Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

Keachian · Jan 22, 2012

Ok on the one hand you're saying that because God gave life Man has free will and so is fallen and so on, while on the other hand you're saying that the same sort of language means that the word of God has been dictated to man, therefore it is infallible, perfect, unquestionable and so on, do you understand what I'm saying here?

mathetes123 · Jan 22, 2012

progmonk said:
Ok on the one hand you're saying that because God gave life Man has free will and so is fallen and so on, while on the other hand you're saying that the same sort of language means that the word of God has been dictated to man, therefore it is infallible, perfect, unquestionable and so on, do you understand what I'm saying here?

No, I don't get what you are saying because you are trying to force a meaning that just isn't there rather than accept what scripture actually says

Keachian · Jan 22, 2012

mathetes123 said:
No, I don't get what you are saying because you are trying to force a meaning that just isn't there rather than accept what scripture actually says

Where does the bible say that it is infallible, perfect, unquestionable and so on? I know that it is sufficient for teaching, reproof, correction and training, all in righteousness, but I don't understand how that equates to, read it literally or go to hell.

chris4243 · Jan 22, 2012

TasManOfGod said:
What facts are you talking about?

Genetics. Either the billions of base pairs over the millions of species and the millions of individuals within a species match the flood story taken literally as an extreme population bottleneck, or they don't. Which way do you guess it is?

TasManOfGod said:
I also have some personal theories about some land based animals. Before the flood there was very much less ocean area than now and a large amount (perhaps all) was connected and the whole land mass would have had virtually all the species. I believe that some land based animals may have survived the flood as young within the pouch of their mother who did not survive eg. kangaroos and koalas for instance. I believe this would be within the true meaning of the flood account.
The animals from the ark could have decimated any such surviving specie causing extinction or partial extinction on the continents reached in post flood conditions and allowing survival on isolated continents like Australia.

And you think that point of view is consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis?

21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

TasManOfGod · Jan 22, 2012

chris4243 said:
Genetics. Either the billions of base pairs over the millions of species and the millions of individuals within a species match the flood story taken literally as an extreme population bottleneck, or they don't. Which way do you guess it is?I dont quess

-I just believe -literally How is up to the "experts"

And you think that point of view is consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis?

21 Every living thing that moved on land perishedbirds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Yes:
"Everyliving thing that moved on land" -complied
"the creatures that swarm over the earth"- complied
"all mankind."-complied
"Everythingon dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils"-complied
"Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out" -complied
"people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark" - complied

SkyWriting · Jan 27, 2012

progmonk said:
Where does the bible say that it is infallible, perfect, unquestionable and so on? I know that it is sufficient for teaching, reproof, correction and training, all in righteousness, but I don't understand how that equates to, read it literally or go to hell.

We don't need the Bible at all...says the Bible:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

But perfection of the scriptures is suggested:

Matthew 5:18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

mathetes123 · Jan 28, 2012

progmonk said:
Where does the bible say that it is infallible, perfect, unquestionable and so on? I know that it is sufficient for teaching, reproof, correction and training, all in righteousness, but I don't understand how that equates to, read it literally or go to hell.

It says it is god breathed, which implies infallibility. No one said if you don't interpret it literally you will go to hell. There is no reason not to interpret it literally except where the context indicates otherwise unless of course you want to ascribe a meaning different from what it actually says, after all, words have meaning.

Keachian · Jan 28, 2012

I'm Godbreathed (Gen 2:7) does that make me infallible?

Also all my contextual study of the Bible leads me to not interpret Gen 1-3 literally and this is without even trying to reconcile the text to modern scientific thought, this is me attempting to understand what the text meant to the original audience.

mathetes123 · Jan 28, 2012

progmonk said:
I'm Godbreathed (Gen 2:7) does that make me infallible?

Also all my contextual study of the Bible leads me to not interpret Gen 1-3 literally and this is without even trying to reconcile the text to modern scientific thought, this is me attempting to understand what the text meant to the original audience.

Apples and oranges

chris4243 · Jan 28, 2012

SkyWriting said:
We don't need the Bible at all...says the Bible:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

And who better to learn about the world than scientists?

