Voting in favor of your Bible POV - God's Word

[ViaCrucis]

That you want to go back to the day's before the Reformation

Funny how Protestants forget we Lutherans exist.

"I do not ask how Christ can be God and man, and how his natures could be united. For God is able to act far beyond our imagination. To the Word of God one must yield. It is up to you to prove that the body of Christ is not there when Christ himself says, ‘This is my body.’ I do not want to hear what reason says. I completely reject carnal or geometrical arguments, as for example, that a large body could not fill a small space. God is above and beyond all mathematics, and his words are to be adored and observed with awe. God, however, commands: ‘Take, eat; this is my body’. I request, therefore, a valid proof from Holy Writ that these words do not mean what they say." - Martin Luther at the Marburg Colloquy

-CryptoLutheran

 

[K2K]

1. John 1 John says - Jesus "is the Word"
2. Mark 7:6-13 Jesus said - the scriptures written in OT are "The Word of God"

so I guess it is both-and

Really. both? Perhaps you misread or misinterpreted something?

Mark 7:6-13

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Do you see how the verses you quoted end with "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear?

It then does not read If any man has eye to read let him read!

Jn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

If His words that He speaks to us are spirit, then they are not ink written on pages!!

And if He had to explain that to people then some people were getting the wrong idea, which is to say some people don't realize the words He speaks to us our spirit!! That is why Paul, wrote that the word we preach is found in our hearts and on our lips!!

This does not mean the Scriptures are not from God or that we should not study them, but rather that those who wrote those words down heard the words that were spirit spoken to them. They were not spoken to us!! We need to hear the Lord and get to know Him for ourselves!! He is near us, so His words are near us, even in our hearts!!!

So His words to us personally are not found in the Scriptures! Those were words to those who wrote them down. You can learn from what they heard but they wrote them so that you might seek the Lord our God for yourself!! And His words then are also not found in our traditions!! Perhaps our traditions will remind us to seek Him and listen to Him for ourselves, but that has not always proven to be true!! The Pharisees held to tradition and studied the Scriptures but Jesus told them:

Jn 8:47 “He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”

So though they lived by tradition and studied the Scriptures they did not hear the words of God. We understand this, right?

The Lord has a voice and we pick up words from that still small voice of His! So we who know Him tell others to seek Him and indeed that still small voice that we hear words from, and which is found in our hearts and sometimes coming out of our mouth, because the Spirit of God communicates with our spirit which causes us to speak things from Him without even understanding it at first. Perhaps He has given you the gift of tongues, where you turn over you voice to Him even when you don't at first know what is being said. So then you ask Him and He tells you via His still small voice what is being said??

If you haven't been given that gift, ok, but seek Him and His words and you will find Him!! It is written that all who seek find. Then you will come to know Him. A relationship with Him will develop. He will explain things in the Bible to you. And you will come to know that He is indeed the Word of God because He is the One who comes in the name of the Lord.

Gen 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying,
“Do not fear, Abram,
I am a shield to you;
Your reward shall be very great.”

The Bible was not 'the word of the Lord' that came to Abram in a vision saying! That was the One we usually call "Jesus Christ" His name was always "the word of God or the word of the Lord' - same thing.

 

[Jipsah]

Funny how Protestants forget we Lutherans exist.

Lutherans and Anglicans and such just aren't Protestant enough, looks like.

 

[Archivist]

I agree that is another topic for another poll on another thread. But I would be very interested in participating in it if you want to start it.

I started one back in mid-July, Literal Creation vs. Literal Body and Blood. It is in the Creation & Theistic Evolution Discussion & Debate Forum.

 

[BobRyan]

I started one back in mid-July, Literal Creation vs. Literal Body and Blood. It is in the Creation & Theistic Evolution Discussion & Debate Forum.

I assume the topic is about the Eucharist and not about the 7 day creation week.

Or is the claim that if a symbol is used in any part of the Bible OT or NT - then that means the historic account of Gen 1-2 summarized in legal code in Ex 20:11 -- must also be allegory or symbolic?

As someone who accepts that the Bible contains reliable historic accounts and also contains cases of allegory (for example in the book of Judges where the trees go out to elect a king for themselves), I have never had to claim that it can only be "all allegory" or "all historic account" ... no "mix allowed".

How about you? - would you argue that the virgin birth must be "myth and allegory" since the account in Judges of "the trees electing a king" is allegory?.

 

[BobRyan]

Really. both? Perhaps you misread or misinterpreted something?

ok ... maybe I missed something.

Mark 7:6-13

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Do you see how the verses you quoted end with "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear?

yes... but do you see that Jesus just equated "Moses Said" -- to "The Word of God"??

 

[Jipsah]

Or is the claim that if a symbol is used in any part of the Bible OT or NT - then that means the historic account of Gen 1-2 summarized in legal code in Ex 20:11 -- must also be allegory or symbolic?

No, it's a claim that the decision as to whether a SCripture is "symbolic" or not is too often determined by one's doctrine. For example, SDAs believe in the Seven Day Creation a priori, as a matter of doctrinal presupposition. Hence they're going to believe it if every shred of empirical evidence shows it happened over zillions of years. They also consider the Roman Catholic Church to be the ultimate Bad Guy this side of Satan, and so the SDAs opposed any RCC dogma on principle. Ergo the doctrine of the Real Presence of our Lord in the holy Communion is blasphemous to them.

How about you? - would you argue that the virgin birth must be "myth and allegory"

Surely your lot must believe precisely that. After all, Everybody Knows that virgins don't have children, and I mean, hey, Scripture is chockabloc with metaphors and parables and allusions and stuff - and worse yet, the RCC believes it too! Isn't the word "alma", translated to "maiden", also just a generic term for a young woman? Y'all may very well want to chuck out this virgin birth stuff. I mean, talk about hard sayings, who can hear that one?

Of course, we traditionalist relics (kneelers, right?) will continue to believe it. It's even in our Creeds.

since the account in Judges of "the trees electing a king" is allegory?.

Y'all may want to literalize the comment about camels passing through the eyes of needles - all it requires is a bigger needle and a lot of olive oil. And of course you'll want to emphasize that Lazarus was only spiritually dead; you don't want too much of this New Testament stuff taken at face value.

 

[Jipsah]

do you see that Jesus just equated "Moses Said" -- to "The Word of God"??

We traditionalists do that same thing with the Words of Jesus! Weird, huh?

 

[BobRyan]

I started one back in mid-July, Literal Creation vs. Literal Body and Blood. It is in the Creation & Theistic Evolution Discussion & Debate Forum.

I assume the topic is about the Eucharist and not about the 7 day creation week.

Or is the claim that if a symbol is used in any part of the Bible OT or NT - then that means the historic account of Gen 1-2 summarized in legal code in Ex 20:11 -- must also be allegory or symbolic?

As someone who accepts that the Bible contains reliable historic accounts and also contains cases of allegory (for example in the book of Judges where the trees go out to elect a king for themselves), I have never had to claim that it can only be "all allegory" or "all historic account" ... no "mix allowed".

For those who say that we must believe in a literal reading of the Genesis creation stories but deny a literal reading of the accounts of the Last Supper, how do you justify this?

As predicted before reading that thread - it was about the idea that if one is allegory all are allegory -- or if one text is literal then no allegory exists.

How about you? - would you argue that the virgin birth must be "myth and allegory" since the account in Judges of "the trees electing a king" is allegory?.

No, it's a claim that the decision as to whether a SCripture is "symbolic" or not is too often determined by one's doctrine.

I see - so then "doctrine" is determined by "one's doctrine"??

ok well I guess when you start that thread it will be even more interesting than I had first supposed. I look forward to it.

 

[BobRyan]

No, it's a claim that the decision as to whether a SCripture is "symbolic" or not is too often determined by one's doctrine. For example, SDAs believe in the Seven Day Creation a priori, as a matter of doctrinal presupposition.

I have had a number of bible studies with non-SDAs to introduce them to that subject... it never goes like this :

• "First believe this doctrine... do you believe it? Good! Now lets go see what the Bible says, let's see if BIble writers were as smart as you and I -- because I am pretty sure that now that you believe doctrine-A you will then see that the Bible teaches exactly what you now already believe even without the Bible".

It might be that in your experience that is how people arrive at Bible doctrine - but I never see that in real life in my church. Nor have I ever seen anyone in my denomination or any other denomination suggest that this is the way it should be done.

Each one has free will of course and so your experience may well differ.

 

[K2K]

ok ... maybe I missed something.

Mark 7:6-13

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.




yes... but do you see that Jesus just equated "Moses Said" -- to "The Word of God"??

The Word of God we preach is found in your heart and on your lips!!!!! Not in the Book!!

You hear, not read, the Word of God, because the Word of God is Jesus Christ who is not a book! Look closely at the following verses -

Jn 5:45,47 “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. “But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”

Do you not see that the writings of Moses were not His words? It is right there in your Bible!

In the bible over and over you see things written like, 'Do you have ears to hear' or 'with their ears they don't hear' or "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

None of that talks about having eyes to read. We should read and study the Scriptures, but if in our study we failed to notice that the Word we preach is found in our heart (not in ink on pages) we missed something!! What we missed is that the Lord is always with us so we can have conversations with Him via His Holy Spirit talking to our spirit!!

Isaiah put it this way - "Your ears will hear a word behind you, “This is the way, walk in it,” whenever you turn to the right or to the left. (Is 30:21)

When we get to know the Lord Jesus Christ we can hear Him telling us "turn right at the stop sign", or "Go down isles 17' while at the store. We read where He says He will never leave us but do we seek Him and listen through out our day.

He said He stands at the door and knocks and if anyone hears His voice-- so He is always just standing there looking to get into a conversation with us, but we are not paying attention.

Now lets talk about these so called random acts of kindness that we something do. Only God is good, so who told us to do these seemingly random acts of kindness? Well, if you are big company looking to advertise yourself by pretending to be a great company doing random acts of kindness, then your motive is a self-centered motive. But what if that is not the case and suddenly you find these thoughts of being kind to someone when you don't have a self-centered motive? Don't you see that is Jesus Christ standing at the door knocking with His voice, trying to get your attention? It is just like is written in the Bible. He is indeed there trying to get our attention!

He shows up in other ways also. Have you never suddenly seen someone at church just break down in tears. Do we still not understand the our Lord is talking to them via His Spirit. Rarely are they reading the Bible when they break down, but they could be. He can and does talk to you about the Scriptures, but not just then, but He is always with you. So those acts of seemingly random acts are not random at all, they are the Lord working in us through His Holy Spirit talking to our spirit!!!

That is the Word of God we preach. That is the Word of God found in our hearts! Yeah, we often call the Scriptures the Word of God because people in the past heard from Hin and wrote down the things they heard, but our God is not dead or in a far off place called heaven. He is always right there with you. So who are we not to listen to His voice, Today?

There is a day that we are all supposed to hear from Him and that day is "Today"!!

Heb 3:7,8 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME, AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS, “TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE,

Ok, you heard His voice but and instead of hardening your heart you performed what you call "Random acts of kindness" but did you not realize that it was Him working through you?

Heb 3:10 THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION, AND SAID, ‘THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART, AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS’

It doesn't sound like you exactly went astray in your heart because you did perform those acts of kindness, but you should have know that they were His "ways", not yours, right?

Again, only God is good. We tend to be rather selfish. If we understood that He is indeed standing there talking to us and that we find the Word of God we preach on our hearts, then surely we would pay more attention and start practicing seeking Him and listening to His voice.

Now the Hebrews of all the early Christian were the ones raised with the Scriptures. Thus they probably should have been teaching others, but if you don't practice hearing, are you qualified to teach?

Heb 5:11 Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.

This should be easy to explain, that the Lord has been working in your and getting you to perform acts of kindness. But if you are dull of hearing it becomes hard to explain, even if you have been brought up with the Scriptures. You need to practice using your spiritual senses!

