Critias said:
Hello Gluadys! Not much has changed I see, still telling people what they believe and subscribe to.
Describing what their beliefs look like to me at least. In conflict resolution it is called "mirror talk". Describe in your own words what your opponent's position is. If you do not do so correctly, the opponent corrects you, and you must revise your statement of your opponent's position in light of the correction.
It is something I would love to try with a creationist sometime.
Where did night2day state this baseless human theory? Or did you just "interpret" that?
Almost every time she mentioned "literary context". And she has mentioned it very frequently. No "interpretation" was needed.
You have proof that Moses borrowed from the "original myth"? Is it a a private letter he wrote stating this, or just your assumption?
He "borrowed" the myth from the Epic of Gilgamesh in the same way that Rodgers and Hammerstein borrowed the plot of Shakespeare's
Romeo and Juliet for
West Side Story. Tracing such borrowings is one of the things serious students of literature do. The bible itself is the source of many such borrowings in European/American literature. Its stories have been told and retold in hundreds of different guises.
Although night2day says otherwise, you dismiss her statement that this is wrong. Is this how you wish to be treated?
She said no YEC education had been given or indicated. Granted none had been given. But I was pointing out that she erred in saying none was indicated as everything she has asserted relative to the global flood and the "literary context" of Genesis does indicate a YEC education.
If a person is speaking French it indicates either an upbringing or an education in French. If a person is articulating YECism, (and very capably I might add) it indicates an upbringing or education in YECism--even if it is not formal.
Can you show me where she stated what you are saying she said? Or is this another one of your made up lines? Is this how you wish to be treated? Would like to be called arrogant each time you post?
That was only one of several similar statements and I was really reacting to all of them. Here are some earlier examples of the same thing.
What it comes down to is belief. One either takes God at His word or they don't.
In essance, place oneself over God's word and what He has stated instead of under it.
The Old and New Testaments stand as God's authoritive inerrent and infallible word.
All I'm reading is one group trying to force their world-views on another so they don't have to deal with the Biblical accounts as they were written.
Going back to the context in which these statements were made it is obvious that references to "God's Word" are references to scripture as she understands it. IOW there is an assumption that she has correctly understood scripture and anyone who disagrees with her understanding is not taking God at his word, avoiding the biblical accounts as they were written, etc. This is a typical creationist attitude. You and Vossler have said much the same thing. You claim that when people deviate from your understanding of scripture they are turning their back on God's Word. That amounts to a claim that your interpretation of scripture is guided by the Holy Spirit, and anyone with a different interpretation is not guided by the Holy Spirit.
Would it be better to impose her meaning on Scripture instead?
She
is imposing her meaning on scripture. It would be best to recognize that.
I suggest you read more about Martin Luther because from what you are saying, you don't seem to have a grasp on his view points.
Reason is unreliable when it goes against Scriptural teaching. If you spend time studying Martin Luther, you will see he agrees.
Reason is unreliable when it tries to do the work of faith. Otherwise it has a pretty good record of accuracy. After all, in his apologetic work, Luther used reasoning to present his case.
Reason and logic are today's idols to replace reliance on God and the Holy Spirit. It is quite easy for anyone, Christian or not, to get wrapped up in it.
Doubtful, since reason and logic come from God.
Because God is the source of reason doesn't mean reason cannot be misused. Bad premise to use here, Gluadys.
Apparently you missed my opening statement in this paragraph:
"we need to guard against erroneous reasoning that stems from individual bias"
And by the literary context.
If you read what night2day said, she was refering to TE teachings, not TEs themselves.
And she misrepresented those teachings, and she was told they were not TE teachings and she continued to misrepresent TE teachings. That is what lead to the charge of lying. I will say nothing more on that subject, because I find it unprofitable. It turns attention from the real core of the debate onto personalities.
Show us how the literary context supports your historical event argument.
Could you amplify this question. I am not sure what you are referring to.
Are you suggesting that truth cannot be within writings that are not historical?
Quite the contrary. I have affirmed that many times in conversations with you. Truth can be within myth, poetry, allegory, fiction, apocalypse and many other non-historical writings found in the bible. God has not chosen to rely only on factual history to teach us truth.
Genesis is presented as God's testimony.
LOL.
Again, show how the literary context says it is not historical.
I think it important for this purpose to separate the two creation stories. It is the second story that is a classical myth. The account in Genesis 1 is not myth. It is more in the form of a liturgy. It is very tightly structured and the structure is chosen to support theological implications, especially in regard to the repudiation of polytheism and the adoption of the sabbath. The parallelism of the creative days, together with the impossibility of the stated order, indicates the order is thematic rather than chronological. The reference to six days is therefore not a reference to the time period in which God created, but a reference to the sabbath. I could go on for another three pages, but we have covered this ground before. The very last thing I would call either story is historical.
1. In the Gospels, the primary character is Jesus Christ. One of the characteristics of myth is that it is about the acts of God/gods.
Nice try. But in the gospels, Jesus is incarnate as a human being. And he assures his followers that, with only a little faith, like a mustard seed, they can all do what he does. So the acts of Jesus during his earthly life are human acts.
2. I suppose the Euphrates is not a real river. I suppose Ashur in Assyria was not a real city. I suppose the Tigris isn't a real river.
Yes, they are all real, but it was already noted that some stories combine reality with fiction. This is more true of legend than of myth, as legend is often founded on a historical core that has been enlarged in the telling.
3. The story acts as an explanation for current phenomena of miracles that occur in our world today and in the time of Jesus Christ. Stories of demon possessed men, raising of the dead, the sick being healed by a touch or word, etc. In pre-scientific times, faith often filled the role that science does today of providing an explanation for our observations.
Yep.
4.The story is used for theological and moral teaching. Both the death and resurrection stories are so used in middle ages as well as in innumerable sermons.
Yep.
The gospels have considerably stronger roots in history than the early chapters of Genesis. Luke's gospel in particular provides many details of the historical setting within which Jesus lived and died.
So the Gospels have several of the identifying characteristics of myths, especially the resurrection story and the ascension story.
You said it. In fact, there is no historical record of the resurrection or ascension, only the report of the apostles. We have their testimony, and the only question is whether we trust it or not.
The Last Supper is quite poetic and is really not arranged in history.
Poetic? John's account maybe, but I don't see that in the synoptics. And it is set firmly in both history and myth as the Passover meal.
Jesus is the incarnation of God Himself in human form, the teaching of the Old Testament coming alive in human form. He is eternal, with no beginning and no end.
That would make God the teaching of the Old Testament and vice versa. No indeed. Jesus is not the incarnation of OT scripture. Jesus is very God of very God, eternally begotten before all ages, and the incarnation of God, not of a set of teachings, however sacred.
He is not a mere word or logos, He is too vast for such a word to contain.
You are using a modern English definition of "word". But John was writing in Greek and used the Greek term "logos". Although "word" is the most common translation of "logos" it is a pale reflection of the full meaning of "logos" especially as used in Greek philosophical works.
"Logos" is more than a spoken word. It is the rational mind that is the source of the word. It is intelligence expressed.
In Platonic philosophy, where the Absolute who is the source of all things, is seen as completely self-sufficient and absorbed in itself, oblivious to anything external to itself, it is the Logos which is the first emanation from the Absolute and the agent by which the being of the Absolute is transmitted to all existing things.
John modifies this concept to make it acceptable in a Christian paradigm. The Logos is begotten of God and is God and is the creative agent through which creation was brought into being. The Logos is the mind of God expressed in action, the agent by which God's vision of creation becomes externalized as a material world. And, John goes on to say, it is this Logos, this Word, that was incarnate among us as Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus is not just logos or word, He is much more than that.
Jesus is certainly much more than sound waves, which is about all we consider words to be today. But when you get back to the full meaning of the Greek term "logos" it is much more than the modern English meaning. In first-century Greek thinking "Logos" had a metaphysical meaning that identified it with the divine.
Maybe this time we can answer the question she asked.
Where does the Bible get Its Authority?
But that was not the question she asked. What she asked was: "What is God's word, Where does it get it's authority, and How is it discerned?"
And she was given theologically and biblically correct answers to those questions.
If she wants to know about the bible, she should ask about the bible.
Again, another misrepresentation. Instead of answering the question asked, you instead sway from the subject.
I think you need to reread my post. The question asked was:
"If one portion of the Scriptures removed from it's literary context....what prevents the same from being done to another portion of the Biblical context?"
My response was "Nothing."
I think that is direct and to the point. I then enlarged on that answer.
The question is, what is Literary Context of Genesis and how do you know? Answer the simple question instead making accusations based on your own assertions made in thin air.
There is no single literary context for the whole of Genesis. One needs to examine each portion individually, with attention paid to who wrote each section and when and for what purpose. One comes to know the literary context through study. Sorry, there is no simple answer.
She shared Scripture with you, without comment of its intent. It is remarkable how you assume how it was meant.
Don't be obtuse. Such "sharing of scripture", in this context,
is comment.
