I don't have issues with mustard seeds, geocentrism, flat earth, etc., but you do. Do I ever bring them up? No, it is only the TE that does. I dont have issues with those things and how they relate to an understanding of Gods Word. It is the TE who makes Jesus either ignorant or a liar, discredits Scripture by making claimsfor it that it itself doesnt.
The problem is Vossler, you mistake Cooper's interpretation rule for the way scripture is meant to be read. It's his rule that can't handle the words of Jesus without making him out to be wrong. If we point that out to you, it is to show you Cooper doesn't measure up. Is it wrong to judge Cooper's man made rule against the word of our Lord? If his rule fails is it because Jesus is ignorant or a liar?
No, this YEC takes 2 Timothy 2:15 very seriously:Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
Odd that you should bring this up when the issue is YEC mishandling of scripture and double standards in their exegesis.
Interestingly verse 14 tells us: not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. I believe that is exactly what TEs continually do, quarrel about words in order to divert attention from their clearly unbiblical position.
YEC preachers, books and websites were arguing against science long before I came on the scene. If they are going to preach bad exegesis and man made rules about the meaning of Hebrew words, is no one to speak out against it? I do try to keep it from being a quarrel, but we have a responsibility to stand for the truth too or the church will be dragged into bondage and deception.
You may claim that youre looking for ways to show inconsistency in the YEC exegesis, but without an exegesis of your own that is pretty disingenuous.
Why? Just because I am still learning about God's word doesn't mean I can't spot bad exegesis that does not fit what I do know of the way God speaks to us. Jesus taught the disciples how to interpret God's word and understand allegory and figurative by walking with them and speaking to them in parables, sometimes even explaining what they mean. But he never taught them rules like Cooper made up.
Oh contraire, yes it does. 2 Timothy 3:16 states: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness
I take that very serious.
That verse is about scripture correcting us, not us protecting scripture. It is very strange that you quote that verse when you have been dismissing what scripture shows us about Cooper and his rule.
Its too bad Jesus wasnt smart enough not to fall on His face and use the scientific methods like you do. Maybe the second time around hell see the error of His ways. What do you think?
It think you are twisting a criticism that shows Cooper's exegetical rule cannot even handle the simplest statement of Jesus, and you pretending it is an attack on Jesus. It show desperation Vossler. You cannot support the quote in you signature, and this is your main argument for a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Without the God of science and the scientific methods of modern man wed still be in the dark ages of evolution where primitive man couldnt count, read or write and lived in the trees. Thankfully weve evolved beyond the point where the early writers of Scripture were so foolish in their writings and can categorically dismiss their unintelligent ramblings and replace it with whatever fits our fancy.
I showed you why the geocentrist passage are relevant to the the YEC debate, because Christians in the past faced the very same question about science and scripture. Your only response is a rant.
I had to chuckle when I read that. Good friends!
Well, I like them anyway
Yeah, best not to get into an argument with swans. Look pretty, but they can be vicious.
no matter how you twist and contort the Scriptures to say what you wish them to say they still say evening and morning on a specific day. It just doesnt get any simpler than that.
And yet Moses could write a Psalm where he goes from the creation and fall to telling us what a day is in God's sight, and in the next two verses use evening and morning figuratively.
Have a look at the story of the labourers in the vineyard.
Matt 20:1 "For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and to them he said, 'You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.' 5 So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' 7 They said to him, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You go into the vineyard too.' 8 And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.' 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, 'These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.' 13 But he replied to one of them, 'Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' 16 So the last will be first, and the first last." How simple is that? The day starts out in the morning and we are given time checks hour by hour. What could be more obviously meant as a literal day from the language used? Except it is a parable.
So is this then what you too believe?
It is a prophetic promise with a poetic use of two days and third day. The church saw a resonance in Jesus' resurrection on the third day, but that was not the literal meaning of the passage which talks of
Israel being revived in two days and raised up on the third day when they turn to the Lord. That has not had a literal fulfilment. The Rabbinical interpetation may be correct for all I know, but more important for us is their understanding of Hebrew. They seem completely unaware of the YEC rule in Hebrew that prohibits figurative days having numbers.
Of course these are simple words, just like those in Genesis ar.
Are you saying Jesus promise 'Behold I am coming soon' is as simple as the words in Genesis? Because you know these simple words have been misunderstood by literalists from the first century until now, people thinking God's word is speaking to us from a human point of view.
Just like Genesis they too have no need for anything extrabiblical in order to understand, thats the point Im making. It is the TE who continually brings in extrabiblical information to assist him/her in their understanding.
Which YEC would never dream of doing when they read about the corners of the earth or the geocentrist passages. Doesn't the hypocrisy of this get to you? You keep accusing TEs of bringing extrabiblical information into their interpretation, and we point out that this is what the church has done throughout the centuries with flat earth and geocentrist passages, and YECs do the same thing today when they interpret these passages. Yet in spite of knowing this, you keep accusing TEs of what you do yourself.
As for the simple words 'I am coming soon', the church has had to keep learning their interpretation was wrong through extrabiblical information, namely Jesus did not come back when they expected, just as the church learned Bishop Ussher's timetable was wrong when we discovered the age of the earth.
Heres how Eastons Bible Dictionary defines Adam. ( 1.) Heb. 'Adam, used as the proper name of the first man. The name is derived from a word meaning "to be red," and thus the first man was called Adam because he was formed from the red earth. It is also the generic name of the human race ( Gen 1:26,27; 5:2; 8:21; Deu 8:3). Its equivalents are the Latin homo and the Greek anthropos ( Mat 5:13,16). It denotes also man in opposition to woman ( Gen 3:12; Mat 19:10).
Notice that in Genesis 5:2 the term Adam is used as the generic name for the human race, hence why modern translations no longer use the name and have replaced it with man.
In Gen 5:2 we are told it is a name, so it makes sense to transliterate it as a name, Adam. Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam.In the day that God created man(Adam), he made him in God's likeness. 2 He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
It is not that God created a man called Adam and he also use adam as the word for the human race. The context is the creation of Adam, the day Adam was made in his image and likeness. It is in this context, on the 'day' God created Adam, that we are told Adam was really God's name for the human race.
Well if there are no knots and you believe Ive got knots in my interpretation, dont you think it is appropriate for you to share your exegetical and unknotted version?
I have shared it with you. I don't try to pretend there were plants before God formed man in the story. In the story the land was barren was because there was no rain and no man to till the ground. A mist rises up and waters the ground and God makes the man from clay and breaths into his nostril. Then God plants a garden and moves the man there. I don't try to pretend God created animals and birds before hand either. Instead, as the story tells us he formed them when he saw Adam was lonely. But none of the animals were suitable as a companion so God formed Eve from Adam's side. Then the story explains some of the allegory. It is about husband and wife being one flesh.
In the story Eve really is deceived by a talking snake who is cursed for deceiving her. The snake is told the woman's seed was going to crush its head and the snake would bite his heel. Just as the literal order of creation in Gen 2 is contradicted by Gen 1, the apparently literal snake in the Genesis story is contradicted by passages throughout the bible that tell us it was Satan who deceived mankind and was defeated by Messiah. Revelation tells us the snake was Satan, but in the story it was a snake. The story is a parable, an allegory.
