Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 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 Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

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

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

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 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 Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

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

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

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 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 P’s 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 Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

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

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

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 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 Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

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

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

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 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 we’ll use novels and films to address Socrates’ most basic ethical questions, How should one live? and What sort of person should I be? We’ll 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 Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

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

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

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 17 of 295 (566933)
06-28-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ICANT
06-28-2010 5:09 PM


Re: Factual Reference
This is the Accuracy and Inerrancy Forum, not Bible Study.
The verses in John are the same as the others. It may or may not reflect the personal belief of the writer concerning the reality of the creation stories in Genesis.

Scripture is like Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 06-28-2010 5:09 PM ICANT has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 20 of 295 (567934)
07-03-2010 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by hERICtic
07-03-2010 8:37 AM


Fact or Fiction
quote:
Im sorry PD, I just cannot see how you think Paul believed it was a myth. Paul goes out of his way to connect Jesus with Adam. In fact, he explains why we need Jesus, bc of the first sin by Adam.
You're not "listening" to what I'm saying.
PurpleDawn writes:
Message 15
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.
Message 13
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.
I've shown you evidence from reality that fictional characters can be used in real speeches to make real points. That doesn't mean the fictional character or story is real.
I also showed you church fathers that spoke as though the creation stories were real events, but didn't personally believe they were real events. This is so that you can understand that using fiction within a real speech isn't evidence of what the writer or speaker truly believes about the fiction.
Yes, there are those who probably did absolute believe it was a real event; which makes my point. The writing itself doesn't tell us what Jesus personally believed or what the writer personally believed.
I've written letters and stories for others that don't necessarily reflect my point of view or personal beliefs and I mix fact and fiction. The point of the message is what's important. That is what the writer wants the audience to understand. Whether the creation stories were real events or not was not the point of the verses presented.
quote:
Luke even gives the geneology of Jesus, traced right back to Adam. I have a hard time accepting that the author laid out the entire geneology of savior of mankind.............right back to someone who was not real.
Elsewhere in scripture geneologies are used, including Adam. Are you suggesting these authors also didnt accept Adam as a real person?
There's no way to tell. I consider the Book of Matthew we have today to have originally been a satire. The synoptics were written around or after 70CE.
Mark (65-80CE) - This one had no genealogy
Matthew (80-100CE) - This author was concerned with numerology for his satire purposes. He didn't go to Adam, he started with Abraham.
Luke (80-130CE) - This author supposedly investigated the past, but tends to clash with the OT and only he took the genealogy to Adam. The author was Greek, not Jewish.
We have to remember that the people of the time were inundated with various religions and various gods and goddesses. To attract the Greeks and Romans, his god needed to be as good as theirs. So we still have the potential that the author is presenting fact with fiction.
Notice the bulk of the Jews weren't buying into this religion, but gentiles did. Who in this scenario didn't grow up knowing the legends of the Jews? Odds are the gentiles.
People don't live to be over 600 or 900 years old. The Redactor added the ages for his purposes.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
The NT can't tell us what Jesus or the writers personally believed concerning the creation stories.
quote:
Paul no doubt believed in the Genesis account.
Acts 24: 14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, (ESV)
YHWH is the God of Abraham.
Acts 7:32
"I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob....
Those are the fathers Paul speaks of, not Adam.
The rest of the verses again can simply be a writer using a foundational myth to make a point. All we have is the end product, not the personal thoughts behind the letter.
quote:
What evidence do you have that they accepted it as a myth?
Since the authors are unknown, except for Paul, there is not way to know their actual personal beliefs on the subject. There is no concrete evidence either way.
Given that Paul was Jewish and knew the Jewish Legends and Myths, we have no way of knowing what his actual personal belief concerning the creation stories. His writings are not concrete evidence since it is possible to write contrary to personal belief to make a point.
I understand Paul's lessons and I don't feel the Genesis stories are actual events. Whether the creation stories are fact or fiction does not change Paul's point. It may affect Christian Doctrine, but that's not Paul's problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by hERICtic, posted 07-03-2010 8:37 AM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by hERICtic, posted 07-03-2010 12:57 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 23 of 295 (567971)
07-03-2010 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by hERICtic
07-03-2010 12:57 PM


