Quite a vivid metaphor there, do you ever think God might be able to use metaphors too?
Yes, did you ever think God could act in time and space too?
That's a verse I addressed over in the What is it all about thread. Notice how Moses is using the Genesis description of creation, he isn't teaching the Israelites six day creationism, he is using it to teach Sabbath observance.
So he goes on for an entire chapter describing six days of creation but it is not his purposed to teach a six day creation. No, his purpose is to teach the observance of the seventh day rest, which is synonymous with faith btw (Heb 3:7-11). The Sabbath (literally 7th) has no bearing on the six days of creation except that would raise the question, why did God choose to name it Seven?
As usual, you are making no sense at all.
Remember how Jesus used parables to teach his point? Moses didn't need a literal Genesis to teach the Sabbath, a figurative description of the creation would do just as well.
If he wanted to describe creation in figurative terms using a parable he would have compared one thing to another. Do you ever take a minute before you post these things to consider what the words you use actually mean?
Moses uses a different metaphor to illustrate the Sabbath in the ten commandments 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. The 'mighty hand and an outstretched arm' is a metaphorical description of God freeing the Israelites. If Moses can use metaphorical descriptions of events to teach the Sabbath, using the six days to teach the Sabbath doesn't mean it is literal either.
Your wrong about everything except that 'outstreched arm' is figurative language. It does not refer to the fleeing Hebrews though, it refers to the judgements and miracles of God used to deliver the Hebrews.
I quoted this verse too. Notice again how Moses adds how God was refreshed after his rest? This can't be literal. God wasn't weary after a hard week's work like the migrant labourers and children weary after working in the fields for six days and refreshed by a day's rest. 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. God wasn't weary, it is a metaphor, an anthropomorphism, where God identifies with the downtrodden labourers who really do need a rest.
Nonsense, it says in Genesis 2 that God ended (Strong's H3615 - kalah )His work on the 7th day. Exodus 23:12 explains that there is no work to be done on the 7th day so that the workers, including work animals, could be refreshed.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?
Doesn't actually say anything about a six day creation or what sort of time scale was involved in fulfilling his word.
Yes it does, that's why the Sabbath was named the seventh day because it was after the six day creation when God had 'ended' his work and the creation was complete in all it's vast array. It is a specific and explicit reference to a six day work week.
Remember the bible says sometime there is a long process before God's accomplishes what God intends.
That's not what it says:
"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10,11)
It says the God's Word will accomplish God's purpose and it will succeed in the thing for which it was intended. So far you have taken three verses, twisted their meaning to suite your private interpretation, contradicting the clear meaning of all of them directly.
This is getting depressing, no wonder Creationists don't want to post here very much.
No it's not...
I find it fascinating that the Chronicler simply lists the names from the early chapters of Genesis with no comment, it is only later that he starts talking about such and such begetting so and so, or so and so being the father of such and such, and throwing in biographical details of their lives. The chronicler lists the names from Genesis but he doesn't give any indication how he interpreted them.
Neither does Moses, that's because it was already understood that the name in the genealogy should be interpreted as names in the genealogy. It probably never occurred to that someone would mistake them for a parable.
Of course Adam could be a historical individual without a literal six day creation or God the potter literally making him out of clay (which is a common biblical metaphor anyway).
Or Adam could be a literal person, the first parent of humanity as he is described in the New Testament. He could be a literal person and creation week could be a literal six day week which would account for called the seventh day, Sabbath (lit. 7th). That seems like it might be a possibility, doesn't it.
Calling Adam the son of God is hardly a literal interpretation of Genesis 2 is it?
No of course not, that just the literal meaning. Everyone else is the son of someone specific except for Adam and Christ. Could that be because the did not have human parents Assyrian? Could it be that it actually means what it says?
I know the literal meaning is not the preferred meaning among unbelievers but is it ok for Christians doing Biblical expositions?
Amazing verse that, I think it is key to understanding how Paul interpreted Adam - figuratively. That whole passage from Rom 5:12 to the end of the chapter is a comparison of Adam and Christ, yet Paul tells us in verse 14 he saw Adam as a figure of Christ, shouldn't we consider when Paul is comparing Adam and Christ from verse 12 on that he is actually interpreting Adam figuratively?
No, not unless you want us to interpret Timothy figuratively.
Typology is not an effective tool for reducing something you don't believe, to a figure of speech. When it is used in Roman 5:13 it is used to speak of the person Adam, the first parent of all humanity, that is not my opinion, that's the Strong's definition of 'Adam'. As far as 'type' sometimes translated 'figure' the clear meaning is not figure of speech as you would have us believe:
Strong's G5179 - typos - τύπος (from τύπτω G5180) These two examples of how that exact form of the word is used:
Rom 5:14, Here it means a literal Adam
1 Ti 4:12 Here it means the literal Timothy be an example to others.
Another comparison of Adam and Christ, so is Paul speaking literally, or like he said in Romans 5 interpreting Adam figuratively? A clue is in the verb tense, in Adam all die, present tense. It is not that we were somehow in Adam in the past and died when he sinned, we are in Adam now and each one of us dies in him when we first sin (cf Rom 7:9). Adam is a figurative picture that sums up the whole human race.
Or he might be a literal person that is a pattern by virtue of being the first parent of humanity. Isn't that a possibility Assyrian?
A popular verse with creationists who think Paul is saying Adam was the first historical person ever. But note how Paul is comparing Adam and Christ again? Look at verse 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. Paul calls Christ the second man. That is hardly speaking historically. If Paul was speaking literally, the second man would be Eve (anthropos means human male or female).
Yea, let's look at the passage in it's native context:
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. (I Corinthians 15:46-49)
The comparison is of the first man created, the natural man, to the second man created (Christ Jesus). What you have grossly failed to appreciate is that the creation of Adam and the incarnation are inextricably linked doctrinally
I will not comment on your treatment of this one because the rules of the forum forbid me from telling you exactly what I think of you perverting the meaning of a passage of Scripture as important as I Corinthians 15.
You should be ashamed.
So is Paul speaking literally here or using Adam and Eve as a metaphor of Christ and the Church?
No. Marriage is often used as a figure or pattern for the relationship of Christ to the church, that much is in bounds. That doesn't mean you get to dismiss every mention of Adam and Eve as figures of speech, parables or myths. The proposition is absurd.
Any of those passages. Not only do they not teach the literal interpretation of the creation accounts, they teach us non literal applications and interpretations of Genesis. Of course none of them say we shouldn't interpret Genesis literally as well, they don't say we should. What they do show us is that it is the non literal meanings that are important for us.
Virtually every exposition you attempted here was completely erroneous, does this ever fool anyone?
Perhaps if you showed my usual drivel is, well, usually drivel, and I kept on drivelling, then you could begin to question if I am being honest with myself. But until then, why would I have any reason to think it is drivel, any reason to question the honesty of my assessment other than the fact that I recognise my own fallibility and that we are all very capable of deceiving ourselves.
Finally got something right.
I replied because I knew you could not come up with any verses that actually supported you claim.
How you can be so fatally flawed in your arguments, consistently spouting blatant errors and hopelessly optimistic in your self-appraisal is a miracle of modernist audacity.
Thanks for the post but did you have to make it so darn easy?
