| Creationism The subforum for young-earth and other creationist members. |
 | | 
21st August 2009, 05:56 PM
|  | Chewbacha
 
| | Join Date: 15th February 2002
Posts: 17,114
Blessings: 45,126,564
Reps: 1,238,051,283,267,514,112 (power: 1,238,051,283,267,541) | | Originally Posted by Biblewriter  It is indeed true that a metaphorical Genesis could still teach spiritual lessons. But if the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not factually accurate, they are not factually true. There is absolutely no escape from this unquestionable fact.
Why?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Client-side CF enhancements for Google Chrome. Now with [bible=tag]power[/bible].
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Read CF in your mobile web browser. For all kinds of devices. |
21st August 2009, 06:16 PM
|  | Veteran
25   
| | Join Date: 14th August 2006
Posts: 3,846
Blessings: 1,008,738 My Mood 
Reps: 257,463,246,207,844,928 (power: 257,463,246,207,853) | | It is indeed true that a metaphorical Genesis could still teach spiritual lessons. But if the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not factually accurate, they are not factually true. There is absolutely no escape from this unquestionable fact.
Yes, if they are spiritually true, they teach spiritual lessons. And if they are not factually accurate, they are also not factually true. This too is correct. BUT it does NOT mean they are factually false unless both (A) God intended for it to be read factually, and (B) it is factually incorrect. But we have already pointed out that it is spiritually true, because REGARDLESS of the factual correctness, all of us believe it contains spiritual truths. So it IS true unless we impose some other restriction upon it. A metaphor can show truth. But to be true, a metaphor which contains an allegation of fact must contain some statement indicating that it is a metaphor.
There are indeed metaphors in the Bible. But these metaphors always contain a statement indicating that they are metaphors. Jesus often taught in parables. But Jesus also taught in anecdotes. A careful reading of the gospels shows that the difference between his parables and his anecdotes was carefully delineated by Jesus as He spoke and by the inspired historians as they wrote.
And how many times did the people not know what Jesus meant, and the apostles only knew because He took them aside and explained it to them? Quite a few. In this case, would the people who were confused and did not know it was a parable/anecdote lied to? No. But those who wish to deny the truth of numerous scriptures often claim that they are only metaphors. This is done by Preterists, covenant theologians, and replacement theologians in regard to most of Old Testament prophecy. It is done by amillenists in regard to the scriptures about the millennium. And it is done by theistic evolutionists in regard to Genesis.
I am not familiar with preterism, covenant theology, amilenism, or replacement theology. However, I will say as a TE I do it to keep the truth of the Word of God intact. Because if the only way for Genesis to be correct is to be factually correct IN ADDITION to any spiritual lessons it teaches us is if either God deceived us in the world He made or... it isn't. All of these are nothing more that an attempt to escape the results of clear pronouncements of the Word of God.
Like what? That we as humans have fallen short of the glory of God, have sinned, and need His redemption? Yeah, because I TOTALLY don't believe that. (take knife, cut sarcasm).
Or that God created the entire universe in its present form in 6 literal 23 hour 56 minute some odd second days roughly 6000 years ago and if you don't believe that you can't actually believe in Jesus? Because I'm pretty sure the universe God created speaks out against the first part, and Bible never says that second part. And since God created the universe as is stated in the Bible, if the universe God created doesn't line up with a literal Genesis then God must be a liar because He either lies in His word or in His universe. Just sayin'.
Metherion
__________________
I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then.
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.
One of the secrets of life is that all that is really worth the doing is what we do for others.
--Lewis Carroll, all three.
Last edited by metherion; 21st August 2009 at 06:35 PM.
|
21st August 2009, 07:49 PM
|  | Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
30    
 | | Join Date: 23rd April 2005 Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 7,683
Blessings: 527,449 My Mood 
Reps: 63,932,760,995,062,528 (power: 63,932,760,995,076) | | Originally Posted by WingsOfEagles07 What is the "origination" of death?
Death is separation from God. Man died when he turned from God and discerned good and evil for himself. Reconciliation with God means to enter into life, again. It is like the hymn quoted by Paul:
"Sleeper, awake!
Rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."
(Ephesians 5:14)
If you are asking whether the death described in Genesis included human biological death, I suspect not, but I don't know. If one interprets the narrative in that way then it is difficult not to interpret the biological death as coming about because of the removal of something that was keeping it at bay. After all, Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from the tree of life which strongly indicates that _that_ was what was keeping them alive -- not that they were naturally immortal. Nevertheless, I think that the tree of life is God's Word. Since he is the one the apostles call "the life" and since it is through him that we are made alive, I am led quite strongly to interpret the tree of life as the Word.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
|
21st August 2009, 08:07 PM
|  | Servant Of The LORD
19   
| | Join Date: 9th March 2009 Location: Hurricane, West Virginia
Posts: 427
Blessings: 41,637 My Mood 
Reps: 1,680,985,065,547 (power: 1,680,985,068) | | Originally Posted by Willtor Death is separation from God. Man died when he turned from God and discerned good and evil for himself. Reconciliation with God means to enter into life, again. It is like the hymn quoted by Paul:
"Sleeper, awake!
Rise from the dead,
and Christ will shine on you."
(Ephesians 5:14)
If you are asking whether the death described in Genesis included human biological death, I suspect not, but I don't know. If one interprets the narrative in that way then it is difficult not to interpret the biological death as coming about because of the removal of something that was keeping it at bay. After all, Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from the tree of life which strongly indicates that _that_ was what was keeping them alive -- not that they were naturally immortal. Nevertheless, I think that the tree of life is God's Word. Since he is the one the apostles call "the life" and since it is through him that we are made alive, I am led quite strongly to interpret the tree of life as the Word.
There are tons of things I could say, but I am just going to say this one, not to just you Wiltor but to everyone else who is a TE and views the account of Genesis illiterate just so evolution can have fit in Genesis.
What about the Genealogies of JESUS CHRIST? Luke 3:23-38 23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, 25Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, 26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, 27Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, 28Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, 29Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, 30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, 31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, 32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, 33Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, 34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, 35Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, 37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, 38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
To deny Adam and Eve as a literal human being is to deny all the people all up to Christ. Because they would not be if Adam was not real. To say Adam and Eve is not real is to deny Abraham, Noah, Issac, Jacob and the etc... The Genealogies in Luke are too metaphorical according to TE. Because to take out Adam would make "Seth" the first son of God. JESUS did not do this. To take out Adam is to say JESUS is not real. Because he has genealogies that go back to Adam. If Adam were not literal but just spiritual, who filled that space in the genealogy? And who caused Death "Physical" to come into the world, since God tells us in Genesis that we will die and go back to the dust of the ground which accounts for "physical?" To say the ToE is applicable to Bible is to say that Death has always existed. Because if Adam did not start it, it has always been and God's word is fallible. It is illogical to say God is a God that would cause Billions of years of death then use an metaphorical message to people about death "Spiritually." Which means God to had a Son that came from "abiogenesis" then life was diversified and here is JESUS. This is very fallacious to say just because evolution came mainly from Darwin who developed the ToE to explain the diversity of Life without the thought of the supernatural.
__________________
" In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God) |
21st August 2009, 08:18 PM
| | Chewbacha
| | Join Date: 15th February 2002
Posts: 17,114
Blessings: 45,126,564
Reps: 1,238,051,283,267,514,112 (power: 1,238,051,283,267,541) | | | Adam can be viewed as "father figure" to the humanity as a whole, representing a common theme in all of us (our humanity). Just because someone doesn't exist doesn't mean the genealogy is false. I will again point you to the line of the Japanese Imperial Family. It's the exact same situation that you are claiming is impossible. Does the Japanese Emperor suddenly not exist because Amaterasu is not real?
Anyway, there are theistic evolutionists who believe in a literal Adam. So assuming your argument was actually valid it would still falter there.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Client-side CF enhancements for Google Chrome. Now with [bible=tag]power[/bible].
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Read CF in your mobile web browser. For all kinds of devices. |
21st August 2009, 09:01 PM
| | Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
30
| | Join Date: 23rd April 2005 Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 7,683
Blessings: 527,449 My Mood
Reps: 63,932,760,995,062,528 (power: 63,932,760,995,076) | | Originally Posted by WingsOfEagles07 There are tons of things I could say, but I am just going to say this one, not to just you Wiltor but to everyone else who is a TE and views the account of Genesis illiterate just so evolution can have fit in Genesis.
What about the Genealogies of JESUS CHRIST? Luke 3:23-38
23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
To deny Adam and Eve as a literal human being is to deny all the people all up to Christ. Because they would not be if Adam was not real. To say Adam and Eve is not real is to deny Abraham, Noah, Issac, Jacob and the etc... The Genealogies in Luke are too metaphorical according to TE. Because to take out Adam would make "Seth" the first son of God. JESUS did not do this. To take out Adam is to say JESUS is not real. Because he has genealogies that go back to Adam. If Adam were not literal but just spiritual, who filled that space in the genealogy? And who caused Death "Physical" to come into the world, since God tells us in Genesis that we will die and go back to the dust of the ground which accounts for "physical?" To say the ToE is applicable to Bible is to say that Death has always existed. Because if Adam did not start it, it has always been and God's word is fallible. It is illogical to say God is a God that would cause Billions of years of death then use an metaphorical message to people about death "Spiritually." Which means God to had a Son that came from "abiogenesis" then life was diversified and here is JESUS. This is very fallacious to say just because evolution came mainly from Darwin who developed the ToE to explain the diversity of Life without the thought of the supernatural.
What? I didn't say Adam wasn't historical. What does this have to do with what I said? Are you making things up to put in my mouth?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
|
21st August 2009, 09:05 PM
|  | Senior Member
68  
| | Join Date: 15th May 2005 Location: Farmington, Missouri
Posts: 3,602
Blessings: 114,621
Reps: 98,686,576,054,975,280 (power: 98,686,576,054,985) | | Originally Posted by metherion Or that God created the entire universe in its present form in 6 literal 23 hour 56 minute some odd second days roughly 6000 years ago and if you don't believe that you can't actually believe in Jesus? Because I'm pretty sure the universe God created speaks out against the first part, and Bible never says that second part. And since God created the universe as is stated in the Bible, if the universe God created doesn't line up with a literal Genesis then God must be a liar because He either lies in His word or in His universe. Just sayin'.
Metherion
It would only be argumentative to answer the first portion of your post. I have already answered this and there is no point in repeating it. But you are as mistaken about this part as you are about the rest.
In the first place, the universe God created most absolutely does not speak out against a literal interpretation of Genesis. I know you reject this, but I am now speaking as a scientist and not as a theologian, for I wear both hats.
But in the second place, now speaking as a theologian, rather than as a scientist, In John 5 Jesus said, 45Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.46For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.47But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
So Jesus said a belief in Moses was a pre-requisite for believing in Himself.
__________________
Biblewriter is the handle of James C. Morris. I call myself Biblewriter because I write about the Bible.
Last edited by Biblewriter; 21st August 2009 at 09:22 PM.
|
21st August 2009, 09:16 PM
| | Veteran
25
| | Join Date: 14th August 2006
Posts: 3,846
Blessings: 1,008,738 My Mood
Reps: 257,463,246,207,844,928 (power: 257,463,246,207,853) | | So I'm wrong about the people and apostles not knowing Jesus was speaking in parables until He let them in on it? O really? n the first place, the universe God created most absolutely does not speak out against a literal interpretation of Genesis. I know you reject this, but I am now speaking as a scientist and not as a theologian, for I wear both hats.
As do I, you know. And it does. Either God was deceptive in making it, or He didn't make it that way.
Furthermore, as a matter of fact, human civilization has been found from slightly before 4000 BC if I remember correctly. So Jesus said a belief in Moses was a pre-requisite for believing in Himself.
And where did either Jesus or Moses say that you weren't believing in Moses until you took a literal interpretation of Genesis? I missed that verse. Please to cite.
Metherion
__________________
I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then.
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.
One of the secrets of life is that all that is really worth the doing is what we do for others.
--Lewis Carroll, all three.
Last edited by metherion; 21st August 2009 at 09:22 PM.
|
21st August 2009, 09:24 PM
| | Servant Of The LORD
19
| | Join Date: 9th March 2009 Location: Hurricane, West Virginia
Posts: 427
Blessings: 41,637 My Mood
Reps: 1,680,985,065,547 (power: 1,680,985,068) | | Originally Posted by Dark_Lite Adam can be viewed as "father figure" to the humanity as a whole, representing a common theme in all of us (our humanity). Just because someone doesn't exist doesn't mean the genealogy is false. I will again point you to the line of the Japanese Imperial Family. It's the exact same situation that you are claiming is impossible. Does the Japanese Emperor suddenly not exist because Amaterasu is not real?
Anyway, there are theistic evolutionists who believe in a literal Adam. So assuming your argument was actually valid it would still falter there.
No, There has to be a Beginning and an Ending. Not started as a group, It has all started from two people. If Adam and Eve were not literal Jesus could not be. Just like if Japanese Emperor, If he is real then Amaterasu is real. Adam has to be literal because this is a lineage of "real" people.
State some theistic evolutionists that do, I know you do not? Why? TE are too biased. Not relating to anyone in this forum, I am talking about TE's in general. TE's need to see the whole foundational issue of a literal view instead of using presuppositions that relate to Evolution only. They assume the evolution is "fact" then arbitrarily dismiss the account of creation which is irrational of a person to do.
__________________
" In The Beginning God..."
--Genesis 1:1 (God) |
21st August 2009, 09:34 PM
| | Veteran
25
| | Join Date: 14th August 2006
Posts: 3,846
Blessings: 1,008,738 My Mood
Reps: 257,463,246,207,844,928 (power: 257,463,246,207,853) | | If Adam and Eve were not literal Jesus could not be.
I want to know why this is. Why must they be literal? Why is Jesus and indeed the entire foundation of our faith false if those two are not literal? Why?
Metherion
__________________
I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then.
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.
One of the secrets of life is that all that is really worth the doing is what we do for others.
--Lewis Carroll, all three. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
