Should Genesis be taken literally?

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

SeventyOne said:
Evolution is not THE scientific view. It is just the most vocal of a certain method of interpreting evidence, as well as the most taught because they've managed to monopolize the education process and fill our heads at an early age with their way only.

Evolution is the only scientific view. Creationism is excluded from class rooms because it is not based on science. People didn't observe the evidence and then deduce creationism. Creationism comes from trying to explain the origins of life through a religious text.

Creationism isn't supported by any evidence.

Too many people fall for the "Evolution is true, because science" mantra.

Evolution is true because science shows it to be that.

Beyond the overwhelming, testable, and predictable evidence, it is even used in research.

It's not real. It's a deception, and apparently a very good one. You eluded to it on your post, it takes one away from believing what God tells us. It's a modern day manifestation of the serpent saying, "Did God really say...?"

I really wish people could argue with what I actually say here instead of blatantly making stuff up. I never said it takes away from believing what God tells us. Don't respond to my posts and then make up things I never said.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

SeventyOne said:
Here: "Genesis is a book, creationism is a man made theory. One can accept creationism Genesis without accepting creationism."

That's not a lie, since that is how many, if not most, Christians understand Genesis.
Genesis is a book: FACT
Creationism is a belief: FACT

Genesis cannot even support creationism because it gives two contradictory accounts of how God made the world. So to support a creationist narrative, you have to reject chapter 1 or 2.

Jesus never said anything about man made creationism.

However, He did say, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female"

That does not support creationism. I don't understand why this is hard for you?

And "or in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be."

Again, same thing.

It's true that since you don't believe what Moses wrote, you aren't believing Jesus in this matter either.

Moses didn't write creationism. That's a man made tradition. In fact, creationism can only exist by rejecting Moses.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

KWCrazy said:
Not only is that statement completely divorced from reality, it shows that you haven't even read the book of Genesis. Anyone who read would know that chapter two begins by saying that the creation was complete and then goes into morse specific detail about the creation of man and woman.

If you read the chapters, the orders are different. I don't know how you cannot already know that. The first creation story ends at the beginning of the second chapter, and then tells the second creation story.

By the way, this isn't my opinion - this is what any serious bible scholar will tell you. You might actually read Genesis. Both stories are contradictory in their orders of creation.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

KWCrazy said:
However, when you teach others the things you believe which are contrary to the Scriptures you become a false teacher.

It's good we have you as an expert here to tell us what is and isn't the correct interpretation of scripture and who is and isn't a false teacher.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

KWCrazy said:
Man cannot live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.
What words are those?

The logos, the revelation of God. Your issue is that you do not understand the distinction between the word of God as the revelation of unending truth which comes from God, as the revelation of unending truth revealed by God as Christ, and the limited, finite revelation of God as spoken by the prophets and apostles.

The bible is a finite, limited source of material inspired by God. Thus, it is the word of God, but the word of God is greater than the bible. The word of God is infinite, the bible is not.

The bible doesn't read as something written by a single author. Most people find the idea that God literally spoke each and every word of the bible to the author, with no inspiration from the author to be absurd and naive.

I am not even sure where you begin to point of what is wrong about it.

The Bible says that the Scriptures are the breathed word of God.

I agree. That does not support your notion that God literally told the writers what to write word for word.

2nd Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
You are being a false teacher when you try to convince people heresy which is contrary to the Scriptures.[/QUOTE]

That's funny since no mainstream branch of Christianity and no serious scholars teach what you are promoting here.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

KWCrazy said:
No, I'm saying you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.

Where did you get your degree in science?

You claim evolution is science. It is not.

I don't think I ever made the statement "evolution is science." I have said that multiple times now. That statement makes no sense to me.

[qupte]It is a scientific theory.[/quote]

I agree. You should actually quote what I say and then respond to it, instead of just making stuff up and then replying to that.

[

Science is a field of study which has many theories. If any of them are proven wrong it doesn't detract from the integrity of scientific study. Science studies the physical world around us and makes predictions based observations. Evolution is a theory of common descent. They are NOT synonyms.

You did a great job knock down your own strawman argument instead of addressing anything I actually said.

Why don't you actually address what you and I said this time?

You: "Evolution is a theory of common descent. It is not a requirement for all scientific research."

Me: "You are trying to argue that if something isn't required for all science, it isn't scientific.

Immunology is not a requirement for all scientific research. Neither is nano-technology. Virtually any scientific field is not a requirement for all science.

Now respond to what I actually post.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

KWCrazy said:
Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

I agree. I hope you start posting things and not using strawmen.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

dannheim said:
There is a mountain of evidence for natural selection which even the flood account supports but there is absolutely no concrete evidence for evolution.

Then you obviously need to do some reading. Evolution is verifiable, repeatable, and predictable in molecular genetics.

Natural selection doesn’t drive molecules-to-man evolution; Some scientists are giving natural selection a power that it does not have—one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecules-to-man evolution requires. But natural selection simply can’t do that because it works with information that already exists.

You clearly do not understand some basic concepts of evolution.
Natural selection is the process of favoring genes over time. Natural selection is not what produces new phenotypes.

As far as "young earth' evidence we can conclude from both argon and helium diffusion rates that the earth is only thousands of years old.

No, no we can't. Where is a peer reviewed, journal publication of this finding?

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

SeventyOne said:
It's actually a whole lot of confirmation bias and the ad populum fallacy.

Also, creationists are not rejecting evolution. Get it straight. Evolution is the new kid on the block and was devised to defy creationism. Creationists do not reject evolution as much as Evolutionists reject creationism.

I didn't realize everyone in the world accepted creationism before evolution came along.

Evolution must be evil, since it replaced creationism. ...

Creationism isn't a theory and it is nothing more than a way of saying "God did it" instead of actually trying to figure out how God did it, as scientists attempt to do today. Genesis provides two creation accounts that can't even agree on the order of creation!!

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

SeventyOne said:
Oh my goodness, you're right!! How could we ever claim the gospel is true when we agree with Jesus concerning God creating everything when we have thousands to Christ-haters telling us what He's saying is a lie instead? How silly could we be?

In reality, I'm guessing your testimony isn't that strong when you tell people Jesus is God, but lied about creation. I don't know who this liar God is, but apparently you do.

I missed the Gospel passage where Jesus promotes a literal week creation story.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

KWCrazy said:
Exactly!
For all their false teaching they can't come up with a single verse to support evolution. Not one.

You continue to prove the most stunning illogical arguments.

Evolution isn't true because you can't support it with the bible.

You can't support immunology with the bible, or combustion engines.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

SeventyOne said:
I get it. It's supposedly silly to believe in creation when there are thousands of people out there telling us we evolved from a sterile rock instead. Makes perfect sense.

Behold, your ancestor!

What is really funny is how people who argue against evolution don't understand the first part of it.

Oloche Moses Okwori · Mar 9, 2017

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

KWCrazy said:
Just as a curiosity, what criteria do people use when you decide which portions of the Bible you will accept and which you will reject?

Creationists are the people here that reject parts of the bible. Genesis 1 and 2 give two different orders.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

SeventyOne said:
I've said no false thing.

Find any evolutionary website and they'll all say about the same thing. I won't do the details justice here because it isn't deserving enough.

Nothing banged, created something with energy and matter.
Eventually, this energy and matter started pooling together in denser areas of the nothing.
For some reason, this matter started forming together, getting hot, and spinning.
As it spun, it released gasses and other matter out of itself which spun with what is now called a star.
Over time, this spinning matter collected on itself forming sterile balls of rock.
While cooling, these sterile rocks started spewing out a wide array of gas compounds.
Instead of floating off into space, these gas compounds chose to hang out with the rock for a while and created an atmosphere.
Then, POOF! Life somehow appeared on the surface of the sterile rock.
Then goo, small stuff, fish, apes, and us. Blah, blah, blah.

Now when people tell me all these "smart" people agree with this, I have a hard time accepting the description of "smart". They may be highly educated but educated within the framework of the lie only. They live in a little box, surrounded by the lie, but it's ok because all their friends and colleagues are there with them in the same little box. And the others say, "Look at all those people in that box. They couldn't possibly all be wrong. Looks like fun, we should all jump in."

It's too bad you still can't figure out what evolution is.
The Big Bang theory isn't evolution. It was formed by a Christian, btw.
Stellar formation, created by Christians isn't evolution.
Abiogenesis, the creation of life from nothing, isn't evolution.

It's pretty sad you don't even understand gravity. Gas didn't "decide" to stay with the Earth. It's held by gravity. Unlike creationism, life didn't "poof" appear.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

dannheim said:
Last time I heard Origin of Species was written by a man, thus a man made tradition.

Both evolution and creationism are man made ideas. One is verifable, creationism is not.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

KWCrazy said:
Nobody who understands the Bible believes this.
Nobody who can read objectively concludes this.

I think you have it backwards. Almost anyone bible scholar and anyone who serious studies scripture can tell you that Genesis has two creation stories, and the order is different.

Greyy · Mar 9, 2017

Waggles said:
Really!!! You should spend more time with real Christians.

You should spend more time with reality.

So you are saying you take the bible 100% literally? Please say yes.

AnnaliseH · Mar 9, 2017

Greyy said:
Evolution isn't true because you can't support it with the bible.

You can't support immunology with the bible, or combustion engines.

The point is, anything that contradicts what is clearly said in the Bible is a LIE. There is no gray zone. No, combustion engines are not in the Bible, but then they do not contradict the Scriptures, do they????

The assumption that modern man has a so much better grasp on the world and on science than the people of Bible times is not just fallacious. It is downright arrogant.

Jesus did not have to believe creationism. He knew it to be true. He was THERE. And to assume that He was mistaken because modern man is so much wiser goes beyond arrogance. It is blasphemous, denying His divinity and His hand in creation.
As it says in Colossians 1:16, For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.

If you want to support the evolutionist view of Genesis and expect other Christians to believe you, then you are going to have to prove it from SCRIPTURE. Show me the chapter and verse where evolution is even implied.

joshua 1 9 · Mar 9, 2017

expos4ever said:
How are you not intentionally misrepresenting?

Are you judging me and violating the rules of the forum?" Only God can judge our heart.

Should Genesis be taken literally?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency