Question From A New Christian

[Nathan Poe]

A literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is not required for a belief in the Truth of the Bible.

A literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is not even required for a literal reading of other passages (since we need to approach each text on its own ground).



Just for the record though Jesus quoted from both genesis 1 and 2 in the same mouthful with an obvious reguard that there was no contradiction.

There you have it: Jesus quoted from Genesis 1 and 2, so it must be true.

Jesus used Genesis for people who already believed it as a teaching tool.

Your point?

And the problem is, that if we try to undermine some of the things in Genesis then we will ultimately leave room to deny other things in the bible.

And of course, it would be impossible for TRUE Christians to believe the Bible if there were ever any room to deny anything in it...

Why, that would actually take faith, now wouldn't it?

Arguments like this make me sad. They practically refute themselves.

Such as the basis of marriage, clothes, sin (and its definition), and God's covenant. We start to undermine these and there goes our Christian morals. Genesis is the foundation for many things in the Bible, even some of Jesus' teachings.

You heard it here first: Without Genesis, the Bible (and Christianity as a whole) goes out the window.

Still sad.

 

[h2whoa]

All I know is that I believe in Christ and God. I also believe in evolution. I have seen enough evidence to convince me. I have studied the theories and the genetic processes by which it can happen and I'm sorry to say that it is there.

I believe that by denying this basic premise, you deny the wonder of God's creation.

H2

 

[h2whoa]

And of course, it would be impossible for TRUE Christians to believe the Bible if there were ever any room to deny anything in it...

Why, that would actually take faith, now wouldn't it?

Arguments like this make me sad. They practically refute themselves.

Genius point. Do Creationists argue that Faith is too weak to have to stand up to a test of faith?

H2

 

[Cybershark5886]

But why does it have to be God's word? Where does it say it is? It doesn't; ironically, the same sola scriptura people who insist it is God's word have to use the extra biblical doctrine that it is...

We did a Bible study on this weeks ago in Liberal Theology. It turned out that "word of God" could refer to:

(a) a specific revelation to a particular person
(b) the preaching of the gospel
(c) Our Lord Jesus Christ.

We couldn't find anywhere where it meant the Bible. Odd, eh?


Aren't you forgetting 2Tim. 3:16 where it says: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness"?

I can see that you are also a Christian but I cannot see what alternate translations that you propose for Genesis. Do you or don't you beleive God when he said on Mt. Sinai that he created the world in six days? And also seeing the the process in which evolution takes place (in which, as many evolutionists have pointed out, that process is an "immense number of deaths"). Do you really think that God would bring about man through billions of years of painful, chancy, random processes of death and adaptation? Wouldn't it seem more likely that the Bible (which is inspired by God 2Tim. 3:16) would have accurately portrayed the 6 day creation and formation of Adam from the ground?

Especially since (as if Genesis' word wasn't good enough) God repeated it himself in Mt. Sinai? God didn't say up on the Mountain: "I brought about man through a long, death filled process in which organisms struggled to adapt and survive in a harsh environment and acheived those adaptations by evolution.". No he said that he made man from the dust on the sixth day, and they were present in a paradise (not a world of adverse conditions). Why do you fail to see the simplicty and truthfullness of the Genesis story?

It says in the Scriptures :"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." That is what evolution is doing. It is beguiling, appealing (if you will) to our scientific intellect and curiosity, and corrupting us with its subtlety. And notice that it mentions SIMPLICITY in Christ. There is no complicated matters in Jesus (the Word who was with God in the beginning). The Bible is truth, and Jesus said that by studying God's Word that the truth would be made known to you and that it would set you free. Why don't you allow yourself to be set free from the idea that the Bible is something that must be explained by scientific means to conform to the views of the world? That's exactly what we should NOT do. We should abide in the simplicity that is in Christ and abide in his word, which is truth.

And if you don't beleive those Scripture verses that I quoted above, then the effects of taking the Bible non-litterally have already gotten to you. Who then decides when the Bible is and isn't litteral? You? God repremanded Job for his lack of understanding of God's works and all that he does. You don't want to be repremanded to the point of denial to enter Heaven on Judgement day because you wanted to treat some important scripture as non-literal and open to personal interpretation, instead of seeing what God was inspiring in the hearts of men to write down. The Bible IS God inspired, thus is God's Word, and his word it truth. Plain and SIMPLE. Like Christ.

