Raf

TLC said: "Would it matter if there was, Raf? Because I think that the "good news of salvation" that Moses delivered to the nation of Israel was perceived at the time (and perhaps is still viewed similarly today for many that call themselves Jews) primarily (if not entirely) as the deliverance from the hand of their enemies." I'm not quite sure I understand the point of asking a question and then immediately answering it. If salvation in the early Old Testament did not refer to eternal life, then it's not what we're talking about on this thread. There are plenty of references to God imputing righteousness unto people in Genesis, but none that equate that action with eternal life, and the promise of eternal life is what we're talking about, isn't it? Where is there such a "gospel" in the Old Testament? We have, at best, hints of one, and (at this point in our admittedly cursory look at the book), we don't get to a "gospel of salvation" that we can articulate until Psalms, and that one is a tad vague. It's good enough for me. I'm not being picky. But it seems to me that's an awful long time to go without a gospel of salvation. Assuming Job to take place contemporaneously with Genesis, we have some clue that a restoration to life after death was an expectation. But no how? Has the gospel whereby a man is saved changed? Yeah. First there was none articulated. At some point, early, it was expected of believers (and trusting God as a precondition can be inferred solely on the basis that it makes sense on its face. Evidence of that precondition would be nice, but it doesn't strain the imagination even a little even without an explicit verse reference).

First of all, I deliberately limited the scope of my questions because I'm trying to seek common ground. Failure to do so would unnecessarily derail the thread (if I were to, for example, challenge the authorship of Genesis and its date, then we're no longer talking about what the Bible teaches. We would be firmly in "Questioning Faith" territory, and that is not my goal). That might explain what you see as inconsistencies in my position. There's nothing inconsistent. I'm simply yielding points to find common ground. Word Wolf put it well, I think. More later.

Jerry Maren lives.

Ok, your move.

Also, let me quibble with the wording of "If we take it as a given that the Bible is inaccurate." That is not my position and it is not relevant. It would be more correct to say "If we do not take it as a given that the Bible is accurate." That gives the book room to be accurate in some places, inaccurate in others, each piece standing on its own. ALL of it can be accurate and it wouldn't change the outcome. "We view the book as an account of what someone believed at the time each book was written. The question then becomes what does it reflect about what was believed at the time, who believed it, and when was it believed?" Where I come from, we call that "common ground." Whether you believe it or not is not the point. An unbeliever cannot argue that the people of the time could not know that information because it's RIGHT THERE. Even the Shelliak would have to agree. :)

The only problem with "what did God reveal and when did He reveal it" is, hypothetically, if Hebrews says the people of the OT knew something, then that settles the question from the believer's perspective but not the historical. So we'll see if that becomes an issue.

Agreed. Unbelief is irrelevant to the conversation. Intellectual honesty is the approach we're seeking, believer or skeptic.

And by the way, I've already refuted my own preconceived notions by looking at the material honestly and following up on vague suggestions to uncover verses that addressed my questions with less ambiguity. Still willing to see more.

Sorry I misunderstood your post, WW. If you can think of a better way to phrase my questions, have at it. I need to pass the point of finding this thread irritating.

I can and I will, but honestly, it has passed the point of being annoying that I constantly have to clarify something that was not unclear in the first place, and that the subject has now become about my being "dead set" on looking at something from a logical perspective. So here's a different way to ask the same damn question (sorry, but we passed being annoying the third or fourth time I was accused of being stubborn about how I'm handling this topic). Looking at the Bible chronologically in the order that the stories take place, what is the first inkling that we have that "salvation" or "eternal life" is even a thing? And, following up on that logically, at what point is it clear, Biblically AND chronologically, that there is a "gospel" of salvation that is clearly articulated? Best answers we have come up with until this point is that there's a reference in Job to the expectation of a life after this one, and there are Psalms that seem to indicate (to my satisfaction at least) that "trusting in the Lord" is what "entitles" (I'm struggling to come up with a better word) a person to eternal life. I know you can look at certain verses in the New Testament that seem to indicate the people in Genesis knew certain things, but there is nothing in Genesis to reflect that, and the people who lived at the time of Genesis did not have access to the New Testament. Yeah, you can say "God said it, that settles it," but from a historical perspective, that doesn't fly. Answer the question the way a Jew would: They don't accept the New Testament as authoritative the same way Christians don't accept the book of Mormon's claims about Jesus as authoritative or the Koran's claims about Abraham as authoritative. Where is the gospel of salvation in the OT? If we're going to ask how it's changed, we have to approach it honestly, and that means approaching it chronologically. I'm willing to assume Adam knew the substance of Genesis 3:15 even though he wasn't there to hear that promise (or, at least, there's no indication he was). To deny he knew it would be nitpicking. But Genesis 3:15 says nothing about restoring man to immortality. That promise comes later (at the latest by Job). I'm willing to accept that the people of Genesis had the same expectation as Job even though there's no connection between the stories, again because it fits chronologically and I'm looking at this chronologically. And I say this knowing that Genesis-Deuteronomy were written centuries after the events described and not knowing at all when Job was written. To avoid that argument, I'm taking the timing of the stories AS THEY OCCUR at face value. What I'm not willing to do is accept that the people of Genesis knew what was written in Hebrews some thousand or two years later. That's ret-conning. It may satisfy the question from a theological standpoint, but it doesn't hold water chronologically. This should not be difficult. And it's not about ME or my being "dead set" against anything. It's about approaching the material on its own merits and not allowing ANY preconceived notions to take precedence. Is there a gospel of salvation in Genesis? Where? Exodus? Where? Leviticus? Where? Joshua, Judges, Ruth? Where do we first see the people of God actually believing in something that we can call "salvation" according to how we define it today?

I'll report the glitch. Whenever you respond to a thread, the post you just entered shows up (TO YOU ONLY) as the second post on the page. Go the home page or some other page and click on the thread again, and your new comment will pop up in the right place. In the meantime, Tom Hanks is correct. Your move.

Jerry Maren is the munchkin who handed the lollipop to Dorothy. He's also the last surviving member of the cast

That's why I added that "Under the Rainbow" is a big fat clue to another movie he's in. Believe me, you know him, you've quoted him, you've probably tried to imitate him more than once.

Ok. So. Jerry Maren. (And "Under the Rainbow" is a big fat clue to another famous movie Jerry Maren was in).

"That thing doesn't obey the laws of physics at all!"

Sorry. I'm an 80s kid. "He said 'In winter 1963, it felt like the world would freeze, with John F. Kennedy and the Beatles.'"

Public Enemy ?

Ok then. Tough Guys it is. Billy Barty Under the Rainbow Jerry Maren

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. You can't establish a message of salvation that would be known to the people living at the time of Genesis by using documents that were not written until a couple thousand years later. The people living at the time of Genesis could not possibly have known that. There's nothing complicated about that. At all. Even a little. If you want to know what the people of a certain time knew or believed about salvation, then you have to limit yourself to the information that was available to them at that time. You don't get to say, "Well, the apostle Paul ssid Abraham liked Mallomars" and expect it to just be taken for granted as true unless there's something in Genesis yo indicate that, yeah, Abe liked Mallomars. Relying on the New Testament to tell what the believers of the Old Testament knew and believed is retconning. It is intellectually dishonest. To the best of my knoeledge, you can go through the first five books of the Bible, at least, without the slightest indication that there was any such thing as a gospel of salvation. So if you really want to know if it has changed, the most Biblically forthright answer from where I sit is: yeah, it's changed. At first there was none.

Kevin Costner No Way Out Gene Hackman

I really don't get why this is so complicated.

And apparently by a couple other dudes too.

"Hazy Shade of Winter" by The Bangles.

Name the actor: Paul Edgecombe Chuck Noland Andrew Beckett

The Color Purple Whoopi Goldberg Ghost