Explain the analogies

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Ark Guy - Seebs was making a point. He was applying your hermeneutic "X means X" to God saying that Adam would die the day he ate the fruit. And demonstrating that it doesn't work.

Well folks, looks like seebs still has some problems understanding scripture..
Here's what he wrote:

Death means death. Adam died the day he ate the fruit. That's why he and Eve never had any children

GEN 3:20
GEN 4:1
GEN 4:2
GEN 4:25
GEN 5:3
GEN 5:4

Ah, whatever you sat seebs.

 

[Ark Guy]

What???? The story was always taken as plain literal truth. I just mentioned above that the early christians took Genesis as plain literal truth.

Seebs posted as a reply...
You keep saying it, but it's not true. The story was always read primarily for its symbolism and religious meaning. Augustine points out that the "days" of creation cannot possibly be "days" as we understand it. Another thousand years of Jewish sages before him have commentary on how to understand Genesis.

Come on seebs, don't you read my post? I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you.

I have often heard he Theo-Evos claim that the early church characters presented in the new Testament didn’t believe in a literal six day creation.

But is that true?

Consider the following character....Barnabus

In the book of Barnabus we read the following:

15:4 Consider, my children, what signify the words,
He finished them in six days. They mean this: that in six thousand years the Lord will make an end of all things, for a day is with him as a thousand years. And he himself beareth witness unto me, saying: Behold this day a day shall be as a thousand years.
Therefore, my children, in six days, that is in six thousand years, shall all things be brought to an end.

Barnabus was saying that the creation period was a literal six days and each day of creation will represent an allotment of 1,000 years of earth hstory.

It’s obvious Barnabus wasn’t an old earth creationist.

Barnabus also believed Adam was formed from the dust as mentioned in Genesis:

6:9 What saith the knowledge? Learn ye. Hope, it saith, upon Jesus, who is about to be manifested unto you in the flesh. For man is but earth which suffers; for, from the face of the ground was made the moulding of Adam.

Barnabus did not write as if Adam was a myth.

Barnabus also believed in the scripture that we now know as Genesis.

6:12 For the scripture saith concerning us, that he
saith unto the Son, Let us make man after our own image and according to our likeness; and let them rule over the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and the fishes of the sea. And the Lord said, when he saw how excellent our form was, Increase and multiply and replenish the earth. These things he saith unto
the Son.

Put it all together and Barnabus was a Young Earth Creationist who believed in a literal Genesis.

I trust you stand corrected seebs.

 

[Ark Guy]

KLBS...Ark Guy - Seebs was making a point. He was applying your hermeneutic "X means X" to God saying that Adam would die the day he ate the fruit. And demonstrating that it doesn't work.



But Adam did dies that day.

You died the day of your first sin.

You were reborn at the moment of your salvation.

In addition to his spiritual death, Adam began to die physically once the curse was applied.

 

[seebs]

But Adam did dies that day.

I said he died the first day, and you turned around and showed me all this evidence that he was still alive later.

So, you're saying that, because our science tells us that only people who are alive can father children, we should reinterpret the claim "thou shalt surely die in that day" to be about "spiritual" death, even though it's quite clear that it always means literal death elsewhere.

So, you reinterpret the obvious literal claim when you have information which suggests that it must mean something different. See?

 

[seebs]

Come on seebs, don't you read my post? I'm getting tired of repeating myself to you.

I'm tired of repetaing myself to you.

I have often heard he Theo-Evos claim that the early church characters presented in the new Testament didn’t believe in a literal six day creation.

That's not the claim I made. I cited Augustine.

More importantly, though, my claim is that they understood Genesis to have symbolic meaning as well, and considered the symbolic meanings to be more important.

I trust you stand corrected seebs.

I don't, because what you just corrected is a claim I never made.

 

[Ark Guy]

seebs, in reference to your last two post....nice try but no cigar.

kinda ad-hoc.

Your gonna need a bit more to convince anyone.

 

[seebs]

Your insults don't change anything. The claim you "refuted" was not a claim I ever made. You're arguing with a straw man.

 

[Ark Guy]

Your insults don't change anything. The claim you "refuted" was not a claim I ever made. You're arguing with a straw man.

Long sigh

 

[lucaspa]

Consider the following character....Barnabus

In the book of Barnabus we read the following:

The Epistle of Barnabas isn't in the Bible, is it? Which means it was not considered as divinely inspired. Not only that, but Biblical scholars don't even consider it written by Barnabas. So why are you trying to use it as authority?
" This letter, probably not authored by the NT Barnabas, repudiates the claims of Jewish Christians at the time who advocated adhering to observance of the Mosiac Law. Argued that Christ provided salvation and man is no longer bound by the Law. Compares holy life to unrighteousness. " http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html#canon

 

[lucaspa]

The trouble here is that most are not "analogy". They are symbolisms or archetypes.

So they say Genesis is not literal...that's good news for mankind.

The six day creation never occured...It was an anaology.

Creation occurred. The 6 days is not an analogy, but a justification for the Sabbath. Also, remember Genesis 2:4 does not say 6 days, but one day.

Adam never existed...he was an analogy of something that the Theo-Evos can't explain.

Not an analogy, but an archetype. That is, Adam stands for all men. You and me.

Eve also never existed. She was never formed from Adams rib....That to is an analogy for something that the Theo-Evos won't explain.

Women weren't formed from ribs in Genesis 1. Again, Eve is an archetype standing for all women.

There was no garden....this too was some form of anology that the Theo-Evos can't explain.

The Garden is a symbol of being connected to God.

There was no serpent in the garden...for starters, no garden for the serpent to talk to Adam and Eve in. The serpent must also have be some sort of analogy that the Theo-Evos can't explain.

The serpent is a symbol of temptation to disobey God and be selfish.

There was no tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden...this too was an analogy...which meant what?

Again, a symbol. A symbol of loss of innocence. You can see the symbology played out in watching each and every child grow up. They start out so innocent and then learn about good and evil.

So, here's the good part. If there was no Adam, if there was no Eve, if there was no garden, if there was no talking serpent, no tree in the center of the garden...the there was no fall. No curse to follow the fall. IT'S ALL SOME BIG ANALOGY!!!!!

Again, not an analogy. You are misusing the word, Ark Guy.
"1 : inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others
2 a : resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike"

Analogy does not mean "falsehood". It is a way of explaining things. An example is that the Big Bang is explained by the analogy to an explosion. Both the Big Bang and an explosion expand from a central point. But otherwise the two are unlike.

There is a fall. Each and every one of us falls, Ark Guy. Not because of Adam, but because of us. You can even say we fall because of the way we were created. We are all selfish, thanks to being created by evolution. We are descended in ubroken line from individuals with variations that worked for them. The selfish gene, if you prefer.

No fall, no curse...then who needs Jesus?

You and I do because each of us disobeys God. Don't you? You mean you have never sinned? Doesn't Paul tell us Jesus died for our sins?

Then again maybe Jesus wasn't real. Perhaps He's just an analogy for something.

No, the evidence is very plain that there was a person who lived and preached in first century Palestine. I see no reason to declare Jesus as unreal. Do you?

Of course I expect the Theo-Evos to rant and rave now...but instead I would really like to know what all of these analogies mean.

Well, then, you should be happy. I have just told you what the symbolism of each symbol is. However, they are not analogies. The contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2-3 tell us we are dealing with symbolism.