Not interested in God's word?

[philadiddle]

He hasn't got a clue about the origin of sin....or death.

Really? Please tell me about my view and how it needs to be corrected. What is it that I believe that's wrong?

 

[philadiddle]

But I would like to make an important point here, these are secondary issues and should not be brought in the topic of rejecting the gospel. The age of the universe in any way does not affect a person's salvation.

I'm glad you agree with what I'm saying.

 

[philadiddle]

Ted,

I don't have the time right now to give you the response that you deserve (and I mean that in a positive way). I'll get back to your post this weekend sometime.

 

[juvenissun]

Like I said, it may not be you who thinks my views of original sin discredit the gospel message, but there are others who think it does. This thread obviously isn't directed at you.

Fine. I am not arguing against you, but only tried to solve your problem.

 

[Papias]

Hi Danny! And welcome to the forums!

Danny wrote:

Hi Papias,
Sun and moon were already created on day 1(I don't mean 24 hour day and will remain same for all the days I mention) they became visible when the atmosphere of earth becomes transparent.

That's not what Genesis says. It says, on day 4:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Some creationists like to change the text to pretend that the sun and moon were made earlier, but that's not what Genesis says.

day1
Heavens and earth are created(biblical) big bang(science)

Except it says that the earth was a waterworld, with no land. Earth was never like that. See the actual text, in italics:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

day2
waters separate(b) earth's atmosphere changes(s)

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

There is no mention of the atmosphere "changing". Again, that is a common creationist alteration of the text. There actually is no mention of an "atmosphere" - what is sometimes translated as "sky" uses the hebrew word for "hard, beaten metal bowl". The "bowl" is put up to hold up an ocean above us- that's why the sky is blue, we are literally seen as being underwater as Genesis describes it.

day3
dry land appears plant life begins(b) bacteria and algae grow(s)

Bacteria and algae are not plants, any more than you are a mushroom. The text of genesis says that there were land plants before there was any life in the ocean or anywhere else, which is simply the opposite of what science says. Here is day three - see? No mention of life besides land plants.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

day4
sun moon and stars are visible(b) earth's atmosphere changes(s)

Again, you are changing the text of Genesis as you wish. It says nothing about the atmosphere- it says the stars, moon, sun, etc were created on that day. Here is the text for comparison.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

day5
first animal life in water and air(b) multicellular life appears in water, winged insects appear(s)

Except, again, that's not what the text says. It says "birds", etc, and "everything" that lives in the water. As before, you don't have to take my word for it, the text of Genesis is below.


20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

day6
land animals and humans appear(b) land animals appear and later human life appears(s).

As before, that doesn't match with science, which has land animals at least 200 million years before birds appear. Here again is the text itself:

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

you have said that universe is created on day 4. that's not the case. The heavens and earth are created in the beginning out of nothing. Ex nihil nihil fit!

Fair enough - in the beginning, the heavens, without any stars, planets, sun, etc, could be argued to be there on day one - though a careful reading doesn't support that. The hebrew reads more like "in the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth....".


In fact, those who have studied this their whole lives, and know hebrew well, will tell you that the Genesis story describes the creation of a flat disc like earth, with a hard domed vault set on it, with an ocean above that, with windows to allow rain to pour down. Here is what Genesis describes, according to the Biblical experts:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_keP8xgKfxpY/TRsq8yTq9AI/AAAAAAAAAN4/h5Mdl2__8dU/s400/OT+cosmology2.jpg

The bottom line is that a literal reading doesn't match the real world at all. This is clearly a metaphorical description, and so the continued attempts to interpret this literally only make Christianity look silly. That's why most of our clergy know better. You don't have to take my word for it, you can read Genesis yourself.

Make sense?

Papias

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Really? Please tell me about my view and how it needs to be corrected. What is it that I believe that's wrong?

You don't even have a clue when it's right in front of you.

Name the date and time sin originated in our world. Tell us how it happened...since you are so insistent that Genesis one is not actual history.