Heb 5:13,14 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

Do you still not see that the word of righteousness is what we practice hearing - not reading, but hearing with our spiritual ears! So the word of righteousness is not traditions! The traditions should have gotten you to seek the Lord and His voice, but if a person is making it about traditions instead of listening to Him that person is honoring Him with their lips, but there heart (where they should be hearing Him) is far from Him. That what those verses you quoted meant! They are meant to get us to seek His voice which we find in our heart! Which is why the question about having ears to hear.

So were you thinking that having a tradition of reading the Bible was listening to Him as opposed to believing that He is there to actually talk to you via His Holy Spirit talking to your spirit? Or why did you think you were performing random acts of kindness? They were not random at all. They were Him doing a work in you, according to His plan. He did them not just for the other people, but also to try and get your attention!

So people - start practicing seeking His voice. Don't be dull of hearing. Hear what the Spirit has to say! His words are spirit and are life! So we find them in our heart. He might say most anything, but since God is good, you wouldn't be surprised that He would be asking you to performs acts of kindness would you? You believe He is always with you, right?

 

[Monna]

Why can't the Genesis account be literal?

What is it about the literal comprehension of Genesis that is not possible?

What do you know, or believe, that makes the acceptance of the literal six day creation incorrect?

1. It could be - but there are still a variety of "literal" interpretations. My question was - how does holding a particular interpretation equip you for "every good work" - the good work being defined from God's perspective?

2. Different people will have different answers to this question, because even a "literal" comprehension is only literal from your own definition of "literal." It was written within a particular cultural context that affects how it was intended to be understood. None of us today live in that cultural context, and very few of us (certainly not me) fully understand that context (there is even disagreement over the time the story begain to be told this way, and the time it was written down [quite possibly generations separating these two events] - and so defining the context itself is not so easy). You are also dealing with a translation (or several) but, for example, in both the original and in English the word "day" ("yum") has a variety of literal meanings. Do you use the same definition of "literal" for all of scripture?

3. It depends on which literal six "day" creation you are referring to.

What assumptions are you making when you take a particular point of view? Do you think God is more powerful or glorious because He did all of this in 6 days (as defined as periods of one earth rotation in 2020), rather than +/-13 billion years? If so, my argument would be that your god is feeble if it took him 6 days rather than 6 minutes! (God said "let there be light, and there was light" doesn't take 24 hours) Do you think the fossil record, is proof of an incredibly creative Being, who builds as self-replicating and unbelievably diverse living ecosystem, and shows his immense patience in doing so (He is not a product of this day of instant gratification)? Why is the timescale so critical to your concept of God - who is beyond time altogether?

And again, so what, in terms of how your interpetation equips you for "every good work?" Paul said "every inspired word of God is given for this purpose. Either Gensis 1 is included here, or Paul was wrong and his letter was not inspired. So if you accept that Genesis 1 (and Paul's letter to Timothy) are part of God's inspired word, then it also must somehow "equip you" for every good work. How does your interpretation of Genesis 1 do this? Or does it? If you cannot make the link, where does that leave you in trying to understanding the word of God? Are you even starting from the right point?

Those questions apply to me just as much as to everyone reading this.

 

[Archivist]

I assume the topic is about the Eucharist and not about the 7 day creation week.

Why would you assume that when the thread title mentions both?

Or is the claim that if a symbol is used in any part of the Bible OT or NT - then that means the historic account of Gen 1-2 summarized in legal code in Ex 20:11 -- must also be allegory or symbolic?

Why don’t you look at the thread and see what it is about?

As someone who accepts that the Bible contains reliable historic accounts and also contains cases of allegory (for example in the book of Judges where the trees go out to elect a king for themselves), I have never had to claim that it can only be "all allegory" or "all historic account" ... no "mix allowed".

Again, why don’t you look at the thread and see what it is about?

How about you? - would you argue that the virgin birth must be "myth and allegory" since the account in Judges of "the trees electing a king" is allegory?.

As the name makes clear the thread isn’t about the virgin birth. Why don’t you try reading it? It was said that such a thread needed to be started. I simply noted that it already exists.

 

[BobRyan]

Really. both? Perhaps you misread or misinterpreted something?

ok ... maybe I missed something.

