The discussion on Adam and Eve being the first humans (or not)

Faith & Science Conversation
61

It is not in the least bit funny!

A Final Charge to Timothy

10 You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11 persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

It is the last line of a pastoral letter. It is amost a throw awy line. it is not the topic of a paragraph, let alone a chapter or a letter.

ike i said, all it is saying is

Try and follwo all that I have said and. if you are stil in need of assistance , dont forget all the Scriotures you were brought up with. hey will help.

Yu are pervertng what Paul was trying to say.

Furthermore,

By claiming that Scripture is dorect from God yu are claiming it to be ummutable and unarguable. Not only that you are claiming that your understanding if those Scriptures is exactly what God intneded so your words are also immutable and unarguable.
Brilliant.

Arrogance does not even come close.

Richarc

62

I Peter 1 and Revelation 13.

That’s logically incoherent – would you also agree that since Xenophon got history correct in his writings then the Greek gods are real?

Being image of God isn’t about attributes, it’s about a job.
If it’s about attributes, then we end up unable to oppose either euthanasia or abortion.

63

Funny how you casually reinterpret something that doesn’t fit with your viewpoint. Being in the image of God? So shape and form are irrelevant? Why. We are the image God created (as in “of God”), whoops that is a different understanding. Ah well, never mind, I guess Scripture is not so rigid as some people (you included) think.

Richard

64

Because of the Hebrew grammar. The idea that it has to do with shape or form or attributes comes from filtering through Greek and then Latin – like it or not, Western theology still rests on a Latin foundation.
In the ANE an image of a deity didn’t have to physically resemble the deity or share any of its/his/her attributes – a pole or a pillar could be an image of a deity! The image aspect came from the fact that when people looked at it they thought of the deity the image represented – and it’s that last aspect that is important for Genesis 1: we are to be such people that when others look at us they think of God…

1 Like
65

So your human learning wins? Shame it doesn’t win when looking at 2 Tiim 3

Richard

66

No, it’s still funny. Trying to wish it away by saying it’s a throwaway line isn’t going to work for you because it’s still a line in scripture and it says what it says. Likewise, your conversation with St. Roymand shows that you don’t know how the Ancient Near Eastern context of scripture works with the whole image thing. Maybe you shouldn’t expound upon things you don’t know anything about.

1 Like
67

FOFL

You clearly do not see the irony in what you have just said.

  1. 2 Tim 3 says that the Holy Spirit authored Scripture

  2. Therefore All Scripture must be true

  3. 2 Tim 3 is part of Scripture

  4. Therefore 2 Tim 3 ,must be true

All of this assumes that you know what 2 Tim 3 means, of course. An theat is your vanity. It must mean what you say

Richard

68

But what does it actually say? When it was written there wasn’t a Bible. The Hebrew “sacred writings” weren’t actually fixed in content yet. Some of the writings were later edited, discarded, or added. So how can something that is not even defined yet be considered to be inspired? Also, I take inspired, or theopneustos, to mean life giving as that is how God’s breath works in the OT.

1 Like
69

To make the doctrine work, all those involved in writing, compilation (editing), and translating, have to be either under the control, or vetted by the holy Spirit.

Sort of ignores free will.

The conventional view is that Scripture was written by humans, with all their faculties intact and reflects how humanity has come to understand God and what He may, or may not require. As Scripture has always been “discussed” (See Jeus as a boy in jerusalem) it would seem that there ihas never been a definitive view or understanding which also negates Godly intervention or vetting.

Trouble is, we are left with a “free for all” which can be unnerving for some.

It is much safer not only to affirm that there is only one view, but also that you (he, she, me, etc) have it.

Richard

70

You make a lot of straw man claims toward your opponents, like saying they believe in original sin, or that they believe that inspiration works like X Files where God zaps scripture into the person writing it and there’s no human involvement whatsoever.

Secondly, I mentioned 2 Timothy because you claimed that scripture never claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and I pointed out exactly where it does say it’s inspired. Whether you choose to believe it’s true is up to you, its your soul on the line, but scripture does say it’s inspired.

71

This is my answer to you.

1 Like
72

And I gave you the reason for not accepting your view.

Your whole view of Scripture relies on your specific view of 2 Tim 3 But

It only includes “The Scriptures that Timothy had been brought up with” Those are the precise words. It does not include anything thant has beenn deemed Scripture later.You are imposing that onto the text. It is not there.

Paul did not consider his writng anything more than pastoral letters. Peter does claim that Paul’s writing should be looked on “As Scripture” IOW on a par with it.

The council that actually canonised Scripture was made up of humans, none of whom were God in any form.

Even if the original text was “god breathed” we do not have the original text, we have translations.

