Faith In God
A little FIG is all we need...
For all purposes, Jesus' lineage must be traced from the father's side. all the way to Adam.fragmentsofdreams said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For all purposes, Jesus' lineage must be traced from the father's side. all the way to Adam.fragmentsofdreams said:The lineage in the Gospels is the lineage of Joseph. Jesus is not Joseph's biological child, so he does not depend on Joseph's lineage. Unless, of course, you deny the virgin birth.
Neither do I. I do see coming to certain convictions on one's own with total disregard of factors outside one's hermeneutical principles as arrogance.butxifxnot said:i don't see conviction as arrogance.
Agreed on both counts. What's your point? The Bible was meant for us, but we were meant to study the Bible. What's controversial about that? If myth = lies:I think God's word was meant for everyone (of the time and at present) and He would not lie to make a point.
i'll get ahead of the quotes. yes, i suppose my comments are a bit too simplistic right now, so i'll try to clarify a bit more.Didaskomenos said:Neither do I. I do see coming to certain convictions on one's own with total disregard of factors outside one's hermeneutical principles as arrogance.
Jesus told parables specifically to hide truth from the listeners to fulfill prophecy.Agreed on both counts. What's your point? The Bible was meant for us, but we were meant to study the Bible. What's controversial about that? If myth = lies:
1) Jesus' parables (not being historical narratives) were lies as well.
a joke is understood as being fictional ( unless it's a personal story.2) You lie every time you tell a joke.
You're being too simplistic. God is a complex Being. His is a complex world. His efforts at communicating with us are no less complex (e.g., the cross). He wants the truth to be accessible, but not so simple to acquire that we undervalue it. Pennies are frequently come by and easily taken in a parking lot, whereas hundred dollar bills are less so.
True, but are you saying he was lying?butxifxnot said:Jesus told parables specifically to hide truth from the listeners to fulfill prophecy.
And a myth was not understood as scientific history. It wasn't until the Hellenistic period much later that people worried about a historically-accurate account of the events of the past. They wanted to know what happened only so far as it helped them understand the present world. That's the point of mythology! What makes mythology so useful is that it is conveys deep propositional truths ("God made the world", "mankind is fallen", etc.) when the scientific or historical mechanics that wrought those truths is unknown. A myth is like a narrative buggy used to cart about universal themes irrespective of the historicity of the narrative itself. Think of movies: in the better ones, the film-makers are trying to say something, to express beliefs that they have about the world that don't depend on the settings. Often, there is no historical basis for the movie. But if the film is made well, we get the themes anyway.a joke is understood as being fictional ( unless it's a personal story.)
like saying "There once was a dog who had some meat..."Didaskomenos said:True, but are you saying he was lying?
And a myth was not understood as scientific history. It wasn't until the Hellenistic period much later that people worried about a historically-accurate account of the events of the past. They wanted to know what happened only so far as it helped them understand the present world. That's the point of mythology! What makes mythology so useful is that it is conveys deep propositional truths ("God made the world", "mankind is fallen", etc.) when the scientific or historical mechanics that wrought those truths is unknown. A myth is like a narrative buggy used to cart about universal themes irrespective of the historicity of the narrative itself. Think of movies: in the better ones, the film-makers are trying to say something, to express beliefs that they have about the world that don't depend on the settings. Often, there is no historical basis for the movie. But if the film is made well, we get the themes anyway.
I did not say exactly that the purpose of all history in the OT is for morals, but what do you think it was? A purely academic exposition of history? What would be the point of inspiration of that? I was talking specifically about mythology, which carries concepts besides morals. However, probably none of the OT meets the same standards for history that we follow. "Stay neutral. Give an even account with no underlying purpose for delivering the account besides setting down historical events exactly as they happened." The ancients had no use for such sterilized and lifeless trivia. Look at Judges, for instance. The point of that book and all the historical narratives therein is that there are disastrous consequences when a nation does what is right in its own eyes, rather than let God guide it through his holy men and women. It doesn't tell about the specific institution of "judge", how the office came about, how each one was called, the exact dates they lived and ministered, how each one died, etc. It has a point in highlighting Israel's victories and defeats, and what light is shed on the other historical details in this period of the history of Israel is oblique, and incidental to the main point.butxifxnot said:if you really believe the purpose of all the history in the OT is for morals, then go ahead. I will stick with the literal, because if you don't, then you leave the rest up to imagination (backed by 'theories' )rather than God.
