EnochBethany

We are not saying that. God says that. Everyone sins. But there is a huge difference between making a mistake in judgement or a momentary weakness and in living a life of willful, habitual sin. When people say that a person can be "gay" and still be "Christian," then they totally remove repentance from Christianity. They discard it completely, meaning that you could now repetitively commit anything God calls a sin until the day you die with complete impunity, and more to the point, without repenting and turning away from it. Homosexuality is a sin. There is no credible debate, from a biblical standpoint, that it is not a sin, because the Bible states very clearly that it is a sin in both the Old and New Testament. It doesn't have to repeat that it is a sin in every chapter of every book for those statements that it is a sin to have validity. The expectation when one becomes a Christian is always that gross repetitive and willful sin will cease. If one is committing a sin such as homosexuality or adultery over and over and over again, and saying it is perfectly acceptable to do so, they are not repentant, and they are not sorry for the sin. My bro, "homosexuality" is not a sin. Neither does the Bible use such language. Probably you & I don't disagree on the substance, but the vocabulary. "Homosexual" confuses the issue. Psychologists might call boys at a certain age homosexual, because they prefer to play with boys instead of with girls. Preference of company is not the issue. Loving (agape) persons of the same sex, is not the issue. The proper terms are "men lying with men" and Sodomite. If you describe precisely the abominable practice, you will probably find yourself censored here. But it is by describing precisely what is done that the abomination appears. Fornication comes in many varieties, and it is a sin characteristic of heading to the Lake of Fire. Fornicators are unmarried. What if the two men or two women are married...then, no fornication. Sexual impurity comes in many forms. Two men who are gay being married to each other is what God calls an abomination. So it is still sexual sin no matter what you call it. Shiloh when I was young, I used to call your name. That's what goes thru my head when I see "Shiloh," though I know the term is Biblical. When the abomination statement was made in Lev 18, there was no sodomite marriage. Sodomite marriage is a very recent creation. Yes, in English "fornication" means unmarried. No, fornication (porneia) in the Bible does not mean unmarried. Fornication is a general term for sexual sins. BDAG lexicon (standard NT Greek dictionary). I shorten the entry; it is very long & has abbreviations most persons don't understand), I insert some explanation in brackets: Porneia is the NT word for "fornication," more accurately, general sexual sin: πορνεία (of various kinds of ‘unsanctioned sexual intercourse’: 1. unlawful sexual intercourse, prostitution, unchastity, fornication, 1 Cor 5:1ab In a vice list Ro 1:29 v.l. W. ἀκαθαρσία [uncleanness] 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5. Differentiated fr. μοιχεία Mt 15:19; Mk 7:21 (the pl. denotes individual acts). On the other hand μοιχεία [adultery] appears as πορνεία Of the sexual unfaithfulness of a married woman Mt 5:32; 19:9 διὰ τὰς πορνείας [on account of the fornications] 1 Cor 7:2 (the pl. points out the various factors that may bring about sexual immorality Also ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς π. [abstain from fornication] 1 Th 4:3. ἐκ π. γεννηθῆναι [to be begotten out of] be an illegitimate child, a bastard J 8:41. On ἀπέχεσθαι τῆς πορνείας καὶ πνικτοῦ [abstain from fornication & strangled] Ac 15:20 (cp. vs. 29; 21:25 and s. 2 below) 2. participation in prohibited degrees of marriage, fornication (s. Lev. 18:16–18; cp. Acts 15:20–29, ) Mt 5:32; 19:9 3. immorality of a transcendent nature, fornication, in imagery, in the mystic city Babylon, which appears in Rv as a prostitute with an international clientele. Rv 19:2. repent of her immorality 2:21; cp. 9:21. the wine of her passionate immorality 14:8; 18:3 VERB PORNEUŌ πορνεύω of a variety of ‘unsanctioned sexual intercourse’. 1. to engage in sexual immorality, engage in illicit sex, to fornicate, to whore, In a gener. sense 1 Cor 10:8ab. Mk 10:19 v.l. Regarded as a sin against one’s own body 1 Cor 6:18. W. ‘eat meat offered to idols’ Rv 2:14, 20. 2. engagement in polytheistic cult, fornication, in imagery , of polytheistic cult in the sense ‘practice image-worship/idolatry’ Rv 17:2; 18:3, 9

The NT gives no indication that entire sanctification which we receive at salvation is in the future. The verses I gave are in the present tense. It is true of us now. We are new creations now. Our old man was crucified with Jesus. We are separated (sanctified) for Gods use and purposes right now. Repeatedly scripture speaks of sanctification in the present tense, so moving that to the future alters plain scripture. As far as the sin nature, the only translation which uses that term is the NIV. No other translation speaks about a sin nature. What you are supporting is a dual nature. A person can not be in Adam and in Jesus at the same time. It is one or the other. The sin nature is the Adamic nature. A person can not be a son of the devil and a son of God at the same time. As far as a person who is saved ending up in the lake of fire, that is impossible and unscriptural. Entering into a discussion about eternal security is definitely off topic for this thread, so if you want that discussion, I would suggest you start a new thread. I confess to being confused as to what position you are defending. I thought you were defending the theological position that there is a 2nd blessing sanctification in this life in which the sin nature is eradicated, while also holding that such persons can end up in the Lake of Fire. "Take away our bent to sinning, Alpha & Omega be." Wesley Maybe we are talking past each other. Sanctification is presented in the Bible as past, present, progressive, & future. I don't have the ambition at the moment to quote you all the scripture. You can check a concordance & draw your own conclusions. I can't believe that you don't think Christians can sin as totally sanctified when they are born again saved. I spent many years studying the doctrine of Flesh, which occurs mostly in Paul's writings, sarx. I came to the conclusion that it means the Old Human Adamic nature and the same thing as the Old Man. I could not find any mutually exclusive characteristics between flesh & Old Man. Both the flesh & the Old Man are said to have been virtually crucified. But dead does not mean non-existent. The flesh lusts (expresses strong desires) vs the Spirit & vice versa. This is true of all Chrstians & cannot be escaped in this life. I would not put "human nature" in a translation, since that is too interpretive. The "human nature" interpretation of flesh is not a new interpretation; it has a long history. IMHO, you either must interpret sarx (when it is responsible for sin) as the human nature, or as physical tissue (the body). And I find the latter interpretation impossible. Note that the works of the flesh are not all physical. I am afraid that it would take me a lot of ink here to present my conclusions on this subject & defend them. The clearest passages I know of are Romans 6:18-19 Ἀνθρώπινον λέγω διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν. the -in (-inos) suffix denotes adjective of material, only here the material is man-material. and in Ephesians 2: the spirit that now works in the sons of [expession denoting nature] disobedience; among whom we also all once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh even of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. Have you heard of "the mind of the flesh"? The mind of the flesh is enmity vs. God. Note that in the past tense Christians crucified the flesh; but despite this crucifixion (death) the flesh still exists as an active force for evil -- the death of the Old Man & of the flesh is the same, due to Christ's crucifixion & our inclusion in His death. There is no more ground to teach the annihilation of the Old Man than of the flesh; which certainly is not annihilated! But I say, Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, 21 envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 meekness, self-control; against such there is no law. 24 And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof. Compare: our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin; Ephesians: But ye did not so learn Christ; 21 if so be that ye heard him, and were taught in him, even as truth is in Jesus: 22 that ye put away, as concerning your former manner of life, the old man, that waxeth corrupt [right now the Old Man is active!] after the lusts of deceit; 23 and that ye be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and put on the new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth. 14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. Rom 13 In Eph it is new man vs old man; In Rom 13 it is Christ vs flesh. The parallelism between Old Man & flesh is too striking to deny they are something different. Death means separation, not annihilation. I see the Old Man = flesh as the Old Gestalt, Old Morphe of the Christian, hovering like a hostile ghost ready to spring into action & live, while the Christian suffers temporary death: Awake thou that sleepest & Christ will shine upon thee. I was alive apart from the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived & I died. (Rom 7) "I am carnal, sold under sin." I see the Christian living A Dr Jekyl & Mr Hyde existence; the Dr. Jekyl aspect mediated by transformation. Christians need transformation in the present tense, long after salvation -- Rom 12:1-2; 2 Cor 3:18; Eph 3:14-19. Faith is the key to being filled to all the fullness of God, not always experienced. Paul said he was in travail until Christ be FORMED (morphe) in his readers. The Christ morphe was lacking in the readers! Metamorphosis is something that requires daily attention, like Peter walking on the water. Agents of mediating the transformation include the love of Christ which constrains & beholding God's glory as in a mirror (2 Cor 3:18). In his law he mediates day & night (mirror = word of God). Perhaps you should clarify just what your position is.