Marshall Janzen · Jan 28, 2012

mathetes123 said:
It says it is god breathed, which implies infallibility.

The point of saying something is God-breathed is to communicate that it is alive. But to explain that, a bit of a lengthy post...

What was Paul referring to as Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:15-17? I think we as Christians tend to both expand and shrink what Paul had in mind. We expand it because Paul is speaking about the Old Testament. Yet, I think Paul's words show us how to recognize Scripture by its qualities, not by giving us the table of contents. Scripture instructs for salvation through faith in Jesus, it is God-breathed, it's useful, it equips us for good works. In the time since Paul wrote that, the church has recognized that some of Paul's own letters, as well as some writings of others, fit this description. This process was already starting in those days, as we see in another 3:16, 2 Peter 3:16. Because we can say about the New Testament what Paul says about the Old, it fits to call both Scripture.

Christians also often shrink what Paul is talking about. We tend to think that only the original manuscripts were inspired, and sadly they are lost to time: Our English Bibles derive from an inspired original, but since we can't be sure they match the originals in every detail, they are not themselves inspired. However, Paul says that the very writings that Timothy knew from childhood (which were copies and almost certainly translated copies) are among the sacred writings that are inspired by God. It doesn't matter that those copies weren't perfect, or that translations always change things a bit. What Timothy had received as a child was still Scripture. If we struggle with that, I think it's because we have a faulty idea of what it means for a writing to be inspired by God -- to be God-breathed.

Progmonk already pointed out the connection that both Adam and Scripture are said to be God-breathed. I did a bit of a word study on this. In Greek, the term translated God-breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16 is unique to that verse, but it appears to be a compound word made from θεός (God/god) and πνέω (blow/wind). The seven New Testament occurrences of πνέω all refer to blowing winds.

In Hebrew, the closest parallel to this Greek verb is the one that describes God breathing into Adam, נָפַח (naphach). It is used again to describe corpses being breathed to life in Ezekiel 37:9. It also describes the animated movement of a boiling pot (Job 41:20, Jeremiah 1:13), and blowing on a fire to fan it to life (Job 20:26, Isaiah 54:16, Ezekiel 22:20-21). The other references are either more basic (simply referring to breath or blowing) or in the final two cases, more difficult to interpret, due to being part of unusual idiomatic expressions. From the references where the meaning is clear, there is already a lot of evidence that naphach often portrays the source of life and vigorous movement.

There are some connections in ancient cultures and languages that aren't apparent to us. It's well-known that in Hebrew, the same word can mean either wind or spirit/Spirit (which is one reason why Genesis 1:2 is hard to translate). It isn't that the Hebrew word has two very different meanings. It has one primary meaning, but that one meaning includes both wind and spirit, since for the Hebrews what we consider two distinct concepts were one concept. In English, we need to pick one word or the other, which hides the unified meaning, encapsulating both, that the Hebrews would have understood. Similarly, in Greek, the same word can mean both living and moving. When Jesus speaks of living water (John 4:10), the Greek phrase refers to moving water -- water that flows and bubbles up rather than being stagnant. In English, we need to choose whether to say the water is moving or living, but in Greek, the single word ζάω says both. (This is one reason why early Christians were baptized in flowing water, while most churches I've attended have no problem with baptismal tanks of still water.) Movement and life weren't as separated as those concepts are for us.

After doing this study, I became pretty sure that when Paul says Scripture is God-breathed, he's saying it's alive -- it's fire that God is blowing into, a bubbling pot on his stove, a rushing wind from his heavens. I think this is a far more important claim than what we often try to turn "inspiration" into. While the trustworthiness of God's message is declared elsewhere, that is not the focus of this phrase. Inspiration isn't just an ancient way of saying inerrant; modern attempts to define Scripture's trustworthiness and truthfulness in our terms are far from the concern of this passage. This is seen by how those who see inspiration as implying inerrancy also typically limit inspired Scripture to the original manuscripts, contrary to what Paul does. That limitation is necessary to give inerrancy even a fighting chance, but it just shows that we're trying to fight a battle on the wrong field.

