In the Beginning....

[Dr. Walter]

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 which applied by structure is to be taken literally?

The structure of the words used - "I AM the bread of life" just as we are debating the structure of the words "Eat my flesh...and drink my blood" and no amount of contextual weasling can deny these words must be either taken LITERALLY or non-literal.

Like your father you are a deceiver.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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 which applied by structure is to be taken literally?

These words "I AM the bread of Life" have nothing to do with explaining WHAT he literally did but WHO he is?

"I AM the vine" has nothing to do with WHAT he did but WHO he is!

I would safely guess every reader following our discussion can see that you are clearly wrong and too proud to admit it.

Wiggle and weasle all you like but it does not change the truth

 

[DHK]

No, here is the problem you created for yourself. You took a phrase I said out of the context with which it was written Lets look at what you posted.

"You offer up a pagan belief"
But here is what you did post to put this matter to rest. You stated your position quite concisely in this post which I quoted for you:
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640294&postcount=199

What did I say that offered up a pagan belief? Well, you quote me saying that Pagans in Israel believed in the same things that Pagans in Cannaan do. How is this a pagan belief? Its just fact. There were pagan israelites who worshiped pagan gods of the land they lived in. So how is that a pagan belief? In short it isn't.

You contradict yourself.
Pagans in Israel worship the same things as pagans in Canaan, and yet you say it is not a pagan belief?? Does that mean your beliefs are pagan?

Its supported by both bible

I never denied that Israel worshiped other gods. You don't understand what I posted.

I bet you none of those books has evidence of a six days of creation.

Many of them do. In fact it is impossible not to believe in a six day creation without the support of science. Tell me, what kind of science would support the creation of plants on one day and a thousand years or more the creation of insects (needed to pollinate the plants) on another day. Another example of evolutionary junk science. What kind of science would advocate a thousand year day, and then logically a thousand years of darkness which, of course, would kill off plants which would need darkness to live. What kind of science would put Adam and Eve in darkness for a thousand years, which the Bible says nothing of, and dates their lives well before a thousand years? Why would anyone believe the junk science of the evolutionists at all. True science is based on observation, but in evolution there was no one to observe. It is as much religion and more so than science.

But again the bible is itself a library of different type of books. The History books should be verified. I don't believe the Genesis 1 account to be such save for communicating the truth for salvation.

Share with me the plan of salvation from Genesis one. Rather Genesis chapter one is a historical account of the origin of the "heaven and the earth," just as verse one says it is. Any reader with common sense and a heart to believe the truth can see that quite plainly: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." That must be the most difficult verse in the Bible to understand. :laugh:

Did any of those books discuss a more recent finding by Kathleen Kenyon?

How the findings of Kathleen Kenyon are interpreted is quite another thing. They don't contradict what the Bible says; perhaps her interpretation of the facts do.

the problem with all your statements regarding this is you assume I said or believe that there were no believers in God in Israel at that time. And that is just wrong on your part. I never said that nor do I think that. Note the things I've actually said. Genesis was written in the same literary style as other summerian writings but they weren't pagan who wrote genesis. That is a significant distinction.

You have stated that the Pentateuch (Torah) was written by more than one author.
You have therefore assumed that Moses is not the author of these books.
Believing in the JEDP theory, you very well could believe that some of these other authors are unbelievers as Wellhausen no doubt believes. Why wouldn't he? He has no reason not to.
You state that Genesis was written in the same literary style of the Sumerians, inferring that Sumerians came first. But we know that is not true.

Yes I did and I quote form others who do not. However, I believe in both cases that these people have a valid point. Let me bring up something David Lamb said. I would like to continue his analogy to make my point about using critiques from Non Christian authors. If you want to play bass David is right you don't go to a chemist. You play by picking up the instrument and having a teacher teach you notes etc... Yet if you want to take the bass apart and look at its component parts on how it was made you may certainly use a chemist to determine the chemical make up of the varnish used to protect the wood. You may use a carpenter to determine the wood used and how it was manufactured and if you are speaking about such things you are reasonable to quote them. I'm not quoting these men on matters of faith but on the literary types, composition, etc... of the bible to include comparisons with contemporary literature of when the autographs were written. This is a key distinction. If I said don't believe in God because Erhman is agnostic then you would have a point. However, Erhman is formost in his feild of biblical criticism and makes valid points about non faith issues. Unfortunately, for you literal 6 days is a faith issue for you.

Evolution is a faith issue; not science.
JEDP is a faith issue; not science--no evidence, no proof.
All of Higher criticism is a faith issue. There is no scientific proven evidence. The evidence is lacking. The true science backs up a six day creation, each day being 24 hours in duration. Science backs that up, not the unbelieving philosophies of ungodly men.
The evolutionist continues to go outside the limitations of science into the realm of the metaphysical where it has no business being. There are limitations to science. You should learn them. It also depends on logical fallacies. And it defies certain inalienable laws of science. It is extremely biased as a theory (for which it is not worthy to be called), as it hardly reaches the degree of a hypothesis when the scientific method is applied.

Not at all Rachel had stolen her families household gods. Its clear she may have even worshiped them.

As I said, her whole family worshiped them. We don't know the exact time Leah and Rachel became true believers. The Biblical record does not tell us.

I think its key that she was not buried with Jacob instead it was Leah who had faith.

This statement makes no sense. All of the household of Jacob came to faith, but the Bible is not clear on the salvation of any one of them. When Rachel bore Benjamin, they were traveling through the wilderness. She had to be buried quickly. It would be too far to take her to the Cave of Macpelah. Circumstances prevented it.

But the point is there were pagans in israel who worshiped the same gods as other cananites which you were attempt to say was not so.

What language do wish to converse in? I did not say that. I said that though they followed after other gods, such as Baal, at times, they never totally forsook the worship of Jehovah. This fact you have not totally studied out.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The structure of the words used - "I AM the bread of life" just as we are debating the structure of the words "Eat my flesh...and drink my blood" and no amount of contextual weasling can deny these words must be either taken LITERALLY or non-literal.

again you take the "I am the Bread of Life" out of the context to which it was writen. He is the bread of life that came down from where? The discourse changes entirely to what I quoted

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

38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

then the entire discourse changes as does the topic to

53 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 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.

the passages aren't even in conjunction with each other. Verse 35 to 38 are relatable. 3 minor verses. By the time you get to verse 53 he's not talking about comming down from heaven as he was in the discourse about the Bread of life but . 20 verses later he's speaking about eating his flesh which isn't in the dicourse of comming down from heaving like the bread of life is. Different topic 20 verses later. That is how the word structure is presented.

Like your father you are a deceiver.

add another accusation to the list. By their fruit you should know them. You are racking up quite the Personal Attacks remarks.

 

[Dr. Walter]

again you take the "I am the Bread of Life" out of the context to which it was writen. .

Context does not change the nature of the words. These words do not describe his actions but his person. He did not say "I DO bread of life things" but "I AM the bread of life."

You have no refuge in context or in common sense. It is a matter of grammar not context.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

"You offer up a pagan belief"

What pagan belief? You offer this post

But here is what you did post to put this matter to rest. You stated your position quite concisely in this post which I quoted for you:
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640294&postcount=199

Which I will quote here again

Actually, its good information. Based on archeolical and anthropological evidence. It allows for the bible to maintain its truth with out requiring me to come up with some elaborate scheme to force my truth back into the bible.

It allows for the bible to be viewed at wholistically without contradiction or error or force me to suspend my intellect when valid scientific evidence speaks contrarily to your interpretation of the bible. By natural observation we can determine that the universe is a lot older than 10,000 years.

You've place yourself in the position of having to say either God lied about the six days of creation, or that God or satan was involved in a concerted deception over the natural world purposely to mislead men by providing false evidence with in nature and the laws of nature. Fact nor reason play a guiding role in your interpretation. You cannot allow for either so your entire belief about the genesis account is reliant soley on your predisposed faith. Which means you read your faith into it rather than taking the context of the literature. Thats like putting tradition above scripture alone.

What in this whole discourse is particularily pagan? Show me. But does this passage show you how I view genesis 1? No you claim it does but read it again. I just say that evidence suggest the world is older than 10,000 years. And that my interpretation doesn't limit my reason. It doesn't reveal what I believe the passage is saying. I reveal that later so your assertion that

You contradict yourself

has no base.

Pagans in Israel worship the same things as pagans in Canaan, and yet you say it is not a pagan belief??

Because Pagan Israelites beleived in Pagan gods does not mean I believe in pagan gods. I don't see the logic of your statement.

Many of them do. In fact it is impossible not to believe in a six day creation without the support of science. Tell me, what kind of science would support the creation of plants on one day and a thousand years or more the creation of insects (needed to pollinate the plants) on another day. Another example of evolutionary junk science. What kind of science would advocate a thousand year day, and then logically a thousand years of darkness which, of course, would kill off plants which would need darkness to live. What kind of science would put Adam and Eve in darkness for a thousand years, which the Bible says nothing of, and dates their lives well before a thousand years? Why would anyone believe the junk science of the evolutionists at all. True science is based on observation, but in evolution there was no one to observe.

I don't have a problem with people who believe in a literal 6 days. I personally don't and my reason for it has been explained in detail to include errors between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and terms used to describe the sky and stars are also problematic.

Share with me the plan of salvation from Genesis one. Rather Genesis chapter one is a historical account of the origin of the "heaven and the earth," just as verse one says it is. Any reader with common sense and a heart to believe the truth can see that quite plainly: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Thus begins the story of salvation. How is Genesis one to be interpreted?
I will quote myself again.

Note I hold more closely to this view

Quote:
This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different.aspects of the environment.

On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.

That must be the most difficult verse in the Bible to understand

Not really.

You have therefore assumed that Moses is not the author of these books.

You obviously didn't read what I said.

Believing in the JEDP theory, you very well could believe that some of these other authors are unbelievers as Wellhausen no doubt believes. Why wouldn't he? He has no reason not to.

Again you didn't understand what I said. Its very clear I'll quote myself again for your understanding

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

then you say

You state that Genesis was written in the same literary style of the Sumerians, inferring that Sumerians came first. But we know that is not true.

How do you know that? What evidence?

Evolution is a faith issue; not science.

It is both. Micro evolution certainly can be verified.

All of Higher criticism is a faith issue.

I'm sorry you view it that way. If want to believe in throwing bones go ahead. I believe faith does not do away with reason.

There is no scientific proven evidence. The evidence is lacking. The true science backs up a six day creation, each day being 24 hours in duration. Science backs that up, not the unbelieving philosophies of ungodly men.

Oxymoronic statement. "true science" I doubt you know what that means. Science is just science. There is evidence contrary to your assertion that the world was made in 6 days.

The evolutionist continues to go outside the limitations of science into the realm of the metaphysical where it has no business being.

This assertion is not true. Some evolutionist might. Many stick with just science.

There are limitations to science.

This is the truth of what you really mean. Science doesn't back you up disregard it. Thats fine. That happened frequently in the middle ages.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Context does not change the nature of the words. These words do not describe his actions but his person. He did not say "I DO bread of life things" but "I AM the bread of life."...

. It is a matter of grammar not context.

Ah. The I don't agree with with so dump the context argument. I clearly showed you how the bread of life discourse matches to comming down from heaven. The eating of the flesh is in another discourse.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You are ignoring the overall context. The overall context is about what it means to come and believe in him (Jn. 6:29-70). The bread of life section as well as the eating and drinking my blood and flesh section are simply subsections of this overall theme.

You can see this easily because John 6:35-48 is returned to in John 6:60-65.

The introduction of drinking and eating as metaphors are introduced and directly connected to who he is metaphorically previous to the debated section. Hence, eating and drinking in regard to who he is in the previous bread of life section prepares the reader as well as the hearer for his language in the blood and body section. He concludes the second section with the same conclusion of the first section - what it means to come and believe in him.

again you take the "I am the Bread of Life" out of the context to which it was writen. He is the bread of life that came down from where? The discourse changes entirely to what I quoted then the entire discourse changes as does the topic to the passages aren't even in conjunction with each other. Verse 35 to 38 are relatable. 3 minor verses. By the time you get to verse 53 he's not talking about comming down from heaven as he was in the discourse about the Bread of life but . 20 verses later he's speaking about eating his flesh which isn't in the dicourse of comming down from heaving like the bread of life is. Different topic 20 verses later. That is how the word structure is presented.

add another accusation to the list. By their fruit you should know them. You are racking up quite the Personal Attacks remarks.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ah. The I don't agree with with so dump the context argument.

Like I said, you are not interested in truth just debate because your position is contrary to both context, grammar and common sense. Why debate at all because this will be your exit whenever you are wrong.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Ah. The I don't agree with with so dump the context argument. I clearly showed you how the bread of life discourse matches to comming down from heaven. The eating of the flesh is in another discourse.

The context does not change the grammar or the terms being used. He said "I AM" not "I DID." Do you know the difference between a linking verb and an action verb?

Take any similar example in scripture in any kind of context and it does not change the fact that it is defining WHO he is not WHAT he does. It does not change the fact that you have only two possible options - LITERALLY he IS this or NON-LITERALLY He IS this. You are intentionally perverting the grammar to suit yourself.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Like I said, you are not interested in truth just debate because your position is contrary to both context, grammar and common sense. Why debate at all because this will be your exit whenever you are wrong.

This isn't my exit. I was resonding to your "exit" which is I don't agree with it so I'll say its out of context. Which of course it isn't look at the structure of the passage. in verse 35 and 38 the discourse about the bread of life is coming down from heaven. 20 verses later is a different discourse about eating jesus flesh. You want to draw aline from 35 to 54 but leave out 35 was about being compared to manna in that it came down from heaven. later Jesus said you must eat him and that its real. verse 54 has already left 35 as concluded. But since you don't agree with it you just assert and thats all you are doing is asserting its not contextual with the way you understand it. There are many bible scholars who differ with you just as there are scholars who agree with you. But of course you cannot admit that. Do you want to call me another name? Common, I know you can do it. You've been such an inspiration.

here is a commentary on it

unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man
Recall that Son of Man is a term which Jesus applies to Himself, the New Adam (Dan 7:13),
8
the one who will effect the resurrection (Ez 37). Jesus= words do not encourage any
figurative understanding of His pronouncement, they only underscore the literal meaning.
and drink his blood,
If the idea of eating someone=s flesh is repugnant, what about drinking their blood? To the
Jewish audience this would be even more repulsive. Blood was a forbidden food under the
Law (Lev 7:27; 17:10-14), the penalty for which was to be expelled from the tribe; they
would be excommunicated. Aflesh and blood@ is a common Old Testament expression for
life. When the two are separated, death results. By taking both, they must be partaking of a
living being.
you have no life in you;
Are dead, no spirit.
54he who eats my flesh
The Greek verb used here is actually much stronger than just Aeating@ it literally means
Achew@, Agnaw@. This shows that it is a real meal that He is talking about. There is now
absolutely no room for saying that He is speaking symbolically. Not only has He reiterated
the statement, He has strengthened it.
and drinks my blood has eternal life,
A guarantee of life eternal. If He had been speaking symbolically, He would have been
commanding them to slander Him or suffer the pain of eternal damnation.
and I will raise him up on the last day.
A pledge which only God can make.
55For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
If there had been any questions before, there is now no question at all that He is speaking
quite literally.
56He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
Again the strong verb is used for eating. This is the fourth time, in four verses, that Jesus
has said they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. The number four in Hebrew
numerology stands for the world in its entirety (four winds, four cardinal points of the
compass). The Eucharist is God=s gift to the whole world. With this rapid four verse
repetition, it=s almost like Jesus is saying Awhat part of >eat= and >drink= don=t you
understand?@. God is not stupid; when hearers misunderstand Jesus, He corrects their
9
misunderstanding immediately

This is a literal reading of the passage. In the context of how it was written. But you don't apply your standard for the reading of Genesis to this passage in John 6

 

[Dr. Walter]

This isn't my exit. I was resonding to your "exit" which is I don't agree with it so I'll say its out of context. Which of course it isn't look at the structure of the passage. in verse 35 and 38 the discourse about the bread of life is coming down from heaven. 20 verses later is a different discourse about eating jesus flesh. You want to draw aline from 35 to 54 but leave out 35 was about being compared to manna in that it came down from heaven. later Jesus said you must eat him and that its real. verse 54 has already left 35 as concluded. But since you don't agree with it you just assert and thats all you are doing is asserting its not contextual with the way you understand it. There are many bible scholars who differ with you just as there are scholars who agree with you. But of course you cannot admit that. Do you want to call me another name? Common, I know you can do it. You've been such an inspiration.

This is not a difficult subject! It is the grammatical structure of "I am the bread of life" that is your problem not the context it is found in. The context does not change the grammar. The context does not change the linking verb to an action verb. The context does not change "I AM" to "I DID." The context does not change the choice between 'I AM" literally "bread" or "I AM" not literally "bread." He either IS or ISN"T and appealing to context does not help you at all!!!!!

Neither would context help you with the words "I AM the vine" or "I AM the door" - I don't care what context you place this kind of grammar in it will not change the linking verb to an action verb and you cannot by context change its meaning to an action verb - that is simply ludercrous.

There is no debate here. You have no basis for debate. You are simply wrong. There is no way by context or any other means of trickery that you can escape the only two possibilities for interpreting that language - Literal or Figurative. You cannot honestly change the linking verb to an action verb. You cannot use common sense and say he is claiming to be LITERAL Manna because that is a brain dead argument. You just like to argue - period.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is not a difficult subject! It is the grammatical structure of "I am the bread of life" that is your problem not the context it is found in. The context does not change the grammar. The context does not change the linking verb to an action verb. The context does not change "I AM" to "I DID." The context does not change the choice between 'I AM" literally "bread" or "I AM" not literally "bread." He either IS or ISN"T and appealing to context does not help you at all!!!!!

According to the word usage he is. Are you suggesting he isn't the bread of life?

Neither would context help you with the words "I AM the vine" or "I AM the door"

Note he didn't say I am the door of life or I am the vine of life. there is a reason for the distinction.

I don't care what context you place this kind of grammar

VERITAS!!!! This is the truth. You will not apply the same rules from genesis to John 6 and this proves it!

There is no debate here. You have no basis for debate. You are simply wrong.

As you have unwittingly shown I am not wrong. You don't apply the same rules therefore you apply your already formed believes into your reading.

There is no way by context or any other means of trickery that you can escape the only two possibilities for interpreting that language - Literal or Figurative.

I've shown you how consitently I hold that genesis 1 is figurative and john 6 is figurative. However when I applied your rule from genesis to John you squelched on the method and changed it. Irrelevant of context.

 

[Dr. Walter]

According to the word usage he is. Are you suggesting he isn't the bread of life?
No! I am demanding His IS the bread of life.

Note he didn't say I am the door of life or I am the vine of life. there is a reason for the distinction. VERITAS!!!! This is the truth. You will not apply the same rules from genesis to John 6 and this proves it!

As you have unwittingly shown I am not wrong. You don't apply the same rules therefore you apply your already formed believes into your reading. I've shown you how consitently I hold that genesis 1 is figurative and john 6 is figurative. However when I applied your rule from genesis to John you squelched on the method and changed it. Irrelevant of context.

It takes a fool to argue with a fool and I guess I have to admit that I have been a fool. I will drop the argument.

 

[DHK]

What pagan belief? You offer this post


Which I will quote here again What in this whole discourse is particularily pagan? Show me.

You have been so confused during this entire discourse. We have been talking past each other. I will try to clear it up for you.

Post #199
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640294&postcount=199

In this post I quoted "your belief". I said "This is your belief," but you misunderstood me, thinking what I said subsequent to that statement, not previous to it, was your belief. Thus you sarcastically replied in #202

Which one? The one stating God Created the universe from nothing? Or how about that the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Or how about the one where God created man? Which of my beliefs is paganistic?
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640304&postcount=202

The "which one?" referred back to the post in #199.
What I said subsequent to the quote in that post was from here:


http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640272&postcount=194
Also to say really shows your inadiquate knowledge of history. Pagans in Israel believed what pagans in Cannaan believed which was a lot more exagerated than my explination.

Notice that that is from 194, said previous to 199. Thus I stated your belief in 199 and showed how your belief in paganism tied in with "your beliefs." But you failed to get the connection. Perhaps my post was ambiguous.

Note the sweeping generalization of your statement:
Pagans in Israel believed what pagans in Canaan believed.
Exaggerated, maybe; similar, yes.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It takes a fool to argue with a fool and I guess I have to admit that I have been a fool. I will drop the argument.

Another tack on your board. lets see... according to your I am a "weasel", "unsaved", "don't embrace the gospel truth", a "deceiver like my father" whom I supposed is meant to be the devil,"spiritually blind", "lack common sense", and now "fool".

and all I've said is that I disagree with your interpretation of genesis which the more I think about it I find it less plausible that its meant to be literally 6 days. I've shown contemporary literature and compared the Enuma Elish to the bible, I've explained the purpose of chapter 1 and 2. We've come to a consensus that Moses gets credit for torah but others were involved in its compilation. You refute entirely JEPD documentary Historical theory and I agree there are flaws in it. However, I think different authors do place differing "fingerprints" on their work. I suggest you provide a double standard in interpreting genesis and John 6. You disagree. Which is fine however you've made a lot of comments that are directed towards my person. Which I've listed some not all. I've shown how directly interpreted literally the firmament is a dome containing stars sun and moon which above is some primordial body of water. Which makes it improbably genesis is meant to be taken literally. Our divergence in belief has aggrivated you into accusing me personally of several things. As for me I wish you peace and prosperity in your academic endevors.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have been so confused during this entire discourse. We have been talking past each other. I will try to clear it up for you.

Ok thanks very possible since I've engage three people on differing aspects of this discourse.

Post #199
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640294&postcount=199

In this post I quoted "your belief". I said "This is your belief," but you misunderstood me, thinking what I said subsequent to that statement, not previous to it, was your belief. Thus you sarcastically replied in #202

Which one? The one stating God Created the universe from nothing? Or how about that the bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Or how about the one where God created man? Which of my beliefs is paganistic?
http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640304&postcount=202

ok

The "which one?" referred back to the post in #199.

What I said subsequent to the quote in that post was from here:

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640272&postcount=194

I read those links and I'm trying to figure out what I said that you think is pagan. Tell me exactly what I said that was pagan. Was it the JEPD referrence? Was it me saying that Pagan Israelites believed in Pagan gods of Cannaan? What?

Also to say really shows your inadiquate knowledge of history. Pagans in Israel believed what pagans in Cannaan believed which was a lot more exagerated than my explination.

Is this what you are refering to? Because Pagans believed in the Baals and had temple prostitutes etc... they sacrificed children. Nothing I have said condones or is suggested that it is more exagerated than my figurative interpretation of genesis 1.

Notice that that is from 194, said previous to 199. Thus I stated your belief in 199 and showed how your belief in paganism tied in with "your beliefs." But you failed to get the connection. Perhaps my post was ambiguous.

Maybe, are you suggesting that I believe in paganism? I don't. I just don't take genesis literally in its six day account of creation. Which I explain why in these posts
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640762&postcount=224
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640317&postcount=206
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640680&postcount=219
and http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1640127&postcount=172

 

[Dr. Walter]

I've shown you how consitently I hold that genesis 1 is figurative and john 6 is figurative.

I am not entering back into this argument but just a question for clarification. Are you saying by the statement above that you do take a figurative interpretation rather than a literal interpretation to the John 6 issue and therefore it is not your position that eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ is to be understood in any literal manner whatsoever but wholly figurative?

 

[DHK]

I just don't take genesis literally in its six day account of creation.

In one of those links you stated this concerning creation scientists:

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.

This is a false statement. Perhaps it is slanderous concerning creation scientists, if not of most of us.
None of us approach science from a biased position. You have it wrong. This is a ridiculous statement to make. What biased position do I take when I say that 3+1=4. Where is my bias? Where is my bias when I say that it takes two atoms of hydrogen plus one atom of oxygen to make water (H2O)? How biased was I? Your statement was absurd.

"I would that they would try to be unbiased but they must meet the requirements of their faith."
--What requirements of my faith have I denied in the above examples?

Now take your statement:
"I just don't take genesis literally in its six day account of creation."

Does it adhere to the principles of science?
1. Try the law of biogenesis--that life must come from life. Your theory is that the passage is allegorical, and that evolution can fit into there. If so, where did life come from? The Big Bang, like the Pope now believes. Scientific law states that life only comes from life. To go against that law is to against the laws of science. No one has ever seen life come from anything else but something that is living. Life does not come from rocks for example, but this is what the Big Bang theory proposes. If God started everything, possibly with the Big Bang, then one starts with breaking the laws of science right away.

2. Let's look at the days of creation themselves. Why aren't they 24 hour days? What are they if they aren't 24 hours--a thousand years? a million years? a billion? Please explain.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Genesis 1:11-13)
--On the third day grass, fruit trees, herb yielding seed, etc. were created.

On the fourth day the sun moon and stars were created.

On the fifth day God created the fish and water animals, and the birds and the fowl of the air.

And on the sixth day:
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:24-26)
Note that on this day God created:
--beasts of the earth--mammals in general.
--cattle,
and every creepeth thing upon the earth (insects)!

On the third day plants were created; on the sixth day insects were created. If one believes in the day/age theory--that a day is a thousand years, then three thousand days and likewise nights will have passed between the creation of the plants and the creation of the insects. Plants need insects such as bees to pollinate them, or they can't survive. That is just plain science.
Tell me how the plants would survive without sunlight? (a thousand year night--three times or at least two)
Tell me how plants would survive three thousand days without pollinating insects? Nature doesn't work that way.
If these are not 24 hour days then what are they, and how do you account for nature being in sync with each successive day?

God created Adam and Eve on the sixth day.
God rested on the Seventh or Sabbath day.
Was there a thousand years of darkness between?
Why doesn't the Bible mention anything like this, and why isn't Adam's age more than a thousand years, when the Bible records it as being only 930?
Was Adam "in the dark" that long?
Does not this entire day/age theory contradict what is explained in day four about why God created the greater light and the lesser light?

God created an earth to spin on its axis. How fast does it spin? Can you find that out for me? A good scientist can. How fast would it spin in order to make one day last a thousand years and one night a thousand years? Is this realistic?

The chapter is a history of the creation of the heaven and earth as verse one states. What good reason do we have to doubt that statement, and allegorize the entire chapter? We don't. Moses reiterated a six day creation when he gave us the Ten Commandments in Exodus. Was he wrong then also?

Again he emphasized the same truth to the Israelites when he emphasized the Sabbath as a sign of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel:

It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (Exodus 31:17)
--Do we go through the entire Bible and allegorize each and every time this truth is stated?

Was the ruler of the synagogue wrong in the NT?
And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day. (Luke 13:14)

True science, as well as history, supports a six day/24 hour creation. What reason could you possible have (besides the allegorization of Scripture), and the dependence on unsaved liberal so-called scholars, to say otherwise?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am not entering back into this argument but just a question for clarification. Are you saying by the statement above that you do take a figurative interpretation rather than a literal interpretation to the John 6 issue and therefore it is not your position that eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ is to be understood in any literal manner whatsoever but wholly figurative?

I believe that there are spiritual allegorical truths in both Genesis and John. But no I don't believe you have to cut off Jesus flesh and eat him. No.