Who made God?

[Cygnus]

From what little I read, he seems to take a literal view of the A&E story. I don't think it was meant to be taken in that manner.

Why would anyone not take Genesis as literal? That's the real question.
Even the authors of the rest of the bible present Genesis as literal.

 

[Jim Parker]

I'm not buying that. Paul wouldn't base a rule upon a metaphor. Makes no sense to do that.

And on what do you base such a conclusion?
Metaphor is an excellent medium by which to communicate truth. It has been used for that purpose in all known cultures since the beginnings of civilization.

The problem is when you metaphor up the bible.

I have no idea what you mean by "metaphor up the Bible."
The Bible is literature. It contains letters, poems, gospels, apocalyptic, metaphor, simile, hyperbole, genealogy, and every literary device known to a very sophisticated ancient middle eastern culture.
To view it as the transcript of the video tape is to miss much of the truth conveyed.

 

[Jim Parker]

Why would anyone not take Genesis as literal? That's the real question.

It is unfortunate that you would even ask such a question.

Even the authors of the rest of the bible present Genesis as literal.

Do they? I'm sure that is your understanding.

JTLYK: The word, "Bible" is a proper noun and, therefore, the first letter is capitalized. - "Bible" not "bible."

 

[Cygnus]

And on what do you base such a conclusion?

Hey ladies, I have a rule for you about conducting yourselves in church, and guess what? It's based upon an event that never happened.

I have no idea what you mean by "metaphor up the Bible."

It's what you did to Genesis. You labeled the creation account a metaphor...and can't explain what the meaning or medaphor represents.

 

[Cygnus]

It is unfortunate that you would even ask such a question.

That makes no sense considering guys like Paul and Jude took it as literal and historical. But for me, you consider it as unfortunate? Now that seems silly.

Do they? I'm sure that is your understanding.

Jude 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,
Very literal. The seventh from Adam. Do you want to see more verses?
Can you present one verse where Genesis is to be taken as not literal?

 

[Jim Parker]

Hey ladies, I have a rule for you about conducting yourselves in church, and guess what? It's based upon an event that never happened.

Have you never heard of Aesop's fables?
Do you know know nothing of the use of myth to teach truth?
Have you no knowledge of literature whatsoever?
That's ok. You just stick to your simplistic, literalist approach. You'll be fine.

It's what you did to Genesis. You labeled the creation account a metaphor...

Ah! So THAT's what you mean by "metaphor-up the Bible."
How quaint.

can't explain what the meaning or medaphor represents.

How would you possible know what I can and cannot explain?

 

[Cygnus]

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, Heli, Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph, Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai, Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda, Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri, Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er, Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi, Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim, Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon, Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah, Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor, Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah, Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech, Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan, Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Where does this verse from Luke 3 change from literal to metaphor?

 

[Cygnus]

Do you know know nothing of the use of myth to teach truth?

Now why would Paul need a myth to base a rule upon? You're grasping.

 

[Jim Parker]

That makes no sense considering guys like Paul and Jude took it as literal and historical.

That's how you see it. But you are approaching it in a modern, western, scientific view, written in a language that would not even exist for over 1700 years while it was written by ancient, middle eastern, pre-scientific, people from a Jewish perspective and in a language that is no longer used. So you make assumption based on faulty understanding of what you are reading.

Jude 1:14 It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,
Very literal. The seventh from Adam.

YOu seem to think I said the whole Bible a fairy tale.
I did not.
It is unfortunate that you do not seem to know the difference between a literary device and a fairy tale.

Do you want to see more verses?

I don't see the point. You are not interested in learning anything.

Can you present one verse where Genesis is to be taken as not literal?

I can present many but you don't want to know.
I wonder why you even ask?

 

[Jim Parker]

Now why would Paul need a myth to base a rule upon? You're grasping.

I didn't say Paul needed anything.
That is your confusion.

 

[Jim Parker]

Where does this verse from Luke 3 change from literal to metaphor?

It doesn't.
It's a genealogy.
I never said the whole Bible was a metaphor.
I said that it contains metaphor. (And every other literary device know to the ancient middle eastern writer)
If you don't know the difference between "is" and "contains" then this conversation is over your head.

 

[calvin]

calvin,

I'm not asking you about the content of the authority of Scripture. I'm asking you to tell us how to interpret any document literally. Please provide a definition of 'literal interpretation'. Is that too difficult to do?

Oz

You seem to have difficulty articulating In English.(edit)
In post #286 you posted:::"That post does not tell me your understanding of literal interpretation. Please take the time to explain to me what you mean by literal." emphasis added. And that I did.
Then in post #307 you posted:::"I'm not asking you about the content of the authority of Scripture. I'm asking you to tell us how to interpret any document literally. Please provide a definition of 'literal interpretation'. Is that too difficult to do?"emphasis added.
From the two above cited posts of yours it would indeed seem some instruction in interpreting written language, or at best remaining focussed on any given topic is needed.
I am not here as a teacher and I do not see within the board rules any requirement for such.

 

[calvin]

If the tree of knowing good and evil is metaphore, then what was the fruit of it? Must be metaphore as well.
What metaphore would Eve be likely to find pleasing to the eye and good for food?
How does one eat metaphore?
Then what metaphore did Eve pass on to Adam?
And what of the Serpent? Was it metaphore too? How would a metaphore crawl on its belly?

I believe the tree was real, the prohibition was real the consequences are real.
While it is true that embodied within the account, there is the serious matter of disbelieving the Lord..in effect calling Him a liar and deceiver and so on, this does not make the tree a metaphore.
All it does is show that the exact botanic classification of the tree is completely unimportant and the mocking of the details supplied nothing more than one of the many consequences of the fall.
In the same way, it is not impossible that there existed a tree whose fruit in some way arrested the ageing process, this would not be entirely without precedent as many modern medicines have there roots in herbal remedies.
The exact botanic specifications for any such tree is now rather moot in any event, as it has been removed from our reach.
Oz you do not actually say that your post #306 was meant in jest, but if you had I would probably want to agree with you.
Since you haven't, I will simply ask you for some clarification.
In your post #306 are you mocking those who hold a different understanding than you on these matters, or something else?

 

[Cygnus]

It doesn't.
It's a genealogy.
I never said the whole Bible was a metaphor.
I said that it contains metaphor. (And every other literary device know to the ancient middle eastern writer)
If you don't know the difference between "is" and "contains" then this conversation is over your head.

You present Adam as some sort of metaphor...the genealogy begs to differ.

 

[calvin]

Do you know know nothing of the use of myth to teach truth?

Hello Jim, calvin here.
Is that not what a parable is?

 

[Jim Parker]

You present Adam as some sort of metaphor...the genealogy begs to differ.

And how would you possibly know that?
To this point you have given no indication of any understanding of the use of literary devices in scripture.

 

[Jim Parker]

Hello Jim, calvin here.
Is that not what a parable is?

A parable can be myth. The sower of seeds was not meant to be understood as a specific, living human being, Neither were the rich man or Lazarus, nor the unrighteous judge and the widow, nor any of the other people depicted in the parables. So, yes, you could say they were "mythic" in that they did not represent actual, historical people.

On the other hand, the Samaritan woman at the well was a real, historic person as was the woman with the issue of blood who touched the hem of Jesus' garment and was healed and the man born blind to whom Jesus gave sight and the widow's son whom Jesus raised from the dead.
Those are all "literal" stories.


iakov the fool

 

[Cygnus]

And how would you possibly know that?
To this point you have given no indication of any understanding of the use of literary devices in scripture.

Over the years I have come to see the symptoms of a person who has been backed into a logical corner and can't get out.....they reply back in exactly the way you just did.

 

[Jim Parker]

Over the years I have come to see the symptoms of a person who has been backed into a logical corner and can't get out.....they reply back in exactly the way you just did.

And what do you know of a "logical corner"?
There is nothing in a genealogy that would prevent mythical characters from being included.

Zeus, took the form of a swan and seduced Leda who bore Helen and Polydeuces, the children of Zeus.
That's a brief genealogy.
Does the fact that it's a genealogy require Zeus, Leda, Helen and Polydeuces to be historical, real beings? No.

A genealogy is a generally list of names.
There is no requirement for the names to be names of real people.
It's LITERATURE.

In the ancient Middle Eastern literature, a genealogy was used to introduce a story or an episode. (Thus the "begats" in Genesis.)

And the genealogy does not have to contain all the names in the succession of ancestors. The genealogy at the beginning of Matthew's gospel has 3 sets of 14 names from Abraham to Jesus.
That is contrived for a specific purpose.
The number of David's name is 14.
Matthew, by using 3 sets of 14, is presenting Jesus as the descendant of David who will sit on his throne.

Gen 1:1 through 2:3 is a genealogy of the heavens and the earth.

 

[calvin]

Jim, calvin here,
I can agree with you in part, however Consider that Matthew is the only instance of a writer beginning with a genealogy. (in the NT)
Mark has no genealogy at all.
Luke doesn't get into genealogy until most of the way through ch.3.
As for Genesis, I can't disagree with you, however I see a somewhat different seeming genealogy beginning at Gen 2:4 or perhaps a synopsis of the preceding genealogy, that progresses to a new expression of that genealogy.
Just saying.