OEC and The New Heavens and New Earth

[Guest shiloh357]

So, then you are saying you are your own authority, instead of using the Scriptures to support the position. 

 

Do even read what I say before you respond???   I said no such thing.    Let me try this again.   I said that I don't pit the Bible against itself.  That means that I don't, as some people do, grab a few verses in order to refute the verses someone else uses.   I don't act like one set of verses in the Bible can be used to contradict the verses someone else uses to support their position.

 

Often other scripture will enlighten or support points of scripture for the matter at hand.  For example, when Jesus said "to search the scriptures, it will testify of me", he solely spoke of the O.T.  Specifically, the O.T does not mention him by saying "Jesus this or Jesus that".  However, you can certainly pick out pieces of scripture all throughout the O.T. that reference aspects of his nature, life, death, birth, resurrection, kingship, healing, etc. Those scriptures can be strung together to show the Messiah.  It simply takes digging for them.  We can become in error if we let ourselves depend heavily on criticism to interpretations without true scriptural support too.

 

 

Yeah, I understand all of that.   My point was that when people erroneously interpret Scripture, my response is not to go and find verses in the Bible to refute them.   Rather, I use the Scripture passages/verses that person provides and simply demonstrate the verses they are using don't support their position.

[OldSchool2]

 

 

 

Well, at least we made some progress today.

The following may prove informative.

Allegorical interpretation is an interpretive method (exegesis) which assumes that the Bible has various levels of meaning and tends to focus on the spiritual sense ... Allegorical interpretation has its origins both in Greek thought and in rabbinical schools of Judaism. In the Middle Ages it was used by Bible commentators of the Christian era.

Allegorical interpretation is sometimes referred to as the Quadriga, a reference to the Roman chariot pulled by four horses abreast. The four horses are symbolic of the four methods of allegorical interpretation: literal, anagogic, typological and tropological (or moral).

Literal interpretation: translation of meaning of events for historical purposes with no underlying meaning.

Anagogic interpretation: dealing with the future events of Christian history, heaven, hell, the last judgement, etc. (prophecies).

Typological interpretation: connecting the events of the Old Testament with the New Testament, particularly drawing allegorical connections between the events of Christ’s life with the stories of the Old Testament.

Tropological (or moral) interpretation: "the moral of the story", how one should act in the present.

A Latin rhyme designed to help scholars remember the four interpretations survives from the Middle Ages:

"The literal teaches what God and our ancestors did, The allegory is where our faith and belief is hid, The moral meaning gives us the rule of daily life, The anagogy shows us where we end our strife" ...

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation_of_the_Bible?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

 

Here is the problem. You are claiming that Genesis 1-3 comprise an allegory. There is a difference between approaching a text allegorically, like the early church fathers did, and claiming that the text in and of itself is an allegory ...

 

I said Genesis 1-3 was a parable, but the fact that the Bible contains allegorical passages was already proved by Paul in Galatians.

Here is the problem as I see it: You insist that everyone has to interpret scripture as you do, and when they don't, you twist their words and turn the discussion into a personal dispute in order to justify yourself.

 

And there's something very unbiblical about that.

[Guest shiloh357]

I said Genesis 1-3 was a parable, but the fact that the Bible contains allegorical passages was already proved by Paul in Galatians.

 

Yeah and I never said that the Bible didn't contain allegorical passages.   That is an example of trying to refute an argument that wasn't raised.

 

Okay so you claim that Genesis 1-3 is a parable.   Once again, you don't have any biblical corroboration for that claim.  That is a value that you, on your own, with no Scriptural support.  The Bible never claims it is parable and everywhere the creation account is mentioned outside of Genesis it is treated as real history, not as a parable.  You have no evidence whatsoever that the Bible means for us to understand the creation account as a parable. 

 

Here is the problem as I see it: You insist that everyone has to interpret scripture as you do, and when they don't, you twist their words and turn the discussion into a personal dispute in order to justify yourself.

 

 

But you are not interpreting Scripture.   You are assigning a parabolic value to the text of Genesis 1-3 and running with your value assumption as if it is true.  That is not intperpretation.   That is YOU assigning YOUR values to the text.    Intperpretation is about leading the meaning of the text that the author intended, not reading a motive or value into the text just to appease your unbelief and inability to take God at His word.

And there's something very unbiblical about that.

 

No, what's unbiblical is the subjective, fairytale quality that you want to assign to God's word.  

