• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evolution vs. The Bible

Achilles6129

Veteran
Feb 19, 2006
4,504
367
Columbus, Ohio
✟44,682.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
This is a thread to discuss whether or not evolution can be reconciled with the Bible, in particular the book of Genesis. I would like to build a case that it cannot. The following are a list of reasons:

#1

The order of events in the creation story does not agree with evolution. For example, you would have birds before dinosaurs (which evolutionists believed to have turned into birds) and so forth.

#2

"Day" means earth day as shown by "evening and morning," etc. See also Ex. 20:11.

#3

"6 Then God said, “Let there be [e]an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the [f]expanse, and separated the waters which were below the [g]expanse from the waters which were above the [h]expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the [i]expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day." Gen. 1:6-8 (NASB)

The waters above the expanse are actually mentioned in Revelation 4:6:

"6 and before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal; and in the [c]center and around the throne, four living creatures full of eyes in front and behind." Rev. 4:6 (NASB)

This sea of glass is nothing other than the waters which were originally separated in Gen. 1. This argues for a literal interpretation of the creation account.

#4

Genesis 1:29-30 juxtaposed with Genesis 9:3-4 strongly implies all animals/humans were herbivores prior to the Flood. Obviously this would contradict evolutionary findings.

"29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the [an]surface of all the earth, and every tree [ao]which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the [ap]sky and to every thing that [aq]moves on the earth [ar]which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so." Gen. 1:29-30 (NASB)

"3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." Gen. 9:3-4 (NASB)

#5

"5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to [c]cultivate the ground." Gen. 2:5 (NASB)

This passage is most likely a flashback to the creation account of Genesis 1, but it shows that the days in Genesis 1 do not represent long ages because prior to the creation of vegetation there had never been any rain. Obviously this would be impossible in an evolutionary scenario. Since the vegetation was created on day 3 this would mean that there had never been any rain on days 1/2, which rules out those days being long ages.

#6

"10 Now a river [g]flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four [h]rivers. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it [i]flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it [j]flows around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is [k]Tigris; it [l]flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the [m]Euphrates." Gen. 2:10-14 (NASB)

The geography of Eden is nowhere existent on this planet today, which argues for a catastrophic global flood which drastically changed the topography. This wouldn't happen in any sort of local flood scenario - there would have to be cataclysmic changes.

#7

Genesis 2:21-24 makes it clear that the woman was made from the man, as per Paul in 1 Tim. 2:13, 1 Cor. 11:8-9, 12. So she did not evolve.

#8

Gen. 3:14 says that the serpent had legs back in Eden but evolution says they lost their legs long before that:

"14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;" Gen. 3:14 (NASB)

How Snakes Lost Their Legs : Discovery News

BBC News - Studying how snakes got legless

#9

"17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In [f]toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the [g]plants of the field;" Gen. 3:17-18 (NASB)

This passage strongly implies that there were no thorns/thistles prior to the fall, which contradicts the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record.

#10

"19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”" Gen. 3:19 (NASB)

The meaning of this passage is entirely lost if Adam evolved from an ape-like ancestor - the irony would be completely lost.

See also:

"23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken." Gen. 3:23 (NASB)

#11

"22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— " Gen. 3:22 (NASB)

This passage means that Adam would have lived forever had he not eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil since he obviously had access to the tree of life prior to his fall (Gen. 2:16/2:9). This contradicts evolutionary assumptions about human longevity; theistic evolutionists have to admit that Adam/Eve and their descendants would have lived forever had they not eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good/evil.

#12

The following passages about the Flood indicate that it was global and destroyed the entire human race and all of the animals:

"5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved [e]in His heart. 7 The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the [f]sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”" Gen. 6:5-7 (NASB)

"12 God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.
13 Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth." Gen. 6:12-13 (NASB)

"17 Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish." Gen. 6:17 (NASB)

"4 For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.” " Gen. 7:4 (NASB)

"21 All flesh that [s]moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out [t]every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the [u]sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark." Gen. 7:21-23 (NASB)

"21 The Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said [k]to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the [l]intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again [m]destroy every living thing, as I have done." Gen. 8:21 (NASB)

" 11 I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for [h]all successive generations;”" Gen. 9:11 (NASB)

"15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”" Gen. 9:15-17 (NASB)

#13

"Erets" the word for "earth" in the Flood narrative is also used in Gen. 1:1 to describe the creation of the heaven and the earth (erets) as well as in Gen. 8:22 ("while the earth "erets" remains").

#14

The size of the ark indicates the Flood could not have been local. The ark was 450 ft long, 75 ft. wide, and 45 ft. tall. If the Flood were local, the animals (and Noah) could have simply left the local area, much like Lot in Sodom. The ark is large enough to hold all land animals on the surface of the planet. See:

How could Noah get all the animals on the Ark? - creation.com

How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? - creation.com

#15

"19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains [q]everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen [r]cubits higher, and the mountains were covered." Gen. 7:19-20 (NASB)

This passage can only be describing a global flood since water always seeks its own level. Obviously water could not stay above the mountains for a significant period of time without draining away. The word for mountain is "har" which is not translated "hill" (like theistic evolutionists like to do) but is actually translated "mountain" the vast majority of the time:

Hebrew Lexicon :: H2022 (KJV)

[QUOTEThe KJV translates Strongs H2022 in the following manner: mountain (261x), mount (224x), hill (59x), hill country (1x), promotion (1x).][/quote]

See also Gen. 8:4-5, the "mountains" of Ararat.

-------the end of Part 1--------
 

Achilles6129

Veteran
Feb 19, 2006
4,504
367
Columbus, Ohio
✟44,682.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
#16

"21 All flesh that [s]moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;" Gen. 7:21 (NASB)

All the birds in the heavens would not die in a local flood since obviously they would be able to fly away from the local area:

A Bird Flies Into A Hurricane. Does It Fly Out? : NPR

Flying Into A Hurricane — A Bird’s Perspective – News Watch

#17

"But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the cattle that were with him in the ark; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth, and the water subsided." Gen. 8:1 (NASB)

"2 The earth was [a]formless and void, and darkness was over the [b]surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was [c]moving over the [d]surface of the waters." Gen. 1:2 (NASB)

"Spirit" in Gen. 1:2 is ruah, the same word translated "wind" in Gen. 8:1. The two passages are parallel. We are being told that the earth reverted to the state that was described in Gen. 1:2: God has undone his creation. It has all reverted to the state it was in pre-creation. This means that the Flood must have been global, it could not possibly have been local.

#18

"17 Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, that they may [i]breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.”" Gen. 8:17 (NASB)

This passage is clearly parallel to the creation account in the sense of being fruitful and multiplying - it is a recreation account. Noah is clearly a type of Adam; see Gen. 9:1, 9:7, etc.

#19

"22 “While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
And cold and heat,
And summer and winter,
And day and night
Shall not cease.”" Gen. 8:22 (NASB)

This passage indicates that the Flood was global because it refers to global phenomona such as "cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night." This indicates that the preceding event was global as well.

#20

Jesus Christ's statements indicate that the book of Genesis is to be taken literally and straightforwardly:

"6 But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female." Mk. 10:6 (NASB)

Notice Christ says from the beginning of creation, not billions of years after creation. This means that Adam and Eve were created close to the beginning of the entire cosmos - about 6,000 years ago.

See also 2 Pet. 3:4 and Rev. 3:14; also Mt. 19:4,8.

#21

"You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters were standing above the mountains.
7 At Your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
8 The mountains rose; the valleys sank down
To the place which You established for them.
9 You set a boundary that they may not pass over,
So that they will not return to cover the earth." Ps. 104:6-9

Many theistic evolutionists believe that this passage is referring to the creation account, but it is actually referring to the global flood. Psalm 104:6b seems to be a direct quotation of Gen. 7:19-20:

19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains [q]everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen [r]cubits higher, and the mountains were covered." Gen. 7:19-20 (NASB)

Also, compare Psalm 104:9 with Isaiah 54:9:

"“For [e]this is like the days of Noah to Me,
When I swore that the waters of Noah
Would not [f]flood (lit. "cross over" - Achilles6129) the earth again;
So I have sworn that I will not be angry with you
Nor will I rebuke you." Isa. 54:9 (NASB)

The same word, #5674, abar, is used for "pass over" (Ps. 104:9, NASB) and "cross over" (or "flood," NASB). Also, Ps. 104 is not speaking strictly of the Genesis creation account because it also speaks of the "labor of man" (v. 14, 23), ships (v.26), and sinners (v.35).
 
Upvote 0

Achilles6129

Veteran
Feb 19, 2006
4,504
367
Columbus, Ohio
✟44,682.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
Evolution is not supposed to fit with Genesis, and vice versa. That's like taking a science book, and trying to shove scientific information into a book mainly based on theology.

The point is not that evolution does not fit with Genesis, but rather that it cannot fit with Genesis.
 
Upvote 0

AmericanChristian91

Regular Member
May 24, 2007
1,068
205
34
California
✟27,446.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
but rather that it cannot fit with Genesis.

You are right.

That would be the case, if Genesis is interpreted as being 100% scientifically/historically accurate.

That would also be the case if Genesis is interpreted as metaphorical/allegorical/more theological instead of scientific/historic accuracy (therefore its purpose is not to fit actual science into it, including evolution)
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
This is a thread to discuss whether or not evolution can be reconciled with the Bible, in particular the book of Genesis. I would like to build a case that it cannot. The following are a list of reasons:

[reasons snipped as it makes the text too long to post]

--


So, basically, since the hard evidence shows a world that evolved, while a literal interpretation of Genesis shows a very different creation, the Genesis creation must be literally fiction, since it is not the world we are actually living in. Who then, created the world we are actually living in?

Really, isn't it more appropriate to consider that perhaps a literal interpretation does a disservice to Genesis?
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Achilles, does a literal reading of these verses fit with reality?

Ex 19:4

You know how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself


Mark 4:30

It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade

(others if needed)

??

Papias
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The point is not that evolution does not fit with Genesis, but rather that it cannot fit with Genesis.

It fits just fine after the creation of life, fully formed, 6,000 years ago.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Achilles,

Ah, another, "Can God's word be accepted at face value?" thread.

Well, as I'm sure most know, my position is that evolution could not possibly have happened. I base that understanding on one simple claim of the Scriptures. The creation of this realm is not old enough for any of the evolutionary claims to have occurred. I'm thoroughly and completely convicted in six days about six thousand years ago the earth came into existence by the command of God. Following that, the stars of the heavens and all living things also became by the command of God. My God and Father made this realm of existence for me. He merely spoke the words and this entire realm came to be as a place for man to live. Perfect, as it was made.

I am also fully aware and readily admit and agree that that isn't how most people understand what God has done. I would also point out, that throughout the Scriptures, those who were faithful to God weren't usually in step with the majority of the people. Elijah cried out to God that he seemed to be the only one left in all of Israel. God then consoled him by telling him that He had reserved for himself 5,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Daniel lived among a people who didn't understand his love for his God, and as far as we can tell, none of the Israelites who were taken captive seem to have given him any support either, except for his three companions. Isaiah cried out, "Who has believed our message?"

So, when I am deciding for myself, what is the truth? Being in step with the crowd isn't usually a consideration. And when I consider that most of Israel was not understanding of the things of God, according to Jesus and the prophets, I'm not surprised either that most of those who call themselves the 'church' today also are people of little understanding. Man is the same today as he has been over the many centuries of history. He has a wayward and despicable heart. A heart that seeks not after the things of God, but rather the things of man.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

Achilles6129

Veteran
Feb 19, 2006
4,504
367
Columbus, Ohio
✟44,682.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
You are right.

