Comments on: Who was Cain’s wife? http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html A blog about current events from a Christian perspective. Fri, 02 Jul 2010 03:59:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Mike http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html/comment-page-1#comment-318 Mike Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:04:29 +0000 http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html#comment-318 Thanks for your comment on my blog. I'm glad that we can agree that we have a truly wonderful God and saviour! I've enjoyed this exchange and have been challenged. Thank you. Thanks for your comment on my blog. I’m glad that we can agree that we have a truly wonderful God and saviour! I’ve enjoyed this exchange and have been challenged. Thank you.

]]> By: casey http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html/comment-page-1#comment-312 casey Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:57:42 +0000 http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html#comment-312 The onus is on you to show that Jesus did not believe the stories to be true. Anyone hearing him would assume that he did believe them to be true. In Mark 10:6 Jesus says, "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'" You have no problem with him quoting from a myth and using it as if it were a fact? He said in John 5:46-47, "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” Saying that Moses did not write true history but mythical stories is not the same thing as believing what he wrote. And you didn't say what you thought about Jesus' ancestry being traced back to a mythical character in Matthew 1. The onus is on you to show that Jesus did not believe the stories to be true. Anyone hearing him would assume that he did believe them to be true. In Mark 10:6 Jesus says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” You have no problem with him quoting from a myth and using it as if it were a fact? He said in John 5:46-47, “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” Saying that Moses did not write true history but mythical stories is not the same thing as believing what he wrote.

And you didn’t say what you thought about Jesus’ ancestry being traced back to a mythical character in Matthew 1.

]]> By: Mike http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html/comment-page-1#comment-311 Mike Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:37:43 +0000 http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html#comment-311 We don't actually know whether he believed the historicity or not, he doesn't say. I have no problem with Jesus referring to a myth, in the proper use of the word. ie. a sacred story communicating truth. That doesn't make the story a lie or untrue. We don’t actually know whether he believed the historicity or not, he doesn’t say. I have no problem with Jesus referring to a myth, in the proper use of the word. ie. a sacred story communicating truth. That doesn’t make the story a lie or untrue.

]]> By: casey http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html/comment-page-1#comment-303 casey Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:11:24 +0000 http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html#comment-303 @Mike I see the OT laws as being divided into ceremonial, civil and moral laws. To make a long story short, the ceremonial and civil laws apply only to Israel, while the moral laws apply to everyone. Do you believe that the NT records Jesus' words accurately? If so, when he talked about Adam and Eve, was he perpetuating the myth or did he actually believe in their historicity? @Mike

I see the OT laws as being divided into ceremonial, civil and moral laws. To make a long story short, the ceremonial and civil laws apply only to Israel, while the moral laws apply to everyone.

Do you believe that the NT records Jesus’ words accurately? If so, when he talked about Adam and Eve, was he perpetuating the myth or did he actually believe in their historicity?

]]> By: Scott http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html/comment-page-1#comment-299 Scott Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:19:11 +0000 http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html#comment-299 Lk. 10:25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" 27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" 28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." Those are the laws we must follow. As Gentiles we're not required to follow the laws that were made as a covenant with Israel. And Peter's vision in Acts 10 makes it clear to me that we don't have to follow the Kosher laws. Lk. 10:25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

26″What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

27He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

28″You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

Those are the laws we must follow. As Gentiles we’re not required to follow the laws that were made as a covenant with Israel. And Peter’s vision in Acts 10 makes it clear to me that we don’t have to follow the Kosher laws.

]]> By: Mike http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html/comment-page-1#comment-297 Mike Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:40:42 +0000 http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html#comment-297 You made good points there. I think I understand you a little more. I'm trying to think very carefully about what you said. I think words really are so inadequate to communicate what we really think, at least certainly in my case! Maybe the word 'application' is better than 'literal'. Even the phrase 'take the bible literally' seems to be understood in different ways. Surely ALL the OT laws were given specifically to the Israelites? You have conceded that you do not follow all these laws because they do not all apply to you. All I am saying is that you have made a judgement in that case, an interpretation, and that people will differ in what interpretation they make. It is sad when Christians become divided over varying interpretations, or applications. You made good points there. I think I understand you a little more. I’m trying to think very carefully about what you said. I think words really are so inadequate to communicate what we really think, at least certainly in my case! Maybe the word ‘application’ is better than ‘literal’. Even the phrase ‘take the bible literally’ seems to be understood in different ways.

Surely ALL the OT laws were given specifically to the Israelites? You have conceded that you do not follow all these laws because they do not all apply to you. All I am saying is that you have made a judgement in that case, an interpretation, and that people will differ in what interpretation they make. It is sad when Christians become divided over varying interpretations, or applications.

]]> By: casey http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html/comment-page-1#comment-296 casey Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:34:02 +0000 http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html#comment-296 As a matter of fact, I do take the Bible literally. I think you are the one who is missing the point. Your argument about the OT laws is a matter of application, not whether or not they are literal or figurative. When God gives a covenant to a specific people, I am not arguing that the covenant should not be taken literally if I say the covenant does not apply to me. Some of the OT laws were given specifically to the Israelites, so not being an Israelite myself, I'm not arguing that the laws were meant figuratively if I do not follow them. What about Revelation? When someone says, "I had a vision," I think it's safe to say it's not literal. And that's my point, exactly. Where the Bible can be taken literally, it should be. When a literal reading makes sense contextually, it is best understood in that way. As a matter of fact, I do take the Bible literally. I think you are the one who is missing the point. Your argument about the OT laws is a matter of application, not whether or not they are literal or figurative. When God gives a covenant to a specific people, I am not arguing that the covenant should not be taken literally if I say the covenant does not apply to me. Some of the OT laws were given specifically to the Israelites, so not being an Israelite myself, I’m not arguing that the laws were meant figuratively if I do not follow them.

What about Revelation? When someone says, “I had a vision,” I think it’s safe to say it’s not literal. And that’s my point, exactly. Where the Bible can be taken literally, it should be. When a literal reading makes sense contextually, it is best understood in that way.

]]> By: Mike http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html/comment-page-1#comment-294 Mike Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:38:44 +0000 http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html#comment-294 You have completely missed the point!! I was using the example of the OT laws to demonstrate that even YOU do not take the Bible literally. There are lots of OT laws that we have thrown out, with good reason. I know that Jesus rose from the dead, not just because I read it in a book, but because I experience him in my life. What about Revelation? Do you believe that a beast with ten horns, seven heads and crowns on each horn, will emerge from the sea? (Rev 13:1) Of course not, it's allegorical. And who told you it is allegorical? No-one. You worked that out with your own intelligence. You have completely missed the point!! I was using the example of the OT laws to demonstrate that even YOU do not take the Bible literally. There are lots of OT laws that we have thrown out, with good reason. I know that Jesus rose from the dead, not just because I read it in a book, but because I experience him in my life.

What about Revelation? Do you believe that a beast with ten horns, seven heads and crowns on each horn, will emerge from the sea? (Rev 13:1) Of course not, it’s allegorical. And who told you it is allegorical? No-one. You worked that out with your own intelligence.

]]> By: casey http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html/comment-page-1#comment-290 casey Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:18:27 +0000 http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html#comment-290 Hi Mike, You don't think the Israelites literally avoided prawns or stoned people for sexual improprieties? I don't understand how you can say those laws were figurative. I'm a little uncomfortable with the whole miracle thing, so what do you think, can I interpret the New Testament as figurative, too? Does it not take anything away from the Scriptures to believe that people felt bad when only a child came forward so the feeding of the 5,000 was just stingy people deciding to share what they had? Perhaps Jesus didn't really rise from the dead literally. Maybe it was just a spiritual thing. Or maybe Jesus wasn't a literal person. Is it okay to say that I believe in the principles taught by whoever wrote the New Testament but not the actual historicity of the events? Hi Mike,

You don’t think the Israelites literally avoided prawns or stoned people for sexual improprieties? I don’t understand how you can say those laws were figurative.

I’m a little uncomfortable with the whole miracle thing, so what do you think, can I interpret the New Testament as figurative, too? Does it not take anything away from the Scriptures to believe that people felt bad when only a child came forward so the feeding of the 5,000 was just stingy people deciding to share what they had? Perhaps Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead literally. Maybe it was just a spiritual thing. Or maybe Jesus wasn’t a literal person. Is it okay to say that I believe in the principles taught by whoever wrote the New Testament but not the actual historicity of the events?

]]> By: Mike http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html/comment-page-1#comment-288 Mike Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:32:14 +0000 http://www.hoshuha.com/blog/cains_wife.html#comment-288 <i>If the whole Bible is to be taken as allegory, then what good does it do us? We would be free to interpret it any way we choose.</i> I think that is the point. We ARE free to interpret and we HAVE to interpret for ourselves.We DO interpret all the time through all sorts of filters, including cultural. I do not think it is necessary to take absolutely everything literally. I have Christ in my life because I choose to believe the message of the whole of scripture and I have the Holy Spirit in my life to confirm my faith. The Jews had a particular world view and that is fine, but we do not have to have the same, and do not need to. Literal interpretation would mean all sorts of consequences, like putting disobedient children and homosexuals to death, not eating prawns etc etc. If the whole Bible is to be taken as allegory, then what good does it do us? We would be free to interpret it any way we choose. I think that is the point. We ARE free to interpret and we HAVE to interpret for ourselves.We DO interpret all the time through all sorts of filters, including cultural. I do not think it is necessary to take absolutely everything literally. I have Christ in my life because I choose to believe the message of the whole of scripture and I have the Holy Spirit in my life to confirm my faith. The Jews had a particular world view and that is fine, but we do not have to have the same, and do not need to. Literal interpretation would mean all sorts of consequences, like putting disobedient children and homosexuals to death, not eating prawns etc etc.

]]>