 

[Cybershark5886]

Why, that would actually take faith, now wouldn't it?

Arguments like this make me sad. They practically refute themselves.

And how does your looking to evolution for an answer to our origen other than mentioned in Scripture not refute the purpose of... what was that word again?...Faith?

 

[Hydra009]

And how does your looking to evolution for an answer to our origin other than mentioned in Scripture not refute the purpose of... what was that word again?...Faith?

Having faith in God doesn't mean you have to be blind to knowledge of the physical world.

 

[Cybershark5886]

Having faith in God doesn't mean you have to be blind to knowledge of the physical world.

Niether should it mean that we should be blind to the truth when it is plainly given to us. You understand? All scripture is inspired by God, and Genesis' 6 days of creation is spoken about all in the scriptures, even by God himself as being 24 hour periods. How do you propose to tell God what he really meant, and make the same mistake Job did?

Tell me, how do you get around the verse "All scripture is God inspired..." and "If you abide in my Word, you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free..." and "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."?

All those verses speak of the simplicity and truth of God's word, and that it is indeed God inspired, and that it contains truth. How then can you make the same obvious mistake a Job and try to to tell God how he did things? And how can you, in light of those scriptures, NOT take the Genesis account literaly?

 

[Amalthea]

Which Scripture is inspired? All of it? Like the Gospel of Thomas? Enoch?

 

[Cybershark5886]

You heard it here first: Without Genesis, the Bible (and Christianity as a whole) goes out the window.


Uh... if you DON'T take the account of sin entering into the world through Adam and Eve's fall because of disobedience to God literally, then there is not, never was, and never will be sin... thus Jesus died for nothing and his attempt at man's redemption was foolish and in vain. Thus the basis of Christianity would, in fact, "go out the window".

 

[HRE]

Song of Songs?

 

[Arikay]

Which verse says all scripture is God inspired?
Was the biblical canon put together when the verse was written?
Does this include scripture not in the canon? Why/why not?

What if Gods creation tells us something different than 6 days, should we ignore it?

Having faith in God doesn't mean you have to be blind to knowledge of the physical world.

Niether should it mean that we should be blind to the truth when it is plainly given to us. You understand? All scripture is inspired by God, and Genesis' 6 days of creation is spoken about all in the scriptures, even by God himself as being 24 hour periods. How do you propose to tell God what he really meant, and make the same mistake Job did?

Tell me, how do you get around the verse "All scripture is God inspired..." and "If you abide in my Word, you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free..." and "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."?

All those verses speak of the simplicity and truth of God's word, and that it is indeed God inspired, and that it contains truth. How then can you make the same obvious mistake a Job and try to to tell God how he did things? And how can you, in light of those scriptures, NOT take the Genesis account literaly?

 

[Hydra009]

All those verses speak of the simplicity and truth of God's word, and that it is indeed God inspired, and that it contains truth. How then can you make the same obvious mistake a Job and try to to tell God how he did things? And how can you, in light of those scriptures, NOT take the Genesis account literaly?

Yes, I am making the same mistake as Job and trying to tell you how God did things. Look, I'm just telling you what other people figured out about the physical world almost 150 years ago. It's not my problem if it agrees with your interpretation of Genesis or not, it's yours.

 

[Cybershark5886]

Which Scripture is inspired? All of it? Like the Gospel of Thomas? Enoch?

Anybody could go write their own "gospel" and call it Scripture, God's word, but would it really be Scripture? The Apocrypha is full of historical diolagues and Job-like stories which are true historically but carry an overall lesson value, like the Psalms and Proverbs. But they were cast out of the collective books of the Bible be cause they were not inspired Scripture (a.k.a. God's word). Jesus validated the majority of the Old Testament when he said that he came to fullfill the Law of Moses (first 5 books) the Prophets (the majority of the Old Testament) and the Psalms.

But surprisingly there are a few quotes from the Apocrypha in the New Testament, showing that they were indeed studied in the Jewish culture. But if you look today the Jews have somewhat different (or perhaps I should say "extra") sources that complement the Bible, hold traditions, or hold commentaries that are part of their religuios studies and law. This mainly manifests itself in the form of the Jewish Talmud.

Jesus warned the people not to follow so closely to the "Tradition of the Elders" as it was called back then, to the point where it came in conflict with God's word. The Apocrypha (or atleast some of it) are Jewish traditions that have been passed down for generations. It is Jewish writtings (and very good historical material), but not God inspired scripture. I have actually read some rather detestable additions to the Bible (though means of the Traditions/Talmud) that clearly are folklore. Like Adam having a wife before Eve who left him because he refused to assume certain sexual positions with her - and that she became immortal in some other land (which I assume the tradition would demand that she still occupies this land). You can tell from just the sound of that that it is a folktale and not true at all. But I still find the Apocrypha worthy of my studies for historical and some moral purposes, but not as a basis of Scripture.

 

[Cybershark5886]

Which verse says all scripture is God inspired?


2Tim. 3:16 my friend.

 

[Arikay]

Is this verse talking about all canon?
At the time if its writting did it even know what would be considered biblical canon?

Which verse says all scripture is God inspired?


2Tim. 3:16 my friend.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You heard it here first: Without Genesis, the Bible (and Christianity as a whole) goes out the window.


Uh... if you DON'T take the account of sin entering into the world through Adam and Eve's fall because of disobedience to God literally, then there is not, never was, and never will be sin... thus Jesus died for nothing and his attempt at man's redemption was foolish and in vain. Thus the basis of Christianity would, in fact, "go out the window".

So without a literal Adam and Eve, there's no sin?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why, that would actually take faith, now wouldn't it?

Arguments like this make me sad. They practically refute themselves.

And how does your looking to evolution for an answer to our origen other than mentioned in Scripture not refute the purpose of... what was that word again?...Faith?

This isn't about evolution; you're the one who apparantly can't afford to let a little thing like "faith" come between you and your Bible.

 

[Cybershark5886]

Look, I'm just telling you what other people figured out about the physical world almost 150 years ago


Look man. I can understand your frustration. And don't get get me wrong and think that I am Anti-Science. I love science, and have actually thought of becoming a physicist before (and a Biblical Scholar - but instead I think I'm going to end up as a Computer Programmer), it's just that I don't agree with the Theory of Evolution. And correct me if I'm wrong but did Darwin not refute some of his own conclusions before he died? I love studying in depth into Christian Science (the fields are extremely compatible - but evolution isn't) and several "neutral" scientists should we call them have seen order and complexity in the universe that led them to the NATURAL conclusion that there must be a creator out there some where! God is amazing and even says in his scriptures that the Heavens (cosmos) declare the Glory of God, and elsewhere that people will have no excuse in the end to have not seen evidence of God in creation. I love God very much and take pride in buffing up with scientific knowlege (more in the physical sciences though), but I stand firm with what the Bible says about creation and the points in Genesis that don't line up with twhat evolution teaches. Think about it. Why would God create us from monkeys when he could have just made us like Genesis says? At any rate I take the Bible for its truths (in accordance with Jesus' teachings and the Scripture) and seek to follow God while being as little ignorant about any issue as possible.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Which Scripture is inspired? All of it? Like the Gospel of Thomas? Enoch?

Anybody could go write their own "gospel" and call it Scripture, God's word, but would it really be Scripture? The Apocrypha is full of historical diolagues and Job-like stories which are true historically but carry an overall lesson value, like the Psalms and Proverbs. But they were cast out of the collective books of the Bible be cause they were not inspired Scripture (a.k.a. God's word). Jesus validated the majority of the Old Testament when he said that he came to fullfill the Law of Moses (first 5 books) the Prophets (the majority of the Old Testament) and the Psalms.

And who made that call? God or man?

The rest is snipped because it degenerates into a study of Biblical history, trivia, and minutiae, the same dead end which YEC "science" always ends up at eventually.

 

[Cybershark5886]

Is this verse talking about all canon?
At the time if its writting did it even know what would be considered biblical canon?


Hopefully I suficiently answered that question in my previous post above about the Apocrypha.

Anyway, I GTG to bed. So I'll talk to my brothers in Christ (you guys) tommorow, God willing.

G'night and God bless.


~Cybershark5886