In Answer to George Murphy and Comments

[Jack777]

Well, I could sware that there was a post where George Murphy made some comments about creation et cetera. I was going to answer but cannot find it. Anyway, my observations and answer is here. I apologize for starting another thread as some don't like too many of them.

George Murphy,



You must be too used to debating Young Earth Creationists and having the luxury of putting them down simply because of their views on the age of the earth. You might think understanding science is more important than understanding God, but you are wrong.



I put those instances of the Hebrew word “bara” that occur in the Bible as well as a couple of words that can be compared and contrasted to it because I wanted to accomplish several things, none of which directly speak to literalism per se. I take the Bible literally in the sense in which the Reformers understood the word. That is, if I see the word in Hebrew as meaning “to create,” and it is contextually accurate in that verse as really meaning “to create,” then I conclude that the word means “to create.” I understand symbolic language and figures of speech as demonstrated in the Bible as well as world literature. “Literal” means to read something in a literary sense and not allegorizing it as was the wont of the Scholastics after the introduction of Greek philosophy and sophistry into the Roman Catholic Church. I thought that you might understand how language works an have some idea of why Reformers, including those under the direction of Ignatius of Loyola within the Roman Catholic Church tried to reverse the damage done by introducing flights of fancy and whimsy into reading the Bible.



I read a publication of someone’s that grmorton was a co-author with. He stated that God did not create animals and picked out a verse in the Bible where the Hebrew verb “bara” was not used to prove that God did not create any fauna. If you will notice, I quoted instances where God specifically states that He created animals. The verb is there. Reading a book as literature, as narrative, allows us to understand sentences in context with other sentences. You will see that how things are stated in Genesis a reductionist or minimalist argument is impossible in the publication to state that the Bible does not state God created animals. I have already posted a few things about Creation and God as the Creator. I reviewed some of my studies of the Creator and how He relates to the Creation, whether or not He is actively creating, which He is, and the testimony of it. I looked at what I have on the King James Authorized Version of the Apocrypha last night as I am preparing some things on this subject. I was reminded of the importance of non-canonical Protestant and extra-biblical writings on this. Science is important and it is unfortunate that it must seem less to people because God is more, but that is how it is.



Cosmogony is important in every culture around the world in some way. Cosmology is also important. I introduced its importance in one of my threads using Ovid as someone that people might be familiar with. Hesiod, Homer, and other writers preserved as many stories of theogony, cosmogony, and cosmology as they were able to find and Ovid followed suit, incorporating stories shared by Hebrews and Phoenicians for instance. Virgil’s Fourth Ecologue was touted by Dante as influencing his conviction of the Truth of Christ as savior. Some think that Virgil must have read the prophecies of Isaiah for instance.



How do you explain the following by evolution?



And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.



Genesis 2:21-23



You cannot.



I go back to my point I raised earlier some weeks back. In order to develop a new religion based on theism and science the Creator has to be understood at least as well as the Bible allows. That is not in evidence among all Theistic Evolutionists. Less attention is paid to the simple words of the Bible than the things of science and an automatic choice is sometimes made in favor of science when it is not needed simply because the Word of God is not taken seriously.



How does evolution explain that the universe has it substance because of Jesus and consists of Jesus?



Another reason I posted the word “create” or “created” in blue and made it bold was I included all of the instances where it states God created, creates, and will create (in our future). This should allow someone to reflect and be able to conclude that the witness of Scripture disagrees with grmorton and the senior author of the publication.



I also, wanted to give examples of God creating as opposed to forming, shaping, fashioning, or molding existent material. Although I also pointed out some other examples of points that are important to understand, you missed them. In a rush to blow off what was written and make the comment that I simple-minded cited verses for no reason other than to amass a quantity of verses, you missed some things.



Once again, you prove my point. Because you might cite examples for the sake of number in terms of quantity does not mean that is how I think. You assume, which is a mistake. I wanted to point out distinctives of the Faith



Here are the points made:



Israel’s God is declared to be the only true God.

Israel’s God is the God of creation

bara is most often used in relation to what God does and in terms of creation ex nihilo



God created male and female humans



God actively creates now as in the past



God will create as He has in the past



All the writers of Scripture, regardless of their divergent cultural contexts, held to a common theistic worldview



The God revealed in the earliest chapters of Genesis is the same God revealed throughout the entire Old and New Testament



“He is never seen as a localized tribal deity but as the creator of the heavens and the earth”



God’s self-revelation to His people revolves around four central names: El, Elohim, Adonai, and Yahweh. Most of His other names are compound names built upon these four



God created us in his image



Mistaking imitation for creation is definitely forbidden and leads people off course, into sin, toward destruction, to death



Rebellion can be in the form of making something false such as idols



God creates new hearts in people that are clean



God is very serious about us knowing that He creates as Isaiah records



That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of the LORD hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it.



Isaiah 42:5



God creates and redeems



God creates and restores



God creates and saves



God creates as He wishes for His pleasure



God creates for His Glory



God creates so we will not think that we know about things we could not know



They are created now, and not from the beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them.



Isaiah 54:16



The word for create is unique in the Bible



The rarity of the word bara and its Greek equivalent in the Bible.



Created occurs 36 times in the Old Testament and 10 times in the New Testament



Creates does not occur



Create occurs 8 times in the Old Testament



Creation occurs 6 times in the New Testament



Makest occurs 21 times in the Old Testament and 6 times in the New Testament



Maketh occurs114 times in the Old Testament and 20 times in the New Testament



Make occurs 956 times in the Old Testament and 145 times in the New Testament.



Made occurs 1482 times in the Bible



Form occurs 18 times in the Old Testament and 7 times in the New Testament.



Forms occurs 2 times in the Old Testament



Formeth occurs 2 times in the Old Testament



For the reader who wants to pursue the problem of evil and theodicy in greater detail, Murphy recommends the following:



William Dyrness, Christian Apologetics in a World Community; S. Paul Schilling, God and Human Anguish (Nashville: Abingdon, 1977)



M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983)



Edward J. Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1948)



I would recommend



Gregory A. Boyd, God at War, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1997.





Delvoution

"There was also in Schwaller "a grey zone of speculation where true and false did not apply" - for example, in his conviction that mankind had not evolved, but 'devolved', from 'giants who once walked the earth to a near-animal state... vowed to cataclysmic annihilation, while an evolving Élite gathers all of human experience for a resurrection in spirituality."



Collin Wilson, Atlantis to the Sphinx, Fromm International Publishing Corporation, New York, 1996



NEO Strike

"Together with disease, the next ice age ranks as the biggest danger to which we as individuals are exposed. The next ice age is not specific problem of the distant future. The causative agent, the strike of a giant meteorite, could happen at any time.

The risk of the next ice age is not just the biggest of the risks that we run. It is a risk that would hopelessly compromise the future. Besides wiping out a considerable fraction of those now alive, it would leave a wan, grey future from which the survivors and their descendants could do nothing to escape. It would be a condition that might last 50,000 years or more, a future in which the prospects for mankind would be much less favourable than they are today. This is why our modern generation must take action to avoid catastrophe, an ultimate catastrophe besides which the problems that concern people, media and governments from day to day are quite trivial."



Sir Fred Hoyle, Ice, the Ultimate Human Catastrophe,



quoted on internet portal



http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/barry/related.html (http://www.barry.warmkessel.com/barry/related.html)





Forgetting God



“The Scriptures speak much of deception. It takes Strong’s Concordance two full columns to record the number of times the words and its derivatives are found in the English Bible! The words occur over 150 times, spread equally throughout both Testaments. Vine says that deception essentially means giving ‘a false impression.’ That’s how Satan approaches people, and that is evidently how he first approached his angelic peers to lead them in rebellion against God.



Satan almost always begins with deception—thus Paul’s warning in 2 Corinthians 11:3 and his mention of Satan’s schemes in 2 Corinthians 2:11. However, once Satan has established a strong foothold in a person’s life (Eph. 4:27), deception may no longer be so important. He will often unmask himself to torment and enslave his victims further.



Leaders, the Target



Second, we discover his main target for deception, leaders. In the case of those who do not love our God, he moves in deception against persons in all levels of leadership. Political, military, economic, religious, educational, media, family, and other kinds of leaders become the target of his deception. Why? Because they control the destiny of humanity.



Someone has stated that if a solitary man sins, he alone may be affected. If a family man sins, his entire family is affected. If a community leader sins, the community is affected. If a leader over a given structure of a given society sins, the entire society is affected. If a national leader sins, the entire nation is affected. If a world leader sins, the whole world is affected. Who can forget Adolf Hitler!”



Edward F. Murphy, Handbook for Spiritual Warfare

[Constantine]

I do not agree with George Murphy on a number of things, but I have the great respect for him. I do not like Jack misrepresenting him, whether it was intentional or not.

You must be too used to debating Young Earth Creationists and having the luxury of putting them down simply because of their views on the age of the earth. You might think understanding science is more important than understanding God, but you are wrong.

GM would NEVER say understanding science is more important than understanding God. I'm shocked you would think so.

Don't really have the time to go over the rest of your post right now (its late and I have class in the mourning) but that part struck me.

[Jack777]

I answered here and gave my reason why.

Is he not capable of answering for himself?

[George Murphy]

Well, I could sware that there was a post where George Murphy made some comments about creation et cetera. I was going to answer but cannot find it. Anyway, my observations and answer is here. I apologize for starting another thread as some don't like too many of them.

I've "made some comments about creation" in several places on Tweb, most prominently in the thread "Deep Theistic Evolution" in this forum. It's not hard to find. Post #1 there sketches my approach to the creation-evolution issue.

I'll try to respond briefly to some of your comments here but it's a little awkward to do so. You've written as if you're responding to statements of mine but I don't know what I'm supposed to have said & from what you've said you apparently aren't sure either! If you really want to respond to me I suggest you look at post#1 of the thread I mentioned & go from there.

George Murphy,



You must be too used to debating Young Earth Creationists and having the luxury of putting them down simply because of their views on the age of the earth. You might think understanding science is more important than understanding God, but you are wrong.

I have no idea where you got the idea that I "think understanding science is more important than understanding God." Certainly not from anything I've written.



I put those instances of the Hebrew word “bara” that occur in the Bible as well as a couple of words that can be compared and contrasted to it because I wanted to accomplish several things, none of which directly speak to literalism per se. I take the Bible literally in the sense in which the Reformers understood the word. That is, if I see the word in Hebrew as meaning “to create,” and it is contextually accurate in that verse as really meaning “to create,” then I conclude that the word means “to create.” I understand symbolic language and figures of speech as demonstrated in the Bible as well as world literature. “Literal” means to read something in a literary sense and not allegorizing it as was the wont of the Scholastics after the introduction of Greek philosophy and sophistry into the Roman Catholic Church. I thought that you might understand how language works an have some idea of why Reformers, including those under the direction of Ignatius of Loyola within the Roman Catholic Church tried to reverse the damage done by introducing flights of fancy and whimsy into reading the Bible.

I fail to see your point here. Yes, br` means "to create." It's a verb of which only God is the subject in the OT. In that context it does not necessarily mean "create ex nihilo" in the later technical sense.



I read a publication of someone’s that grmorton was a co-author with. He stated that God did not create animals and picked out a verse in the Bible where the Hebrew verb “bara” was not used to prove that God did not create any fauna. If you will notice, I quoted instances where God specifically states that He created animals. The verb is there. Reading a book as literature, as narrative, allows us to understand sentences in context with other sentences. You will see that how things are stated in Genesis a reductionist or minimalist argument is impossible in the publication to state that the Bible does not state God created animals. I have already posted a few things about Creation and God as the Creator. I reviewed some of my studies of the Creator and how He relates to the Creation, whether or not He is actively creating, which He is, and the testimony of it. I looked at what I have on the King James Authorized Version of the Apocrypha last night as I am preparing some things on this subject. I was reminded of the importance of non-canonical Protestant and extra-biblical writings on this. Science is important and it is unfortunate that it must seem less to people because God is more, but that is how it is.

Of course God created animals - every animal that's ever lived. God is your creator & mine. Just as I can make that latter statement without denying that each of us came into being through the processes of embryological development &c, I can say that God created animals through an evolutionary process. The use of br` doesn't rule out mediated creation.



How do you explain the following by evolution?



And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.



Genesis 2:21-23



You cannot.

Gen.2 is a true theological statement about God's creation of the world & humanity. It should not be read as an account of "history as it really happened."

I go back to my point I raised earlier some weeks back. In order to develop a new religion based on theism and science the Creator has to be understood at least as well as the Bible allows. That is not in evidence among all Theistic Evolutionists. Less attention is paid to the simple words of the Bible than the things of science and an automatic choice is sometimes made in favor of science when it is not needed simply because the Word of God is not taken seriously.

I have no intention of developing such a religion.



How does evolution explain that the universe has it substance because of Jesus and consists of Jesus?

I have no idea what you mean by saying that the universe "consists of Jesus." I suggest you read Col.1:15-20 with some care. It is the church, not the cosmos, which is the Body of Christ.

& of course science, & evolution in particular, can't explain that Christ is the agent of creation. Science tells us about creation, not who the creator is.



Another reason I posted the word “create” or “created” in blue and made it bold was I included all of the instances where it states God created, creates, and will create (in our future). This should allow someone to reflect and be able to conclude that the witness of Scripture disagrees with grmorton and the senior author of the publication.

I don't know what you're referring to. Why do you think I should answer for Glenn?



I also, wanted to give examples of God creating as opposed to forming, shaping, fashioning, or molding existent material. Although I also pointed out some other examples of points that are important to understand, you missed them. In a rush to blow off what was written and make the comment that I simple-minded cited verses for no reason other than to amass a quantity of verses, you missed some things.



Once again, you prove my point. Because you might cite examples for the sake of number in terms of quantity does not mean that is how I think. You assume, which is a mistake. I wanted to point out distinctives of the Faith

Again I don't know what you're referring to. Apparently it's some earlier post - but where?

It gets too tiresome beyond this point. You have a melange of statements I would agree with, dubious claims, listings one can get out of a concordance, and citations from various authors all jumbled together. If you expect to carry on a serious discussion you'll have to get better organized.


Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

I see. You are wrong about a couple of things, but that is fine.

Thanks for replying.

[George Murphy]

I see. You are wrong about a couple of things, but that is fine.

Thanks for replying.Could you be more specific?

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

bara isn 't always used only in reference to God creating. I have read that opinion by some as well. However, it is not true. Here is a post that lists all of the instances of the Hebrew word meaning to create. I point out one instance. You probably did not read the post.

Because the Hebrew word for create is in a concordance does not mean it was not used. The Leningrad Codex uses it. I am not sure why you think it is wrong to use it in the Bible.

Anyway hope this copies below:

“All through the Old Testament, Israel’s God is declared to be the only true God.

He is the God of creation.”



Edward F. Murphy


Handbook for Spiritual Warfare, 1997


In view of the fact that it has been stated that the Bible does not say God created living things (it does), I thought it might be worth repeating that He did create living things such as animals and people. God created living things, He says He did in the Bible. What happens when we forget God or we are deceived into thinking He did not create all things and is not actively creating now? Deception happens, we believe a lie and are given a delusion to believe the lie more if we do not return to God as most important to us.



The Hebrew word, bara is most often used in relation to what God does and in terms of creation ex nihilo. Only God can create, man imitates. God brought everything that we know of in the universe into being, matter, space, and time. We think we know so much and believe that the Hebrew and other ancient people had beliefs that were inaccurate. That is not true of the Bible or the people who preserved it for all of mankind. Although this is a subject for another time, just one illustration is in order. People say the ancients thought the universe was formed from water and that the earth sat upon water. We think that because we do not understand their language well enough to know that they were speaking of something that we have just now discovered in the past few years to be true. Space is not exactly space. It is not an empty vacuum. What they described was exactly correct. They knew this by Revelation. Who told them? God told them. This message was disseminated into other cultures the world over. Over time the original message, the original information migrated along with people groups and the notion of floating on water was how later people took what they learned. The original message is preserved in the Bible, although it shows up in various stages of lessened accuracy in other people groups.



Edward F. Murphy, in his book the Handbook for Spiritual Warfare, has compelling reasons that he gives which state the importance of God as Creator. He writes:



“All the writers of Scripture, regardless of their divergent cultural contexts, held to a common theistic world view. Furthermore, all the Scripture writers held to a common view of God. The God revealed in the earliest chapters of Genesis is the same God revealed throughout the entire Old and New Testament. He is both transcendent (Genesis 1:1) and immanent (Genesis 3:8). He is never seen as a localized tribal deity but as the creator “of the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1f). While Abraham and the nation of Israel are called to restore His name on earth, He is, from the beginning, revealed as the God of all the peoples of the earth (Genesis 12:3; 14:19–20).

H. B. Kuhn, Professor of Philosophy of Religion at Asbury Theological Seminary, traces the progressive unfolding of dimensions of God’s personality and His relationship both to creation and to His people which are found in the different names by which God reveals Himself in the Old Testament in an excellent encyclopedia article. According to Kuhn, God’s self-revelation to His people revolves around four central names: El, Elohim, Adonai, and Yahweh. Most of His other names are compound names built upon these four.”1



God created. God creates, and will create. Listed in the following verses, here are the places in the Bible where we are told that He will create, creates and created. Included are instances where bara is translated other than create in the King James Authorized Version and in reference to people.



Paul was a tentmaker and doing science is probably more difficult in some ways than that. There were probably tentmakers a lot better than Paul, but that was not his calling. He left behind the cushy job that he had in the Temple. Still, Paul studied under the most brilliant Jewish theologian of the time, perhaps of all time. “Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space…” (Acts 5:34). Paul knew what he was talking about. He was concerned for the people, that they might not be deceived by the pantheism and naturalism of the day, doctrines of men and doctrines of demons. It does not take a whole lot to get off track and think worldly knowledge, worldly wisdom, and worldly understanding is something special that might preclude the witness of Scripture.



But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.



For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things.



II Corinthians 11:3-6



So, let’s look into God as Creator in the Bible.
Genesis 1:1


In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:21


And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Genesis 2:3

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.


Genesis 2:4


These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,


Genesis 5:1

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Genesis 5:2


Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.


Genesis 6:7


And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


Deuteronomy 4:32

For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there hath been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it?

Numbers 16:30

But if the LORD make a new thing,** and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit; then ye shall understand that these men have provoked the LORD.


** In Hebrew it is the word bara and the phrase means literally “create a creation,” or “create a creature” is how it sounds good to us. The heaven and the earth (universe including the earth) are creatures as much as we are in the Bible in Hebrew.

I Samuel 2:29

Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make** yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?

**In this use of the word bara it is the Hiphil verb stem and infinitive mood and means causative action. People were going to make fat where it was not before and is ironic as dichotomous rebellion, gaining things from willful disobedience, against true creative power from God to bestow blessings that are of Him. The prophet comes to tell Eli that the day will come when Eli’s progeny will be cut off because of the rebellion against the LORD.

Nehemiah 2:4

Then the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request?** So I prayed to the God of heaven.

**This is the piel verb stem and is a participle and could be translated “why are you creating a request,” suggesting continued action and making something that was not in existence before, though not as creation ex nihilo.

Esther 4:8


Also he gave him the copy of the writing of the decree that was given at Shushan to destroy them, to shew it unto Esther, and to declare it unto her, and to charge her that she should go in unto the king, to make supplication unto him, and to make request before him for her people.

Esther 7:7

And the king arising from the banquet of wine in his wrath went into the palace garden: and Haman stood up to make request for his life to Esther the queen; for he saw that there was evil determined against him by the king.

Psalm 51:10


Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.

Psalm 89:12

The north and the south thou hast created them: Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in thy name.

Psalm 102:18

This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD.

Psalm 104:30

Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.

Psalm 148:5

And the LORD will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night: for upon all the glory shall be a defence.


Isaiah 4:5


Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.


Isaiah 40:26

Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

Isaiah 41:20

That they may see, and know, and consider, and understand together, that the hand of the LORD hath done this, and the Holy One of Israel hath created it.


Isaiah 42:5


Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:


Isaiah 43:1


But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.


Isaiah 43:7


They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.


Isaiah 44:9

Although a lot of time could be spent on this and like verses, this is one thing that reflects the importance of creating in the sense that God creates versus making things that are not of god or not god. Understanding the act of creating as God creates instead of thinking we can create something or worshipping things that are nothing is the reverse of God creating. In other words, God creates out of “nothing" and yet when we try and duplicate in competition or rebellion we make nothing out of something. It causes confusion and the thing that is vain replaces that which is real. Staying centered on reality is not as easy as it seems when we break ties with God in this way and soon we believe lies and are self-deluded and cannot judge reality correctly. Those who persist become ashamed of God and those who still have some awareness become ashamed of their acts, not God. It seems a subtle choice experientially, but it is not subtle in eventuating to the results.

Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

Isaiah 43:7

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it. Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Woe unto him that saith unto his father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth?

Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Isaiah 45:5-12

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.


Isaiah 45:18

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Isaiah 48:7

They are created now, and not from the beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them.

Isaiah 54:16


I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the LORD; and I will heal him.


Isaiah 57:19


Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.


Isaiah 65:17-18

For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.

Jerermiah 31:22

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

Jerermiah 17:5

Here is another contrast between the LORD Who creates and man who makes.

How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.


Ezekiel 21:30


Shall I cause it to return into his sheath? I will judge thee in the place where thou wast created, in the land of thy nativity.


Ezekiel 28:13


Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

Ezeiel 28:15


Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Malachi 2:10


All quotes of the Scriptures are from The Holy Bible, The King James Authorized Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.



[1] Edward F. Murphy, Handbook for Spiritual Warfare [computer file], electronic ed. of the revised and updated edition, Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996 by Edward F. Murphy.

it did

[George Murphy]

bara isn 't always used only in reference to God creating. I have read that opinion by some as well. However, it is not true.You're right that there are instances of br` that seem to violate the "rule" I cited - which goes to show, among other things, that one needs to be careful about accepting such rules, even from one's professors! I appreciate your pointing this out.

However, some of the instances you give below aren't of br`.







I Samuel 2:29

Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make** yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?

**In this use of the word bara it is the Hiphil verb stem and infinitive mood and means causative action. People were going to make fat where it was not before and is ironic as dichotomous rebellion, gaining things from willful disobedience, against true creative power from God to bestow blessings that are of Him. The prophet comes to tell Eli that the day will come when Eli’s progeny will be cut off because of the rebellion against the LORD.

Nehemiah 2:4

Then the king said unto me, For what dost thou make request?** So I prayed to the God of heaven.

**This is the piel verb stem and is a participle and could be translated “why are you creating a request,” suggesting continued action and making something that was not in existence before, though not as creation ex nihilo.

Esther 4:8


Also he gave him the copy of the writing of the decree that was given at Shushan to destroy them, to shew it unto Esther, and to declare it unto her, and to charge her that she should go in unto the king, to make supplication unto him, and to make request before him for her people.

Esther 7:7

And the king arising from the banquet of wine in his wrath went into the palace garden: and Haman stood up to make request for his life to Esther the queen; for he saw that there was evil determined against him by the king.

Unless I'm mistaken (& I could be getting crosseyed from looking at the vowel points), the verses you cite from Nehemiah & Esther (2) are not of br` but of bqsh, to seek, request, &c. OTOH there are 3 occurences in Ezekiel that you didn't note - 2 in 21:19 & 1 in 23:47. These 3 are forms of the Pi`el. Those 3 and the one you cite from I Sam. seem to be the violations of the rule.

I'm not an expert Hebraist & should consult friends who are. I would note that these 4 occurences are not in the Qal but in other voices & that can significantly change the sense. E.g., in the Pi`el br` can have the sense "to cut", as in Ez.23:47.

Having said that, I don't see the relevance of this to your argument. If anything, by showing that br` can be used of subjects other than God don't you weaken the distinction between God's creative activity and creatures can do?

Because the Hebrew word for create is in a concordance does not mean it was not used. The Leningrad Codex uses it. I am not sure why you think it is wrong to use it in the Bible.I don't know what you mean. Wrong to use what in the Bible? I never said "create" shouldn't be used in the Bible. How could I? You need to be more precise about what you think the differences is between your meaning of "creation" and what you think I (or other TEs) mean by it.

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

I went through each instance twice and could have gotten it wrong but I looked at things like form and make as well and checked and there are several thousand and it took weeks to look at. The first time I did I was able to take some time and my crosscheck of each one was a bit rushed when I wrote this. There are some "tried and true things" written as if they are true but are not. We probably could trace some false truisms to the same source we heard from indirectly ansd separate. I am sure I could make a mistake too.

[George Murphy]

I went through each instance twice and could have gotten it wrong but I looked at things like form and make as well and checked and there are several thousand and it took weeks to look at. The first time I did I was able to take some time and my crosscheck of each one was a bit rushed when I wrote this. There are some "tried and true things" written as if they are true but are not. We probably could trace some false truisms to the same source we heard from indirectly ansd separate. I am sure I could make a mistake too.
Fair enough. But now what does this all have to do with creation, evolution &c?

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

Did you read my posts?

about bara, you wrote:

"listings one can get out of a concordance"

[George Murphy]

Did you read my posts?

about bara, you wrote:

"listings one can get out of a concordance"You didn't need to list all the occurences of the verb to make your point - at least I don't think so, but I'm not sure what your point is. Since you're obviously willing & able to post long messages, why be so brief & cryptic whenever you're asked to explain your views? What is the point of this philological discussion for the issue of creation & evolution?

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

My answers are short as I do not have hardly any time to be online. My answers that are long that explain are on threads when I have tinme to sit and write them out, which varies. Why the examples of when create is used? Because it reveals much as to how seriously one might take the Word of God and in what way things are meant.

A brief answer to get at it is that taking the example of God saying that He took a rib from Adam to make Eve and deciding because you think evolution or ID is true to disbelieve His Word as you do is a mistake.

[George Murphy]

My answers are short as I do not have hardly any time to be online. My answers that are long that explain are on threads when I have tinme to sit and write them out, which varies. Why the examples of when create is used? Because it reveals much as to how seriously one might take the Word of God and in what way things are meant.

A brief answer to get at it is that taking the example of God saying that He took a rib from Adam to make Eve and deciding because you think evolution or ID is true to disbelieve His Word as you do is a mistake.1st, if you actually want to carry on a conversation with me you're going to have to take the time to set out what you mean clearly. If you don't want to carry on such a conversation then say so & save us both time & energy.

2d, the verb that's used in Gen.2:22, is not br` but bnh, meaning to build or construct.

3d, you can't determine whether or not a text is to be read as history or fiction by the way the words are used within the story. The fact that words used in Psalm 23 mean "shepherd," "pastures" &c doesn't mean that the psalmist really was being led like a sheep and being fed grass. Whether or not the creation account in Genesis 2 is to be read as history has to be determined by other criteria.

4th, & most importantly, for you to assume that I "disbelieve His Word" because I don't interpret scripture as you do is quite wrong. It's not a question of whether or not you or I believe God's Word but of how we understrand what it's about and what it's saying.

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

Thanks for your reply. I understand what you mean. You do not think that God took a rib from Adam and made Eve from it then, even though it says that.

[George Murphy]

Thanks for your reply. I understand what you mean. You do not think that God took a rib from Adam and made Eve from it then, even though it says that.
Do you believe that God fired arrows at the writer of Psalm 38? (Cf. v.2)

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

Language used as a figure of speech to communicate an idea, add emphasis, or define something in the concrete that is an emotion is common. Aside from the literature of the world chock full of examples of this, Bullinger recorded the use of figures of speech and categorized them in reference to Greek and Roman usage as applied to the Bible. The work of the Massorah by Ginzburg helps to understand this as well. So, no it is not that God shot literal arrows that penetrated the skin of David. Nor does the devil shoot fiery darts that set our clothes on fire in Ephesians 6.

This is not a figurative use of language here in Genesis, there is a difference, many differences actually. God made, as you point out banah, not bara, create. However, bara usually means to create ex nihilo as only the Creator can do. In the case of making Eve, God used existing material so the use of the word banah.

[George Murphy]

Language used as a figure of speech to communicate an idea, add emphasis, or define something in the concrete that is an emotion is common. Aside from the literature of the world chock full of examples of this, Bullinger recorded the use of figures of speech and categorized them in reference to Greek and Roman usage as applied to the Bible. The work of the Massorah by Ginzburg helps to understand this as well. So, no it is not that God shot literal arrows that penetrated the skin of David. Nor does the devil shoot fiery darts that set our clothes on fire in Ephesians 6.

This is not a figurative use of language here in Genesis, there is a difference, many differences actually. God made, as you point out banah, not bara, create. However, bara usually means to create ex nihilo as only the Creator can do. In the case of making Eve, God used existing material so the use of the word banah.But you are assuming the very thing you're trying to prove, "This is not a figurative use of language here in Genesis."

I am not arguing that the usage in Gen.2:22 is of just the same type as that in Ps.38:2. It is the whole text that has to be considered. As I pointed out before, we can't decide whether or not a text is to be read as historical narrative simply by the meaning of words within the text. banah means "make" and tsela` means "rib" or "side"within the Genesis story but that doesn't prove that God literally "made" a woman out of the "rib" of the man as an historical event, any more than the use of the word "arrow" in Ps.38 proves that God literally shot arrows at the psalmist.

Or a better example: The Greek words for words Jericho, Jerusalem, robbers,
priest &c in Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan all have their literal meanings within that story. They aren't figurative expressions for other things, as if Jesus were constructing an allegory. But Jesus was telling a story to make a theological point, and there's no reason to insist that he was recounting an actual historical series of events - i.e., that there actually were robbers, a Samaritan &c who did the things described in the story.

If you want to discuss the question of the historicity of the 2 Genesis creation accounts we have to back up and look at them as wholes. I've already done this in discussions on the "Deep Theistic Evolution" thread. You might want to look at that.

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

As far as the acceptability and common elements of your argument thus far, I understand that this is probably a majority view that you hold. I have not taken a survey. I take a different approach and am not quite being as "literal" as you think. I mean literal in the literary sense of the word. I acknowledge that the Bible is alive and we all learn things from it on different levels. I think you may not recognize what I am saying.

[George Murphy]

As far as the acceptability and common elements of your argument thus far, I understand that this is probably a majority view that you hold. I have not taken a survey. I take a different approach and am not quite being as "literal" as you think. I mean literal in the literary sense of the word. I acknowledge that the Bible is alive and we all learn things from it on different levels. I think you may not recognize what I am saying.Then tell me clearly what you are saying if you want to continue the conversation. If not, don't.

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

I pondered how best to answer your question about literal versus non-literal statements in the Bible as related to the Old and New Testaments.

Jesus said:

"But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." 1

Jesus told this story

"…And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."2

I don’t have any reason to believe that these were hypothetical statements by Jesus that Luke recorded for us. The first statement plainly states what Jesus advised people to do in the case they have plenty and have a feast.

The second set of statements are by Jesus and recorded by Luke and He relates the story of the rich man and Lazarus. I take it to be a literal story that Jesus was recounting for the benefit of the listeners. The rich man is in hell and begs that his brothers be warned about the way things really are after death for him. Abraham told the rich man that his brothers had Moses and the prophets. The rich man objected and asked that someone from the dead be sent to them. Abraham said that even if the brothers witnessed someone rise from the dead they would not believe the warning if they do not hear Moses and the prophets.

Jesus was resurrected and met with the disciples. He said this:

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures 3

I take it here that Jesus was literally quoted by Luke and that Jesus meant what He said. I don’t think that these are truth-telling myths. I don’t think that Jesus made up any of His stories that are called parables. It occurs to me that Jesus would have plenty of true to life stories to demonstrate a principle or a truth in its telling. I am sure the Bible is literally true and I am sure Jesus told things as they are.

When we pray, do we pray allegorically and not know what we want in fact? Do we pray literally to the Father or allegorically? Sometimes our prayers are answered and sometimes not. When prayers are answered, they are answered in factual reality and things happen literally. Jesus also said that we let our "yes" be "yes" and our "no" be "no." He meant that literally. Jesus performed literal miracles. The birth of Jesus was by a virgin. That is a literal miracle. Jesus Is literally.

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." 4

"And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."5

Paul meant these things literally. We are to be conformed to the image of the Son of God literally. We not to be conformed to this world, but our minds are to be renewed to the mind of Christ Jesus literally.

1 Luke 14:13-14

2 Luke 16:23-31

3 Luke 24:44-45

4 Romans 8:29

5 Romans 12:2

Examples of the literal Christ Jesus.

John 6:29

Jesus answered and said unto them,

This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

John 6:42-45

And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?

how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:

and I will raise him up at the last day.

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God.

Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

John 7:28-30

Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying,

Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am:

and I am not come of myself,

but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.

But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come.



"More than 700 years after the prophet Micah had foretold the birthplace of the Messiah (Micah 5:2), the birth of a baby was announced by an angel to astonished shepherds in Bethlehem. The child was Jesus, God’s Messiah (Anointed One), who would ultimately die for the sin of the world."

Ronald F. Youngblood, general editor; F.F. Bruce and R.K. Harrison, consulting editors, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary: An authoritative one-volume reference work on the Bible with full color illustrations [computer file], electronic edition of the revised edition of Nelson’s illustrated Bible dictionary, Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1995. This reference is also available new or used.

Jesus (saviour).

The Greek form of the name, Joshua or Jeshua, a contraction of Jehoshua, that is, "help of Jehovah" or "saviour". Numbers 13:16. Jesh´ua (a saviour), another form of the name Joshua or Jesus.

Joshua, the son of Nun. Numbers 27:18; Hebrews 4:8. Josh´ua (saviour, or whose help is Jehovah). His name appears in the various forms of Hoshea, Oshea, Jehoshua, Jeshua, and Jesus. See Jehoshua.

Jehoshua Jehosh'ua (whose help is Jehovah; Help of Jehovah or saviour). In this form is given the name of Joshua in Numbers 13:16. Once more only the name appears, -- as Jehosh'uah.

Smith's Bible Dictionary by Dr. William Smith (1884) see http://www.e-sword.com (http://www.e-sword.com/) online or

William Smith; revised and edited by F. N. and M. A. Peloubet, Smith’s Bible Dictionary [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997. This reference is also available in hardback new or used.

"The Redeemer. Because God elected that some people would be saved in the day of His judgment, a saving event became necessary. This event is broadly defined as the offspring of the woman (Genesis 3:15), which began the long process of conflict through which God introduced the Savior into the world.

Eschatology shows how God’s Redeemer will establish His kingdom upon a rebellious earth. The long process through which God selected a righteous group to serve Him on earth came to a climax in the person of Christ. He is indeed "God with us" (Matthew 1:23). This phrase from Isaiah 7:14 spoke of God’s presence in Jesus in order to save (Isaiah 9:6–7) and to judge (Isaiah 7:17; Isaiah 8:6–8).

Christ’s first coming was to save (Mark 10:45); His second will be primarily to judge. But His return will also spell relief to His faithful Remnant. Eschatology shows that God’s presence for the redeemed will be fully realized at Jesus’ return, when He will dwell among all the redeemed in the new heavens and earth (Revelation 21:3)."

Ronald F. Youngblood, general editor; F.F. Bruce and R.K. Harrison, consulting editors, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary: An authoritative one-volume reference work on the Bible with full color illustrations [computer file], electronic edition of the revised edition of Nelson’s illustrated Bible dictionary, Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1995. This reference is also available new or used.

[George Murphy]

I pondered how best to answer your question about literal versus non-literal statements in the Bible as related to the Old and New Testaments.

Jesus said:

"But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." 1

Jesus told this story

"…And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."2

I don’t have any reason to believe that these were hypothetical statements by Jesus that Luke recorded for us. The first statement plainly states what Jesus advised people to do in the case they have plenty and have a feast.

The second set of statements are by Jesus and recorded by Luke and He relates the story of the rich man and Lazarus. I take it to be a literal story that Jesus was recounting for the benefit of the listeners. The rich man is in hell and begs that his brothers be warned about the way things really are after death for him. Abraham told the rich man that his brothers had Moses and the prophets. The rich man objected and asked that someone from the dead be sent to them. Abraham said that even if the brothers witnessed someone rise from the dead they would not believe the warning if they do not hear Moses and the prophets.

You said in your previous post - which I asked you to elaborate on -

I take a different approach and am not quite being as "literal" as you think. I mean literal in the literary sense of the word. I acknowledge that the Bible is alive and we all learn things from it on different levels.In view of your later post I'm at a loss to know what you mean by "not quite being as 'literal' as you think." It seems to me that you are being as ultra-literal as possible with your claim that, e.g., all of Jesus' parables were recountings of actual events. It seems to me that you are treating everything in scripture as a straightforward realistic descriptions of actual events except when (as with the arrows of Ps.38) such an interpretation is obviously crazy. Then you say you're not as literal as I think.

OK, the story of Lazarus and the rich man really happened just the way it's told. So the blessed dead are literally "in Abraham's bosom"? Those in that state and the damned can shout back and forth to one another?

For another example, look at Jesus' story of the unforgiving servant in Mt.18:21-35. "Ten thousand talents" - do you have any idea how much money that would be? Trying to translate it into billions of dollars or the GNP misses the point completely. It means simply a debt that's beyond any possible repayment - as when we say "Zillions of dollars." But according to you there must have been a servant who really owed that much and a real king who just said, "Forget it."

I don't see the remotest reason to think that all of Jesus' parables were accounts of historical events. Some of them may allude to things that had really happened, but every decent preacher - and a fortiori Christ - knows how to tell stories to good effect. I've done it a lot & to my knowledge have never had a parishoner leave church thinking that I was giving an historical account. You seem to be talking about a Christ who had no imagination. & by extension, biblical writers who had no imagination.

Let me take another approach. At the last supper Jesus took bread and said "Take and eat, this is my body." Do you think that the bread received in Communion is the Body of Christ?

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

Literal statements are different from figurative statements. Can you see the difference? Seriously, I am not being flip.

[George Murphy]

Literal statements are different from figurative statements. Can you see the difference? Seriously, I am not being flip.What you are doing is retreating into obscurity when your claims are questioned. You have made no attempt at all to respond to my post. Until you do I have nothing further to say.

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

Hey, you talkin' to me?

Robert De Niro

Taxi Driver

I see how things are. I proved my point and you refuse to acknowledge it.

Alternativley you really do not understand, in which case, I think that is fascinating.


http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/9401/

[rogero]

Hey, you talkin' to me?

Robert De Niro

Taxi Driver

I see how things are. I proved my point and you refuse to acknowledge it.

Alternativley you really do not understand, in which case, I think that is fascinating.


http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/9401/ Hey Jack, in the logic expressed in your bolded quotes above you're starting to sound a bit like our friend WILLOWTREE. :wink:

In fact, I'm surprised you didn't say "opponents disagreement proves that I am correct."

[Jack777]

Is this what you say makes me seem like willowtree?

"I see how things are. I proved my point and you refuse to acknowledge it.

Alternativley you really do not understand, in which case, I think that is fascinating."

I had never thought about that. Hmm,


"is puzzlement?"

Yul Brenner

The King and I

[rogero]

Is this what you say makes me seem like willowtree?

"I see how things are. I proved my point and you refuse to acknowledge it.

Alternativley you really do not understand, in which case, I think that is fascinating."

I had never thought about that. Hmm,


"is puzzlement?"

Yul Brenner

The King and I
Yes. Firstly, you did not "prove" your point, and secondly George was attempting to engage you in an intellgent conversation and you respond with the insults that he either refused to acknowledge your "proof" or is not able to understand it.

To be totally honest, the latter option wouldn't surprise me since I rarely get the point of your arguments -- although George is much brighter than me, so that probably isn't the case.

[Jack777]

I did not think I was being insulting.

Here, try this.

I said that where language is literal it is literal and where it is figurative it is figurative. Figurative language is obvious. Literal statements are obvious. I don't know how that is insulting. I proved my point.

Okay, Okay...

Part of what throws people off is that first we have to read the Scripture as if it is true. In fact, we have to read Scripture knowing it is true. Otherwise, everything is up for grabs and people can think whatever and allegorize.

I picked out Scripture that illustrates an application of something being literally true in my response to George Murphy. I assume he is a bright guy as bright as anyone else, why should I not? I do not rely on the intelligence of the reader to understand me. Intelligence should not be a consideration under normative conditions.

Ginzburg and the Massorah and Bullinger's Figures of Speech might illustrate language and how it relates. Let me think....(Jeopardy music...)

Part of what throws people off is...well, let me think

[rogero]

...

I said that where language is literal it is literal and where it is figurative it is figurative. Figurative language is obvious. Literal statements are obvious. I don't know how that is insulting. I proved my point.


What criterion do you use for "obvious"? For example, is it obvious that the gulf in Sheol between the rich man in torment and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom is "literal"? It's not obvious to me.



Okay, Okay...

Part of what throws people off is that first we have to read the Scripture as if it is true. In fact, we have to read Scripture knowing it is true. Otherwise, everything is up for grabs and people can think whatever and allegorize.

I picked out Scripture that illustrates an application of something being literally true in my response to George Murphy. I assume he is a bright guy as bright as anyone else, why should I not? I do not rely on the intelligence of the reader to understand me. Intelligence should not be a consideration under normative conditions.

Ginzburg and the Massorah and Bullinger's Figures of Speech might illustrate language and how it relates. Let me think....(Jeopardy music...)

Part of what throws people off is...well, let me think
Don't look now, but your bolded statement above is also insulting. Your intimation is that folks who don't read a passage as "literal" assume that it's not "true." The spiritual message from Jesus' parables is what's "true", and there can be a healthy disagreement over whether the narrative story in the parable is physical historical "truth". I'm surprised a feller like you with an English degree has such trouble with the concepts of metaphor and allegory?

[Jack777]

Well, if you are throwing the flag on my statement when I intend no insult, I can only say that is your perogative. You know, like Bobby Brown. You cannot stay away from the ad hominem can you?

[rogero]

Well, if you are throwing the flag on my statement when I intend no insult, I can only say that is your perogative. You know, like Bobby Brown. You cannot stay away from the ad hominem can you?
Your reference to ad hominem here also makes no sense, as I detect no ad hom in my last post. (???) I guess you have as much trouble understanding what I write as I do what you write.

[George Murphy]

I did not think I was being insulting.

Here, try this.

I said that where language is literal it is literal and where it is figurative it is figurative. Figurative language is obvious. Literal statements are obvious. I don't know how that is insulting. I proved my point.Neither is "obvious" if by that you mean that you can tell whether or not whether a statement is "literal" or "figurative" simply by looking at the way language is used. There is nothing within the story of the Good Samaritan to tell us whether or not it's an account of something that really happened.

Okay, Okay...