 

[philadiddle]

You don't even have a clue when it's right in front of you.

Name the date and time sin originated in our world. Tell us how it happened...since you are so insistent that Genesis one is not actual history.

Why would knowing the exact date and time of original sin make any difference about how we understand the fact that we sin and it seperates us from God?

I was hoping you could tell me more about me, since you think you know, but instead you're asking questions. Please enlighten me about myself.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Why would knowing the exact date and time of original sin make any difference about how we understand the fact that we sin and it seperates us from God?

I was hoping you could tell me more about me, since you think you know, but instead you're asking questions. Please enlighten me about myself.

That's exactly what I thought you would do. You avoided the issue.

I've read enough of your nonsense to know that you don't believe what Jesus said confirming everything Moses told us about Genesis(Luke 24) nor in what Paul said that the first sin (Romans 5:12)...and subsequently death following, was committed by Adam, the first man.

So tell us, philadiddle, was Adam truly the first man who disobeyed God by partaking of the forbidden fruit...as Moses told us and all the writers of the N.T. who happened to mention him........................or, was he the first non-ape whose father WAS an ape and what was his sin?

Answer it.

 

[Jase]

That's exactly what I thought you would do. You avoided the issue.

I've read enough of your nonsense to know that you don't believe what Jesus said confirming everything Moses told us about Genesis(Luke 24) nor in what Paul said that the first sin (Romans 5:12)...and subsequently death following, was committed by Adam, the first man.

So tell us, philadiddle, was Adam truly the first man who disobeyed God by partaking of the forbidden fruit...as Moses told us and all the writers of the N.T. who happened to mention him........................or, was he the first non-ape whose father WAS an ape and what was his sin?

Answer it.

Adam didn't exist. Adam is the Hebrew word for mankind/humanity. Adam represents the human species.

 

[Greg1234]

Hi Danny! And welcome to the forums!

Danny wrote:





That's not what Genesis says. It says, on day 4:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Some creationists like to change the text to pretend that the sun and moon were made earlier, but that's not what Genesis says.




Except it says that the earth was a waterworld, with no land. Earth was never like that. See the actual text, in italics:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

day2
waters separate(b) earth's atmosphere changes(s)

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

There is no mention of the atmosphere "changing". Again, that is a common creationist alteration of the text. There actually is no mention of an "atmosphere" - what is sometimes translated as "sky" uses the hebrew word for "hard, beaten metal bowl". The "bowl" is put up to hold up an ocean above us- that's why the sky is blue, we are literally seen as being underwater as Genesis describes it.




Bacteria and algae are not plants, any more than you are a mushroom. The text of genesis says that there were land plants before there was any life in the ocean or anywhere else, which is simply the opposite of what science says. Here is day three - see? No mention of life besides land plants.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.



Again, you are changing the text of Genesis as you wish. It says nothing about the atmosphere- it says the stars, moon, sun, etc were created on that day. Here is the text for comparison.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.






Except, again, that's not what the text says. It says "birds", etc, and "everything" that lives in the water. As before, you don't have to take my word for it, the text of Genesis is below.


20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.




As before, that doesn't match with science, which has land animals at least 200 million years before birds appear. Here again is the text itself:

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.




Fair enough - in the beginning, the heavens, without any stars, planets, sun, etc, could be argued to be there on day one - though a careful reading doesn't support that. The hebrew reads more like "in the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth....".


In fact, those who have studied this their whole lives, and know hebrew well, will tell you that the Genesis story describes the creation of a flat disc like earth, with a hard domed vault set on it, with an ocean above that, with windows to allow rain to pour down. Here is what Genesis describes, according to the Biblical experts:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_keP8xgKfxpY/TRsq8yTq9AI/AAAAAAAAAN4/h5Mdl2__8dU/s400/OT+cosmology2.jpg

The bottom line is that a literal reading doesn't match the real world at all. This is clearly a metaphorical description, and so the continued attempts to interpret this literally only make Christianity look silly. That's why most of our clergy know better. You don't have to take my word for it, you can read Genesis yourself.

Make sense?

Papias

Hm, firmament is a space (you can have firmament of an ocean, firmament of a tin can). Birds fly in the firmament above the earth as specified by the writer. The celestial bodies are in the firmament. Earth seems to be dry land as specified by the writer, and not a planet, so your attempts at a flat earth seem to be futile.

You sought refuge in the metaphorical but when we interpret the parables the interpretation contains more of God (more spiritual activity) and less matter. So we would go from literally Creationism to metaphorically even more Creationism.

 

[dannyevans]

Hi Papias,
If you say sun was created on day 4, how could you explain 'And God said let there be light and there was light'? I don't mean to say sun is the only source of light. I believe that God is the author of Both science and Bible. Truth cannot conflict truth. Bible is not a cosmology text book to explain step by step procedure of how God created the whole thing. But history has shown us that science is subjected to change, not the Word of God. So I would rather rest my belief in Bible. But don't think I'm an YEC or an OEC. I actually feel this is not much of a important thing compared to the Gospel. What we ultimately need, proclaim the word and defend it. We want to bring people to Christ. My faith will not in any way be affected if it is theistic evolutionists who are correct or progressive or young earth.

 

[philadiddle]

That's exactly what I thought you would do. You avoided the issue.

You haven't explained the issue yet.

I've read enough of your nonsense to know that you don't believe what Jesus said confirming everything Moses told us about Genesis(Luke 24) nor in what Paul said that the first sin (Romans 5:12)...and subsequently death following, was committed by Adam, the first man.

This isn't my "nonsense", it's the work of scholars from St. Augustine, Kant, C.S. Lewis, NT Wright, etc etc. It would do you some good to take some OT classes at a nearby Christian school.

So tell us, philadiddle, was Adam truly the first man who disobeyed God by partaking of the forbidden fruit...as Moses told us and all the writers of the N.T. who happened to mention him........................or, was he the first non-ape whose father WAS an ape and what was his sin?

Answer it.

No he wasn't. I don't know when the first sin happened. Does it matter?

Do you know what I think Genesis does mean?

 

[Assyrian]

That's exactly what I thought you would do. You avoided the issue.

You need to show that the precise date of original sin is an issue first, and explain how the church managed for so long before Bishop Ussher came along. Here are some of the ideas Christians had for the date of creation, then you can try to guess how old Adam was when he fell to find a date for Original Sin.

Dating creation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Septuagint
Many of the earliest Christians who followed the Septuagint calculated creation around 5500 BC, and Christians up to the Middle-Ages continued to use this rough estimate: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Julius Africanus (5501 BC), Eusebius (5228 BC), Jerome (5199 BC) Hippolytus of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius Severus (5469 BC), Isidore of Seville (5336 BC), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maximus the Confessor (5493 BC), George Syncellus (5492 BC) and Gregory of Tours (5500 BC).[63][64][65] The Byzantine calendar has traditionally dated the creation of the world to September 1, 5509 BC, María de Ágreda and her followers to 5199 BC while the early Ethiopian Church (as revealed in the Book of Aksum) to 5493 BC.[citation needed]
Bede was one of the first to break away from the standard Septuagint date for the creation and in his work De Temporibus ("On Time") (completed in 703 AD) dated the creation to 18 March 3952 BC but was accused of heresy at the table of Bishop Wilfrid, because his chronology was contrary to accepted calculations of around 5500 BC.[66]

Masoretic
After the Masoretic text was published, however, dating creation around 4000 BC became common, and was received with wide support.[67] Proposed calculations of the date of creation using the Masoretic from the 10th century to the 18th century include: Marianus Scotus (4192 BC), Maimonides (4058 BC), Henri Spondanus (4051 BC), Benedict Pereira (4021 BC), Louis Cappel (4005 BC), James Ussher (4004 BC), Augustin Calmet (4002 BC), Isaac Newton (4000 BC), Johannes Kepler (April 27, 3977 BC) [based on his book Mysterium], Petavius (3984 BC), Theodore Bibliander (3980 BC), Christen Sørensen Longomontanus (3966 BC), Melanchthon (3964 BC), Martin Luther (3961 BC), John Lightfoot (3960 BC), Cornelius Cornelii a Lapide (3951 BC) Joseph Justus Scaliger (3949 BC), Christoph Helvig (3947 BC), Gerardus Mercator (3928 BC), Matthieu Brouard (3927 BC), Benito Arias Montano (3849 BC), Andreas Helwig (3836 BC), David Gans (3761 BC), Gershom ben Judah (3754 BC) and Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller (3616 BC).[68]
Among the Masoretic creation estimates or calculations for the date of creation only Archbishop Ussher's specific chronology dating the creation to 4004 BC became the most accepted and popular, mainly because this specific date was attached to the King James Bible.[69]

Early Christian chronicles
The Chronicon of Eusebius (early 4th century) dated creation to 5228 BC while Jerome (c. 380, Constantinople) dated creation to 5199 BC.[70][71] Earlier editions of the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day used this date,[72] as did the Irish Annals of the Four Masters.[73]

Alfonsine tables
Alfonso X of Castile commissioned the Alfonsine tables, from which the date of the creation has been calculated to be either 6984 BC or 6484 BC.[74][75][76]
​

I've read enough of your nonsense to know that you don't believe what Jesus said confirming everything Moses told us about Genesis(Luke 24)

Instead of claiming phil's posts are 'nonsense' you might be better freading the texts you quote and seeing if they support your own interpretation.

I take it by Luke 24 you are referring to:
Luke 24:25 And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!
26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"
27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
and
Luke 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
46 and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead."
What does the date and time of the first sin tell us about Jesus and his death? If it doesn't, perhaps you are missing the point Jesus taught his disciples.

Of course the story of the fall does tell us about Christ's death on the cross, Gen 3:14 The LORD God said to the serpent... 15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." But Jesus didn't literally step on a snake's head at Calvary or get bitten on the heel by a literal snake. Which means when Jesus was opening their mind to understand all the scriptures he was opening their mind to figurative interpretations too. Perhaps you need to let him open you mind to the meaning of scripture.

nor in what Paul said that the first sin (Romans 5:12)...and subsequently death following, was committed by Adam, the first man.
So tell us, philadiddle, was Adam truly the first man who disobeyed God by partaking of the forbidden fruit...as Moses told us and all the writers of the N.T. who happened to mention him........................or, was he the first non-ape whose father WAS an ape and what was his sin?

Answer it.

If the precise sin Adam committed was important
wouldn't Paul have mentioned the problem was eating stolen fruit? A much more relevant sin for us to be concerned about is our own since ...death spread to all men because all sinned Rom 5:12. I don't see how the precise date and time of the first transgression is important for our understanding of sin since Paul give is no mention of the precise date either.

Have you considered the possibility you misunderstand Paul the same way you misunderstood what Jesus said in Luke 24? After all Paul talks in Romans 5 about interpreting Adam figuratively. Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam’s transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come.

 

[Papias]

Danny wrote:

Hi Papias,
If you say sun was created on day 4, how could you explain 'And God said let there be light and there was light'? I don't mean to say sun is the only source of light.

Well, it sounds like you answered yourself if you want to cling to a literal interpretation. Since I see it as a poetic statement of God being the creator, it's OK with me if it talks about light without a literal light source.

I believe that God is the author of Both science and Bible. Truth cannot conflict truth.

I absolutely agree. That's why it's clear that Genesis is poetic. In the same way, when Genesis describes a worldwide flood (which geology has shown didn't literally happen) or Jesus describes that the temple will no longer have "one stone sitting atop another", it's not to be taken literally. We both already agree that the Bibles have plenty of non-literal areas, unless you think beautiful women have fruit on their faces and animals in their eyesockets (see song of solomon).

Bible is not a cosmology text book to explain step by step procedure of how God created the whole thing.

So then why did you say that the order in Genesis is the same order as what really happened? It's OK, we all make mistakes and learn. Do you see now that Genesis is not a cosmology text book to explain step by step procedure of how God created the whole thing, so we shouldn't expect it to follow the same order as what actually happened?

But history has shown us that science is subjected to change, not the Word of God. So I would rather rest my belief in Bible.

I rest my belief on the Bible too. But it's not an either/or, it's instead a both/and. Both are ways to learn truth - all of which is God's truth. Science is simply the best method we've found for getting the details of God's truth.

But don't think I'm an YEC or an OEC. I actually feel this is not much of a important thing compared to the Gospel.

I agree that it's not that important compared to the Gospel. It's simply not a salvation issue.

What we ultimately need, proclaim the word and defend it. We want to bring people to Christ.

And that's why Christians going out and saying they are creationists is harmful to spreading the Gospel. Because people see that, and think that the scripture actually teaches something as incorrect as strict creationism, then the rest, incluing the Gospel, must be wrong too. We shouldn't do that.

My faith will not in any way be affected if it is theistic evolutionists who are correct or progressive or young earth.

Good.

Thank, and sorry if I sounded harsh. Too often we get trolls here, and patience can wear thin.

Blessings in his name-

Papias

 

[blah1234]

This type of debate has been going on for so long. I came across a similar post on another site (can't remember which one it is) and it was into hundreds and hundreds of posts.

It went nowhere; all though the reading was interesting and everone has the rights to express their viewpoint.

I find it strange that there can be two very conflicting arguments about God's creation, who is orderly.

I wonder why.

No matter what camp you subscribe to it ultimately means ignoring other evidence that is just as real as anything else. Creationist ignores the scientific findings. TE ignores biblical evidence such as first human pair and original sin. People who interpret the bible as purely figurative ignore any evidence that there is real historical content. Very confusing.

I wonder sometimes if all of this is trivial. I wonder if the real goal should be to simply read, understand and incorporate the spiritual messages contained in the bible. Is whatever method you use to find them (assuming we come to the same conclusion on what the messages are) okay; and okay in God's eyes?

 

[Assyrian]

Hi Canadian, welcome to the Origins Theology. I am no sure you understand the TE position. Stick around though, you will get to know us here.

This type of debate has been going on for so long. I came across a similar post on another site (can't remember which one it is) and it was into hundreds and hundreds of posts.

It went nowhere; all though the reading was interesting and everone has the rights to express their viewpoint.

I find it strange that there can be two very conflicting arguments about God's creation, who is orderly.

I wonder why. No matter what camp you subscribe to it ultimately means ignoring other evidence that is just as real as anything else. Creationist ignores the scientific findings. TE ignores biblical evidence such as first human pair and original sin.

We hardly ignore it, it is a recurring topic of conversation here. Now some, like me, would say Adam and Eve were figurative and that the bible doesn't even mention Original Sin. Other TEs, the majority, believe Adam and Eve were real people and that Original Sin is the result of their fall. It is just that you don't need Adam and Eve to be the very first couple with Adam made from clay to believe in Original Sin.

People who interpret the bible as purely figurative ignore any evidence that there is real historical content. Very confusing.

No TE I know interprets the bible as purely figurative. Nor do any Creationists (or hardly any) take everything literally. We all recognise the bible as a mixture of literal and figurative. The question is whether the creation accounts are literal or figurative not that the whole bible is literal or figurative.

I wonder sometimes if all of this is trivial. I wonder if the real goal should be to simply read, understand and incorporate the spiritual messages contained in the bible. Is whatever method you use to find them (assuming we come to the same conclusion on what the messages are) okay; and okay in God's eyes?

Yes,and Creationists who take the creation accounts literally can still see the important spiritual meanings in the passage. You get the odd people who insist Jesus parables were literal, they all really happened, but they can still see the implications of the Prodigal Son.

 

[blah1234]

No TE I know interprets the bible as purely figurative. Nor do any Creationists (or hardly any) take everything literally. We all recognize the bible as a mixture of literal and figurative. The question is whether the creation accounts are literal or figurative not that the whole bible is literal or figurative.

The hard part is knowing when to stop. If verses previously thought as being literal are then changed to be figurative, what else that is thought be literal is in fact not. {Except for parables because we are told}. Does anyone believe that Jonah was really in the fish? Of course that one is kind of absurd....but then again with the power of God....

I think were I am going with this is to Jesus. Believe in him and have eternal life. If, lets say, he was only a figurative character what good does believing in fiction do? Unless that is what was planned. How do people make that justification that Jesus was the real God-man in real time.

My comment about different people ignoring certain aspects wasn't meant to imply that they close their eyes to the existence of it. What I meant was that ultimately once you subscribe to a camp you have to not include certain information because it works against your viewpoint; such as a creationist accepting the evidence of evolution or a TE not accepting biblical evidence/arguments for literal interpretations. It appears as a bit of a paradox.

 

[Assyrian]

The hard part is knowing when to stop. If verses previously thought as being literal are then changed to be figurative, what else that is thought be literal is in fact not. {Except for parables because we are told}. Does anyone believe that Jonah was really in the fish? Of course that one is kind of absurd....but then again with the power of God....

That is the slippery slope argument, but we shouldn't let the fear of getting something wrong stop us from trying to get the best understanding of scripture we can. What sense is there in stopping too soon and taking thing literally you shouldn't, to avoid taking the wrong things figuratively? Should we misinterpret scripture to avoid misinterpreting scripture? If taking things figuratively was such a dangerous slippery slope why did Jesus speak figuratively. It is not like all his parable sand metaphor come with neat labels saying they are figurative. Sometimes he described what he said as a parable, sometimes Jesus just told the story and said nothing to his listeners about it being a parable, it is just the Gospel writer who lets us know. Sometimes neither Jesus nor the gospel writer tell us. Look at the parable of the Good Shepherd, or when Jesus claimed to be a vine tree.

I think were I am going with this is to Jesus. Believe in him and have eternal life. If, lets say, he was only a figurative character what good does believing in fiction do? Unless that is what was planned. How do people make that justification that Jesus was the real God-man in real time.

Again we don't take everything figuratively. Don't the gospels reiterate again and again that this is witness testimony? Didn't Paul insist that is Jesus wasn't really raised from the dead, then we are still dead in our sins.

My comment about different people ignoring certain aspects wasn't meant to imply that they close their eyes to the existence of it. What I meant was that ultimately once you subscribe to a camp you have to not include certain information because it works against your viewpoint; such as a creationist accepting the evidence of evolution or a TE not accepting biblical evidence/arguments for literal interpretations. It appears as a bit of a paradox.

You need to understand a very basic difference between creationism and TE. Because creationism is up against all the scientific evidence, (evidence from the world God created), it has to insist that the literal interpretation is the only possible interpretation of the text. TEs on the other hand, recognise that there are different ways to interpret Genesis. There have been since the early church. The literal interpretation is a perfectly valid approach to the text, but one of many. If there are different ways too interpret the text, why would anyone pick an interpretation that contradicts what actually happened?

 

[Smidlee]

.

You need to understand a very basic difference between creationism and TE. Because creationism is up against all the scientific evidence, (evidence from the world God created), it has to insist that the literal interpretation is the only possible interpretation of the text. .

Another difference between those who believe TE and Creation is with this statement. Evolution also have serious trouble with the scientific evidence and often evolutionist pretend they have a monopoly on scientific facts. The reason science itself has so much trouble with origins is the idea "the present is the key to the past." When that key doesn't fit scientist tries to jam the key into the hole.

 

[blah1234]

so how do TE believers explain evolution? I am familiar with Darwinism.