OEC and The New Heavens and New Earth

[LookingForAnswers]

LookingForAnswers

    

Are you?

 

Yes, yes I am.  But I will no longer blindly accept things that I am told just because that is the way they have always been taught. 

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

Well, if it was meant as literal history, why is the fall of mankind not referenced in any other book of the Old Testament? And, as I posted to LookingForAnswers, a parable doesn't need to account for every aspect of the narrative, e.g., "why would an immortal being need a Tree of Life?" All it needs is the moral of the story.

Also, unlike Shiloh, I don't have to jump through hermeneutic hoops to resolve other events relative to the fall of man.

It reads like a parable, a parable that is literally fleshed-out in the opening of John's Gospel.

 

The creation account of Genesis 1-3 does not read as a parable by any stretch of the imagination.  It has none of the hallmarks of a parable.

 

So talking snakes and "magic" trees aren't the imaginative hallmarks of an Aesop's parable?

And I asked you what you thought Genesis 1-3 was, not what you thought it wasn't.

 

 

 

Aesop didn't write parables, he wrote fables.  They are not one in the same.

 

I think Genesis 1-3 is a narrative of the creation of the universe including earth and of the fall of man.

[enoob57]

Well, if it was meant as literal history, why is the fall of mankind not referenced in any other book of the Old Testament? And, as I posted to LookingForAnswers, a parable doesn't need to account for every aspect of the narrative, e.g., "why would an immortal being need a Tree of Life?" All it needs is the moral of the story.

Also, unlike Shiloh, I don't have to jump through hermeneutic hoops to resolve other events relative to the fall of man.

It reads like a parable, a parable that is literally fleshed-out in the opening of John's Gospel.

 

The creation account of Genesis 1-3 does not read as a parable by any stretch of the imagination.  It has none of the hallmarks of a parable.

So talking snakes and "magic" trees aren't the imaginative hallmarks of an Aesop's parable?

And I asked you what you thought Genesis 1-3 was, not what you thought it wasn't.

You may do with the book as you wish but you will face the one Who wrote it! As it

is your choice and your responsibility to seek God within His Word... God specifically

says because of sin we cannot see clearly now in this place and the literal view of

Genesis is the only one allowed by the construct of Scripture. As I watch and read the

spirits that come against this view it becomes evident that it is so-

example:

So talking snakes and "magic" trees aren't the imaginative hallmarks of an Aesop's parable?

clearly when you set God speaking into existence all that is before us surely you must agree that there

is nothing impossible for God to perform! But your comment is now from a fallen perspective looking back

and it is mocking of the position of literal historic event... I mean the talking snake and magic tree are

right next to let there be and it was! Love, Steven

[Sheniy]

I will put together a small outline backing my argument....note, it is not primarily for you; perhaps not even remotely.  We both know nothing will convince you of anything that might be used to support OE or non-absolutely-literal reading of Scripture. I have no intention of so using this (I could care less how old the earth is).  But since it could be used, I know you are already in disagreement. Rather, it will be for those who are not yet convinced, and those tired of the science/Scripture debate, and those who would like to know what scholarship is discovering in these ancient texts.

 

I will attempt to put together the bibliography but that means going through all my books and syllabi which is tedious.  And no doubt (this is not conjecture or "straw man", it is you're inevitable counterattack) you will denigrate each one for some reason (He's a Catholic; or he supports gays; or he eats his brats with ketchup).  But I will do it all the same to show I am not alone.

 

clb

I'd be interested in seeing this, too.

So I think I misunderstood your earlier post.

I was interested in what you said on the Holy of Holies (a favorite subject of mine). Was that what you were referring to here?

Edited February 12, 2014 by Sheniy

[OldSchool2]

Well, if it was meant as literal history, why is the fall of mankind not referenced in any other book of the Old Testament? And, as I posted to LookingForAnswers, a parable doesn't need to account for every aspect of the narrative, e.g., "why would an immortal being need a Tree of Life?" All it needs is the moral of the story.

Also, unlike Shiloh, I don't have to jump through hermeneutic hoops to resolve other events relative to the fall of man.

It reads like a parable, a parable that is literally fleshed-out in the opening of John's Gospel.

 

The creation account of Genesis 1-3 does not read as a parable by any stretch of the imagination.  It has none of the hallmarks of a parable.

So talking snakes and "magic" trees aren't the imaginative hallmarks of an Aesop's parable?

And I asked you what you thought Genesis 1-3 was, not what you thought it wasn't.

 

Aesop didn't write parables, he wrote fables.  They are not one in the same ...

According to Merriam-Webster:

Parable: a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth.

Fable: a narration intended to teach a lesson.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

Well, if it was meant as literal history, why is the fall of mankind not referenced in any other book of the Old Testament? And, as I posted to LookingForAnswers, a parable doesn't need to account for every aspect of the narrative, e.g., "why would an immortal being need a Tree of Life?" All it needs is the moral of the story.

Also, unlike Shiloh, I don't have to jump through hermeneutic hoops to resolve other events relative to the fall of man.

It reads like a parable, a parable that is literally fleshed-out in the opening of John's Gospel.

 

The creation account of Genesis 1-3 does not read as a parable by any stretch of the imagination.  It has none of the hallmarks of a parable.

 

So talking snakes and "magic" trees aren't the imaginative hallmarks of an Aesop's parable?

