Should Genesis be taken literally?

Archivist · Mar 10, 2017

A thought: How many of those posting here that a belief in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account is somehow required do not believe that the elements of Holy Communion are the actual body and blood of Christ? After all, the words of Jesus were very clear, yet I know of Christians who deny that they are eating His body and drinking His blood when they take Holy Communion.

W2L · Mar 10, 2017

Archivist said:
If you knew it was off topic why did you raise the point?

The whole post wasnt off topic, just the one comment.

Speedwell · Mar 10, 2017

Not_By_Chance said:
...I have not seen any of the nastiness referred to...

It's hard to find, I guess. In this thread you have to go back all the way to post #482, and even beyond. Whew!

-57 · Mar 10, 2017

Archivist said:
Because I regard it as an allegory; Paul apparently did not. I certainly disagree with Paul's statement that women are to remain quiet and not teach, but that is a topic for another thread.

Interesting thought process....you disagree with what Paul wrote.

Archivist said:
Because I regard it as an allegory; Paul apparently did not. I certainly disagree with Paul's statement that women are to remain quiet and not teach, but that is a topic for another thread.

My post was to showed a rule Paul made up..and the topic isn't the rule....but rather what Paul based his rule upon. That rule was based upon a literal historical point of deception as described in the book of Genesis.

In other writings of Paul...and I wonder if you dsagree with them also...Paul said "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned"

That one man Paul talked about is Adam. I understand you must disagree, so who is the one man?

Paul in Galations 1:1 tells us "Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead".....considering Paul according to the evolutionist got the previous two verses wrong, did Paul also get the verse from Galations wrong? We all understand that science says you don't come back to life on day 3.

KWCrazy · Mar 10, 2017

Speedwell said:
I never made such a claim as you well know.. I never mad such a claim.

Post 323
They would have you believe that all Christians always and everywhere believed what they believe about the Bible until some of us were led into apostasy by Darwin, but that is basically a lie. The characteristic doctrines of YECism--Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, self-interpretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration--were not heard of before the Reformation and not found in most of Christendom even now.
Post 223
The beliefs and the history of non-YEC Christian groups is no secret. Haven't you ever wondered why it is that only conservative Evangelical Protestant Christians have so much conflict with evolution and other modern science? I'm not necessarily saying that YECs are wrong about the Bible; whatever brings you closer to Christ is fine. But yours is a distinctly Protestant and a distinctly modern and minority view. Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, self-interpretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration were unheard of before the Reformation and unknown in most of Christendom even now.

The members of the early church shared this modern minority view.

-57 · Mar 10, 2017

Speedwell said:
Quote the post or shut up.

Post 476 you said...and I quote....
That it was generally historical. However, they also tolerated the figurative interpretations of others and were not vicious and nasty about it like modern YECs. and, of course, the Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, self-intepretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration which the YECs use to justify their nastiness were still 1500 years or more in the future.

You post as if...Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, self-intepretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration...is wrong.

Because you believe the bible is chocked full of error...you feel free to insert the concept of evolutionism....presenting Genesis and other portions that speak historical about Genesis as wrong.

joshua 1 9 · Mar 10, 2017

Paul of Eugene OR said:
Abraham would not have carried a bunch of clay tablets in his trek from Ur to Palestine.

Actually, I never thought of that. That does make it interesting that Moses used a system of writing that was a lot easier to carry then clay tablets. According Kabbalists the oral tradition not only goes back to Moses but also as far back as Abraham and Adam even though we do not have any record of them writing anything down.

-57 · Mar 10, 2017

Archivist said:
A thought: How many of those posting here that a belief in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account is somehow required do not believe that the elements of Holy Communion are the actual body and blood of Christ? After all, the words of Jesus were very clear, yet I know of Christians who deny that they are eating His body and drinking His blood when they take Holy Communion.

Jesus is also presented as a gate. Perhaps we should believe He is fastened to a door post and can be pushed open.

joshua 1 9 · Mar 10, 2017

-57 said:
Then again it could be under Pittsburg.

Did they have a flood there 6,000 years ago? If Pittsburg flooded it would have been more like 12,000 years ago.

KWCrazy · Mar 10, 2017

Archivist said:
A thought: How many of those posting here that a belief in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account is somehow required do not believe that the elements of Holy Communion are the actual body and blood of Christ?

For one thing, when Jesus said "This is my body," it clearly was not because his body was intact. When He held up the wine and said "This cup is the new covenant in my blood," it also clearly was not because he was uninjured. It was known to be a metaphor then as it is now, though it is a very serious metaphor. It is not to be taken lightly. The communion commemorates the sacrifice of his body and his blood. The Bible has parables, metaphors, poetry and history. It's usually not hard to distinguish one from the other. Because it has symbolism, that doesn't mean that the clear historical teachings as symbolic.

joshua 1 9 · Mar 10, 2017

Archivist said:
Because I view it as an allegory.

That is why the Bible is so amazing. We real literal stories about real people that has an allegory value for all of us.

Speedwell · Mar 10, 2017

KWCrazy said:
Post 323
They would have you believe that all Christians always and everywhere believed what they believe about the Bible until some of us were led into apostasy by Darwin, but that is basically a lie. The characteristic doctrines of YECism--Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, self-interpretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration--were not heard of before the Reformation and not found in most of Christendom even now.
Post 223
The beliefs and the history of non-YEC Christian groups is no secret. Haven't you ever wondered why it is that only conservative Evangelical Protestant Christians have so much conflict with evolution and other modern science? I'm not necessarily saying that YECs are wrong about the Bible; whatever brings you closer to Christ is fine. But yours is a distinctly Protestant and a distinctly modern and minority view. Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, self-interpretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration were unheard of before the Reformation and unknown in most of Christendom even now.

The members of the early church shared this modern minority view.

Then you should have no trouble finding evidence in their writings that they did. You should have no trouble finding in the doctrinal statements of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental churches that they do now. Go for it. Prove me wrong.

JacksBratt · Mar 10, 2017

Speedwell said:
That it was generally historical. However, they also tolerated the figurative interpretations of others and were not vicious and nasty about it like modern YECs. and, of course, the Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, self-intepretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration which the YECs use to justify their nastiness were still 1500 years or more in the future.

There are numerous places where Jesus and the apostles talk of the times of creation and the time of Noah and the flood. Not once are these things referred to as being a story or allegorical account. They are referenced as fact.

And, to this concept I ask you to consider what Christ said to people who doubt that such things are real:

‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12)

So, the questions remain, how can you take the gospel as truth yet the creation as myth? How do you pick and choose which you wish to take as fact and which to take as allegory? Do you place your trust in what men say over what God says?

Do we just take the scripture that is our life line and toss the rest in a pool of "it doesn't matter if it's true or not because I don't need it to live eternal"?

-57 · Mar 10, 2017

joshua 1 9 said:
Did they have a flood there 6,000 years ago? If Pittsburg flooded it would have been more like 12,000 years ago.

The bible speaks of a WORLD WIDE flood.

Big Drew · Mar 10, 2017

-57 said:
Jesus is also presented as a gate. Perhaps we should believe He is fastened to a door post and can be pushed open.

That would be the literal interpretation.

Speedwell · Mar 10, 2017

-57 said:
Post 476 you said...and I quote....
That it was generally historical. However, they also tolerated the figurative interpretations of others and were not vicious and nasty about it like modern YECs. and, of course, the Protestant doctrines of Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, self-intepretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration which the YECs use to justify their nastiness were still 1500 years or more in the future.

You post as if...Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, self-intepretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration...is wrong.

Read more carefully. I said they are being wrongly used.

Because you believe the bible is chocked full of error...you feel free to insert the concept of evolutionism....presenting Genesis and other portions that speak historical about Genesis as wrong.

False. You won't find me saying that the Bible is "chocked full of error." I believe it is exactly the book God intended it to be.

-57 · Mar 10, 2017

JacksBratt said:
There are numerous places where Jesus and the apostles talk of the times of creation and the time of Noah and the flood. Not once are these things referred to as being a story or allegorical account. They are referenced as fact.

And, to this concept I ask you to consider what Christ said to people who doubt that such things are real:

‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12)

So, the questions remain, how can you take the gospel as truth yet the creation as myth? How do you pick and choose which you wish to take as fact and which to take as allegory? Do you place your trust in what men say over what God says?

Do we just take the scripture that is our life line and toss the rest in a pool of "it doesn't matter if it's true or not because I don't need it to live eternal"?

To add to that I also wonder what they do with our sin nature and why we re sinners.

-57 · Mar 10, 2017

Big Drew said:
That would be the literal interpretation.

I never claimed the entire bible should be taken in its most literal form. When the bible speaks of something as literal and historical...such as the resurrection of Christ or the six day creation, it should be taken as literal and historical.

-57 · Mar 10, 2017

Speedwell said:
Read more carefully. I said they are being wrongly used.

False. You won't find me saying that the Bible is "chocked full of error." I believe it is exactly the book God intended it to be.

Then please tell me how we got our sin nature. Why all men sin and fall short of the glory of God.

Big Drew · Mar 10, 2017

-57 said:
I never claimed the entire bible should be taken in its most literal form. When the bible speaks of something as literal and historical...such as the resurrection of Christ or the six day creation, it should be taken as literal and historical.

How do you go about deciding what is and what isn't literal?

Should Genesis be taken literally?

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Searching for Truth

Well-Known Member

Believer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Believer

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency