expos4ever
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2008
- 11,261
- 6,249
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Really? Where, exactly in Genesis are you taught to misrepresent science (I.e. evolution) as religion?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Really? Where, exactly in Genesis are you taught to misrepresent science (I.e. evolution) as religion?They teach it in all the world, it is called Genesis.
It's the one that you posted just before the one I quoted.You just contradicted your previous post.
C'mon speed you are not being accurate here. You often use the excuse of how literal Genesis was not taught or believed by the early church or the church fathers. We've also had conversations concerning how other literary works can be used to show how Scripture doesn't mean what it says. You constantly state that the church never believed in the plenary verbal etc inspiration of Scripture. Then when I point out that you are incorrect in that you claim you never said that. You certainly have at minimum implied the things above. Jesus and the apostles were the earliest fathers and used Scripture as the ONLY authority and made enough statements that it was NOT allegory but actual events. No where do they EVER hint at other literature nor do they EVER hint that Genesis is not factual actual history. You still cannot show it. You cannot show how they did not believe in Sola Scriptura. There is no evidence of that.And I have never disputed it.I have never disputed the divine inspiration and authority of scriptureSelf-serving apologetics. Never mind, I'm happy to be an heretic, a liar, a false teacher, a Bible-hater and a Christ denier. If you people thought I was a "real" Christian I would start worrying about whether I was right with the Lord.
Well then you better start questioning yourself because I do believe you are a real Christian. But you also have a false creations doctrine that has no scriptural support. But that doesn't make you an unbeliever. There were believers in Bible times that had false doctrines also, but Paul and the apostles never called them unbelievers. It was only when the doctrines started leading people away from Christ that he really came down that hard. Otherwise and the apostles just tried to straighten the people out on the doctrinal issue.And I have never disputed it.I have never disputed the divine inspiration and authority of scriptureSelf-serving apologetics. Never mind, I'm happy to be an heretic, a liar, a false teacher, a Bible-hater and a Christ denier. If you people thought I was a "real" Christian I would start worrying about whether I was right with the Lord.
Really? Where, exactly in Genesis are you taught to misrepresent science (I.e. evolution) as religion?
People that study scripture know of the characteristics of say, a parable, poem, psalm and, in revelations, there are complex metaphors.
But that doesn't answer the question...because you said some things were instant and others were not...how can you decide from what is written in scripture what is what?
If we have forced vaccinations, then be very concerned that there is a depopulation agenda out to kill you.
No threat is beyond the abilities of the intelligent designers preventative and predictive measures to hault it its tracks. There is no pandemic and the only thing that media will do is to lie to all and decieve governments to make the vaccinations mandatory. This world is a illusionary reality constructed by the lamestream fake news media, that is controlled by those evil and sinister men and women, who think that the world is rightfully theirs and that they own you and are entitled to say whether you live or die.
We know that Evilution is their offspring child abd that natural selection is nothing more than an atheistic world view and from Stalin to Marxist pundants they all push this lie down everyone's throat. They are the money men that have bought out corupt scientists who would do and say anything to get million dollar grants.
We have to accept that man is corrupted and God is Holy and righteous and so the question is why would Christians believe man over and above God's Genesis account?
Don't be fooled, there is no evolution of species, it is a lie.
Mods, if this isn't in the right section please move, I wasn't sure where the best place for this discussion would be, as this has more to do with the entire book and not only creation.
Genesis is the history of Israel's roots...most believe Moses to be the author of the book, and if we go by the chronology from Genesis to Exodus, he wouldn't have been born until a couple thousand years after the account of Adam. Prior to this, these stories would have been handed down through oral tradition.
When stories are told from one generation to the next things change. Some things may be added, others taken away...things become embellished...that's just how it is. It doesn't mean that anyone is lying, necessarily, just that what we hear as a child and what we teach to our children about a subject may change slightly based on our recollection. And then there are those that like to add their own spin to make things more interesting, and it sticks...
A good, more modern example of this would be the story of Jesse James...many accounts made him out to be a Robin Hood of his day, only stealing from the rich and helping the poor...after the Civil War there was a lot of distrust in this country, and people wanted a hero they found him in this notorious outlaw...the truth of the matter was he was your typical run of the mill thief...albeit a very good one...but stories were made up about him in newspapers, books and songs...and now, 140 years later, there are those that think he was, as the "The Ballad of Jesse James" said, "a friend to the poor that would never have a brother suffer pain." In this instance, of course, we can look back at actual accounts from the day and easily put these claims to rest.
So, is it possible that this is what happened with Genesis? That after years of oral tradition some of the "facts" changed? I'm not saying this as a dig at creationism, or anything like that. Nor am I saying that there is no truth to be found in Genesis...I believe it paints a beautiful picture of creation, of God's desire to have a relationship with His people, of man's biggest obstacle to overcome being his sinful nature, and how the foundation was being laid for the Christ.
I think you have missed the point. I have always maintained that the early church (and perhaps the majority of Churches worldwide today) taught that Genesis was historic. It is clear, for example, that Paul thought the Bible stories he used in his preaching were historic. What I don't see in the early church is the teaching that either Genesis is 100% accurate literal history or you're an evil lying heretic--like I do from modern creationists and as we have seen in this very thread. I am sure you have seen St. Augustine's famous remarks remarks on Genesis.C'mon speed you are not being accurate here. You often use the excuse of how literal Genesis was not taught or believed by the early church or the church fathers.
We have had fruitless conversations about how to use extra-biblical works to learn what kind of history it is--but you, like other creationists, think there is only one kind, and if I try to make that point you merely assume that I am trying to make Genesis into allegory to fit evolution into it and, like other creationists, you react accordingly. Forgetting about evolution for a minute (as if a creationist could ever do that) historiography is a fascinating subject which discusses the different ways in which historical narratives have been written in the past. But no, creationists don't buy it.We've also had conversations concerning how other literary works can be used to show how Scripture doesn't mean what it says.
You must have been talking to somebody else, because I've always said that and I'm saying the same thing now.You constantly state that the church never believed in the plenary verbal etc inspiration of Scripture. Then when I point out that you are incorrect in that you claim you never said that.
Or you have inferred them.You certainly have at minimum implied the things above.
Again with the false dichotomy.Jesus and the apostles were the earliest fathers and used Scripture as the ONLY authority and made enough statements that it was NOT allegory but actual events.
They knew how history was written in their day. We have to study extra-biblical literature to help us find out what that was.No where do they EVER hint at other literature...
You're baffling me with that accurate use of historiographical terminology.nor do they EVER hint that Genesis is not factual actual history.
Then where did the Church get it's authority? Why was the term Apostolic Tradition even coined?You cannot show how they did not believe in Sola Scriptura. There is no evidence of that.
To say this is to either lie or demonstrate ignorance. Nobody - no one - outside of the creationist camp will agree with this. While forums like these offer the potential for constructive discourse, the freedom for anyone to post whatever they want (as long as they do not abuse forum rules) allows for the possibility of the most egregious nonsense to be aired. Fair enough - people should have the right to express their views no matter how ill-informed and outright wacky they may be.Evilution is not science.
The theory of evolution does not deal with the very origins of life, so your statement here is misleading.Many many billions of years, there was a rock and out of that rock life began....
How's it going my friend from Kazakhstan? It's going down to below -35 with the wind-chill overnight here in eastern Canada. How is the weather over there. We are not going to fight over the evolution thing since it appears we have the same views about Genesis.I don't read Genesis literally. I think it's allegory.
So you do believe that the early church did believe in the verbal plenary etc inspiration of Scripture? Hmm.. it didn't sound like it from the many discussions we've had. It's interesting you mention the kind of history. There are only three options to choose from. Either it is allegory and the events never actually occurred or its actual history and the events occurred exactly as stated or its false history with perhaps real people but a made up stories surrounding them. Like Washington and the cherry tree. There isn't anything else. The thing is you need some evidence that it wasn't actual history and everything is false. And there isn't any.I think you have missed the point. I have always maintained that the early church (and perhaps the majority of Churches worldwide today) taught that Genesis was historic. It is clear, for example, that Paul thought the Bible stories he used in his preaching were historic. What I don't see in the early church is the teaching that either Genesis is 100% accurate literal history or you're an evil lying heretic--like I do from modern creationists and as we have seen in this very thread. I am sure you have seen St. Augustine's famous remarks remarks on Genesis.
Augustine of Hippo on the Literal Meaning of Genesis
Can you really read that and read the posts of a typical modern creationist like our colleague KWCrazy and tell me with a straight face that the early Church taught the same thing as creationists do now? We have had fruitless conversations about how to use extra-biblical works to learn what kind of history it is--but you, like other creationists, think there is only one kind, and if I try to make that point you merely assume that I am trying to make Genesis into allegory to fit evolution into it and, like other creationists, you react accordingly. Forgetting about evolution for a minute (as if a creationist could ever do that) historiography is a fascinating subject which discusses the different ways in which historical narratives have been written in the past. But no, creationists don't buy it. You must have been talking to somebody else, because I've always said that and I'm saying the same thing now. Or you have inferred them. Again with the false dichotomy.They knew how history was written in their day. We have to study extra-biblical literature to help us find out what that was.You're baffling me with that accurate use of historiographical terminology.
Then where did the Church get it's authority? Why was the term Apostolic Tradition even coined?
Vaccinations prevent disease, they don't foster depopulation.
Many media tell the truth, not all of them lie
This world is real, God's creation is a real creation
God is in ultimate control
Evolution is proven to be true (in the layman's use of the word "proven")
The opposition to evolution is a lie of Satan, doing Satan's intended work of driving people away from believing in Jesus because of a false link between belief in Jesus and denying evolution.
Abraham was born, raised and educated in the city of Ur. He had the best education you could get in his day and the people of UR were very advanced at that time in science. Just like Moses as the adopted son of a pharaoh had the best education you could get in Egypt at the time and he had full access to the library there at the time. Also Moses studied religion under his father in law Jethro a priest of Midian. We know that Abraham had contact with melchizedek. Jesus is considered a priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Vaccinations prevent disease, they don't foster depopulation.
Many media tell the truth, not all of them lie
This world is real, God's creation is a real creation
God is in ultimate control
Evolution is proven to be true (in the layman's use of the word "proven")
The opposition to evolution is a lie of Satan, doing Satan's intended work of driving people away from believing in Jesus because of a false link between belief in Jesus and denying evolution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?