Is Genesis literal or a myth

[djconklin]

No sir. Arasola cites where each and every one came from in his book.

Note that you quoted Arasola:

"Proof #1


I prove it by the time given by Moses, in the 26th chapter of Leviticus, being seven times that the people of God are to be in bondage to the kingdoms of this world; or in Babylon, literal and mystical; which seven times cannot be undertsood less than seven times 360 revolutions of the earth in its orbit, making 2520 years. I believe this began according to Jeremiah 15:4, --"And I will cause them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem," and Isa. 7:8, "For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Resin: and within three score and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people,"-- when Manasseh was carried captive to Babylon, and Israel,--see chronology, 2 Chron. 33:9, "So Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse than the heathen, whom the Lord had destroyed before the children of Israel,"--the 677th year B.C. Then take 677 out of the 2520, leaves A.D. 1843, when the punishment of the people of God will end."

There is no indication wher this came from. My point stands. If he did give the source and you clipped it, then that's another matter.

Don't forget that Arasola IS SDA!

Irrelevant.

Just because he reprinted them exactly as Miller wrote them (even down to the misspelled words!)

Assumes facts that aren't in evidence. And, if you had studied the "state of the art" in printing back then you wouldn't be too surprised to find misspellings -- its a very easy thing to do when one is hand-setting the type -- even more "fun" trying to find where you misspelled the word!

It is well documented that Miller was the leader of the Millerite movement.

"leader" exceeds the bounds of the evidence. At best, he was the most well-known to the public.

Are you trying to assert that he was not involved in the setting of the different dates?

Do you have proof that it was him who set the dates?

Originally Posted by djconklin
And your point would be? How many did Amos have?

I ONLY posted Miller's actual proofs.

I'll take this as a concession that your quip ab't the number of visions that Edison had was a red-herring argument with no relevance to the discussion at hand.

They are ALL Miller's interpretation of the Bible, since they are all Miller's EXACT words.

And how do you know that the words were what Wm. Miller wrote or spoke? Did you actually read them from a primary source? If so, could you scan them and post them?

It would quite easy for you to check to see if they're truly Miller's 15 proofs for the second coming of Christ in 1843.

As a matter of fact, I have been trying to verify the quotes. So far, nothing. So, let us all see how you verified the quotes.

 

[djconklin]

Did you download 'Miller's Lectures' and check page 251? I didn't see 'Miller's Lectures' in the list you sent. Maybe that's why you didn't find it?

So far, I have been unable to find it. I have sent an email to see if a bookseller knows of it and how to buy a copy.

 

[freeindeed2]

Note that you quoted Arasola:

"Proof #1


I prove it by the time given by Moses, in the 26th chapter of Leviticus, being seven times that the people of God are to be in bondage to the kingdoms of this world; or in Babylon, literal and mystical; which seven times cannot be undertsood less than seven times 360 revolutions of the earth in its orbit, making 2520 years. I believe this began according to Jeremiah 15:4, --"And I will cause them to be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth, because of Manasseh, the son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, for that which he did in Jerusalem," and Isa. 7:8, "For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Resin: and within three score and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people,"-- when Manasseh was carried captive to Babylon, and Israel,--see chronology, 2 Chron. 33:9, "So Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse than the heathen, whom the Lord had destroyed before the children of Israel,"--the 677th year B.C. Then take 677 out of the 2520, leaves A.D. 1843, when the punishment of the people of God will end."

There is no indication wher this came from. My point stands. If he did give the source and you clipped it, then that's another matter.

[/color]

Irrelevant.



Assumes facts that aren't in evidence. And, if you had studied the "state of the art" in printing back then you wouldn't be too surprised to find misspellings -- its a very easy thing to do when one is hand-setting the type -- even more "fun" trying to find where you misspelled the word!



"leader" exceeds the bounds of the evidence. At best, he was the most well-known to the public.



Do you have proof that it was him who set the dates?



I'll take this as a concession that your quip ab't the number of visions that Edison had was a red-herring argument with no relevance to the discussion at hand.



And how do you know that the words were what Wm. Miller wrote or spoke? Did you actually read them from a primary source? If so, could you scan them and post them?



As a matter of fact, I have been trying to verify the quotes. So far, nothing. So, let us all see how you verified the quotes.

Would you mind moving the discussion of Miller's Proofs to GT in the thread that is already discussing them. I'll just end up getting warned or suspended by discussing here (note: I don't have a flame up above...).

Thanks!

 

[Sophia7]

Would you mind moving the discussion of Miller's Proofs to GT in the thread that is already discussing them. I'll just end up getting warned or suspended by discussing here (note: I don't have a flame up above...).

Thanks!

Thank you. Anyone who would like to discuss this further should go to this thread in order to allow for debate. It's off-topic here anyway.

I would remind everyone to review the original post and get this thread back on track.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

I will return to my original reply: that the op presented good evidence for theism, however this evidence does not go far enough to prove a literal genesis account.

Amongst Adventists, there are generally three camps.
Young earth/universe, 6 24hr days
Old earth/universe, 6 24hr days
A non-literal reading

Note: the third option is in the minority amongst Adventists, and I admit that it can encompass theistic evolution in its multitude of variants.
Also note: the first two options hold to literal readings, however there are exegetical differences.

Most instances of this type of discussion/debate revolve around scientific evidence, hence why a large number of Christians turn to theistic evolution (ie. to comply with science) Often we will see the idea presented that science and theology are in conflict, that is, science, and the theology of Genesis are speaking the same language (one that must be empirically verified) yet they contradict one another. Therefor, one must be wrong, and the other right. The problem is that when Genesis is presented as a scientific explination, it must be submited to rigorous scientific testing.

What I want to acknowledge here is that the standard answer to origins by both science and theology are not complete. What the op has shown is that secular science has its problems, and what I believe is that a literalist reading of Genesis has its problems.

It is true, as many have pointed out in this thread, that belief in either science, or theology, require faith, or as I will call it, a presupposition.
At the moment, I am reading Anselm's Proslogium for class. Anselm was an 11th century philosopher/theologian, and his personal motto is "Faith seeking understanding." That is, you believe to seek understanding, not seek understanding in order to believe. For Anselm, if you seek understanding in order to believe, then you will never believe.

Instead of the question "is Genesis literal, or myth?" I prefer the question "does Genesis afirm God as creator, above any other god?"
My answer to the latter is....yes.

 

[Adventistguy]

Of course it is literal. That's why God created a thing called THE SABBATH.

 

[freeindeed2]

Of course it is literal. That's why God created a thing called THE SABBATH.

What day of creation did he create the Sabbath?

 

[Jimlarmore]

God created the Sabbath on the 7th day by resting and sanctifying the day as set aside for Holy use. He allowed another 24 hour day to pass putting a period on the end of the sentence we call a weekly cycle. Resting and sanctifying appear to represent a dicotomy because making the day Holy is an action of His and not complete rest if you think about. Conclusion? The Sabbath was created by God/Jesus Christ, God/ the Father and God/the Holy Spirit.

Literalness or myth/legend? If you look at the definition of what literal means you have to ask a question. Is what the Bible saying true or not? Did God create all of this or not? Either it's true and He did or it's false and He didn't. Drstupid is making a case of rhetorical dancing around the muleberry bush when he says there isn't enough evidence to determine one way or the other if the Bible is literal or not. I disagree with this. I think when the Bible says " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth it means exactly what it says and is literal. Do we understand how He did it? I don't think that will ever happen on this side of eternity. However, like Drstupid said it takes faith on both sides of this debate to believe what you do because neither side has perfect evidence and I agree with this.

So, I choose to have faith in the Bible and believe that the stories are literal and not just legend or mythological.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[freeindeed2]

God created the Sabbath on the 7th day by resting and sanctifying the day as set aside for Holy use. He allowed another 24 hour day to pass putting a period on the end of the sentence we call a weekly cycle. Resting and sanctifying appear to represent a dicotomy because making the day Holy is an action of His and not complete rest if you think about. Conclusion? The Sabbath was created by God/Jesus Christ, God/ the Father and God/the Holy Spirit.

Literalness or myth/legend? If you look at the definition of what literal means you have to ask a question. Is what the Bible saying true or not? Did God create all of this or not? Either it's true and He did or it's false and He didn't. Drstupid is making a case of rhetorical dancing around the muleberry bush when he says there isn't enough evidence to determine one way or the other if the Bible is literal or not. I disagree with this. I think when the Bible says " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth it means exactly what it says and is literal. Do we understand how He did it? I don't think that will ever happen on this side of eternity. However, like Drstupid said it takes faith on both sides of this debate to believe what you do because neither side has perfect evidence and I agree with this.

So, I choose to have faith in the Bible and believe that the stories are literal and not just legend or mythological.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Hmmm...interesting theory.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Jim writes:

Literalness or myth/legend? If you look at the definition of what literal means you have to ask a question. Is what the Bible saying true or not? Did God create all of this or not? Either it's true and He did or it's false and He didn't.

All your answer does is say that you have the presupposition to one particular view. In other words when you say the Bible is saying is true or not you are merely saying you believe it is true. Yet you know that it does use stories and myths and symbols and metaphors. So we can agree it presents truth as that is part of our faith but we don't have to be limited to literal or even historical.

So your argument that you have faith in the Bible is used to create the illusion that someone who views the accounts in the Bible as if they don't have faith. Yet the Bible never asks us to have faith in the Bible, it is a method to create faith in God. So I prefer those who have faith in God based upon evidence then those who have faith in the Bible based upon presuppositions.

 

[Eila]

In other words when you say the Bible is saying is true or not you are merely saying you believe it is true. Yet you know that it does use stories and myths and symbols and metaphors.

Just curious, what do you believe are the myths in the Bible?

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

I like mulberries. In fact, my Grandpa used to have a mulberry bush.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I prime example is the myth used in Isaiah 14 about the morning star's fall. There are also lots of myth allusions in the book of Revelation.

The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol 8. 1904 Funk and Wagnalls Co. page 204
"Lucifer: Septuagint translation of Helel [read "Helal"] ben Shabar " =" the brilliant one," " son of the morning"), name of the day, or morning, star, to whose mythical fate that of the King of Babylon is compared in the prophetic vision (Isa. xiv. 12-14). It is obvious that the prophet in attributing to the Babylonian king boastful pride, followed by a fall, borrowed the idea from a popular legend connected with the morning star: and Gunkel ("Schopfung und Chaos," pp. 132-134) is undoubtedly correct when he holds that it represents a Babylonian or Hebrew star-myth similar to the Greek legend of Phaethon. The brilliancy of the morning star, which eclipses all other stars, but is not seen during the night, may easily have given rise to a myth such as was told of Ethana and Zu: he was led by his pride to strive for the highest seat among the star-gods on the northern mountain of the gods (comp. Ezek. xxviii. 14; Ps. xlviii. 3 [A.V. 2] but was hurled down by the supreme ruller of the Babylonian Olympus. Stars were regarded throughout antiquity as living celestial beings (Job xxxviii. 7).
The familiarity of the people of Palestine with such a myth is shown by the legend, localized on Mount Hermon, the nothern mountain of Palestine and possibly the original mountain of the gods in that country, of the fall of the angels under the leadership of Samhazai (the heaven-seizer) and Azael (Enouch, vi. 6 et seq: see Fall of Angels). Another legend represents Samhazai, because he repented of his sin, as being suspended between heaven and earth (like a star) instead of being hurled down to Sheol ( see Midr. Abkir in Yalk. I. 44; Raymond Martin, "Pugio Fidei," pl 564 ). The Lucifer myth was transferred to Satan in the pre-Christian century, as may be learned from Vita Adae et Evae (12) and Slavonic Enouh (xxix. 4, xxxi.4), where Satan- Sataniel (Samael?) is described as having been one of the archangels. Because he contrived "to make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth and resemble 'My power' on high," Satan-Sataniel was hurled down, with his hosts of angels, and since then he as been flying in the air continually above the abyss (comp. Test. Patr., Benjamin, 3; Ephes. Ii.2, vi. 12) Accordingly Tertullian ("Conta Marionem." V. 11, 17) Origen (Ezekiel Opera,"iii. 356), and others, identify Lucifer with Satan, who also is represented as being "cast down from heaven" (Rev. xii. 7,10; comp. Luke x. 18)."

more on the subject is found at:
http://newprotestants.com/LUCIFER.htm

 

[Jimlarmore]

All your answer does is say that you have the presupposition to one particular view. In other words when you say the Bible is saying is true or not you are merely saying you believe it is true. Yet you know that it does use stories and myths and symbols and metaphors. So we can agree it presents truth as that is part of our faith but we don't have to be limited to literal or even historical.

Clearly, the Bible has stories, symbolisms and metaphors. However, it's pretty easy to tell, in most cases , when the Bible is using such things. When we read a declarative statement like we do in Gen 1:1 which says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" there is nothing in the semantics or context here to indicate this to be symbolic or mythological. Also this thread is about Genesis and origins not the entire Bible per se' that can be loaded in some places with symbology.

So your argument that you have faith in the Bible is used to create the illusion that someone who views the accounts in the Bible as if they don't have faith. Yet the Bible never asks us to have faith in the Bible, it is a method to create faith in God. So I prefer those who have faith in God based upon evidence then those who have faith in the Bible based upon presuppositions.

Presuppositions are a two edged sword my friend. You too must make many presuppositions not only in the interpretations of the Bible but on truths in science or nature for your logic to work. What is known compared to what is not known or even knowable is huge to me and you , yet you sit on your bridge of straw playing with matches and expect clear thinking people to think what you are doing is smart. I don't think so!

God Bless
Jim Larmore