Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[BCP1928]

So Paul was a false prophet speaking lies as well as Genesis being totally wrong in their book. Interesting.
2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

I don't know what you mean about "totally wrong." How do you know that God intended the Garden story to be a factually accurate historical narrative to begin with?

That is a lot of the bible they toss out. I bet if I pressed the question further, we might as well toss it all out. For example, do they think Jesus is the creator and God?

You should really try to express your contempt for Roman Catholics and other Traditional Christians in a more subtle fashion.

 

[truthpls]

A person can believe in Jesus and God as the creator and not believe in a full 100% literal reading of the Bible. They are not mutually exclusive.

Right. So when the apostles and Jesus spoke of the creation and Eve and the serpent etc they were all wrong. Jesus was really God and the creator, but...He did not really create as the bible says. There was no serpent in the garden that Eve listened to and resulted in Adam sinning according to them. How about the miracles, did they really happen? Did Jesus walk on water? Did He create thousands of fish and bread loaves? Wine? Did the animal kingdom really obey Him and the fish gather as told to Peter's boat area? (the coin in the fish's mouth, etc) If Jesus really was the creator, as you say they believe, why did He not really create the first man and woman and garden also? It seems that they like to use their own wisdom and mind and science and pick out what bits of the bible were actually true and which parts need to be viewed as glorified fairy tales.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Right. So when the apostles and Jesus spoke of the creation and Eve and the serpent etc they were all wrong. Jesus was really God and the creator, but...He did not really create as the bible says. There was no serpent in the garden that Eve listened to and resulted in Adam sinning according to them. How about the miracles, did they really happen? Did Jesus walk on water? Did He create thousands of fish and bread loaves? Wine? Did the animal kingdom really obey Him and the fish gather as told to Peter's boat area? (the coin in the fish's mouth, etc) If Jesus really was the creator, as you say they believe, why did He not really create the first man and woman and garden also? It seems that they like to use their own wisdom and mind and science and pick out what bits of the bible were actually true and which parts need to be viewed as glorified fairy tales.

No-one is saying anything about the Bible being wrong except for you. And I take it that you don't know what poetic language and allegory is either.

 

[truthpls]

I don't know what you mean about "totally wrong." How do you know that God intended the Garden story to be a factually accurate historical narrative to begin with?

Because it is repeated throughout the bible.

You should really try to express your contempt for Roman Catholics and other Traditional Christians in a more subtle fashion.

You should try to realize that I neither much care about or know what those outfits propose.

 

[truthpls]

No-one is saying anything about the Bible being wrong except for you. And I take it that you don't know what poetic language and allegory is either.

If there was no serpent that beguiled Eve, for example the bible is wrong in many places.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If there was no serpent that beguiled Eve, for example the bible is wrong in many places.

Not at all. Again, you clearly show that you don't know what poetic language and allegory is.

 

[BCP1928]

Because it is repeated throughout the bible.

It's referred to throughout the Bible.

You should try to realize that I neither much care about or know what those outfits propose.

It's obvious you don't know much about Christian theology at all.

 

[truthpls]

Not at all. Again, you clearly show that you don't know what poetic language and allegory is.

I know what was said and meant and repeated. In what way is stating that the serpent beguiled Eve really supposed to mean that 'there really was no serpent that tempted Eve and really no garden and really no trees of life in it and really no God walking and talking with Adam and really no rivers in the garden, and no angel that guarded the entrance after they got the boot. Really no first created man from whom a woman was created from a bone, really no curse and no fall of man, and Adam did not live 930 real years, no Enoch that was actually the seventh from Adam, and etc'

We need oversized church organizations to tell us what the bible really means....etc.

 

[truthpls]

It's referred to throughout the Bible.

Yes. Repeatedly!

It's obvious you don't know much about Christian theology at all.

What verse would I find that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know what was said and meant and repeated. In what way is stating that the serpent beguiled Eve really supposed to mean that 'there really was no serpent that tempted Eve and really no garden and really no trees of life in it and really no God walking and talking with Adam and really no rivers in the garden, and no angel that guarded the entrance after they got the boot. Really no first created man from whom a woman was created from a bone, really no curse and no fall of man, and Adam did not live 930 real years, no Enoch that was actually the seventh from Adam, and etc'

We need oversized church organizations to tell us what the bible really means....etc.

And again: you clearly don't know what allegory and poetic writing is.

Why does everything in the Bible NEED to be 100% literal? Why?

 

[truthpls]

And again: you clearly don't know what allegory and poetic writing is.

Why does everything in the Bible NEED to be 100% literal? Why?

There are some things not meant to be limited to a physical explanation. That does not make them false, it makes them extra knowledgeable. There are many physical things stated that cannot be taken as unreal or 'poetic' If it is written is wonderful poetic structure or language, that is fine. The central theme of the bible is that sin entered the world through one man, and that Jesus died to fix it. To say that ape spawned people generally digressed or some such resulting in the fallen nature of man is opposing God. Why would God leave heaven to suffer terribly and die and rise again to pay the price for our sin if it did not exist?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There are some things not meant to be limited to a physical explanation. That does not make them false, it makes them extra knowledgeable. There are many physical things stated that cannot be taken as unreal or 'poetic' If it is written is wonderful poetic structure or language, that is fine. The central theme of the bible is that sin entered the world through one man, and that Jesus died to fix it. To say that ape spawned people generally digressed or some such resulting in the fallen nature of man is opposing God. Why would God leave heaven to suffer terribly and die and rise again to pay the price for our sin if it did not exist?

I personally say you've got that backwards: even if God created man via evolution, having us evolved from simpler forms to what we are now, with all the follies, foibles and falls we have endured, and still saw to send His Son amongst us to die for our sins on the cross, I say that speaks more of God's love than anything else.

Even if the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, isn't 100% factual, that's okay. Since as you say, the 'central theme of the Bible is sin entered the world...., and that Jesus died to fix it'. Adam and Eve do not need to be literal people to support that claim, nor does the events of Genesis, nor Exodus, nor the majority of the Old Testament.

In the end, the only real core tenet of the Bible, and in fact the whole of Christianity itself is accepting that Jesus died for our sins, and that He is the son of God. Even the founders of the Christian church itself had that opinion. It's just that a small sect of Christians in North America, mainly the US but it also seems to be Canada too, that try and take it further by going the step further with needing the Bible to be 100% true and literal for someone to be Christian. And to that, I really have to ask: why?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Because the results are wrong! Here is a litmus test for the method. Please tell us the date of rocks in the garden of Eden? You do not know. Not even where it was or when it was. In the case of science, I daresay you do not even know if it was! Tell us the nuclear composition as God was creating it? Tell us the ratio of isotopes the second it was all finished? No. All you do is look at it now. Then you assume God did not create it, and then you add dates accordingly. Your method is only valid IF there was no creation, and no God. You want us all to accept that as a starting point and basis and foundational premise and belief.

As you note, the "garden of eden" is not a place we can visit because the location (if there ever was one) is unknown.

How can it serve as a litmus test of a method to apply it to a place we can not visit or collect samples from?

 

[BCP1928]

There are some things not meant to be limited to a physical explanation. That does not make them false, it makes them extra knowledgeable. There are many physical things stated that cannot be taken as unreal or 'poetic' If it is written is wonderful poetic structure or language, that is fine. The central theme of the bible is that sin entered the world through one man, and that Jesus died to fix it. To say that ape spawned people generally digressed or some such resulting in the fallen nature of man is opposing God. Why would God leave heaven to suffer terribly and die and rise again to pay the price for our sin if it did not exist?

You don't think sin exists if Genesis isn't literally true? You don't think we are sinners in need of a redeemer if Genesis isn't literally true? The doctrine of Original Sin wasn't fully realized in the early church. It was brought to its final form by the same 4th century theologian I quoted earlier who didn't think Genesis was necessarily literal history.

So tell me this: would you reject the doctrine of Original Sin if you found out that God made man from some precursor primate rather than a handful of dust?

 

[truthpls]

I personally say you've got that backwards: even if God created man via evolution, having us evolved from simpler forms to what we are now, with all the follies, foibles and falls we have endured, and still saw to send His Son amongst us to die for our sins on the cross, I say that speaks more of God's love than anything else.

So a monkey sins? The descendants of apes sin? How did sin get here if not the way Scripture says? A fluke? Jesus died for nothing but a fluke?

Even if the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, isn't 100% factual, that's okay. Since as you say, the 'central theme of the Bible is sin entered the world...., and that Jesus died to fix it'. Adam and Eve do not need to be literal people to support that claim, nor does the events of Genesis, nor Exodus, nor the majority of the Old Testament.

Interesting, no you think you can toss 'the majority of the old testament' out! So what is left that is true? Abraham? Sodom? Enoch? Methuselah? David and Goliath?

In the end, the only real core tenet of the Bible, and in fact the whole of Christianity itself is accepting that Jesus died for our sins, and that He is the son of God.

What sins if there was no sin and death brought into the world by the fall in the garden? So Jesus is the son of God? Does that mean He created all things as John says? Does that mean He was right about the beginning? Does that mean He suffered for the monkey spawn imperfections that apparently came naturally on earth? Does this mean Adam would have died regardless of whether he ate the tree of life or not again?

Even the founders of the Christian church itself had that opinion.

Jesus founded it. He had no such opinion.

It's just that a small sect of Christians in North America, mainly the US but it also seems to be Canada too, that try and take it further by going the step further with needing the Bible to be 100% true and literal for someone to be Christian. And to that, I really have to ask: why?

Don't kid yourself. They say there are millions of secret Christians in Iran, do you think they do not know God created the world? China secret believers? No. of course they believe the bible. I doubt if many of them know about or care less about some 'traditional' christians think, that toss the bible out the window.

 

[truthpls]

As you note, the "garden of eden" is not a place we can visit because the location (if there ever was one) is unknown.

Exactly and even if it was known, He would not allow you in there.

How can it serve as a litmus test of a method to apply it to a place we can not visit or collect samples from?

It is a test for science itself as to what they can and do know. They know nothing, but act upon a faithless foundation that starts with no God or creation or spirit realm etc. They are, as the bible says, ignorant and only profess themselves to be wise.
2 Peter 3:5
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So a monkey sins? The descendants of apes sin? How did sin get here if not the way Scripture says? A fluke? Jesus died for nothing but a fluke?

Interesting, no you think you can toss 'the majority of the old testament' out! So what is left that is true? Abraham? Sodom? Enoch? Methuselah? David and Goliath?

What sins if there was no sin and death brought into the world by the fall in the garden? So Jesus is the son of God? Does that mean He created all things as John says? Does that mean He was right about the beginning? Does that mean He suffered for the monkey spawn imperfections that apparently came naturally on earth? Does this mean Adam would have died regardless of whether he ate the tree of life or not again?

Jesus founded it. He had no such opinion.

Don't kid yourself. They say there are millions of secret Christians in Iran, do you think they do not know God created the world? China secret believers? No. of course they believe the bible. I doubt if many of them know about or care less about some 'traditional' christians think, that toss the bible out the window.

Seriously: why does the whole of the Bible need to be 100% true to you and others? Why can't some of it be poetic allegory with some small sprinkling to truth?
Why?

 

[truthpls]

You don't think sin exists if Genesis isn't literally true?

Explain where it came from then if you came from monkeys? Do apes sin? Did something happen worldwide to 'early man' that caused them to be in sin? If Genesis says death came as a result of an event, and that is a lie, how does that make Genesis 'true'?

You don't think we are sinners in need of a redeemer if Genesis isn't literally true?

If there was no Eve or creation or Adam or Satan as the serpent or tree of knowledge etc, then what makes anyone a sinner? Id evolutiondunnit, I guess sin is a result of evolution?

The doctrine of Original Sin wasn't fully realized in the early church. It was brought to its final form by the same 4th century theologian I quoted earlier who didn't think Genesis was necessarily literal history.

Whatever 'doctrine' some did or did not have, the Scripture told us where sin came from exactly. It also told us it was serious enough that God had to step in and fix it.

So tell me this: would you reject the doctrine of Original Sin if you found out that God made man from some precursor primate rather than a handful of dust?

No one will ever find out we came from pixie dust, a monkey's butt or anywhere else. God Himself formed us and gave us life.

 

[truthpls]

Seriously: why does the whole of the Bible need to be 100% true to you and others? Why can't some of it be poetic allegory with some small sprinkling to truth?
Why?

Jesus confirmed Scripture was from God. The bible confirms creation and the beginning as per Genesis all over the place. Nothing says it was some pretend thing. That is not even a serious proposition.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Jesus confirmed Scripture was from God.

That is not the same as saying that it's 100% literal.

The bible confirms creation and the beginning as per Genesis all over the place. Nothing says it was some pretend thing. That is not even a serious proposition.

Again: that is not the same saying that it's 100% literal.

No-one is talking about it being wrong, or false or pretend except you, so kindly stop putting words in our mouths.
Let me try a different tact: is the belief of a person who doesn't accept a 100% literal reading of the Bible less than the belief of someone who does accept a 100% literal reading of the Bible, and if so, why?