Paul, instructions and myth.

[alexandriaisburning]

When you can provide evidence that my proposition is false and the scriptures do not present a literal interpretation of Genesis..after seeing scripture where the accounts of Genesis are presented in a literal fashion....get back to me. The onos has been on you for several rounds of this discussion and you have failed to do so.

If you believe that the book of Genesis is to be interpreted as literal history, that's fine. Such a belief firmly places the onus on you to demonstrate the historicity of the narrative, unless you are merely giving lipservice to the "requirement" of literality because of an assumption that there exist no tools (like time travel) that would enable a validation of the claim. Again, very convenient for you...

 

[-57]

Regarding the chronologies in Genesis, I believe they were compiled for theological/political reasons, not historical ones. If you analyze the chronologies of Genesis (including the extreme length of lives) against other chronologies in ANE literature of the time (for example, Sumerian kings lists), you'll find some interesting parallels. The numerology at play, both in the kings lists and the Genesis chronologies, seems to indicates that the "lengths of reign" assigned to the kings/patriarchs was not intended to describe actual ages, but rather express some meaning based on the calculations applied.

Modern brains can't understand this, because when we see a notation that "X lived Y years", we assumed the author is trying to record "history" as we understand it. However, as we see through the Scriptures in regards to numerology, the "historical" is not necessarily the primary motivation in the construction of narrative.

It is easy for me to understand the long lives as historical record...understanding that Adam and Eve would have been created genetically perfect. No disease, cancer, sickness etc to shorten the lives.
If you notice the ages of the people mentioned decreased in steps as time goes on and disease, cancer, sickness enter into play.

 

[-57]

If you believe that the book of Genesis is to be interpreted as literal history, that's fine. Such a belief firmly places the onus on you to demonstrate the historicity of the narrative, unless you are merely giving lipservice to the "requirement" of literality because of an assumption that there exist no tools (like time travel) that would enable a validation of the claim. Again, very convenient for you...

Perhaps you should go back into time and demonstrate that Adam and Eve were mythological people....as for me I'll stick with how the bible presents them as literal and historical. When you can demonstrate otherwise, I'll listen to you.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

It is easy for me to understand the long lives as historical record...understanding that Adam and Eve would have been created genetically perfect. No disease, cancer, sickness etc to shorten the lives.
If you notice the ages of the people mentioned decreased in steps as time goes on and disease, cancer, sickness enter into play.

Then why wouldn't their lives have been shortened immediately after the "fall"? In order to support your proposition, you have to insert an assumption that the effects of disease, sickness, etc. took time to increase in efficacy. There is zero textual or experimental proof to suggest this. The only way to support it is to invent a presupposition in order to bolster another presupposition regarding the ages of the patriarchs.

 

[-57]

Then why wouldn't their lives have been shortened immediately after the "fall"? In order to support your proposition, you have to insert an assumption that the effects of disease, sickness, etc. took time to increase in efficacy. There is zero textual or experimental proof to suggest this. The only way to support it is to invent a presupposition in order to bolster another presupposition regarding the ages of the patriarchs.

I would say they began to be shortened after the fall when genetic entropy would have began. I don't think it would have happened instantly.

After the resurrection don't you expect to be genetically perfect and live into eternity...never dying? Or am I also reading that into the bible?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

I would say they began to be shortened after the fall when genetic entropy would have began. I don't think it would have happened instantly.

Ok, do you have evidence that this has happened, or just what you want to have happened in order to support your presuppositions? With such short times involved, there should be sufficient evidence in the generic record to support this notion.

After the resurrection don't you expect to be genetically perfect and live into eternity...never dying? Or am I also reading that into the bible?

I'm not sure what "genetically perfect" is supposed to mean. I do believe that we will share in the resurrection of Christ, however that is manifested.

 

[-57]

Ok, do you have evidence that this has happened, or just what you want to have happened in order to support your presuppositions? With such short times involved, there should be sufficient evidence in the generic record to support this notion.

I'm not sure what "genetically perfect" is supposed to mean. I do believe that we will share in the resurrection of Christ, however that is manifested.

Perhaps I should ask you....do you have any evidence Jesus rose from the dead? How about Mary was a virgin when she conceived?

Concerning the genetic record...No. I don't have Adams DNA in a test tube. But there is a lot of life extension research going on. Another article. Are we there yet? No. Will we ever get there? Maybe. Maybe not.

Genetically perfect would be just what it implies....and what I expressed.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Perhaps I should ask you....do you have any evidence Jesus rose from the dead? How about Mary was a virgin when she conceived?

No, I don't have evidence for either of these, and I never suggested that evidence was necessary or possible (that would be your domain, remember?). The miraculous cannot be asserted on the basis of phenomenological evidence; it must be apprehended by faith.

Concerning the genetic record...No. I don't have Adams DNA in a test tube. But there is a lot of life extension research going on. Another article. Are we there yet? No. Will we ever get there? Maybe. Maybe not.

Having Adam's DNA has nothing to do with the question. Genetically, you should be able to trace the entropy of disease (at least genetic ones) and identify patterns of efficacy throughout history. Do you have evidence for such patterns, or are you just making stuff up to support your presupposition about the lifespans of the patriarchs in the Genesis narratives?

