Do you think that the story of Adam and Eve literally happened?

[ZNP]

Every world culture has its own flood myth. This is understandable because between the Flood and the tower of Babel there was just one basic culture and language, but when the population was split up into different language groups and migrated around the world, they took the Flood story with them, and over the thousands of years, the story changed according to the development of the particular culture and religion. But every culture has their own myth about a cataclysmic Flood, but the Bible account is the only one that presents a clear, unadulterated history of what actually happened.

Got it, you haven't actually read about the archaeological evidence on this because what you have just said is completely false. It is quite certain that there are a number of independent stories completely unrelated. Try reading up on the scientific research rather than spouting old wives tales (myths).

 

[Qwertyui0p]

That’s the real problem with this kind of thing. If a person’s faith is based on supposedly ‘literal’ readings of the text, which aren’t actually literal, but anyway, then that is a pretty shaky foundation. Faith that can’t withstand a serious consideration of the text it is based in is closer to credulity than considered belief.

Well in the case of Genesis, the text is quite clear that it is history and should be read plainly.

 

[Paul James]

Got it, you haven't actually read about the archaeological evidence on this because what you have just said is completely false. It is quite certain that there are a number of independent stories completely unrelated. Try reading up on the scientific research rather than spouting old wives tales (myths).

I guess over the 50 years of reading all sorts of archaeological accounts I might have missed something but not anything important.

 

[Archivist]

If you don't believe it, then why should you believe that Jesus was a real person who died on a real cross? If you are not going to believe one part of the Bible, you might as well not believe the rest of it, because you can't really know whether anything written in the Bible is true or not.

So I presume that you believe that bats are birds.

 

[ZNP]

I guess over the 50 years of reading all sorts of archaeological accounts I might have missed something but not anything important.

Just provide your references and lets see if you have any that are less than 20 years old.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Got it, you haven't actually read about the archaeological evidence on this because what you have just said is completely false. It is quite certain that there are a number of independent stories completely unrelated. Try reading up on the scientific research rather than spouting old wives tales (myths).

Scientists cannot tell you with any accuracy what happened millennia ago. That is what historians might say but only guessing.

 

[Archivist]

Scientists cannot tell you with any accuracy what happened millennia ago. That is what historians might say but only guessing.

Neither can the Bible given that there are two creation accounts that differ from each other.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Neither can the Bible given that there are two creation accounts that differ from each other.

No there aren’t. There are just people who think the order a matter is mentioned in a description has to be the order the action affecting them took place.

 

[Archivist]

No there aren’t. There are just people who think the order a matter is mentioned in a description has to be the order the action affecting them took place.

No, the accounts differ. Try reading them.

 

[ZNP]

No, the accounts differ. Try reading them.

Can you reference them for us?

 

[Archivist]

Can you reference them for us?

Sure. I thought this was common knowledge. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (specifically beginning at 2:4).

 

[ZNP]

Sure. I thought this was common knowledge. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (specifically beginning at 2:4).

Well there is a problem with that. Genesis 1:1 is clearly a reference to the creation, but God didn't create the world waste and void (Isaiah 45:18). So verse 2 is no longer referring to the creation but what happened after. Some translate this as "the Earth became waste and void". We know that after the creation there was the fall of Lucifer and many angels. This had to have happened prior to the account in Genesis 2 since he is already the serpent by that point. We are also told that he predates the creation of man by a very long time.

The second issue with the account that begins with Genesis 1:2 is that it does not correspond with the fossil record of life on Earth, however, it does correspond quite nicely with the end of the Last Ice age when the ground was covered with water, and when the first thing to appear when the water receded would have been grass. Interestingly this current age is now being referenced as the anthropocene, referring to the age of humans. This is where Genesis 2 begins, the age of man, when man had dominion over the earth. Therefore what you are referring to as the second account of the creation I refer to as the restoration, and really the first step in the restoration of all things, the first stage will be completed during the millennial kingdom.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No, the accounts differ. Try reading them.

I have more then you obviously. Try reading it without the prejudice.

 

[The Barbarian]

My opinion is that if Genesis is written off as how God actually created the world, then the death of Jesus on the cross is written off too, because both are intricately linked.

That's one of the problems with trying to make it a literal history. If it is, then there's no need for the Resurrection.

On the other hand, if it's about real people, who disobeyed God, then there's no problem with the creation week being an allegory.

I'm aware that many YE creationists adjust the concept to allow a literal week of 24-hour days, and still consider the death and resurrection of Jesus to be necessary for our salvation. It's a little forced, but so long as they accept that fact, they can be wrong about the rest of it, and still be saved.

 

[ZNP]

That's one of the problems with trying to make it a literal history.

I have always felt that square pegs fit into square holes without any real effort and likewise with round pegs. If you have to force the issue you should rethink the whole thing.

If you consider the account in Genesis 1 beginning with verse 2 as being an account of what happened after the last ice age it fits without any effort. If you try to make it some kind of super brief history of how God created everything then it doesn't fit and you run into problems with God in Job telling us that we have no idea about how He did it.

 

[quaternion]

Just curious. I really don't.

yes

 

[Archivist]

Well there is a problem with that. Genesis 1:1 is clearly a reference to the creation, but God didn't create the world waste and void (Isaiah 45:18). So verse 2 is no longer referring to the creation but what happened after. Some translate this as "the Earth became waste and void". We know that after the creation there was the fall of Lucifer and many angels. This had to have happened prior to the account in Genesis 2 since he is already the serpent by that point. We are also told that he predates the creation of man by a very long time.

The second issue with the account that begins with Genesis 1:2 is that it does not correspond with the fossil record of life on Earth, however, it does correspond quite nicely with the end of the Last Ice age when the ground was covered with water, and when the first thing to appear when the water receded would have been grass. Interestingly this current age is now being referenced as the anthropocene, referring to the age of humans. This is where Genesis 2 begins, the age of man, when man had dominion over the earth. Therefore what you are referring to as the second account of the creation I refer to as the restoration, and really the first step in the restoration of all things, the first stage will be completed during the millennial kingdom.

Except Genesis 2 doesn't begin with the "age of man," it begins with "[a]t the time when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." That was before the "age of man." It also lists man as being created before plants, while Genesis 1:11 says that plants were created before man. Genesis 1 also lists animals as being created before man; Genesis 2 lists man as being created first. Your explanation only makes sense if you ignore significant parts of Genesis.

 

[Archivist]

I have more then you obviously. Try reading it without the prejudice.

If you have read it so extensively, please explain why Genesis 1 lists plants and animals as being created before man when Genesis 2 says man was created before plants or animals. It isn't a matter of reading it "without the prejudice" as you claim. It is a matter of simply reading what is written.

 

[Paul James]

So I presume that you believe that bats are birds.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

 

[Paul James]

Just provide your references and lets see if you have any that are less than 20 years old.

Can't be bothered. Too early in the morning.