My Symbolic Challenge

[2PhiloVoid]

Care to give it a go?

Does academia allegorize Genesis 1, so they can teach the theory of evolution within the confines of Scripture?

They can't have both.

They can't have a literal Genesis 1 and a literal macroevolution at the same time.

One of them has to take a hike.

Which one, in your opinion?

Either Adam was Adam, or he is y-Adam.

Which one?

In your opinion.

I don't know about that, AV. But at the same time, I can honestly say that I hold Genesis 1 as Prophetic in nature, whether I take it in a figurative or literal way.

 

[BCP1928]

Care to give it a go?

Does academia allegorize Genesis 1, so they can teach the theory of evolution within the confines of Scripture?

They can't have both.

They can't have a literal Genesis 1 and a literal macroevolution at the same time.

One of them has to take a hike.

Which one, in your opinion?

Either Adam was Adam, or he is y-Adam.

Which one?

In your opinion.

Still not a sensible question.
1. "Allegory" is not the only alternative to a literal Genesis 1.
2. "Academia" does not feel itself confined to Scripture when teaching evolution.
3. "Academia" along with most Christians does not particularly want a literal Genesis 1 anyway.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't know about that, AV. But at the same time, I can honestly say that I hold Genesis 1 as Prophetic in nature, whether I take it in a figurative or literal way.

What is prophetic about it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Still not a sensible question.
1. "Allegory" is not the only alternative to a literal Genesis 1.
2. "Academia" does not feel itself confined to Scripture when teaching evolution.
3. "Academia" along with most Christians does not particularly want a literal Genesis 1 anyway.

Congratulations -- you have talked yourself out of understanding.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is prophetic about it?

I don't know about Genesis 1, but Genesis 3 has the first mention of Christ dying for us:

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

It's called the Protevengelium, and it was literally fulfilled at the Cross.

 

[BCP1928]

I don't know about Genesis 1, but Genesis 3 has the first mention of Christ dying for us:

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

It's called the Protevengelium, and it was literally fulfilled at the Cross.

So you've told us.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you've told us.

So what's your question again?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What is prophetic about it?

Simply that I think it was written by a faithful Jewish person who was inspired by God, and it's this aspect that makes the writing sacred.

Also, that I think it presents a polemic against the typical mythologizing of gods and creation which earlier and surrounding peoples like the Babylonians and Canaanites (among others) asserted.

Granted, this text is debated and I expect folks to haggle over the various textual and historical incidentals regarding the genre, place and dating of Genesis 1 in contrast to the rest of the book of Genesis.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Simply that I think it was written by a faithful Jewish person who was inspired by God, and it's this aspect that makes the writing sacred.

Of course, I expect folks to haggle over the various textual and historical incidentals regarding the genre, place and dating of Genesis 1 in contrast to the rest of the book of Genesis.

Huh?

The generally understood usage of "prophetic" in regards to the OT/Hebrew Bible is a book by or about a prophet who is one that makes prophecy or is the spokesman for God. Genesis does not fit that character. And written by a faithful Jewish person is no distinction at all as presumably *all* of the OT books were written by such persons. (Similarly for the NT texts, but 'faithful followers of Christ" instead.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Huh?

The generally understood usage of "prophetic" in regards to the OT/Hebrew Bible is a book by or about a prophet who is one that makes prophecy or is the spokesman for God. Genesis does not fit that character. And written by a faithful Jewish person is no distinction at all as presumably *all* of the OT books were written by such persons. (Similarly for the NT texts, but 'faithful followers of Christ" instead.

I see I didn't get my edit in quick enough above.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Huh?

The generally understood usage of "prophetic" in regards to the OT/Hebrew Bible is a book by or about a prophet who is one that makes prophecy or is the spokesman for God. Genesis does not fit that character. And written by a faithful Jewish person is no distinction at all as presumably *all* of the OT books were written by such persons. (Similarly for the NT texts, but 'faithful followers of Christ" instead.

Also, I was attempting to answer the question posed to me 'in brief'........ I'm not going to write out a 1,000 word essay on what is what........................................especially when some folks don't really care to know anyway.

Why would I waste more than a minute at a time to answer on a public forum? I used to do that, but I realized no one really paid attention.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Simply that I think it was written by a faithful Jewish person who was inspired by God, and it's this aspect that makes the writing sacred.

My previous point about this not equating to "prophetic" still stands.

Also, that I think it presents a polemic against the typical mythologizing of gods and creation which earlier and surrounding peoples like the Babylonians and Canaanites (among others) asserted.

I've heard this before. I think it might have been from your "pal" Josh Bowen on a pod cast. I find it interesting how much of the details of familiar texts like this are specifically aimed current events/concerns of the writer's/editor's time. (Another one is how the Nicene Creed includes specific refutations of popular "heresies", but that one I got from Ehrman.)

Granted, this text is debated and I expect folks to haggle over the various textual and historical incidentals regarding the genre, place and dating of Genesis 1 in contrast to the rest of the book of Genesis.

 

[BCP1928]

It's my my fault. I shouldn't have needed to ask the question. It comes from spending too much time on the creation/evolution board where "prophecy" only means an accurate prediction of a future event which proves the literal inerrancy of scripture.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's my my fault. I shouldn't have needed to ask the question. It comes from spending too much time on the creation/evolution board where "prophecy" only means an accurate prediction of a future event which proves the literal inerrancy of scripture.

This *is* the C&E board. (Or is it Ceti Alpha V?) Not quite sure how this became a topic here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If nothing else, this is just another thread where AV feels he can get away with his attempt at bashing 'academia' as he feels it. The wandering Don needs to tilt at the windmills giants.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My previous point about this not equating to "prophetic" still stands.

I've heard this before. I think it might have been from your "pal" Josh Bowen on a pod cast. I find it interesting how much of the details of familiar texts like this are specifically aimed current events/concerns of the writer's/editor's time. (Another one is how the Nicene Creed includes specific refutations of popular "heresies", but that one I got from Ehrman.)

It's good to know you're still open to learning, despite your disinclination to care about it.

But yeah, I personally think the spiritual value of the books of the Bible is in their prophetic nature of "forth-telling" more than anything else, and this of course applies to Genesis 1.

The most interesting thing to me is that Genesis 1, despite its depiction of God being present and presiding over the processes of "creation," presents an inverted narrative which leans more toward our modern, naturalized understanding of the world's formation, in contra-distinction to the mythical notions of that formation held by the Mesopotamians and Egyptians.

But if your point still stands, just know that I'm more than ready and able to argue about it. ......Or rather, my sources are.

 

[BCP1928]

It's good to know you're still open to learning, despite your disinclination to care about it.

But yeah, I personally think the spiritual value of the books of the Bible is in their prophetic nature of "forth-telling" more than anything else, and this of course applies to Genesis 1.

The most interesting thing to me is that Genesis 1, despite its depiction of God being present and presiding over the processes of "creation," presents an inverted narrative which leans more toward our modern, naturalized understanding of the world's formation, in contra-distinction to the mythical notions of that formation held by the Mesopotamians and Egyptians.

But if your point still stands, just know that I'm more than ready and able to argue about it. ......Or rather, my sources are.

It's not important in the context of this discussion. All AV really wants Genesis 1 for is to serve as an anchor point for his Dispensationalist timeline.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's not important in the context of this discussion. All AV really wants Genesis 1 for is to serve as an anchor point for his Dispensationalist timeline.

Unfortunately, it's more than just Dispensationalism in the mix of his position.

Who are the Independent Baptists, and what do they believe? | GotQuestions.org

Who are the Independent Baptists, and what do they believe? Who are the Independent Fundamental Baptists?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[BCP1928]

Unfortunately, it's more than just Dispensationalism in the mix of his position.

Who are the Independent Baptists, and what do they believe? | GotQuestions.org

Who are the Independent Baptists, and what do they believe? Who are the Independent Fundamental Baptists?

www.gotquestions.org

I see they don't allow "praise music." That's a big plus.

 

[essentialsaltes]

NO

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

(A good 1500 years and more before the development of the scientific theory of evolution.)