parables and creation

[Ark Guy]

Another poster...mesh..presented the following statement in another thread.

Two words: Jesus Parrables, can we put them together, doesn't that suggest God can use metaphors?

This argument may make sense on the surface, but when one looks at Jesus' parables as presented in the bible the argument quickly falls apart.

Why? When a parable is present in the bible it is presented using real life situations. The parables contain events that if did not actually happen, could have happened.

Now on the other hand, the Theo-Evo sect claims Genesis was a parable...based on events that could NOT have happened.

See the differance? Jesus' parables, based upon factual events that did or could happen...the Theo-Evo parable, based on an event that they say could not happen and did not happen.

The Theo-Evo parable doesn't even follow biblical standards.

Once again, God's metophors based on fact.
Theo-Evo metophors based upon fiction.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Genesis isn't a parable. That doesn't prevent it from having metaphors.

 

[Ark Guy]

Then where are the metaphors?

Where are these metaphors supported in scripture?

You can claim they are there but with out presenting them and then supporting your claim you have nothing.

 

[Ark Guy]

Now I understand that the OT presents types of Christ in metaphor form, but the events that make up these metaphors actually happened.

You claim that the metaphors presented in Genesis never actually happened...see the differance?

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Now I understand that the OT presents types of Christ in metaphor form, but the events that make up these metaphors actually happened.

You claim that the metaphors presented in Genesis never actually happened...see the differance?

You are begging the question. You are defending the view that all the events of the OT are historically accurate events by the premise that all the events of the OT are historically accurate events.

You are also using the fallacy that if some X is Y, then all X must be Y.

 

[Ark Guy]

I'm doing none of the above.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You are.

Firstly, since the Genesis creation accounts are "OT events", your premise that OT Events "really happened" (by which you mean literally) presupposes the conclusion that is drawn - that the Genesis creation accounts literally happened. This is a perfect example of begging the question.

Secondly, your argument is based on the fallacy that if some of the events in the OT are historical, they must all be. Hence since some X is Y, all X is Y. This is like saying:

All dogs have four legs
My cat has four legs
Therefore my cat is a dog.

Or, (the politicians' favourite):

We must do something
This is something
Therefore we will do this.

 

[Mish]

Now on the other hand, the Theo-Evo sect claims Genesis was a parable...based on events that could NOT have happened.

"Theo-Evo's" as you call them, do not say the creation COULD NOT have happened, we said it DID NOT.

The Theo-Evo parable doesn't even follow biblical standards.

what, the biblical standard of making satements with no proof?

 

[Ark Guy]

You are.

Firstly, since the Genesis creation accounts are "OT events", your premise that OT Events "really happened" (by which you mean literally) presupposes the conclusion that is drawn - that the Genesis creation accounts literally happened. This is a perfect example of begging the question.

Secondly, your argument is based on the fallacy that if some of the events in the OT are historical, they must all be. Hence since some X is Y, all X is Y. This is like saying:

All dogs have four legs
My cat has four legs
Therefore my cat is a dog.

Or, (the politicians' favourite):

We must do something
This is something
Therefore we will do this.

Once again you are incorrect Karl. That is not what I am even remotely saying.

I am saying that biblical parables are based upon real life situations.....Now, the Theo-Eves claim Genesis was a parable and this parable according to this sect claims it wasn't even a real life situation to base it upon.....did the light click on yet?

 

[Ark Guy]

Mish post 8...what are you talking about?????

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Once again you are incorrect Karl. That is not what I am even remotely saying.

I am saying that biblical parables are based upon real life situations.....Now, the Theo-Eves claim Genesis was a parable and this parable according to this sect claims it wasn't even a real life situation to base it upon.....did the light click on yet?

The Genesis accounts are not parables, but they are like parables in that they convey a message without describing actual events.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Exactly.

Ark Guy - please get off the idea that the reason I don't agree with you is that I haven't yet seen the light, and if you explain it well enough I'll realise you are correct.

I am not clear what you are saying about the OT types. If you are not suggesting that because other OT types also refer to real events, the Creation account types must do, what are you suggesting by:

Now I understand that the OT presents types of Christ in metaphor form, but the events that make up these metaphors actually happened.
You claim that the metaphors presented in Genesis never actually happened...see the differance?

 

[gcallender]

Then where are the metaphors?

Where are these metaphors supported in scripture?

You can claim they are there but with out presenting them and then supporting your claim you have nothing.

From the bible, John 3.3. "Jesus answered and said...except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Be born again is a metaphor

 

[shernren]

The parables contain events that if did not actually happen, could have happened.

But the parables were presented as if they had actually happened. That is the crux of it. If I say "There was a country named Japan which won World War Two", I would be lying even if it theoretically could have happened, because it did not happen. Unless, of course, I did not mean to expound actual historical facts by using the phrase "there was".

Secondly, if you read through the parables you will see that there are many things there which simply could not have happened in the culture of that day. A Samaritan rescuing a Jew and bringing him back to a (presumably Jewish) village. A father who forgives both his sons for wanting him dead. (Read carefully and with Asian sensibilities.) A man who finds a pearl worth all he has, and a farmer who weeds his field only while he's harvesting his crops. These are fables plain and simple. And Jesus wasn't ashamed of them being fables.

Now on the other hand, the Theo-Evo sect claims Genesis was a parable...based on events that could NOT have happened.

I won't speak for my whole "sect" (was that an insult? ) but I don't think that statement represents me well. God could jolly well have created the earth 6000 years ago (or yesterday, for that matter) and dressed it up to look a few billion years old instead. What I find irresponsible is when Christians say that solid scientific evidence proves that the earth is 6000 years old, and that any scientific evidence that disproves this must by their declaration be unsolid. In a sentence, I am far more against "scientific creationism" than against YECism proper.