Question for Theistic Evolutionists

[theFijian]

Satan was in the form of a serpent we know from Scriptures, as Rev. 20:2 clarifies for us....

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

I thought you just told us to not take Revelation literally?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well, obviously figurative language doesn't have to be taken literally, like some things in Revelation, but I should have narrowed it to the Genesis creation account would have to be taken literally.

Should we also take this literally from Genesis 3 and if so what if Adam had eaten of the tree of life first( God had not forbidden doing so) What do you think would our situation be like now? Was Adam truly like God except for eternal life? If we snuck in through the West side( the Cherubim with the sword is on the east after all) and ate from the tree of life would we become like God?

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

 

[Mallon]

Satan was in the form of a serpent we know from Scriptures

Genesis doesn't say that.

as Rev. 20:2 clarifies for us....

Well, obviously figurative language doesn't have to be taken literally, like some things in Revelation

 

[Mallon]

I thought you just told us to not take Revelation literally?

Conclusion:

"The simple fact is that Revelation has to be taken totally literally, or you have to deny other areas of Scripture."

 

[heritage36]

Would you guys really not agree, some things in revelation need to be taken literally and some do not? I mean, do you think that verse is talking about three different individuals in the serpent, the devil and satan? I mean, come on people!

 

[theFijian]

Would you guys really not agree, some things in revelation need to be taken literally and some do not? I mean, do you think that verse is talking about three different individuals in the serpent, the devil and satan?

Exactly! Which begs the question, on what grounds have you decided that some parts of Revelation should be literally and other parts non-literally?

I mean, come on people!

Again, is your incredulity supposed to convince anybody?

 

[heritage36]

You do have a point, in that I agree some areas need to be interpreted more carefully because they are figurative and some are literal, I agree on that. If I seemed to suggest ALL OF THE BIBLE should always be interpreted literally, then I either said something incorrectly or was misinterpreted. I do agree there are figurative and literal areas of Scripture. I guess the point here is I believe the Genesis account of creation should be taken literally.

 

[gluadys]

Would you guys really not agree, some things in revelation need to be taken literally and some do not?

Why not apply that rule to every book in scripture including the creation accounts in Genesis?

After all, a serpent who is really Satan in disguise, is not literally a serpent, is it?

 

[Assyrian]

Satan was in the form of a serpent we know from Scriptures, as Rev. 20:2 clarifies for us....

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

Does Satan slither on his belly and eat dust all the days of his fife?

I agree Rev 20:2 is the key, but it doesn't say Satan was in the form of a serpent.

 

[theFijian]

You do have a point, in that I agree some areas need to be interpreted more carefully because they are figurative and some are literal, I agree on that. If I seemed to suggest ALL OF THE BIBLE should always be interpreted literally, then I either said something incorrectly or was misinterpreted. I do agree there are figurative and literal areas of Scripture. I guess the point here is I believe the Genesis account of creation should be taken literally.

You still have not said why the Creation account must be interpreted literally. Nor have you explained how you decide what parts of Revelation to take literally and what parts not to.

 

[Papias]

heritage wrote:

I guess the point here is I believe the Genesis account of creation should be taken literally.

So then Satan has this special thing going for Jesus' feet? Could you please point me to the new testament verse where Satan literally bit Jesus' foot?

Papias

 

[heritage36]

Okay, how would you explain the wording of it? I know many of you want to believe that the word day can be millions of years somehow, but that word, the hebrew word "yom" is used 2301 times in the OT and we aren't really confused by any of the other times like this, and any one of those 2301 times you look at when used along with parts of a 24 hour day like morning and evening, is always speaking of a 24 hour day, look into it yourself.

 

[heritage36]

heritage wrote:



So then Satan has this special thing going for Jesus' feet? Could you please point me to the new testament verse where Satan literally bit Jesus' foot?

Papias

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[Assyrian]

Okay, how would you explain the wording of it? I know many of you want to believe that the word day can be millions of years somehow, but that word, the hebrew word "yom" is used 2301 times in the OT and we aren't really confused by any of the other times like this, and any one of those 2301 times you look at when used along with parts of a 24 hour day like morning and evening, is always speaking of a 24 hour day, look into it yourself.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them.

Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,
for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Gen 5:5 Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

 

[heritage36]

Does every other person in this thread believe in evolution and a non-literal genesis account?

 

[heritage36]

Neither one of those verses, assyrian, mentions anything about a morning or evening as I said if you look what I said earlier.

 

[Papias]

heritage wrote:

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

OK, sorry, let me be more clear. Genesis 3:14 (hey, that's Genesis pi!)

So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

Since a literal interpretation says that this must happen, I was wondering where in the New Testament (or old, for that matter) it says it did, in fact, literally happen.

Okay, how would you explain the wording of it?

Fair question, and sorry if my first post sounded short.

Genesis, like the rest of whichever Bible you choose, is a mix of literal and metaphorical things. You have also agreed that the rest of your Bible is a mix, so it's odd to say that this one book has to be all literal.

but that word, the hebrew word "yom" is used 2301 times in the OT and we aren't really confused by any of the other times like this, and any one of those 2301 times you look at when used along with parts of a 24 hour day like morning and evening, is always speaking of a 24 hour day, look into it yourself.

Is the word "heel" used figuratively anyplace else? So I guess Satan must actually have interest in Jesus' feet? What about the word "dust", or the word "eat"? These are some reasons why the 2301 number is not relevant.

I know many of you want to believe that the word day can be millions of years somehow,

It's not what I want or don't want. If it were clear, scientifically, that the world was 6,004 years old, I'd be fine with that. It has nothing to do with what I do or don't want - I'm not so conceited as to think that what I want matters one way or the other.

Instead, it's the fact that huge amounts of evidence have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is 4.5 +/- 0.05 billion years old. My interest is interpreting the Bible in a way that is consistent with reality, as is hopefully the interest of all Christians.

Papias

 

[heritage36]

heritage wrote:


OK, sorry, let me be more clear. Genesis 3:14 (hey, that's Genesis pi!)

So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

Since a literal interpretation says that this must happen, I was wondering where in the New Testament (or old, for that matter) it says it did, in fact, literally happen.

Fair question, and sorry if my first post sounded short.

Genesis, like the rest of whichever Bible you choose, is a mix of literal and metaphorical things. You have also agreed that the rest of your Bible is a mix, so it's odd to say that this one book has to be all literal.




Is the word "heel" used figuratively anyplace else? So I guess Satan must actually have interest in Jesus' feet? What about the word "dust", or the word "eat"? These are some reasons why the 2301 number is not relevant.



It's not what I want or don't want. If it were clear, scientifically, that the world was 6,004 years old, I'd be fine with that. It has nothing to do with what I do or don't want - I'm not so conceited as to think that what I want matters one way or the other.

Instead, it's the fact that huge amounts of evidence have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is 4.5 +/- 0.05 billion years old. My interest is interpreting the Bible in a way that is consistent with reality, as is hopefully the interest of all Christians.

Papias

Your area of genesis you quoted about the heel is after the creation account, and to be clear, I did say that there are figures used in many areas, just not the creation account. Though you think it is odd that I admit there are figures used in many areas, you have to agree, there are other areas of whole chapters that are totally literal too.

Your comment about the heel isn't really relevant to the topic at hand. Yes, I know there are figures used that you may not find literally used anywhere else, but there are also words only used literally, so I don't see the point of that.

Why does science have to prove this true or not anyways, and why not Gods word which we know to be true? I mean, even the basis of the scientific method is not really truly observed in evolutionary thought, that being OBSERVATION. Faith involves believing things we cannot by normal human terms explain, because God is far beyond us and our abilities. Evolution is just a foolish attempt to show we can explain something extraordinary done by God.

 

[theFijian]

Your area of genesis you quoted about the heel is after the creation account, and to be clear, I did say that there are figures used in many areas, just not the creation account.

So should we read the account of the Fall literally or not?

Though you think it is odd that I admit there are figures used in many areas, you have to agree, there are other areas of whole chapters that are totally literal too.

Why should I have to agree? You still have not given any basis for reading one passage as literal and another passage as non-literal

 

[Assyrian]

Neither one of those verses, assyrian, mentions anything about a morning or evening as I said if you look what I said earlier.

Day isn't mentioned 2301 times with morning and evening. How is that relevant?