Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[rjs330]

No, I'm not saying that it is not true. I'm saying that it is allegory.



Six 24-hour days? No, but I do believe that God created the Earth.



No, but I do believe that God created human beings.



No, but of course Genesis 1 tells us that male and female were created simultaneously.



Sin entered the world because a talking snake convinced a woman to eat a piece of fruit? No, but I do believe that sin somehow entered the world.



No.



No, I'm saying that Genesis is an allegory.

So you are saying Genesis is not true. That is my point. You do not believe the story is true.

What was God's point in Genesis? That he created everything? Well, that is said in Genesis 1:1. Why go into all the other stuff? What was the point of telling us he raised the earth out of the water? What was the point of making specific declaration of God did this on this day. What was the point of the evening and morning? What's the allegory?

What's the point of the snake story? That man disobeyed God? God told them not to eat and they did. No snake was necessary. What is the allegorical point of man needing a woman and not being satisfied with the animals?

Where does the allegory end in Genesis and history begin? How do you know?

 

[rjs330]

We all interpret scripture. You do, I do. As I have said before, Jesus said "this is my body," and the majority of Christians--Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran--take that to mean that the bread of Holy Communion is the body of Christ. But we have had people on this thread who have said "well He said that, but He didn't literally mean that," and a minority of Christians do not believe that the bread of Holy Communion is the actual body of Christ. That is interpretation. Interpretation is not ignoring the plain meaning of commands. When Jesus says love your neighbor, believing the opposite--that you should hate your neighbor--is ignoring scripture, not interpreting scripture.

I read the Genesis creation stories as allegory. That doesn't mean that I don't regard them as being true, it means that I don't regard them as being literal history. You are entitled to your own interpretation. Why do you have such a problem with that?

You must have some scriptural basis for interpretation. As I said earlier there is scriptural basis to believe that the body and blood was not literal. There is also scriptural basis to believe it is literal. The difference is interpretation of scripture is not individualistic just cause we are arbitrary. It's because of scripture itself. And as this thread points out there is no scriptural evidence that it's allegory. There IS scriptural evidence that it is historical and literal.

 

[Archivist]

So you are saying Genesis is not true. That is my point. You do not believe the story is true.

There is probably no point in continuing this conversation since you seem to be unable to understand what myself and others repeatedly tell you.

I am not saying that Genesis is not true. I am saying that it is not literal history. I read it as an allegory.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan is just that, a parable. If it doe snot depict an actual event, doe sthat make the words of Jesus any less true? Of course not.

What was God's point in Genesis? That he created everything? Well, that is said in Genesis 1:1. Why go into all the other stuff? What was the point of telling us he raised the earth out of the water? What was the point of making specific declaration of God did this on this day. What was the point of the evening and morning? What's the allegory? What's the point of the snake story? That man disobeyed God? God told them not to eat and they did. No snake was necessary. What is the allegorical point of man needing a woman and not being satisfied with the animals?

What do the two conflicting Genesis accounts show as? I've said this multiple times, you just don't seem to be able to comprehend. It shows that the world was created by God, that He planned it carefully and designed it to be hospitable to man.

Where does the allegory end in Genesis and history begin? How do you know?

Already answered, and asking the question over and over won't change my answer. I view the history in Genesis as beginning with Abraham.

And, once again, you are free to have your own interpretation.

 

[Archivist]

You must have some scriptural basis for interpretation. As I said earlier there is scriptural basis to believe that the body and blood was not literal. There is also scriptural basis to believe it is literal. The difference is interpretation of scripture is not individualistic just cause we are arbitrary. It's because of scripture itself. And as this thread points out there is no scriptural evidence that it's allegory. There IS scriptural evidence that it is historical and literal.

There is probably little reason for me to reply again in this thread since you want to ignore what is said. The evidence that the conflicting Genesis creation accounts are allegory has been stated multiple times.

A scriptural basis to believe that the body and blood of Holy Communion are not literal? Jesus was very specific. He said "this is my body." He did not say "this represents my body" or "this is a symbol of my body." That is why the vast majority of Christians believe that it is His body. You are, of course, entitled to you own interpretation.

 

[Aman777]

There is probably no point in continuing this conversation since you seem to be unable to understand what myself and others repeatedly tell you.

I don't think that's it. I think that he believes the Holy Spirit's Truth, as written in the Bible, instead of yours. Me too, since the Holy Spirit MUST tell the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. Otherwise, Heaven would disappear for God would cease being perfect. God Bless you

 

[Archivist]

I don't think that's it. I think that he believes the Holy Spirit's Truth, as written in the Bible, instead of yours. Me too, since the Holy Spirit MUST tell the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. Otherwise, Heaven would disappear for God would cease being perfect. God Bless you

Except that I also believe the Truth as written in the Bible, so it isn't "my" truth to which he is objecting. I've never said that the Bible isn't true, I've said that I don't believe that the Genesis creation accounts are literal history.

 

[rjs330]

Except that I also believe the Truth as written in the Bible, so it isn't "my" truth to which he is objecting. I've never said that the Bible isn't true, I've said that I don't believe that the Genesis creation accounts are literal history.

Unfortunately you have your truth that you believe. You only believe the truth you want to believe. That is evidenced by your refusal to believe Genesis as literal without scriptural evidence that it is not. To say the Bible is true and then begin to pick and choose what parts are real and what parts on not without evidence is choosing your own truth over scriptural truth. Paul was taught by the Holy Spirit and received the secret things of God which he passed onto us. One of those things was the literal understanding if Genesis. To not believe that is saying we have more truth and more understanding than the apostles who wrote inspired Scripture. That is believing our own truth over the truth of scripture. Especially when scripture says otherwise. Scriptural evidence that Genesis is literal is there. Once again there is NO evidence that it is allegory.

 

[Aman777]

Except that I also believe the Truth as written in the Bible, so it isn't "my" truth to which he is objecting. I've never said that the Bible isn't true, I've said that I don't believe that the Genesis creation accounts are literal history.

Then please tell us HOW you were saved since I believe that it requires that you believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Power or God unto Salvation, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES?
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1Co 15:4 And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

 

[rjs330]

There is probably no point in continuing this conversation since you seem to be unable to understand what myself and others repeatedly tell you.

I am not saying that Genesis is not true. I am saying that it is not literal history. I read it as an allegory.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan is just that, a parable. If it doe snot depict an actual event, doe sthat make the words of Jesus any less true? Of course not.



What do the two conflicting Genesis accounts show as? I've said this multiple times, you just don't seem to be able to comprehend. It shows that the world was created by God, that He planned it carefully and designed it to be hospitable to man.



Already answered, and asking the question over and over won't change my answer. I view the history in Genesis as beginning with Abraham.

And, once again, you are free to have your own interpretation.

There is a HUGE difference between a parable that Jesus spoke and Genesis. There is scriptural evidence that the good Samaritan was a parable. The scriptures tell us that Jesus spoke in parables.

Jesus said all these things to the crowds in parables, and he spoke to them only in parables.This was to fulfill what the prophet spoke: I’ll speak in parables; I’ll declare what has been hidden since the beginning of the world. - Matthew 13:34-35 Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 13:34-35 - Common English Bible

It tells us that throughout his ministry he spoke in them. So there is evidence of that.

There is No evidence that Genesis is allegory. There IS evidence that it is literal. Therefore you are choosing to disbelieve the evidence of truth and choosing to believe that it is not true without evidence it is not true. As you say that is your choice to do so. But you cannot claim to believe the entire word of God is true when you choose to believe that parts of it are not without evidence.

 

[Archivist]

Then please tell us HOW you were saved since it requires that you believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Power or God unto Salvation, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES?
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 1Co 15:4 And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

I have answered this question from you before; I really get tired answering the same question over and over. I am saved through the Blood of the Lamb. That in no way requires that I believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories.

 

[Archivist]

Unfortunately you have your truth that you believe. You only believe the truth you want to believe. That is evidenced by your refusal to believe Genesis as literal without scriptural evidence that it is not. To say the Bible is true and then begin to pick and choose what parts are real and what parts on not without evidence is choosing your own truth over scriptural truth. Paul was taught by the Holy Spirit and received the secret things of God which he passed onto us. One of those things was the literal understanding if Genesis. To not believe that is saying we have more truth and more understanding than the apostles who wrote inspired Scripture. That is believing our own truth over the truth of scripture. Especially when scripture says otherwise. Scriptural evidence that Genesis is literal is there. Once again there is NO evidence that it is allegory.

Evidence that it is allegory has been supplied in this thread. You simply choose to ignore it.

The fact is that we all interpret scripture. The difference between you and I is that I believe that you are entitled to your interpretation. If you don't want to believe the plain words of Jesus--"this is my body"-- because elsewhere the Bible says that it is wrong for a woman to eat her children that's fine. I don't agree, but, again, you are entitled to your own interpretation.

 

[Speedwell]

Are we really entitled to our own interpretation? I guess there is no law that says we can't have our own interpretation. But to take that stance makes scripture useless. Because we cannot use it effectively. Because whatever we say someone else can say something else. This conversation is a prime example. As long as we are entitled to our own interpretation then scripture cannot be used to teach or exhort or be used for sound doctrine. We have no need for teacher or paster or evangelists because interpretation is individualistic. If the bible says don't get drunk I can interpret that anyway I want. Jesus says live my neighbor, but I can interpret what he means any way I want. Love the Lord your God can mean what I want it to mean because interpretation is mine to make. It's a very bad way to look at Scripture.

Yes, we are all free too make our own interpretation, as Archivist said. But do you really think that what we mean by "our own interpretation" is an individual interpretation unguided by clergy, theologians or the traditions of our churches?

 

[Archivist]

There is a HUGE difference between a parable that Jesus spoke and Genesis. There is scriptural evidence that the good Samaritan was a parable. The scriptures tell us that Jesus spoke in parables.

Jesus said all these things to the crowds in parables, and he spoke to them only in parables.This was to fulfill what the prophet spoke: I’ll speak in parables; I’ll declare what has been hidden since the beginning of the world. - Matthew 13:34-35 Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 13:34-35 - Common English Bible

It tells us that throughout his ministry he spoke in them. So there is evidence of that.

There is No evidence that Genesis is allegory. There IS evidence that it is literal. Therefore you are choosing to disbelieve the evidence of truth and choosing to believe that it is not true without evidence it is not true. As you say that is your choice to do so. But you cannot claim to believe the entire word of God is true when you choose to believe that parts of it are not without evidence.

So if I don't believe in the Genesis creation stories as literal history I am "disbelieving the evidence of truth" but if you don't believe the plain words of our Lord and Savior--"this is my body"--that is not "disbelieving the evidence of truth" because elsewhere in the Bible it says that cannibalism is bad.

Yes, Jesus taught in parables, but there is nothing in the Good Samaritan story that identifies it as being a parable. Often the Gospels specifically say that something is a parable. Other times they offer a comparison, saying that something is like something else. For example, the Parable of the Leaven begins "Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven..." However, the Good Samaritan, which you consider to be a parable, is not presented in either of those ways. If begins factually: "In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem..." That is interpretation on your part (and mine as well).

There is really no sense in continuing this if you are simply going to keep repeating that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation. Unless you care to bring up something different, I give up...

 

[Papias]

There is a HUGE difference between a parable that Jesus spoke and Genesis. There is scriptural evidence that the good Samaritan was a parable. The scriptures tell us that Jesus spoke in parables.

There is not a huge difference. The Good Samaritan is never called a parable. We can tell it is a parable by interpretation. Yes, Jesus is said to speak in parables - is not Genesis from Jesus himself? Then how can you be surprised it's allegorical? The internal evidence has been given to you repeatedly on this thread and elsewhere.

Suggesting that your personal interpretation is the only interpretation possible - and worse, that to use another interpretation renders one non-Christian - sounds arrogant.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[rjs330]

Evidence that it is allegory has been supplied in this thread. You simply choose to ignore it.

The fact is that we all interpret scripture. The difference between you and I is that I believe that you are entitled to your interpretation. If you don't want to believe the plain words of Jesus--"this is my body"-- because elsewhere the Bible says that it is wrong for a woman to eat her children that's fine. I don't agree, but, again, you are entitled to your own interpretation.

Please refer me to the posts where scripture provides evidence of Genesis being allegory. I don't recall seeing any that do so. It would be a simple matter to show where scriptures refer to Genesis as allegory. Please provide them or provide the post where you showed scripture stating that.

Until then you have no real argument my friend. And your "this is my body" argument is a good one when scriptures indicate two differing thoughts on a matter. One thought is God does not allow for cannablism and the other Jesus says this is my body. So we have evidence of both in scripture. In that case there is reasoned approaches to both thoughts on the subject and perhaps even an understanding can be made between both schools of thought. It happens on other subjects as well.

However in THIS CASE there is no scriptural evidence that Genesis is allegory. At least none that I know of and none that have been referenced. There are scriptures that have been referenced to say it is not allegory but literal.

It's interesting to me that you are so bound and determined of the literalness of the body of Christ because the Bible says. But equally as determined that Genesis is not.

Whereas I am bound and determined that Genesis is literal, and not so solid on the body of Christ. I definitely see where God in his infinite power could turn bread and wine or juice into the literal body of Christ once it reaches into our bodies. I don't know why that would be necessary or needed but I am willing to state that it could very well be instead of coming up with no evidence why it isn't.

Again the difference is not personal opinion but opinion based upon the word if God itself. The allegorical belief has no scriptural basis.

 

[rjs330]

There is not a huge difference. The Good Samaritan is never called a parable. We can tell it is a parable by interpretation. Yes, Jesus is said to speak in parables - is not Genesis from Jesus himself? Then how can you be surprised it's allegorical? The internal evidence has been given to you repeatedly on this thread and elsewhere.

Suggesting that your personal interpretation is the only interpretation possible - and worse, that to use another interpretation renders one non-Christian - sounds arrogant.

In Christ-

Papias

Remember I just quoted that Jesus spoke in parables as was prophesied. Jesus also spoke in facts as well. Unless you are trying to say everything Jesus taught was in parable form which clearly is not true. All scripture is from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Unless you are willing to claim that the entire OT is a parable and not literal history you have no standing to declair Genesis is.

Please quote the internal evidence that it is allegorical. I have not ignored the evidence because there isn't any. No scriptural evidence has been provided.

You also have me mixed up with someone else regarding the non Christian comment you made. I have NEVER made any claim or statement that you must believe in literal Genesis to be a Christian. No where does scripture make that claim and neither will I.

My entire purpose here is to defend scripture from those who would take away it's truth it's history and factualness. I defend it against those who would say that when God claimed he made the world in six days he did not really mean it. I defend it against those who would say that when Paul claims sin came into the world from Adam that sin did not really come into the world by Adam. I defend it against those who would believe in a historical Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but not believe in a historical Adam and Eve and Cain and Able. I defend it against those who would provide an argument for the athiests to not have to believe because the Christians don't so why should they.

 

[Aman777]

I have answered this question from you before; I really get tired answering the same question over and over. I am saved through the Blood of the Lamb. That in no way requires that I believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation stories.

Amen. You are saved by the Blood of the Lamb according to the Scriptures which you refuse to recognize as God's Truth from Genesis to Revelation. It's your free choice but soon, as Science advances, you will see that their discoveries agree literally, in every way, with what God told us in Genesis. God Bless you

 

[Speedwell]

My entire purpose here is to defend scripture from those who would take away it's truth it's history and factualness. I defend it against those who would say that when God claimed he made the world in six days he did not really mean it. I defend it against those who would say that when Paul claims sin came into the world from Adam that sin did not really come into the world by Adam. I defend it against those who would believe in a historical Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but not believe in a historical Adam and Eve and Cain and Able.

You're evidently eager to defend, but who is actually doing the attacking? You want to believe all of those things? You're welcome, I'm sure. This is a free country and you can believe what you like. The problem is, that it is creationists who are on the attack. You want to teach it in public schools, have Evangelical Protestant prayer and Bible study back in the schools, use it to form the basis of public policy, enforce it on the rest of us with the power of the state if possible. Why do you think we're arguing about it here? Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat. They think the Bible tells them not to. Still, there are not any forums here about it, because nobody cares. But what do you think would happen if they started agitating to have all meat removed from public school cafeteria meals? And (not that I know any SDAs who could do it) were belligerent and hostile about it?

I defend it against those who would provide an argument for the atheists to not have to believe because the Christians don't so why should they.

LOL! Atheists aren't looking to Christians for guidance in the matter. They don't believe in creationism because they don't; how many Christians do or don't has no effect on them whatever.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, we are all free too make our own interpretation, as Archivist said. But do you really think that what we mean by "our own interpretation" is an individual interpretation unguided by clergy, theologians or the traditions of our churches?

That is the problem as I see it. If the clergy, theologians and tradition contradict Scripture then yes. Because theologians and clergy are not entitled to their own interpretation either.

You absolutely MUST have scriptural evidence to claim allegory and no theologians clergy or traditions have it. There is no scriptural evidence for it. There is opinion and opinions based upon outside sources, but it is clear in scripture that the apostles taught and Jesus accepted Genesis as literal history. They are the ones I trust. I do not trust what a pastor tells me or a theologian or tradition without first examining scripture to see if it is true. I have been taught by some very intelligent doctors in school, theologians of Hebrew and and Greek and Church history. And they all said the same thing. Do not trust them out of hand but examine the scriptures to see if they are teaching the truth. And they taught me how to examine the scriptures.

Again there is no scriptural evidence for Genesis being anything but actual factual history.

 

[rjs330]

You're evidently eager to defend, but who is actually doing the attacking? You want to believe all of those things? You're welcome, I'm sure. This is a free country and you can believe what you like. The problem is, that it is creationists who are on the attack. You want to teach it in public schools, have Evangelical Protestant prayer and Bible study back in the schools, use it to form the basis of public policy, enforce it on the rest of us with the power of the state if possible. Why do you think we're arguing about it here? Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat. They think the Bible tells them not to. Still, there are not any forums here about it, because nobody cares. But what do you think would happen if they started agitating to have all meat removed from public school cafeteria meals? And (not that I know any SDAs who could do it) were belligerent and hostile about it?



LOL! Atheists aren't looking to Christians for guidance in the matter. They don't believe in creationism because they don't; how many Christians do or don't has no effect on them whatever.

Wow went off the rails on that one. First of all claiming the SCRIPTURES are not true but are allegories when Jesus and the apostles believed them to be true and actual events IS attacking the scriptures. It's claiming Jesus and the apostles were wrong. That is attacking scripture.

Secondly I have heard and read athiests who say just that. I say the Bible says such and such and they say why should we believe that? Even Christians don't believe what the Bible says. Why should we?