Questions Regarding the Creation Story

[- DRA -]

Why do you want so desperately to talk about me?

Obviously, I mistook you for someone that I thought wanted to engage in a Bible discussion.

Uh, huh. You know, people can see you when you're lurking on threads? You were lurking on this one:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1967035&postcount=1[/QUOTE]

So, is that website taboo, and not open to public scrutiny? Sure, I was there . . . is that wrong because I took time to consider the reasoning of others? I didn't realize that I had to hide the fact that I sometimes do look at other threads. I even look at individual's posts sometimes to better understand how they reason from the Scriptures. Do I need your approval to do that? Is everyone that looks at threads "lurking," or just me?

Uh, huh. Why did you only answer selected parts of my post? Why did you keep trying to change the subject?

Okay, here's the deal. If you want to study the Bible, then start. Your agenda thus far hasn't shown any desire to do that. You attempts thus far have been to support Lee, downplay my reasoning, and undermine the apostle Paul's and Tertius' writings. Do you ever intend to study the Scriptures?

 

[Fideist]

This has to do with an assumption on your part - - one that you do not seem willing to acknowledge was wrong. Paul did not write the book of Romans. He addresses the church at Rome in the beginning of the epistle (Rom. 1:1,7), but did NOT actually write the book - - Tertius did (16:22).

Oh for crying out loud! By "wrote" it is meant that Paul authored the letter. Saying that he did not write the letter because he had scribal assistance is like saying that executive XYZ did not write a letter because his personal assistant physically keyed it into the computer.

Paul states that the gospel he preached was NOT according to man (Gal. 1:11-12). I don't have to assume that God was behind Paul's teaching, because God confirmed and bore witness that he was with Paul . . . and the other apostles (Heb. 2:2-4, Mk. 16:20).

Galatians is a polemic against the Jerusalem community headed by James and Peter who had accused Paul of having no authority and not being an apostle. How did God bear witness?

“All scripture” refers to the OT. Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means? Why did you only respond to selected parts of my post?

And where is your evidence that "all Scripture" in 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the O.T.?

See any competent commentary. Ask any minister that graduated from an accredited seminary.

Does the O.T. solely furnish us with all that we need to "be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (vs. 17)? If so, what need was there for a new testament or covenant (Heb. 7:18-19; 8:6-13)?

Like I said, see any competent commentary. Or better yet, get an intro to the NT so I don’t have to copy out the text for you.

Nobody put the book of Romans "in question." Please paste the text showing where I did that. Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

Your previous quote:

"First of all, Romans was written by Paul. That God wrote it through Paul is an assumption on your part, not a fact clearly in evidence."



Your statement not only puts the book of Romans "in question," but ALL of Paul's teachings and writings!

No it doesn't. You said that "God said," but “God” didn't say, Paul did. I agree that Paul was inspired, but to say that "God said" what Paul wrote, is simply overstating the case. Unless you're going to claim that God possessed Paul and caused Paul to write what he did, without Paul filtering anything?

My evidence is that homosexuality is being described in Rom. 1:26-27. What reasoning have you offered to show that homosexuality is not being discussed . . . and condemned . . . in those verses?

See the thread you were lurking on earlier.

Did God write 1 Cor? Where is your evidence that Romans 1:26-27 was written to mean exactly what you say it means?

You previously stated that "all Scripture" (2 Tim. 3:16) refers to the O.T. Did God write those books?

No. Writers wrote those books.

How about Lev. 18:22 and 20:13? Did God write those passages, or was Moses freelancing?

God did not write Leviticus! And you'll have a heck of a time showing that Moses did! Why don't you introduce the Leviticus quotes into the thread I gave the URL for, that discusses Romans, etc.? There's no point in having multiple threads on the same subject.

 

[Fideist]

Why do you want so desperately to talk about me?



Obviously, I mistook you for someone that I thought wanted to engage in a Bible discussion.

Fella, if you want to discuss things, there are ground rules. Part of those rules are that you don't intentionally commit logical fallacies. The first fallacy you don't comit is to attack the person rather than ther person's argument. If you want a discussion, confine your comments to my arguments and leave "me" out of it, okay?

Uh, huh. You know, people can see you when you're lurking on threads? You were lurking on this one:





http://www.christianforums.com/show...035&postcount=1

So, is that website taboo, and not open to public scrutiny? Sure, I was there . . . is that wrong because I took time to consider the reasoning of others? I didn't realize that I had to hide the fact that I sometimes do look at other threads. I even look at individual's posts sometimes to better understand how they reason from the Scriptures. Do I need your approval to do that? Is everyone that looks at threads "lurking," or just me?

Why didn't you quote what I was replying to when I said "Uh, huh."? The reason I remarked that I saw you lurking, was because the thread you were lurking on has been discussing the subject you posted in this thread late this morning, for a couple of days now. There's nothing wrong with lurking, but if you wanted to discuss Romans, why didn't you just post in the thread you were lurking in?

Uh, huh. Why did you only answer selected parts of my post? Why did you keep trying to change the subject?



Okay, here's the deal. If you want to study the Bible, then start. Your agenda thus far hasn't shown any desire to do that. You attempts thus far have been to support Lee, downplay my reasoning, and undermine the apostle Paul's and Tertius' writings. Do you ever intend to study the Scriptures?

No! Here's the deal: If you refuse to answer questions you find inconvenient, I'm going to point it out. Clear? If you attempt to drag other subjects into the conversation in order to try to changer the subject, I'm going to point it out, clear? If you attack me personally, instead of my arguments, I'm going to point it out, clear? If you lurk on another thread that is already discussing a subject, that you have suddenly decided to respond to in a separate thread, I'm going to point it out, clear?

 

[- DRA -]

This is all covered in the thread you were lurking on that I gave the URL for. [/size]

Again, you need to show that Romans, etc. says what you say it says and then you need to show how that homosexuality is a choice.

Originally Posted by: Fideist

According to your interpretation. But why should I accept your interpretation? I comprehend a different meaning when I read it. But to be fair, I'm reading it with other knowledge than just the translated words. I can read the raw language. I have consulted expert commentators. Not just one, but several. I know something of the history of first century Palestine, because I've read the work of first century historians. I've also read the work of scholars schooled in the anthropology of the region at the time. I know quite a bit about Paul because I’ve read scholarly treatises on him, etc. My interpretation is that Paul is describing and condemning the acts associated with the religious festivals of some of the Mystery religions. The transgression is not immorality, in his view, it is idolatry.

Fideist,

While I was "lurking" on the thread you seemed so concerned about, I came across a post that contained this quote. Why do you have to use "other knowledge" than what the verse says? Unless, of course, you don't want to accept what the verse tells you. That is the only logical reason why one would go to to "other sources."

I have no other interpretation to share with you, except what the verse says and means. I refuse to accept the "other sources" of information that lead one to reach a different conclusion than what the "raw language" of the Scripture says.

Look at the list of sins in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. How many of those sins are by man's own choosing? Do the same with all the sins in Rom. 1:18-32? How many of them are sins of man's own choosing? Tell me of the ones that you think are not sins of man's choosing, and why they are not.

. . . Denny

 

[- DRA -]

Fella, if you want to discuss things, there are ground rules. Part of those rules are that you don't intentionally commit logical fallacies. The first fallacy you don't comit is to attack the person rather than ther person's argument. If you want a discussion, confine your comments to my arguments and leave "me" out of it, okay?

Why didn't you quote what I was replying to when I said "Uh, huh."? The reason I remarked that I saw you lurking, was because the thread you were lurking on has been discussing the subject you posted in this thread late this morning, for a couple of days now. There's nothing wrong with lurking, but if you wanted to discuss Romans, why didn't you just post in the thread you were lurking in?

No! Here's the deal: If you refuse to answer questions you find inconvenient, I'm going to point it out. Clear? If you attempt to drag other subjects into the conversation in order to try to changer the subject, I'm going to point it out, clear? If you attack me personally, instead of my arguments, I'm going to point it out, clear? If you lurk on another thread that is already discussing a subject, that you have suddenly decided to respond to in a separate thread, I'm going to point it out, clear?

Matthew 11:16-19.

Acts 13:50-51.

These passages are my FINAL answer.

 

[Fideist]

This is all covered in the thread you were lurking on that I gave the URL for.
Again, you need to show that Romans, etc. says what you say it says and then you need to show how that homosexuality is a choice.





Originally Posted by: Fideist

[snip]
DRA posted text I wrote in this message:


http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1984831&postcount=113

I doubt it is acceptable to copy and paste text from thread to thread. But the text in question is at the bottom of the message.
[/snip]

Fideist,

While I was "lurking" on the thread you seemed so concerned about, I came across a post that contained this quote. Why do you have to use "other knowledge" than what the verse says?

What does the verse say, DRA, in Greek? More importantly, what does it mean? I doubt anyone can come to a clear understanding just by reading an English translation of the Bible.

Unless, of course, you don't want to accept what the verse tells you. That is the only logical reason why one would go to to "other sources."

No. I do not accept what you tell me the verse tells me. I prefer to study the Bible so that I do not misinterpret it to my detriment or the detriment of others.

I have no other interpretation to share with you, except what the verse says and means. I refuse to accept the "other sources" of information that lead one to reach a different conclusion than what the "raw language" of the Scripture says.

You have another interpretation, DRA – yours. You also have your own personal understanding.

Look at the list of sins in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. How many of those sins are by man's own choosing? Do the same with all the sins in Rom. 1:18-32? How many of them are sins of man's own choosing? Tell me of the ones that you think are not sins of man's choosing, and why they are not.

I'm not going to bother. No matter what I say, you'll insist your personal interpretation of the Bible is all that matters.



Why do you leave out verse 11, DRA?



"And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

 

[Fideist]

Matthew 11:16-19.

Acts 13:50-51.

These passages are my FINAL answer.

Fine with me.

 

[leecappella]

To Fideist & DRA:

Sorry if I've created a 'monster' here!

 

[Fideist]

To Fideist & DRA:

Sorry if I've created a 'monster' here!

I don't see anything to be sorry about, Lee. As with everything in life, there are rules of deportment. In discussion, demanding that your interrogatory (have you stopped beating your wife?) questions be answered, while avoiding answering any questions yourself by changing the subject or attacking you interlocutor's person, constitute poor deportment. But, without using these devices, the conservative Christian will likely not fare well.



All you have done is to call attention to the illogic of conservative Christians and their “plain” readings of the Bible. In my view, calling attention to such behavior is a good thing. PM me if you’d like some resources on how to spot and respond to logical fallacies.

 

[Rocinante]

Surely someone, by now, has mentioned that the word "Adam" means "mankind."

Thus when God created Adam, God created all mankind........men and women. And some of these men and women were gay, transgendered, bisexual, lesbian......every variation and expression of mankind that we now see on this earth.

And they are all beautiful.

 

[leecappella]

Surely someone, by now, has mentioned that the word "Adam" means "mankind."

Thus when God created Adam, God created all mankind........men and women. And some of these men and women were gay, transgendered, bisexual, lesbian......every variation and expression of mankind that we now see on this earth.

And they are all beautiful.

me: This is Strong's #120 in Genesis, correct? In contrast to Strong's #376, they do have differing meanings, wouldn't you say? Either post here or PM me to fill me in on your view of these terms. Thanks.

 

[Rocinante]

Gosh, I don't have a lot to share on this, Lee. I just always figured that to look at "Adam" as just one man was an impossible notion. Who did his children hook up with to have children of their own?

Adam had to be a symbolic figure.

Since the Hebrew meaning of the word includes interpreting it as "mankind," it seems logical to see the story of Adam as a story that talks about, not one person, but the creation of all humanity......a group.

 

[leecappella]

Gosh, I don't have a lot to share on this, Lee. I just always figured that to look at "Adam" as just one man was an impossible notion. Who did his children hook up with to have children of their own?

Adam had to be a symbolic figure.

Since the Hebrew meaning of the word includes interpreting it as "mankind," it seems logical to see the story of Adam as a story that talks about, not one person, but the creation of all humanity......a group.

Do you think "Adam" to be a symbolic figure of all humanity even after female is made from his 'rib'?

 

[Rocinante]

The woman who heard the stories told around a thousand campfires must have trouble holding their laughter as the puffed-up male leaders told that self-serving story and called for the women to bring them more beer.

 

[- DRA -]

Gosh, I don't have a lot to share on this, Lee. I just always figured that to look at "Adam" as just one man was an impossible notion. Who did his children hook up with to have children of their own?

Adam had to be a symbolic figure.

Since the Hebrew meaning of the word includes interpreting it as "mankind," it seems logical to see the story of Adam as a story that talks about, not one person, but the creation of all humanity......a group.

Let's see if Adam had to be a symbolic figure. Let's consider Romans chapter 5. In the last part of verse 14, we learn that Adam was a type of Christ. Verse 15 contrast's the ONE man's offense with the gift by the grace of ONE Man - - Jesus Christ. Therefore, if your premise is correct - - Adam was symbolic, a group of people - - then is Jesus also symbolic, a group of people?

 

[Rocinante]

The writer of Romans is giving you his take on the legend of creation. He prefers to see it as a story of "Adam" as one man. That's because he wanted to use the old legend of the creation of mankind to bolster his theology.

It was wishful interpretation.

Read it yourself in an accurate translation rather than an archaic one.

NRS Genesis 1:26-28
26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind {Heb [adam]} in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, {Syr: Heb [and over all the earth]} and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
27 So God created humankind {Heb [adam]} in his image,
in the image of God he created them; {Heb [him]}
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

Not much doubt about that.

 

[- DRA -]

The writer of Romans is giving you his take on the legend of creation. He prefers to see it as a story of "Adam" as one man. That's because he wanted to use the old legend of the creation of mankind to bolster his theology.

It was wishful interpretation.

The writer of Romans must have been using the same "wishful interpretation" as the writer of Acts. He stresses that God has made all nations of people from ONE blood (Acts 17:26).

Read it yourself in an accurate translation rather than an archaic one.

NRS Genesis 1:26-28
26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind {Heb [adam]} in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, {Syr: Heb [and over all the earth]} and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
27 So God created humankind {Heb [adam]} in his image,
in the image of God he created them; {Heb [him]}
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

Not much doubt about that.

Roz,

Is it possible that you missed something in the very text that you posted? You would have us think that "humankind" in the NRSV means a whole group of people. That is not the meaning of the Hebrew word "adam." It is translated in Gen. 1:26,27 as humankind or man (in the general sense). Look at the latter part of verse 27. The passage tells us what is included in the word "humankind" - - male and female. This is what Gen. 2:7,21-23 describes in more detail - - how God created the man and woman on the sixth day. Genesis 1 gives us an overview of God's creation of man on the sixth day, and Genesis 2 provides more detail of man's (Adam) . . . and woman's (Eve) creation. Romans 5:12-19 refers to the ONE man who was a type of Christ, and Acts 17:26 refers to the ONE blood that all nations descended from. These passages agree with the Genesis account. God created only ONE man and ONE woman on the sixth day - - not a group.

I have a copy of the NRSV that I sometimes use in studying. You assume that I only use the "archaic" KJV. Actually, I use the NKJV most frequently, but also use the NASV. Contrary to your opinion, I find the KJV to be fairly accurate. I reference the KJV frequently because it is widely accepted by most people, and is used as the basis for several lexicons and concordances that I have found to be very helpful in studying Hebrew and Greek words.

 

[Rocinante]

Well, science shows us very clearly that the sixth day was WAY more than 24 hours and that WAY more than one man and one woman were created.

Just as the Bible says, God created HUMANKIND......just as the archaeological record shows.

The KJV doesn't present a problem for experienced scholars who are familiar with its limitations, but it sure leads the novices astray.......as do the primitive FundaGelical commentaries often provided with it.