Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[rjs330]

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

I don't know what you mean. Sorry. I didn't itshift goal posts. If you think so then apparently I wasn't clear.

Did Jesus believe Abraham was real?


When Jesus heard this, he was impressed and said to the people following him, “I say to you with all seriousness that even in Israel I haven’t found faith like this.I say to you that there are many who will come from east and west and sit down to eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 8:10-11 Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 8:10-11 - Common English Bible

I am not sure how you could interpret that scripture in any way except to think he believed Abraham was real.

Jesus also spoke of the writings of Moses and how the Pharisies didn't believe them.

Please explain how Jesus could believe in the writings of Moses and in Abraham as historical but then the writings of Moses be allegorical or mythological? Why is Abraham real and Adam isn't?

Let's just dissect the verses in Paul's writing.

Just as through one human being sin came into the world, and death came through sin, so death has come to everyone, since everyone has sinned.Although sin was in the world, since there was no Law, it wasn’t taken into account until the Law came.But death ruled from Adam until Moses, even over those who didn’t sin in the same way Adam did—Adam was a type of the one who was coming.But the free gift of Christ isn’t like Adam’s failure. If many people died through what one person did wrong, God’s grace is multiplied even more for many people with the gift—of the one person Jesus Christ—that comes through grace.The gift isn’t like the consequences of one person’s sin. The judgment that came from one person’s sin led to punishment, but the free gift that came out of many failures led to the verdict of acquittal.If death ruled because of one person’s failure, those who receive the multiplied grace and the gift of righteousness will even more certainly rule in life through the one person Jesus Christ.So now the righteous requirements necessary for life are met for everyone through the righteous act of one person, just as judgment fell on everyone through the failure of one person.Many people were made righteous through the obedience of one person, just as many people were made sinners through the disobedience of one person.The Law stepped in to amplify the failure, but where sin increased, grace multiplied even more.The result is that grace will rule through God’s righteousness, leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, just as sin ruled in death. - Romans 5:12-21 Bible Gateway passage: Romans 5:12-21 - Common English Bible

Just as one human being. A person. This word is used to describe a real individual. It is not a fictional character. There is no evidence here to make sufficient a claim that Paul believe this one person is not an actual person. Sin came because if this one person Adam as did death. Now look at what Paul says. He draws a line between Adam and Moses. Was Moses real? I hope you are not making the claim that Moses is not historical either. What kind of writing would draw a direct line between a real person and a fictional or allegorical or mythological person in this fashion?

Now note that Paul again says we died because in person did wrong and through one person Jesus Christ grace is given
Once again a direct correlation between a real person Jesus and Adam. Judgement came again because of one person's sin. Another reference to a person Adam. The gift of righteousness through one person Jesus Christ. There is no linguistic or grammatical thought here that could possibly divide a real person Jesus from a allegorical, mythological, or whatever unreal person in Adam. What kind of literary evidence is there in this passage that could lead us to believe that Moses is real, Jesus is real but Adam isn't?

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know what you mean. Sorry. I didn't itshift goal posts. If you think so then apparently I wasn't clear.

Did Jesus believe Abraham was real?

Most probably; so do I. But your claim is not that Abraham--or Adam, for that matter--was a real person. It's about the text of the stories describing his life and times.

 

[rjs330]

Most probably; so do I. But your claim is not that Abraham--or Adam, for that matter--was a real person. It's about the text of the stories describing his life and times.

And what evidence is there that the text of the stories of real people do not describe real events in those real people's lives?
Paul talks quite a bit about Adam and Eve and the Genesis story. Rather than writing a bunch here's an article that speaks to that.
Affirmations of Adam and Eve from The Apostle Paul

In those passages there is no literary indication that Paul refers to the stories as myths, legends, allegories or anything else that might indicate the events did not happen as stated in Genesis. In fact he draws very specific thoughts of fact from those events explaining how those specific events had effects upon the world as we know it.

And those events tie in with the book we have today known as Genesis. And in that book there is NO literary indication that it moves from non historical events to historical events.

 

[Speedwell]

And what evidence is there that the text of the stories of real people do not describe real events in those real people's lives?
Paul talks quite a bit about Adam and Eve and the Genesis story. Rather than writing a bunch here's an article that speaks to that.
Affirmations of Adam and Eve from The Apostle Paul

In those passages there is no literary indication that Paul refers to the stories as myths, legends, allegories or anything else that might indicate the events did not happen as stated in Genesis. In fact he draws very specific thoughts of fact from those events explaining how those specific events had effects upon the world as we know it.

All you can tell from any of that is that Paul likely thought the creation stories were historical is some sense and the people described were real people. None of it supports your claim about the text of the stories.

And those events tie in with the book we have today known as Genesis. And in that book there is NO literary indication that it moves from non historical events to historical events.

What would you expect by way of a literary indication? "Note from God to American Evangelicals: In writing Genesis I employed a variety of genres of historical narrative. This will be obvious to anyone with a reasonable understanding of the literature, but I though I had better give you guys a heads-up."

 

[Archivist]

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.

This has been stated before. The primary source indicating the creation stories contained in Genesis is Genesis itself. We have two differing creation stories apparently written at different times, presumably by different authors, the first of which is poetry. The stories disagree on significant details. Folks such as yourself have various ways of explaining the contradiction--one story explains one thing, the second story explains something else--in order to rectify the conflicts. However, the Bible itself doesn't say that.

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.

I've read the Bible cover to cover numerous times, so I'm familiar with the verses you cited as "proof." I don't need to read them again.

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

Been done, you just don't want to accept what has been provided.

 

[Archivist]

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?

But you have said that, despite the plain meaning of the words of Jesus "this is my Body," that you do not believe that the bread of Holy Communion is the Body of Christ because the Bible also tells us that cannibalism is bad. I have pointed out that there is a difference between a mother eating her own child and us being told that the bread of Holy Communion is God's own body, however, as I have also said, you are entitled to your own interpretation. But I wonder then, since you put so much credence in the words of Paul regarding Genesis, how do you explain Paul's words regarding Holy Communion: "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." You say that we have to believe in a literal reading of the conflicting Genesis stories in part because Paul believed them to be true, but we do not have to believe in a literal view of Holy Communion as the Body and Blood of Christ, despite the fact that Jesus said it was His Body and Blood and Paul believed that to be so.

Essentially you are telling us that if you believe something in scripture to be literal we must believe it to be so, but if you disagree with the plain meaning of scripture you are entitled to do so.

 

[Aman777]

This has been stated before. The primary source indicating the creation stories contained in Genesis is Genesis itself. We have two differing creation stories apparently written at different times, presumably by different authors, the first of which is poetry. The stories disagree on significant details. Folks such as yourself have various ways of explaining the contradiction--one story explains one thing, the second story explains something else--in order to rectify the conflicts. However, the Bible itself doesn't say that.

False, since it's obvious that you have believed the religion of ancient men which does not agree with Scripture. There is only 1 story of the creation in Genesis 1 and 2. You can find it in the FIRST 34 verses which tells of God's 7 Days/Ages of Creation. This account tells us that in 6 of God's Creative Days, He will make a perfect Heaven and fill it with perfect mankind. Then He will rest (Cease Creating) forever since His perfect Creation has been finished or brought to perfection.

EVERY other verse in the Bible, from Gen 2:4 to the end of Revelation points BACK to one of the 7 Days of Creation listed in the first 34 verses. These are the details of the general OUTLINE of the entire 7 Day/Age Creation. There is NO contradiction except in the minds of those who cannot understand the Bible.

Gen 2:4-7 for example takes us BACK to the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants herbs and rain and ADDS DETAILS to the outline shown in Gen 1 of the 3rd Day. Gen 1:9-13 The DETAIL it adds shows that Adam was "formed" by Lord God on this 3rd Day. It's this way to the end of Revelation since God has but 7 Ages and we live today at the end of the present 6th Day. Amen?

 

[rjs330]

All you can tell from any of that is that Paul likely thought the creation stories were historical is some sense and the people described were real people. None of it supports your claim about the text of the stories.

What would you expect by way of a literary indication? "Note from God to American Evangelicals: In writing Genesis I employed a variety of genres of historical narrative. This will be obvious to anyone with a reasonable understanding of the literature, but I though I had better give you guys a heads-up."

What genre is applied in Genesis 1 and 2? How do you know? How do you know that genre is not present in Abraham's story or is it?

I just don't get "the text" portion of your statement. Please explain exactly what you mean and support that by Scripture please. Show how Paul who is an apostle understands or supports your interpretation of the text you claim.

