Should Genesis be taken literally?

[-57]

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.

How true. How very true.

"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."

Some people who call themselves christians can't seem to be able to believe the bible when it speaks on this topic. What do they do? They mix the religion of evolutionism with the bible.
They present Adam as the first transitional ape to be divinely given a soul. That is simply not what the bible teaches.

 

[KWCrazy]

Some people who call themselves christians can't seem to be able to believe the bible when it speaks on this topic.

In this forum all you need to do to call yourself a Christian is click a box. In reality it's much different. I wonder, just how many of these Christians are called that by the Lord? How many are simply using the label to attack the religion from within?

 

[Archivist]

In this forum all you need to do to call yourself a Christian is click a box. In reality it's much different. I wonder, just how many of these Christians are called that by the Lord? How many are simply using the label to attack the religion from within?

Are you saying that a belief in a literal reading of the Genesis creation accounts is required to be a Christian?

Interesting given that we have some on here who believe in a literal reading of Genesis but deny a literal reading of the words of our Savior, this is my body, this is my blood.

 

[KWCrazy]

Are you saying that a belief in a literal reading of the Genesis creation accounts is required to be a Christian?

No, that was actually a discussion on a different matter.
As for Genesis, as a Christian you should put your faith in the word of God and not the theories of man. The Problem with TE's is that they can never produce anything in the Scriptures not deliberately taken out of context to support what they claim. It a claim is made contrary tot he word and that claim is not supported overwhelmingly in other passages, then that claim is false. It's that simple. Christians should give no credit to false doctrine.

Interesting given that we have some on here who believe in a literal reading of Genesis but deny a literal reading of the words of our Savior, this is my body, this is my blood.

That was a metaphor when Christ said and all knew it, because his body and blood was still intact.

 

[Archivist]

No, that was actually a discussion on a different matter. As for Genesis, as a Christian you should put your faith in the word of God and not the theories of man. The Problem with TE's is that they can never produce anything in the Scriptures not deliberately taken out of context to support what they claim. It a claim is made contrary tot he word and that claim is not supported overwhelmingly in other passages, then that claim is false. It's that simple. Christians should give no credit to false doctrine.

I believe that the Genesis creation accounts are allegories. How is that giving credit to a false doctrine?

That was a metaphor when Christ said and all knew it, because his body and blood was still intact.

So an all-powerful God can create the heavens and Earth in six says but cannot turn bread into His body or wine into His blood because His body and blood were still intact. Interesting. As for all knowing that, the majority of Christians believe that the elements of Holy Communion are Christ's body and blood.

 

[KWCrazy]

I believe that the Genesis creation accounts are allegories. How is that giving credit to a false doctrine?

Allegories for what?
What passages of scripture validate your opinion?
At least you post what you say as opinion; not as doctrine.

So an all-powerful God can create the heavens and Earth in six says but cannot turn bread into His body or wine into His blood because His body and blood were still intact.

Why would He? Ever drink blood? It's gross.
It's symbolic of sharing in the sacrifice of Christ as one church body. Even if it were actually flesh and blood, it would still be symbolic.
So believe as you will regarding communion because that is an interpretation of Scripture. Evolution is a REJECTION of Scripture.

 

[Speedwell]

As for Genesis, as a Christian you should put your faith in the word of God and not the theories of man.

So we do. But the word of God need not be only 100% accurate literal history--as long as it is divinely inspired it does not matter what literary genre it is. Your argument appears to run along the lines of "If it is divinely inspired, then it must be thus-and-so" but the rest of us are unwilling to set limits to God's literary creativity in that way.

 

[Archivist]

Allegories for what?
What passages of scripture validate your opinion?
At least you post what you say as opinion; not as doctrine.

Allegories showing that God created everything. What passages of scripture validate you opinion regarding Holy Communion?

Why would He? Ever drink blood? It's gross.
It's symbolic of sharing in the sacrifice of Christ as one church body. Even if it were actually flesh and blood, it would still be symbolic.

Jesus didn't say that it was symbolic did He?

So believe as you will regarding communion because that is an interpretation of Scripture. Evolution is a REJECTION of Scripture.

Sounds like you are rejecting the plain meaning of the words spoken by our Lord and Savior. How is that any different than reading Genesis as an allegory?

 

[KWCrazy]

Allegories showing that God created everything.

That was handled in verse 1.
The rest of the first chapter describes HOW God created the Heavens and the Earth. The second chapter deals with how God created Adam and Eve; Adam from dust, Eve from his rib.
Then Genesis goes on to describe the fall of man.
So you are telling us you agree with one verse in one chapter and reject the rest.

What passages of scripture validate you opinion regarding Holy Communion?

1 Corinthians 11:
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
1 Corinthians 10:13 “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?”
No mention of eating flesh. Bread is specifically stated.

You are confusing a historical narrative with the words of the Lord. If you read the Bible you'll note that Jesus never answered a question directly; always with a question or parable. Jesus taught in parables and the holy communion is a metaphor for sharing in the sacrifice of Christ until He returns.

The Catholic church established the concept of transubstantiation in the 11th century. The Council of Trent confirmed it in 1551.

Lutherans explicitly reject transubstantiation believing that the bread and wine remain fully bread and fully wine while also being truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Lutheran churches instead emphasize the sacramental union (not exactly the consubstantiation, as is often claimed) and believe that within the Eucharistic celebration the body and blood of Jesus Christ are objectively present "in, with, and under the forms" of bread and wine (cf. Book of Concord). They place great stress on Jesus' instructions to "take and eat", and "take and drink", holding that this is the proper, divinely ordained use of the sacrament, and, while giving it due reverence, scrupulously avoid any actions that might indicate or lead to superstition or unworthy fear of the sacrament. source

You're even arguing with the teaching of your own church.

 

[Papias]

If you read the Bible you'll note that Jesus never answered a question directly; always with a question or parable.

Then why are you so surprised when we point out the parabolic nature of Genesis 1? Is that not Jesus speaking?

-Papias

 

[Archivist]

That was handled in verse 1.
The rest of the first chapter describes HOW God created the Heavens and the Earth. The second chapter deals with how God created Adam and Eve; Adam from dust, Eve from his rib.
Then Genesis goes on to describe the fall of man.
So you are telling us you agree with one verse in one chapter and reject the rest.

Please don't make false statements. I never said I rejected anything in Scripture. As I have said multiple times, I accept both Genesis creation accounts as allegories.

1 Corinthians 11:No mention of eating flesh. Bread is specifically stated.

Matthew 26:

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

Jesus said body. It is rather clear. You are, of course, entitled to your own interpretation.

You are confusing a historical narrative with the words of the Lord. If you read the Bible you'll note that Jesus never answered a question directly; always with a question or parable. Jesus taught in parables and the holy communion is a metaphor for sharing in the sacrifice of Christ until He returns.

No, Jesus said body.

The Catholic church established the concept of transubstantiation in the 11th century. The Council of Trent confirmed it in 1551.

Nothing to do with this discussion, but alright.

You're even arguing with the teaching of your own church.

No, I'm not arguing with the teaching of my church. Did you read what you posted, which states "Lutherans explicitly reject transubstantiation believing that the bread and wine remain fully bread and fully wine while also being truly the body and blood of Jesus Christ."

 

[Archivist]

Then why are you so surprised when we point out the parabolic nature of Genesis 1? Is that not Jesus speaking?

As you know that is why I raised the question of Holy Communion. Like the Genesis creation accounts it is an issue upon which Christians have disagreed.