The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Contradictions: OT V NT

Theology
#82

I would argue that everything that has been made was made during the first six days of Creation Week; at the end of which, God pronounced everything “good”–including the archangel Lucifer, who must have been created early in the week, since apparently the angels were immediately put to work helping to finish getting everything ready (Job 38:4-11); and man was created on the sixth day.

Angels were to serve man (Hebrews 1:14); and perhaps glorious, immortal Lucifer thought that was beneath his dignity?

I would argue that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil set a parameter, a relationship boundary. In essence, it was an “Exit” sign out of the Garden, although not out of the classroom.

The Tree itself was not evil; and the fruit of that Tree was not anything supernatural; rather, the choice to eat it made an opening through the divine hedge of protection around Creation for the legalistic devil to exploit–allowing him to come in as the god of this age (2 Cor. 4:4), pervert nature, and bring in death and destruction. And we recall that death is an enemy of God, which will one day come to an end (1 Cor. 15:56); and that the power of death is the devil’s, not God’s (Hebrews 2:14).

[And of course, the idea that death came into nature through Adam and Eve’s sin (1 Cor. 15:21, Rom. 5:12) controverts the theory of Darwinian macroevolution, where death is required as the central mechanism for the rise of “humanoids.” I have argued elsewhere that the sedimentation of the fossil record is evidence of the Flood of Noah, revealing how great the corruption of nature had become. And that God did not send the Flood; rather, Satan did.]

We don’t know how much time elapsed between the fall of Lucifer, and his entrance into the snake; presumably not too much, since Adam and Eve still had no children when he tempted Eve.

The essence of the Satanic lie was: “Eat this fruit and you will know God as He truly is, as BOTH good and evil. And you will know yourself the same way, as BOTH good and evil.”

1 Like
#84

I think because He saw the end from the beginning: we all indeed learn the lesson that God’s ways are always best; we have all eventually surrendered to His will and chosen to receive His gift of life: Jesus–and successfully graduated (Rev. 22:17, 1 Cor. 15:22-28); we are all already with Him right now outside linear time (in eternity) enjoying all His new adventures and delights (see, for example, Eph. 2:6, Col. 3:1, 1 Cor. 2:9).

#85

Maybe the serpent was “very good” for the purpose he was created. Maybe he didn’t fall, maybe he was always Satan?

#86

It could be that Genesis was not written to answer those questions at all? That it was written for Jews in exile, with a message of their God as contrasted to lesser gods and that sort of thing?

2 Likes
#87

Yes sir… A HISTORY BOOK.

#89

Can’t go there with you, brother. I think it is MUCH more than ‘history’.

#90

For once, I have to agree with you, brother (that’s Brother Dave). Genesis is indeed much more than history. But it is also a true reference book for history (as Brother Chad correctly pointed out). Jesus made direct quotes from Genesis or references to it at least eight times in the gospels and probably a multitude more that haven’t been recorded.

#91

And the Bible is also, a literary book!

#92

Amen! No other author has managed to equal the poetic majesty of the Song of Solomon, even the Book of Job in its own way, not to mention the Psalms of David, et al.

#93

Yes there is more than history in it such as psalms in praise of God. And the story of Job, which records Satan’s challenge to Yahweh

Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “Skin for skin! All that a man has he will give for his life. But stretch out your hand and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse you to your face.” (Job 2:4,5)

But even the book of Job is considered to be history by many. Clearly the major part of the OT is history indeed.

#94

I think ‘history’ is too broad a term for what we read in the OT. Even if we start at the call of Abraham, bypassing as ‘history’ the obvious (?) mythical stories in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, we have more ‘historigraphy’ than ‘history’. In other words, writing about historical or legendary events or persons, in such a way that the writing would best benefit the Israelite communities.
I’m not denying that there is usually a historical act that may be the kernel of the presentation, but certainly what we don’t have is straight reporting.

1 Like
#95

:+1:

#96

Everyone looks at history differently. Take for example, Aurora University. Which is one of the two universities I attended, in addition to Norwich University and the College of Dupage.

So this one male, used to be in the US navy - for four years. And we had to take two theology courses, for Aurora University. Well, he took Old Testament courses. Since he was more of an atheist or agnostic…and he viewed them as historical records (AKA history courses). And one of his best friends at AU, was a brilliant writer…and the writer died in his mid twenties, via drowning while swimming. He looked at the Bible, as great world literature.

And I hung out with Duke Big Feather and his Two Feathers Medicine Clan, for several years. Which is Native American spirituality. Until his death and the group disbandment But they had oral traditions, which are in part - viewed as history. . And I had to reconcile them, with the oral and written traditions of Christianity. And Duke always thought, the God of the Old Testament was mean. Well, he certainly appeared to be that way. Until you get a good Christian framework, to look at the Old Testament.

And I have even met a few chaps, in my life’s journey. Who subscribe to what I call the “X-Files UFO conspiracy theories”. So they view the garden of Eden story… as some super-intelligent aliens, setting up some kind of creation “experiment”. But this theory leaves much unanswered. As they (AKA Aliens that are “super geniuses”) could still be subject, to a creator - along with sin, evil and death. And their theory is not any more or less unbelievable, then some of the theological ideas - presented on this forum. With the exception of my theory…that Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) is the most probable, end-times tribulation scenario. Which is very realistic and down to earth.

#97

At least you had the good sense to place the question mark after the word “obvious”, Dave. Was it intended to be a sop for less-enlightened simpletons like me who actually (gasp) believe the accounts, as written, to have more credence than the unprovable “scientific” explanations for the origin and subsequent development of the ancient world in the antediluvian era? If you don’t want to accept, as our Lord obviously did, Genesis 1-11 as history, what good does your historiography do you?

#98

Yeah I was giving a sop to simpletons; I didn’t expect a simpleton to actually understand it though. lol.

Was the Cosmos created by God? Yessir, I believe that Genesis is true in that answer. But it does more than state the fact - it interprets it in such a way as to explain why its God differs from all the other creation accounts, and all the other ‘creators’, that were surrounding Israel. And was there a flood? I think Genesis is correct there also - but it’s told in such a way as to make a larger theological point, which we usually miss. And it uses language that is almost always mis-translated: ‘covering the entire earth’ can best be translated as ‘covering from horizon to horizon’ which would be a more realistic account for someone living in a river valley.
Etc Etc.
Tower of Babel? Beats me. Rod turning into a snake? I don’t think so, no - but the fictional story makes an inspired point.
Really too big a thing to get into here. I was doing a bit of mild and cheerful trolling, I admit.

#99

That’s a first - for you to actually admit something. It may be just a baby step, but one day you may actually start walking. There is still time, although mine is running out.

A local flood? In a little river valley? You really are forcing me to conclude that you are willfully blind on occasions. When, if, you come up here for that promised visit, I’ll take you through the Canadian Rockies and see if you still believe the Genesis Flood was only a large puddle in some Mesopotamian vacation spot.

Btw, the snake is named Adam, not Rod, and he’s alive and well in Congress today. It would be nice if that was fictional but sadly it is factual.

#100

lol

#102

Jesus specifically didn’t tell us to demonise those who disagree with us, yet by his own actions maybe there’s a different story. I refer to Matthew 23:33-36. Maybe I’m taking out of context or something but still seems suspicious.

#103

Yes, and more specifically in the Greek it reads that the deluge was to cover… “the whole land” — *πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν pasan tēn gēn — thus a regional flood.

#104

The hebrew word “erets” or “eretz” is used both to mean land or earth in the bible so it’s possible the flood was worldwide or local and there are good arguments for both.

For example in a local flood why wouldn’t God just tell Noah to move his family 100 miles or so instead of building an ark, yet for a worldwide flood it’s hard to imagine how all those creatures could travel thousands of miles in the time allotted to get to the ark.

2 Likes