Why a literal Genesis?

[TLK Valentine]

Do you know the reaon for the linage?

Assume I don't. Explain.

 

[-57]

He did. But He got in earlier than the animals. He got in right back at the dust. Before there was even life.



You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared.

We learn from this passage:
a. Satan was in Eden.
b. On the day Satan was created he was adorned with precious stones.

I don't see a reason to firmly believe Satan was created in Eden, especially in light of Revelation 12:9:

And the great dragon was hurled down--the ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.



I believe Eve was a real person created by God and given His image. But I don't believe in a literal Genesis.

So, when the bible says Satan was in Eden ...he really wasn't?

Secondly, I never said Satan was created in Eden.

 

[-57]

"Could have..." yes -- "Did" is a matter of opinion.

Did is what the bible tell sus He did. Adam was created from the dust.
1st Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

...It doesn't say the first man was from a lesser primate.

In 1st Tim 2:13 Genesis is backed yp when Paul wrote...For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.
That verse contradicts evolutionism....or were all the lesser primates all male?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Did is what the bible tell sus He did. Adam was created from the dust.
1st Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

...It doesn't say the first man was from a lesser primate.

In 1st Tim 2:13 Genesis is backed yp when Paul wrote...For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.
That verse contradicts evolutionism....or were all the lesser primates all male?

It's easy to miss in all the commotion, but we've been having a pretty involved "literal vs. allegorical" discussion going on earlier in the thread. Perhaps you'd like to look into it?

 

[-57]

Well, one has to understand an order before one can disobey... understanding has to come first, because to sin is a choice.

Adam and Eve understood what they were doing was wrong. Eve's biblical conversation with the serpent makes that pretty clear

 

[-57]

Assume I don't. Explain.

Wow, that might take a while...It shows He is the messiah. It shows He is the true king of Israel. It fulfills Gods promise...If you're really interested you can read this.

 

[-57]

It's easy to miss in all the commotion, but we've been having a pretty involved "literal vs. allegorical" discussion going on earlier in the thread. Perhaps you'd like to look into it?

I haven't missed it.

 

[Moral Orel]

And we all know what ancient civilizations thought of females.The Hebrews wouldn't be the first or only culture to use religion to justify their behavior.

It was the females who got the blame from the beginning, thus justifying their treatment as chattel.

True, and I would personally agree with that, but that takes another step into not attributing God the credit for inspiring scripture.

 

[Moral Orel]

And, I should repeat, biblical parables are based upon real life situations or events that could happen.

You're still hung up on the word "parable" as the specific type of figurative language to be used. The prophecies in the Bible aren't based on real things that happened like multi-headed beasts and the like or panthers destroying cities. Is "figurative" the umbrella term for all things allegorical, metaphorical, and parable? That's what I'm getting at. Indirect and not historical in some way.

The Theo-Evos need to change to much of the bible to make Genesis an allagotical story. Something you may come to understand as you learn more of what the bible has to say on the topic.

Right, and those are the things I'm looking for that I know I don't know that much about. Some of the things that would change, I don't see a problem with so much, some things I'm seeing there might be a big problem.

 

[-57]

True, and I would personally agree with that, but that takes another step into not attributing God the credit for inspiring scripture.

Which is what the Theo-Evo sect sems to be doing. I said in a previous post that Theo-Evoism does a lot of damage to scripture.

....I still wonder what would have happened if a chicken ate from the tree of life. That would be an interesting thread.

 

[Moral Orel]

Partially true..there is sin in the world...but it changes the reason why there is sin in the world. The Bible tells us the reason is disobedience.
Evolutionism tells us we evolved into beings that sinned.
Romans 5:12 tells us "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned"

Theo-Evoism tells us populations evolve and it wasn't a result of one man.

That one man explanation is repeated in 1 Cor 15:21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

That's two more verses the Theo-Evos need to change to make the bible conform to evolutionism

Right, and I agree this is looking like a problem, but I need more detail to feel it's a sure thing. Even if the reason is disobedience, why is it important that specifically one person was disobedient as opposed to a group of people?

So, if God revealed Himself to humans after they were sufficiently evolved, gave them souls and gave them instructions, and then they disobeyed these instructions as a group, why doesn't that fit in keeping the importance of the necessity of Jesus?

 

[-57]

You're still hung up on the word "parable" as the specific type of figurative language to be used. The prophecies in the Bible aren't based on real things that happened like multi-headed beasts and the like or panthers destroying cities. Is "figurative" the umbrella term for all things allegorical, metaphorical, and parable? That's what I'm getting at. Indirect and not historical in some way.

Right, and those are the things I'm looking for that I know I don't know that much about. Some of the things that would change, I don't see a problem with so much, some things I'm seeing there might be a big problem.

The bible especially in Revelation uses a lot of figurative language. Considering how the authors of the bible presented Genesis as a literal historical event shows that figurative language is not what was used in Genesis.

 

[-57]

Right, and I agree this is looking like a problem, but I need more detail to feel it's a sure thing. Even if the reason is disobedience, why is it important that specifically one person was disobedient as opposed to a group of people?

So, if God revealed Himself to humans after they were sufficiently evolved, gave them souls and gave them instructions, and then they disobeyed these instructions as a group, why doesn't that fit in keeping the importance of the necessity of Jesus?

That's a thought...God could have revealed Himself to humans after they were sufficiently "evolved"...but that's not what the bible teaches. That's another place where the Theo-Evo sect needs to explain how our sin nature came to be.....and extra biblical material that contradicts scripture is required.

They would need something like a sin mutation to occur...which would be a natural process rather than a deliberate act of disobedience such as described in Genesis.

 

[-57]

Right, and I agree this is looking like a problem, but I need more detail to feel it's a sure thing. Even if the reason is disobedience, why is it important that specifically one person was disobedient as opposed to a group of people?

One reason would be...it's what the bible teaches.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

So, when the bible says Satan was in Eden ...he really wasn't?

Secondly, I never said Satan was created in Eden.

Satan was in Eden as the tempter. He had no authority to cause any evil there UNTIL given the authority by Adam and Eve.

I still see no problem with my solution biblically or scientifically. Creation by evolution with the Devils influence. This solves scientific problems of very old death. And there are no biblical problems because the genealogy is literal, Adam and Eve literal, garden of Eden literal, where's the problem?

 

[AvgJoe]

What version are you using that says "from the beginning of creation"? I checked ESV, KJV, and NIV with my Biblegateway.com and couldn't find it phrased like that. I use ESV, personally, and it says, "He who created them from the beginning" which is still open to being interpreted as, "He who created them, from the beginning of their existence". I mean, Adam and Eve didn't really exist at the beginning of creation either, so we have to assume at least a little fluidity in the the word "beginning".

Looks like I got Matthew 19:4 mixed up with Mark 10:6. Jesus' teaching about marriage and divorce, in Matthew 19, is repeated in Mark 10 and Mark 10:6 says, "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’"

I don't think that's fair though. We don't read Daniel's prophetic visions as being literal, so we don't approach them the same way we approach the rest of the Bible. You can approach different parts of the Bible in different manners and it's still appropriate to do so. You made some good points as to why we should approach Genesis from a literal viewpoint, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss a less than literal interpretation as not trusting God.

No we don't take Daniel's prophetic visions literally, as I'm pretty sure, we're not going to literally see a lion, with eagles wings, rise up out of the sea, but comparing Daniel's prophetic visions to the creation account in Genesis is comparing apples to oranges. The Bible is written in many different styles, with Daniel's prophetic visions being written in the apocalyptic literary style, which by it's nature of being clothed in symbolism, is not to be taken literally, while on the other hand, the creation account in Genesis is written as a historical narrative, which is to be understood literally. Nothing here about not trusting God, just saying that the text should be understood in the manner that it was written.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Adam and Eve understood what they were doing was wrong. Eve's biblical conversation with the serpent makes that pretty clear

Not especially. God told them not to do something, but without knowledge of good and evil, there's no way for them to understand why that would be significant.

 

[-57]

Satan was in Eden as the tempter. He had no authority to cause any evil there UNTIL given the authority by Adam and Eve.

I still see no problem with my solution biblically or scientifically. Creation by evolution with the Devils influence. This solves scientific problems of very old death. And there are no biblical problems because the genealogy is literal, Adam and Eve literal, garden of Eden literal, where's the problem?

Where's the problem? Creation by evolutionism with the devils influence isn't biblical. You need to add to the bile to make that work.

Secondly the bible presents Satan (Lucifer) as being in the garden in an unfallen state. Sometime after creation Lucifer fell and became Satan.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Wow, that might take a while...It shows He is the messiah. It shows He is the true king of Israel. It fulfills Gods promise...If you're really interested you can read this.

The genealogy is exactly what we would expect to see to show that Jesus is the prophecized Messiah... now, considering that the Gospel writers had those very prophecies open in front of them...

We've seen the hoops that the Gospel writers were willing to jump through to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled all those prophecies... some of their efforts strain credibility far more than others.

 

[-57]

Not especially. God told them not to do something, but without knowledge of good and evil, there's no way for them to understand why that would be significant.

So, you understand what the biblical knowledge of Good and evil is?