Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[Angrboda]

Jor, that’s one of the work attempts at exegesis I’ve every seen. And the verses you quoted even make the caseagainst you.

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 20:11, NASB

So not a contemporaneous text at all. FAIL! You’re just quoting the text that’s already it question. And what’s worse the text doesn’t even say that it’s to be taken as a literal fact.

Man are you desperate.  Exodus isn't contemporaneous to Genesis?  What have you been smoking?  The text clearly testifies that Moses thought of the days in Genesis as literal days, otherwise his parallel with the Sabbath doesn't make sense.

The bible itself testifies to a literal interpretation of Genesis,…

You must mean the part where is says “dark sayings of old?” Yeah that sounds really super emphatic that the biblical texts are entirely and only factual in nature.

Then He said, “Hear now My words: if there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?” - Numbers 12:6–8, ESV [emphasis mine]

Wow! Way to interpret the text in the exact opposite way that it says. It is absolutely clear that sometime the Lord does speak with “dark sayings of old”, i.e. symbols, metaphors, and allegory. And that same phrase also occurs in Psalm 78:1-3

But not with Moses, the author of Genesis.  Remember the topic?  It's is Genesis a literal account, not are some accounts in the bible allegorical or "dark sayings."

You're obviously trying to glean a defense of the original point, no matter how ridiculous that defense is.  And you're failing.

” Give ear, O my people, to my teaching;
incline your ears to the words of my mouth!
I will open my mouth in a parable;
I will utter dark sayings from of old,
things that we have heard and known,
that our fathers have told us..”

“Parables”…”Dark Sayings”…Gee whiz, that sure doesn’t sound like the bible testifying to take itself literally. Only someone with no integrity and an evil intent to make a mockery of holy things would misrepresent the biblical text like that. (That's you by the way since you have a hard time interpreting things that aren't spelled out for her)

This is Asah testifying about what their fathers had told them.  Since God himself said he doesn't do that with Moses, your verses are entirely beside the point.

…and the early church fathers testify to a literal belief in the flood (HERE).  That you want to make a strategic retreat from literalism because your bible doesn't square with the facts means absutely squat.

The facts are not as simple as you say and you dishonestly exclude contrary examples that do not justify your bigotry.

First, you failed to included Origen in your list of Church Fathers: http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/04/orige...g-genesis/

It's not entirely clear that Origen denied a literal level of meaning to the text.  Regardless, the consensus of the church fathers was that the flood actually happened.  Feel free to quote Origen talking about the flood if you must, it's still a minority opinion.  

Then of course there is Thomas Aquinas who also couldn't be more clear:

”…It is befitting Holy Writ to put forward divine and spiritual truths by means of comparisons with material things… Holy Writ, spiritual truths are fittingly taught under the likeness of material things. This is what Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i): "We cannot be enlightened by the divine rays except they be hidden within the covering of many sacred veils." … that spiritual truths be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it.”
And…

”… The ray of divine revelation is not extinguished by the sensible imagery wherewith it is veiled… those things that are taught metaphorically in one part of Scripture, in other parts are taught more openly. The very hiding of truth in figures is useful for the exercise of thoughtful minds and as a defense against the ridicule of the impious, according to the words "Give not that which is holy to dogs" (Matthew 7:6).

And who is the dog in this scenario?

Looking in Wikipedia, I don't see Aquinas listed as a church father.  Later opinion is irrelevant as I noted in my original post, what matters is what was originally thought to be the case.  Some misty eyed philosopher writing in the 13th century doesn't count as near to the original text, nor again does this specifically say that this applies to Moses' testimony in Genesis.  I'll take God's word over that of Aquinas any day and twice on Sunday.

Did some Church Fathers assert the factuality of Genesis and the Flood? Yes, but that sentiment was not universally agreed upon. Nor was it deemed important. It was always secondary to the spiritual meaning of the text conveyed by allegory and metaphor.

Yeah, that's right Neo, move them goal posts.  It's like Sandburg said, "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”

Moreover, the use of allegory and metaphor is how the bible protects atheists like you from themselves, people deceiving themselves and spewing hate by twisting the text around to justify their contempt for people of piety. Swedenborg makes this clear, echoing Matthew 7:

” The sense of the letter of the Word [literal meaning] serves as a guard for the genuine truths which lie within; and the guard consists in this, that the literal sense can be turned hither and thither, that is, can be explained according to everyone's apprehension, without its internal being hurt or violated; for no harm ensues from the literal sense being understood differently by different people; but it does harm when the Divine truths which are within are perverted...

Swedenborg, seriously?  You've got to be fucking joking.   My previous comments about Aquinas count double here.

You're pathetic, Neo.  Seriously.