In the Beginning....

[Dr. Walter]

I believe you must take a look at the literary style of composition as well as what it says. I believe stylistically its not meant to be taken entirely literally but sets up the theology of the sabbath. Lets look at the passages and some of the issues I have with taking it literally.

You have not provided one iota of factual information, data, or evidence FROM THIS CONTEXT that such a literary style is even implied, much less demanded! You have not provided one iota of CONTEXTUAL information, data, or evidence that Moses or any other writer in the Bible of HISTORICAL designed books used such a method to communicate? NADA! ZILCH! NONE!

Just providing a passage from the Gilgimash Epoch and ASSERTING it is proof is ludricuous and stupid! So where is your evidence that Moses used such a literaly style? Where is your evidence that any Bilbical writer of historical materials ever used such a style?

You approach God's Word with the same ridicule as an infidel not a Christian and from atheistic mind set not a child of God.

The fourth commandment makes your case absolutely foolish. Moses would have to know and understand that he was using that literary style and so would the people of his day. They would have to know that Genesis 1 was the same style of languague used among the pagans and that no literal 24 hour days were in view at all. Moses and the children of Israel would be rediculed to no end every time they defended Sabbath observance by giving this creation example by God. Your theory would make the people of God the object of ridicule and contempt, not because they observe a Sabbath day, but because the Biblical basis they use to support it JUST AS YOU LAUGH AT CREATION SCIENTISTS WHO USE GENESIS ONE TO SUPPORT A LITERAL SEVEN DAY CREATION.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your interest in debate not truth.

I am very interested in truth.

Instead of manning up and admitting that Jesus gave full credit to Moses for authorship of Genesis and particularly Genesis 1-2 and for every other book of the Penteteuch you change the subject to the Halakah.

I did admit Jesus gave full credit to moses but explained why that was so.

You again try to side line the issue with the Jeffersonian illustration. Jefferson actually penned the declaration of Independence by his own hand without any help from others. It is true that others helped him formed its contents prior to actually penning it by hand. However, this all a ruse and you know it. No one denies that Moses had the help of Joshua and/or some concurrent helpers but the Documentary Hypothesis theory is about writers long past Moses or Joshua

Its a perfect example. Jefferson penned it but compiled ideas and thoughts from others and ultimately took out provisions based on anothers demand for it. So it is not entirely his document however he gets full 100% credit. I don't have a problem with that but in such manner is Moses given credit for Torah. You also ignored the fact that I also critizised the documentary hypothesis as Wellhausen presents it. But there is viable reason to believe different hands were at work in the completion of the work. Even you just admitted it. So its reasonable to assume Moses did not get a dictation from God on Genesis but compiled Hebrew writings, lore, etc... and combined them into Genesis which a person having Genesis one account in view might be different than the person with a genesis 2 account in view.

You are simply a weasel.

What does our lord say?

Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

And what does he mean by Fruit?

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock

However, it seems this verse alludes you.

With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men who are made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things should not be this way

This is an absolute Joke! What contextual grounds do either text have in common with each other?

Take the passage literally. You take genesis literally take john 6 literally. If you follow the word usage literally as the passage indicates then you must come to the conclusion I pointed out your attempt at exegesis is attempting to combine things that aren't for instance..

As in Genesis 1-2 so in John 6 you pick what you want and ignore the rest. You choose to ignore that twice before Jesus made that statement he provided the interpretative method to understand his words:

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Here is how you partake of the bread of life - you come and believe in him.


47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.

Here is how you partake of eternal life, you believe on him

You miss a large swab of the passage.

This is the flow

28 Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

in other words the "work" that must be done as God requires is to believe in Jesus. Then

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? 31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’[c]”

or In order for us to believe in you what can you do? Moses gave us manna to eat. Manna is bread from heaven. Jesus replies

“Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.

or wrong it was God who gave you bread. To which they replied

34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

Jesus replies

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life.

to which they associate what jesus said as

At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven

he is calling himself Manna and they got angry at that. Jesus again responds now way off the mark from the original work to who he is and his nature says

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

They went off the rails at that

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

Not even making the connection with passover or the fellowship offering or even the manna but Jesus reaffirms

Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56

by saying real food and real drink indicating by the text itself that its not some consept but in reality. Not a symbol but something substantial. And after he made these statements he explictly denied that his message was to be understood in regard to his own literal flesh but rather his words conveyed spiritual life in the essence of saving faith:

Your still up at the top fidling around when the conversation has continued on. To the expression of who Jesus really is. What did the people do with the passover lamb? What did the people do with the fellowship offering. This passage if taken as literally as it is written as you do genesis you must conclude you have to eat Jesus. But again you don't apply the same rules. You holding to a smorgishborg review of the bible.

However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

LOL. You've already said I'm not saved. and that I'm a weasel. But you will give me the benefit of a doubt. How can I take you seriously?

 

[Dr. Walter]

You miss a large swab of the passage.

I have already dealt with your eisgesis of this passage in the past. If you were interested in truth you would have to recognize that I am consistent with my own interpretative rules in John 6. I interpret those disputed words by a LITERAL hermeneutic. I have taken the literal explanation given by Christ that precedes and follows his disputed statement and simply applied his own application found in the context. You may not agree with my application but it is consistent with a literal hermeneutic by allowing the context to define itself. So my heremeneutics are consistent in both John 6 and Genesis 1-2. However, this is but another of your diversion and a ruse and nonconsequential because you do not have any solid basis for your interpretative method in Genesis 1-2 and so you divert to John 6.


Afraid to plainly state that you do take the words of Christ literally in John 6 and do believe that YOUR salvation is dependent upon some kind of LITERAL application of those words to the Lord's Supper???? We have already discussed this issue remember? Unless you have changed your mind you take a SIMILAR but not the same approach as Rome with these words.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have not provided one iota of factual information, data, or evidence FROM THIS CONTEXT that such a literary style is even implied, much less demanded!

In fact I go on to explain it. I've already shown you literary comparison of style and device usage from contemporary writings. Your assertion that

You have not provided one iota of CONTEXTUAL information, data, or evidence that Moses or any other writer in the Bible of HISTORICAL designed books used such a method to communicate? NADA! ZILCH! NONE!

Is invalid.

Just providing a passage from the Gilgimash Epoch and ASSERTING it is proof is ludricuous and stupid! So where is your evidence that Moses used such a literaly style? Where is your evidence that any Bilbical writer of historical materials ever used such a style?

Note what is said by a christian bible referrence site.

It is helpful to understand the styles of writing used in the Bible, especially since some of those styles are no longer commonly used.

Also note Lelan Ryken

It should alert the preacher to the artistic and stylistic qualities of the text in front of him. I would hope that our literary commentary would alert the preacher to the experiential aspect of the text. Literature is the human race's testimony to its own experience.

Or David Baker's paper on Diversity and Unity in the Literary structure of Genesis

Then, the exact date of the flood is given (verse 11), followed by other indications of time which serve to mark divisions in the narrative by marking gaps, or discontinuities, in time (verses 12, 17, 24; 8:4, 5, 6,10, 13-14)

This same sort of division is seen in other literature of the annal type; for example, in the Babylonian Chronicles in which each section is headed by mu X ('the X year of'),9

Note similarities with the Enuma Elish

Marduk the sixth generation god makes man as a slave so the other gods can rest.

God (Elohim) makes man on the sixth day and he himself rests.

Note how summerian gods are given place and compare with Genesis which compels us that God is greater than other gods.

1rst generation of gods and 1rst day of Genesis creation:

When on high the heaven had not been named, Firm ground below had not been called by name, Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetter, And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all, Their waters commingling as a single body;

Apsu is the god of water.

Tiamat is the god of primeval chaos and bearer of the sky and the earth.

then Genesis

(Gen 1:1-2 NRSV) In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. ...

(Gen 1:5 NRSV) ...And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Enuma Elish

2nd and 3rd generation of gods and 2nd and 3rd day of Genesis creation:

... Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called. ... Anshar and Kishar were formed, surpassing the others. ...

(Lahamu was the god of muddy silt and Kishar was the god of the Earth)

Genesis

And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."... And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. ... evening and there was morning, the third day

Enuma Elish

4rth generation of gods and 4rth day of Genesis creation:

Anu was their heir... (Anu was the god of the sky) ...

Genesis

God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night-- and the stars

Enuma Elish

5th generation of gods :

He who begot him (Marduk) was Ea, (Ea was the god of all things of the Earth and also of cantations)

Genesis

So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good...evening and there was morning, the fifth day

Enuma Elish

6th generation of gods: In the heart of holy Apsu was Marduk created. He who begot him was Ea, his father;

(Marduk became king of the Gods and creator of man) "Blood I will mass and cause bones to be.

I will establish a savage, `man' shall be his name. truly, savage-man I will create. He shall be charged with the service of the gods That they might be at ease!

Genesis

Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, evening and there was morning, the sixth day...And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done

There is a form and style of writing which needs to be accounted for.

You approach God's Word with the same ridicule as an infidel not a Christian and from atheistic mind set not a child of God.

Again you make an assumption. When I read scripture I trust God to speak to me through it. I get the same spiritual principles and truths arrived at as any other Christian and I live my life by it. However, I will not force my belief onto the word of God. And box God up in my own theology but let him express his truths to me in his word. Again you should know them by their fruit.

JUST AS YOU LAUGH AT CREATION SCIENTISTS WHO USE GENESIS ONE TO SUPPORT A LITERAL SEVEN DAY CREATION.

I don't laugh at them. I know that they are approaching science from a Biased position rather than unbiased. I would that they would try to be unbiased but they must meet the requirements of their faith. No different the Global warming scientist must meet the requirements of their faith. Both view data from a bias. That doesn't mean they don't make valid points at times but certainly it means they force information at other times just like Global warming scientist. Its common among their community. I think Vehemently atheist scientist are just as guilty such as Carl Sagan whom I respect but realize that he is just as bais. Somewhere between the two is real truth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Afraid to plainly state that you do take the words of Christ literally in John 6 and do believe that YOUR salvation is dependent upon some kind of LITERAL application of those words to the Lord's Supper???? We have already discussed this issue remember? Unless you have changed your mind you take a SIMILAR but not the same approach as Rome with these words.

suffice it to say you haven't dealt with anything other than as can be seen by your post A WITCH HUNT. You claim I should Man up when the simple fact is that you apply a different set of rules when you exegesis Genesis and John to match what you already believe. I dare say (though I'm not certain of it) that the bible has no new insites for you since your basis is already established before you pick up the book. Again you know them by their fruit. You haven't even dealt with the dome issue.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You claim I should Man up when the simple fact is that you apply a different set of rules when you exegesis Genesis and John to match what you already believe

You may not agree with my interpretation and application of John 6:35 or 47-48 or 60-65 but at least I demonstrated clearly that my literal heremeneutic is consistent in John 6 as in Genesis 1-2. Even you cannot deny that he used metaphorical langauge when he said "I am the bread of life" unless you actually believe he is literal flour and water well mixed and cooked? I followed his own connection between this obvious metaphor and his own literal words he used to explain the application of partaking of that "bread of life" through the his own terms "cometh to me" and "believeth in me." That is about as a literal hermeneutic as it gets.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You may not agree with my interpretation and application of John 6:35 or 47-48 or 60-65 but at least I demonstrated clearly that my literal heremeneutic is consistent in John 6 as in Genesis 1-2.

Actually, you haven't.

Even you cannot deny that he used metaphorical langauge when he said "I am the bread of life" unless you actually believe he is literal flour and water well mixed and cooked?

Is that what he said? Or did he say he was heavenly bread sent down from the father? That is the context. Its closer to manna than the loaf you assume he's talking about.

I followed his own connection between this obvious metaphor and his own literal words he used to explain the application of partaking of that "bread of life" through the his own terms "cometh to me" and "believeth in me."

The believeth part was over when they began to discuss his nature. Two entirely different topics.

 

[Dr. Walter]

In fact I go on to explain it. I've already shown you literary comparison of style and device usage from contemporary writings. Your assertion that
Is invalid.

You have not shown any valid evidence that Moses or any other Biblical writer when conveying historical events ever use such PAGAN literary styles.

