Paul's presents Genesis as literal and not parable.

[Archivist]

Thanks for that info....I just took a black magic marker and lined those verses out of my bible. Now my bible is like yours!!!!!!!!!!!

No, those verses are in my Bible. I read them as an allegory. Why would you falsely imply otherwise?

Why to you seem to believe that my interpretation of scripture must agree with your interpretation of scripture, and if it does not I can just "toss my Bible in the trash?"

 

[Speedwell]

Thanks for that info....I just took a black magic marker and lined those verses out of my bible. Now my bible is like yours!!!!!!!!!!!

Just like a creationist--to reject a part of God's inspired word just because it wasn't in a form of historical narrative he approved of.

 

[-57]

No, those verses are in my Bible. I read them as an allegory. Why would you falsely imply otherwise?

Why to you seem to believe that my interpretation of scripture must agree with your interpretation of scripture, and if it does not I can just "toss my Bible in the trash?"

Where did our sin nature come from? Those verses are found in your bible...

 

[-57]

Just like a creationist--to reject a part of God's inspired word just because it wasn't in a form of historical narrative he approved of.

Just like an evolutionist....a need to change what the bible says.

One thing I have learned is to not give much credence to the distortionist. The distortionist come in basically two flavors.....Atheist and their subgroups and secondly misguided bible users and their subgroups.

Both groups tend to claim that as science has modernized in the last several centuries the bible has failed to meet the latest scientific findings.

As the view of Old Earth Evolutionism has increased the accounts of the Genesis creation as well of the flood of Noah have been pushed from the rank of literal and historical. This new interpretation severely distorts the Word of God when it speaks to us concerning the things of creation and the flood. Those events become simply mythical, or some sort of parable.

In doing so the six day creation is distorted to mean six long ages. Adam wasn't made from the dirt then Eve formed from his rib but rather Adam and Eve evolved from lesser primates which evolved from lesser species. When a distortionist is asked to show a biblical line of theology to demonstrate that their Theistic-Evolitionism faith is truly biblical they tend to reach for extra biblical material. After removing what the bible actually says they insert their new found belief into where the old verse and chapter use to reside.

But this is just the beginning of what the Theo-Evo distortionist do. The garden of Eden becomes a fictitious place. They say "its just a story about mankind being bad"...or some other version of that. The fall in the garden due to disobedience never happened...but, instead the distortionist reach out for an extra-biblical concept that God somewhere during our evolution placed some sort of breath of life into each person that contained a sin nature. In doing so once again the bible is distorted.

Paul in Romans 5:12 tells us...."sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". The one man mentioned by Paul is Adam....and the Theo-Evo distortionist find themselves once again scrambling to redefine the term "one man" to force it to agree with their modern scientific beliefs.

Genesis tells us there was a world wide flood. The flood covered the mountains of that time to fifteen cubits. Theo-Evo distortionist in an attempt to fit the flood into their theology change the world wide flood into a local flood. Denying that the flood laid down the strata and buried the fossils. 2nd Peter 2:5 speaks of the flood and the destruction and how God protected Noah. Later in 2nd Peter 3:6 we are informed the world of that time perished in the flood. Peter also speaks of the ark and only eight people being saved in 1 Peter 3:20. Jesus even speaks of the days of Noah.

All of what Peter says must be distorted to somehow reflect a local flood..or no flood at all theology. This distortion is based upon old earth evolutionary views "backed up" by the beliefs of what has come to be know as modern science.

The irony of all this is that the misquided bible users mentioned above somehow find the ability to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ on day 3...despite...the fact that modern medical science says if you die you stay dead on day 3.

 

[Archivist]

Where did our sin nature come from? Those verses are found in your bible...

Again, it is irrelevant where sin came from. The fact is that sin entered the world, and we are saved only through the Blood of the Lamb.

If you want to believe that sin entered the world because a talking snake told a woman to eat a piece of fruit you are entitled to your interpretation.

 

[Aman777]

Where did our sin nature come from? Those verses are found in your bible...

Our sin nature came from the air (heaven) dust (earth without form) and water which was contaminated with darkness or death because it existed apart from God. Only God is good and anything apart from Him is subject to death. Mar 10:18 The only answer was for the Creator Himself, to live that perfect life God demanded and then give His sinless life, for the sins of the people He had made with His Own Hands, and rise again from the dead. Soon, He will return to destroy darkness or death:

1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

The Creation of the perfect Heaven continues at the end of the 6th Creative Day.

 

[Archivist]

The fall in the garden due to disobedience never happened...but, instead the distortionist reach out for an extra-biblical concept that God somewhere during our evolution placed some sort of breath of life into each person that contained a sin nature. In doing so once again the bible is distorted.

I don't recall ever saying this.

 

[Speedwell]

Just like an evolutionist....a need to change what the bible says.

One thing I have learned is to not give much credence to the distortionist. The distortionist come in basically two flavors.....Atheist and their subgroups and secondly misguided bible users and their subgroups.

Both groups tend to claim that as science has modernized in the last several centuries the bible has failed to meet the latest scientific findings.

The Bible was never intended to meet scientific findings, so it has not failed.

As the view of Old Earth Evolutionism has increased the accounts of the Genesis creation as well of the flood of Noah have been pushed from the rank of literal and historical. This new interpretation severely distorts the Word of God when it speaks to us concerning the things of creation and the flood. Those events become simply mythical, or some sort of parable.

In doing so the six day creation is distorted to mean six long ages. Adam wasn't made from the dirt then Eve formed from his rib but rather Adam and Eve evolved from lesser primates which evolved from lesser species. When a distortionist is asked to show a biblical line of theology to demonstrate that their Theistic-Evolitionism faith is truly biblical they tend to reach for extra biblical material. After removing what the bible actually says they insert their new found belief into where the old verse and chapter use to reside.

But this is just the beginning of what the Theo-Evo distortionist do. The garden of Eden becomes a fictitious place. They say "its just a story about mankind being bad"...or some other version of that. The fall in the garden due to disobedience never happened...but, instead the distortionist reach out for an extra-biblical concept that God somewhere during our evolution placed some sort of breath of life into each person that contained a sin nature. In doing so once again the bible is distorted.

Paul in Romans 5:12 tells us...."sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". The one man mentioned by Paul is Adam....and the Theo-Evo distortionist find themselves once again scrambling to redefine the term "one man" to force it to agree with their modern scientific beliefs.

Genesis tells us there was a world wide flood. The flood covered the mountains of that time to fifteen cubits. Theo-Evo distortionist in an attempt to fit the flood into their theology change the world wide flood into a local flood. Denying that the flood laid down the strata and buried the fossils. 2nd Peter 2:5 speaks of the flood and the destruction and how God protected Noah. Later in 2nd Peter 3:6 we are informed the world of that time perished in the flood. Peter also speaks of the ark and only eight people being saved in 1 Peter 3:20. Jesus even speaks of the days of Noah.

All of what Peter says must be distorted to somehow reflect a local flood..or no flood at all theology. This distortion is based upon old earth evolutionary views "backed up" by the beliefs of what has come to be know as modern science.

How highly imaginative you are. Now, if you can find anyone who believes all that guff you two can have a fun argument.

The irony of all this is that the misquided bible users mentioned above somehow find the ability to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ on day 3...despite...the fact that modern medical science says if you die you stay dead on day 3.

Y What you say is only true of mere mortals. You apparently don't believe that Jesus was fully man and fully God.

 

[SolomonVII]

The disagreements are not moot. Concerning any theological lesson or insight as well as any moral or ethical lessons....those that are persuaded by "B" skip over why we sin and deviate from what scripture teaches.
They simply say, well were sinners and that's all I need to know. But when asked how we got that way....I hear silence. They exchange what is written in the Word of God for the word of man...the reason for Jesus coming and dieing on the cross isn't because of a single act of disobedience where we all suffer the reprocussion and curse of that sin.

