirlwind]

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.

The proper translation, the KJV, tells us nothing of him researching or speaking to eyewitnesses. He simply said people, eyewitnesses, were delivering stories to them and so "it seemed good to me also....to write unto thee...that thou mightest know the certainty of those things." Why? Because he had a "perfect understanding of all things from the very first." How could he have a "perfect understanding?"

Luke 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.

​

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.

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."

Please read it again for we're told....."It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first."

How could he have "perfect understanding," and what is meant by "the very first?" The very first of what? I would assume that means from the first of what the Book of Luke tells us....the birth of John the Baptist. How did he have "perfect understanding" of that?

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.

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."
​

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.


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.



.

 

[Assyrian]

Genesis can and should be seen both ways.

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.

The figurative will not conflict with the literal.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No...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.

But you don't know the line is from Adam to Christ if Luke's genealogy is only supposed... oh never mind

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.

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.

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.

Why are they shown in a different order? A mistake or a lesson?

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 God’s 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

Speaking of rainbows....no, that's too much to throw into the mix. Another topic for another day.

My little pony?

Does mankind have seed?

Yes but not many are called Herb.

I 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.

The problem is not how pretty they are but when God created them in the two creation accounts

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.

OK so you don’t 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 earth’s 4.5 billion year history when God’s proclaimation was worked out.

Good try. However, in Genesis we're told about both...beast and man, not about one becoming another.

Just because it isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean it isn’t how God did it. Passage that talk of God being the potter and us being the clay, don’t mention we have a mother and father and a normal biological origin, but we still do.

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.

Not sure what you are saying here.

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.

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. 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.
.

We are Vertebrates too. Why would you think we are mammals not primates or apes?

 

[Cabal]

What is between science and geocentrists and heliocentrist is...between them. What is between science and God is an entirely different matter.

And in the two cases, the literal reading has been shown to be incorrect because of what science went on to show. Now, stop dodging the question. Why should this situation be any different than creationist rejection of evolutionary science today?

Of course I could...and did. A circle is round. I have never considered a circle to be flat.

And as I said, regardless that you claim you have, you cannot sufficiently justify it due to the vagueness of the world "circle". You are evidently basing it on selectively choosing the definition you know to be correct based on the non-Biblical evidence for a spherical earth.

If asked, "please describe a circle in one word." My answer would be...round. Wouldn't yours?

Not at all. A circle is a precise term, which already is one word and has a precise geometrical meaning. Calling it "round" destroys precision in favour of ambiguity. Crawfish's excellent response shows how imprecise this term is in the context of determining the shape of the earth - simply because a sphere is also "round".

Then why do you continue to talk about this? Is the earth round? If yes then....the circle of the earth meant just that.

And as you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge despite it having been clearly pointed out several times by several people now, the word "circle" does not allow you to draw this conclusion from a literal reading of the Bible, as you are justifying it with the knowledge science obtained about the earth which has become entrenched in our culture.

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.

Non sequitur - the issue is not that we know the correct shape of earth, the issue is that a literal reading of that verse is (a) ambiguous, (b) can lead to making a scientifically inaccurate conclusion; (c) and such conclusions are only justifiable with the same weak personal assertions you're making regarding contemporary science being wrong about the origins of life and the cosmos.

As such, why should anyone find such an approach convincing? And why should anyone who accepts the more convincing approach of science be browbeaten by someone who lacks a convincing foundation for their argument? Maybe we are not the ones who need correcting here....

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?

No. Since you asked - I want you to admit that literal readings of brief and/or ambiguous segments of the Bible do not necessarily lead to scientifically accurate conclusions and that your rationale for rejecting evolution is only as strong as the rationales of those who thought the Bible said the earth was flat and that the sun orbited the earth. And I want you to stop insulting the opinions of other Christians when you have such a weak justification for your own stance.

I agree. The earth was created long ago. Life, the life in this age, was created in six days, six thousand years.

Afraid not.

I am not asked to give a scientific dissertation on the theory of relativity which would be completely out of my realm.

But you'll proclaim that evolution is wrong even though you're not an evolutionary biologist chalk up another inconsistency for you.....

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.

Your opinions of God's word =/= God's word

I'm not complaining....I'm laughing. There are times, such as this, when simplicity is such a joy.

Ignorance is bliss, I'm sure.

Okay. I interpret the earth to be....round.

And that's good that you admit it's your personal interpretation - now, apply the same reasoning and conclusion to your opinions of Genesis 1, and stop judging the beliefs of fellow-Christians who have provided better support for their stance than you have, k?

