If you cannot believe the genesis account....

Aduro Amnis said:

Rather than syphoning 5 pages of this topic for the word Tween on a 56k connection, could someone tell me if Tween has replied yet ?

Click to expand...

Yes, she has.

Try using the threaded display mode. You'll get a window in which you can find the post from May 27, 12:10 pm which begins "this is amazing... I didn't even read the whole thread."

The Bellman said:

No, science modifies theories to suit evidence.

Click to expand...

Really? Here I thought science modifies evidence to suit theorys? Sorry, I could not resist that one.

JohnR7 said:

Really? Here I thought science modifies evidence to suit theorys? Sorry, I could not resist that one.

Click to expand...

I accept that you do not understand how science works. You have therefore learned something.

Tween said:

this is amazing... i didnt even read the whole thread...

but i gather taht many of you take the "parable" stance. fuzy logic, but hey, tahts how you think, thats how you think.

Click to expand...

Not parable. Myth. Different thing. And not fuzzy logic either. The identification of a piece of literature as belonging to a particular genre requires a rational application of the criteria which identify certain styles of writing. Calling a myth a parable is rather like calling a symphony a jingle.

You might check out my conversation with mark kennedy in the Christians Only forum on creation science and theistic evolution. The thread is called "The Golden Rule of the Creationist". I have been trying to impress on him that the study of literature has technical terms, just like music, theology or football. You can't just play around with them as if they all meant the same thing.

it isnt being spoken about as a parable, people. with that logic, we can say Jesus wasnt even real, heck for that matter, all of the bible could be treated as a parable.

Click to expand...

No we can't. It always amazes me that literalists think the whole bible is all of one piece---like the Qur'an or the book of Mormon. Those texts were all written by one person and mostly for one purpose. The style is consistent throughout.

But the bible was written by over 40 different authors, in three different languages with the earliest author writing at least 7 centuries (and perhaps more) before the latest author. They lived in different places, had different experiences, had different ideas about God, wrote for different audiences and for different purposes, and used different writing techniques. Nothing you can say about one part of the bible necessarily applies to a different part of the bible. Each separate text has to be dealt with on its own ground.

it amazes me how Christians can take things and twist them into whatever perspective they choose to believe.

Click to expand...

Me too. I see a lot of such twisting and dodging from literalists who do absolutely amazing things to the plain meaning of a text to make it fit their preconceptions of what it should say.

when you try and disregard the genesis account,

Click to expand...

But who is trying to disregard the genesis account? Are you supposing that recognizing the creation story for the myth it is means the account of creation can be disregarded? Not by Christians it can't be. A non-literal perspective is a different way of looking at the story (and IMO a more rational way) but it is not a reason to disregard one of the most important stories in the bible.

you are saying that it is ok and appropriate to do this. on the merits of this argument, i can say that Jesus wasnt my Saviour for my sins, and that he was simply a parable himself and that all those things didnt REALLY happen, therefore i do not need to accept him as Lord and Saviour of my life.

Click to expand...

If you want to you can, but I don't see why you would. In any case you can't justify that attitude on the basis of scripture whether the text is interpreted literally or non-literally. Both perspectives acknowledge that we are sinners in need of salvation.

with that said, i now do not need any ticket to heaven- because heaven itself does not exist and is instead a "higher conciousness" that i can achieve through proper understanding of myself, learning through these parables.

all of a sudden, i can turn this into anything i wish because ihave chosen to take things from the bible and believe them as they pertain to my personal set of beliefs.

you know what that is called? i dont know yet... its my own religion, derived from the bible and created brand new in the image i want it in.thats essentially what you guys are doing. this is just sad...

Click to expand...

What you do, you choose to do. But please don't try to say that what you would do is what others are doing. It's not. And assuming it is just shows you are judging them on the basis of your own inappropriate criteria.

IMO, a better approach would be to ask questions about why they believe as they do about scripture and why they find this a helpful way to understand God's revelation in scripture.

The Bellman said:

I accept that you do not understand how science works. You have therefore learned something.

Click to expand...

Doubtful

lucaspa said:

Because the foundational beliefs are not connected to a literal reading of Genesis. Because we take claims one at a time.

I answered this criteria for Xanti in another thread. Oh, yes, the "Adam" thread. Should I repost it for you here? Guess I'd better.

