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.
What other non-insect "flying creeping things" can you think of from Egypt,
Done! Sorry 'bout that, the bible program I use has the bad habit of enlarging and putting what is copied in bold.Whoa, please resize your text?
It is my prerogative to be "always correct". Is that much worse than being "always correcting" (rarely hearing)?
Learn. Be humbled:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html
You would reference a work of Middle Ages FICTION as fact placing it above the Word of God?????
Please, by all means, look up, intensely study, deeply contemplate and fervently pray about all the cognate references for foolish in the book of Proverbs.
Also, &btw, you need to have a l-o-n-g talk with your pastor ASAP. Tell'im HypoTypoSis sent ya!
Fiction is still fiction, not truth. Also, many of his beliefs which he magnified in his fictional works led and still do lead many down a wrong path and still others are frightened into accepting pagan beliefs.Milton is definitely worth reading, both his fiction and his non-fiction. And he can rightly be called a defender of the biblical faith as well.
- Irrelevent, the topic is what God, in Leviticus, said the Hebrews could eat and could not eat.
- I have color coded those divisions and, also,
- separated out what could be eaten at the bottom.
- Additionally, it will be noted a major problem with the discussion is due to taking a verse from what could not be eaten and adding it to what could be eaten.
- This I divided in the major chapter quote with lines separating the what coulds from the what could nots.
Let's burn all commentaries while we're at it.
Super. So Leviticus 11 says the Hebrews could not eat any flying, creeping things except locusts, katydids, grasshoppers, and crickets. So, again, I ask what flying, creeping things did God prevent the Hebrews from eating if not insects? Please don't avoid the question.
- Irrelevent, the topic is what God, in Leviticus, said the Hebrews could eat and could not eat.
I have acknowledged a number of weaknesses in my own position. But this is not one of them. Punishment is a response to an individual's culpability. Cursing is more general, if not generational. Eg, fetal alcohol syndrome.
Future tense. When is unclear to me.
There is indeed a conflation of techniques and images. There is a metaphorical correspondence between snake and cherub. Eze 28:14
It is as if we are indeed dealing with fragments of parchment. I am not claiming to have the a completion of the puzzle. Thus, it becomes difficult to make a claim about fragment A and avoid the impression that there is clarity about fragment B or whatever missing content is interposed.
The fact that we are also mortal gives some basis to "read in" regarding the text. Similarly, we "read in", as a working hypothesis, that the uncanny correspondence between snakes now and the curse of Gen. 3 is the result of the curse. But, being limited in my demonology, angeology and not speaking much with the unseen principalities, I am a a bit of a loss.
"Reading in" is of course different than using surface text.
I am more curious about what sense we are to take literally out of the passage and where we need to be deliberate and explicit about the limit of what we know about this passage.
1. There is metaphorical content in the unexalted position of the serpent-like adversary.
2. There is literal truth in the beginning of the difficult life of the farmer.
3. Physical death has now entered. Why death is not immediate and final is not clear.
4. Why modern reptiles must now resemble the cursed adversary is not clear, but they do.
Not necessarily redundant at all. I won't apologize for not being terribly familiar with devils and their origin. If the best I can do is say that none of knows much about such things, that all of us are aware butfamiliar with an unseen world that is perhaps bigger than what we do see and that therefore the "literal" truth may have to wait for another day, I am ok with that, even if it sounds weak.
Fiction is still fiction, not truth.
Also, many of his beliefs which he magnified in his fictional works led and still do lead many down a wrong path and still others are frightened into accepting pagan beliefs.
There is no substitute for the Word of God regardless of who wrote it.
Anything other than the word of God is mere opinion, the result of just another man in his own personal search for the truth of God and the salvation of Jesus Christ.
Any who would put their faith and trust in anything else walk on very dangerous and shaky ground.
This spurious slander from someone that has devoted a lifetime of study and interest to every far left liberal prejudice imaginable resulting in a mixed up mishmash of beliefs that can only leave one so mixed up they can only claim knowing what they believe without the slightest idea why they believe what they believe.Typical modernistic prejudice
Now, this is just my own unabashed nsho but there is absolutely no way I could ever have any interest in discussing, much less debating (under the circumstances read: arguing), anything with anyone who has
- Divorced: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]Prefers fantasy: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]Environmental Justice: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]Islamic interests: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]Buddhist interests: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]Baha'i interests in particular: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]Mormon intrerests: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]Jehovah's Witnesses: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]pseudo-Christian = Catholic: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]pseudo-Christian = Pentecostal: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]appreciate deeply liberationist theologians: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]appreciate deeply feminist theologians: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]appreciate deeply ecological theologians: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]Theistic Evolutionist: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]Amillennialist: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]Anglican Church: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]United Church of Canada: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]Presbyterian Church in Canada: Modernistic prejudice?
