Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[Archivist]

Amen, of some denominations. For Baptists they are an outward expression of an inward happening. The thief on the cross next to Jesus didn't have time to be baptized or to take communion BUT he will be with us in Heaven. Amen? Luk 23:43

But the post to which I was replying said that they were of man, not of God.

 

[-57]

Because dust is presented as part of an allegory.

Perhaps you can explain what the dust is.

 

[Radrook]

Many people claiming Christianity don't seem to realize that by categorizing the events in Genesis as mere allegory they are automatically casting serious doubt on Jesus as the Son of God.

This inability to readily appreciate such a serious implication is perhaps because they aren't really familiar with what Jesus himself believed and taught or else they 'know what he believed and taught but don't really consider him much more than a regular human prophet susceptible to human error.

 

[Archivist]

Perhaps you can explain what the dust is.

I said that. It is part of an allegory. You are, of course, entitled to your own views.

 

[-57]

I said that. It is part of an allegory. You are, of course, entitled to your own views.

Then what does the dust allegorically represent?

 

[Archivist]

Then what does the dust allegorically represent?

I don't know. It's an allegory showing that God created everything so it really doesn't matter.

You are, of course, entitled to your own interpretation.

 

[Aman777]

Then what does the dust allegorically represent?

It's simple. Dust is ground without form. The KJV translators used the word earth in Gen 1:1. Earth or ground without form literally is dust. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

And of course you claim to have the proper interpretation, and those who disagree with you do not.

And, of course, as I have said multiple times, you are entitled to your interpretation.

My understanding AGREES in every way with every discovery of mankind. Does yours?

 

[rjs330]

I don't think you have the problem stated correctly. There is no question that Gen 1 & 2 are allegorical. Figurative interpretations of Genesis are almost as old as the book itself and have been entertained by many Christian theologians over the centuries. That is where the greatest value of the stories lies.

No, the pertinent questions are 1. Is Genesis also (not instead of) 100% literal history and 2. Is it necessary to salvation to believe it is?

Genesis 1 & 2 are not Allegory. Can they be used allegorically. I'm sure they can, although I am not sure what the alligorical use of
God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters to separate the waters from each other.”God made the dome and separated the waters under the dome from the waters above the dome. And it happened in that way.God named the dome Sky. There was evening and there was morning: the second day. - Genesis 1:6-8 Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:6-8 - Common English Bible

Would be off the top of my head. Genesis 2 is a little easier when especially when dealing with the fall. But I still do not find any scriptural evidence of it being an allegory. It's treated as historical fact as to how exactly sin came into the world and how we became sinners. Why are we sinners and why do we need a savior? Genesis tells us exactly why. Paul does not say it's an allegory nor does he hint at it. He speaks it as fact which means it is history.

Can we use factual history to teach lessons? Of course we can and we do all the time. But that does not mean the history did not happen as stated.

Is it 100% history? Yes it is. There is no scriptural evidence to say otherwise.

Is it necessary to believe that for salvation. No.

 

[rjs330]

Because dust is presented as part of an allegory.

What's the allegory?

 

[rjs330]

Speedwell is, as usual, correct. Many over the years have considered Genesis to be allegory.

Wouldn't you agree that there is a major difference between Biblical admonishments regarding parents eating that own children and Jesus telling us "this is my body?"

My point is that you are picking and choosing what to believe. You are saying that we all must believe two differing stories written by unknown authors probably at different times, one of which involves a talking snake, as literal history while ignoring the plain meaning of the words of our Lord and savior. Unlike you, I am not trying to tell anyone what to believe. As I have said over and over, you are free to your own interpretation of scripture.

Most believers did not take it as allegory and in fact the earliest of the church fathers did not take it as allegory. You cannot find anyone earlier in the church than the apostles and it is obvious they believed it to be history. You also cannot find anyone with more authority in the church than Jesus and he did not make an allegorize claim and in fact what he said tells you he did not consider it so. He considered it history and the apostles were the ultimate authority after Christ and they did to. Find me someone who had as much authority as Christ and the apostles who believed it to be allegory and write scripture and I may rethink this.

 

[Speedwell]

Most believers did not take it as allegory and in fact the earliest of the church fathers did not take it as allegory.

Are you really claiming that none of the Fathers found figurative meaning in those stories?

 

[Speedwell]

Is it 100% history? Yes it is. There is no scriptural evidence to say otherwise.

In fact, scripture does not tell us very much at all about the genre of those stories. And, of course, you will consider no extra-biblical information on the point whatsoever.

Is it necessary to believe that for salvation. No.

Then what do you think accounts for the belligerence and hostility of some of your coreligionists on the point? Are they jealous?

 

[SolomonVII]

So much of the meaning of the Bible is missed if it is all reduced down to simple plot.
It is a children's bible that focuses all the energy on plot. Well, really, actually it is less than that, if your reading of your bible does not recognize that parable is as true as history. Even a child would be able to understand how the Biblical lessons of the ant and the related Aesop tale of the ant and the grasshopper is really more about people than about the study of insects.

The greatest truths of Jesus's teaching were often based in parable, and even simile. ("No Pharisee, you do not have to reenter your mommy and travel down her birth canal in order to be born again").

It is quite amazing really to think that any serious reader of the Bible would think that something would have to be literally true in order to be taken seriously enough to base rules of conduct or theology upon it.

 

[Aman777]

So much of the meaning of the Bible is missed if it is all reduced down to simple plot.
It is a children's bible that focuses all the energy on plot. Well, really, actually it is less than that, if your reading of your bible does not recognize that parable is as true as history. Even a child would be able to understand how the Biblical lessons of the ant and the related Aesop tale of the ant and the grasshopper is really more about people than about the study of insects.

The greatest truths of Jesus's teaching were often based in parable, and even simile. ("No Pharisee, you do not have to reenter your mommy and travel down her birth canal in order to be born again").

It is quite amazing really to think that any serious reader of the Bible would think that something would have to be literally true in order to be taken seriously enough to base rules of conduct or theology upon it.

Since the entire Bible was authored by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, it is the Truth in every way. Those who change His Holy Word into fables are admitting that they cannot understand His Truth.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[SolomonVII]

Since the entire Bible was authored by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, it is the Truth in every way. Those who change His Holy Word into fables are admitting that they cannot understand His Truth.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Indeed. Those who reduce the bible down to plot instead of understanding the profundity of the work is never an either/or situation between history and allegory make the Holy Spirit into an author of children's fiction.

 

[Aman777]

Indeed. Those who reduce the bible down to plot instead of understanding the profundity of the work is never an either/or situation between history and allegory make the Holy Spirit into an author of children's fiction.

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Can you tell us how to get to Heaven?

 

[SolomonVII]

Can you tell us how to get to Heaven?

Yes. Of course.

 

[SolomonVII]

Now who here believes that believing in the parables of Jesus is like believing in fables?

 

[SolomonVII]

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 develop a rule based upon a parable?

Only by rejecting the idea that the parables of Jesus are worthy of being the basis for faith and rules to guide us does the the premise of this thread become acceptable.

But if you accept that the parables of Jesus are true and good, God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (as is all Scripture as per Timothy), then the premise of this thread is based in falsehood.

It really is just that simple.