Adam & Eve

[AV1611VET]

Only if God Himself tells me that evolution is true, will I believe it, but until then, I'm going to continue to believe I am a descendant of Adam and Eve

--- good for you!

Solomon, the man who had apes imported, didn't buy it --- even calling it an "invention":

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Neither did Paul buy it --- placing it in the same list as "fables":

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Not to mention calling it a "philosophy":

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Note the "beware".

 

[Cabal]

--- good for you!

Solomon, the man who had apes imported, didn't buy it --- even calling it an "invention":
Originally Posted by Ecclesiastes 7:29
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

GN, do you read the Bible this "literally?"

So "literally" you insert a 19th century AD scientific theory into your reading of the writings of King Solomon?

I have to ask, seeing as, y'know, both you and AV insist on reading the Bible "literally."

Neither did Paul buy it --- placing it in the same list as "fables":
Originally Posted by 1 Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

MASSIVE IRONY ALERT

Not to mention calling it a "philosophy":
Originally Posted by Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Note the "beware".

It's not, it's a methodology. And even if it were a philosophy, this verse does not necessarily imply that all philosophies are wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not, it's a methodology. And even if it were a philosophy, this verse does not necessarily imply that all philosophies are wrong.

So what do you think he meant by the "rudiments of the world"?

 

[lawtonfogle]

For the Christian evolutionist:

Ok so if we are not to take Adam and Eve literally, then that means we can discredit all their descendants.

Which means Adam/Eve through Noah were all mythical, then Noah to lets say Jesus were all mythical? If this is true, then wouldn't that be like saying the entire Bible is nothing more than a 66 Book fable?

So who exactly would of been the first human (i.e. evolved monkey) to have a conversation with God?

And do you take the story of the prodigal son to be a parable? Since it is in the Bible, if you don't believe it to be real, then clearly you cannot believe Jesus to be real. Thus, everything Jesus said was true stories, and not fictional tales to make a point.

 

[AV1611VET]

And do you take the story of the prodigal son to be a parable? Since it is in the Bible, if you don't believe it to be real, then clearly you cannot believe Jesus to be real. Thus, everything Jesus said was true stories, and not fictional tales to make a point.

Who said Jesus' parables were not actual incidents He witnessed growing up?

 

[Cabal]

So what do you think he meant by the "rudiments of the world"?

All those phrases seem to me to representing anything not Christ-like in the world (within reason, e.g. 2+2=4 is a mathematical statement so could easily be construed to be as "worldly" as a scientific theory, but we don't throw it out the window because "ooh, it's worldly!").

However I don't believe evolution is inherently not Christ-like (frankly, I'd find it hard to see any scientific theory as "Christ-like" or not because they do not delineate morality), and I believe you know my feelings on whose fault it is if evolution "causes" someone to lose their faith.

That, and the usual rigmarole I've told you a dozen times about the folly of inserting your pet hates from 19th century-AD science into first-century religious texts, etc....

 

[Jester4kicks]

Ok I'll change it just for argument sake.

Only if God Himself tells me that evolution is true, will I believe it, but until then, I'm going to continue to believe I am a descendant of Adam and Eve

I see... so, unless god personally tells you something, you won't believe it? Where do you draw the line on that little gem? Does god have to personally tell you the sun will rise tomorrow? How about medicine... does god have to personally tell you about the medication your doctor prescribes? How about gravity... when did you have a conversation with god about that one?

I'm just curious about where you stop believing in common sense and science, and where you start relying on god.

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

And do you take the story of the prodigal son to be a parable? Since it is in the Bible, if you don't believe it to be real, then clearly you cannot believe Jesus to be real. Thus, everything Jesus said was true stories, and not fictional tales to make a point.

I found in 3 different books where Jesus explained why He used parables.
Luke 8:4, Mark 4:10, and Matthew 13:10 (there may be more, but I think 3 is sufficient).

On the other hand I agree with AV, who is to say that these weren't true cases Jesus came upon and used them so man would understand what he was speaking of?

Honestly, I don't sit and read my Bible then try to decide which to believe and which not to believe.