Click to expand...

im glad this is still being debated, you didnt really explain anything to me on the infamous adam thread. why is it that when people find it in their favor they hide behind scripture, but when that scripture is disproven they abandon it like a sinking ship? and also please explain to me how the earth and life came to be, i mean if you dont believe in evolution and you dont beilieve the explaination your own faith gives you, what does that leave you? and please as i stated previously, plese post the parts of the bible we are all suppose to believe, because obviously god didnt edit it for us.

XantiX

xanti-youx said:

im glad this is still being debated, you didnt really explain anything to me on the infamous adam thread. why is it that when people find it in their favor they hide behind scripture, but when that scripture is disproven they abandon it like a sinking ship? and also please explain to me how the earth and life came to be, i mean if you dont believe in evolution and you dont beilieve the explaination your own faith gives you, what does that leave you? and please as i stated previously, plese post the parts of the bible we are all suppose to believe, because obviously god didnt edit it for us.

XantiX

Click to expand...

Do you believe that God created the universe?

David Gould said:

Do you believe that God created the universe?

Click to expand...

no most certainly not, it is my belief that humans feel so powerless over their eventual death that they have to fool themselves into believing they are immortal and that since "man" didnt create the universe it must be a magician with life up his sleeve.

XantiX

I've been reading the fascinating conversation on the snake (serpent) in Genesis and whether or not it is a snake and whether or not it is Satan and how this relates to a literal understanding of the bible.

For me it sums up my frustration with the so-called literalist approach. Obviously NO ONE really interprets every figure of speech in the bible literally.

So where does one draw the line? If one considers that mountains clapping their hands is a figure of speech, why is it NOT permissible to consider that a talking snake is a symbolic, mythical image?

Yes, even a symbol of Satan if one can show that. This is the point skillz151 was making. If the snake is a symbol of Satan--then, for heaven's sake it was not really a snake at all. Not literally.

Skillz, if you are still reading this, I do have another question. Clearly you hold the snake was not literally a snake and did not literally lose its legs. What about the rest of the story though? Was the tree a literal tree with literal fruit? Are Adam and Eve literal individuals? Can the snake be non-literal if the rest of the story is literal?

btw, it was interesting to hear you don't actually believe the bible. Funnily enough, I have often found that people who have rejected the bible are often keen defenders of a literal interpretation of it. Maybe in order to justify their rejection.

John, jobob and crusader all claim to be taking a literalist viewpoint. Yet all claim a connection between the snake and Satan that is not literally in the Genesis text. One or the other has said that:

a) Satan was speaking through the snake.
b) The snake could speak because it was empowered by Satan
c) Satan was controlling or working through or possessing the snake.
d) Satan appeared in the form of a snake.

Now this is more literal than skillz' interpretation, because all agree that there was an actual snake (or what appeared to be a snake). The term "snake" is not just a symbolic reference to Satan. As far as she was concerned, what Eve saw and spoke to was a snake.

But, I have to re-iterate Arikay's question. How, on the basis of a straightforward literal reading of Genesis, do we connect the snake with Satan?

jobob says: "...but we do have an strong piece of ''evidence'' in Revelation;"

And this appears to be the only piece of "evidence". But is it evidence? Is it simply a matter of "adding 2 + 2"? What connects the verse in Revelation with the snake in Genesis 3?

As far as I can see, the only connection is the single word, "serpent". That's evidence?

The writer of Revelation does not refer to Genesis. The writer of Genesis does not refer to Revelation (could not, since it had not yet been written). So what is the basis for connecting the "ancient serpent" of Revelation with the serpent of Genesis? Is the coincidence of words enough?

There is another point to add here. In the Old Testament, Satan is referred to directly only twice outside of the book of Job, and both the book of Job and those two references were written centuries later than Genesis 3.

There is no evidence in scripture or outside of scripture that Satan was even known to the people of Israel until during or after the Babylonian exile.

So how could the writer of Genesis 3 be connecting the snake with Satan if he did not even know of any such being as Satan?

The connection of the Genesis snake with Satan does not come from a literal reading of Genesis 3. It comes from linking Revelation 20:2 with Genesis 3. IOW, this is a matter of interpretation not of a straight-forward literal reading.

What frustrates me is that literalists seem unable to tell the difference between a literal reading of the text and an accepted interpretation of the text. Once the connection has been made and become widely accepted as the correct interpretation, then the interpretation is presented as if it were the literal meaning of the text.

I don't see how one can call oneself a literalist if this confusion is permitted.

