Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[-57]

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.

But, as you know, I suggest that Paul - not being omniscient - may have believed the story of Adam and Eve was "literal" when, in fact, it may not have been.

"Morality tale"..that's what you present as an answer? Genesis is a morality tale?

Concerning Paul, true Paul wasn't omniscient....but the one that inspired Paul was.

Let me ask you this, I understand you really don't trust the bible, so just what is it that produces that distrust?

 

[CrystalDragon]

I fail to see your point. Want to explain it a bit more?

You were saying that if death was always a part of God's "very good" creation, then Jesus wouldn't need to save us from it, implying that death came as a result of the Fall and thus ruining God's "very good" world. But "very good" is a far cry from "perfect", which many seem to think Eden is supposed to be.

Are you saying the bible got it wrong when it says Jesus lived, died on the cross the rose from the dead?

I'm not saying that, I'm saying we can't be entirely sure of anything. Are there any writings outside the Bible from around that time period that also mention those events?

One linage is of Mary's and the other linage is of Joseph's. We expect them to be different.

I don't think they ever kept track of womens' linages in those times, which makes sense, seeing as women were seen as mostly inferior and their main purpose was to have children.

 

[CrystalDragon]

"Morality tale"..that's what you present as an answer? Genesis is a morality tale?

Concerning Paul, true Paul wasn't omniscient....but the one that inspired Paul was.

Let me ask you this, I understand you really don't trust the bible, so just what is it that produces that distrust?

Regarding Paul being "inspired by God", I had a thought—what does that really mean? "Inspired" generally means that someone is moved to do something, like a painter can be inspired to paint a sunset after seeing a pretty one on a beach, or someone can be inspired by a dream to write a story. Even works of art are "inspired by God", but that seems to be a different kettle of fish from what people mean when they say the Bible is "inspired by God".

 

[-57]

You were saying that if death was always a part of God's "very good" creation, then Jesus wouldn't need to save us from it, implying that death came as a result of the Fall and thus ruining God's "very good" world. But "very good" is a far cry from "perfect", which many seem to think Eden is supposed to be.

The quote was speaking of God using death as part of the process of evolutionism to create.

Physical death according to the bible was a direct result of Adams fall in the garden.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying we can't be entirely sure of anything. Are there any writings outside the Bible from around that time period that also mention those events?

I understand how you can distrust scripture. I assume it is your belief that the writers of scripture were not inspired by God.

I don't think they ever kept track of womens' linages in those times, which makes sense, seeing as women were seen as mostly inferior and their main purpose was to have children.

Perhaps I shouls have said the linage was of Mary's father.....which would have also been Mary's linage.

 

[-57]

Regarding Paul being "inspired by God", I had a thought—what does that really mean? "Inspired" generally means that someone is moved to do something, like a painter can be inspired to paint a sunset after seeing a pretty one on a beach, or someone can be inspired by a dream to write a story. Even works of art are "inspired by God", but that seems to be a different kettle of fish from what people mean when they say the Bible is "inspired by God".

It means God breathed.
2nd Tim 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

 

[Speedwell]

It means God breathed.
2nd Tim 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

It came out of God's nose?

 

[DarthNeo]

Genesis IS literal.

 

[CrystalDragon]

The quote was speaking of God using death as part of the process of evolutionism to create.

Physical death according to the bible was a direct result of Adams fall in the garden.

Oh, okay, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying!

I understand how you can distrust scripture. I assume it is your belief that the writers of scripture were not inspired by God.

There were many many Scriptures in dispute to be included or not. It's hard to tell.

Perhaps I shouls have said the linage was of Mary's father.....which would have also been Mary's linage.

But if I recall correctly there's o mention of Mary's father anywhere in the Bible, no a mention of one of the linages tracing to him.

It means God breathed.
2nd Tim 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Ignoring the fact that the New Testament hadn't even been completed when that was written so frauds could easily slip in afterwards, thing is, as I mentioned above, there were many books, including over 60 Gospels, that were all considered at various points to be in the Bible. We only have four because a bishop from 180AD called Irenaeus said that there should be four Gospels because there are four winds, four cardinal directions, four legs on animals, etc, so why not have four Gospels to match? But what if we got wrong ones? What if many "legitimate" ones were lost? What about the books like the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, or The Book of Enoch? How do we know those aren't correct? The Book of Enoch was even mentioned at one point in the Bible if I recall correctly, so why isn't it in the Bible itself? If the Book of Enoch is God-breathed (as it might be more likely than any other since it was mentioned), why is it not in the Bible?

 

[expos4ever]

"Morality tale"..that's what you present as an answer? Genesis is a morality tale?

No, all I have shown is that it is possible to refer to some "non-literally true story" as the basis for guiding actions. Your argument was effectively that Paul would never refer to a "myth" to justify instructions on how to live.

But as I have stated, people do this all the time through the invocation of a "morality tale". So why are you ruling out the possibility that Paul was doing this?

Concerning Paul, true Paul wasn't omniscient....but the one that inspired Paul was.

You are simply assuming something about the nature of this inspiration - that Paul would know, for example, the factual truth about whether there was a literal Adam and an Eve. But you really have no scriptural defence for such a position since the Bible is interestingly vague on this issue - all we know is that scripture is inspired "and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". Are you going to able to prove that, in order for Paul's writing to meet this standard, he would have had to know whether there was a literal Adam and Eve? I doubt it.

Let me ask you this, I understand you really don't trust the bible, so just what is it that produces that distrust?

First, I certainly trust the Bible - I just don't interpret it literally. You guys do this all the time - you intentionally distort the acceptance of non-literality as equivalent to a denial of inspiration. That you surely must know this is incorrect thinking, and still use this tactic, is testament to frankly, your lack of honesty.

 

[-57]

No, all I have shown is that it is possible to refer to some "non-literally true story" as the basis for guiding actions. Your argument was effectively that Paul would never refer to a "myth" to justify instructions on how to live.

But as I have stated, people do this all the time through the invocation of a "morality tale". So why are you ruling out the possibility that Paul was doing this?


You are simply assuming something about the nature of this inspiration - that Paul would know, for example, the factual truth about whether there was a literal Adam and an Eve. But you really have no scriptural defence for such a position since the Bible is interestingly vague on this issue - all we know is that scripture is inspired "and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". Are you going to able to prove that, in order for Paul's writing to meet this standard, he would have had to know whether there was a literal Adam and Eve? I doubt it.


First, I certainly trust the Bible - I just don't interpret it literally. You guys do this all the time - you intentionally distort the acceptance of non-literality as equivalent to a denial of inspiration. That you surely must know this is incorrect thinking, and still use this tactic, is testament to frankly, your lack of honesty.

Here's the bottom line..as I'm tired of listening to your "does the bible really say" preaching. If Genesis isn't literal...despite what YOU think Paul (as well as other authors) might or mignt not have thought...then Jesus incarnated for a myth. The fall never happened. It all was a "Morality tale".

That, is not christianity.

 

[Papias]

One linage is of Mary's and the other linage is of Joseph's. We expect them to be different.

Unscriptural. Both explicitly says that it's Joseph's lineage. Here's Luke (the one most often claimed to give Mary's lineage).

Luke 3:23:

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki, ..................​

Besides, I also pointed out that Mt's list doesn't match the same list in Chronicles.

Here is that list from post #29, which I think you read, since you responded to it:

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 "14 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

 

[-57]

Unscriptural. Both explicitly says that it's Joseph's lineage. Here's Luke (the one most often claimed to give Mary's lineage).

I think you misunderstand. My study bible has the following remark:
son of Eli. Joseph was Jacobs son by birth (Matt 1:16) and Eli's son by marriage. This is apparently the genealogy of Jesus through His mother.

There is no error. If you like you could scan through some of what the commentators had to say here.

 

[Papias]

I think you misunderstand. My study bible has the following remark:
son of Eli. Joseph was Jacobs son by birth (Matt 1:16) and Eli's son by marriage. This is apparently the genealogy of Jesus through His mother.

There is no error. If you like you could scan through some of what the commentators had to say here.

Those are human commentators writing based on their own desire to ignore the scriptural text instead of simply reading the scripture itself. If you accept that with no evidence, and ignore the evidence for an allegorical reading of Genesis which is supported by both mountains of evidence as well as internal scriptural indications, then it's obvious that you are just picking and choosing what scripture you want to pay attention to and which you'd rather substitute with the writings of humans.

And you haven't address Chronicles.

In Jesus-
Papias

 

[SolomonVII]

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 develope a rule based upon a parable?

I think virtually every Christian and Jew before the Enlightenment did regard Genesis and the Bible in general as accurate historical fact. They went with the best evidence too. That is what believing in the truth compels us to do.

I think it is also true that scholars and prophets and people inspired by the Bible were much more interested in it as parable and as inspirational allegory for their own lives and times than they were about its historical accuracy, which was pretty mundane in comparison.
Take Jesus for example. He quoted the Bible phrase 'the poor will always be with us' not in order to advocate feeding the poor, which was the literal meaning of the phrase the first time it was used. Indeed he used it to dismiss such a concern (however disingenuously expressed in this instant) in order that expensive ointment be used on his feet.
The way that Jesus quotes the Bible in John to make the plain meaning of an idea more cryptic is admittedly very unique and the opposite of what most people do, but it is a good illustration of the idea that it is not the literal meaning of the Bible that is the focus of the prophets, but the parable that is the most prominent.

 

[-57]

Those are human commentators writing based on their own desire to ignore the scriptural text instead of simply reading the scripture itself. If you accept that with no evidence, and ignore the evidence for an allegorical reading of Genesis which is supported by both mountains of evidence as well as internal scriptural indications, then it's obvious that you are just picking and choosing what scripture you want to pay attention to and which you'd rather substitute with the writings of humans.

And you haven't address Chronicles.

In Jesus-
Papias

Genesis is supported by mountains of evidence that it is a parable?....Really?
As well as internal scriptural indications....Really?

Care to support both of those claims.

 

[expos4ever]

Here's the bottom line..as I'm tired of listening to your "does the bible really say" preaching. If Genesis isn't literal...despite what YOU think Paul (as well as other authors) might or mignt not have thought...then Jesus incarnated for a myth. The fall never happened. It all was a "Morality tale".

That, is not christianity.

If other people are reading, they will see this is a patent evasion of the actual arguments I have made.

I never denied the fall. And I never denied the literality of Adam and Eve. Between your intentional distortions and other errors, it's exhausting keeping up.

 

[-57]

Those are human commentators writing based on their own desire to ignore the scriptural text instead of simply reading the scripture itself.

Based upon their own desire to ignore scripture? Yup, that makes sense.

NEXT

 

[expos4ever]

I think virtually every Christian and Jew before the Enlightenment did regard Genesis and the Bible in general as accurate historical fact.

No. From Wikipedia:

The literalist reading of some contemporary Christians maligns the allegorical or mythical interpretation of Genesis as a belated attempt to reconcile science with the biblical account. They maintain that the story of origins had always been interpreted literally until modern science (and, specifically, biological evolution) arose and challenged it. This view is not the consensus view, however, as demonstrated below:.....

Want more?

 

[-57]

If other people are reading, they will see this is a patent evasion of the actual arguments I have made.

I never denied the fall. And I never denied the literality of Adam and Eve. Between your intentional distortions and other errors, it's exhausting keeping up.

Now you want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[-57]

I think virtually every Christian and Jew before the Enlightenment did regard Genesis and the Bible in general as accurate historical fact. They went with the best evidence too. That is what believing in the truth compels us to do.

I think it is also true that scholars and prophets and people inspired by the Bible were much more interested in it as parable and as inspirational allegory for their own lives and times than they were about its historical accuracy, which was pretty mundane in comparison.
Take Jesus for example. He quoted the Bible phrase 'the poor will always be with us' not in order to advocate feeding the poor, which was the literal meaning of the phrase the first time it was used. Indeed he used it to dismiss such a concern (however disingenuously expressed in this instant) in order that expensive ointment be used on his feet.
The way that Jesus quotes the Bible in John to make the plain meaning of an idea more cryptic is admittedly very unique and the opposite of what most people do, but it is a good illustration of the idea that it is not the literal meaning of the Bible that is the focus of the prophets, but the parable that is the most prominent.

As people turn more and more of the bible into a parable rather than literal historic history...as seen when the evolutionist try to force the bible to get in line with evolutionism...much becomes lost. There is even sects that call themselves christian who have made the literal resurrection of Christ Jesus into a "parable" an "inspirational allegory".

Where does it stop? Do all miracles become parables, allegorical, mythical?