You and your sources simply ASSERT it but shown not a single solitary proof that any Biblical writer with intents to convey historical data uses that type of literary style - NOT ONE EXAMPLE within Biblical literature. You simply ASSERT that Moses does and the basis of ASSERTION is not valid for the following reasons:


1. The Hebrewism "the evening and the morning" is a technical Hebrewism used consistently throughout scriptures and NEVER used by Scripture writers for anything other than the 24 hour day. Your examples NEVER ONCE use this Hebrewism.

2. You cannot find any examples in all of Biblical literature in regard to HISTORICAL data where any Biblical writer used such a literary method to support your ASSERTION that Genesis 1 does.

3. The Babylonian Gilgimish is so different and in comic book proportions to the Genesis account that such an assertion reduces God to the level of paganistic gods and superstitions.

4. The truth is that the Gilgamish Epoch and other pagan accounts of creation and the flood are DISTORTED perversions of the Biblical account rather than God copying the pagans. Where in all of Biblical literature do we have any evidence that God ever copies paganistic methods, rituals or views of history?

These silly superstitious pagan accounts have no similarity to the majestic and straightforward Genesis account.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Actually, you haven't. Is that what he said? Or did he say he was heavenly bread sent down from the father? That is the context. Its closer to manna than the loaf you assume he's talking about. The believeth part was over when they began to discuss his nature. Two entirely different topics.

You know what he said and you know you are perverting what he said. Your all about debate and spiritually blind to truth because you don't even embrace the gospel of truth.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life:
48 I am that bread of life.
51. I am the living bread

If you cannot recognize obvious metaphorical language then God help you when he says "I am the door" and "I am the vine" as you will have a pretty rediculous soteriology. So you think he is LITERAL manna?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have not shown any valid evidence that Moses or any other Biblical writer when conveying historical events ever use such PAGAN literary styles.

Actually, I have and its clear that the bible uses contemporary literary styles as is indicated in the statement I quoted from a Wheaton College Faculty member Lelan Ryken. As well as David Baker.

You and your sources simply ASSERT it but shown not a single solitary proof that any Biblical writer with intents to convey historical data uses that type of literary style - NOT ONE EXAMPLE within Biblical literature.

Your request is silly. What you are asking is for me to find a verse where the bible states its using a similar literary style to other contemporary works. As you know thats is ridiculous. However, I find it amazing that even by supplying evidence you deny the posibility of that yet cling to the idea that Psalms are poems and poetic verse.

You simply ASSERT that Moses does and the basis of ASSERTION is not valid for the following reasons:

Ok lets see your reasons

1. The Hebrewism "the evening and the morning" is a technical Hebrewism used consistently throughout scriptures and NEVER used by Scripture writers for anything other than the 24 hour day. Your examples NEVER ONCE use this Hebrewism.

As I showed you yesterday by two literary similar forms (songs) both containing the device of Chorus or refrain that the topics are different but literarily they are the same. Again you say Hebrewism. However, you've made the distinction that this is a specified class of people with a specified meaning. Content isnt the same as form. This consept alludes you. Note Hebrew culture takes day as begining with evening. And after each day is the same refrain evening then day... We see the form is similar to those I quoted with Gilgamesh but the content is different. So your objection here falls.

2. You cannot find any examples in all of Biblical literature in regard to HISTORICAL data where any Biblical writer used such a literary method to support your ASSERTION that Genesis 1 does.

Now you are trying to say that now where in the bible does it say the author of Genesis is using a summerian literary style. To the reader it would be self evident. However, to show where your objection fails nowhere in the bible does it say John's Revelation is Apocalyptic literature. However, that doesn't mean it isn't. It is also self evident that it is apocalyptic in accordance with other apocalyptic literature in that time period.

3. The Babylonian Gilgimish is so different and in comic book proportions to the Genesis account that such an assertion reduces God to the level of paganistic gods and superstitions.

Again you confuse content and form. However I've shown You comparisons of the Enuma Elish. I'm not saying the genesis account has the same content but is in similar literary form. You must get this consept. Content and Form two different things.

