If you cannot believe the genesis account....

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And why, of all the animals in the Garden of Eden was the Serpent gifted with the same language of Adam and Eve? Did he really speak their language, or was it ventriloquism?

And if he lost his legs and made to eat dirt, does that mean serpents can still Speak? NO mention of losing tongue.

All snakes are carnivores. I don't think any of them actually eat dirt. Sea snakes certainly don't have much dirt in their diets.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Tween]

A myth is not the same thing as a lie.

so, i forgot the "and" between myth and lie. i never said they were one and the same. let's not nitpick to death, people. taht was just rediculous.

 

[Tween]

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.

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

when you try and disregard the genesis account, 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.

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...

 

[MQTA]

Rev. 20:2
He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years;

The NT does tell us the serpent of old is satan.

That's the NT, but NOT the OT. The OT says it was a Serpent, no mention of Satan at all.

However, when was that thousand years up? 1004 years ago? or rather 974 years ago?

 

[jobob]

Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Did God create it all in one day or in 6 days?

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.

Did Adam and Eve die the same day they ate the fruit. Or does day mean day, but die does not mean die?

Genesis 3:14c and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Why all of a sudden does "day" mean "days"? Is it because the word "all" is in front of the word "day"?

Genesis 5:4
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

Why do we not see the word "all" used in front of the word "day" in this passage? The Bible does not say all the days of Adam, it refers to all of Adams life as a day.

Genesis 6:4a There were giants in the earth in those days;

In the Hebrew day again means more then one 24 hour day.

Genesis 14:1
And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;

Are we talking about just one day in the life of the king of Shinar. Or does day here refer to his whole life or the time he was king?

hey JohnR7..........just so you know, I was using Genesis ONE.......not all the others you quoted.........If youre going to quote me, at least use the same material thanks

And if youre trying to convince me Genesis ones DAY is not a single earth rotation day, friend, youre beating a dead horse.......and definetly not being very convincing with the passages.............I suggest more study of the Hebrew YOM to start

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Former YEC Glenn Morton has an interesting take on the meaning of Genesis.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

He believes that Genesis is historically accurate but that it does not teach a young earth or global flood. He seems to have pretty wiped the floor with the flood believers on TWEB.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/genesis.htm

His story of why he left YEC shows that even though he had a very strong pro YEC bias he was unable to continue to deny the data that he collected showing that there never was a global flood.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

So Glenn rejects the young earth, global flood conclusions without rejecting Genesis itself.

One thing that is obvious is that there are many ways that Genesis can be interpreted even among Creationists. Some think it should be interpreted as requiring a young earth and global flood, some think it requires a global flood but not a young earth and others think it requires neither a young earth or a global flood. Of course there are also those who think the Bible should be intrepreted to indicate a young earth, global flood and geocentric solar system. The Bible may indeed be the inspired word of God but it certainly inspires different beliefs in different believers.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

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

Shame. You missed some good responses.

but i gather taht many of you take the "parable" stance. fuzy logic,

Why's it fuzzy?

but hey, tahts how you think, thats how you think.

Except that you're about to tell us why we shouldn't.

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

It amazes me how blatantly creationists twist what non-literalist believers actually say into caricatures of it like yours.

(1) No, Genesis is not a parable. It's a myth.
(2) It has all the hallmarks of a myth. The Gospel accounts do not. Different kind of literature, different purpose, different interpretation.

when you try and disregard the genesis account,

Hold it right there - this is exactly the sort of twisting and misrepresentation I'm talking about. Theistic evolutionists do not "disregard" the Genesis account - we regard it as what it is. We engage with the text as it is, contradictions and all.

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.

No, you can't. Well, you can do anything I suppose, but I suggest that you shouldn't because of what I said before - the NT and Genesis 1-11 are different types of literature

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.

And where has anyone said any of this? No, you've taken it upon yourself to invent it for us. Do you often play the game of "I know what you're thinking!" - You're not very good at it, anyway.

And is your faith really just a "ticket to heaven" - is that what passes for salvation in your neck of the woods?

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 can do what you like, but don't falsely accuse others of doing this.

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...

No. What we're doing is called Christianity. What you're doing is called misrepresentation.

 

[jobob]

Former YEC Glenn Morton has an interesting take on the meaning of Genesis.

Shoot, you guys got another one

His story of why he left YEC shows that even though he had a very strong pro YEC bias he was unable to continue to deny the data that he collected showing that there never was a global flood.

so he changed his interpretation of evidence then?

So Glenn rejects the young earth, global flood conclusions without rejecting Genesis itself.

So then, God put His sign in the sky promising to NEVER locally flood the earth again........yeah.....this guy REALLY doesnt deny Genesis

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

so he changed his interpretation of evidence then?

No. He personally collected a lot of evidence that he was never shown while being taught bogus "flood geology".
Here is what he writes.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm



But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ," That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

So what he found was that there was no possible intrepretation of the data that would agree with a global flood and unlike other YECs he was not willing to ignore and/or distort the data. The same has happened with Davis Young and others.

the frumious Bandersnatch

 

[jobob]

No. He personally collected a lot of evidence that he was never shown while being taught bogus "flood geology".
Here is what he writes.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm



But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ," That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.

So what he found was that there was no possible intrepretation of the data that would agree with a global flood and unlike other YECs he was not willing to ignore and/or distort the data. The same has happened with Davis Young and others.

the frumious Bandersnatch

Sorry he couldnt reconcile things......
thats not my problem.......

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Oh but it is your problem.

He could not reconcile observed factual data with a literal interpretation of Genesis. This is because they are contradictory.

 

[Nathan David]

so, i forgot the "and" between myth and lie. i never said they were one and the same. let's not nitpick to death, people. taht was just rediculous.

But you implied that people were syaing Genesis was both a myth and a lie. I have never heard anyone say Genesis is a lie. You made a false assertion and I called you on it. Hardly nitpicking.

 

[Arikay]

Maybe you should go back and read the rest of the posts, as trying to "gather" what people here think when you admit you haven't even read everything is a bit dishonest.

For example, you would have actually learned why theistic evolutionists don't treat Jesus as a parable but treat genesis as one.
But it seems you don't want to know the answer, why?

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.

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

when you try and disregard the genesis account, 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.

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...

 

[Skillz151]

You claimed: "Actually the 'serpent' was meant to be symbolic or a symbol for Satan... Satan has a couple of different names such as Dragon,Serpent,Devil."..

So, did you or did you not equate the serpent in Genesis 3 with Satan?

Yes I did.... I'm saying that the serpent was a symbolic representation for Satan. But what does this have to do with JOB????

So, the rest of my post was offering consequences of the serpent being Satan. Remember, the serpent is stripped of its legs and there will be enmity between its descendents and Eve's forever. Well, if the serpent is Satan, stripping the legs makes it a snake, and if the serpent is Satan and the serpent has descendents, then it means Satan has descendents!

Stripping it's legs and making it 'eat the dust' for the rest of his days represents Satan being bound to Earth. Taking the 'serpents' legs shows that Satan cannot move throughout God's kingdom as he used and the dust represents Earth. And what are you going on about... what descendants of Satan?

You said "the 'serpent' is Satan". Well, what happened to the serpent in Genesis 3:14-15? The "serpent" lost its legs (became legless and so a "snake" as we know them) and will have offspring! So, if the serpent = Satan, then those offspring are Satan's offspring! All the way to today! Present day snakes are therefore the great, great, great .... grandsons and grandaughters of Satan! Now, since DNA is inherited, it must mean that modern snakes have Satan's DNA. Just follow the logic.

Do you know what a Symbol is? THE Serpent WAS SATAN>> NOT A FREAKIN' SNAKE... The serpent is used to represent the devil.... Just like the dragon is used to represent the devil.. Aswell as a 'roaring lion'..... Now IS satan a serpent/dragon/ and lion? NO, but these are symbols used so we can better understand who Satan is.

So you believe it was an actual snake that could talk? You're free to believe that, but I would have to question your sanity.....

OR ... if you don't like where the logic goes, then you can stop the whole thing by recognizing that the serpent in Eden is not Satan, but just "the serpent".

Oh, you do believe it was a 'real snake that could talk' Wow.....

 

[Skillz151]

Isn't this ironic... I'm defending the Bible, which I don't even believe in the first place.

 

[jobob]

Oh but it is your problem.

He could not reconcile observed factual data with a literal interpretation of Genesis. This is because they are contradictory.

you THINK its my problem.......youd like it to be.......
I have complete faith that Genesis 1 is correct AS written regardless of what my eyes and intellect would show.........theyve decieved me before

 

[jobob]

Isn't this ironic... I'm defending the Bible, which I don't even believe in the first place.

Why yes it is......I didnt bother to look....i just assumed you were christian....

Looking for a career change? We're always accepting apps

 

[Skillz151]

Genesis 3: 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Genesis 3: 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Genesis 3 : 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

God is talking to satan.... NOT A FREAKIN' SNAKE. So if the serpent was a literal snake than you can conclude that there is enmity between a literal snake's seed and the woman's seed.... Come on....

I don't think so....

There is enmity between Satan's followers and the Churches followers. The snake symbolizes Satan and his seed... and the Woman represents the church and 'her' seed.

And yes, "it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel". This is speaking about the coming of Jesus Christ.

 

[jobob]

Genesis 3: 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
Genesis 3: 14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Genesis 3 : 15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

God is talking to satan.... NOT A FREAKIN' SNAKE. So if the serpent was a literal snake than you can conclude that there is enmity between a literal snake's seed and the woman's seed.... Come on....

I don't think so....

I love that passage............such a wonderful picture of the coming Savior

 

[Arikay]

Yet your eyes and intellect are the ones reading genesis and claiming that it Must be taken literally. Maybe they are decieving you.
This is actually AiG's approach to the matter (if any evidence contradicts their preconsieved ideas, the evidence is ignored), and it has led them to lying to keep their claim. Just don't become like them.

Again, do you think snakes can talk?

your THINK its my problem.......youd like it to be.......
I have complete faith that Genesis 1 is correct AS written regardless of what my eyes and intellect would show.........theyve decieved me before