The literalist/historical position to the Old Testament and to Genesis in particular is the only truthful and honest position and the only one God will bless with His favor.
And God told you this?
With the exception to many of the obviously symbolic passages in Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon, most of the Old Testament is historical/literal just as the narratives in the gospel reveals the history of Jesus birth, life, and death, and resurrection.
You forget the law was given as a figurative illustration a shadow of what is in heaven, Heb 10:1
For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. And of course you also missed out the prophets which are full of metaphor and allegory.
There is no theological or scientific reason to reject what the Lord Jesus and His disciples wrote
Yet you reject Christ's teaching his disciple to understand metaphor and parables, you reject his teaching them to interpret the OT as speaking of his sufferings, you never did explain where Jesus stepped on the head of the snake that spoke to Eve, and you ignore the fact the NT is full of figurative interpretation of the OT.
of in the New Testament that should cause us to doubt that what is recorded about Adam, Eve, Seth, Cain, Abel, Enoch, and Noah
Is there a single passage in the NT where the point of what is being taught the literal interpretation of the patriarchs, or do they serve as allegories, moral lessons, encouragements and warnings? Insist the whole point is the literal historicity and you miss out on the real meaning which is there for those who understand Genesis speaks figuratively as well as literally. 2Cor 3:6
For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Observe this: has a legitimate past in real history than there is to doubt that what is recorded of David, Solomon, Isaiah, and Elijah later in history and still more of Jesus, Peter, John, James, and Paul yet later in human history.
Observe:
And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD
I Kings 6:1
Most Bible scholars tell us that this gives the historical account of the origin of Solomons temple which history & archeology tells us was a real, physical structure that once sat where the temple mount now exists in Jerusalem. I have personally seen the western wall of the temple and its now crumbled rocks/remains are just over that wall on the temple mount itself.
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Now, pray tell: what is the difference between the two expressions in the accounts between the beginning of the building of Solomons temple and the beginning of the great flood of Noah?
Apart from being two different passages by two different authors on two different subjects in two different books? Well for one thing, 1Kings give the date, both from the time of the Exodus and in regnal years, while Genesis tells us Noah's age. However I am not sure even Moses took the the long lifespans of the Patriarch literally. Moses described a normal human lifespan as 70 or 80 Psalm 90:10 The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty. 'The years of our life', Moses includes himself in this, yet a literal reading of the OT tells us that the longevity of the patriarchs had still not come to an end at this stage, Moses' father Amram lived to 137, while Moses lived to 120. It is an interesting illustration you bring up, two very similar passage, yet one contains figurative language running through it. It is interesting how Moses description of a normal human lifespan if found in the same creation psalm where he shows us we should not always take God's days literally.
We get the same thing in historical narratives like Joshua commanding the sun and moon to stand still. If you read the passage literally, it is describing a geocentric cosmos where it is the sun that moves across the sky as it circles the earth, Joshua command the sun to stop so it stopped moving and after the miracles hurried along to the place it set. And that is how Christians took its meaning for most of the history of the church, yet we now know the sun does not go round the earth and this historical narrative includes language that simply isn't to be taken literally, but is God communicating in a way that accommodates the understanding of the people of the time.
There isnt any. And no writer of scripture treated the two matters any differently as far as actual history is concerned.
Apart from Moses who didn't take the the long life spans literally.
Observe:
But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face ofthe whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark. Genesis 8:9.
Compared to:
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
What, pray tell, is the difference between the scope and breadth of action involved in Genesis and what Jesus said about the end of the world in Luke 21:33-35?
Apart from one using the Hebrew word erets and the other the Greek gē? It is a pretty important distinction, because it is the Hebrew erets you haven't been able to get around, it usually means land rather than earth, on the other hand ge is translated earth almost three times as often as it is translated land. Even there you have problems, because it is not at all clear that Jesus is referring to the whole earth rather than the land of Judea. You quoted Adam Clark a few post ago, this what he has to say on Luke 21:35
The face of the whole earth - Or, of this whole land. The land of Judea, on which these heavy judgments were to fall. See Luk_21:25; see also Luk_2:1.
Worth pointing out you never replied when I answered your claim 'the face of the earth' in Gen 6:7 can't be local.
Calypsis4:
Genesis 6:5-7 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 ¶ And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
But according to you and your unbelieving comrades 'the face of the earth' was LOCAL!
Assyrian: Was the plague of locusts global or did it just cover the land of Egypt?
Exodus 10:4 Else, if thou refuse to let my people go, behold, to morrow will I bring the locusts into thy coast: 5 And they shall cover the face of the earth, that one cannot be able to see the earth: and they shall eat the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth unto you from the hail, and shall eat every tree which groweth for you out of the field:
Glad you brought up those verses because they set the context for the flood. It was because of the wickedness in the land, erets, that God sent the flood Gen 6:5. There is no reason to think God sent the flood anywhere else. it was Noah's land that was was filled with wickedness and it was this land that God destroyed.
Instead of trying to answer, you simply ignore the problem, as you do with all the problems in your interpretation. Instead you bring the claim up again, only this time you chose 'the face of the whole earth' from Gen 8:9, maybe if you can't argue 'the face of the earth' is the whole globe you will be able to get away with it if you try 'the face of the whole earth'. You should really have had a look at that passage about the plague of locusts. It goes on to say, Exodus 10:15 For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt. You haven't thought it through, if erets can mean that region then the face of the whole erets means the surface of that whole region.
None. Both involve the entire world.
Actually they could mean either the whole earth or that whole land. Going on the specific words used and what they usually mean, erets in Genesis is more likely to mean land, while ge in Luke is more likely to mean the whole earth. But you would need to look at the context for anything more specific. However there is nothing in the context of Genesis that suggests it is anything other than the normal meaning of erets the land, while as we have see the words use after the flood suggests a much more local meaning of the word. The whole erets was of one language... when everyone speaking that languagelived in a small area west of the plain of Shinar.
But think about the dove that Noah sent forth; IF the flood of Noah was a local flood then the dove could have found land easily. But Moses gave us the reason why the little bird could not find land: for the waters were upon the face of the whole earth.
I had a quick google, your homing pigeon can fly a thousand miles to get home, on the other hand a wild pigeon will normally only fly 12 miles a day. Would Noahs' doves have considered the ark their home? I can't imagine them wandering off that far from safety and home.
"I know the meaning of your name Calypsis!"
Sméagol
!
