Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[Speedwell]

I've presented the way the account is presented through out the bible. It's presented as literal.
Paul's letter to Timothy is an example. Why would Paul invoke a rule based upon a parable?

Jesus said the following:
6“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’a 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,b 8and the two will become one flesh.

Once again why would Jesus base what he said on a parable?

Who said it was a parable? Certainly not me. But my point still stands: establishing that Adam was a real historical person does not necessarily establish that the text of the Bible story in which he appears is any particular genre of historical narrative.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="-57, post: 71108434, member: 380403"]I've presented the way the account is presented through out the bible. It's presented as literal.
Paul's letter to Timothy is an example. Why would Paul invoke a rule based upon a parable?

Jesus said the following:
6“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’a 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,b 8and the two will become one flesh.

Once again why would Jesus base what he said on a parable?[/QUOTE

Well, HE did tell some parable HIMSELF.
However,
as GOD, HE confirmed GOD'S WORD. There is no higher authority by which to stamp TRUTH.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

is any particular genre of historical narrative.

Such as ?

i.e. what is there to defend, protect, promote, or show true or false ??

 

[Speedwell]

SO ?
Where did GOD ever say to trust men ?

He didn't. That's why I don't trust YEC "literal and inerrant" Bible doctrine. And it has nothing to do with evolution, as I have pointed out. Many Christian groups manage to reject evolution without it.

 

[-57]

QUOTE="-57, post: 71108434, member: 380403"]I've presented the way the account is presented through out the bible. It's presented as literal.
Paul's letter to Timothy is an example. Why would Paul invoke a rule based upon a parable?

Jesus said the following:
6“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’a 7‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,b 8and the two will become one flesh.

Once again why would Jesus base what he said on a parable?[/QUOTE

Well, HE did tell some parable HIMSELF.
However,
as GOD, HE confirmed GOD'S WORD. There is no higher authority by which to stamp TRUTH.

I don't think there are any parables that Jesus spoke where the bible didn't say they were a parable.

 

[-57]

He didn't. That's why I don't trust YEC "literal and inerrant" Bible doctrine. And it has nothing to do with evolution, as I have pointed out. Many Christian groups manage to reject evolution without it.

Please name just one from those "many".

 

[Speedwell]

Please name just one from those "many".

As I just mentioned, the Coptic church. Many of the other Oriental and Orthodox churches do as well, I haven't got it in mind just now which ones; the Armenians and Chaldeans I believe, at least.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't think there are any parables that Jesus spoke where the bible didn't say they were a parable.

< shrugs joyously and peaceably > I didn't check specifically for that. Don't know from memory.
One thing often called a parable that is not a parable is the rich man and lazarus. It was "more like" a parady JESUS used, using the beliefs of those HE was speaking to show them something.

I agree with the basics of what you are saying - GENESIS is not BREATHED by YHWH through the men of HIS CHOOSING, as a parable, but as simple TRUTH to be believed by HIS CHILDREN.

 

[Speedwell]

< shrugs joyously and peaceably > I didn't check specifically for that. Don't know from memory.
One thing often called a parable that is not a parable is the rich man and lazarus. It was "more like" a parady JESUS used, using the beliefs of those HE was speaking to show them something.

I agree with the basics of what you are saying - GENESIS is not BREATHED by YHWH through the men of HIS CHOOSING, as a parable, but as simple TRUTH to be believed by HIS CHILDREN.

So here's the question:

What is YEC Bible doctrine good for? Why do you guys defend it so vigorously?

Because you want a real historical Adam and Eve in a Garden and a real Fall? Other churches manage that without YECism.

Because you want to reject godless eeevilutionism? Other churches manage that with out YECism.

In order to defend the cardinal doctrines of Christianity (as set forth in, say, the Nicene Creed)? Other churches do just fine without YECism and have done for two millenia.

Most of the churches of Christendom have never even heard of literal inerrancy, self-interpretability, perspicuity or plenary verbal inspiration and are doing just fine. I'm not talking now about backsliding liberal airhead Protestant denominations, but solid, doctrinally conservative bodies, like some I've mentioned already.

So why do you guys need it?

 

[-57]

As I just mentioned, the Coptic church. Many of the other Oriental and Orthodox churches do as well, I haven't got it in mind just now which ones; the Armenians and Chaldeans I believe, at least.

According to this site from the Coptics they apparently have the ability to accept evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

According to this site from the Coptics they apparently have the ability to accept evolution.

Very interesting--I hadn't seen that source before.

"Therefore, we should be open to the possibility that evolution is the process
God, the Creator, may have used to bring life and mind into being."

My general impression remains, from speaking to them, that rank-and-file Copts prefer the Genesis creation stories. In any case, as you can see, they don't take to literal inerrancy either and never have done. Their toleration of the possibility of evolution rests on their traditional view of scripture.

Thanks for turning that up, 57. I could sign my name to that paper without a qualm over any of it.

 

[-57]

So here's the question:

What is YEC Bible doctrine good for? Why do you guys defend it so vigorously?

The YEC doctrine is good for presenting the truth. So much so to the point of if evolutionism is true then we might as well toss our bible into the trash can.
Old earth evolutionism concepts conradict the bible in many ways.....some of which have been presented on these forums.
It has been shown time and time again that Genesis is presented as literal all through out scripture.
It has been shown that the Theo-Evo sect can't explain original sin and our sin nature...unless mans words are used to replace the scripture that talks about it.
The Theo-Evo sects turn elements of evolution into a religion.

Because you want a real historical Adam and Eve in a Garden and a real Fall? Other churches manage that without YECism.

Personally, if a church does away with the fall I wouldn't consider them as christian. They deny the reason why Christ Jesus came.

Because you want to reject godless eeevilutionism? Other churches manage that with out YECism.

And I might add, with great distortion to the bible.

In order to defend the cardinal doctrines of Christianity (as set forth in, say, the Nicene Creed)? Other churches do just fine without YECism and have done for two millenia.

Early christians such as Barnabas taught a young earth.

15:4 Consider, my children, what signify the words,

He finished them in six days. They mean this: that in

six thousand years the Lord will make an end of all

things, for a day is with him as a thousand years. And

he himself beareth witness unto me, saying: Behold

this day a day shall be as a thousand years.

Therefore, my children, in six days, that is in six

thousand years, shall all things be brought to an end.

Most of the churches of Christendom have never even heard of literal inerrancy, self-interpretability, perspicuity or plenary verbal inspiration and are doing just fine. I'm not talking now about backsliding liberal airhead Protestant denominations, but solid, doctrinally conservative bodies, like some I've mentioned already.

All of which can be supported from the bible.

So why do you guys need it?

Why should I not need it? It explains our sin nature. The old earth theo-evo can't explain it with out changing and adding to the bible.

 

[-57]

Very interesting--I hadn't seen that source before.

"Therefore, we should be open to the possibility that evolution is the process
God, the Creator, may have used to bring life and mind into being."

My general impression remains, from speaking to them, that rank-and-file Copts prefer the Genesis creation stories. In any case, as you can see, they don't take to literal inerrancy either and never have done. Their toleration of the possibility of evolution rests on their traditional view of scripture.

Thanks for turning that up, 57. I could sign my name to that paper without a qualm over any of it.

Quote from your post:
"Therefore, we should be open to the possibility that evolution is the process
God, the Creator, may have used to bring life and mind into being."

We should be open to all possibilities. When proven false we should then close the door on the evolutionary possibility. Evolution and the bible simply don't mix.

 

[Speedwell]

The YEC doctrine is good for presenting the truth. So much so to the point of if evolutionism is true then we might as well toss our bible into the trash can.
Old earth evolutionism concepts conradict the bible in many ways.....some of which have been presented on these forums.
It has been shown time and time again that Genesis is presented as literal all through out scripture.
It has been shown that the Theo-Evo sect can't explain original sin and our sin nature...unless mans words are used to replace the scripture that talks about it.
The Theo-Evo sects turn elements of evolution into a religion.



