Jump to content
IGNORED

Creation


Pencil24

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357
1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Genesis is the only book of the Bible that deals with events when no humans were present. Why shouldn't it be a unique form of literature in the Bible?

Because that is not how literature works.   Genesis is a historical narrative.  That is the structure of the Hebrew in the text.   That is what makes it historical.   You cannot just arbitrarily assign it a unique quality that it doesn't possess.  You can't make a poem a  proverb, and you cannot just make up  a literature genre that doesn't exist and plop in Genesis into a category all its own.   That's not how the rules that govern literature works. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Because that is not how literature works.

Why do you assume your are the arbiter of any type of literature, let alone Biblical literature? Would you not agree that Genesis 1-3 is unique?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
26 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Why do you assume your are the arbiter of any type of literature, let alone Biblical literature?

Because I understand how literature works and it was part of my education.  I understand the rules of literature.   It would be like asking someone who understands English grammar why they think they are the arbiter of English grammar.

Literature and grammar follow particular rules that you simply cannot upend when you want to do so.  The Bible adheres to the rules that govern literature.  It really is that simple. 

Quote

Would you not agree that Genesis 1-3 is unique?

Because as a piece literature is not unique.  It is a historical narrative.   It behaves like a historical narrative and not like anything else.   The subject matter has no bearing on that.

If you are going to make a figurative argument, that is a textual argument and requires you to demonstrate, from the text, that figurative devices are in play and what those devices happen to be.   Without exception, when I have challenged you in the past on that, you have completely ignored the challenge, because you cannot support that argument textually or theologically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

20 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

I understand the rules of literature.

Then you must be aware that the “rules of literature” are highly flexible.

22 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Literature and grammar follow particular rules

Except when they don’t - like the poetry of Emily Dickinson. Grammar is constantly evolving (no pun intended), as well.

A second point - why would God’s Word need to adhere to human literary “rules”?

24 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Because as a piece literature is not unique.

The Bible is certainly unique literature, and Genesis 1-3 is unique within the Bible.

57 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Without exception, when I have challenged you in the past on that, you have completely ignored the challenge, because you cannot support that argument textually or theologically.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I have discussed elements of Genesis 1-3 that exhibit figurative language. In this thread, @Scott Free brought up the point of the disparity between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts. Just because you have dismissed my comments does not mean I have “ignored the challenge”.

Regarding theology, I have demonstrated repeatedly how similar our theological understanding is of Genesis. You have helped me refine those points, but our similarities are completely undeniable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
8 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Then you must be aware that the “rules of literature” are highly flexible.

No, they are not.

Quote

Except when they don’t - like the poetry of Emily Dickinson. Grammar is constantly evolving (no pun intended), as well.

Grammar always follows rules though. And that is the point.  You don't have any rogue Grammar just like you don't have any rogue literature.

Quote

A second point - why would God’s Word need to adhere to human literary “rules”?

In order to communicate with us on our level, in a coherent manner.   God uses lots of things that are purely human.  God used a common blood covenant to communicate with Abraham.   God used all kinds of human covenantal concepts.  The Bible borrows from secular concepts like "saint" and "baptism" to speak to us theologically.

 

Quote

The Bible is certainly unique literature, and Genesis 1-3 is unique within the Bible.

It is unique in content, but not unique in style.   It operates within the parameters of grammar, syntax, and the rules of literature just like any other book and that goes for Gen. 1-3 in particular.

 

Quote

I’ve lost count of the number of times I have discussed elements of Genesis 1-3 that exhibit figurative language. In this thread, @Scott Free brought up the point of the disparity between the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts. Just because you have dismissed my comments does not mean I have “ignored the challenge”.

No, you never demonstrated any figurative devices.  I didn't dismiss anything.  You simply brushed those parts of the debates aside.  Scott brought up the separate accounts and they are not separate accounts, but that has nothing to do with anything being figurative.

 

Quote

Regarding theology, I have demonstrated repeatedly how similar our theological understanding is of Genesis. You have helped me refine those points, but our similarities are completely undeniable.

Again, those similarities are purely cosmetic.   You continually try to disconnect Genesis from the Gospel and that gets to the heart of where your views go totally off the rails.  "The devil's in the details"  as they say and when we look deeper into your views, it is a wildly incoherent theology that you posses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

12 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, they are not. 

Of course they are. Do you think the literary "rules" are universally consistent over all languages and all time? Do you think ancient Hebrew "rules" and Modern American English "rules" are identical? Of course not.

1. God's Word cannot be confined by "literary rules".

2. Genesis was first recorded in a completely different language. Any "literary rules" we see today in Modern American English certainly do not apply to the original text.

16 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Grammar always follows rules though. And that is the point

No, grammar is not the point. You are trying to make a point about literary style, and even that is weak. Incidentally, you must be aware that grammar rules are frequently broken as languages change over time.

18 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

It is unique in content, but not unique in style.

If we were to judge the Bible by "style" alone, then it would clearly be classified as mythology and not history. Many do that today, to their own detriment.

30 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, you never demonstrated any figurative devices.  I didn't dismiss anything.  You simply brushed those parts of the debates aside.  Scott brought up the separate accounts and they are not separate accounts, but that has nothing to do with anything being figurative. 

The Genesis 1 and 2 accounts do not match up in chronology. Since they both must be true, then a figurative approach seems to be in order. We've had lengthy discussions about what I see as metaphor in Genesis 3 with the serpent. There are numerous pieces in the Genesis 1-3 passage that strongly suggest figurative language. You may disagree, but you cannot (accurately) claim that I "have completely ignored the challenge".

32 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Again, those similarities are purely cosmetic.

Oh? Which of these following central theological truths do you believe to be "cosmetic"?

* God is the one and only Creator.

* God sustains all He has created.

* God made mankind specially, and as a culmination of His creative work.

* God imbued mankind with the ability to commune with Him.

* Mankind chose their own way, instead of God's, and brought sin into the world.

* We are now all sinners and are in need of a Savior in order to re-establish that connection with God.

* God promised that the Savior would come.

I'm not a professional theologian, but I would tend to categorize this as "central", rather than "cosmetic".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,782
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,262
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

What we are saying is grammatical and literary rules are of the sort that it is considered an objective format... meaning all peoples of all times can come to the one resource and walk away with the same conclusion (if) yes (if) they are willing to submit to the answers or else this could not be true

2 Tim 2:15

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
KJV

 

2 Tim 3:15-17

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
KJV

God expects us to apply the rules of writing toward study for it 'IS' God Who has objectively communicated to all peoples in all time the writing... it is foolish to take an objective source and use like a subjective one.... because the word then becomes what anyone would have it to be by: I feel it says to me, I think this is what it say, I believe this, when in all times and places it is Thus Sayeth The Lord!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Of course they are. Do you think the literary "rules" are universally consistent over all languages and all time? Do you think ancient Hebrew "rules" and Modern American English "rules" are identical? Of course not.

The point is that there are literary rules for every kind of literature in every language.   English grammar isn't the same as Hebrew, but that is beside the point.   The point is that they both follow particular rules.  Every genre of literature has rules that apply to it and it is up to us interpret in line with those rules.  We don't read fictional literature the same we read biographies.   We don't read mystery novels the same way we read the newspaper.   We naturally adjust our thinking to accommodate the author's intent. 

In the Bible, prophecies are not read like parables.   Proverbs are not read like poetry.  We don't read historical narratives as allegories.  We don't treat descriptive and prescriptive texts the same way.   

The problem is that when someone wants to impose allegory on Genesis 1-3, it becomes necessary to throw out those rules and act as if the rules that govern a historical narrative simply do not apply.   That dubious honor is given ONLY to the Bible and never to any secular text.  It's always the Bible that never means what it says in the minds of liberals who pervert the text.

Quote

1. God's Word cannot be confined by "literary rules".

No one is confining it to literary rules.   But those rules apply.   We call them "biblical hermeneutics" and they are the rules used for interpreting Scripture.  It is hermeneutics that keep us from accepting the perversions of the Mormons, JWs, SDA's and other cults.   It's why we know the difference between literal and figurative.   It's why we know that when Jesus told people to hate their parents, or cut off their hands/pluck out their eyes, that He didn't mean for his followers to abandon their families and walk around maimed.    Hermeneutics keep our feet on the ground help preserve doctrinal integrity in the Church.

Quote

2. Genesis was first recorded in a completely different language. Any "literary rules" we see today in Modern American English certainly do not apply to the original text.

It was in a different language and that language has rules and literary genres have always as existed. It's not about modern English.   Historical, poetic, parabolic, proverbial, prophetic doctrinal genres existed when the Bible was written and exist today.  Those things didn't just come into existence in the 20th century western hemisphere. 

 

Quote

No, grammar is not the point. You are trying to make a point about literary style, and even that is weak. Incidentally, you must be aware that grammar rules are frequently broken as languages change over time.

Grammar is the point.   The point about grammar is that it is an objective set of rules.   English would be unintelligible without those rules.  Yes, their is some internal inconsistency in our applications, but not to the point that English grammar is anything less than the set of rules for how English is spoken and it has remained in tact for the most part.  

I was simply using grammar to make the point about the objective rules we call hermeneutics.   Those rules are pretty important because without hermeneutics, you would not have a Bible in English to read.   Language, grammar and syntax, history and culture are all part of the body of hermeneutics and are vital to translation, as well as interpretation.

Quote

If we were to judge the Bible by "style" alone, then it would clearly be classified as mythology and not history. Many do that today, to their own detriment.

No, "style" alone would not classify it as "myth."   That is easily demonstrated by using "hermeneutics."

 

Quote

The Genesis 1 and 2 accounts do not match up in chronology. Since they both must be true, then a figurative approach seems to be in order.

Wrong.   Genesis 1 and 2 are the same account, same line of thought separated by a bad chapter break.   Chapter breaks didn't exist until the 13th century AD and were placed in the Bible by a man named Stephen Langston.   

Genesis 2 is not a separate account; it is a summarization of five days of creation and then a more detailed recap of day six.   Chapter two gives us more details about Gen. 1:26-31. 

 

Quote

We've had lengthy discussions about what I see as metaphor in Genesis 3 with the serpent.

And yet, you cannot demonstrate any metaphorical device given in the text.   Where does the text provide evidence that a metaphorical device is in play?

Quote

There are numerous pieces in the Genesis 1-3 passage that strongly suggest figurative language. You may disagree, but you cannot (accurately) claim that I "have completely ignored the challenge".

Yes, I can.  Whenever I have challenged you to demonstrate allegory and point to the specific figurative devices in the text, you ignore that challenge;  you ignore it because you can't do it.


 

Quote

 

Oh? Which of these following central theological truths do you believe to be "cosmetic"?

* God is the one and only Creator.

* God sustains all He has created.

* God made mankind specially, and as a culmination of His creative work.

* God imbued mankind with the ability to commune with Him.

* Mankind chose their own way, instead of God's, and brought sin into the world.

* We are now all sinners and are in need of a Savior in order to re-establish that connection with God.

* God promised that the Savior would come.

I'm not a professional theologian, but I would tend to categorize this as "central", rather than "cosmetic".

 

 What I mean is that you know the "right" things you are supposed to say you believe.    But when we get below those claims we find that you don't really accept the authority of the Bible.   You don't believe the Bible is inerrant.   You don't believe that Adam was made from the dust.  You take the fall of man to be allegorical, meaning that you don't agree with what the Bible says about the origin of sin and death, and that is absolutely essential to the Gospel and you adhere to an ungodly theory like evolution that is an assault on the integrity of the Scriptures and by extension, God Himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

The problem is that when someone wants to impose allegory on Genesis 1-3, it becomes necessary to throw out those rules and act as if the rules that govern a historical narrative simply do not apply.

The argument that we must look at the “style” of Genesis 1-3 to determine what it actually means works against what you intend. The “style” that contains talking animals and supernatural fruit is purely fictional fantasy. And neither you nor I accept that. This argument is fruitless (pun intended this time).

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

What I mean is that you know the "right" things you are supposed to say you believe.

*sigh* Let’s think critically about this. What possible motive would I have for making up what I believe? Do you think I make up my beliefs to try to appease you in some way? When have I ever given you the impression that I would stoop to such a thing?

I tell you what I believe because we share central core doctrine. And since we do (and you can’t accurately dispute it), then that suggests that our difference in interpretation is not as meaningful as you believe.

Again, believing in a non-literal interpretation does NOT mean believing the Bible is in error. I believe in a non-literal interpretation BECAUSE I believe the Bible is without error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

Mutate are destructive, never beneficial.

Please make sure your facts are straight before making obvious errors in argumentation. Most mutations are actually neutral. While it is true that more mutations are harmful than helpful, it is completely false to say that mutations are never beneficial.

Bacteria have mutated to become resistant to antibiotics. Insects have mutated to become resistant to insecticides.

Humans have mutated to increase resistance to malaria and become able to digest lactose past weening age.

The examples of beneficial mutations go on and on.

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

My question is, if it existed, then why did it stop?

Evolution, if defined as heritable biological adaptation over time, still occurs today.

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

Finally, evolution doesn't permit a real Adam or a real Eve. 

This is not necessarily true. God’s miraculous, special creation of Adam and Eve cannot be rules out by science. Science cannot address issues of divine action outside of God’s established order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...