Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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

Ah, here's a bit of a problem (sort of).
I don't know any yec doctrine.
I don't know if anyone or who is defending it.

YHWH made the earth, and tells HIS children what HE wants us to know.
Y'SHUA , through WHOM all things were created, is the GOOD SHEPHERD, and HE always guides us and teaches and trains us and directs our steps and we hear HIS VOICE, as long as HE is FAITHFUL and TRUE, and as long as we simply trust HIM and rely on HIM.
That's life as HE says it.

I do not see a doctrine in that.

 

[zippy2006]

And the two contradictions (Mt contradicts Cr) and (Lk contradicts Mt) show that the lineages themselves show us that the Holy Spirit doesn't want us to interpret these literally. So why do you keep trying to do so?

I don't know of any scholars who infer from the differing genealogies that they are not meant to be taken literally. Do you have any support for such a theory?

Every Jew alive then was a descendant of David. Simple math shows that this was true even centuries before Jesus.

Do you have any source or support for this claim? Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1), and there is some support for Matthew being from the tribe of Levi (Mark 2:14). These are two examples of people living at Jesus' time who were not descendants of David. Even if many of the first-century Jews were of the tribe of Judah, it does not follow that they were all descended of David.

 

[Aman777]

So here's the question:

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

Because it is Literally the Truth IF you understand Genesis. It's the story of God's 7 Days/Ages shown in the first 34 verses of Genesis. Christians have, by Faith alone, been proclaiming this Truth for thousands of years WITHOUT knowing the details. Below are the details:

God has but 7 Days or Ages and we are STILL in the 6th Age, the Day of Salvation. Mankind lives at Gen 1:27 and will continue to live there until Heaven is filled with born again believers in Jesus Christ and THEN the Prophecy of Gen 1:28-31 happens at the end of the present 6th Day/Age. This prophecy CANNOT take place until Jesus returns at Armageddon. Amen?

 

[Speedwell]

Ah, here's a bit of a problem (sort of).
I don't know any yec doctrine.
I don't know if anyone or who is defending it.

YHWH made the earth, and tells HIS children what HE wants us to know.
Y'SHUA , through WHOM all things were created, is the GOOD SHEPHERD, and HE always guides us and teaches and trains us and directs our steps and we hear HIS VOICE, as long as HE is FAITHFUL and TRUE, and as long as we simply trust HIM and rely on HIM.
That's life as HE says it.

I do not see a doctrine in that.

It certainly strongly implies Plenary Verbal Inspiration, if not Dictation Theory. That's doctrine.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It certainly strongly implies Plenary Verbal Inspiration, if not Dictation Theory. That's doctrine.

Apparently those 2 things you mention are both man made doctrine. < shrugs >
So, then, they can be discarded,
and should not be trusted at all, nor anything that followed,
nor those who use them, nor anyone who trusts them.

 

[Papias]

I don't know of any scholars who infer from the differing genealogies that they are not meant to be taken literally. Do you have any support for such a theory?

Biblical scholars deal with the text itself, and so there are plenty of them who confirm that the three different genealogies contradict each other. The deeper interpretation that this suggests that the Holy Spirit doesn't intend them literally is not something that's really in the Biblical scholar's ken. However, theologians/ministers could speculate on that, and I've heard it from the pulpit.

Do you have any source or support for this claim (that practically all Jews in Jesus' time were descendants of Kind David - my add) ? Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin (Romans 11:1), and there is some support for Matthew being from the tribe of Levi (Mark 2:14). These are two examples of people living at Jesus' time who were not descendants of David. Even if many of the first-century Jews were of the tribe of Judah, it does not follow that they were all descended of David.

Those are not counter examples. Tribal affiliation is determined along one gender line - when of course any given person has many ancestors among mixed gendered lines. For instance, Take one's great grandparents. There are 8 of them. One is one's father's father's father. The others are:
father's father's mother, F M F, F MM, M F F, M F M, F M F, and Mother's mother's mother.
Only one of them will determine one's tribal affiliation - the other 7 can be from any tribe. Next level up and you have 16 great great grandparents - again only one determines tribal affiliation, and the other 15 might be from any tribe - and could thus be descendants of David, and if so, then of course the people in question are descendants of Kind David.

Going back shows how quickly these numbers go up - 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, over 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000, over 1 million, etc.

This is why those people you mentioned are certainly descended from King David, who lived 1,000 years before hand, had hundreds of children, & thousands of grandkids, with another 40 generations of exponential growth before Jesus' day. This can be a tricky idea for many people today to realize, so let me explain further.

For instance, Thomas Jefferson has literally thousands of descendants alive today, even though he only had a few kids (many less than King David!). Ever year, some of those descendants marry, and all their kids are Thomas Jefferson descendants. So in a few centuries, nearly everyone in the US will be a descendant of Thomas Jefferson, and a few centuries after that, nearly everyone in the world will be, and shortly after that, every single living human on earth will be a descendant of Thomas Jefferson. The same goes for anyone who has a few kids, unless all of the descendants die childless soon (after a few generations, that's increasingly unlikely). Think about it. It's pretty cool! That means that you and I are both descendants of King David, as is nearly everyone today (except, perhaps, some Australian Natives, and maybe some people in Asia & Africa, some isolated Amazonian tribes, etc.

The same math applies to people like Genghis Khan, pharaoh Ramses II, etc. It's also explained the scientific paper http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/full/nature02842.html .

In Christ-
Papias

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

All of Scripture has been thoroughly passing all of the tests, for thousands of years, including the geneologies, truthfully,
and
the so-called scholars that protest, can go right ahead and protest all they want.

 

[zippy2006]

Biblical scholars deal with the text itself, and so there are plenty of them who confirm that the three different genealogies contradict each other. The deeper interpretation that this suggests that the Holy Spirit doesn't intend them literally is not something that's really in the Biblical scholar's ken. However, theologians/ministers could speculate on that, and I've heard it from the pulpit.

But it is well within the Biblical scholar's right to determine the genre of a given book or pericope, and I do not know of any who infer that the passages were not meant literally due to the contradictory accounts.

Those are not counter examples. Tribal affiliation is determined along one gender line - when of course any given person has many ancestors among mixed gendered lines. For instance, Take one's great grandparents. There are 8 of them. One is one's father's father's father. The others are:
father's father's mother, F M F, F MM, M F F, M F M, F M F, and Mother's mother's mother.
Only one of them will determine one's tribal affiliation - the other 7 can be from any tribe. Next level up and you have 16 great great grandparents - again only one determines tribal affiliation, and the other 15 might be from any tribe - and could thus be descendants of David, and if so, then of course the people in question are descendants of Kind David.

Going back shows how quickly these numbers go up - 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, over 1000, 2000, 4000, 8000, over 1 million, etc.

This is why those people you mentioned are certainly descended from King David, who lived 1,000 years before hand, had hundreds of children, & thousands of grandkids, with another 40 generations of exponential growth before Jesus' day. This can be a tricky idea for many people today to realize, so let me explain further.

For instance, Thomas Jefferson has literally thousands of descendants alive today, even though he only had a few kids (many less than King David!). Ever year, some of those descendants marry, and all their kids are Thomas Jefferson descendants. So in a few centuries, nearly everyone in the US will be a descendant of Thomas Jefferson, and a few centuries after that, nearly everyone in the world will be, and shortly after that, every single living human on earth will be a descendant of Thomas Jefferson. The same goes for anyone who has a few kids, unless all of the descendants die childless soon (after a few generations, that's increasingly unlikely). Think about it. It's pretty cool! That means that you and I are both descendants of King David, as is nearly everyone today (except, perhaps, some Australian Natives, and maybe some people in Asia & Africa, some isolated Amazonian tribes, etc.

The same math applies to people like Genghis Khan, pharaoh Ramses II, etc. It's also explained the scientific paper http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/full/nature02842.html .

In Christ-
Papias

Yet the gospels unanimously trace the lineage solely through the fathers. According to this practice, significantly fewer Jews could trace their lineage to David.

 

[Jezmeyah]

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?

Many divine rules are based on parables. So the question is out of place.

The events having to do with Adam and Eve's disobedience actually occurred. However, the events were told in a parable style. As the Bible itself indicates, truth is told in parables. Truth means that it actually happened. Truth is also expressed in metaphor, poetry, hyperbole, etc. Whatever it takes within those acceptable methods in order to get the spiritual point across.

Not permitting women to teach or assume authority over a man is directly connected to a likely example of Herod and his wife Jezebel.

