Genesis 1 is to be taken literaly - it is the only logical option

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

Anything to do with Christ, however, had thousands of eyewitnesses so it is irresponsible to say the literalness of one is inherited by the other.

Cherry-picking baloney.
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)
By your words Christ Himself is judged to be irresponsible.

 

[solid_core]

Yes, He most certainly did.

Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (John 5:39)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us (John 1:14)

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)

Reading and quoting Bible is not enough. You must also understand what you read and quote.

You should also have some info about the Bible, about its origin, history, composition, goal, genres etc.

 

[DamianWarS]

Cherry-picking baloney.
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)
By your words Christ Himself is judged to be irresponsible.

I don't deny this. I have very high regard for the words and view them under direct inspiration God. But this doesn't mean I see literalness in pre-Abrahamic accounts as the highest value or role they occupy in scripture. For some reason, people claim I reject the bible because of this as you are doing now. What's the allergy to non-literal accounts?

 

[rjs330]

You have a "degree in biblical literature" and do not recognize clear mythological themes mirroring Summerian, Babylonian and Egyptian mythology?

What University did you attend to get that degree?

The mythological references that are referred to in liberal theology do not corolatr at all with scripture. I've read the creation mythologies. About the only real similarities are that they are supposed to have been written at the same time. And since we know that the Babylonian and Egypttion accounts are myth there is no reason to believe Genesis is too. Especially when other scriptures verify the Genesis account.

Liberal theologians, most which are not Christians by the way, make assumptions that the Genesis account is myth. So they try and find reasons to say so. They assume since a snake talked therefore it's myth. They assume since God was trying to specify what a day is then that's myth. The Biblical accurate account of creation does not mirror the other accounts.

God confirmed he created in six days.

 

[rjs330]

Say, while we're smiling and making lists and inviting scientists to vomit all over our sacred accounts of origins: What say we give them a crack at some of our core beliefs as well? Shouldn't we get their okay on things such as:

-God Who is 1 and 3 at the same time--you know, 1+1+1=1?
-One of which becomes a man via virgin birth?
-Who also lives a completely virtuous life?
-Who dies and is risen from the dead?
-Who then floats away to Heaven?
-and by this divine course of events makes it possible for us to live forever?

Shall we accept these things blindly without the facility of common sense and scientific scrutiny?

Really awesome points.

 

[rjs330]

There is no scientific evidence against God, his existence, His power, against His miracles, against Jesus Christ and against His life, death and resurrection.

There is plenty scientific evidence against the young earth and literal reading of Genesis.

This is the difference.

That's because science cannot test, or observe God. Science cannot test or observe resurrection from the dead. What interesting is that science can't observe or test evolution from a common ancestor either.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Observations are possible, but will not make any sense.

"Simple organisms turned to a complex ones in time" is a statement describing what we observe in nature.

Observations don't make any sense to people who choose not to understand them.

If you want to understand why something you observe happens, chances are you will try to.

Observations are what we see, hear, feel, smell, and taste. Therefore, they are not just poassible, but the actual events we are witnessing and the traits we perceive.

 

[GodLovesCats]

That's because science cannot test, or observe God. Science cannot test or observe resurrection from the dead. What interesting is that science can't observe or test evolution from a common ancestor either.

Science certainly can observe and test evolution. It always has. The lack of proof that "this species turned into that species"is because evolution does not work the way people on this forum are saying it does. The natural events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus have also been tested: the earthquake, a solar eclipse, and the spring equinox. In this way it is possible to figure out when The Last Supper occured, when Jesus was crucified, and when he died.

 

[rjs330]

I, in fact, am quite careful not to call it a myth and am explicit that what was written down is from direct influence from God... did you miss that because I'm confused by your comments?

This is simply how Ancient Eastern culture works, they start with the goal and fill the details to meet the goal, the details are true because the goal is worthy of them being true and it being literal or not has less value. Western culture uses the facts to prove the hypothesis and this is the highest form of truth but it's is going to be incompatible with many Eastern accounts (like the creation accounts) and will completely miss the point.

The creation account is 2500 years removed from Moses and it would have had high competition and influence from surrounding cultures. That's like writing the gospels for the first time today having only oral knowledge passed down of it and a pile of different versions circulating around.

It is clear the Hebrews had mass theology misgivings post-exodus but why wouldn't they? They had no scripture, no temple, no priest, no leader (prior to Moses) and no organized religion. Their most coveted and unique accounts would have been Abraham Issac and Jacob and they would have the highest accuracy since it was uniquely their undisputed history... but pre-Abrahamic accounts would have high competition and influence from surrounding cultures. If this was anyone other people group/religion we would laugh at these accounts, labelling them immediately as myth and toss them out.

I don't call them myth but I recognize the myth likeness they carry. Instead, I see God divinely inspiring Moses to present a redeem de-paganized account, highly contextualized, with deep-seated truth to proclaim that God is the creator of all things explicitly rejecting any paganized thinking and implicitly rejecting other competing accounts like the Egyptian creation myth that is very similar to Genesis (but it's older).

Idol worship and pagan ways were a mass problem. Look at what Moses came down to, the high priest of God making an idol, claiming it made itself and everyone worshiping it. Now, what are the first commandment and second commandments? Not to mention the 40 years of wandering in the desert to cleanse the old ways out of them. The creation account is about correct theology not about over literal facts, but this doesn't make it any less truth or real. We don't get it, because we develope our theology form other parts of the bible and the creation account acts as a way to affirm them but this wasn't the purpose of it. The creation account on the surface is about rejecting gods and affirming God and the creator of all things but goes far deeper than this.

to me, literalists have a far greater demand to prove their position but they write the argument off as blasphemous, or what did you say "hogwash", and in doing so miss the grand depth of the account. I personally think I place greater value upon the words of the creation account over any literalist does.

I disagree. Literalists trust exactly what is said. Liberal theologians do not. They are the ones that must prove that what is written is not accurate. And to do so they try and make myth of Egyptian accounts be the basis of interpreting Genesis.

If we are going to call the Egyptian account as myth and then use that to determine the accuracy of Genesis then Genesis becomes myth. It's a violation of literary interpretation to say that an account fits the criteria we place on myth, bit it's not really a myth.

That may be the goal of eastern myth but that is not God's goal. God said he is not a man that he should lie. He also doesn't deceive. In Exodus God says he created is 6 days. Genesis he described what a day is. He does not lie or deceive. God's goal is NEVER detailed in scripture to match eastern mythology. It's to be honest and define truth.

And again oral tradition has nothing to do with Genesis. Inspiration does. God inspired the writer to write and what to write. God's goal is to set the record straight.

Note what God says to Moses. He says, "This is what you are to say to the people." God says that more thàn once. God says that he created in six days. The scripture says Moses wrote down every word God said.

The Hebrews probably heard all the myjologies of Egypt. God set them straight with the truth. He tells them what what created, when it was created and how long it took him. He was directly countering the mythology of what they heard.

And the only reason we dismiss the Egyptian account is because we KNOW the truth. It's called faith in God. Faith that God does not lie or deceive.

 

[rjs330]

God did not tell us how things came to be. Hebrew Scriptures are not God.

You mix everything together. You must properly divide.

Oh yes he did tell us how things came to be. The scriptures are not God, but they are the Words of God. I am writing this post. These words are not me. But they are my words and they are accurate to what I believe and what I am portraying. And I am a man. Just think how much more accurate on God's words.

 

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

Reading and quoting Bible is not enough. You must also understand what you read and quote.

I might have figured one or two things out in 44 years of reading and studying. I aren't educated like some guys is, but I thought I are smart enuff.

You should also have some info about the Bible, about its origin, history, composition, goal, genres etc.

That's odd since there's no indication that Christ had the advantage of fancy study tools as a child and yet He amazed the learned doctors of Theology when He was twelve-years-old.

I supposed this means that He was miraculously gifted with understanding and since we weren't there to gather scientific evidence of this miracle, it's perfectly all right to believe.

 

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

Really awesome points.

You're very kind.

 

[rjs330]

Science certainly can observe and test evolution. It always has. The lack of proof that "this species turned into that species"is because evolution does not work the way people on this forum are saying it does. The natural events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus have also been tested: the earthquake, a solar eclipse, and the spring equinox. In this way it is possible to figure out when The Last Supper occured, when Jesus was crucified, and when he died.

Evolution exactly works that way. One thing in the beginning existed and evolved into all there is today. That precisely is "this species turned into that species." One thing did all this. One thing had all the genetic material necessary to become a trout, a cat, an elephant, a kangaroo, a snake or a virus or whatever else you want to name.

 

[GodLovesCats]

RJC, I was saying it is not as simple as something like a lizard making bird eggs - that does not happen. I got the impression creationists who oppose the evolution idea based it on this logic: your child will not be a kangaroo. Evolution is a process that begins at the top of the Tree of Life (usually called kingdoms) with one ancestor for all animals, one for all plants, etc. Then it splits again many times; the farther down you go, the more species group divisions can be seen. Taxonomists describe it as an upside down tree.

 

[rjs330]

RJC, I was saying it is not as simple as something like a lizard making bird eggs - that does not happen. I got the impression creationists who oppose the evolution idea based it on this logic: your child will not be a kangaroo. Evolution is a process that begins at the top of the Tree of Life (usually called kingdoms) with one ancestor for all animals, one for all plants, etc. Then it splits again many times; the farther down you go, the more species group divisions can be seen. Taxonomists describe it as an upside down tree.

I think evolutionists misunderstand our point of view. We know that evolution doesn't teach that a lizard suddenly sprouted wings. We know the theory supposes a gradual change over long periods of time. It's pretty hard to miss that as it's taught that way from the first moment we get hit with it in school.

The problem is that there is no real observed or testable evidence that shows that it's possible for that to occur. There is no fossile record of it. It's an assumption based solely on similarities. The taxonomy tree is nothing but assumptions. There is no real record of any of it actually occurring. And there is no testable science and no observable incidence to show that it occurred the way they assume it did.

 

[DamianWarS]

the earthquake, a solar eclipse, and the spring equinox.

Jesus died at Passover, and Passover is when there is a full moon. Meaning the sun is shining on the surface of the moon that is facing the earth so if the sun is to your left the moon would be to your right.

In order for a solar eclipse to happen the sun is blocked by the moon, being the same relative position, where the moon itself would not be visible since the side that is facing the earth is not being illuminated, this moon is a new moon, not a full moon.

also I'm not sure if science has ever recorded a solar eclipse lasting longer than a few minutes let alone for 3 hours long. if we are to assume the earth was spinning and the Passover was celebrated at the right time the moon had nothing to do with the sun's darkness. What is more plausible is a weather phenomenon that would be enough to block the sun but not enough to comment on extreme differences in the weather.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

1. Evolution is not always called "theory", its used without this word even in scientific works

2. Scientific term "theory" is something different than what you think.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia

And yet, it remains fabricated, unproven, ungodly, and unsure.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Thank God then for microbiology, chemistry, physics, computer science, mathematics... "real" science where we do NOT find this happening among its world class scientists when they meet.

Sorry, no.

and ecology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, etc.

and again, no.

What does mankind DO with all the knowledge it 'has' (as if anyone knows anything) ?

It seeks to drag everyone down into destruction, inevitably, as Scripture says, apart from Jesus Christ,
contrary to the True Gospel of Christ Crucified (dead to the world, the world dead to us in Christ).

 

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

For some reason, people claim I reject the bible because of this as you are doing now.

I did no such thing.

What's the allergy to non-literal accounts?

I have no such allergy. I have reason to believe that the creation account, while perhaps containing some symbolic elements (as most of Scripture does) is not non-literal. I also subscribe to the principle that some Scripture, such as certain visions and dreams by Joseph, Daniel, Peter, John, etc. are meant to illustrate prophecy and are not necessarily literal.accounts. I err on the side of caution and make no apologies for doing so.

Sorry, no.

and again, no.

What does mankind DO with all the knowledge it 'has' (as if anyone knows anything) ?

It seeks to drag everyone down into destruction, inevitably, as Scripture says, apart from Jesus Christ,
contrary to the True Gospel of Christ Crucified (dead to the world, the world dead to us in Christ).

You're going over a cliff God never intended here. Knowledge is not evil. We couldn't build homes, hospitals, nor houses of worship without true science. Let's not go off the rails in an attempt to keep on the tracks.

 

[solid_core]

And yet, it remains fabricated, unproven, ungodly, and unsure.

Only if you want it to be.