Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Speedwell]

What has our view of Creation got to do with Dispensationalism? It seems to me that you are so steeped in tradition that you willfully deny the Sovereignty of the Scriptures.

Just wondering. Many of the Orthodox and Oriental churches reject the theory of evolution, but they also reject creationist Bible doctrine, so clearly it is not required to defend Christianity against evolution. One wonders what it is you really are defending.

And as for your mention of Hodge and Warfield, who are no longer around to defend their position, yes they were misled by the evolutionists. Something about chronological events.

So you are going to throw them under the bus too?

You said the Noah's flood occurred after the Ice Age. Why? Maybe you can enlightened us Creationists why this is so. After all we are all half-brained, simple minded creationists.

I have nowhere in this thread addressed the topic of Noah's flood.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Was sin caused by one man as the bible teaches?

Paul tells us: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Is this what you mean by "caused" that sin "entered into the world" through Adam? There was death in the world before Adam. Look at Kennewick Man for example. The remains of Kennewick Man was examined by the coroner. They found out that he was a murder victim. Only the stone arrow head that killed him was roughly 7,500 to 12,000 years BP. In every way he was a healthy person, he did not die from sickness, disease or what they call natural causes. We know that sin was in the world before the law, but when there is no law then sin is not imputed.

 

[-57]

Paul tells us: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Is this what you mean by "caused" that sin "entered into the world" through Adam? There was death in the world before Adam. Look at Kennewick Man for example. The remains of Kennewick Man was examined by the coroner. They found out that he was a murder victim. Only the stone arrow head that killed him was roughly 7,500 to 12,000 years BP. In every way he was a healthy person, he did not die from sickness, disease or what they call natural causes.

I believe you have two choices.

The dating technique was wrong
The bible is wrong.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I believe you have two choices.

The dating technique was wrong
The bible is wrong.

I don't have any problems. There is no conflict between Science and the Bible. This all comes down to what we can rightfully understand. The carnal mind is not able to understand, we have to have the Mind of Christ and the Divine thoughts of God. We need to be lead by the Holy Spirit of God. He is our teacher to guide us and to lead us into all truth.
My wife says to do your best and then leave the rest to God.

2 Timothy 2:15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[JacksBratt]

I tend to avoid words that are not in the Bible. It is enough to try to understand the words we have that are in the Bible.

Trinity is not in the bible, nor is "rapture". The word sola does not have to be in the bible for us to understand the concept.
From what I understand, "sola scriptura" is the belief of taking scripture to be the truth as it is written.

 

[JacksBratt]

That begins to sound like anti-Catholic bigotry. The fact is that the scriptures have always been available in any language that a significant number of Christians have been able to read.

Really? Check these out... Also, I find it fascinating that I did not make any indication or reference to the Catholic Church, however you did.

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned...”

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

 

[-57]

I don't have any problems. There is no conflict between Science and the Bible. This all comes down to what we can rightfully understand. The carnal mind is not able to understand, we have to have the Mind of Christ and the Divine thoughts of God. We need to be lead by the Holy Spirit of God. He is our teacher to guide us and to lead us into all truth.
My wife says to do your best and then leave the rest to God.

2 Timothy 2:15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

There is no problem between science and the bible. There is a problem between the pseudo-science of evolutionism and the bible.

 

[KWCrazy]

Just what are the "lies of evolution"?

Everything about evolution is a lie. Adam had no ancestors.

 

[KWCrazy]

But that is a long way from the Bible doctrine of the creationists and it is deceptive to impute it to them.

Not at all. Creationists believe what the Bible says because it is the word of God.

 

[-57]

Everything about evolution is a lie. Adam had no ancestors.

That is what the bible teaches.
1 Cor 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

 

[Speedwell]

Really? Check these out... Also, I find it fascinating that I did not make any indication or reference to the Catholic Church, however you did.

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): “We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.”

Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned...”

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to “...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ’s sentence.” For this “heresy” Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council’s decree “Wycliffe’s bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River.”

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

Well, you're the one who seems to want to focus on the political turmoils of Western Europe.

Here are some other interesting pre-Reformation unpersecuted translations.

2nd century Syriac
4th century Coptic, Ge'ez (Ethiopian)
5th century Georgian, Armenian
7th century Chinese
9th century Slovakian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Russian, Arabic (New Testament only)
13th century French
14th century Czech
15th century Hungarian

 

[expos4ever]

Fellow Creationists,

Take heart! As I read earlier in this thread, our evolutionist believing colleagues have described us as being half-brained, mad, madmen, crazy,.....and various other disparaging terms.

I don't think this is a game you want to play. I suggest that there is more nastiness from the creationists than from we "evolutionists". But, to be fair, that is only speculation - I have not counted. Then again, I will bet you, too, are speculating.

 

[expos4ever]

Let us be called all that for the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. After all, Our Lord and Saviour was considered a madman, a trouble maker, against the thought of the day.

I am reminded of the quip "Just because no one understands you, that does not make you an artist."

Here is your argument, expressed so that the problem is obvious:

1. Jesus was considered a madman and a trouble-maker;
2. Jesus had access to the truth:
3. I (the creationist) am termed a madman and a trouble-maker);
4. Therefore, like Jesus, I must have access to the truth.

Do you see the problem now? We all (Christians at least) believe in 1, 2, and 3. But 4 certainly does not follow logically.

 

[JacksBratt]

Well, you're the one who seems to want to focus on the political turmoils of Western Europe.

Here are some other interesting pre-Reformation unpersecuted translations.

2nd century Syriac
4th century Coptic, Ge'ez (Ethiopian)
5th century Georgian, Armenian
7th century Chinese
9th century Slovakian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Russian, Arabic (New Testament only)
13th century French
14th century Czech
15th century Hungarian

I'm not focusing on any such thing. I was talking about taking the scripture as literal, someone stated that:

I am talking about specific creationist doctrines which were unknown before the Reformation. (post #745)

It was countered with:


So, what "specific creationist doctrines which were unknown before the Reformation" are you talking about? (post #747)

The answer to this question was:

Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretability and plenary verbal inspiration.( post # 748)

I responded to that answer with this:

The fact that all scripture is God breathed was known long before it was kept from the people of this world by a corrupted church who used fear and manipulation to control the illiterate people of their congregations. Making it forbidden for the people to own or read the scriptures themselves.
(post # 768)

I was merely stating that Sola scriptura was common long before the reformation. My reference to the prohibition of scripture was to highlight the fact that some people of power had reason to keep the general populous from knowledge that was held in the scriptures.

In fact the reformation was not what brought Sola scriptura, it was a motivational force that was striving to allow the public to have access to the scriptures for the vary reason that they are the true word of God and they should not be cherry picked, twisted, or hidden from anyone of any language and used to control people. People should be allowed to read the word of God and understand what God is saying to the human race and not controlled by a few religious leaders who pick and choose what they want the public to hear.

Sure there are other times in history where things of this nature have occurred. However, someone mentioned the "reformation" as a point in time, so I focused on that.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

the theory of 'evolution by natural selection' is an established scientific fact.

Just curious but what exactly is being selected and where did it come from? For something to be selected, you first of all have to have something worth selecting. Where did that something come from and what is it? Is it still happening today and if so, can you provide some examples? Also, can you show us where on our planet we can go and see this for ourselves as I haven't seen any evidence of it here in the UK? Can we take some photographs of creatures in transitional forms?

Now I assume you would include man in this proven process, so where does sin fit into all this and is it the process you would expect an all-knowing, all powerful God to use to create man in his image? Why would he create inferior life forms and then allow it just to struggle "red in tooth and claw" until it reached the advanced state we see today?

If you knew in advance exactly how to build a car, would you deliberately keep trying to assemble any random bits and pieces until you finally achieved what you originally set out to do? In my mind, there is no escaping the fact that to believe that God used evolution is to either assume that he is not directly involved in his creation or to imply that he doesn't really know what he is doing and is basically experimenting with his creatures in the hope that they will develop as he would wish them too. Either way, it's not exactly acknowledging the power and glory of our creator is it? The only thing that makes sense of the reason why Jesus had to come to earth to save us from our sins is if man was made in the way it tells us in Genesis and that temptation led us astray and separated us from God. Suggestion: Forget man's foolish ideas and listen to God. You will have to one day anyway.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

God also had the plan of how that would coalesce into stars and galaxies, planets, and how life would arrive on a small planet near the outer rim of a spiral galaxy.

But the stars and galaxies were made after the earth on the fourth day of creation.

And ultimately, over hundreds of millions of years, give rise to creatures with intelligence and in whom he could infuse this search for him and this knowledge of good and evil.

Using this sort of anti-Biblical scenario, when exactly did sin arise? Was it sudden? Gradual, a little bit of sin and then a bit more? A few people aware of it and then a few more? Some needing a saviour because they had acquired enough sin, while others not because they were only slightly aware of their sins or not at all? Or did God suddenly say, "Right, that's enough - you all know enough about sin now after having been committing it for millions of years, so now you are all accountable." How did he communicate that to them and where - in a local area or simultaneously over all the planet? In view of this, doesn't the following make more sense...

Gen 3:17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.
Gen 3:18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field.
Gen 3:19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

 

[expos4ever]

Actually, evolution is a faith because it fulfills the 4 requirements of a faith.

Completely false. There is no one (aside from the perhaps the odd exception) outside the community of creationists who would agree with your claim. Belief in evolution is not a "faith" in any remotely reasonable popular understanding of what the term "faith" means. In perhaps an exceedingly contrived and strained sense it can be called a "faith", but, in that case, belief that smoking causes cancer - universally held to be true - would also fall into the category "faith".

And one of the top evolutionary apologists called it "a fairytale for adults."

I will bet a flagon of fine October ale that this is patently false - you are either quoting someone without proper education or training or you are not giving us the full context. And I will bet that it is the latter.

But, please, prove me wrong. Give us the name and put me in my place.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not focusing on any such thing. I was talking about taking the scripture as literal, someone stated that:

I am talking about specific creationist doctrines which were unknown before the Reformation. (post #745)

It was countered with:


So, what "specific creationist doctrines which were unknown before the Reformation" are you talking about? (post #747)

The answer to this question was:

Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretability and plenary verbal inspiration.( post # 748)

I responded to that answer with this:

The fact that all scripture is God breathed was known long before it was kept from the people of this world by a corrupted church who used fear and manipulation to control the illiterate people of their congregations. Making it forbidden for the people to own or read the scriptures themselves.
(post # 768)

I was merely stating that Sola scriptura was common long before the reformation. My reference to the prohibition of scripture was to highlight the fact that some people of power had reason to keep the general populous from knowledge that was held in the scriptures.

In fact the reformation was not what brought Sola scriptura, it was a motivational force that was striving to allow the public to have access to the scriptures for the vary reason that they are the true word of God and they should not be cherry picked, twisted, or hidden from anyone of any language and used to control people. People should be allowed to read the word of God and understand what God is saying to the human race and not controlled by a few religious leaders who pick and choose what they want the public to hear.

Sure there are other times in history where things of this nature have occurred. However, someone mentioned the "reformation" as a point in time, so I focused on that.

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. As I understand it, Sola Scriptura is the Protestant response to the suppression of the vernacular scriptures by the Western Church and has little to do with the doctrine that the Bible is divinely inspired, a belief shared by all Christians, pre and post-Reformation.

The link is only to wikipeda, but seems reasonably accurate. Again, I am not condemning or ridiculing the doctrine, but questioning the assertion made in this thread that it is of apostolic antiquity.

Sola scriptura - Wikipedia

I call your attention particularly to the following excerpt, which is what I mean by calling Sola Scriptura a "creationist doctrine."

"Some Evangelical and Baptist denominations state the doctrine of sola scriptura more strongly: Scripture is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine."

 

[expos4ever]

Just curious but what exactly is being selected....

Traits of all kinds (physical, mental) that favour survival till offspring are produced. This should not be new to someone who is at least somewhat conversant with evolutionary theory.

Also, can you show us where on our planet we can go and see this for ourselves as I haven't seen any evidence of it here in the UK? Can we take some photographs of creatures in transitional forms?

Is this a serious question? Evolution, at least the kind that is really at issue here, operates over relatively long time-scales - you can't see it happening on a day-to-day basis.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But the stars and galaxies were made after the earth on the fourth day of creation.

It is amazing that there are very very few words and yet people totally miss the word "firmament". The work God did on the fourth day was a work in the firmament. I actually studied the physics of lighting when I was in college so I understand a little bit of what is going on here in the atmosphere at that time.