The Biblical Literalist "Straight Answer" thread

EnemyPartyII · Feb 12, 2008

Leisamd said:
ok. Hi!
So here is my thinking... now, I am not a biblical or science scholar, though I have done my own research (minor in theology) and come to my own convictions about this...
There are two main reasons why I personally believe the genesis creation story to be literal.
1. Because it's there in the Bible. I believe the bible is God breathed, inspired and protected, and contains His word. No-one other than God was there at creation, I will trust what He says. This does not discount science, but science is itself biased in interpretation and under the control of fallible men, so for me, God wins out there! It is very specific too, and does follow scientific formula in it's recording... I'll see if I can find a link for this...
I have a bit of a problem with wondering if this isn't true, then what is? Like, was there an Adam? If not, then why is Jesus called the Last Adam? It just makes more theological sense to me if it is true.

2. Genesis is written in a style that is not regarded as 'historical record' - this is true. It is not in the same style as say the book of numbers. BUT, a poetic style does not automatically infer 'fiction/metaphor'. There are plenty of other poetic styles in the Bible which are factual, I'm thinking mainly psalms here, poetic psalms recording factual events in david and solomon's lives.

Those are the two main ones that I can think of right now...

Nowyhere does the Bible claim to be inerrant, or the word of God. Why do you?

-~Truth_N_Trust~- · Feb 12, 2008

I never used the word inerrant.

Jesus held a very high view of scripture, he spoke of it and quoted it.

tapero · Feb 13, 2008

EnemyPartyII · Feb 13, 2008

tapero said:
Hi, can you tell me which specific topics in genesis you are speaking of so I can know which specific topic?

Flood
creation, which specific, Adam and Eve
etc...

thanks,
tapero

Flood and 7 day creation 6-10,000 years ago would be good place to start

tapero · Feb 13, 2008

EnemyPartyII · Feb 13, 2008

Hi, I'm not aware of any evidence about the flood (Noah) not occurring.

How about there not being enough water to cover the surface of the Earth to the depths talked about? Howabout absolutely no evidence of a worldwide flood in the geological record? How about the dispersal of animal and plant species around the world that simnply could not have "walked" from a single origin point in the Middle East in the past 4000 years?

I don't know where people get the world is 10,000 years old, as again is not something of interest to me, so I don't know but suspect it's either working geneaology and back, to figure out how old people are and possibly the thousand years as day may also play into it, but I do not know.

Yep, working the geneologies backwards, they come up with a figure between 6 and 10 thousand years for Creation.

MikeMcK · Feb 14, 2008

creation 6-10,000 years ago would be good place to start

Would you mind pointing me to the verse that says that the Earth was created "6-10,000 years ago"? I'm having a little trouble finding it.

go ask a young earth creationist

Because you're the one who brought it up.

If you're going to claim that the Bible teaches that the Earth was created "6-10,000 years ago", don't you think it would be a good idea to have some idea where the Bible teaches this?

Otherwise, it just looks like you're making wild accusations without any basis in truth, hoping that something will stick. That's a little silly, don't you think?

How about there not being enough water to cover the surface of the Earth to the depths talked about?

What are you talking about? The Earth is 75% water.

One of the most common mistakes people make is in assuming that, because the flood was worldwide, that is must have flooded the whole world at the same time.

I don't see anything in the Bible to indicate this.

It is much more likely that the floodwaters covered different parts of the Earth at different times, much the same way that tides cause waters to advance and recede.

Howabout absolutely no evidence of a worldwide flood in the geological record?

So then, how do you explain, for instance, fossils of marine mamals found in the middle of deserts or on mountain tops or other places where there should be no record of ocean based marine life?

How about the dispersal of animal and plant species around the world that simnply could not have "walked" from a single origin point in the Middle East in the past 4000 years?

I can think of at least three examples of animals that were not found in North America 150 years ago, but are now commonplace.

The circumference of the Earth is just under 25,000 miles. At 4,000 years, that's about 6.25 miles a year.

My dog and I walk from 4-7 miles every day and that only takes us about an hour to an hour and a half.

So, my little dog can walk 4-7 miles in an hour and a half, but other animals can't travel 6.25 miles in a year?

geological uplift, which can be observed occuring today?

Geological uplift only reveals what is there. It doesn't explain how the fossils got there.

so you're possiting that localised, highly specialised animals
like penguins and pandas, spend 4000 years in a continuous, generational migration to reach their current locations?

No. You're the one who said that. I just said that it wouldn't take anywhere close to 4,000 years for the animals and plants to spread out to various parts of the globe.

EnemyPartyII · Feb 14, 2008

MikeMcK said:
Would you mind pointing me to the verse that says that the Earth was created "6-10,000 years ago"? I'm having a little trouble finding it.

go ask a young earth creationist

humbledbyhim · Feb 14, 2008

The flood happened.
The Hebrew people walked across the Red Sea on dry land.
People have been cured of cancer and arthritis n my church.
I'm saved from sin and death.

These micracles happened. How? because God did them, and no human science, no matter how much some would like it to, can measure God by man's standards.

Here's a question:

If you were the supreme being, and wanted to wipe out all life on earth and have a group of people repopulate it, would you leave a bunch of dead bodies, craters, swamplands, and whatever other destruction a worldwide flood could cause around just because you knew a bunch of people with an incomplete understanding of faith wouldn't believe you did it? Who says God has to prove Himself scientifically? Some of you really need to think about what you're saying.

tapero · Feb 14, 2008

Floatingaxe · Feb 14, 2008

MikeMcK said:
I know this point has already been made, but I'm a sailor so the weather is very important to me.

Every time I go out, I study the weather and get routine updates.

Each one of them includes the time of the sunrise and sunset.

And yet, I've never heard anyone accuse the National Weather Service of believing that the universe is Geo-centric.

From a hermeneutic point of view, yes, the Bible is written to be taken literally but we don't do this by isolating each word of each phrase of each sentence of each verse and applying them hyperliterally.

We recognize that, while the Bible is meant to be taken literally, it uses meataphor, poetic language, hyperbole and colloquial language (which I suppose would be a kind of metaphor) in order to make it's literal points.

When Christ says that He wants to gather Jerusalem under His wings like a mother hen, we look at that statement in the context of the entire passage to see that the literal meaning isn't that Christ is a giant chicken, but that He longs to protect and provide for Jerusalem and uses the imagery of a mother hen protecting her chicks to make this literal point.

EnemyPartyII · Feb 14, 2008

So then, how do you explain, for instance, fossils of marine mamals found in the middle of deserts or on mountain tops or other places where there should be no record of ocean based marine life?

geological uplift, which can be observed occuring today?

I can think of at least three examples of animals that were not found in North America 150 years ago, but are now commonplace.

The circumference of the Earth is just under 25,000 miles. At 4,000 years, that's about 6.25 miles a year.

My dog and I walk from 4-7 miles every day and that only takes us about an hour to an hour and a half.

So, my little dog can walk 4-7 miles in an hour and a half, but other animals can't travel 6.25 miles in a year?

so you're possiting that localised, highly specialised animals
like penguins and pandas, spend 4000 years in a continuous, generational migration to reach their current locations?

EnemyPartyII · Feb 14, 2008

The flood happened.
The Hebrew people walked across the Red Sea on dry land.
People have been cured of cancer and arthritis n my church.
I'm saved from sin and death.

These micracles happened. How? because God did them, and no human science, no matter how much some would like it to, can measure God by man's standards.

Here's a question:

If you were the supreme being, and wanted to wipe out all life on earth and have a group of people repopulate it, would you leave a bunch of dead bodies, craters, swamplands, and whatever other destruction a worldwide flood could cause around just because you knew a bunch of people with an incomplete understanding of faith wouldn't believe you did it? Who says God has to prove Himself scientifically? Some of you really need to think about what you're saying.

provide evidence that anyone has been cured of cancer in your church please?

a global flood would leave evidence.

God COULD just snap all the evil people out of existance... but IF he chose to use such mundane, mechanical means as a flood, isn't it ridiculous to assume that although he used simple flooding to kill people, he would miraculously disapear all the evidence, just to make it look like... he didn't? Or something? What possible motivation would he have for hiding actual evidence of something he CLAIMS to have done?

God hates deception, aside from anything else.

EnemyPartyII · Feb 14, 2008

plants would have been everywhere..so not sure what you mean by that.

after a 40 day flood... all the plants would be dead... necesitating that all the plants, too, would have to originate again from a single point

Meanwhile..though..what does this topic have to do with God, if any. Not that it needs to.

Your op said if literal then those who say literal should give proof. iirc

What does it have to do with God? I believe a literalist interpretation leads people AWAY from God... because to believe the Bible literally, you have to delude yourself about God's actual creation

Armistead · Feb 14, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
after a 40 day flood... all the plants would be dead... necesitating that all the plants, too, would have to originate again from a single pointWhat does it have to do with God? I believe a literalist interpretation leads people AWAY from God... because to believe the Bible literally, you have to delude yourself about God's actual creation

Have you watched the history channel about the Flood.
I thought it was good.

I like your points.

EnemyPartyII · Feb 14, 2008

Armistead said:
Have you watched the history channel about the Flood.
I thought it was good.

I like your points.

No, I havn't seen a history channel doco on the flood, although, as always, I maintain an open mind to new information that may be presented.

Thankyou for the compliment.

tapero · Feb 14, 2008

EnemyPartyII · Feb 14, 2008

You asked someone to give proof that God healed a person. How can anyone do such?

Medical records stating that the patient had cancer on one date, then didn't have cancer on a later date, without having undergone any sort of medical intervention. That would be pretty good evidence.

Did someone say that? That evidence is hidden by God?

of the flood?

Yes, someone suggested that God would remove the evidence of the Flood, as though this was a given

If you were the supreme being, and wanted to wipe out all life on earth and have a group of people repopulate it, would you leave a bunch of dead bodies, craters, swamplands, and whatever other destruction a worldwide flood could cause around just because you knew a bunch of people with an incomplete understanding of faith wouldn't believe you did it?

To which I respond... its pretty illogical to use a flood to destroy the wicked people, then miraculously clean up the mess. Why not sjust miraculously clean up the evil in the first place?

Soul Searcher · Feb 14, 2008

savedandhappy1 said:
No.... yes every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that He is Lord, but I don't remember reading any scriptures that say everyone will pledge allegiance to God.

To confess that he is Lord means to acknowledge that he is your master one could easily say that means to pledge allegiance to him. It is a pretty small step. That verse which was worded every tongue shall confess comes from the OT where is says that every tongue shall swear and it is in the form of a sworn statement from God that it will happen.

As we are told in the scriptures even the demons believe, but they will never pedige allegiance to Him. They along with everyone who rejects Him will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

What makes you think they will never pledge allegiance to him? Is there a verse somewhere that says this will never happen? Is there one somewhere that says in the fullness of times God will be all in all?

And what about this one?
Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever.

Soul Searcher · Feb 14, 2008

EnemyPartyII said:
Medical records stating that the patient had cancer on one date, then didn't have cancer on a later date, without having undergone any sort of medical intervention. That would be pretty good evidence.

I actually do have reason to believe that God healed me on one occasion though I surely can not prove it. It was a very bizzare day that left me a different person. Not sure I want to go into the details of it though

Yes, someone suggested that God would remove the evidence of the Flood, as though this was a given

Bet I can guess who that was

To which I respond... its pretty illogical to use a flood to destroy the wicked people, then miraculously clean up the mess. Why not sjust miraculously clean up the evil in the first place?

Yep.. the whole flood story when taken as anywhere near literal doesn't make a whole lot of sense and is easy to see through.

The Biblical Literalist "Straight Answer" thread

Well-Known Member

gone

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

The kingdom is within

The kingdom is within

Similar threads