OEC and The New Heavens and New Earth

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

Pure speculation, you have no way of knowingnfor sure what the original audience would have understood.

As written, we know exactly how the original audience would have understood those words.   It doesn't take any speculation at all. 

 

 

If you were not part of the original audience then speculation is all you have. 

 

Not reallly.   Anyone can look at the plaining reading of the text and see the meaning.  These were not theologians standing Mt. Sinai. They are former slaves.   Had God meant something else, He could have said it.  God said that He made the heavens and earth in six days, in both contexts, the only possible meaning that one can take from the text, is that God made the heavens and earth in six ordinary days.   There is no other way to understand the text without sacrificing intellectual credibility.

 

Shiloh, all you have are dogmatic statements without any evidence backing you up.  They were former slaves of a time and place separated from us by several millennium!!

 

"Had God meant something else, He could have...."  Serious?  I would love to see you stand before the ALMIGHTY and give that argument to HIM.  "No God, if you meant anything else, this is HOW YOU SHOULD'VE SAID IT."  I am sure He'd appreciate your advice.  

 

Only blatant obscurantism would ignore the historical and cultural parallels.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

I pointed out that God created neither evil or darkness.

 

 

(Isaiah 45:7)  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

 

 

 

 

might I suggest a quick read of this thread...

 

or this one...

 

The context of that passage is the exile during Persian occupation.  Persian theology was dualistic.  They attributed evil and good to two different gods.  YHWH is refuting this.  He is not talking about moral good and evil in the sense that "He created evil alongside good".  He is refuting Persian theology.

 

clb

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, all you have are dogmatic statements without any evidence backing you up.

 

 No, that is not true.  On more than one occasion I have demonstrated that if God wanted to say that it took Him long epochs of time to create the heavens and earth, the words existed and still exist in Hebrew to say exactly that.  I have also on previous occasions mentioned what those words are. 

 

They were former slaves of a time and place separated from us by several millennium!!

 

Yes but that doesn't really change anything.  That they are separated by several millenium doesn't necessarily mean that they had no concept of long epochs of time, even in their day.  It is the height of arrogance to assume that the ancients were just a bunch of dumb people.

 

 

"Had God meant something else, He could have...."  Serious?  I would love to see you stand before the ALMIGHTY and give that argument to HIM.  "No God, if you meant anything else, this is HOW YOU SHOULD'VE SAID IT."  I am sure He'd appreciate your advice.  

 

Actually, God would have no problem with that because He meant what He said.   I am sticking up for the integrity of the word of God.   I know the langauge well enough to know that if God had meant long epochs of time, He would have said so.  The Hebrew language is very, very precise and so when God said that He made the heavens and earth in six days, He meant "six days."  Not 15 billion years.

 

Only blatant obscurantism would ignore the historical and cultural parallels

 

Yeah, the alleged parallels that you assign to the text.   I have seen enough of that around here to know it's just a lot of sloppy exegesis.

[Guest shiloh357]

So, sin was possible in Genesis; and Genesis was "as good as it CAN POSSIBLY GET".  Do you view the possibility of sin as irrelevant to the value of "tov"?  i.e. a world in which sin is possible is no better nor worse than a world in which it isn't?

 

You are confusing issues.   Yes God made the earth perfect.  He makes everything perfect.  God has no imperfection in Him.  When God was finished, He said it was "Tov meod," which means that it was as good as it could be.

 

That it was possible for Adam to sin, doesn't mean that what God created wasn't perfect. 

 

 

Again, as good as it gets: Adam and Eve were meant to subdue the world--meaning a world needed subduing.  But of course the world was "as good as it gets"; which means they were appointed to an impossible task--a world that always needed subduing was a perfect world.

 

Yes, God told Adam and Eve to subdue, to take over, take charge of, the world.  How does that mean the world was less than perfect?

 

 

Again, the world was as good as it gets (I sound like Voltaire); which means in heaven we will have serpents, or something, slithering by and whispering fallacious lies to us.

 

Nope.  God didn't engineer sin into His creation, but He gave Adam the choice.   That doesn't mean that God didn't create a perfect world.  It was perfect until Adam sinned.

 

Again, the command to fill and populate was superfluous.  The world was "as good as it gets".  Why alter things?  I don't say, "this house is perfect; but I don't like that it's made of plaster".

 

That is ridiculous line of thought.  It was perfect, but God intended man to appropriate all of the blessings that were contained in the world.  God wanted man to reproduce and fill the earth.  Again, not a refutation of what I said.

 

Again, they were in charge of cultivating the land--but the land was already "as good as it gets"--so cultivation was impossible.  One might reply they had to "maintain the status of 'as good as it gets'".  But a house that needs repainting is worse than a house that needs none.

 

Yes, it was a good as it could be, but man was there to take care of it to work in it, to appropriate all of the blessings that could be gained from.

 

 

You can continue to rant;  I am just going to believe God's word despite what you say.

[a-seeker]

 

Shiloh, all you have are dogmatic statements without any evidence backing you up.

 

 No, that is not true.  On more than one occasion I have demonstrated that if God wanted to say that it took Him long epochs of time to create the heavens and earth, the words existed and still exist in Hebrew to say exactly that.  I have also on previous occasions mentioned what those words are. 

 

They were former slaves of a time and place separated from us by several millennium!!

 

Yes but that doesn't really change anything.  That they are separated by several millenium doesn't necessarily mean that they had no concept of long epochs of time, even in their day.  It is the height of arrogance to assume that the ancients were just a bunch of dumb people.

 

 

"Had God meant something else, He could have...."  Serious?  I would love to see you stand before the ALMIGHTY and give that argument to HIM.  "No God, if you meant anything else, this is HOW YOU SHOULD'VE SAID IT."  I am sure He'd appreciate your advice.  

 

Actually, God would have no problem with that because He meant what He said.   I am sticking up for the integrity of the word of God.   I know the langauge well enough to know that if God had meant long epochs of time, He would have said so.  The Hebrew language is very, very precise and so when God said that He made the heavens and earth in six days, He meant "six days."  Not 15 billion years.

 

Only blatant obscurantism would ignore the historical and cultural parallels

 

Yeah, the alleged parallels that you assign to the text.   I have seen enough of that around here to know it's just a lot of sloppy exegesis.

 

For one thing, my proposal isn't advocating the "Day/Age" or gap theory.  I too know enough Hebrew to dismiss both those.

 

Saying, "yeah, the alleged parallels.......I've seen enough of that....sloppy exegesis"  doesn't do anything. It's a trump card and not a good one.  I can't imagine what grade I would've gotten at school if I responded with that!  "Ha, yeah Dr. Sanders from Princeton who's written more books than I have fingers....I've seen that before, try again!"  Disagreement is not refutation.

 

Sloppy exegesis?? I haven't seen anything from you that amounts to any exegesis, sloppy or not; just a bunch of scientific quotes and a few dictionary definitions of "day".  That is not exegesis. Anybody with google could come up with that.  Show me some real work.

 

Finally, my guess (and I admit it is a guess) is you haven't seen the parallels before.  Hence the short dogmatic accusation of "sloppy" (if I had made a bad scientific claim, of which you know much, I would've received no end of refutation: it would've been a response coming from someone standing on familiar turf who knew what he was doing).  But these, they are completely new to you.  And you don't like that: either because you don't know what to do with them, or because you don't like that there remain things for you to learn....

 

clb

[Guest shiloh357]

Saying, "yeah, the alleged parallels.......I've seen enough of that....sloppy exegesis"  doesn't do anything. It's a trump card and not a good one.  

 

It's not a trump card.  It's just a fact. 

 

Sloppy exegesis?? I haven't seen anything from you that amounts to any exegesis, sloppy or not; just a bunch of scientific quotes and a few dictionary definitions of "day".  That is not exegesis. Anybody with google could come up with that.  Show me some real work.

 

I've posted a lot more than that.  I haven't offered any dictionary terms of "day,"  so you really haven't been paying attention to my posts, so stop pretending that you have actually read much of anything I have said. 

 

Finally, my guess (and I admit it is a guess) is you haven't seen the parallels before.

 

 Yeah, I have heard about all of that.   And on one level I have no real problem with them.   The problem I am seeing here, is that you use the parallels as an alternative to the actual, literal understanding of the text.  I don't buy into that type of approach to the Scripture.  You assigning purposes to the text that are simply not there. 

 

But these, they are completely new to you.  And you don't like that: either because you don't know what to do with them, or because you don't like that there remain things for you to learn....

 

Oh please... This is nothing new.   I forgotten more about this stuff than you know.  You needn't feel you have some grand knowledge. Frankly, I have heard it all before.  

[a-seeker]

 

Saying, "yeah, the alleged parallels.......I've seen enough of that....sloppy exegesis"  doesn't do anything. It's a trump card and not a good one.  

 

It's not a trump card.  It's just a fact. 

 

Sloppy exegesis?? I haven't seen anything from you that amounts to any exegesis, sloppy or not; just a bunch of scientific quotes and a few dictionary definitions of "day".  That is not exegesis. Anybody with google could come up with that.  Show me some real work.

 

I've posted a lot more than that.  I haven't offered any dictionary terms of "day,"  so you really haven't been paying attention to my posts, so stop pretending that you have actually read much of anything I have said. 

 

Finally, my guess (and I admit it is a guess) is you haven't seen the parallels before.

 

 Yeah, I have heard about all of that.   And on one level I have no real problem with them.   The problem I am seeing here, is that you use the parallels as an alternative to the actual, literal understanding of the text.  I don't buy into that type of approach to the Scripture.  You assigning purposes to the text that are simply not there. 

 

But these, they are completely new to you.  And you don't like that: either because you don't know what to do with them, or because you don't like that there remain things for you to learn....

 

Oh please... This is nothing new.   I forgotten more about this stuff than you know.  You needn't feel you have some grand knowledge. Frankly, I have heard it all before.  

 

" I forgotten more about this stuff than you know."  

 

 

 

We are agreed on this.

 

clb

 

 

P.S.  This.....

 

"Oh please... This is nothing new.   I forgotten more about this stuff than you know.  You needn't feel you have some grand knowledge. Frankly, I have heard it all before."  

 

 

only confirms my point.

Edited February 18, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Saying, "yeah, the alleged parallels.......I've seen enough of that....sloppy exegesis"  doesn't do anything. It's a trump card and not a good one.  

 

It's not a trump card.  It's just a fact. 

 

Sloppy exegesis?? I haven't seen anything from you that amounts to any exegesis, sloppy or not; just a bunch of scientific quotes and a few dictionary definitions of "day".  That is not exegesis. Anybody with google could come up with that.  Show me some real work.

 

I've posted a lot more than that.  I haven't offered any dictionary terms of "day,"  so you really haven't been paying attention to my posts, so stop pretending that you have actually read much of anything I have said. 

 

Finally, my guess (and I admit it is a guess) is you haven't seen the parallels before.

 

 Yeah, I have heard about all of that.   And on one level I have no real problem with them.   The problem I am seeing here, is that you use the parallels as an alternative to the actual, literal understanding of the text.  I don't buy into that type of approach to the Scripture.  You assigning purposes to the text that are simply not there. 

 

But these, they are completely new to you.  And you don't like that: either because you don't know what to do with them, or because you don't like that there remain things for you to learn....

 

Oh please... This is nothing new.   I forgotten more about this stuff than you know.  You needn't feel you have some grand knowledge. Frankly, I have heard it all before.  

 

" I forgotten more about this stuff than you know."  

 

 

 

We are agreed on this.

 

clb

 

 

P.S.  This.....

 

"Oh please... This is nothing new.   I forgotten more about this stuff than you know.  You needn't feel you have some grand knowledge. Frankly, I have heard it all before."  

 

 

only confirms my point.

 

No, it doesn't confirm your point.   The stuff you are proposing has been proposed by liberal scholarship going back generations.   It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. It is rooted in unbelief, quite honestly and it is a dishonest approach to the text of Scripture.  

 

The book of Genesis is not a liturgy or anything else you are trying to assign to it.  From the standpoint of literary genre it is a historical narrative, none of the liberal, bargain basement musings about parallels and liturgy and anything else that anyone can conjure up to avoid facing the text honestly for what it really is, is going to hold any water.

 

Your approach to the parallels is a hermeneutical trainwreck.

[enoob57]

I don't think their going to get it! The Bible speaks for itself

it is what it is and that is the simple hermeneutic of it... My 8

to 12 year old boys see it Love, Steven

[Enoch2021]

I don't think their going to get it! The Bible speaks for itself

it is what it is and that is the simple hermeneutic of it... My 8

to 12 year old boys see it Love, Steven

 

Ahhhh, Yes SIR!  And why is that in your humble opinion?