Taking questions on the Creation.

[CoderHead]

It is also in that documentary that states Albert became more and more regelious his last year of life.

Can I just ask - honestly - what does it matter? Did his contribution to science and mathematics change as a result of any real or perceived shift in his personal beliefs? I'm just wondering. Ultimately, I think it's of zero importance.

 

[JusSumguy]

Wasn't me...

Nor I

Mind you, it matters not a bit whether Einstein believed in "God" any more than it matters whether Darwin "recanted" on his death bed.

Can I just ask - honestly - what does it matter? Did his contribution to science and mathematics change as a result of any real or perceived shift in his personal beliefs? I'm just wondering. Ultimately, I think it's of zero importance.

Make that three of us.

Facts is facts.


-

 

[Tiberius]

AV, do you believe that you have dominion over all animals, as claimed in Genesis 1:28?

And when God referred to himself in the plural in Genesis 1:26, who was he talking about? Were there other that he was talking to?

 

[Gracchus]

AV, do you believe that you have dominion over all animals, as claimed in Genesis 1:28?

If he believes that, I know a tiger I would like to see him convince!

And when God referred to himself in the plural in Genesis 1:26, who was he talking about? Were there other that he was talking to?

Well, in the Bible, God admits to jealousy. He probably killed all the others off. In fact he kills everyone who disagrees with him. Which seems to be everyone.

 

[Assyrian]

Is that one of those almost extinct tigers? The problem is not our dominion over the animals, it is knowing when to stop.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, do you believe that you have dominion over all animals, as claimed in Genesis 1:28?

No.

And when God referred to himself in the plural in Genesis 1:26, who was he talking about? Were there other that he was talking to?

He was talking to the other two members of the Godhead.

 

[ragarth]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I don't have the time to go through 31 pages of posts.

What is the reasoning behind taking the genesis account of creation literally? I understand people take it literally but I've never understood the reason why they take it literally.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry if this has been asked before, but I don't have the time to go through 31 pages of posts.

What is the reasoning behind taking the genesis account of creation literally? I understand people take it literally but I've never understood the reason why they take it literally.

Several reasons:

1. The Bible starts out IN THE BEGINNING --- not ONCE UPON A TIME.
2. We are going to be judged by God's Word; why would It start out with allegory?
3. It doesn't make sense to have allegory, unless you have the source of the allegory first.
4. Philo of Alexandria is the one who started the Allegorical Method of interpretation by trying to meld Jewish literal thought with Greek allegory.
5. Jesus, His disciples, and every [human] author interpreted the books of the Bible literally.
6. In almost every instance, the Bible alerts the reader when a non-literal passage is coming up. Where It doesn't alert the reader, the passage is so allegorical anyway, there's no question (such as the trees talking to each other in Judges 9).
7. One of the Ten Commandments is based off of a literal Genesis 1.
8. Lineages are traced all the way through to Genesis 1.
9. The sentence structure of Genesis 1 is neither allegory, nor poetry, but literal.

 

[marktheblake]

What is the reasoning behind taking the genesis account of creation literally? I understand people take it literally but I've never understood the reason why they take it literally.

But the underlying supposition of your question is that Genesis as it is written is not true, so your question does not really make sense. Nobody would take it literally if they didnt beleive it to be true,

However if Genesis is true, then obviously that is a very good reason to take it seriously.

Probably the better question to ask, is what is the reasoning behind people not taking Genesis 1-2 seriously.

 

[Thistlethorn]

But the underlying supposition of your question is that Genesis as it is written is not true, so your question does not really make sense. Nobody would take it literally if they didnt beleive it to be true,

However if Genesis is true, then obviously that is a very good reason to take it seriously.

Probably the better question to ask, is what is the reasoning behind people not taking Genesis 1-2 seriously.

No, that kind of turns the question up-side-down, doesn't it? Nobody believes what is written in genesis without having read genesis, do they? The text in genesis is the foundation of creationism, and the question is, why take genesis literally when you don't take everything in the bible literally. Or, do you? Do you take the entire bible literally? In that case I could understand you taking genesis literally as well.

 

[Cabal]

No, that kind of turns the question up-side-down, doesn't it? Nobody believes what is written in genesis without having read genesis, do they? The text in genesis is the foundation of creationism, and the question is, why take genesis literally when you don't take everything in the bible literally. Or, do you? Do you take the entire bible literally? In that case I could understand you taking genesis literally as well.

They don't, though. No literalist does.

All "literalists" are doing the same thing everyone else does within the first few verses by reading "very good" as "perfect."

People who take the creation account allegorically don't take the whole Bible allegorically either, they consider which parts make the most sense depending on how they are read, i.e. the standard example of God being described as having wings, now chances are that's metaphor.

"Literalists" do the exact same thing as people who are usually described as "allegorists" or whatever, the difference is, the non-literalists are just more honest about the fact they do what everyone else does when they read the Bible (whether they realise it or not).

 

[marktheblake]

and the question is, why take genesis literally when you don't take everything in the bible literally

You are enforcing a false assumption on me in asking that question, so its invalid.

Or, do you? Do you take the entire bible literally?

Of course not, if one was to take the entire bible literally that would mean denying figures of speech.

I take the bible seriously.

 

[Thistlethorn]

You are enforcing a false assumption on me in asking that question, so its invalid.




Of course not, if one was to take the entire bible literally that would mean denying figures of speech.

I take the bible seriously.

But then you are left with the question of why you take certain parts literally and certain "seriously". How do you determine how to treat each part?

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course not, if one was to take the entire bible literally that would mean denying figures of speech.

I take the bible seriously.

Amen!

As J. Dwight Pentecost points out in his book, Things to Come:

The Bible isn't allegory --- It contains allegory.

