An Origins poll

[theywhosowintears]

I don't believe i have had the pleasure of posting in here yet.

I will be very honest in my first post here in Origins. I am a YEC type of guy. Very literal take on Genesis and also am quite interested in reading things like Creation Magazine and TJ (both Answers in Genesis type things)

I just want to test the waters in here so to speak.

Anyhow if you want to make comments...try keep it within the scope of this topic:

"the biggest reason why I believe (insert your creation/origin view here) is..."

 

[SBG]

The Bible states it clearly for one in Genesis. Exodus follows in with stating six day creation in a literal passages. Jesus talks about it. Paul preaches it. Church Fathers believed it.

Hey, I am just a dumb sheep following in the line of Jesus Christ our God's teachings.

 

[mhess13]

YEC

YEC is the ONLY creation theory which is biblically sound. OEC and TE place death before sin, which is heretical

 

[Windmill]

I take gensis literally. If you don't... then what is the point of Jesus coming to earth and dying for our sins?

 

[Vance]

I am wondering why you did not include an option for Theistic Evolution, which makes up about half of the regular posters here. As for why, there is a really good thread called "What is Theistic Evolution" on the first page. That covers the issue fairly well.

I will say that I believe utterly and completely what the Bible says. I just don't think it says what YEC's say it says. I agree with Billy Graham when he says that Christians have often made the mistake of treating the Bible as if it was a science book. It is not meant to provide detailed scientific information, it is telling us the WHO and WHY, not the WHEN and HOW.

 

[gluadys]

"the biggest reason why I believe (insert your creation/origin view here) is..."

I am going to cheat and give two reasons, because they are more or less equally important. I believe theistic evolution (aka evolutionary creationism) is the best view of origins because:

1. The bible makes a whole lot more sense to me read via the literary styles it was written in than via a post-Enlightenment view that says only fact can be true.

and

2. There is simply too much evidence in God's creation that is inconsistent with the thesis that the biblical account of creation is scientifically factual.

 

[gluadys]

I take gensis literally. If you don't... then what is the point of Jesus coming to earth and dying for our sins?

For the same reason those who do take Genesis literally say: to reveal the Father's love for us and to atone for our sins by his death and resurrection.

Why would not taking Genesis literally make us any less sinful and in need of redemption?

 

[PaladinValer]

Theistic Evolution, as since Adam and Eve hadn't partaken of the fruit of the Tree of Life yet, it implies that they were mortal to begin with, so that the death discussed isn't biological death but spiritual death.

Edit: And since heresy can, according to history, be only declared by Church council or synod, OEC, YEC, TE, etc, are all non-heresies.

 

[SBG]

Theistic Evolution, as since Adam and Eve hadn't partaken of the fruit of the Tree of Life yet, it implies that they were mortal to begin with, so that the death discussed isn't biological death but spiritual death.

Edit: And since heresy can, according to history, be only declared by Church council or synod, OEC, YEC, TE, etc, are all non-heresies.

Actually the Bible doesn't say if Adam or Eve ate of the Tree of Life. That is your assumption.

 

[PaladinValer]

And it is your's also.

Yet the fact remains that some species only live for less than a day...even less than a hour. Death logically still occurred, even under the YEC idea. Yet if YEC theology states that no biological death before Adam and Eve's fall, then there is the Fallacy of Inconsistency, and therefore, I cannot personally agree with it.

 

[Matthew777]

"the biggest reason why I believe (insert your creation/origin view here) is..."

Patristic Creationism is the traditional Orthodox understanding of Genesis as interpreted and passed down by the ancient fathers of the Church.
Genesis is the foundation of who we are, and the Paradise that we lost in the fall is what we are striving to reach again through Christ.
The doctrine of original sin is absurd without a literal Adam and Eve and literal fall.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[PaladinValer]

Side note: TE doesn't imply no literal Adam and Eve,

-A TE who believes in a literal Adam and Eve

 

[bdfoster]

Actually the Bible doesn't say if Adam or Eve ate of the Tree of Life. That is your assumption.

No, it's fairly certain that they did not eat from the tree of life.
Genesis 3 says:

22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken...

This passage clearly indicates that they would have lived forever had they eaten from the Tree of Life. But of course this is spiritual life, and IMO the tree is that which gives spiritual life, Jesus Christ, not a literal wooden tree.

 

[SBG]

No, it's fairly certain that they did not eat from the tree of life.
Genesis 3 says:

This passage clearly indicates that they would have lived forever had they eaten from the Tree of Life. But of course this is spiritual life, and IMO the tree is that which gives spiritual life, Jesus Christ, not a literal wooden tree.

Again the Bible doesn't state they did not eat of the tree of life at any time while they were there. Can you find the sentence that states this - that they did not eat of it? It is your assumption from interpretation that suggests they didn't eat it.

I am not trying to disagree with your outcome, but how you got there. Besides, God could have taken away the life they had received from the fruit for their disobedience. And if taken in context with the original language, it is more than just spiritual life, it is also physical life. But if we want to discuss this further, lets start a new thread so we don't keep this thread off topic.

 

[PaladinValer]

Actually, bdfoster's post points to the fact indirectly that they didn't. God would have known if they did, and since He worried that they might now taste of the fruit, He kicked them out.

They never therefore partook.

 

[bdfoster]

Again the Bible doesn't state they did not eat of the tree of life at any time while they were there. Can you find the sentence that states this - that they did not eat of it? It is your assumption from interpretation that suggests they didn't eat it.

I am not trying to disagree with your outcome, but how you got there. Besides, God could have taken away the life they had received from the fruit for their disobedience. And if taken in context with the original language, it is more than just spiritual life, it is also physical life. But if we want to discuss this further, lets start a new thread so we don't keep this thread off topic.

This is unbelievable! I can't beleive you actually wrote that. The passage (which you convieneintly snipped in your post)

and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--

could not be more clear without actually saying the exact words "they did not eat of it". What do you think, God was afraid Adam would eat from the tree AGAIN??? That is absurd! If there were no concequences to eating it the first time why would there be a second time??? The phrase "they did not eat of it" is not necessary to know with absolute certantity that they did not eat of it. If you can read that passage and still think that maybe Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life you might as well say black is white.

 

[Jatopian]

OEC. Only it fits the evidence.

 

[SBG]

This is unbelievable! I can't beleive you actually wrote that. The passage (which you convieneintly snipped in your post)

First of all let's not jump to conclusions here bdfoster. When I clicked quote the verse did not come up in the quote. If you would like me to insert into my previous post I would be more than happy to.

Well, I wrote it, so it is safe to believe that I did.

could not be more clear without actually saying the exact words "they did not eat of it". What do you think, God was afraid Adam would eat from the tree AGAIN??? That is absurd! If there were no concequences to eating it the first time why would there be a second time??? The phrase "they did not eat of it" is not necessary to know with absolute certantity that they did not eat of it. If you can read that passage and still think that maybe Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life you might as well say black is white.

Again, if you really want to argue me on this subject, please start a new thread and I would be more than happy to respond. And please don't assume you know where I was going with this, because by what you posted you are completely off.

Start a new thread and leave this one to what it was originally intended for.

 

[bdfoster]

SBG
I appologize for the antogonistic tone of my post. When I typed it I was trying to express incredulity. But re-reading it, it sounds a little too much. Sorry brother.

 

[gluadys]

Besides, God could have taken away the life they had received from the fruit for their disobedience.

As I read Gen. 3:22 it would appear that this was not the case. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter if they ate the fruit of the tree of life after the fall, because God could still take away the effect. As written, Gen. 3:22 implies the gift of life from the tree of life is permanent and cannot be taken away. Hence the preventive measures.