With all due respect, your theology is out because it contradicts scripture.
Secondly it really doesn't explain much. Original sin being one of the many issues.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's bunk and is the typical 'go to' explanation used ... one that you get to use to slice and dice the parameters of 'who is in and who is out' as you see fit.
So, in essence, if my theology isn't just like yours, I'm out. This is basically what you're saying. Am I wrong?
Except they don't. They present the Genesis account as authoritative. Get the difference? Probably not. It is also possible to conclude that Paul and the other Christians of his time believed that the Genesis account was historical. Most Christians have done throughout most of Christian history. But nothing in scripture, I repeat, nothing supports your claim that the text of the Genesis creation account is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration.No, what I'm saying is that Paul as well as the other authors of the bible present the creation acount as literal. THEREFORE Genesis is to be taken as literal.
With all due respect, your theology is out because it contradicts scripture.
Secondly it really doesn't explain much. Original sin being one of the many issues.
No one ever said that Paul thought it was a mere parable. Paul perceived the Genesis story by way of the working paradigm in which He was born, lived and breathed. And that's ok. So, from a revelatory aspect, Paul wasn't wrong--based upon the information he knew at the time which is all that God needed for him to know.
And even if the Adam and Even/Garden story isn't literal, it is still a part of the Torah and serves as sacred Scripture. And if people today can't feel inspired for something that is representational (or poetic) in it's descriptive nature, then that problem is on them, but not on God, or on Moses, or on Jesus, or even on Paul or Peter.
Then, if Genesis is poetic or metaphor or cultural polemics, the supposed allegation that people tend to draw out about God being a 'liar' falls short because... God has the authority to give us revelation as He sees fit, and He can obscure what He want us to know as He sees fit, or He can enlighten us for our good as He sees fit. Thus, if and when He does so, He isn't at moral fault. He isn't lying; rather, He's holding or withholding what He knows we need to know. It is His world, after all, and He knows how it works best.
And as it turns out, Genesis can still be Sacred Scripture any way we slice it...even if it isn't fully literal in all the nice scientific ways we like things to be today.
Without the literal six-day creation account, God created a "very good" world that quickly degenerated into violence and illness naturally, without the curse of sin. Death itself was not a curse or a deviation from God's "very good" world. Without the literal six-day creation, God intentionally included death and violence and sickness in His world. And if death is a natural, "very good," aspect of creation, then we don't need Jesus to save us from it. ref
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness....
Yes we do know where it came from. I call Him God.
(Sarcasm mode engaged)Honestly that's circular reasoning, saying "the Bible is true because it says it's true". There were many other Bible books that could have been in the Bible but weren't. Were they God-breathed Scripture too? If not, how can we be sure if what we got as Scripture is true?
Here's another example where Adam is presented as literal. I would like the Genesis is a parable sect to show us just where the linage changed from fact to fiction.
Luke 3:23 and onwards...
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.
In a letter to Timothy from Paul, Paul instructed the women on how to act in church. 1st Tim 2:11-12 is where that can be found.
In verse 13-14 Paul shows us his reason for his rule...and it's based upon the creation of man and women and the fall as presented in Genesis.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
It's that simple.
Why would Paul develop a rule based upon a parable?
Of course, according to the Jewish way of thinking, Adam is my father and Noah is my father and I do not need to include any of my other ancestors to be 100% correct. The lists are never meant to be exhaustive, just enough to get the flavor of the ancestry, hit key people to clarify or to make a point... The bible is chock full of these. Jesus is the Son of David, is He not? I can pick out the 7 or 10, or 15 of my favorite ancestors and use any list containing any number of them, or just one of them, and as long as they are in the list of my "fathers", the genealogy is perfectly correct 100% from the Jewish perspective. But then we don't see genealogies or despondency the same way. For us, in our culture, even if Abraham was in our list of descendants, we could not state that Abraham(The biblical Abraham) was our father. The Jews did though.Except that example shows exactly the opposite. Specifically, the writers of Mt and Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, show us that the genealogies are allegories, and not literal. The Holy Spirit, author of both of them, shows this by the fact that they disagree with each other, and that Mt's list is altered so as to make his "40 generation" thing work.
Compare Mt with the same genealogy given in Chronicles:
Mt Gen# .................Gospel of Matthew has............... 1st Chron. Has:
1..............................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, ...Solomon's son was
2 .............................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,...... Rehoboam,
3 .............................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son,
4..............................Asa ..................................................Asa his son,
5 .............................Jehoshaphat .....................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6............................. Jehoram ...........................................Jehoram his son
................................Skipped.......................................... Ahaziah his son,
................................Skipped .........................................Joash his son,
................................Skipped .........................................Amaziah his son,
7......................Uzziah the father of Jotham, .................Azariah his son,
8............................ Jotham ............................................Jotham his son,
9 ............................Ahaz ...............................................Ahaz his son,
10...........................Hezekiah ........................................Hezekiah his son,
11.......................... Manasseh .......................................Manasseh his son,
12 ..........................Amon .............................................Amon his son,
13.......................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ….....Josiah his son.
Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that the Holy Spirit is telling us not to interpret genealogies literally nor historically.
In Christ-
Papias
Of course, according to the Jewish way of thinking, Adam is my father and Noah is my father and I do not need to include any of my other ancestors to be 100% correct. The lists are never meant to be exhaustive, just enough to get the flavor of the ancestry, hit key people to clarify or to make a point... The bible is chock full of these. Jesus is the Son of David, is He not? I can pick out the 7 or 10, or 15 of my favorite ancestors and use any list containing any number of them, or just one of them, and as long as they are in the list of my "fathers", the genealogy is perfectly correct 100% from the Jewish perspective. But then we don't see genealogies or despondency the same way. For us, in our culture, even if Abraham was in our list of descendants, we could not state that Abraham(The biblical Abraham) was our father. The Jews did though.
Hopefully that clears that up.
Sadly, that turns out not to be the case. Correct and exacting genealogies were critically important to the Jews, tracing descent from particular individuals through very specific lines. "Skip a bit, brother" works fine for Monty Python, but not in the clannish and tribal world of the Jews.
Talking about identifying individuals as father is irrelevant, as I'm confident you know.
Not sure what you meant by despondency? Descent, perhaps?
Wow ... That is amazing. That Abraham was everyone's father and he must have lived a lot longer than than the O.T. account relates.
>snip<
Gee, what happened to all the intervening generations? My point as that the Jews counted everyone in their decadency as their father, and listed the ones they felt were important. You see the examples of this above.
>snip<
What the individuals knew of the complete decadency was different from what they shared with everyone else. Complete lists were like listing pi. There are books containing 50,000 decimal places. For most people 3.14 is adequate, 3.1415926 is the most I have ever needed. For many, being a descendant of Abraham was the only big thing needed. To show the ancestry of Christ more precision was required. The question is, how many decimal points are needed to show accuracy? 3.14159265359 ... Do you need 50,000 digits to prove the accuracy of pi? I don't. Do you need every single descendant to show who Christ's "Father's" were? We obviously need more than Abraham is my father. You were able to fill in the gaps almost 2000 years later. Seems like what is there is enough.
The lists are never meant to be exhaustive, just enough to get the flavor of the ancestry, hit key people to clarify or to make a point...
Hopefully that clears that up.
"Skip a bit, brother" works fine for Monty Python, but not in the clannish and tribal world of the Jews.
Because this is done all the time. That is what a "morality tale" is - a fictional story that presents some important truth. There is a fable about a greedy boy who stick his hand into the candy jar and cannot pull it out since he has grabbed too many candies. Parents often used to say "remember what happened to the greedy boy" in order to teach their children not be greedy.Why would Paul develope a rule based upon a parable?
You haven't even looked at my theology. I gave you some sources to consider here while back, and you ignored them.
I fail to see your point. Want to explain it a bit more?"Very good" is not the same thing as "perfect".
Honestly that's circular reasoning, saying "the Bible is true because it says it's true". There were many other Bible books that could have been in the Bible but weren't. Were they God-breathed Scripture too? If not, how can we be sure if what we got as Scripture is true?
Except that example shows exactly the opposite. Specifically, the writers of Mt and Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, show us that the genealogies are allegories, and not literal. The Holy Spirit, author of both of them, shows this by the fact that they disagree with each other, and that Mt's list is altered so as to make his "40 generation" thing work.
Compare Mt with the same genealogy given in Chronicles:
Mt Gen# .................Gospel of Matthew has............... 1st Chron. Has:
1..............................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, ...Solomon's son was
2 .............................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,...... Rehoboam,
3 .............................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son,
4..............................Asa ..................................................Asa his son,
5 .............................Jehoshaphat .....................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6............................. Jehoram ...........................................Jehoram his son
................................Skipped.......................................... Ahaziah his son,
................................Skipped .........................................Joash his son,
................................Skipped .........................................Amaziah his son,
7......................Uzziah the father of Jotham, .................Azariah his son,
8............................ Jotham ............................................Jotham his son,
9 ............................Ahaz ...............................................Ahaz his son,
10...........................Hezekiah ........................................Hezekiah his son,
11.......................... Manasseh .......................................Manasseh his son,
12 ..........................Amon .............................................Amon his son,
13.......................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ….....Josiah his son.
Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that the Holy Spirit is telling us not to interpret genealogies literally nor historically.
In Christ-
Papias
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?