So let me ask you. Do you believe:

• Noah's Ark
• Shadrach/Meshach/Abed-Nego being thrown into the fiery furnace and walking out unscathed
• Daniel being thrown in the Den with the lions
• Jonah and the whale
• Moses parting the Red Sea

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

I see... so, unless god personally tells you something, you won't believe it? Where do you draw the line on that little gem? Does god have to personally tell you the sun will rise tomorrow? How about medicine... does god have to personally tell you about the medication your doctor prescribes? How about gravity... when did you have a conversation with god about that one?

I'm just curious about where you stop believing in common sense and science, and where you start relying on god.

When science contradicts the Bible I will take Gods word of mans word. We aren't talking about the sun rising, doctors and medicine, etc. We are talking about where human life began, which is with Adam and Eve.

You know I would truly like to say that when I get to Heaven it will be the first question I ask God, but in all honestly I believe I will be in such awe with being in the Lords presence, that I will care less about the evolution crap scientist have come up with.

 

[Assyrian]

Don't let them fool you into believing that rhetoric, sis.
If you look at the definition of incest, it is the crime of marrying or having a relation with someone who is a near kin of yours.
Thus it came after the Levitical law that prohibits it.
So incest never existed prior to the law prohibiting it.
Remember our Prohibition Law?
Was everyone who drank whiskey in the decades prior to that law guilty of that crime?

Nope ---

So don't fall for that gag.

So there was no whiskey before Prohibition?

I presume then it was alright for Lot's daughters to
a) get their father drunk (before prohibition after all)
and
b) have sex with him and get pregnant?

Do you think the bible mentions this approvingly to show us how wise and resourceful Lot's daughters were?

Prior to God's prohibition, the gene pool was so pure one could marry a near kinsman.

In the beginning, when plants and animals didn't carry any mutations at all, this was acceptable; but after the Fall, when mutations started getting into God's creation, it evidently took several thousand years to taint the gene pool enough that God had to legislate a prohibition against it.

I am not sure you will actually find that 'pure gene pool' idea in the bible. But given that we share the same broken Vitamin C production gene as the other great apes, mutations in our gene pool predate the human race.

And in the case of Cain killing Abel, you may want to re-read that account.
God clearly warned Cain he was about to sin.

Cain was about to sin, and yet there was no commandment against murder. So clearly things could be sinful long before they were tabulated in Exodus and Leviticus.

Solomon, the man who had apes imported, didn't buy it --- even calling it an "invention":

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

Neither did Paul buy it --- placing it in the same list as "fables":

Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Not to mention calling it a "philosophy":

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Note the "beware".

And after all that you still expect us to think you know how Genesis should be interpreted?

 

[AV1611VET]

So there was no whiskey before Prohibition?

That's cute.

I presume then it was alright for Lot's daughters to
a) get their father drunk (before prohibition after all)
and
b) have sex with him and get pregnant?

That's real cute.

Father and daughter? I don't think so. The father is already married (i.e. "one" with his spouse).

Do you think the bible mentions this approvingly to show us how wise and resourceful Lot's daughters were?

Do you?

I am not sure you will actually find that 'pure gene pool' idea in the bible.

Is there anything pure in the Bible with you guys?

All you're ever taught to do is view everyone as 'mutants'.

If you reverse the gene pool, will it not become purer the farther back in time you go?

Cain was about to sin, and yet there was no commandment against murder.

Correct --- that is why God did not insist on the Death Penalty in his case.

So clearly things could be sinful long before they were tabulated in Exodus and Leviticus.

Paul says where there is no law, there is no transgression of the law.

And after all that you still expect us to think you know how Genesis should be interpreted?

I'm not sure "expect you to" is right --- after all --- if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, you'd be out there looking for witches to burn, people to enslave, and genociding the rest.

 

[Assyrian]

Out of curosity, do you find the parting of the Red Sea unlikely?

No problem with God parting the Red Sea, he is God. My only problem is with interpretations of scripture that claim things that clearly didn't happen. But I don't think the disciples would have had that sort of faith either. If Peter and John had run and found the tomb wasn't empty, they would not have believed the resurrection, why do you think they ran there in the first place? If the man born blind was still walking into walls, nothing would have convinced those hard nosed fishermen that he had been miraculously healed. The disciple expected God to work miracles, but they expected the miracles to be real.

Actually it sounds to me like those desert nomads were describing a tsunami.

 

[Assyrian]

Luke 3:38 recognized Adam as the son of God

Given that the genealogy is a list describing biological descent, I don't think you can say Luke was being really literally here, not unless he is saying Adam was God's biological son.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna...

Sorry, forgot the word "supposed" only applied to Joseph.

If you look at the genealogy you will find here is only one main verb in the whole list, 'being' and the supposed is attached to that verb. If being refers to the whole genealogy, so does supposed. The genealogy is much tighter than our English translations as the italics suggest: being as was supposed the son of Joseph of Heli of Matthat of Levi of Melchi of Janna... There is no break between the supposed paternity of Joseph and genuine and reliable genealogy, no indication that we go from supposed genealogy to real "being as was supposed the son of Joseph, who actually was the son of Heli of Matthat..." Other manuscripts have the supposed after son, but the result is the same, because there is only one word 'son' in the whole list too: being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph of Heli of Matthat of Levi of Melchi of Jannai...

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually it sounds to me like those desert nomads were describing a tsunami.

Good timing.

 

[Jester4kicks]

When science contradicts the Bible I will take Gods word of mans word. We aren't talking about the sun rising, doctors and medicine, etc. We are talking about where human life began, which is with Adam and Eve.

You know I would truly like to say that when I get to Heaven it will be the first question I ask God, but in all honestly I believe I will be in such awe with being in the Lords presence, that I will care less about the evolution crap scientist have come up with.

Can we take a quick step aside? I just have a question that I would love to ask.

When did you decide to interpret the bible literally? Don't take that the wrong way, you're certainly not the only person to do it and I'm not trying to single you out. However, this type of faith is actually relatively-new, and primarly found in the USA... and it just occured to me that I've never had the chance to ask this type of believer about where that decision came from.

Were you just raised that way? Did you change churches or belief systems and found that a literal translation was more appealing?

I'm just trying to understand how you came to this conclusion.

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

Can we take a quick step aside? I just have a question that I would love to ask.

When did you decide to interpret the bible literally? Don't take that the wrong way, you're certainly not the only person to do it and I'm not trying to single you out. However, this type of faith is actually relatively-new, and primarly found in the USA... and it just occured to me that I've never had the chance to ask this type of believer about where that decision came from.

Were you just raised that way? Did you change churches or belief systems and found that a literal translation was more appealing?

I'm just trying to understand how you came to this conclusion.

Contrary to popular belief, I was not raised in a Christian setting. Christianity wasn't shoved down my throat. My mom used Sunday School and Church activities as a "babysitter". To be perfectly honest, I don't recall (as a child) being taught about God (which I'm sure I was, I just don't remember). But for reasons I will not discuss on the forum, as a young child I put a lot of faith in God.

My first Bible was a children version of the Bible. Even when reading that book I believed all the stories that were in the book.

I really didn't start reading the (KJV) Bible until maybe 10 yrs ago (give or take a yr). When I first started reading the Bible I took on faith that what I was reading was to be taken literally.

So to answer your question, I suppose it was just me who made the decision to take the Bible literally.

 

[Cabal]

That's cute.That's real cute.

Yeah, it's a hard philosophy to subscribe to, huh AV?

Father and daughter? I don't think so. The father is already married (i.e. "one" with his spouse).Do you?

Well, it's your philosophy....it's not like there were any laws against it, so I'm sure they could go for it. Incest FTW!

Is there anything pure in the Bible with you guys?

All you're ever taught to do is view everyone as 'mutants'.

Not really, but if this is a sidelong comment about how believing in evolution devalues people....firstly, not even close, secondly, we're not the ones who have to weakly exclude INCEST for our origins theory to work.....

If you reverse the gene pool, will it not become purer the farther back in time you go?

No idea. Maybe somewhat. How pure it would need to be to avoid the negative effects of breeding with your siblings, if that's even possible - not sure.

Correct --- that is why God did not insist on the Death Penalty in his case.

And then a few generations later decided to inflict the Death Penalty on all but 8 people?

Maybe he should have had a Mt Sinai moment a good bit earlier than he did, get some legislation going?

Paul says where there is no law, there is no transgression of the law.

Sure. But there is still sin. Not the same thing as transgression of the law.

I'm not sure "expect you to" is right --- after all --- if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, you'd be out there looking for witches to burn, people to enslave, and genociding the rest.

No, we wouldn't necessarily. We just throw those scenarios at self-professed "literalists" to show they cherry-pick as much as everyone else and need to get off their damn high horse.

 

[Cabal]

Good timing.

Didn't I give you that response in response to someone coming up with explanations for the ten plagues, and you threw a hissy fit?

 

[Hespera]

Is there anything pure in the Bible with you guys?

All you're ever taught to do is view everyone as 'mutants'.

If you reverse the gene pool, will it not become purer the farther back in time you go?

if you guys ran the world like you interpret the Bible, you'd be out there looking for witches to burn, people to enslave, and genociding the rest.

I wonder if you could explain what you mean by "pure". You seem to be using it in two different ways here.

If you reverse the expansion of the universe, you end up at a point.

If you reverse the gene pool, you will end up with some other mammal, or a reptile, or fish, depending on when you decide to stop. Has nothing to do with "purity".

I wish you'd quit using that tired nonsense about "if you guys ran the world like you interpret the bible." Its the bible believers who went out burning and looting, not the ones who see it for what it is.

The whole "interpret the bible' thing reflects way way worse on the believers than on the ones you are trying to point a finger at. A smart move would be to quit bringing it up and highlighting it.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Contrary to popular belief, I was not raised in a Christian setting. Christianity wasn't shoved down my throat. My mom used Sunday School and Church activities as a "babysitter". To be perfectly honest, I don't recall (as a child) being taught about God (which I'm sure I was, I just don't remember). But for reasons I will not discuss on the forum, as a young child I put a lot of faith in God.

My first Bible was a children version of the Bible. Even when reading that book I believed all the stories that were in the book.

I really didn't start reading the (KJV) Bible until maybe 10 yrs ago (give or take a yr). When I first started reading the Bible I took on faith that what I was reading was to be taken literally.

So to answer your question, I suppose it was just me who made the decision to take the Bible literally.

I hope you don't mind, but I would really like to explore this further. (This type of thing really interests me)

First, let me say that I wasn't trying to presume one way or the other regarding how you were raised. I know some people make that assumption (I have made it myself in the past) and I din't want to get off on the wrong foot here.

I was actually raised in an episcopalian setting. I went to church, sunday school, youth group, was confirmed... I even served as a torch bearer and an acolyte, attended the Episcopal Youth Convention, and went on a couple mission trips.

What's interesting is that, throughout all of this... I can never once recall being told that the bible should be read literally. In fact, I can remember that there was a pretty big focus in the church on talking about the stories and different meanings in the bible.

For what it's worth, I actually believed in the stories of Adam and Eve, and Noah's Ark (hey, they were neat stories at that age).... but as I grew older, it gradually occured to me that many of those stories were just stories.


Now, in your case, it sounds like you read the stories early on... but didn't actually begin studying the bible until much later. As you said, when you started reading the KJV, you just "took [it] on faith" that it should be read literally.

I guess what I'm wondering is... what faith? Now, don't take that the wrong way. What I mean is this: If I were to pick up any old book, I would need to make some determinations about that book. Is it fiction or non-fiction? Is it a historcial account or could it be biased? Who wrote it? Where did it come from? If it contains stories, allegories, or metaphors... should they be read as literal happenings, or as metaphors and allegories?

I could probably make some of these determinations by glancing at the book... but some of the more interpretive determinations would require quite a bit of study into the text. However, it sounds like you simply made the assumption that what you were about to read was the literal truth about anything contained within.

I'm just curious how you made that determination... or how you decided to read the bible literally, rather than as a collection of stories. Was it when you picked it up? Or was it after you had read some of it already?

Sorry for all the questions.