Part of what throws people off is that first we have to read the Scripture as if it is true. In fact, we have to read Scripture knowing it is true. Otherwise, everything is up for grabs and people can think whatever and allegorize.The truth of scripture is not under debate here. The type of literature that we have in various biblical texts - the type of truth they convey - is. You are equating "true" with "accurate historical account," which is far too restrictive. You'll probably claim again that you're not as "literal" as I think you are but you've played that game once too often. Protests or not, you are functioning as a naive literalist.

I picked out Scripture that illustrates an application of something being literally true in my response to George Murphy.No, you picked out scripture that you claim should be read literally and apparently think that that proves that it should be read literally. In other words, you said nothing at all.

I assume he is a bright guy as bright as anyone else, why should I not?He is at least bright enough to see that you don't want to engage in a real discussion in which you set out arguments and respond to those of the other party. And if you disagree with this, respond to the points I raised in my last post.

I do not rely on the intelligence of the reader to understand me. Intelligence should not be a consideration under normative conditions.It would be more accurate to say that you are hoping for an absence of intelligence in the reader so that the lack of substance in your arguments (large pasted chunks from other authors notwithstanding) will not be seen.

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

I don't want you to go stupid on me. I don't want anyone to bonehead out into oblivion. I am not a game player, I suspect you must be or you would not think that I am. If you figure Jesus had to make up stories, then why? He was said to have been fully God and fully man. I would bet He knows the stories of each person who has ever lived.

Naive literalist. Think so?

I put things in a compact form and just say it and that is bad. I say what I think with no other authors except to mention them that is bad. I am asked how I know something and mention the source and I am name dropping and that is bad. I cite references and that is bad. I reproduce large chunks of other authors and cite references and that is bad. I figure you boys would find anything I do, little or much as bad. Good luck with life picky :smile: folks, you must not like much of anything except your own views. That is normative though.

Do not like me saying Jesus knew what He was talking about? Okey dokey.

Here try this.


In evaluating the import of the passages that Jesus relates to us that Luke recorded, verse 29 states:

Abraham saith unto him,

They have Moses and the prophets

Abraham is responding to the pleading of the rich man to warn his 5 brothers that Hell is not a great place after all. Abraham tells him that his brothers have Moses and the prophets left to them. God left those writings as Revelation to us on purpose, so that we might learn how to find life. The phrase "Moses and the prophets" is another way of saying the Tanak, the Law and the prophets, or the Torah and the writings of the prophets. The Torah is the same as the Pentateuch. The Jews recognized the same prophets as Christians do. So, Jesus recognizes as valid that Moses wrote the Torah down. He would know. He also is saying that Abraham recognized that Moses is the author of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. Jesus and Abraham both recognize the writings of the prophets as valid. Some Higher Critics contend that the Tanak is not valid for one reason and another. Some people think that Moses did not write down the Law, the Torah. Jesus recognizes Moses as the author as does Abraham. Although there is plenty of evidence that the Tanak is valid, some today teach that it is not.

In verse 31, Abraham states something very interesting. He repeats that the 5 brothers have Moses and the prophets. He said to the rich man if they will not hear, listen with understanding to Moses and the prophets, the even if someone rose from the dead, they will not be persuaded. Jesus rose from the dead. If people will not accept the witness of the writings of God's Revelation to us in Moses and the prophets, as true, might it be that we will accept the Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus any than that? In other words, how seriously we take the Tanak is how serious we will take the Risen Savior.

This has been true in my lifetime and before me. People play fast with the Tanak, they play fast with the witness of the Risen Savior. The Higher Critics have among their number those who reject prophecy as valid. So too they have among their number those who reject miracles and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Giving intellectual assent is a much different thing than we are directed in Scripture. Even intellectual assent is denied by many. We are told in Scripture that one way to tell if something comes from the spirit of anti-Christ is whether or not a person denies or affirms the bodily resurrection of Jesus. I have been in church on a Sunday afternoon and told that my fellows do not believe that prophecy is true. People tell me that there is no connection between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Where does anyone think these ideas come from? Ideas and worldview are important. The erosion of the Faith held by truly loving believers does not start obviously. People do not believe lies many times if they are outright.

So, there is a principle here that is important. If we think that Scripture is unimportant in one place, or minimize it, it will be determinative of our view of other parts of Scripture. This seems plain to me. If people hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. It seems to some that Genesis is unimportant or that the Creator and His specific acts are less important than other parts of Scripture.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Jesus demonstrates the importance of the Scriptures with an illustration of how one person ended up in Hell. This example stresses the importance of the Law and the Prophets and Jesus tells us the consequences of not listening with understanding to the whole counsel of God. How does this relate to Genesis? Well, for one thing, Genesis is part of the Torah, the Law, instructions that are in the Bible. Does anyone think that people were willing to die for only one little part of Scripture, only for Jesus and not for the Father. People were martyred for their stand against denying the Creator. They were much more aware of Jesus as Creator than some people are. The Jews who believed and became Christians comprised a good part of the early church and their Scriptures included the Tanak. Jesus preached from the Tanak. He did not preach from the Epistle to the Colossians, it did not exist when He preached. John the Baptist preached Scripture from the Tanak.

If the New Testament has parts that are literal, it follows that the Old Testament has parts that are literal. People can take them literally. Some statements can be literal as well as figurative. Jesus said the Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms were written about Him. He opened up the eyes of the disciples so they could understand the Scriptures. In the surface text we can say that the passages that Jesus taught from the Torah, the Prophets, and the Psalms were written about Him. There are themes that run throughout the Scriptures and they are interwoven and we can understand how they relate.

[George Murphy]

I don't want you to go stupid on me. I don't want anyone to bonehead out into oblivion. I am not a game player, I suspect you must be or you would not think that I am.Instead of trying to respond to any of the points I raise in post #22 you resort to namecalling & then go off into a long ramble. I don't think you're a game player & I don't think you're entirely stupid but you've demonstrated over and over again that you're unable to carry on an intelligent discussion with another person. You just talk to to yourself, & if you pay any attention to what others say you use it only as material for your soliloquies. I won't make any further attempt to communicate with you here. Have a nice life.

Shalom,
George

[Jack777]

What name did I call you?

You say I cannot have an intelligent discussion for some reason. I am beginning to think you do not want to entertain what it is that I say.

You have a nice life too.