Correct way to Read Genesis Creation

[BibleAnswer]

THE FLOOD
MAY 21, 4990 BC: GOD DESTROYS THE WORLD BY WATER.

Gen 7:4:“For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”
[God will destroy the world in seven days time hence.]

Gen 7:6:Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was on the earth.

Gen 7:10:And it came to pass after seven days that the waters of the flood were on the earth.

Gen 7:11:In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
[The Jewish Sacred Calendar places this date as May 21. May 21, 4990 BC: 2nd month, 17th day. On the seventh day it began to rain.]

Gen 7:12:And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.
[July 1, 4990 BC: 4th month. 2 months later. It rained 40 days and 40 nights.]

Gen 7:24:And the waters prevailed on the earth one hundred and fifty days.

Gen 8:3:And the waters receded continually from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.
[Oct 21, 4990 BC: 7th month, 17th day. 5 months later. Waters prevailed 150 days (5mon).]

Gen 8:4:Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat.
[Oct 21, 4990 BC: 7th month, 17th day. The ark rested on Mt. Ararat.]

Gen 8:5:And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen.
[Jan 4990 BC: 10th month, 1st day. 8 months later. The tops of mountains were seen.]

Gen 8:13:And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, that the waters were dried up from the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and indeed the surface of the ground was dry.
[Apr 4989 BC: 1st month, 1st day. 11 months later. Dry ground. Noah is 601. Shem is 101.]

Gen 8:14:And in the second month, on the twenty seventh day of the month, the earth was dried.
[May 4989 BC: 2nd month, 27th day. 1 year, 10 days later. Dry earth.]

2 Peter 3:3-8 (King James Version)
3:Knowing this first: that **scoffers will come **in the last days, walking according to their own lusts.

4:and saying, “**Where is **the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, **all things continue **as they were from the beginning of creation.”

5:for this they willfully forget: that by the **word of God **the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water. *John 1:14: the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

6:By which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. *Gen 7:11

7:But the heaven and the earth which now exist are kept in store by the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition(destruction) of ungodly men.

8:But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. *Psalm 90:4

---

Dates are very important in the bible. God tells us the information we need for our salvation. Are you trusting in the bible.?

Sense where talking about it, you should go ask your church what the significance of the date of the flood is, and why God specifically gives us the 17th day of the 2nd month? Whats the difference right? Remember, they have to give you a spiritual answer too!! You want a valid answer right? /sarcasm If they can’t tell you a valid reason, then are you to just brush this information aside as it is insignificant. Really?

Why does God reference the end of the world by water in Noahs day, then the next verse reference the end of the world by fire in the last day, then the next verse tell us a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day.

Gen 7:4:“For after **seven **more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.”

I suppose if we didn’t know the end of the world in Noahs day was the 17th day of the 2nd month, then the warning about the end of the world in the last day would also be a mystery. However…

2 Peter 3:17: You therefore, beloved, since you know these things beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness being led away with the error of the wicked.
18:But grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.

 

[shoewindow3000]

(From Wikipedia):

St. Augustine (5th century Christian)

In “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis” Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require. He argued that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way - it would bear a spiritual, rather than physical, meaning, which is no less literal. Augustine also does not envision original sin as originating structural changes in the universe, and even suggests that the bodies of Adam and Eve were already created mortal before the Fall. Apart from his specific views, Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up.

Philo (1st century Jew)

Philo bases his hermeneutics on the assumption of a twofold meaning in the Bible, the literal and the allegorical. He distinguishes the ῥητὴ καὶ φανερὰ ἀπόδοσις[9], “ad litteram” in contrast to “allegorice”[10].

The two interpretations, however, are not of equal importance: the literal sense is adapted to human needs; but the allegorical sense is the real one, which only the initiated comprehend. Hence Philo addresses himself to the μύσται (“initiated”) among his audience, by whom he expects to be really comprehended[11].

A special method is requisite for determining the real meaning of the words of Scripture[12]; the correct application of this method determines the correct allegory, and is therefore called “the wise architect”[13].

As a result of some of these rules of interpretation the literal sense of certain passages of the Bible must be excluded altogether; e.g., passages in which according to a literal interpretation something unworthy is said of God; or in which statements are made that are unworthy of the Bible, senseless, contradictory, or inadmissible; or in which allegorical expressions are used for the avowed purpose of drawing the reader’s attention to the fact that the literal sense is to be disregarded.

He has special rules that direct the reader to recognize the passages which demand an allegorical interpretation, and which help the initiated to find the correct and intended meaning. These passages are such as contain:

1. The doubling of a phrase;
2. An apparently superfluous expression in the text;
3. The repetition of statements previously made;
4. A change of phraseology—all these phenomena point to something special that the reader must consider.
5. An entirely different meaning may also be found by a different combination of the words, disregarding the ordinarily accepted division of the sentence in question into phrases and clauses.
6. The synonyms must be carefully studied; e.g., why λαὸς is used in one passage and γένος in another, etc.
7. A play upon words must be utilized for finding a deeper meaning; e.g., sheep (πρόβατa) stand for progress in knowledge, since they derive their name from the fact of their progressing (προβαίνειν), etc.
8. A definite allegorical sense may be gathered from certain particles, adverbs, prepositions, etc.;
9. and in certain cases it can be gathered even from the parts of a word; e.g., from διά in διάλευκος.
10. Every word must be explained in all its meanings, in order that different interpretations may be found.
11. The skillful interpreter may make slight changes in a word, following the rabbinical rule, “Read not this way, but that way.” Philo, therefore, changed accents, breathings, etc., in Greek words.
12. Any peculiarity in a phrase justifies the assumption that some special meaning is intended: e.g., where μία (“one”) is used instead of πρώτη (“first”; Gen. i.5), etc. Details regarding the form of words are very important:
13. The number of the word, if it shows any peculiarity in the singular or the plural: the tense of the verb, etc.;
14. The gender of the noun;
15. The presence or omission of the article;
16. The artificial interpretation of a single expression;
17. The position of the verses of a passage;
18. Peculiar verse-combinations;
19. Noteworthy omissions;
20. Striking statements;
21. Numeral symbolism. Philo found much material for this symbolism in the Hebrew Bible, and he developed it more thoroughly according to the methods of the Pythagoreans and Stoics. He could follow in many points the tradition handed down by his allegorizing predecessors.

 

[Philthy]

Not quite, there are biblical rules to follow. God’s information is not easy to discern without study.

Is 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.

1 chor 2 spiritual things with spiritual things

Matt 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them,

Matt 13:35 that is might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

Ps 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable.

Mark 5:33 And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it.

Mark 5:34 But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.

I was using a general term to explain my answer, but a person can “figure it out” as this is God’s desire for us. To read and study and understand.

Hi BibleAnswer -

I dont mean to be confrontational or dismissive. We are, however, in an apologetics forum and as such we must address the issues raised in critical fashion. Please understand my responses in that context - I dont judge you or harbor any animosity.
You made a claim that God’s word is “complete” - whatever that means - and then revealed that in addition to God’s word (as it is presented in Sacred Scripture) that we need to “study”. I pointed out the obvious contradiction that you created and you kindly responded with

BibleAnswer:

Not quite, there are biblical rules to follow. God’s information is not easy to discern without study.

The first question that any reasonable person would ask is, “Where did you get this idea that there are biblical rules to follow and that study will necessarily lead you to an understanding of them?” I think you intuitively realized this by attempting to provide Scripture verses to support your claim. But where in any of them does it say that there are “rules to follow” in understanding?? Where do any of them discuss the claim that “study” is the means of discerning those rules?? They are vague statements which do not articulate anything remotely close to the claims that you make. They don’t make any such claims! In fact, if anything, they seem to indicate that the parables that were spoken often REQUIRED explanation.

Mark 5:34 But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.

Certainly if Christ were here as He was in the 1st Century we would go to him for our understanding; and if his Apostles were among us we would go to them to whom he explained “all things”. The question becomes, to whom are we - now - to turn for instruction?
The Catholic Answer is that the successors to the Apostles - guided by the Holy Spirit into “all truth” continue to carry on the teaching authority of the Church as they have for the past 2000 years. This does not preclude or prevent us from directly accessing, reading, and studying Sacred Scripture, but when we encounter “some things difficult to understand” we turn to those whom Christ has left in charge of guarding His Truth. What is your answer?
Lastly, did you miss my post 99 to you or simply ignore it?

Blessings

 

[PeterK]

I am so shocked my thread has gotten this much attention!!!

And it so stayed on topic! But, hey, we’re here to talk it up, right?

I would have rather maintained a discussion investigating the ‘two’ creation accounts versus one continuous narrative line. But when one mentions Genesis the creation vs evolution spiel isn’t far behind and it usually dominates the thread.

PeterK

 

[NotWorthy]

dude you have over 10,000 posts and you sound so incredibly confused.

Are you absolutely sure that you know Gods account in Genesis? enough to debate me?

It is quite obvious that you are going by your own reasoning without understanding the implications.

I’m just a squirrel looking for a nut.

I’m not trying to debate you, I’m just trying to figure out where you get that Arpha wasn’t born until Shem was 590 old. Our Jewish brothers seem to agree with me.

 

[BibleAnswer]

I’m just a squirrel looking for a nut.

I’m not trying to debate you, I’m just trying to figure out where you get that Arpha wasn’t born until Shem was 590 old. Our Jewish brothers seem to agree with me.

Gen 5 and 11 has a very special formula. **Named **him and Begot. Named him refers to an immediate descendant, a son. the new son is the new patriarch, the calandar is based off of the new patriarch.

Begot refers to a progenotor. a removed descendant, a great grandchild.

Now you ask me how can i know, well without you seeing my excel calandar i created based off of carefully following my bible, all of the dates fit perfectly. there is absolutely no missed dates, nothing out of place, nothing confusing. it all adds to 11013BC. everything fits perfectly.

You need to recognise the language, and then, even if the particular verse, such as the one sayint two years after the flood, it still doesn’t change the fact that “begot” was used, In which case you do the math, and follow the same rules you apply to all the other dates, and then the two years fit like a glove, but in a different way, a way you would never never never understand unless you actually wrote it down in a orderly format and connected the years.

 

[juliamajor]

dude you have over 10,000 posts and you sound so incredibly confused.

Are you absolutely sure that you know Gods account in Genesis? enough to debate me?

It is quite obvious that you are going by your own reasoning without understanding the implications.

First-Notworthy is more then able to debate you. The problem is that you don’t want to debate. apparently your reading of the Bible is the only correct one. Can’t there be other readings?In classic Catholic theology everything is not either/or but both/and.Reading as narrowly as you do precludes God’s greatness, His expansiveness and reduces Him to an easily read demigod.How pitiful…Spewing out Verse after verse might impress you and others but it doesn’t me. Context, continuity .The Bible is not one verse or one book -the history of our Salvation starts at Genesis and culminates with our redemption.
Biblical scholarship helps not hinders scriptural interpretation. Biblical interpretation has been around thousands of years-with a myriad of takes on each book what makes yours the definitive one? Interpretating the Bible from the Bible is a faulty way of exegeting.You can see the growth of Concepts about God and covenants, views of life, after-life,an understanding of a redeemer that evolves.But you have other disciplines to help and aid you really understand what is being said inthe context of time and place.What you perceive as crystal clear could have layers of meanings that other verses of the Bible couldn’t help you understand- but could only be understood with the aid of history,archaeology, linguistics, socio-cultural and other studies.As Convert 66 has stated the study of the ANE makes many images in the bible clearer.
I love that I’m misundertanding and seeing the Bible my way. That is dang hilarious.That is exactly what you are doing but saying that everyone is misunderstanding- but you. Everyone is manipulating scripture- but you.Everyone is in error-but you.Not only is that excessively sanctamonious my incredibly pharisical. Me- I’m like the tax collector , asking God to be merciful to me a sinner and to give me guidance as a read and teach scripture.

 

[BibleAnswer]

First-Notworthy is more then able to debate you. The problem is that you don’t want to debate. apparently your reading of the Bible is the only correct one. Can’t there be other readings?In classic Catholic theology everything is not either/or but both/and.Reading as narrowly as you do precludes God’s greatness, His expansiveness and reduces Him to an easily read demigod.How pitiful…Spewing out Verse after verse might impress you and others but it doesn’t me. Context, continuity .The Bible is not one verse or one book -the history of our Salvation starts at Genesis and culminates with our redemption.
Biblical scholarship helps not hinders scriptural interpretation. Biblical interpretation has been around thousands of years-with a myriad of takes on each book what makes yours the definitive one? Interpretating the Bible from the Bible is a faulty way of exegeting.You can see the growth of Concepts about God and covenants, views of life, after-life,an understanding of a redeemer that evolves.But you have other disciplines to help and aid you really understand what is being said inthe context of time and place.What you perceive as crystal clear could have layers of meanings that other verses of the Bible couldn’t help you understand- but could only be understood with the aid of history,archaeology, linguistics, socio-cultural and other studies.As Convert 66 has stated the study of the ANE makes many images in the bible clearer.
I love that I’m misundertanding and seeing the Bible my way. That is dang hilarious.That is exactly what you are doing but saying that everyone is misunderstanding- but you. Everyone is manipulating scripture- but you.Everyone is in error-but you.Not only is that excessively sanctamonious my incredibly pharisical. Me- I’m like the tax collector , asking God to be merciful to me a sinner and to give me guidance as a read and teach scripture.

I can’t debate your unspiritual thinking of course, and you present no proof from scripture about anything, while i gave scripture and explained it as my proof. The fact is that you are making the bible say what you want it to say, and you are debating me out of your feelings about the bible, rather than providing scripture from the bible and hearing what it actually says. your debating the bible, i simply explain what i learn and tell you how to find what i found, that is a sign of a good teacher to me. I tell you nothing, i point you in the right direction for your own study and perhaps you can come to truth.

If you dont like what i have to say from the bible, is your own downfall buddy, I can provide proof and accurately explain it, while you debate from your own human logic which applies to absolutely nothing.

 

[PeterK]

DOShea,

So what do you make of Exodus 20:10-11? The same God speaking to Moses the Ten Commandments declares that in six days He made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and all that in them is? He says “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Jehovah thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work,…” If this reference to days is the same a Genesis, (It is) and those were longer than 24 hour days, than how long is a Sabbath, a day, or eons? (No, the days are 24-hour days. In the historical context and setting in which these scriptures were written, the ancient author and audience probably understood the reference to be six actual 24-hour days. This realization makes the following two sentences pointless.) If it is different than Genesis, (It is not.) where the Genesis day is allegorical and the Exodus day is not, then you have an inspired text giving TWO completely different answers to the same question. That isn’t supposed to happen with inspired texts because there is only one Truth. (Relax, it didn’t happen.)

If one holds Genesis to be nothing but an allegorical - that is, a fairy tale with a deeper meaning, (see #1 and #2.) you are forced to hold Exodus 20 in the same regard since God can’t “allegorically” do it in one book and really do it in the next. If you hold Exodus as allegorical, (I don’t.) you have only a fairy tale as a basis from which to formulate mortal sin, since their basis are the words on either side of Exodus 20:10-11. Is that your position? The Ten Commandments were simply allegorical? (No, starting with, #3 I’ll explain.)

1. • I do not hold all of Genesis to be allegory. I did not call the creation narrative a fairy tale. There is a big difference. A fairy begins as a fantasy outright. The author(s) of Genesis probably were making their best effort to explain and relate what they believed actually and historically occurred. they were not attempting to write fairy tales. I used a popular fable as an example to illustrate a situation showing imaginative texts containing real truth and how one may dismiss the fantastic details and keep the real truth.
2. • The core truth is not allegorical, it is actual truth. So I do not hold Genesis ‘to be nothing but an allegory’. The core truth that God created the universe is not an allegorical construct. It points to nothing else but itself and compliments the other core truths.
3. • Exodus 20 is not a ‘proof text’ guaranteeing the 6-day creation event actually happened.
4. -To dismiss the 6-day creation event does not jeopardize, in any way, the authority of the Ten Commandments, collectively or individually. The ancient writer and audience probably held the 6-day creation event and many other details to have actually happened. In explaining the Ten Commandments they would have, and did, draw upon their current understanding of the physical world, in this case, how it came to be. It is not contrary to the faith, today, to dismiss with many of the details of this ancient understanding of the physical world.
5. • Now let me speak directly to the commandment you hold to be threatened by my position. You hold the Sabbath commandment is only valid if indeed the universe was created in six 24-hour days because Ex20 references this ‘fact’. If this factual cornerstone is removed, all ten commandments lose their authority. This is literalistic entrapment. The six day creation event is referenced not because it involves six days but because the six days “count-up” to something. The six days are oriented to a specific end - God, or more precisely, God’s rest or God’s peace. One of the core truths of the six day narrative is that God has determined an end for all creation - which includes man - and this end is God. All creation in some way will ‘completely rest’ in God. The Hebrew would for ‘rest’ is shabbot - where we get the word Sabbath. However, at its very root it means ‘that which is complete’, ‘accomplished’ or ‘brought to perfection’. So the six days of creation are oriented to God. The point, again, is not the actual number of days but to what and where the days are leading. With this realization, this commandment then asks us 'to what are we oriented?’ To what or to where are ‘our days’ leading us? To what are our days ‘counting-up’ to. Are we in line with the purpose of all creation - moving toward God (expressed in Genesis 1) or are we following a different line? To assist and insure that we are correctly ‘oriented’ we need the Sabbath. I repeat, we need the Sabbath. “Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.” Why? To keep us correctly oriented toward God. God does not need us. We need him! We need the Sabbath or we will lose our orientation, lose our way, lose our soul. The Sabbath day, the day of ‘completion’, asks us to look at the ‘complete’ end, ours and everyones. What have we set as our destination? I hope it is God, because that is the destination of the entire universe. All of what I just explained holds true with or without any reference to six actual 24-hour days. You can safely disregard the historically inaccurate literal detail of six 24-hour days of creation. The theological truths of scripture will not fall. The Ten Commandments are still valid.

If you step into that swamp, …
Because I don’t take all scriptural detail to be allegorical your ‘swamp’ doesn’t hold water. As I stated in an earlier post and you have so successfully demonstrated, biblical literalism is an on-off switch, either all of scripture is cold hard fact or it is all allegory. If Genesis is allegory, then Leviticus is allegory and Matthew is allegory. This is literalistic entrapment. It is the core truths, it is the theology that cannot contradict itself.

Reduxio ad absurdum.
That was unkind. My ideas are not absurd. They are rational and sincere. I prefer them over literalistic entrapment. You will find what I espouse does not go against the Catechism. I will gladly recant any of my ideas that are found contrary its teaching.

Hope this helped.

PeterK

 

[NotWorthy]

Gen 5 and 11 has a very special formula. **Named **him and Begot. Named him refers to an immediate descendant, a son. the new son is the new patriarch, the calandar is based off of the new patriarch.

Begot refers to a progenotor. a removed descendant, a great grandchild.

Now you ask me how can i know, well without you seeing my excel calandar i created based off of carefully following my bible, all of the dates fit perfectly. there is absolutely no missed dates, nothing out of place, nothing confusing. it all adds to 11013BC. everything fits perfectly.

You need to recognise the language, and then, even if the particular verse, such as the one sayint two years after the flood, it still doesn’t change the fact that “begot” was used, In which case you do the math, and follow the same rules you apply to all the other dates, and then the two years fit like a glove, but in a different way, a way you would never never never understand unless you actually wrote it down in a orderly format and connected the years.

You are free to send me your Excel Calendar. PM me and I’ll give you my e-mail address.

But again, that is not relevant to the point. You can spend all day explaining the difference between begot and naming and it won’t make a difference.

I’m asking how you get that Anthra was born when Shem was 590. The text, in my simple-minded view, very clearly says that Anthra was born when Shem was roughly 100 years old and two years after the great flood. If you can’t show me, a simple-minded person, how you span this 490 year gap, then the rest of your calendar is nothing more than “spitting in the wind”.

 

[BibleAnswer]

You are free to send me your Excel Calendar. PM me and I’ll give you my e-mail address.

But again, that is not relevant to the point. You can spend all day explaining the difference between begot and naming and it won’t make a difference.

I’m asking how you get that Anthra was born when Shem was 590. The text, in my simple-minded view, very clearly says that Anthra was born when Shem was roughly 100 years old and two years after the great flood. If you can’t show me, a simple-minded person, how you span this 490 year gap, then the rest of your calendar is nothing more than “spitting in the wind”.

the bible says Arphaxad was born when Shem was 602, not 590, at the time of the flood Shem was 100 years old. And 502 years later Arphaxad was born. The language of “begot” is the answer to your question, when we see begot, we do our math a little different, thus Arphaxad was born when Shem was 602 and dies.

I PM you for the calandar and you can look at it yourself, it will be clearer to understand, Anyway trust it or not, study it or not, use it to discredit my claim or not. But there it is.

I am pleased that you showed an interest though. That speaks highly of your nature to understand the mysteries of God, at least your being objective, good show!!

 

[juliamajor]

I can’t debate your unspiritual thinking of course, and you present no proof from scripture about anything, while i gave scripture and explained it as my proof. The fact is that you are making the bible say what you want it to say, and you are debating me out of your feelings about the bible, rather than providing scripture from the bible and hearing what it actually says. your debating the bible, i simply explain what i learn and tell you how to find what i found, that is a sign of a good teacher to me. I tell you nothing, i point you in the right direction for your own study and perhaps you can come to truth.

If you dont like what i have to say from the bible, is your own downfall buddy, I can provide proof and accurately explain it, while you debate from your own human logic which applies to absolutely nothing.

I’m not your buddy.and don’t address me in such a condescending way.There are two ways to look at scripture-Faith and Reason.You got the faith part down but not the reason. Faith may come from God but so does reason.If we rejected it in interpretating the Bible we reject His gift of thinking.You can quote scripture till the cows come home but as I stated above you rowing with only one oar in the water if you do that only.Why thinking , why history why science, why disciplines of any kind if we are not allowed to use them?IIf people are unclear about a biblical text how would a simple verse clarify? What if is a hapax legomena?How do you clarify something that only appears once?
What you use is also your mind’s logic- your human logic. God gave us that also-it isn’t a dirty word.Human logic is how you reached you conclusions, human logic is how you prove anything- unless your brain has been replaced with that of the angel’s that is what you are working with.unless God has given you special insights not given to the rest of us poor mortals.How do you know that our insights don’t come from God?I read and study my Bible on a daily basis using tools of exegesis- and i haven’t come to the some conclusion as you.Why?I don’t spew scripture page after page because someone will always spew back using other scripture, that they believe, equally proves their point.Then it becomes a scriptual tennis match-each tied at love, neither advancing -stationery.
As Catholics we don’t use just one tool.We never did and if you know the ECF neither did they- they used the tools and texts that were available at that time which included philosophy and insights from extra- biblical sources.
I have gained no insights from your biblical verse tossing- what i have seen is arrogance(your conclusions are the correct ones,redundancy(wheat and Tares, O my) and shallowness(losing the big picture of Genesis while arguing over the piddling)

 

[BibleAnswer]

I’m not your buddy.and don’t address me in such a condescending way.There are two ways to look at scripture-Faith and Reason.You got the faith part down but not the reason. Faith may come from God but so does reason.If we rejected it in interpretating the Bible we reject His gift of thinking.You can quote scripture till the cows come home but as I stated above you rowing with only one oar in the water if you do that only.Why thinking , why history why science, why disciplines of any kind if we are not allowed to use them?IIf people are unclear about a biblical text how would a simple verse clarify? What if is a hapax legomena?How do you clarify something that only appears once?
What you use is also your mind’s logic- your human logic. God gave us that also-it isn’t a dirty word.Human logic is how you reached you conclusions, human logic is how you prove anything- unless your brain has been replaced with that of the angel’s that is what you are working with.unless God has given you special insights not given to the rest of us poor mortals.How do you know that our insights don’t come from God?I read and study my Bible on a daily basis using tools of exegesis- and i haven’t come to the some conclusion as you.Why?I don’t spew scripture page after page because someone will always spew back using other scripture, that they believe, equally proves their point.Then it becomes a scriptual tennis match-each tied at love, neither advancing -stationery.
As Catholics we don’t use just one tool.We never did and if you know the ECF neither did they- they used the tools and texts that were available at that time which included philosophy and insights from extra- biblical sources.
I have gained no insights from your biblical verse tossing- what i have seen is arrogance(your conclusions are the correct ones,redundancy(wheat and Tares, O my) and shallowness(losing the big picture of Genesis while arguing over the piddling)

fair enough, though don’t speak to me of condescention when you plainly rebuke me with an attitude and absolutely no humility.

When i offer a spiritual insight, I am taking into acount everything, so your statement is false. I think i understand how to study and discern spiritual truth using the tools provided me.

Matthew 22:14 (New King James Version)
14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

2Tim 3:7 Always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

2Peter 3
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in **which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. **

17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

18But **grow in grace, and in the knowledge **of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

If you study daily and have no spiritual insight, then perhaps it is because you do not yet have spiritual ears to hear yet, Perhaps this means that you are not saved, if this is so you are under Gods wrath, if that is so you are a tare, if that is so, you will not be able to discern spiritual truth. It is one big circle isn’t it.

The reason i can throw scripture and talk about it is because i understand it and being called to understand i am obligated to teach.

So go ahead and make fun of all the scripture i use, it is not me you are mocking, it is the bible, because you still cant see what it says completely, no matter how much you think you do, which by definition, is a tare.

You are not even being objective first of all Julia, and second off all you still have yet to prove any sort of point or refute me by scripture.

And yes, it is reasoning and logic i use to connect the dots, however they are biblical dots, not made up contrite dots with no substance or bearing to truth. You are in error to think that is how i operate. And finally, i need a forum and the words to express my understanding for those who would listen,. I use the brain God gave me to present a valid argument.

Geez are you people looking for even the tiniest thing to derail the topic or what. How is this a debate when i am the one quoting scripture, and you keep giving me speaches with absolutely nothing to do with anything… Again.

 

[juliamajor]

fair enough, though don’t speak to me of condescention when you plainly rebuke me with an attitude and absolutely no humility.

When i offer a spiritual insight, I am taking into acount everything, so your statement is false. I think i understand how to study and discern spiritual truth using the tools provided me.

Matthew 22:14 (New King James Version)
14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”

2Tim 3:7 Always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

2Peter 3
16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in **which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. **

17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

18But **grow in grace, and in the knowledge **of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

If you study daily and have no spiritual insight, then perhaps it is because you do not yet have spiritual ears to hear yet, Perhaps this means that you are not saved, if this is so you are under Gods wrath, if that is so you are a tare, if that is so, you will not be able to discern spiritual truth. It is one big circle isn’t it.

The reason i can throw scripture and talk about it is because i understand it and being called to understand i am obligated to teach.

So go ahead and make fun of all the scripture i use, it is not me you are mocking, it is the bible, because you still cant see what it says completely, no matter how much you think you do, which by definition, is a tare.

You are not even being objective first of all Julia, and second off all you still have yet to prove any sort of point or refute me by scripture.

And yes, it is reasoning and logic i use to connect the dots, however they are biblical dots, not made up contrite dots with no substance or bearing to truth. You are in error to think that is how i operate. And finally, i need a forum and the words to express my understanding for those who would listen,. I use the brain God gave me to present a valid argument.

Geez are you people looking for even the tiniest thing to derail the topic or what. How is this a debate when i am the one quoting scripture, and you keep giving me speaches with absolutely nothing to do with anything… Again.

Wow-you’ve used the oldest trick in the book."It’s not me your insulting but God"Please .Since when did you and God become the same person?Blah,blah blah.Now you have knowledge of what is in my heart and head.I have no confidence in you or your interpretation of Him.But I have complete confidence in Him.Try to remember this-YOUR NOT GOD! I have plenty of spiritual insights they just don’t happen to agree with yours.I am a tare and I’m under God’s wrath.Why ?because I dared to debate his prophet and right hand man-Bible Answer! Oh- I;m not saved-that’s right.You know this -How?
I started explaining about geneolgies and insight by different disciplines-.You said the bible explains the bible I refuted that.You need other information to get a correct reading of the text which is what every bible scholar and translation strives for ,rather imperfectly.
I still refute it.So I need to find a scripture which refutes itself and that is the only proof you need or want. People use scripture all the time to debate you but, according to you, the don’t have it right. So why should I fall into that trap.According to you the bible is monolithic, easily discerned,shallow, and correctly defined by someone-oh I don’t know- like you!.Sorry I disagree,- Scripture is not as shallow as some people make it to be and is
sometimes not so easily discernable because of the far distant time and place it comes from.Language changes, customs change, concepts of the world change.What we think the bible says and what is really being said can be two very diferent things.I’m sorry if you don’t get what I’m saying , but I am in the parameters of the thread. Reading and studying scripture-does not make you flawless, more insightful or holier-as I well know.So I’m not about to transport you to the nether world or claim spiritual superiority to you. I’ll leave that to you- and you do it so well.

 

[GeorgeSword]

:slapfight: Now, now, little ones, let’s not fight.
BibleAnswer, why is it that you insist that a non-literal interpetation of Scripture is not spiritual? It is a different sort of spirituality, mayhap, but to say it is not spirituality is nonsense. As I said, it does not matter, for example, if Jonah was literally in the whale, or if Adam was made of dust. What matters is that we understand the morals and simple truths these stories try to convey. Perhaps they are historically true, perhaps not. I will be sure to ask Jonah about it if I see him, or if not then you can
Please, though, don’t insist your interpetation is the only right one, or that a different one is unspiritual. The important thing is that we see what Scripture is saying. Debating over it does nothing. The Church tells us the meaning of these things, and how far we may go with our understanding of them without becoming unorthodox. Conform to those rules and all will be well.

 

[PeterK]

For what its worth, I noticed Bible Answer’s religion listed in his profile is “Bible”.
That’s telling.

