Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-30-2017 4:22 PM
435 online now:
14174dm, CosmicChimp, NoNukes, nwr, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (7 members, 428 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,242 Year: 6,848/21,208 Month: 2,609/2,634 Week: 272/525 Day: 31/74 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 2369 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 1 of 295 (566612)
06-25-2010 2:48 PM


I noticed that the only active thread on this topic in the Accuracy and Inerrancy section has been discontinued. I think that this is an important topic to be discussed.

My point of view is that if the creation story is not reliable, any book of the bible quoting creation or stating scriptural infallibility is unreliable, any book quoting those books is unreliable, and so on.

Here is the argument: Genesis 1 states that the order of creation went Animals, Plants, Man & Woman.

"And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morningthe fifth day. And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Genesis 1:20-27, NIV

Genesis 2, however, states the order was Man, Plants, Animals, Woman.

"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the groundtrees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Genesis 2:4-8, NIV

"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman', for she was taken out of man."

Genesis 2:19-23, NIV

Once again, the orders are as such: Genesis 1: Animals, Plants, Man & Woman. Genesis 2: Man, Plants, Animals, Woman.

This contradiction seems to debunk the inerrancy of the bible. This thread is to provide a place for debate as to whether or not it actually does.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 06-25-2010 6:34 PM hepteract has responded
 Message 28 by kbertsche, posted 07-05-2010 1:20 AM hepteract has responded
 Message 58 by barbara, posted 07-22-2010 11:09 AM hepteract has not yet responded
 Message 145 by graft2vine, posted 09-02-2010 4:57 PM hepteract has not yet responded
 Message 146 by III, posted 09-02-2010 11:57 PM hepteract has not yet responded
 Message 238 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2010 12:24 PM hepteract has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 295 (566672)
06-25-2010 5:43 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 3 of 295 (566675)
06-25-2010 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hepteract
06-25-2010 2:48 PM


Infallible or Inerrant
Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that the Bible is considered accurate and totally free of error.

Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true.

Inerrancy and infallibility are not interchangeable.

quote:
My point of view is that if the creation story is not reliable, any book of the bible quoting creation or stating scriptural infallibility is unreliable, any book quoting those books is unreliable, and so on.
Not reliable for what? Just because one tries to consult a cookbook to fix their car, does not make the cookbook unreliable for cooking. The person is in error for using the wrong book for the job, not the book.

What scripture claims the writings in the Bible are infallible?
What book quotes either of the creation stories?

A non fiction book quoting a fictional book or character does not automatically make the non fictional book unreliable. It depends on what is being presented and the reason for the quote or reference.

quote:
This contradiction seems to debunk the inerrancy of the bible. This thread is to provide a place for debate as to whether or not it actually does.
What are you comparing the accuracy against?

Since the creation stories are fiction and written at different times, why do you feel they should agree with each other?


Scripture is like Newtons third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newtons Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 2:48 PM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 7:59 PM purpledawn has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 2284 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 4 of 295 (566679)
06-25-2010 7:55 PM


Genesis should not be read as a scientific record of the earths creation because it is not and anyone who tries to read it like that will come to dissapointment. Gen 1 presents a simple chronological account of the 'order' of creation... it doesnt go into great detail about how it was done though.

Gen 2 is completely different and serves a different purpose which is why it is not identical.

Gen 2 focuses only on the mans creation and the garden he was put into. It is not to be read as a 'creation account' but rather as the beginning of mans life and how he came to be removed from the garden.


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 8:06 PM Peg has responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 2369 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 5 of 295 (566680)
06-25-2010 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by purpledawn
06-25-2010 6:34 PM


Re: Infallible or Inerrant
quote:
Inerrancy and infallibility are not interchangeable.
I was not aware until you mentioned it that a separate meaning had developed for the word 'infallible' when referring to the bible. In common usage 'infallible' and 'inerrant' are synonyms, but for the sake of consistency, I should probably have used 'inerrant', as it is the term that applies.
quote:
Not reliable for what? Just because one tries to consult a cookbook to fix their car, does not make the cookbook unreliable for cooking. The person is in error for using the wrong book for the job, not the book.
Reliable as a source of fact. Now you're just picking apart my phraseology, but that's fine. I will be more careful about specificity in the future.
quote:
A non fiction book quoting a fictional book or character does not automatically make the non fictional book unreliable. It depends on what is being presented and the reason for the quote or reference.
Now while some scripture probably does assert the infallibility of scripture, I have now made clear that what I meant was inerrancy. Many parts of the New Testament in particular state inerrancy:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

2 Timothy 3:16, NIV

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Matthew 5:18, NIV

"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth."

John 17:17, NIV

As well as many books that quote the creation story as factual support:

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Mark 10:5-9, NIV

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

Psalm 102:25, NIV

quote:
What are you comparing the accuracy against?
Since the creation stories are fiction and written at different times, why do you feel they should agree with each other?
I do not feel that they should agree with each other, I feel that much of the bible can be transitively proven false if it can be proven that the two stories are in contradiction with no possible way for both to be true. I am looking for any logical argument for both to be true. I don't expect it, but I feel that A) Christians deserve a chance to try, and B) Everyone has the right to know.

I am referring to historical accuracy. It may surprise you to learn this, but some people (2 billion) still believe this actually happened and is not, in fact, fiction. Therefore I am trying to demonstrate its falsehood.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 06-25-2010 6:34 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 06-25-2010 9:10 PM hepteract has responded
 Message 9 by purpledawn, posted 06-26-2010 8:24 AM hepteract has responded
 Message 22 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 1:58 PM hepteract has not yet responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 2369 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 6 of 295 (566682)
06-25-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Peg
06-25-2010 7:55 PM


Still Inconsistent
quote:
Gen 2 focuses only on the mans creation and the garden he was put into. It is not to be read as a 'creation account' but rather as the beginning of mans life and how he came to be removed from the garden.
While I agree that the main purpose was not as a chronological account, that still doesn't change the fact that it describes man as being created "before any plant of the field had yet sprung up", a clear discrepancy with chapter one.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Peg, posted 06-25-2010 7:55 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 06-29-2010 7:43 PM hepteract has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5562
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 7 of 295 (566687)
06-25-2010 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by hepteract
06-25-2010 7:59 PM


Re: Infallible or Inerrant
Hi hepteract,

hepteract writes:

I do not feel that they should agree with each other, I feel that much of the bible can be transitively proven false if it can be proven that the two stories are in contradiction with no possible way for both to be true. I am looking for any logical argument for both to be true. I don't expect it, but I feel that A) Christians deserve a chance to try, and B) Everyone has the right to know.

They do not agree with each other.
They do not contradict each other.
They are two different stories about two different events.

If you are looking for an argument for both to be true come visit me at:Message 1

We are at 399 posts why don't you come over and straighten out this born again child of God who is one of those 2 billion (I wish there was 2 billion) people that believe it is true. I am so stupid I believe the Bible story of creation fits the scientific evidence better that the popular BBT.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 7:59 PM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 11:15 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 2369 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 8 of 295 (566693)
06-25-2010 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
06-25-2010 9:10 PM


Re: Infallible or Inerrant
I will not do that, because your thread explicitly states that the bible is the final authority. My thread explicitly states that the bible is being questioned. Therefore, the threads should remain separate. Also, my thread has a specific focal point of debate, where yours is more of a discussion around a general topic. I don't mean to sound mean, but that's how it is. You're welcome to join us here though.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 06-25-2010 9:10 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 9 of 295 (566722)
06-26-2010 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by hepteract
06-25-2010 7:59 PM


Free of Error
quote:
I was not aware until you mentioned it that a separate meaning had developed for the word 'infallible' when referring to the bible. In common usage 'infallible' and 'inerrant' are synonyms, but for the sake of consistency, I should probably have used 'inerrant', as it is the term that applies.
Accurate and free of error it is then.

quote:
Reliable as a source of fact. Now you're just picking apart my phraseology, but that's fine. I will be more careful about specificity in the future.
Again it depends on what information one is seeking in the Bible. If you're looking for scientific facts, then it is your error for looking to the Bible for such information not what's written in the Bible.

quote:
Now while some scripture probably does assert the infallibility of scripture, I have now made clear that what I meant was inerrancy. Many parts of the New Testament in particular state inerrancy:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

2 Timothy 3:16, NIV

This verse does not imply inerrancy. The Bible is good for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. Righteousness deals with behavior. What error do you find in the Bible concerning behavior?

