Should Genesis be taken literally?

[SLB]

The point is that so many say it was a literal 24 hour day

Since you brought this subject up I've been wondering about a couple of things in the Genesis account.
Firstly, is it possible that the age of Adam as recounted in Genesis is only counting the period of time that he aged after the fall? Maybe that's a dumb question that a Biblical scholar would scoff at, but it got me thinking.
Secondly, the Bible states in:
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
That suggests a cataclysmic change of the earth, maybe even something big enough to throw off the rotation of the earth which might change the length of a day.
Just wondering.

 

[Speedwell]

Nice word salad... who are you trying to impress.

You still have not explained why it cannot be fact or indicates that it is allegory.

I just explained to you in all sincerity why I didn't think it was either one or the other and got nothing but that (typical creationist) snotty rejoinder. I should have learned by now that I will never get anything else from a YEC.

 

[The Times]

People if you have time, look at the following debate between Evolutionist and Creationist.

Evolution is not what it is all cooked up to be. Many claims are being made on faith value and at times what is being presented as evidence is a lie. The very usage of terms that Evolutionist use are deceitful and not true, the greatest misconception is....

That Evolution is scientific. They make false claims to fossil record, when no fossil record exists. They use terms like fossil record, rock records and so forth...

When you dig and find what remains of a fossil petrified in rock, then you can record that at the time you found it. A requirement is that you must have also lived from when the dinosaurs lived and continued to collect these fossils up until say 2017, then this is what is a fossil record dating back to the real life evidence of the dianasour and then you can relate it to its habitation and what it ate and how many were found in that habitate. This is scientific gosdil revord keeping which is being undertaken by scientists to determine what species are becoming endangered, meaning risk being extinct.

Scientifically collecting actual fossil records is also accompanied by real life scientific data and not imagination and computer modelling as Evolutionists repeatedly show us as their only evidence.

Therefore when Evolutionists use the term record records, it is not correct.

The Evolutionist claim to rock records also are an incorrect imagination, especially when they date them millions to billions apart, only to have a pre dinasour age tree being petrified from the bottom column to the top. Just laugh at this tax payer funded lie that is brainwashing our children at school.

Thirdly Evolutionist claim vistigular parts of prehistoric whales as being an evolutionary process to getting legs to walk on land. When you examine the bones that are imagined to be legs by the evolutionists, you can quickly laugh and inform them that they are not wasteful or vistigular parts, but rather are very essential in birthing when the whale uses contraction between these two bones, just like women who have hip bones in helping to deliver the child.

Evolutionist even believe that a human bum bone is vistigular meaning it is not required. Imagine a person without an bum bone and then understand how this person will be unable to make contractions to deliver the poop. In fact a pregnant women will use hip and bum bone to deliver a child and the result is a baby accompanied with poop. If it were not so, then a women cannot deliver the child without surgery. So if we are to take evolution theory seriously, we should discern the lie it is in its entirety.

 

[expos4ever]

Wow. I posted this from an opinion piece:

So deep is their delusion, in fact, that many creationists are perfectly willing to acknowledge their abandonment of reality—on camera. "Truth is not an assimilation of information," insists one fundamentalist in Questioning Darwin, explaining why no amount of evidence could change his mind about human evolution. "There’s one truth, and that’s found in the Bible." A creationist pastor takes this illogic to its harrowing extreme, freely conceding that he would perform endless mental gymnastics to justify the seemingly unjustifiable conclusions of biblical text.

'If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that says two plus two equals five," the pastor states plainly, "I wouldn’t question what I’m reading in the Bible. I would believe it—accept it as true and then do my best to work it out and to understand it.'

....and we see this in this very thread:

No. Because the evidence would be wrong. Because no matter what 'truth' is uncovered, the Bible is still the ultimate truth. And anything contradicting what is clearly taught in the Scriptures is a lie.

Case made, I suggest.

 

[expos4ever]

They make false claims to fossil record, when no fossil record exists.

I don't know whether to laugh or weep.

 

[Big Drew]

You know what..........I believe that God did everything He said He did on day one, in one earth day. I believe that He did everything He said He did on day two, in one earth day.... and so on.

God can do anything.........and He did. Just like He said He did.

And I respect that belief.

 

[The Times]

I don't know whether to laugh or weep.

You have been told a lie friend. A fossil record is the fossil plotted against the time you found it. So when did they start collecting fossils and compare this to the Ludacris times in millions to billions of years they claim, when using the term fossil records. They should have a disclaimer in that their usage of the term fossil records is when they first started to collect them to date.

A funny and laughable thing was an object that was nuclear dated 300 million years and the publisher put with an error of +/- 300 million years.

Wake up people and sniff the cheese, you have been brainwashed and lied to by paid goones within the scientific community, who are used to dismiss the claim that an intelligent designer exists. In fact the merchants and bankers of the world who invented the industrial age, modern age and so forth wanted to do away with the God of the Bible by claiming that they killed God. Many of them were once Christians who turned to atheism.

 

[rjs330]

That it was generally historical. However, they also tolerated the figurative interpretations of others and were not vicious and nasty about it like modern YECs. and, of course, the Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, self-intepretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration which the YECs use to justify their nastiness were still 1500 years or more in the future.

You just contradicted your previous post.

 

[The Times]

Wow. I posted this from an opinion piece:

So deep is their delusion, in fact, that many creationists are perfectly willing to acknowledge their abandonment of reality—on camera. "Truth is not an assimilation of information," insists one fundamentalist in Questioning Darwin, explaining why no amount of evidence could change his mind about human evolution. "There’s one truth, and that’s found in the Bible." A creationist pastor takes this illogic to its harrowing extreme, freely conceding that he would perform endless mental gymnastics to justify the seemingly unjustifiable conclusions of biblical text.

'If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that says two plus two equals five," the pastor states plainly, "I wouldn’t question what I’m reading in the Bible. I would believe it—accept it as true and then do my best to work it out and to understand it.'

....and we see this in this very thread:



Case made, I suggest.

Where is the evidence of evolution.

 

[Big Drew]

Of course, that wouldn't make much sense in view of...
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
There is so much reference to the six days and the Sabbath throughout the Bible, so are we to conclude that we should work for six thousand years and then rest for a thousand years? Also, even if the days were a thousand years long, it's a long stretch to get from there to billions of years that the secular world requires and it would also be very difficult to stretch the geneologies of Adam to Jesus to cover thousands of years. You see, when you reject the obvious meaning of key parts of the Bible, you end up in all sorts of difficulties.

They're not difficulties if we realize the point that Peter was making was not that a day is a literal thousand years to God, but that to Him time makes no difference...God is here in the present time, He's there in the past, and He's ahead in the future simultaneously, because He's God...a day equaling 24 hours is how we, humans, explain the earth's rotation on its axis...but it means nothing to Him.

 

[Big Drew]

Since you brought this subject up I've been wondering about a couple of things in the Genesis account.
Firstly, is it possible that the age of Adam as recounted in Genesis is only counting the period of time that he aged after the fall? Maybe that's a dumb question that a Biblical scholar would scoff at, but it got me thinking.
Secondly, the Bible states in:
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
That suggests a cataclysmic change of the earth, maybe even something big enough to throw off the rotation of the earth which might change the length of a day.
Just wondering.

That's an interesting thought.

 

[The Times]

How many lies must pendants of the evolution theory be caught with, in order to concede that they are following a false Darwinian religion of Evilution.

 

[Speedwell]

You just contradicted your previous post.

You'll have to be more specific. How about a post number?

 

[The Times]

Genesis is a credible witness to an intelligent designer who outlines how he done it and when.

Any perceived contradiction is the fault of the reader who reads their contradiction into it. Just because you don't understand the state of how earth was 7000 years ago, doesn't mean that you have a right to impose the current state of the world upon a world that was vastly different 7000 years ago.

People please watch and learn....

 

[rjs330]

Then you should have no trouble finding evidence in their writings that they did. You should have no trouble finding in the doctrinal statements of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental churches that they do now. Go for it. Prove me wrong.

Would you consider the bible as the earliest writings and Jesus and the apostles as the earliest church fathers? That is our evidence. I would say it's the best evidence we have of your myth is just that. I have provided in other posts as you know evidence that early church fathers did believe in the literal Genesis. As far as scriptural inspiration is concerned it might interesting to note that Jesus the apostles taught directly from Scripture and attested to it's authority. Inspiration concepts such as verbal and plenary were only words developed simply to assign a word to what was believed. They believed in the Sola Scriptura only they didn't have the words to describe or define that. Their actions of using scriptures as the only authority were the proof of that. None of them ever made a claim or taught that there was anything else besides Scripture that carried the authority or truthfulness of Scripture.

 

[expos4ever]

How many lies must pendants of the evolution theory be caught with, in order to concede that they are following a false Darwinian religion of Evilution.

Do they teach you this stuff in church basements on Wednesday nights?

 

[rjs330]

They are referenced as authoritative literature. Jesus sad, "Have you not read..." His use of the texts no more supports your genre determination than it does mine.
I thought we had been over that. I will only add that I regard "myth" as a form of truth when it carries divine authority. If God came down from heaven and told you the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears would you discard it as useless because you know for a fact that bears don't live in houses and eat porridge for breakfast? Or would you try to figure out what He meant by it?

LOL! I regard it as all true, one way or another

Have you not read is reference to Scripture right. All it means is that it is contained within books of the law. You have find out if there is anything to say that he believed anything in the books of the law was allegory and not history. There isn't anything to indicate that and actually proof of the opposite.

 

[Speedwell]

Have you not read is reference to Scripture right. All it means is that it is contained within books of the law. You have find out if there is anything to say that he believed anything in the books of the law was allegory and not history. There isn't anything to indicate that and actually proof of the opposite.

My point was that Jesus' use of scripture did not guarantee any particular genre determination, not that it proved mine. In particular, it does not justify the usual "You're calling Christ a liar" response. And just like all creationists, you assume that everyone who disagrees with you the least bit wants to turn Genesis into "allegory" (why the false dichotomy?) in order to fit evolution into it. I'm disgusted with the lot of you. You people can't have a conversation about anything without responding as if you were under attack. As far as I am concerned you deserve it.

 

[The Times]

Do they teach you this stuff in church basements on Wednesday nights?

They teach it in all the world, it is called Genesis.

 

[Speedwell]

Would you consider the bible as the earliest writings and Jesus and the apostles as the earliest church fathers? That is our evidence. I would say it's the best evidence we have of your myth is just that. I have provided in other posts as you know evidence that early church fathers did believe in the literal Genesis.

And I have never disputed it.

As far as scriptural inspiration is concerned it might interesting to note that Jesus the apostles taught directly from Scripture and attested to it's authority.

I have never disputed the divine inspiration and authority of scripture

Inspiration concepts such as verbal and plenary were only words developed simply to assign a word to what was believed. They believed in the Sola Scriptura only they didn't have the words to describe or define that. Their actions of using scriptures as the only authority were the proof of that. None of them ever made a claim or taught that there was anything else besides Scripture that carried the authority or truthfulness of Scripture.

Self-serving apologetics. Never mind, I'm happy to be an heretic, a liar, a false teacher, a Bible-hater and a Christ denier. If you people thought I was a "real" Christian I would start worrying about whether I was right with the Lord.