[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
But…you had simians evolving (dying) for millions of years…then simian/human hybrids…then Neanderthals etc. and eventually POOF somehow, some way, somewhere the first man appears…and he commits sin…is condemned to death for it…and dies (after bearing human children)?
Now are you telling this first man’s father and mother who also died…did not commit sin? They died for some other reason?[/quote]
I don’t know whether the chicken or the egg came first. Man or his parents. Nor do I know when sin entered the world and the struggle began. I do know this, God created everything including man. God clearly made us differently than the other animals. I know sin entered the world through the choice of man.
I also know there were people around before Genesis was written and while it may an account of creation, it’s not exactely a first person rendition. It’s also meant for an audience 7000 years ago. If you were to start explaining evolution, science, biology, the universe, I am pretty sure you would have lost them.
Genesis is woven together from several stories. It has 2 creation stories, the second older than the first. I don’t think it was ever intended to be a factual account.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm[/quote]
Pat, do you believe in Jesus? If you believe in Jesus then you should believe in the Genesis account because Jesus mentions both the creation of man and Noah and the flood.
At Mark 10:6-9 Jesus states:
“However, from the beginning of creation 'He made them male and female. 7 On this account a man will leave his father and mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh’; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.”
In the verses mentioned above Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 where it states “He made them male and female” and he mentions “from the beginning of creation” which of course is the creation account in Genesis.
At Matthew 24:37-39 Jesus refers to the Noah and the flood account and paralells what happened in the days and years leading up to the flood with what will happened during the days and years during Jesus’ presence leading up to Armageddon.
Matthew 24:37-39 states:
“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”
It’s clear that Jesus believed in the Genesis account not only because he quotes specific verses from Genesis but he also had a first hand account because he was in heaven when both of the above accounts took place.
You are right that Genesis took place before Moses wrote it. The creation of Adam in Genesis took place about 2500 years before Moses wrote Genesis. And the flood event took place about 850 years before the writing in Genesis. Apparently, God told Moses either directly or through holy spirit about what took place from the beginning of creation up until Moses’ time.[/quote]
I do not think that Pat is saying that the Genesis did not take place.
I will say that Jesus quotes the Old Testament all the time. Why? Because he was talking to the Jewish people. These are the stories that they grew up on and understand. Just because he talks about it does not mean that it means literal, but could mean figuratively. Jesus uses Hyperbole all the time. Jesus also uses the term “I AM” which to a Jewish person means that he is God. Is he speaking literally or figuratively here?[/quote]
D, I don’t think you really understand the use of Jesus illustrations and the purpose of when he quoted scriptures. I’ll try to clarify this for you.
Jesus used illustrations when he was teaching something new to his listeners to paint a mental picture so they could better grasp what he was teaching. Most of his illustrations were of story length and had characters. Jesus generally drew his illustrations from the surrounding creation, from familiar customs of everyday life such as sheep and shepards, harvest, slaves, or fishing. Or from occasional happenings or not-impossible situations, and from recent events well known to his hearers. None of the famous illustrations such as the Wheat and the Weeds, the neighborly Samaritan, the prodigal son, the rich man and Lazarus do you see Jesus quote from the Hebrew scriptures. You can’t find any of these stories in the Bible so Jesus most likely made them up to help his listeners understand his teaching.
You’re using the wrong word when you say “figuratively.” When one speaks figuratively, the figure of speech or metaphoric statement in its entirety means something else and is not to be taken literally. Such as when someone says “I’m going to kill you” when you’ve upset that person. Jesus’ illustrations were not like this because when he used illustrations they represented a truth Jesus was trying to teach and if the listeners were able to understand what the illustration was teaching they were to take it literally. The characters, setting and story represented different parts of something literal. So Jesus spoke symbolically not figuratively. For example, the Wheat and the Weeds illustration mentioned at Matthew 13:24-30. Jesus explains what each part of the illustration means at Matthew 13:36-42. Another example is at Matthew 9:11-13 when Jesus was eating with with tax collectors and sinners and the Pharisees criticized him for doing so. Jesus told them that persons in good health do not need a physician but the ailing do. In this illustration Jesus was the physician and the ailing are the tax collectors and sinners. Even when he spoke in hyperbole such as at Matthew 7:1-5 which talks about removing a straw from someone’s eye when there is a rafter in your eye. The straw represents a small weakness or small sin and the rafter represents an even bigger weakness or bigger sin. So when one understood this they would get the sense that he should not judge or try to correct someone when he has a big glaring weakness that he needs to work on. Do you get what I’m trying to say?
Jesus quoted from the Bible because the people of his day were versed in the law and the Bible available at that time. As you stated in one of your post the Jewish religious leaders even had the Bible memorized. So when Jesus quoted from the Bible the listiners were more likely to believe what Jesus was saying the same way we hope people believe us when we quote scripture to back up a belief. When Jesus quoted from the Bible he did this usually to help the listeners discern that he just fulfilled a Bible prophecy, to condemn the hardhearted based on Bible prophecy or to explain why something must occur based on the passage he’s quoting. Jesus did not use any quotes from the Hebrew scriptures in his illustrations. At Mark 10:6-9 when Jesus quotes from the Genesis account he is answering a question about divorce; no illustration was used. At Matthew 24:37-39 when Jesus compares the days and years during his presence leading up to Armageddon with the days and years in Noah’s day leading up to the flood he does state it in an illustrative manner because he compares to things but this is unlike any of the illustrations I listed above and unlike any of the illustrations Jesus is famous for.
So when Jesus quotes from the Hebrew scriptures one should have more faith in the Hebrew scriptures as being still valid for today and inspired by God. The point I was trying to make to Pat was since Jesus quoted the two specific events Pat said were made up and not to be factual in his post if one has faith in Jesus then you should believe the two specific events Jesus referenced from the Hebrew scriptures as actual events and not moral stories or figurative stories as you stated.
I hope that helps.[/quote]
Jesus quoted from the hebrew scriptures because that’s what the Jew’s he was talking to was familiar with. You said myth, though, I did not. I never said they are myths nor do I believe that. It’s not a history book. It’s not an archeology book, it’s not a geology book, it’s not a math book. For you to take it as such is a misuse. And don’t tell me you subscribe to a literal translation when you have a governing body that interprets the bible for you and tells you what it says. If you indeed take it literally you don’t need a governing body to tell you what it says. The words are there.
For instance do you take Jn 6:53-54 literally?
"Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.”