Even if the text is perfect, it still relies on your understanding of it. Are you daring to claim a perfect understanding?

The circular reasoning i quoted stands. You are claiming that Scripture verifies itself.

I know it is easier for you to want Scripture to have a definitive understanding, but it doesn’t and no wishing or contriving on your part will make it so. Tough.

You cannot impose your view of Scripture onto me or claim that I either ignore it or somehow claim sueriority over it. I do not. I just doe not accept the doctrine of divine authorship that your whole view depends on.

Richard

Edit

PS

My Soul is fine, but yours may not be if this is your belief (about me and others)

I would also be careful how you refer to, or reference, the Holy Spirit. Jesus was rather severe about those who malign or misrepresent Him

73

Incredible. Believe the Bible or not and examine the evidence. For scripture read Ephesian 1: 4-10. Hebrews 11:3. For the evidence go to Physics. Man I cannot follow your reasoning.

74

It does – it just doesn’t agree with you. Howevermuch I would like the text there read “whatever scripture breathed out by God”, and the fact that I can rally arguments for that, “All/every scripture is God-breathed” remains the most likely.

BTW, without “human learning” you wouldn’t have a translation to read in the first place. Don’t go tossing around disparaging terms that make you look foolish.

1 Like
75

That attempted syllogism just demonstrates the truth of what Clovis_Merovingian wrote:

your conversation with St. Roymand shows that you don’t know how the Ancient Near Eastern context of scripture works

Specifically, you do not understand how the word “true”, that you employ in your #2, fits into the worldview of the time – “true” as in “trustworthy” – or that under the worldview of the time your #3 and #4 are actually correct. “Scripture” was not a set of books found on some list, it was a category of writing that at the time could (still) be added to, and so when the church canonized II Timothy, it became a member of that category and thus the reflexive description applied (it could also be viewed as being a matter of the authority of the church, but that’s really a side matter).

No, it must mean what the grammar and vocabulary make it mean. Your objection boils down to you demanding that it means what you want it to rather than what the sentence structure most probably means (noting that at the time “every inspired scripture” and “every scripture is inspired” were pretty much a tautology).

Good point. We think of the “Old Testament” as a book that already existed, but it was not a book because it was a collection of scrolls and there was no authoritative list of which scrolls belonged in the collection – note that the Pharisees had one (rough) list, the Sadducees had another, the Essenes had another, still others had their own, and that these even differed geographically. It is only in the church period that an authoritative list was established, and even then the lists did not agree!

Because the Jews weren’t the linear, binary thinkers Western culture prefers.

There is certainly merit in that view.

1 Like
76

Not in the minds of the people at the time. The rabbis in grad school regarded this view as being severely limited as though God were a simpleton that couldn’t allow for discussion among His people; they held the God is more like a rabbi who aims to incite discussion. To them a scripture with a “definitive view” would be unworthy of a God who wants His children to be asking questions about Him.

I wish I knew how rabbis manage to convey both that scripture is authoritative yet is wide-open for discussion! It’s an attitude otherwise hard to find in the West.

As one of those rabbis I knew commented, “What good would a scripture like that be? What good would a God like that be?! HaShem wants a people, not puppets!”

What precisely do you mean by “believe it’s true” in this instance?

Which has to be tempered by Peter’s “men moved of God”.

1 Like
77

A Mormon scholar who doesn’t believe in the divinity of Christ? BTW, I have seen many of Dan’s videos and my fit for today is Diesel Creek.

78

[quote="St.Roymond, post:75, toxcept that you are imposing your understanding of the word)s). You cannot be certain that is the meaning that was meant… In context my view makes more sense.

ANy translation will be ad=ffected by the viewpoint of the translator. How do you know that there is not am ANE view that changes it like you are insisting it changes others. And why the heck should I now or care what the ANE view is? Scripture is timelss but you are tying it down.

That contradicts your condmeation o my differing views. You can;t have it both ways. either there is a definitive understanding (that you have) or I am allower to differ.

And one you do not seem to follow.
(But then, niether do most, if not all those here)

It is very dificult to accept the possibility of there being more thant one valid view or undertanding. If you think about Romans 14 it does open that door, if only a crack.

The momnet you start imposing a view you are dictating and claiming a position that God Hiimself does not seem to want to hold. He could impose or enforce but does not, so why do you think it necessary to do it for Him?

Richard

79

No, it’s a rebuttal against Dan Maclellan, not a Dan Maclellan video.

1 Like
80

Sorry about that. The creator sure made it look like a Dan video in the beginning which is why I didn’t watch it to the end. So I went back to watch some more and then the creator argues the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed by the time of Flavius Josephus when it wasn’t actually closed until the second century CE and even then the text continued to change. So I bailed out again.