What exactly does it mean? Are you saying Adam was an honest to goodness real person, but the story of his creation and Eve's creation and their fall is not real? What do you mean? Explain it and support it with Scripture.

 

[rjs330]

But you have said that, despite the plain meaning of the words of Jesus "this is my Body," that you do not believe that the bread of Holy Communion is the Body of Christ because the Bible also tells us that cannibalism is bad. I have pointed out that there is a difference between a mother eating her own child and us being told that the bread of Holy Communion is God's own body, however, as I have also said, you are entitled to your own interpretation. But I wonder then, since you put so much credence in the words of Paul regarding Genesis, how do you explain Paul's words regarding Holy Communion: "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord." You say that we have to believe in a literal reading of the conflicting Genesis stories in part because Paul believed them to be true, but we do not have to believe in a literal view of Holy Communion as the Body and Blood of Christ, despite the fact that Jesus said it was His Body and Blood and Paul believed that to be so.

Essentially you are telling us that if you believe something in scripture to be literal we must believe it to be so, but if you disagree with the plain meaning of scripture you are entitled to do so.

No what I said was there is scriptural thought on both ideas. Scriptural thought that it might or might not be literal based upon scripture. That does not mean that the blood and body is not literal. It also does not mean that it is. I don't really have a super strong opinion one way or the other.

You on the other hand have no scriptural basis to support your thought that Genesis is allegory otherwise you would have given it to me and/or at least posted the post number where it was provided. I just don't recall anyone posting any scriptures that lead us to consider that the writer thought Genesis was allegorical.

It is you who take the blood and body as literal but not Genesis without cause. I can at least argue from scripture why someone may not consider the blood and body literal. You cannot argue from scripture why someone could consider that Genesis is allegorical.

If I am wrong on that then please provide me the scriptures.

 

[rjs330]

All you can tell from any of that is that Paul likely thought the creation stories were historical is some sense and the people described were real people. None of it supports your claim about the text of the stories.

What would you expect by way of a literary indication? "Note from God to American Evangelicals: In writing Genesis I employed a variety of genres of historical narrative. This will be obvious to anyone with a reasonable understanding of the literature, but I though I had better give you guys a heads-up."

How about a note from God to the apostles. It's not just American Evangelicals that believe it. You are way off base. The apostles believed before we did. In fact God believed before we did since he said so in Exodus. That happened long before any American Evangelicals came on the scene.

 

[Speedwell]

What genre is applied in Genesis 1 and 2? How do you know?

Gen 1 is hymnody; Gen 2 is an etiology. To a great extent this is obvious even to a layman reading the stories in English translation, but there is a large body of reputable scholarship devoted to the question of genre determination which confirms it.

How do you know that genre is not present in Abraham's story or is it?

It isn't. It's a different genre altogether, legendary history probably.

I just don't get "the text" portion of your statement. Please explain exactly what you mean and support that by Scripture please. Show how Paul who is an apostle understands or supports your interpretation of the text you claim.

What exactly does it mean? Are you saying Adam was an honest to goodness real person, but the story of his creation and Eve's creation and their fall is not real? What do you mean? Explain it and support it with Scripture.

Your claim goes way beyond asserting that the Genesis personalities were real people or that the stories were based on real events in their lives. Your claim is that the text of those stories was written using a form of historical narrative not invented by humans until recent centuries.

 

[Speedwell]

How about a note from God to the apostles. It's not just American Evangelicals that believe it. You are way off base. The apostles believed before we did. In fact God believed before we did since he said so in Exodus. That happened long before any American Evangelicals came on the scene.

There is no scriptural evidence whatever that the Apostles believed in literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretation or plenary verbal inspiration.

BTW, He didn't "say so" in Exodus. The transcriber added it.

 

[Archivist]

False, since it's obvious that you have believed the religion of ancient men which does not agree with Scripture. There is only 1 story of the creation in Genesis 1 and 2. You can find it in the FIRST 34 verses which tells of God's 7 Days/Ages of Creation. This account tells us that in 6 of God's Creative Days, He will make a perfect Heaven and fill it with perfect mankind. Then He will rest (Cease Creating) forever since His perfect Creation has been finished or brought to perfection.

EVERY other verse in the Bible, from Gen 2:4 to the end of Revelation points BACK to one of the 7 Days of Creation listed in the first 34 verses. These are the details of the general OUTLINE of the entire 7 Day/Age Creation. There is NO contradiction except in the minds of those who cannot understand the Bible.

