Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Speedwell]

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?

Yes, and death could enter the world by one man, and that truth could be told to us by the Bible without having the text of the Garden story be 100% accurate literal history.

 

[-57]

Yes, and death could enter the world by one man, and that truth could be told to us by the Bible without having the text of the Garden story be 100% accurate literal history.

So, what part of the account of Adam and Eve isn't true?

 

[Speedwell]

So, what part of the account of Adam and Eve isn't true?

LOL! All of it is true. Is it 100% accurate literal history? That's a different question.

 

[Archivist]

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?

According to your interpretation, and you are entitled to your interpretation. . I believe it to be an allegory. That doesn't mean it wrong. That doesn't mean it is in error. That just means that it us an allegory.

 

[Jesus_is_Saint]

How old is the earth?
Should a Christian believe astronomy or Bible?

 

[Speedwell]

How old is the earth?
Should a Christian believe astronomy or Bible?

The Bible doesn't tell us how old the Earth is.

 

[Papias]

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

We did. The understanding of millions of Christians of Adam as the first transitional ape to be divinely given a soul has been explained to you over and over. You might not think that's what happened, and you might favor your own interpretation, but you can't pretend you never heard it without coming across as dishonest.

So, -57, did you or did you not have that explained to you?

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

Just like "if the earth is round, we might as well throw our bibles int he trash."?

The Bibles are clear in describing a flat earth, under a hard dome, with the stars and sun as little lights inside the dome of the sky. That's attested by literally dozens of verses, and is much more clearly supported scripturally than your personal interpretation of Genesis 1. Insisting on a strictly literal interpretation in Genesis 1, while ignoring what Genesis 1 literally says (hard dome), and all the other verses, looks like hypocrisy.

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

Which is all completely consistent with the interpretation of Adam as the first transitional ape given a soul. So maybe Paul is telling you to accept that Adam was a transitional ape? Why are you ignoring what Paul writes?

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.

No it doesn't. I've explained to you many times some of the scriptural signs of that. That's why Archivist, speedwell, and everyone else who's tried to explain this to you has 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?

Adam as transitional ape describes how sin enters the world through one man. Would you like me to explain it to you a 4th time? Is your bible wrong in describing the earth as flat, under a hard dome? 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?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[KWCrazy]

We did. The understanding of millions of Christians of Adam as the first transitional ape to be divinely given a soul...

Chapter and verse, please? I missed that one.
My Bible says created by God from the dust of the earth.

Just like "if the earth is round, we might as well throw our bibles int he trash."?

The Bible is not a book on cosmology, though it does mention things science discovered may years later like ocean currents, sound waves, atoms etc. "He hangs the world on nothing."

The Bibles are clear in describing a flat earth,

Actually that claim was concocted in the latter part of the 19th century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, who invented the conflict. It is not Biblical. If you like to learn the truth, click here. If you're more comfortable repeating a lie, do not.

Which is all completely consistent with the interpretation of Adam as the first transitional ape given a soul.

You are teaching contrary to what the Scriptures actually say, which is called heresy. Please give chapter and verse for your claim or re-phrase it as your opinion. You can have any opinion you want regarding the Scriptures, but when you state things as factual without having any Biblical reference nothing you say can have any credibility. Opinions do not need validation, but statements of fact do.

No it doesn't. I've explained to you many times some of the scriptural signs of that. That's why Archivist, speedwell, and everyone else who's tried to explain this to you has a point.

Please list the supporting chapters and verses to support your point. If you would like to learn more about the facts of a historical Adam click here. If you prefer to repeat your untrue statements, please at least present them as Archivists does; as his opinion and not absolute facts.

 

[Speedwell]

Chapter and verse, please? I missed that one.
My Bible says created by God from the dust of the earth.

The Bible is not a book on cosmology, though it does mention things science discovered may years later like ocean currents, sound waves, atoms etc. "He hangs the world on nothing."

Actually that claim was concocted in the latter part of the 19th century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, who invented the conflict. It is not Biblical. If you like to learn the truth, click here. If you're more comfortable repeating a lie, do not.

You are teaching contrary to what the Scriptures actually say, which is called heresy. Please give chapter and verse for your claim or re-phrase it as your opinion. You can have any opinion you want regarding the Scriptures, but when you state things as factual without having any Biblical reference nothing you say can have any credibility. Opinions do not need validation, but statements of fact do.

Please list the supporting chapters and verses to support your point. If you would like to learn more about the facts of a historical Adam click here. If you prefer to repeat your untrue statements, please at least present them as Archivists does; as his opinion and not absolute facts.

Chapter and verse? You appear to be invoking a form of Sola Scriptura, but remember that not all of the Christians here subscribe to it.

 

[KWCrazy]

Chapter and verse? You appear to be invoking a form of Sola Scriptura, but remember that not all of the Christians here subscribe to it.

If you are going to contradict Scripture you need to reference some kind of authority other than "Thus sayeth Speedwell." You need to provide evidence for what you claim in Scripture or what you claiming will be considered contrary to the Scriptures; in other words heresy.

 

[Speedwell]

If you are going to contradict Scripture you need to reference some kind of authority other than "Thus sayeth Speedwell." You need to provide evidence for what you claim in Scripture or what you claiming will be considered contrary to the Scriptures; in other words heresy.

Not if it addresses a point of interpretation. Proper interpretation requires reference to appropriate non-scriptural sources and scholarly tools. Certainly I would never take the sole word of a fundamentalist Protestant as to who is "contradicting scripture" to be final.

 

[KWCrazy]

There's no interpretation to it. You say the Adam was descended from an almost human. The Bible very clearly states that he was the first man and that he was made from the dust of the earth by God on the sixth day of creation. It is not ambiguous. It is very clear and referenced throughout the Bible that man came from dust. When you claim otherwise without evidence, there is no reason to give your words any weight. Your disparaging view of my religion is noted but, like your unsubstantiated claims, given little consideration.

 

[Speedwell]

There's no interpretation to it. You say the Adam was descended from an almost human. The Bible very clearly states that he was the first man and that he was made from the dust of the earth by God on the sixth day of creation.

Yes, "very clearly states" is your interpretation. As Archivist likes to say, you are welcome to it. I have that of my own religious tradition which I am satisfied with. [/QUOTE] It is not ambiguous. It is very clear and referenced throughout the Bible that man came from dust. When you claim otherwise without evidence, there is no reason to give your words any weight. Your disparaging view of my religion is noted but, like your unsubstantiated claims, given little consideration. [/QUOTE]You're quite right--I shouldn't disparage another person's religion. I'm not in your league, anyway.

 

[KWCrazy]

I have no problems with you or anyone else believing what you want to believe. Freedom of religion is a sacred right. What I oppose is declarative statements about the Bible that run in 100% opposition to what is written with no supporting information. If you say you believe Adam was the first human, born from almost human apes, you are entitled to believe that. When you claim that the Bible teaches this very thing and you have nothing to back it up, it's false teaching and heresy. We can freely discuss our beliefs without making false claims about the Bible.

 

[Speedwell]

I have no problems with you or anyone else believing what you want to believe. Freedom of religion is a sacred right. What I oppose is declarative statements about the Bible that run in 100% opposition to what is written with no supporting information. If you say you believe Adam was the first human, born from almost human apes, you are entitled to believe that. When you claim that the Bible teaches this very thing and you have nothing to back it up, it's false teaching and heresy. We can freely discuss our beliefs without making false claims about the Bible.

I have never made that claim. You must have me confused with somebody else. What I have claimed is that nothing in scripture absolutely rules it out. Do you understand the difference?

What I have also done is given my opinion (formed by my own faith tradition) that Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration are false doctrines inimical to Christianity. I would continue to believe that even if the theory of evolution was comprehensively disproved and the Earth discovered to be only 6000 years old.

 

[KWCrazy]

What I have done is given my opinion (formed by my own faith tradition) that Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration are false doctrines inimical to Christianity.

What doctrine, then, reveals God's word to man? How do we validate this doctrine? Could an imperfect Bible be authored by a perfect God?

 

[Speedwell]

What doctrine, then, reveals God's word to man? How do we validate this doctrine? Could an imperfect Bible be authored by a perfect God?

What you regard as "imperfection" is really only the failure of those false doctrines to elucidate scripture adequately. The Bible itself is not imperfect. As for God's word to man, God's primary word to man is the life, death and resurrection of His son Jesus Christ, which we know of through Sacred Tradition, not just scripture.

 

[KWCrazy]

However Jesus revered Scripture and quoted from it fluently; including from Genesis. He said man cannot live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God. Other than the Bible, what medium contains the words of God?

 

[Speedwell]

However Jesus revered Scripture and quoted from it fluently; including from Genesis. He said man cannot live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that comes from the mouth of God. Other than the Bible, what medium contains the words of God?

Presumably the stone tablets given to Moses on Sinai, if they still exist. But we're not talking about whether the Bible is divinely inspired--we agree on that.

 

[-57]

We did. The understanding of millions of Christians of Adam as the first transitional ape to be divinely given a soul has been explained to you over and over. You might not think that's what happened, and you might favor your own interpretation, but you can't pretend you never heard it without coming across as dishonest.

So, -57, did you or did you not have that explained to you?

Where does the bible say a transitional ape was given a soul?

I would say the millions of Christians you speak of have been deceived in to believing a lie. Those millions of christians have never read what the bible says...but instead have ..like you...exchanged the Word of God for the word of man.

Where does the bible say a transitional ape was given a soul?