Adam and Eve...literal or allegorical?

[nfinke]

the words of Jesus

Jesus still didnt say anything about the length of the days. even if you repeat it again (or a couple more times) this would still be a false statement, sorry.

You are attempting to understand it beginning and ending with yourself

No, Im attempting to reconcile scripture, which i know to be true, with science and reason, which i know it isnt in conflict with. Ive said that pretty clearly. So if you believe I came up with the concepts of science and reason all on my own, Im flattered, but youre mistaken.

You keep saying, “I think” which is subjective, and not how to exegetically interpret a Biblical author’s intention

To imply you have the “objective” and definitive one interpretation of the word of God is pretty arrogant, and is probably similar to the feeling of the Church before Galileo and Copernicus came around. But go with God.

 

[EndTimes]

But based on what I think you’re saying, I obviously don’t think reason is sufficient. Reason can get you to a certain point, and I think you can get all the way to God’s existence on reason alone, but of course many things are unknowable without Scripture

I think we’re more or less on the same page…

Via Reason one can come to know that God Exists and that Love and Truth are paramount.

_

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Jesus still didnt say anything about the length of the days. even if you repeat it again (or a couple more times) this would still be a false statement, sorry.

When Jesus cited “when” the first human marriage took placed “in the beginning” when God created the heavens & the earth, He didn’t need to say anything about the “length” of the days. The point - you still seem to keep missing - is that by Jesus citing Genesis Ch.1 & 2, which took place “in the beginning,” Jesus would have understood Genesis 1 when it says “evening & morning” to mean a literal 24 hour period:

“In the beginning” (Genesis 1:1)
“evening & morning, first day” (Genesis 1:5)
“God created them in His own image, He created them, male & female” (Genesis 1:27)
“evening & morning, sixth day” (Genesis 1:31)
“For this reason a man share leave his father & mother & be joined to his wife” (Genesis 2:24).

The fact Jesus stated that marriage took place at the SAME TIME “in the beginning” which is when God created the universe, obviously Jesus understood “evening & morning” to refer to literal 24 hours days, rather than indiscernible periods of time. So, I don’t know why you “believe” Jesus, as well as Moses, would have thought “evening & morning” would have meant anything other than a literal 24 hour period.

No, Im attempting to reconcile scripture, which i know to be true, with science and reason

Science & reason does not conflict with God miraculously creating the universe & everything in it in six literal 24 hour days. So, I don’t understand your point of saying you are trying to “reconcile Scripture” with “science & reasoning.”

To imply you have the “objective” and definitive one interpretation of the word of God is pretty arrogant, and is probably similar to the feeling of the Church before Galileo and Copernicus came around. But go with God.

I am doing no such thing. As I have been saying from the beginning, the exegesis of the linguistics of the text - both by Moses in the OT & Jesus in the NT - support a literal 24 hour 7 day week. The fact the early church believed in a literal 24 hour “evening & morning” - just as the Jews of antiquity did who were trusted with the “oracles of God” (Romans 3:2) - then why would you assume “some” in the LATER church - particularly, those influenced by Darwin et al, who believed the earth is billions of years & mankind a couple of hundred thousand, rather than both being around for thousands which thousands is supported by the Biblical text - who stopped believing this suddenly understood it better than the Jews & Christians from antiquity?

 

[nfinke]

So, I don’t know why you “believe” Jesus, as well as Moses, would have thought “evening & morning” would have meant anything other than a literal 24 hour period.

Sweet mercy I can’t believe you’re still on this. Ive already stated many times why this adds nothing to your argument, no matter how many parts you put in bold. It’s still not valid. Sorry.

then why would you assume “some” in the LATER church… suddenly understood it better than the Jews & Christians from antiquity?

Did…did you not read my analogy? The one you quoted? Ok, serious question: do you believe the sun revolves around the earth, something that was believed by 100% of the Jews and christians of antiquity for thousands of years, based on multiple OT passages?

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Did…did you not read my analogy? The one you quoted? Ok, serious question: do you believe the sun revolves around the earth, something that was believed by 100% of the Jews and christians of antiquity for thousands of years, based on multiple OT passages?

The passage you are citing is using the same kind of figurative language we would today to describe the sun “rising & setting,” even though we both know that is not meant to be literal. The Jews & Christians of antiquity understood the difference between figures of speech vs literal phraseology in Scripture, no different than we would understand it today. But in the case of “evening & morning” meaning a literal 24 hour period, that is self-explanatory from the text alone, and how Jews & Christians - and even Jesus - would have understood it, as well as the first marriage occurring in the sixth literal 24 hour period after the initial creation. Unfortunately, there are Christians who have been influenced by pseudoscience, believing that when God created the universe & the earth, that science somehow does not support this all happened in 6 literal 24 hour periods. Again, science & logic does not negate this happened.

And although you stated it doesn’t add anything to my argument, you have still not explained “how” it doesn’t. The text is explicitly clear the first marriage occurred on the 6th literal 24 hour day after creation of the universe & earth. So, no, you have not demonstrated that Moses or Jesus could not have understood it that way, aside from your subjective opinion that they didn’t.

 

[nfinke]

The Jews & Christians of antiquity understood the difference between figures of speech vs literal phraseology in Scripture, no different than we would understand it today

Wow so you’re brushing off a 2 thousand year old interpretation of scripture because you think they “understood the difference”. You must have missed the part where Rome declared Galileo a heretic.

FYI, yeah, now rising and setting is a figure of speech, because we know that’s not really the case. But back when, you know, essentially the entire human race believed the sun rotated around the earth, it definitely was not considered a figure of speech. They were describing what they thought was literally happening. If we’re going off the intent of the writer, like you are trying to do with Moses, then 100% the writer of Ecclesiastes meant rising and setting literally.

But it’s also based on the passages that said the Lord established the earth forever, never to be moved, and the part where Joshua lengthens the battle of gibeon by saying to the sun “stand thou still”.

Since it’s important apparently, a quick search will show joshua never uses the word “still” unless he’s using it in the traditional sense.

And although you stated it doesn’t add anything to my argument, you have still not explained “how” it doesn’t.

I did many times.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Wow so you’re brushing off a 2 thousand year old interpretation of scripture because you think they “understood the difference”. You must have missed the part where Rome declared Galileo a heretic.

I didn’t say anything about Rome. I was addressing Jews & Christians from antiquity - meaning first century & prior.

now rising and setting is a figure of speech, because we know that’s not really the case.

And back then as well. However, you don’t seem to be aware of the use of figures of speech in Scripture vs literal meanings based on the context of the passage.

If we’re going off the intent of the writer, like you are trying to do with Moses, then 100% the writer of Ecclesiastes meant rising and setting literally.

Again, the former is literal, while the latter is figurative, based on the context of the passage, which - yes - the Biblical writers understood it that way.

Joshua lengthens the battle of gibeon by saying to the sun “stand thou still”.

That was a miraculous act, which is not meant to be figurative. Remember, there are miracles recorded in the Bible, including God creating the universe in 6 literal days.

I did many times.

No, you only expressed your opinion by saying “I think,” which is subjective, but doesn’t explain how you came to that conclusion objectively outside of that opinion.

 

[nfinke]

Again, the former is literal, while the latter is figurative, based on the context of the passage, which - yes - the Biblical writers understood it that way.

You…are actually arguing that christians in the first century, and Jews hundreds of years before that, widely believed in a heliocentric universe? Because I’m definitely gonna need a citation on that.

No, you only expressed your opinion by saying “I think,” which is subjective, but doesn’t explain how you came to that conclusion objectively outside of that opinion.

Nope. I explained objectively why it added nothing to the argument. Never brought my opinion into it. Never said “I think” either.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

You…are actually arguing that christians in the first century, and Jews hundreds of years before that, widely believed in a heliocentric universe?

I said Jews of antiquity, as well as Christians, understood the difference between a passage being literal vs. figurative.

Never said “I think” either.

I do not think him using the phrase in one way binds him in some mystical literary chains where he can never use it another way, because that’s silly. I see no validity in the argument.

Afraid you did. Here, you are imputing your opinion, rather than giving an objective reason.

 

[nfinke]

Afraid you did. Here, you are imputing your opinion, rather than giving an objective reason.

Too bad I never did that in reference to your Jesus argument, which is what I was talking about. Never claimed I’ve never used the phrase in my life.

I said Jews of antiquity, as well as Christians, understood the difference between a passage being literal vs. figurative.

Of course they did. And they did think the sun literally went around the earth. So when they said the sun was setting (and rushing back around to it’s starting point) they did not intend it to be seen as a figure of speech. Because the one and only meaning of that phrase in all of civilization for thousands of years was a literal one. It did not become figurative until millennia later. So in other words, they were writing something figurative even though they themselves believed they were writing something literal.

 

[Gorgias]

You must have missed the part where Rome declared Galileo a heretic.

You must have missed the part where Galileo asserted it to be a proven fact without having the ability to prove it true, and the Church asked him not to declare it as such until he could prove it.

 

[nfinke]

The point is he seems to be claiming that the ancient christians understood those verses as figurative, when they obviously interpreted them as literal. Hence why they told Galileo to quiet down.

 

[Gorgias]

Hence why they told Galileo to quiet down.

They told him not to present it as proven fact unless and until he could prove it as fact.

 

[nfinke]

Ok? You can word it how you want, but according to Wikipedia

"In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be: “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture”

So maybe they didn’t call him a heretic, but they did say his ideas were heretical, so imo tomato-tomahto.

 

[EndTimes]

The Church had no business telling Galileo what to think or say.

By that argument, you have no business telling the Church what to think or say…

 

[Gorgias]

MasterHaster:

The Church had no business telling Galileo what to think or say.

By that argument, you have no business telling the Church what to think or say…

LOL! True dat…

To Master’s point, though: Galileo was funded by the Church. His behavior, lampooning a pope as a moron in a published document, and asserting he was right because, “by golly, I’m Galileo, and you should accept my assertion on the basis of my authority!” rather than his ability to prove his assertions… well, it was just plain ill-advised and imprudent.

What’s really funny about the whole thing is that it was the Church who was telling him, “umm… as a scientist, don’t you think you should prove your hypotheses empirically before telling the world that they’re fact?”

 

[EndTimes]

LOL! True dat…

To Master’s point, though: Galileo was funded by the Church. His behavior, lampooning a pope as a moron in a published document, and asserting he was right because, “by golly, I’m Galileo, and you should accept my assertion on the basis of my authority!” rather than his ability to prove his assertions… well, it was just plain ill-advised and imprudent.

What’s really funny about the whole thing is that it was the Church who was telling him, “umm… as a scientist, don’t you think you should prove your hypotheses empirically before telling the world that they’re fact?”

YEP!

AND just As with the Inquisition,
the accounts of the Galileo affair
are presented in a twisted historical revisionary manner -
as a Club against the Church…

What’s also funny - is that when all is said and done, the Copernican HelioCentric Theory?
The Sun (and not Earth) is the Center of the Universe! ?

Is… FALSE!

 

[Feanor2]

So man walked with the dinos?

How long ago did this creation week occur do you think?

 

[EndTimes]

What has the Church ever proven empirically?

No need to.

Events occur - such as the Actions and Teachings of JESUS -
and are recorded by EyeWitnesses.

Attempts to disprove them - empirically or otherwise - Fail - and are Ignored; Forgotten

_

 

[Nihilo]

So man walked with the dinos?

No.

How long ago did this creation week occur do you think?

Not long. Closer to six days ago than billions of years ago.