 

[Sheniy]

; For Sheniy.

I didnt' use your quote because it gets too long,that is the with multi quotes,but you asked why I said "in heaven we don't stagnate",

and you wondered why I said that . Well it was a bit hyperbolic,but as children we saw the image of heaven with adam and eve

standing in a garden ,just standing .I remember some time ago ,a Young 'atheist' on a board said he did'nt want to go to heaven

anyway ,because he would be completely bored . I laughed ,but you can see it is one of the many false ideas that young,and not

so young have of 'life eternal' ,that they will be bored stiff (forever).

I used to think we'd sit on clouds and play the harp for all eternity, and that we'd like it because...it was heaven. Haha. 

 

I don't know what it will be like in heaven exactly, but I do know it will be awesome.

 

True, unfortunately we have all been probably guilty of carrying over some teachings in our Sunday School or Church that really are incorrect.  Like the three wise men being shown at the Nativity.  Scripture says, they came to Joseph and Mary's home when Jesus was a child, not an infant, Lk 2:9.  Nothing says there were 3 wise men, just says Magi, Lk 2:1.  There could have been more or less.  Also, Jesus changing Saul's name to Paul.  Did not happen.  In fact, whenever Jesus did address him it was always as Saul.  Saul was also known as Paul, because he was a Diaspora Jew and a Roman citizen, Acts 13:9.  There are others.  It just indicates how we all really need to search G-d's word and let Him teach us, particularly if we are holding on to some tradition that could be preventing us.

Are we reading the same article? I just read almost this exact thing yesterday. lol

Good stuff.

[enoob57]

Such works (a bibliography is forthcoming) demonstrate that Biblical authors saw the world as God’s temple; that the creation process in Gen used temple language.

  The edenic imagery in the Tabernacle and subsequently in the Temple were meant to view the Temple as "Eden in Stone."

This is awesome in retrospect as the Jewish leaders were looking for this to be set up

when Messiah was to come...

[enoob57]

In (The) beginning... now there are no human witness to this as we are not yet! There

are indicators of witnesses such 'angels'

Ps 148 - Job 38

Col 1:16

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth,

visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities,

or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

KJV

Bottom line in order for Genesis to be allegory or parable there had to be a before

to do so and simply 'There is not!!!' Love, Steven

[OldSchool2]

I said Genesis 1-3 was a parable, but the fact that the Bible contains allegorical passages was already proved by Paul in Galatians.

Yeah and I never said that the Bible didn't contain allegorical passages.   That is an example of trying to refute an argument that wasn't raised.

 

Okay so you claim that Genesis 1-3 is a parable.   Once again, you don't have any biblical corroboration for that claim.  That is a value that you, on your own, with no Scriptural support.  The Bible never claims it is parable and everywhere the creation account is mentioned outside of Genesis it is treated as real history, not as a parable.  You have no evidence whatsoever that the Bible means for us to understand the creation account as a parable. 

 

Here is the problem as I see it: You insist that everyone has to interpret scripture as you do, and when they don't, you twist their words and turn the discussion into a personal dispute in order to justify yourself.

 

But you are not interpreting Scripture.   You are assigning a parabolic value to the text of Genesis 1-3 and running with your value assumption as if it is true.  That is not intperpretation ...

That is not even English. It's a "word salad" that reads like a math question from an SAT.

Not only do you twist the words of others, you twist English itself into a pretzel.

[enoob57]

Of all who are on here I consider Shiloh one of the clearest of writing!

His defense of Scripture is to place the authority on the write and not on

the reasoning of man... it is this he addresses and it is clear that he

is correct! Love, Steven

[enoob57]

It is foolish to reason with one's own... when it is God Who is to renew our mind

so that we can reason with The Reason that was before and will be without end!

Simply- His Word in reason without the influence of the world or our old natures...

Love, Steven

[Guest shiloh357]

 

That is not even English. It's a "word salad" that reads like a math question from an SAT.

Not only do you twist the words of others, you twist English itself into a pretzel.

 

That is complete nonsense.  The fact is that you aren't intepreting Scripture.  YOU are deciding on your own, with no biblical support that Gen. 1-3 is a parable.   There is no word salad in that at all.     You are assigning "parable" to the text to justify why you can't believe the Bible as written.  I am not twisting anyone's words, at all.   I am simply reflecting a level of honesty that you can't face up to.

 

I am not twisting English, but you ARE twisting and perverting Scripture to suit a lack of belief.