But He did say it was. He told the Pharisees that the whole point of the scriptures was to tell about Him, and told two disciples that “in all the scriptures” things pointed to Him.
1 Like
quote mining I see.
Jesus was referring to specific Scriptures. You are abusing His words and taking them out of context.Not that you could be bothered to quote the actual Scriptures.
Richard
It says “all”.
You use your philosophy to make very un-Christian theology.
- Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and He brought them to the man to see what he would name each one. And whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
Imperfect, consecutive imperfect, imperfect.
So plants can be an exception to “visibly animate” but microbes cant? They both meet that definition halfway; plants are visible and microbes are animate.
Thank you, so it is the correct word(s) for microbes. When it is written does not need to define terms. The Word is not bound by time.
I didn’t put the words in God’s mouth. It is in the text in that Eve said it… and I don’t see any reason to believe she was putting the words in God’s mouth.
What are you saying no to? That’s what I’m saying… the story is the allegory and I’m drawing out the meaning which happens to be the actual event.
Unraveling the allegory is not distorting the text.
Again, the Word is not bound by time.
The Creation story communicates what/why God created. Science is a study of the details of when/how God created. They have to be related.
I agree the scriptures speak of Him, and if we don’t believe what the scriptures say are true… or if we say the scriptures are only written for ancient peoples and are irrelevant for today… or if we turn it into some unrealistic fantasy with pseudoscience’s like YEC, then how can we really relate to Him? or believe in Him? But if scripture aligns with modern science… scripture written thousands of years ago confirming what science has discovered just in the last few hundred years… well that’s powerful! That speaks of true timeless inspiration!
God communicated His thoughts/inspiration to Moses. Those thoughts then had to be put into words by Moses, and that would be from his own world view. Words are the incarnation of thoughts and those words have to be found to convey thoughts to others. If the modern reader can see the inspiration behind those words, that’s where the words become timeless… where we see the Living Word.
God certainly does care about science as He is behind it. My approach is supportive of modern science which has the timeline of creation mostly figured out and is just filling the gaps, or providing a higher definition image. We are at the point now where we can look back at scripture, at the Word and see that His true image is aligned with the one being drawn by science.
In saying they are contradictory, you are saying they are incorrect and therefore cant be trusted. Humans are mentioned on Day 6 to be made in God’s image, and that is only done though Jesus who is the Image of God. There is a path of mankind that concludes with the human form at the end of the first creation account, but then goes back to the start with mankind made of dust in the second creation account.
No, because the message is the Living Word.
Kindly cite the exact quote so that i can see for myself. Otherwise it is just hot air and posturing on your part.
(I will not ask again. If you refuse to quote Scripture you are admitting that you do not have any proof to your assertions.)
Richard
This just shows that the two Creation stories are contradictory.
Yes, because that’s how ancient near eastern people saw things.
Wow – so from the historical-grammatical method, you throw out the historical quite firmly, as well as the vocabulary aspect of the grammatical portion.
Which reduces your approach to speculative heaps in theology.
No, the actual event is what the text says. You’re making stuff up by trying to force ancient literature to fit your modern worldview. You’re making up a meaning that has nothing to do with the text, kind of like a movie producer who buys the rights to a novel then mostly ignores the novel and tells an entirely different story.
You’re doing what Tertullian rightly condemned: distorting the text and calling it enlightenment.
But you’re not unraveling any allegory, you’re making one up.
True, but it is bound to the meanings of the words in their historical-grammatical context. Your approach disrespects the Word by throwing away the actual message and replacing it with something fashioned to fit a MSWV. Just as YEC does, that throws away the actual message, and is idolatrous because it sets up a standard that the text is forced to conform to, one that has nothing to do with the intent of the writer. Indeed you ignore what the text actually is in order to do so!
The only legitimate allegorization of an OT text is not via a MSWV but via the Cross: Jesus said all the scriptures speak of Him, and if allegory works to show that then fine, but your allegory has nothing to do with Christ or the Cross.
Sure, if you force it to fit a MSWV. But like any human literature, that’s not how you find the meaning; to find the meaning you investigate the historical, cultural, and worldview context including the literary type, and thus figure out the writer’s intent and what the original audience would have understood from it.
You haven’t even addressed the very basic elements of what the text is communicating. For example, are you aware of the fact that the first Creation account is a retelling of the common Egyptian creation story?
If you have to twist and mangle the text the way you do to see science in it, then there’s not really any science in it. If you want to see the actual science in it, go back to the eighth and twelfth centuries when scholars who grew up reading Hebrew concluded, purely on the basis of Genesis 1, that the universe started out smaller than a grain of mustard (i.e. a piece of the dust you get if you grind up a mustard seed and thus an idiom for “the smallest thing possible”), that it expanded extremely rapidly until the fluid (waters) it was composed of thinned enough for light to shine (at which point God called light into being), that the earth is old beyond human counting and the universe is far older still . . . .
That is a legitimate place to look for science in the text because it was written long before anyone conceived of a “Big Bang” yet describes it rather well.
But you’re not doing that – you’re twisting the meanings of the words, which ignores inspiration.
So? He wasn’t interested in communicating any science, or He would have indicated that somewhere. What He indicates is that He was interested in communicating about a relationship between Himself and humans, which included telling humans what their/our status is in reference to everything else. Your view throws out the actual intent, replacing it with something meaningful only to a MSWV. The Word is not time-constrained not because of any scientific content you can force into it, it is unconstrained by time because the theology is timeless.
Your approach throws out the theology and replaces it with a shallow science news report.
Your approach sets modern science above the actual text – which is idolatrous.
Nope – that’s a MSWV understanding that misidentifies the text the same way YEC does, thinking it has to be some sort of objective newspaper article. In saying they are contradictory according to that worldview (that is alien to the text) I am pointing out that to apply that worldview is an error. They are not contradictory when read as the ancient literature they are because the worldview behind that literature wasn’t intending to provide any sort of objective report.
Nope – that denies that the scripture says that God made them/us in the image of God (which BTW is a translation that misses the import of that term; it would be better render as “as the image of God He made them” – which becomes clear when we recognize that the first Creation account fits the literary genre of temple inauguration). It doesn’t say He made them so that someday they could be in the image of God, it says He made them that way.
The difference between all of us and Christ is that He got being the image of God right; we’ve all screwed it up.
You don’t find the Living Word by throwing away that actual meaning of the text and replacing it with MSWV flights of fancy, you get it by asking “What did the writer intend? What did the original audience understand from those words?” And then you apply the Cross, not modern science.
What you’re doing is something that in grad school we called “your own private heresy” – which didn’t mean that the propounded view was necessarily false, just that it was not what the text has to say (nor did it apply to just the OT texts; it covered Egyptian, Babylonian, and others as well). The thing about having your own “private heresy” is that while it may feel nice to you, it has nothing to do with the actual text. So enjoy your efforts to force the text to talk modern science, but don’t think that it is what the text actually says.
1 Like
In John 5 Jesus says the scriptures speak of Him. In Luke 24 He says explains that all the scriptures speak of Him.
How someone can think otherwise and claim to be a Christian preacher is baffling. The whole point of the old covenants was to point to Christ, and that includes everything written.
1 Like
I was hoping you had something better.
You study[c] the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,
One verse out of al that, and you hang a whole doctrine on it…
In context.
Jesus specified which part of Scripture He was referring to.
the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life.
Now unless you are going to claim that every Scripture refers to eternal life…
IOW you are globalising a text that does not say what you claim.
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
Does not claim that all Scripture is about Him. It claims that all about Him can be found in Scripture,
“How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken
Does not claim that every prophec is about Him. It only claims that He is spoken about by the prophets.
You are going beyond the text, just as you claim others do.
That is why I am a preacher and you are not.
You make outrageous and false claims based on a couple of lines out of the thousand or so to choose from.
And you are very insistent about what someone must believe.
A preacher does not instruct, or dictate, or indoctrinate.
A preacher explains all views and highlights the orthodoxed ones. He does not automatically dismiss anything that he does not believe himself.
I am a preacher. You are not.(even if you think you should be)
Richard
Arguably that is possible, but πάσαις (PAH-sice) tends to be inclusive; “all the days”, “all the commands”, “all the churches”.
No – the adjective applies to “scriptures”, not to “Him”.
Again Jesus and Paul disagree.
Nope – Jesus didn’t send out the seventy to “explain all views”, He sent them out to proclaim one view – the truth.
In terms of differing possibilities of the grammar of a passage, you may have a point, but not when a view does not fit the grammar at all – the latter kind of views are to be expressed only to explain the error.
1 Like
Like I said, that I why I am a preacher and you are not.
Richard
No, no, hardly
What the “text”… what the scripture says is an allegory. The actual event is not a fully formed human made out of dust, then split in half and put back together to make Eve. It is not one person watching every single organism created, brought to him to be named… “you shall be named ‘T-Rex’, now please Lord send him away quickly before he bites my head off!”
The actual event is not knowledge and life giving trees, talking snakes, flaming swords and cherubs. If you believe scripture is saying these things are the actual event and don’t believe they actually happened, then you cant believe what its really trying to say and is just “text”.
This “ancient literature” has stood the test of time and is for us today. It is an allegory and we are to get the meaning from it. You don’t read it as allegory and then dismiss it as having nothing to do with science. It can have multiple meanings… not contradictory meanings but they can build on each other and new meaning can be imparted to us now… even a scientific meaning.
The actual message (the allegory) is not “bound to the meanings of the words in their historical-grammatical context.” No, the actual words, the living words can have new meaning, i.e. “beast of the field” can mean “microbes”. As I understand it, the Hebrew language today is pretty well controlled, so if they did add a new word for microbes (maybe they have?), it would be derived from “beast of the field”.
The “intent of the writer” is to convey the message. I am not throwing away any previous meanings.
The Word is not just “any human literature”. Sure, you can investigate historical meanings and I don’t dismiss those.
I am aware and certainly God could have begun to talk to the Egyptians…
- 1 Cor 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
A part of theology is a focus on God and His relationship to the world. Science is a study of the world around us, coming from the opposite direction.
- Psalm 19:
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 Without speech or language,
without a sound to be heard,
4 their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
Correct, He is making mankind (which has already been made in a likeness) into the image of God.
- 1 Cor 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.
The 6th Day is only completed through Christ at the Cross 2,000 years ago. This is the basis for my timeline in the other thread (What if Veloci-Raptor looked like this - #51 by graft2vine)
No it isn’t. It wasn’t written as one and doesn’t work as one. The two Creation stories are different types of literature and neither is allegory.
And if it was, your approach to it is wrong: any allegory in scripture is intended to convey theology, material about the relationship between God and man; specifically it should point to Christ.
Your approach to the text leaves Christ out. It is thus at best only borderline Christian thinking.
You again contradict the text. It does not say He is “making” mankind into the image of God, it says that’s how we were made – every single human from the beginning has been in/as the image of God.
To deny that is to say the inspired writer was wrong.
So again you go to allegory.
And weak theology – if anything, the Cross is the beginning of the actual seventh day; it is the beginning of God’s rest.
1 Like
That is cessationism
God is not resting now.
Any attempt to convert Genesis 1 into a real timescale is doomed to failure. That was never the intent, nor does it match the text.
Richard
…plants and watermelons.
Hello, JustThinking! And welcome to the forum. Was your post in response to some specific text from before? One easy tool to use here is the ‘quote’ tool (like I just now used on your post above). To do that, just highlight the text in someone else’s prior post that you’re responding to; and after you’ve selected that it, a grey ‘quote’ button appears that you can click. This automatically inserts their quote into your new post (and will even start a new post for you if you haven’t yet opened one). Then that helps people connect your reply with who and what provoked it - making it seem less random.
Its a little vague but its clearly a continuation of the title of the thread.
1 Like
Good grief, get a grip on basic Christian concepts!
I found a simple chart that pertains:
Key Aspects of God’s Rest
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Promise of Rest | The promise of entering God’s rest still stands, encouraging believers to remain faithful. |
| Faith Requirement | Believers must unite their faith with the message of the gospel to benefit from this rest. |
| Sabbath-Rest | There remains a Sabbath-rest for the people of God, symbolizing a cessation from personal works. |
| Active Participation | Entering God’s rest requires effort and diligence, emphasizing the need for active faith. |
Besides which, God resting on the seventh day does not mean cessation of activity.
True – but the principles involved still matter.
2 Likes
Unfortunately that doesn’t work with a thread title (I tired).
But the comment gave me an urge to go slice off a hunk from the watermelon in my 'fridge!
Those teeth might actually be useful for eating watermelon… certainly not designed to be watermelon eaters though. In any case, carnivores do not exclusively eat meat, e.g. Crocodiles might eat fruit occasionally.
It was put together and works as one. The first creation story is a summary of all time… the second fills in the details. There is not contradiction.
- Gen 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
First instance is imperfect. Second is perfect tense. It is both now complete and also not yet. He is making every single human in His image through Christ. We did not mess up God’s image in the past because it is only through Christ that we can bear His perfect image. This includes everyone in the past with the faith of Abraham, that Jesus goes back for and are saved.
-
1 Pet3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit, 19 in whom He also went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.
-
In the ark a few people, only eight souls, were saved through water. 21 And this water symbolizes the baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body, but the pledge off a clear conscience toward God—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
-
1 Pet 4:6 That is why the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged as men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
And with the evolution of mankind in mind, which one exactly is the first human? It is not about our physical form (a likeness) but only through faith in Jesus that we can put on His Image.
No, Day 6 literally ended at the cross of Jesus. “It is finished”
That is right… the end of the 6th Day is the beginning of the 7th Day!
Is and not yet
My timescale has another 365 million years before it can fail. In the meantime, we have a planet to take care of for many future generations, and to “fill and subdue” with His Spirit.