a-seeker Posted February 28, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 28, 2014 Are you maintaining that the Temple of Solomon was the "first" temple to any god? No, How you could you possibly get that from any of my comments??? Your comment was that there was NO TEMPLE CULTURE/IDEOLOGY at the time that Moses wrote Genesis. Not a single idea of what temples were, or how they were constructed. What did you mean by that? Should have been obvious to the original audience?? I am saying it WAS obvious to them. Which is a baseless assumption on your part. It is equally a baseless assumption on your part. Remember the analogy I used? What is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. You cannot prove the enormous negative that something would not be obvious to the Hebrews. There are clear echoes resonating between Genesis 1 and the rest of the Pentateuch, and indeed throughout all of Scripture. CLEAR echoes.Oh, the invite is always on the table to look at the Bible one on one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Are you maintaining that the Temple of Solomon was the "first" temple to any god? No, How you could you possibly get that from any of my comments??? Your comment was that there was NO TEMPLE CULTURE/IDEOLOGY at the time that Moses wrote Genesis. Not a single idea of what temples were, or how they were constructed. What did you mean by that? No, that is not what I said. That is a false value you assigned to what I said. I was speaking in context to the Jewish Temple. The Jewish Temple did not exist at the time. There was no way to make a temple culture parallel since the Temple in Jerusalem had never been built at the time Genesis was written. It is equally a baseless assumption on your part. Remember the analogy I used? What is obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. You cannot prove the enormous negative that something would not be obvious to the Hebrews. There are clear echoes resonating between Genesis 1 and the rest of the Pentateuch, and indeed throughout all of Scripture. CLEAR echoes.Oh, the invite is always on the table to look at the Bible one on one My statement is proven true by simple fact that the Temple didn't exist at the time Genesis was written. The original audience would not have likely drawn any parallel between the Garden of Eden and the Temple. That parallel was rabbinical and occurred much later. You are presuming too much prior knowledge on the people just released from slavery while standing in front of Mt. Sinai. Hebrew culture hadn't really even been established at that point. To assume that these ex-slaves, many of whom were illiterate suddenly had the literary skills to hear Genesis read for the first time and immediately draw a connection to a temple parallel is ridiculous and frankly rather laughable. You maintain (I think) that Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus....and at least most of the Pentateuch. Yes, and that is well founded upon thousands of years of sound and competent Jewish and Christian scholarship. You maintain that it is terrible exegesis to look for any connections between one book written by the author (Exodus) and another (Genesis). There is no way that these books will "refer to each other" in any way? Is that right? I am sure it isn't because it sounds ridiculous, but I am completely unsure that I know what you think legitimate exegesis is. Nope. Never said that. In fact, I see a lot of connections between the two. There are many internal connections between the two. I am maintaining that it is terrible exegesis to manufacture connections simply because you refuse to take Genesis 1 literally. Your "connections" are there as an alterantive to believing the Word of God. That is why your approach is sloppy. Your approach is rooted in disbelief and amounts to reading a meaning into the text of Genesis 1 that wasn't intended by the author, (Moses). Again, Paul is frequently looking back to the Old Creation and then to the New, or the old Adam and the new ADam (Jesus). The authors of the Bible are often in communication with each other, so to speak. Yes, but Paul's appraoch assumes a literal reading of Genesis 1-3. Paul treats Genesis 1-3 with the same literal historical approach that he employs with the death and resurrection of Jesus. I maintain that it is not bad exegesis to see if there are "echos" of themes in Exodus heard throughout Geneseis. Once I looked, I found them. I posted them. They were removed, twice. I invited you to discuss them one on one. You declined. Because they are somelthing manufactured and not legitimate exegesis. When you learn what real exegesis is, then maybe it would be worth my time to discuss exegesis with you. Until then I see no profitable use of my time in dealing your contrived parallels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted March 1, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2014 You maintain that it is terrible exegesis to look for any connections between one book written by the author (Exodus) and another (Genesis). There is no way that these books will "refer to each other" in any way? Is that right? I am sure it isn't because it sounds ridiculous, but I am completely unsure that I know what you think legitimate exegesis is. Nope. Never said that. In fact, I see a lot of connections between the two. There are many internal connections between the two. I am maintaining that it is terrible exegesis to manufacture connections simply because you refuse to take Genesis 1 literally. Your "connections" are there as an alterantive to believing the Word of God. That is why your approach is sloppy. Your approach is rooted in disbelief and amounts to reading a meaning into the text of Genesis 1 that wasn't intended by the author, (Moses). So no matter what I say about my position being the conclusion of exegesis (whether sloppy or not) you will always assume the actual cause is disbelief and a compromise with the secular world: when I insist that I still revere Genesis as God's word, but that it is truly not obvious to me that the genre is historical narrative, you will respond to the effect that I am either lying or an idiot? Is that right? I don't care if it is, just want to know the situation. clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted March 1, 2014 ========================================================================================================= Hey Shiloh, This should resolve cases (Disregard "Other One's" Name in the Quote Box, it is from Connor) with my reply: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 So no matter what I say about my position being the conclusion of exegesis (whether sloppy or not) you will always assume the actual cause is disbelief and a compromise with the secular world: when I insist that I still revere Genesis as God's word, but that it is truly not obvious to me that the genre is historical narrative, you will respond to the effect that I am either lying or an idiot? Is that right? I don't care if it is, just want to know the situation. 1. Your position being the conclusion of exegesis is false. It is the result of eisogesis. 2. You have made it clear that you do not believe Genesis is literal history despite it having every earmark of a true historical narrative. Thus you disbelieve the text as it is written and have chosen to supplant the authentic historical nature of the text with cultural parallels that have nothing to do with the intent of the author. Thus your position is rooted in disbelief of the text as written. 3. That it is not obvious to you that it is historical is irrelevant. It is historical whether you make room for reality or not. You have chosen to reject reality for a false view of the text. I cannot do anything about your persistent intellectual sucide. 4. I don't think you are an indiot or a liar. But don't think you are treating the text in a objective, exegetical manner. You imipose things on to the text that are not there. No one who is competent in the process of exegesis and is operating under the rules of true literary analysis denies the historical nature and character of the text of Genesis 1.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted March 2, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 2, 2014 So no matter what I say about my position being the conclusion of exegesis (whether sloppy or not) you will always assume the actual cause is disbelief and a compromise with the secular world: when I insist that I still revere Genesis as God's word, but that it is truly not obvious to me that the genre is historical narrative, you will respond to the effect that I am either lying or an idiot? Is that right? I don't care if it is, just want to know the situation. 1. Your position being the conclusion of exegesis is false. It is the result of eisogesis. 2. You have made it clear that you do not believe Genesis is literal history despite it having every earmark of a true historical narrative. Thus you disbelieve the text as it is written and have chosen to supplant the authentic historical nature of the text with cultural parallels that have nothing to do with the intent of the author. Thus your position is rooted in disbelief of the text as written. 3. That it is not obvious to you that it is historical is irrelevant. It is historical whether you make room for reality or not. You have chosen to reject reality for a false view of the text. I cannot do anything about your persistent intellectual sucide. 4. I don't think you are an indiot or a liar. But don't think you are treating the text in a objective, exegetical manner. You imipose things on to the text that are not there. No one who is competent in the process of exegesis and is operating under the rules of true literary analysis denies the historical nature and character of the text of Genesis 1.. 3) It is irrelevant to the reality of Genesis genre whether I see it as historical--a thing is a thing whether we see it or not. Just as it is irrelevant to the reality of cultural parallels whether a) I see what is not there, or b) you do not see what is. We both agree that the subjective does not fully align with the objective. IN point 4 you say you don't think I am lying, but of course if I have chosen to reject reality for a false view of the text, then I am lying (to myself). So you do think I am lying, correct? 4) "No one competent in the process of exegesis.......denies the historical nature..." You are obviously not claiming every single scholar to be on your side here; you are claiming that only those on your side in this matter are true scholars, competent in exegesis, right? Obviously there are numerous scholars who do not regard Genesis as narrative in the same fashion as are the uncontested historical books. clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted March 2, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 2, 2014 I maintain that it is not bad exegesis to see if there are "echos" of themes in Exodus heard throughout Geneseis. Once I looked, I found them. I posted them. They were removed, twice. I invited you to discuss them one on one. You declined. Because they are somelthing manufactured and not legitimate exegesis. When you learn what real exegesis is, then maybe it would be worth my time to discuss exegesis with you. Until then I see no profitable use of my time in dealing your contrived parallels. I tell ya what, I won't bring up any outside parallels at the start; we can look at only the text and I will ask you questions--ask you whether something is a legitimate exegetical maneuver or not. You can be my teacher, setting me straight. IF it gets boring or you get fed up, we'll abandon it. Otherwise some might misconstrue your reasons for avoiding this discussion As far as the reason for removing the posts--i was assured it was not the content but the tone in which it was presented. I mean, why would anyone delete posts which someone like you could destroy in a sentence or two? We have unbelievers on this site who surely are not posting good exegesis; yet their posts remain. clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnochBethany Posted March 2, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 649 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 99 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 2, 2014 Where does the Bible say that Jesus is the new Creation?? The Bible makes no such claim. And what you do mean when you say that Jesus is the New Creation? I think he was referring to 2 Corinthians 5:17 "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" But I think this is referring to us as believers in Christ. Still...I see his point. What point is that? I was getting to it, but I would like to back it up with scripture. I have some in mind, but I can't remember where they are. That means I need to do some digging. The Lord Jesus as the New Creation: These are the conclusions to which I have come as the result of my study of Scripture: The Lord Jesus is both God (uncreated) & man (created). Moreover, He is the first man raised from the dead (as opposed to resuscitation to the Adamic state, destined yet to die) to a new creation. His human nature is transformed human nature, glorified, evidently able to pass through walls. The Scripture says that He appeared in another morphe. His raised body has flesh & bone -- blood not mentioned. As 1 Cor 15 indicates, the physical flesh nature is changed, though not to "spirit essence." Paul could not bear the sight of the Lord Jesus on Damascus Road. He appears to me to be the founder of a New Human Race, which is a transformation of the Adamic Race. And Christians are brought into this race, first of all by regeneration & baptism of the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ. He is called the firstborn and "the arche of the creation of God. Rev 3:14 "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:" ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ·. Now one may debate the meaning of ἡ ἀρχὴ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-seeker Posted March 2, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 9 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 589 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 42 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 2, 2014 The Lord Jesus as the New Creation: These are the conclusions to which I have come as the result of my study of Scripture: The Lord Jesus is both God (uncreated) & man (created). Moreover, He is the first man raised from the dead (as opposed to resuscitation to the Adamic state, destined yet to die) to a new creation. His human nature is transformed human nature, glorified, evidently able to pass through walls. The Scripture says that He appeared in another morphe. His raised body has flesh & bone -- blood not mentioned. As 1 Cor 15 indicates, the physical flesh nature is changed, though not to "spirit essence." Paul could not bear the sight of the Lord Jesus on Damascus Road. He appears to me to be the founder of a New Human Race, which is a transformation of the Adamic Race. And Christians are brought into this race, first of all by regeneration & baptism of the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ. He is called the firstborn and "the arche of the creation of God. Rev 3:14 "And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:" ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ·. Now one may debate the meaning of ἡ ἀρχὴ. I am not sure what the point of this is: are you agreeing with Sheniy and (ultimately) me, or are you agreeing with Shiloh that the tabernacle does in no way point back to creation but ONLY ahead to Jesus, and to see any connection between the tabernacle and Genesis 1-2 is bad exegesis? clb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 3) It is irrelevant to the reality of Genesis genre whether I see it as historical--a thing is a thing whether we see it or not. Yes, that is true. It is what it is. Genesis 1 is a historical narratived, period. If you say otherwise, you are simply wrong. You can go on telling yourself that it isn't, but that is simply a denial of reality. And if you are uwilling to accept reality, then you are not competent to really offer up any interpretation of Genesis 1 that has any semblance of credibility and certainly not anything that should be taken seriously. IN point 4 you say you don't think I am lying, but of course if I have chosen to reject reality for a false view of the text, then I am lying (to myself). So you do think I am lying, correct? Nope. I don't think you are lying to yourself. I think you are fully convinced of what you believe. I am simply more competent where hermeneutics are concerned. I don't think you are lying; but I do think you are employing sloppy exegesis and you have fallen prey to "junk" scholarship. You are obviously not claiming every single scholar to be on your side here; you are claiming that only those on your side in this matter are true scholars, competent in exegesis, right? Obviously there are numerous scholars who do not regard Genesis as narrative in the same fashion as are the uncontested historical books. One thing I have learned over the years is that there are Bible scholars and there are Christian scholars. There are many "Bible" scholars who make a career out of studying the Bible and they don't believe a word of it. I have also learned not to be too easily impressed with men who have an alphabet soup behind their name. I look for scholars who love, believe and walk out the Bible. I look for scholars who view their study and exposition of Scripture as a ministry because I have found them to be far higher in competency when it comes to bringing out the truth of the Word of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts