Genesis 1-11 - Fact, Fiction, or something else?

[nebula]

Just curious, in Genesis 1:16 it says "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."

Do you believe the moon emits light like the sun? Or is the moon figuratively like the sun in that light comes from it even though it is merely the reflected light of the sun?

I don't think the Lord was interested in teaching the people the science behind how the Moon shines light. The message the Lord meant for His people is that He gave them the Moon as a light for the night and to help them mark off the seasons. (The Jewish culture still follows the lunar calendar.)

[ParanoidAndroid]

You are confusing literary forms with literary devices. Poetry is not a device. Poetry is a form of literature. You may consider things like poetry, symmetry and so forth as figurative "devices," but they are not. Just because something is written in poetic, "theatrical" fashion, does not make it "figurative." Figurative means that you have something that stands for something else. It is nonliteral imagery that points to a literal fact. For example, a person may see the creation account as parabolic, and the "days" of creation are symbolic of a hidden truth and so forth. That is figuratism.

So the passage resembles a literary form (poetry) but you think it is unimportant that such resemblance exists????

That was how I viewed it when I was an unbeliever. That's all I'm saying. No need to go further than that.

Maybe so, but it does not provide an adequate excuse to simply dismiss the point.

I am not "dismissing" the point. I'm just saying that as a non-Christians this was how I viewed it. I am not alone in this, because others have said the same thing. As believers, both you and I see that there was a previous covenant. Non-believers, generally speaking, are not so understanding.

Humanity is humanity!

That kind of dismissive answer shows you really don't have a grasp on the logical problem your view possesses. You seem unable to address the theological problems that exist wihthin what you are proposing. I would venture to suggest that you have never even thought about this on a theological level. It simply made sense to you at some point and you ran with it and have completely disregarded any consideration about where your assertions intersect with the rest of the testimony of Scripture.

If you have two different sets of parents for humanity and only one set of parents became sinful and ended up losing a special relationship with God, then what we have are two races of human beings. One in need of redemption and one who does not. You cannot brush it aside ith such a dismissive attitude. To give any support to your assertion you need to show that the whole of the biblical testimony agrees with it.

I wasn't being dismissive, and I apologise for the impression that I was. I simply don't see the problem because.... going right back to the original concept, I don't see a literal account of history. If there was a literal account of history here, you probably do have something worth arguing. But this goes back then to the argument we have been having - the literary form (if you don't like the term "literary device") suggests a poetic structure. And if it was only intended to convey the spiritual intentions I mentioned back in the first post, then the issues of "who sinned first" are not really relevant.

The error is on your part. All of the cities are mentioned, but the writer only counts the ones that belonged to Judah. The tribe of Simeon also had cities within Judah because that tribe had no land inheritance of its own. The cities not counted as belonging to Judah are reiterated in Joshua 19 as belonging to Simeon, so there is no counting error. 29 of the cities belonged to Judah, the rest belonged Simeon who resided in Judah.

Well as demonstrated, your assertion that the Bible has many errors is really a baseless assertion. You don't really know the Bible that well and are not in a position to challenge its claims. And yes, this an infallibility issue, as it is also clear that you don't believe in the Bible's infallibility.

I don't like to blow my own trumpet, and under any other situation, I would not bring this up. But I know the Bible better than probably 99% of Christians. Just because I arrive at a somewhat different conclusion on some matters does not mean I don't know it at all (I certainly don't disagree on all matters - in most all of the essential doctrines of salvation I fully agree with Conservative Evangelical Christianity). All it means is that in some matters I have come to my own conclusions that I believe are as strongly based in scripture as yours. This is not a boast. Granted, my knowledge is not perfect, and I do not set myself up as any kind of authority figure on this. I am as subject to fallibility as anyone else on this planet. For all I know I could be entirely wrong on this.

And if I am wrong? I have thought about this, believe it or not. If I am wrong - then the message of this part of Genesis is still just as meaningful. It does not affect how I live as a Christian, and it does not affect any doctrines in my belief on God. If I am wrong, then God will tell me when I face Judgement, and I will apologise - but my salvation is not in jeopardy over it. I would say the same thing if you were wrong on this.

Maybe I was wrong on Joshua - I'll have a look at it again in the future and keep your comments in mind when I do so. However, they were simply the ones that I had in the forefront of my mind at the time of posting - other copyist errors creep into the two census accounts in Kings and Chronicles. Unless there are issues as equally pressing as the towns in Joshua.

Yeah, we have already dealt with Quirinius' governership in another thread a few months back. You will have to do better than that. Your rather amusing attempts at trying to find things wrong with the Bible, make me wonder why you even bother being a Christian at all? I mean if you can't see the Bible as being wholly trustworthy on basic facts, why would you stake your life on its spiritual claims where your eternal destiny is concerned?

I wasn't here several months back (I'd been away doing other things). There may have been a thread detailed with this. However, I have studied that particular issue, including the opinions of historians - most historians believe Luke simply made a mistake on Quirinius. The rest of the timeline fits with what we know of Jesus from the other gospels, so the general consensus is that Luke was mistaken. A very small mistake, considering (many other historians make temporal errors such as this as well), but a mistake nonetheless.

The historians I have spoken to on this do admit that there are enough gaps in our knowledge of Quirinius though to suggest the possibility that there was another Governorship somewhere between 6-4 BC (the date of Christ's birth). However, no other evidence exists to back this up. In order to arrive at this conclusion it requires 100% Faith in the authorship of Luke. It just so happens that I do have that Faith. And I believe, as do Christian historians, that if any other evidence of Quirinius were to come to light it would back up our knowledge of Luke's Gospel. But from an historical viewpoint, a governorship is unlikely. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was one. However, there was no evidence to suggest there wasn't one either, so while improbable it is not impossible.

I hope you see the distinction, and the Faith required to make a decision on one.

If this other thread you mentioned comes to any other conclusion, then I will of course examine it, but I will do so with great scepticism - any other than what I have shared here would be rejected immediately by the majority of modern historians, regardless of their religious views.

That said - I bother being a Christian because Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins. We do have different views on a few topics, but I don't think that changes the basis of my Christian belief. I simply was not born with the rose-tinted glasses that many other believers appear to have when it comes to the Bible.

All the best, Shiloh

Regards,

[ParanoidAndroid]

I'm wondering PA- is there any other part of the Bible that you have thought - " is this fact, fiction or something else?".

There has, actually. Revelation writes of some very fantastic events, and it does so with great figurative emphasis (as agreed by others - far more so than anything in Genesis). So i question how much we should literally take to heart with this book. A few examples of this Book - are there literally only 144,000 Saints who will be in heaven? Will there be a literal anti-Christ (particularly considering that 1 John refers to "many antichrists")? Will we literally require a mark of the beast at some stage to buy food? There's more, but this is a start.

I am very up in the air on this issue, but it would be fair to say that I do not subscribe to any rapture doctrine (my beliefs resemble Amillenialism on that particular topic). And while I'm speaking of raptures, 1 Thessalonians 4 is another passage of major concern to me. If it is so apparently clear that the Rapture is biblical, why did it take until the 18th Century to formalise it into a doctrine? What happened for the other 17 Centuries of Christian history??? While such a doctrine is not impossible, I need to have a logical reason that God would withhold such valuable and vital information from His people for so long.

There are probably a few other passages that I wonder about the historicity. Did Job exist? I believe he did. However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise (a friend of mine teaches an ancient-text class at university - Job is on his mandatory reading list because it is one of the greatest books of the ancient era, to his understanding). But as with the other passages that I find questionable, they don't affect doctrine. If Job was real, as I believe he was, then the story of Job is a great affirmation about praising God even when times are tough and even unbearable. And if Job was not real, then the story of Job is a great affirmation about prasing God even when times are tough and unbearable. True, there would be a sense of loss in thinking of it as a parable to keep strong for God rather than an historical event, but the message is still there - persevere, this isn't punishment from God.....

Maybe there's one or two other sections I think about. You've put me on the spot a little and I haven't really had time to think through the exact passages. However, i would probably say with sufficient confidence that anything outside those listed already won't really deviate from mainstream Protestant doctrines.

Why do you ask? And do these issues I have raised pose problems for you as a Christian?

All the best,

~ PA

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 17 2009, 08:31 PM)

You are confusing literary forms with literary devices. Poetry is not a device. Poetry is a form of literature. You may consider things like poetry, symmetry and so forth as figurative "devices," but they are not. Just because something is written in poetic, "theatrical" fashion, does not make it "figurative." Figurative means that you have something that stands for something else. It is nonliteral imagery that points to a literal fact. For example, a person may see the creation account as parabolic, and the "days" of creation are symbolic of a hidden truth and so forth. That is figuratism.

So the passage resembles a literary form (poetry) but you think it is unimportant that such resemblance exists????

No, what I have consistently stated is that poetry does not equal "figurative." Just because someone is using a poetic style does not mean that they are necessarily employing figurative devices. I have no problem with the creation account being rendered in a poetic style. The problem is when you draw an inaccurate conclusion that assumes "poetic" means "figurative."

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 17 2009, 08:31 PM)

QUOTE

That was how I viewed it when I was an unbeliever. That's all I'm saying. No need to go further than that.

Maybe so, but it does not provide an adequate excuse to simply dismiss the point.

I am not "dismissing" the point. I'm just saying that as a non-Christians this was how I viewed it. I am not alone in this, because others have said the same thing. As believers, both you and I see that there was a previous covenant. Non-believers, generally speaking, are not so understanding.

You were offering that as a refutation and to be honest, I think you are insulting the intelligence of many unbelievers. Even the most staunch atheist would agree that if you are going to judge something as bad or good, there MUST be some standard in place in order to make that call. That is just plain old commonsense. How does a boss tell which of his employees are performers and which are lazy and unproductive? There is a standard. How does God judge between Cain and Abel? Between Noah and the rest of humanity? Between clean and unclean? There is a standard in place to measure against. It appears you just don't want to admit what is squarely in front of you.

Look at the facts:

1. Abel knew what a proper sacrifice was supposed to entail. The implication is that Cain knew as well, but Cain brought what was right in his own eyes instead of what God demanded.

2. God judged between Cain's offering and Abel's and rejected Cain's offering but accepted Abel's offering.

3. God told Cain in Gen. 4:7, "Sin croches at the door." The point is that God had already revealed the concept of sin, meaning that as far back as Cain and Abel, there was law code or standard that defined what was lawful and what was sinful.

The same things applied to Noah. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord because Noah was doing what was right in the sight of the Lord and is included in the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11.

I don't like to blow my own trumpet, and under any other situation, I would not bring this up. But I know the Bible better than probably 99% of Christians. Just because I arrive at a somewhat different conclusion on some matters does not mean I don't know it at all (I certainly don't disagree on all matters - in most all of the essential doctrines of salvation I fully agree with Conservative Evangelical Christianity). All it means is that in some matters I have come to my own conclusions that I believe are as strongly based in scripture as yours. This is not a boast. Granted, my knowledge is not perfect, and I do not set myself up as any kind of authority figure on this. I am as subject to fallibility as anyone else on this planet. For all I know I could be entirely wrong on this.

Repsectfully, your assertions demonstrate a sore lacking area of knowledge in the most basic biblical concepts. The problem is not that you merely come to different conclusions. The problem is that you come to conclusions not only have no true biblical corroboraton, but when one of your conclusions can be demonstrated to in conflict with Scripture, then it is the Bible which is error.

Your views are not anywhere as firmly grounded in Scripture as the objections I have raised. So far, you have not offered any significant refutation to most of the objections I have raised. Mostly, you have simply dismissed them.

I dont' know what doctrines you think you agree with Conservative Evangelicals on, but you are really self-deceived. Convervatives believe the absolute, plenary inspiration, of Scripture. They believe that the Bible the Bible is 100% infallible and inerrant from 1st word of Genesis 1:1 to the last word of Revelation 22:21. They believe that the Bible is the first word and the last word, the final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practice. Every other doctrine is built on a foundation of the Bible's complete, absolute and unswerving reliability and accuracy on every subject it addresses. Your views are incapayible with Conservative, Evangelical Christianity.

I wasn't here several months back (I'd been away doing other things). There may have been a thread detailed with this. However, I have studied that particular issue, including the opinions of historians - most historians believe Luke simply made a mistake on Quirinius. The rest of the timeline fits with what we know of Jesus from the other gospels, so the general consensus is that Luke was mistaken. A very small mistake, considering (many other historians make temporal errors such as this as well), but a mistake nonetheless.

The historians I have spoken to on this do admit that there are enough gaps in our knowledge of Quirinius though to suggest the possibility that there was another Governorship somewhere between 6-4 BC (the date of Christ's birth). However, no other evidence exists to back this up. In order to arrive at this conclusion it requires 100% Faith in the authorship of Luke. It just so happens that I do have that Faith. And I believe, as do Christian historians, that if any other evidence of Quirinius were to come to light it would back up our knowledge of Luke's Gospel. But from an historical viewpoint, a governorship is unlikely. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that there was one. However, there was no evidence to suggest there wasn't one either, so while improbable it is not impossible.

You seem to forget that the Bible is of Divine origin and God does not make such "small mistakes." Luke was writing under the inspiration and authority of the Holy Spirit, as were all the other biblical writers.

The problem is not with historical error on Luke's part.

For one thing, there was more than one census. During the later census you are referring to, which is the one that occured around 11-12 AD, there was uprising and this is referred to in Acts. 5:37.

In Luke it states that this was the first census ( apographē prōtē) in a series of censuses that were taken. Quirinius may very likely have participated in more than one.

Secondly, there is historical evidence that Quirinius was in Syria more than once. You need to read Luke the Historian in the Light of Research, pp. 118-29. by A.T Robertson. It outlines inscriptions that have been found that suggest that Quirinius presence in Syria around 11-12 BC was not the first time He had been in the region.

Furthermore, Luke uses an interesting word when he refers to Quinirius' governorship. It is a generic word hēgemon;, which is used to refer to just about anyone in a position of authority, such as procurator comander, or general leader/magistrate. It is same word used to describe Pontius Pilate in Matthew 27:2, who was only a regional Procurator with limited authority.

Prior to being "governor" per se, Quinrius would have been referred to by that term several times in his career, as he advanced from being a Roman Senator up the political chain of command. So the English word "governor" is a bit misleading, as we see "Governor" as a special and particular office, where as it is not being used that way by Luke.

In other words, Quirinius was governing at some capacity at the time Luke records, but He was not THE Governor of all Syria. According to Josephus Quirinius was a Roman Senator who had passed through all of the levels of political authority prior to becoming a full Governor was appointed by Augustus as the one who was in charge of assessing all of the property in Judea and Syria during the 6 AD census. He was Governor in the absolute sense by the time we reach 12 AD.

The Roman historian Tertullian records the first census being conducted in and around 6 BC.

And yet how could He have been admitted into the synagogue----one so abruptly appearing, so unknown; one, of whom no one had as yet been apprised of His tribe, His nation, His family, and lastly, His enrolment in the census of Augustus----that most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome? They certainly would have remembered, if they did not know Him to be circumcised, that He must not be admitted into their most holy places. And even if He had the general right of entering the synagogue (like other Jews), yet the function of giving instruction was allowed only to a man who was extremely well known, and examined and tried, and for some time invested with the privilege after experience duly attested elsewhere. But "they were all astonished at His doctrine." Of course they were; "for, says (St. Luke), "His word was with power ----not because He taught in opposition to the law and the prophets. No doubt, His divine discourse178 gave forth both power and grace, building up rather than pulling down the substance of the law and the prophets. (Against Marcion 4:7)

That said - I bother being a Christian because Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins.

Really? How do know? How do decide which parts to believe and which parts to reject? How do you know, what measuring rod do you use to determine which parts of the Bible are accurate, which aren't?

[Guest shiloh357]

No prophetic significance is assigned to Genesis 1, and that fact should be lost on us.

I was thinking about this last night, and I am thinking you and I have a different idea of what "prophetic" is.

The fact that read the Gospel message and God's plan for redemption from Gen. 1 to me indicates prophetic.

All of Scripture has that quality, really. We can find the same prophetic quality in certiain parts of the Psalms as well. However, prophecy is a specific genre of literature in the Bible, and the whole Bible cannot and does not fit into that Genre. While we can see foreshadowing in Genesis 1, that quality that does qualify it be seen as prophetic literature on par with the the book of Daniel or Revelation.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just curious, in Genesis 1:16 it says "God made two great lights

[Guest HIS girl]

Just curious, in Genesis 1:16 it says "God made two great lights

[Guest HIS girl]

Just curious, in Genesis 1:16 it says "God made two great lights

[Guest shiloh357]

Just curious, in Genesis 1:16 it says "God made two great lights

[ParanoidAndroid]

No, what I have consistently stated is that poetry does not equal "figurative." Just because someone is using a poetic style does not mean that they are necessarily employing figurative devices. I have no problem with the creation account being rendered in a poetic style. The problem is when you draw an inaccurate conclusion that assumes "poetic" means "figurative."

