Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[joshua 1 9]

you seem to disregard why Paul made that point.

ok, why did he make that point?

 

[-57]

ok, why did he make that point?

The discussion isn't about the point...but that Paul based it upon a literal historical event.
My argument asks, why would Paul base a rule upon a myth?

 

[Speedwell]

The discussion isn't about the point...but that Paul based it upon a literal historical event.
My argument asks, why would Paul base a rule upon a myth?

That's not an argument, it's a question.

 

[-57]

That's not an argument, it's a question.

Your argument would be that Paul did base a rule upon a myth if you don't believe in a literal and historical Adam and Eve...as per the account of Genesis.

 

[Speedwell]

Your argument would be that Paul did base a rule upon a myth if you don't believe in a literal and historical Adam and Eve...as per the account of Genesis.

My "argument" is that it is possible he could have, which you have done nothing to counter. I see nothing from you about how historical narrative was regarded in Paul's time which would support your contention that Paul and his contemporaries took it to be 100% accurate literal history or fit only for the trash can, which is apparently your position.

 

[Archivist]

Your argument would be that Paul did base a rule upon a myth if you don't believe in a literal and historical Adam and Eve...as per the account of Genesis.

I believe the Genesis creation accounts are allegories. Allegory and myth are not the same..

Allegory: "a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms."

Myth: "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

 

[Speedwell]

It is amazing to me, these Christians who consider a divinely inspired allegory to be of so much less value than a divinely inspired factual account.

 

[-57]

My "argument" is that it is possible he could have, which you have done nothing to counter. I see nothing from you about how historical narrative was regarded in Paul's time which would support your contention that Paul and his contemporaries took it to be 100% accurate literal history or fit only for the trash can, which is apparently your position.

If Genesis isn't a literal historical account..then the way the bible presents it is wrong. Over a little while I have provided several verses that show Genesis and the acciunt of Adam and Eve are literal and historical.

To date I have seen NO scripture that would indicate otherwise.
The only thing I have seen is man changing the Word of God and inserting their word into Genesis.

Typically they filter the bible through the "science" of evolutionism and old earth geology.

Once again, if Adam and Eve were only mythical individuals..some form of a parable...you might as well toss your bible into the trash.

 

[-57]

I believe the Genesis creation accounts are allegories. Allegory and myth are not the same..

Allegory: "a representation of an abstract or spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms."

Myth: "a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

Then I'll say it this way:
Your argument would be that Paul did base a rule upon an allegory if you don't believe in a literal and historical Adam and Eve...as per the account of Genesis.

Why would Paul do that?

 

[Archivist]

Then I'll say it this way:
Your argument would be that Paul did base a rule upon an allegory if you don't believe in a literal and historical Adam and Eve...as per the account of Genesis.

Why would Paul do that?

First, because Paul believed the Genesis creation stories to be a factual account.

Second, the "rule" of which you speak, "I suffer not a woman to teach," is Paul's rule for his ministry, not necessarily a rule for all times and all places. That is, however, a topic for a different thread.

 

[Archivist]

If Genesis isn't a literal historical account..then the way the bible presents it is wrong. Over a little while I have provided several verses that show Genesis and the acciunt of Adam and Eve are literal and historical.

And you are entitled to your own interpretation of scripture.

To date I have seen NO scripture that would indicate otherwise.
The only thing I have seen is man changing the Word of God and inserting their word into Genesis.

There is nothing in scripture that states that the parable of the Good Samaritan is a parable, but I don't know of any Christians who read it as an actual historical event.

I choose to read the creation accounts in Genesis as allegories. A great many Christians do the same. Like you, we are entitled to our interpretation.

Typically they filter the bible through the "science" of evolutionism and old earth geology.

I don't recall mentioning anything about evolution in this thread.

Once again, if Adam and Eve were only mythical individuals..some form of a parable...you might as well toss your bible into the trash.

First, you are again confusing the words myth, allegory and parable.

Second, why would you throw your Bible in the trash simply because you read the Genesis creation accounts as allegory?

 

[-57]

And you are entitled to your own interpretation of scripture.

No, I'm not entitled to my own interpretation of scripture. I should seek out the correct interpretation. In the past I have presented severl verses that show the Genesis account is literal and historical. You haven't presented a single verse that comes close to showing Genesis is an allegorical account.

There is nothing in scripture that states that the parable of the Good Samaritan is a parable, but I don't know of any Christians who read it as an actual historical event.

I choose to read the creation accounts in Genesis as allegories. A great many Christians do the same. Like you, we are entitled to our interpretation.

A parable is based upon an event or events that could actually happen or have happened. Such as the account presented by Jesus of the Good Samaritan. Your claim is that the account of Adam and Eve couldn't happen.

You are not entitled to an opinion that changes what the Word of God says.

I don't recall mentioning anything about evolution in this thread.

I was referring to people who typically have the opinion that Adam and Eve were not real. That is real as portrayed in Genesis. I suspect you would fit that belief.

First, you are again confusing the words myth, allegory and parable.

Second, why would you throw your Bible in the trash simply because you read the Genesis creation accounts as allegory?

I'm not confusing the words...I often see all of those words used together or alone as a means of disproving Genesis as being literal and historical.

Secondly, if Genesis is not literal and historical...how do you explain the fall of mankind? Original sin? Our sin nature and be true to what the bible says?

 

[-57]

First, because Paul believed the Genesis creation stories to be a factual account.

Second, the "rule" of which you speak, "I suffer not a woman to teach," is Paul's rule for his ministry, not necessarily a rule for all times and all places. That is, however, a topic for a different thread.

Yes, it is a topic for a different thread. The point you keep avoiding is WHY did Paul base that rule upon what Eve did in the garden if you say there was no Eve and no garden? In other words why would Paul base his rule on an event that never happened?
Simple saying because Paul believed the Genesis creation stories to be a factual account isn't an acceptable answer. This would indicate anything Paul wrote about the creation account is in error. When Paul said sin entered the world because of Adam...which according to many claim Adam wasn't a literal historical individual...Paul was wrong...but it's OK because he believed it to be true.

 

[Archivist]

No, I'm not entitled to my own interpretation of scripture. I should seek out the correct interpretation.

And you interpretation of scripture is no more correct than my interpretation.

In the past I have presented severl verses that show the Genesis account is literal and historical. You haven't presented a single verse that comes close to showing Genesis is an allegorical account.

I have pointed out several times in this thread that the Genesis creation accounts meet all the requirement of allegory. However, I don't have to prove anything--that is my interpretation. You are, however, entitled to your own interpretation.

A parable is based upon an event or events that could actually happen or have happened. Such as the account presented by Jesus of the Good Samaritan. Your claim is that the account of Adam and Eve couldn't happen.

No, my claim is that the Genesis creation accounts are allegories.

You are not entitled to an opinion that changes what the Word of God says.

My interpretation doesn't change what the Word of God says.

I was referring to people who typically have the opinion that Adam and Eve were not real. That is real as portrayed in Genesis. I suspect you would fit that belief.

OK

I'm not confusing the words...I often see all of those words used together or alone as a means of disproving Genesis as being literal and historical.

Becasue Genesis isn't literal and historical, it is an allegory.

You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation.

Secondly, if Genesis is not literal and historical...how do you explain the fall of mankind? Original sin? Our sin nature and be true to what the bible says?

As I have said before--I really do get tired repeating things--sin entered the world. Exactly how that happened is irrelevant.

 

[Archivist]

Yes, it is a topic for a different thread. The point you keep avoiding is WHY did Paul base that rule upon what Eve did in the garden if you say there was no Eve and no garden? In other words why would Paul base his rule on an event that never happened?
Simple saying because Paul believed the Genesis creation stories to be a factual account isn't an acceptable answer. This would indicate anything Paul wrote about the creation account is in error. When Paul said sin entered the world because of Adam...which according to many claim Adam wasn't a literal historical individual...Paul was wrong...but it's OK because he believed it to be true.

First, don't tell me that my answer isn't "acceptable." I have remained polite in this conversation, I believe you can to.

Yes, Paul believed the Genesis account to be literal and factual. That is what he was taught, he would have had no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Archivist]

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

Not true.

 

[-57]

As I have said before--I really do get tired repeating things--sin entered the world. Exactly how that happened is irrelevant.

I can understand how one can have that view...especially when their view disagree's with what the bible teaches.

The how and why sin entered into the world is extremely important...as it is the reason why Christ came.
If you want to disagree with the bible on why Christ came and died...than have at it.

 

[-57]

First, don't tell me that my answer isn't "acceptable." I have remained polite in this conversation, I believe you can to.

Yes, Paul believed the Genesis account to be literal and factual. That is what he was taught, he would have had no reason to believe otherwise.

Why would anyone have a reason to disagree with what Paul and the other authors of the bible taught?

 

[Archivist]

I can understand how one can have that view...especially when their view disagree's with what the bible teaches.

The how and why sin entered into the world is extremely important...as it is the reason why Christ came.
If you want to disagree with the bible on why Christ came and died...than have at it.

But I don't disagree with the bible on why Christ came and died, nor do I disagree with what the Bible teaches.

 

[Archivist]

Why would anyone have a reason to disagree with what Paul and the other authors of the bible taught?

I've seen posters on CF disagree with the plain meaning of the words of Jesus when he said "this is my body."