Elliminating Unnecessary Obstacles

[TheBear]

npetreley,

Do you think the world is flat or round?


John

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs
I think Paul was referring to the story of Adam. When referring to an allegory, using the same words is permissible, even if it's not exactly literal.

Permissible by whom? ;-)

IMO, you not only have to torture the text to come to that conclusion, you have to rip its limbs off and gouge out its internal organs with a plastic spoon. ;-) But that's just my opinion.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned [...] even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. [...] For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. [...] For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.

Let's condense that...

1. through one man sin entered the world

2. the transgression of Adam

3. by the one man's offense

4. the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ

5. from one offense

6. the one man's offense

7. death reigned through the one

8. through the One, Jesus Christ

9. through one man's offense

10. through one Man's righteous act

11. as by one man's disobedience

12. by one Man's obedience


Paul is using an awful lot of "ones" here. If one of them is allegory, then I really don't see the point in harping on the comparison of one-to-one, one-to-many, etc. (I feel like I'm talking about databases now.) In fact, I don't see the point of the text at all.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by TheBear
npetreley,

Do you think the world is flat or round?


John

It's sort of pear shaped, isn't it?

If it were flat, all the Chinese would fall off.

Well, she's no fun, she fell right over.

 

[Freodin]

Originally posted by npetreley


Permissible by whom? ;-)

IMO, you not only have to torture the text to come to that conclusion, you have to rip its limbs off and gouge out its internal organs with a plastic spoon. ;-) But that's just my opinion.



Let's condense that...

1. through one man sin entered the world

2. the transgression of Adam

3. by the one man's offense

4. the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ

5. from one offense

6. the one man's offense

7. death reigned through the one

8. through the One, Jesus Christ

9. through one man's offense

10. through one Man's righteous act

11. as by one man's disobedience

12. by one Man's obedience


Paul is using an awful lot of "ones" here. If one of them is allegory, then I really don't see the point in harping on the comparison of one-to-one, one-to-many, etc. (I feel like I'm talking about databases now.) In fact, I don't see the point of the text at all.

If you allow an unbeliever to intercede in this discussion:

I think you are right, Paul meant this text exactly the way you think. But why does that mean he is right with his interpretation?

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by npetreley


It's sort of pear shaped, isn't it?

If it were flat, all the Chinese would fall off.

Well, she's no fun, she fell right over.

So, you would agree that the earth is not flat. Right?

 

[npetreley]

But why does that mean he is right with his interpretation?

There are few reasons for you to believe he is right with his interpretation because you're an unbeliever.

Keep in mind that I'm not discussing this to try to make you a believer, nor do I expect you to see it my way. But since you asked, I believe it is a proper interpretation for several reasons.

I consider the Bible to be God's word. I have no reason to believe the book of Romans does not belong in the Bible. I consider the modern text of Romans to be reliable (in the historic and literary sense), and in conformity with the earliest manuscripts. I consider this passage to be a straightforward comparison to make some obvious points. And so on.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by TheBear


So, you would agree that the earth is not flat. Right?

Actually, based on my reply, I would agree that I'm a fan of Nick Danger, Third Eye (Firesign Theatre).

I'm obviously being set up for something here, but I'll answer. Yes, I would say that the earth is not flat, if by "flat" you mean like a pancake instead of a shpere (or pear-shaped).

 

[TheBear]

This photo of the Earth was taken by the Appolo 17 crew.

Find the "Four Corners"....

 

[TheBear]

I just want to say to the people who cannot, or will not understand the purpose of my opening remarks, or who want to distract from my message to Agnostics and Atheists, by picking apart everything I said, instead of seeing it for what it is, I pray that you find other threads to discuss your heated "issues", and stop trying to hijack this particular thread.

Thank you,
John

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by TheBear
This photo of the Earth was taken by the Appolo 17 crew.

Find the "Four Corners"....

What you're saying must be so extremely clever and profound that it has eluded such a simpleton as myself. I don't get your point.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley


What you're saying must be so extremely clever and profound that it has eluded such a simpleton as myself. I don't get your point.

His point is that the Bible talks about the four corners of the earth. But, unless we mean the intersection of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado, there's no "Four Corners".

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs


His point is that the Bible talks about the four corners of the earth. But, unless we mean the intersection of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado, there's no "Four Corners".

I still don't get the point. Are you saying that because the Bible contains simile, metaphor, figures of speech, etc., that the entire Bible must be understood that way?

If so, then hot diggity! That makes it MUCH easier to disprove evolution and put an end to this thread. All I have to do is find a metaphor in an evolution book. If I can, then that must mean the entire book on evolution must be metaphor and none of it is to be taken literally.

I like this kind of reasoning. It gets you to any conclusion you want.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

I still don't get the point. Are you saying that because the Bible contains simile, metaphor, figures of speech, etc., that the entire Bible must be understood that way?

No... But it does mean that you can't simply assert that something is *NECESSARILY* literal. You have to show why that particular one makes more sense literally than metaphorically.

I like this kind of reasoning. It gets you to any conclusion you want.

Not really. I would call the entirety of Genesis "allegory". I would not necessarily expect any connection between it and any event which physically happened in this world. By contrast, I see no particular reason to believe that most study of evolution is allegorical.

The sheer mass of support for evolutionary theory is pretty impressive. By contrast, there's no corroboration for the story in Genesis, and a lot of evidence against specific claims it makes.

 

[npetreley]

But it does mean that you can't simply assert that something is *NECESSARILY* literal. You have to show why that particular one makes more sense literally than metaphorically.

I did. Post #22.

If you want to analyze Romans 5 to see if it's allegory, then let's look at Romans 5 and any other passages that relate to it.

But one cannot conclude anything about Romans 5 by whipping out a totally unrelated metaphor (the four corners of the earth).

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by npetreley

If you want to analyze Romans 5 to see if it's allegory, then let's look at Romans 5 and any other passages that relate to it.

But one cannot conclude anything about Romans 5 by whipping out a totally unrelated metaphor (the four corners of the earth).

One can, however, suggest that the Bible's discussions of creation, mathematics, biology, science, and other fields are sufficiently vague that they simply *can't* be taken as literally true, unless you want me to believe that bats are birds. Given that, well, it wouldn't surprise me if Paul believed it was literal, and wrote as if it were. That doesn't make it true.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs


One can, however, suggest that the Bible's discussions of creation, mathematics, biology, science, and other fields are sufficiently vague that they simply *can't* be taken as literally true, unless you want me to believe that bats are birds. Given that, well, it wouldn't surprise me if Paul believed it was literal, and wrote as if it were. That doesn't make it true.

That would mean you believe the Bible is inconsistent and unreliable. That may be exactly what you think, so I don't mean to state the obvious. I simply haven't been on this board long enough to have seen enough of your posts that I can take that for granted.

 

[TheBear]

Unfortunately, the intended message of my original post in this thread, which was basically an invitaion to Atheists and Agnostics, to not let the topic of evolution be an obstacle in their path to know Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, got lost by some literalist sticklers.

To any who have been moved by the overall message of my initial post, please feel free to send me a private message. I will gladly be here for you.


John

 

[TheBear]

*sigh* This thread is closed.