[*]"because one is a Darwinian one is opening a way for someone to be a Christian"
If fiction cannot convey truth, then what about Jesus' parables? Why did Jesus see fit to deliver his message through fictional accounts?So the Good Samaritan is not truth. The Sower is not truth. The Good Shepherd is not truth. The Prodigal Son is not truth. Because, after all, fiction is not truth.
The question was, why punish snakes generally?Except, you know, the curses in Genesis 3 are punishments. You can't pull them apart, at least not without performing considerable gymnastics with the text.
My response, why punish dirt? I think the point is that everything has been "punished", so we needn't worry especially that the snakes suffer.
Curse is very much the same idea, but eliminates some necessity for personal responsibility/culpability. That's all.
Again, this is the some metaphor/error here means metaphor/error everywhere, I think. I have no probably compartmentalizing this analysis and looking at the verse in isolation. I realive that I have to in some ways to be consistent, but let's also recognize that this verse is just plain strange and oddly worded.exegetical strategy has always been to squeeze science (science acceptable to you, that is) into the Bible (or the Bible into science)
Again, where did "four legs" come from, if I adopt your position? Copyist error? Translation problem? Enormous stupidity? Some one too squeamish to examine the locust before biting its head off? Saying locusts have four legs (only) is like people who know me well saying I have a prehensile tail and my own set of wings. But, no, I do not command an army of winged monkeys.
Yeah. Even more disturbing because the original, original sin (of Lucifer) in many ways is relegated to the field of taboo. Demonology/angelogy is largely off limits to us. We know there is a personified evil and a sentient, alien and interfering hatred of man. Yet we are forbidden from consulting familiar spirits and sorcery, which might actually enlighten us about the nature of the problem. Instead, we have a rather difficult piece of text on our hands. The metaphorical content does convey the point about this interferring, malicious alien being. Admittedly, it does fairly well. However, this aspect of fleshly entanglement of this "creature" is suggested in the figure of a talking snake.But if one is committed both to Judeo-Christian monotheism and its one good God, and to the realistic observation that today's world sucks, then the only moral agents left to take the blame, as it were, are humans - and this is reinforced by the observation that humans themselves are patently evil in many ways and senses. And since sin springs from temptation, the first sin must also have sprung from a first temptation. And what better picture for the tempter than a snake, the age-old symbol of cunning? (Incidentally, the LXX Greek for Genesis 3:1 uses the same word for "cunning" as Matthew uses for Jesus when He tells the disciples: "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." Disturbing, innit?)
Here is the hermeneutic: Demonology/agelogy is opaque by design. Gen. 3 is opaque in its fleshly/literal aspects.
If one chooses to believe that angels and demons are metaphors only, and not real entities, then again, we are at a point of cleavage.
As a gardener myself, I can attest that there is nothing metaphorical at all about the bloody weather, infernal insects and uncooperative mother earth. Yes, earth is a mother as they say. My Pastor's wife gave me a garden placque about being "near God's heart" in the garden. Nonsense. God's curse is more like it.
Lets look at the parallel curse upon Adam and the ground. Again, that is more than metaphor. Much of creation is lessened. Why snakes in such a peculiar way? Again, there is something of the authority of Lucifer in this world. In many ways, he is the crack-head father, fathering crack-bablies, born screaming. That is the entaglement of the flesh and a hint of the literal truth.And even though the serpent strikes a crucial blow at the first couple, God in cursing the serpent reminds both it and us that its victory is limited and will ultimately be overturned. Just as the snake is forced to crawl on its belly, the serpent will be humiliated to all: it will no longer openly and corporeally tempt, as it did the first couple, but it will have to strike unseen and unnoticed, crawling on the ground undetected as it were. It is shown for the enemy that it is, and thus humanity will engage it in open warfare - and what is all of human civilization, law, politics, medicine, etc. but an attempt to quell the evil that dwells in human hearts?
Oddly enough, Jude enjoins us against "railing accusations" against this very "dignitary", Lucifer.
Jud 1:8
Likewise also these [filthy] dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Dominion. What of dominion? And if dominion, why not literal, narrative truth?
Those under the sway of Lucifer suffer, licking dust. Sowing among thorns. Lucifer's "time is short", but not yet come.
Isa 14:10
All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Isa 14:12¶How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Dominion yes, but bondage also.
Luk 10:18
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
The power of the enemy is now as "serpents and scorpions" (see verse 19), upon which men tread (but only by the power of God, incarnate). There is your metaphor. But, is Satan now "bound" in some way to his domain? Must he feed on us, on dust, but not on heavenly things? That would be metaphor. But, is not the literal condition of our flesh, the metaphor, or illustration of, our spiritual problem? And the same goes for the Prince of this world, maybe?
An a priori must bring its particular definition or boundary. Some see that as weakness, I understand.Do you see now? Your mode of thinking is continually causal and historical - this story seems to tell of the modern condition of snakes, so it must purport to explain that condition, and thus any interpretation that doesn't lead to that explanation must be defective and flawed.
Causal and historical indeed. Death. National redemption. Indeed it is causal and historical. That's where the rubber meets the road.
The question was, why punish snakes generally?
My response, why punish dirt? I think the point is that everything has been "punished", so we needn't worry especially that the snakes suffer.
Curse is very much the same idea, but eliminates some necessity for personal responsibility/culpability. That's all.
...
Lets look at the parallel curse upon Adam and the ground. Again, that is more than metaphor. Much of creation is lessened. Why snakes in such a peculiar way? Again, there is something of the authority of Lucifer in this world. In many ways, he is the crack-head father, fathering crack-bablies, born screaming. That is the entaglement of the flesh and a hint of the literal truth.
Again, this is the some metaphor/error here means metaphor/error everywhere, I think. I have no probably compartmentalizing this analysis and looking at the verse in isolation. I realive that I have to in some ways to be consistent, but let's also recognize that this verse is just plain strange and oddly worded.
Again, where did "four legs" come from, if I adopt your position? Copyist error? Translation problem? Enormous stupidity? Some one too squeamish to examine the locust before biting its head off? Saying locusts have four legs (only) is like people who know me well saying I have a prehensile tail and my own set of wings. But, no, I do not command an army of winged monkeys.
Yeah. Even more disturbing because the original, original sin (of Lucifer) in many ways is relegated to the field of taboo. Demonology/angelogy is largely off limits to us. We know there is a personified evil and a sentient, alien and interfering hatred of man. Yet we are forbidden from consulting familiar spirits and sorcery, which might actually enlighten us about the nature of the problem. Instead, we have a rather difficult piece of text on our hands. The metaphorical content does convey the point about this interferring, malicious alien being. Admittedly, it does fairly well. However, this aspect of fleshly entanglement of this "creature" is suggested in the figure of a talking snake.
Here is the hermeneutic: Demonology/agelogy is opaque by design. Gen. 3 is opaque in its fleshly/literal aspects.
If one chooses to believe that angels and demons are metaphors only, and not real entities, then again, we are at a point of cleavage.
As a gardener myself, I can attest that there is nothing metaphorical at all about the bloody weather, infernal insects and uncooperative mother earth. Yes, earth is a mother as they say. My Pastor's wife gave me a garden placque about being "near God's heart" in the garden. Nonsense. God's curse is more like it.
Oddly enough, Jude enjoins us against "railing accusations" against this very "dignitary", Lucifer.
Jud 1:8
Likewise also these [filthy] dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Dominion. What of dominion? And if dominion, why not literal, narrative truth?
Those under the sway of Lucifer suffer, licking dust. Sowing among thorns. Lucifer's "time is short", but not yet come.
Isa 14:10
All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Isa 14:12¶How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Dominion yes, but bondage also.
Luk 10:18
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
The power of the enemy is now as "serpents and scorpions" (see verse 19), upon which men tread (but only by the power of God, incarnate). There is your metaphor. But, is Satan now "bound" in some way to his domain? Must he feed on us, on dust, but not on heavenly things? That would be metaphor. But, is not the literal condition of our flesh, the metaphor, or illustration of, our spiritual problem? And the same goes for the Prince of this world, maybe?
An a priori must bring its particular definition or boundary. Some see that as weakness, I understand.
Causal and historical indeed. Death. National redemption. Indeed it is causal and historical. That's where the rubber meets the road.
I
Firstly, I want to take offence with your automatically putting together "metaphor/error". In fact, most TEs believe that the Bible doesn't contain error, and precisely because of that that the Bible doesn't do science (because to do science it would have to be erroneous at some point. It's a pretty subtle sliming tactic, but I won't have anything to do with it.
OK then. What does the four foot insect mean to you?
Ironically, you are reading the text non-literally.
I can multi-task.
Your penchant for esotericism is self-evident. I don't need to comment.
You have no idea.
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?