I try to...do you?

Absolutely. That's why I put everything under high levels of scrutiny. That's why your opinions don't pass muster

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.

You're mistaking simplicity with oversimplification.

At least I try to understand instead of tossing it.

Disagreeing with your unsupported opinion is not "tossing" it. Metaphor =/= "tossing it", in any way, shape or form. Do try and respond to the arguments without resorting to presumption in future

There is no need to obsess or feel threatened when it is written. What is, is. We accept it or we don't.

Keep telling yourself that - for someone to claim that they wouldn't give a lecture on relativity but will proclaim that the most successful theory of biology in the last two centuries is completely wrong without any proof of their assertion smacks of desperation.

If He has provided...then what in the world could I possibly say to add to it?

I think I already have an idea of what you could possibly provide it - that doesn't mean your claims don't require justification, and merely repeating the claim ad nauseam is not proof of it.

Have I insisted that I have it or that it is written?

The fact that you're in denial that your opinions of the Bible are your personal interpretations does not mean they are not your personal interpretations

 

[Assyrian]

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."

Only if we think it is in conflict with what is written, not if we think the literal interpretation misunderstood what God was saying.

If evolution is true, and all the scientific evidence says it is, doesn't that mean it is creationists with their insistence on a literal interpretation of Genesis who are making God out to be a liar?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Cabal]

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!

 

[1whirlwind]

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.



.

 

[Cabal]

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.

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.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

We really need to try to avoid mixing up the image being true, with the meaning of the imagery being true.

If I can use the example of a ugly bit of Nazi propaganda, (I don't think this is falling foul of Godwin's law as I am not comparing anybody with Hitler ) The film used scenes of rats running through the sewers and alleyways as a symbol of the Jews. The message was pure slander, ugly and misleading. But look at the imagery used. Those were genuine films of rats. The lie was not in literal meaning of the film but in the metaphorical message.

On the other hand you can have imagery where the symbol used is not literally true, but the meaning of the metaphor is. Jesus said he was a grape vine and his disciple branches. He wasn't literally, but the metaphorical meaning was true. It is not calling Jesus a liar to say it is a metaphor and that he wasn't really a tree.

 

[crawfish]

The proper translation, the KJV, tells us nothing of him researching or speaking to eyewitnesses.

So, you think if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us?

The KJV is a beautiful text, written in English that was antiquated even for that time. It was written to be poetic. However, the phrasing is so old that many of the phrases have lost the original meaning that the translators intended, since words tend to shift meaning and implication over time.

No other translation, including the original languages, implies what you're saying. This is because the KJV really isn't implying it, either. The KJV's major problem is that it is hard to understand, and often the full meaning of the text gets lost in its flowery language.

For today's English readers, the ESV, RSV, NIV and even ASV are far better and more useful translations. And this comes from a friend of mine who works for World Bible Translation, an expert in Hebrew, Greek and other languages who has been called to see the bible translated into new languages.

 

[1whirlwind]

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....

Revelation 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.


.
​

 

[Cabal]

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....

So if I extracted a whole bunch of sevens from the Satanic Bible, would that make it correct? Come on, no-one in their right mind would treat this as significant for any other book, it's only because you think the Bible is true to begin with that you post-hoc impose these arbitrary numerics on it.

I'd bet the Bible is far from the only book that has this many sevens in it - of course, it's a bit hard to tell when the authors of these claims don't provide their working.

And how do we know the writers weren't intentionally imposing sevens?

This is just the latest incarnation of the Bible Code guff.

 

[Cabal]

Miracles in Edgar Allan Poe
The case of the two Matthews

 

[Jase]

Whirlwind, I must ask - Why are you here? You've made it quite obvious you are not willing to listen to other people, and no amount of evidence will ever change your view, so what is your goal here?

 

[Assyrian]

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."

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,
G199 ἀκριβῶς akribōs ak-ree-boce' Adverb from the same as G196; exactly: - circumspectly, diligently, perfect (-ly).
G3877 παρακολουθέω parakoloutheō par-ak-ol-oo-theh'-o
From G3844 and G190; to follow near, that is, (figuratively) attend (as a result), trace out, conform to: - attain, follow, fully know, have understanding.
G5761
Tense-Perfect See [G5778]
Voice-Active See [G5784]
Mood -Participle See [G5796]
Count-193
Strong's wth Tense Voice and Mood

First thing we see is that 'perfect' isn't an adjective it is an adverb meaning exactly ordiligently, and understanding isn't a noun or a participle it is the perfect tense of a verb. It isn't the normal verbs for understand either, it means he followed or he 'traced it out'. If we look at Strong's Luke is saying he diligently traced out everything from the beginning.
Sound a lot more like Crawfish's "carefully investigated everything from the beginning".