I don't know that we can say that "B" people skip over why we sin.
It is a very diverse group, these "B" people, just as "A" people are diverse.
But for both A and B there is no reason that either of them would want to ignore what the Genesis story says on that account, which is that Eve was tempted by the snake to see that the fruit of the tree was good to eat, and pleasing to the eye, and desirable for making one wise. Eve listened to the snake, and Adam to the woman, and that is how sin entered into our world.

Now, the actual story is as profound and deep as it is brief. But what we make of the actual words are not affected in the least by whether we believe that god molded a human body out of clay and brought it to life with breath, or biological metamorphosis of human life through genetic response to environmental factors.
For as long as there have been men and women, there has been sin. For as long as God's voice is in our consciousness, we have that choice to obey, or to sin.
And disagreements over interpretation by one A person here, or one B person, are not really indicative of how all A's think, or how all B's think.

By simply reading the Bible, we all have the tools to understand how sin came into the world. A particular scientific stance changes nothing on that.

 

[-57]

I don't know that we can say that "B" people skip over why we sin.
It is a very diverse group, these "B" people, just as "A" people are diverse.
But for both A and B there is no reason that either of them would want to ignore what the Genesis story says on that account, which is that Eve was tempted by the snake to see that the fruit of the tree was good to eat, and pleasing to the eye, and desirable for making one wise. Eve listened to the snake, and Adam to the woman, and that is how sin entered into our world.

Now, the actual story is as profound and deep as it is brief. But what we make of the actual words are not affected in the least by whether we believe that god molded a human body out of clay and brought it to life with breath, or biological metamorphosis of human life through genetic response to environmental factors.
For as long as there have been men and women, there has been sin. For as long as God's voice is in our consciousness, we have that choice to obey, or to sin.
And disagreements over interpretation by one A person here, or one B person, are not really indicative of how all A's think, or how all B's think.

By simply reading the Bible, we all have the tools to understand how sin came into the world. A particular scientific stance changes nothing on that.

And whether jesus has died on the cross ... really doesn't matter either. what we make of the actual WWords are not affected in the least by whether we believe that Jesus died on the cross or not.

 

[-57]

The Bible was never intended to meet scientific findings, so it has not failed.

How highly imaginative you are. Now, if you can find anyone who believes all that guff you two can have a fun argument.

Y What you say is only true of mere mortals. You apparently don't believe that Jesus was fully man and fully God.

I understand...you pick and choose the truth.

 

[SolomonVII]

And whether jesus has died on the cross ... really doesn't matter either. what we make of the actual WWords are not affected in the least by whether we believe that Jesus died on the cross or not.

I am not sure what the point is that you are trying to make.

 

[-57]

I am not sure what the point is that you are trying to make.

The point was to this....
...whether we believe that god molded a human body out of clay and brought it to life with breath, or biological metamorphosis of human life through genetic response to environmental factors.

It matters which one we believe. One is the truth and the other is a lie. Which means of creation do you believe?

 

[SolomonVII]

The point was to this....
...whether we believe that god molded a human body out of clay and brought it to life with breath, or biological metamorphosis of human life through genetic response to environmental factors.

It matters which one we believe. One is the truth and the other is a lie. Which means of creation do you believe?

Whether you believe in the former or the latter has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in the cross. Therein lies the non sequitur that you laid at my feet, and that I had no means of interpreting.
If it matters to you, it matters to you. That is fair enough. But if the source of Christian believe is believing in the cross, the Gospel news of Jesus does not rely on either "A" or "B" being true in order for it to be believed in.

I think that you can ask virtually any Christian here whether they believe in the Jesus dying on the cross, and you will find it matters to them very, very much, equally much in fact as it does to you.
That is what Christianity is all about. That is who God is for Christians, the guy who came down to our own level, so that he could show us the way back up to his.