Genetically perfect would be just what it implies....and what I expressed.

But the words "genetically perfect" don't imply anything! What does "perfection" in genetics look like? In order to "imply" something, you have to have a model against which to adjudicate whether or not it attains. So what does "genetic perfection" look like?

 

[theFijian]

Would Paul base inspired instruction on an event that never happened?

Jesus did, so why wouldn't Paul.

Also, the pejorative use of 'myth' is distinctly shaped by a modernist mindset

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Jesus did, so why wouldn't Paul.

Also, the pejorative use of 'myth' is distinctly shaped by a modernist mindset

Which is curious, as even the most thoroughly entrenched modernist will violate this standard in their own thinking and language. While the modern mind likes to deceive itself into thinking that it is free from the "shackles" of mythological thinking, I think an honest assessment of one's own person epistemology (and even societal ones) are not true to the invented standard which we seem to insist that the Scriptures must attain.

 

[-57]

Jesus did, so why wouldn't Paul.

Also, the pejorative use of 'myth' is distinctly shaped by a modernist mindset

No Jesus didn't.

 

[theFijian]

No Jesus didn't.

Yes, he did.

 

[-57]

Yes, he did.

If you say so.
NEXT

 

[theFijian]

If you say so.
NEXT

What's funny is that someone who claims to care about the Bible isn't actual that clear on what it actually says, and certainly isn't clear on how Jesus taught his disciples

 

[-57]

What's funny is that someone who claims to care about the Bible isn't actual that clear on what it actually says, and certainly isn't clear on how Jesus taught his disciples

Dude, either produce the verse or go away.

 

[theFijian]

Dude, either produce the verse or go away.

Seriously? You know of no verses where Jesus's inspired teaching is based on an event that never happened?!

 

[-57]

Seriously? You know of no verses where Jesus's inspired teaching is based on an event that never happened?!

You're dancing...either produce the verse or go away.

 

[theFijian]

You're dancing...either produce the verse or go away.

OK let's just pretend you're not trolling, 2 Samuel 12....or pick any Parable

 

[-57]

OK let's just pretend you're not trolling, 2 Samuel 12....or pick any Parable

I was kinda hoping you would use the parable example.
from 2nd sam.....
There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds; 3 but the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own morsel, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him, but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

You do understand that parables are based upon history, possible events, real places? Yes?

It's possible for two men to be in a city.
It's possible for one to be rich and the other poor.
It's possible for the rich man to have flocks and herds.
It's possible for a poor man to have just one ewe lamb.
It's possible for the poor man to raise it and nourish it.
It's possible the poor man had children.
It's possible he rased it like his own daughter.
It's possible for travelers to exist......You should be getting the point.

Parables are based upon actual events or events tat could actually happen.

Genesis presents a Garden, a man and a women, descriptions of rivers, tree's, animals, snake, fig leaves, animal skin...all of which are presented as possible as well as historical.

There is no reason to even think Genesis isn't literal historical history. As i said earlier, why would Paul tell women to keep silent...based upon a parable? It makes no sense.

Yesterday R.C. Sproul spoke on this....check it out. I trust you like R.C. Sproul?

 

[alexandriaisburning]

You do understand that parables are based upon history, possible events, real places? Yes?

Parables are based upon actual events or events tat could actually happen.

This doesn't actually produce a definition of a parable that supports your position. To modern categories of historicity, there is nearly an infinite amount of distance between that which "could happen" and that which is demonstrably shown to have happened (in way of demonstration, I merely mean that it fulfills the criteria of the particular historical methodology...there's absolutely no way to objectively demonstrate that any given event occurred, as any interpretation of the event will necessarily be mediated via the subjectivity of mind).

Genesis presents a Garden, a man and a women, descriptions of rivers, tree's, animals, snake, fig leaves, animal skin...all of which are presented as possible as well as historical.

But according to your own definition above, perhaps we are merely talking about things that *could* happen..."possible events", to use your words. In an infinite number of universes, pretty much any phenomenon is *possible", so if this is your definition of "real history", you should perhaps work on your communication skills a bit. There are not many that would acknowledge allegiance to such a view of "history".

There is no reason to even think Genesis isn't literal historical history.

On the same lines of reasoning, there is also absolutely no reason to think that Genesis *is* literal history. You assume that it must be because your suppositions about the "inspiration" of Scripture REQUIRE that the Scriptures be viably demonstrated on the basis of modern conceptions of historicity. But if we leave aside your unwarranted assumptions, there is no "reason" to presume that one must interpret Genesis as "literal history" ("literal history", of course, being that which is understood as fulfilling the criteria of a particular philosophical and methodological understanding of "history"--remember, there is no universal, objective notion of "history"!!!!).

As i said earlier, why would Paul tell women to keep silent...based upon a parable? It makes no sense.

Did it not make sense for Jesus to do precisely this? Storytelling is--for better or worse--an intrinsic part of human language, even to the present philosophical milieu. That you would require that Jesus' parables be "historical" (in the modernist sense of historicity) is not only breath-taking, but very revelatory of the severe methodological flaws that are endemic to your hermeneutics.