I think there is a fallacy here, but since I can't discern your point, I can't figure out which one.Infinity said:One thing about the book of Genesis. It was written well over 2000 years ago and true modern science started only 50 or so years ago
Biblically, who is Joseph's father?butxifxnot said:For all purposes, Jesus' lineage must be traced from the father's side. all the way to Adam.
fragmentsofdreams said:I think there is a fallacy here, but since I can't discern your point, I can't figure out which one.
butxifxnot said:Adam could not tell how old he was from his physical body...
of course creation comes from God. Everyone here agrees with that.
yup. I know. evolution comes to mind, right?gluadys said:Your first point depends on assuming that Genesis 2 is a literal description of the creation of an individual human male in adult form. That is far from the only possible interpretation.
...I guess you could see it that way. another way of putting it: seeing isn't believing.However, since you argue that Adam's age was illusory, I take it you are applying the illusion of maturity argument to all of creation and agreeing that creation can lie about itself.
Creation testifies to the existance of a Creator. Creation doesn't talk about what the Creator is like. He tells us Himself in His word (and Jesus.)So then, why does scripture point us to creation as a witness to God? Why should we believe what a lying witness tells us about its maker?
God did things that show what He is like. He doesn't have to make things up. He can just do it. I believe He did what He did how He says He did it.Didaskomenos said:I did not say exactly that the purpose of all history in the OT is for morals, but what do you think it was? A purely academic exposition of history? What would be the point of inspiration of that?
morals was just the example. I wasn't limiting my comment to the purpose being to convey a moral.I was talking specifically about mythology, which carries concepts besides morals.
God's word is never neutral. It doesn't even allow for the possibility of atheism.However, probably none of the OT meets the same standards for history that we follow. "Stay neutral.
God wrote His word for a purpose. Do you say God would have His writers make up a story to convey a point?Give an even account with no underlying purpose for delivering the account besides setting down historical events exactly as they happened." The ancients had no use for such sterilized and lifeless trivia. Look at Judges, for instance. The point of that book and all the historical narratives therein is that there are disastrous consequences when a nation does what is right in its own eyes, rather than let God guide it through his holy men and women. It doesn't tell about the specific institution of "judge", how the office came about, how each one was called, the exact dates they lived and ministered, how each one died, etc. It has a point in highlighting Israel's victories and defeats, and what light is shed on the other historical details in this period of the history of Israel is oblique, and incidental to the main point.
Didaskomenos said:What? Why would I wish to bend any undeniable truth?! Many who hold to the literalist argument are trying to hold on to their own primitive understanding of a passage rather than situate it historically and generically. I would much have preferred to hold on to the view that the creation account is some special divinely-given scientific knowledge. I just can't do it honestly.
God wrote His word for a purpose.
By Jingo! He's got it!Do you say God would have His writers make up a story to convey a point?
All right, I'll look into it.genez said:So far you have been only confronting Young Earth Creationsists. They are correct on principle (Word of God does not lie) but totally wrong on application. They do not understand the meaning of the Hebrew text in Genesis, and stand stubbornly on traditional myth which was based upon translations, not the actual text.
If you have an open mind as you claim to have, I suggest to fill it with substance that will make both the fossil records and God's creation able to make sense, and in a logical resolve. Go here and take a quick read to get your feet wet, please.
http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html
Problem is this. Genesis 1 describes the present creation. It also reveals that there was a prior creation! YEC's only see this creation as being the only creation to come from the hands of God. Yet, even the NT and OT Scripture speak of a New Earth that will replace this one. God will do it again. He did it in the past, and he will do it again. In the future, this present creation will be replaced by a new one. So, YEC's should no be so shocked to learn that this one has replaced another one. There have been multiple creations. It explains why we see sudden changes in lifeforms, yet we find no sufficient evidence for transitional forms that evolution requires to be vindicated... Try that link, please. Hopefully, you will see an answer you could not see before. Arguing with YEC's is like arguing with a drunk. And, they arguing with TE's is also like arguing with a drunk. Two drunks arguing? No one wins! (sobering thought)...
Grace in peace, GeneZ
Karl - Liberal Backslider said:No. God did not write the Bible. He inspired it. That he wrote it goes far beyond any internal statement - it is an extra-biblical belief, ironically.
I'm willing to go along with that. But there's more to the OT than just prophecy.genez said:"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:16 niv
It says, "God breathed." I do not have the passages before me that I have been taught from the Hebrew and Greek in the past over the years, But, in the original languages of Scripture there are things taught about the inhale and exhale of the soul towards God. "God breathed", means that God has the Prophet inhale truth, then breath it out in expression of what was taken in. It will come out with God leaving the Prophet's personality left intact. But what goes in, comes out as God desired it to be, by His own power enabling the Prophet to do so.
2 Peter 1:19-21
"And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture originated by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were 'carried along'/moved under the authority of the Holy Spirit."
What was the point of this quote? You can tag that at the end of any controversial subject to suggest that you are on the side of "sound doctrine" and what the other guy says isn't.2 Timothy 4:3 niv
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?