Dinosaurs on the Ark?

[Lily of Valleys]

It's too bad creationists don't follow them

This is apparently a false generalization.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jesus is sand?

Good point.

I'll change it.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

It's called building a house of cards.

Nope. To use the original version of your post (sand) - the foundation of my faith is stronger now. My experience has been that allegory strengthened my faith.

 

[Speedwell]

This is apparently a false generalization.

Perhaps I should have said that they appproach those rules with some unshakable preconceived notions. Take, for example,

Principle 7: Be sensitive to the type of literature you are in.

Genre determination is very important, not an easy task at all, especially with such ancient texts. Yet the creationists decide a priori that the text of Genesis must be 100% accurate literal history.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. To use the original version of your post (sand) - the foundation of my faith is stronger now.

Good. If you're foundation is Jesus Christ, as you say He is, I will not dispute that.

My experience has been that allegory strengthened my faith.

And I'll reiterate that an allegorical book of Genesis is an anti-Semite book of Genesis.

Does it surprise you that the Hall of Faith chapter (Hebrews 11) in the Bible includes Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham & Sarah?

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Good. If you're foundation is Jesus Christ, as you say He is, I will not dispute that.

And I'll reiterate that an allegorical book of Genesis is an anti-Semite book of Genesis.

Does it surprise you that the Hall of Faith chapter (Hebrews 11) in the Bible includes Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham & Sarah?

Please drop the anti-Semite claim. It is antithetical to a productive discussion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please drop the anti-Semite claim.

Not hardly.

And I mean no disrespect to you personally, but my job is to find something wrong with the allegorical method, and I think the LORD has shown me what it is.

It is antithetical to a productive discussion.

I'm not going to sit here and keep silent while others tell me how wrong the literal method is.

 

[Tutorman]

Both groups are almost 2000 yrs from anything in NT Scripture and even more from the OT, it's easy for all of us to say it was this or that way. To use the Holy Spirit as the reason we believe one way or another about Genesis. The truth of the matter is that we just don't know, we can sit in our arms chair and pretend we are smart and know it's allegory or literal but come down to brass tacks we will never know this side of glory. It does not matter to our salvation just to our pride

 

[AV1611VET]

It does not matter to our salvation just to our pride

No, it doesn't matter to our salvation; but I get the impression you couldn't care less if the book of Genesis is allegorical or literal.

Is that correct?

 

[Tutorman]

Then you guess wrong

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you guess wrong

Okay.

 

[EpiscipalMe]

Not hardly.

And I mean no disrespect to you personally, but my job is to find something wrong with the allegorical method, and I think the LORD has shown me what it is.

I'm not going to sit here and keep silent while others tell me how wrong the literal method is.

Well, I think you misunderstand the Lord if you think He is telling you that interpreting Genesis as allegory is anti-Semitic.

So, if that is the tactic you are going to use, then I guess we are done.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, if that is the tactic you are going to use, then I guess we are done.

That's too bad, because frankly, I have questions that I don't think you thought of that I'd like to see answered; but I guess you're too emotional to defend your stance.

Such as:

How did the Jews wind up in Egypt, if all of Genesis is allegory?

Or is Exodus allegory as well?

 

[Tutorman]

or where does allegory end? How do we know that the whole Bible is not allegory? Once one begins a slippery slope there is no end to the sliding.

 

[Speedwell]

Such as:

How did the Jews wind up in Egypt, if all of Genesis is allegory?

Or is Exodus allegory as well?

Such as, who says all of Genesis is allegory?

 

[Speedwell]

or where does allegory end? How do we know that the whole Bible is not allegory? Once one begins a slippery slope there is no end to the sliding.

Only if you're just guessing about the genre determination.

 

[Tutorman]

Not really, if one can justify that this or that is allegory than were does it stop. That's the problem with the allegory crowd they act like they are smarter than someone who doesn't take Genesis as allegory, when in reality no one knows if it was really allegory unless they have a time machine and prove it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Such as, who says all of Genesis is allegory?

QV:

You misunderstand me. I don't think Genesis 1-11 are allegory. I think all of Genesis is allegory. When interpreting an allegory there does not need to be a one-to-one correlation between figures in the story and meaning in reality. The whole thing tells us who created heaven, Earth, and all creatures (God) and the consequences of sin.

 

[KWCrazy]

And neither has anyone here said that Genesis was not true. We've pointed this out several times, and you still "misrepresent" what we say.

