I strongly requested that you NOT reply unless you could produce scriptural evidence that God's Word reveals ages of millions of years were involved in the creation. You did not do that.
No I didn't, instead I showed you why your argument doesn't hold water. When Copernicus showed the earth went round the sun, did the church insist on scriptural evidence that the earth goes round the sun before abandoning their geocentric interpretations? If they didn't have to show the science from scripture, why should we?
What they did was go back to scripture and see if there were other ways to interpret scripture that didn't contradict what they knew from science. And if there were different interpretations why ever would they want to hold onto an interpretation that contradicted what they knew from science?
What I have been showing you is that you have no scriptural basis for insisting on a literal interpretation of the six day creation. So far you have been unable to put up any defence.
"Honestly the way you switch arguments every time you are stuck.."
You just lied. I haven't been stuck on anything.
Then you must have had some other reason for not answering my points and changing the subject so often. Maybe you can't follow a line of thought and simply write down what ever come into you head. What you don't do is answer the arguments. Instead of calling me a liar, why no go back and answer all those points you so deftly avoided?
"For in six days the Lord God made the heavens the earth and all that in them is..."
Case closed.
I answered that, Moses is not teaching a six day creation here, he is teaching Sabbath observance and using the description of a six day creation to teach it. Instead of replying, you changed the subject.
I also showed you how Moses used a metaphorical description of the exodus to illustrate the Sabbath command in Deuteronomy, Deut 5:15
You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day. Your response showed you could not tell metaphor from literal and even took God's wings literally Exodus 19:4
I bore you on eagles' wings.
P.S. for the one who wants to know but isn't posting:
He said, " But just quoting the bits you agree with as if it proved some sort of point, while dismissing the rest, isn't that what Paul warned about in 2Tim 4:3 but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions?"
I dismiss every argument by ANY scholar that clearly differs with what is plainly written, whether by heretics or faithful scholars alike. His charge is empty, just like the rest of his arguments. He refuses to take things to the bottom line, just a he did here. He assumed that was my attitude but he did not tell the truth.
No I was just pointing out that if you pick and choose the church fathers you agree with and dismiss the rest as heretics, your argument is empty. All you are showing us is your own opinion.
He said, "Except you haven't show the characters being treated as real people or the events being treated as and real events."
This is why it is useless to continue to debate this person. He does not know how to discern the difference between literal and symbol or parable...not a hard thing to do when one cross references scripture with other scripture. In fact it is no more difficult to do than it is with modern literature.
This from someone who thinks God has real wings...
I said, "Give me ONE passage of scripture that indicates an evolutionary (millions of years!) history of the world. Otherwise, admit you are in error and finish this discussion."
So what does he do? He deflects the argument; "I don't know of any passage that says the earth goes round the sun either, yet it is true, and it contradicted 1500 years of literal interpretation of geocentric passages like Joshua's long day."
The fact is that there are three direct passages teaching that the heaven and the earth were created in six days...and I quoted them. Is there a scriptural reason to doubt that they were six literal days. No.
Is there a scriptural reason to assume they were? All we have is your assumption that we have to take things literally unless they are labelled as a parable or metaphor. We have seen where that gets you, unable to see recognise Exodus 19:4
You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself, as a metaphor.
Here is the other passage that mention the six day creation, Exodus 31:17
It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. God not only rested, he was refreshed after his day off? Are you sure that is literal? God does not get tired. Look at that word refreshed, it describes someone who is utterly exhausted getting his breath back, David stopping at the Jordan after fleeing from Absalom 2Sam 16:14
And the king, and all the people who were with him, arrived weary at the Jordan.
And there he refreshed himself. It describe migrant workers and child labourers weary after six days working in the fields having a day off to recover and get their strength back. Exodus 23:12
Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed. Exodus 31:17 cannot be literal, not unless you think God was wearied and worn out by six days creating. It makes much more sense as another metaphor, an anthropomorphism, where God identifies himself with the the migrant labourers and children working in the fields he spoke about a few chapters before.
There was actually a literal fulfilment, but the Sabbath where God rested and was refreshed was not 6ooo years ago on the literal seventh day of creation. The fullness of God's identification with broken humanity was the Sabbath Christ sent in the tomb before the breath and spirit returning to his broken lifeless body and he rose from the dead. But as I pointed out to you, both Paul and the writer of Hebrews understood the OT Sabbath and God's seventh day rest as a shadow, a prophetic of picture of Christ and the gospel.
But you see the Bible does not directly speak of the orbit of the earth around the sun.......anywhere. So that is not an issue that we must resolve biblically. Such matters are resolved by scientific investigation. The length of a day, however is: Hebrew 'yom' which....by the nature of the case has to be 24 hrs in length. I gave excellent reasons as to why but he doesn't care.
You may not interpret the geocentric passages literally, but the church did back then, so it had as much difficulty with the new science as you do with geology and evolution. It is not that the bible doesn't teach geocentrism but it does teach six day creationism, but that they believed the bible taught geocentrism just as strongly as you think it teaches a six day creation. In fact as I pointed out, they had an even tougher problem because there never was an alternative to the the geocentric interpretation, there always have been interpretation of the six days that said they were not meant literally. Worse, you can only try to take the day literally by looking at passages chapters later with characters you think are being interpreted literally too. Joshua's miracle came right in the middle of a historical description of a battle between the Isrealites and Amorites.
This one disturbs me:
He said, "Rom 5:14
Adam was a figure of the one who was to come." But I replied: "The fact is that Adam is mentioned in Jesus family tree. That's bottom line. That should be enough for any honest person."
But he brazenly responds: "You mean the family tree Luke describes as supposed? Luke 3:23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli..."
Do you see the utter dishonesty in this? But of course Adam was a 'figure' of Him to come. He was a type of Christ as was Abel, Noah, Moses, and David. The fact that he continues to dismiss the importance of Adam's presence in Jesus genealogy reveals how far he will go to deny the validity of his reality and historicity in Genesis. It was a real Adam that committed real sin before God and not some symbolic 'figure' that he pretends is spoken of in Gen.3.
You are confusing two different arguments here. One is the genealogy in Luke, which Luke describes as 'supposed' which means this isn't Jesus' actual genealogy and any significance think you see in it being Jesus genealogy is mistaken.
Then you have Romans 5:14 which shows Paul interpeting Adam figuratively. Now it is quite possible it was a historical Adam being discussed figuratively, like Moses and David who as you say, were not only real people, they were also pictures of Christ. But you could make the same figurative point if the story of Adam and Eve was a parable. The point was that Paul was using the story of Adam figuratively, and you had asked:
Then tell us where Adams existence as a literal figure or the story of the fall of man is treated anywhere less than historical. Chapter and verse, please.
Paul does in Romans 5:14, he interprets the story of Adam figuratively.
But the statement he implies concerning, "as it was supposed" tells us that doesn't grasp even simple things that most Bible readers get right at the outset. "as it was supposed...." by whom? By those who only knew some but not all the facts concerning Christ's birth and lineage. The disciples didn't suppose anything; they knew the real story and that is part of the reason why the family lineage was written in two places in the gospels.
Luke himself proved this when he told Theophilus, "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first." Luke 1:3. No, Luke didn't suppose anything about Christ's family. He knew.
So why did Luke describe the genealogy as supposed? I agree he presented the facts he knew about Jesus as well researched facts. Luke also presented people's questions and opinions about Jesus as their questions and opinion, their opinions may not have been true, it was a fact they thought these things.
Luke 9:7
Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was happening, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead, 8 by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen.
9 Herod said, "John I beheaded, but who is this about whom I hear such things?" And he sought to see him.
Luke 9:18
Now it happened that as he was praying alone, the disciples were with him. And he asked them, "Who do the crowds say that I am?"
19 And they answered, "John the Baptist. But others say, Elijah, and others, that one of the prophets of old has risen."
Luke 19:11
As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.
So when Luke describe the genealogy as 'supposed' was he presenting it as a fact, or just what people thought?
That's how important the family line of Jesus is...
So important Luke describes the Nathan line as supposition.
but this person (Assyrian)
denigrates that importance by pointing out that Matthew has 'missing names' in his genealogy, as if that were a problem in the way the Holy Spirit led that ex-tax collector in writing his gospel. It was not a complete family line by divine design and for eternal reasons that we do not know of yet.
Actually that was Papias
Assyrian has repeatedly deflected scriptural truth with a clever ability to avoid the bottom line on almost every point. It's very hard to respect that.
It might help if you send me PM's about any other questions so we can end this debate.
Best wishes.
Odd you keep accusing me of deflection when I am the one addressing your points, while you switch topics.
