There are two creation accounts in Genesis. Which one is (more) correct? Does it matter?

Who wrote this part of Genesis? Are the accounts literal, fiction, allegorical, mythical, something else?

There are two creation accounts in Genesis. Which one is (more) correct? Does it matter?

Who wrote this part of Genesis? Are the accounts literal, fiction, allegorical, mythical, something else?

Amusing and instructive. LOL. Been time enough for a discussion on Genesis to begin. But nobody, especially the three fundamentalists here who it was aimed at, has picked up the gauntlet to defend a literal reading of Genesis.

Too bad, it could have been fun.

There are two creation accounts in Genesis. Which one is (more) correct? Does it matter?

Who wrote this part of Genesis? Are the accounts literal, fiction, allegorical, mythical, something else?
I didn't see this until now. I say both are allegorical. And as we know, many cultures through the ages have written down or passed on verbally their own stories about a Higher Power Who created everything.

I didn't see this until now. I say both are allegorical. And as we know, many cultures through the ages have written down or passed on verbally their own stories about a Higher Power Who created everything.

I agree, but why are there two different accounts of creation? And who wrote this part of Genesis?

I agree, but why are there two different accounts of creation? And who wrote this part of Genesis?
One describes how God created order out of chaos, and the other tells how and why He created mankind. My question is why did it take Him six days?

One describes how God created order out of chaos, and the other tells how and why He created mankind. My question is why did it take Him six days?

First he creates Adam and Eve together - "male and female he created them". Then later he creates Eve from Adam's rib. Maybe God was dipping into the ambrosia or the nectar.

First he creates Adam and Eve together - "male and female he created them". Then later he creates Eve from Adam's rib. Maybe God was dipping into the ambrosia or the nectar.
Oh, that's where the Lilith story comes from. She was Adam's first wife but wasn't submissive enough so God got rid of her and created Eve who WAS submissive.

From Wikipedia: In some Jewish folklore, such as the satiric Alphabet of Sirach (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_of_Sirach) (c. AD 700–1000), Lilith appears as Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time (Rosh Hashanah (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_Hashanah)) and from the same clay as Adam – compare Genesis 1:27[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#cite_note-5) (this contrasts with Eve (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve), who was created from one of Adam's ribs).[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#cite_note-6) The legend of Lilith developed extensively during the Middle Ages (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages), in the tradition of Aggadah (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggadah), the Zohar (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar), and Jewish mysticism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_mysticism).[7] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#cite_note-7) For example, in the 11th-century writings of Isaac ben Jacob ha-Cohen (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Alfasi), Lilith left Adam after she refused to become subservient to him and then would not return to the Garden of Eden (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden) after she had coupled with the archangel (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archangel) Samael (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael).[8] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#cite_note-Kvam-8)

The second account expands on the first. Creation of man and woman in chapter 1 is the summary, chapter 2 gives the details.

Moses assembled them from the stories his people had handed down. The "days" are creative acts, guiding the course of evolution where God wanted it to go. And as we know, the crown of God's creation is Google.

The second account expands on the first. Creation of man and woman in chapter 1 is the summary, chapter 2 gives the details.

The actual accounts would not support that interpretation. They are too different.


Moses assembled them from the stories his people had handed down.

Surely, as a scholar, you must know Moses is not really the author. Unless he could write from beyond the grave.


The "days" are creative acts, guiding the course of evolution where God wanted it to go. And as we know, the crown of God's creation is Google.

I always wondered about google - now I know.

Thanks for participating. See you next month.

Oh, that's where the Lilith story comes from. She was Adam's first wife but wasn't submissive enough so God got rid of her and created Eve who WAS submissive.

From Wikipedia: In some Jewish folklore, such as the satiric Alphabet of Sirach (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet_of_Sirach) (c. AD 700–1000), Lilith appears as Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time (Rosh Hashanah (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosh_Hashanah)) and from the same clay as Adam – compare Genesis 1:27[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#cite_note-5) (this contrasts with Eve (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve), who was created from one of Adam's ribs).[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#cite_note-6) The legend of Lilith developed extensively during the Middle Ages (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages), in the tradition of Aggadah (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggadah), the Zohar (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar), and Jewish mysticism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_mysticism).[7] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#cite_note-7) For example, in the 11th-century writings of Isaac ben Jacob ha-Cohen (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Alfasi), Lilith left Adam after she refused to become subservient to him and then would not return to the Garden of Eden (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden) after she had coupled with the archangel (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archangel) Samael (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael).[8] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#cite_note-Kvam-8)

Wow - that is fascinating! I never knew the details although I had heard the name Lilith over the years being connected to that old-time religion.

Fits right in to your theory of woman in the Bible. I also didn't know Samael was an archangel. My archangel knowledge was limited to Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael. Ummm - "coupled"? Is that like, ummm, "know" in the biblical sense? Must be - after all, it's in the Bible.

Did Sam and Lilly have any kids/little angels - little demons?

Wow - that is fascinating! I never knew the details although I had heard the name Lilith over the years being connected to that old-time religion.
In Hebrew-language texts, the term lilith or lilit (translated as "night creatures", "night monster", "night hag", or "screech owl") first occurs in a list of animals in Isaiah 34,[10] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#cite_note-10) either in singular or plural form according to variations in the earliest manuscripts. The Isaiah 34:14 Lilith reference does not appear in most common Bible translations such as KJV (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version) and NIV (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version). Commentators and interpreters often envision the figure of Lilith as a dangerous demon (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon) of the night, who is sexually wanton, and who steals babies in the darkness. In the Dead Sea Scrolls (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls) 4Q510-511 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Q510-511), the term first occurs in a list of monsters. Jewish magical (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)) inscriptions on bowls and amulets from the 6th century AD onwards identify Lilith as a female demon and provide the first visual depictions of her.

Fits right in to your theory of woman in the Bible. I also didn't know Samael was an archangel.
Read the Wikipedia article on him to learn more. He was quite a cute guy!

One Wikipedia paragraph:
In the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Apocalypse_of_Baruch),[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael#cite_note-JVL-5) he is the dominant evil figure. Samael plants the Tree of knowledge (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil), thereupon he is banished and cursed by God.[7] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael#cite_note-:0-7):257–60 To take revenge, he tempts Adam and Eve (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve) into sin by taking the form of the serpent.[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael#cite_note-JVL-5)[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael#cite_note-Patai-6)

Ummm - "coupled"? Is that like, ummm, "know" in the biblical sense? Must be - after all, it's in the Bible.
Yup, you nailed it!

Did Sam and Lilly have any kids/little angels - little demons?
Sounds like a fun research project!

One Wikipedia paragraph:
In the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Apocalypse_of_Baruch),[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael#cite_note-JVL-5) he is the dominant evil figure. Samael plants the Tree of knowledge (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil), thereupon he is banished and cursed by God.[7] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael#cite_note-:0-7):257–60 To take revenge, he tempts Adam and Eve (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve) into sin by taking the form of the serpent.[5] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael#cite_note-JVL-5)[6] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samael#cite_note-Patai-6)

I clicked on the Adam and eve link and got this:

Adam (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam) and Eve (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve) according to the creation myth (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth) of the Abrahamic religions (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions),[1] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#cite_note-2) were the first man and woman. They are central to the belief that humanity is in essence a single family, with everyone descended from a single pair of original ancestors.[3] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#cite_note-3) They also provide the basis for the doctrines of the fall of man (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_man) and original sin (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin) that are important beliefs in Christianity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity), although not held in Judaism (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism) or Islam (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam).[4] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#cite_note-4)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Peter_Paul_Rubens_004.jpg/275px-Peter_Paul_Rubens_004.jpg (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_Paul_Rubens_004.jpg)
The Fall of Man (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_Man_(Rubens)) by Peter Paul Rubens (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Paul_Rubens), 1628–29




In the Book of Genesis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis) of the Hebrew Bible (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible), chapters one through five, there are two creation narratives (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative) with two distinct perspectives. In the first, Adam and Eve are not named. Instead, God created humankind in God's image (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_God) and instructed them to multiply and to be stewards (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewardship_(theology)) over everything else that God had made. In the second narrative, God fashions Adam (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam) from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_of_Eden). Adam is told that he can eat freely of all the trees in the garden, except for a tree of the knowledge of good and evil (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_the_knowledge_of_good_and_evil). Subsequently, Eve (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve) is created from one of Adam's ribs to be his companion. They are innocent and unembarrassed about their nakedness (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakedness). However, a serpent (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpents_in_the_Bible#Eden) convinces Eve to eat fruit from the forbidden tree, and she gives some of the fruit to Adam. These acts give them additional knowledge, but it gives them the ability to conjure negative and destructive concepts such as shame (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame) and evil (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil). God later curses the serpent and the ground. God prophetically tells the woman and the man what will be the consequences of their sin of disobeying God. Then he banishes them from the Garden of Eden.
The myth underwent extensive elaboration in later Abrahamic traditions, and it has been extensively analyzed by modern biblical scholars. Interpretations and beliefs regarding Adam and Eve and the story revolving around them vary across religions and sects; for example, the Islamic version of the story holds that Adam and Eve were equally responsible for their sins of hubris (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris), instead of Eve being the first one to be unfaithful. The story of Adam and Eve is often depicted in art, and it has had an important influence in literature and poetry.
The story of the fall of Adam is often considered to be an allegory. Findings in population genetics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_genetics), particularly those concerning Y-chromosomal Adam (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam) and Mitochondrial Eve (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve), indicate that a single first "Adam and Eve" pair of human beings never existed.

Last sentence - proof positive that the story is an allegory?

Last sentence - proof positive that the story is an allegory?
Makes sense to me.

And, again, why did it take an all-powerful God six days to create everything?

Makes sense to me.

And, again, why did it take an all-powerful God six days to create everything?

Because that "all-powerful" God is part of the allegory.

1. If the Genesis creation account is to be seen as purely allegorical, what allegorical meaning is to be drawn from it?

2. Why could Moses not have been the author of all of the Pentateuch except for the end of the Deuteronomy account?

3. From an atheist's perspective, what do you gain from "getting rid" of Genesis? Don't you still have the enormous challenge of the literally dozens and dozens of NT scriptures which speak of wrath, judgment and hell? Compared to that, the flood is a nothing issue, isn't it?

4. If all of Genesis is fictional, then how do you replace the Abraham narrative which is central to Christian theology?

5. Why could the two Genesis creation accounts simply be seen as complementary?

6. Considering the supposed difficulties of the two creation narratives, why do you think some scribe in the many centuries before Christ didn't simply clean it up and do away with that supposed problem?

1. If the Genesis account is to be seen as purely allegorical, what allegorical meaning is to be drawn from it?

Easily found on google. Many interpretations - take your pick.


2. Why could Moses not have been the author of all of the Pentateuch except for the end of the Deuteronomy account?

Maybe because he was dead? Plus the obvious answer all (most) scholars believe - that a famous name was used as author to make the account more credible. You should know this if you want to continue as some sort of expert on the literalness of the Bible.


3. From an atheist's perspective, what do you gain from "getting rid" of Genesis?

You would have to ask an atheist.


4. If all of Genesis is fictional

You said it, not me. Look up the definitions of "fiction" and "allegorical". Then answer your own question.


then how do you replace the Abraham narrative which is central to Christian theology?

Abraham is OK, but not the flood? Cherry-pick much?


5. Why could the two Genesis creation accounts simply be seen as complementary?

Because they're different.


6. Considering the supposed difficulties of the two creation narratives, why do you think some scribe in the many centuries before Christ didn't simply clean it up and do away with that supposed problem?

Because they're from different traditions.

Easily found on google. Many interpretations - take your pick.But I'm asking what yours is. Either you or WG.


Maybe because he was dead?Only at the end of Dt.


Plus the obvious answer all (most) scholars believeYou have data for that?



You said it, not me.
Abraham is OK, but not the flood? Cherry-pick much?Actually, I didn't. I offered them as suppositions.


Because they're different.Isn't that how the concept of complementary works?


Because they're from different traditions.I'm not sure there is any evidence for that, but even if there is, wouldn't they have seen the supposed discrepancies you claim to see and have viewed it as a serious problem?

But I'm asking what yours is. Either you or WG.

Why?


Only at the end of Dt.

Well, he certainly wasn't alive during the creation.


You have data for that? (Moses' authorship)

Look it up - it's all over the internet. Surely you knew that.


Isn't that how the concept of complementary works?

Depends on the nature of the difference.


I'm not sure there is any evidence for that

Plenty of evidence.


wouldn't they have seen the supposed discrepancies you claim to see

I did not "claim" to see "discrepancies" - they are there in black and white for anyone who can read to see. Also, they have differences, not discrepancies - a nuanced understanding.


and have viewed it as a serious problem? (previous scribes)

Obviously not, since they exist. Genesis was assembled over time and put together at different times. The latest and the version most of us are familiar with today was finalized during the Babylonian Exile. It's called the Priestly Tradition.

1. You two say it is allegorical. It seems strange to me to claim something is an allegory, and yet have not idea what the moral meaning is. Oh well.

2. Most of the biographers of the lives of George Washington, Lincoln, King George, Martin Luther, the emperors of Rome, and generally all other figures of history were not alive when those events happen. It is simple history. The writer does not have to be alive when it happens

3. All over the internet? Sure it is.

4. "Depends on the difference." I'd agree with that.

5. "Plenty of evidence." I'm not saying there's not, but I am saying that I would need to see that evidence to believe your statement.

6. Discrepancies or differences, why didn't the scribes simply make the correction?

7. You have no idea how or when Genesis was put together. No one has a certain answer to that question.

1. You two say it is allegorical. It seems strange to me to claim something is an allegory, and yet have not idea what the moral meaning is. Oh well.

This makes no sense. You're confusing yourself - not for the first time. You didn't answer the question of WHY do you want to know my (our) interpretation of Genesis?


2. Most of the biographers of the lives of George Washington, etc., etc., ......were not alive when those events happen. It is simple history. The writer does not have to be alive when it happens

If no one was alive, how did "Moses" know?


3. All over the internet? Sure it is.

This evasion of Jl refers to Moses' debatable authorship of the first five books of the OT. It certainly IS all over the internet. It's been a major topic for scholars since forever. Denying it doesn't cause it to go away.


5. "Plenty of evidence." I'm not saying there's not, but I am saying that I would need to see that evidence to believe your statement.

6. Discrepancies or differences, why didn't the scribes simply make the correction?

7. You have no idea how or when Genesis was put together. No one has a certain answer to that question.

These are easy questions to research and answer. Jl is just playing the troll to cast confusion - a trick he does well.

The answers are accessible via that great library we all have at out fingertips - the internet. If Jl is willing to spend the necessary time reading, he can get all the answers he wants verified by scholars and those who have undertaken the examination of the Bible over the years.

But that's not what Jl wants. He wants to muddle the discussion by demanding long and complex ideas in the space of a Q&A forum. He thinks that gives him the upper hand.

1. You believe it was an allegory but you don't know the moral message? Hmmm.
2. Read the story of Moses. Read about how he met daily with God. What do you suppose they talked about?
3. It's so all over the internet that you can't post a single instance.
4. I don't do research to verify your questionable assertions. That's your job. In fact I would suggest to you or anyone to not post assertions for which you have no support. Have that support ahead of time.

I think I understand our problem. I know what my authority is. It is the Bible. Now you don't accept that, and that's fine. It's your privilege. But I do wonder what your authority is. In other words, what has the right to disagree with you and yet be accepted by you. Athos believes A, but his authority says B, so Athos accepts B. Other than your own opinion, what is your authority?

Great statement of truth by Augustine.

“If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.”


Here's more of the same !!!! Don't you love it? This is his spewing Bible verses that he offers as proof. Note that this particular verse never mentions a thing about hell and/or eternal punishment. To "die in your sins" seems pretty final.Well, we'll do this again. It's about the fifth time. It's by no means an exhaustive list, but it's certainly far more than sufficient. Sufficient, that is, for those who accept the NT.



Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Matthew 5:22. “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
Matthew 8:11,12. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 10:28. “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Matthew 13:30. (This is the conclusion of the parable of the wheat and tares.) “Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.”
Matthew 13:49,50. “This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 18:8. “It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.”
Matt. 25:31-48. This lengthy passage clearly sets forth the existence of a fiery hell. The people sent to hell were judged, not for what they did, but for what the neglected to do. The inference is that Christ was not Lord.
Mark 8:38. “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”
Luke 3:17. “His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
Luke 13:2. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
Luke 16:19ff. “In Hades, where he (the rich man) was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’”
Acts 24:15. “and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.” Again, not a reference to hell, but the teaching of a resurrection “of both the righteous and the wicked,” would certainly agree with such a reference.
Colossians 3:5,6. Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.
1 Thessalonians 1:10. “Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.”
1 Thessalonians 5:9. “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
2 Thessalonians 1:8-10. “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our LORD Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the LORD and from the glory of his might…”
2 Peter 2:4ff. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment… if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
Jude 7. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Rev. 20:11ff. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
Psalm 21:8-9. You will capture all your enemies. Your strong right hand will seize all who hate you. You will throw them in a flaming furnace when you appear. The LORD will consume them in his anger; fire will devour them.


The following scriptures show God as the one who is coming to judge the earth.



Hebrews 9:27. “Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment…” Another reference to a coming day of judgement.
2 Corinthians 5:10,19,20. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. 19 God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.2 Timothy 4:1. I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
Hebrews 6:2. Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of…the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
Rev. 1:18. I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
1 Peter 1:17. Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear.
1 Peter 4:5. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.
Genesis 18:25. Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?”
Hebrews 10:31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
John 8:24 “I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.” What a powerful statement concerning the necessity of faith in Christ.
Acts 24:25. “As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid…” This text is not a reference to hell itself but does point out the coming judgement of which everyone should be aware.
Rev. 20:11ff. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.
Matthew 12:36. But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

1. You believe it was an allegory but you don't know the moral message? Hmmm.

Where did you get that from? I didn't say a word about the moral message. Bad habit - putting words in the mouth of others. Will you ever learn?


2. Read the story of Moses. Read about how he met daily with God. What do you suppose they talked about?

Now you're saying God briefed Moses daily on the creation. How did God explain two differing accounts of creation? Or did Moses make that up?


3. It's so all over the internet that you can't post a single instance.

It would be much more fruitful for you to read it yourself. You'll get much more out of it.


4. I don't do research to verify your questionable assertions.

Your choice, your loss.


That's your job.

No, it's your job, if you really want to know. If you're just trolling, then never mind.


In fact I would suggest to you or anyone to not post assertions for which you have no support.

You're wrong. Assertions may have posted support or not - depends on the complexity and length of what is being asserted. Sometimes unposted support can be provided by a link, but you have already declared your refusal to learn that way. Other times assertions come from sources that can't be posted. For instance, you claimed to be a school principal, but you never posted support for your assertion.


I think I understand our problem. I know what my authority is. It is the Bible. Now you don't accept that, and that's fine. It's your privilege. But I do wonder what your authority is.

Let's go even deeper. HOW have you come to accept the authority of the Bible? You did it by reading, listening, maybe home life, church, considering, thinking, and all the ways humans arrive at decisions. So your ACTUAL authority is rooted in your mind/brain/intellect/experiences. So is mine.

Here's the difference. For whatever reason, you stopped the thought process by accepting the literalness of the Bible. Most Christians did NOT stop there. They continued to read, think, experience, analyze, and consider as they grew in age, wisdom and faith.

This is very apparent when you are unable to explain WHY you believe except to say "The Bible told me so". We see this from you all the time when you offer Bible verses instead of your own well-thought-out responses using your God-given mind.


In other words, what has the right to disagree with you and yet be accepted by you. Athos believes A, but his authority says B, so Athos accepts B.

I don't think I understand this. A concrete example would help.


Other than your own opinion, what is your authority?

Think about that. What other opinion could there be except one's mind, intellect, brain - aka, "opinion" in the strict sense?

You do the same thing. But you have decided (using your mental faculties) to stop the process by placing the Bible as written in front of your brain. I haven't. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US - THE PROBLEM, AS YOU PUT IT.


I see you've posted some Bible verses. I'll get to it. But first, I need a break.

1. Allegories have moral meanings. Simple concept.
2. You make assertions...you back them up. Your job. I have no intention of going down some endless rabbit trail.
3. First answer the question. What is your source of authority?
4. An example? Well, I believe that God is all love, but then I read that He is also a God of justice, so I must adjust my thinking.
5. What other opinion could there be except one's mind? Really? You think there is no opinion other than your own? Wow. There is a vast difference between using mental faculties and judging one's own opinions to be the sum of knowledge. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Yes. A break would be good. Tomorrow.

1. Allegories have moral meanings. Simple concept.

Allegory does not mean the same thing as moral. Couldn't be simpler. Again, look the words up.


2. You make assertions...you back them up. Your job.

You must have missed this.

Assertions may have posted support or not - depends on the complexity and length of what is being asserted. Sometimes unposted support can be provided by a link, but you have already declared your refusal to learn that way. Other times assertions come from sources that can't be posted. For instance, you claimed to be a school principal, but you never posted support for your assertion. [/QUOTE]


I have no intention of going down some endless rabbit trail.

What you are REALLY saying is, "I don't want answers that I don't like". None of us do, but grown-ups learn to face facts.


3. First answer the question. What is your source of authority?

Did you miss this one, too?

Let's go even deeper. HOW have you come to accept the authority of the Bible? You did it by reading, listening, maybe home life, church, considering, thinking, and all the ways humans arrive at decisions. So your ACTUAL authority is rooted in your mind/brain/intellect/experiences. So is mine.

Here's the difference. For whatever reason, you stopped the thought process by accepting the literalness of the Bible. Most Christians did NOT stop there. They continued to read, think, experience, analyze, and consider as they grew in age, wisdom and faith.

This is very apparent when you are unable to explain WHY you believe except to say "The Bible told me so". We see this from you all the time when you offer Bible verses instead of your own well-thought-out responses using your God-given mind.

If you're not going to read what I write, this whole exercise becomes pointless.


4. An example? Well, I believe that God is all love, but then I read that He is also a God of justice, so I must adjust my thinking.

You did not continue to believe what you had believed. In your own words, you made an ADJUSTMENT.


5. What other opinion could there be except one's mind? Really? You think there is no opinion other than your own?

NO, no, no. There is no opinion IN MY MIND other than the opinion that is there. Can there be other opinions outside my mind? Of course, there can. If I believe one of those, then THAT opinion becomes the one IN MY MIND. The simplest things can sometimes be hard to explain.


Perhaps I misunderstood you.

You sure did. Let me try to put it another way. I believe whatever it is that my mind has led me to believe. It can't possibly be otherwise. Can I change (ADJUST!) my belief? Of course, I can. It is still my mind that has led me to my new belief.

This is what I hate about these discussions. When your allegory has no moral, then you deny that allegories have morals. Incredible. "a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one." If that is not true, then what on earth is the purpose of an allegory?????


Let's go even deeper. HOW have you come to accept the authority of the Bible? You did it by reading, listening, maybe home life, church, considering, thinking, and all the ways humans arrive at decisions. So your ACTUAL authority is rooted in your mind/brain/intellect/experiences. So is mine.Utter nonsense. Try that in a court of law. "Your Honor, the defendant is innocent because my mind/brain/intellect/experiences say so." You'd be thrown out in two seconds. It's that we realize that our own views can frequently be wrong due to a lack of knowledge that we appeal to higher sources. You admit it above when you say I should be doing research to back up your assertions. It's an obvious admission that we are all subject to error. Good grief. Even worse, you are saying that your source of authority is...Athos!


You sure did. Let me try to put it another way. I believe whatever it is that my mind has led me to believe. It can't possibly be otherwise. Can I change (ADJUST!) my belief? Of course, I can. It is still my mind that has led me to my new belief.True enough. That being the case, you appeal to something other than your own powers of reasoning in your search for truth.

So aside from your own ideas, is there anything outside of you that can settle an argument?


You did not continue to believe what you had believed. In your own words, you made an ADJUSTMENT.Exactly. And why? Because I was confronted with that which is higher than I am.

1. Allegories have moral meanings. Simple concept.
What then is the moral* of (I'd use the words "overriding or bigger truth in") the Creation allegory in Genesis 1?

*a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.

I don't see it as an allegory, so that question does not apply to my position, but it does to yours. Can you answer it?

And having asked that, I already suspect a forthright answer will not be forthcoming, but hopefully I am wrong.

I don't see it as an allegory, so that question does not apply to my position, but it does to yours. Can you answer it?
This wondrous universe, including every non-living and living thing, was created by our loving God in six days -- or maybe in six minutes or maybe even in only six seconds. The method and length of time don't matter. All that matters is that He created because He's a God of unconditional Love.

Why does it have to be an allegory to get that meaning?

Would you also say that man chooses to fall prey to temptation and thus is a sinner by nature?

BTW, thank you for the wonderfully straightforward answer!!

Why does it have to be an allegory to get that meaning?
What really happened? We don't know, so we tell a story, create an allegory to explain to others who did what, when, how, and why (implied).

Would you also say that man chooses to fall prey to temptation and thus is a sinner by nature?
I sin daily. Do you?

What really happened? We don't know,Why do you say we don't know?

Sin daily? Why, I NEVER sin!! (sarcastic in the extreme)

WG: What really happened? We don't know,


jlisenbe: Why do you say we don't know?

Tell me! Tell me! What really happened???

What it says.

What it says.
No. what REALLY happened!!!

What it says.

What it says.
I wouldn't create that way. Certainly God wouldn't either. Plus, the story is an allegory, written by a human.

I wouldn't have done it that way either, but then you and I are both titanically stupid and ignorant compared to Him, so maybe He knows better than us? Just possible???

I wouldn't have done it that way either, but then you and I are both titanically stupid and ignorant compared to Him, so maybe He knows better than us? Just possible???
Nope, He told me that wasn't how it got done. He had (and still uses) a more interesting method.

The REAL question is WHY did He create anything.

Well I certainly hope you told God that He needs to consult with you in the future before He creates anything else. You need to start a business. "Wondergirl's Creation Advisors Service"

Well I certainly hope you told God that He needs to consult with you in the future before He creates anything else. You need to start a business. "Wondergirl's Creation Advisors Service"
No, that's not how this works. Then I'd be a goddess. I'm just His soundingboard and daily ask for His help.

Who gives God advice on creating. What a responsibility!

Who gives God advice on creating. What a responsibility!
Noooooo, you misunderstand! He does what He does. I simply listen, am submissive and agreeable.

So God told you that Paul was gay?

This is what I hate about these discussions. When your allegory has no moral, then you deny that allegories have morals.

I HAVE NEVER DENIED THAT ALLEGORIES DON'T HAVE MORALS. WHY IN THE WORLD DO YOU KEEP INSISTING I DID SAY THAT? Yeah, I put that in caps for emphasis.


"a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one." If that is not true, then what on earth is the purpose of an allegory?????

THAT IS TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I NEVER SAID IT WASN'T. One of us (or both) has a real problem communicating.


Try that in a court of law. "Your Honor, the defendant is innocent because my mind/brain/intellect/experiences say so."

THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT A DEFENSE ATTORNEY DOES IN A COURT OF LAW!!!! SO DOES A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY. EACH THEN DOES THEIR THING DESCRIBING WHY THEY BELIEVE WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND THE JURY VOTES ON IT. In effect, you insist on creating a scenario that isn't true.

An opinion is NOT absolute truth in every circumstance. Neither is what you or I believe about any particular circumstance, or philosophy, or belief, or ANYTHING. Thoughts, opinions, beliefs are ALWAYS subject to adjustment. You may have some beliefs that are always true - i.e., 2+2=4, but the truth is not because of your thought/belief/opinion, it is true because of the truth inherent in the equation. It's truth exists no matter what you or I think about it.


It's that we realize that our own views can frequently be wrong due to a lack of knowledge that we appeal to higher sources.

Good! That's absolutely true! Of course our thoughts, views, beliefs, opinions can be wrong. And naturally we try to discover the truth by looking elsewhere. It's also possible that we DO believe our thoughts, views, beliefs, opinions, are NOT wrong, but right. In that case, we DON'T look elsewhere, although the truth can happen to us unbidden.


You admit it above when you say I should be doing research to back up your assertions.

Of course I do. Why else would I suggest you research it yourself? I certainly wouldn't do it so you could prove my assertion false.


It's an obvious admission that we are all subject to error.

No, it's not an obvious admission of error. Why would I do that? It doesn't make sense. What it is, is the exact opposite - a means (a link) for you to acknowledge that what I'm posting is correct!


Even worse, you are saying that your source of authority is...Athos!

I think I'm beginning to see the confusion. My source of authority is my mind. That's true. It's also your source of authority. But you see "source of authority" differently than I do. I do NOT see it as the end-all and be-all of existence. I see it as WHAT THE SOURCE OF MY BELIEF IS. I acknowledge that it can be changed.

However, you see that source of authority for the Bible being the Bible itself. Why? Because that is what you believe. Is there an inherent truth in the Bible the way an inherent truth exists in the mathematical equation? No.

Here's one way of examining the premise (not the only way). Wherever you go, people will always without exception agree that 2+2=4. That is not true of the Bible. Wherever you go, you will find many beliefs about the Bible - from total disbelief to total belief. From literal to not literal. If you want to believe Genesis is literal, that is easily challenged as I have done here on these pages. Talking reptiles, world-wide floods, six days of creation, etc. -----------


True enough. That being the case, you appeal to something other than your own powers of reasoning in your search for truth.

DEFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The key is MY OWN POWERS. I know they are limited. However, I do NOT appeal to another way of knowing other than reason. If something cannot pass the test of reason, I tend not to believe it.


So aside from your own ideas, is there anything outside of you that can settle an argument?

Of course. By now I hope you realize that I can believe an argument based in truth and reason.


Exactly. And why? Because I was confronted with that which is higher than I am.(Adjusting his idea about God from all love to a God of justice)

Not exactly. First you believed that God is all love. Then you read something that said God is also a God of justice. So you adjusted your thinking, and your adjusted belief is that God is a God of love and justice. God didn't tell you that. You said you read it somewhere.

So you agree that allegories have moral teachings. Great! What is the moral teaching of the Genesis story?

Read it somewhere? Yes, in the Bible.

So you agree that allegories have moral teachings. Great! What is the moral teaching of the Genesis story?

Read it somewhere? Yes, in the Bible.

That's it? That's your entire reply to all I've written?

You write a lot. Too much.

I just wonder why you won’t answer my question.

So you agree that allegories have moral teachings. Great! What is the moral teaching of the Genesis story?

Read it somewhere? Yes, in the Bible.
And that moral teaching is what??? (I think you don't understand the meaning of moral.)

Did God tell you that Paul was gay?

Did God tell you that Paul was gay?
God blessed me with a good brain and an ability to carefully research. "Was" is not the correct verb. "Could have been" is a better choice.

Ok. I thought that after God gave you the real story on creation, that maybe you got the scoop on Paul.

Ok. I thought that after God gave you the real story on creation, that maybe you got the scoop on Paul.
Well, I said I wouldn't tell anyone, not even you. And that woman named Ruth! Wow! It's amazing that there has been an LGBTQ+ community since the beginning of time.

How sick. Now you have a woman, twice married to a man, and yet, according to you (but certainly not the Bible) having a lesbian relationship with her mother in law??? Hopefully there is some other meaning to be attached to your statement, though I can't imagine what. I can guarantee you one thing. God did not tell you that. It would seem that your political and social persuasions have become your god.

Perhaps you were joking??

LOL! I can imagine a God explaining creation to a dumb human. Like a parent talking goo goo gah gah to a baby. Not much has changed since ancient times. Man still doesn't know or understand where he came from but plenty of speculation in Gods name.

How sick. Now you have a woman, twice married to a man
God ordained marriage between one man and one woman. But but but what about, e.g., Solomon who had 700 wives and 300 concubines?

You are running from your outrageous Ruth story. Wonder why?

At any rate, Solomon was clearly out of God's will. How do I know that? Because I have read the Bible.

1 Kings 11: 1ff. King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the Lord had told the Israelites, “You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.” Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. (Note: Just because a Christian loves someone is no indication they are to be married.)

Dt. 17. 14 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/17-14.htm)“When you come to the land that the LORD your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/17-15.htm)you may indeed set a king over you whom the LORD your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/17-16.htm)Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the LORD has said to you, ‘You shall never return that way again.’ 17 (http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/17-17.htm)And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.

He disobeyed God, and it turned out bad. When I was in Bible college, they used to tell us this. "For the man of God, beware of three areas: gold, gals, and glory." Solomon certainly missed it on the first two counts.

You write a lot. Too much.

Certainly too much for you. When you don't read what I write, there's no hope for you learning the truth.


I just wonder why you won’t answer my question.

Are you sure I haven't answered it? If it's about your long list of Bible verses, the answer is coming.

At any rate, Solomon was clearly out of God's will. How do I know that? Because I have read the Bible.
Me too. What about Solomon's father David -- or Jacob or Abraham....?

Are you sure I haven't answered it? If it's about your long list of Bible verses, the answer is coming.Absolutely certain. What is the moral meaning of the, as you understand it, allegory of the Genesis creation story?

You are in a hopeless box with the scriptures. You have blundered into territory with which you are not familiar and now you're stuck. And bear in mind that my list is far from exhaustive. There are many, many more.

Please don't go with the hopeless, absurd "aionios doesn't mean eternal" nonsense. That has been long ago discredited. But even if someone was dumb enough to accept that, it still leaves hell as a real place to which people will go for some less than eternal time, and it also makes heaven as something less than eternal. Equally bad, it does not answer the question of where everyone goes when that less than eternal period of time concludes. It is a hopeless argument that is easy to discard of.

The "cherry-picking" defense is likewise hopeless. Forty scriptures cannot amount to cherry-picking.

The "hell is just the Jerusalem garbage dump" story is also ridiculous. It is completely nonsensical to suggest that Jesus is going to cast people into the Jerusalem garbage dump (Gehenna) for all of eternity as clearly stated in Mt. 25 and many other places.

I leave the field to you. Your best move is to admit to error and move on.

Me too. What about Solomon's father David -- or Jacob or Abraham....?They were out of the will of God, just as you are with your ridiculous and foolish speculation about Ruth being a lesbian. If your point is that the Bible is full of stories of people like you and me who tended to move out of God's will, then your point is accepted.

If your point is that the Bible is full of stories of people like you and me who tended to move out of God's will, then your point is accepted.
Thank you. The ancients were just as human as we are and struggled with the same situations.

I needed a laugh today. LOL. Your attempt at pre-emption below was just what I needed. You may live to regret those words. A fuller answer is forthcoming. I have a life besides AMHD.


What is the moral meaning of the, as you understand it, allegory of the Genesis creation story?

My answer to you is that there is more than one interpretation of the allegory. I thought I already said this, but maybe not, so here it is (again?). If you truly wish to learn what the interpretations are (which I doubt), it is the easiest thing in the world to find them by a simple google search. If you need a link, I will supply one.

Yes, you will reply with your usual outrage that I didn't answer and I'm a coward and I don't believe in Scripture and the rest of your routine. Remember what I said about repeating yourself?

As to my personal belief (if that's what you're asking), I like each of the allegorical readings. They are thoughtful and highly persuasive. When one understands how symbols are used in making a point - moral or otherwise - they become useful in understanding what otherwise may be obscure for many. Children learn to use allegories (although they don't call them that) almost as soon as they are weaned.

I said above that I doubt you are truly interested in my take on the creation story. I think that your reason is not to learn, but to find fault wherever you can - usually with desperate illogical commentary. But that's just my opinion.


You are in a hopeless box with the scriptures. You have blundered into territory with which you are not familiar and now you're stuck.

Said he who reeks with fear of being shown to be wrong.


And bear in mind that my list is far from exhaustive. There are many, many more.

The reek gets reek-er. Can't stop yourself, can you?


Please don't go with the hopeless, absurd "aionios doesn't mean eternal" nonsense. That has been long ago discredited. But even if someone was dumb enough to accept that, it still leaves hell as a real place to which people will go for some less than eternal time, and it also makes heaven as something less than eternal. Equally bad, it does not answer the question of where everyone goes when that less than eternal period of time concludes.

I'm quoting this paragraph in toto so it can be reviewed at a later time.


It is a hopeless argument that is easy to discard of.

Interesting way you argue. You don't reply to the other arguments, you discard them before they are made. There's a word for that.


The "cherry-picking" defense is likewise hopeless. Forty scriptures cannot amount to cherry-picking. The "hell is just the Jerusalem garbage dump" story is also ridiculous. It is completely nonsensical to suggest that Jesus is going to cast people into the Jerusalem garbage dump (Gehenna) for all of eternity as clearly stated in Mt. 25 and many other places.

I'm actually laughing out loud. You sure sound desperate.


I leave the field to you.

Is that what you call it? I would call it removing the field before the game began.


Your best move is to admit to error and move on.

More desperation. And something you dearly wish. Afraid to compete?

Here's a little taste. You wrote in post #22, Great statement of truth by Augustine. “If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.”

Another quote from the great man -

Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the early Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.

Of course both comments are only Augustine's "opinion".

So you have no view on the moral of the supposed allegory. OK.

Uhm...that was not a quote from Augustine you posted. It was someone's opinion. Study the subject of "quotes".

The rest of your post is just more of the same. We await your observations.


I'm quoting this paragraph in toto so it can be reviewed at a later time.The observations have been made many times and you have yet to reply, so if you do this time, it will be a welcome change.

Children learn to use allegories (although they don't call them that) almost as soon as they are weaned.
As a mom, a former preschool teacher, and a retired librarian, I totally agree! A couple of weeks ago, I checked out from my public library and happily read the children's picture book, The Boss Baby, by Marla Frazee -- a cute story with a lesson (i.e., an allegory) for expectant parents and any children they may have already.

So you have no view on the moral of the supposed allegory. OK.

I told you more than once that you are confused by"allegory" and "moral". YOU are the one who claimed allegories must have morals. Now you claim I "have no view on the moral of the supposed allegory." This is such a good example of how you try to obfuscate a topic. You create a false premise than you challenge others to defend it. I'm not sure if you're purposely deceitful or just dopey.


that was not a quote from Augustine you posted. It was someone's opinion.

Oh, for God's sake - it was exactly what Augustine said about the issue.


Study the subject of "quotes".

Study the subject of reading comprehension.


The rest of your post is just more of the same.

No, it's mostly about your pre-emption of the discussion and about the fear expressed by you in all your claims about my ignorance. Some day you'll discover how obvious you are.

Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. For some hold the same opinion regarding men that they hold regarding the world itself, that they have always been… They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.


also



But simultaneously with time the world was made, if in the world’s creation change and motion were created, as seems evident from the order of the first six or seven days. For in these days the morning and evening are counted, until, on the sixth day, all things which God then made were finished, and on the seventh the rest of God was mysteriously and sublimely signalized. What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive, and how much more to say!


It doesn't matter much what Augustine thought. He admitted as much, "impossible for us to conceive," and reduces his speculation to "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult." He did take his authority from scriptures, and believed them literally. He did argue that science and faith are 2 separate domains, and one would be idiotic if they think they can discern the scientific nature of things certainly, through scripture or otherwise.

I think much of the literature on this topic is bunk.

I am, however, split on these things. I do reject evolution (at least macro-evolution), and I do believe that man could not have been on this earth much more than 6,000 years. As to the age of the earth, processes of creation etc...I don't know.

Athos believes whatever is convenient. He thinks, all lines of thinking on this regarding allegory are sufficiently well founded and thus are equally credible. Thus, the allegory cannot be understood as one thing, but a wealth of possibilities, all of which are bits of some greater (truth?) we have been denied, that the truth cannot be plainly stated in this case.

Claim #1: Genesis was intended to be literal.

This is a bold claim, but the bible itself makes this claim. In Numbers 12 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=numbers+12&version=NKJV) it says that God speaks plainly to Moses and not in dark sayings. Other examples:
1 Chronicles (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Chronicles+1-8&version=NKJV) cites the lineages all the way back to Adam as historical fact.
Psalms 29 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+29&version=NKJV) references the flood as something that actually happened.
Psalms 33 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+33&version=NKJV) affirms the creation account, and that this is the literal power of God, to create with a word.
Psalms 104 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+104&version=NKJV) affirms the creation account and the flood account. Both of which are view by the psalmist as actual history, and as a powerful reminder of the might of God.
Psalms 136 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalms+136&version=NKJV) affirms creation, the flood, Abraham, and Moses.
Isaiah 54 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiha+54&version=NKJV) God's promise to be kind to Israel, is like the promise after the flood, it will endure longer than the mountains and hills.
Ezekiel 14 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+14&version=NKJV) tells us that Noah, Daniel, and Job were righteous men, of historical significance.

There are numerous NT references, but none as powerful as the words of Christ himself in Luke 24:25-27 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24%3A25-27&version=NKJV), where he explains that the disciples were foolish to not believe the prophets and Moses, where God explained all these things to them. There is an internal consistency to both the Jewish and Christian scriptures that affirm the authorship of Moses and the historicity of many of the Genesis claims.

I doubt it was intended as allegory. Allegory is like an extended metaphor as a literary device. The ideas suggests that Story A is in place of Story B, that it shares a likeness in concept at least, to the real events of Story B. The trouble with calling Genesis allegory remains when you take account the historicity of actual people and events through scientific means. It seems to me that the greatest evidence for allegory is in the use literary devices such as symbols and the supernatural and a moral tone. These devices are connections to reality, through metaphor using the narrative of allegory; wherein Genesis there is no delineation between this supposed allegory and reality. Where does one end and another begin? We know some is historical, and provably so, why then the use of allegory within? I would contend that these must be lies, or were intended as literal history.

Genesis lacks sufficient details to account for every scientific rejection and allegorical fiction proposed. It simply says, in human terms, what happened.

Claim #2: Archaeology does not disagree.

There are many evidences for the historicity of Genesis, and much of the bible thereafter. There are references in Genesis to cities that have been discovered. There are many examples of archeology that have referenced people in Genesis.

Ur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur), Abraham's home, which God commanded him to leave.

Hattusa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattusa) then subsequently, several other Hittite cites were found.

The Nuzi Tablets (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/nuzi) shed light on near eastern culture and law, not dissimilar to the laws laid out in Genesis. It at least provides a cultural anchor for the patriarchs.

Harran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harran#Old_Assyrian_period) is the city that Abraham's father hailed from, where Abraham lived for some time.

Shechem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechem) was the city which Abraham and Isaac built altars to God in.

The Ebla Tablets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla_tablets) name many cities including Harran and others mentioned. The Genesis creation is mirrored in the following quote from a tablet found there.

Lord of heaven and earth:
the earth was not, you created it,
the light of day was not, you created it,
the morning light you had not [yet] made exist.

The Sibylline Books (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibylline_Books) of Apollos are quoted (https://archive.org/details/corysancientfrag00coryuoft/page/76/mode/2up) as following:

And all mankind one language only knew :
A dread commission from on high was given
To the fell whirlwinds, which with dire alarms
Beat on the tower, and to its lowest base
Shook it convulsed. And now all intercourse,
By some occult and overruling power,
Ceased among men. By utterance they strove,
Perplexed and anxious, to disclose their mind,
But their lip failed them ; and in lieu of words
Produced a painful babbling sound : the place
Was thence called Babel ; by the apostate crew
Named from the event. Then severed, far away
They sped, uncertain, into realms unknown :
Thus kingdoms rose, and the glad world was filled.

The Tower of Babylon stele (https://www.schoyencollection.com/history-collection-introduction/babylonian-history-collection/tower-babel-stele-ms-2063) Describes how Nebuchadnezzar II rebuilt the tower and enlarged it (c. 600 BC). It was later destroyed. The foundation which they were building upon was ancient at that time.

Theophilus Pinches, renowned assyriologist, connected 3, maybe 4 of the 5 kings listed in Genesis 14 in the Plains of Shinar (Abraham's story) to Babylonian artifacts dating back to 2300 BC. Reference Here (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38732/38732-h/38732-h.html)

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kXHkpAXlbtg/Um2SISN24qI/AAAAAAAAAyc/QRqOhx53s9Y/s1600/temptation_tablet.jpg
An Akkadian seal (c. 2300 BC) depicting a man, woman, tree with fruit, and a serpent.

There are an abundance of flood myths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths) many of which correspond to the biblical account. You see phrases like "mastless boat," "descended on a rainbow," and "brought all the animals." These myths persist in mountain peoples, desert peoples, along with those near valleys and seas.

It is clear, at least, that these stories of creation and the flood, go back very far, far enough to touch on biblical chronology, and were accurately recorded and preserved through the Jews. It is also clear that large swaths of the Genesis account can be verified by secular sources.

http://cojs.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/Semitic_Tribe_Entering_Egypt.jpg
Here is a painting from the tomb of Khnumhotep II (c. 1900 BC), "sole friend" to Pharaoh Amenemhat II showing a great many foreigners entering the land of Egypt. They have strikingly Jewish features and have bright colored cloths, bows and arrows, a multitude of livestock, etc. Much the same is recorded in Genesis 37 onward. Harps and goats! Could this be Joseph? Nevertheless, there are the Hyksos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos) and these types of historical images to deal with, that fit the biblical narrative nicely.

I'm not convinced it is Joseph. I personally lean towards Imhotep being Joseph, serving under Djoser, while his reign should be moved up 800 years (c. 1900 BC). It would also explain, why there are no references to him until 1000+ years after the accepted date, aside from that at Djoser's tomb. I also think the Egyptian Chronologies are confounded (http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/worldhis/Histapp1.html) and far from perfect. To this day, there is endless debate, yet the date of all ancient near eastern cultures is anchored on this chronology. Carbon-14 dates were calibrated using this chronology.

It cannot be critiqued simply by calling it an allegory, there are historical facts, archaeology, and actual places that can be debated. If you throw out the miracles, and Adam and Eve, you still have a decent account of the near east, with a full understanding of ancient culture and geography. How can one contend that this is simply allegory?

I will post more tomorrow. I had some thoughts on the scientific refutations against the bible, and why I reject evolution. Also, there's some cool stuff in biology and cosmology I think really illustrates the hand of God.

He (Augustine) did take his authority from scriptures, and believed them literally.

How do you reconcile that statement with this one, Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the early Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.


one would be idiotic if they think they can discern the scientific nature of things certainly, through scripture or otherwise.

Here you are contradicting your own statement above.


I do believe that man could not have been on this earth much more than 6,000 years.

This dated belief is rejected by every scientist on the planet - except for your fellow fundies.


Athos believes whatever is convenient.

After seeing what YOU believe re the earth and Augustine, what possible credibility could you have in this attack against me? Aren't you the one who railed against ad hominem attacks?


Claim #1: Genesis was intended to be literal.

This is a bold claim, but the bible itself makes this claim.

Bold claim, indeed! We've done this before. Save yourself some time and look in the archives for the discussion. A hint: you CANNOT "prove" the Bible by quoting the Bible. In other words, a claim of proof is NOT validated by citing the claim itself. Why can't you people understand this?


The trouble with calling Genesis allegory remains when you take account the historicity of actual people and events through scientific means.

Fine. Let's do that. Science says; A) Findings in population genetics, particularly those concerning Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve indicate that a single first "Adam and Eve" pair of human beings never existed, B) There has never been a world-wide flood that killed the human race except for Noah, C) Humans never lived to 900 years old, D) Reptiles do not speak any human languages, E) Creation could not have been done in six days, and so on.


We know some is historical, and provably so, why then the use of allegory within?

Allegory is always couched in factual ideas like geographical place-names to give it verisimilitude. Otherwise it would be unrecognizable. The allegory itself is within the story - where else could it be?


I would contend that these (allegories) must be lies, or were intended as literal history.

Is it your contention that a talking reptile is a lie, OR intended as literal history?


Genesis lacks sufficient details to account for every scientific rejection and allegorical fiction proposed. It simply says, in human terms, what happened.

YES, YES, YES. That is exactly what has been said by members all through this debate. It tells a story(s) in simple terms that the human listeners can understand. Like a child being told a bedtime story about animals that tell the little boy or little girl to be a good little boy or girl. Genesis is a story like that suited to grown-ups.

If you reply, please reply to the points I've made. If you do so, I promise to read them and consider them carefully. Thank you.

If you reply, please reply to the points I've made. If you do so, I promise to read them and consider them carefully. Thank you.


You have not addressed my points, and yet again butchered what I said to get the upper hand...



one would be idiotic if they think they can discern the scientific nature of things certainly, through scripture or otherwise.


Here you are contradicting your own statement above.



Read the whole paragraph. I was talking about what Augustine believed, not what some nameless author wrote about him.

First:



It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian."


Second:



With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.


Augustine believed that the creation account was not accurately understood, but he also believed, that it was not a necessary part of salvation. The bible teaches us the things that are necessary for salvation, and this is not part of it. He also believed the sciences to be in error, and that one cannot fully understand these things.



He thinks, all lines of thinking on this regarding allegory are sufficiently well founded and thus are equally credible. Thus, the allegory cannot be understood as one thing, but a wealth of possibilities, all of which are bits of some greater (truth?) we have been denied, that the truth cannot be plainly stated in this case.


After seeing what YOU believe re the earth and Augustine, what possible credibility could you have in this attack against me? Aren't you the one who railed against ad hominem attacks?


Context. Do you disagree with my characterization of you? This is how you have described your beliefs in the past. Maybe I missed something, but this was not an attack.



A hint: you CANNOT "prove" the Bible by quoting the Bible. In other words, a claim of proof is NOT validated by citing the claim itself. Why can't you people understand this?


Again, misunderstanding the text.

If you read further you will understand the meaning of this claim:



There is an internal consistency to both the Jewish and Christian scriptures that affirm the authorship of Moses and the historicity of many of the Genesis claims.


Furthermore, the bible is collection of works by different authors at different dates. My references are other sources within this same body of work. This was the point of "Claim #1" That similar sources and other's that references it are consistent, it was not intended as allegory.

I guess rather than taking on the sources you would rather stab at the dark and complain about your feelings being hurt.



The trouble with calling Genesis allegory remains when you take account the historicity of actual people and events through scientific means. It seems to me that the greatest evidence for allegory is in the use literary devices such as symbols and the supernatural and a moral tone.


Fine. Let's do that. Science says; A) Findings in population genetics, particularly those concerning Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve indicate that a single first "Adam and Eve" pair of human beings never existed, B) There has never been a world-wide flood that killed the human race except for Noah, C) Humans never lived to 900 years old, D) Reptiles do not speak any human languages, E) Creation could not have been done in six days, and so on.


I address the historical claims outside the bible in Claim #2, none of which you addressed here. I will get to those things you claim without any sources or specific research.

You prove yourself a follower of Science! Oh almighty science! Some religion you got there. Hint: Science doesn't say anything, its an investigative process, which you seem ill equipped to do for yourself. What you mean, is "the conclusions of scientist Richard Dawkins" or whoever you ascribe authority to.



Allegory is always couched in factual ideas like geographical place-names to give it verisimilitude. Otherwise it would be unrecognizable. The allegory itself is within the story - where else could it be?


Precisely. You must verify allegory based on internal consistency. Then you must be able to use the literary devices of symbolism and tone to identify the reality. What is the allegory pointing to. The allegory of Plato's Cave, is pointing to the difference between belief and knowledge. A great illustration. The symbols of the puppets and the shadows illustrate the unseen parts of reality...

See where I'm going with this.



Genesis lacks sufficient details to account for every scientific rejection and allegorical fiction proposed. It simply says, in human terms, what happened.


YES, YES, YES. That is exactly what has been said by members all through this debate. It tells a story(s) in simple terms that the human listeners can understand. Like a child being told a bedtime story about animals that tell the little boy or little girl to be a good little boy or girl. Genesis is a story like that suited to grown-ups.



More mischaracterization. It is plainly written, in a way humans can understand. NOT It is a story (implying fictitious elements) that humans can understand.

It still stands, that this would be a good history, according to secular research, of the ancient near east (if only those darn miracles weren't there). In saying this, I assert that it cannot be allegory if it is history.

I further assert, that if Genesis is allegory, that if it was butchered through the ages, then it was done so by educated peoples.

By people who knew the histories, but changed what they wished. This would imply malicious intent.

Either way, if Genesis is allegory, then it cannot be used as either a historical or moral document. The authoritative claims made within would have no standing, and their true meaning would be indiscernible.

Thus there cannot be any greater truth.

I further assert, that if Genesis is allegory, that if it was butchered through the ages, then it was done so by educated peoples.
I'm avidly following this discussion.

Athos' original question has to do only with the creation accounts in Genesis -- not the entire book of Genesis.

Better?

1.
I told you more than once that you are confused by"allegory" and "moral". YOU are the one who claimed allegories must have morals. Now you claim I "have no view on the moral of the supposed allegory." This is such a good example of how you try to obfuscate a topic. You create a false premise than you challenge others to defend it. I'm not sure if you're purposely deceitful or just dopey.

I wish you'd make your mind up. You posted earlier, "I HAVE NEVER DENIED THAT ALLEGORIES DON'T HAVE MORALS. WHY IN THE WORLD DO YOU KEEP INSISTING I DID SAY THAT? Yeah, I put that in caps for emphasis."

Then you replied to my definition from the web (a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.) by saying, "THAT IS TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I NEVER SAID IT WASN'T. One of us (or both) has a real problem communicating."

Hmmm. You're right about one thing. One of us has a real problem communicating, and that person seems greatly confused. Even WG quickly posted her view on it. What is yours, now that you are on record as agreeing that allegories DO have moral messages?

2. Great reply by Info to the issue of archaeology.

3.
Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the early Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.And again, that is a paraphrase of what Augustine supposedly said. And if it is YOUR paraphrase, then I am immediately suspicious.

4.
No, it's mostly about your pre-emption of the discussion and about the fear expressed by you in all your claims about my ignorance. Some day you'll discover how obvious you are.Promises, promises. You cannot possibly defend your position on aionios meaning less than eternal without answering several pointed questions for which there are no logical answers.

5. There is not a word of any kind in the Bible that any of the authors of the Bible, nor Jesus for that matter, regarded any part of Genesis to be allegorical. That, of course, does not include WG's claim that God told her otherwise. I can understand a debate on the length of the days in Genesis 1. I can understand skepticism about the flood. It is the hardest element of Genesis for me to accept. My big question is, where did the water go? What happened to several thousand feet of water that appeared from who knows where? I don't have an answer to that other than the hand of God made it possible. The God who raised His Son from the dead and made everything that exists could handle that with no problem. I just see no reason not to believe Genesis.

Athos' original question has to do only with the creation accounts in Genesis -- not the entire book of Genesis.


Fair enough. I'm trying to establish that the book of Genesis, was not intended as allegory.

That it was intended and perceived as history. That it was not out of alignment with the thinking of the ancients, etc.

Fair enough. I'm trying to establish that the book of Genesis, was not intended as allegory.

That it was intended and perceived as history. That it was not out of alignment with the thinking of the ancients, etc.
We all know and accept that the book itself, as a whole, was not intended as an allegory. Stories within it were allegories to teach a greater truth.

We all know and accept that the book itself, as a whole, was not intended as an allegory. Stories within it were allegories to teach a greater truth.


If it was intended as a history, then it would contain no allegory. History is a collection of stories. There is no clear delineation between which stories are historical and allegorical.

If there's a greater truth, then it must be allegory. Which is it? Which story is allegorical, and which isn't? What grounds do you have for drawing these conclusions?

Stories within it were allegories to teach a greater truth.Except that there is no indication that any author of the Bible believed that to be true.

If it was intended as a history, then it would contain no allegory.
Written and spoken histories are full of allegories, parables, and other literary devices that use a place, a character, an event to establish a truth or to send a warning or to instruct.

If there's a greater truth, then it must be allegory. Which is it? Which story is allegorical, and which isn't? What grounds do you have for drawing these conclusions?
Do you want a spreadsheet drawn from the book of Genesis?

A spreadsheet drawn by who? If you, then what is your standard in deciding what is allegorical vs. what is historical?

A) Findings in population genetics, particularly those concerning Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve indicate that a single first "Adam and Eve" pair of human beings never existed,
B) There has never been a world-wide flood that killed the human race except for Noah,
C) Humans never lived to 900 years old,
D) Reptiles do not speak any human languages,
E) Creation could not have been done in six days, and so on.


Fact A, population genetics.



Since our species arose as a continuous population that gradually diverged from other hominins, there is no reason to expect that all of our DNA variation will come back to a common ancestor (or coalesce, to use the technical term) within our species.




It is important to note that this does not prove that Y-Chromosomal Adam was the only man alive before he started having children. This only proves that his descendants are the only ones to have survived. Likewise, Mitochondrial Eve was not necessarily the only woman alive before having children. Rather, all we know for sure is that she is at least one of the ancestors of all living humans. While contemporaries of hers may or may not figure into the ancestry of living humans, we can at least say that none of their mitochondrial-DNA has survived.

Scientists who share the Darwinian bias naturally presume that these two were not the only humans alive during their pre-child bearing lifetimes, while biblical creationists naturally presume that they were. As for determining when these two actually lived respectively, the conventional perspective is founded upon uniformitarian assumptions which many creationists reject, and with fair reason.


There are limits to this theory. It does indeed assume that our DNA originated from one source. The true argument is not in this theory, but in the origination of the first DNA. Secularist assume it came from a diverse population of proto-hominins while creationists assert that it was Adam and Eve as recorded in the bible.



For reasons that have to do with population genetics, both evolutionists and Darwin-skeptics believe that all living humans trace back to a common female ancestor, and a common male ancestor. As regards the “biblical” Adam and Eve, the question is whether these two lived at the same time and could have been a couple that was the progenitor of the genomes of all members of the entire human race, or whether they lived at different times and places and only passed on their mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes to us while a much larger chrono-population gave rise to our non-sex chromosomes (autosomes).


Secular limits of y-Adam and m-Eve are in the earliest common ancestor. It cannot tell us anything before that.

The claims of evolution are made "truth" according to secularists by showing the DNA similarities in a human fossil, that must be very old.

Not in the theory of y-Adam and m-Eve.

A spreadsheet drawn by who? If you, then what is your standard in deciding what is allegorical vs. what is historical?
Confrontational today, aren't we!

Written and spoken histories are full of allegories, parables, and other literary devices that use a place, a character, an event to establish a truth or to send a warning or to instruct.

Examples?



Do you want a spreadsheet drawn from the book of Genesis?

That would be wonderful actually.

Evasive today, aren’t we?

I offered you a civil discussion but you declined. So be it. I'll play your game.


You have not addressed my points, and yet again butchered what I said to get the upper hand...


I was talking about what Augustine believed, not what some nameless author wrote about him.


Do you disagree with my characterization of you? This is how you have described your beliefs in the past. Maybe I missed something


If you read further you will understand the meaning of this claim


I guess rather than taking on the sources you would rather stab at the dark and complain about your feelings being hurt.


I address the historical claims outside the bible in Claim #2, none of which you addressed here. I will get to those things you claim without any sources or specific research.


You prove yourself a follower of Science! Oh almighty science! Some religion you got there.


its an investigative process, which you seem ill equipped to do for yourself


More mischaracterization.

If you ever decide to be civil, I'll be more than happy to respond to whatever you write.

In the meantime, please explain to this benighted believer in science exactly how reptiles can speak in Englsh (or Aramaic, or Hebrew, or any other language).

A) Findings in population genetics, particularly those concerning Y-Chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve indicate that a single first "Adam and Eve" pair of human beings never existed,
B) There has never been a world-wide flood that killed the human race except for Noah,
C) Humans never lived to 900 years old,
D) Reptiles do not speak any human languages,
E) Creation could not have been done in six days, and so on.


Fact B: There has never been a worldwide flood.

The assumptions that there was or was not a flood can be held in full view of the evidences.

The conclusions drawn by secularists are plenty lacking, and the same evidence, when used for a flood is plenty reasonable.

Secularists reject divine intervention, and anything but a naturalistic explanation for all geologic evidences. Thus, their conclusions are biased. The same can be said for creationists, their biases are their initial assumptions when looking at the same evidences.

Lets look at some evidence.

When we look at the geologic column, we find sediments on sediments, containing a record of life on earth.

Aside from radiometric dating, there is no clear evidence as to when these deposits were made. As a matter of fact, radiometric dating is useless, as the sediments are older than the fossils that are contained within them.

For this reason you will find that in many of the studies of archaeology, the rocks are dated to the era that corresponds to the fossils that are contained within them or near them. In other instances, you will find that the fossils have no other evidence for their age, except that they contain certain rocks near them. Can you see the circular logic here?

http://detectingdesign.com/images/Geology/Grand%20Canyon.jpg

Between these layers, are nice clean lines. You can see that in this photo of the grand canyon. The layers of millions of years, stacked up, then later revealed by the erosion forces of water and wind, to give you this picturesque view. Where is the erosion between the layers? Why have hills and valleys not been carved, and newer sediments been poured in these voids?

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P9Bw-rpe_Lo/VSK1mrwPwhI/AAAAAAAARMg/y8zTU0gTV6c/s1600/090B-Image%2BFossilezed%2BTrees.jpg

These are called polystrate fossils. They are fossilized trees. They were fossilized standing up, and penetrate several layers of rocks. How can a dead tree be buried, and fossilized, by slow growing sediments over thousands or millions of years? Some of these polystrates penetrate layers that are dated to be more than a million years apart. Its also curious that there is a lack of study of these fossils in the literature. They are noticed and never explained.

https://askjohnmackay.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/leaves-dolomite-r.jpg
Here are some leaves, fossilized in diatomaceous rock layers in south central Queensland Australia.



Sedimentation rate of diatomaceous ooze is 2-10 mm in thousand years.


Yet these soft leaves stand upright between many layers?

We have modern evidence of canyons being carved in a matter of days:

Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River
Palouse Canyon

Trilobite fossils have no signs of erosion when carved out of limestone rocks. (I have donated my collection of trilobites to the local highschool a decade ago)



Marine limestone comes together when seawater with high concentrations of chemicals as they dissolve. The surface layer of the material is usually coral, clams, and other sea creatures that use the same chemicals in their shells. The composite of those things merges together and creates the limestone over a period of time.




Cephalopod limestones of this age, deposited on the platform, represent a very diverse facies pattern comprising quartz-rich brachiopod coquinas, crinoidal limestones, thick-bedded cephalopod limestones and nodular limestones. Sedimentation rates ranged from 1 to 5 mm/ 1000 yr.


Deposition rates of 1-5mm/thousand years...yet

https://media.kgov.com/files/polystrate-trilobite-in-limestone.jpg

These are the types of fossils we find within this deposition.

The secularists have to create several catastrophes to account for the several layers that seem to wipe out all life on earth (kind of like a flood).

I could go on and on...There is plenty of evidence that a flood is at least possible, but the conclusions of people that think the flood was a historical myth, take the same evidences and say otherwise. Its the assumptions present that require millions of years, not the evidence.

Most fossils require rapid deposition...like a flood.

Many fossils contain soft tissues...like bones found today, never mineralized, and containing collagenous material that should decay before millions of years.

If you ever decide to be civil, I'll be more than happy to respond to whatever you write.I've lived long enough to hear it all now. I wanted to laugh out loud when I read this. Do you really think you are in a position to lecture others on civility?

Examples?
George Orwell's novel 1984 is a political allegory that focuses on the effects of a totalitarian government on its citizens.

This little piggie (a Wall Street tycoon) went to market,
This little piggie (someone quarantining during the pandemic) stayed home,
This little piggie (big, muscular army guy) had roast beef,
This little piggie (a homeless man) had none,
And this little piggie (a manipulative person seeking pity) cried, “Wee! Wee! Wee!”
All the way home.

"Historical allegories: Writing in this category allegorizes historical figures and events. Writers of this kind of allegory may be using symbols to mask the true subject of their writing (for instance, to avoid censorship or punishment), or to effectively distill a complex history into a more simplified and vivid story that will engage readers on an emotional and aesthetic level.

A good example of this type of allegory is George Orwell's Animal Farm, which corresponds pretty closely to the events of the Russian revolution. "https://www.litcharts.com/literary-devices-and-terms/allegory

So this allegorical tale had a moral lesson? Interesting!

So this allegorical tale had a moral lesson? Interesting!
Which allegory?

Claim #2:

In your (uncivil) reply to me, you claimed this post had extra-Biblical proof of Genesis. Let's see.


There are many evidences for the historicity of Genesis, and much of the bible thereafter.

No one here (including me) ever doubted that the Bible and/or Genesis contain references to actual places, people and events. That's why the Bible is so valuable as a source and resource.


There are references in Genesis to cities that have been discovered.

That was never in contention.


There are many examples of archeology that have referenced people in Genesis.Ur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur), Abraham's home, which God commanded him to leave.

Here is where you're starting to go wrong. Your list mentions NO names of Biblical people. It mentions Abraham's city but not his name. Same with the other names - what is mentioned are associations with the names, but never the actual names. Strike one. I've included your citations so all can see.


Hattusa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattusa) then subsequently, several other Hittite cites were found.

The Nuzi Tablets (https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/nuzi) shed light on near eastern culture and law, not dissimilar to the laws laid out in Genesis. It at least provides a cultural anchor for the patriarchs.

Harran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harran#Old_Assyrian_period) is the city that Abraham's father hailed from, where Abraham lived for some time.

Shechem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechem) was the city which Abraham and Isaac built altars to God in.

The Ebla Tablets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebla_tablets) name many cities including Harran and others mentioned. The Genesis creation is mirrored in the following quote from a tablet found there.

Lord of heaven and earth:
the earth was not, you created it,
the light of day was not, you created it,
the morning light you had not [yet] made exist.

One slight correction. It is not the Genesis creation that is mirrored, as you seem to think, but the opposite - the tablet is mirrored in the much later Genesis.


The Sibylline Books (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibylline_Books) of Apollos are quoted (https://archive.org/details/corysancientfrag00coryuoft/page/76/mode/2up) as following:

And all mankind one language only knew :
A dread commission from on high was given
To the fell whirlwinds, which with dire alarms
Beat on the tower, and to its lowest base
Shook it convulsed. And now all intercourse,
By some occult and overruling power,
Ceased among men. By utterance they strove,
Perplexed and anxious, to disclose their mind,
But their lip failed them ; and in lieu of words
Produced a painful babbling sound : the place
Was thence called Babel ; by the apostate crew
Named from the event. Then severed, far away
They sped, uncertain, into realms unknown :
Thus kingdoms rose, and the glad world was filled.

The Tower of Babylon stele (https://www.schoyencollection.com/history-collection-introduction/babylonian-history-collection/tower-babel-stele-ms-2063) Describes how Nebuchadnezzar II rebuilt the tower and enlarged it (c. 600 BC). It was later destroyed. The foundation which they were building upon was ancient at that time.

The Tower of Babel is simply another myth like the Flood that was part of the culture of ancient peoples. Like the Flood, it precedes Genesis and is clearly designed in Genesis as a lesson for the Hebrews.


Theophilus Pinches, renowned assyriologist, connected 3, maybe 4 of the 5 kings listed in Genesis 14 in the Plains of Shinar (Abraham's story) to Babylonian artifacts dating back to 2300 BC.

(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38732/38732-h/38732-h.html)What does this prove other than the writers of Genesis were aware of 3-5 kings in Shinar?


An Akkadian seal (c. 2300 BC) depicting a man, woman, tree with fruit, and a serpent.

This indicates that the Adam and Eve and the serpent story was also copied from other sources like the Flood and Babel.


There are an abundance of flood myths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths) many of which correspond to the biblical account.

Yes, MYTHS(!) already discussed. None prove the planetary destruction of the human race.


It is clear, at least, that these stories of creation and the flood, go back very far, far enough to touch on biblical chronology, and were accurately recorded and preserved through the Jews.

Not accurate enough to support a world-wide flood. A big local flood, but not planet-wide, obviously.


It is also clear that large swaths of the Genesis account can be verified by secular sources.

What, specifically, are these "large swaths"? Your claim is not at all clear, if you're suggesting it supports the truth of the Genesis stories I've mentioned.



Here is a painting from the tomb of Khnumhotep II (c. 1900 BC), "sole friend" to Pharaoh Amenemhat II showing a great many foreigners entering the land of Egypt. They have strikingly Jewish features and have bright colored cloths, bows and arrows, a multitude of livestock, etc. Much the same is recorded in Genesis 37 onward. Harps and goats! Could this be Joseph? Nevertheless, there are the Hyksos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos) and these types of historical images to deal with, that fit the biblical narrative nicely.

I'm not convinced it is Joseph. I personally lean towards Imhotep being Joseph, serving under Djoser, while his reign should be moved up 800 years (c. 1900 BC). It would also explain, why there are no references to him until 1000+ years after the accepted date, aside from that at Djoser's tomb. I also think the Egyptian Chronologies are confounded (http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/worldhis/Histapp1.html) and far from perfect. To this day, there is endless debate, yet the date of all ancient near eastern cultures is anchored on this chronology. Carbon-14 dates were calibrated using this chronology.

If this is supposed to be proof of Genesis, you have a long way to go.


It cannot be critiqued simply by calling it an allegory,

If you're referring to the above paintings, no one is calling it an allegory. As far as I know, no one here has called it anything.


If you throw out the miracles, and Adam and Eve, you still have a decent account of the near east, with a full understanding of ancient culture and geography. How can one contend that this is simply allegory?

The allegory consists of those parts you say can be thrown out. The miracles and Adam, etc., etc.

Summary: You have not proven your claim that Genesis was intended to be literal.

I've lived long enough to hear it all now. I wanted to laugh out loud when I read this. Do you really think you are in a position to lecture others on civility?

Certainly to you!


Jlisenbe is the troll who believes babies are roasted in hell for all eternity because they didn't believe in Jesus when they died as infants. He claims that all humanity, including babies and innocents, goes to hell unless they believe in Jesus. No exceptions. Keep that in mind when reading anything he says on these pages.

Fact B: There has never been a worldwide flood. The conclusions drawn by secularists are plenty lacking, and the same evidence, when used for a flood is plenty reasonable.

"Secularists" conclusions are lacking, so WHOSE conclusions are "plenty reasonable"? Not a good start, infojunkie.


Secularists reject divine intervention, and anything but a naturalistic explanation for all geologic evidences. Thus, their conclusions are biased.

When I see statements like this, I wonder why I'm even having a conversation with this guy. Science is biased? Against what? Oh, divine intervention. Ok, got it. (Twilight Zone music here).


The same can be said for creationists, their biases are their initial assumptions when looking at the same evidences. Lets look at some evidence.

Yeah, let's.

I cut all the pictures to save bandwidth. Those interested can see them in the original post.


When we look at the geologic column, we find sediments on sediments, containing a record of life on earth.

Aside from radiometric dating, there is no clear evidence as to when these deposits were made. As a matter of fact, radiometric dating is useless, as the sediments are older than the fossils that are contained within them.

For this reason you will find that in many of the studies of archaeology, the rocks are dated to the era that corresponds to the fossils that are contained within them or near them. In other instances, you will find that the fossils have no other evidence for their age, except that they contain certain rocks near them. Can you see the circular logic here?

Between these layers, are nice clean lines. You can see that in this photo of the grand canyon. The layers of millions of years, stacked up, then later revealed by the erosion forces of water and wind, to give you this picturesque view. Where is the erosion between the layers? Why have hills and valleys not been carved, and newer sediments been poured in these voids?

These are called polystrate fossils. They are fossilized trees. They were fossilized standing up, and penetrate several layers of rocks. How can a dead tree be buried, and fossilized, by slow growing sediments over thousands or millions of years? Some of these polystrates penetrate layers that are dated to be more than a million years apart. Its also curious that there is a lack of study of these fossils in the literature. They are noticed and never explained.

Here are some leaves, fossilized in diatomaceous rock layers in south central Queensland Australia.

Yet these soft leaves stand upright between many layers?

We have modern evidence of canyons being carved in a matter of days:

Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River
Palouse Canyon

Trilobite fossils have no signs of erosion when carved out of limestone rocks. (I have donated my collection of trilobites to the local highschool a decade ago)

Deposition rates of 1-5mm/thousand years...yet

These are the types of fossils we find within this deposition.

The secularists have to create several catastrophes to account for the several layers that seem to wipe out all life on earth (kind of like a flood).

I could go on and on...There is plenty of evidence that a flood is at least possible, but the conclusions of people that think the flood was a historical myth, take the same evidences and say otherwise. Its the assumptions present that require millions of years, not the evidence.

Not to get too personal infojunkie, but do you seriously believe anyone here (excepting the obvious) is going to buy your lengthy cut-and-paste-with-pictures as proof of a global flood?

Even YOU say at the end, 'a flood is at least possible". That's not exactly proof, is it? In fact, "at least possible" is about as low a bar as possible for any proof of anything.

Your anti-science bias is palpable, yet you cite loads of science in your disquisition.

Using your brainpower like a thought experiment, how does this anti-scientific conclusion stack up against millions of years occurring within the 6,000 years since creation?

I understand your need to defend a literal Bible, but it's not necessary to defend a literal Bible to believe in God.

It's not necessary, you're absolutely correct. However, there has been scientific bias against the bible since it's inception. 150 years of archaeology have confirmed all but the very beginning of Genesis. In time those things will be revealed also. The scientists have had to concede age after age. Once upon a time David was a myth, Solomon was a myth, Pontius Pilot was a myth... On and on it goes.

You have yet to engage the content. If you don't like my flood story, maybe take a look yourself at the evidences. I have more, I've been researching these things for more than a decade. As time goes on, there are more and more people that have been revealed to have existed.

You should look into the work of Bill Cooper, and his work on the table of nations. He explored European and near east chronologies and is able to connect them to the table of nations.

The creationists have established quite a repetior of geologists, geneticists, philosophers, and other such scientists. They have published articles in several journals, they have done extensive research on the flood. If you prefer though, you don't have to engage with the content. You can dismiss them like the majority of the scientific community, just don't pretend you follow the facts, they might be inconvenient.

I set the bar low when I talk to skeptics, is the best chance of finding common ground.

It's not necessary, you're absolutely correct. However, there has been scientific bias against the bible since it's inception.

By "inception", do you mean since the Bible reached its present form around the 4th century AD? I don't think your statement is true. Scientific evidence challenging Genesis began around Galileo after more than a thousand years of wide-spread acceptance in Christendom.


150 years of archaeology have confirmed all but the very beginning of Genesis.

By "confirmed", and based on your last post, I assume you mean verifying the existence of cities mentioned in Genesis. In no way does that confirm the events specific to Genesis - if that's what you're claiming.


In time those things will be revealed also.

Are "those things" the creation stories, et al? If that's what you mean, what is your reason for making such a claim? As you can tell by my questions, your comments were a bit vague.


The scientists have had to concede age after age.

What have the scientists had to concede age after age? Specifically.


Once upon a time David was a myth, Solomon was a myth, Pontius Pilot was a myth... On and on it goes.

I was unaware that David or Solomon or Pontius Pilate were ever considered myths. Certainly Pilate is attested from documents other than the Gospel and was never considered a myth. David and Solomon always seemed like historical characters. Who are the others, "on and on it goes"?


You have yet to engage the content

There is no need to. Once you admitted the story is "at least possible", that removed any possibility of real evidence in your study. You clearly imply with that comment that you don't believe the flood story, or at best, that you reserve belief until evidence is forthcoming.


If you don't like my flood story, maybe take a look yourself at the evidences. I have more, I've been researching these things for more than a decade.

See above. After a decade of research, you still can't provide evidence of the Flood. There's nothing to take a look at. Again, see above and your own conclusion of maybe it happened. At least it was possible, you wrote. Hardly a ringing endorsement of proof.


As time goes on, there are more and more people that have been revealed to have existed.

I don't doubt that there are Biblical figures who have been identified extra-Biblically, but how does that make the Genesis myths not myths?


The creationists have established quite a repetior of geologists, geneticists, philosophers, and other such scientists. They have published articles in several journals, they have done extensive research on the flood.

If you know their extensive research, why didn't you provide it here and overcome your "at least possible" thesis?


If you prefer though, you don't have to engage with the content.

I did engage - all the way to your conclusion of it being at least possible.


You can dismiss them like the majority of the scientific community, just don't pretend you follow the facts, they might be inconvenient.

I DID follow the facts, at least the facts you presented. And, for the third time, your conclusion was the flood might have been possible.

I'm still wondering how reptiles can speak. Did your creationists have any research on that?

Jl contends Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. He quotes the Bible verses below as proof of his contention.


Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Matthew 5:22. “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

There are 36 more (!) but they are not copied here to make the reply manageable. They can be seen by the reader at Post #22 in this thread above. I will refer to them by Jl's number.

I contend the opposite – that Jesus does NOT condemn unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. I will rebut Jl's verses and add some of my own to support my contention.


Verse Omits One Or More Of Three Essentials (unbelievers, hell, eternal punishment).


A metaphor designed to frighten sinners by threat of punishment. Omits, unbelievers, hell, and eternal.
Omits unbelievers and eternal punishment.
Omits unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment.
Omits unbelievers and eternal punishment.
Another metaphor and irrelevant. One wonders why this was included.
Omits any mention of unbelievers or eternal punishment.
Omits unbelievers. Note the fire is eternal, not the one cast.
Omits unbelievers.
Completely irrelevant.
A repeat of #1. See above.
Omits unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment.
The Parable of Lazarus – clearly a metaphor to support helping others while alive.
Omits unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment.
Completely irrelevant to topic.
Also irrelevant.
Also irrelevant. Jl is throwing verses in just to throw verses in.
A clear description of unbelievers being punished, “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our LORD Jesus “. I don't know why Jl included this one since it supports my contention.
Omits unbelievers and eternal punishment. Hell here seems to a temporary holding place for bad angels.
Another metaphor – Lot's wife becomes a “pillar of salt”.
Omits unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment. This long section from Revelation is filled with fantasy pictures as is the entire book and should be read as a comment on the Rome of Nero.
Omits unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment.




The following scriptures show God as the one who is coming to judge the earth.


I have not rebutted any of these since not one addresses the topic being discussed. Each one omits unbelievers, hell, and eternal punishment. I don't know why Jl cited them in support of his belief.

A word on “Hell”. The word does not exist in the Old Testament. There hell has as its source “Gehenna, Hades and Sheol”, none of which carry a connotation of eternal punishment for unbelievers. The author of Matthew has mistranslated, or miscopied, it from his source. Not until Augustine does Hell become a place of eternal punishment. Before that, the early Church fathers thought of hell as a place for the wicked to be annihilated.

There are many Bible verses that contradict Jl's belief. A quick sampling is Jesus' commandment to "Love the neighbor as thyself". On the cross, Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do". These are diametrically opposed to Jl's belief.

I do not contend Jesus does anything. JESUS himself says it, and says it clearly. Matthew 25 by itself is plenty of evidence where it is clearly stated, but with 35 passages that mention either hell or judgment, your task is impossible.

To suggest that the Matthew passage has been miscopied is absurd. You would have to see the original to know that, and clearly you don't have it. It's a ridiculous claim and you are basically saying that since Matthew 25 does not agree with you, then it surely must have been miscopied. It's laughably ridiculous. Your appeal to Augustine is hopeless set alongside more than thirty passages that affirm the basic message of Matthew 25. Besides, Iranaeus, who predated Augustine by two centuries, said this. "The judge … will send into eternal fire those who alter the truth, and despise his Father and his coming.”

There are no passages that contradict the words of Christ spoken over and over again. To love your neighbor certainly does not abrogate the judgement of God. Jesus praying for the forgiveness specifically of those who crucified Him doesn't either. That was pretty weak.

Your supposed replies aren't even tied to specific verses. Nonsense. This one is my favorite. Here you contradict yourself by admitting that the fires of hell (and thus hell itself) are indeed eternal. "Omits unbelievers. Note the fire is eternal, not the one cast."

When you have something reasonably well thought out, then come back and try again.

One more thought. I have no delight at all in the teaching of hell and certainly don't claim to understand it all, but I will not back away from a plain and clear principle of the Bible simply because you find it to be offensive. Nor do I intend to argue endlessly about it when you can note nothing more significant to contradict it than the two passages you quoted, neither of which had anything whatsoever to do with the subject and were preceded by this claim which you could not at all demonstrate. "There are many Bible verses that contradict Jl's belief." There were, in fact, none.

One more thought. I have no delight at all in the teaching of hell and certainly don't claim to understand it all, but I will not back away from a plain and clear principle of the Bible simply because you find it to be offensive.
So who is going to end up in hell?

Read the Matthew 25 passage to find out. Read John 3:16 to find out. Read the list of scriptures I posted to find out.

Like I said, I have no intention of endlessly arguing this one. If you can find the place where Jesus said, "Just kidding about that hell stuff, guys," then we can discuss it. Otherwise you must read your Bible and either believe it or throw it in the trash. When someone is reduced to making statements such as, "The author of Matthew has mistranslated, or miscopied, it from his source," when he doesn't have the source and thus doesn't have a clue as to whether it was miscopied, then the person is just grasping at straws and in reality has no case to make.

Read the Matthew 25 passage to find out. Read John 3:16 to find out. Read the list of scriptures I posted to find out.
After they read literalist JL's pronouncement, the mountains and hills burst into song, and all the trees of the field clapped their hands. (Is. 55:12)

Oh come on. You’re not stupid. Making a statement figurative simply because you don’t like it is nonsense. You know better. You’re making yourself look silly.

Matthew 25 is plainly not meant to be taken figuratively. It’s a sign of desperation to suggest it is. Same is true of John 3:16.

It’s just another failed use of being unable to answer the message, you attack the messenger. Sad. I expected more from you.

Oh come on. You’re not stupid. Making a statement figurative simply because you don’t like it is nonsense. You know better. You’re making yourself look silly.

Matthew 25 is plainly not meant to be taken figuratively. It’s a sign of desperation to suggest it is. Same is true of John 3:16.

It’s just another failed use of being unable to answer the message, you attack the messenger. Sad. I expected more from you.
As Jonathan Swift so eloquently said in “Polite Conversation”, “There are none so blind as JL and those who will not see” -- paraphrased from Jeremiah 5:12: “Hear now this, oh foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears and hear not.”

And again. No answers to serious questions, so you resort to silly personal attacks. Won’t work. People are smarter than that. You abandoned the texts in question to chase rabbits. Given the choice between believing you or believing Jesus, I’m going with Jesus.

Besides, I am choosing to take your statement figuratively to mean that you fully agree with my view of the subject.

To love your neighbor certainly does not abrogate the judgement of God


Jesus said the second commandment - Love thy neighbor as thyself - was like the first which was to Love God with your whole mind, heart, and soul.

Every person who has ever read this knows instantly that "neighbor" means all other people. Especially when "as thyself" is prominently included in the commandment. In spite of this commandment to love your neighbor, you have Jesus condemning to hell for eternity those neighbors who believe differently than you. They may have never heard of Jesus, lived before Jesus lived, or simply didn't believe in Jesus. Jesus condemning these people to eternal punishment in hell is as far from an act of love as is possible. If you maintain that God the Father is the ultimate judge who does the condemning, than you are faced with the contradiction of God the Father denying the commandment of God the Son.



Jesus praying for the forgiveness specifically of those who crucified Him doesn't either. That was pretty weak.

On the cross, Jesus, God the Son, asked his father, God the Father, "to forgive them, for they know not what they do".
According to you, when these unbelievers died Jesus would condemn them to hell for eternal punishment. If Jesus asked they be forgiven and God the Father already forgave them, why would God (the judge) or Jesus (God the Son) send them to hell?

I haven’t condemned anyone to anything. Nothing is according to me. I have quoted Jesus whom you do not believe. Posting the two great commandments does nothing to amend his statements. I have no regard for what you think. I have regard for the words of Christ. The one who established the two great commandments also spoke of hell and judgment as very real. You are cherry-picking only what you like. Thanks for giving WG a demonstration of the real thing.

I haven’t condemned anyone to anything. Nothing is aacoeding to me. I have quoted Jesus whom you do not believe. Posting the two great commandments does nothing to amend his statements.
No, you've cherry-picked Jesus' words and tweaked His meaning to fit your personal beliefs and hopes.

I haven’t ascribed meaning. I have provided a tidal wave of the words of Jesus and the New Testament. You have rejected it since it does not agree with you. Too bad. There’s really nothing else to be said. Pitiful excuses don’t amount to clear thinking.

I haven’t ascribed meaning. I have provided a tidal wave of the words of Jesus and the New Testament. You have rejected it since it does not agree with you.
I have rejected your understanding of Jesus' words.

I haven’t given you my understanding. I simply supplied his words. You reject them.

I haven’t given you my understanding. I simply supplied his words. You reject them.
Your LITERAL understanding....

I have given you no description at all. You have rejected his words.

I have given you no description at all. You have rejected his words.
Your LITERAL understanding of the verses you've cherrypicked to prove your point....

I have not given you my understanding literal or otherwise. You have rejected Christ.

And your cherry pick contention of 35 verses is simply stupid. You know better than that.

But I tell you what. You post all the verses that say there is no hell or judgment and we can discuss it. Until then there is nothing left to discuss.

Until then there is nothing left to discuss.
Okey doke. I'll wave to you from heaven.

Typical reply.

Typical reply.
And he always wants the last word....

I haven’t condemned anyone to anything.

You support the false teaching on hell. Same thing. You are quick to call others cowards, yet you yourself refuse to explain your belief other than "The Bible told me so". Nothing is more cowardly.


Posting the two great commandments does nothing to amend his statements.

They amend YOUR support of eternal punishment in hell for unbelievers. The two great commandments are the exact opposite of your belief. How do you explain the contradiction between Jesus' commandment and Matthew's line you love to quote? Both can't be true. You can go along with Matthew. I'll follow Jesus.


I have regard for the words of Christ. The one who established the two great commandments also spoke of hell and judgment as very real.

Then explain why the two contradict each other. You can't, can you? I'm not trying to embarrass you. I'm trying to open your eyes.


You are cherry-picking only what you like.

No, my Bible verses represent the main thrust of Jesus' message, no way are they cherry-picking. They also represent the long evolution of the OT to the NT of Christ.

I haven’t supported anything. I haven’t told you my beliefs. I have posted the MANY passages where Jesus spoke on the subject. You reject him so you reject his word and even characterize it as a false teaching. So the words spoken by Christ are a false teaching since it doesn’t agree with you. Incredible.

They don’t contradict. One speaks of love and others of judgment. They are not mutually exclusive.

when you refer to two passages and ignore 35 then you are cherry picking.

when you refer to two passages and ignore 35 then you are cherry picking.
When you refer to 35 verses and ignore the remaining 31,067 and what God was telling us in them, you are cherry picking.

Like I said above. Show me where Jesus said there is no hell and no judgment and we can discuss it. Until then it’s silliness

Read about cherry picking. You don’t understand it. It’s just a silly excuse you’re using.

I haven’t supported anything. I haven’t told you my beliefs

That's the problem. You refuse to tell your beliefs, and you claim you haven't supported anything. What were all those Bible verses you offered? What were they supporting?


You reject him so you reject his word and even characterize it as a false teaching. So the words spoken by Christ are a false teaching since it doesn’t agree with you. Incredible.

What is truly incredible is your gross inability to understand the plain language of words challenging your belief.


They don’t contradict. One speaks of love and others of judgment.

Of course they contradict. One speaks of love and the other sending unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. Are you blind?


They are not mutually exclusive.when you refer to two passages and ignore 35 then you are cherry picking.

I rebutted every single passage you offered as proof. There were 33 in post 22 of yours - not 35. My rebuttal was in post 97. Go read it.

They were the words of the New Testament which you reject.

I have no argument with the plain language of words.

It is the love of God that provides an Avenue of grace and mercy to avoid judgment. There is no contradiction. Jesus is not the author of a false teaching as you suggested he was.

Your rebuttal was nonsense. It is not possible to rebut 32 plain and clear passages. But I was glad to see you affirm that there is a hell.

To suggest that the Matthew passage has been miscopied is absurd. You would have to see the original to know that,

Here's another area you don't understand. It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated). As any exegete knows, a document can be internally inconsistent without having the original document for comparison. The inconsistency in Matthew lies with the contradictions explained to you.


you are basically saying that since Matthew 25 does not agree with you, then it surely must have been miscopied.

That's obviously not what I'm saying. I've explained it now a number of times.


Your appeal to Augustine is hopeless set alongside more than thirty passages that affirm the basic message of Matthew 25.

None of the thirty passages cited affirm the message that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. I've already rebutted every single one in my post #97.


Besides, Iranaeus, who predated Augustine by two centuries, said this. "The judge … will send into eternal fire those who alter the truth, and despise his Father and his coming.”

Augustine was the one who gave the idea widespread attention. He taught that the salamander who lived in fire was proof of an "unquenchable fire". Only problem is his salamander was mythical. Augustine had brilliance, no question. But he was also a man of his time who had some very weird notions. Some churchmen of the centuries after Jesus - Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, Clement, and others who also believed that death is a sleep, taught that the wicked are destroyed forever by fire – their punishment was to be annihilation. These leaders did not teach of an immortal soul to be tortured by fire in hell for eternity. All were prior to Augustine. Iranaeus' position on the issue is debatable, but I don't want to do that here - one issue at a time.


There are no passages that contradict the words of Christ spoken over and over again.

If you're referring to unbelievers in hell for eternal punishment, of course there are. I've given you two excellent ones.


Your supposed replies aren't even tied to specific verses.

Not supposed - they can be found in post 97. Every single one is tied to a specific verse - every-single-one.


This one is my favorite. Here you contradict yourself by admitting that the fires of hell (and thus hell itself) are indeed eternal. "Omits unbelievers. Note the fire is eternal, not the one cast."

You should be in a textbook on Reading Comprehension. Quoting someone does NOT mean you believe what is being quoted. In this case, I am debunking the idea of an eternal punishment!


"There are many Bible verses that contradict Jl's belief." There were, in fact, none.

The Bible in toto contradicts your belief re unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment. You just refuse to see it. WHY you refuse is another question. One reason is that you have never been told to examine the Bible. You have been told to accept whatever someone else has told you it said. Your position is not uncommon.

The horrific false teaching about god having a personal torture chamber for all those who don't like him is something out of Dante. It should be an easy notion to challenge. Most Christians have managed to do it.

Your description of your Matthew mistake is pompous nonsense rejected by every major translation.

After Aquinas, I believe nothing you say about Augustine.

The quote was from you. You said the fire was eternal.

They were the words of the New Testament which you reject.

No, they are your interpretation of Matthew that I reject.


I have no argument with the plain language of words.

It's your understanding of plain words where the difficulty lies.


Jesus is not the author of a false teaching as you suggested he was.

I never suggested Jesus was a false teacher. This is where your reading comprehension problem confuses you.


It is not possible to rebut 32 plain and clear passages.

Of course it is, if they are offered as proof of a false teaching. Some of them had nothing to do with the topic (I made note of those for you).


But I was glad to see you affirm that there is a hell.

I never affirmed that. I understand your frustration being confronted with some home truths that are uncomfortable for you, but that doesn't permit you to lie.

The Bible in toto is the desperate excuse used by someone who does not know the Bible and is unwilling to face the simple fact that 32 plain and clear passages cannot be refuted.

I will say it one more time for the thinking impaired. I have offered no interpretation of the Matthew passage.

you said the teaching of hell clearly affirmed by Jesus on several occasions was a false teaching. You just said it again above!!

You did affirm that the fires of hell are eternal.

But this can be settled easily. Just show us where the New Testament affirms your idea of no hell or judgment. Must be specific.

Your description of your Matthew mistake is pompous nonsense rejected by every major translation.

The Matthew verse you rely on is a copy of a copy of a copy going back to Jerome. Very few preachers outside of the evangelical fundamentalists will take that verse as you take it. The rest of Christianity denies a hell for unbelievers for eternal punishment. Ask around. You'll find it's true.


After Aquinas, I believe nothing you say about Augustine.

It's apparent you believe nothing I say about anything. That's your problem and places you in a very weak position. Take what I say by the content, not by who is saying it. You'll learn more that way.


The quote was from you. You said the fire was eternal.

Our posts may have passed each other. Refer to my post above this one for your answer to that.

PS - Just in case you missed, here it is again : You should be in a textbook on Reading Comprehension. Quoting someone does NOT mean you believe what is being quoted. In this case, I am debunking the idea of an eternal punishment!

The Bible in toto is the desperate excuse used by someone who does not know the Bible and is unwilling to face the simple fact that 32 plain and clear passages cannot be refuted.

Then how do you explain that they were refuted?


I will say it one more time for the thinking impaired. I have offered no interpretation of the Matthew passage.

Then why did you post all those Bible verses? What where you supporting?


you said the teaching of hell clearly affirmed by Jesus on several occasions was a false teaching.

Reading comp again. I never said that false teaching was affirmed by Jesus.


You just said it again above!

You are about as dense as they come.


You did affirm that the fires of hell are eternal.

No, I affirmed that the eternal punishment was not for the one "cast in". Tell me the truth - Were you really a high school principal?


But this can be settled easily. Just show us where the New Testament affirms your idea of no hell or judgment. Must be specific.

When Jesus says "Love your enemy" and "Love your neighbor" and "Father, forgive them". This requires thought beyond the surface meaning of the words. But by now, I'm not sure you are capable of that. I can't decide whether you're thinking-challenged or live in such fear of having your Bible challenged that you can't think straight.

When Jesus says "Love your enemy" and "Love your neighbor" and "Father, forgive them". This requires thought beyond the surface meaning of the words. But by now, I'm not sure you are capable of that. I can't decide whether you're thinking-challenged or live in such fear of having your Bible challenged that you can't think straight.I have posted 32 passages where judgment and hell are specifically mentioned. You have posted...none. So the score is 32-0. If you can post some passages where it is specifically stated that hell and judgment do not exist, then we can continue. Until then, your pseudo intellectual, mumbo jumbo is accomplishing nothing. Paragraphs like this are just absurdities. "Here's another area you don't understand. It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated). As any exegete knows, a document can be internally inconsistent without having the original document for comparison. The inconsistency in Matthew lies with the contradictions explained to you." You blindly overlook the fact that no one agrees with you. Should I notify the translators of the major translations of the NT and let them know that we have an accomplished exegetical specialist on AMHD that needs to tell them how to translate Matthew 25??? Should I call them tomorrow??? Better yet, let's let YOU call them. Tell us how that goes. I assure you they will find it to be amusing.


The Matthew verse you rely on is a copy of a copy of a copy going back to Jerome.Complete absurdity. There are a number of manuscripts of Matthew from the third century, predating Jerome. Parts of Matthew are dated from the second century. Virtually no one contends that Matthew was not written by Matthew in the first century. Your suggestion is yet another reason I believe very little of what you say.

Until you can man up and provide legitimate passages which specifically mention the non-existence of hell and judgment, you are dead in the water. You are welcome to believe what you will, but until you can provide evidence for your position that surpasses the laughable "in toto" argument, I'll let you argue with yourself. I'm going with the plain and clear statements of Christ whose words you reject.

But this can be settled easily. Just show us where the New Testament affirms your idea of no hell or judgment. Must be specific.
Which New Testament?

Well, in all reality there is only one, but if you want to look at that way, take your pick. Any major translation will do. But I have bad news for you. You have an impossible task. How would I know that? Because you would already have done it long ago if you could. You don't accept the words of Christ, so you are stuck in neutral. No answers.

Even worse, my list has expanded to 46. I'll post it again soon. I'll simply attach it as a Word doc if I can figure out how.

Any major translation will do.
Nope, not true at all.

You don't accept the words of Christ....
Oh, but I do -- just not YOUR interpretation.

The silly excuse of which NT has not stopped me or anyone else serious about what is going on. And for the tenth time, I have posted no interpretations. I have posted the words of Christ and of the NT which you reject. I have 46 passages now which explicitly refer to hell of judgment. Evidently I am no allowed to post them. In reply, you have...zero. So when you are prepared to do the very simple job of showing us where the NT says there is no hell and no judgment, let me know. Until then, I'm weary of this. I wish you well.

The silly excuse of which NT has not stopped me or anyone else serious about what is going on.
You're not a storyteller, are you. You're a literalist all the way. And Athos has previously described how hell got into the Bible teachings -- Gehenna, Hades, Sheol.

So when you are prepared to do the very simple job of showing us where the NT says there is no hell and no judgment, let me know. Until then, I'm weary of this. I wish you well.

I will answer these point by point to make it easier for you to comprehend. (I note you have not answered all MY points in Post # 129).



I have posted 32 passages where judgment and hell are specifically mentioned. You have posted...none. So the score is 32-0.

Every one of your bible passages has been rebutted by me in post #97. So the REAL score is in my favor. It is your job to defend what you posted as your belief. Start defending. A blanket dismissal is not a defense.


If you can post some passages where it is specifically stated that hell and judgment do not exist,

My contention is that UNBELIEVERS are not condemned to hell for eternal punishment. As stated elsewhere, you are trying to move the goalposts.


then we can continue

You threaten this often, yet you have yet to carry out the threat. You keep coming back. It's been, what? 2 or 3 years, now? In any case, you do not dictate the terms of the conversation.


Until then, your pseudo intellectual, mumbo jumbo is accomplishing nothing.

Your nasty name-calling is directly proportional to how befuddled and unable to answer that your position is becoming. In other words, the more you lose, the louder you get.


Paragraphs like this are just absurdities. "Here's another area you don't understand. It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated). As any exegete knows, a document can be internally inconsistent without having the original document for comparison. The inconsistency in Matthew lies with the contradictions explained to you

Like I said, it's an area you don't understand as witnessed by your calling it an “absurdity”. If you don't understand such basic exegesis, you really shouldn't be discussing the Bible from any point of view other than the surface meaning. You've been told this again and again, but you, like Pharoah, have hardened your head (heart) against the truth



You blindly overlook the fact that no one agrees with you. Should I notify the translators of the major translations of the NT and let them know that we have an accomplished exegetical specialist on AMHD that needs to tell them how to translate Matthew 25??? Should I call them tomorrow??? Better yet, let's let YOU call them.

No, it was your idea to call so you can do it. Let us know what happens.


Complete absurdity. There are a number of manuscripts of Matthew from the third century, predating Jerome. Parts of Matthew are dated from the second century.

Bible versions are a deflection from the point. I will say, however, that most NT translations rely on Jerome's Vulgate. Jerome translated Matthew's Greek into Latin. Jerome tells that the original Matthew was in Hebrew (lost). The early “parts” you mention are fragments, none of which address the issue being discussed.


Virtually no one contends that Matthew was not written by Matthew in the first century.

This is an interesting bit of sophistry on your part. The issue is whether the received Matthew centuries later is the same as the autograph. The first century autograph is long gone. No one contends that we have the original


Your suggestion is yet another reason I believe very little of what you say.

That is your loss. Every one of my rebuttals in post #97 can be verified.


Until you can man up and provide legitimate passages which specifically mention the non-existence of hell and judgment, you are dead in the water

See this point addressed above re defending your position. You apparently want me to say, “Jesus said, Unbelievers will not be sent by me to hell for eternal punishment. I mean, how could I do that to people who lived a thousand years before me? In fact, I like people who live good lives even if they never heard of me”.

I'm going to conflate a couple of posts because they're related, and they relate to my field.

Oh come on. You’re not stupid. Making a statement figurative simply because you don’t like it is nonsense. You know better. You’re making yourself look silly.

Matthew 25 is plainly not meant to be taken figuratively.

So in Matthew 25 we're talking about literal sheep and literal goats, no people, right? I never trusted those sneaky goats anyway!
News flash, my dude: they're not the ones who look silly.


Complete absurdity. There are a number of manuscripts of Matthew from the third century, predating Jerome. Parts of Matthew are dated from the second century. Virtually no one contends that Matthew was not written by Matthew in the first century

I don't know who told you that stuff, but they're wrong. We don't have <i>manuscripts</i> from the second and third centuries, we have <i>papyrus fragments</i> of manuscripts. There are no second-century fragments of Matthew. There are precisely two papyri that can be confidently dated to the second century, P52 and P90. Both are fragments of John.
And I have bad news for you: outside the evangelical bubble, <i>virtually nobody</i> believes it was written by Matthew in the first century. If you were to go to an SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) meeting and say that you would probably not be invited back. They'd be courteous because that's how they are, but they'd never take you seriously again.

I do acknowledge a place or state that we choose to call hell. I don't believe it's a place of fire and brimstone (why do we keep saying that instead of "sulfur"?), or darkness and chains and wailing and all that. Just like the images of heaven, those are attempts to describe the indescribable, falling back on familiar images of either good or bad things. AC/DC says "all my friends will be there" but there's no guarantee they'll be able to see each other. What sends people there? My conclusion is, deliberate disbelief. Example: an isolated tribe comes upon a huge tree whose fruit, shade, and moisture meets all their needs. The most reasonable thing to do would be to seek out and be grateful to whoever put the tree there, even though they don't know its name. Instead, the tribe worships the tree as a deity. That I consider deliberate rejection of the light they have.

I know a lot of people who, for whatever reason, just can't quite sort this all out. They don't know what to think of Jesus, but they're okay with him. I have a feeling those people will probably slide by.

While I do acknowledge the existence of hell, I don't think it's anything like the fundamentalists say, and I don't think it's nearly as full as they say, either.

So in Matthew 25 we're talking about literal sheep and literal goats, no people, right? I never trusted those sneaky goats anyway!

To be fair to the other side, the verse in question is Verse 46.


While I do acknowledge the existence of hell

Begging the question, what DO you acknowledge what hell is like?

My contention is that UNBELIEVERS are not condemned to hell for eternal punishment. As stated elsewhere, you are trying to move the goalposts.


Fair enough. Now give support for it. Show where the Bible says that unbelievers are not condemned to hell. Should be simple to do.


So in Matthew 25 we're talking about literal sheep and literal goats, no people, right? I never trusted those sneaky goats anyway!
News flash, my dude: they're not the ones who look silly.No, my dude. It's you. A very simple reading explains the sheep/goats. "All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as (JL like, similar to) a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." Now I suppose you are trying to be clever in showing that Jesus is not literally speaking of sheep and goats. Really? Did anyone claim to believe that to begin with? The use of a simile makes it obvious, and that's really the point. That the ENTIRE PASSAGE should be taken figuratively is the point in question, not some small part of it.


I don't know who told you that stuff, but they're wrong. We don't have <i>manuscripts</i> from the second and third centuries, we have <i>papyrus fragments</i> of manuscripts. There are no second-century fragments of Matthew. There are precisely two papyri that can be confidently dated to the second century, P52 and P90. Both are fragments of John.Your opinion is not held everywhere.

"It is sometimes alleged, even by scholars who know better,1 (https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri#_ftn1) that we have to wait hundreds of years after the completion of the New Testament before we get any extant manuscripts of it. This is clearly not the case, for we have several manuscripts from within a century of the completion of the NT. To be sure, these manuscripts (all but one of which are papyri) are all fragmentary, but they may not be as fragmentary as some might suppose, and there are more of them than is often realized.These manuscripts include P52 (100-150), P90, 104 (2nd century), P66 (c. AD 175-225), P46, 64+67 (c. AD 200), P77, P103, 0189 (2nd or 3rd century), P98 (2nd century?). These ten manuscripts are the extent of those that the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung has identified as possibly or definitely from the second century.
In addition to these, there are a few other candidates. Comfort and Barrett argue for at least half a dozen other manuscripts as possibly from the 2nd century.2 (https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri#_ftn2) Their method, however, is generally to take the earliest date possible. Nevertheless, the date they suggest for P4 (second century) is probably correct in light of some recent work done by T. C. Skeat of the British Library,3 (https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri#_ftn3) and the date they offer for P32 (late second century) is quite possible. In addition, renowned papyrologist Herbert Hunger considered P66 to be from no later than the middle of the second century.4 (https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri#_ftn4) The original editors of P75 also thought this manuscript should be dated late second to early third century.5 (https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri#_ftn5)
This means that there are at least ten and as many as thirteen NT MSS6 (https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri#_ftn6) that are possibly or definitely from the second century."

https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri
https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/

I'm also pretty sure you realize that manuscript fragments are frequently simply referred to as "manuscripts". The vast majority of early manuscripts are incomplete. I have no idea why you want to make an issue out of that. At any rate, the point was that Matthew greatly predates Jerome and hence could not have arisen from him.


Like I said, it's an area you don't understand as witnessed by your calling it an “absurdity”. If you don't understand such basic exegesis, you really shouldn't be discussing the Bible from any point of view other than the surface meaning. You've been told this again and again, but you, like Pharoah, have hardened your head (heart) against the truth.Exegesis has to do with interpretation rather than translation. No one should translate the Bible by changing the clear meaning of a text to suit someone else's (like yours) opinions. But if you want to see this for sure, here you go. This is Mt. 25 in interlinear. You can read it for yourself.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/25.htm

Fair enough. Now give support for it. Show where the Bible says that unbelievers are not condemned to hell. Should be simple to do.

It is your contention that Jesus sends unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. It is up to you to show where the Bible says that. If the Bible never said that, how could the Bible be quoted as not saying what it never said? Think about that. I'm only trying to help.


Your opinion is not held everywhere.

DW's opinion is that of a scholar who has studied the issue. Your position shown below is far weaker than DW's.


we have several manuscripts from within a century of the completion of the NT. To be sure, these manuscripts (all but one of which are papyri) are all fragmentary,.....These manuscripts include P52 (100-150), P90, 104 (2nd century), P66 (c. AD 175-225), P46, 64+67 (c. AD 200), P77, P103, 0189 (2nd or 3rd century), P98 (2nd century?). These ten manuscripts are the extent of those that the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung has identified as possibly or definitely from the second century.

In addition to these, there are a few other candidates. Comfort and Barrett argue for at least half a dozen other manuscripts as possibly from the 2nd century.2 (https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri#_ftn2) ....... the date they suggest for P4 (second century) is probably correct in light of some recent work done by T. C. Skeat of the British Library,3 (https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri#_ftn3) and the date they offer for P32 (late second century) is quite possible. In addition, renowned papyrologist Herbert Hunger considered P66 to be from no later than the middle of the second century.4 (https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri#_ftn4) The original editors of P75 also thought this manuscript should be dated late second to early third century.5 (https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri#_ftn5)This means that there are at least ten and as many as thirteen NT MSS6 (https://bible.org/article/second-century-papyri#_ftn6) that are possibly or definitely from the second century."

Note that Jl's citations include "probably", possibly" and are misleading by referring to fragments as manuscripts as though the fragments are complete mss. See next.


I'm also pretty sure you realize that manuscript fragments are frequently simply referred to as "manuscripts"

Fragments are NOT complete manuscripts. That should be prominently noted - it was NOT.


The vast majority of early manuscripts are incomplete.

Now you're agreeing with me - almost. Change "vast" to "all", and you have the truth.


I have no idea why you want to make an issue out of that.

Because that is the major and only point of contention - that the verse in question was not in any of the fragments/manuscripts cited.


At any rate, the point was that Matthew greatly predates Jerome and hence could not have arisen from him.

Wrong. No one claimed the author of Matthew used Jerome as a source. It was was the other way around.


Exegesis has to do with interpretation rather than translation

Ok by me. You use Eisegesis - look it up.


No one should translate the Bible by changing the clear meaning of a text to suit someone else's opinions.

It was done more than once before being accepted as the canon in the 4th century. Matthew 25:46 is a good example since it appears nowhere in the fragments you cited (using your own argument).


But if you want to see this for sure, here you go. This is Mt. 25 in interlinear. You can read it for yourself.

Sorry, Jl, you're missing the point - again! Bigly. Your interlinear is the version/verse under contention. Not germane to the issue.

Your position shown below is far weaker than DW's.And you know this how?


It is your contention that Jesus sends unbelievers to hell for eternal punishmentI have made no contentions at all. So the fact that you have understood that from the passages I posted speaks volumes. Glad you finally understand it


Fragments are NOT complete manuscripts. That should be prominently noted - it was NOT.

Now you're agreeing with me - almost. Change "vast" to "all", and you have the truth.

No one has said fragments are complete manuscripts. And I if changed it to "all", I would be making a false statement. Codex Sinaiticus is a complete NT manuscript dated fourth century.


that the verse in question was not in any of the fragments/manuscripts cited.Who said it was?


Exegesis has to do with interpretation rather than translation


Ok by me. You use Eisegesis - look it up.Thankfully you are finally learning something. It's good to see you see the error in your statement. ""Here's another area you don't understand. It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated). As any exegete knows, a document can be internally inconsistent without having the original document for comparison. The inconsistency in Matthew lies with the contradictions explained to you"

However, I'm sad you still don't see, despite having it explained to you a dozen times, that I have offered no interpretations, and thus cannot be guilty of eisegesis. Do you understand now?

I tell you what. I have attached the now 46 passages below. I have given you and WG the same task. Find those passages that say there is no hell and no judgment. Until you do, there really is nothing left to discuss. Either find them or man up and admit you can't. (Note. I already know you can't since they don't exist.)

Scriptures Concerning the Biblical Teaching of a Day of Judgement and Hell


Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
Matthew 5:22. “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
Matthew 5:29,30. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
Matthew 8:11,12. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 10:28. “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Matthew 13:30. (This is the conclusion of the parable of the wheat and tares.) “Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.”
Matthew 13:49,50. “This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 18:8. “It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.”
Matthew 23:33. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?
Matt. 25:31-48. This lengthy passage clearly sets forth the existence of a fiery hell. The people sent to hell were judged, not for what they did, but for what they neglected to do. The inference is that Christ was not Lord.
Mark 8:38. “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”
Luke 3:17. “His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
Luke 13:2. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
Luke 16:19ff. “In Hades, where he (the rich man) was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’”
John 3:16. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have life everlasting.
John 8:24. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
Acts 24:15. “and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.” Again, not a reference to hell, but the teaching of a resurrection “of both the righteous and the wicked,” would certainly agree with such a reference.
Colossians 3:5,6. Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.
1 Thessalonians 1:10. “Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.”
1 Thessalonians 5:9. “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
James 3:6. And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell.
2 Thessalonians 1:8-10. “He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our LORD Jesus. 9They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the LORD and from the glory of his might…”
2 Peter 2:4ff. For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment… if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment.
Jude 7. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Rev. 20:11ff. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
Psalm 21:8-9. You will capture all your enemies. Your strong right hand will seize all who hate you. You will throw them in a flaming furnace when you appear. The LORD will consume them in his anger; fire will devour them.



Well, there are so many that the site cannot accept them all. I'll try waiting a bit and posting the final twenty.

In the meantime, maybe you can come up with three or four? Until you do, I'll just let you work on it. If you want to see the final twenty, then just let me know.

And you know this how?

From what DW and you posted.


I have made no contentions at all.

You have supported the contention that Jesus condemned unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. No use denying it at this late stage.


No one has said fragments are complete manuscripts. And I if changed it to "all", I would be making a false statement. Codex Sinaiticus is a complete NT manuscript dated fourth century.

I said, "...BEFORE the 4th century". We're back to reading comp.


It's good to see you see the error in your statement. ""Here's another area you don't understand. It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated). As any exegete knows, a document can be internally inconsistent without having the original document for comparison. The inconsistency in Matthew lies with the contradictions explained to you"Not only is there no error in my statement, you don't even point out the error that you claim is there.


However, I'm sad you still don't see, despite having it explained to you a dozen times, that I have offered no interpretations, and thus cannot be guilty of eisegesis. Do you understand now?

That's NOT what EISEGESIS is. It's not about interpretation - that's EXEGESIS. Eisegesis is examining the Bible from a preconceived point of view. It's frowned upon by scholars. It is the main problem with evangelical/fundamentalist Biblical examination. Do you understand now?


I have attached the now 46 passages below. Find those passages that say there is no hell and no judgment.

Moving the goalposts again? Here's the argument - you claim Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. I deny Jesus said that. As far as your passages go, they have been debunked by me in post #97. Every single one. You previously gave them a blanket dismissal without challenging a single one. Why you are posting them again is a mystery.



Scriptures Concerning the Biblical Teaching of a Day of Judgement and Hell

Followed by 46 passages from the Bible.

This is called a strawman argument. Jl pretends to attack my contention, while in reality he is actually attacking a distorted version of my contention by omitting "unbelievers". It's commonly done by Jl.

Here's the argument - you claim Jesus condemns unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment. I deny Jesus said that. As far as your passages go, they have been debunked by me in post #97. Every single one. You previously gave them a blanket dismissal without challenging a single one. Why you are posting them again is a mystery.I have said no such thing. I have quoted the NT. You have debunked nothing, and you can point to nothing to support your contentions. Your arguments are a collection of, well, nothing.

From what DW and you posted.You need to read it again. DW is very knowledgeable, but his contention that there are only two second century manuscript fragments is hardly widely held. This is from Daniel Wallace, an acknowledged expert in the field. "These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century...Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts."

https://voice.dts.edu/article/wallace-new-testament-manscript-first-century/

I have said no such thing. I have quoted the NT.

Good Lord! How dense can you be? Quoting the NT to support your belief is supporting your belief! Your contention, supported by constantly quoting the author of Matthew, is that unbelievers are sent to hell by Jesus for eternal punishment. Are you now denying that is your contention? If it is NOT your belief, why do you post it in support?


You have debunked nothing, and you can point to nothing to support your contentions. Your arguments are a collection of, well, nothing.

I have debunked every-single-one of your Bible "proofs" that you listed by number. Using the same numbering system, I debunked every single one on your list. Every-single-one. For each one, I gave a reason(s) for why I debunked it. These can all be found at post #97 in this thread.

You, on the other hand, have not responded or challenged a single one of my numbered replies. Not ONE! You simply say they are a collection of nothing. That is NOT an argument. You previously gave them a blanket dismissal without engaging with a single one on the list.

I am trying VERY HARD not to call you a liar, unlike you who is quick to use that term when you are confronted with the truth.


DW is very knowledgeable, but his contention that there are only two second century manuscript fragments is hardly widely held.

I'm standing with DW.

The authenticity of the content of the books of the NT should not be a question. The same is true with the OT writings, albeit, to a lesser degree.

It is widely accepted that the dates of authorship of all the NT books was prior to the close of the first century. This places them very close to the proximity of Christ himself, within the memory of that generation.

There are no known rebuttals to any of the contents of the NT with early dating. You would think that such popular texts would have rebuttals if their accuracy was in question then. The people of the time would have held these events as consistent with the histories they were taught at the time.

As far as miscopied, or mistranslated goes, there is no such evidence. We have portions of John, manuscript fragments, that date to 125 AD (John Rylands Fragment). Portions of 8 other manuscripts dated to 200 AD (Chester Beatty Papyrus), plus John (Bodmer Papyrus), and Matthew (Papyrus 67). They all agree with later manuscripts in content with over 99% accuracy, including errors in punctuation, differences of footnotes, etc.

These are enough to verify later documents' authenticity. To state that the unfounded portions of those documents don't necessarily compare to those founded at later dates is pure conjecture. With further study, you will find that you can construct the most ancient of manuscripts, by using the copies' traditions through the ages. A difference in text can be traced back to where it split from the original, then you have clues as to what the original says. (See textual criticism or eclectic method)

You cannot reject these things, without also rejecting the many great names and their acts attributed to them wholesale. There is far more evidence and textual lines for all the NT documents than any other text in all of history.

You claiming, that we cannot know the original is tantamount to saying, "we can't look at it, so it musn't exitst."



How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic. Instead, the papyri function to confirm what New Testament scholars have already thought was the original wording or, in some cases, to confirm an alternate reading—but one that is already found in the manuscripts. As an illustration: Suppose a papyrus had the word “the Lord” in one verse while all other manuscripts had the word “Jesus.” New Testament scholars would not adopt, and have not adopted, such a reading as authentic, precisely because we have such abundant evidence for the original wording in other manuscripts. But if an early papyrus had in another place “Simon” instead of “Peter,” and “Simon” was also found in other early and reliable manuscripts, it might persuade scholars that “Simon” is the authentic reading. In other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.

These new papyri will no doubt continue that trend. But, if this Mark fragment is confirmed as from the first century, what a thrill it will be to have a manuscript that is dated within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection!


Note: This guy has quite the credentials, including dwashbur's Society of Biblical Literature.

dwashbur, have you considered P67 (P4, P64, P67) as a valid candidate for early 3rd century Matthew?

It seems to me there are several early 3rd century fragments that can be reliably dated.

Furthermore, what are your justifications for dating Matthew so late? I would think in context, an early date fits. The mention of a temple tax in Matthew 17 would allow for it to be prior to the temple destruction (70 AD), along with other mentions of "swearing by the alter" and all the temple references being in the present tense. I would add further conjecture by noting that Irenaeus of Lyons places the writing of the gospel of Matthew "while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome."(Ag. Her. 3.1) (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html) Also, it is fairly widely accepted that Matthew was martyred at the age of 60 (70 AD +/-10 years).

This leads me to believe you doubt the authorship of Matthew, being by the apostle Matthew...again why?

Welcome back, infojunkie. I will try to answer the points you made in this post. I hope you will do me the courtesy of doing the same to my last reply to you from several days ago before you left.


It is widely accepted that the dates of authorship of all the NT books was prior to the close of the first century. This places them very close to the proximity of Christ himself, within the memory of that generation.

It is also accepted (without a doubt) that those original books are no longer available.


There are no known rebuttals to any of the contents of the NT with early dating. You would think that such popular texts would have rebuttals if their accuracy was in question then.

Just as there are no known originals there are no known rebuttals. 2nd sentence: On the contrary, any rebuttals would have been destroyed or incorporated into the later editions of the originals. In any case, the question is moot.


The people of the time would have held these events as consistent with the histories they were taught at the time.

You have no way of knowing that. Pure conjecture.


As far as miscopied, or mistranslated goes, there is no such evidence.

There cannot be "evidence" of comparison since the original is lost. It is important to remind you that this discussion pertains to the Matthew verse where the author has Jesus saying unbelievers are condemned to hell for eternal punishment. The interpretation of that verse can be challenged as I have done repeatedly.


We have portions of John, manuscript fragments, that date to 125 AD (John Rylands Fragment). Portions of 8 other manuscripts dated to 200 AD (Chester Beatty Papyrus), plus John (Bodmer Papyrus), and Matthew (Papyrus 67). They all agree with later manuscripts in content with over 99% accuracy, including errors in punctuation, differences of footnotes, etc.

The papyrus fragments of Matthew contain 15-17 lines and none refer to the verse being discussed.


These are enough to verify later documents' authenticity.

Certainly not in the case of Matthew.


To state that the unfounded portions of those documents don't necessarily compare to those founded at later dates is pure conjecture.

Conjecture (pure or partial) is unavoidable when examining ancient documents. You yourself do it in this post.


With further study, you will find that you can construct the most ancient of manuscripts, by using the copies' traditions through the ages.

Not if the copies are in error. You will learn that with further study.


You cannot reject these things, without also rejecting the many great names and their acts attributed to them wholesale. There is far more evidence and textual lines for all the NT documents than any other text in all of history.

"These things" have nothing to do with the discussion re the Matthew verse.


You claiming, that we cannot know the original is tantamount to saying, "we can't look at it, so it musn't exitst."

Infojunkie, I'm sorry you wrote this sentence about me. It shows you to be either very stupid or very ignorant. I'm sorry, but you walked right into it.



Note: This guy has quite the credentials, including dwashbur's Society of Biblical Literature.

I will stick with DW.


The rest is addressed to DW.

Good Lord! How dense can you be? Quoting the NT to support your belief is supporting your belief! Your contention, supported by constantly quoting the author of Matthew, is that unbelievers are sent to hell by Jesus for eternal punishment.I have posted the statements of Jesus and the NT authors on hell and judgment. You can make up your own conclusion. It would be nice if you would support YOUR contention that unbelievers do NOT go to hell. You won't because you can't, but it would be nice at least to try.

You have refuted none of the scriptures I posted. You attempted to but failed.


As far as miscopied, or mistranslated goes, there is no such evidence.The only evidence Athos ever came up with concerning his suggestion that Matthew was miscopied (not really mistranslated) was the fact that the Matthew 25 passage in discussion did not agree with his own personal beliefs. That and some business about exegesis which does not really enter into the area of translation but rather interpretation, a fact which he later agreed with.


I am trying VERY HARD not to call you a liar, It is actually very easy to not call a person a liar when that person is not lying. Can't imagine how that would be hard.

It would be nice if you would support YOUR contention that unbelievers do NOT go to hell. You won't because you can't,

I have posted it several times.


You have refuted none of the scriptures I posted. You attempted to but failed.

*sigh*

I have refuted every single one! For the 5th time, the refutation is in post #97. Every time you bring this up, you never defend your examples - never. All you do is make a general comment like you've done here. "You attempted but failed".


The only evidence Athos ever came up with concerning his suggestion that Matthew was miscopied (not really mistranslated) was the fact that the Matthew 25 passage in discussion did not agree with his own personal beliefs.

Careful, you're treading on that liar thing again.


That and some business about exegesis

"That business" was explaining to you the difference between EXegesis and EIsegesis. You need to know that.


It is actually very easy to not call a person a liar when that person is not lying. Can't imagine how that would be hard.

I'm still confused about you, Jl. Are you a liar or just have difficulty reading with understanding. If the latter, it's not your fault.

I have posted it several times.You posted two texts that had nothing to do with hell or judgment. That has already been pointed out repeatedly.

You have refuted nothing.

If you want to suggest where I'm supposedly lying, then go for it. Otherwise it's just so much smoke and garbage.

It would be nice if you would support YOUR contention that unbelievers do NOT go to hell.
Please define your use of unbeliever -- one who has never heard the Gospel message, one who has said "no thanks" to the Gospel message, or something else.


You posted two texts that had nothing to do with hell or judgment. That has already been pointed out repeatedly.
Please read Post #97.

Not my job. That's the statement of Athos.

Not my job. That's the statement of Athos.
Unbeliever??? You've been ranting and raving about them since you arrived here.

I have? Where?

Read post 97. Meaningless.

I have? Where?
Do a site search using that word.

You do a site search. I'm not your research assistant.

You do a site search. I'm not your research assistant.
You asked where. I told you how I found your "unbeliever" comments.

You claimed I said it. Show me where. Otherwise, it's just more smoke and garbage. You're following the lead of your hero.

You claimed I said it. Show me where. Otherwise, it's just more smoke and garbage. You're following the lead of your hero.
My hero??? If you only knew....

Let's try it three at a time. I am supposing that the topic is the existence of hell and of judgment.



"Matthew 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire." A parable that clearly pictures the judgment of God and the existence of a place of punishment. If you don't agree with that, then tell what the teaching of the parable is.
Matthew 5:22. “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." A very clear and specific reference to hell. Agreed? And please don't say it's the garbage dump. That would be stupid. It also very clearly references judgment.
Matthew 5:29,30. "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell." Another clear and specific reference to hell. Agreed? Not a garbage dump. Hell.


Can't get editing to work. Sorry. I've given you something to chew on. See you tomorrow.

The papyrus fragments of Matthew contain 15-17 lines and none refer to the verse being discussed.


Am I to contend that you will believe only the most ancient texts? That there are 127 fragments (or less), that happen agree with the current bible, and only those verses can be trusted?

Seems a little scant for any kind of philosophical or religious study.

You posted two texts that had nothing to do with hell or judgment.

"Love your enemy" and "Father, forgive them" are clear refutations of your belief of unbelievers condemned to hell. I don't know why you can't see that.

In the second great commandment, Jesus says "Love your neighbor". He does not say to love God which was the first commandment. Does that mean the second commandment disproves the first because loving God is not mentioned in the second?

John tells his wife Mary that she has brought great happiness to his life. Does that mean John doesn't love Mary because he didn't say "I love you" in that sentence?


You have refuted nothing.

This oft-repeated statement of yours is NOT an argument. How many times do I have to tell you that?


If you want to suggest where I'm supposedly lying, then go for it.

Be glad to. You said, and I quote, "The only evidence Athos ever came up with concerning his suggestion that Matthew was miscopied (not really mistranslated) was the fact that the Matthew 25 passage in discussion did not agree with his own personal belief".

I never said my own personal belief was evidence of what you claim. And you know I never said that. Saying what you know to be untrue is the definition of a lie.

Am I to contend that you will believe only the most ancient texts? That there are 127 fragments (or less), that happen agree with the current bible, and only those verses can be trusted?

I never said anything remotely like that. The more you post, the more disappointed I am with your thought process, and you started out here with such promise. Is this the only point you wish to make from that post?

I'm still waiting for your reply to my post #96 which was addressed to you right before you disappeared for a few days. Did you disappear to avoid replying to that post?

"Love your enemy" and "Father, forgive them" are clear refutations of your belief of unbelievers condemned to hell. I don't know why you can't see that.As regards your first text, have you considered this in Romans? "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.' "

The second one is simply Jesus forgiving those who crucified Him. It is certainly not some far-reaching forgiveness of all humanity.

So you still have the enormous problem of having absolutely no place in the New Testament where the Bible says there is no hell and no judgment. But perhaps I have misunderstood you. Are you agreeing that there is a hell and there is a judgment?


In the second great commandment, Jesus says "Love your neighbor". He does not say to love God which was the first commandment. Does that mean the second commandment disproves the first because loving God is not mentioned in the second?No. Why do you ask?


Be glad to. You said, and I quote, "The only evidence Athos ever came up with concerning his suggestion that Matthew was miscopied (not really mistranslated) was the fact that the Matthew 25 passage in discussion did not agree with his own personal belief".That's not true? If it's not, then you need something to justify your contention that the Mt. 25 passage was miscopied. There is certainly no textual evidence to that effect.

Did you see post 161?

I never said anything remotely like that. The more you post, the more disappointed I am with your thought process, and you started out here with such promise. Is this the only point you wish to make from that post?

I'm still waiting for your reply to my post #96 which was addressed to you right before you disappeared for a few days. Did you disappear to avoid replying to that post?


I'm still waiting for an answer, as are others', on how you deem which scriptures authentic, and which are believable, or by what standard you judge their merits, or their interpretation.

You have no answers other than "you are wrong," "scholars agree," etc...no proof, no method, no nothing, except what you believe. Then you have the audacity to demand responses to " why didn't you provide it here" after neglecting to provide any refutation to my thesis. You have never addressed any content of my arguments, you claim your authority is enough to dismiss well thought out claims supported by evidence.

First you say "He wants to muddle the discussion by demanding long and complex ideas in the space of a Q&A forum." Then you say "If you know their extensive research, why didn't you provide it here."

"I never said anything remotely like that." Then what on earth are you saying? You have nothing to bring to any religious discussion except nonsense and strife and confusion.

I'm still waiting for an answer, as are others', on how you deem which scriptures authentic, and which are believable, or by what standard you judge their merits, or their interpretation.

You have no answers other than "you are wrong," "scholars agree," etc...no proof, no method, no nothing, except what you believe. Then you have the audacity to demand responses to " why didn't you provide it here" after neglecting to provide any refutation to my thesis. You have never addressed any content of my arguments, you claim your authority is enough to dismiss well thought out claims supported by evidence.

First you say "He wants to muddle the discussion by demanding long and complex ideas in the space of a Q&A forum." Then you say "If you know their extensive research, why didn't you provide it here."

"I never said anything remotely like that." Then what on earth are you saying? You have nothing to bring to any religious discussion except nonsense and strife and confusion.

Sorry, Infojunkie, but this diatribe is nothing but a bunch of nonsense. My replies are well-thought out and clear. Some are offered as true, some are conjecture. That's the nature of discussion.

I must say that this post of yours is noted for its lack of response to ANYTHING being discussed here. It only reinforces my belief that you are unable to reply to the various points I've been making.

Your research comment, for example, neatly avoids the question I asked you. I thought we had gotten past the false ad hominem approach to debate, but I guess not.

Fine then, lets take a quick analsys of your words...since they are so clear and authoritative and have such good arguments...etc.etc.etc...

You do not address critiques, nor do you provide any evidences for your thoughts. You simply dismiss evidences. You make claim after claim and expect your authority on this to be suffecient. If you are not interested in actually having a meaningful discussion about these things, then what is your motive? You seem very arrogant, narcissistic, and have no basis for any of your claims. The closest thing there was to an actual rebuttal in this entire thread was Post # 97, directed at jlisenbe. This was a list with no rebuttals, simply "you're wrong" repeated several times. At the same time, you offered no valuable insight to those verses, as to what they actually mean, while thousands of years of christianity has taught excactly what jlisenbe contends.

"do you seriously believe anyone here (excepting the obvious) is going to buy your lengthy cut-and-paste-with-pictures as proof of a global flood?"

"that removed any possibility of real evidence in your study."

"This dated belief is rejected by every scientist on the planet"

"It is not the Genesis creation that is mirrored, as you seem to think, but the opposite"

"Look it up - it's all over the internet"

"answers are accessible via that great library we all have at out fingertips"

"There's nothing to take a look at."

"Take what I say by the content"


You regularly take one position, then another, then back again, regarding the same topic. You are a hypocrite, and thus a liar. You love to throw that one around, but you have no values or clear beliefs on any one subject. I assert again, that you believe what is convenient. You have no principals regarding morality nor interpertation of scripture. You believe every headline that "refutes" the bible as it is, and then what's left you butcher into compliance with your ideals. You are an empty idealogue.

"Take what I say by the content" [Yet the content of others is dismissive, and you contend I have to give you proof to be worthy of your discussion]

"The Bible in toto contradicts your belief re unbelievers, hell and eternal punishment." [You contend the bible was prone to error and mistranslation and was lost to the ages ect]

"Quoting the NT to support your belief is supporting your belief!" [You contend the bible in toto contradicts his belief]

"This requires thought beyond the surface meaning of the words" [You contend over and over that the "plain meaning" refutes various ideas]

"If you don't understand such basic exegesis, you really shouldn't be discussing the Bible from any point of view other than the surface meaning...the original Matthew was in Hebrew (lost)" [The surface meaning was lost, and now you have insight into its meaning]

"examining the Bible from a preconceived point of view. It's frowned upon by scholars. It is the main problem with evangelical/fundamentalist Biblical examination" [You contend that your preconceived point of view, through which you interpret the bible is, is not the problem] [You contend that your view is scholarly, and have cited only Augustus twice, while taking a badly misguided quote from a random internet page and assigning to Augustus' belief]

You claim some belief in the bible, or in a christian god, but you reject it wholesale. You contend over and over that there are errors, that the original was lost that you have the answers. What then is your religion? You do not believe in the God of the bible, you do not believe the scriptures regarding Him, you do not believe long standing christian beliefs. Claiming christanity as is what you say it is, is not christainity. It is Athosism. You are your own god, who dictates your own histories and moralities, and you pretend that you believe something that you did not create yourself. You are self deluded and, and again, narcisistic. You border on blasphemy, as described in the bible.



"the Bible reached its present form around the 4th century AD"

"It is not necessary to have the original Matthew to see that it's been miscopied (or mistranslated)."

"The Matthew verse you rely on is a copy of a copy of a copy going back to Jerome. Very few preachers outside of the evangelical fundamentalists will take that verse as you take it."

"The issue is whether the received Matthew centuries later is the same as the autograph. The first century autograph is long gone. No one contends that we have the original"

"the verse in question was not in any of the fragments/manuscripts cited"

"It was done more than once before being accepted as the canon in the 4th century"

"It is also accepted (without a doubt) that those original books are no longer available."

"would have been destroyed or incorporated into the later editions of the originals"

"Conjecture (pure or partial) is unavoidable when examining ancient documents."

"Not if the copies are in error."

"It is not the Genesis creation that is mirrored, as you seem to think, but the opposite"

"The allegory consists of those parts you say can be thrown out. The miracles and Adam, etc., etc."

"[Genesis] tells a story(s) in simple terms...like a child being told a bedtime story...Genesis is a story like that suited to grown-ups."

"Maybe God was dipping into the ambrosia or the nectar"

"The myth underwent extensive elaboration"

"...that "all-powerful" God is part of the allegory."

"a famous name was used as author to make the account more credible"

For the record, everything in quotes are the words of Athos.

If God is omniscient, why did He give Adam and Eve free will, knowing what would happen?

Fine then, lets take a quick analsys of your words...since they are so clear and authoritative and have such good arguments...etc.etc.etc...

Whew, Infojunkie, take a breath. I didn't mean to upset you so much. I cut your long attack - others can easily see it if they want.

I note that you do the very thing you accuse me of - listing many of my points you disagree with but not giving a single solitary example of YOUR point of view.

We are still waiting for YOUR REPLIES to my points, not a screed of what a bad person I am. In a debate/discussion, the one who attacks the person of the other is always considered a loser. You fit that description well.

Note also that a person who initiates personal attacks (you) should not be surprised when the victim returns the favor. When you can't take what you dished out, you come across as a wuss.

My advice to you is stick to the discussion at hand - it will be more fruitful for all. You can begin with my question that is hanging.

If God is omniscient, why did He give Adam and Eve free will, knowing what would happen?


The question of the ages!

The simple answer is love.

Love is not something that can exist without free will, it must be freely given. This is what it means that sin is darkness. It is a lack of love for God, but rather a love of self. If you are not offered the choice of not loving God (ie sin) then there is no way love can be. This is what it is to be made in God's image. "They have become like one of us, knowing good from evil." To be able to choose what one's destiny becomes, and to pursue that which you desire. When you desire only sin, you will not desire God. Our will is greater than that of the animals, insomuch as we can master our beastly instincts and be free from the bondage of sin, be free from those instincts that rule this broken world.

Whew, Infojunkie, take a breath. I didn't mean to upset you so much. I cut your long attack - others can easily see it if they want.

I note that you do the very thing you accuse me of - listing many of my points you disagree with but not giving a single solitary example of YOUR point of view.

We are still waiting for YOUR REPLIES to my points, not a screed of what a bad person I am. In a debate/discussion, the one who attacks the person of the other is always considered a loser. You fit that description well.

Note also that a person who initiates personal attacks (you) should not be surprised when the victim returns the favor. When you can't take what you dished out, you come across as a wuss.

My advice to you is stick to the discussion at hand - it will be more fruitful for all. You can begin with my question that is hanging.


More empty criticism. Having a response is not the same as responding. When you learn this, you will be unstoppable, you are quite intelligent and quick to wit. Take a look at the way you respond to everyone who disagrees with you, you are not interested in truth, you are interested in being right.

More empty criticism. Having a response is not the same as responding. When you learn this, you will be unstoppable, you are quite intelligent and quick to wit. Take a look at the way you respond to everyone who disagrees with you, you are not interested in truth, you are interested in being right.

Were you gazing in a mirror when you wrote this? To repeat myself, it is better to stick to the discussion than to scream at another out of frustration with yourself because you can't (or won't) reply to what has been asked of you.

When you continue to screech, you keep losing whatever credibility you may have arrived here with. All this vitriol brings me to ask you - what is your age?

Your behavior indicates a young man - maybe a teenager, but probably older. Your reckless passion is on display, but not your maturity.

Were you gazing in a mirror when you wrote this? To repeat myself, it is better to stick to the discussion than to scream at another out of frustration with yourself because you can't (or won't) reply to what has been asked of you.

When you continue to screech, you keep losing whatever credibility you may have arrived here with. All this vitriol brings me to ask you - what is your age?

Your behavior indicates a young man - maybe a teenager, but probably older. Your reckless passion is on display, but not your maturity.


I will never lose my passion. I repeat myself, you bring nothing to this discussion by saying the empty and baseless things you say. You readily attack everyone, you explain nothing, you have no sources. You desperately deny what Christianity is, so you can claim your Athosism is truth.

I will never lose my passion. I repeat myself, you bring nothing to this discussion by saying the empty and baseless things you say. You readily attack everyone, you explain nothing, you have no sources. You desperately deny what Christianity is, so you can claim your Athosism is truth.

This is not an improvement, infojunkie. You are just repeating what you already said. Not a good mark.

Why not do this as a start - go to post 96 in this thread and answer the last question in that post. It's asked seriously. Then try post #94 just before 96. It has several points that you have yet to do me the courtesy of answering.

Lacking that, pick any single issue where I did what you claim I did. Be sure to include ALL the content involved, and we shall see what we shall see. I doubt you will do this because then you would have to put up or shut up as the saying goes. I hope I'm wrong.

That's how it works, junkie. You ask, the other replies, you reply, and ask etc etc etc., keeping the insults to a minimum.

Your trouble here has been created totally by you. Soon after arrival, you broke the civility between us by calling me a name. When I naturally responded in kind, you later went off on a toot refusing to continue any meaningful dialogue by a back-and-forth civil discussion. Instead you spewed your vitriol post after post until you've become basically unreadable. You have only yourself to blame.

If you want fresh start, I will grant you that. Beware, I offer no civility. You speak as you wish, so do I. If you don't want to trade tit for tat, keep the accusations to a minimum. I am determined to find common ground with you, or relentlessly pursue your thoughts on AMHD with long diatribes about your character, with citations.

Please keep it simple and easy for readers to understand and follow. Enumerate (1, 2, 3) or use paragraphs prefaced by the name of the person who said it (Athos: xxxxx). Simple. Easy.

I'm still wondering how reptiles can speak. Did your creationists have any research on that?


I have no idea how reptiles can speak. I believe in God, where all things are possible. I would not be confounded if a reptile, being possessed, gained the ability to speak.

That being said, I do not believe this is true. You call me a literalist, but I am only literal where it is quite obvious to me that that is the intention. I have never thought much of this in the sense of literalism, I have thought that this story was true, but not in the way many imagine.

Given some consideration, I think serpent simply means Satan. It is very obvious that it is referring to the devil, but, specifically a cherubim called Satan (One in the same to me), not a possessed snake.

In Revelation (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+12%3A9&version=NKJV), the devil is described as a serpent and a dragon. I believe this to be more a title of character, than a physical description. This figure of speech stands with us today, and is a perfect description for one who is slimy and scheming. It is also interesting that this creature is "cursed above all cattle". Why would this even be in here? What comparison could Satan have with cattle? If we look in Ezekiel (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1%3A10&version=NKJV) and Revelation (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4%3A7&version=NKJV), we find that Satan is one of the order of angels called cherubim, specifically, one who covers God, (kind of like on the mercy seat); the cherubim have 4 faces, one of which resembles an ox or a calf. It is also pretty clear to me, that in Revelation, the devil is left defenseless and defeated; that he is on his belly, one might say.

To be clear, I do believe, (literally) that Eve was deceived by a (figurative) serpent.

People who question talking reptiles would, I suppose, be completely amazed about a man being raised from the dead.

People who question talking reptiles would, I suppose, be completely amazed about a man being raised from the dead.

Does this mean you believe in talking reptiles?

Does this mean you doubt Jesus was raised from the dead?

If you want fresh start, I will grant you that. Beware, I offer no civility. You speak as you wish, so do I. If you don't want to trade tit for tat, keep the accusations to a minimum. I am determined to find common ground with you, or relentlessly pursue your thoughts on AMHD with long diatribes about your character, with citations.

I don't make deals with the likes of you.

When you decide to reply to (now) three of my comments unanswered by you, instead of disappearing because you have no reply, I will consider what you have to say. That goes for the future also, but not in your childish and insulting manner, rather in a civil manner.

Threatening to "pursue my thoughts with long diatribes about my character" is the classic definition of the logical fallacy ad hominem. This is how children argue with each other, and that's why I pegged you as a teenager or a youngster. An adult should not declare his faults as part of his "mission statement".

Keep in mind that the beginning of the nastiness was initiated by you - to which I replied in kind. If it gets too hot for you, stay out of the kitchen.

Does this mean you doubt Jesus was raised from the dead?

I take it you have no answer for my question. It was rhetorical, no answer expected.

Threatening to "pursue my thoughts with long diatribes about my character" is the classic definition of the logical fallacy ad hominem.Which is exactly what you did by saying, "I don't make deals with the likes of you."

We could all do with a little settling down and more civility.


I take it you have no answer for my question. It was rhetorical, no answer expected.I likewise take it you have no answer for my question. Mine, however, was far from rhetorical.

I have no idea how reptiles can speak.

Really? You have no idea? Why is that? Don't we all learn very early in life that animals don't talk?


I believe in God, where all things are possible. I would not be confounded if a reptile, being possessed, gained the ability to speak.

Yes, most people believe in God and often use that cliche "With God, all things are possible". But it was not to be used in the context of reptiles being possessed - obviously. I'm sure you've heard "Can God make a square circle?" Another cliche, not offered seriously, but containing a grain of truth.


That being said, I do not believe this is true.

But below you wrote that the story is both true (literal)and not literally true (figurative).


You call me a literalist, but I am only literal where it is quite obvious to me that that is the intention.

Fair enough. That is the right way - although there may be disagreement on exactly what is intended to be literal.


I have thought that this story was true

I think the story has moral or allegorical truth - not literal/historical truth. So we may agree on that.


...not in the way many imagine.

If you care to explain, I'd be interested in how you imagine the story.


Given some consideration, I think serpent simply means Satan. It is very obvious that it is referring to the devil, but, specifically a cherubim called Satan (One in the same to me), not a possessed snake.

Without putting words in your mouth, are you saying that the story is actually (literally) true except for how the serpent is portrayed? I'm confused. Satan is the serpent but not in the guise of serpent-hood? Or are you saying the Hebrew word for Satan has been mistranslated to serpent?


In Revelation (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+12%3A9&version=NKJV), the devil is described as a serpent and a dragon. I believe this to be more a title of character, than a physical description. This figure of speech stands with us today, and is a perfect description for one who is slimy and scheming. It is also interesting that this creature is "cursed above all cattle". Why would this even be in here? What comparison could Satan have with cattle? If we look in Ezekiel (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1%3A10&version=NKJV) and Revelation (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+4%3A7&version=NKJV), we find that Satan is one of the order of angels called cherubim, specifically, one who covers God, (kind of like on the mercy seat); the cherubim have 4 faces, one of which resembles an ox or a calf. It is also pretty clear to me, that in Revelation, the devil is left defenseless and defeated; that he is on his belly, one might say.

How does this relate to the Genesis story? You went from dragon to cattle to cherubim to comment on Satan as a serpent. This all seems very literal to me. But you can explain further if you want to.


To be clear, I do believe, (literally) that Eve was deceived by a (figurative) serpent.

Then what (literally) was Eve deceived by if the serpent is figurative? What did Eve see? What did she talk to? If not a serpent, what?

Which is exactly what you did by saying, "I don't make deals with the likes of you."

Look up the meaning of "long diatribe" and get back to me.


I likewise take it you have no answer for my question. Mine, however, was far from rhetorical.

Tell my why you want to inquire into my religious beliefs. If you have a legitimate reason, I'll answer you.

Look up the meaning of, "with the likes of you," and get back with me.

Tell me why you want to inquire into my religious beliefs. If you have a legit reason, I'll answer you.

Good night guys. See ya tomorrow.

Look up the meaning of, "with the likes of you," and get back with me.

The meaning of "the likes of you" is simple. It means I don't think much of infojunkie based on his posts. I replied to a threat he made.


Tell me why you want to inquire into my religious beliefs. If you have a legit reason, I'll answer you.

I suppose you have a point writing the same thing I wrote, but I have no idea what your point is.

Athos, in all sincerity, you continue this blame game and you continue to attack others.

This is not civil. For all the bellyaching you do, you have yet to treat anyone like a human being, then you whine when someone attacks you.

My long diatribe about you (and others I have made in the past) are objective analysis of your character. If you like you can refute them, but your language and attitude is not at all "civil" or "mature."

You seem to think that you can say whatever you want, but when other people do the same, they are childish and immature and whatever else you want to call it.

Do I need to make another long list of all the insults and lies and mischaracterizations you have used to prove this to you and everyone else here?

I have no hope you will improve, as a matter of fact, I bet you will quote this, then go on attacking without even considering what I have said.

Really? You have no idea? Why is that? Don't we all learn very early in life that animals don't talk?


Really, yes. I believe in the "impossible", because, my God makes the impossible possible. "Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and shew thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not."

Secondly, early in life I learn many things, that in reality are far more complex. For instance animals indeed do talk. Parrots talk, I've heard things out of the mouths of dogs that sound very much like words, apes can learn sign language, and there is a whole area of study in ecology regarding animal communication. What I learned as a child was incomplete and did not fully explain what is indeed reality, and as a child before God, I learn of mighty things which I had not known.



Yes, most people believe in God and often use that cliche "With God, all things are possible". But it was not to be used in the context of reptiles being possessed - obviously. I'm sure you've heard "Can God make a square circle?" Another cliche, not offered seriously, but containing a grain of truth.


It is not obvious that the context in question is not applicable. If God created a universe with a supernatural element, where there are creatures more powerful and of a different flesh and spirit than I, then in God this is possible.

I saw that you weren't serious, but some thoughts on this. When you talk about as "square circle," you are talking nonsense. There no limits to God's power, creating a logically impossible scenario, then declaring that this is the limit of God's power is not accurate. Let me explain further...If God made a square circle, then it would be logically possible and circles would be able to be squared, and you would have no knowledge of the difference. You would instead find some other logical impossibility to use as an example instead. What is really in question, is whether God can create something that is logically inconsistent with the nature of this universe, and He can, but it would then be outside of the context of this universe.



But below you wrote that the story is both true (literal)and not literally true (figurative).


When I said "I do not believe this", I was referring to the idea of a "literal snake" being the subject of this story. I believe the story is literally true and also uses a figure of speech to describe the character of the being that is not clearly described.



If you care to explain, I'd be interested in how you imagine the story.


I imagine it as more than words and pictures, it is hard to explain. I imagine Adam meeting all the animals, discovering the world, and then this new beast enters the garden. I imagine that Adam and Eve were very young (though not in appearance). I think that the beast befriended Eve, and talked nicely to her. I imagine that of his 4 faces, one being that of a man, intrigued her and confounded Adam. I imagine that the beast had intimate knowledge of God. These are just imaginations though, it is not so explicitly stated.



Without putting words in your mouth, are you saying that the story is actually (literally) true except for how the serpent is portrayed? I'm confused. Satan is the serpent but not in the guise of serpent-hood? Or are you saying the Hebrew word for Satan has been mistranslated to serpent?


You misunderstand me. I believe the story is literally true, and a figure of speech was used to describe Satan. If you look in the dictionary, you will still find that a snake is a "type" regarding character and motive, "a worthless and treacherous fellow". This is true across many languages.

It is my understanding that the devil can take on many forms. If that form was a "snake" it would not surprise me. The fact that he could take many forms makes visual descriptions quite lacking. I just don't think that is what is happening here. There are other clues in the passage.



How does this relate to the Genesis story? You went from dragon to cattle to cherubim to comment on Satan as a serpent. This all seems very literal to me. But you can explain further if you want to.

Then what (literally) was Eve deceived by if the serpent is figurative? What did Eve see? What did she talk to? If not a serpent, what?


I think Eve saw a cherubim with all its glory and splendor, the name of which is Lucifer. As described by Ezekiel, they have 4 faces(Eagle, Human, Oxen, and Lion), the figure of a man and the hands of a man, full of eyes, 4 wings (2 extended upward and 2 that can cover their bodies), and the feet of calves. They are glowing bright like the coals of a fire, and move like lightening.

When you look at the story in Genesis, the devil is described as a serpent (his character), being cursed above all cattle and beasts of the field (his appearance), who will go on its belly, etc. (his fate). This is not hard to imagine when you understand that the devil is described in later books as the "cherub that covers" and when you look at a what a cherub is, you find it has the face of an ox with horns. I think the curse, upon the serpent, is describing Revelation. It is how God will deal with the devil: he will be on his belly (vulnerable) and eat dust (always 2 steps behind). I think God was telling Satan that he will never win, and that deadly blow awaits him (bruise his head).

When the bible is describing things of supernatural appearance, you have to expect that natural language is lacking, and that there must be some figures of speech used. I don't think that brass or copper feet as refined in an oven in Revelation actually refers to the composition of Jesus' feet, but rather their appearance (color?) or more likely their purpose in stomping out wickedness and making ashes of them like how Malachi describes that day.

My point in repeating your posts is to point out your love of asking questions while avoiding, in my view, answering them.

I am happy to answer your question. I take it that a serpent spoke. Later it becomes clear that either the devil was speaking through the serpent in order, I imagine, to conceal his identity, or the serpent is simply symbolic of the devil. Take your pick. I don’t see it as a critical point.

The question of the resurrection, however, is absolutely critical.

Later it becomes clear that either the devil was speaking through the serpent in order, I imagine, to conceal his identity, or the serpent is simply symbolic of the devil. Take your pick. I don’t see it as a critical point.


I agree here, not a critical point. I lean towards the symbolic, only because of the contentions I made prior.



The question of the resurrection, however, is absolutely critical.


That is the TRUTH.

Without a resurrection, you have no Christianity. If you deny the resurrection, you deny the deity of Christ, you deny the purpose of the life of Christ, etc...

You cannot be a Christian, and deny the miraculous nature of the divine.

Well said, Info.

Athos, in all sincerity, you continue this blame game and you continue to attack others.

This is not civil. For all the bellyaching you do, you have yet to treat anyone like a human being, then you whine when someone attacks you.

My long diatribe about you (and others I have made in the past) are objective analysis of your character. If you like you can refute them, but your language and attitude is not at all "civil" or "mature."

You seem to think that you can say whatever you want, but when other people do the same, they are childish and immature and whatever else you want to call it.

Do I need to make another long list of all the insults and lies and mischaracterizations you have used to prove this to you and everyone else here?

I have no hope you will improve, as a matter of fact, I bet you will quote this, then go on attacking without even considering what I have said.


You're beating a dead horse, junkie. Time for you to get off that horse and participate like an adult.

Secondly, early in life I learn many things, that in reality are far more complex. For instance animals indeed do talk. Parrots talk, I've heard things out of the mouths of dogs that sound very much like words, apes can learn sign language, and there is a whole area of study in ecology regarding animal communication.

Animal communication - parrots parroting human speech, dogs communicating by barking, and apes using sign language - these are examples of what is far more complex in reality?


When you talk about as "square circle," you are talking nonsense.

"talking nonsense?" I see that the insults begin with you, as they always have. You seem to have two standards - one for yourself and one for everybody else.


Let me explain further. If God made a square circle then it would be logically possible and circles would be able to be squared, and you would have no knowledge of the difference. You would instead find some other logical impossibility to use as an example instead. What is really in question, is whether God can create something that is logically inconsistent with the nature of this universe, and He can, but it would then be outside of the context of this universe.

(Where is Anselm when we need him?) You are offering logic, so I will answer from the same discipline. You start with a conclusion (a no-no) that is logically impossible to verify and, even worse, you are putting that conclusion as a premise to
arrive at your conclusion. Circles within circles. Let me put it another way. You are trying to prove God can make a square circle, and your proof is "God can make a square circle". Best to leave logic out of the discussion.


When I said "I do not believe this", I was referring to the idea of a "literal snake" being the subject of this story. I believe the story is literally true and also uses a figure of speech to describe the character of the being that is not clearly described.

So it wasn't a snake, but something else?


I imagine ...... I think that the beast befriended Eve, and talked nicely to her. I imagine that of his 4 faces, one being that of a man, intrigued her and confounded Adam. I imagine that the beast had intimate knowledge of God. These are just imaginations though, it is not so explicitly stated.

So the beast was actually a 4-faced man although that was not explicitly stated?


You misunderstand me. I believe the story is literally true, and a figure of speech was used to describe Satan.

Ok, so it wasn't really a snake in the garden, it was Satan disguised as a 4-faced human.


It is my understanding that the devil can take on many forms. If that form was a "snake" it would not surprise me.

But you just wrote that the snake was a figure of speech.


The fact that he could take many forms makes visual descriptions quite lacking. I just don't think that is what is happening here. There are other clues in the passage.

Why are visual descriptions quite lacking? Does he take more than one form at the same time? Ok, you don't think that's the thing, so there are other clues in the passage. Good. I'm following along.


I think Eve saw a cherubim with all its glory and splendor, the name of which is Lucifer.

Ok, so it wasn't Satan after all, it was a cherubim named Lucifer. Later on, you defined a cherub as follows: "when you look at a what a cherub is, you find it has the face of an ox with horns."

Up to now, the snake wasn't really a snake, it was Satan disguised as a 4-faced human. But now, the snake is really a cherub named Lucifer which has the face of an ox with horns.


When you look at the story in Genesis, the devil is described as a serpent

Yes, so that part of the story is not literal - I get that. And the serpent is really the devil (Satan?) appearing either as a 4-faced human or as a cherub named Lucifer who appears as an ox with horns.


This is not hard to imagine when you understand that the devil is described in later books as the "cherub that covers" and when you look at a what a cherub is, you find it has the face of an ox with horns.

When the bible is describing things of supernatural appearance, you have to expect that natural language is lacking, and that there must be some figures of speech used.

Thank you for answering my question about a talking reptile.

I am happy to answer your question. I take it that a serpent spoke. Later it becomes clear that either the devil was speaking through the serpent in order, I imagine, to conceal his identity, or the serpent is simply symbolic of the devil. Take your pick. I don’t see it as a critical point.

If you don't see a talking reptile as a critical point re the literal-ness of the story, it's difficult to know what to say to you. Even worse, you say you believe a serpent spoke! Your comment supports my contention about your belief in hell. You believe in the wildest figurative sections of the Bible.


The question of the resurrection, however, is absolutely critical.

You didn't reply to my comment asking you why you are inquiring into my religious belief. As I said, if you have a legitimate reason, I'll answer you.

If you don't see a talking reptile as a critical point re the literal-ness of the story, it's difficult to know what to say to you.It is simply not critical to the story.

In not answering my question, you have verified what I said. "My point in repeating your posts is to point out your love of asking questions while avoiding, in my view, answering them." I mean for goodness sake you act like someone is asking you for a critical confidential secret of some sort, or that you are some sort of privileged prima donna who is above the rest of us and need not answer questions.

Give you a legit reason? I've got a better idea. Open up the secret world of Athos a bit and answer the most important question in the world. Do you believe in the resurrection?

It is simply not critical to the story.

Critical or not, the fact remains that you believe in a talking reptile. That speaks volumes about you.


In not answering my question, you have verified what I said. "My point in repeating your posts is to point out your love of asking questions while avoiding, in my view, answering them." I mean for goodness sake you act like someone is asking you for a critical state confidential secret of some sort, or that you are some sort of privileged prima donna who is above the rest of us.

You still haven't said why you are inquiring.


Give you a legit reason? I've got a better idea.

That's not a better idea.


Do you believe in the resurrection?

Why?

Mr. Secretive. Why answer? Because we are discussing the Christian faith, and your belief or non belief can show certain prejudices. At any rate, your refusal to answer says volumes about you.

your belief or non belief can show certain prejudices.
According to your beliefs and prejudices.

Athos-

Talking nonsense is an insult to you? You have thin skin. You proposed a logical fallacy, a straw man of God's power, that is nonsense. I am beginning to think your goal in life is to say as much as possible...too bad, it doesn't say much.

Get your bible out and read it if you are so confounded. Satan = Cherubim = Four Faced Beast. I'm sorry you can't see that, it is written plain as day in Ezekiel, I guess your reading comprehension is lacking though.

I could care less what you believe, your brain is made of mud apparently, what the bible says and what you say are in stark contradiction.

Lets make a game of this, since you refuse to let any topic advance beyond some inability to understand the most basic of thoughts, how about you just go on insulting everyone, and I'll go on insulting you.

I'll start.

You are as dull as a 5 watt incandescent.

You are as dull as a 5 watt incandescent.
Oh, such terrific testimony and witnessing! My heart nearly bursts with joy at seeing examples of believers expressing and sharing Jesus' love here on these boards! </sarcasm>

Mr. Secretive. Why answer? Because we are discussing the Christian faith, and your belief or non belief can show certain prejudices. At any rate, your refusal to answer says volumes about you.

That's what I thought.

You are looking for those areas that show (in your words) "certain prejudices". Did you ever think I thought your motivation was anything but that?

Like other fundie/born-again/evanglicals, the routine is the same. Correct their beliefs that do not agree with us, frighten them with hell, and accept or discard them according to what they believe.

This website page is here for the purpose of DISCUSSING Christianity, not converting non-Christians. You and the likes of you have never understood that simple fact. Some years ago, one misguided moderator posted that the page was FOR believing Christians, not for non-Christians. His error was soon corrected, presumably by the owner.

Post all you want about your beliefs, and your Bible readings, but don't expect not to be challenged by other Christians or by non-Christians.

Athos-

Talking nonsense is an insult to you? You have thin skin. You proposed a logical fallacy, a straw man of God's power, that is nonsense. I am beginning to think your goal in life is to say as much as possible...too bad, it doesn't say much.

Get your bible out and read it if you are so confounded. Satan = Cherubim = Four Faced Beast. I'm sorry you can't see that, it is written plain as day in Ezekiel, I guess your reading comprehension is lacking though.

I could care less what you believe, your brain is made of mud apparently, what the bible says and what you say are in stark contradiction.

Lets make a game of this, since you refuse to let any topic advance beyond some inability to understand the most basic of thoughts, how about you just go on insulting everyone, and I'll go on insulting you.

I'll start.

You are as dull as a 5 watt incandescent.

This beauty is from the one who chastises others for nasty language and insulting remarks. It is hard to believe he has left himself so open for others to see his all-too-obvious hypocrisy.

For a wonderful example of infojunkie's evangelical mind-set, all should read his post #191. It's breathtaking.

Oh, such terrific testimony and witnessing! My heart nearly bursts with joy at seeing examples of believers expressing and sharing Jesus' love here on these boards!


Ok...that's fair. I got carried away. Please accept my apologies.



This beauty is from the one who chastises others for nasty language and insulting remarks. It is hard to believe he has left himself so open for others to see his all-too-obvious hypocrisy.

For a wonderful example of infojunkie's evangelical mind-set, all should read his post #191. It's breathtaking.


I am sorry. That was uncalled for.

You are looking for those areas that show (in your words) "certain prejudices". Did you ever think I thought your motivation was anything but that?What difference does that make? I freely admit I am prejudiced towards believing the Bible. I think it's for very good reasons, but I certainly don't let that make me shrink away from answering straight forward questions. Why do you?


Like other fundie/born-again/evanglicals, the routine is the same. Yet another of the ad hominem attacks you claim to dislike. If you can't answer the arguments, then attack the persons. Even worse, it is flatly an untrue statement since I just told you recently I am not a "fundie" or anything that fits your definition of an evangelical. You remember? That was yet another occasion where you asked me questions and I answered them. Remember??? https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848177&page=19&p=3871642#post3871642

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848177&page=19&p=3871687#post3871687

You are also disparaging the concept of being born again which Jesus said is absolutely essential for entering the Kingdom of God. Is that yet another statement of Christ's you refuse to accept?


This website page is here for the purpose of DISCUSSING Christianity, not converting non-Christians.Where does it say that? Do you think you get to decide? But it does, rather sadly, seem to be a clear statement by you that you are a "non Christian". That's tragic.

What difference does that make? I freely admit I am prejudiced towards believing the Bible. I think it's for very good reasons, but I certainly don't let that make me shrink away from answering straight forward questions. Why do you?

I reply to any and all legitimate questions. As you just admitted, your questions are designed to display your prejudices and that is not a very good reason. You just don't get it - never have.


Yet another of the ad hominem attacks you claim to dislike.

I reject ad hominem attacks unless they originate with you. Then you get a taste of your own medicine. Like others of your religious ilk, you can't seem to discuss Christianity without soon attacking the person.


it is flatly an untrue statement since I just told you recently I am not a "fundie"

A fundamentalist/evangelical/born again is anyone who reads the Bible literally. Believing in talking reptiles clearly puts you in that category. Do you deny that?


You are also disparaging the concept of being born again which Jesus said is absolutely essential for entering the Kingdom of God.

No, I am disparaging your concept of being born again.


Is that yet another statement of Christ's you refuse to accept?

No, it's yet another example of your limited grasp of discussions here.


from Athos
This website page is here for the purpose of DISCUSSING Christianity, not converting non-Christians.


Where does it say that? Do you think you get to decide?

It is self-evident that Q&A sites are NOT for proselytizing. Now that you admitted you don't go along with that, it tells us all we need to know about you and what you post on these pages.


But it does, rather sadly, seem to be a clear statement by you that you are a "non Christian".

This bizarre non-sequitur tells us more about your mind-set as so many of your statements do. I will say this much for you - your mental meanderings are always there in plain sight for anyone to take the measure of your mind.


That's tragic.

Another beauty from you! The world of non-Christians is hardly tragic. What is truly tragic is your sick belief that Jesus sends all who don't believe in him to hell for punishment for all eternity. Nothing is more tragic.

Your belief in talking reptiles is close behind. Not tragic so much as idiotic.

Ok...that's fair. I got carried away. Please accept my apologies.

You have a lot to offer. Let's work together!


the concept of being born again which Jesus said is absolutely essential for entering the Kingdom of God.
What does being "born again" mean to you?

You have a lot to offer. Let's work together!
Infojunkie4life has sent me a message that he is sorry for his behavior and recognizes he should do better. He is leaving AMHD after a decade here and hopes that we find the truth someday.




I replied as below:

Apology accepted. It's always good to recognize hard truths about oneself, no matter how long it takes.

I hope you too will find the truth someday.




My message was returned as undeliverable since Info had previously elected not to receive internal messages. So I'm posting it here in the hope that he will see it.

I reject ad hominem attacks unless they originate with you. Then you get a taste of your own medicine. Like others of your religious ilk, you can't seem to discuss Christianity without soon attacking the person.Always one to excuse your own behavior.

If there is a more legit question than whether or not you believe in the resurrection, I don't know what it is.

Everybody reads the Bible literally. When you quote passages, you take their meanings to be literal. Your definitions of fundamentalists/evangelicals are just that. Your definitions.


No, it's yet another example of your limited grasp of discussions here.Yet another ad hominem attack with no meaningful response to the question raised. Predictable.


It is self-evident that Q&A sites are NOT for proselytizingIt is to you. Believe it or not, not everyone is compelled to abide by your personal beliefs.


This bizarre non-sequitur tells us more about your mind-set as so many of your statements do. I will say this much for you - your mental meanderings are always there in plain sight for anyone to take the measure of your mind.Aside from your lack of understanding as to what a non-sequitur is, you can easily solve the problem by a simple statement of your belief. Oops. I forgot. That would require you to actually answer a meaningful question, something which you seem loathe to do.

Shame to see Info go. He had some good statements.

Everybody reads the Bible literally. When you quote passages, you take their meanings to be literal.
Huh? The first lesson we are taught is that, in addition to historical events, the Bible contains poetry, parables, allegories, wise sayings, uplifting songs, prophecies. Lessons two and three are how to tell the difference and what the purpose of each is.

I am certainly not referring to any lessons you have taught. I have no reason to follow that. But even in your world, are you saying that you never take the Bible literally? You have quoted passages here that you took quite literally, have you not?

I am certainly not referring to any lessons you have taught. I have no reason to follow that. But even in your world, are you saying that you never take the Bible literally? You have quoted passages here that you took quite literally, have you not?
Nor am I referring to "any lessons I have taught".

Those are lessons every new Bible student is taught. Please reread what I had posted.

I don't take the figurative portions of psalms literally. Are there parts of the Bible you do not take literally?

Please reread what I had posted.
No thanks.


Are there parts of the Bible you do not take literally?Answer a question with a question? Did you and Athos go to the same school of evasion?

At any rate, to show you how it's done, I'll give two passages I take figuratively and tell you why. The first is at the beginning of John 10 where Jesus refers so a door, a shepherd, sheep, and thieves and robbers. Then we read in verse 6, "This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them." He then goes on to explain the allegory.

There is also the passage preceeding John 16:29. After Jesus has spoken in very literal terms, His disciples say, “Lo, now You are speaking plainly and are not using a figure of speech."

We could look at many others. The parable of the sower of the seed in Mark 4, for instance, which Jesus then explains in very literal terms afterward. But they all bear the same marks. They are statements which are impossible to take in literal terms. Jesus is not a door, we are not sheep, and God is not growing plants in a field. However, we never are to follow the rule that the two of you seem to employ. When you encounter a passage which disagrees with your preconceived ideas, you simply dismiss as some sort of figurative language. You can never explain what the figurative language is to teach us, but you pass by it because you find it to be uncomfortable.

Now try answering my question.

No thanks.
You misunderstood what I had written, thus my request.

Answer a question with a question? Did you and Athos go to the same school of evasion?
I wasn't finished with my reply, and had added more to explain.

At any rate, to show you how it's done, I'll give two passages I take figuratively and tell you why. The first is at the beginning of John 10 where Jesus refers so a door, a shepherd, sheep, and thieves and robbers. Then we read in verse 6, "This figure of speech Jesus spoke to them, but they did not understand what those things were which He had been saying to them."
What's your question? Where's your explanation of why you don't take it literally?

I accidentally posted my reply before I was finished. Please reread it.

I have no intention of hunting around for your statements. If you have something to clarify, then simply copy and paste your responses.

I accidentally posted my reply before I was finished. Please reread it.

I have no intention of hunting around for your statements. If you have something to clarify, then simply copy and paste your responses.
Wait! You refuse to go "hunting around" to read my additions, but I must scroll back in order to read yours?

I'll make it easy. It was precisely three posts above yours, but in the interest of being helpful, here you go.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848212&page=11&p=3871849#post3871849

I'll make it easy. It was precisely three posts above yours, but in the interest of being helpful, here you go.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=848212&page=11&p=3871849#post3871849
And here is my very recent post that you spurned:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?p=3871846#post3871846)
I am certainly not referring to any lessons you have taught. I have no reason to follow that. But even in your world, are you saying that you never take the Bible literally? You have quoted passages here that you took quite literally, have you not?

Wondergirl:
Nor am I referring to "any lessons I have taught".

Those are lessons every new Bible student is taught. Please reread what I had posted.

I don't take the figurative portions of psalms literally. Are there parts of the Bible you do not take literally?


Now try answering my question.
I have no idea what your question is.

Fair enough. I misread your statement.

I have just posted three passages to taken figuratively.. I also posted what is the general rule of good hermeneutics regarding literal/figurative understandings of passages.

I still wish you would answer my question. I don't expect you will, but I wish you would.

Fair enough. I misread your statement.

I have just posted three passages to taken figuratively.. I also posted what is the general rule of good hermeneutics regarding literal/figurative understandings of passages.

Jesus Himself said those are figurative -- stories that tell a bigger truth.

I still wish you would answer my question. I don't expect you will, but I wish you would.
Again, I have no idea what that question is.

Jesus Himself said those are figurative -- stories that tell a bigger truth.Yes. We would agree with that.

What are some passages you take literally?

What are some passages you take literally?
Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection.

Why take those literally? How about His teachings? Weren't they part of His ministry? Should they be taken literally? If not, then why not?

Why take those literally? How about His teachings? Weren't they part of His ministry? Should they be taken literally? If not, then why not?
Are you trying to push me into a corner of your own making?

His teachings were part of His ministry. What was the point of His ministry, no matter if His teachings were literal or, so often, figurative?

Answer a question with a question. Wonderful.

I am trying to get you to think. The only way to do that is for each of us to be willing to think aloud. You seem to be unwilling.

Answer a question with a question. Wonderful.

I am trying to get you to think.
Please stop putting me down.

Apparently, you didn't understand my rhetorical question. I'll rephrase:

[Jesus'] teachings were part of His ministry. Otherwise, what then would have been the point and value of His ministry had He not used these teachings that were literal or, so often, figurative?

If you want a discussion, don't dodge questions. I asked first, so you answer first.



Why take those literally? How about His teachings? Weren't they part of His ministry? Should they be taken literally? If not, then why not?





Rhetorical questions, by definition, do not require answers. I thought you knew these things.

If you want a discussion, don't dodge questions. I asked first, so you answer first.



Why take those literally? How about His teachings? Weren't they part of His ministry? Should they be taken literally? If not, then why not?





Rhetorical questions, by definition, do not require answers. I thought you knew these things.
Again, more putdowns.

Again, no answers. Stop being so sensitive and start being honest and open. Answer questions.

Again, no answers. Stop being so sensitive and start being honest and open. Answer questions.
[Jesus'] teachings, both literal and figurative, were part of His ministry and very much the point and value of His ministry. In both word and deed, He enriched the lives of others with unconditional love.

You answered a question asked by no one.

I’ll ask another one. Where does it say God’s love is unconditional?

You answered a question asked by no one.
You asked:
"Why take those literally? How about His teachings? Weren't they part of His ministry? Should they be taken literally? If not, then why not?"

So I answered:
"[Jesus'] teachings, both literal and figurative, were part of His ministry and very much the point and value of His ministry. In both word and deed, He enriched the lives of others with unconditional love."

I’ll ask another one. Where does it say God’s love is unconditional?
God’s expression of His unconditional love is found throughout the Bible. Although we are commanded to repent of our sins and love Him and each other, He never stops loving us in our journey to righteousness.

One of my favorite verses, Eph. 2:8:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God...." -- a gift of grace that shows His unconditional love for us.

If it’s stated throughout the Bible, can you show even one place where that is said?

Your passage didn’t even mention love.

If it’s stated throughout the Bible, can you show even one place where that is said?

Your passage didn’t even mention love.
You don't get "unconditional love" (agape) out of God's sacrificing His only Son and giving eternal life as a free gift to sin-ridden humans?

I have asked a simple question. Can you show me in the Bible a passage where it speaks of God's "unconditional love"? You have stated it is throughout the Bible. Fine. Show us where.

Agape is not defined as unconditional love.

I am trying to get you to think this concept through. I know in the past we have talked about unconditional love and unconditional acceptance NOT being synonymous.

I have asked a simple question. Can you show me in the Bible a passage where it speaks of God's "unconditional love"?
You want that exact phrase "unconditional love" to be in the Bible. Correct? If it's not those exact words in the Bible, *sigh*, God must not love us unconditionally.


Agape is not defined as unconditional love.
From Wikipedia:
Agape (Ancient Greek ἀγάπη, agapē) is a Greco-Christian term referring to unconditional love, "the highest form of love, charity" and "the love of God for man and of man for God". The word is not to be confused with philia, brotherly love, or philautia, self-love, as it embraces a universal, unconditional love that transcends and persists regardless of circumstance.

If there is a more legit question than whether or not you believe in the resurrection, I don't know what it is.

I agree that you don't know. The question is legitimate only if the person asking is doing so for a legitimate reason. I already explained that. You have made it clear your purpose is not legitimate. I'm always amazed at how you have such difficulty understanding the posts of others.


Everybody reads the Bible literally.

Wrong! Most read the Bible to discern the meaning behind the words when a literal reading is obviously not called for.


When you quote passages, you take their meanings to be literal.

Like a talking reptile?


Your definitions of fundamentalists/evangelicals are just that. Your definitions.

Third time WRONG! My definition is the accepted definition. That is easily verified by checking any dictionary or any Bible site.


Shame to see Info go. He had some good statements.

Unlike you, he was man enough to recognize that some of his posts did not describe the real person he was. I admire him for that.

That is the last mention I will make re Info to you. I have no desire to tarnish his reputation by discussing him with you.

You want that exact phrase "unconditional love" to be in the Bible. Correct? If it's not those exact words in the Bible, *sigh*.You said, and I quote, "God’s expression of His unconditional love is found throughout the Bible." Now you say it's not? Are you confused?

As to your definition of agape, it is not defined as unconditional love in any lexicon you will ever find. Strong's Concordance says, "26 agápē – properly, love which centers in moral preference. So too in secular ancient Greek, 26 (https://biblehub.com/greek/26.htm) (agápē) focuses on preference; likewise the verb form (25 (https://biblehub.com/greek/25.htm) /agapáō) in antiquity meant "to prefer" (TDNT, 7). In the NT, 26 (https://biblehub.com/greek/26.htm) (agápē) typically refers to divine love (= what God prefers)." The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon says, "

Definition




brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence
love feasts"



Thayer's Greek Lexicon says this.

1. affection, good-will, love, benevolence: John 15:13; Romans 13:10; 1 John 4:18. Of the love of men to men; especially of that love of Christians toward Christians which is enjoined and prompted by their religion, whether the love be viewed as in the soul or as expressed: Matthew 24:12; 1 Corinthians 13:1-4, 8; 1 Corinthians 14:1; 2 Corinthians 2:4; Galatians 5:6; Philemon 1:5, 7; 1 Timothy 1:5; Hebrews 6:10; Hebrews 10:24; John 13:35; 1 John 4:7; Revelation 2:4, 19, etc. Of the love of men toward God: ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ; (obj. genitive (Winer's Grammar, 185 (175))), Luke 11:42; John 5:42; 1 John 2:15 (τοῦ πατρός); . Of the love of God toward men: Romans 5:8; Romans 8:39; 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14). Of the love of God toward Christ: John 15:10; John 17:26. Of the love of Christ toward men: John 15:9; 2 Corinthians 5:14; Romans 8:35; Ephesians 3:19. In construction: ἀγάπην εἰς τινα, 2 Corinthians 2:8 (?); Ephesians 1:15 (L WH omit; Tr marginal reading brackets τήν ἀγάπην); τῇ ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐν ἡμῖν i. e. love going forth from your soul and taking up its abode as it were in ours, equivalent to your love to us, 2 Corinthians 8:7 (Winers Grammar, 193 (181f); B. 329 (283)); μεθ' ὑμῶν i. e. is present with (embraces) you, 1 Corinthians 16:24; μεθ' ἡμῶν i. e. seen among us, 1 John 4:17. Phrases: ἔχειν ἀγάπην εἰς τινα, 2 Corinthians 2:4; Colossians 1:4 (L T Tr, but WH brackets); 1 Peter 4:8; ἀγάπην διδόναι to give a proof of love, 1 John 3:1; ἀγαπᾶν ἀγάπην τινα, John 17:26; Ephesians 2:4 (see in ἀγαπάω, under the end); ἀγάπης τοῦ πνεύματος, i. e. enkindled by the Holy Spirit, Romans 15:30; ὁ υἱός τῆς ἀγάπης the Son who is the object of love, equivalent to ἀγαπητός, Colossians 1:13 (Winers Grammar, 237 (222); (Buttmann, 162 (141))); ὁ Θεός τῆς ἀγάπης the author of love, 2 Corinthians 13:11; κόπος τῆς ἀγάπης troublesome service, toil, undertaken from love, 1 Thessalonians 1:3; ἀγάπην τῆς ἀληθείας love which embraces the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:10; ὁ Θεός ἀγάπη ἐστιν God is wholly love, his nature is summed up in love, 1 John 4:8, 16; φίλημα ἀγάπης a kiss as a sign among Christians of mutual affection, 1 Peter 5:14; διά τήν ἀγάπην that love may have opportunity of influencing thee ('in order to give scope to the power of love,' DeWette, Wies.), Philemon 1:9, cf. Philemon 1:14; ἐν ἀγάπη lovingly, in an affectionate spirit, 1 Corinthians 4:21; on love as a basis (others, in love as the sphere or element), Ephesians 4:15 (where ἐν ἀγάπη is to be connected not with ἀληθεύοντες but with αὐξήσωμεν), Ephesians 4:16; ἐξ ἀγάπης influenced by love, Philippians 1:17 (16); κατά ἀγάπην in a manner befitting love, Romans 14:15. Love is mentioned together with faith and hope in 1 Corinthians 13:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; Colossians 1:4; Hebrews 10:22-24. On the words ἀγάπη, ἀγαπᾶν, cf. Gelpke in the Studien und Kritiken for 1849, p. 646f; on the idea and nature of Christian love see Köstlin, Lehrbgr. des Ev. Joh. etc., p. 248ff, 332ff; Rückert, Theologie, ii. 452ff; Lipsius, Paulin. Reehtfertigungsl., p. 188ff; (Reuss, Theol. Chret. livr. vii. chap. 13).

My definition is the accepted definition. That is easily verified by checking any dictionary or any Bible site.Laughable. If that was true you would have posted them. This is what is found on Wikipedia. Note that you left out quite a few details and mangled the part about how Evangelicals view the Bible. "Evangelicalism, evangelical Christianity, or evangelical Protestantism, is a worldwide trans-denominational movement within Protestant Christianity that maintains the belief that the essence of the Gospel consists of the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, solely through faith in Jesus's atonement. Evangelicals believe in the centrality of the conversion or "born again" experience in receiving salvation, in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity, and in spreading the Christian message. The movement has long had a presence in the Anglosphere before spreading further afield in the 19th, 20th and early 21st centuries." I might add that, rather amazingly, they found no need to mention, as you usually do, "white evangelicals". Wonder why?

The question of the resurrection is really the only important question to be asked or answered that I know of. If you answer "yes", then many other important questions arise, but if you answer "no", then important questions cease.

You are, as is frequently the case, afraid to answer.


I have no desire to tarnish his reputation by him with you.I fully understand. You said plenty to tarnish his reputation just speaking to him. I'm sure you feel his withdrawal from this board has accomplished your purpose.

You said, and I quote, "God’s expression of His unconditional love is found throughout the Bible." Now you say it's not? Are you confused?
No, I did not say it's not. God's unconditional love. Is. Found. Throughout. The. Bible.

Yes, Athos is correct. You do have a reading comprehension problem.

Except..you..cannot..find..it..anwhere. Can...you...read..and...comprehend...that??? Enough of your blah blah. Put it on the site if you have it. If you don't, and you clearly don't, then move on and stop with the utterly foolish "reading comprehension" comments. The problem lies only with you.

Except..you..cannot..find..it..anwhere.
Can't find what? God's unconditional love? It begins in Genesis and goes throughout the Bible and ends in Jude.

And God loves me unconditionally every second of every day.

Laughable.

Laughable?

WIKIPEDIA

In religion – that is characterized by a markedly strict Literalism as it is applied to certain specific scriptures, dogmas, or ideologies, and a strong sense of the importance of maintaining ingroup and outgroup distinctions.

Britannica

Fundamentalism - type of religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts. -


Merriam-Webster

Definition of fundamentalism

A movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching.

Other Religions

There is an inerrant holy book, to which literal obedience is mandatory.

The Indian holy books, the Vedas, are said to contain even scientific as well as spiritual truths; many Christian fundamentalists believe the same of the Bible.

Literal interpretations and obedience leave no room for uncertainty, no matter how uncertain the real world.


Still laughing?

No. You have provided definitions for fundamentalism. I gave you a definition for evangelicalism which is decidedly a different matter. Even worse, I have told you on multiple occasions that I am not a fundamentalist. So that's two strikes against you now. Watch the next pitch carefully.

To make matters worse, you have oversimplified your response. There is a good deal more to fundamentalism than what you have described. From Wikipedia. "Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamental Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity, in its modern form, began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants[1][2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist theologians had misinterpreted or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which they considered the fundamentals of the Christian faith.[3]Fundamentalists are almost always described as holding to the beliefs in Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy.[4] In keeping with traditional Christian doctrines concerning biblical interpretation, the role of Jesus in the Bible, and the role of the church in society, fundamentalists usually believe in a core of Christian beliefs which include the historical accuracy of the Bible and all of the events which are recorded in it as well as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.[5]"

And you are still afraid to answer the question about the resurrection. Shame. Mr. Evasion again?

WG.
Can't find what? God's unconditional love?Exactly. You can find no place in the Bible where it says God's love is unconditional. You're toast. I just told someone on the phone about you using a text that didn't have the word "love" in it and did not speak at all of love. It's just silliness. If you can find something, then get back with me.

Question which I'm sure will remain unanswered. Did Jesus show "unconditional love" to the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all that he had and follow Christ? Did He show "unconditional love" to the sellers in the Temple? Did He show unconditional love to Peter when He said, "Get behind me Satan?" Does He show unconditional love in the very plain and clear text in Matthew 25 when He condemns people to Hell? Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

WG. Exactly. You can find no place in the Bible where it says God's love is unconditional.
Read your Bible. Start with John 3:16.

You're toast.
Thanks! You know that means Truly Organized And Sagacious Trinitarian.

John 3:16 does not speak of unconditional love. It speaks of belief in Christ as the means of escaping perishing.

Reposted: Exactly. You can find no place in the Bible where it says God's love is unconditional. You're toast. I just told someone on the phone about you using a text that didn't have the word "love" in it and did not speak at all of love. It's just silliness. If you can find something, then get back with me.

Questions which I'm sure will remain unanswered. Did Jesus show "unconditional love" to the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all that he had and follow Christ? Did He show "unconditional love" to the sellers in the Temple? Did He show unconditional love to Peter when He said, "Get behind me Satan?" Does He show unconditional love in the very plain and clear text in Matthew 25 when He condemns people to Hell? Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

You and I both know you will not answer those questions. You never do. Now I actually do believe that God's love is unconditional, but His acceptance is not, and that is where you are obstinately confused. Unlike you, I can demonstrate it in the Bible. In fact, your own John 3:16 example shows it clearly. That passage is the meeting point of God's love and mercy, but also judgment.

John 3:16 does not speak of unconditional love. It speaks of belief in Christ as the means of escaping perishing.

Reposted: Exactly. You can find no place in the Bible where it says God's love is unconditional. You're toast. I just told someone on the phone about you using a text that didn't have the word "love" in it and did not speak at all of love. It's just silliness. If you can find something, then get back with me.

Questions which I'm sure will remain unanswered. Did Jesus show "unconditional love" to the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all that he had and follow Christ? Did He show "unconditional love" to the sellers in the Temple? Did He show unconditional love to Peter when He said, "Get behind me Satan?" Does He show unconditional love in the very plain and clear text in Matthew 25 when He condemns people to Hell? Does He show unconditional love when He pronounces judgment upon Jerusalem in Matthew 23 when He said, "“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38 Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!"

You and I both know you will not answer those questions. You never do. Now I actually do believe that God's love is unconditional, but His acceptance is not, and that is where you are obstinately confused. Unlike you, I can demonstrate it in the Bible. In fact, your own John 3:16 example shows it clearly. That passage is the meeting point of God's love and mercy, but also judgment.
A deluge of verbiage.

I'm toast = a Truly Organized And Sagacious Trinitarian.

No answers as usual. It's because you don't really want to face the truth.