Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[-57]

In a letter to Timothy from Paul, Paul instructed the women on how to act in church. 1st Tim 2:11-12 is where that can be found.

In verse 13-14 Paul shows us his reason for his rule...and it's based upon the creation of man and women and the fall as presented in Genesis.

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

It's that simple.

Why would Paul develope a rule based upon a parable?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In a letter to Timothy from Paul, Paul instructed the women on how to act in church. 1st Tim 2:11-12 is where that can be found.

In verse 13-14 Paul shows us his reason for his rule...and it's based upon the creation of man and women and the fall as presented in Genesis.

13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

It's that simple.

Why would Paul develope a rule based upon a parable?

No one ever said that Paul thought it was a mere parable. Paul perceived the Genesis story by way of the working paradigm in which He was born, lived and breathed. And that's ok. So, from a revelatory aspect, Paul wasn't wrong--based upon the information he knew at the time which is all that God needed for him to know.

And even if the Adam and Even/Garden story isn't literal, it is still a part of the Torah and serves as sacred Scripture. And if people today can't feel inspired for something that is representational (or poetic) in it's descriptive nature, then that problem is on them, but not on God, or on Moses, or on Jesus, or even on Paul or Peter.

Then, if Genesis is poetic or metaphor or cultural polemics, the supposed allegation that people tend to draw out about God being a 'liar' falls short because... God has the authority to give us revelation as He sees fit, and He can obscure what He want us to know as He sees fit, or He can enlighten us for our good as He sees fit. Thus, if and when He does so, He isn't at moral fault. He isn't lying; rather, He's holding or withholding what He knows we need to know. It is His world, after all, and He knows how it works best.

And as it turns out, Genesis can still be Sacred Scripture any way we slice it...even if it isn't fully literal in all the nice scientific ways we like things to be today.

 

[dysert]

Paul wasn't the only one to think Adam was a real person...

Luke 3:38 -> "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

Jude 1:14 -> "Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints"

If these verses aren't accurate then God did indeed lie to the authors of Scripture, but we know that that's impossible.

 

[Speedwell]

57's argument is unanswerable. I can use it, too:

1. I think the Garden story in Genesis is an etiology.
2. Paul uses the Garden story just as any literate person would use an etiology.
Therefore, Paul agrees with me that it is an etiology.

See how that works?

 

[-57]

No one ever said that Paul thought it was a mere parable. Paul perceived the Genesis story by way of the working paradigm in which He was born, lived and breathed. And that's ok. So, from a revelatory aspect, Paul wasn't wrong--based upon the information he knew at the time which is all that God needed for him to know.

And even if the Adam and Even/Garden story isn't literal, it is still a part of the Torah and serves as sacred Scripture. And if people today can't feel inspired for something that is representational (or poetic) in it's descriptive nature, then that problem is on them, but not on God, or on Moses, or on Jesus, or even on Paul or Peter.

Then, if Genesis is poetic or metaphor or cultural polemics, the supposed allegation that people tend to draw out about God being a 'liar' falls short because... God has the authority to give us revelation as He sees fit, and He can obscure what He want us to know as He sees fit, or He can enlighten us for our good as He sees fit. Thus, if and when He does so, He isn't at moral fault. He isn't lying; rather, He's holding or withholding what He knows we need to know. It is His world, after all, and He knows how it works best.

And as it turns out, Genesis can still be Sacred Scripture any way we slice it...even if it isn't fully literal in all the nice scientific ways we like things to be today.

What you had just done is said the bible can be wrong...if Genesis is literal...but it's OK because Paul believed it to be true. That would be like saying Jesus never rose from the dead, but, Paul believed Jesus did sooooooooooo for that time period Paul was right.

Falling back on the God has the right to...argument...loses traction pretty quick when we realize this was just one of several instances where the Genesis account is presented as historical and literal. Are you saying God is wishy washy on those other instances?

 

[-57]

Paul wasn't the only one to think Adam was a real person...

Luke 3:38 -> "the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

Jude 1:14 -> "Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints"

If these verses aren't accurate then God did indeed lie to the authors of Scripture, but we know that that's impossible.

Thanks for that post.
I find it rather sad how some christians have to change what the bible says, is, means.... inorder to force Genesis to conform to the religion of evolutionism.

Here's another example where Adam is presented as literal. I would like the Genesis is a parable sect to show us just where the linage changed from fact to fiction.

Luke 3:23 and onwards...
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

 

[-57]

57's argument is unanswerable. I can use it, too:

1. I think the Garden story in Genesis is an etiology.
2. Paul uses the Garden story just as any literate person would use an etiology.
Therefore, Paul agrees with me that it is an etiology.

See how that works?

Your circular logic doesn't work...because it is clearly circular. What I and others have done is presented scripture and sound logic to show Genesis isn't a parable or myth.

Why should I believe Genesis is a parable? Do you have a verse that says so? If so, you win the argument. What do you have?

 

[Speedwell]

Your circular logic doesn't work...because it is clearly circular.

So is your "Paul quotes Genesis, therefore Genesis is literal" argument. That was the point.

Why should I believe Genesis is a parable? Do you have a verse that says so? If so, you win the argument. What do you have?

You shouldn't believe that "Genesis" is a "parable." Genesis is a complex work representing a number of different literary genres. "Parable" isn't one of them.

 

[-57]

So is your "Paul quotes Genesis, therefore Genesis is literal" argument. That was the point.

No, what I'm saying is that Paul as well as the other authors of the bible present the creation acount as literal. THEREFORE Genesis is to be taken as literal.

You shouldn't believe that "Genesis" is a "parable." Genesis is a complex work representing a number of different literary genres. "Parable" isn't one of them.

OK, so now you moved the goalpost...lets use myth. You present Genesis as if it didn't happen. The bible presents Genesis as if it truly did happen. So far in this thread 3 examples have been given....and you really haven't touched either of the three.

 

[Speedwell]

No, what I'm saying is that Paul as well as the other authors of the bible present the creation acount as literal. THEREFORE Genesis is to be taken as literal.

All I see is that they present it as authoritative.

OK, so now you moved the goalpost...lets use myth. You present Genesis as if it didn't happen. The bible presents Genesis as if it truly did happen. So far in this thread 3 examples have been given....and you really haven't touched either of the three.

I never claimed Genesis was a parable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What you had just done is said the bible can be wrong...if Genesis is literal...but it's OK because Paul believed it to be true. That would be like saying Jesus never rose from the dead, but, Paul believed Jesus did sooooooooooo for that time period Paul was right.

Falling back on the God has the right to...argument...loses traction pretty quick when we realize this was just one of several instances where the Genesis account is presented as historical and literal. Are you saying God is wishy washy on those other instances?

No. I'm saying that Moses wasn't given privy historical information that He couldn't actually go back in time for...as a historical writer. So, no...I'm saying that the first 11 chapters of Genesis probably aren't ultra-literal and are meant to address metaphysical distinctions that were understood at the time Moses wrote. Culture and the work of 'history writing' was a different work than it is today..................after all, -57.

 

[dysert]

No. I'm saying that Moses wasn't given privy historical information that He couldn't actually go back in time for...as a historical writer. So, no...I'm saying that the first 11 chapters of Genesis probably aren't ultra-literal and are meant to address metaphysical distinctions that were understood at the time Moses wrote. Culture and the work of 'history writing' was a different work than it is today..................after all, -57.

Of course I disagree with what you're saying (assuming I understand it; what's "ultra-literal"?). You still haven't addressed what Luke, Paul, and Jude wrote, and you haven't presented any Scripture to support your position.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course I disagree with what you're saying (assuming I understand it; what's "ultra-literal"?). You still haven't addressed what Luke, Paul, and Jude wrote, and you haven't presented any Scripture to support your position.

So, brother dysert, where in the Bible is it going to say, "Moses wasn't given privy historical information, so therefore don't expect everything Moses says to line up with the reality of the past"? It doesn't. And why? Because that's not how the writing of history regarding the past works, but Christians (and some Jewish believers) like to assume that that is the case.

Besides, with some philosophy of history in mind, we can recognize that there is a difference between a historical writer who is writing about some supposed time frame hundreds of years before he/she existed versus writing about his own, first hand experiences.............such as is the case with Moses in writing about his leading of Israel through the parted Red Sea by God's outstretched hand. By contrast, Moses' writing about 'Adam and Eve,' on the other hand ....comes from where? Well, we don't know, do we?

Thus, I'm going to assert that not everything that is God's Truth is only to be found in the Bible. What I will assert is that everything that is most important for us to know in order to have a relationship with our Creator and Savior is found in the Bible only and not outside.

In fact, we might want to start with epistemological considerations that the Bible gives us, such as Deuteronomy 29:29. God hasn't intended to tell us the all-in-all about every nuance of the world's past or about our existence, but we often like to believe that He has. But, He hasn't, and Moses implies this himself.

If you all want me to build a bibliography of my sources that support my views, I'll be glad to do so and post them all here...

 

[-57]

Moses' writing about 'Adam and Eve,' on the other hand ....comes from where? Well, we don't know, do we?

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness....

Yes we do know where it came from. I call Him God.

 

[-57]

Without the literal six-day creation account, God created a "very good" world that quickly degenerated into violence and illness naturally, without the curse of sin. Death itself was not a curse or a deviation from God's "very good" world. Without the literal six-day creation, God intentionally included death and violence and sickness in His world. And if death is a natural, "very good," aspect of creation, then we don't need Jesus to save us from it. ref

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness....

Yes we do know where it came from. I call Him God.

That response tells me you don't even understand what I'm saying. I too believe that Genesis is Scripture and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and training in righteousness, etc. etc. etc., as is the rest of Scripture. No one is arguing against it; but for us to fully know what "breathed out" by God means in its fullest sense is a mystery on not something we can capture and stuff in a nice little container to show at the next Christian convention.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Without the literal six-day creation account, God created a "very good" world that quickly degenerated into violence and illness naturally, without the curse of sin. Death itself was not a curse or a deviation from God's "very good" world. Without the literal six-day creation, God intentionally included death and violence and sickness in His world. And if death is a natural, "very good," aspect of creation, then we don't need Jesus to save us from it. ref

That's bunk and is the typical 'go to' explanation used ... one that you get to use to slice and dice the parameters of 'who is in and who is out' as you see fit.

So, in essence, if my theology isn't just like yours, I'm out. This is basically what you're saying. Am I wrong?

 

[dysert]

Luke 11:51 -> "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation."

Add Jesus to the list of folks who believed in a literal Adam & Eve (well, at least their son). Was Jesus duped too?

 

[Speedwell]

Luke 11:51 -> "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation."

Add Jesus to the list of folks who believed in a literal Adam & Eve (well, at least their son). Was Jesus duped too?

Give it up. Stop insulting us with that kind of shabby sophistry. We all know we are not talking about whether or not there was an actual Adam and Eve. Using literal in place of actual in an equivocating way like that is too obvious and shopworn a trick to fool anyone any more.

 

[-57]

That response tells me you don't even understand what I'm saying. I too believe that Genesis is Scripture and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and training in righteousness, etc. etc. etc., as is the rest of Scripture. No one is arguing against it; but for us to fully know what "breathed out" by God means in its fullest sense is a mystery on not something we can capture and stuff in a nice little container to show at the next Christian convention.

I feel the need to remind you...the entire bible presents it as literal historical history. As the OP tells us...Paul wouldn't base a rule upon an event that didn't happen.