Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[-57]

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?

With all due respect, your theology is out because it contradicts scripture.
Secondly it really doesn't explain much. Original sin being one of the many issues.

 

[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.

Except they don't. They present the Genesis account as authoritative. Get the difference? Probably not. It is also possible to conclude that Paul and the other Christians of his time believed that the Genesis account was historical. Most Christians have done throughout most of Christian history. But nothing in scripture, I repeat, nothing supports your claim that the text of the Genesis creation account is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

With all due respect, your theology is out because it contradicts scripture.
Secondly it really doesn't explain much. Original sin being one of the many issues.

You haven't even looked at my theology. I gave you some sources to consider here while back, and you ignored them.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

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.

Actually you will find many on this forum who claim that Genesis was allegory. You will not count me among them.

 

[mykl_c]

2PhiloVoid - preach brother! Genesis 1-11 is very obviously a theological statement about the greatness of YHWH over the puny 'gods' of other nations, and the special relationship YHWH has with the Hebrews. Trying to force it into some bizarre kind of blow-by-blow description of events does a great disservice to the book and to YHWH. How much more majestic to read the two books of revelation we are given side by side and see how great, how deep and how wide is the power and mind of our God? To step away from the child's perception of the magician saying "Presto!" to the adult's understanding of the complexity and age of this universe He created?

 

[CrystalDragon]

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

"Very good" is not the same thing as "perfect".

 

[CrystalDragon]

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.

Honestly that's circular reasoning, saying "the Bible is true because it says it's true". There were many other Bible books that could have been in the Bible but weren't. Were they God-breathed Scripture too? If not, how can we be sure if what we got as Scripture is true?

 

[mykl_c]

Honestly that's circular reasoning, saying "the Bible is true because it says it's true". There were many other Bible books that could have been in the Bible but weren't. Were they God-breathed Scripture too? If not, how can we be sure if what we got as Scripture is true?

(Sarcasm mode engaged)
Obviously because God, through the Holy Spirit, divinely puppetised the members of the Council of Nicea into only including the books, letters and so forth that He had dictated.
(Sarcasm mode disabled)
Absolutely. We confine God to our own limitations and prejudices all the time, and try to make the book into a fourth, perfect member of the Trinity. It's a human collection of writings about the divine encounter, it's the Israelites explanation for why they were in captivity in Babylon, it's INSPIRED by God, GOOD for many things, but not perfect. Just like the other vessels He chooses to fill with His glory, us.

 

[Papias]

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.

Except that example shows exactly the opposite. Specifically, the writers of Mt and Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, show us that the genealogies are allegories, and not literal. The Holy Spirit, author of both of them, shows this by the fact that they disagree with each other, and that Mt's list is altered so as to make his "40 generation" thing work.

Compare Mt with the same genealogy given in Chronicles:

Mt Gen# .................Gospel of Matthew has............... 1st Chron. Has:

1..............................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, ...Solomon's son was

2 .............................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,...... Rehoboam,

3 .............................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son,

4..............................Asa ..................................................Asa his son,

5 .............................Jehoshaphat .....................................Jehoshaphat his son,

6............................. Jehoram ...........................................Jehoram his son

................................Skipped.......................................... Ahaziah his son,


................................Skipped .........................................Joash his son,

................................Skipped .........................................Amaziah his son,

7......................Uzziah the father of Jotham, .................Azariah his son,

8............................ Jotham ............................................Jotham his son,

9 ............................Ahaz ...............................................Ahaz his son,

10...........................Hezekiah ........................................Hezekiah his son,

11.......................... Manasseh .......................................Manasseh his son,

12 ..........................Amon .............................................Amon his son,

13.......................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ….....Josiah his son.


Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that the Holy Spirit is telling us not to interpret genealogies literally nor historically.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[EmethAlethia]

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?

Who said it was a parable?