And I asked you what you thought Genesis 1-3 was, not what you thought it wasn't.

 

 

Aesop didn't write parables, he wrote fables.  They are not one in the same ...

 

According to Merriam-Webster:

Parable: a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth.

Fable: a narration intended to teach a lesson.

 

Genesis 1-3 is neither.  It is an historical narrative.  it is not a fable or a parable.  It wasn't written to teach a moral lesson.   You are penciling your own liberal views on to the Bible.   You are doing the opposite of exegesis.   You are reading something into the text that the author didn't intend.

[OldSchool2]

 

 

 

Well, if it was meant as literal history, why is the fall of mankind not referenced in any other book of the Old Testament? And, as I posted to LookingForAnswers, a parable doesn't need to account for every aspect of the narrative, e.g., "why would an immortal being need a Tree of Life?" All it needs is the moral of the story.

Also, unlike Shiloh, I don't have to jump through hermeneutic hoops to resolve other events relative to the fall of man.

It reads like a parable, a parable that is literally fleshed-out in the opening of John's Gospel.

 

The creation account of Genesis 1-3 does not read as a parable by any stretch of the imagination.  It has none of the hallmarks of a parable.

 

So talking snakes and "magic" trees aren't the imaginative hallmarks of an Aesop's parable?

And I asked you what you thought Genesis 1-3 was, not what you thought it wasn't.

 

You may do with the book as you wish but you will face the one Who wrote it! As it

is your choice and your responsibility to seek God within His Word... God specifically

says because of sin we cannot see clearly now in this place and the literal view of

Genesis is the only one allowed by the construct of Scripture ...

 

So when Jesus says in John 10:1-16 that He is the door, does that mean He literally has hinges?

"Notice that in this context Jesus is speaking figuratively (v.6) and metaphorically to make a point. Jesus is not talking about literal sheep or shepherds, nor is He talking about literal thieves stealing things. He is speaking about the Kingdom of God and how Jesus protects believers from all things, including from those who make false claims and attempt to deceive Christ's followers."

http://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/who_is_the_thief_in_john_10_and_what_does_he_steal

[Guest shiloh357]

So when Jesus says in John 10:1-16 that He is the door, does that mean He literally has hinges?

"Notice that in this context Jesus is speaking figuratively (v.6) and metaphorically to make a point. Jesus is not talking about literal sheep or shepherds, nor is He talking about literal thieves stealing things. He is speaking about the Kingdom of God and how Jesus protects believers from all things, including from those who make false claims and attempt to deceive Christ's followers."

http://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/who_is_the_thief_in_john_10_and_what_does_he_steal

 

Literalism takes metaphors into account and they are easily spotted.  There is a difference between face-value (believing that Jesus is actually a door) and literalism, which seeks the literal meaning behind figurative devices.

 

The problem si that you are arbitrarily assiging figurative values to Genesis 1-3 that the Bible doesn't provide for.  You can provide NO figurative devices employed in Genesis 1-3

[OldSchool2]

Well, if it was meant as literal history, why is the fall of mankind not referenced in any other book of the Old Testament? And, as I posted to LookingForAnswers, a parable doesn't need to account for every aspect of the narrative, e.g., "why would an immortal being need a Tree of Life?" All it needs is the moral of the story.

Also, unlike Shiloh, I don't have to jump through hermeneutic hoops to resolve other events relative to the fall of man.

It reads like a parable, a parable that is literally fleshed-out in the opening of John's Gospel.

 

The creation account of Genesis 1-3 does not read as a parable by any stretch of the imagination.  It has none of the hallmarks of a parable.

So talking snakes and "magic" trees aren't the imaginative hallmarks of an Aesop's parable?

And I asked you what you thought Genesis 1-3 was, not what you thought it wasn't.

 

Aesop didn't write parables, he wrote fables.  They are not one in the same ...

According to Merriam-Webster:

Parable: a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth.

Fable: a narration intended to teach a lesson.

Genesis 1-3 is neither.  It is an historical narrative.  it is not a fable or a parable.  It wasn't written to teach a moral lesson ...

If Genesis doesn't teach the moral lesson that in Adam all have sinned, how can Paul write Romans 5:12 and the verses after it?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

 I am new here ,and not of a protestant or American background,so my refences may be diffrent from yours.

 First of all ,I believe in an old earth ,but also in Creation by God, within a limited time . I also believe that the bible is God's Testament to His flock ,

before He finally judges us . It is not the only testament He has put out, since He created the 'world' but the LAST,and therefore the most important. 

 

If  we see the bible ,as saying everything God has ever had to say to us since time began ,we will never grow to be the great créations we were,

but like children ,who cannot let go of our true ,but basic exercise book .   I think God maybe preparing us for Heaven ,right here on earth ,by challenging us . If people lose their faith because there is an  'error in the bible' ,they don't have the gift of the 'Spirit' ,which cannot be doubted,  while All the Facts one can discuss without ever being sure . 

 

Actually the Bible is the ONLY book God has gifted to mankind.  It tells us everything about God that He wanted us to know about Himself.  So when it comes to the Bible you and I definitely standing opposite each other on the value of Scripture.    The Bible tells me everything I need to know  to be a genuine follower of Jesus Christ.  I don't need any other alleged "sacred" writings, as only the Bible was inspired by God.   Since you and I are at odds over the Scripture, there is no common point of agreement between us.