Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Speedwell]

There are two kinds of people who reject Genesis; Christians who have been seduced by the lies of non-believers into thinking that all living things evolved over time and were NOT created by God...

All living things which evolved over time were created by God de facto.

 

[Archivist]

There are no differing creation accounts in Genesis. There is one creation account, one account of man's formation and one account of man's fall from grace.

There are two differing creation accounts. You are, of course, entitle to your own interpretation.

Allegories for what?
If God didn't destroy the world by flood, how do we know He will destroy it after Christ returns?
If sin didn't come into the world by one man, how could the sins of man be forgiven through one man?
If Noah wasn't the savior of life, how then is Jesus the savior of our spiritual lives?

The Genesis creation accounts are allegories that show that God ultimately created everything.

It only makes sense if it happened.

According to your interpretation, and you are, of course, entitle to your own interpretation.

Compare this with the fact that there isn't a single passage in the Bible which says the events n Genesis were allegories

There isn't a single passage in scripture that says that the Parable of the Good Samaritan is a parable, but most Christians assume that it is and read it as such.

rejection of the Genesis account comes not from a better meaning of the Scriptures, but from the rejection of the Scriptures.

So anyone not believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis is rejecting the scriptures. Really?

That was an obvious metaphor.

According to your interpretation, and you are, of course, entitle to your own interpretation. Nothing in what Jesus said indicates that it was a metaphor.

There wasn't a mark on his body and he had shed no blood.

So God can create the Earth and everything on it in seven literal days, but cannot turn bread into His body.

It was symbolic of sharing in His sacrifice. Only the Catholics believe their crackers and juice actually turns into flesh and blood.

First of all we are not talking about "crackers and juice." Second, if you knew your facts you would know that many more than just Roman Catholics believe that the bread and wine are the body and blood of Jesus. The majority of Christians, including Protestant denominations such as the Anglicans and Lutherans believe that.

But then, they also believe in praying to intercessors and Purgatory; two major beliefs which are not in the King James Bible.

Lutherans don't believe in those, but they believe that communicants eat and drink both the elements and the true Body and Blood of Christ.

Jesus said to take up your cross and follow Him. I don't see you dragging a cross.

Maybe you're just not looking

 

[Archivist]

There are two kinds of people who reject Genesis; Christians who have been seduced by the lies of non-believers into thinking that all living things evolved over time and were NOT created by God, so therefore Genesis must be an allegory, and non-Christians who don't believe in the Bible whatever. With the latter group, the non existence of God and the non existence of any divine authority gives them the freedom to live as wicked a life as they choose without consequence. With the former group, there is absolutely no Scripture to support what they believe so they usually get belligerent and derisive when challenged to support their claims with Scripture. They feel free to believe as they want to believe, not as the Lord tells them.

Salient fact: Those who believe in evolution and the Bible have a solid understanding of neither.

According to your interpretation, and you are, of course, entitle to your own interpretation.

And I find it interesting that most of the "belligerent and derisive" attitude that I see in this thread is from people who insist that their interpretation is the only possible interpretation.

 

[Speedwell]

And I find it interesting that most of the "belligerent and derisive" attitude that I see in this thread is from people who insist that their interpretation is the only possible interpretation.

I wonder if biblical literalists will ever figure out that the pushback they're experiencing is due more to their attitude rather than their beliefs.

 

[-57]

Exactly right.
The only reason they so adamantly contend that the flood didn't happen is because it disproves evolution. Evolution is their way to downplay the authority of God so that they can live as they want to without any consequence.

How true, if evolutionism is true...we might as well throw our bibles into the trash.

 

[Archivist]

How true, if evolutionism is true...we might as well throw our bibles into the trash.

Wrong.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How true, if evolutionism is true...we might as well throw our bibles into the trash.

Evolution and Creationism is based on the same evidence. Only Creationism takes the fall into consideration and God's plan for restoration.

 

[-57]

Wrong.

When you can explain how the human race got its sin nature by-way-of evolutionism...you can then say...wrong.

 

[-57]

Evolution and Creationism is based on the same evidence. Only Creationism takes the fall into consideration and God's plan for restoration.

The bible tells us why we fell and what the results were. Evolutionism can't explain our sin nature and stay loyal to the bible. Evolutionism must invent their own theology inwhich they derive their false doctrine from.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The bible tells us why we fell and what the results were. Evolutionism can't explain our sin nature and stay loyal to the bible. Evolutionism must invent their own theology inwhich they derive their false doctrine from.

Atheists try to hijack the theory to promote their agenda but that usually does not work out well for them.

 

[Archivist]

When you can explain how the human race got its sin nature by-way-of evolutionism...you can then say...wrong.

It doesn't matter how sin entered the world, it did. It certainly did not happen because a talking snake persuaded a woman to eat a piece of fruit.

 

[-57]

It doesn't matter how sin entered the world, it did. It certainly did not happen because a talking snake persuaded a woman to eat a piece of fruit.

I would have to disagree with you. What you're saying is that the bible is wrong.
When you say "it doesn't matter" ....you're side stepping the issue.
Paul in Romans 5:12 we read one man brought about our sin nature...which contradicts evolutionism.
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
We see it again in 1st Cor 15:21
For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

The above is 2 more places where evolutionism distorts scripture.

 

[Archivist]

I would have to disagree with you. What you're saying is that the bible is wrong.
When you say "it doesn't matter" ....you're side stepping the issue.
Paul in Romans 5:12 we read one man brought about our sin nature...which contradicts evolutionism.
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
We see it again in 1st Cor 15:21
For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

The above is 2 more places where evolutionism distorts scripture.

No, I'm not saying that the Bible is wrong. I'm saying that the Genesis creation accounts are allegories.

As I have said numerous times in this thread, you are entitled to you interpretation.

 

[-57]

No, I'm not saying that the Bible is wrong. I'm saying that the Genesis creation accounts are allegories.

As I have said numerous times in this thread, you are entitled to you interpretation.

As I have asked others...why would Paul and the other authors of the bible base their doctrine on an analogy?
That makes no sense.

 

[Archivist]

As I have asked others...why would Paul and the other authors of the bible base their doctrine on an analogy?
That makes no sense.

I thought Paul and the other New Testament authors based their doctrine on the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not on the Genesis creation. Saying that their doctrine is based on the Genesis creation accounts is what makes no sense.

 

[-57]

I thought Paul and the other New Testament authors based their doctrine on the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, not on the Genesis creation. Saying that their doctrine is based on the Genesis creation accounts is what makes no sense.

They did base their doctrine on the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ....The following also concludes that Paul in this instance brings Genesis into play and weaves it into biblical doctrine.

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

In the above Paul refers to Genesis and presents Adam as literal and historical.

 

[Archivist]

They did base their doctrine on the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ....The following also concludes that Paul in this instance brings Genesis into play and weaves it into biblical doctrine.

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

In the above Paul refers to Genesis and presents Adam as literal and historical.

But that isn't what you said earlier--you claimed that Paul and others had based their doctrine on Genesis.

Yes, Paul referenced Genesis as being historically accurate. He had been taught that; he wouldn't have known anything else.

 

[-57]

But that isn't what you said earlier--you claimed that Paul and others had based their doctrine on Genesis.

Yes, Paul referenced Genesis as being historically accurate. He had been taught that; he wouldn't have known anything else.

I find it hard to believe that the bible would present something as the truth...then have the understanding of men catch up with it and show the inspired Paul to be incorrect.
If Paul was incorrect hon this issue....where else is he wrong? How can we trust Paul for anything?

 

[Speedwell]

I find it hard to believe that the bible would present something as the truth...then have the understanding of men catch up with it and show the inspired Paul to be incorrect.
If Paul was incorrect hon this issue....where else is he wrong? How can we trust Paul for anything?

Paul is only shown to be "incorrect" if you suppose he believed the Genesis stories to be 100% accurate literal history. If you merely show that he thought Adam and Eve to be real people your claim about the text of the stories fails.

 

[-57]

Paul is only shown to be "incorrect" if you suppose he believed the Genesis stories to be 100% accurate literal history. If you merely show that he thought Adam and Eve to be real people your claim about the text of the stories fails.

The bible presents the account of Adam and Eve in the bible as literal historical people. If it didn't then you would have a point.
Either death and sin entered by one man...or the bible is wrong. If the bible is wrong there, where else is it wrong? How would you know when we are reading the bible and come across an error?