And I've asked as many times, "an allegory for what?"
There isn't much doubt among scholars of ancient Hebrew that the author of Genesis intended to convey a six day creation. There is even less doubt that God Himself would carve the 10 commandments into stone tablets and would include the words "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it. You can't reject the six day creation without rejecting the original writing of the Ten Commandments; the foundation of Christian law.

It is not a greater understanding of the Scriptures that results in calling Genesis allegory, which is why not a single TE can point to ANY passages of Scripture to support their argument. Rather it is a rejection of the clear teaching to embrace the lie of evolution that leads to people claiming that Genesis doesn't mean what it says. God said He created man from dust. You say He did no such thing. Jesus said that Adam and Eve were created by God "From the beginning." You say that was not so, both evolved from lesser developed parents. I do not in any way misrepresent what you say. I clarify it. The misrepresentation is yours, because you espouse doctrine not found in the Scriptures for which you cannot produce Biblical authority.

Which is exactly what we are trying to tell you too - yet you make creationism an idol that rivals the power of Jesus salvific power.

Show me Scripture that supports what you espouse and I'll listen to your argument. When you say, "Look at the evidence in the rocks and trees" your argument fails because these things are subjective. God could have created the world over billions of years, and yet time and time again the Bible returns to a six day creation as referenced in Genesis. It also contends that prior to the fall there was no death. No death, no evolution. The fall isn't rejected because it is allegory, it is rejected because one cannot believe it and accept evolution. The same applies to the flood. You don't contend it never happened because there are passages in the Scripture that show it to be a metaphor, you say it never happened because such an event would disprove
that man evolved over millions of years and was not created by God.

We here the same arguments from atheists. If your want your argument to have credence you need to produce Biblical doctrine to support it. Otherwise we can't tell one's argument from another without looking for the faith icon. The Scriptures represent "every word that comes from the mouth of God." That is what we need to sustain us, not unsubstantiated claims of "allegory."

Show where we "stand against what was written".

Show where you do not.

Graham said that the creation could have happened by an evolutionary process.

Graham was wrong.

You just said that this was not "contradicting the Bible" -

Graham didn't teach that Genesis was allegory. He said the Bible could be interpreted differently and left it at that. He never showed in anything I've seen any scriptural evidence to support evolution either. Mostly, he avoided the argument. I disagree with him on that. he was a champion for the word of God. He should have stood up stronger for the writings of Moses.

Simply and demonstrably false.

Good. Demonstrate it.

As you know, and I have shown you multiple times, as others have reminded you, most of the support for evolution in the united states comes from Christians - and most scientists themselves are believers.

Arguments by popularity are not relevant.
Does belief in evolution contradict the special creation of man by God; yes or no?
Does belief in evolution contradict the entry of sin and death into the world by Adam's sin; yes or no?
Does belief in evolution require one to disavow the great flood that destroyed "all who had in them the breath of life;" yes or no?
Does belief in evolution require one to disavow the Fourth Commandment as recorded in Exodus 20:11; yes or no?
Does belief in evolution require one to disavow Christ's statement that "From the beginning they were created male and female;" yes or no?
You get the picture.
Evolution is not a statement of faith, it's a rejection of Scripture. Regardless of whether you call it allegory, metaphor or the musings of bronze aged sheep herders, it all comes down to having to look at large portions of the Bible and saying "That's simply not true as written."

Accepting the reality of evolution is not "siding with the godless", it's siding with believers.

Which believers?
Jesus believed that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, that Noah and the flood was a factual event, that sin and death came into the world through one man and that God's commandments were true as written.
You follow your believers, I'll follow Christ. I'm pretty confident that you aren't going to be able to make the case that Christ believed in evolution, or that He, the son of God, didn't know the truth.

 

[Speedwell]

Does belief in evolution contradict the special creation of man by God; yes or no?

No.

Does belief in evolution contradict the entry of sin and death into the world by Adam's sin; yes or no?

No.

Does belief in evolution require one to disavow the great flood that destroyed "all who had in them the breath of life;" yes or no?

No. That would be geology and related Earth sciences. Evolution is a theory of biology.

Does belief in evolution require one to disavow the Fourth Commandment as recorded in Exodus 20:11; yes or no?

Ex 20:11 is not part of the Fourth Commandment.

Does belief in evolution require one to disavow Christ's statement that "From the beginning they were created male and female;" yes or no?

No.

Evolution is not a statement of faith, it's a rejection of Scripture. Regardless of whether you call it allegory, metaphor or the musings of bronze aged sheep herders, it all comes down to having to look at large portions of the Bible and saying "That's simply not true as written."

It may not be true as you interpret it. But it is all the inspired Word of God, whatever the genre of any particular text may be.