We are not saying that. God says that. Everyone sins. But there is a huge difference between making a mistake in judgement or a momentary weakness and in living a life of willful, habitual sin. When people say that a person can be "gay" and still be "Christian," then they totally remove repentance from Christianity. They discard it completely, meaning that you could now repetitively commit anything God calls a sin until the day you die with complete impunity, and more to the point, without repenting and turning away from it. Homosexuality is a sin. There is no credible debate, from a biblical standpoint, that it is not a sin, because the Bible states very clearly that it is a sin in both the Old and New Testament. It doesn't have to repeat that it is a sin in every chapter of every book for those statements that it is a sin to have validity. The expectation when one becomes a Christian is always that gross repetitive and willful sin will cease. If one is committing a sin such as homosexuality or adultery over and over and over again, and saying it is perfectly acceptable to do so, they are not repentant, and they are not sorry for the sin. My bro, "homosexuality" is not a sin. Neither does the Bible use such language. Probably you & I don't disagree on the substance, but the vocabulary. "Homosexual" confuses the issue. Psychologists might call boys at a certain age homosexual, because they prefer to play with boys instead of with girls. Preference of company is not the issue. Loving (agape) persons of the same sex, is not the issue. The proper terms are "men lying with men" and Sodomite. If you describe precisely the abominable practice, you will probably find yourself censored here. But it is by describing precisely what is done that the abomination appears. Fornication comes in many varieties, and it is a sin characteristic of heading to the Lake of Fire. Fornicators are unmarried. What if the two men or two women are married...then, no fornication. I will grant you that in English we normally think of fornication as between unmarried persons (if are not politically correct & call it being sexually active). But the NT word, porneia, is general, including all sorts of sexual sins. Adultery (a more specific term) is referred to by porneia, for example. Do you have access to BDAG, the standard NT Gk Lexicon? Does God expect us to speak Greek? I don't think so. I've heard many times that pornography comes from the same base as used for "porneia". Frankly, when people start putting empashis on the Greek and Hebrew words of the bible, they beg a lot of questions about translation errors, transcription errors, etc. and frankly call into question the whole bible. It's a very slippery slope. How would you know what God expects us to do about Greek? He does tell Christians to study to show themselves approved to God, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word. And He determined to give us our NT in Greek. The point is that when one discusses sins, one should use the Bible as the guide. When it speaks of fornication (porneia), it does not mean unmarried persons having sex specifically. The word is more general. To know what a word means in the NT, you need a NT Greek dictionary. The Greek lexicon is not a slippery slope, but a great tool to understand the Bible with. The lexicon diminishes translation error; it does not increase translation error.

What is the name of this thread? "Genesis 1: the obvious reading??"? I did not mean to infer that the entire book was a parable, just the genesis of Genesis, hence the Enuma Elish comparison, but apparently that wasn't so obvious to some readers. Well, one waits for your demonstration as to how Gen 1 is a parable ... According to Merriam-Webster, a parable is "a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth," e.g., that God made the world and saw that it was good. When you allege that Genesis 1 is a parable, then you are not claiming that it is non-historical & never happened? M-W did not include that in the definition. We could call it a story, though I'm not sure that it has a conflict & a plot. I'm not sure where you rate it on the simplicity vs. complexity scale (0-10). Are you sure it is simple? How can you prove that? But if all you claim is that it is a story & has a moral, then what is the point of calling it a parable? That definition could fit lots of passages which are not normally considered parables. And are you Weren't you trying to support your theory that it is non-historical with the rubric, "parable"? The word "parable" is a Bible term, & an English dictionary is worth very little in defining Bible terms. One needs Greek & Hebrew dictionaries, which are called "lexicons." A parable is an illustrative story of an event that did not happen, but is true to life, as opposed to a fable which is not true to life (animals talk). Generally the parable is simple, though the parable of the 4 soils in Mat 13 is a tad complicated. Does Genesis 1 resemble the parables of the Lord Jesus?

Cobalt saith: " We know that prophesy will end at the end of this Age," What leads you to that conclusion instead of that prophecy will have a big revival at the end of the age. "but there is nothing in that portion of scripture that says they will end in the Church Age." 1 Cor just says that prophecy will end & says that when the complete has come, the "in part" will go. The Bible is the complete thing in comparison with prophecies. Church History indicates that prophecy ceased. No one has added a page to scripture since the last NT book was written. Of course good Christians may disagree on the interp of 1 Cor 13. Is it my imagination, or are you posting with hostile insults at me? Ad hominem does not commend your posting. "Cessationists are quick to brand tongues and prophesy as dead and gone, but Paul says knowledge will be done away with as well." In context "knowledge" (gnosis) refers to spiritual gift; it is one of the gifts that were to end. It is absurd to think that knowledge, as such will end. We shall know as we are known! The context of 1 Cor 13 is 12-14, a passage on spiritual gifts. "Now I would have you all speak with languages, but rather that you should prophesy: and greater is he who prophesies than he that speaks with languages, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. 6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with languages, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching? "And tongues are still being gifted in every part of the world," I will grant you that there are demons causing confusion, fakers babbling gibberish, and that the Lord may enable someone to speak a language he has never studied on the mission field some time, somewhere; but I know of no one who has the gift of languages nor have I any reason to believe that they do. What I know from Church History indicates that the gift ended as such, as 1 Cor 13 says it would. But you might test it this way: Get 2 persons who claim the gift of interpretation & 1 who claims the gift of languages. Put the two interpreters in separate rooms with an audio feed of the language-speaker-claimer. Have the 2 make a transcript & see if it comes out the same. 1000's of persons are deluded indeed. That does not authenticate their delusion. Cobalt, I wish you the best.

Cobalt saith, "Your post, in it's current form, does not make much sense. And few people take the time to read long rambling posts filled with pseudo Victorian English." What was pseudo-Victorian English? You seem to have time to give to my posts. "Don't know why you are bringing Mosaic Law into the discussion when the church has never been under Mosaic Law." I already said the the Ch is not under the Law of Moses. And the world is not the Church. The entrance of God's Word gives light. Thus I take it that the Law of Moses was a practical civil law for a nation, & the provisions of it are worth considering for a guide to a practical law for a nation. "And we are talking about here-and-now society, not ancient Israel" Yes, and we can take that into consideration as we compare our system with that of Moses. But all scripture [including Moses] is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness" "You are focusing on one sexual sin, i.e. homosexuality, while refusing to discuss the other two." 1) What leads you to think that I ever called "homosexuality" a sin? 2) Your claim that I focus on one sin, is simply false, as anyone can see by reading my posts. I posted such info as I have & which I thought profitable for the readers here, on adultery, fornication, and sodomy. It is here for anyone to read. I don't know of any passage that ranks adultery vs sodomy on the sin scale. Do you?

The scripture addressed to the Church begins mostly at Acts 2. Before that there is Israel & the Kingdom Announcement: Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand. (The Church is mentioned in Mat 16 & 18; also some of the latter part of John anticipates the Church.) Thus, if anyone knows of a verse on fasting which commands fasting to the Church, kindly post it. I am not aware of any such verse. On the subject of fasting, textual family makes a difference. The later manuscripts reflected in the Textus Receptus & the KJV have more on fasting than the older manuscripts have. Most famously when the Lord Jesus came down from the Mt of Transfiguration, the apostles had been unable to cure a boy. The Lord Jesus remarked to them that this kind goes out only by prayer. KJV adds, "and fasting." Yet no fasting took place before the cure, indicating that "and fasting" is not part of God's Word here. Another factor: sometimes the same word translated "fast" refers to simply not eating (as for lack of food), instead of a religious or spiritual discipline. So, if anyone has a commandment to the Church to fast, please post it & educate us.

To rebuke someone, they have to have actually done something. So you are rebuking . . . Who??? You are drawing a parallel which does not exist. No one claimed to have a "vision." That is a false statement from you, every time you make it. It is also bearing false witness. You are carping about the importance of words in another thread, but breaking your own rules here, because the words "prophesy" and "vision" were never used. You are creating an issue where none exists. If you are going to chastise someone for a behavior, you might want to wait until they actual display the behavior you wish to instruct or rebuke on, because your cart is in front of your horse. Your attempt at biblical "instruction" is aimed at something that hasn't happened. "Biblical instruction": Let's define that as what the Bible instructs. No chastisement. Yes, the original post was on a different topic, so I posted mine in the wrong thread. Shalom

I PM'ed you Tnx for the PM.

Sevenseas saith: "However, you do remark on teaching in your post you quoted? are you teaching? seems everyone else is discussing ... discussing and teaching are not the same and I am not too sure a discussion on your teaching would not follow if you are teaching, so, if you can follow that, well, then you might understand why people are not agreeing with you I'm not discussing it Bible teaching = What the Bible teaches, a proper subject of discussion. Now disgustion is another matter; & ad hominem discussions of the poster are out of order. Discuss the topics, por favor, señor. I don't know why I couldn't find your post here, so I made a separate entry on it. Shalom.

If you say, nature does not care one iota. Our vocabulary has no impact on natural processes whatsoever. No impact on natural processes? How about global warming? What we say impacts our climate? I don't think even Enoch could put out that much Carbon. I was thinking more of immediate contribution to atmosphere temperature! Like from all the statements coming our from politicians during primary voting season now.

We are not saying that. God says that. Everyone sins. But there is a huge difference between making a mistake in judgement or a momentary weakness and in living a life of willful, habitual sin. When people say that a person can be "gay" and still be "Christian," then they totally remove repentance from Christianity. They discard it completely, meaning that you could now repetitively commit anything God calls a sin until the day you die with complete impunity, and more to the point, without repenting and turning away from it. Homosexuality is a sin. There is no credible debate, from a biblical standpoint, that it is not a sin, because the Bible states very clearly that it is a sin in both the Old and New Testament. It doesn't have to repeat that it is a sin in every chapter of every book for those statements that it is a sin to have validity. The expectation when one becomes a Christian is always that gross repetitive and willful sin will cease. If one is committing a sin such as homosexuality or adultery over and over and over again, and saying it is perfectly acceptable to do so, they are not repentant, and they are not sorry for the sin. My bro, "homosexuality" is not a sin. Neither does the Bible use such language. Probably you & I don't disagree on the substance, but the vocabulary. "Homosexual" confuses the issue. Psychologists might call boys at a certain age homosexual, because they prefer to play with boys instead of with girls. Preference of company is not the issue. Loving (agape) persons of the same sex, is not the issue. The proper terms are "men lying with men" and Sodomite. If you describe precisely the abominable practice, you will probably find yourself censored here. But it is by describing precisely what is done that the abomination appears. Fornication comes in many varieties, and it is a sin characteristic of heading to the Lake of Fire. Fornicators are unmarried. What if the two men or two women are married...then, no fornication. I will grant you that in English we normally think of fornication as between unmarried persons (if are not politically correct & call it being sexually active). But the NT word, porneia, is general, including all sorts of sexual sins. Adultery (a more specific term) is referred to by porneia, for example. Do you have access to BDAG, the standard NT Gk Lexicon?

I see your reification, and I raise you a Whorfian. Are you sure that some of the vocabulary spilled on the forum doesn't contribute to global warming?

Mestead: You said, "exactly nothing can exist with a cause" Was that a typo? Usted: why do you think it was a typo? anything physical in this world or universe cannot exist without cause or creation. I don't disagree with your latest statement. But you did not post "without cause." Rather you posted "with cause," which would mean that nothing that exists has cause! So I thought you probably meant to say, "exactly nothing can exist without a cause"

======================================================== Hey fire-heart, Give your friend this....... See what he has to say. Also, "things" atoms or anything else do not exist without a cause. In the case of the Universe.... "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent." Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University) exactly nothing can exist with a cause so accoring to the big bang theory it was just vast nothingness but somehow two atoms or whatever they were did exist and exploded to create our vast universe. two issues i see with that- first obviously the atom had to have been created by something or someone second i dont think those two alone can create a explossion with a force strong enough to create billions and billions of galaxys. the big bang theory is supposed to discredit god but i think it only proves his existance You said, "exactly nothing can exist with a cause" Was that a typo?

Objective faith is just being convinced that something is so. Faith may be contrary to evidence, or based on no evidence, some evidence, much evidence, sufficient evidence, or absolute proof. It is all faith. But I put it to you that proper objective faith is being convinced that something is true based on the sufficiency of the evidence or the obviousness of the self-evident. What we usually call science is simply human knowledge of the physical world. And the accuracy of the knowledge varies from proposition to proposition. The knowledge may be merely a model that could explain something or it may be as certain as if A = B, the A + C = B + C. All of the propositions in a science textbook could be theoretically rated on a scale of 0-10 as to how accurate they are. A given person's faith in the accuracy of the propositions could also be rated on a scale. Only a fool would rate them all with a 10.

hahaha...I now see why you have such a hard time with science. Anything we observe is in the past, so by your comment, there is no "science". It's kind of like looking at a picture of yourself when you were younger. lol... (btw, all pictures of yourself are pictures when you were younger). What is science but human knowledge?

If you say, nature does not care one iota. Our vocabulary has no impact on natural processes whatsoever. No impact on natural processes? How about global warming?

"Disclaimer: My use of bold, different fonts, different size fonts, different colors, underlined words, highlighted words, all capital letters, etc., is only to bring about a point I am trying to make. It is not intended to come across in an offensive way or like I am shouting at anyone. I like to use these tools to clarify my meaning." I love your disclaimer!

8 Love never fails: but whether there be prophecies, THEY SHALL BE DONE AWAY; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away. 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 10 but when that which is perfect is come, [the completed Bible] that which is in part [the prophetic gift] shall be done away. Thou sayest: "once a prophecy is fulfilled, it becomes past and may not fulfill twice." There is nothing about fulfillment here. Prophecy ceased in the Church age. The complete Bible has more of God's Word than we have time & intellect to grasp in a whole life time. But we expect prophecy to be revived in the Tribulation. "And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams: 18 Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heaven above, And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke:"

What is the name of this thread? "Genesis 1: the obvious reading??"? I did not mean to infer that the entire book was a parable, just the genesis of Genesis, hence the Enuma Elish comparison, but apparently that wasn't so obvious to some readers. Well, one waits for your demonstration as to how Gen 1 is a parable, how Enuma Elish is a parable, how they are parallel in literary structure to parables Christ used, & what the relevance is of the comparison, what your comparison proves. Do you accept George Eldon Ladd's thesis as to how a parable has only 1 point?

I assure you this dream was very real and very personal too. I would have to be crazy to keep it to myself. - DRS81 Well, I won't judge you for having a dream that seemed real. cool. I posted it in the wrong thread; it was not appropriate here.

A serious journalist who is a professional who lives on his/her writings does both if they are any good... they write what sells to make a living and mix what they either think the readers need for their own good, or what the reader needs to know to maybe influence them to become what the journalist wants them to be. Really good ones like Walter Cronkite are so effective that they can build up such a trust that people will follow their teaching and never even know they've been taught.... Walter was a remarkable person who did that for much of our nation for years... I am told that he was also the voice at the owl god Moloch at the Bohemian Grove for the cremation of care rituals... People should be very careful who they read and listen to. Yes, including me. IMHO, Walter Cronkite (Sickness) was at the start of the departure from objective new to liberal propaganda. Douglas Edwards was much better. Where are the Walter Winchells? Walter Cronkite-ism moves to Dan Ratherism & Lucy Ramirez (non-existent source), Ye Olde Selectric Composer Typewriter Theory for Times New Roman font! Imagine a newsman destroyed by a th

"how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written," How does the interpretation of a text depend upon how the penman received the revelation? If it is true, what difference does the revelatory process make? "As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter." 1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends? 2) How do you know that probably a priest did it? 3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter? 4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"? 5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1? is that anachronistic reasoning? "The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative. Well, Old School, I asked you for your proof before, didn't I. And you did not give it. Will you respond now? "Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends" 1) What does written in a vacuum mean? Was it not written for ancient Israel by the Lord? What how does Sumeria become the context for revelation given to Israel in Sinai during their 40 year wandering? You think the ex-slaves were thinking about Sumeria? 2) How do you know it is a collection of local Sumerian legends? 3) How do you distinguish between local & non-local Sumerian legends? 4) What ancient documents do you list to substantiate your collection theory? 5) What percent of the Pentateuch has a parallel in Sumerian legends? 6) Do you confuse flood parallels with creation parallels? 7) What is the percent of correlation between you ancient legends & Genesis 1? 8) Are the correlations explainable by real events which happened instead of literary borrowing? 9) What ancient documents have you personally studied? As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter. The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative. , e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter. "The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative." "As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter." 1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends? 2) How do you know that probably a priest did it? 3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter? 4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"? 5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1? is that anachronistic reasoning? "The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative." 1) How do u know what the reader has to do? 2) What leads you to suppose that Gen 1ff is multiple versions or same events views by different authors? Proof? 3) How do you know that Genesis uses fable literary devices? 4) Do you understand the different between fable & parable? 5) Which events could not have been historical? How do you know? Pardon me for pointing out that you are making a lot of assertions for which you give no proof. Best wishes Most serious students of scripture are familiar with the J, E and P(riest) texts of Genesis. https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html Then compare Genesis with the Enuma Elish. Enuma Elish begins "when on high" and Genesis "in the beginning" Enuma Elish shows a connection between giving names and existence, and in Genesis, naming is also important. Both Enuma Elish and Genesis suggest primeval chaos in the beginning. In both, water is divided into upper and lower waters. Enuma Elish is recorded on seven tablets and the Genesis creation is completed in seven days. In the Enuma Elish man is created in the 6th tablet, and in Genesis man is created on the 6th day. There are of course many differences as well, but if NT Christians can gut the paganism out of Saturnalia and Ishtar and call them Christmas and Easter respectively, then OT believers can do the same with ancient Sumerian legends BTW, probably means just that: probably, but talking animals and magic trees are definitely the stuff of Aesop fables. IMO, Genesis is a parable -- Jesus used them all the time. Finally, as a journalist and long time reader -- for more than half a century -- I think I know what readers need to know and do just by personal practice. Have you no answers to the questions? Have you no proof? ... Meteorology is a science proved through probabilities, or do you think correct forecasts are all just coincidences. How does your statement about meteorology prove all your assertions? I put 10 questions to the details of your claims. Where is your proof? BTW, the weather forecast is basically wrong frequently. I had a chemistry prof who said he took a course in meteorology. He told a story like this: They had to made predictions & were graded on whether the predictions were right! He was not doing so well, but his friend was doing well. So the prof-to-be asked his friend how he did so well. The friend said, "Well statistically it is probable that the next day's weather will be the same as today's. So I just predict the same thing for tomorrow!" Now seeker, I have asked you to prove your claims, give substantial evidence. Your mentioning of meteorology is no evidence at all to substantiate your thoughts. I don't wish to put you down at all, but I hope that if you see that really you have no logical reason for your beliefs on Genesis, then you may find the truth.

There were no ad hominems, and side tracking or back-peddling won't work with me . You said some things in a very loud, clear voice. Now you seem to want to distance yourself from them. Just because the gay community uses certain words to further their agenda does not mean that those words mean the same thing to me. That does not mean that my use of those words furthers their agenda. It does not mean that I am restricted in the terminology I can use in a discussion. It does not mean that I am "pro-sin." You said all these things, and you said them very clearly. And they are all false. Anyone here who has known me for a long time could easily tell you that I am decidedly anti-gay just as I am anti any sexual sin. Anyone who cares can review the discussion & see your untrue ad hominem attacks on me. My thesis is that if Christians fall into the trap of using certain rhetoric, that rhetoric itself unintentionally helps the sinful cause -- not that persons who use that rhetoric want to advance the sinful cause. Thus I recommend not using the term "gay" in the discussion. Evidently you & others disagree with me.