is genesis 8:21 a fallacy?

[waitasec]

this is the kind of crap that happens when you superimpose NT theology on OT texts -- which is why it's never a good idea to read the Xian idea of salvation into these ancient documents.

so why do you read the OT?

 

[sojourner]

so why do you read the OT?

To gain a broader base of perspective.

 

[waitasec]

To gain a broader base of perspective.

which is why i said:

we have the book of revelations in which it pans everything out for us...we have a POV of hindsight...if this is understood as a literal story. )

so my question to you is...
with this broader base of perspective, was the flood necessary had god known in his omniscience that he would send his only begotten son?

 

[sojourner]

which is why i said:


so my question to you is...
with this broader base of perspective, was the flood necessary had god known in his omniscience that he would send his only begotten son?

You're engaging in eisegesis here. From the OT perspective, Jesus was never a reality. the broader perspective is the Hebrew perspective, untainted by Xian bias. One can't use Revelation to interpret Genesis. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[waitasec]

You're engaging in eisegesis here. From the OT perspective, Jesus was never a reality. the broader perspective is the Hebrew perspective, untainted by Xian bias. One can't use Revelation to interpret Genesis. It just doesn't work that way.

why, because one contradicts the other?
besides, i don't see how i'm reading my own ideas into the very notion of an omniscient god...the same god who flooded the earth is the same god who sent his son to save the world...i didn't make this up...it's all in the bible... pretty straightforward obvious contradiction.

 

[sojourner]

why, because one contradicts the other?

No, because the one has nothing to do with the other.

besides, i don't see how i'm reading my own ideas into the very notion of an omniscient god...the same god who flooded the earth is the same god who sent his son to save the world

Yes. You know that. The OT writers didn't know that. Therefore, you're foisting your POV upon texts that do not contain that POV. That's eisegesis.

i didn't make this up...it's all in the bible... pretty straightforward obvious contradiction.

You are making it up by mashing two completely different traditions together into one. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[waitasec]

No, because the one has nothing to do with the other.

why would you say that? aren't these passages about the same god who is labeled as omniscient, in both traditions?

Yes. You know that. The OT writers didn't know that. Therefore, you're foisting your POV upon texts that do not contain that POV. That's eisegesis.

then as a xian, one should ignore the OT and divorce itself from it...but i think it's a little too late for that.

You are making it up by mashing two completely different traditions together into one. It just doesn't work that way.

if there wasn't a jewish tradition, there wouldn't be a xian tradition.
aren't these traditions about the same god?

 

[ForeverFaithful]

why would you say that? aren't these passages about the same god who is labeled as omniscient, in both traditions?


then as a xian, one should ignore the OT and divorce itself from it...but i think it's a little too late for that.


if there wasn't a jewish tradition, there wouldn't be a xian tradition.
aren't these traditions about the same god?

Just thought I'd ad my two cents, by the way reading this post I've seen a bit of heat but it has stayed rather good natured

I think you are making the mistake of thinking the Bible was written by God, which is wasn't, it was written by men who are fallible, now I'm not on for a literal interpenetration of Genesis, but we do understand that God puts faith in people again
and again, through unconditional love, the very nature of God is this unconditional love, even though the first thing Noah did off the boat was get drunk and walk around naked, he was elected

You can't separate Jewish scriptures form Christian Scriptures, sure Pauline Christianity moved away from it, but to remove all the references to Jewish scriptures in the NT you'd be left with very little

Same God in different understandings, I feel even the Catholic and Protestants even though they clearly have the same God, worship him so differently sometimes that they superimpose different images of him and then fight about it.

 

[waitasec]

Just thought I'd ad my two cents, by the way reading this post I've seen a bit of heat but it has stayed rather good natured

please, you are more than welcome to do so... the more the merrier :yes:
theres nothing like a good head butting every now and then...keeps me sharp

I think you are making the mistake of thinking the Bible was written by God, which is wasn't, it was written by men who are fallible,

i agree. the bible was indeed written by man...for the purpose of philosophy and science.
my premise is that no one can possibly know anything the bible claims to be gods attributes...
for example; picking the chosen ones (choosing sides), instilling fear (presenting ultimatums), and gods omniscience...

now I'm not on for a literal interpenetration of Genesis, but we do understand that God puts faith in people again
and again, through unconditional love, the very nature of God is this unconditional love, even though the first thing Noah did off the boat was get drunk and walk around naked, he was elected

fair enough...if that is what you feel god is...great

You can't separate Jewish scriptures form Christian Scriptures, sure Pauline Christianity moved away from it, but to remove all the references to Jewish scriptures in the NT you'd be left with very little

if anything at all...

Same God in different understandings, I feel even the Catholic and Protestants even though they clearly have the same God, worship him so differently sometimes that they superimpose different images of him and then fight about it.

here is where i find that this concept of god cannot be reconciled.
unless this god is understood as a god of double standards.

 

[sojourner]

why would you say that? aren't these passages about the same god who is labeled as omniscient, in both traditions?

Because they are from vastly different cultural positions. The flood narrative is very ancient Babylonian. Revelation is 1st century Hellenistic. The cultural and historical perspective is very different for the two texts. Just because they are both included in Xian written tradition does not make them remotely the same.

then as a xian, one should ignore the OT and divorce itself from it...but i think it's a little too late for that.

No, but one should divorce one's Xian theology from that of the OT.

if there wasn't a jewish tradition, there wouldn't be a xian tradition.
aren't these traditions about the same god?

If there weren't a Greek tradition, there wouldn't be a Xian tradition, either. We have made a soup of different traditions and call it "Xian." But the carrots don't change the original properties of the salt.

 

[waitasec]

Because they are from vastly different cultural positions. The flood narrative is very ancient Babylonian. Revelation is 1st century Hellenistic. The cultural and historical perspective is very different for the two texts. Just because they are both included in Xian written tradition does not make them remotely the same.

the meaning of omniscience in one culture doesn't mean the same in another culture?

No, but one should divorce one's Xian theology from that of the OT.

how so? you seem to have figured out a way...a way i'm having problems understanding..

If there weren't a Greek tradition, there wouldn't be a Xian tradition, either. We have made a soup of different traditions and call it "Xian." But the carrots don't change the original properties of the salt.

yes? but if the jewish tradition wasn't the source, then the xian tradition would be a completely separate tradition... without contradiction...
the jewish tradition, from what i understand, has reconciled itself with the
ever evolving oral tradition...

 

[sojourner]

the meaning of omniscience in one culture doesn't mean the same in another culture?

Look... God as portrayed in the first chapters of Genesis has not yet been reconciled into a completely Hebraic understanding of Deity as we have come to expect it. The God portrayed here is still highly Babylonian in nature, and may not be omniscent, as the writer of revelation understands it. That's why impressing the theology of the NT onto OT texts doesn't work. We're really not talking about the same God, in terms of concept.

how so? you seem to have figured out a way...a way i'm having problems understanding..

By coming to an understanding that the OT God of Genesis is not exactly the same ball of wax as God of the NT.

yes? but if the jewish tradition wasn't the source, then the xian tradition would be a completely separate tradition... without contradiction...

Why shouldn't there be contradiction? We are talking about a multivalent theology.

 

[james2ko]

before we continue...i want to clear something up...according to you, is the god of the bible omniscient or not? you said in a prior post 2. Because our Omniscient God felt there was a better over all alternative.

I thought I answered this question in point 6 here

genesis 8:20,21 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though[a] every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

This is a general statement of observation from past behavior not a prediction of future behavior. Perceiving humanity had an inclination for evil is by no means an indication they would choose to continue in it.

 

[Otherright]

so what i gather from this is; god nearly destroyed all of mankind, save a descendent of abraham, because every inclination of mankind is evil and vowed not to do it again even though mankind will continue to be inclined to be evil, is that right?
so why just not obliterate mankind altogether and start over, because god is omniscient, right? but why then did god regret creating mankind?

Noah wasn't a descendant of Abraham, Abraham was a descendant of Noah, but I get what you are saying. Where God's plan apparently fails is with Noah cursing Ham (for covering his naked body). Now Ham is rejected, so the whole thing starts again.

Now you've got a group of outsiders again who aren't going to know the Lord and will therefore bring evil into the world. This is the theology of it, which I think is BS, but that is the answer for how it falls apart again.

 

[waitasec]

I thought I answered this question in point 6 here

:thud:
not really, in fact i'm more confused. i read both of your posts and they contradict each other....

2. Because our Omniscient God felt there was a better over all alternative. Again, it would be presumptuous ,at best, to think our finite, limited minds know better.

and in the same post you said

4. In Gen 1:31, God was pleased with the created product. He didn't know at the time of the creation of Adam and Eve which way they would choose, but His plan certainly included a set of natural consequences for either choice. Unfortunately, they chose to do things their way-- the way of death. Hence, the sigh at mankind's choice.

and in the post you linked you contradicted yourself again

4. Only one problem with that "hunch"--the new covenant, which included the Messiah's sacrifice, was prophesied way back in the OT.


<snip>



7. We just proved He did not know whether mankind would choose to continue to do evil.[

so can you give me a straight answer...?
is the god in your bible omniscient or not...

This is a general statement of observation from past behavior not a prediction of future behavior. Perceiving humanity had an inclination for evil is by no means an indication they would choose to continue in it.

you are not reading the passage correctly..."never again will i....even though every inclination..."
so no, it's not based on past behavior but on predicting our behavior based on every inclination is evil...

 

[waitasec]

Look... God as portrayed in the first chapters of Genesis has not yet been reconciled into a completely Hebraic understanding of Deity as we have come to expect it.

we? who...the hebrews or the xians?

The God portrayed here is still highly Babylonian in nature, and may not be omniscent, as the writer of revelation understands it. That's why impressing the theology of the NT onto OT texts doesn't work. We're really not talking about the same God, in terms of concept.

now this gets confusing...
why can't this tradition which claims to be truth be more straightforward instead of vague and ambiguous full of loop holes and inconsistency?

By coming to an understanding that the OT God of Genesis is not exactly the same ball of wax as God of the NT.

Why shouldn't there be contradiction? We are talking about a multivalent theology.

i think i see what is happening...
you do not take this OT story literally... but again, there are plenty of people who do...
:149:

 

[waitasec]

Noah wasn't a descendant of Abraham, Abraham was a descendant of Noah, but I get what you are saying.

yeah i got it backwards...wordmagnifiedabovenames pointed that out to me...but it was too late to change the OP...thanks though

Where God's plan apparently fails is with Noah cursing Ham (for covering his naked body). Now Ham is rejected, so the whole thing starts again. Now you've got a group of outsiders again who aren't going to know the Lord and will therefore bring evil into the world. This is the theology of it, which I think is BS, but that is the answer for how it falls apart again.

:yes:
thanks for your input...


curious....are you lysdexic, errr i mean dyslexic?
'cause i am and i always find my self saying..."no, the other right"

 

[Otherright]

yeah i got it backwards...james2ko pointed that out to me...but it was too late to change the OP...thanks though


:yes:
thanks for your input...


curious....are you lysdexic, errr i mean dyslexic?
'cause i am and i always find my self saying..."no, the other right"

No, I'm left-handed. You know, your other right.

 

[waitasec]

No, I'm left-handed. You know, your other right.

oh right...i, i mean left... :sarcastic

 

[james2ko]

:thud: not really, in fact i'm more confused. i read both of your posts and they contradict each other....

2. Because our Omniscient God felt there was a better over all alternative. Again, it would be presumptuous ,at best, to think our finite, limited minds know better.

4. In Gen 1:31, God was pleased with the created product. He didn't know at the time of the creation of Adam and Eve which way they would choose, but His plan certainly included a set of natural consequences for either choice. Unfortunately, they chose to do things their way-- the way of death. Hence, the sigh at mankind's choice.

There's no contradiction. God knows all except for the choices made by individuals, under certain circumstances.

and in the post you linked you contradicted yourself again

4. Only one problem with that "hunch"--the new covenant, which included the Messiah's sacrifice, was prophesied way back in the OT. 7. We just proved He did not know whether mankind would choose to continue to do evil.

No contradiction here either. The Messiah's sacrifice was necessary even if Adam and Eve were the only two humans who sinned.

you are not reading the passage correctly..."never again will i....even though every inclination..."so no, it's not based on past behavior but on predicting our behavior based on every inclination is evil...

And you didn't copy and paste the whole passage. Cherry picking words in passages and taking them out of context to disguise its true meaning? You know better, waitasec.

so can you give me a straight answer...? is the god in your bible omniscient or not...

According to the world's definition and your interpretation of the word, the answer is no, therefore your OP is refuted.