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."
​

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.


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.
.

1 Wycliffe Bible 1395
2 Tyndale Bible 1534
3 Bishops' Bible 1534
4 Coverdale Bible 1535
5 Matthew Bible 1537
6 Taverner's Bible 1539
7 The Great Bible 1539
8 The Bishops' Bible 1568 (different one)
9 Douay–Rheims Bible 1610
10 King James Version 1611

 

[Polycarp1]

Not to mention the Septuagint, the Targum, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, translations to Armenian, Wulfilas's Gothic Bible, Cyril's rendering into Old Slavic, Boniface's and Luther's German Bibles.... There were many, many earlier translations. KJV-Onlyism is a strange creature indeed.

 

[Cabal]

Actually, something I didn't notice before and is worth emphasising - the study by Panin did not (as far as I can tell) use the KJV, instead it used the Westcott and Hort.

 

[1whirlwind]

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.

The figurative tells of the literal event that has or will happen. For instance, the seven-headed monster speaks of the world powers.

Revelation 13:1-2 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
​

The sea represents the unbelieving Gentiles that live in this world, the world being comprised of seven heads/continents/nations. In charge of the nations/heads are ten horns/ten kings. This isn't supposition for it is explained by an angel.....

Revelation 17:3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.


17:7 And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Biblical mountains represent nations. These are seven nations where the great harlot plays and they are under the control of the dragon.
​

17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawestare ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

17:13 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth,are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
​

So, the figurative cannot, or should not be dismissed as simple imagery but rather be understood to represent a literal event/person/place/thing.

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.

When there is an apparent conflict it means one of two things. We either don't yet understand what is written (as is most often my case) or it was a mistranslation from the text.

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.

The "thorns and thistles" in the world are Satan's crew...the tares. The Adamic line, those tilling the earth with God's truths, have to fight their way through those nasty weeds to reach those that want to see and hear. The tares pretend to be delivering the same message but they are imposters...false prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing. (I'm mixing metaphors but...you get the picture. )

Not that I don't agree with you taking the passage figuratively, just they you shouldn't read too much into phrases like that.

The more time I spend in study the more I see the spiritual meaning contained in the passages. I believe this is the open door He sets before us.....

Revelation 3:8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept My word, and hast not denied My name.
​

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

I'm not certain what you are referring to. Adam and Eve were literal humans. As for Luke's genealogy, it wasn't the genealogy that was "only supposed." That phrase means by law, in law. It is saying that Jesus was by law the son of Joseph. Even if you want to discard the understanding of what "as was supposed," means it would still be read as folks understood, or supposed, that Jesus was the son of Joseph.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

​

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.

They are as wild animals for the beasts are without God. They follow the serpent. The serpent in the garden was NOT a literal snake. The figurative represents the literal...not the other way around.

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

​

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.

There is only one account of creation but the two chapters define different parts of the creation.

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.

But they are not the same. Pay attention to those variances for they often open a new revelation.

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 God’s 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

I partially agree. The first chapter dealt with the creation while the second is about man's purpose in this age...to find God.

My little pony?

Yes but not many are called Herb.

Okay you Assyrian in the cool shades...that was really, really funny. I haven't heard about Herb Alpert in a long time.

The problem is not how pretty they are but when God created them in the two creation accounts

A tree is not always a tree. Remember, the Assyrian was termed a cedar.

OK so you don’t 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 earth’s 4.5 billion year history when God’s proclaimation was worked out.

But I do take it literally. The earth before this present age happened before the "Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." That was the beginning of this age.

Just because it isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean it isn’t how God did it. Passage that talk of God being the potter and us being the clay, don’t mention we have a mother and father and a normal biological origin, but we still do.

The beast of the earth were created before mankind. After that there were still beasts and man.

The molding that God does as The Potter is, to my mind, with our souls, our spirits. We are the clay and He molds us as He wants us to be.

Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

​

Being fruitful and multiplying is telling us of our biological origin.

Not sure what you are saying here.

I'm saying that it is important to see (understand) the spirit of His Word and not just the letter, the literal.

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 don't think you're properly reading that Assyrian. Everything is created from the earth and those things, cattle, beast, creeping thing, are "after his kind." It was that way in the beginning and still is.

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.
​

We are Vertebrates too. Why would you think we are mammals not primates or apes?

Because we are in "His image."


.