Gen 2:4-7 for example takes us BACK to the 3rd Day BEFORE the plants herbs and rain and ADDS DETAILS to the outline shown in Gen 1 of the 3rd Day. Gen 1:9-13 The DETAIL it adds shows that Adam was "formed" by Lord God on this 3rd Day. It's this way to the end of Revelation since God has but 7 Ages and we live today at the end of the present 6th Day. Amen?

And you are entitled to you interpretation of scripture, which is no more or less valid than my interpretation of scripture.

 

[Archivist]

No what I said was there is scriptural thought on both ideas. Scriptural thought that it might or might not be literal based upon scripture. That does not mean that the blood and body is not literal. It also does not mean that it is. I don't really have a super strong opinion one way or the other.

Except there is nothing in scripture that says otherwise, unless you are talking about references to mothers eating their children.

You on the other hand have no scriptural basis to support your thought that Genesis is allegory otherwise you would have given it to me and/or at least posted the post number where it was provided. I just don't recall anyone posting any scriptures that lead us to consider that the writer thought Genesis was allegorical.

It has been stated numerous times, most recently in post 425. Does the Bible actually say that the first two chapters of Genesis are allegory? No. That doesn't mean it isn't. Unlike other parables, the story of the Good Samaritan isn't identified as a parable yet you admitted that you view it as being such.

It is you who take the blood and body as literal but not Genesis without cause. I can at least argue from scripture why someone may not consider the blood and body literal. You cannot argue from scripture why someone could consider that Genesis is allegorical. If I am wrong on that then please provide me the scriptures.

The argukment ahs been made, you just refuse to accept it.

 

[Aman777]

And you are entitled to you interpretation of scripture, which is no more or less valid than my interpretation of scripture.

Sure it is since mine agrees with every discovery of Science including this recent announcement which shows that Science has finally learned what God told us in:

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.

Behold LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth ...
www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-...
Jul 26, 2016 - LUCA's genes are those of an extremophile organism that likely lived in an area where seawater and magma meet on the ocean floor, known ...

Can you tell us HOW ancient men knew and correctly wrote this more than 3k years ago? Of course not. It's proof of God.

 

[Archivist]

Sure it is since mine agrees with every discovery of Science including this recent announcement which shows that Science has finally learned what God told us in:

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.

Behold LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth ...
www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-...
Jul 26, 2016 - LUCA's genes are those of an extremophile organism that likely lived in an area where seawater and magma meet on the ocean floor, known ...

Can you tell us HOW ancient men knew and correctly wrote this more than 3k years ago? Of course not. It's proof of God.

And, again, you are entitled to your interpretation. However your interpretation is no more valid than my or anyone else's interpretation.

 

[rjs330]

Gen 1 is hymnody; Gen 2 is an etiology. To a great extent this is obvious even to a layman reading the stories in English translation, but there is a large body of reputable scholarship devoted to the question of genre determination which confirms it. It isn't. It's a different genre altogether, legendary history probably.

Your claim goes way beyond asserting that the Genesis personalities were real people or that the stories were based on real events in their lives. Your claim is that the text of those stories was written using a form of historical narrative not invented by humans until recent centuries.

Thank you for that it helps me understand what you mean.

The problem with that kind of thinking is that it is an either/or proposition. Take Genesis 1 first. It does not quite rise to the level of Hebrew poetry or hymnology. There are difficulties in structure to say emphatically that it does. However, let's just say it is. That does not mean at all that it is also not historical as well. Historical events preclude the type of writing involved. You can write about a historical event any way you want. There are other passages in scripture that are written in poetic form that describe actual events that occurred historically. To state that because something is written in a certain genre therefore it cannot be historical is just nonsense.

Same thing goes for the etiology of Genesis 2. Etiology simply means that what is written describes an origin of something. It says nothing about it's historical value. In the case of scripture we would expect God wanted us to know the origin of the earth and the life on it. That is made clear with Paul's teachings and Christ's words as well. It was important enough that God described it in the OT through the prophets and in the NT through the apostles and Jesus. It is only a made created assumption that a description of an origin is etiological and therefore not historical. What? What kind of silliness is that? Where do we come up with that kind of goofy thought process? Hence any time scripture states an origin of something it is not historical? I'm assuming that applies to speaking in tongues as well since the origin of of that is in Acts. Therefore it is not a real historical event. What about the origin of the law and the ten commandments? That isn't historical either I am guessing. You see where I am going. Man created the term and then defined it and so we are just going to follow along when it is applied to scripture.

Yet it does not have to be either or and in fact there is no evidence that it must be either or. It doesn't have to be historical or etiological. It can be an origin of something as an historical event.

As I have stated and supported by Scripture over and over that Paul and Christ and Peter spoke of the histories as real people and real events. The fact that the text may be a hymn or poetry has nothing to do with it's historical value. And to automatically assume that a description of an origin of something in scripture is automatically of no historical value is complete nonsense as the apostles and Christ thought differently. It's obvious in their words.

 

[rjs330]

Except there is nothing in scripture that says otherwise, unless you are talking about references to mothers eating their children.



It has been stated numerous times, most recently in post 425. Does the Bible actually say that the first two chapters of Genesis are allegory? No. That doesn't mean it isn't. Unlike other parables, the story of the Good Samaritan isn't identified as a parable yet you admitted that you view it as being such.



The argukment ahs been made, you just refuse to accept it.

So you don't really have any scriptural basis to support Genesis as allegory. Thanks for that.

And the story of the Good Samaritan has plenty of SCRIPTURAL evidence that it could be a parable. Whereas Genesis does not have any scriptural evidence that it is an allegory.

And yes I refuse to believe an argument that has no scriptural support.

 

[rjs330]

There is no scriptural evidence whatever that the Apostles believed in literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretation or plenary verbal inspiration.

BTW, He didn't "say so" in Exodus. The transcriber added it.

Now let's talk about Exodus. Those that propose a transcriber addition here again have no evidence that it is. That argument is only made by people who want to discredit that passage because it directly contradicts the thought that Genesis is not historical and God did not create in six days.

There is no evidence that it is a transcriber addition. I've heard the arguments, but they hold no water when you look at the passage as a whole and you also look at other passages in scripture where God speaks and is quoted. In fact just the chapter before should put to rest the false argument.

Let's face it. People don't want to believe in Genesis for a number of reasons, so they come up with any cockamamie theory they can to discredit it. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who fall for it.

 

[Speedwell]

Thank you for that it helps me understand what you mean.

The problem with that kind of thinking is that it is an either/or proposition. Take Genesis 1 first. It does not quite rise to the level of Hebrew poetry or hymnology. There are difficulties in structure to say emphatically that it does. However, let's just say it is. That does not mean at all that it is also not historical as well. Historical events preclude the type of writing involved. You can write about a historical event any way you want. There are other passages in scripture that are written in poetic form that describe actual events that occurred historically. To state that because something is written in a certain genre therefore it cannot be historical is just nonsense.

Same thing goes for the etiology of Genesis 2. Etiology simply means that what is written describes an origin of something. It says nothing about it's historical value. In the case of scripture we would expect God wanted us to know the origin of the earth and the life on it. That is made clear with Paul's teachings and Christ's words as well. It was important enough that God described it in the OT through the prophets and in the NT through the apostles and Jesus. It is only a made created assumption that a description of an origin is etiological and therefore not historical. What? What kind of silliness is that? Where do we come up with that kind of goofy thought process? Hence any time scripture states an origin of something it is not historical? I'm assuming that applies to speaking in tongues as well since the origin of of that is in Acts. Therefore it is not a real historical event. What about the origin of the law and the ten commandments? That isn't historical either I am guessing. You see where I am going. Man created the term and then defined it and so we are just going to follow along when it is applied to scripture.

Yet it does not have to be either or and in fact there is no evidence that it must be either or. It doesn't have to be historical or etiological. It can be an origin of something as an historical event.

As I have stated and supported by Scripture over and over that Paul and Christ and Peter spoke of the histories as real people and real events. The fact that the text may be a hymn or poetry has nothing to do with it's historical value. And to automatically assume that a description of an origin of something in scripture is automatically of no historical value is complete nonsense as the apostles and Christ thought differently. It's obvious in their words.

I didn't say I believed that the creation stories were of no historical value--I said I believed they were not the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. It is your claim that they are and that otherwise they are of no historical value. That is the YEC claim: that unless the creation stories are literal, inerrant, etc. the whole Bible is trash and Jesus (if He existed) died for nothing.