Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #61

    Jul 3, 2021, 09:46 AM
    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.
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #62

    Jul 3, 2021, 10:00 AM
    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.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #63

    Jul 3, 2021, 10:08 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    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.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #64

    Jul 3, 2021, 11:09 AM
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    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".
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #65

    Jul 3, 2021, 11:14 AM
    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.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #66

    Jul 3, 2021, 11:57 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Athos View Post
    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.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #67

    Jul 3, 2021, 03:27 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by jlisenbe View Post
    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.
    InfoJunkie4Life's Avatar
    InfoJunkie4Life Posts: 1,409, Reputation: 81
    Ultra Member
     
    #68

    Jul 3, 2021, 08:13 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Augustine
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Augustine
    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 it says that God speaks plainly to Moses and not in dark sayings. Other examples:
    1 Chronicles cites the lineages all the way back to Adam as historical fact.
    Psalms 29 references the flood as something that actually happened.
    Psalms 33 affirms the creation account, and that this is the literal power of God, to create with a word.
    Psalms 104 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 affirms creation, the flood, Abraham, and Moses.
    Isaiah 54 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 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, 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.
    InfoJunkie4Life's Avatar
    InfoJunkie4Life Posts: 1,409, Reputation: 81
    Ultra Member
     
    #69

    Jul 3, 2021, 08:20 PM
    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, Abraham's home, which God commanded him to leave.

    Hattusa then subsequently, several other Hittite cites were found.

    The Nuzi Tablets 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 is the city that Abraham's father hailed from, where Abraham lived for some time.

    Shechem was the city which Abraham and Isaac built altars to God in.

    The 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 of Apollos are quoted 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 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


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

    There are an abundance 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.


    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 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 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.
    Athos's Avatar
    Athos Posts: 1,108, Reputation: 55
    Ultra Member
     
    #70

    Jul 4, 2021, 09:21 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life View Post
    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.
    InfoJunkie4Life's Avatar
    InfoJunkie4Life Posts: 1,409, Reputation: 81
    Ultra Member
     
    #71

    Jul 4, 2021, 10:44 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Athos
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
    one would be idiotic if they think they can discern the scientific nature of things certainly, through scripture or otherwise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athos
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Augustine
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Augustine
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athos
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Athos
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athos
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Athos
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
    Genesis lacks sufficient details to account for every scientific rejection and allegorical fiction proposed. It simply says, in human terms, what happened.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athos
    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.
    InfoJunkie4Life's Avatar
    InfoJunkie4Life Posts: 1,409, Reputation: 81
    Ultra Member
     
    #72

    Jul 4, 2021, 10:57 AM
    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.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #73

    Jul 4, 2021, 10:59 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life View Post
    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.
    InfoJunkie4Life's Avatar
    InfoJunkie4Life Posts: 1,409, Reputation: 81
    Ultra Member
     
    #74

    Jul 4, 2021, 11:16 AM
    Better?
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #75

    Jul 4, 2021, 11:49 AM
    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.
    InfoJunkie4Life's Avatar
    InfoJunkie4Life Posts: 1,409, Reputation: 81
    Ultra Member
     
    #76

    Jul 4, 2021, 11:49 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Wondergirl
    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.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #77

    Jul 4, 2021, 11:52 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life View Post
    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.
    InfoJunkie4Life's Avatar
    InfoJunkie4Life Posts: 1,409, Reputation: 81
    Ultra Member
     
    #78

    Jul 4, 2021, 11:58 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Wondergirl
    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?
    jlisenbe's Avatar
    jlisenbe Posts: 5,019, Reputation: 157
    Uber Member
     
    #79

    Jul 4, 2021, 12:10 PM
    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.
    Wondergirl's Avatar
    Wondergirl Posts: 39,354, Reputation: 5431
    Jobs & Parenting Expert
     
    #80

    Jul 4, 2021, 12:12 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life View Post
    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?

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Lexmark genesis s815 [ 1 Answers ]

This same thing is happening to my printer... Lexmark genesis s815. All pages are printing blank. The ink is showing as full on the screen but it is not being delivered to print the pages... I am extremely fed up now. I have installed everything properly, this is my third Lexmark printer, so I know...

Translations of the meaning 'Genesis' [ 2 Answers ]

Hi, I'm looking for various translations of the meaning of Genesis (Birth, creation). The question overlaps into religious groups (Janana - Hindi). Can you help? Thanks.

Lifespans in Genesis (Bere****) [ 48 Answers ]

At synagogue recently there was a reading from the Torah about the age of Noah when he died. It said that he lived to be 950 years old. Afterwards I read some other passages from Genesis and lots of other people had super long lives, too. So: Did people just live longer then? Or, Did they...


View more questions Search