Genesis 1 Again

[Nostromo]

This is saying exactly, in effect 'Either God is lying or not real'.

Since he explicitly said "symbolic", it would be best interpreted as "Either God meant it symbolically, or is not real". Unless you'd prefer to think He's a liar, which I suppose, strictly speaking, is something you can't absolutely discount.

 

[RickG]

This is saying exactly, in effect 'Either God is lying or not real'.

How do you know Genesis 1 is the "exact" word of God?

 

[Jazer]

How do you know Genesis 1 is the "exact" word of God?

Because He is our Daddy.

1 John 3:1-3 Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children
of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.

 

[RickG]

Because He is our Daddy.

1 John 3:1-3 Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children
of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.

I believe you missed my point. When was the bible put together, by whom and how? Have you ever read through some of the proceeding of the council of Nicea? It can be a bit troubling.

 

[dad]

Since he explicitly said "symbolic", it would be best interpreted as "Either God meant it symbolically, or is not real". Unless you'd prefer to think He's a liar, which I suppose, strictly speaking, is something you can't absolutely discount.

Yes we can discount that figment of the evo imagination. And where 'symbolic' is applied to a basic truth of God's word to attempt to neuter it of real meaning that symbolism is satanism.

 

[dad]

Because He is our Daddy.

1 John 3:1-3 Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children
of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.

Not sure who you quoted there it wasn't me...I said this in the post you refer to

"This is saying exactly, in effect 'Either God is lying or not real'."

 

[SkyWriting]

Or it might be a poetic account meant to teach spiritual truths and values, not a scientific account of the beginning of the universe. ...

The evidence suggests both at the same time. The scriptures even explain this as to how God used actual events to communicate truths.

 

[SkyWriting]

When did God create bacteria and viruses?

Man began digesting his food on the first day.

All of creation turned "sour" after the Fall.

 

[SkyWriting]

.... I'm afraid your literalist philosophy does not trump the vast amounts of evidence from the real world that a historical Genesis 1 is impossible.

When Jesus caused a blind man to see, his history of blindness was made impossible in the same way. And when He caused a man to raise from the dead, his "deadness" was then impossible.

So when God works, vast amounts of evidence will point to it never happening. Yet His works remain.

 

[Jazer]

I believe you missed my point. When was the bible put together, by whom and how? Have you ever read through some of the proceeding of the council of Nicea? It can be a bit troubling.

I mostly go by what Moses wrote. Or at least I use what Moses wrote to verify the rest of the Bible.
Of course I find it "troubling" that God uses man the way He does. But it is to the Glory of God that He is able to work though man to accomplish His purpose. I am sure He could get the job done a lot better without us. But to use man the way He does brings Him honor and glory.

Other then the Bible He does not need to use people. We can be taught by God and do not need man to teach us. It is always interesting to know what work God is doing in the lives of others. Also I believe in a two fold atonement. Jesus died to reconcile us with the Father. But also to reconcile us with each other. He gave Himself for the Church.

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."

 

[artybloke]

This is saying exactly, in effect 'Either God is lying or not real'.

Only if you think God wrote the Bible; or if you think God was incapable of using symbolic language; or was a follower of that peculiar American philosophy of common-sense empiricism that denies the possibility of truth in story.

Anyway, it makes no difference. If the world God created says that evolution happened (as it does) then according to your theology, either God was lying in scripture or God was lying in the world. Either way, your interpretation of scripture has made God a liar.

 

[SkyWriting]

Here in this part of the country the glaciers left about 15 feet of muck behind. In other areas they were flooded and going under water. If that is not "ruin" then what is? Have you seen what global warming is doing to some of the towns in Alaska?

What has been left behind, we call soil in the midwest. I'm glad not to be living on the glacier that was here. The global climate has been unusually mild for the last 10,000 years and is showing signs of returning to it's normally chaotic patterns.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't care if you believe in God, but what I do care about is teaching kids a religion as if it was scientific fact. Save religion for church, and keep science in the classroom. Christianity isn't the only religion out there, after all. My kids aren't Christians so why should I let someone force their creation myths on them as if they were true. I don't care if you pray in schools, but I do care about whether or not prayer is enforced. As it is now, students can pray and read the bible all they want in school, it's just that teachers aren't allowed to instruct students to do so -- that's a violation of the 1st amendment.The 10 commandments only pertain to your religion and Judaism. Not everyone agrees with them -- the first five are specific to those religions and aren't even laws, nor should they be. In fact, there laws that reflect the sentiment of only 4 of the 10 commandments, and those laws are pretty much universal (and regardless of the 10 commandments).Putting the 10 commandments outside a government building sends the message that we are a Christian nation (which we're not) and a theocracy (which we also aren't). It's a Christian majority population with a (supposed to be) secular government,You can believe anything you want, pray when you want, and to whoever you want, but it's not a violation of your rights to keep you from forcing others to do the same as you. Keeping Christians from infringing on the rights of others is not a violation of your rights.Freedom of religion means you have your personal freedom to practice your religion. It doesn't mean the freedom to make everybody else practice your religion.Matt 6:6 - But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

You make a good case that public education should be eliminated. My wife is a public school teacher and there are many levels of ADDITIONAL problems that can really only be solved by getting government out of schools.

Kids causing violence on each other, sex in the (grade school) bathrooms, crack-baby kids, kids not attending 50% of the year. And mostly, kids not sitting down or shutting up so the 2-3 others can learn who want to.

Getting government out of schools is the best solution so we can crack down on the behavior problem kids and boot them out. Getting relegion out is not a problem. Getting sex offenders out is.

 

[Greg1234]

That's because the Bible is not and never was intended to be science. The theory of evolution is science. Makes no difference in the end what the Bible was 'intended' to mean. It bears no relationship to science.

"That's because the Bible is not and never was intended to be [physical] science [dealing with laws, theories, knowledge and aspirations which can only complement a reducibility to physical instruments]"

Stop it.

Either Genesis is symbolic or it's false.

"Either Genesis is symbolic[-ally Darwinism] or it's false."

That's what you actually want to say right? Because even more creationism in an interpretation means still no Darwinism.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is so difficult to keep up with each Christian's interpretation of Genesis. Can't you guys agree on one standard so we have something falsifiable to debate?

Kind of like the various mechanisms for Evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

How do you know Genesis 1 is the "exact" word of God?

Believing that it is so reveals much more meaning and truth than imagining that parts are not as they seem.

Lets take your example:
"How do you know Genesis 1 is the "exact" word of God?"

What does HOW really mean?
What does DO really mean?
Who is YOU?
What do the writer mean by KNOW?
Etc.


OR I can just take your question at face value and answer it as if you intended no hidden message or lies.
Not to say there is no hidden message. Just that the plain, literal interpretation gives the best results.

 

[artybloke]

"Either Genesis is symbolic[-ally Darwinism] or it's false."

That's what you actually want to say right? QUOTE]

No. But by all means carry on putting words into my mouth. It's what fundies are good at isn't it?

 

[Astridhere]

Kind of like the various mechanisms for Evolution.

It is interesting to see evolutionists expectations of a better standard of evidence than they themselves can supply.

The day scientists realised how intricate a living single celled organism is eg bacteria, was the day they should have dropped the whole evolution thing. They didn't. Instead they invented terms like primitive cells, gave them a whole life story that is debated, and has not been observed to date, and called this science....Then separated the field of abiogenesis from evolution because it was such an embarassment!

 

[Nostromo]

Yes we can discount that figment of the evo imagination. And where 'symbolic' is applied to a basic truth of God's word to attempt to neuter it of real meaning that symbolism is satanism.

You do realise you effectively just accused half the Christians on this forum of satanism?

 

[RickG]

It is interesting to see evolutionists expectations of a better standard of evidence than they themselves can supply.

The day scientists realised how intricate a living single celled organism is eg bacteria, was the day they should have dropped the whole evolution thing. They didn't. Instead they invented terms like primitive cells, gave them a whole life story that is debated, and has not been observed to date, and called this science....Then separated the field of abiogenesis from evolution because it was such an embarassment!

You do realize that abiogeneis has absolutely nothing to do with evolution don't you? Abiogenesis has never been a field of evolution, they describe two completely different processes.