Question about Genesis

[BobRyan]

Good point -

In blind faith evolutionism man is now in "Paradise" compared to the tooth-and-claw predation-starvation-to-better-life model we had at the start. What "sin" could the hominid Adam possibly have committed as he sat in his cave bashing in his daily catch of monkey brains - such that God would then have to die for the sins of mankind???

theo-evol makes nonsense of the Gospel.

 

[-57]

Good point -

In blind faith evolutionism man is now in "Paradise" compared to the tooth-and-claw predation-starvation-to-better-life model we had at the start. What "sin" could the hominid Adam possibly have committed as he sat in his cave bashing in his daily catch of monkey brains - such that God would then have to die for the sins of mankind???

theo-evol makes nonsense of the Gospel.

There is a simple denial of Pauls words when he said sin and death entered because of one man. The Theo-Evos then have to change the bible's meaning of Adam to some sort of evolving population then find a way to get the population to all sin. When doing this they squarely contradict Genesis. What caused their population to sin? A sin mutation. What else?

 

[joshua 1 9]

No we don't. I know of no reason Jesus cannot speak of fictional people.

He does speak of fictional people, he just does not give them a name.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I don't know that marking a time-line is of particular importance. I would agree they all mark significant interactions between God and the people of Israel which are examples to us all.

Today is the day and now is the time of salvation. "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place."

Noah preached repentance for 120 years but people would not listen to him. The day came and the door to the ark was closed and it was to late. They perish in their sin.

 

[dms1972]

The Bible says: "lights in the firmament" God is not talking about the "creation of the sun", He is talking about the firmament and the way our atmosphere handles light from the sun. This is explained with the physics of light...

Great point.

"the waters which were above the firmament" verse 7, what does this refer to?

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68571386, member: 235244"]It is the Word of God - and it means exactly what it says -- no mythology, no allegory, no metaphors there.

As for "plants" well... that is a problem for theistic evolutionist christians - but not for Christians that accept the Bible as it is written. For us God created "light" on day 1 and "there was evening and morning" for 2 days prior to plants. So then on day 4 with the creation of the sun - the only question is not "about plants" that would have survived one whole day before the Sun - but rather the question is about the zillion-and-1 options that God has for a "source of light" other than the Sun. Which of them did He use?

What is odd about this - is that even among the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities - this seems to be the present understanding. That the bible writer in Gen 1:1-2:1-3 meant exactly what he said - literally. (Whether you accept the historicity of the Bible or not - and certainly they don't)

============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================[/QUOTE]

We both agree that the Bibles have some parts that are figurative and some that are historical, right? We both agree that Genesis has figurative parts, right

Not in Genesis 1-3

 

[gluadys]

Great point.

"the waters which were above the firmament" verse 7, what does this refer to?

The ancient cosmology which the biblical writers worked with considered the primeval creation to consist wholly of water. The creation of the firmament was for the purpose of creating a space in the waters. So the waters above the firmament, like the waters under the earth are the primeval waters. Within the infinity of waters is the created world of sky and earth.

In Proverbs 8, Wisdom describes God drawing a circle on the face of the waters beneath the firmament to mark the border of land and sea. Foundations are set in the waters beneath the firmament to support the earth which is spread out above them. And the firmament arches overall, with the upper waters above that.

The ancients had no concept of outer space. Sun, moon and stars were all within the firmament. What we would think of as outer space, they thought of as endless waters.

 

[-57]

For a fascinating video, check this out. It's about 20 min.
It uses the Genesis text and applies science to it.

 

[dms1972]

The ancient cosmology which the biblical writers worked with considered the primeval creation to consist wholly of water. The creation of the firmament was for the purpose of creating a space in the waters. So the waters above the firmament, like the waters under the earth are the primeval waters. Within the infinity of waters is the created world of sky and earth.

In Proverbs 8, Wisdom describes God drawing a circle on the face of the waters beneath the firmament to mark the border of land and sea. Foundations are set in the waters beneath the firmament to support the earth which is spread out above them. And the firmament arches overall, with the upper waters above that.

The ancients had no concept of outer space. Sun, moon and stars were all within the firmament. What we would think of as outer space, they thought of as endless waters.

This is interesting. CS Lewis wrote a novel called Out of the Silent Planet, in which he depicts a journey aboard a spaceship to Mars, but as the journey progresses, one of the characters - Ransom, feels more and more enlivened, or his spirits lifted by the journey - and that the term 'Outer Space' is very inappropriate to describe what they are travelling through and that its more like an ocean - not that its actually water, but at the same time he feels to call it "outer space" does it an injustice.

"A nightmare, long engendered in the modern mind by the mythology that follows in the wake of science, was falling off him. He had read of "Space": at the back of his thinking for years had lurked the dismal fancy of the black, cold vacuity, the utter deadness, which was supposed to separate the worlds. He had not known how much it affected him till now - now that the very name "Space" seemed a blasphemous libel for this empyrean ocean of radiance in which they swam. He could not call it "dead"; he felt life pouring into him from it every moment...Older thinkers had been wiser when they named it simply the heavens..."

Here is an interesting article on it I just came across if you want to read further:

http://www.bethinking.org/your-studies/chronicles-of-heaven-unshackled/3-out-of-the-silent-planet

 

[Citanul]

hat is odd about this - is that even among the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities - this seems to be the present understanding.

...

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

1984 is the present?

 

[gluadys]

This is interesting. CS Lewis wrote a novel called Out of the Silent Planet, in which he depicts a journey aboard a spaceship to Mars, but as the journey progresses, one of the characters - Ransom, feels more and more enlivened, or his spirits lifted by the journey - and that the term 'Outer Space' is very inappropriate to describe what they are travelling through and that its more like an ocean - not that its actually water, but at the same time he feels to call it "outer space" does it an injustice.

"A nightmare, long engendered in the modern mind by the mythology that follows in the wake of science, was falling off him. He had read of "Space": at the back of his thinking for years had lurked the dismal fancy of the black, cold vacuity, the utter deadness, which was supposed to separate the worlds. He had not known how much it affected him till now - now that the very name "Space" seemed a blasphemous libel for this empyrean ocean of radiance in which they swam. He could not call it "dead"; he felt life pouring into him from it every moment...Older thinkers had been wiser when they named it simply the heavens..."

Here is an interesting article on it I just came across if you want to read further:

http://www.bethinking.org/your-studies/chronicles-of-heaven-unshackled/3-out-of-the-silent-planet

I love that book! Have you read the sequels as well?

 

[gluadys]

1984 is the present?

It was when he wrote it.

 

[Papias]

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 quite 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.
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*.

No, it says "son", unless you are suggesting that whenever scripture says "son", it could mean "son in law", or anything else? So Jesus was actually God's son in law? How about Solomon being David's son in law? Look, you can't just decide to change the text of your Bible when it suites you. It's obvious disrespect for God's word.

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

Good, let's look at some reasons why.

First, your list of names - Really? Or are you just making that up? Would you care to cite where in their writings it says this?

Please do so, because when you do, it will help confirm what I said earlier - that this "Mary's lineage" idea is an idea that people made up later, one which contradicts scripture.

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

Again, first, show me the where in the Talmud it says that. And second - and more importantly - it's irrelevant, since (I hope) you know that the Talmud was written centuries later. That's like asking me who Chief Pontiac's mother was. Instead of going by what the scripture says.

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.

That's silly. Every 1st century Jew is a descendant of David. That's like saying that it's Mary's line so as to prove Jesus had two eyeballs. Legends have David having hundreds of kids and grandkids, and that's 900 years before Jesus. Heck, you and I, along with practically all Americans, are descendants of David. There was no need to prove that.

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 employs Joseph1s name,
instead of Mary's, in *accordance with the Israelite law*
that * genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers.*

Complete speculation that doesn't make logical sense. You are making up the ideas that Mary had no brothers, that either parent needs to be shown to be descended from David, that Joseph's line would matter anyway (since he isn't the father), and so on. You provide no evidence for any of this, the pieces don't support your conclusion, and again, it is shown to be wrong by scripture anyway.

Just for the record..
Joseph was Jacobs son by birth. Eli was Josephs father in law.

Sorry, but your reasons don't make sense, and simply stating this doesn't help either.

********************************

Either Joseph was literal and historical or Joseph was figurative...which one.

But back to the list...here it is once again....I hi-lited David. Was he just figurative and not in the linage of Jesus?

Um, what? Surely you know that a figurative story of any kind can still reference people and things that really exist right? Maybe an example would help you. Dickins' "tale of two cities" is some of the best known fiction out there, and it includes both London and Paris, two real cities. Stories of Pythagoras include him walking on water and on air, and Pythagoras appears to have been real - so the stories that include him are real?

King David appears to have likely been real - though archeology has not supported all the stories about him.

You didn't respond to this:

Thus, the skipped generations (between Mt and Chr) show that these are to be interpreted figuratively - at least for anyone who doesn't want to conclude that parts of their Bible are factually incorrect.

Nor this:

-57, we both agree that the Bibles have some parts that are figurative and some that are historical, right? We both agree that Genesis has figurative parts, right (because claiming it is all literal rejects the Christian doctrine of original sin, etc.). Since we both agree on that, then of course any Bible will switch at times from one to the other - are you rejecting that your Bible has both historical and figurative parts?

In Jesus' Name-

Papias

 

[dms1972]

I love that book! Have you read the sequels as well?

Yes.

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68571386, member: 235244"]It is the Word of God - and it means exactly what it says -- no mythology, no allegory, no metaphors there.

As for "plants" well... that is a problem for theistic evolutionist christians - but not for Christians that accept the Bible as it is written. For us God created "light" on day 1 and "there was evening and morning" for 2 days prior to plants. So then on day 4 with the creation of the sun - the only question is not "about plants" that would have survived one whole day before the Sun - but rather the question is about the zillion-and-1 options that God has for a "source of light" other than the Sun. Which of them did He use?

What is odd about this - is that even among the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities - this seems to be the present understanding. That the bible writer in Gen 1:1-2:1-3 meant exactly what he said - literally. (Whether you accept the historicity of the Bible or not - and certainly they don't)

============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================[/QUOTE]

1984 is the present?

Would it help if they wrote the same thing every year?

 

[Citanul]

Would it help if they wrote the same thing every year?

It would. That quote may tell you what the understanding amongst scholars was 30 years ago, but where's the evidence that it hasn't changed since then?

 

[BobRyan]

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 68576843, member: 235244"]
It is the Word of God - and it means exactly what it says -- no mythology, no allegory, no metaphors there.

As for "plants" well... that is a problem for theistic evolutionist christians - but not for Christians that accept the Bible as it is written. For us God created "light" on day 1 and "there was evening and morning" for 2 days prior to plants. So then on day 4 with the creation of the sun - the only question is not "about plants" that would have survived one whole day before the Sun - but rather the question is about the zillion-and-1 options that God has for a "source of light" other than the Sun. Which of them did He use?

What is odd about this - is that even among the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities - this seems to be the present understanding. That the bible writer in Gen 1:1-2:1-3 meant exactly what he said - literally. (Whether you accept the historicity of the Bible or not - and certainly they don't)

============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

Would it help if they wrote the same thing every year?[/QUOTE]

It would.

Thank God - Christians don't need God to write the Bible "new again every year" and scientists don't need physics texts books to be written from scratch every year -

That quote may tell you what the understanding amongst scholars was 30 years ago, but where's the evidence that it hasn't changed since then?

Well everyone agrees that Hebrew language in the Bible text - did not continually change over the last 30 years and we also know that the translators of that text - in new-version after new-version did not find the Hebrew language changing during that 30 years.

With no imagery, no metaphors, no symbols - it reads as it reads and even the most diehard evolutionists will admit that Moses was not a "Darwinist" nor were the newly-freed-slaves from Egypt likely to be "reading Darwinism INTO the text".

It is obvious to all at that point.

 

[BobRyan]

It is not the professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who are compromised on the text of Gen 1-2:3 because they have no "agenda" that it match evolutionism - they are happy whether it matches or not since they are not Christians and merely treat it "as literature" - as "some historic text of interest". If it matched evolutionism then they would just react with something like "my how surprising" - they don't "need" it to match.

 

[mmksparbud]

So God created light before He created the sun---then that is what He did. If you look up "light", there are many aspects to it which were not known about back then. There is "invisible" light--invisible to us that is--certainly not to God. That part of light is needed by plant life also and would have been enough to keep things going until God created the sun. There is ultra violet light, infrared, gamma......just can't we can't figure it out doesn't mean that Genesis is not factual, it can take science a awhile to catch up to what God is talking about!

 

[Citanul]

Well everyone agrees that Hebrew language in the Bible text - did not continually change over the last 30 years and we also know that the translators of that text - in new-version after new-version did not find the Hebrew language changing during that 30 years.

It's not about the Hebrew language. Your James Barr quote deals with the intent of the authors and what scholars believe it to be.

It's entirely possible that the belief has changed in the 30 years since Barr wrote those words. It's also entirely possible that the belief hasn't changed. However, you're making the claim that it hasn't changed without providing any evidence to support that claim.