stranger said:Am I still missing the point?
Yes. Just reread my post.
Kind regards,
Eric.
Find out how Christians are supposed to act in the following study
https://christianforums.net/threads/charismatic-bible-studies-1-peter-2-11-17.109823/
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
stranger said:Am I still missing the point?
stranger said:It is not enough that a text displays parallelism for it to be counted as poetic since non poetic literature also displays parallelism.
Wavy you have to identify something that is distinctive about poetry other than 'parallelism' if you want to provide evidence for your structure in Genesis 1 cited in the opening OP.
I cited the song of Moses as an example only of the type of evidence that would convince me. Your hermenuetic suffers as a result.
If we communicate facts through prose/poetry: How is it possible that prose/poetry has nothing to do with facts?
If prose/poetry has nothing to do with facts THEN we don't communicate facts through poetry. We are talking about fiction.
If we communicate facts through prose/poetry then prose/poetry has relation to facts. We are talking about non-fiction.
It is presumably understood that:
Prose/poetry are not the facts but offer an interpretation of facts unless the prose/poetry is fiction.
Am I still missing the point?
stranger said:I reread your post - please respond to the above statements /propositions or if you prefer give me your argument in simple statements so I can follow your reasoning.
unred typo said:It really doesn’t put it beyond the sun, moon and stars, but above the expanse of heaven surrounding our earth. The light of the sun, moon, stars was set to appear in our heavens, not actually the bodies themselves.
The whole account is quite vague
You said:
If we communicate facts through prose/poetry: How is it possible that prose/poetry has nothing to do with facts?
My reply: In relation to my argument, whether or not something is poetry/prose is irrelevant to whether something is factual.
Most certainly yes.We can lie through poetry/prose.
Most certainly yes - I called this 'fiction' remember?We can be creative and make up stories to entertain.
no comment.We can do anything through writing.
But being poetry/prose by nature does not make something factual/false.
How we establish facts is by experimentation, regardless of literary genre or device.
So, you said:
Am I still missing the point?
Yes
wavy said:You keep saying that, but a literal reading of the texts proves otherwise. The text not only says that the sun and moon were placed in the firmament, but also the stars. Your objection to the sun/moon being beneath the waters was that the passage says "lights", not specifically the bodies themselves, but that ignores the fact that the stars (with no reference to "light") were placed in the firmament beneath the waters also......
...It's only becomes vague when we brush aside what the ancients literally believed and try to read science into it.
ÃÂoppleganger said:As far as this goes, It can just as accurately be interpreted as Became a waste and a desolation.
If you take into account the fact that hebrew letters serve as numbers, and the improbability that the #7 (the number of completeness) occurs over 30 times in verse 1, which is mathematically impossible. You would see the earth was complete then destroyed.
unred typo said:instead of dismissing it as poetry.
God made the sun, moon, and stars to be lights in our heaven. If you lived in a dark tent under a flood light, and I punched holes into your tent, I would be making lights in your canopy for you to see by. I would be bringing the floodlight into your expanse of darkness. That is not saying that I am putting the floodlight inside the expanse of your tent, is it?
Veritas said:I believe Moses was inspired by God and wrote Genesis.
wavy said:Mosaic authorship is debunked when one considers the literary/historical evidence.
wavy said:Nothing has been dismissed as poetry. I repeat: "even if it was not poetry, that still doesn't tackle the evidence against the account's authenticity."
It has been dismissed as scientifically false (yet still theologically significant).
wavy said:I maintain a more liberal, figurative interpretation of Genesis on the grounds of many a factor (historical, critical, linguistic etc.) From a viewpoint of objectivity, I believe the creation narrative (Genesis 1-2:3) to be poetical in its essence, written to make a point about God, mankind, and the reason for the sabbath.
wavy said:However, the plain reading of the text -- without trying to read science into it to rescue yourself -- does not support this. It is against this. It seems you have not read my objections to this eisegesis.
stranger said:Mosaic authorship is debunked when one considers the literary/historical evidence from a liberal viewpoint.
Mosaic authorship is affirmed when one considers the literary/historical evidence from a conservative viewpoint.
I personally think that Moses was the most qualified man to write it - whether by his own hand or as an overseer.
blessings: stranger
Wavy wrote in his OP::
Discrepancies with modern science:
A prime example is day 4 of creation understood from the scope of day 2. In day 2 God creates the firmament. We have the super-waters and the sub-waters, interpolated by this firmament/dome. In day 4 God places the luminaries he created (sun/moon/stars) in this firmament, the consequent implication being that there are waters above the sun/moon/stars. That's absurdity to the extreme from a scientific position.
wavy wrote in his opening OP:
Inconsistencies between the narratives:
In the first account, there are six days of creation. In the second, there is only one. This is only one example.
So let the queries begin!
Yes. I reference it in one of my previous posts.
Maybe not chronologically, as the link to Benner cybershark provided proposes, but elements of what the culture believed was literally and historically true is contained therein (like there being a solid dome above the earth).
Benner's "block logic", I believe, is credible because there are other examples of parallels besides repetition.
Consider these parallels:
Day 1: Light (dark,light/day,night divided) = Day 4: Celestials (sun guides the day, moon guides night).
Day 2: Firmament (places the heavens above the primordial waters) = Day 5: Sea creatures/birds (corresponds to water and heavens/sky)
Day 3: Sub-waters conglomerated/land appearing/vegetation = Day 6: Animals/man (both land mammals who eat the vegetation).
Although this may seem to dispel any notions of contradiction between the first and seconds accounts, it still presents a problem for fundamentalists, because then a literal six day ordered creation is impossible anyway (if it's not intended to be chronological).