| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
30th August 2003, 12:51 PM
|  | Jedi Master
26    
| | Join Date: 5th June 2002 Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,689
Blessings: 85,541 My Mood 
Reps: 62,343 (power: 74) | | Originally Posted by Malaka Vance,
You have no authority to interpret what any author intended to say, and then to publish it on this forum as "truth".
When you read anything you interpret it.
Why do we interpret Genesis as non-literal?
Well Genesis literally says everything was created in 6 days in their full form about 6000 years ago (from geneologies).
However, when we look at creation itself we see life has evolved over millions of years on an ancient earth.
So either - The Bible is wrong
God is a liar
Genesis is not literal
Since Christianity depends on scripture to be true (since that's where we get our info about God from, etc) it can't be the top option. Since the Christian God does not sin (and therefore cannot tell lies) the middle option is also unacceptable. So we are left with the last option - Genesis is not literal.
__________________
"Ach, stick it up yer trakkans!"
|
30th August 2003, 12:56 PM
| | Jedi Master
26
| | Join Date: 5th June 2002 Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,689
Blessings: 85,541 My Mood
Reps: 62,343 (power: 74) | | | Oh and creationism is a stumbling block, I was going to leave Christianity because I had always been told you need to believe genssis was literal to be a Christian, and I knew Genesis could not possibly be literal because the universe contradicts it.
However, it was pointed out to me that Genesis does not need to be taken literally and that was fine by me.
What is hypocritical is how creationists go on about how you need to interpret Genesis literally while ignoring other parts of scripture that warn about placing stumbling blocks in front of people. They cling to their literal interpretation even if it means losing follows of Christ.
__________________
"Ach, stick it up yer trakkans!"
|
30th August 2003, 02:48 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 23rd August 2003
Posts: 867
Blessings: 91,230
Reps: 11 (power: 0) | | | wblastyn, if Genesis is not meant to be taken literally, then why is it presented as such?
The New Testament doesn't present it as an allegorical story...so why should we take it as such?
Why does the New Testament present an allegorical Adam with a literal Jesus?
Or a allegorical Noah with a literal Abraham?
Why does the NT genealogy of Jesus start with God then Adam? Where in thhat list of ancestors does it turn from literal to allegorical? |
30th August 2003, 02:50 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 23rd August 2003
Posts: 867
Blessings: 91,230
Reps: 11 (power: 0) | | | Here is the list of ancestors mentioned above...
Would someone please show me where the list turns from fact to fiction.
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Heli,
Matthat,
Levi,
Melki,
Jannai,
Joseph,
Mattathias,
Amos,
Nahum,
Esli,
Naggai,
Maath,
Mattathias,
Semein,
Josech,
Joda,
Joanan,
Rhesa,
Zerubbabel,
Shealtiel,
Neri,
Melki,
Addi,
Cosam,
Elmadam,
Er,
Joshua,
Eliezer,
Jorim,
Matthat,
Levi,
Simeon,
Judah,
Joseph,
Jonam,
Eliakim,
Melea,
Menna,
Mattatha,
Nathan,
David,
Jesse,
Obed,
Boaz,
Salmon,
Nahshon,
Amminadab,
Ram,
Hezron,
Perez,
Judah,
Jacob,
Isaac,
Abraham,
Terah,
Nahor,
Serug,
Reu,
Peleg,
Eber,
Shelah,
Cainan,
Arphaxad,
Shem,
Noah,
Lamech,
Methuselah,
Enoch,
Jared,
Mahalalel,
Kenan,
Enosh,
Seth,
Adam,
God. |
30th August 2003, 04:32 PM
|  | Be wise and be smart
26  
 | | Join Date: 16th December 2002 Location: University of Rhode Island
Posts: 1,539
Blessings: 265,856
Reps: 3,202,689,982,729,637 (power: 3,202,689,982,740) | | Originally Posted by Ark Guy Here is the list of ancestors mentioned above...
Would someone please show me where the list turns from fact to fiction.
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Heli,
Matthat,
Levi,
Melki,
Jannai,
Joseph,
Mattathias,
Amos,
Nahum,
Esli,
Naggai,
Maath,
Mattathias,
Semein,
Josech,
Joda,
Joanan,
Rhesa,
Zerubbabel,
Shealtiel,
Neri,
Melki,
Addi,
Cosam,
Elmadam,
Er,
Joshua,
Eliezer,
Jorim,
Matthat,
Levi,
Simeon,
Judah,
Joseph,
Jonam,
Eliakim,
Melea,
Menna,
Mattatha,
Nathan,
David,
Jesse,
Obed,
Boaz,
Salmon,
Nahshon,
Amminadab,
Ram,
Hezron,
Perez,
Judah,
Jacob,
Isaac,
Abraham,
Terah,
Nahor,
Serug,
Reu,
Peleg,
Eber,
Shelah,
Cainan,
Arphaxad,
Shem,
Noah,
Lamech,
Methuselah,
Enoch,
Jared,
Mahalalel,
Kenan,
Enosh,
Seth,
Adam,
God.
As far as we know the geneology is correct all the way up to Adam. The only difference is that Adam actually had parents. Big whoop 
Just because people with these names were actually part of the geneologies doesn't mean their stories actually happened. Noah wasn't really involved in a global flood and Enoch wasn't really turned into some super-cool angel (as per the Book of Enoch)
__________________ "Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up.... Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution." -Dr. Alan Feduccia, in an interview with Discover magazine |
30th August 2003, 07:02 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 23rd August 2003
Posts: 867
Blessings: 91,230
Reps: 11 (power: 0) | | | Troodon, according to you the bible can't be trusted. I know that because I just read your post.
Do you think Jesus Christ really rose from the dead? |
30th August 2003, 09:32 PM
| | Jedi Master
26
| | Join Date: 5th June 2002 Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,689
Blessings: 85,541 My Mood
Reps: 62,343 (power: 74) | | Originally Posted by Ark Guy Troodon, according to you the bible can't be trusted. I know that because I just read your post.
Do you think Jesus Christ really rose from the dead?
Notice how when you question their interpretation of scripture they begin to question your Christianinty.
We do trust God's Word, but we do not trust your interpretation of it since it tuns God into a liar by deceiving us in creation.
__________________
"Ach, stick it up yer trakkans!"
Last edited by wblastyn; 30th August 2003 at 09:39 PM.
|
30th August 2003, 09:38 PM
| | Jedi Master
26
| | Join Date: 5th June 2002 Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,689
Blessings: 85,541 My Mood
Reps: 62,343 (power: 74) | | Originally Posted by Ark Guy wblastyn, if Genesis is not meant to be taken literally, then why is it presented as such?
Actually it's presented as non-literal. It's written in a poetic language in the Hebrew ("and the evening and the morning..." repeats is a huge sign of this), the fact that Gen 1 and 2 contradict, the anthropromorphic description of God ("walked", etc), magic trees, talking snakes, etc. The New Testament doesn't present it as an allegorical story...so why should we take it as such?
Because that's what God is telling us through His creation. Why does the New Testament present an allegorical Adam with a literal Jesus?
Why does a literal Jesus present an allegorical sower of seeds? Or a allegorical Noah with a literal Abraham?
The people don't necessarily have to be allegorical. Why does the NT genealogy of Jesus start with God then Adam? Where in thhat list of ancestors does it turn from literal to allegorical?
So? The Romans had geneologies of their emperors going back to their gods.
__________________
"Ach, stick it up yer trakkans!"
|
30th August 2003, 09:53 PM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 23rd August 2003
Posts: 867
Blessings: 91,230
Reps: 11 (power: 0) | | | wblastyn...it's not a decption.
Why?
God told us what he did.
Now evolution would be the deception.
Why?
Because the bible doesn't mention it. It mentions special creation instead
Get it?
good |
30th August 2003, 10:06 PM
|  | Contributor
 
| | Join Date: 29th June 2003
Posts: 6,163
Blessings: 91,171
Reps: 67 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by LewisWildermuth Sure, that would be great, do you happen to have Moses’ email address? How about Jesus? Any of the speakers or authors of the Bible?
No?
Then I guess our interpretations are the best we have, and since it is only an interpretation made by us, mere mortals, then it is just as fallible as we are.
Hi There! 
For the mockers and scoffers, I just read two articles today (published for September 2003) that relate that when the first five books of the Bible were written... that certainly, people were alive who had come through the Exodus with Moses. I found that interesting!!!!
You don't need Moses's email address, he left footprints in the sand, and they were real big ones... Oh, yeah, the article was aligned the archaeological supports for the timeline with Moses and Egypt....
And you don't need Jesus Christ's email address... He isn't long distance and there are no roaming charges...
~malaka~ | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
