Originally posted by NemesioCan you find an authoritative modern Jewish source that says that a literal interpretation is the only right reading of the Genesis text?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You claim to speak with a 'culturally-informed Hewbrew' mindset, and then you go about insulting the very Hewbrews from whom came this account.
For reasons unknown, your 21st century mind is able to discern that the differences (not, as you insist, the contradictions) between the two accounts is a sure sign of multip erse 20, God
observes that the suitable partner had not yet been found.
Nemesio
What!?! This is a spoke in your wheel? If it were possible, my fingers would be sputtering right now at the absurdity of this charge. I can't find an authoritative modern Christian source that says that a literal reading is the only correct one! This is what you are relying on for a basis of your argument? Back to the drawing board with that one.
Regarding the former, you will find that many modern Jewish scholars recognize...
Let's not litter your otherwise elegant prose with weak arguments. Oh, and by the way, your constant references to Jewish scholars is making you look racist.
Note the second paragraph, wherein the author (A Director at a Rabbinical college) speaks
of the distinctions between the two myths.
Oooh. I am so impressed. A director, is he? Well, by gum, his word is good enough for me!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
Uh, dude. 'Ever notice the edit button on that site? "End-all?" It's a rotary of disinformation.
If I'm loopy, then I'm in some scholarly company.
Funny how the saying 'birds of a feather' comes so readily to mind. I have it on more established scholastic authority that your authorities suck pond water.
If you feel that my summaries are somehow inaccurate, perhaps you will provide summaries of the passages in a similar format for the benefit of others reading this thread.
If there are any remaining here reading these threads besides you and me, they can just as easily page back and read what has already been posted. Why re-hash?
I find it mildly amusing that you would expect me to read your sources, while you have refused ones offered to you. Must be part of that whole open mind thang you got going on. Whatever.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I can't find an authoritative modern Christian source that says that a literal reading is the only correct one!
Hold on a second. I seem to recall that you assert that it is not
possible for a Christian to read creation allegorically. I'm sure you
can't find many authoritiave modern Christian sources that insist
on a literal approach because most reputable Christian scholars
recognize the contradictions between the two stories.
Let's not litter your otherwise elegant prose with weak arguments. Oh, and by the way, your constant references to Jewish scholars is making you look racist.
Racist, eh? More smoke bombs? That I would appeal to Jewish
scholars about a Jewish text in Hebrew is racist? Your ability to
distract the other readers is diminishing.
Oooh. I am so impressed. A director, is he? Well, by gum, his word is good enough for me!
Why should anyone be impressed with your intercontradictory arguments?
He is a Rabbi and a director of a conservative Orthodox Jewish
theological institution. I'd say that his knowledge of Hebrew and the
Torah is probably pretty good. The sort of casual way that he
mentions the two myths is telling, too; it suggests that the belief in
their independent genesis is probably pretty widespread.
Uh, dude. 'Ever notice the edit button on that site? "End-all?" It's a rotary of disinformation.
Convenient. I suppose anything that shows opposition to your weakly
constructed argument must be part of conspiracy to corrupt the
theological hearts of your bizarre cult.
Funny how the saying 'birds of a feather' comes so readily to mind. I have it on more established scholastic authority that your authorities suck pond water.
LOL! Turn to insults when knowledge and reason don't work. More
smoke and mirrors!
If there are any remaining here reading these threads besides you and me, they can just as easily page back and read what has already been posted. Why re-hash?
I know why you won't: the torture to which you subject the text
can't stand being exposed in its full light; you rely on a scholarly
comment here and there, but put together the positively absurd position
simply cannot hold water. By contrast, I can constantly reiterate my
position because it is reasonable.
I find it mildly amusing that you would expect me to read your sources, while you have refused ones offered to you. Must be part of that whole open mind thang you got going on. Whatever.
You've (embarrassingly) revealed that you are unwilling to move from
your position a few times in this thread. Don't project your closed
mindedness on me. You aren't even fooling yourself with that one.
By the way, here's that summary again, if you want to comment upon
it:
Verses 4-6 - When God was creating, before there was rain and vegetation, there was a stream.
FREAKY INSERT -- But God made it rain, our author gave an incomplete and misleading 'recapitulation'
unlike any other recapitulation in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Verse 7 - God formed man.
...
Verse 18 - Man is lonely. God will make a partner for him.
Verse 19 - God forms animals.
FREAKY INSERT -- The time stamp on these verses is reversed, even though in verse 20, God
observes that the suitable partner had not yet been found.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI seem to recall that you assert that it is not possible for a Christian to read creation allegorically.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I can't find an authoritative modern Christian source that says that a literal reading is the only correct one!
Hold on a second. I seem to recall that you assert that it is not
possible for a Christian to read creation allegorically. I'm sure you
can't find many authoritiave modern Christian sources t ...[text shortened]... God
observes that the suitable partner had not yet been found.
Nemesio[/b]
Your recall needs a tuning. I have asserted repeatedly that the Bible is meant to be understood, and that it is the best light on its own contents. Specifically, what is spoken of as literal is meant to be taken literally. What is said metaphorically is meant as such, and so on and so on. You will kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.
because most reputable Christian scholars recognize the contradictions between the two stories.
Totally verifiable, of course. Any that disagree, well... they're just not "reputable," according to you, supposedly. What a crock. All of the experts in the language who disagree dismissed by a wave of your hand. Who can argue that 'logic?'
That I would appeal to Jewish scholars about a Jewish text in Hebrew is racist?
With your constant referencing to the Jewish factor, the inferrence is that only a Jew can be expert in the language. Hogwash.
Your ability to distract the other readers is diminishing.
So, in addition to your work as a contrarian, you also run a survey company?
I suppose anything that shows opposition to your weakly
constructed argument must be part of conspiracy to corrupt the
theological hearts of your bizarre cult.
You can call the argument weak until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the veracity of the same. And you just look silly doing it. If the argument were so weak, it would crumble under exegesis. It does not.
Bizarre cult? You're so sweet.
LOL! Turn to insults when knowledge and reason don't work. More
smoke and mirrors!
Wait a tic! That sounds like an indictment on you. Probably didn't mean for that to show, did ya?
I know why you won't: the torture to which you subject the text
can't stand being exposed in its full light; you rely on a scholarly
comment here and there, but put together the positively absurd position
simply cannot hold water.
Damn! That was too close to home! Or, here's another possibility. I have already exposed it to its full light and I just don't feel like typing it out again and again--- especially when the first four or five times through yielded nothing but dodgeball on the part of you.
You've (embarrassingly) revealed that you are unwilling to move from
your position a few times in this thread.
You've (embarrassingly) revealed that you are unwilling to read what others submit for your consideration. I won't address the issue with you again, since you have ignored my posts to the contrary.
You aren't even fooling yourself with that one.
How would you know?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWait a second.
I have asserted repeatedly that the Bible is meant to be understood, and that it is the best light on its own contents. Specifically, what is spoken of as literal is meant to be taken literally. What is said metaphorically is meant as such, and so on and so on. You will kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.
So, the good Christian can take Creation figuratively?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioLet's get our terminology straight. A Christian can pretty much believe anything they wish as long as they have the salvation part correct.
Wait a second.
So, the good Christian can take Creation figuratively?
Nemesio
However, a believer who wishes to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ--- advancing to the high ground--- will necessarily follow the protocols of spiritual advancement. Said believer will take the Bible according to the classification of any particular passage, i.e., literal where literal, figurative where figurative and etc.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWas that a yes or a no?
Let's get our terminology straight. A Christian can pretty much believe anything they wish as long as they have the salvation part correct.
However, a believer who wishes to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ--- advancing to the high ground--- will necessarily follow the protocols of spiritual advancement. Said believer will take the ...[text shortened]... on of any particular passage, i.e., literal where literal, figurative where figurative and etc.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIt was: any passage is meant to be read as intended by the author, keeping in mind the vernacular and writing styles of the day.
Was that a yes or a no?
Nemesio
Where literal, literal.
Where allegorical, allegorical.
Where figurative, figurative.
Some parts of the speech used in the Creation account are literal; some other modes are used. Let the text speak for itself and all kinds of truth comes spilling out.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are being so evasive to rather a simple question.
It was: any passage is meant to be read as intended by the author, keeping in mind the vernacular and writing styles of the day.
Where literal, literal.
Where allegorical, allegorical.
Where figurative, figurative.
Some parts of the speech used in the Creation account are literal; some other modes are used. Let the text speak for itself and all kinds of truth comes spilling out.
Is it possible for a true Christian to disbelieve the historicity of the
Creation account (while still believing deeply its allegorical message)?
Can a true Christian believe that there are two Creation stories?
Can a true Christian believe that there are two irreconcilable Creation
stories but be indifferent to the same because the deep message
contained within the allegory is unaffected by it?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIs it possible for a true Christian to disbelieve the historicity of the
You are being so evasive to rather a simple question.
Is it possible for a true Christian to disbelieve the historicity of the
Creation account (while still believing deeply its allegorical message)?
Can a true Christian believe that there are two Creation stories?
Can a true Christian believe that there are two irreconcilable Creation
stories but ...[text shortened]... he same because the deep message
contained within the allegory is unaffected by it?
Nemesio
Creation account (while still believing deeply its allegorical message)?
Yes.
Can a true Christian believe that there are two Creation stories?
Yes.
Can a true Christian believe that there are two irreconcilable Creation stories but be indifferent to the same because the deep message contained within the allegory is unaffected by it?
Yes.
