OEC and ID

[nebula]

Yes, but was it a LITERAL star?

My opinion....No.  If it were it would have been in somewhat of a fixed position then moved based on Earth's Rotation.  So just from a common sense standpoint, I think it was a SuperNatural event. 

 

Or are you going to give it a different set of rules than you do for what is written in Genesis 1?

LOL, you just can't help yourself.   Really, whatever do you mean....... SPECIFICALLY??

Well, the point keeps getting raised that if we can't take Genesis 1 literally, then we can't take the rest of the Bible literally.

So, I ask if historical literacy has to mean that every word in Genesis 1 is "literal," why does this same rule not apply to the Star of Bethlehem?

(P.S. Astrologers back then were not like the astrologers of today. Back then they were also mathematicians, created star charts, and performed many other tasks we now deem as astronomy.)

Can you please highlight the relevance of this to my point?  Thanks

That was a response to something Shiloh posted. (I wrote the quotes of all three of you to indicate I was responding to all three of you.) So, this was not relevant to your point in the slightest.

Actually, what you stated is rather cool!

[Enoch2021]

 

 

Yes, but was it a LITERAL star?

My opinion....No.  If it were it would have been in somewhat of a fixed position then moved based on Earth's Rotation.  So just from a common sense standpoint, I think it was a SuperNatural event. 

 

Or are you going to give it a different set of rules than you do for what is written in Genesis 1?

LOL, you just can't help yourself.   Really, whatever do you mean....... SPECIFICALLY??

 

Well, the point keeps getting raised that if we can't take Genesis 1 literally, then we can't take the rest of the Bible literally.

So, I ask if historical literacy has to mean that every word in Genesis 1 is "literal," why does this same rule not apply to the Star of Bethlehem?

 

(P.S. Astrologers back then were not like the astrologers of today. Back then they were also mathematicians, created star charts, and performed many other tasks we now deem as astronomy.)

Can you please highlight the relevance of this to my point?  Thanks

 

That was a response to something Shiloh posted. (I wrote the quotes of all three of you to indicate I was responding to all three of you.) So, this was not relevant to your point in the slightest.

Actually, what you stated is rather cool!

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Well, the point keeps getting raised that if we can't take Genesis 1 literally, then we can't take the rest of the Bible literally.

 

Neb, Neb, Neb, ........ You know that Genesis is a Historical Narrative and is separated by the other types of writing in the Bible.  (Just ask Shiloh )

 

I take the Bible Seriously.  There are over 200 Rhetorical Devices in Scripture (Allegories, Metaphors, Similes,Types, Idioms, Synecdoche's, et al) that are employed and are easily identified.  THERE ARE NONE OF THESE IN THE FIRST FEW CHAPTERS OF GENESIS.

 

 

So, I ask if historical literacy has to mean that every word in Genesis 1 is "literal," why does this same rule not apply to the Star of Bethlehem?

 

It could.  That's why I Qualified it as.............."I THINK"

 

Actually, what you stated is rather cool!

 

Thank You......It's just a Thought 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

 

 

shiloh- you've stated this before and at this point is kind of meaningless rhetoric to me. You can accuse me of smorgasbord reasoning all day but you have yet to convince me that I am in error that way.

 

Looking- I should check out the Collins book.

So you do think it is up to man to decide which parts of the Bible are true and which parts are expendable? 

 

No. The truth is what it is, regardless of what we think or how in error we are.

 

1 cor 13:9, 10 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

 

Well let's test that claim.   Do you believe that man was created from the dirt separate from the rest of the created order, as the Bible says, or do you believe that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor that we alledgedly have in common with chimps?

 

The truth of the situation is what it is, regardless of what you or I think about it. Your question doesn't relate to my claim at all.

 

It absolutely relates to your claim, particularly since you claim to be an evolutionist.   It's really simple.  Do you agree that man was created from the dirt as the Bible says he was, or did man evolve from an ape like ancestor??   I mean, if you are not picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to accept or reject, the answer should be an easy one.

 

No, it's a strange response to my assertion that, essentially, these truth claims are objective and at least one of us is wrong. How do you go from "these are not subjective truth claims" to "do you accept Genesis as a historical factual account of creation or not?". There is no clear lineage of thought here.

 

I am asking you if you agree with the Bible's claim that man was created from the dirt, apart from the created order.   It is a very simple question.  Is the Bible right, or did man actually evolve from an ape-like ancestor.

 

You claim to be an evolutionist that believes the Bible AND accepts the Bible as well.  So I am asking you, since the Bible doesn't claim man evolved, but was made separate from the other animals,   is the Bible right or is evolution right?

 

Its a very simiple question.  What is your answer?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

shiloh- you've stated this before and at this point is kind of meaningless rhetoric to me. You can accuse me of smorgasbord reasoning all day but you have yet to convince me that I am in error that way.

 

Looking- I should check out the Collins book.

So you do think it is up to man to decide which parts of the Bible are true and which parts are expendable? 

 

No. The truth is what it is, regardless of what we think or how in error we are.

 

1 cor 13:9, 10 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

 

Well let's test that claim.   Do you believe that man was created from the dirt separate from the rest of the created order, as the Bible says, or do you believe that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor that we alledgedly have in common with chimps?

 

The truth of the situation is what it is, regardless of what you or I think about it. Your question doesn't relate to my claim at all.

 

It absolutely relates to your claim, particularly since you claim to be an evolutionist.   It's really simple.  Do you agree that man was created from the dirt as the Bible says he was, or did man evolve from an ape like ancestor??   I mean, if you are not picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to accept or reject, the answer should be an easy one.

 

No, it's a strange response to my assertion that, essentially, these truth claims are objective and at least one of us is wrong. How do you go from "these are not subjective truth claims" to "do you accept Genesis as a historical factual account of creation or not?". There is no clear lineage of thought here.

 

I am asking you if you agree with the Bible's claim that man was created from the dirt, apart from the created order.   It is a very simple question.  Is the Bible right, or did man actually evolve from an ape-like ancestor.

 

You claim to be an evolutionist that believes the Bible AND accepts the Bible as well.  So I am asking you, since the Bible doesn't claim man evolved, but was made separate from the other animals,   is the Bible right or is evolution right?

 

Its a very simiple question.  What is your answer?

 

You and I both know I don't have a good, clear answer to this. If I did I wouldn't be wasting so much time in this subforum lobbing different sorts of questions to the group. I will say this though, I don't see it as 'man' vs God, I see it as discovering what is actually true about the world straight up. Hence my insistence that there is an objective answer here, and I can say that at least one of us is wrong.

[Guest shiloh357]

Yes, but was it a LITERAL star?

Or are you going to give it a different set of rules than you do for what is written in Genesis 1?

 

Based on what they saw, the answer to both questions is, "No."

 

A star in the heavens, a lunar body would not have done what the Bible says was observed.  The star led them directionally across the ancient near eastern desert to a specific city and to a specific location just on the outskirts of that city, specifically to Bethlehem Ephratah, a field just outiside Bethlehem.  It rested directly over where Jesus was lain.

 

So what you have is a supernatural event.  They describe the object as a star.  That is how it appeared to them.  That is what they called it.  Remember, I said that the biblical writers spoke phenomonological language, telling us what they observed.

 

What should be taken literally is that the Magi followed an object they described as a star and it led to the exact, pinpiont location of Jesus birth, based on what is recorded in Scripture.

 

We are not using a different set of rules for this than we are for Genesis. In fact, I am using the exact same rules given that creation was also a supernatural event (which is why six days is not a problem).  By taking it literally, I am accounting the supernatural character of the events under discussion.

[nebula]

 

Yes, but was it a LITERAL star?

Or are you going to give it a different set of rules than you do for what is written in Genesis 1?

 

Based on what they saw, the answer to both questions is, "No."

 

A star in the heavens, a lunar body would not have done what the Bible says was observed.  The star led them directionally across the ancient near eastern desert to a specific city and to a specific location just on the outskirts of that city, specifically to Bethlehem Ephratah, a field just outiside Bethlehem.  It rested directly over where Jesus was lain.

 

So what you have is a supernatural event.  They describe the object as a star.  That is how it appeared to them.  That is what they called it.  Remember, I said that the biblical writers spoke phenomonological language, telling us what they observed.

 

What should be taken literally is that the Magi followed an object they described as a star and it led to the exact, pinpiont location of Jesus birth, based on what is recorded in Scripture.

 

We are not using a different set of rules for this than we are for Genesis. In fact, I am using the exact same rules given that creation was also a supernatural event (which is why six days is not a problem).  By taking it literally, I am accounting the supernatural character of the events under discussion.

