Taking Questions on Genesis

[driewerf]

In my opinion: no.

None.

Then why should any non-christian consider anything written in Genesis as true? What arguments would you use to convince someone who doesn't believe in any deity to start with?

 

[driewerf]

In a related issue, what do you believe about the carbon dating of the fossil record that seems to indicate a much longer time frame? Is it so unreliable as to be off by millions of years?

For the record: carbon dating isn't used for dating fossils, other isotopes are used for this. And the half life of Carbon 14 is way too short for dating anything older than 50.000 years.

 

[Lost4words]

One question i have thats not answered in Genesis.

Were the two Corgis on the ark looked after properly?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why should any non-christian consider anything written in Genesis as true?

The best answer I can think of is the salvation of their soul.

What arguments would you use to convince someone who doesn't believe in any deity to start with?

None.

That's the Holy Spirit's job; to convict you of your need for the Saviour.

 

[AV1611VET]

One question i have thats not answered in Genesis.

Were the two Corgis on the ark looked after properly?

Of course!

Look how handsome and well-adjusted they are!

 

[driewerf]

Then why should any non-christian consider anything written in Genesis as true?

The best answer I can think of is the salvation of their soul.

Which is an answer that exactly require to be a christian to begin with. A faithful muslim will believe in the existence of a soul, but will opt for the islam the best way of salvation and consider the christian way a path endangering his soul. A faithful jew will believe in the existence of a soul, but will opt for the judaism the best way of salvation and consider the christian way a path endangering his soul. An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of souls at all. So again, your answer will fall on deaf ears. So your answer will be accepted by christians only.

 

[driewerf]

What arguments would you use to convince someone who doesn't believe in any deity to start with?

None.

That's the Holy Spirit's job; to convict you of your need for the Saviour.

For starters, I can repeat my answer as above:
Which is an answer that exactly require to be a christian to begin with. A faithful muslim will believe in the existence of a soul, but will opt for the islam the best way of salvation and consider the christian way a path endangering his soul. A faithful jew will believe in the existence of a soul, but will opt for the judaism the best way of salvation and consider the christian way a path endangering his soul. An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of souls at all. So again, your answer will fall on deaf ears. So your answer will be accepted by christians only.
The "need for a Saviour" is a pure christian thing. So again it requires the interlocutor to be christian to start with.

But; this answer has something more.
So oké, it's the Holy Spirit's job to convince me. And if he fails to convince me, should I deserve to be thrown into the "Lake of Fire"?

Should I be punished because the Holy Spirit - and here it comes - who is part of the Holy Trinity, hence god himself failed to convince me? And you want to portray that god as just and loving?

 

[Lost4words]

Of course!

Look how handsome and well-adjusted they are!

Waw, thank you for clearing that up!

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is an answer that exactly require to be a christian to begin with. A faithful muslim will believe in the existence of a soul, but will opt for the islam the best way of salvation and consider the christian way a path endangering his soul. A faithful jew will believe in the existence of a soul, but will opt for the judaism the best way of salvation and consider the christian way a path endangering his soul. An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of souls at all. So again, your answer will fall on deaf ears. So your answer will be accepted by christians only.

That's not how it works.

God set it up this way:

Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Someone can read Genesis and poo-poo it.

But something spiritual happened inside of the person that he may not be aware of:

Seeds were planted.

Later, those seeds are watered, and eventually bloom.

1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

People can read their Koran, Bhavagad-gita, Talmud, whatever; but they don't work inside the person like the Bible does.

 

[AV1611VET]

Should I be punished because the Holy Spirit - and here it comes - who is part of the Holy Trinity, hence god himself failed to convince me? And you want to portray that god as just and loving?

God convicts (and convinces) people of their sins.

It is then their job to exercise their freewill to do the right thing.

God is not going to make you come to Christ.

And for the record, are you SURE you aren't convinced of your spiritual standing before JEHOVAH God?

 

[driewerf]

Which is an answer that exactly require to be a christian to begin with. A faithful muslim will believe in the existence of a soul, but will opt for the islam the best way of salvation and consider the christian way a path endangering his soul. A faithful jew will believe in the existence of a soul, but will opt for the judaism the best way of salvation and consider the christian way a path endangering his soul. An atheist doesn't believe in the existence of souls at all. So again, your answer will fall on deaf ears. So your answer will be accepted by christians only.

That's not how it works.

I don't know what you mean by "That's not how it works". Because that is certainly what happens. Or do you expect a faithful Sikh to point toward Jainism? A satanist promoting islam? A boudhist extolling the virtues of christianity? Nope, each will fervently claim that they have the truth and the truth only.
In a similar discussion I wrote:
I am not impressed with that statement. Imagine a religious believer that claims that is Holy Book is the only true one and all the others are wrong. No politician will say that the other candidate is better. No, every political hopeful will proclaim that (s)he is the best than all the others. No salesman will say that other brands are better. (S)he sales the best and don’t go look for something else. Every religionist will claim that )he worships the one true god and all the others are wrong. And his “Holy Book” is da Truth and all the other “Holy books” are lies. Without any other evidence, I am very unimpressed.
This still stands.

God set it up this way: Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or what result you hoped to get from these bible verses.
Someone can read Genesis and poo-poo it.

But something spiritual happened inside of the person that he may not be aware of:

Seeds were planted.

Later, those seeds are watered, and eventually bloom.

1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

People can read their Koran, Bhavagad-gita, Talmud, whatever; but they don't work inside the person like the Bible does.

We are back at “I am right all the others are wrong”, my Holy Book is the Truth and all the others are lies. Except of course that all religionists say that about their Holy Book.

 

[AV1611VET]

We are back at “I am right all the others are wrong”, my Holy Book is the Truth and all the others are lies. Except of course that all religionists say that about their Holy Book.

QV please:

I’ve done a lot of writing and speaking on the topic of why the Bible is true. But beyond the standard proofs for the Bible’s validity, if someone asked me to sum up in one word why a person should believe the Bible is trustworthy and, moreover, why it’s a supernatural book, that word would be: Israel.

SOURCE

 

[partinobodycular]

Okay, in this thread, I'll take any questions you may have about the events in Genesis, and try to answer them to the best of my ability.

My question has to do with Genesis 3:16.

KJV: 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

NIV: 16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

Is the NIV translation accurate as to the original intent of God's curse on Eve being to increase the physical discomfort of childbearing? If not, then was God's intent simply to make Eve despise her fate of having to bear children?

 

[partinobodycular]

My question has to do with Genesis 3:16.

KJV: 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

NIV: 16 To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

Is the NIV translation accurate as to the original intent of God's curse on Eve being to increase the physical discomfort of childbearing? If not, then was God's intent simply to make Eve despise her fate of having to bear children?

While you're contemplating your answer, might I suggest that the NIV translation seems more in keeping with the purpose of God's actions. I.E. to increase the pain that Eve would experience during childbearing. Obviously God had always intended for Adam and Eve to have children, because even before the fall He had commanded them to be fruitful and multiply.

Which raises the question, had God always intended for Eve's pain during childbearing to be so severe, or was this 'severity' only made manifest after the fall? The sensible interpretation of Genesis 3:16 is that this pain was a direct consequence of Eve's disobedience.

But I'm curious to hear what you think. If God's curse wasn't about the pain that Eve would experience during childbearing then what was it about? After all, for most women having a child isn't a sorrowful thing, on the contrary, it's a joyous thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I'm curious to hear what you think. If God's curse wasn't about the pain that Eve would experience during childbearing then what was it about? After all, for most women having a child isn't a sorrowful thing, on the contrary, it's a joyous thing.

John 16:21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

Women bearing children in pain should be a reminder to them of what Eve did in the Garden.

Just like thorns and thistles should be a reminder to us of what Adam did in the Garden.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, you do know what happened when scientists tried to break that curse on Eve, don't you?

 

[partinobodycular]

Women bearing children in pain should be a reminder to them of what Eve did in the Garden.

Just like thorns and thistles should be a reminder to us of what Adam did in the Garden.

So you agree that the NIV translation is an accurate portrayal of the curse that God placed on Eve? That from Eve onward women would have increased pain during childbirth.

I just want to be sure that I'm clear on your position.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you agree that the NIV translation is an accurate portrayal of the curse that God placed on Eve? That from Eve onward women would have increased pain during childbirth.

I just want to be sure that I'm clear on your position.

You're asking a KJVO this?

Well ... I'll say YES to your question.

Let's see where this goes.

 

[partinobodycular]

Well ... I'll say YES to your question.

So any ideas on how God pulled this off... this sudden increase in Eve's pain during childbirth? Because according to the current medical understanding a woman's extreme pain during childbirth is due to two factors... narrow hips brought on by an evolutionary adaptation to upright walking, and an infants larger cranium, brought on by the evolution of a bigger brain.

But somehow God supposedly brought on these two adaptations instantaneously, without the aid of evolution.

I'm wondering, why not just assume that the story of Adam and Eve, the forbidden fruit, their fall from grace, their expulsion from the garden, and God's subsequent curses are simply meant to illustrate man's evolution from an arboreal primate to modern humans. It certainly fits the evidence far better than than any literal interpretation ever has.

But hey, how about we start off by you explaining to me how God pulled off Eve's sudden increase in pain during childbirth.

 

[Ophiolite]

But hey, how about we start off by you explaining to me how God pulled off Eve's sudden increase in pain during childbirth.

Given that AV's God is omnipotent, why would that be an issue? If you wish to desconstruct or refute AV's thinking you will need do better than that!