Of course, the true Christian would be wrong in their beliefs for the above scenarios, but believing in the Bible is not a salvation issue. Accepting the work done by the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross is the issue in salvation. All the rest of it is secondary.
I don't believe it's possible to have a law without some form of morality at it's core. Morality is all but inherent in law. The question is, who's idea of morality is being used as a "guide to lawmaking", and whether or not a person with his/her own set of moral standards should be forced to abide by another's simply because they weren't born into (or didn't marry into) the Kenn... I mean the "right" family or simply don't possess an insatiable need to control others through force to compensate for a failed and/or failing personal life.
However, (playing the devil's advocate here) it can be said with great certainty that despite an individual's upbringing such as; social/spiritual/economical environments, etc., any person with an ounce of common sense is well aware of certain "universal morals". Now, that person may have chosen to ignore their conscience for whatever reason (i.e. megalomaniacs, sociopaths, politicians, insurance agents), but unless an individual suffers from a severe mental handicap or was raised by wolves, there's no excuse for the taking of one's life. Nor is there any excuse for the violation of one's body (or mind, for you inspiring labotomists out there). Basically, whether someone is a christian, a muslim, a scientologist, or an athiest, in all honesty they'd most likely agree that the original ten commandments are a pretty decent guideline to law. You don't need the indoctrination of christian values in schools/government or Sunday morning evangelical crazies to make the ten most basic and logical humanitarian laws obvious and applicable in modern society. Who cares whether Jesus was the son of god or one hell of a speaker? Who cares whether Moses received those stone tablets from god, or simply chisseled them himself while sitting there alone for who knows how long? Bottom line is that morality is just that,... morality. It's not religion being forced down your throats (except for a few instances here and there) and it's certainly not "one person's idea of how society should behave". It's the human race's idea of how one person should treat another simply because it's the way you'd like to be treated.
Originally posted by BBQ PopeWould you please re-phrase your answer in the form of a question?
I don't believe it's possible to have a law without some form of morality at it's core. Morality is all but inherent in law. The question is, who's idea of morality is being used as a "guide to lawmaking", and whether or not a person with his/her own set of moral standards should be forced to abide by another's simply because they weren't born into (or didn ...[text shortened]... reat another simply because it's the way you'd like to be treated.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOkay, I'm glad that's cleared up.
Of course, the true Christian would be wrong in their beliefs for the above scenarios, but believing in the Bible is not a salvation issue. Accepting the work done by the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross is the issue in salvation. All the rest of it is secondary.
So, a Christian who wants to be 'right' would have to believe the following, right?
Re: Genesis 2
Verses 4-6 - When God was creating, before there was rain and vegetation, there was a stream.
FREAKY INSERT -- But God made it rain, our author gave an incomplete and misleading 'recapitulation'
unlike any other recapitulation in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Verse 7 - God formed man.
...
Verse 18 - Man is lonely. God will make a partner for him.
Verse 19 - God forms animals.
FREAKY INSERT -- The time stamp on these verses is reversed, even though in verse 20, God
observes that the suitable partner had not yet been found.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioA person who wishes to be right will follow sound exegetical treatment of the Scripture, with a mind to classifications. The deliberate superimpositions your views foist upon the various passages will invariably lead to absurdity, as seen in your posts pertaining to both OT and NT passages.
Okay, I'm glad that's cleared up.
So, a Christian who wants to be 'right' would have to believe the following, right?
Re: Genesis 2
Verses 4-6 - When God was creating, before there was rain and vegetation, there was a stream.
FREAKY INSERT -- But God made it rain, our author gave an incomplete and misleading 'recapitulation'
unlike any other recap ...[text shortened]... in verse 20, God
observes that the suitable partner had not yet been found.
Nemesio
Scholarly- and thoughtful-sounding phrases notwithstanding, your grasp of the texts is woefully non-indicative of your otherwise outstanding mind. You take literal what is not meant literal, figurative what is not meant figurative and so forth. But who knows? Maybe someday you'll be sitting in the kingdom and I'll be serving you pints of Guiness. I've been wrong before.
Originally posted by NemesioYes in my opinion.
You are being so evasive to rather a simple question.
Is it possible for a true Christian to disbelieve the historicity of the
Creation account (while still believing deeply its allegorical message)?
Can a true Christian believe that there are two Creation stories?
Can a true Christian believe that there are two irreconcilable Creation
stories but ...[text shortened]... he same because the deep message
contained within the allegory is unaffected by it?
Nemesio
Kelly
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI agree with your answers, all of them in this.
[b]Is it possible for a true Christian to disbelieve the historicity of the
Creation account (while still believing deeply its allegorical message)?
Yes.
Can a true Christian believe that there are two Creation stories?
Yes.
Can a true Christian believe that there are two irreconcilable Creation stories but be indifferent to the same ...[text shortened]... the Lord Jesus Christ on the cross is the issue in salvation. All the rest of it is secondary.
Kelly