A New Interpretation of Genesis

[Not_By_Chance]

if it looks like a poem, smells like a poem, tastes like a poem, we can pretty much conclude with confidence that it is a poem.

I would agree. Genesis 1 & 2 look like real history and Jesus seemed to confirm that when He said, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

 

[CarlaB]

don't know exactly, which is something I am okay with....in addition, we don't know how long the particles existed before God brought them together nor how long a day was before sun moon and stars were created, all this gives us cause to suggest that older than YEC, younger than old earth

It's just a pity that Christians are unable to read this kind of thing from the outside looking in, they would see just how juvenile and ridiculous it all is.

 

[razzelflabben]

In theology and philosophy, Razzle, there has long been debate over the existence of God, and much rich literature to read on the subject. Unfortunately, believers and non-believers today tend to overlook all that. Hence, their cases are very weak. There are the classical arguments for God and as well contemporary ones. And, of course, there are the refutations that have to be addressed. Another issue here is exactly what kind of God are you trying to prove or disprove. Christianity is not a monolithic religion, just one way. There is more that one model of God or description of God as he is in his won nature available in Christianity. Most people think there is only one, but there are two at present. So I find seeking evidence for God is a fruitful area for study, though one must realize it is very complex and providing no easy or simple answers.

I'm confused, who is arguing that we discuss, test, or anything else about whether or not God exists? Seriously, I'm confused. I never once suggested that we do anything with the concept of does God or does God not exist. My only question is if we are going to claim that there is no evidence for a creator, what would evidence look like (through predictions) so we could determine if there is or is not evidence. I said nothing about who that creator would be or if evidence even existed to show a creator, I simply asked the poster claiming there was no evidence of a creator to tell us what predictions were looked at to come to that conclusion.

 

[razzelflabben]

I would agree. Genesis 1 & 2 look like real history and Jesus seemed to confirm that when He said, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

Hum....... how many history books have you read that read like the Gen. account of creation? Not all of Gen. just the creation account at this point? Here is a hint for you, my husband is trained to be a history teacher and is very knowledgeable of history and he will tell you that none of the history books, read like the Gen. account of creation, making it something other than a historical account.

 

[Practical-Christianity]

I would agree. Genesis 1 & 2 look like real history and Jesus seemed to confirm that when He said, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

Did you all check out post #40 that I posted here on the forums (page 2)? I think it makes it pretty clear that Genesis 1 & 2 aren't merely poems. They are a polemic. Please, go check it out.
Stephen

 

[razzelflabben]

It's just a pity that Christians are unable to read this kind of thing from the outside looking in, they would see just how juvenile and ridiculous it all is.

not sure your point, but most people refuse to look at things with an unbiased approach to what anything says. In their pride they want to be right and refuse to accept that they might be wrong. Personally, I find that very distasteful, thus purpose to always remove as much bias as possible before approaching any topic whether faith based or otherwise.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think we agree that Genesis is polemetic as it certainly show God is not a god.
For instance God made the sun...so why worship the sun (god)?

I find it weird that Christians don't call their deity by its proper name, YHWH (usually pronounced Yahweh, but exact pronounciation has been lost to time).

 

[razzelflabben]

I find it weird that Christians don't call their deity by its proper name, YHWH (usually pronounced Yahweh, but exact pronounciation has been lost to time).

It could be argued that His name is "I AM"...point being that there are several names attributed to God, not sure any one is of higher significance than any other....in fact, this week I have been known to refer to Him as the GOD of Peace, which is a referrence made throughout the bible.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It could be argued that His name is "I AM"...point being that there are several names attributed to God, not sure any one is of higher significance than any other....in fact, this week I have been known to refer to Him as the GOD of Peace, which is a referrence made throughout the bible.

An ironic name, given how many wars YHWH has endorsed throughout the bible's pages.

 

[razzelflabben]

An ironic name, given how many wars YHWH has endorsed throughout the bible's pages.

Personally, I don't find it ironic at all when we consider God's perspective as given to us in the Bible as to why the wars and such in addition to what peace is promised. But, alas, that takes us off topic, maybe a discussion for another thread?

 

[dougangel]

I'm an atheist but what about all the people who were raised to be Muslim or Hindu? millions of them have never heard of Jesus Christ? just as you have never heard of some of their Gods.If that's the case where did your God come from and how do you think he created everything?
According to your bible your God was there before anything existed, he then created everything from nothing. When you analyse the myth it falls apart.

""When you analyse the myth it falls apart.""

Not really. I find that, Eternity is behind the time space continuum more plausible than the myth of, It just popped up out of nowhere and where all going to die.

 

[dougangel]

I would agree. Genesis 1 & 2 look like real history and Jesus seemed to confirm that when He said, "But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6

Do you think you could be possibly misusing this scripture to say something it isn't saying ???

Mark 10
New International Version (NIV)
Divorce
The context is Divorce
10 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”
This question is a trap.
The Pharisees preserved the Pharisaical oral law in the form of the Talmud. They would become the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism.
3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.
Jesus is speaking to them as Jews and quotes OT scripture as they are under old testament law before his death.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied.

Jesus was saying this because a lot Jews were misusing Moses law and divorcing woman when ever they felt like it.

6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.

They were created on the 6 six day.Not right at the beginning of creation So this is a generalized statement.
The point of this is to say God planned and created male and female in the creation period. How he actually did this is up for debate that is dealt with in other posts.

7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

The context of discussion is God intended 1 female to be with 1 male and be together.

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
Notice that Jesus tells the pharisees what they will accept from the OT. Nothing that is controversial. there are several discussions like this in the gospels.
When the disciples are in the house again most certainly away from the crowd because what he is about to say to the disciples could of got him crucified a bit to early. He tells them the change in the adultery laws that are different to Moses law and OT. This will become christian law when Jesus dies on the cross and the disciples spread Christianity into the known world of that time.

 

[dougangel]

Of course it would - it's a fundamental question about where we came from. No-one can escape it. Now alleged old ages don't present any problems for non-Christians of course, but believers do have to deal with this in their own way. I'm in the YEC camp, because I find that fits best with what I read in the Bible and to me, makes more sense of Jesus's willing sacrifice on the cross to save the likes of me from my sins. I respect alternative views of other Christians, but I don't understand how they reconcile their theology with long ages for the earth and the cruel and wasteful process that is the TOE.

Psalm 50:1

The mighty God, even the Lord, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.

Malachi 1:11

For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

""The mighty God, even the Lord, hath spoken,""
The lord has said. The suns coming up. A house hold saying. That’s what it looks like to the person. But It’s not scientific.

Isaiah 11:12

12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Won’t get my science from that statement. The earths a ellipse sphere. But we know what they mean “”all the earth”” But did they at the time. Did they think it was a flat earth ???

Job 38:13

13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19

19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

The earths a sphere and doesn’t have an end won’t get my science from there.

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"

Sorry the earths moving and it’s not on foundations.
There are quite a few more of these scriptures.

We should not conclude that this way of talking about the physical world is what the Bible teaches as a reality, something in which we must believe in order to believe Scripture. Instead, this is the way ancient people talked about their experience of the world in the absence of any scientific knowledge about the processes at work in the world. Certainly we would describe the world today in much different terms. But then we live 3,000 years later in human history with much more knowledge about the physical world, and a different conceptual model and different vocabulary with which to describe the world.


We certainly affirm that Scripture is fully inspired by God. Yet what is interesting is that even with inspiration, God allowed these ancient ways of looking at the world to stand without correction. In other words, God did not reveal modern scientific knowledge to the ancient Israelites, or correct their ancient views of the way the world works. He let them express marvellous truths about God in the language and culture in which they lived. That incarnational dimension of Scripture is crucial for us to understand if we are to hear adequately the important confessions about God and humanity that Scripture expresses.

http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html

 

[TLK Valentine]

""When you analyse the myth it falls apart.""

Not really. I find that, Eternity is behind the time space continuum more plausible than the myth of, It just popped up out of nowhere and where all going to die.

I take it then that you don't want to die?

 

[dougangel]

I take it then that you don't want to die?

You would be jumping to conclusions to equate that from that. No I believe your spirit lives on.I'm a christian.
I meant. Isn't that what atheists are telling us ? You die, game over.

 

[dougangel]

I take it then that you don't want to die?

John 3:16
New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Isn't that what atheists are telling us ? You die, game over

I have no idea what happens to someone after they die. Neither do you. I think the idea of an after life is nothing but wishful thinking. To me, life is more meaningful when you realize that this is likely the only life you have and it's unlikely there is anything after it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You would be jumping to conclusions to equate that from that. No I believe your spirit lives on.I'm a christian.
I meant. Isn't that what atheists are telling us ? You die, game over.

John 3:16
New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

That's twice you avoided the issue.

Is it safe to say that you do not wish to die, but would prefer the "eternal life" that is offered in exchange for faith and obedience?

 

[dougangel]

I have no idea what happens to someone after they die. Neither do you. I think the idea of an after life is nothing but wishful thinking. To me, life is more meaningful when you realize that this is likely the only life you have and it's unlikely there is anything after it.

well why are you wasting your time on here?
IF you really believe that why aren't trying to do something hedonistic or take over the world or something, leaving your mark on this world ?

 

[dougangel]

That's twice you avoided the issue.

Is it safe to say that you do not wish to die, but would prefer the "eternal life" that is offered in exchange for faith and obedience?

well do u want to die ?
The result of sin is death.
people get old and die. There can be suffering in that to say the least, and their love ones so I guess in the physical and world side physically dying isn't a good thing.
What is your point ????