To me, the only acceptable literal reading of a text is one that takes what it says at face value. In Genesis 3, the reference is to a snake. Nothing says the snake is evil or a liar or under the control of another being, or symbolizes another being. It is a snake, pure and simple. A talking snake, true, but a snake nevertheless.

Saying any more than that is going beyond the literal meaning of the text.

Maybe a suggested connection with another scripture is justified. Maybe an interpretation is justified. But I have not yet seen a justification for connecting the serpent of Revelation with the serpent of Genesis. A coincidence of vocabulary does not, IMO, provide sufficient justification.

Can anyone offer anything more substantive?

xanti-youx said:

no most certainly not, it is my belief that humans feel so powerless over their eventual death that they have to fool themselves into believing they are immortal and that since "man" didnt create the universe it must be a magician with life up his sleeve.

XantiX

Click to expand...

The traditional view of one dying and going straight to Heaven is not Biblical. Aswell as man having an IMMORTAL soul....

This was Satan's first lie.. Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

And in some kind of wierd, twisted and contorted way, the Church still teaches this lie. The immortality of the soul is a false doctrine passed on through tradition.

The Bible clearly teaches that our souls are not immortal and that 'we will surely die. Here, God says it Himself, Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

NOwhere in the Bible does it claim that we have immortal souls. Quite the contrary...

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

It also claims that the dead don't know anything. They are not in HELL or in Heaven looking down upon us.

Eccl 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Psa 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
Psa 146:4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.

Christians should really study scripture for themselves before believing what they've been taught through tradition. Or maybe I'm crazy...

gluadys said:

To me, the only acceptable literal reading of a text is one that takes what it says at face value. In Genesis 3, the reference is to a snake. Nothing says the snake is evil or a liar or under the control of another being, or symbolizes another being. It is a snake, pure and simple. A talking snake, true, but a snake nevertheless.

Saying any more than that is going beyond the literal meaning of the text.

Maybe a suggested connection with another scripture is justified. Maybe an interpretation is justified. But I have not yet seen a justification for connecting the serpent of Revelation with the serpent of Genesis. A coincidence of vocabulary does not, IMO, provide sufficient justification.

Can anyone offer anything more substantive?

Click to expand...

Excellent commentary. Not only a talking serpent, but a talking serpent with legs. After all these years though, it seems like they get around a lot better slithering with that body than they would if they HAD legs.

Skillz151 said:

The traditional view of one dying and going straight to Heaven is not Biblical. Aswell as man having an IMMORTAL soul....

This was Satan's first lie.. Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

And in some kind of wierd, twisted and contorted way, the Church still teaches this lie. The immortality of the soul is a false doctrine passed on through tradition.

The Bible clearly teaches that our souls are not immortal and that 'we will surely die. Here, God says it Himself, Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Click to expand...

But they didn't die the day that they ate it, just as the serpent said they wouldn't. It doesn't say "some day", it says THAT day, THE day they eat it.

Doesn't say anything about a soul at all.

Or maybe I'm crazy...

Click to expand...

Aren't we all? NO two people can agree on everything and as far as I can see, it really doesn't matter what you believe anyway. Your life is what you make it, and, each step of the way,when it's over, it's too late to do anything about it. You only have to live with yourself, you're the one who is there to deal with the waking hours while you sleep. If you can sleep peacefully, great.. if not... that's your own problem to work out.

Man Glaudys, I was giving some indepth arguements and responses to your post and just as I was about to hit the reply button, all the power in my house went out and then came back on. Kind of 'freaky' if you ask me. But anyway I'm starting from scratch again.. Give me a minute

Yes, even a symbol of Satan if one can show that. This is the point skillz151 was making. If the snake is a symbol of Satan--then, for heaven's sake it was not really a snake at all. Not literally.

Click to expand...

Thank you for posting an intelligent response. I will now attempt show you that Satan was in the garden and not an actual snake. I will be speaking as though I was a Christian -I WAS ONCE YOU KNOW- because I find it easier to explain key factors when interpreting scripture.

Skillz, if you are still reading this, I do have another question. Clearly you hold the snake was not literally a snake and did not literally lose its legs. What about the rest of the story though? Was the tree a literal tree with literal fruit? Are Adam and Eve literal individuals? Can the snake be non-literal if the rest of the story is literal?

Click to expand...

I believe the rest of the story IS literal. Why? For one, we know what a tree is, we also know what humans are, but what we don't know, is what or who Satan is. We have seen a tree, we have also seen a man and a woman. But what we have never seen is a Satan *lol*. So the best way to describe Satan would be to use something we have seen or can understand.

The writer is clearly portraying Satan as a serpent, this is because we know what a snake is. It makes it easier for us to understand who or what Satan really is. What better way is there to portray something we have never seen or cannot fully understand, except by the use of 'something' that we do understand. The serpent is merely a symbolic representation of Satan, so we can better understand the concept of who Satan is.

Now Eve was not talking to a Snake or anything that looked like a snake. She was talking to SATAN himself.

btw, it was interesting to hear you don't actually believe the bible. Funnily enough, I have often found that people who have rejected the bible are often keen defenders of a literal interpretation of it. Maybe in order to justify their rejection.

Click to expand...

Who knows, I may become a Chrisitan again. Only time will tell....

And this appears to be the only piece of "evidence". But is it evidence? Is it simply a matter of "adding 2 + 2"? What connects the verse in Revelation with the snake in Genesis 3?

As far as I can see, the only connection is the single word, "serpent". That's evidence?

Click to expand...

Sure this is evidence. The writer of revelation most likely knew the OT by heart. I'm sure he would know what was being said, escpecially in Genesis.

Now let us Observe the following:

Revelation 12 : 9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Let's see, it says that the OLD Serpent, CALLED the Devil, AND SATAN! It doesn't just say seprent, but it refers to the "OLD" serpent which can be found where? Perhaps the Old testament... and Is the Genesis account in the new or old testament?

Revelation 20 : 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Which IS the who and the what? It's clear as day....

Throughout Scripture Satan is represented by many symbols that we -as humans- can understand. Such as a roaring lion/star/dragon/ and of course serpent.

The writer of Revelation does not refer to Genesis. The writer of Genesis does not refer to Revelation (could not, since it had not yet been written). So what is the basis for connecting the "ancient serpent" of Revelation with the serpent of Genesis? Is the coincidence of words enough?

Click to expand...

You think this is a coincidence of words? I believe you would be fooling yourself to think that these words are coincidental.

So how could the writer of Genesis 3 be connecting the snake with Satan if he did not even know of any such being as Satan?

Click to expand...

That's the thing. Many writers were suppose to be inspired by God. This shows that God may of actually been the 'inspirerer' *sort of speak* lol
So to this I would say, that the writer may not of known, but God did.
Hey, makes a good arguement for a divine hand working through the writers.

I don't see how one can call oneself a literalist if this confusion is permitted.

Click to expand...

You got that right...

To me, the only acceptable literal reading of a text is one that takes what it says at face value. In Genesis 3, the reference is to a snake. Nothing says the snake is evil or a liar or under the control of another being, or symbolizes another being. It is a snake, pure and simple. A talking snake, true, but a snake nevertheless.

Click to expand...

A talking snake? Why would the snake tell eve to disobey God? We can infer that the snake was evil because it transgressed against God's law. Now was it the snake who questioned God's authority... or was it Satan himself. I think it's perfectly clear, Satan was in the garden of Eden. Satan was talking to Eve not a literal snake.

Maybe a suggested connection with another scripture is justified. Maybe an interpretation is justified. But I have not yet seen a justification for connecting the serpent of Revelation with the serpent of Genesis. A coincidence of vocabulary does not, IMO, provide sufficient justification.

Click to expand...

Revelation 20 : 2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

If that doesn't justify the situation for you, than I would have to respectfully disagree with your viewpoints. I prefer to let the Bible interpret itself.

MQTA said:

But they didn't die the day that they ate it, just as the serpent said they wouldn't. It doesn't say "some day", it says THAT day, THE day they eat it.

Click to expand...

Well let's review:
Genesis 2 : 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God is not saying that they will die THAT DAY. Notice He says, 'FOR IN' THE DAY'... and not simply THE DAY...

Puts on a whole new meaning.....

Doesn't say anything about a soul at all.

Click to expand...

Our souls are not some immortal spirits that will float around when we die.
The soul is simply the 'spark' of life given by God. Observe:

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The soul, as shown by this verse, is the spark of life, given by God. When God breathed life into Adam, he became a living soul (creature). Note that it does not say God put a soul into Adam. You are a soul because God has breathed life into you.

Job 12:9 Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?
Job 12:10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.

We don't have a ghost-like immortal soul that will survive after our physical death. Life is what makes us a soul(s). Without life we perish.

Arikay said:

So, if extra-genesis evidence that was supposably created by god, can be used to reinterpret the snake, then how come it is not acceptable to do the same with "days"?

Click to expand...

When the Bible says "in Adam's day", it is quite obvious that it is referring to a long period of time. When it refers to the six days of creation, however, it specifically says, "And there was evening, and there was morning--the [insert a number bwtween one and seven here] day." I don't see how else it could be interpreted without contradicting the spirit of the passage.

I propose it has less to do with contradicting what god is telling us and more to do with contradicting what the reader believes.

Click to expand...

I propose it doesn't. I refuse to believe something that contradicts that which is written in the Scripture. Your proposition does contradict Scripture--at least, unless you can prove otherwise. But the burden of proof lies on your side of the debate, since my side is taking the hard road (believing what the Bible says). Nowhere does the Bible secifically suggest that God created the earth in anything more than 144 hours. The Bible does suggest that the snake was Satan. In fact, in Genesis, it says, "Now the serpent was more crafty than any animal in the garden." [emphasis added] Please note the lack of the word "other" between "any" and "animal". this suggests that the snake referred to was not a beast at all.

So, what turn of phrase in Scripture suggests that Genesis is a myth and that the six days were each a billion years long?

best of regards
the_cloaked_crusader

Who knows, I may become a Chrisitan again. Only time will tell....

Click to expand...

Hopefully you will

And after reading your posts, hopefully you will also get serious this time about Bible study...

We don't have a ghost-like immortal soul that will survive after our physical death. Life is what makes us a soul(s). Without life we perish.

Click to expand...

I cant quite tell if youve been hanging with the Jehovahs Witnesses or the Sadducees

Hopefully you will also get serious this time about Bible study...

Click to expand...

Hopefully you will get serious about making an intelligent comment instead of belittling others. I should get serious about Bible study.. pfft You actually think you know what you're talking about don't you? Funny..... Bible study ... I should ..... *I'm calm*

I cant quite tell if youve been hanging with the Jehovahs Witnesses or the Sadducees

Click to expand...

I can't 'quite' tell if you're a moron or an idiot.... or maybe you've just been 'hanging' with them, probably both. I left Christianity because of people like you.

Here's an idea... how about posting a comment that can better show your point of view instead of haggling like a 12 year old bully in elementary school.

Hopefully you will get serious about making an intelligent comment instead of belittling others. I should get serious about Bible study.. pfft You actually think you know what you're talking about don't you? Funny..... Bible study ... I should ..... *I'm calm*

Click to expand...

You say youre not even a ''christian" now and Im supposed to take YOUR word for anything as pertaining to the meaning of the scriptures ?

I can't 'quite' tell if you're a moron or an idiot.... or maybe you've just been 'hanging' with them, probably both. I left Christianity because of people like you.

Click to expand...

Let me get this straight......you walked away from YOUR God and King, Away from YOUR personal creator........the One who loves you so much He sent His Son to die that terrible death........ALL over me..... you give me and my kind far too much credit...
YOu walked away because YOU couldnt keep on the path.....

Here's an idea... how about posting a comment that can better show your point of view instead of haggling like a 12 year old bully in elementary school.

Click to expand...

Im sure you all would prefer if i just ignored scripture and agreed with anything you said......
Thats not going to happen...

Do you refuse to believe anything that contradicts scripture, Or do you refuse to believe anything that contradicts your interpretation of scripture?

scripture seems to suggests the earth is flat, and that the geocentric model is right. Do you think the earth is flat and the geocentric model is right? Or have you reinterpreted scripture to fit what you want to be right?

the_cloaked_crusader said:

When the Bible says "in Adam's day", it is quite obvious that it is referring to a long period of time. When it refers to the six days of creation, however, it specifically says, "And there was evening, and there was morning--the [insert a number bwtween one and seven here] day." I don't see how else it could be interpreted without contradicting the spirit of the passage.

I propose it doesn't. I refuse to believe something that contradicts that which is written in the Scripture. Your proposition does contradict Scripture--at least, unless you can prove otherwise. But the burden of proof lies on your side of the debate, since my side is taking the hard road (believing what the Bible says). Nowhere does the Bible secifically suggest that God created the earth in anything more than 144 hours. The Bible does suggest that the snake was Satan. In fact, in Genesis, it says, "Now the serpent was more crafty than any animal in the garden." [emphasis added] Please note the lack of the word "other" between "any" and "animal". this suggests that the snake referred to was not a beast at all.

So, what turn of phrase in Scripture suggests that Genesis is a myth and that the six days were each a billion years long?

best of regards
the_cloaked_crusader

Click to expand...