Do you trust God or Man when it comes to the creation?

[dwb001]

No question, your arguments and conclusions are wrong.

Your opinion.

Provide counter evidence and we can discuss it.

 

[trophy33]

Your opinion.

Provide counter evidence and we can discuss it.

Counter evidence to what evidence? You gave none.

Argument "God" is not working, argument "its history" is not working.

Genesis was not written by God and Genesis was not written in the modern age of science and technicalities, it was written in the age of mythology, symbolism and parallels. These are just simple facts you can verify by reading about Mesopotamia, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia and diving into their writings, mythology and culture a bit.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Again, Genesis is not written by God. It was written by humans, therefore those humans communicated in their mindset and language.

And those humans were not interested in literal history or science, they were interested in mythology, symbolism and parallelism. In meanings, not in technicalities.

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Brothers and Sisters, greetings. Today I am going to present evidence for why I think we should trust the Bible and it's creation account as literal, meaning that the Earth is just several thousand years old, just over 6,000 to be more precise. Firstly let me just say that I do not think this issue is a matter of salvation, and therefore not essential, but I fear not trusting the Bible in this regard only helps the adversary further weaken our resolve and understanding when it comes to other issues.

Amen!

 

[trophy33]

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Exactly - not for instruction in cosmogony, cosmology, biology or history.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Exactly - not for instruction in cosmogony, cosmology or history.

One can pick and choose if they want, your list could go on and on and on.

 

[trophy33]

One can pick and choose if they want, your list could go on and on and on.

Sure, so your quoted verse is no argument for our topic. We do not debate if Genesis is useful for theology, this thread is about if its scientific, literal etc.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Sure, so your quoted verse is no argument for our topic. We do not debate if Genesis is useful for theology, this thread is about if its scientific.

So now you have added to your list scientific.

 

[trophy33]

So now you have added to your list scientific.

Thats the context of this discussion - Genesis vs science.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Thats the context of this discussion - Genesis vs science.

Got it, with endless definitions that one can choose.

I will stand on - The Word of God

Have a nice day.

 

[The Barbarian]

Neither our concept of science nor our concept of history was how people in ancient Mesopotamia wrote their writings.

Correct. They just didn't think in those ways. Their "science" was really more like engineering; they didn't bother with understanding the underlying principles, so long as it worked reliably. And there was really no concept of historical analysis.

 

[The Barbarian]

Doesn't take a Barbarian to notice that there is no age of the Earth in the first three chapters of Genesis.

And?

Anyone who tries to make it otherwise is just revising scripture to suit his own wishes.

 

[The Barbarian]

it's really sad that it's becoming rare to find Christians that actually take the Bible at face value for what it says.

Getting rate to find Christians who accept the modern revisions of YE creationists.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Doesn't take a Barbarian to notice that there is no age of the Earth in the first three chapters of Genesis.


Anyone who tries to make it otherwise is just revising scripture to suit his own wishes.

Says you ....... nothing like flaming anyone who does not agree with you.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Getting rate to find Christians who accept the modern revisions of YE creationists.

Some just don't want to contort themselves that far.

 

[dwb001]

A

Counter evidence to what evidence? You gave none.

Argument "God" is not working, argument "its history" is not working.

Genesis was not written by God and Genesis was not written in the modern age of science and technicalities, it was written in the age of mythology, symbolism and parallels. These are just simple facts you can verify by reading about Mesopotamia, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia and diving into their writings, mythology and culture a bit.

And you provide no proof of your claims.

 

[dwb001]

Doesn't take a Barbarian to notice that there is no age of the Earth in the first three chapters of Genesis.


Anyone who tries to make it otherwise is just revising scripture to suit his own wishes.

There is an age of the Earth in chapter 1.

7 days.

 

[The Barbarian]

There is an age of the Earth in chapter 1.

7 days.

Nope. Not only does the text tell us that they aren't literal days, Chapter 2 says "one day." But neither says how old the Earth actually was at that point. And creation only says 6 figurative days, not 7.

 

[dwb001]

Nope. Not only does the text tell us that they aren't literal days, Chapter 2 says "one day." But neither says how old the Earth actually was at that point. And creation only says 6 figurative days, not 7.

Where does the text say the days are not literal?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do you believe God knows how to speak english?

At the Last Supper Jesus took bread, broke it, gave it to His disciples and said "This is My body".

Is the bread of the Lord's Supper His real and literal flesh, or no?

I don't want to derail this thread, but it's my experience that the people who claim the Bible has to be taken literally, at face value, etc will, when presented with Jesus' own words, turn around and deny that Jesus meant His words literally.

-CryptoLutheran