Since she never taught Herod in matters of godliness, but she sure did wear the pants in that marriage. Therefore the word translated 'teach' should be rather, 'instruct'. As the manipulative Jezebel had obviously told her husband Herod what to do in all things. In that situation the divine order is distorted.

Such a situation goes hand in glove with the teaching concerning a man covering his head for that would be a shame.
In that case, the 'covering' is not speaking of wearing a shawl draped on the man's head, or wearing a hat or those little caps that the Jews wear on their heads.
In the case of their being shame in it, its referring to the man taking his (Jezebel type) wife as his covering, as Herod had done, therefore being submissive to her bossy manipulations.

This identification of the covering is supported by the verses where it switches the roles and talks about the correct divine order of the woman taking for her covering, her husband who is the divine order head of the household.

By Paul's epistle, it would seem that Timothy is having problems with the Jezebel wife attempting to tell Timothy what to do. Therefore, Paul instructs him to see to it that she be quiet. Paul saying, don't let her rule over you like she's done concerning her own husband.

Whether or not Eve was a classic Jezebel type, she still had some level of influence to persuade Adam to not oppose eating from the forbidden tree.

So on some level, it applied to Timothy's situation.

 

[Papias]

But it is well within the Biblical scholar's right to determine the genre of a given book or pericope, and I do not know of any who infer that the passages were not meant literally due to the contradictory accounts.

Fair enough. I haven't heard much from Bible scholars about what they think these contradictions mean. I'm open to examples where they stated outright what they thought the contradictions mean.

Yet the gospels unanimously trace the lineage solely through the fathers.

Yes, that's because back then, they didn't understand about eggs. They thought that the "seed" was fully contained in the sperm, and that the woman was "just a vessel" to grow the man's "seed". This is a (somewhat) natural conclusion, since one can see the sperm, but not see the egg in the process. So they thought that women were irrelevant to the make up of the person - so there was no point to include them in a genealogy. This also explains any questions about Jesus having Mary's DNA, etc.

According to this practice, significantly fewer Jews could trace their lineage to David.

Yes, if one defines "descendant" as "male only descendant". Except that eggs do exist, and I'm a descendant of my dad's great grandmother just as much as I am a descendant of his great grandfather. That's why I claimed that everyone was a descendant of King David, not a "male only" line descendant of King David.

Because there were lots of pure male lines from David, it's likely that at least thousands of people were "male only line" descendants of David at the time of Jesus- but I agree not most people, and not "practically all" were "male only" descendants of King David (and I have little idea who was or wasn't). It's like the Y chromosome studies today that show that there are currently millions of people across Asia who are "male only" descendants of Genghis Khan. But of course, "millions" in a region with billions of people still isn't most people.

maybe we agree?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[DarthNeo]

EVERY bit of Genesis is literal and NOT a parable. If you don't believe Genesis, why believe any of the bible?

I see a LOT of non Christian answers on a "Christian Forum"...

 

[Papias]

EVERY bit of Genesis is literal and NOT a parable.

Really? So it was just a snake in the garden, and not Satan?

If you don't believe Genesis, why believe any of the bible?

So if you disbelieve a literal reading of Genesis, and think that Satan was in the garden, why do you believe any of the bible?

I see a LOT of non Christian answers on a "Christian Forum"...

If a proclaimed non-Christian is here, then ask them to leave. Otherwise it sounds like you are suggesting some members aren't Christian (against their status), which is against forum rules.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yet the gospels unanimously trace the lineage solely through the fathers.

The Jewish Orthodox even, as well as the Jewish Believers,
have the lineage of Mary plainly and clearly spelled out without conflict on many sites.
There are others who don't like this, and make things up.
< shrugs > Same with everything!

 

[Papias]

The Jewish Orthodox even, as well as the Jewish Believers,
have the lineage of Mary plainly and clearly spelled out without conflict on many sites.
There are others who don't like this, and make things up.
< shrugs > Same with everything!

Source? Or are you making this up?

 

[zippy2006]

Fair enough. I haven't heard much from Bible scholars about what they think these contradictions mean. I'm open to examples where they stated outright what they thought the contradictions mean.



Yes, that's because back then, they didn't understand about eggs. They thought that the "seed" was fully contained in the sperm, and that the woman was "just a vessel" to grow the man's "seed". This is a (somewhat) natural conclusion, since one can see the sperm, but not see the egg in the process. So they thought that women were irrelevant to the make up of the person - so there was no point to include them in a genealogy. This also explains any questions about Jesus having Mary's DNA, etc.



Yes, if one defines "descendant" as "male only descendant". Except that eggs do exist, and I'm a descendant of my dad's great grandmother just as much as I am a descendant of his great grandfather. That's why I claimed that everyone was a descendant of King David, not a "male only" line descendant of King David.

Because there were lots of pure male lines from David, it's likely that at least thousands of people were "male only line" descendants of David at the time of Jesus- but I agree not most people, and not "practically all" were "male only" descendants of King David (and I have little idea who was or wasn't). It's like the Y chromosome studies today that show that there are currently millions of people across Asia who are "male only" descendants of Genghis Khan. But of course, "millions" in a region with billions of people still isn't most people.

maybe we agree?

In Christ-

Papias

Okay, that makes sense to me. I think we are on the same page. Thanks for your responses!

 

[-57]

Many divine rules are based on parables. So the question is out of place.

You said "many" ...would you care to present a few?

The events having to do with Adam and Eve's disobedience actually occurred. However, the events were told in a parable style. As the Bible itself indicates, truth is told in parables. Truth means that it actually happened. Truth is also expressed in metaphor, poetry, hyperbole, etc. Whatever it takes within those acceptable methods in order to get the spiritual point across.

There is nothing to indicate the events having to do with Adam and Eve are parables.

Not permitting women to teach or assume authority over a man is directly connected to a likely example of Herod and his wife Jezebel.

If that were the case the Paul wold have used Herod and his wife Jezebel as the reason. Instead, Adam and Eve were used.

Such a situation goes hand in glove with the teaching concerning a man covering his head for that would be a shame.
In that case, the 'covering' is not speaking of wearing a shawl draped on the man's head, or wearing a hat or those little caps that the Jews wear on their heads.
In the case of their being shame in it, its referring to the man taking his (Jezebel type) wife as his covering, as Herod had done, therefore being submissive to her bossy manipulations.

You don't seem to want to understand....the rule was based upon Adam and Eve. Your hand in glove association is off target.

This identification of the covering is supported by the verses where it switches the roles and talks about the correct divine order of the woman taking for her covering, her husband who is the divine order head of the household.

Were not talking about coverings..you've moved the topic away from the original intent.
Remember the rule was based upon Adam and Eve.

By Paul's epistle, it would seem that Timothy is having problems with the Jezebel wife attempting to tell Timothy what to do. Therefore, Paul instructs him to see to it that she be quiet. Paul saying, don't let her rule over you like she's done concerning her own husband.

Really? Just like that you throw out the reason the bible speaks of...and insert a Jezebel wife attempting to tell Timothy what to do...is the explanation???? Horrible hermeneutics. Try again.

Whether or not Eve was a classic Jezebel type, she still had some level of influence to persuade Adam to not oppose eating from the forbidden tree.

And you close with a whether or not statement.
Sorry, I'm not even coming close to buying your answer.

 

[-57]

EVERY bit of Genesis is literal and NOT a parable. If you don't believe Genesis, why believe any of the bible?

I see a LOT of non Christian answers on a "Christian Forum"...

Wanna hear some crazy stuff? Ask the parable people how we got our sin nature.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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?

The point is: "12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man". We see this point further developed in Chapter 5 where we read: "Treat younger men as brothers, 2 older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity."

We see this teaching developed also in Titus 2:3-5 "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."

Younger women are to be treated as a sister with absolute purity and older women are to be treated as you would treat your mother.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I never claimed Genesis was a parable.

There are rules for Bible interpretation and Paul explains this when he talks about shadows and types. Jesus used Parables as a way of teaching. Today there are books written as an allegory used for teaching.

 

[-57]

The point is: "12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man". We see this point further developed in Chapter 5 where we read: "Treat younger men as brothers, 2 older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity."

We see this teaching developed also in Titus 2:3-5 "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."

Younger women are to be treated as a sister with absolute purity and older women are to be treated as you would treat your mother.

Yes, that may be the point....but you seem to disregard why Paul made that point.