Personally, if a church does away with the fall I wouldn't consider them as christian. They deny the reason why Christ Jesus came.



And I might add, with great distortion to the bible.



Early christians such as Barnabas taught a young earth.

15:4 Consider, my children, what signify the words,

He finished them in six days. They mean this: that in

six thousand years the Lord will make an end of all

things, for a day is with him as a thousand years. And

he himself beareth witness unto me, saying: Behold

this day a day shall be as a thousand years.

Therefore, my children, in six days, that is in six

thousand years, shall all things be brought to an end.





All of which can be supported from the bible.



Why should I not need it? It explains our sin nature. The old earth theo-evo can't explain it with out changing and adding to the bible.

Yes, that all clearly explains why you believe the creation stories of the Bible to be actual history--and you make a good case for it which many non-YEC theologians would agree with.

But that's not what I asked. In addition to that you want the text of those stories to be the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. Why is that?

 

[-57]

But that's not what I asked. In addition to that you want the text of those stories to be the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. Why is that?

There is much to be said on these definitions....this just scratches the surface.

Literal...Not all the bible is literal. When an account is presented as literal...such as Genesis...it should be taken as literal.
Inerrant....because the bible claims to be. There is much to be said why the bible is inerrant.
Perspicuity means that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense. More on perspicuity
Self-interpreting..the bible can explain itself in many instances. Often a topic is presented in several verses from different books of the bible. Outside information shouldn't determine what the bible has to say. This is a fault of the Theo-Evo sect especially when it comes to original sin and mans sin nature.
Plenary verbal inspiration....plenary means fully authoritative, Verbal means every word, inspiration means God guided the process...do you deny that?

You asked, Why is that? Well, why not?

 

[Papias]

One belongs to Mary while the other belongs to Joseph.

Directly contradicted by scripture. Both say "Joseph son of". I've asked you for scriptural proof of your man-made idea here several times, and the fact that you still repeat it without giving scriptural support shows quite clearly that none exists - but I think you already knew that.

And you are still not answering about the Mt/Cr contradiction. Your repeated silence there too shows that you know you are wrong.

Apples and oranges. NOw here's the list again...tell me where it changes from fact to fiction.

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.

I already answered that, remember? You only answered "Apples and Oranges". So again I have to ask where the Good Samaritan story changes from fact to fiction? In fact, the same can be asked for exodus 19. Is exodus 19 fact, or fiction?

I don't think there are any parables that Jesus spoke where the bible didn't say they were a parable.

How 'bout the Good Samaritan?

The YEC doctrine is good for presenting the truth. So much so to the point of if evolutionism is true then we might as well toss our bible into the trash can.

Do you suggest we "toss our bible in the trash can" because Exodus 19 says that God flew the Jews out of Egypt on giant eagles, which never happened?

It has been shown time and time again that Genesis is presented as literal all through out scripture.

False. It has been shown time and time again that not only is evolution fully compatible with scripture, but that most Christians are in churches that know this.

It has been shown that the Theo-Evo sect can't explain original sin and our sin nature...unless mans words are used to replace the scripture that talks about it.
The Theo-Evo sects turn elements of evolution into a religion.

False - It's been shown on the thread here (How did mankind get its sin nature?) that you have repeatedly been shown how Theistic evolution works well in explaining our sin nature (better, in fact than a literal readying of Genesis). You've read that thread, right (because you started it and posted on it)?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

Directly contradicted by scripture. Both say "Joseph son of". I've asked you for scriptural proof of your man-made idea here several times, and the fact that you still repeat it without giving scriptural support shows quite clearly that none exists - but I think you already knew that.

Joseph was Jacobs son by birth. Eli was Josephs father in law. When you read the rest of the genealogy that becomes apparent.
The reason for the dual linage was to show that thru either linage Jesus was the heir to the throne of David.

Joe and his Dad.
Ref verses.
Matt 1:16 and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary,
Luke 3:23... being supposedly the son of Joseph the son of Eli.

The bible seems clear that The Matthew verse tells us that Jacob as the father of Joseph. The term born in the verse seems to indicate that this is the case. Jacob was Josephs biological father.

Some have argued that Luke 3:23 may appear to be in contradiction or error saying that Joseph was the son of Eli. Further research clearly indicates that Joseph was the son-in-law of Eli and that the term and meaning of the word in the ancient greek language and legal understanding of the title son in this case meant son in law.

Some reasons why.

1)The Son-in-law belief is held by several early Christian writers.
a, Origen
b, Irenaeus
c, Tertullian,
d, Athanasius
e, Justin Martyr

2) It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition. The Talmudic writers wrote of Mary as the daughter of Eli.

3) This verse shows us in what way Christ was the Son of David. If Mary was the daughter of Eli, then Jesus was strictly a descendent of David, not only legally, through his reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, through his mother.

4) This point affords a simple explanation of the whole matter. Mary, since she had no brothers, was an heiress; therefor her husband, according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her fathers family , as his son. This would make Joseph the actual son of Jacob, and the legal son of Eli.

The book of Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown, where Luke sets forth his natural pedigree. The latter employes Joseph's name, instead of Mary,s, in accordance with the Israelite law that genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers.

I suppose wel'll have to agree to disagree...i also understand you need a fallible bible to make your doctrins work....which I really don't need.

 

[Papias]

When you read the rest of the genealogy that becomes apparent.

Unscriptural. Nothing in the "rest of the genealogy" even suggests that. What part are you claiming suggests that?

The reason for the dual linage was to show that thru either linage Jesus was the heir to the throne of David.

Every Jew alive then was a descendant of David. Simple math shows that this was true even centuries before Jesus. To claim that a genealogy was needed to show that Jesus was descended from David is like claiming that a genealogy was needed to show that Jesus was descended from Abraham, or Adam, for that matter. That's completely silly. Do I need to provide a genealogy to prove to you that I'm descended from Adam and Eve? I hope not.

Joe and his Dad.
Ref verses.
Matt 1:16 and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary,
Luke 3:23... being supposedly the son of Joseph the son of Eli.

The bible seems clear that The Matthew verse tells us that Jacob as the father of Joseph. The term born in the verse seems to indicate that this is the case. Jacob was Josephs biological father.

Unscriptural. Both verses tell us Joseph's father. That's what "son of" means.

Further research clearly indicates that Joseph was the son-in-law of Eli and l ........
1)The Son-in-law belief is held by several early Christian writers.
a, Origen
b, Irenaeus
c, Tertullian,
d, Athanasius
e, Justin Martyr

Really? Would you like to provide sources for those from their writings (nearly all of which are available)? I know of someone who said that in the middle ages, but I don't know of anything from the people you mention. Of course, that would still be traditions of men, but I'm interested in whether or not that's even true.

Besides, I'm sure you are already aware that Mary's father was well known to early Christians as Joachim, a rich and pious man. So if we are going to go by early Christian tradition, it's clearly Joachim, not anyone else.

2) It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition. The Talmudic writers wrote of Mary as the daughter of Eli.

The Talmud was written centuries after Jesus, by people who considered Jesus to be the product of Mary sleeping around with other men. As far as I know, it only mentions a person named "Mary", with no indication that it's talking about Jesus' mother. Since Mary was a common name, it's a lot more likely referring to some other mary, such as the famous prophetess in Exodus, etc (after all, this is a Jewish work). Like the claim you made in #1, above if this is real, it should be easy for you to tell me the verse in the Talmud, and we can check it. The talmud is online nowadays.

Even if the Talmud did say Jesus' maternal grandfather was Heli (which it doesn't appear to say), why would you favor a story from centuries after Jesus by people who reject the whole New Testament over a much more contemporaneous and widespread tradition by the early Christians themselves (Joachim)?

3) This verse shows us in what way Christ was the Son of David. If Mary was the daughter of Eli, then Jesus was strictly a descendent of David, not only legally, through his reputed father, but actually, by direct personal descent, through his mother.

As mentioned earlier, everyone by then was a descendant of David, so "proving" it is silly. Why would anyone do that?

4) This point affords a simple explanation of the whole matter. Mary, since she had no brothers, was an heiress;

Unscriptural again. The Bible doesn't say that Mary had not brothers.

The latter employes Joseph's name, instead of Mary,s, in accordance with the Israelite law that genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers.

Genealogies needing to be reckoned by fathers and not mothers means that the genealogy of Mary is irrelevant, by your own reasoning. Which is why no one would bother with Mary's genealogy - so of course Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph (which he explicitly tells us) and not Marys.

I suppose wel'll have to agree to disagree...i also understand you need a fallible bible to make your doctrins work....which I really don't need.

It sounds like you admit you have no justification for changing the text of your Bible. You still haven't shown any reason for the contradiction between Mt and 1 Cr.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[EmethAlethia]

Umm... Did you take the time to read it in context? It's clearly and explicitly "meant to be exhaustive" because it outright says that the total number of generations was 14. If he had intended to "just get a flavor of the ancestry, hit key people", then it would have listed the number of generations as 17 if it mentioned the number of generations at all. Papias

I read it. The number of generations listed in that list is 14, is it not? Or did I, or the author of that passage miscount the number of references he chose to include? I see 14 listed and the writers count as 14. Again, if the list were "meant" to be all inclusive, 17 would be the correct number and 17 would have been in the list. I see perfect consistency.

 

[-57]

Unscriptural. Nothing in the "rest of the genealogy" even suggests that. What part are you claiming suggests that?



Every Jew alive then was a descendant of David. Simple math shows that this was true even centuries before Jesus. To claim that a genealogy was needed to show that Jesus was descended from David is like claiming that a genealogy was needed to show that Jesus was descended from Abraham, or Adam, for that matter. That's completely silly. Do I need to provide a genealogy to prove to you that I'm descended from Adam and Eve? I hope not.



Unscriptural. Both verses tell us Joseph's father. That's what "son of" means.



Really? Would you like to provide sources for those from their writings (nearly all of which are available)? I know of someone who said that in the middle ages, but I don't know of anything from the people you mention. Of course, that would still be traditions of men, but I'm interested in whether or not that's even true.

Besides, I'm sure you are already aware that Mary's father was well known to early Christians as Joachim, a rich and pious man. So if we are going to go by early Christian tradition, it's clearly Joachim, not anyone else.



The Talmud was written centuries after Jesus, by people who considered Jesus to be the product of Mary sleeping around with other men. As far as I know, it only mentions a person named "Mary", with no indication that it's talking about Jesus' mother. Since Mary was a common name, it's a lot more likely referring to some other mary, such as the famous prophetess in Exodus, etc (after all, this is a Jewish work). Like the claim you made in #1, above if this is real, it should be easy for you to tell me the verse in the Talmud, and we can check it. The talmud is online nowadays.

Even if the Talmud did say Jesus' maternal grandfather was Heli (which it doesn't appear to say), why would you favor a story from centuries after Jesus by people who reject the whole New Testament over a much more contemporaneous and widespread tradition by the early Christians themselves (Joachim)?



As mentioned earlier, everyone by then was a descendant of David, so "proving" it is silly. Why would anyone do that?



Unscriptural again. The Bible doesn't say that Mary had not brothers.



Genealogies needing to be reckoned by fathers and not mothers means that the genealogy of Mary is irrelevant, by your own reasoning. Which is why no one would bother with Mary's genealogy - so of course Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph (which he explicitly tells us) and not Marys.



It sounds like you admit you have no justification for changing the text of your Bible. You still haven't shown any reason for the contradiction between Mt and 1 Cr.

In Christ-

Papias

I'm done replying to this portion of the thread.