Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by DaChaser1, Mar 7, 2012.
That tell through a story facts to us in literary form?
I think Jesus made in clear that Genesis is the word of God written through Moses and that it is factual, not mythical, since He frequently referred to it as "fact".
Adam and Eve - real people, the FIRST people, enduring actual events.
Plus - what Amy said.
Where and why do you come up with these questions?!?
Where did Jesus do that??? I'm speaking of Moses and Genesis in particular, but creation story as literal and fact in general.
You've never heard this theory of creation/Adam & Eve proposed?
Of course you all know most Emergent theology believes creation in Genesis as myth.
Well if it's a myth then so is the rest of the bible, so let's just throw it in the trash and eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.
Seriously, where did Jesus say that Moses wrote Genesis??? Where did he even mention the creation story in Gen. 1??? You say it is a fact b/c he said it was a fact. I am simply asking for proof.
I'm not saying you're wrong or that I deny creation as told in Gen. 1. I just think we need to be careful how we say things and be ready to back it up when we are taken to task about or words.
In reference to Noah Jesus said:
Mat_24:37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Mat_24:38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,
It is clear here Jesus believed it to be literal.
In reference to Moses Jesus said:
Mar_12:26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?
Which is another name for the Torah. This certainly indicates Moses authorship and of course we see Abraham and his sons as being literal.
I didn't think I needed to post scripture. I just figured we all knew it already. But see Mandym's post.
That's what I've always been taught and believed.
Allow me to split hairs here. But you didn't cite anything about the flood in Gen. 1. Isn't that the point of the OP???
Neither did you demonstrate where Jesus says that Moses wrote Genesis. Though he used a common title "Book of Moses", he was quoting Exodus. Even if he is referring to Torah, that doesn't mean Moses wrote it. If all the people called it "Book of Moses" just as we call it Pentateuch, it doesn't really prove authorship. It just means Jesus used the common title for the 1st 5 books of the Bible that we call the Pentateuch. Jews called Torah and Book of Moses and Law. But I will grant you that this is closer than I thought you would get. I've not heard this used for Moses' authorship of Genesis. Not bad.
I'm not totally denying Moses' authorship of Genesis. I just think it is not so easily defended on the basis of "Jesus said it, I believe it" argument. Plus, we know many places in Genesis that experience redaction. So Genesis had other "writers" as well.
Noah and the flood are combined. You cannot have on literal and the other a myth. Let's not be silly here.
The Book of Moses includes Genesis. You cannot say that Moses on wrote part of the Book of Moses in light of Jesus reference to it.
Trying to nuance in this way is the same as trying to deny totally. It is a weak and illogical argument and has no real place in an honest discussion.
The OP is a very relevant question in light of the ongoing questions from BioLogos and Peter Enns (along with many others.)
I don't believe Adam and Eve were mythical nor do I believe their creation account in Genesis 2 is fictional. The first creation account is a polemical and created to reply to existing pagan creation myths. As I've stated around here before I believe that creation appears to be very old, though it was created in six days.
That still answers nothing about Jesus saying anything about creation as you argued earlier.
I think I said as much. But I'm not sure you addressed what I said. "Book of Moses" was an ancient title for the Law/Torah/Pentateuch. It doesn't prove anything other than the title ascribed authorship to Moses. Jesus used it as a title not a statement of authorship. But you are on a good track.
There is nuance here, I'm not denying that. But it is not a total denial. That is simply an overstatement. My nuance is that Jesus doesn't contend for a literal 6 day creation (at least not recorded in the gospel accounts). If that is a denial, then I think we need to start back at logic 101.
However, if you want a place for honest discussion where subjects like authorship of Genesis is discusses beyond "weak and illogical argument," then I challenge you to read any modern evangelical (not fundie) OT intro or survey that addresses this. Hill and Walton would be a good place to start. I doubt (though know I could very well be wrong) that you've really engaged this issue beyond a cursory level. Authorship of the Torah as well as the OT books are greatly misunderstood in light of NT thinking of authorship. OT was about editing and theological compilation as much as it was authorship. Many evangelical OT scholars would say that inspiration took place at the final product. Moses did not pen the final product, in their view.
Not that this really has much bearing on the OP. Creation account in Gen. 1-2: yes I believe it to be literal (closer to the Sailhamer view, though).
Actually the point was Genesis as a whole as literal
The Title makes the statement. When Jesus used the title He made the statement in recognition.
Sorry but every conversation I have ever had with those who illogically try to nuance these things always leads to a total denial. Always
The point was Genesis as being literal
If you are insisting on discounting fundies then I find you are afraid of their arguments. I read all sorts of sources. I even read those who refuse to accept a literal rendering of Genesis. It is always good to see where the enemy is going now.
And your arrogance shows your bias. It is a common result that those who think that because they allow for more nuances they are more read, studied, and honest. While they are usually wrong on all accounts they are also wrong on their conclusions. Nuance is for hyper intellectuals who place more value and faith in their own logicv and study that in the word and God.
I don't thinks so.
Yea I know. More nuance to find a complete denial
I am not interested in following the view of another person. I do not quote other men as proof that I am right. I read and study and consider a plethora of views. But in the end the final analysis is my own. Not other men.
You're still at it I see.
You really need to lose your condescending attitude towards others, as this is often your recourse when failing to make your point. Mandy, Amy and others have given you adequate Scriptural proofs, yet you run to (modern) scholars instead. Interesting. While doing this you take a swipe at 'fundies.' I can honestly state that I know quite a few fundies that would school you theologically. It wouldn't be a feat, so I can't brag.
I'd rather hang with those who give Scriptural evidence than with those who reject truth for a nuance from an apostate scholar a la Wright for example.
Moreover, you're not as intelligent as you'd have others believe, but it rather seems you need some validation. Also, others aren't as uneducated as you assume or imply, nor as unlearned as you paint them to be with your pejorative language. When losing, you resort to character attack, generally involving a persons knowledge.
I'm beginning to wonder why you've chosen to use only one forum. Wear out your welcome elsewhere?
Aren't you the same fellow who ridiculed (by implcation) the kids in the Focus on the Family John 3:16 video for quoting the verse, and for not saying while they did it that Christ didn't die for the whole world?
Yes, that was you. http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=76414
Seriously, you need to lose your attacks upon the intelligence and or education/knowledge of others. It's becoming a horrendous habit of yours.