Actually everything in the bible, from creation on down to Christ, throughout the rest of the entire bible is hinged on Genesis, and Adam and Eve, being literal, and an evening and morning one day being literal days of 24 hours just like today. (Besides a period of 10 billion years of darkness would certainly kill all of the plants that were created in the previous 10 billion years (Or whatever time period some would like to assign to Genesis days. So really, either everything in the bible is a complete waste of time or Genesis is real, and literal.

Genesis 3, during the fall of Adam and Eve, you see the first prophesy concerning Christ ... seed of a woman bruising his heal ...

Here's the big issue. Which came first the chicken or the egg from a biblical standpoint? The chicken, right? God created full grown animals, full grown plants, a fully established and balanced universe, and fully grown, capable of being fruitful and multiplying humans as well. What does this mean? Well, if the bible is correct, and we could go back in time to day 7 of creation with our best scientists and the best scientific equipment, and they studied the earth and the universe on day 7, they would conclude that everything had a semblance of maturity ... of age ...

So when someone says that science proves that the universe has great age, I thank them for confirming what God said He created exactly the way He said He created it. Everything is fully mature, including the universe because God created it that way.

He said so.

I think evolution makes a great story though. there really is no evidence to support it today though. Micro works. Macro doesn't. Sheep don't become fish or vice versa. Evolution is man's attempt to get rid of God but we really have no proof and those that claim there is are scratching at straws. If it really worked there would be tons of half this and half that's naturally appearing in the world. The problem is that survival of the fittest kills off all major changes because the half this or that doesn't usually survive past birth, usually can't reproduce, would require another similarly genetic deviant to pass on the traits, is less suited to survive than it's pure parents ... micro evolution works because we can eventually make dogs the size of hamsters, and the size of ponies through selective breading (Within species). And we can use pesticides to kill off all but the most resistant bugs, but since those are the only bugs that survive to breed, we end up breeding bugs resistant to those pesticides. THis is why we also have problems with antibiotic resistant viruses and bacteria. We kill off all but the strongest, and thoe are the ones remaining to breed.

Survival of the fittest works, but it works completely contrary to evolution... unless it is micro evolution.

 

[EmethAlethia]

Except that example shows exactly the opposite. Specifically, the writers of Mt and Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, show us that the genealogies are allegories, and not literal. The Holy Spirit, author of both of them, shows this by the fact that they disagree with each other, and that Mt's list is altered so as to make his "40 generation" thing work.

Compare Mt with the same genealogy given in Chronicles:

Mt Gen# .................Gospel of Matthew has............... 1st Chron. Has:

1..............................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, ...Solomon's son was

2 .............................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,...... Rehoboam,

3 .............................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son,

4..............................Asa ..................................................Asa his son,

5 .............................Jehoshaphat .....................................Jehoshaphat his son,

6............................. Jehoram ...........................................Jehoram his son

................................Skipped.......................................... Ahaziah his son,


................................Skipped .........................................Joash his son,

................................Skipped .........................................Amaziah his son,

7......................Uzziah the father of Jotham, .................Azariah his son,

8............................ Jotham ............................................Jotham his son,

9 ............................Ahaz ...............................................Ahaz his son,

10...........................Hezekiah ........................................Hezekiah his son,

11.......................... Manasseh .......................................Manasseh his son,

12 ..........................Amon .............................................Amon his son,

13.......................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ….....Josiah his son.


Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that the Holy Spirit is telling us not to interpret genealogies literally nor historically.

In Christ-

Papias

Of course, according to the Jewish way of thinking, Adam is my father and Noah is my father and I do not need to include any of my other ancestors to be 100% correct. The lists are never meant to be exhaustive, just enough to get the flavor of the ancestry, hit key people to clarify or to make a point... The bible is chock full of these. Jesus is the Son of David, is He not? I can pick out the 7 or 10, or 15 of my favorite ancestors and use any list containing any number of them, or just one of them, and as long as they are in the list of my "fathers", the genealogy is perfectly correct 100% from the Jewish perspective. But then we don't see genealogies or despondency the same way. For us, in our culture, even if Abraham was in our list of descendants, we could not state that Abraham(The biblical Abraham) was our father. The Jews did though.

Hopefully that clears that up.

 

[mykl_c]

Of course, according to the Jewish way of thinking, Adam is my father and Noah is my father and I do not need to include any of my other ancestors to be 100% correct. The lists are never meant to be exhaustive, just enough to get the flavor of the ancestry, hit key people to clarify or to make a point... The bible is chock full of these. Jesus is the Son of David, is He not? I can pick out the 7 or 10, or 15 of my favorite ancestors and use any list containing any number of them, or just one of them, and as long as they are in the list of my "fathers", the genealogy is perfectly correct 100% from the Jewish perspective. But then we don't see genealogies or despondency the same way. For us, in our culture, even if Abraham was in our list of descendants, we could not state that Abraham(The biblical Abraham) was our father. The Jews did though.

Hopefully that clears that up.

Sadly, that turns out not to be the case. Correct and exacting genealogies were critically important to the Jews, tracing descent from particular individuals through very specific lines. "Skip a bit, brother" works fine for Monty Python, but not in the clannish and tribal world of the Jews.
Talking about identifying individuals as father is irrelevant, as I'm confident you know.
Not sure what you meant by despondency? Descent, perhaps?

 

[EmethAlethia]

Sadly, that turns out not to be the case. Correct and exacting genealogies were critically important to the Jews, tracing descent from particular individuals through very specific lines. "Skip a bit, brother" works fine for Monty Python, but not in the clannish and tribal world of the Jews.
Talking about identifying individuals as father is irrelevant, as I'm confident you know.
Not sure what you meant by despondency? Descent, perhaps?

Wow ... That is amazing. That Abraham was everyone's father and he must have lived a lot longer than than the O.T. account relates.

Mat_3:9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.

Luk_1:73 The oath which He swore to Abraham our father,

Luk_3:8 "Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham.

Luk_16:24 "And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'

Luk_16:30 "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'

Joh_8:39 They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus *said to them, "If you are Abraham's children, do the deeds of Abraham.

Joh_8:53 "Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?"

Joh_8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

Act_7:2 And he said, "Hear me, brethren and fathers! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran,

Rom_4:12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

Rom_4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,

Jas_2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?


Gee, what happened to all the intervening generations? My point as that the Jews counted everyone in their decadency as their father, and listed the ones they felt were important. You see the examples of this above.

If you can prove that everyone's father is named Abraham, then your reply works. Otherwise what we have is Jews picking out the important "Father's" in their list of descendants based on what the individuals deem important. You are correct in stating there are gaps. There are big gaps when you consider that everyone considered Abraham was their father as well. Understand that that is not what the genealogies were meant to prove. EVERYONE knew the details. They were a matter of public record. All of the major crossroads in the genealogies of Joseph and Mary are recorded to prove His decadency fit the requirements of the Messiah.

What the individuals knew of the complete decadency was different from what they shared with everyone else. Complete lists were like listing pi. There are books containing 50,000 decimal places. For most people 3.14 is adequate, 3.1415926 is the most I have ever needed. For many, being a descendant of Abraham was the only big thing needed. To show the ancestry of Christ more precision was required. The question is, how many decimal points are needed to show accuracy? 3.14159265359 ... Do you need 50,000 digits to prove the accuracy of pi? I don't. Do you need every single descendant to show who Christ's "Father's" were? We obviously need more than Abraham is my father. You were able to fill in the gaps almost 2000 years later. Seems like what is there is enough.

 

[mykl_c]

Wow ... That is amazing. That Abraham was everyone's father and he must have lived a lot longer than than the O.T. account relates.
>snip<
Gee, what happened to all the intervening generations? My point as that the Jews counted everyone in their decadency as their father, and listed the ones they felt were important. You see the examples of this above.
>snip<
What the individuals knew of the complete decadency was different from what they shared with everyone else. Complete lists were like listing pi. There are books containing 50,000 decimal places. For most people 3.14 is adequate, 3.1415926 is the most I have ever needed. For many, being a descendant of Abraham was the only big thing needed. To show the ancestry of Christ more precision was required. The question is, how many decimal points are needed to show accuracy? 3.14159265359 ... Do you need 50,000 digits to prove the accuracy of pi? I don't. Do you need every single descendant to show who Christ's "Father's" were? We obviously need more than Abraham is my father. You were able to fill in the gaps almost 2000 years later. Seems like what is there is enough.

"Talking about identifying individuals as father is irrelevant, as I'm confident you know."
It seems I was incorrect. You should notice that in the majority of the verses you quoted, Abraham is being referred to as the father of a group (Plural your and our). These are not genealogical lists, they're tribal identifiers, as we are children of God and He is our Father. Where there is a genealogy, there is a comprehensive list.
I'm kinda glad you introduced pi, it helps me illustrate. Is pi=3.1496? No? But all I did was leave out some of those irrelevant numbers! As I said before, "Skip a bit, brother" doesn't work for a Jewish genealogy.

 

[Papias]

The lists are never meant to be exhaustive, just enough to get the flavor of the ancestry, hit key people to clarify or to make a point...
Hopefully that clears that up.

Umm... Did you take the time to read it in context? It's clearly and explicitly "meant to be exhaustive" because it outright says that the total number of generations was 14. If he had intended to "just get a flavor of the ancestry, hit key people", then it would have listed the number of generations as 17 if it mentioned the number of generations at all.

Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.​

"Skip a bit, brother" works fine for Monty Python, but not in the clannish and tribal world of the Jews.

Right.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[expos4ever]

Why would Paul develope a rule based upon a parable?

Because this is done all the time. That is what a "morality tale" is - a fictional story that presents some important truth. There is a fable about a greedy boy who stick his hand into the candy jar and cannot pull it out since he has grabbed too many candies. Parents often used to say "remember what happened to the greedy boy" in order to teach their children not be greedy.

But, as you know, I suggest that Paul - not being omniscient - may have believed the story of Adam and Eve was "literal" when, in fact, it may not have been.

 

[-57]

You haven't even looked at my theology. I gave you some sources to consider here while back, and you ignored them.

I'm not quite sure just what sources you meant. Perhaps I missed them or your sources contradicted or were used in a way to contradict scripture.

 

[-57]

"Very good" is not the same thing as "perfect".

I fail to see your point. Want to explain it a bit more?

 

[-57]

Honestly that's circular reasoning, saying "the Bible is true because it says it's true". There were many other Bible books that could have been in the Bible but weren't. Were they God-breathed Scripture too? If not, how can we be sure if what we got as Scripture is true?

Are you saying the bible got it wrong when it says Jesus lived, died on the cross the rose from the dead?

 

[-57]

Except that example shows exactly the opposite. Specifically, the writers of Mt and Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, show us that the genealogies are allegories, and not literal. The Holy Spirit, author of both of them, shows this by the fact that they disagree with each other, and that Mt's list is altered so as to make his "40 generation" thing work.

Compare Mt with the same genealogy given in Chronicles:

Mt Gen# .................Gospel of Matthew has............... 1st Chron. Has:

1..............................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, ...Solomon's son was

2 .............................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,...... Rehoboam,

3 .............................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son,

4..............................Asa ..................................................Asa his son,

5 .............................Jehoshaphat .....................................Jehoshaphat his son,

6............................. Jehoram ...........................................Jehoram his son

................................Skipped.......................................... Ahaziah his son,


................................Skipped .........................................Joash his son,

................................Skipped .........................................Amaziah his son,

7......................Uzziah the father of Jotham, .................Azariah his son,

8............................ Jotham ............................................Jotham his son,

9 ............................Ahaz ...............................................Ahaz his son,

10...........................Hezekiah ........................................Hezekiah his son,

11.......................... Manasseh .......................................Manasseh his son,

12 ..........................Amon .............................................Amon his son,

13.......................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ….....Josiah his son.


Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that the Holy Spirit is telling us not to interpret genealogies literally nor historically.

In Christ-

Papias

One linage is of Mary's and the other linage is of Joseph's. We expect them to be different.