 

But calling the first four "days" of Genesis 1 as time periods we defined as set by our location on the planet towards the sun before there was a sun to set time by is not phenomonological?

[alphaparticle]

 

 

Yes, but was it a LITERAL star?

Or are you going to give it a different set of rules than you do for what is written in Genesis 1?

 

Based on what they saw, the answer to both questions is, "No."

 

A star in the heavens, a lunar body would not have done what the Bible says was observed.  The star led them directionally across the ancient near eastern desert to a specific city and to a specific location just on the outskirts of that city, specifically to Bethlehem Ephratah, a field just outiside Bethlehem.  It rested directly over where Jesus was lain.

 

So what you have is a supernatural event.  They describe the object as a star.  That is how it appeared to them.  That is what they called it.  Remember, I said that the biblical writers spoke phenomonological language, telling us what they observed.

 

What should be taken literally is that the Magi followed an object they described as a star and it led to the exact, pinpiont location of Jesus birth, based on what is recorded in Scripture.

 

We are not using a different set of rules for this than we are for Genesis. In fact, I am using the exact same rules given that creation was also a supernatural event (which is why six days is not a problem).  By taking it literally, I am accounting the supernatural character of the events under discussion.

 

But calling the first four "days" of Genesis 1 as time periods we defined as set by our location on the planet towards the sun before there was a sun to set time by is not phenomonological?

 

This is a good point. I don't understand what evenings are without an earth/sun system. I am not sure it is reasonable or perhaps even possible to take that at the most simple face value.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

Yes, but was it a LITERAL star?

Or are you going to give it a different set of rules than you do for what is written in Genesis 1?

 

Based on what they saw, the answer to both questions is, "No."

 

A star in the heavens, a lunar body would not have done what the Bible says was observed.  The star led them directionally across the ancient near eastern desert to a specific city and to a specific location just on the outskirts of that city, specifically to Bethlehem Ephratah, a field just outiside Bethlehem.  It rested directly over where Jesus was lain.

 

So what you have is a supernatural event.  They describe the object as a star.  That is how it appeared to them.  That is what they called it.  Remember, I said that the biblical writers spoke phenomonological language, telling us what they observed.

 

What should be taken literally is that the Magi followed an object they described as a star and it led to the exact, pinpiont location of Jesus birth, based on what is recorded in Scripture.

 

We are not using a different set of rules for this than we are for Genesis. In fact, I am using the exact same rules given that creation was also a supernatural event (which is why six days is not a problem).  By taking it literally, I am accounting the supernatural character of the events under discussion.

 

But calling the first four "days" of Genesis 1 as time periods we defined as set by our location on the planet towards the sun before there was a sun to set time by is not phenomonological?

 

That is a good point.  But God says in both Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 that He created the heavens and earth in six days.   How would the original audience at Mt. Sinai have understood those comments?  

 

There was only one eyewitness to creation and He doesn't make mistakes and never misspeaks.  So when He says He made the heavens and earth in six days, is He, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, hamstrung by the fact that there was no sun by which to mark off a "day" as we know it?  There was darkness and light, as well as morning and evening; so there were modifers in the text that tell us what "day" meant.  Again, that is how "literal" works.  You let the text speak for itself.

[alphaparticle]

The text speaking for itself wants us to try to understand evening and morning without a sun and earth system. I really don't think there is a clear cut way to understand what that means. Why would we just assume a 24 hr cycle? Letting the text speak for itself, it introduces concepts that are defined by the rotation of the earth relative to the sun. That is just what morning and evening *are*. So when those concepts are used before these things are created I have to seriously question that a plain, straight forward reading of the text ought to lead to a 24 hr day interpretation.

[Enoch2021]

The text speaking for itself wants us to try to understand evening and morning without a sun and earth system. I really don't think there is a clear cut way to understand what that means. Why would we just assume a 24 hr cycle? Letting the text speak for itself, it introduces concepts that are defined by the rotation of the earth relative to the sun. That is just what morning and evening *are*. So when those concepts are used before these things are created I have to seriously question that a plain, straight forward reading of the text ought to lead to a 24 hr day interpretation.

 

 

The text speaking for itself wants us to try to understand evening and morning without a sun

 

Is there Precedence, that is to say....Is there any other place in Scripture where there is No "Light" from the Sun..... but there is "LIGHT"??