Literal Genesis is incoherent.

[AV1611VET]

... so you're God now are you?

Cute.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Cute.

You're the one who claims to think they know what's in people's heads. So if the shoe fits.

 

[lesliedellow]

Add to that that there are 2 different versions of the timeline in Genesis 1 and 2. Surely the people writing it would have not been so stupid as to not notice this.

So there is at least one atheist who doesn't credit them with that level of stupidity, but doing so gives YECs no problems at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

So there is at least one atheist who doesn't credit them with that level of stupidity, but doing so gives YECs no problems at all.

Why should it?

It's only a problem for unbelievers.

And for the record, I have no problem with it whatsoever -- and I'm not even a YEC.

 

[lesliedellow]

Why should it?

It's only a problem for unbelievers.

And for the record, I have no problem with it whatsoever -- and I'm not even a YEC.

So you have no problem with saying that the biblical writers are stupid.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you have no problem with saying that the biblical writers are stupid.

Not the writers -- the readers.

MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN was not a matter of can-you-write, but was a matter of can-you-read.

 

[AirPo]

A double necro!

 

[AirPo]

The village idiot's been necroing 5-9 year old threads and responding to people who haven't posted in 3-5 years. For some reason people don't check the date of the OP... or who it was that did it... and we're off to the races with more nonsense.

I miss thread tags.

 

[juvenissun]

[deleted]

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then I have to ask: what's wrong with calling it Darwinism?

You yourself said that "it would take a Philadelphia lawyer to figure out all this spaghetti of a definition."

Most people prefer to use language to clarify meaning, as opposed to yourself, who chooses to use it to obfuscate meaning.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most people prefer to use language to clarify meaning, as opposed to yourself, who chooses to use it to obfuscate meaning.

Either that, or you work hard not to understand; and just end up confusing yourselves.

 

[Hieronymus]

Why would an ultimate God need 6 whole days to create the universe?

Why not?

Why would he need to "rest" at all?

I guess He felt like having a rest from the work He did.

How does this suggest God can do anything he wants?

How does it not?

Surely makes more sense that its written that way so a "day" is simply the passage of time, and the "ages" of the earth at various points?

"and it was evening, and it was morning"

Heck it even says "a day is a thousand years".

No it says that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. This illustrates that God is not time-bound like we are, as in "He that is, was and cometh" (simultaneously)

Add to that that there are 2 different versions of wthe timeline in Genesis 1 and 2

Not really, but i understand the confusion.
Genesis 2 focusses on the 6th day and is set in the Garden alone.

Surely the people writing it would have not been so stupid as to not notice this.

Maybe they didn't expect stupid readers?

So with all things considered this shows that the timeline is very likely not meant to be literally either.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

And then we have humans made out of dirt, clay, mud. Whatever. And woman made out of mans rib, come on doesnt this suggest its a metaphor for something?

No. Why would it?

And the tree of knowledge, how is that not a metaphor? And what of the fruit of the tree? Eating fruit of any tree isnt going to give you knowledge except of the way it tastes. Its a clear analogy!

You seem to know what God can and can not do.

And take the talking Snake.

It is quite clear who spoke through the snake.
Just like it's quite clear who spoke through the mule in Numbers 22:28

I mean do you really think animals talked back then or does it make more sence to think it wasnt meant to be taken literally? And if it wasnt totally obvious up to now, they DID NOT die when they ate the fruit as God told them they would. You know why? Because it wasnt meant to be taken literally of course! It was meant to be much deeper, and more meaningfull that that.

It's a pity you form this strong opinion without looking for exegesis and apologetics.
"Dying you shall die" is what the Hebrew text says, and die they did, but not immediately.
So like God said and like the serpent denied: "You shall surely die."

Don't get me wrong, i don't think it's an easy to comprehend piece of Scripture either, but that only means that jumping to conclusions is to be avoided.

Why would Jesus have to forgive us for what Adam and Eve did?

Because the temptation in Genesis 3 was a coup by a high ranking son of God / angel.

How much sence do you think that makes? Surely it makes more sence to forgive us for OUR sins, you know the ones we actually have some kind control and responsibility over?

It's also legal salvation from the fate that comes with the coup and the reign of rebellious gods / angels.

To believe in a literal Genesis is to make the entire idea completely incoherent and renders the whole story meaningless!

Ed

I dearly hope to have shed some light on the matter for you.

Some things to consider:
Psalms 81:1
Genesis 6:1-4

 

[Hieronymus]

Except light can be proven to exist. Gods cannot.

Romans 1:20-23

 

[TLK Valentine]

Either that, or you work hard not to understand; and just end up confusing yourselves.

Well, given the choice...

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, given the choice...

Ya ... believe is not an option, is it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ya ... believe is not an option, is it?

What are you babbling about?

 

[AV1611VET]

What are you babbling about?

Sorry.

I thought I was responding to something else.

Nevermind.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So with all things considered this shows that the timeline is very likely not meant to be literally either.

The only way OEC works is if you look at the time line from the beginning. From our perspective each day is half the length of the day before it.

 

[USincognito]

Why not?I guess He felt like having a rest from the work He did.How does it not?"and it was evening, and it was morning"No it says that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. This illustrates that God is not time-bound like we are, as in "He that is, was and cometh" (simultaneously) Not really, but i understand the confusion.
Genesis 2 focusses on the 6th day and is set in the Garden alone.Maybe they didn't expect stupid readers? Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
No. Why would it?You seem to know what God can and can not do.It is quite clear who spoke through the snake.
Just like it's quite clear who spoke through the mule in Numbers 22:28
It's a pity you form this strong opinion without looking for exegesis and apologetics.
"Dying you shall die" is what the Hebrew text says, and die they did, but not immediately.
So like God said and like the serpent denied: "You shall surely die."

Don't get me wrong, i don't think it's an easy to comprehend piece of Scripture either, but that only means that jumping to conclusions is to be avoided.

Because the temptation in Genesis 3 was a coup by a high ranking son of God / angel.
It's also legal salvation from the fate that comes with the coup and the reign of rebellious gods / angels.I dearly hope to have shed some light on the matter for you.

Some things to consider:
Psalms 81:1
Genesis 6:1-4

You spent all that time replying to someone who hasn't been active on this forum for 6 years. Kudos!

 

[AirPo]

You spent all that time replying to someone who hasn't been active on this forum for 6 years. Kudos!

You've been AVed!