​

 

[The Lady Kate]

Amen!

As J. Dwight Pentecost points out in his book, Things to Come:

The Bible isn't allegory --- It contains allegory.

​

That it does... and Genesis happens to be one of the allegories it contains. I suppose this Mr. Pentecost disagrees with that.

 

[JustMeSee]

No.He was talking to the other two members of the Godhead.

What is a 'Godhead'? Is that some polytheistic figure?
Who were the members of The Godhead during the time of creation?

 

[Assyrian]

Several reasons:
1. The Bible starts out IN THE BEGINNING --- not ONCE UPON A TIME.

You are still trying this? All the the other descriptions of creation in the bible that use the phrase 'in the beginning' are full of metaphor, allegory and symbol. It was only six days ago I pointed these passages out to you, have you forgotten already?

2. We are going to be judged by God's Word; why would It start out with allegory?

Doesn't the bible end with a book full of allegory? The book of Revelation even talks about the last judgement. I wonder how your literalism will stand up to being judged by God's word. Actually the most relevant description of judgement is Paul's description of believers works being judged.

1Cor 3:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it.
11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw--
13 each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Oh dear it is another allegory.

It looks like you literalism will be judged by allegories, you should ask for a different jury.

3. It doesn't make sense to have allegory, unless you have the source of the allegory first.

AV meet Jesus, Jesus, this is AV. Careful you don't want to sneak up on him unannounced with any metaphors or parables.

4. Philo of Alexandria is the one who started the Allegorical Method of interpretation by trying to meld Jewish literal thought with Greek allegory.

And did Paul learn allegory from Philo? Gal 4:24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.

5. Jesus, His disciples, and every [human] author interpreted the books of the Bible literally.

If they didn't would you be able to tell when you interpret it all literally anyway?

John 6:31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"
32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

6. In almost every instance, the Bible alerts the reader when a non-literal passage is coming up. Where It doesn't alert the reader, the passage is so allegorical anyway, there's no question (such as the trees talking to each other in Judges 9).

Just an excuse to exclude the passages you cannot deny are allegorical. If there is no question when passages are allegorical, why is the church divided down the middle about taking Jesus literally when he said "this is my body"? Why was Nicodemus confused when Jesus said "you must be born again"?

Anyway why is there 'no question' about a talking trees being allegorical but for most Creationists a talking snake has to be literal? It seem arbitrary to me.

7. One of the Ten Commandments is based off of a literal Genesis 1.

And the same commandment in Deuteronomy is based off a metaphorical description of the Exodus when God rescued the Israelites "With a mighty hand and outstretched arm" Deut 5:15.

8. Lineages are traced all the way through to Genesis 1.

Are these the genealogies Paul keeps telling us to avoid? And Luke describes as 'supposed'?

9. The sentence structure of Genesis 1 is neither allegory, nor poetry, but literal.

Sentence structure cannot be literal or non literal, do you mean narrative? I don't see how that can help you as narratives can be literal or figurative. However Genesis 1 is unlike any other passage I know of in scripture, the nearest I can think of are the repetitive refrains and parallelism of some of the Psalms.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is a 'Godhead'?

The Godhead is what we call the Triunity --- some call it the Trinity.

Is that some polytheistic figure?

Not 'polytheistic' --- 'triune'.

Three-as-one.

Who were the members of The Godhead during the time of creation?

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

 

[JustMeSee]

The Godhead is what we call the Triunity --- some call it the Trinity.Not 'polytheistic' --- 'triune'.

Three-as-one.God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.

So, Jesus (God in human form) was in heaven during creation, before he was born?

I did not know that Jesus existed before he was born on earth. Very intriguing!

1. How old was Jesus' physical form in heaven before he was born on earth?

2. Is heaven a physical place? If so, where is it located in relationship to earth (on earth, under the ground, somewhere out in space)?

3. I am having trouble with: 1+1+1=1. Please explain how talking to oneself in heaven (Genesis 1:26) is not polytheistic or akin to multiple personality disorder.

I am not trying to be offensive, only trying to understand your belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, Jesus (God in human form) was in heaven during creation, before he was born?

Jesus existed before the earth was ever created (not in human form, though).

We say that was Jesus in His pre-incarnate form.

I did not know that Jesus existed before he was born on earth. Very intriguing!

Indeed --- He even volunteered to be the Saviour.

Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

Note too, Jesus is all through the Old Testament:

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

We have a fancy way of saying this:

• Jesus is in the Old Testament, concealed; and in the New Testament, revealed.

Paul called Jesus' deity a 'mystery':

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

No one --- not even the Old Testament saints --- went to Heaven without the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

1. How old was Jesus' physical form in heaven before he was born on earth?

Does not apply --- Jesus wasn't in physical form in Heaven.

And in point of fact, Heaven itself is only 6100 years old.

2. Is heaven a physical place? If so, where is it located in relationship to earth (on earth, under the ground, somewhere out in space)?

Heaven, proper, is a spiritual place; and was created on the first day of creation.

Paul refers to it as 'third heaven':

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, ( whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth ) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Notice his reference to 'fourteen years ago'?

Fourteen years prior, Paul was beaten to death in a city called Lystra (see Acts 14, w/emphasis on verse 19).

3. I am having trouble with: 1+1+1=1.

Only God can get away with that.

As a Triune Being, God is not subject to what we call the Law of Non-contradiction.

Please explain how talking to oneself in heaven (Genesis 1:26) is not polytheistic or akin to multiple personality disorder.

It would be polytheistic if there were three separate Gods, apart from their triune nature; it would be MPD, if there was only one God w/no triune nature.

Notice His triune nature explains it all.

I am not trying to be offensive, only trying to understand your belief.

No offense taken ---