Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[rjs330]

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.

There is no forbidding of using extra biblical information to assist us in understanding scripture. When I went to school we used other books all the time. I had research papers in every bible class I took. I read and researched until my eyes bled.

But we always went to scripture as the final authority. And we learned that genre had nothing to do with wether or not the stories in scripture were facts or legend or allegory or whatever. Just as I mentioned before, a human belief that a certain passage if scripture might be a hymn based upon other Hebrew writing had nothing to do with whether that hymn or poetry spoke accurately to what occurred.

I also learned that much of the more modern liberal theologians made an awful lot of assumptions when comparing scripture to ANE. It appears to me that they are really trying to turn scripture into their philosophies rather than the other way around.

 

[Speedwell]

There is no forbidding of using extra biblical information to assist us in understanding scripture. When I went to school we used other books all the time. I had research papers in every bible class I took. I read and researched until my eyes bled.

But we always went to scripture as the final authority. And we learned that genre had nothing to do with whether or not the stories in scripture were facts or legend or allegory or whatever. Just as I mentioned before, a human belief that a certain passage if scripture might be a hymn based upon other Hebrew writing had nothing to do with whether that hymn or poetry spoke accurately to what occurred.

So for you, the circumstance that a particular text of Genesis might be poetry, say, is a matter of indifference to you as long as the text speaks accurately to what occurred? The superiority of poetry as a literary form to straight factual reporting goes unregarded?

See, this is what I am trying to get to when we argue about the apostolic historicity of literal inerrancy. Yes, the Fathers undoubtedly thought that the Genesis creation stories were historical in some real sense, but they weren't as pathologically preoccupied with 100% accurate historical facticity as creationists. And, the weren't trying to force-fit the stories into a modern positivist historiography as you are.

 

[SolomonVII]

There is no forbidding of using extra biblical information to assist us in understanding scripture. When I went to school we used other books all the time. I had research papers in every bible class I took. I read and researched until my eyes bled.

But we always went to scripture as the final authority. And we learned that genre had nothing to do with wether or not the stories in scripture were facts or legend or allegory or whatever. Just as I mentioned before, a human belief that a certain passage if scripture might be a hymn based upon other Hebrew writing had nothing to do with whether that hymn or poetry spoke accurately to what occurred.

I also learned that much of the more modern liberal theologians made an awful lot of assumptions when comparing scripture to ANE. It appears to me that they are really trying to turn scripture into their philosophies rather than the other way around.

I think I have already made the point here that the genre of the particular Biblical verse has very little to do with the essential meaning that the verse is putting forth.
The meanings derived from Genesis would essentially be the same whether or not Genesis is a history in the modern sense.

People can take very conservative stances on what the particular genre of any Biblical verse may be, and yet derive very liberal theologies from those stances. The opposite is possible too. Very liberal understandings of the particular genre of a book do not mean that the theology derived from the meanings of any Biblical book will be liberal.
Discussing the particular genre of any Biblical work is actually a discussion exterior to the meaning of the Biblical work itself. Whether or not Adam and Eve is historical or allegory, the verse states the same thing, namely that "the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."

The meaning of the verse comes being able to spiritual discern the meaning from the verse itself, and not from being able to discern the genre.

 

[rjs330]

I think I have already made the point here that the genre of the particular Biblical verse has very little to do with the essential meaning that the verse is putting forth.
The meanings derived from Genesis would essentially be the same whether or not Genesis is a history in the modern sense.

People can take very conservative stances on what the particular genre of any Biblical verse may be, and yet derive very liberal theologies from those stances. The opposite is possible too. Very liberal understandings of the particular genre of a book do not mean that the theology derived from the meanings of any Biblical book will be liberal.
Discussing the particular genre of any Biblical work is actually a discussion exterior to the meaning of the Biblical work itself. Whether or not Adam and Eve is historical or allegory, the verse states the same thing, namely that "the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."

The meaning of the verse comes being able to spiritual discern the meaning from the verse itself, and not from being able to discern the genre.

I agree to a point. But first of all proper hermeneutics tells us that the primary understanding if the verse is it means what it says. Secondly is the spiritual truth or and extended results from the verse.

Take the Genesis case. When the bible says Adam and Eve were created it gives precise description of how. The meaning is plain. God made man out of the dirt with his hands and breathed life into him. God made woman out if a man's rib. No need to believe that anything different occurred. That is EXACTLY how it happened. What kind of spiritual understanding can we get from that? That God made man unique and different from all other creatures. He didn't make him from other creatures or out of other creatures. He made him in a unique way for a unique purpose. The lasting effect if that was that God had a special relationship with man than he did with all other things of his creation. That is seen through out the rest of the Bible.

So the genre has nothing to do with the historical truth of the text like you say.

 

[SolomonVII]

I agree to a point. But first of all proper hermeneutics tells us that the primary understanding if the verse is it means what it says. Secondly is the spiritual truth or and extended results from the verse.

Take the Genesis case. When the bible says Adam and Eve were created it gives precise description of how. The meaning is plain. God made man out of the dirt with his hands and breathed life into him. God made woman out if a man's rib. No need to believe that anything different occurred. That is EXACTLY how it happened. What kind of spiritual understanding can we get from that? That God made man unique and different from all other creatures. He didn't make him from other creatures or out of other creatures. He made him in a unique way for a unique purpose. The lasting effect if that was that God had a special relationship with man than he did with all other things of his creation. That is seen through out the rest of the Bible.

So the genre has nothing to do with the historical truth of the text like you say.

You say that genre has nothing to do with it from one side of your mouth, and yet insist that it is an historical account with the other side of your mouth.

I have no idea how to advance the conversation from such double speak.

 

[rjs330]

You say that genre has nothing to do with it from one side of your mouth, and yet insist that it is an historical account with the other side of your mouth.

I have no idea how to advance the conversation from such double speak.

When I speak of genre I was referring to etiology or hymnology or poetry etc. I just didn't clarify, sorry about that. I did say you take the words for what they say first which would imply a historical setting first because you accept what it says and the plain meaning first before looking further. That's what I meant. Hope that explains it better.