does the phrase 'in the beginning...'

[Assyrian]

actually they are not. it is only those who take a non-literal genesis view who read those passages literally and try to hold any seemingly contradictions over the heads of those who believe a six day creation is correct.

those who fail to use understanding usually come to this conclusion and it makes them stumble as they do not grasp the meanings of what is being said in those passages.

You mean the problem is reading Genesis literally?

 

[archaeologist]

No

 

[ExpatChristian]

I also understood it that way, that the problem is reading genesis literally. Anyway, it is certainly a logical exigency of what was written. Either way it needs to be corrected.

 

[theFijian]

actually they are not. it is only those who take a non-literal genesis view who read those passages literally and try to hold any seemingly contradictions over the heads of those who believe a six day creation is correct.

What? It's only those who take a non-literal view who read the passages literally?

 

[archaeologist]

.yes.

 

[archaeologist]

i should state here that i am not an OEC, evolutionist, TE, P.C. or any alternative. i tend to think and believe that the world's history goes back about 10,000 years {+/- 500-1,000.} plus i am a creationist.

here is an interesting quote which supports the thread's contention; again from fausett's bible dictionary:

Though​

bara’ extends to other acts of God besides the original creation, it
is only in a secondary application, without reference to preexisting
materials; still, except in the original creation, they are not excluded.
Moreover, the contextual “in the beginning” can only mean an absolute
beginning, in contrast to the previous nonexistence of the world and sole
existence of the Creator. This creation of all things out of nothing
distinguishes the Bible from all pagan cosmogonies and philosophical
speculations, which make matter eternal. The Creator’s mode of “creating”
is not revealed, but simply the fact, that it was by the putting forth of His​

will.

 

[scandalon]

"processes that involve mammy and daddy animals." I'm with you there--God said to be fruitful and multiply. That takes a "mammy and daddy." But when Adam was created, God made him from the dust of the ground. No process such as evolution was used. The earth brought forth Adam. The earth was the material, not part of a process such as evolution. The same should be said for Genesis 1:24. God used the earth to make animal and human kind in its original form as fully developed living beings.

"Genesis 1 and 2 are not to be interpreted literally." Why not? Both Jesus and Paul treated the creation account as a literal historical event. Genesis 2 is a narrower view of the broader creation account in chapter 1. In fact, if the creation account contains evolutionary processes in it, then death had to have happened before the fall. If this is true, then we have some major problems with Christian soteriology (the study of salvation) since it depends on original sin and its wages--death.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

EC, I agree, but reaching an understanding with someone who thinks that

It's only those who take a non-literal view who read the passages literally

is not a logical non-sequitur is pretty difficult.

 

[scandalon]

"reach common ground through understanding." How can I do that if I don't fully understand where you are coming from?

OK, so your a Christian, so my guess is that you believe Jesus died to save you from sin and give you eternal life. So you will no doubt agree with me when I say sin came from Adam, since Romans 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--"

So if death originated through Adam's sin, that means it wasn't around beforehand. Evolution requires a life and death cycle, non? Therefore, Adam and Eve couldn't have evolved.

Christ died for our sin which began with Adam (remember the snake and "apple" story?). Throw it out and replace it with evolution and you turn Chrisitanity on its head. I'm sure that you as a Christian wouldn't want to do that.

 

[Assyrian]

"processes that involve mammy and daddy animals." I'm with you there--God said to be fruitful and multiply. That takes a "mammy and daddy." But when Adam was created, God made him from the dust of the ground. No process such as evolution was used. The earth brought forth Adam. The earth was the material, not part of a process such as evolution. The same should be said for Genesis 1:24. God used the earth to make animal and human kind in its original form as fully developed living beings.

If that is the case then it wasn't the earth producing the animals, but that is what Gen 1:24 says.

There are a couple of things you need to realise about Gen 2&3. Even though Genesis does not give the slightest hint that the snake is metaphorical, we discover further on in the bible that it was. Rev tells us that Satan was the ancient serpent the deceiver of the whole world. The whole promise of a redeemer who would bruise the serpents head was fulfilled by Jesus, not by stepping on a very old snake, but by defeating Satan at Calvary.

So if the Adam and Eve story has a major character who is a metaphor, what do we make of the description of God like a potter making Adam from clay which is a common metaphor in the rest of the bible?

Job 33:6 Behold, I am toward God as you are; I too was pinched off from a piece of clay.
Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.
Jer 18:6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the LORD. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

"Genesis 1 and 2 are not to be interpreted literally." Why not? Both Jesus and Paul treated the creation account as a literal historical event. Genesis 2 is a narrower view of the broader creation account in chapter 1. In fact, if the creation account contains evolutionary processes in it, then death had to have happened before the fall. If this is true, then we have some major problems with Christian soteriology (the study of salvation) since it depends on original sin and its wages--death.

If the wages of sin is death why do animals die? The bible never links animal death with the fall, only death that affects humans. Even there it is not clear if it is talking about spiritual of physical death. Eph 2:1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins... hardly physical death there if they were alive afterwards when he was writing the letter

 

[archaeologist]

If that is the case then it wasn't the earth producing the animals, but that is what Gen 1:24 says

like i said, the most unliteralpeople read the Bible literally. one phrase does not a theology make. you still ignore verse 25 which explicitly states 'God made'

so scandalon is right and assyrian you are wrong.

There are a couple of things you need to realise about Gen 2&3. Even though Genesis does not give the slightest hint that the snake is metaphorical, we discover further on in the bible that it was. Rev tells us that Satan was the ancient serpent the deceiver of the whole world. The whole promise of a redeemer who would bruise the serpents head was fulfilled by Jesus, not by stepping on a very old snake, but by defeating Satan at Calvary.

how does that render the temptation and fall episode as allegorical?

please answer using credible sources, references and links.

So if the Adam and Eve story has a major character who is a metaphor, what do we make of the description of God like a potter making Adam from clay which is a common metaphor in the rest of the bible?

your extrapolation is incorrect, try again. just because a metaphor was used in one passage does it mean that all passages one wants to be a metaphor is such.

If the wages of sin is death why do animals die? The bible never links animal death with the fall, only death that affects humans. Even there it is not clear if it is talking about spiritual of physical dea

'why do you continue to kick against the pricks' by finding any excuse to not believe what God has written?

 

[Assyrian]

like i said, the most unliteralpeople read the Bible literally. one phrase does not a theology make. you still ignore verse 25 which explicitly states 'God made'

so scandalon is right and assyrian you are wrong.

You must have missed my post two pages back http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36451193&postcount=120 where I discussed the relationship between verse 24 and 25. Basically I pointed out that atheists believe the earth produced the different types of animals but deny God's creation. YEC believe God created the animals but deny that the earth actually produced them. Only TE fits both verses. God created by having the earth produce living creatures

how does that render the temptation and fall episode as allegorical?

please answer using credible sources, references and links.

You don't think the bible is a credible source?

Anyway I tried discussing this with you before, but you refused to say who you thought the promised seed who bruises the serpents head was.

your extrapolation is incorrect, try again. just because a metaphor was used in one passage does it mean that all passages one wants to be a metaphor is such.

If we have a description that is metaphorical every other time it is used in scripture, and it is used in a narrative that contains a major character who turns out to be a metaphor, the description is quite likely to be metaphorical there too.

Maybe it is literal as you say. Maybe this is the one time in scripture that God really did play a potter and make someone from clay, but unless you can show that this really is the one literal example of the common biblical metaphor, it cannot be used as an argument against evolution.

'why do you continue to kick against the pricks' by finding any excuse to not believe what God has written?

Why do you keep resorting to accusations of 'finding any excuse' and not believing what was written?

I was discussing what the bible actually says. If you think what I said is wrong, try to showing it from scripture rather than resorting to slander.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....
please answer using credible sources, references and links.
....

This is not the first time I have been shocked to see you state that the Bible is not a credible source.

And btw, Genesis was not written by God.

 

[archaeologist]

You must have missed my post two pages back http://www.christianforums.com/showp...&postcount=120 where I discussed the relationship between verse 24 and 25. Basically I pointed out that atheists believe the earth produced the different types of animals but deny God's creation. YEC believe God created the animals but deny that the earth actually produced them. Only TE fits both verses. God created by having the earth produce living creatures

no, you are wrong. you infer an evolutionary process when the passage doesn't permit it. you are adding and reading into the passage what you want.

when you can back up your claims with credible sources, references and links then come and talk to me.

You don't think the bible is a credible source

false accusation is ignored.

If we have a description that is metaphorical every other time it is used in scripture, and it is used in a narrative that contains a major character who turns out to be a metaphor, the description is quite likely to be metaphorical there too

genesis one isn't metaphorical, and resorting to other passages that are does not magically turn gen. 1 into a metaphor; for then you would be turning your evolution addition into a metaphor as well.

Why do you keep resorting to accusations of 'finding any excuse' and not believing what was written?

itis not an accusation but a statement of fact. it is exactly what you are doing.

I was discussing what the bible actually says. If you think what I said is wrong, try to showing it from scripture rather than resorting to slander

i didn't slander you.you are not discussing what the bible actually says, you are discussing what you want it to say. please provide scripture that infers, alludes, mentions, explicitly states that evolution is involved.

i have asked this 3-4 times now and neither you or fijian have produced any. one phrase does not validate the christianizingof evolution.

 

[archaeologist]

to keep this on track, i have moved the quote, i hoppe that dissenters can provide qualified, credible scholars' quotes in rebuttal.

Though
bara’ extends to other acts of God besides the original creation, it
is only in a secondary application, without reference to preexisting
materials; still, except in the original creation, they are not excluded.
Moreover, the contextual “in the beginning” can only mean an absolute
beginning, in contrast to the previous nonexistence of the world and sole
existence of the Creator. This creation of all things out of nothing
distinguishes the Bible from all pagan cosmogonies and philosophical
speculations, which make matter eternal. The Creator’s mode of “creating”
is not revealed, but simply the fact, that it was by the putting forth of His​

will.

 

[gluadys]

to keep this on track, i have moved the quote, i hoppe that dissenters can provide qualified, credible scholars' quotes in rebuttal.

The Creator’s mode of “creating” is not revealed, but simply the fact, that it was by the putting forth of His will.​

Good point to remember. We are not told that God used any natural process nor that he did not. We are told only that creation was by his will.

Any assertion that the bible indicates God used evolution is incorrect. We are not told what process, if any, God used.

Equally, any assertion that the bible indicates God did not use evolution or any natural process is also incorrect. We are not told that God avoided the use of natural means either.

 

[archaeologist]

The Creator’s mode of “creating” is not revealed, but simply the fact, that it was by the putting forth of His will.​

so you say, but we are givenclues which exclude evolution: God made, formed, stretched, hung, placed, created, 6 days and so on. you should get the idea from those few examples that God did not guide, wait, let evolve and so on.

We are not told that God used any natural process nor that he did not. We are told only that creation was by his will.

still looking for excuses to believe secular thinking which God says to avoid. why would you take a completely secular construct and adapt it to God's word? why would you disobey God?

'Why do you call me Lord Lord and do not do the things I say?'

God's own observation concerning His created beings.

 

[gluadys]

so you say,

Not me, archie. That was a direct quote from the qualified, credible scholar you cited in post 140.

 

[archaeologist]

you madeno reference to that fact but it remains, no evolution was used as you can see by the end of the sentence.

 

[gluadys]

you madeno reference to that fact but it remains, no evolution was used as you can see by the end of the sentence.

You are reading your own prejudice into someone else's statement. The end of the statement implies nothing for or against evolution. It implies nothing for or against any process.

It may have been God's will that the universe snap into existence fully formed in the blink of an eye. It may have been God's will that it slowly come to fruition over eons. Either way it was by "the putting forth of his will".

You have no right to demand that God "put forth his will" in a way that you choose. It is God's choice, not yours.