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Matthew 5:18, NIV

I don't see how Matthew 5:18 implies the Bible is without error. You need to elaborate on that one.

quote:
"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth."

John 17:17, NIV


What do you think truth means?

This is part of a prayer Jesus made to God. This doesn't speak of the Bible as we know it today. In Jesus' day God's instruction (Torah) was fact. The Torah existed. I see no reference to lack of errors.

quote:
As well as many books that quote the creation story as factual support:

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Mark 10:5-9, NIV

Jesus was speaking against divorce. The A&E story is a foundational myth in Judaism. He isn't saying the story is an actual event, but the concept the story presents serves his purpose.

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

Psalm 102:25, NIV


Psalms are songs/poetry. Psalm 102 is specifically a prayer of lament. The author is unknown. The prayer doesn't give us enough information to know if the person was referencing either creation story. Odds are the stories had not been combined yet. We'd have to know when the psalm was written to know if the person had access to either creation story.

quote:
I do not feel that they should agree with each other, I feel that much of the bible can be transitively proven false if it can be proven that the two stories are in contradiction with no possible way for both to be true. I am looking for any logical argument for both to be true. I don't expect it, but I feel that A) Christians deserve a chance to try, and B) Everyone has the right to know.

I am referring to historical accuracy. It may surprise you to learn this, but some people (2 billion) still believe this actually happened and is not, in fact, fiction. Therefore I am trying to demonstrate its falsehood.


I know many people feel the creation stories are actual events; but even if the story was consistent, it still wouldn't be an actual event.

The stories not agreeing is not an error because they weren't written to agree. The stories were written centuries apart and intentionally combined centuries later.

The individual stories themselves tell us they aren't actual events. There's no need to compare.

You need better evidence. I use the Documentary Hypothesis and the rules of PaRDeS Interpretation.


Scripture is like Newtons third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newtons Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 7:59 PM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by hepteract, posted 06-26-2010 8:30 PM purpledawn has responded

hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 2369 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 10 of 295 (566760)
06-26-2010 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by purpledawn
06-26-2010 8:24 AM


Re: Free of Error
I grant you that my references to the Bible claiming its own inerrancy are incorrectly cited. However, I still maintain that the quote of creation is meant as factual reference by the speaker:

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Mark 10:5-9, NIV

quote:
Jesus was speaking against divorce. The A&E story is a foundational myth in Judaism. He isn't saying the story is an actual event, but the concept the story presents serves his purpose.
He clearly believes that God had done this. He says "...what God has joined together, let man not separate." If I was quoting Greek mythology to assert that women were inferior to men, I would not say, 'Pandora opened the box, so men are better people', I would say 'Pandora's opening of the box represents the evil nature of women'. The sooner implies an actual event, the latter draws from the concept of the myth.

quote:
I know many people feel the creation stories are actual events; but even if the story was consistent, it still wouldn't be an actual event.

The stories not agreeing is not an error because they weren't written to agree. The stories were written centuries apart and intentionally combined centuries later.


I completely agree. But you need more evidence. You keep questioning my intentions, and your arguments are good and have made me rethink what I intend to get out of this debate. I thank you for that, but would like to point out that you haven't actually provided any evidence aside from the documentary hypothesis to support the idea that the stories are fiction. I'm familiar with the documentary hypothesis, but did not cite it as different authorship does not necessarily mean falsehood. I intend to actually prove falsehood.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by purpledawn, posted 06-26-2010 8:24 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 06-27-2010 9:49 AM hepteract has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 11 of 295 (566776)
06-27-2010 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by hepteract
06-26-2010 8:30 PM


Factual Reference
quote:
I grant you that my references to the Bible claiming its own inerrancy are incorrectly cited. However, I still maintain that the quote of creation is meant as factual reference by the speaker:
What is your evidence that the reference means the speaker thought the event as written in Genesis was an actual event?

Hasn't mankind consisted of male and female throughout history?
Didn't the Hebrews and Jews have marriages centuries before Jesus?
Don't the man and woman leave their families to make a family of their own?

As I said before, just because a nonfiction speech has a fictional reference it doesn't make the speech fiction or the fictional, fact. We have to look at the point being made.

He was speaking against a divorce practice of the time.

Divorce and Remarriage
According to Instone-Brewer, the Hillelite rabbis had invented a new form of divorce clause a few decades before Jesus, that went by the formal statement for any cause. The Hillelite rabbis had invented this divorce clause from a single word in Deuteronomy 24:1. They argued that a man could divorce his wife for any cause he came up with, no matter how trivial. Not all rabbis agreed with this position, but the any cause divorce had become the popular excuse to get a legal divorce.

When people use the term "good Samaritan" they aren't acknowledging the parable is fact. They are referring to the point of the story.

Secular Example: Gordon Gekko is a fictional character and the main character and antagonist of the 1987 film Wall Street by director Oliver Stone. Gekko was portrayed by actor-producer Michael Douglas, in a performance that won him an Oscar for Best Actor.

Gekko has become a symbol in popular culture for unrestrained greed (with the signature line, "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good"), often in fields outside corporate finance.

On October 8, 2008, the character was referenced in a speech by the Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in his speech "The Children of Gordon Gekko" concerning the Financial crisis of 2007-2010. Rudd stated It is perhaps time now to admit that we did not learn the full lessons of the greed-is-good ideology. And today we are still cleaning up the mess of the 21st-century children of Gordon Gekko.[8]

On July 28, 2009, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone cited Gekko's greed is good slogan in a speech to the Italian senate, saying that the free market had been replaced by a greed market, and also blamed such a mentality for the 2007-2008 financial crisis.[9]

Are the gentlemen who referenced Gekko saying that the movie was a factual account and Gordon Gekko is not a fictional character?

quote:
He clearly believes that God had done this. He says "...what God has joined together, let man not separate." If I was quoting Greek mythology to assert that women were inferior to men, I would not say, 'Pandora opened the box, so men are better people', I would say 'Pandora's opening of the box represents the evil nature of women'. The sooner implies an actual event, the latter draws from the concept of the myth.
No, the former does not assume an actual event. People know it's a myth and I'm sure Jesus knew his legends and parables. Jesus is going to speak in the vernacular of the time. Who else is he going to say did this? That's what the average person knew as the origin of all things. This wasn't a science seminar. It was about behavior.

quote:
I completely agree. But you need more evidence. You keep questioning my intentions, and your arguments are good and have made me rethink what I intend to get out of this debate. I thank you for that, but would like to point out that you haven't actually provided any evidence aside from the documentary hypothesis to support the idea that the stories are fiction. I'm familiar with the documentary hypothesis, but did not cite it as different authorship does not necessarily mean falsehood. I intend to actually prove falsehood.
Then show your evidence that the story and the lessons were falsehoods at the time the story was written. A writer can only work with the information known to him and his audience.

The stories are fiction.

Genesis 1: Written in the temple/cosmos motif. It is a setup for the Sabbath law, which was also written by the Priestly writer. It isn't recounting an actual event.

Because Genesis I contains the essence of Priestly knowledge in a most concentrated form, and this knowledge was esoteric, the Temple traditions represented by P are never explicitly communicated in these materials.37 Stephen A. Geller has observed that P more than any other biblical author, reveals what he has to say by how he says it.38 Instead of openly verbalizing his theological concepts, P employs a method of literary indirection through placement, juxtaposition, and subtle allusion to impress these unarticulated concepts on the structure of the Pentateuch. Employing the tools of literary analysis has allowed scholars to shed light on a number of these esoteric themes.39 Beginning with Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, scholars have discerned Ps remarkable use of intratextuality between Genesis 1 (the creation account) and Exodus 25-31 (instructions for the building of the Tabernacle) to suggest a correspondence between the creation of the world and the building of the sanctuary.40 The widespread ancient Near Eastern (ANE) temple-as-cosmos motif undoubtedly lay behind this intratextuality.41 In Exod. 25-31 God in seven speeches instructs Moses regarding the construction of the Tabernacle and its furnishings as well as the priestly vestments. Peter Kearny argued that these seven speeches correspond verbally and conceptually to the seven days of creation of Genesis I.42

The Adam and Eve story is easy. Man from dirt, woman from bone, searching animals for mate, talking snake, magic trees...etc.

