(February 11, 2013 at 9:55 am)FallentoReason Wrote: So Cain and Abel?

After Cain killed Abel Eve bore Seth, and genesis goes on to mention an unspecified amount of children in the 900 some odd years Adam lived a mortal life..

(February 11, 2013 at 10:11 am)Drich Wrote: I have a question, why do you need this to work as an allegory?

I was just thinking the other day how all of this plays out for those who don't believe the Bible literally. I want to know if there's actually any merit in the "allegorical" approach.

The answer (if one ever fully materialises) was going to tie in with a bigger argument I was thinking about that same day -- an argument which at the moment I can't remember unfortunately. But either way, this thread is an end in itself I suppose.

---

(February 11, 2013 at 10:18 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 9:55 am)FallentoReason Wrote: So Cain and Abel?

After Cain killed Abel Eve bore Seth, and genesis goes on to mention an unspecified amount of children in the 900 some odd years Adam lived a mortal life..

Right, I see.

On a bit of a tangent, what's your belief on the formation of the universe with respect to Genesis? Did the Big Bang happen or w/e and then matter clumped up etc. until we arrived at what we have today, or did God create the universe basically as is today (i.e. as outlined in Genesis with a literal understanding)? This will help me understand why you believe your theory of creation to be logical.

Christ recounts the Story of adam and Eve, as such every biblically based Christian must accept the written creation account.

(February 11, 2013 at 10:29 am)Drich Wrote: Christ recounts the Story of adam and Eve, as such every biblically based Christian must accept the written creation account.

So there's no room for a poetic Genesis?

(February 11, 2013 at 10:35 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 10:29 am)Drich Wrote: Christ recounts the Story of adam and Eve, as such every biblically based Christian must accept the written creation account.

So there's no room for a poetic Genesis?

That's not what i said. Genesis must be viewed as an ancient Hebrew text. our writting styles can not be forced onto the existing texts. (Genesis is not a history book, at the same time it is not a book of allegory.) Genesis is Genesis and reflexs the ancient hebrew verbal tradition of passing these accounts, but in a written form. It is its own catagory.

Someone once said that if one tells a lie often enough, it becomes truth. Paul (1st century missionary) would surely have heard this story, since it was part of the old Jewish mythology of the Torah, which would have been around for at least 500 years, and since Christianity was merely a cult of Judaism by the time of Jesus' supposed death, it only makes sense that Paul would incorporate the older myth into the new form of the religion.
If we knew Jesus definitely existed, which we don't, and if we knew precisely what happened in his life, which we don't, then it might have been arguable whether or not he did the things the bible says he did, and for the reasons that the bible gives. However, since we don't have any contemporary records of these things we can only go by what the bible tells us, which Paul is currently credited with having a large influence on.

To put it simply, Paul could have intentionally manipulated the truth of the man, Jesus, into conforming with the Jewish myth of the Messiah, or it could be that he was going off of the accounts of other people telling him about Jesus, or it might be that he really did meet the ghost of Jesus and was told all this, no one knows for the sure so far as I'm aware.

It's just safe to keep in mind that we cannot fathom the machinations of a man 2000 years dead, especially when documents apparently written by him are foundationally questionable.

(February 11, 2013 at 3:40 am)fr0d0 Wrote: The answer is in John H Walton's 'the lost world of Genesis one' if you want to know it Justin.

i`ll look into the book frodo and see what his arguments are. if i have heard them before i don`t want to waste my time though. thanks though

(February 11, 2013 at 10:35 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(February 11, 2013 at 10:29 am)Drich Wrote: Christ recounts the Story of adam and Eve, as such every biblically based Christian must accept the written creation account.

So there's no room for a poetic Genesis?

There's room for a poetic or allegorical Genesis, there's just no internal evidence to support that interpretation.

Some Bibles use italics or indentation to indicate sections which scholars judge to be poetic. Gen 1:27 is the only verse in the creation account judged to be so.

Genesis is not labeled as allegory, vision, parable, or dream.

Jesus refers to the flood as an actual historical event.

(February 11, 2013 at 11:35 am)John V Wrote: Jesus refers to the flood as an actual historical event.

Or at least, the bible tells us that Jesus said that.

(February 11, 2013 at 11:24 am)Question Mark Wrote: Someone once said that if one tells a lie often enough, it becomes truth. Paul (1st century missionary) would surely have heard this story, since it was part of the old Jewish mythology of the Torah, which would have been around for at least 500 years, and since Christianity was merely a cult of Judaism by the time of Jesus' supposed death, it only makes sense that Paul would incorporate the older myth into the new form of the religion.
If we knew Jesus definitely existed, which we don't, and if we knew precisely what happened in his life, which we don't, then it might have been arguable whether or not he did the things the bible says he did, and for the reasons that the bible gives. However, since we don't have any contemporary records of these things we can only go by what the bible tells us, which Paul is currently credited with having a large influence on.

To put it simply, Paul could have intentionally manipulated the truth of the man, Jesus, into conforming with the Jewish myth of the Messiah, or it could be that he was going off of the accounts of other people telling him about Jesus, or it might be that he really did meet the ghost of Jesus and was told all this, no one knows for the sure so far as I'm aware.

It's just safe to keep in mind that we cannot fathom the machinations of a man 2000 years dead, especially when documents apparently written by him are foundationally questionable.

Why would their be a contemporary record if the Church in or around the 3rd century consumed every document written describing Christ (to compile the bible) and "perserve" the rest? After the reformation and the need to seperate 'high learning' from the control of the church, Much if not all of the history surrounding Christ stayed with the church.

In short, There are 66 book that make the bible, There are thousands more describing this same time period in one way or another, in the vaulted libaries of the vatican. there is your 'contemporary record.'