4. The truth is that the Gilgamish Epoch and other pagan accounts of creation and the flood are DISTORTED perversions of the Biblical account rather than God copying the pagans. Where in all of Biblical literature do we have any evidence that God ever copies paganistic methods, rituals or views of history?

It may. It may not. You're speculating. All I've said was that this form of writing is the form used for Genesis which was specific to the Hebrews which are a smaller class of the greater class of Semetic peoples in that reigon.

These silly superstitious pagan accounts have no similarity to the majestic and straightforward Genesis account.

Certainly they have no comparison to divine revelation. However, Just like you can take a poem and compare it to Psalms (form) and critic Psalms on form usage again the content is diffent. Just because the content is different doesn't disqualify Psalms from being poetic.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You know what he said and you know you are perverting what he said. Your all about debate and spiritually blind to truth because you don't even embrace the gospel of truth.

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life:
48 I am that bread of life.
51. I am the living bread

If you cannot recognize obvious metaphorical language then God help you when he says "I am the door" and "I am the vine" as you will have a pretty rediculous soteriology. So you think he is LITERAL manna?

No honest and objective exegete who is serious about truth over mere debate can deny that Jesus used metaphorically language to describe himself as "bread" in this passage.

No honest and objective exegete can deny that he provides self-explanatory terms to define precisely how others are to partake of him as this metaphorical bread:

Jn. 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Look at his terms to describe the personal application of himself as metaphorical bread!

What terms does he use to describe how he as metaphorical bread will satisfy the hunger of men? "he that COMETH TO ME shall NEVER HUNGER."

Notice that he portrays himself as metaphorical "bread" but nevertheless demands that the one who BELIEVETH ON HIM shall NEVER THIRST? How is it that LITERAL bread satisfies "THIRST" - that is the absurdity of taking this langauge literally instead of metaphorical. That is the absurdity of rejecting the very terms he uses to define how he himself as "metaphorical' bread satisfies the hunger and thirst of people!


How does Jesus want us to understand partaking of this metaphorical bread? COMING to him and BELEIVING ON HIM is the way you PARTAKE of His flesh and blood.

He clearly defines his terms and applications before he goes on to make the disputed statement about eating and drinking his flesh. If you cannot see this it is because you cannot see

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You know what he said and you know you are perverting what he said. Your all about debate and spiritually blind to truth because you don't even embrace the gospel of truth.

See what I mean by you should know them by their fruit?

35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life:
48 I am that bread of life.
51. I am the living bread

How significantly you take it out of its context

33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”

35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life.

What bread of life?

For I have come down from heaven

and again

he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.

again what is it closer to a loaf or manna?

I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die

See I did not do the passage disservice.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No honest and objective exegete who is serious about truth over mere debate can deny that Jesus used metaphorically language to describe himself as "bread" in this passage.

First of all you are seriously not unbiased. You are the most biased person I know. You also discredit all Orthodox, Catholic, Lutherans, Anglicans, Copts, Certain Methodist who hold to a mystery of Jesus presence in the communion. That interpret John 6 differently than you. Thats a large group of people. And they all claim to be serious about the truth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

See what I mean by you should know them by their fruit?



How significantly you take it out of its context .

What has context have to do with determining the only two choices this language provides???? Does the context of "I am the door" change the fact that these words provide only one of two options in regard to his meaning? Either you take them for what they say LITERALLY or you don't - the context may determine which way they are to be taken but COMMON SENSE will tell you that he is not a LITERAL door! That only leaves a FIGURATIVE option.

You have just proven you have no real intent for truth - just debate. You are so spirituallly blind you can't even use common sense. sad!

 

[Dr. Walter]

First of all you are seriously not unbiased. You are the most biased person I know. You also discredit all Orthodox, Catholic, Lutherans, Anglicans, Copts, Certain Methodist who hold to a mystery of Jesus presence in the communion. That interpret John 6 differently than you. Thats a large group of people. And they all claim to be serious about the truth.

Sad, when you are obviously wrong and you are wrong the only thing you can do is change the subject. Any one reading our past two posts realizes you are wrong and it does not take much common sense to see it. Either the words "I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE" must be taken figuratively or literally there are no other choices. To suggest the context makes a difference is to reject common sense. You either believe these words are LITERAL or they are not - period.

Why not just admit your wrong because you are only hurting your own credibility.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have just proven you have no real intent for truth - just debate. You are so spirituallly blind you can't even use common sense. sad!

Again you shall know them by their fruit.

What has context have to do with determining the only two choices this language provides???? Does the context of "I am the door" change the fact that these words provide only one of two options in regard to his meaning? Either you take them for what they say LITERALLY or you don't - the context may determine which way they are to be taken but COMMON SENSE will tell you that he is not a LITERAL door! That only leaves a FIGURATIVE option.

Context has everything to do with everything. Jesus is making a specific referrence to manna and not a loaf of bread. Hes saying just as manna was sent down from heaven He is literally sent down from Heaven and his flesh is what? What does the passage say?

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

That is exactly what the passage said and if you held to the same rules you use for Genesis you must come to another conclusion for this passage.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Again you shall know them by their fruit.




Context has everything to do with everything. Jesus is making a specific referrence to manna and not a loaf of bread. Hes saying just as manna was sent down from heaven He is literally sent down from Heaven and his flesh is what? What does the passage say? That is exactly what the passage said and if you held to the same rules you use for Genesis you must come to another conclusion for this passage.

My oh my! So, lets take it in baby langauge! Is he LITERAL MANNA or FIGURATIVE MANNA? You have no other options in defining the words

"I AM the bread of life"

This langauge is no different than:

"I AM the door"
"I AM the light of the world"
"I AM the vine"

The options are not different

He is either LITERALLY manna, door, light, vine or he is NOT!

Context does not change this choice at all. Your only proving that you have not interest in truth just debate.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Sad, when you are obviously wrong and you are wrong the only thing you can do is change the subject. Any one reading our past two posts realizes you are wrong and it does not take much common sense to see it. Either the words "I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE" must be taken figuratively or literally there are no other choices. To suggest the context makes a difference is to reject common sense. You either believe these words are LITERAL or they are not - period.

I haven't changed the subject its still about genesis and you know I've shown you where you erred in your assumption about John 6 because you know you can't apply the same rules to genesis as you do to that account.

Why not just admit your wrong because you are only hurting your own credibility.

According to you I am a "weasel", "unsaved", "blind", "incapable of embrasing the gospel truth" it seems my credibility isn't an issue with you anyway. You haven't answered the dome issue the comparison to the enuma elish and a multitude of other problems with the genesis account. You attack character rather than reasonable reply and interestingly continue to do so. You fail to admit you are biased and that there are a multitude of other Christians who disagree with you on your interpretation. You make referrence to "my" soteriology when I didn't suggest it was. But have shown you how if applying the same rules you use in Genesis you fail to use them in John. You constantly divert the discussion from dicussing the topic of Genesis ignoring views expressed about literary form and comparisons to ancient contemporary literature and how the passages is structure if translated literally a false image of actuality or reality. Your retort is as always a personal affront to me. And again you shall know them by their fruit.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My oh my! So, lets take it in baby langauge! Is he LITERAL MANNA or FIGURATIVE MANNA? You have no other options in defining the words

"I AM the bread of life"

This langauge is no different than:

"I AM the door"
"I AM the light of the world"
"I AM the vine"

The options are not different

He is either LITERALLY manna, door, light, vine or he is NOT!

Context does not change this choice at all. Your only proving that you have not interest in truth just debate.

Did he literally come down from heaven. Did he literally come from the father. Does manna literally come down from heaven? Does manna litterally come down from the father? Did he not say

Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

which applied by structure is to be taken literally?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I haven't changed the subject its still about genesis and you know I've shown you where you erred in your assumption about John 6 because you know you can't apply the same rules to genesis as you do to that account.

I have proven my position thoroughly in John 6:35. So thoroughly have I silenced and backed you into a corner that your yelling and screaming to avoid the obvious error of your position.

Either the words "I AM the bread of life" must be taken LITERALLY or non-literally! Context does not change that choice and you know it. Any person with any common sense knows it!

Is he LITERAL manna or non-literal manna? Which!

If you admit he is not LITERAL manna my position is proven. If you deny it you prove you have no interest in truth but only in debating.