Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[Speedwell]

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.

Actually, it does no such thing. If the Bible is the product of plenary verbal inspiration as you claim, then EX 20:11 carries the same weight of divine authority as the rest of the text, whether it is a quote from the stone tablets or not. I only brought it up to try and show you what a crappy argument it is.

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.

You should put quotes around that "believe in Genesis." My reason is that I sincerely believe that the Christian faith is in serious danger from Protestant fundamentalism. The theory of evolution is of little importance compared to that.

 

[rjs330]

Actually, it does no such thing. If the Bible is the product of plenary verbal inspiration as you claim, then EX 20:11 carries the same weight of divine authority as the rest of the text, whether it is a quote from the stone tablets or not. I only brought it up to try and show you what a crappy argument it is.


You should put quotes around that "believe in Genesis." My reason is that I sincerely believe that the Christian faith is in serious danger from Protestant fundamentalism. The theory of evolution is of little importance compared to that.

Yet the argument is that the bible is not historically accurate. In other words God did not create in six days. Or that Adam and Eve never really existed or that Adam and Eve existed but their story in not historically accurate (it's a legend similar to the.legend of Robin Hood or King Arthur etc. Or it's an allegory or myth or whatever).

I think the real danger to Christianity are those who would claim the bible doesn't really mean what it says. It's all legend or exaggeration or myth or whatever. It's in far.more danger from liberal theology that seeks to explain away the scriptures.

 

[Speedwell]

Yet the argument is that the bible is not historically accurate. In other words God did not create in six days. Or that Adam and Eve never really existed or that Adam and Eve existed but their story in not historically accurate (it's a legend similar to the.legend of Robin Hood or King Arthur etc. Or it's an allegory or myth or whatever).

But still divinely inspired. I'm surprised that means so little to you.

I think the real danger to Christianity are those who would claim the bible doesn't really mean what it says. It's all legend or exaggeration or myth or whatever. It's in far.more danger from liberal theology that seeks to explain away the scriptures.

Yes, Christians who don't believe the same things about Genesis as you do don't believe the same things about Genesis as you do. You never have made clear why that constitutes an attack on you, or on the scriptures either.

But "Bible-believers" want to teach their creationism in public school science classes along with fundamentalist prayer and Bible study which they think has some kind of a right to be there, to the exclusion of the beliefs of other children. They have associated themselves with an egregious right-wing political agenda, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-war and opposed to such things as union membership, workplace safety legislation, environmental regulation and the minimum wage, and they use the Bible, only the "literal and inerrant" Bible will work, to justify that agenda, making it part and parcel of their version of Christian doctrine. Many are outright Dominionists. I don't like what they are trying to do to the country, and I certainly don't want to see it done in Christ's name.

 

[rjs330]

But still divinely inspired. I'm surprised that means so little to you.

Yes, Christians who don't believe the same things about Genesis as you do don't believe the same things about Genesis as you do. You never have made clear why that constitutes an attack on you, or on the scriptures either.

But "Bible-believers" want to teach their creationism in public school science classes along with fundamentalist prayer and Bible study which they think has some kind of a right to be there, to the exclusion of the beliefs of other children. They have associated themselves with an egregious right-wing political agenda, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-war and opposed to such things as union membership, workplace safety legislation, environmental regulation and the minimum wage, and they use the Bible, only the "literal and inerrant" Bible will work, to justify that agenda, making it part and parcel of their version of Christian doctrine. Many are outright Dominionists. I don't like what they are trying to do the country, and I certainly don't want to see it done in Christ's name.

A divinely inspired book of legends? Again where is the scriptural evidence of that? We might as well.be speaking of Greek mythology. God inspired people to write stories based upon real people, but those stories are not accurate or historical but are legends, exaggerations if you will. It describes real people and real places as we know, but the individual stories never really happened the way they are described in scripture. God never really did the plagues of Egypt. He never really parted the red sea, he didn't really meet Moses on the mountain and give him the commandments. Abraham was not really visited by angels. He never really took Isaac to the.mountain to sacrifice him. David did not really kill Goliath and didnt really commit adultery and murder. Daniel never actually went into the lions den and was saved. The three Hebrew men were not really thrown into the fiery furnace.and we're saved by one who appeared like the son of God. Elijah was not really taken to heaven in a fiery chariot. Elisha didn't really ask that his servants eyes be opened and his servant did not really see the host of heaven surrounding the enemy. Balams donkey never really talked. Adam and Eve existed, but Adam was not really created uniquely from all other creation and separate from them. Eve was not really created out of Adams rib.

It's all a very finely crafted tale written by men who were inspired by God to write an amazing story of legend and myth that would one day lead us to the real history or Jesus and his life and resurrection to save us from our sins. So the only part of scripture that is not a legend is the life and and times of Jesus? How do we know that isn't a divinely inspired tale as well? Maybe Jesus existed, but never really made water into wine, or healed the lame or gave sight to the blind. Maybe that is legend too. A divinely inspired legend.

I may be coming across a bit harsh or whatever, but it seems like that is what you are saying. If one part of the Bible is divinely inspired stories or legends of real people, but those stories are not accurate or never really happened or didn't really happen in the way described, then how do we know to that the life death and resurrection is not just a legend as well?

How do we know that the entire word of God is not just a finely crafted tale by written by men inspired to write by God? If not how do we know what parts are and what parts are not?

And as far as your other comments, I think that would be a topic for another thread.

 

[CrystalDragon]

A divinely inspired book of legends? Again where is the scriptural evidence of that? We might as well.be speaking of Greek mythology. God inspired people to write stories based upon real people, but those stories are not accurate or historical but are legends, exaggerations if you will. It describes real people and real places as we know, but the individual stories never really happened the way they are described in scripture. God never really did the plagues of Egypt. He never really parted the red sea, he didn't really meet Moses on the mountain and give him the commandments. Abraham was not really visited by angels. He never really took Isaac to the.mountain to sacrifice him. David did not really kill Goliath and didnt really commit adultery and murder. Daniel never actually went into the lions den and was saved. The three Hebrew men were not really thrown into the fiery furnace.and we're saved by one who appeared like the son of God. Elijah was not really taken to heaven in a fiery chariot. Elisha didn't really ask that his servants eyes be opened and his servant did not really see the host of heaven surrounding the enemy. Balams donkey never really talked. Adam and Eve existed, but Adam was not really created uniquely from all other creation and separate from them. Eve was not really created out of Adams rib.

It's all a very finely crafted tale written by men who were inspired by God to write an amazing story of legend and myth that would one day lead us to the real history or Jesus and his life and resurrection to save us from our sins. So the only part of scripture that is not a legend is the life and and times of Jesus? How do we know that isn't a divinely inspired tale as well? Maybe Jesus existed, but never really made water into wine, or healed the lame or gave sight to the blind. Maybe that is legend too. A divinely inspired legend.

I may be coming across a bit harsh or whatever, but it seems like that is what you are saying. If one part of the Bible is divinely inspired stories or legends of real people, but those stories are not accurate or never really happened or didn't really happen in the way described, then how do we know to that the life death and resurrection is not just a legend as well?

How do we know that the entire word of God is not just a finely crafted tale by written by men inspired to write by God? If not how do we know what parts are and what parts are not?

And as far as your other comments, I think that would be a topic for another thread.

To be fair, in literally any other context the word "inspired" is used, it's in reference to someone or something giving us a creative impulse, like "I was inspired by a sunset to draw this". Or "My favorite author inspired me to write". The sunset and author don't literally force the person to draw or write something, but the person is able to have a burst of creative insight that allows them to come up with their own creation.

Saying the Bible is "inspired by God" then gives the same vibe as saying "Michaelangelo's painting was inspired by God", saying it wasn't what literally happened but rather stories born of awe from God's power. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm saying that's what appears to be implied because of the context we use "inspired" in every other instance.

 

[Speedwell]

A divinely inspired book of legends? Again where is the scriptural evidence of that? We might as well.be speaking of Greek mythology. God inspired people to write stories based upon real people, but those stories are not accurate or historical but are legends, exaggerations if you will. It describes real people and real places as we know, but the individual stories never really happened the way they are described in scripture. God never really did the plagues of Egypt. He never really parted the red sea, he didn't really meet Moses on the mountain and give him the commandments. Abraham was not really visited by angels. He never really took Isaac to the.mountain to sacrifice him. David did not really kill Goliath and didnt really commit adultery and murder. Daniel never actually went into the lions den and was saved. The three Hebrew men were not really thrown into the fiery furnace.and we're saved by one who appeared like the son of God. Elijah was not really taken to heaven in a fiery chariot. Elisha didn't really ask that his servants eyes be opened and his servant did not really see the host of heaven surrounding the enemy. Balams donkey never really talked. Adam and Eve existed, but Adam was not really created uniquely from all other creation and separate from them. Eve was not really created out of Adams rib.

See, that's why it doesn't do much good talking to people like you about the Bible. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation when you keep flinging down these outrageous dichotomies. It's either all 100% accurate literal history or it's made up trash with you. You seem to think that is the only kind of historical narrative.

It's all a very finely crafted tale written by men who were inspired by God to write an amazing story of legend and myth that would one day lead us to the real history or Jesus and his life and resurrection to save us from our sins. So the only part of scripture that is not a legend is the life and and times of Jesus? How do we know that isn't a divinely inspired tale as well? Maybe Jesus existed, but never really made water into wine, or healed the lame or gave sight to the blind. Maybe that is legend too. A divinely inspired legend.

I may be coming across a bit harsh or whatever, but it seems like that is what you are saying. If one part of the Bible is divinely inspired stories or legends of real people, but those stories are not accurate or never really happened or didn't really happen in the way described, then how do we know to that the life death and resurrection is not just a legend as well?

How do we know that the entire word of God is not just a finely crafted tale by written by men inspired to write by God? If not how do we know what parts are and what parts are not?

That's what Sacred Tradition is for, that's what biblical scholarship is for, why Christ instituted a church to begin with. The Bible is not just a message from God to you personally that you're supposed to be able to figure out for yourself.

And as far as your other comments, I think that would be a topic for another thread.

I don't think so; I don't think the moderators allow open discussion of Christian fascism anywhere in Christian Forums. But the level of belligerence and hostility shown by "Bible-believers" is gotten very high, even in this forum No doubt we will eventually wind up fighting you over it. Just remember what happened last time: much of the country was laid to waste and 600,000 men died--and you lost.

 

[rjs330]

See, that's why it doesn't do much good talking to people like you about the Bible. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation when you keep flinging down these outrageous dichotomies. It's either all 100% accurate literal history or it's made up trash with you. You seem to think that is the only kind of historical narrative.

That's what Sacred Tradition is for, that's what biblical scholarship is for, why Christ instituted a church to begin with. The Bible is not just a message from God to you personally that you're supposed to be able to figure out for yourself.

I don't think so; I don't think the moderators allow open discussion of Christian fascism anywhere in Christian Forums. But the level of belligerence and hostility shown by "Bible-believers" is gotten very high, even in this forum No doubt we will eventually wind up fighting you over it. Just remember what happened last time: much of the country was laid to waste and 600,000 men died--and you lost.

I find it interesting that you didn't really respond to the points I made. If you would please go through each of the stories I mentioned and tell me which ones occurred as stated in scripture and which ones didn't?
Which parts are accurate and which parts are not.

Actually I threw out a lot if stories, so let's narrow them down to just a few.

1. What are your thoughts on the plagues of Egypt and the deliverence of the Hebrews? Was that an actual historical event and which parts are legend, meaning they didn't really happen as described. Which parts are accurate and which are not?

2. The parting if the Red Sea. Was that an actual event or a.legend that didn't really occur, but was an inspired legend? What really happened?

3. The delivering if the law. Did it really happen as described or was it a legend that did not really happen as described? What actually occurred when God gave them the commandments and the law?

Then explain to me how you know that.

 

[rjs330]

See, that's why it doesn't do much good talking to people like you about the Bible. It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation when you keep flinging down these outrageous dichotomies. It's either all 100% accurate literal history or it's made up trash with you. You seem to think that is the only kind of historical narrative.

That's what Sacred Tradition is for, that's what biblical scholarship is for, why Christ instituted a church to begin with. The Bible is not just a message from God to you personally that you're supposed to be able to figure out for yourself.

I don't think so; I don't think the moderators allow open discussion of Christian fascism anywhere in Christian Forums. But the level of belligerence and hostility shown by "Bible-believers" is gotten very high, even in this forum No doubt we will eventually wind up fighting you over it. Just remember what happened last time: much of the country was laid to waste and 600,000 men died--and you lost.

And to what do you refer when speaking of the war? I don't recall fighting anyone. I don't recall losing any war over scriptural understanding.

 

[Aman777]

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

I disagree since NO other view shows the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science, and History. Faith PLUS Fact equals, God's Truth. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

To be fair, in literally any other context the word "inspired" is used, it's in reference to someone or something giving us a creative impulse, like "I was inspired by a sunset to draw this". Or "My favorite author inspired me to write". The sunset and author don't literally force the person to draw or write something, but the person is able to have a burst of creative insight that allows them to come up with their own creation.

Saying the Bible is "inspired by God" then gives the same vibe as saying "Michaelangelo's painting was inspired by God", saying it wasn't what literally happened but rather stories born of awe from God's power. I'm not saying that's the case, I'm saying that's what appears to be implied because of the context we use "inspired" in every other instance.

Inspiration in Greek means God Breathed. The ONLY way the Holy Spirit can breathe God's Truth to the men who penned the words, is from inside them. Saying the Bible is inspirited by God is saying it is the product of the Holy Spirit. Amen?

 

[Speedwell]

I find it interesting that you didn't really respond to the points I made. If you would please go through each of the stories I mentioned and tell me which ones occurred as stated in scripture and which ones didn't?
Which parts are accurate and which parts are not.

Actually I threw out a lot if stories, so let's narrow them down to just a few.

1. What are your thoughts on the plagues of Egypt and the deliverence of the Hebrews? Was that an actual historical event and which parts are legend, meaning they didn't really happen as described. Which parts are accurate and which are not?

Who knows? I wasn't there.

2. The parting if the Red Sea. Was that an actual event or a legend that didn't really occur, but was an inspired legend? What really happened?

Who knows? I wasn't there. Probably not what we know today as the Red Sea.

3. The delivering if the law. Did it really happen as described or was it a legend that did not really happen as described? What actually occurred when God gave them the commandments and the law?

Who knows? I wasn't there.

Then explain to me how you know that.

Even a cursory answer to each one of those questions is at least a book-length discourse well beyond my expertise to write or your ability to understand. Many scholars have devoted their careers to those questions, and there still is no certainty about it. I don't even think they are important questions; interesting but not important. The stories we have are the stories God wanted us to have, whether they are 100% accurate literal history or not.

Look: if God came down from heaven and told me the story of Goldilocks and the Three bears I would try to figure out what He meant by it, I wouldn't quibble about whether bears actually lived in houses or ate porridge for breakfast.

 

[Speedwell]

And to what do you refer when speaking of the war? I don't recall fighting anyone. I don't recall losing any war over scriptural understanding.

Well, it was 150 years ago. The "scriptural understanding" in that case was whether the Bible supported chattel slavery.

 

[Archivist]

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

Perhaps you could actually take the time to read what I wrote. Of course there is a scriptural basis to support Genesis as allegory.

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.

Maybe you could actually raed the story of the Good Samaritan. There is as much scripture that supports it being a parable as there is supporting reading the conflicting Genesis creation stories as allegory.

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

An the argument I am making has scriptural support, so you should believe it.

You have apparently decided that Genesis must be read as 100% literal history, and any argument that disagrees with your view is wrong. Meanwhile you look at other parts of scripture and justify your view which differs from the mainstream view by saying that, well, this can really be interpreted other ways.

It really isn't worth debating the point with someone who insists that his view is always right so I'm out of here. I will end by once again saying that you are entitled to your interpretation of scripture. Sad that you don't extend that same view to others...

 

[Aman777]

Perhaps you could actually take the time to read what I wrote. Of course there is a scriptural basis to support Genesis as allegory.

Depends on the Christian reading it. Some might think that the term "heavens" means skies but in Gen 2:4 it means "worlds/universes". Since the Holy Spirit IS the Spirit of Truth, His Holy Words are the Truth, literally, poetically, allegorically and in EVERY other way. It's proof of God IF you have the proper interpretation. God Bless you

 

[rjs330]

Who knows? I wasn't there.

Who knows? I wasn't there. Probably not what we know today as the Red Sea.

Who knows? I wasn't there.


Even a cursory answer to each one of those questions is at least a book-length discourse well beyond my expertise to write or your ability to understand. Many scholars have devoted their careers to those questions, and there still is no certainty about it. I don't even think they are important questions; interesting but not important. The stories we have are the stories God wanted us to have, whether they are 100% accurate literal history or not.

Look: if God came down from heaven and told me the story of Goldilocks and the Three bears I would try to figure out what He meant by it, I wouldn't quibble about whether bears actually lived in houses or ate porridge for breakfast.

Well at least that's an answer. I guess there is no sense in continuing to discuss this. At least I know you don't really have a scriptural basis for your dismissal of the stories. In fact you really don't have any evidence that the stories didn't happen the way they are written. Ok. I guess I will go on in my own little world of believing the word of God to be true and not legend.

By the way, there are and have been far more theologians who believed the stories to be true and accurate representations of real events than those who didn't. I studied under a number of them. Men of great intellect and great faith as well.

I guess we will just have to disagree with each other and move on. See you in heaven. It will be interesting to find out once we get there whether we even care about this anymore won't it?

 

[Speedwell]

Well at least that's an answer. I guess there is no sense in continuing to discuss this. At least I know you don't really have a scriptural basis for your dismissal of the stories.

You mean, can I quote a passage of scripture which shows that the creation stories are something other than 100% accurate literal history? No, no more than you can quote one that shows that they are. I don't even think the Bible works that way.

By the way, there are and have been far more theologians who believed the stories to be true and accurate representations of real events than those who didn't.

That's an interesting assertion, but I don't quite trust it. Weren't you the guy who tried to convince me that the Apostolic Fathers secretly believed in Sola Scriptura even though they taught something else? I would be more interested if you could find evidence of literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretability and plenary verbal inspiration in Christian theological literature from sometime before the Reformation.

I studied under a number of them. Men of great intellect and great faith as well.

No doubt. I went to a religious college and also studied under men of great intellect and faith who told me a different story.

I guess we will just have to disagree with each other and move on. See you in heaven. It will be interesting to find out once we get there whether we even care about this anymore won't it?

Probably not, but I care about it here below, because of the attitude of too many of your coreligionists. I've lived in the Bible Belt, bub, I've seen the bullying, harassment and sometimes even violence meted out by "Bible-believers" to other Christians when they think they have the upper hand.

 

[rjs330]

You mean, can I quote a passage of scripture which shows that the creation stories are something other than 100% accurate literal history? No, no more than you can quote one that shows that they are. I don't even think the Bible works that way.

That's an interesting assertion, but I don't quite trust it. Weren't you the guy who tried to convince me that the Apostolic Fathers secretly believed in Sola Scriptura even though they taught something else? I would be more interested if you could find evidence of literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretability and plenary verbal inspiration in Christian theological literature from sometime before the Reformation. No doubt. I went to a religious college and also studied under men of great intellect and faith who told me a different story.

Probably not, but I care about it here below, because of the attitude of too many of your coreligionists. I've lived in the Bible Belt, bub, I've seen the bullying, harassment and sometimes even violence meted out by "Bible-believers" to other Christians when they think they have the upper hand.

I one of the things that some wrestle with is the idea of Sola Scriptura meaning that scripture is the only authority. The scriptures don't teach that. God gave us people in the church to teach and train us in the way we should be. In fact we have some authority over each other. What Sola Scriptura really means is that it is the ultimate authority over all else. It's kind of like the Supreme Court so to speak. What the Bible teaches trumps all else should there be a question on spiritual and doctrinal matters. If a teaching or tradition contradicts scripture then scripture wins out. If it doesn't then it's fine. If a teaching or a tradition isn't spoken of in scripture then there is no issue with it. If a tradition says we should shake incense over the congregation and the scripture says "don't shake incense over the congregation" then scripture wins out. But if the scripture says to do that or is silent in it then there is nothing wrong with doing that.

That really is the heart of Sola Scriptura. And that is supported by Jesus by example and the apostles by example and admonition and by a great number of the writings of the early church fathers.

 

[Speedwell]

I one of the things that some wrestle with is the idea of Sola Scriptura meaning that scripture is the only authority. The scriptures don't teach that. God gave us people in the church to teach and train us in the way we should be. In fact we have some authority over each other. What Sola Scriptura really means is that it is the ultimate authority over all else. It's kind of like the Supreme Court so to speak. What the Bible teaches trumps all else should there be a question on spiritual and doctrinal matters. If a teaching or tradition contradicts scripture then scripture wins out. If it doesn't then it's fine. If a teaching or a tradition isn't spoken of in scripture then there is no issue with it. If a tradition says we should shake incense over the congregation and the scripture says "don't shake incense over the congregation" then scripture wins out. But if the scripture says to do that or is silent in it then there is nothing wrong with doing that.

That really is the heart of Sola Scriptura. And that is supported by Jesus by example and the apostles by example and admonition and by a great number of the writings of the early church fathers.

Of course it is, and not far off from what I believe myself. But what I am talking about is the hypertrophied sola scriptura of the Bible believers which forbids them, for example, from using extra-biblical contemporary Hebrew literature as an aid to genre determination of biblical texts because "it's not in the Bible." Or you, who wants "scriptural proof" for things the Bible doesn't tell us about, as if it was fully self-explanatory.

 

[juvenissun]

It's that simple.

Why would Paul develope a rule based upon a parable?

Funny question. Because it is not a parable.
It is so simple.

 

[Speedwell]

No, that was a rhetorical question and did not require an answer. It is part of the larger creationist argument that the Genesis creation stories must be thus-and-so if God inspired them and Jesus and Paul quoted them, and can't be anything else.