So you're comfortable saying "poetic" means "historical" then?

You were offering that as a refutation and to be honest, I think you are insulting the intelligence of many unbelievers. Even the most staunch atheist would agree that if you are going to judge something as bad or good, there MUST be some standard in place in order to make that call. That is just plain old commonsense. How does a boss tell which of his employees are performers and which are lazy and unproductive? There is a standard. How does God judge between Cain and Abel? Between Noah and the rest of humanity? Between clean and unclean? There is a standard in place to measure against. It appears you just don't want to admit what is squarely in front of you.

Look at the facts:

1. Abel knew what a proper sacrifice was supposed to entail. The implication is that Cain knew as well, but Cain brought what was right in his own eyes instead of what God demanded.

2. God judged between Cain's offering and Abel's and rejected Cain's offering but accepted Abel's offering.

3. God told Cain in Gen. 4:7, "Sin croches at the door." The point is that God had already revealed the concept of sin, meaning that as far back as Cain and Abel, there was law code or standard that defined what was lawful and what was sinful.

The same things applied to Noah. Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord because Noah was doing what was right in the sight of the Lord and is included in the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11.

With all due respect, I am simply pointing out that non-believers don't see the Bible as the "word of God". To them it's a made up text by mankind, written long after the fact. Whether God shows he uses standards to judge Cain and Abel, or decide Clean and Unclean, to them it is only a fable written about a non-existent god (or at best, a man-made god). Your arguments make sense to other Christians. Yes, there are examples that show God must have had a covenant. However, non-Christians are not that understanding.

I'm not underestimating them, I am taking them for exactly what they are - non-believers in god. To use an example for us, no matter how hard someone tries to tell you something happened in Harry Potter novels, are you going to believe it ever happened? Of course not, you will believe the author is making it all up to tell a story, influenced by the person's own cultural experiences.

Does that clarify

Repsectfully, your assertions demonstrate a sore lacking area of knowledge in the most basic biblical concepts. The problem is not that you merely come to different conclusions. The problem is that you come to conclusions not only have no true biblical corroboraton, but when one of your conclusions can be demonstrated to in conflict with Scripture, then it is the Bible which is error.

Your views are not anywhere as firmly grounded in Scripture as the objections I have raised. So far, you have not offered any significant refutation to most of the objections I have raised. Mostly, you have simply dismissed them.

I dont' know what doctrines you think you agree with Conservative Evangelicals on, but you are really self-deceived. Convervatives believe the absolute, plenary inspiration, of Scripture. They believe that the Bible the Bible is 100% infallible and inerrant from 1st word of Genesis 1:1 to the last word of Revelation 22:21. They believe that the Bible is the first word and the last word, the final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practice. Every other doctrine is built on a foundation of the Bible's complete, absolute and unswerving reliability and accuracy on every subject it addresses. Your views are incapayible with Conservative, Evangelical Christianity.

Suffice it to say I know my own beliefs. I admit that I have some views that are not in line with Conservative Evangelicals. However, the far larger part of my beliefs conform to those general views. I am certainly not a fundamentalist, and I definitely do not consider my views in the sense of liberal Christianity. Neither of these views are palatable to me.

You seem to forget that the Bible is of Divine origin and God does not make such "small mistakes." Luke was writing under the inspiration and authority of the Holy Spirit, as were all the other biblical writers.

The problem is not with historical error on Luke's part.

For one thing, there was more than one census. During the later census you are referring to, which is the one that occured around 11-12 AD, there was uprising and this is referred to in Acts. 5:37.

In Luke it states that this was the first census ( apographē prōtē) in a series of censuses that were taken. Quirinius may very likely have participated in more than one.

Secondly, there is historical evidence that Quirinius was in Syria more than once. You need to read Luke the Historian in the Light of Research, pp. 118-29. by A.T Robertson. It outlines inscriptions that have been found that suggest that Quirinius presence in Syria around 11-12 BC was not the first time He had been in the region.

Furthermore, Luke uses an interesting word when he refers to Quinirius' governorship. It is a generic word hēgemon;, which is used to refer to just about anyone in a position of authority, such as procurator comander, or general leader/magistrate. It is same word used to describe Pontius Pilate in Matthew 27:2, who was only a regional Procurator with limited authority.

Prior to being "governor" per se, Quinrius would have been referred to by that term several times in his career, as he advanced from being a Roman Senator up the political chain of command. So the English word "governor" is a bit misleading, as we see "Governor" as a special and particular office, where as it is not being used that way by Luke.

In other words, Quirinius was governing at some capacity at the time Luke records, but He was not THE Governor of all Syria. According to Josephus Quirinius was a Roman Senator who had passed through all of the levels of political authority prior to becoming a full Governor was appointed by Augustus as the one who was in charge of assessing all of the property in Judea and Syria during the 6 AD census. He was Governor in the absolute sense by the time we reach 12 AD.

I did know the Greek word translated as "governor" is not quite so specific. However, we still have absolutely no historical evidence (outside the book of Luke) that corroborates Quirinius had a position of leadership anywhere in Syria during the time of Jesus' birth (6-4 BC). This is why most historians believe Luke simply made a mistake.

However, Christians still can believe that there was such an event. I certainly do believe it. The difference is I know that I only have this view because of 100% Faith in Luke's account. There is nothing in history to suggest that the event happened (aside from Luke), which makes the event historically improbable. But without any evidence to the contrary, it is not historically impossible. See the difference? As I said, any other argument is rejected by mainstream historians (and by "mainstream" I don't mean "sceptic" or "non-Christian" - there are many Christian historians that would say the same, though these historians take on Faith that Luke is accurate). Are you actually interested in knowing what historians understand on the topic, or are you more interested in reaffirming your own world view to the exclusion of all else????

That said - I bother being a Christian because Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins.

Really? How do know? How do decide which parts to believe and which parts to reject? How do you know, what measuring rod do you use to determine which parts of the Bible are accurate, which aren't?

I guess I would say here that the Bible says so, and unlike Genesis, the structure does not indicate a poetic reading. I don't think it would be an appropriate response to the gospels to see them as poetic-narrative. This is not indicated in the text. Moreover, a figurative reading of the Gospels radically change the meaning of the text. If Jesus didn't exist, or was not the perfect son of God, he could not be our Messiah.

I have no one single "measuring rod". That would be limiting. However, there are many techniques that I employ. I look at not just what the individual verse says, but how it fits into the chapter, then how it fits into the book, then how it fits into the whole Bible. What style was it written in (historical, narrative, poetry, prophecy). Who was it written for (if known)? Who wrote it (if known)? Why was it written (was it a warning, a judgement, a call to celebrate, a call to persevere....). When was it written (Old Testament or New Testament). What part of the Old/New Testament is it (the Law, the writings, the wisdom books, or the prophets/ gospels or teachings or revelation). If we wrote a time-line of biblical events, where on that timeline does this event occur? What was the historical and cultural situation in regard to the particular view of the text, and how did the passage confirm or subvert the contemporary views expressed. What Greek/Hebrew words are used in the verse (I generally need a concordance for this part since I'm not a Hebrew/Greek scholar). What words are repeated in the passage (repeated words or phrases usually denote special significance). What context is the word used in in this verse? What context was the same word (again, often I need a concordance for this one) used in different parts of the specific book (assuming it was used again), and what context did the same author use the word in within other texts they wrote - if they wrote more than one book, that is). What did the author originally intend their reader to gain from the text? Is it the same today?? How does this passage point to Jesus Christ? If Old Testament, how was this passage fulfilled through Jesus? If New Testament, what does this passage show about the character of Jesus?

I find it extremely simplistic to simply say, "passage says x so we therefore should do action x". Even when the end application is exactly that, it's wrong (in my opinion) to simply jump to the end without doing the leg work.

As a general rule, I have found almost every single passage that gets put through this process can be refined to only one meaning. In places where it is not (creation being one of those), I have found that the message given by those passages is the same. Or to put it another way, I know of not a single passage in scripture that, once gone through this process, has a meaning that contradicts any of the "salvation issues" (that is to say, the essential doctrines that are absolutely necessary in order to receive God's saving Grace through the death and resurrection of His Son on the cross).

Does that make things any clearer for you?

~ PA