PeterK

 

[BibleAnswer]

ya we have fun on here dont we. Julia I understand your argument.

1. when i present bible verses, and then explain them it is because that is how a teacher teaches, by explianing, and pointing in the right direction.
2. A teacher may be able to understand the word, does this mean i am God because i can presume to teach something spiritual. I suppose that makes your priests, pastures, deacons, bishops and popes and churches Gods doesn’t it, sense they present infallible teaching and you are not allowed to refute them.
3. Well i do refute them, and I refute by presenting biblical references. Just because you are not liking what the bible is saying, is on you julia. I am not twisting words and I have no motive, and it really does become that easy to see a spiritual truth once you know how. I can see, and you cant. you said as much in your last post. So here is the delemma, you continue to bash me as if i am the devil trying to ruin your salvation, what are you kidding me? Aren’t you doing what your saying i am doing. YOu are right, You have the understanding, You know what the verse says and means because You are more open to truth than me. Are you God Julia. Do you see how stupid that sounds, totally disconected from the topic and an attack on me, which is very rude as is your mo with me it seems.
4. The only way to discuss spiritual things is to use spiritual means, that is the bible, and i quoted, and explained, and the explanation is unsatisfactory to you, so you presume to say that I think i am God., And the argumen is old because you are mocking the bible, considering i quoted from it, word for word, then you turn right around and tell me that i dont know what im talking about.

are you sure Julia. Are you that incredibly sure of your understanding and your knowledge that you are able to say my teaching is evil. When i teach from the bible and only give bible verses, you are there by saying the bible is evil. A big leap i know, but i am not presenting verses from my mind Julia, I am opening my book and writting them down for discussion.

Your argument was a little better, but you still hold to the idea that you don’t need to prove your understanding by presenting a source other than your own fallible illogical mind. It is illogical because you are not even being objective.

At least be objective then we can discuss certian points. What sort of dialogue can we have when you don’t care to read what i write and see if you can see what i see before you immediately post a vitriolic post.

 

[Philthy]

1. Well i do refute them, and I refute by presenting biblical references. Just because you are not liking what the bible is saying, is on you julia. I am not twisting words and I have no motive, and it really does become that easy to see a spiritual truth once you know how. I can see, and you cant. you said as much in your last post. So here is the delemma, you continue to bash me as if i am the devil trying to ruin your salvation, what are you kidding me? Aren’t you doing what your saying i am doing. YOu are right, You have the understanding, You know what the verse says and means because You are more open to truth than me. Are you God Julia. Do you see how stupid that sounds, totally disconected from the topic and an attack on me, which is very rude as is your mo with me it seems…
   At least be objective then we can discuss certian points. What sort of dialogue can we have when you don’t care to read what i write and see if you can see what i see before you immediately post a vitriolic post.

Sorry, but you do not present verses to support the foundations of your arguments.
You havent yet responded to my posts which clearly call into question the source of your claims that the BIBLE is “perfect and complete”; that the Bible requires “study”; that the “day” spoken of in Genesis 1 is meant to be understood as literal prior to the creation of the sun, moon and stars; etc etc. The objective fact is that you cant justify your positions without appealing to extrabiblical sources; you have largely ignored the information I presented to you; and you expect us to simply give you a pass based on your claims that the knowledge you present comes from you and can be trusted.
Your inability to address these fundamental issues (see post #99) in a coherent fashion speaks volumes more than your reiteration of the positions we have already listened to and rejected as inconsistent.

Blessings

 

[juliamajor]

:slapfight: Now, now, little ones, let’s not fight.
BibleAnswer, why is it that you insist that a non-literal interpetation of Scripture is not spiritual? It is a different sort of spirituality, mayhap, but to say it is not spirituality is nonsense. As I said, it does not matter, for example, if Jonah was literally in the whale, or if Adam was made of dust. What matters is that we understand the morals and simple truths these stories try to convey. Perhaps they are historically true, perhaps not. I will be sure to ask Jonah about it if I see him, or if not then you can
Please, though, don’t insist your interpetation is the only right one, or that a different one is unspiritual. The important thing is that we see what Scripture is saying. Debating over it does nothing. The Church tells us the meaning of these things, and how far we may go with our understanding of them without becoming unorthodox. Conform to those rules and all will be well.

Yes,Mr. Sword-but he started it!

 

[BibleAnswer]

Yes,Mr. Sword-but he started it!

lol, not uh!!!