80%

[Josh1]

To say one part is mythical and another part is true is being inconsistent. These kind of people are mentioned in psalms 1:4. They are like a chaff which the wind driveth away. The Bible says Adam exist, the burden of proof is on the non-believer(of Adam that is) to prove he doesn't. This is supposed to be a board of Bible believing christians, so let's keep our attitudes straight. I am suprised at what I have found on here but we still got to keep the right attitude. As far as Adam,prove he don't exist. I know you can't so let's all stay away from this non-sensical subject it is going nowhere. God Bless. P.S. Adam is the reason that we have to get saved, with out Adam there is no salvation.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Josh - I suggest you read TheBear's warning post before you go any furthur down your current line of argument.

 

[Josh1]

Karl:

Josh - I suggest you read TheBear's warning post before you go any furthur down your current line of argument.


Your point?

I was making a point, I was not dissing anybody. TheBear can decide if I am or not, if he thinks I am then ban me from this conversation. It was not the intent of my post to offend anybody, but the truth does hurt sometimes though. God Bless.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

To say one part is mythical and another part is true is being inconsistent.

1) Theistic evolutionists are inconsistent

These kind of people are mentioned in psalms 1:4. They are like a chaff which the wind driveth away.

2) We're wicked - Psalm 1:4 says

4 Not so the wicked!
They are like chaff
that the wind blows away.

The Bible says Adam exist, the burden of proof is on the non-believer(of Adam that is) to prove he doesn't. This is supposed to be a board of Bible believing christians, so let's keep our attitudes straight.

3) Our attitudes are wrong.

I am suprised at what I have found on here but we still got to keep the right attitude. As far as Adam,prove he don't exist. I know you can't so let's all stay away from this non-sensical subject it is going nowhere. God Bless. P.S. Adam is the reason that we have to get saved, with out Adam there is no salvation.

And you say you're not dissing us? Seems obvious to me.

Look. Maybe I'm over-reacting, but I'm sick to the back teeth of creationists thinking they're better than us, more Christian than us, more holy than us. No good identifying us with "the wicked" of Psalm 1 and then expecting us not to feel dissed! Come on!

 

[wonder111]

To say one part is mythical and another part is true is being inconsistent.

it's not about being consistent, it's about how things are presented in the bible. The idea that all must be taken literally is usually based on fear, fear that other parts of the bible could be interpreted as not true. That's not the case, it is true to most Christians just not literal, it does not in anyway take away the meaning or the message.

 

[Josh1]

Karl:Look. Maybe I'm over-reacting,

yep,that sums up your whole statement. Sorry if I have offended you, now let's move on.


wonder111:it's not about being consistent, it's about how things are presented in the bible. The idea that all must be taken literally is usually based on fear, fear that other parts of the bible could be interpreted as not true. That's not the case, it is true to most Christians just not literal, it does not in anyway take away the meaning or the message.

Based on fear? In a sense, that if people start taking things that are meant to be literal and start making them mystical, yes. The hermenuetic is important. If there is no indication that the Bible is not being literal then it is literal. This little story of Adam is very important to the whole scheme of things. The Bible is inspired, why is it so hard to believe that adam sinned, therefore we took on a sin nature. I have easier time believing somebody sinned than believing somebody lived a sinless life. I just mentioned earlier that nobody could prove that there was a adam. I am just asking for some proof and after that show me proof that there was a Jesus. God Bless.

 

[Ark Guy]

Josh, I have to agree with your point concerning the bible twisting evos.

In the opening post I presented a literal Adam from the bible...they have refused to defend it with biblical support.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Karl:Look. Maybe I'm over-reacting,

yep,that sums up your whole statement. Sorry if I have offended you, now let's move on.

Apology accepted. Moving on. Just please be more careful.

Based on fear? In a sense, that if people start taking things that are meant to be literal and start making them mystical, yes. The hermenuetic is important. If there is no indication that the Bible is not being literal then it is literal.

Why should literal be the default position? That may be so in modern western writings but I don't know that it is in writings of this nature.

But anyway, there are strong indications that the Genesis 1-3 story is not literal:

(1) Use of two contradictory accounts in Gen 1 and Gen 2 to make different non-contradictory theological points

(2) Symbolic names for the man ("Man") and the woman ("Mother of all living")

(3) Mythological elements - a talking snake, trees with symbolic fruit - remeniscient of symbolic objects like Pandora's Box.

All this screams "Not Literal" in six foot high letters to me.

This little story of Adam is very important to the whole scheme of things. The Bible is inspired, why is it so hard to believe that adam sinned, therefore we took on a sin nature. I have easier time believing somebody sinned than believing somebody lived a sinless life.

But that's the whole point! No-one does live a sinless life. Each one of us is Adam. Each one of us disobeys God. That's the message of Genesis 3 - if God says "Don't do X", then Man turns round and does it as soon as he thinks God's back is turned.

I just mentioned earlier that nobody could prove that there was a adam. I am just asking for some proof and after that show me proof that there was a Jesus. God Bless.

No. You can't prove whether Adam is literal or not from the Bible. So it's not a good idea to start building a salvific requirement on it.

As for Jesus - the gospel accounts (I'm sure we had this discussion yesterday) are very different. They (I am sure) contain mythic and symbolic elements - the slight contradictions between the accounts do not support the idea they are absolutely historically accurate. But they are clearly getting the message accross that God has become Man. There is no point to them if Jesus didn't actually exist. They answer the question "This Jesus bloke then - what did He actually say and do?" - a question with no meaning if there was no "Jesus bloke". This is not so of the Genesis narratives. They answer the question "Who created the universe" and "why is everything not right?". These questions have meaning whether Adam existed or not, and Genesis 1-3 answers "God did" and "because of man's sin" to these questions whether you take it literally or not.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

In the original post, Ark Guy was refering to this statistic that I had posted in two separate threads:

According to ReligionToday (Dec. 29, 1999), of clergy polled in Britain (including Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers);
a whopping 97% do not believe in a literal six day creation, and 80% acknowledge that Adam and Eve were not actual people.


So far the results of this survey have been dismissed out of hand without actually being addressed. Would a YEC please explain how it is that these scholarly, well educated, respected, trusted clerics do not take Genesis literally? I have no doubt that they have more training in theology and bible study than anyone on this forum. And I can be pretty sure that they are religious people - after all they did follow a calling - and also that the believe very deeply in the bible that they preach and teach.

All that I have heard is stuff along the lines of "oh well they are all just a bunch of liberals". Proof please.

I think it desrespectful as a christian to out of hand disimiss the credentials of church authorities. You don't have to agree with them, but when it comes to theology I bet they could out debate any of us.


Now, will somebody please address this in a direct and sincere way.

 

[Josh1]

Karl:Apology accepted. Moving on. Just please be more careful.

Good, moving on.

Karl:Why should literal be the default position? That may be so in modern western writings but I don't know that it is in writings of this nature.

But anyway, there are strong indications that the Genesis 1-3 story is not literal:

(1) Use of two contradictory accounts in Gen 1 and Gen 2 to make different non-contradictory theological points

(2) Symbolic names for the man ("Man") and the woman ("Mother of all living")

(3) Mythological elements - a talking snake, trees with symbolic fruit - remeniscient of symbolic objects like Pandora's Box.

All this screams "Not Literal" in six foot high letters to me.


1. One is just more detailed than the other. One flows chronological the other is a recap.

2. Not much to comment about here, it was just the fact of the matter. You believe they were symbolic names and I don't.

3. Satan came in the form of serpent. I believe the serpent allowed him, that being the reason he was cursed. Again there is no indication to dismiss this because it is supernatural. The tree goes along the same line, there is no indication that it is not taken literal in the Bible. It was a paradise and man did mess it up, but how did we become sinners in the first place? Did God create us imperfect? To me, it shouts literal for nothing is there to indicate otherwise.

Karl:No. You can't prove whether Adam is literal or not from the Bible. So it's not a good idea to start building a salvific requirement on it.

As for Jesus - the gospel accounts (I'm sure we had this discussion yesterday) are very different. They (I am sure) contain mythic and symbolic elements - the slight contradictions between the accounts do not support the idea they are absolutely historically accurate. But they are clearly getting the message accross that God has become Man. There is no point to them if Jesus didn't actually exist. They answer the question "This Jesus bloke then - what did He actually say and do?" - a question with no meaning if there was no "Jesus bloke". This is not so of the Genesis narratives. They answer the question "Who created the universe" and "why is everything not right?". These questions have meaning whether Adam existed or not, and Genesis 1-3 answers "God did" and "because of man's sin" to these questions whether you take it literally or not.


I already have gave many verses reguarding Adam. You are the one that has not gave one,single verse reguarding that he was just a myth. again,you need to read John1:1. If His word is not infallible then neither is He. You see, you can't prove to me that there was a Jesus besides going to the Bible and pointing out scriptures that you take literal. I got to prove that Adam is literal by the same way. But you say that I haven't done that. I'm asking you to trust the Bible. There is no point to the bible if Adam didn't exist because again we could pick and choose what is literal. Paul acknowledged him and so did Jude etc..... That should be enough, right?


Karl:But that's the whole point! No-one does live a sinless life. Each one of us is Adam. Each one of us disobeys God. That's the message of Genesis 3 - if God says "Don't do X", then Man turns round and does it as soon as he thinks God's back is turned.

Jesus lived a sinless life, but guess what? I can't prove to you that He did, you have to trust the Bible on that. Don't you see what i'm trying to get across. That was your interpretation up there. Mine might have went like..... This myth tells us that men don't need to mess with certain trees. It is bad for their health. OR, this myth tells us that man needs to stay with the majority(eat of all the trees but this one) than follow a one man band.

You see you have opened up this clear scriptural account of creation to private intepretation. This is why I firmly believe that this is literal. God Bless.

 

[Josh1]

Late_Cretaceous, I would love to respond to your post, but you would not like my answer at all. I am just going to leave this statistics thing alone, LOL. God Bless.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

This is a debate. Your statements, as long as they are logical and intelligent are what matters. I didn't post those stats to read from people whose opinions "I like". I actually want to hear from those who disagree with me. Whether or not I like your point of view or not is irrelavent. Besides, I don't dislike an opinion just because I don't agree with it. WHat I do dislike is something called a cop out.

 

[notto]

The only reason why the 80% believe that Adam was a mythical being is because they worship evolutionISM and have filtered their bible through its theory.

This statement remains unsupported until you can show us that evolution and their understanding of it has anything to do with their beliefs related to Adam.

The same conclusion that Adam is a mythical being can be reached through historical research, literature, and study of the scriptures and other works of the same time.

I assert that the reason these 80% believe that Adam was a mythical being has nothing to do with evolution but instead is related to good historical research and sound theology and interpretation of ancient texts.

Please prove me wrong with actual evidence.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"Please prove me wrong with actual evidence."

Remember Notto, some people don't need evidence.

 

[TheBear]

How many Christian denominations are there?

 

[Josh1]

According to ReligionToday (Dec. 29, 1999), of clergy polled in Britain (including Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers);
a whopping 97% do not believe in a literal six day creation, and 80% acknowledge that Adam and Eve were not actual people

I don't think this should have no bearing at all in this discussion. That is my opinion. Roman catholic priest have distorted things time and time again. Many believe in salvation by works, they believe in confessionals where people tell them their sins, and put Mary on a much higher scale than she should be. You should tell Jesus your sins not some priest. We all know that if it is works then we are all hopeless. Many of these man are erred by their doctrine(not all), they have gone through what their fathers, mothers or catholic school tells them. I would love to talk to one of them about this subject. Yes, they might be more educated, but I believe that the Bible says different. The Bible says that "many are called but few are chosen". The world is going to be the majority, it's not going to the christians. Paul warns about false shepherds also. Anyways, polls like this (my opinion) have no bearing on the matter at hand. If a person wants to know what the Bible says, then they need to read it theirself! This don't need to be a "I believe this cause the majority does" or "I believe this because my pastor does". It needs to be "I believe this because the I BELIEVE that the BIBLE says this". God Bless. Thxs for not getting offended and giving me more leeway to speak my opinion.

 

[TheBear]

Josh1,

The more I read your posts, the more I believe that you are one of those who honestly believes that whoever is not in 100% agreement with your beliefs on every single doctrine and tenet, are all twisting scripture, and therefore are not 'real' Christians. I suspect you honsetly believe that only your church is the true Christian church, and that all the rest are decieving themselves and going to hell.

There are many differing doctrines and teachings among the various Christian denominations.....all based on scripture.

Salvation and being a Christian are not contingent on being a Biblical scholar. There won't be a test of our knowledge and interpretation of scripture at the gates of Heaven. If there were, none of us would be allowed entry, because none of us know His Word with 100% accuracy in it's entirety. And, if the Bible were that staight forward and to the point, we obviously would not have all these varying interpretations and denominations.

So, let's cease with the accusations of twisting scripture, and the implications that those who are not in agreement with you are not Christians.

This will be the last friendly reminder to you. From here forth, any of your posts in this Christians Only forum, which puts down another Christian denomination or implies that those who do not agree with you are not Christians, will result in formal and official warnings.

BTW, taking the Lord's name in vane, by disingenuously spouting off "God Bless" as some smug retort, when you really don't mean it in a sincere manner, is a sin against God.



Matthew 5:37

But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

 

[wonder111]

If a person wants to know what the Bible says, then they need to read it theirself! This don't need to be a "I believe this cause the majority does" or "I believe this because my pastor does". It needs to be "I believe this because the I BELIEVE that the BIBLE says this". [/b]

I came to my conclusion the first time I read the bible, I don't believe it's not literal because my pastor said so or the majority says so, it was from my own conclusion after reading the bible.

 

[Josh1]

TheBear: The more I read your posts, the more I believe that you are one of those who honestly believes that whoever is not in 100% agreement with your beliefs on every single doctrine and tenet, are all twisting scripture, and therefore are not 'real' Christians. I suspect you honsetly believe that only your church is the true Christian church, and that all the rest are decieving themselves and going to hell.


Never said this bear. I didn't say that they weren't going to heaven. I said if they are depending on their works, that won't get them to heaven. You are evidently reading into my post. I have many friends that are of different denominations. I have no idea where you got this.

TheBear: There are many differing doctrines and teachings among the various Christian denominations.....all based on scripture.


I disagree here.


TheBear: Salvation and being a Christian are not contingent on being a Biblical scholar. There won't be a test of our knowledge and interpretation of scripture at the gates of Heaven. If there were, none of us would be allowed entry, because none of us know His Word with 100% accuracy in it's entirety.

Agreed, but what is your point? I never said that being a Bible scholar got you to heaven.

TheBear: And, if the Bible were that staight forward and to the point, we obviously would not have all these varying interpretations and denominations.


So right now we are discussing something about the Bible. Isn't that the reason this forum is here, where we can discuss different matters? If not, then why is it here?


THEBEAR: So, let's cease with the accusations of twisting scripture, and the implications that those who are not in agreement with you are not Christians.


Again, nonsense, I never said that!!! You are the one throwing out accusations.


The Bear: This will be the last friendly reminder to you. From here forth, any of your posts in this Christians Only forum, which puts down another Christian denomination or implies that those who do not agree with you are not Christians, will result in formal and official warnings.


This is ridiclous!!! I never put down any denomination. I stated some beliefs that I disagreed with. I never said that somebody that disagreed with me would go to hell. Where are you getting this stuff?

TheBear: BTW, taking the Lord's name in vane, by disingenuously spouting off "God Bless" as some smug retort, when you really don't mean it in a sincere manner, is a sin against God.


I am in awe, this is so silly. Are you God? How do you know that I don't mean it? You definately don't have to remind me what a sin against God is. I am trying to discuss matters with other people, you on the other hand are just outright attacking my character. You care nothing about facts, for I truly meant every God Bless that I have posted here. I hope God has mercy on them like he has on me in my everyday life. If you don't like this, then ban me. You are not going to controll my post.

May the Lord have mercy on you like he has with me.

 

[Josh1]

wonder111: I came to my conclusion the first time I read the bible, I don't believe it's not literal because my pastor said so or the majority says so, it was from my own conclusion after reading the bible.

Good, I have no problem with you reading yourselves. I was mainly talking about the statistics. I came to a different conclusion when I read the it . So I do disagree with you, it does not make me or you on our way to hell. Thank God and God Bless.