That would be the case, if Genesis is interpreted as being 100% scientifically/historically accurate.

That would also be the case if Genesis is interpreted as metaphorical/allegorical/more theological instead of scientific/historic accuracy (therefore its purpose is not to fit actual science into it, including evolution)

So, basically, since the hard evidence shows a world that evolved, while a literal interpretation of Genesis shows a very different creation, the Genesis creation must be literally fiction, since it is not the world we are actually living in. Who then, created the world we are actually living in?

Really, isn't it more appropriate to consider that perhaps a literal interpretation does a disservice to Genesis?

So can God be trusted or can't he?

Achilles, does a literal reading of these verses fit with reality?

Ex 19:4




Mark 4:30

It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade

(others if needed)

??

Papias

Yes, it does. Both of those passages are representations of something, and are clearly described as such. Explain to me how Genesis is a parable or how it is indicated as such.
 
Upvote 0

Achilles6129

Veteran
Feb 19, 2006
4,504
367
Columbus, Ohio
✟44,682.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
Hi Achilles,

Ah, another, "Can God's word be accepted at face value?" thread.

Indeed ;) You notice what sorts of threads I start, eh? ;)

I am also fully aware and readily admit and agree that that isn't how most people understand what God has done. I would also point out, that throughout the Scriptures, those who were faithful to God weren't usually in step with the majority of the people. Elijah cried out to God that he seemed to be the only one left in all of Israel. God then consoled him by telling him that He had reserved for himself 5,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Daniel lived among a people who didn't understand his love for his God, and as far as we can tell, none of the Israelites who were taken captive seem to have given him any support either, except for his three companions. Isaiah cried out, "Who has believed our message?"

Excellent points, Ted. I should just mention that it was 7,000 that did not bow the knee to Baal rather than 5,000. But very good point and definitely very inspiring :)

"18 Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.”" 1 Kings 19:18 (NASB)
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
So can God be trusted or can't he?

Yes, God can be trusted to be rational. God can be trusted to have given us the ability to see what is and to know reality from hallucination most of the time. Especially when many of us check it out independently and come up with the same results. If I look out the window and see a tree, and you look out the window and see a hydro tower instead, one or both of us is imagining things. Or God is playing games with us.

But if we both see the same tree in the same place, and several others do as well, then I think we can trust that our eyes and our minds are in good working order, and if it is really a hydro tower, then God is playing games with us.

I believe God can be trusted not to play those kinds of games with us. God gave us a real world. God gave us senses to perceive the world he gave us, not some different world. God gave us minds to grasp the real world with understanding.

But to insist that the Genesis account of creation is a literal, reportorial account of historical events means the world we encounter with sense and understanding cannot be the real world and God cannot be trusted to show us what he really created. Instead the world we know through experience is a mass hallucination unrelated to the real created world.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The fact remains that the only way to accept evolution as it is taught in our schools is to reject the word of God as it is taught in our Bibles. Theistic evolutionists will probably disagree and claim that both can be true, but the overwhelming evidence of Scripture is that the six day creation and the Great Flood are both historical events and essential doctrine because they reveal the nature of God and His plan for us on earth.

In refutation of the multiple verses posted in this thread all the T.E.'s have is their own incredulity; the theories of man to which they describe and an often denied rejection of Scripture. In supporting their own false doctrine many T.E.'s use the same arguments as atheists and attack a "literal reading" of Genesis. They especially deny the flood, because if that event happened then evolution could never happen but as directed by the hand of God. The Bible dedicates 87 verses to the story of Noah.

Noah's name is mentioned 48 times in the Bible. The first three chapters of Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New Testament alone. By rejecting essential doctrine they are missing out on part of the foundation of Scriptural teaching. Jesus revered the Scriptures and considered them the holy word of God. Why do they reject what Christ embraced?
 
Upvote 0

ebia

Senior Contributor
Jul 6, 2004
41,711
2,142
A very long way away. Sometimes even further.
✟54,775.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
KWCrazy said:
The fact remains that the only way to accept evolution as it is taught in our schools is to reject the word of God as it is taught in our Bibles. Theistic evolutionists will probably disagree and claim that both can be true, but the overwhelming evidence of Scripture is that the six day creation and the Great Flood are both historical events and essential doctrine because they reveal the nature of God and His plan for us on earth. In refutation of the multiple verses posted in this thread all the T.E.'s have is their own incredulity; the theories of man to which they describe and an often denied rejection of Scripture. In supporting their own false doctrine many T.E.'s use the same arguments as atheists and attack a "literal reading" of Genesis. They especially deny the flood, because if that event happened then evolution could never happen but as directed by the hand of God. The Bible dedicates 87 verses to the story of Noah. Noah's name is mentioned 48 times in the Bible. The first three chapters of Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New Testament alone. By rejecting essential doctrine they are missing out on part of the foundation of Scriptural teaching. Jesus revered the Scriptures and considered them the holy word of God. Why do they reject what Christ embraced?
I'm right because my interpretation of scripture says so. And God agrees with me.

Given that, why do you reject what God thinks?
 
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
988
59
✟64,806.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Originally Posted by Papias
Achilles, does a literal reading of these verses fit with reality?

Ex 19:4




Mark 4:30

It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade

(others if needed)

??

Papias
Yes, it does. Both of those passages are representations of something, and are clearly described as such.

OK, help me out. I didn't see where it says that Ex 19:4 is a representation.


For Mk, it does say that the mustard seed represents the kingdom. However, that doesn't change the statement that the mustard seed is the smallest seed - which is not portrayed as a representation.

as to whether or not the whole story is a parable - are you saying that parables are stated in the text as being parables, and if that is not stated, then they are not parables?


Explain to me how Genesis is a parable or how it is indicated as such.

It's not just my idea - many Bible scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, have pointed out for years that Genesis is poetic text. It includes plays on words, clear symbolism, and most tellingly, a poetic reiterative structure. In fact, one would have a stronger case showing Genesis is poetic and symbolic than a lot of Jesus' parables.

In Christ-

Papias
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It's not just my idea - many Bible scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, have pointed out for years that Genesis is poetic text. It includes plays on words, clear symbolism, and most tellingly, a poetic reiterative structure. In fact, one would have a stronger case showing Genesis is poetic and symbolic than a lot of Jesus' parables.
Perhaps you would share the passages of Scripture that justify what they say. For some reason people cite "Biblical scholars" and never cite the Bible itself. If there is Scriptural evidence to reject the historical significance of Genesis, I'd like to see it.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Achilles,

Thanks for the correction. I just recalled it off the top of my head and didn't check the number.

I think that glaudys makes the argument for my understanding of just how damaging our accepting the 'truth' of man over the truth of God really is. He posted:

So, basically, since the hard evidence shows a world that evolved, while a literal interpretation of Genesis shows a very different creation, the Genesis creation must be literally fiction, since it is not the world we are actually living in. Who then, created the world we are actually living in?

Then he writes:

But to insist that the Genesis account of creation is a literal, reportorial account of historical events means the world we encounter with sense and understanding cannot be the real world and God cannot be trusted to show us what he really created. Instead the world we know through experience is a mass hallucination unrelated to the real created world.

This is exactly why I feel that our understanding the purpose and scope of the created realm in which we live as possibly very important to God. If God is true and every man a liar, then those who follow this very understanding are, in affect, calling God a liar. Not only that, they then go out and teach others that God is a liar. That His word cannot be trusted as true in all that it accounts, but that the 'truth' is really some sort of moral teaching like Aesop's fables. An account that, on the face of it names names and tells of something that someone did, but the names didn't really exist and the things they are claimed to have done didn't really happen. That the point of an Aesop's fable isn't that there really was a dog who stood over the water and watched his reflection and in trying to grasp the bone that the reflected dog had in his mouth, lost his own, but is rather a moral teaching about greed and covetousness. And I am certainly in full agreement that the Aesop's fable is a work of imagination to make a moral point. I don't, however, agree that that was God's intention in telling us just how and when He created this realm.

Or others make the argument that the Scriptures were written by man, and what is accounted for us in the Genesis account is some mumbo-jumbo spiritist thinking of how man understood the world in the day in which the account was written. Certainly there is good evidence that man does do this. After all, it is known that there were sacrifices of children because man thought that that would appease some god in which they believed. Even today religious practices have a lot of sacrifice and ceremony that the practitioner does because he thinks to himself, and most likely been taught by those before him who practiced the religion, this is what I need to do to appease a god.

Of course, he uses words as flaming arrows. He says that if the creation of the world really isn't what man has found it to be, then we must be hallucinating. Why must we be hallucinating. We just aren't using and understanding the data properly. We are exactly what the Scriptures say of us, wicked in the heart. But who wants to be accused of hallucinating? So, I'll go with man's account because going with God's means that men are going to mock me. If I stick with God's account I'll be accused of 'hallucinating' and being 'brain dead' and not able to 'think for myself'. I'll be pilloried as 'closed minded' and 'unable to see what's plain before my eyes'. On please, let me go with man's explanation so I can live in peace with myself and others.

Well, praise God, He has allowed me to live enough years that I don't much care what names others call me or how ignorant they'd like to make me out to be.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

Achilles6129

Veteran
Feb 19, 2006
4,504
367
Columbus, Ohio
✟44,682.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
I believe God can be trusted not to play those kinds of games with us.

As do I.

God gave us a real world. God gave us senses to perceive the world he gave us, not some different world. God gave us minds to grasp the real world with understanding.

And he warned us over and over again never to trust in man, didn't he?

But to insist that the Genesis account of creation is a literal, reportorial account of historical events means the world we encounter with sense and understanding cannot be the real world and God cannot be trusted to show us what he really created. Instead the world we know through experience is a mass hallucination unrelated to the real created world.

No, I wouldn't agree with this statment at all. An example might be the fact that it looks like the sun goes round the earth, even though the earth in fact goes round the sun. This is not a hallucination; it is based off of our direct experience; it's just that we didn't know enough for awhile to realize that the sun doesn't go round the earth.

Wow.

Where did you get the inspiration for such an original idea?

Haha! Thanks, I'm glad you're impressed. Ironically, theistic evolutionists gave me the inspiration. :D
 
Upvote 0

Achilles6129

Veteran
Feb 19, 2006
4,504
367
Columbus, Ohio
✟44,682.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
OK, help me out. I didn't see where it says that Ex 19:4 is a representation.

Here you go :D

"“He found him in a desert land,
And in the howling waste of a wilderness;
He encircled him, He cared for him,
He guarded him as the pupil of His eye.
11 “Like an eagle that stirs up its nest,
That hovers over its young,
He spread His wings and caught them,
He carried them on His pinions.
12 “The Lord alone guided him,
And there was no foreign god with him." Deut. 32:10-12 (NASB)

For Mk, it does say that the mustard seed represents the kingdom. However, that doesn't change the statement that the mustard seed is the smallest seed - which is not portrayed as a representation.

Right, it's the smallest seed in Palestine :D

as to whether or not the whole story is a parable - are you saying that parables are stated in the text as being parables, and if that is not stated, then they are not parables?

When Scripture uses parables it makes it plain, that's what I'm saying. It clearly indicates as such. For example, we know that God did not literally bear anyone on eagles' wings because that is clearly not recorded in Exodus; he's only using a metaphor. However, if God in fact did fly Israel out of Egypt on an eagle and then later say "I bore you on eagles' wings" then obviously that would be a literal statement :)

It's not just my idea - many Bible scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, have pointed out for years that Genesis is poetic text. It includes plays on words, clear symbolism, and most tellingly, a poetic reiterative structure. In fact, one would have a stronger case showing Genesis is poetic and symbolic than a lot of Jesus' parables.

Feel free to show some examples then if you'd like.
 
Upvote 0