The myth explanation

[Critias]

Is there any theistic evolutionists here that can explain the Genesis myth conclusion? I am not looking for links, I am looking for your own words, with Scriptural support to show that Genesis is meant as a myth.

I have challenged this before and have never gotten a real response from anyone.

It would be beneficial to see an anylsis of Genesis showing that the author did indeed intend it to be understood as a myth.

No links, do your own investigation and analysis please. This will help others, who not of like mind, understand where you are coming from and why you see it that way. Just stating that there were other myths at the time so Genesis is a myth is a copout answer.

 

[gluadys]

Is there any theistic evolutionists here that can explain the Genesis myth conclusion? I am not looking for links, I am looking for your own words, with Scriptural support to show that Genesis is meant as a myth.

I have challenged this before and have never gotten a real response from anyone.

It would be beneficial to see an anylsis of Genesis showing that the author did indeed intend it to be understood as a myth.

No links, do your own investigation and analysis please. This will help others, who not of like mind, understand where you are coming from and why you see it that way. Just stating that there were other myths at the time so Genesis is a myth is a copout answer.

LOL Basically you are asking for a university course in literary genres followed up by an application of genre study to biblical narratives.

Also because it is a question of literary genre, the identification of a passage as myth cannot be supported by proof texts. The identification of a passage as myth rests on an overall analysis of the characteristics of the text as a whole. A passage is a myth if it has the characteristics of a myth, just as a passage is a poem if it has the characteristics of a poem and it is an apocalypse if it has the characteristics of an apocalypse.

"Myth" is a word that has many meanings outside of its literary meaning. If a person is not aware that in the field of literary criticism (aka analysis) myth has specific characteristics, they may think of myth in terms of these other meanings and that would be to miss the point.

It may be helpful to the discussion for you to set out what you see as the principal characteristics of myth. They are probably not the same as the literary characteristics.

Literary genres do not exist in watertight compartments and often overlap with similar genres. Myth tends to overlap with both legend and fable. The chief difference between these genres is the principal character. In fables, the principal characters, often the only characters, are animals. I can't recall an example of pure fable in the bible, but we do have stories that feature talking animal characters in the story of Balaam's donkey and in the story of the Fall. In legend the principal characters are humans, though the humans may have divine origins (Hercules) and/or super-human qualities (Paul Bunyan). Legends grow quickly around any especially charismatic person even today (Elvis Presley). Almost all we know of the great OT figures such as Abraham, Moses or David is legend, some of which may also be history. In myth the principal characters are deities or a deity. Other characters are seen in their relation to the deities or deity who is the central character of the myth.

I don't want to make this post too long. Let's begin with the principle that when speaking of myth in the bible it is important to establish what myth is and how it can be identified.

So, when speaking of myth in the bible, we are speaking of a literary genre identified by specific characteristics. Other meanings of myth in the dictionary or in popular speech should be set aside. They are not relevant.

One characteristic of a myth is that the central character is God (or in polytheistic cultures, gods.)

 

[billwald]

"Myth" is define as a story of beginnings. A myth could be true or a fable.

 

[gluadys]

"Myth" is define as a story of beginnings. A myth could be true or a fable.

I think you are using "fable" as a synonym for "false" just as many people use "myth" as a synonym for "false".

As a literary genre a fable is not a falsity. It is also a story. The characteristics of a fable are:

the principal characters are animals, not humans or deities. Most fables feature only animals.

It is a short story used to drive home a moral point. A fable always has a moral attached.

Since the point of a fable is its moral, it would be incorrect to say a fable is false. That would mean the moral is false, and in most cases the moral is true.

But it would be correct to say that the story part of a fable is fiction. It does not refer to a factual event. That does not mean it is false.

 

[The Lady Kate]

"Myth" is define as a story of beginnings. A myth could be true or a fable.

Not even beginnings...

From Encarta... MYTH: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior.
Genesis certainly fits the description, doesn't it?

 

[neverforsaken]

well, im a Theistic evolutionist, but i dont believe it is a myth.

check this ultra scientific classification of the bat in laviticus 11:13-19

'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

I find the explainations in the bible that conflict with the old texts not to be a flaw or falsity of God, but an inability for ancient man to comprehend complex scientific information. consider this, the United states was "discovered" by Christopher Columbus but his mission was almost cancelled because they thought he would fall off the face of the earth. at one time we thought we were the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around us. it was just over 50 years ago that DNA was discovered and just about two decades ago did we even start the human genome project. at the time the bible was written, they though sickness was caused by bad blood and many believed that there was fire hidden in wood that would appear if you exposed it to fire. the people making fire the old fasioned way of the stick on a piece of drift wood werent trying to create friction to generate heat, they were drilling for fire.

so overall, my beliefs are that the bible is not made to answer complex scientific questions. it is a book to preach to your soul, and has nothing to do with the natural world.

 

[Critias]

You might want to actually investigate Levitcus 11:13 and see that the hebrew is flying creatures, not just birds.

Is there anyone who can provide their own evidence of why they see Genesis as a myth? Or do you just say so because that is what you feel?

 

[Joykins]

For what it's worth, I think the 2nd creation story in Genesis (Genesis 2 ff) pretty well fits the definition of allegory. (A simplified definition of an allegory would be a highly symbolic story where the symbolic meanings are more important than the literal ones. Characters and objects often represent something else, and these are often keyed by the names--for example, Christian and Lady Bountiful are names of characters in the allegory _Pilgrim's Progress_, and the Slough of Despond is the name of a place in that same book.)

The two named trees in Genesis 2 are the Tree of Life, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil--not apple or pear trees. The Serpent stands for Satan (the tempter)--this is the interpretation even of "literalists." And so forth.

I think that story is an allegory with mythic intent as it explains that we are NOT just like the animals, that we are moral actors--because we have the ability to understand good and evil, we are responsible for the decisions we make, we will inevitably use this knowledge to make "wrong" decisions; that this separates us from God; and yes, we can be tempted...

Joy

 

[neverforsaken]

You might want to actually investigate Levitcus 11:13 and see that the hebrew is flying creatures, not just birds.

my point is that the bible as we know it refers to them as birds. even if it is a mistranslation the people who wrote the bible wrote a mistake because they either assumed bats were birds or they mistranslated it and despite mistranslating it didnt seem to know any better that they werent birds.

 

[gluadys]

You might want to actually investigate Levitcus 11:13 and see that the hebrew is flying creatures, not just birds.

Is there anyone who can provide their own evidence of why they see Genesis as a myth? Or do you just say so because that is what you feel?

Time to get a little more specific.

First we have two creation accounts in Genesis. This has been evident for centuries and biblical commentators speculated on why long before any tools of modern scholarship were brought to bear on the biblical text.

Linguistic analysis shows us that the two accounts were produced by two different writers.

Now to speak of "Genesis" being a myth is far too vague. Only one section of Genesis is truly myth. That is the section that begins in the second half of Gen. 2:4 where it says "In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens...", and continues to the end of chapter 4. The preceeding account is not myth. From chapter 12 on, most of Genesis is legend, not myth. The principal characters are human and may even have been real historical individuals. The places are mostly real, and the culture is realistic for the time.

In between the second creation story and the call of Abraham, we have two stories (the Great Flood, the Tower of Babel) which fall somewhere in between myth and legend, in that they have some of the characteristics of both. i.e. both could derive from an actual event, as legends may, but both have been mythologized more than legends usually are.

So when we look at Genesis 2:4b-4:26 why do we identify it as myth?

1. The principal character of the story is God. God creates earth and heaven. God creates a man. God plants a garden and set the man in the gardern to till it and care for it. God notices the man's solitude and creates animals to help him. When these prove insufficient, God creates a woman who is part of the man's very flesh. God gives the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge and judges the man, woman and serpent when the command is disobeyed. God expels the man and woman from the garden. God gives them children and God deals with Cain both in warning and in judgment.

2. The story is not set in historical time but in the mists of the long ago "day when the LORD God created heaven and earth" (There is no mention of six/seven days in this story.) It is a story of beginnings, not of history.

3. The story contains numerous symbolical elements such as the two trees in the garden, the serpent, the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, the garden, the expulsion of from the garden, and testing of the human characters.

4. The story explains why things are as they are. Why does a snake have no legs, why do women experience pain in childbirth, why do thorns and thistles crowd out cultivated plants, where did the technology of civilization come from, why do men and women marry, why do we die?

In pre-scientific days, myth functioned as a "popular science" by providing answers to what we would now think of as scientific questions. Consider the Greek myth of Demeter and Persephone. Ask an ancient Greek why we have summer and winter, and he would say nothing about the orbit of the earth around the sun. He would tell the story of Demeter grieving during the six months of the year her daughter had to spend time in Hades.

5. The story is applicable to all times. Its lessons are timeless. We see this in Jesus pointing to the mating of the man and woman in this story as the basis of marriage.

6. The story identifies the Hebrew people. This is often a function of myth: to build up the cultural identity of a people, to tell them who they are in relation to others. The story throughout names the creator as Yahweh (the LORD in many modern texts) Elohim (God)---Yahweh God--the God of Israel. It does not simply say "God" created, but "Yahweh God" created. This is the story of the beginning of Yahweh's people.

Identifying a passage as myth is not a matter of "feeling". It is a matter of looking for specific characteristics such as the six above.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Is there anyone who can provide their own evidence of why they see Genesis as a myth? Or do you just say so because that is what you feel?

Here's my own perspective on the first few chapters of Genesis:

Genesis 1:1-2:3
This passage uses a very different style of writing than what follows; indeed, it is without match in the entire Bible. Probably the closest literary parallel to this section is Revelation 6 and 8:1-5 which describe the seven seals. One account uses a framework of days, the other uses a framework of seals. Both accounts use a repeated phrase to introduce/conclude the seven items (the phrase varies slightly on the first and seventh days, and all but the second through fourth seals). Both accounts set off the seventh item as special. Both accounts portray God's actions from his dwelling place (through speech or through the breaking of seals on a document) as dramatically affecting our world. Both describe events that had not been witnessed by humans at the time of writing (John witnessed the vision, but not the actual events). In both accounts, the degree of literal description is highly debated.

There are other reasons not to presume that this passage is a historical account. It describes the same one-time event on both days 1 and 4: the separation of light (called day) from darkness (called night). It uses anthropomorphism to describe the sun and moon as ruling day and night. It completely ignores describing anything that would contradict the science of its time: no hint is given to the size of the sun, moon or stars, or to the fact that the earth is roughly spherical, and the idea of a firmament fits perfectly with what was then known. While these things can be reconciled with what we now know, the account does not in any way reveal what humans would later discover in these areas.

Another major reason is that the days are arranged in a way that creates symmetry between the actions on the first three days (forming light; sky and seas; dry land covered with vegetation) and the second three days (filling light with luminaries; sky and seas with birds and fish; dry land with animals and humans). This symmetry is only present because of the specific elements the author chose to focus on. If the creation of angels, bacteria, seaweed and hell were also included, the current symmetric arrangement would break. Because of this, it is unlikely that the symmetry is due to the way God actually created, but was rather made by the inspired author in how he chose to describe certain aspects of God's creation.

Probably the most common reason given is that if this account and the one following in Genesis 2 are both historical, they do not fit together very well. In a plain reading, the order of creation in Genesis 2 is man, plants, land animals and birds, woman. The order in Genesis 1 is plants, fish and birds, land animals and humans. The first account starts with primordial waters overwhelming an earth that is "formless and void" (Gen. 1:1-2) while the second starts with primordial ground in need of rain (Gen. 2:4-5). In the first God tells the humans to rule over the other creatures and subdue the earth; in the second man is placed in the garden to "work it and take care of it". The first portrays God creating mainly by speaking; the second has God forming Adam from dust and breathing life into him, with the animals and birds similarly formed out of the ground. The first portrays God (Elohim, the Hebrew generic name for God) as above his creation while in the second God (Yahweh, the Hebrew personal name for God) walks in the garden with Adam and Eve. There are many creative ways to attempt reconciliation between the accounts, but all have problems and all require more exegetical gymnastics than one would expect to be required to fit together two accounts presented back-to-back in Scripture. A far more straight-forward reconciliation is possible if one accepts that they are not both intended to be historical accounts.

Finally, the days in this account serve a purpose other than history. They also set the template for the work week and Sabbath. While this alone does not show that the days are not also historical, it does explain why a framework of days would be used even if the days were not historical.

All these reasons are based on the text itself. Even if creation itself in no way contradicted the order of creation shown in Genesis 1, there would still be many reasons to not take the account as historical. Indeed, that is why the days were suggested to be figurative at least as far back as Augustine -- long before any scientific reason for such an idea existed.

Genesis 2:4-4:26
This account reads far more like a historical account than the preceding chapter. But, it still has some significant differences, especially in the first two chapters. Most glaring is the fact that two trees are given magic properties. The tree of life is able to convey immortality to the one who eats from it, and this power appears to be inherent in the tree, rather than coming from God. Indeed, God removes the humans from the garden so they cannot eat from this tree, rather than just altering or removing the tree. Because of the way this tree and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are portrayed, it appears that they may be metaphorical. The tree of life represents God's sustaining power. Adam and Eve had access to this while they were in the garden (so they would not die), but were removed from it when they sinned. The tree is a tangible, physical representation of something we cannot physically see.

The form of story that uses these type of metaphors may be called a fable. A fable is not a fib, but rather a story that explains something true -- often something supernatural -- by using natural objects to represent more than they naturally are. Aside from the magic trees, there is also the talking serpent. Unlike Balaam's donkey that was made to talk when "the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey" (Numbers 22:28), the serpent talks because it "was more crafty than any other beast of the field" (Genesis 3:1). Because this unusual occurrence is not attributed to a miracle or other supernatural event, but rather to craftiness, it lends support to the idea that the story is told in the form of a fable.

A similar case, though not a fable, can be found in Isaiah 51:9-10. This passage describes God's power in the exodus and specifically in crossing the Red Sea. In it, the power of Egypt is personified as Rahab (see also Isaiah 30:7), a mythical god of the sea. The use of this kind of metaphor does not mean the event did not really happen, but neither does it mean that Rahab is a real god. I believe the event did happen, but Isaiah 51:9-10 uses more evocative imagery to describe it than the description in Exodus. Similarly, Genesis 2-3 uses non-literal imagery (including magic trees and talking animals) to describe the creation and fall of humanity.

 

[gluadys]

For what it's worth, I think the 2nd creation story in Genesis (Genesis 2 ff) pretty well fits the definition of allegory. (A simplified definition of an allegory would be a highly symbolic story where the symbolic meanings are more important than the literal ones. Characters and objects often represent something else, and these are often keyed by the names--for example, Christian and Lady Bountiful are names of characters in the allegory _Pilgrim's Progress_, and the Slough of Despond is the name of a place in that same book.)

Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory. Jesus' parable of the Sower is an allegory in which the different soils represent different sorts of people to whom the word comes. The defining characteristic of an allegory is that the symbols stand for specific things.

That is why the 2nd creation story is better described as myth. It is filled with symbols, but they are not keyed to specific things.

The Serpent stands for Satan (the tempter)--this is the interpretation even of "literalists." And so forth.

Case in point. In this story the serpent does not stand for Satan. At the time this story was written, the figure of Satan was not part of Jewish theology. Later, when Judaism imported the concept of Satan from the Zoroastrians, the rabbis' back-interpreted Satan into the story, but that was not the original intent of the author since he wrote at a time when Satan was unknown to the Jews.

Richard Friedman gives another fascinating account of how the formation of the bible generates interpretations of the whole which are not possible of each section in particular. He notes for example that the first creation account (which was written much later than the second one was) speaks of God creating us in his image. In the second account the serpent tells Eve that the fruit of the tree will make one wise and like God. Friedman notes that this is a temptation which can only be effective on a creature that is already somewhat like God. But at the time it was written, the author did not have the "image of God" in mind, because that wouldn't be written for another 2-3 centuries! One might never note this connection if one always studied the two stories separately. It was bringing them together in one text that makes this connection visible.

Literalists focus a lot on the role of the Holy Spirit in determining the text of the bible. I think the role of the Holy Spirit in directing the formation of the bible out of the individual texts is, if anything, even more fascinating. The editors who brought the texts of the Torah together was surely just as inspired as the writers, as were the rabbis and Church fathers who established the Old & New Testament canons.

I think that story is an allegory with mythic intent as it explains that we are NOT just like the animals, that we are moral actors--because we have the ability to understand good and evil, we are responsible for the decisions we make, we will inevitably use this knowledge to make "wrong" decisions; that this separates us from God; and yes, we can be tempted...

Joy

 

[gluadys]

Here's my own perspective on the first few chapters of Genesis:

After this amazing post, as well as Joykins, I think it is safe to say that referring to Genesis as myth/fable/poetry/metaphor is fully justified by the text itself and not a conclusion required by science or a personal whim or feeling.

But there is one other reason to consider: the cultural realities of the time the bible was written.

Q: Why would God reveal himself to the people of Israel via mythology? Why not simply recount the facts?

A: Because myth and metaphor were the natural way the people of Israel, like all people of the ancient cultures expressed their ideas. The fact-based way common to our culture is a recent invention grounded in the European Enlightenment. We have, to use Bultmann's term, "demythologized" a great deal of human knowledge. But the bible was written by and to people for whom myth and metaphor were as real as facts.

This is why the question of whether the people of biblical days believed in the reality of the events recorded in their myths can't be answered with a simple yes or no. Because the answer is both yes and no. They did believe, for example, that Noah was a real person and the flood really happened, but they did not believe this in the sense they thought it was scientific fact as YECists today claim. The concept of scientific fact did not yet exist then. The notion that history and myth could be divided from each other did not exist then. The way to keep track of history in ancient times was to mythologize it and recount it as story, not as what we would call objective history.

It is we who create interpretive dilemmas for ourselves by insisting on a division of myth and history, metaphor and fact. Based on our cultural prejudices we try to force the biblical text into categories the biblical writers knew nothing of.

 

[Critias]

I see many have posted, this is good! Thank you all for adding in your thoughts and view points, I do appreciate it!

This may better help those who don't agree with this view, understand why you all see it that way. That is, after all, the first step to understanding each other.

 

[Joykins]

Case in point. In this story the serpent does not stand for Satan. At the time this story was written, the figure of Satan was not part of Jewish theology. Later, when Judaism imported the concept of Satan from the Zoroastrians, the rabbis' back-interpreted Satan into the story, but that was not the original intent of the author since he wrote at a time when Satan was unknown to the Jews.

I was thinking, primarily, of the role of Satan as "tempter" or even agent provocateur for God, as he is understood by the Jews even today. Was that understanding present when the story was written, do you know? I do know that the, um, demonization of Satan took place later, but was the import from Zoroastrianism one of name or function?

Joy

 

[Crusadar]

Wow! did you see the dance that every one has done? Amazing isn't it, to extract so much from what is not there. Did it ever occur to all of you that God means what He says and says what He means? But in case its just not getting through how about we hear a little bit of wisdom from Martin Luther:

"When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day [or millions of years]. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.

For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.”

- What Martin Luther Says – A Practical In Home Anthology for the Active. pp1523

 

[gluadys]

I was thinking, primarily, of the role of Satan as "tempter" or even agent provocateur for God, as he is understood by the Jews even today. Was that understanding present when the story was written, do you know? I do know that the, um, demonization of Satan took place later, but was the import from Zoroastrianism one of name or function?

Joy

Function. The Zoroastrian name for the evil one was Ahriman. What the Jews did was adopt the common word "shaitan" which means "adversary" and turn it into a proper name. Also, as monotheists, they gave Shaitan/Satan the status of an angel rather than that of a co-equal with God.

If you do a word study on the common use of "shaitan" in the OT, you get some interesting perspectives.

For one thing, there are some places where the adversary is said to be raised up by God, to be God's agent. A notable example is 1 Kings 11 which discusses two failed attempts to rebel against Solomon, instigated, according to the text, by God.

It also appears that "shaitan" was for some time the official title of what we in Canada would call the Crown Prosecutor. I think the American term is District Attorney. In any case, the court official who presents the accusation against the alleged felon and prosecutes the case. So if God is King and Judge, Satan in this view is not opposed to God but to the enemies of God whom he brings to the heavenly court for judgment. A study of the Psalms in light of this meaning of "adversary" is enlightening.

In Job and in a passage in Zechariah, he seems to be characterized as an over-zealous prosecutor who has to be reined in by God, but not as an enemy of God per se.

But by the time the New Testament was written the transformation of the "adversary" into the evil one who opposes God at every turn is complete, as is the post facto identification of Satan with the serpent of Eden.

This whole development of the concept of Satan takes place during and after the Babylonian exile. But the author of the garden of Eden account of creation lived and wrote perhaps as early as the reign of Solomon and definitely before the fall of Samaria to the Assyrians in 722 BCE, which was more than a century before the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. So the theology of the author of the creation story does not include any idea of Satan at all. That is a post-exilic interpretation developed by the rabbis.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Wow! did you see the dance that every one has done? Amazing isn't it, to extract so much from what is not there. Did it ever occur to all of you that God means what He says and says what He means?

You mean consider the possibility that the writers of Genesis has absolutely no shread of poetry or creativity in them, and were transcribing God's words verbatim?

Ok I'm thinking about it...now I'm laughing... now I thinking some more... now I'm reaching for a Dr. Pepper.... now I'm giggling...

Sorry, what was the question again?

But in case its just not getting through how about we hear a little bit of wisdom from Martin Luther:

"When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day [or millions of years]. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.

Couldn't resist shoehorning your own words into Luther's, could you?

For you are to deal with Scripture in such a way that you bear in mind that God Himself says what is written. But since God is speaking, it is not fitting for you wantonly to turn His Word in the direction you wish to go.”

- What Martin Luther Says – A Practical In Home Anthology for the Active. pp1523

In other words, shut our mouths, believe what you tell us, and let's all go back to the Glorious 14th century again.

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." --Martin Luther.

 

[Crusadar]

Kate said: You mean consider the possibility that the writers of Genesis has absolutely no shread of poetry or creativity in them, and were transcribing God's words verbatim?

Gee, was it that hard to figure out? I mean when it says God took dust and made a man, what do you think it means? That “God took dust and made a man” or could it possibly mean that “God took dust and made a man!”

Ok I'm thinking about it...now I'm laughing... now I thinking some more... now I'm reaching for a Dr. Pepper.... now I'm giggling... Sorry, what was the question again?

Ah, such sarcasm, very unbecoming of a lady – isn’t it? But hey what do I know.

Couldn't resist shoehorning your own words into Luther's, could you?

My mistake, should of said [or billions of years]. And no its not my words, I’m a young earth creationists - remember?

In other words, shut our mouths, believe what you tell us, and let's all go back to the Glorious 14th century again.

Not really:

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” - Romans 12:2

Scripture says be transformed by the renewing of our minds, not the removal of our minds.

And by the way Luther lived in the late 15th and early 16th century, not the 14th.

"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God." --Martin Luther.

Humm, sounds like very good advice - don’t you think?

 

[Critias]

There comes a point when the hardness of the heart sets in and no one will hear another's plea for hearing the truth.

You see what you want to see; you understand what you want to understand.

There will always be those who reject the author's intended meaning of a text and accept their own meaning instead. It is human nature to uplift one's own intelligence over anothers.

I like Paul's teaching on this subject, then again, I tend to like all of the Bible's teachings on things and take them all to be true and truthful.

Unless you just desire to argue, don't try and take my feelings concerning myself to be something said against another here. The TE strawmens are really getting old.