Marilyn C Posted September 20, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 266 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 13,204 Content Per Day: 3.49 Reputation: 8,497 Days Won: 12 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1947 Author Share Posted September 20, 2017 14 hours ago, shiloh357 said: That is true. I said that and it is a true statement, but it is not a hermeneutical principle. It is a homiletical application of Scripture. Hermeneutics when done properly, will not contradict that truth. The problem you have, as I have noted many times in the past is that you don't know how to compare Scripture with Scripture. You don't understand the principles of hermeneutics. Hi Shiloh, So......perhaps we should each give an illustration of our `method` in studying God`s word. I`m sure I can learn from what you say, bro. Perhaps we can revisit Gen. 3 where this all started. What say you? Marilyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 5 hours ago, Marilyn C said: Hi Shiloh, So......perhaps we should each give an illustration of our `method` in studying God`s word. I`m sure I can learn from what you say, bro. Perhaps we can revisit Gen. 3 where this all started. What say you? Marilyn. Genesis 3 is a historical narrative and should be read as a historical narrative. There is no evidence that the story is anything other than a literal record of history, namely a record of the origin of sin in mankind brought on by Adam's disobedience. It is also a historical record of the plan of redemption and the point in which it began to be worked out in the earth. Genesis 3 is part of a greater demonstration in the first 11 chapters of the sinfulness of man and why a covenant was needed. Rom. 5:12-21 is the NT explanation of Genesis 3 and how it relates to Jesus and His redemptive work on the cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyn C Posted September 21, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 266 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 13,204 Content Per Day: 3.49 Reputation: 8,497 Days Won: 12 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1947 Author Share Posted September 21, 2017 11 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Genesis 3 is a historical narrative and should be read as a historical narrative. There is no evidence that the story is anything other than a literal record of history, namely a record of the origin of sin in mankind brought on by Adam's disobedience. It is also a historical record of the plan of redemption and the point in which it began to be worked out in the earth. Genesis 3 is part of a greater demonstration in the first 11 chapters of the sinfulness of man and why a covenant was needed. Rom. 5:12-21 is the NT explanation of Genesis 3 and how it relates to Jesus and His redemptive work on the cross. Hi shiloh, Knew I`d learn from you bro. Thanks for connecting Rom. 5: 12 - 21 for us. Here is a good part - `For if by one man`s offence death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ.....Moreover the law entered that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.` (Rom. 5: 17, 20 & 21) The great contrast there - death because of Adam`s sin & life through Christ. Now as we are looking at how to study God`s word, can you explain the steps of your thinking, showing why you believe this passage is a historical narrative. You have stated what you believe but it would be advantageous to us as readers to understand your thought process in regards to interpreting God`s word correctly. regards, Marilyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 7 minutes ago, Marilyn C said: Now as we are looking at how to study God`s word, can you explain the steps of your thinking, showing why you believe this passage is a historical narrative. Well, it's kind of obvious isn't it? It is a record of a historical sequence of events. ALL of Genesis is historical. That's the genre and it is to be read as a literal historical record. I mean, there isn't much to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyn C Posted September 21, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 266 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 13,204 Content Per Day: 3.49 Reputation: 8,497 Days Won: 12 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1947 Author Share Posted September 21, 2017 Do you see any symbols, or types in this passage? Do you take every part as literal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 12 minutes ago, Marilyn C said: Do you see any symbols, or types in this passage? Do you take every part as literal? In Which passage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyn C Posted September 21, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 266 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 13,204 Content Per Day: 3.49 Reputation: 8,497 Days Won: 12 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1947 Author Share Posted September 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: In which passage? Gen. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Just now, Marilyn C said: Gen. 3 All of it, even types and symbols are taken literally. If you see symbols and types as "non-literal," you have a flawed understanding of what "literal" means. There is some foreshadowing such as God using animal skins to cover Adam and Eve. But there are no symbols indicated by the text, in Genesis or outside of Genesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marilyn C Posted September 21, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 30 Topic Count: 266 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 13,204 Content Per Day: 3.49 Reputation: 8,497 Days Won: 12 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/06/1947 Author Share Posted September 21, 2017 Just now, shiloh357 said: All of it, even types and symbols are taken literally. If you see symbols and types as "non-literal," you have a flawed understanding of what "literal" means. There is some foreshadowing such as God using animal skins to cover Adam and Eve. But there are no symbols indicated by the text, in Genesis or outside of Genesis. So how do you see `the serpent` of Gen. 3: 1 `Now the serpent was more cunning...` and what we are told in Rev. 20: 2 `He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan,....`? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, Marilyn C said: So how do you see `the serpent` of Gen. 3: 1 `Now the serpent was more cunning...` and what we are told in Rev. 20: 2 `He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan,....`? I have no problem with that at all. But there is no symbolism relative to Satan there in Genesis 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts