If you cannot believe the genesis account....

[Follower of Christ]

Can you also try instead of mindlessly copy-paste it, to find a non-scriptual source? Because that's hardly evidence.

I just use your evidence.......
You know......we've been thru this all a 1000 times or so.....

You might try giving AIGs site a look.....
Altho, Im sure its all just ''pseudo-science'' to you

 

[Nathan Poe]

whew......Ive noticed if youre not responded to directly, you just dont get it....

My views are all over this board....

I do NOT hold Genesis 1 as anything but factual.....
The Hebrew language went to great lengths to show it was a literal day....

Nothing you can present in this will change my point of view, you are wasting you time and your fingers attempting to do so...

If I have to keep repeating this, I think I will find that ''ignore'' button

Sounds to me like you're well aware of the "ignore" button.

But there is a point that needs to be cleared up.

You believe (zealously, IMHO) that the writers of Genesis wrote it meaning it to be taken literally. Well, no argument here.

That being said, are we meant to read it literally in this day and age, or can we accept that we now know a couple of things about the world that the writers of Genesis did not?

And whether or not it was intended to be read literally has no bearing on whether it is literallytrue. Them's two wholly different matters. In fact, by insisting on a literal interpretation, you're only setting it up to be falsified, which will do untold damage to the faith (the real faith; Christianity, not YEC).

Is an Uberliteral Bible really worth the risk?

 

[Tomk80]

whew......Ive noticed if youre not responded to directly, you just dont get it....

My views are all over this board....

I do NOT hold Genesis 1 as anything but factual.....
The Hebrew language went to great lengths to show it was a literal day....

Nothing you can present in this will change my point of view, you are wasting you time and your fingers attempting to do so...

If I have to keep repeating this, I think I will find that ''ignore'' button

But whether Genesis is factual or not is not what Karl is trying to discuss with you. Karl is trying to give give arguments on why, if Genesis is not factual, it can't be easily dismissed because of that. You seem to be taking the opposite position that Genesis has to be factual to have meaning.
Whether Genesis is factual or not is not something Karl seems to be discussing at this point. I've got the suspicion that he already knows he won't be able to win you over on that one.

 

[Follower of Christ]

That being said, are we meant to read it literally in this day and age, or can we accept that we now know a couple of things about the world that the writers of Genesis did not?

YOU can take it anyway you like Poe...
Im not saying anyone has to change their views....
All I try to do is show that its ok for a believer to trust that God did it just the way Genesis one teaches..
Some will never believe that, thats their choice...
And its just like an arrogant man to assume he knows more than God

And whether or not it was intended to be read literally has no bearing on whether it is literallytrue. Them's two wholly different matters. In fact, by insisting on a literal interpretation, you're only setting it up to be falsified, which will do untold damage to the faith (the real faith; Christianity, not YEC).

Poe, think about it..... does it appear to you that your ''falsifying'' anything would affect me in the slightest?

Ive seen science change quite a few things since I was in school...
Honestly, I wouldnt doubt that the more they find out that a lot of what you folks believe today is diffent in ten years....

Sorry, but Ill ride out all your indecision

 

[Follower of Christ]

But whether Genesis is factual or not is not what Karl is trying to discuss with you. Karl is trying to give give arguments on why, if Genesis is not factual, it can't be easily dismissed because of that. You seem to be taking the opposite position that Genesis has to be factual to have meaning.
Whether Genesis is factual or not is not something Karl seems to be discussing at this point. I've got the suspicion that he already knows he won't be able to win you over on that one.

Factual.....

All either side has is interpretation of evidence.....thats all....

Neither side can PROVE ABSOLUTELY anything pertaining to creation or we wouldnt be in here talking about this, would we

 

[Nathan Poe]

YOU can take it anyway you like Poe...
Im not saying anyone has to change their views....
All I try to do is show that its ok for a believer to trust that God did it just the way Genesis one teaches..

A believer can believe anything they want; no argument there. But not everyone has the same "live and let live" attitude you've shown. This is good practice!

Some will never believe that, thats their choice...

And its just like an arrogant man to assume he knows more than God

But that wasn't the question: Do we or do we not know more than the men who wrote Genesis?

Poe, think about it..... does it appear to you that your ''falsifying'' anything would affect me in the slightest?

Sadly, no.

Ive seen science change quite a few things since I was in school...
Honestly, I wouldnt doubt that the more they find out that a lot of what you folks believe today is diffent in ten years....

We call it "learning."

A man who sees no need for it should not be so quick to call others arrogant.

Sorry, but Ill ride out all your indecision

With all the stability of a stopped clock. Your choice, of course.

 

[JohnR7]

Neither side can PROVE ABSOLUTELY anything pertaining to creation or we wouldnt be in here talking about this, would we

Stumbling blocks can be turned into stepping stones. We have more knowledge and understanding of our world than ever before. This means we can have a deeper understanding of our Bible. Some of the traditional teaching are not holding up very well. It is up to us to present a new and a fresh understanding of the Bible, to each and every new generation.

 

[Follower of Christ]

We call it "learning."

A man who sees no need for it should not be so quick to call others arrogant.

Yeah. I know....

And I dont have a problem with looking at the details Poe.....its all very interesting.

I just dont like to have it shoved down my throat as FACT when we all know those FACTS could change by sunrise...

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

whew......Ive noticed if youre not responded to directly, you just dont get it....

My views are all over this board....

I do NOT hold Genesis 1 as anything but factual.....
The Hebrew language went to great lengths to show it was a literal day....

Nothing you can present in this will change my point of view, you are wasting you time and your fingers attempting to do so...

If I have to keep repeating this, I think I will find that ''ignore'' button

I am well aware of what your view is.

I AM NOT TRYING (AT THIS POINT) TO CONVINCE YOU THAT GENESIS 1 IS LITERAL.

I am trying to get you to acknowledge that since AS YOU HAVE AGREED a non-literal story can still convey truth, it follows that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is not "dismissing" the account. That is ALL I AM TRYING TO GET YOU TO AGREE TO.

Tomk80 understands exactly what I'm saying to you. I'm sure you do as well, because the alternative explanation is that you are monumentally stupid, and I do not believe that for a moment. Instead, it seems to me, you are choosing to pretend not to see my point for some bizarre rhetorical reason of your own.

 

[Follower of Christ]

I am trying to get you to acknowledge that since AS YOU HAVE AGREED a non-literal story can still convey truth, it follows that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is not "dismissing" the account. That is ALL I AM TRYING TO GET YOU TO AGREE TO.

I agree that the parables have a valuable point, yes.
Thats about the extent of it..

and again, IF Genesis 1 were shown to be parable then I would accept it as such and probably old earth as well....

It seems you want me to agree with the parable idea, but then you try to throw in the next ''logical'' step that says Genesis 1 can be taken as parable....
Youll need to break your comments up into individual points if you want me to answer any plainer...

(example)

Do parables have a valuable point / lesson?
(yes they do)
Can we assume Genesis 1 is parable just becuase there are other parables in the bible?
(no we cannot)

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

You still seem to think I'm trying to convince you that Genesis 1 is non-literal. I am not.

I am merely trying close down, once and for all, the "If Genesis 1 isn't taken literally then you are rejecting it" accusation.

I am not asking you to agree with my view of Genesis 1. I am asking you to understand my viewpoint. That is all.

 

[Oliver]

As I understand it, Karl's reasonning is rather:

Do parables have a valuable point / lesson?
(both of you seem to agree on this one that they do)

Therefore,
Is is reasonable to dismiss the Parables because they relate fictionnal events?
(there again I assume that both of you would answer NO)

His next question would then be something like:
Could a non-literal Genesis still have a valuable point/lesson?

In which case it is clear that holding to a non-literal interpretation of Genesis does NOT imply that Genesis is dismissed. Valuable lessons can still be learned from it.

 

[Oliver]

oops sorry Karl... I didn't see your post!

 

[Tomk80]

Follower of Christ,Karl already pointed out to you that he thought that a non-factual Genesis still has meaning. In other words, your first point: parable (or myth) can have a spiritual meaning in stead of a factual one. He pointed this out in post #333 and I tried to point this out to you in post #343.

Whether Genesis was factual or not was not something Karl was discussing, but you seem to have missed that all along.

 

[Follower of Christ]

You still seem to think I'm trying to convince you that Genesis 1 is non-literal. I am not.

I am merely trying close down, once and for all, the "If Genesis 1 isn't taken literally then you are rejecting it" accusation.

I am not asking you to agree with my view of Genesis 1. I am asking you to understand my viewpoint. That is all.

Becuase I see Genesis 1 as a foundational truth in the Bible, MY opinion is ''yes, you are rejecting it by taking it as parable''.

The reason I am avoiding a bit here is it feels like you are drawing me into an area that I do not wish to make any comment on...

 

[Follower of Christ]

Follower of Christ,Karl already pointed out to you that he thought that a non-factual Genesis still has meaning. In other words, your first point: parable (or myth) can have a spiritual meaning in stead of a factual one. He pointed this out in post #333 and I tried to point this out to you in post #343.

Whether Genesis was factual or not was not something Karl was discussing, but you seem to have missed that all along.

Thanks for your opinion...... noted and round filed...

 

[Mistermystery]

I just use your evidence.......

MY evidence? No you silly person, that's not *MY* evidence. That's yours, and to tell you the truth, it's been falsified to many times.

For instance, noone ever gave a good responce to why there are + 170 meteor craters on our worlds, or how ice-cores falsify your crazy beliefs. Yet none of you yecs ever come close to even formulate a good reply to that. That are my evidences. I don't copy and paste stuff like you do, I investegate my sources.

Something you clearly don't.

You might try giving AIGs site a look.....Altho, Im sure its all just ''pseudo-science'' to you

No. I don't call it pseudo science. I don't call it science at all, because I can see that what they are saying is clearly wrong.

one more thing: I would like it if you don't say that the bible is *my* evidence. I don't see the bible as a scientifical book, because that holds no truth in *ANY* way.

 

[Follower of Christ]

MY evidence? No you silly person, that's not *MY* evidence. That's yours, and to tell you the truth, it's been falsified to many times.

"Falsified" translation- we think it didnt happen but cannot prove absolutely that we are correct

I don't copy and paste stuff like you do, I investegate my sources.

Do yourself a favor son........do a search and see how many times I copy and paste as opposed to you folks......

No. I don't call it pseudo science. I don't call it science at all, because I can see that what they are saying is clearly wrong.

Put your money where youre mouth is and PROVE something ABSOLUTELY or just be man an admit its all just interpretation .......

one more thing: I would like it if you don't say that the bible is *my* evidence. I don't see the bible as a scientifical book, because that holds no truth in *ANY* way.

AWWW......Im sorry.........did i lead you to believe i cared about your opinion about my Bible??
If I did I apologize

 

[the_cloaked_crusader]

You believe (zealously, IMHO) that the writers of Genesis wrote it meaning it to be taken literally. Well, no argument here.

That being said, are we meant to read it literally in this day and age, or can we accept that we now know a couple of things about the world that the writers of Genesis did not?

I detect a slight flaw in your logic. The writer of Genesis is God. Therefore that which he meant to be taken literally needs to be taken literally.

best of regards
the_cloaked_crusader

 

[gluadys]

well, personally speaking, I dont like to waste time reading fiction....

Fiction's a waste of time? You must have been the despair of your English teacher. You could do with some development of your imagination. Hope you get around to it before you have kids. Otherwise you'll be a real wet blanket parent.

YOu know.....the evidence would dictate that virgin birth is also ''myth''
What do you feel about that ?

It makes a lot more sense as mythology than as biology. It was probably the presence of so many myths involving virgin birth in 1st century Mediterranean cultures that led the early Christians to apply the same myth to Jesus. Part of the evangelistic effort of the time. In those days virgin birth was a meaningful mythical concept readily understood by most people.