Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[Speedwell]

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.

No, it's disagreeing with your interpretation of scripture, which you like to characterize as an "attack." And no one here is claiming that "the scriptures" are an allegory; you are the one who misrepresents the views of people like Archivist who are restricting their observations to a few books of the Bible. Moreover, you have no idea what Jesus thought about the possibility that the Genesis stories are 100% accurate literal history, so it is really you who is making unjustifiable assumptions about Jesus' opinion.

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?

Yes, I would probably goad you that way myself, if I was an atheist--but it would not mean that I took it seriously in forming my own opinion.

 

[Aman777]

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.

Amen. Excellent post.

 

[Aman777]

God, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is the Author of the entire Bible. Those who disagree are disagreeing with Truth, God and His Holy Word. 2Ti 3:16

 

[Archivist]

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

Are you saying that I am not saved because I do not believe in a literal reading of the Genesis creation stories?

 

[Speedwell]

God, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is the Author of the entire Bible. Those who disagree are disagreeing with Truth, God and His Holy Word. 2Ti 3:16

No one involved in this discussion disagrees with that. We all start from the position that the Bible is divinely inspired.

 

[Archivist]

Unfortunately you have your truth that you believe. You only believe the truth you want to believe.

So do you. You ignore the plain meaning of God's own words, "this is my body." You claim that the Good Samaritan is a parable when scripture givers no indication of that (which is why I selected that as my example).

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.

An you also pick and choose. The difference between you and I is that you think that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation. I think otherwise.

 

[Archivist]

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.

Been done.

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.

Big difference between women in a besieged city eating their babies and God telling us "this is my body."

It happens on other subjects as well.

Other subjects, like those where you want to disagree with the plain meaning of scripture.

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.

Been done.

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.

And you are entitled to your interpretation. Unlike you, I don't claim that those who disagree with my interpretation are wrong.

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

Sure it does.

 

[Aman777]

No one involved in this discussion disagrees with that. We all start from the position that the Bible is divinely inspired.

Inspired in Greek means "God breathed" 2Ti 3:16 to the "holy" men who penned the words as they were "moved" by the Holy Spirit from inside themselves. The give away is the fact that God calls these men "holy" 2Pe 1:21 and the only thing holy about men is the Holy Spirit inside them. Isa 64:6 My point is that God the Holy Spirit authored Genesis and included some scientific discoveries which are just now being discovered in the last days.

 

[Speedwell]

Inspired in Greek means "God breathed" 2Ti 3:16 to the "holy" men who penned the words as they were "moved" by the Holy Spirit from inside themselves. The give away is the fact that God calls these men "holy" 2Pe 1:21 and the only thing holy about men is the Holy Spirit inside them. Isa 64:6 My point is that God the Holy Spirit authored Genesis and included some scientific discoveries which are just now being discovered in the last days.

For instance?

 

[rjs330]

Been done.



Big difference between women in a besieged city eating their babies and God telling us "this is my body."



Other subjects, like those where you want to disagree with the plain meaning of scripture.



Been done.



And you are entitled to your interpretation. Unlike you, I don't claim that those who disagree with my interpretation are wrong.



Sure it does.

Hmm... I beg to differ. No one has offered any scriptures that would indicate that Genesis is allegory. If there were you would have provided them again. Or at least a link to them. Just saying so doesn't make it so.

I find it interesting that you like to claim that, but still won't provide the scriptures to back it up when asked to provide them again. I do not recall ever seeing one. I would happy to provide my scriptures to you again showing that Genesis is not accepted as allegory and seen as literal and historical.

On the other hand I do recall you refusing to read them the last time I gave them, so I'm not sure it would do any good.

All I am asking for is one scripture indicating that Genesis is not literal and is allegory. Please, just provide one.

 

[Speedwell]

Hmm... I beg to differ. No one has offered any scriptures that would indicate that Genesis is allegory. If there were you would have provided them again. Or at least a link to them. Just saying so doesn't make it so.

I find it interesting that you like to claim that, but still won't provide the scriptures to back it up when asked to provide them again. I do not recall ever seeing one. I would happy to provide my scriptures to you again showing that Genesis is not accepted as allegory and seen as literal and historical.

On the other hand I do recall you refusing to read them the last time I gave them, so I'm not sure it would do any good.

All I am asking for is one scripture indicating that Genesis is not literal and is allegory. Please, just provide one.

Scripture alone does not provide an adequate way of determining the genres of the creation stories. It supports your case no better than it supports Archivist's.

 

[Aman777]

For instance?

The most obvious discovery was made in July 2016 when scientists announced that ALL living creatures on Earth came from L.U.C.A. the last common universal ancestor whose origin was in WATER. www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-...
Jul 26, 2016

God told us the SAME thing more than 3k years ago in Genesis one.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

It's empirical (testable) evidence of the Literal God since NO man of the time could have possibly known this. It's just One of many evidences of the discoveries of Science in the last days before Jesus returns. Dan 12:4

 

[Aman777]

Scripture alone does not provide an adequate way of determining the genres of the creation stories. It supports your case no better than it supports Archivist's.

Not if you don't believe God's the Holy Spirit's Truth, in Genesis One. Many religions (denominations) of mortal men disagree with Him. Some even blaspheme/slander Him by attributing His Holy Words to mere mortal men. God Bless you

 

[rjs330]

Scripture alone does not provide an adequate way of determining the genres of the creation stories. It supports your case no better than it supports Archivist's.

Yes it does. Especially when it is Jesus and the apostles making the claim. Any other claim made outside scripture is made by men who are not Christ and not an apostle of Christ and none of their writings are inspired by God which means they are only their own ideas and not God's.

Genesis and Exodus are inspired and so are the writings of the gospels and the apostles. If Paul believed it and Peter believed it and Jesus taught it as so, then why on Earth would we ever want to doubt it?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes it does. Especially when it is Jesus and the apostles making the claim. Any other claim made outside scripture is made by men who are not Christ and not an apostle of Christ and none of their writings are inspired by God which means they are only their own ideas and not God's.

Jesus and the Apostles made no such claim. It's an inference you make from how they used the stories in their preaching.

Genesis and Exodus are inspired and so are the writings of the gospels and the apostles. If Paul believed it and Peter believed it and Jesus taught it as so, then why on Earth would we ever want to doubt it?

So I also believe, as do all parties to this discussion. It is not a point at issue.

 

[SolomonVII]

Far from putting forth a literal understanding of Scripture, the inferences that Jesus drew from Scripture were often startling and innovative, especially in the Gospel of John.
One example that springs to mind is how Jesus answered accusations of blasphemy through claiming divinity to a passage in Psalms which Jesus interpreted to mean that even elite members of societies were gods.

 

[rjs330]

Jesus and the Apostles made no such claim. It's an inference you make from how they used the stories in their preaching.

So I also believe, as do all parties to this discussion. It is not a point at issue.

Can you point to their teaching at any point where they even inferred that the Genesis account is not an actual event and that the people involved where not actual people and the events did not really happen, but we're merely a tale told similar to whatever fictional story type of deal that those who disbelieve want to proclaim? No you can't. They are always spoken of as real events with not even a hint that they were not.

 

[rjs330]

Can you point to their teaching at any point where they even inferred that the Genesis account is not an actual event and that the people involved where not actual people and the events did not really happen, but we're merely a tale told similar to whatever fictional story type of deal that those who disbelieve want to proclaim? No you can't. They are always spoken of as real events with not even a hint that they were not.

In fact it is quite a twist to claim that Paul compares Jesus, a historical figure, to Adam and sin and redemption and then claim Adam is mythological yet sin isn't mythological and neither is redemption. It's a complete twisting to try and make it say that Paul wasn't saying Adam was real. It's a violation of all linguistic and grammatical renderings of literature.

Jesus himself addresses the writings of Moses when he says

“Don’t think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, the one in whom your hope rests.If you believed Moses, you would believe me, because Moses wrote about me.If you don’t believe the writings of Moses, how will you believe my words?” - John 5:45-47 Bible Gateway passage: John 5:45-47 - Common English Bible

The broader point is do we believe the writings of Moses or not? And if not where is the scriptural evidence to support the claim that Moses writings are not factual but mythological or allegorical in nature.

 

[Speedwell]

In fact it is quite a twist to claim that Paul compares Jesus, a historical figure, to Adam and sin and redemption and then claim Adam is mythological yet sin isn't mythological and neither is redemption. It's a complete twisting to try and make it say that Paul wasn't saying Adam was real. It's a violation of all linguistic and grammatical renderings of literature.

Says you? What is the basis of your expertise?

Jesus himself addresses the writings of Moses when he says

“Don’t think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, the one in whom your hope rests.If you believed Moses, you would believe me, because Moses wrote about me.If you don’t believe the writings of Moses, how will you believe my words?” - John 5:45-47 Bible Gateway passage: John 5:45-47 - Common English Bible

The broader point is do we believe the writings of Moses or not? And if not where is the scriptural evidence to support the claim that Moses writings are not factual but mythological or allegorical in nature.

Is that one of the passages where Jesus is supposed to have "claimed" that Genesis is 100% accurate literal history? LOL!
It's no use discussing it with you--or any creationist, for that matter. With you it's either 100% accurate literal history or just a completely made-up fictional story. You've been too deeply indoctrinated with that false dichotomy to understand what any of us are talking about.

 

[Speedwell]

Can you point to their teaching at any point where they even inferred that the Genesis account is not an actual event and that the people involved where not actual people and the events did not really happen, but we're merely a tale told similar to whatever fictional story type of deal that those who disbelieve want to proclaim? No you can't. They are always spoken of as real events with not even a hint that they were not.

So in other words, you can't back up your claim and have to shift the goalposts.