 

[-57]

Whether you believe in the former or the latter has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in the cross. Therein lies the non sequitur that you laid at my feet, and that I had no means of interpreting.
If it matters to you, it matters to you. That is fair enough. But if the source of Christian believe is believing in the cross, the Gospel news of Jesus does not rely on either "A" or "B" being true in order for it to be believed in.

I think that you can ask virtually any Christian here whether they believe in the Jesus dying on the cross, and you will find it matters to them very, very much, equally much in fact as it does to you.
That is what Christianity is all about. That is who God is for Christians, the guy who came down to our own level, so that he could show us the way back up to his.

I never said salvation depends on what you believe about creation. I say that and also say, if you believe the bible about Jesus rising from the dead you should also believe the bible when in several places it says man was formed from the dust and not from some primitive primate.

 

[SolomonVII]

I never said salvation depends on what you believe about creation. I say that and also say, if you believe the bible about Jesus rising from the dead you should also believe the bible when in several places it says man was formed from the dust and not from some primitive primate.

What you were saying was unclear. Your latest example however was focused on the cross.
Everyone is aware of your opinon of course, but what was being asked of you was to make a coherent argument of how theology must differ as a result of believing in "A" or "B".

 

[rjs330]

Again, it is irrelevant where sin came from. The fact is that sin entered the world, and we are saved only through the Blood of the Lamb.

If you want to believe that sin entered the world because a talking snake told a woman to eat a piece of fruit you are entitled to your interpretation.

If it is irrelevant why did God tell us where it came from? Are you saying that it has no purpose? There is a reason why God tells us where sin came from. There is a purpose behind it.

 

[rjs330]

Whether you believe in the former or the latter has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in the cross. Therein lies the non sequitur that you laid at my feet, and that I had no means of interpreting.
If it matters to you, it matters to you. That is fair enough. But if the source of Christian believe is believing in the cross, the Gospel news of Jesus does not rely on either "A" or "B" being true in order for it to be believed in.

I think that you can ask virtually any Christian here whether they believe in the Jesus dying on the cross, and you will find it matters to them very, very much, equally much in fact as it does to you.
That is what Christianity is all about. That is who God is for Christians, the guy who came down to our own level, so that he could show us the way back up to his.

Paul spoke of the cross, resurrection and MANY other doctrinal issues. We don't question those things, but for some reason unknown to me, we question the stuffing out of what he says about creation. Also we accept what he says about the future as well, but by golly we will NOT accept what he says about creation and Adam and Eve. We whole heartedly embrace what he says about living a godly life and how we ought to live for righteousness and what he says about Christ and who he was and what he did. But we refuse to accept what he says about creation. We will believe that Paul was an apostle and was given the deep things of God and wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but we absolutely will not believe that the things he was given by God under the inspiration and as an Apostle had anything to do with Genesis and the creation and the fall of man.

It all is just too odd to me.

 

[Archivist]

If it is irrelevant why did God tell us where it came from? Are you saying that it has no purpose? There is a reason why God tells us where sin came from. There is a purpose behind it.

And, as I keep saying, you are entitled to your interpretation. To me it makes no difference how sin entered the world, the fact is that it did. I don't believe that it entered the world because a talking snake told a woman to eat a piece of fruit.

 

[Aman777]

And, as I keep saying, you are entitled to your interpretation. To me it makes no difference how sin entered the world, the fact is that it did. I don't believe that it entered the world because a talking snake told a woman to eat a piece of fruit.

It matters since ONLY one man was made with an intelligence like God's, Gen 3:22 which means that ONLY Humans have the free choice to believe God or Not. It had to come through Adam since the sons of God (prehistoric people) were not Humans until the married and produced offspring with a descendant of Adam. Gen 6:4 In this manner, God has produced over 7 Billion Humans who can freely choose Heaven or Hell since they have INHERITED the superior intelligence of Adam. God Bless you