Genesis puzzle

[thinkandmull]

1. You post shows you don’t have an argument for saying that Job is not historical.
2. Give the certain demonstration that the story of Samson’s hair was historical
3. Give the definite argument against critics that the Flood happened

The truth is, no arguments you can present can be as lame as the argument you presented against the story of Job.

“there’s figurative language in the Bible and every person gets to decide for himself which is figurative and which is literalistic.”

Who is to decide then? You decided that the splendid story of Job is too good to be history. The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document was not signed by the Pope, so I don’t follow that. I read Pope Benedict’s first book on Jesus and it’s sad what a tar baby he’s gotten into in allowing people to de-historify the Bible. He is trying to find something to grab onto while in quicksand. Divino Afflante Spiritu allowed interpreting the Bible in view of modern science. When science has definitely proven something, then the Bible’s language needs to be assessed. Instead, you are taking linguistic cues alone, which can be used and have been used against most of the Bible’s accuracy, so much so that we now have been presented with the following “argument” (sic): “book of Job is written precisely in the form of a ‘morality play.’ From this discovery, some discernment is necessary: we ask why the inspired author used a literary form that incorporates fiction in order to tell a moral truth? Was it, perhaps, that he molded true events into a form that his audience would have presumed was fiction – was he really trying to confuse them and us? Or, perhaps, did he use this type of fiction as fiction in order to teach what God was inspiring him to write”. Liberals could have done much better

 

[thinkandmull]

“provided that he [the scholar] carefully observes the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires” (Pope Leo XIII, 1893, Providentissimus Deus, no. 15).

“whether, in particular, we may call in question the literal and historical meaning when there is a question of facts narrated in these chapters”? Answer: negative (Pontifical Biblical Commission, 1909).

“In the first place, then, we must study the literal or historical meaning… Jerome then goes on to say that all interpretation rests on the literal sense, and that we are** not to think** that there is no literal sense merely because a thing is said metaphorically, for ‘the history itself is often presented in metaphorical dress and described figuratively’” (Pope Benedict XV, 1920, Spiritus Paraclitus).

 

[Gorgias]

1. You post shows you don’t have an argument for saying that Job is not historical.

No, there are plenty of arguments against the historicity of Job. A simple review of the literature will demonstrate that there are plenty of scholars who argue against it.

The truth is, no arguments you can present can be as lame as the argument you presented against the story of Job.

1 John 1:8, 10 – “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. … If we say we have not sinned, we make [Jesus] a liar, and his word is not in us.”

Job 1:1, 8 – “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God, and turned away from evil. … And the LORD said to Satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil?’”

You can decide for yourself: is the first letter of John in error, or is Jesus a liar?

(Or, perhaps, there’s a third alternative: 1 John is true, and Jesus is not a liar, and Job is simply not a historical figure. )

1. Give the certain demonstration that the story of Samson’s hair was historical

I don’t understand why you’re asking me to prove the historicity of the Samson story. Have I claimed it’s historical?

1. Give the definite argument against critics that the Flood happened

Why would I? My take on it is that the Flood was a regional event, remembered in the Biblical story along with theological overtones.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document was not signed by the Pope, so I don’t follow that.

And yet, when it serves your purposes, you quote a PBC response from 1909 that supports your case. That response wasn’t signed by a pope…

 

[thinkandmull]

This is not about “respected scholars” many of whom disagree with what you said in your last post about certain biblical events.

 

[thinkandmull]

The 1909 decree might have been signed by Pius X. At least it cancels the one you cited. The Pope cannot, yet, share his authority with someone. So congregations in Rome have authority only in a certain sense.

Job 1:1, 8 means mortal sins. Job himself breaks down and admits he venially sinned as a young man

 

[thinkandmull]

The date that the Gospel of John was written is not a argument. The fact that it opens with theology is enough for someone to say “it’s not strictly history”. Your principles.

 

[thinkandmull]

Thomas Aquinas said that Job committed a sin in that book by doubting God in certain chapters. So even if Job was pure before, St. Paul’s statement still applied to the holy man Job

 

[thinkandmull]

Nor does your understanding of the Flood make physical sense. If it was a flood high enough to need an ark, it would keep flooding in all four directions. You think the water was like a big block sitting on a portion of the earth?

 

[Gorgias]

Job 1:1, 8 means mortal sins.

Do you have something “signed by the Pope” that says this?

Job himself breaks down and admits he venially sinned as a young man

Citation, please?

 

[Gorgias]

Thomas Aquinas said that Job committed a sin in that book by doubting God in certain chapters. So even if Job was pure before, St. Paul’s statement still applied to the holy man Job

Oh! So… it was Satan who was right, then? After all, he disagreed with God, who said that Job would continue to be just, even if everything was taken away from him. You’re saying that your interpretation of Job is that Satan was right and God was wrong?

 

[Gorgias]

Nor does your understanding of the Flood make physical sense. If it was a flood high enough to need an ark, it would keep flooding in all four directions.

This doesn’t make any sense. It just has to be significant enough of a regional flood in order to float the ark. By your reasoning, there can not be any such thing as a ‘flood’ – ever – unless it’s a flood of all the earth.

 

[thinkandmull]

Oh! So… it was Satan who was right, then? After all, he disagreed with God, who said that Job would continue to be just, even if everything was taken away from him. You’re saying that your interpretation of Job is that Satan was right and God was wrong?

Venially, but not mortally, as Satan thought, according to several doctors of the Church

 

[Gorgias]

The date that the Gospel of John was written is not a argument.

That’s odd… since that’s the argument that is, in fact, actually made.

The fact that it opens with theology is enough for someone to say “it’s not strictly history”. Your principles.

Nope. I mean… nice try, but nope. The question isn’t “strictly history”, it’s whether the events written therein are literally historical. By your assertion, here, the argument devolves into the statement that none of the Bible is “strictly history”, since all of the Bible is concerned with ‘theology’. :nope:

 

[thinkandmull]

Without a standard, one person’s opinion is as good as another (in using historical criticism). You don’t have that standard (because… there is none)