How do you discern a story is fiction?
How do you know the Pandora story is fiction?


Scripture is like Newtons third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newtons Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by hepteract, posted 06-26-2010 8:30 PM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by hERICtic, posted 06-27-2010 4:46 PM purpledawn has responded
 Message 25 by hepteract, posted 07-04-2010 2:49 PM purpledawn has responded

hERICtic
Member (Idle past 1871 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


(1)
Message 12 of 295 (566801)
06-27-2010 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by purpledawn
06-27-2010 9:49 AM


Re: Factual Reference
Hi Pd.

What makes you think Jesus believed the Genesis account to be a myth? His words in the gopels do not give any indication he thought so. Paul most certainly did not believe so.

I see no indication (perhaps I am just missing something) that Jesus did not believe it to be an actual event. Is there any verses in the OT which clearly state that the Genesis account is allegory?

Exodus 20:8-11 states the earth was created in 6 days. This would indicate the author believed in the Genesis account.

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 06-27-2010 9:49 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by purpledawn, posted 06-27-2010 8:21 PM hERICtic has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 13 of 295 (566811)
06-27-2010 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by hERICtic
06-27-2010 4:46 PM


Re: Factual Reference
quote:
What makes you think Jesus believed the Genesis account to be a myth? His words in the gospels do not give any indication he thought so. Paul most certainly did not believe so.
I explained in Message 11. Jesus would have known the Jewish legends.

The verse does not support that Jesus does or doesn't "believe" the story was an actual event. As I showed in Message 11, the use of fictional characters in a speech doesn't mean the speaker feels the character existed in real life. The A&E story is a foundational myth.

quote:
I see no indication (perhaps I am just missing something) that Jesus did not believe it to be an actual event. Is there any verses in the OT which clearly state that the Genesis account is allegory?
They didn't have to. They had the legends. They still pull from the legends for their teachings.

First, why did God choose Abram? The Bible is basicly mute on this point, however, Jewish legend tells us that Abram was chosen because of his monotheistic beliefs and practices. According to legend, one day when Terah was away on business, Abram was left to care for the family's idol shop. Abram took a hammer and smashed all but the largest idol and then placed the hammer in the idol's hands. Terah was furious upon returning and seeing the destruction and promptly asked Abram what had happened.

Abram's reply to his outraged father's inquiry was that the large idol had become upset with the other idols and had destroyed them with the hammer. Terah countered that Abram knew full well that idols cannot move. "If they cannot save themselves," replied Abram, "then we are superior to them and should not worship them."

The disciples asked Jesus about what he'd said.

He answered, "anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

He didn't refer back to the A&E story. The A&E story doesn't say anything about remarriage as committing adultery.

quote:
Exodus 20:8-11 states the earth was created in 6 days. This would indicate the author believed in the Genesis account.
The author of Exodus 20:1-17 also wrote the Genesis 1 account. The Genesis 1 account is a setup for the Sabbath law.


Scripture is like Newtons third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newtons Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by hERICtic, posted 06-27-2010 4:46 PM hERICtic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by hERICtic, posted 06-27-2010 8:47 PM purpledawn has responded
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 06-28-2010 5:09 PM purpledawn has responded

hERICtic
Member (Idle past 1871 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 14 of 295 (566812)
06-27-2010 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by purpledawn
06-27-2010 8:21 PM


Re: Factual Reference
PD writes:

I explained in Message 11. Jesus would have known the Jewish legends.
The verse does not support that Jesus does or doesn't "believe" the story was an actual event. As I showed in Message 11, the use of fictional characters in a speech doesn't mean the speaker feels the character existed in real life. The A&E story is a foundational myth.