Re: Fact or Fiction
quote:
The OT does not give any indication if Genesis is a myth. You havent given any evidence that ancient Jews knew it was a myth. So how do you know what Paul believed was legend and myth?
This is the accuracy and inerrancy thread, not Bible Study. You won't find the information inside the text. That's not the purpose of the text.
I've already shown you from outside the text that Jews and Christians are able to write contrary to their personal beliefs when it comes to the creation stories.
I've also shown you that before the first century many Jews knew the Laws didn't go back to Moses. So there was Bible criticism before Christ. Message 15 Also note that before Jesus, many Jews were also looking to get rid of the sacrificial system. It was gross and expensive. If you understand that, then you'll understand Paul better.
I've also told you that Jesus and Paul were learned in Jewish techniques for argument and midrash.
D’rash (pronounced deh-rahsh' also called "Midrash")
This is a teaching or exposition or application of the P'shat and/or Remez. (In some cases this could be considered comparable to a "sermon.") For instance, Biblical writers may take two or more unrelated verses and combine them to create a verse(s) with a third meaning.
There are three rules to consider when utilizing the d'rash interpretation of a text:
1. A drash understanding can not be used to strip a passage of its p'shat meaning, nor may any such understanding contradict the p'shat meaning of any other scripture passage. As the Talmud states, "No passage loses its p'shat."
2. Let scripture interpret scripture. Look for the scriptures themselves to define the components of an allegory.
3. The primary components of an allegory represent specific realities. We should limit ourselves to these primary components when understanding the text.
These are not styles that we are familiar with today (unless one is Jewish). Do you understand that?
Also understand that the A&E story is not necessary for the Jewish religion. Abraham is the beginning of their religion.
Those who later crafted Original Sin made the A&E story foundational to that Christian doctrine. Paul didn't promote original sin.
quote:
Lets assume Paul believed Adam was a myth. Paul obviously believed and preached that Jesus was necessary bc of Adams actions.
I don't mind getting into a discussion on Paul with you, but Paul is difficult and it takes time to write a reasonable answer. If I do this and all I get from you is, "I disagree show me something else." I'm not going to continue. Back up your disagreement with something comparable, not just another question.
Remember that Paul's ministry to the gentiles came after Jesus' death. He wasn't one of Jesus' disciples and didn't go to the original disciples until much later after his conversion. I don't feel the original disciples presented Jesus as a sacrifice to forgive sins like the Temple sacrifices were.
Paul used sacrificial language to "sell" his gospel, but it didn't replace the temple sacrifices. The original disciples encouraged Paul to participate in sacrifices in the Temple. If they felt these sacrifices were superfluous, they wouldn't have encouraged Paul to participate.
Also remember than there was no atonement sacrifice for intentional sins. Jesus Was Not A Sacrifice To Forgive Sins
Hebrews 10:26 (Not Pauline)
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins
Paul preached against sin and presented Jesus' death as a guilt offering for unintentional sins. The resurrection was acceptance of the offering. Whether Adam is real or not is irrelevant to the point. People know they sin. Paul's creative reasoning for why we sin doesn't change his point. Sacrifices for atonement were a common practice in that day. Even if Paul said sin is just in our nature, but I have the perfect fix for it so God will forgive you; the point is the same. Jews knew the story and Gentiles probably had a similar story to draw from. It doesn't really matter where our "sinful" nature really comes from. The average person doesn't want the details and it doesn't make for a good sales speech.
quote:
If Adam was a myth, what is the point of Jesus? Why would Paul preach that Jesus is necessary if Adam was make believe?
He lied?
You're going to have to tell me what scripture you looking at. Not all letters attributed to Paul are actually by Paul.

Scripture is like Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by hERICtic, posted 07-03-2010 12:57 PM hERICtic has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 32 of 295 (568387)
07-05-2010 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by hepteract
07-04-2010 2:49 PM


Re: Factual Reference
quote:
You clearly aren't understanding the grammatical aspect of this. Jesus is saying that because god created man and woman for each other, sanctity of marriage should be kept. He's not using the story as an example, he's clearly stating that the event of woman being created for man by god is the REASON. As I said before, I wouldn't say that women are evil BECAUSE Pandora opened the box, I would specify that it is representative of woman's evil. Jesus is clearly stating that it is BECAUSE god created woman for man, a reference he clearly believes is factual, that the sanctity of marriage should be kept. Understand?
Wow, you didn’t even address the arguments I made in Message 11. Apparently you’re not an avid reader.
Let’s look at the argument that Jesus was making.
You summarize it as saying that because God created man and woman for each other, the sanctity of marriage should be kept. You say that he's clearly stating that the event of woman being created for man by god is the REASON.
That’s not what Jesus said. You’re making that assumption because you know the A&E story. Jesus pulled a line from each story to make his own point. The first line is alluding to Genesis 1.
But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.
The second is the narrator’s conclusion from the A&E story.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will be come one flesh.
After Adam said:
This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man
Then the narrator stated that this is why a man will leave his family and cleave to his wife. Adam and Eve didn’t have a family, so the narrator is talking about his own culture.
Oddly enough at the time of Jesus a man didn’t leave his family and unite with his wife. The wife left her family (bought by the husband) to join the man's family.
In the book How People Lived in the Bible (Thomas Nelson Publishers) we have this information.
In ancient times, marriage had very little to do with love. It had everything to do with babies. The whole point of a marriage was procreation. Although new parents were happy to have a daughter, every couple hoped their newborn would be a son. You see, men stayed with a family and increased its size and wealth by bringing in their own wives, and still more children.
So the Genesis statement about a man leaving his family doesn’t even match with the reality of the time.
No matter what god one believes in or even if one doesn’t believe in a god, humans procreate sexually, not asexually. This characteristic is shared by mammals, most reptiles and flowering plants. For those who believe in a god, God created all of those male and female also, but that has nothing to do with marriage.
In some Jewish and Christian interpretations, the one flesh in Genesis 2:24 refers to a baby. In reality, two people cannot become one flesh.
So Jesus’ argument is that since God made mankind male and female, a man will leave his parents and be united with a woman and the two will become one. Then he makes his conclusion:
Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.
This argument doesn’t really follow since making mankind male and female doesn’t say which males and females go together. Divorce and remarriage doesn't negate male and female procreation. In their reality, the parents decided who would be paired up. Females could be married as young as 13. He also could be referencing something from the Jewish marriage ceremony of the time. I can't find anything on what the ancient ceremony entailed.
Jesus is making an argument against divorcing for minor reasons as I showed in Message 11. He isn’t necessarily implying that the Genesis accounts are fact.
Notice that in his explanation to his disciples he says, And if a woman divorces her husband That’s only allowed in Greek and Roman law, not Jewish. Jesus didn’t preach to the Gentiles. The author made a mistake or expanded a teaching made by Jesus to include the Gentiles.
I’ve shown you that fiction can be used to make a point in reality without deeming the fiction to be fact.
Please address my arguments and the questions I asked you in Message 11.
What is your evidence that the reference means the speaker thought the event as written in Genesis was an actual event?
Are the gentlemen who referenced Gekko saying that the movie was a factual account and Gordon Gekko is not a fictional character?
How do you discern a story is fiction?
How do you know the Pandora story is fiction?
How you present Pandora's box serves your purpose it isn't evidence that Jesus personally believed the Genesis stories to be actual events.
Considering that divorce and remarriage are still allowed in Judaism his argument apparently didn't make an impression. Since divorce and remarriage are allowed among most sects of Christianity, his argument still didn't stick.
It wasn't a sound argument. What is written isn't concrete evidence that Jesus personally believed the creation stories were factual events.

Scripture is like Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by hepteract, posted 07-04-2010 2:49 PM hepteract has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 8:46 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 38 of 295 (568444)
07-05-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by hepteract
07-05-2010 8:46 PM


Re: Factual Reference
quote:
I'm not disputing Jesus' purposes. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the statements he made show clear belief in the genesis account of creation:
No they don't.
quote:
Jesus, having used the word therefore, was clearly saying that god's creation of woman for man was the underlying reason that the two should not separate. You clearly have a poor understanding of language. To drive the point through, i'll even get the greek definitions:
This isn't about definitions.
quote:
A fictional example is never the underlying cause, and since Jesus was so worded in law and argument he would not have committed this fallacy.
What fallacy? He's making a reasoned argument for his time to clergy. Being made male and female wasn't the cause and that isn't what it says in Genesis.
This comment attributed to Jesus is not evidence for or against the claim that the creation stories were actual events. As I've shown, fiction can and has been used to make a valid point.
quote:
As for my failure to respond to message 11, I apologize for not having the free time to research and type for hours at a time. In any case, I wasn't arguing Jesus' motives in the first place, so I see no need to.
Understood.

Scripture is like Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 8:46 PM hepteract has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 10:58 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 39 of 295 (568445)
07-05-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by kbertsche
07-05-2010 1:20 AM


Redactor Makes a Tale
quote:
Whether or not this is a real "contradiction" or whether it implies an "error" depends on one's interpretation of the text, and is not as straightforward as you seem to believe.
You may not like to talk about purpose, but that's what this is about.
The Gen 2 writer wrote his story. A few hundred years later or so the Gen 1 writer wrote his story. Then a several hundred years after that the Redactor put them together. Each had their purpose.
The order was irrelevant to the Redactor's purpose for joining the stories. If it was an issue, he would have changed it. If I put two stories together on purpose, it is not an error. When people read to tell a story, no one goes back to compare the consistency. The average person didn't have a book to analyze. They just listened to the story.
Edited by purpledawn, : Subtitle

Scripture is like Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by kbertsche, posted 07-05-2010 1:20 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by greentwiga, posted 07-06-2010 12:53 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 42 of 295 (568485)
07-06-2010 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by hepteract
07-05-2010 10:58 PM


Re: Factual Reference
quote:
I disagree. The definitions of the Greek words Jesus used tell us what he meant, and the definitions I provided show that he was describing the events as a factual basis for a legal/philosophical precedent.
Still you don't address the arguments I've made. The definitions only tell us what the words mean, not necessarily what Jesus believed personally.
Even if someone used the argument today that since mankind evolved to procreate sexually, married couples should not divorce except when one partner has sex with someone else. Therefore, what nature has joined together let man not separate. It still isn't a valid argument because the fact that mankind procreates male and female has nothing to do with marriage in general or an individual marriage. The author has Jesus appealing to the authority of God.
Please address the arguments I'm making. I promoted this topic to the science forum because you wanted to discuss inerrancy and you made it clear to ICANT that you didn't want the Bible as the last word. So far you aren't addressing arguments made from outside the Bible.

Scripture is like Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 10:58 PM hepteract has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 43 of 295 (568486)
07-06-2010 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by greentwiga
07-06-2010 12:53 AM


Re: Redactor Makes a Tale
quote:
As it turns out, the story of Adam in the Garden is more accurate than even the fundamentalists teach.
Accurate about what?
Since the Redactor joined the two stories without fixing the order, this is evidence that he knew they were foundational myths. The creation stories weren't critical to the Jewish religion.
It wasn't an error when he linked the two stories.

Scripture is like Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by greentwiga, posted 07-06-2010 12:53 AM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by greentwiga, posted 07-06-2010 12:22 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 48 of 295 (568579)
07-06-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by greentwiga
07-06-2010 12:22 PM


Re: Redactor Makes a Tale
quote:
Redactor? Sounds like you made an interpretation and now treat the interpretation as fact. If you approach the story of Gen 2-4 with fresh eyes, you find that many things that were thought to be errors are fact.
Redactor is from the Documentary Hypothesis.
You said: As it turns out, the story of Adam in the Garden is more accurate than even the fundamentalists teach.
I asked accurate about what? You gave me nothing specific to ask about.
So you're saying the A&E story is accurate with science. Is that science of today or then?
Even if the story didn't match with our science at all, that still doesn't make either story in error.
I don't consider the stories to have errors.
If Moses wrote the whole thing, he wrote it that way on purpose and therefore it is not an error.
If the two stories were written by two different authors, again there is no error.
If a Redactor spliced them together, he had a purpose for doing so in spite of the order difference. Again, no error.
Looking to any creation story for scientific facts is an error on the part of the searcher.
The writers wrote about their surroundings, so if some parts of the story matches the area it shouldn't be a surprise. It doesn't make the story an actual event though.
Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

Scripture is like Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by greentwiga, posted 07-06-2010 12:22 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 07-07-2010 4:17 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 53 by greentwiga, posted 07-07-2010 12:58 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 51 of 295 (568621)
07-07-2010 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
07-07-2010 4:17 AM


Friedman vs Radday
quote:
purpledawn, that documentary hypothesis is extremly old...dating back to wellhausen in the late 1800's
this may be off topic but i just wanted to mention that in line with the topic, you cant really use the old wellhausen theory to try and prove your point becasue that theory has been shown to not be entirely accurate.
I've made it know that my arguments are based on the more current work of Richard Elliott Friedman.
In Friedman's essay "Some Recent Non-Arguments Against the Documentary Hypothesis" (1996), Friedman writes:
For more than a century, the documentary hypothesis has been the basic model for scholars who study the origins of the first books of the Bible. Periodically we hear that the hypothesis is in question, but this is not really true. It remains the dominant model in which we work. For most scholars, it is sufficiently established as to be assumed in their research, and generally those who challenge it are really refining rather than attacking it.
quote:
In the 80's a group of researchers at the Technion Institute in Haifa did a linguistic analysis of the book of Genesis by feeding its 20,000 words into a computer program which studies word usage and occurrence. The results were reported and the newer conclusion is that at least 82% of the pentacheut had only one author.
On page 95, Friedman addresses Radday's methods.
Radday then made changes of his own to this set of identifications. Genesis 14, the story of Abraham and the battle of the kings, is generally not regarded as part of any of the three main sourceworks of Genesis. Radday, however, simply decided to call it part of P. Why? In Radday's own words, "We put it, for the sake of convenience and for the lack of any better, into P. For no good reason at all, he was studying the language of an author while including an entire chapter that, according to the hypothesis being tested, was by someone else.
Worse, he excluded the creation story of Genesis 1--probably the most famous passage in P--from the study altogether because, according to Raday, his was a study of prose, and Genesis 1 is poetry. But Genesis 1 is prose. It is beautiful, patterned prose, but this fact does not make it legitimate to call it petry and exclude it from the analysis.
In all. I found errors in 29 of the 50 chapters of Genesis in Radday's source identification. Most of the errors were serious enough to throw off the results of the analysis. ...Radday and his colleagues had given whole chapters of J to E, and E to J, and then cam up with 82-percent coalescence of J's and E's "language behavior"! What else could we expect?
It is still a valid hypothesis. It has not been disproved, only refined.

Scripture is like Newton’s 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 Newton’s Third Law of Motion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 07-07-2010 4:17 AM Peg has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024