ketos234 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Again with the ad hominems. I'm not the one claiming its truth. You need to define your faith, not I. Incidentally, "I come not to change the law"? John 14:15?I think they hold up. You could have presented evidence to the contrary, though.Exodus is also completely without historical backup. The only text supporting Exodus is Exodus.Your claim is technically true, in the same way that "Caesar flew to the moon on a mouse" is "without historical repudiation" because no text says he didn't.

nerdflu (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

if Christians had such amazing glowing morals would they call themselves "playboyoft"?...

nerdflu (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

hahaha awesome call

Sorastor (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

1. It's composition is no indication of its meaning, as the examples I gave prove.2. Did you ever stop to think that the number took its meaning from the story, and not the other way around?3. Retrospective definition. There's more than one word for humanity in any language, Lands.The Jews have revised their interpretation countless times. the Talmud is basically one long rabbinical discussion and debate over the Torah's meaning.

landsdown44 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I will try one more time:1.Yes, Genensis 1-3 is entirely poetry.2.The number "7" in Hebrew has a unique meaning - a completed period of time. not just a literal 7 days.3. The Name "Adam" means "mankind" in Hebrew. While not conclusive proof, all of those point to a meaning other than literal. Further, the Hebrew People themselves see it as non-literal. It is, afterall, their book, and that should count for something.

Sorastor (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Okay, you don't get to repeat my joke. That's just not done.Second, no, you haven't given three reasons as to why Genesis was not intended to be literal. Granted, it doesn't need to be interpreted as literal, but you insist it was designed purposefully as an allegory. Your only evidence of this, so far, as anyone reading this will point out for you, is the fact that it was composed poetically. You have yet, and anyone else will confirm this, to present anything else.

landsdown44 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

ketos, you who specialize in double talk, before you make claims about what a text means you really should research it exegetically. You also should note the statements of Jesus relative to Torah. Then see if your claim holds up.BTW, Exodus is entirely witout historical repudiation.

landsdown44 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I couldn't have said it more clearly. I gave at least 3 reasons why the Genesis account of creation is not considered to be literal. I said what I did because you just refused to notice. I also noted that a poem does NOT necessarily equal a parable. I said I had additional evidence if you wanted it. You just mumbled your way around it all. Leans back over to you and turns your brain to the on position - right now I'm not sure you have an "on" button.

ketos234 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Skipping over the ad hominems, which suggest a lack of cogent argument.Your "evidence" is referred to often but never really given. No doubt you know what you think and why, but you've not said it.If you're going to start making claims that the bible isn't all literal, you need to define an exegesis. Exodus is historical and entirely unsupported.NT supports use of all of OT for teaching (2Tim3:16). The OT is not repudiated. How then can you say that the NT is opposed to the OT events?

Sorastor (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Your evidence: poem = parable.My evidence: entire histories and genealogies in Nordic and Indo-Iranian traditions being composed poetically. (Elder and Younger Eddas, the Vedas, the texts of Zoroastranism, the semi-historical, semi-mythological accounts of Kings in Gaelic Ireland)[leans over to you and turns your brain to the 'on' position]How's that?