But thats your opinion. What evidence do you have that Jesus did not accept the story as true? Can you provide any scripture that even hints that the story in Genesis is a myth? From my readings, it appears that the various authors accepted it as true.

PD writes:

The author of Exodus 20:1-17 also wrote the Genesis 1 account. The Genesis 1 account is a setup for the Sabbath law.

I agree that it was to show the Sabbath. But it does not give any indication that it was based upon a myth. It appears that the author is conveying that the earth was created in six days and the seventh was the Sabbath.

Paul definently believed the Genesis account was true.

Romans 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

If Paul believed it was an actual event, what makes you think Jesus didnt? I could give another five verses from Paul if you wish that shows he believed it to be true.

Also, if the creation account is a myth, doesnt that destroy the concept of original sin? If so, whats the point of Jesus?

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by purpledawn, posted 06-27-2010 8:21 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by purpledawn, posted 06-28-2010 7:44 AM hERICtic has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 812 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 15 of 295 (566843)
06-28-2010 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by hERICtic
06-27-2010 8:47 PM


Re: Factual Reference
quote:
But thats your opinion. What evidence do you have that Jesus did not accept the story as true? Can you provide any scripture that even hints that the story in Genesis is a myth? From my readings, it appears that the various authors accepted it as true.
The Bible is a book of religion, why would one author say something else is a myth? The components of the story itself tells us it is fiction.

One of the early church fathers took it as fiction.

Origen
The story of Adam and Eve was to be taken figuratively. For "No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it." And "those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place? Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; for example, the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them" (De Prinicipiis, 4.1.16).

Paul and Jesus were learned in Jewish techniques for argument and midrash. There's no way to know their personal views of the creation stories. The NT contains teachings, not personal thoughts.

quote:
If Paul believed it was an actual event, what makes you think Jesus didnt? I could give another five verses from Paul if you wish that shows he believed it to be true.
It doesn't prove he personally believes the stories to be actual events. Using it as a religious teaching tool doesn't necessarily reflect his personal view of the stories.

In the book "A History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson, he notes that as early as 175 BCE, that there were Jews who felt the Law, as it was written at that time, was not very old and did not go back to Moses.

Philo (20 BCE 50 CE) was known to the early Christians. Philo's View of God.

Philo interprets the stories of Torah as elaborate metaphors and symbols. He does not reject the subjective experience of Ancient Judaism; yet, he repeatedly explains that the Torah cannot be understood as a concrete, objective history. Philo is largely shaped by contemporary Greek philosophy. For example, he explains that ideal Greek forms for reason and wisdom illustrate the deep, mystical truth of God and Judaism.

That's why I say the teaching in the NT doesn't necessarily reflect a personal view on the issue of whether the story was a historical event or a just so story.

Look at this Philosophy Course Description .

Everyone loves a good story. Great stories can provide us with far more than mere recreation. Stories can provide us with rich character portraits that can reveal the subtleties and nuances of what it means to live well and responsibly. In this course well use novels and films to address Socrates most basic ethical questions, How should one live? and What sort of person should I be? Well do so by attending to all the concrete, particular details of real life and fictional characters thoroughly embroiled in the business of living.

My position on the verses shared so far, is that they don't confirm that Jesus or Paul personally felt that the creation stories were actual historical events.

ABE

quote:
Also, if the creation account is a myth, doesnt that destroy the concept of original sin? If so, whats the point of Jesus?
That would be a different topic.

The Doctrine of Original Sin was a later development.

The doctrine of original sin was first developed in second-century Bishop of Lyon Irenaeus's struggle against Gnosticism

Even Augustine of Hippo (November 13, 354 August 28, 430), who promoted the idea of original sin felt the Bible was metaphorical.

Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted as properly literal, but rather as metaphorical, if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. While each passage of Scripture has a literal sense, this "literal sense" does not always mean that the Scriptures are mere history; at times they are rather an extended metaphor.

Edited by purpledawn, : ABE


Scripture is like Newtons third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newtons Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by hERICtic, posted 06-27-2010 8:47 PM hERICtic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by hERICtic, posted 07-03-2010 8:37 AM purpledawn has responded

1
23456
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017