I'm sure each of us has held a book in our hands that was inerrant in a far stricter sense than the Bible -- a book that didn't just derive from an inerrant original, but was itself inerrant. No typographical errors, no spelling mistakes, no rounded numbers, no paraphrased quotations. Maybe it was our grade 3 math textbook, or the church directory for that small congregation we were part of a few decades ago. Whatever it was, I doubt that book had a huge significance in our life. In fact, the books most likely to do well on the inerrancy test are precisely the books that are less likely to be considered good literature and more likely to be artless collections of facts.

The Bible is not artless, and it is not a dead book. The Bible is alive. It is God-breathed and useful. That's why I still read my Bible, still wrestle to understand my Bible, still get challenged by my Bible, while my grade 3 math book has disappeared into the mists where all dead books eventually go -- and with no complaint from me.

mathetes123 · Jan 28, 2012

-Mercury- said:
The point of saying something is God-breathed is to communicate that it is alive. But to explain that, a bit of a lengthy post...

What was Paul referring to as Scripture in 2 Timothy 3:15-17? I think we as Christians tend to both expand and shrink what Paul had in mind. We expand it because Paul is speaking about the Old Testament. Yet, I think Paul's words show us how to recognize Scripture by its qualities, not by giving us the table of contents. Scripture instructs for salvation through faith in Jesus, it is God-breathed, it's useful, it equips us for good works. In the time since Paul wrote that, the church has recognized that some of Paul's own letters, as well as some writings of others, fit this description. This process was already starting in those days, as we see in another 3:16, 2 Peter 3:16. Because we can say about the New Testament what Paul says about the Old, it fits to call both Scripture.

Christians also often shrink what Paul is talking about. We tend to think that only the original manuscripts were inspired, and sadly they are lost to time: Our English Bibles derive from an inspired original, but since we can't be sure they match the originals in every detail, they are not themselves inspired. However, Paul says that the very writings that Timothy knew from childhood (which were copies and almost certainly translated copies) are among the sacred writings that are inspired by God. It doesn't matter that those copies weren't perfect, or that translations always change things a bit. What Timothy had received as a child was still Scripture. If we struggle with that, I think it's because we have a faulty idea of what it means for a writing to be inspired by God -- to be God-breathed.

Progmonk already pointed out the connection that both Adam and Scripture are said to be God-breathed. I did a bit of a word study on this. In Greek, the term translated God-breathed in 2 Timothy 3:16 is unique to that verse, but it appears to be a compound word made from ???? (God/god) and ???? (blow/wind). The seven New Testament occurrences of ???? all refer to blowing winds.

In Hebrew, the closest parallel to this Greek verb is the one that describes God breathing into Adam, ????? (naphach). It is used again to describe corpses being breathed to life in Ezekiel 37:9. It also describes the animated movement of a boiling pot (Job 41:20, Jeremiah 1:13), and blowing on a fire to fan it to life (Job 20:26, Isaiah 54:16, Ezekiel 22:20-21). The other references are either more basic (simply referring to breath or blowing) or in the final two cases, more difficult to interpret, due to being part of unusual idiomatic expressions. From the references where the meaning is clear, there is already a lot of evidence that naphach often portrays the source of life and vigorous movement.

There are some connections in ancient cultures and languages that aren't apparent to us. It's well-known that in Hebrew, the same word can mean either wind or spirit/Spirit (which is one reason why Genesis 1:2 is hard to translate). It isn't that the Hebrew word has two very different meanings. It has one primary meaning, but that one meaning includes both wind and spirit, since for the Hebrews what we consider two distinct concepts were one concept. In English, we need to pick one word or the other, which hides the unified meaning, encapsulating both, that the Hebrews would have understood. Similarly, in Greek, the same word can mean both living and moving. When Jesus speaks of living water (John 4:10), the Greek phrase refers to moving water -- water that flows and bubbles up rather than being stagnant. In English, we need to choose whether to say the water is moving or living, but in Greek, the single word ??? says both. (This is one reason why early Christians were baptized in flowing water, while most churches I've attended have no problem with baptismal tanks of still water.) Movement and life weren't as separated as those concepts are for us.

After doing this study, I became pretty sure that when Paul says Scripture is God-breathed, he's saying it's alive -- it's fire that God is blowing into, a bubbling pot on his stove, a rushing wind from his heavens. I think this is a far more important claim than what we often try to turn "inspiration" into. While the trustworthiness of God's message is declared elsewhere, that is not the focus of this phrase. Inspiration isn't just an ancient way of saying inerrant; modern attempts to define Scripture's trustworthiness and truthfulness in our terms are far from the concern of this passage. This is seen by how those who see inspiration as implying inerrancy also typically limit inspired Scripture to the original manuscripts, contrary to what Paul does. That limitation is necessary to give inerrancy even a fighting chance, but it just shows that we're trying to fight a battle on the wrong field.

I'm sure each of us has held a book in our hands that was inerrant in a far stricter sense than the Bible -- a book that didn't just derive from an inerrant original, but was itself inerrant. No typographical errors, no spelling mistakes, no rounded numbers, no paraphrased quotations. Maybe it was our grade 3 math textbook, or the church directory for that small congregation we were part of a few decades ago. Whatever it was, I doubt that book had a huge significance in our life. In fact, the books most likely to do well on the inerrancy test are precisely the books that are less likely to be considered good literature and more likely to be artless collections of facts.

The Bible is not artless, and it is not a dead book. The Bible is alive. It is God-breathed and useful. That's why I still read my Bible, still wrestle to understand my Bible, still get challenged by my Bible, while my grade 3 math book has disappeared into the mists where all dead books eventually go -- and with no complaint from me.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Keachian · Jan 28, 2012

mathetes123 said:
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Soooo you believe that Genesis 1 is prophetic? I'd agree with that, however you can not derive it from a totally literalistic hermeneutic. Genesis 1 prophecies the Emmanuel by the very nature of it being God creating a Temple.

Marshall Janzen · Jan 28, 2012

mathetes123 said:
2 Peter 1:20-21
20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

As progmonk pointed out, that verse is speaking about prophecy within Scripture, not all Scripture (it does not equate Scripture with prophecy).

For myself, it is the recognition of some of the prophetic elements of the early chapters of Genesis that led me away from a literal interpretation. Prophecy is frequently given in less literal genres of writing.

If the serpent's curse is actually about what Jesus would someday accomplish, it certainly isn't being told literally! If Jesus' incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection is foreshadowed by a story about a subtle serpent being told it will crawl on its belly, eat dust, have children that are loathed by the woman's children (and vice versa), and receive a head wound from Eve's son while striking his heal, then this is not simply a literal story!

Imagine if we read the surrounding verses in a way that was consistent with how we read those verses...

Assyrian · Jan 29, 2012

I think the realisation that Genesis is prophetic is really important. It has to be prophetic doesn't it? There were no human witnesses around, it is God telling us about the creation. Instead of prophecies about a future no man has seen, it is about a past no man has seen, but it is still God who has seen the end from the beginning, revealing these unseen events to us. But then we have to look at how God speaks in prophecy. Unlike much more literal historical chronicles, God loves to give his revelations in symbol metaphor and parable.

Anthony Puccetti · Feb 2, 2012

SkyWriting said:
The Church has never been shown to be infallible.
Its consists of men, proven to be sinners.
I have observed such sins with my own eyes.
The things that church leaders declare are equally faulty.
Usually better than average, but not without human imperfection.

You don't seem to understand what infallibility refers to. The Church is infallible in regard to its teachings on faith and morals. This is not a denial that the Church is made up of sinners. St. Paul said that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Anthony Puccetti · Feb 2, 2012

metherion said:
Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

The Church teaching that God created all things through Logos is not presented as contradictory to God using secondary causes such as His other creations, which would include evolution.

Metherion
[/size][/font]

Evolution is not something that exists as a physical thing. It is a concept of biological change. It is what supposedly happened in biological history,not a natural cause like water or sunlight. The problem with theistic evolution is that it takes as a given the naturalistic theory of evolution,which does not even allow for a Creator,and which ignores the actual means by which genetic modification happens - reproduction - and instead focuses upon processes which do not create anything in particular. So theistic evolutionists are inclined to deny that God creates organisms individually even as they say that he created all species through evolution,and in disregard of the fact that organisms exist and are conceived as individuals.

metherion · Feb 3, 2012

[FONT=&quot]

Evolution is not something that exists as a physical thing. It is a concept of biological change.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Incorrect. Evolution is a process, like melting, or nuclear fusion.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

It is what supposedly happened in biological history,not a natural cause like water or sunlight.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Incorrect. It has happened in observable history, it can currently be observed, and evidence of it having happened in the past has been observed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] The problem with theistic evolution is that it takes as a given the naturalistic theory of evolution,which does not even allow for a Creator,and which ignores the actual means by which genetic modification happens - reproduction - and instead focuses upon processes which do not create anything in particular. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again, incorrect. Theistic evolution is not a monolithic entity. There are multiple flavors of TE, not all identical. And ‘naturalism’ found in all science, including evolution is methodical evolution, not metaphysical naturalism. It does not deny God. Furthermore, evolution DOES take into account means of genetic modification: reproduction with variation, natural selection of phenotypes, and so on.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So theistic evolutionists are inclined to deny that God creates organisms individually even as they say that he created all species through evolution,and in disregard of the fact that organisms exist and are conceived as individuals.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If God created everything through evolution, He DID create everything individually, unless you think God is somehow not in control of natural processes He created?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Metherion[/FONT]

gluadys · Feb 3, 2012

Anthony Puccetti said:
Evolution is not something that exists as a physical thing. It is a concept of biological change. It is what supposedly happened in biological history,not a natural cause like water or sunlight. The problem with theistic evolution is that it takes as a given the naturalistic theory of evolution,which does not even allow for a Creator,and which ignores the actual means by which genetic modification happens - reproduction - and instead focuses upon processes which do not create anything in particular. So theistic evolutionists are inclined to deny that God creates organisms individually even as they say that he created all species through evolution,and in disregard of the fact that organisms exist and are conceived as individuals.

Presenting an unrecognizable caricature of something is not a helpful way to discuss it.

Specifically, no version of theistic evolution I have ever seen denies a) that God creates organisms individually, b) that organisms exist and are conceived as individuals or c) that genetic modification happens in the process of the reproduction of individuals.

Nor does the theory of evolution disallow a Creator. It would seem you are using the term "naturalistic" as a synonym for "atheistic" rather than to refer to the processes of nature. Theistic evolutionists recognize the processes of nature, including evolution (and reproduction) as processes created, sustained and used by the Creator.

Anthony Puccetti · Feb 3, 2012

metherion said:
[FONT="]Incorrect. Evolution is a process, like melting, or nuclear fusion.[/FONT]

A process in not a physical thing.

[FONT="]Incorrect. It has happened in observable history, it can currently be observed, and evidence of it having happened in the past has been observed.[/FONT]

The theory of evolution has not been observed. It is a speculative history of species. The examples of speciation that have been seen do not justify the historical claims of the theory.

[FONT="]Again, incorrect. Theistic evolution is not a monolithic entity. There are multiple flavors of TE, not all identical.[/FONT]

They all assume that the theory of evolution is probably right,and they don't analyze

Furthermore, evolution DOES take into account means of genetic modification: reproduction with variation, natural selection of phenotypes, and so on.

I didn't deny that evolution theory takes in to account means of genetic modification. Reproduction is God's natural means of creating creatures individually. But evolution theory does not focus on reproduction as the source of new species,but instead focuses upon the processes of natural selection and genetic mutation,which do not create any new creatures.

[FONT=&quot]If God created everything through evolution, He DID create everything individually, unless you think God is somehow not in control of natural processes He created?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Metherion[/FONT]

Evolution is not about the creation of individual things. God creates organisms,and hence species,immediately as individuals. That is how they exist and how they come into being at conception. Whatever genetic changes happen in the course of descent happens only through conception and reproduction,which are acts of immediate creation of individuals. So there is no evolution.

Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

On Sabbatical

Newbie

On Sabbatical

Advocate of Truth

Untatted Saint

The Librarian

Newbie

On Sabbatical

Newbie

Advocate of Truth

Formerly known as Mercury

Newbie

On Sabbatical

Formerly known as Mercury

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Anthony Puccetti

Guest

Anthony Puccetti

Guest

Veteran

Legend

Anthony Puccetti

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency