Examining Genesis...

[Assyrian]

[FONT=&quot]

In answer:
You are equivocating on what is very clear passages of scripture which bring forth the history of the events and occurrences of O.T. times as verified by cross referencing the prophets and apostles who were inspired by God to give us His Word. Not only so but many of the most important events were verified by Christ Himself (Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah, etc.) were spoken of in a clear historical connotation as were Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah, and Jonah.

So far we just have your claim that the passages referenced are historical events, that and an unsupported claim that unless scripture actually says the passage is not historical it must be taken historically. What you refer to as 'equivocating' is simply pointing out that the literal interpretation of these passages is a presupposition you bring into the text rather than anything in the text itself. Your claiming the passages are 'very clear' simply shows the strength of your presuppositions, unless you are actually willing to analyse the passages to show that they are treating their references as literal history. So far all you have done is claim the passages are very clear.

Given that the NT use these passages to provide analogies and allegories of life today and the church, rather than as lessons in history, you are simply assuming that when the authors draw on these passages are interpreting them the same way you are.

No one is justified saying that each and every one of those accounts were anything less than literal/historical. The Lord is not pleased with those who equivocate on such matters when in fact, His Holy Spirit provided us all with more than ample evidence from internal sources that those characters and events mentioned actually happened. There is no excuse for such unbelief.

Clearly you don't take everything in the bible as literal history, does that mean the Lord is not pleased with you?

Part of your problem is that you use corrupt translations of scritpure which are not faithful to the Greek or Hebrew texts to try to support what you are saying.

Of course you would need to show how the translators have worked corruptly in the passages we have looked at, or show how they were not faithful to the Greek or Hebrew text. I don't of any textual variant issues that affect any of the points I made from the passages I have quoted. Really Calypsis, bringing up the AV debate is simply avoiding having to deal with the point I made.

What a pitiful argument to escape the obvious. The 'talking trees' was a parable by Jothan to emphasize Abimilech's leadership over Israel. Over this chapter in my King James Version the publisher said, "Jotham's fable of the trees." It is so easy to identify parable as opposed to history. It doesn't speak well of TE's discernment of God's Word.

Odd that. You complain about modern translation not being faithful to the original text, but do you really think this chapter heading was there in the Hebrew? I agree it is a parable or fable. But scripture does not tell us anywhere that it is a parable. By your own standards you should take it literally and the Lord is not pleased when you equivocate.

So is God limited to strict literal language in all instances in order to describe how He took the children of Israel out of Egypt? I don't know of anyone who holds to a literal hermenuetic who demands that of God. It isn't hard to discern between what is literal and what isn't but TE's like to argue nonsense for the sake of clinging to their heresy: evolution.

That is my very point. God is not limited to literalism. And I point out these passages because I realise you would not take them literally, even though there is nothing in the text to suggest they are anything but literal. But you are stuck in a bit of a circular argument here. There are certain passages you think are clearly figurative and interpret them figuratively and you only interpret these passages figuratively, so you think that every time scripture speak figuratively it is very clear, ignoring the possibility that there are passages you take literally that are really figurative (for how long did most of the church take 'this is my body' literally?) or that there are passage you take figuratively that you assume are clearly figurative that really give no hint that they are.

If it was as easy to discern what passages are figurative, we would see much more consistency in creationist interpretation. I frequently come across creationists who claim that all Jesus' parables literally happened too, or that when scripture speak of Christ ruling with an iron rod, while it does refer to the authority and power of his rule, Jesus will also keep a real iron bar handy.

Yes, but Moses, the prophets, the writers of the New Testament, and most of all Jesus said they WERE literal events. You just don't believe them.

When exactly did Jesus say these were literal events? What about Moses and the other writers? I think you may be imagining it.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

I don't trust most of those translations. There are not more than two that are faithful to the text as the 1st century Christians knew the Word of God.

I am not sure want difference the AV makes to the genealogy in 1Chronicles, The AV say [/FONT]And the sons of... instead of And sons of... and it has Henoch instead of Enoch. Do you really think that makes a difference to my point?

How were the translators unfaithful to the text of Job 31:33? Both 'as Adam' and 'as men' are good honest translations of the Hebrew כאדם. It is the text itself that is ambiguous. If you want to look at the texts the 1st century Christians knew, you have the Hebrew כאדם k'adm, which as we have seen can mean 'as man' or 'as Adam'. The AV translates it 'as Adam', but 1st century Christians also had the Septuagint which doesn't say Adam. The same Hebrew phrase occurs in Psalm 82:7 and Hosea 6:7 but the AV translators who did those verses went for 'like men'.