Mark 7:6-13

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

Do you see how the verses you quoted end with "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear?

yes... but do you see that Jesus just equated "Moses Said" -- to "The Word of God"??

The Word of God we preach is found in your heart and on your lips!!!!! Not in the Book!!

Is Jesus making "a mistake" in Mark 7 - in your POV?

 

[BobRyan]

I started one back in mid-July, Literal Creation vs. Literal Body and Blood. It is in the Creation & Theistic Evolution Discussion & Debate Forum.

I assume the topic is using the Eucharist as if it is tied to the 7 day creation week.

Or is the claim that if a symbol is used in any part of the Bible OT or NT - then that means the historic account of Gen 1-2 summarized in legal code in Ex 20:11 -- must also be allegory or symbolic?

As someone who accepts that the Bible contains reliable historic accounts and also contains cases of allegory (for example in the book of Judges where the trees go out to elect a king for themselves), I have never had to claim that it can only be "all allegory" or "all historic account" ... no "mix allowed".

For those who say that we must believe in a literal reading of the Genesis creation stories but deny a literal reading of the accounts of the Last Supper, how do you justify this?

As predicted before reading that thread - it was about the idea that if one is allegory all are allegory -- or if one text is literal then no allegory exists.

How about you? - would you argue that the virgin birth must be "myth and allegory" since the account in Judges of "the trees electing a king" is allegory?.

Or conversely - if the virgin birth is literal then certainly the trees going out to elect a king must also be literal??

Why don’t you look at the thread and see what it is about?

Well as it turns out I answered that OP question you ended with in your thread ... on this thread even before I read it.

 

[Archivist]

I assume the topic is using the Eucharist as if it is tied to the 7 day creation week.

No.

Or is the claim that if a symbol is used in any part of the Bible OT or NT - then that means the historic account of Gen 1-2 summarized in legal code in Ex 20:11 -- must also be allegory or symbolic?

No.

As someone who accepts that the Bible contains reliable historic accounts and also contains cases of allegory (for example in the book of Judges where the trees go out to elect a king for themselves), I have never had to claim that it can only be "all allegory" or "all historic account" ... no "mix allowed".

And I don't believe that the Bible is all allegory or all historic account. The purpose of the thread I started was simply to serve as a discussion topic.

As predicted before reading that thread - it was about the idea that if one is allegory all are allegory -- or if one text is literal then no allegory exists.

Wrong.

How about you? - would you argue that the virgin birth must be "myth and allegory" since the account in Judges of "the trees electing a king" is allegory?. Or conversely - if the virgin birth is literal then certainly the trees going out to elect a king must also be literal??

The other thread didn't mention either.

Well as it turns out I answered that OP question you ended with in your thread ... on this thread even before I read it.

Try reading it.

 

[JacksBratt]

1. It could be - but there are still a variety of "literal" interpretations. My question was - how does holding a particular interpretation equip you for "every good work" - the good work being defined from God's perspective?

Sorry, that does not answer the question. Saying "it could be" is not even close to saying "why it cannot be"

Does anyone have a reason why Genesis cannot be literal?

I can say that I cannot buy a Lamborghini because... I haven't got the money.
I can say that I cannot lift 500 lbs because... I'm not strong enough.
I can say that I cannot burn a granite boulder.. because it is not flammable.
I can say that I will never play pro golf because... I'm not a good enough golfer..

So... give a reason as to ..... Why can't the literal six day creation be correct.

 

[JacksBratt]

2. Different people will have different answers to this question, because even a "literal" comprehension is only literal from your own definition of "literal." It was written within a particular cultural context that affects how it was intended to be understood. None of us today live in that cultural context, and very few of us (certainly not me) fully understand that context (there is even disagreement over the time the story begain to be told this way, and the time it was written down [quite possibly generations separating these two events] - and so defining the context itself is not so easy). You are also dealing with a translation (or several) but, for example, in both the original and in English the word "day" ("yum") has a variety of literal meanings. Do you use the same definition of "literal" for all of scripture?

OK. So I get a few excuses from this.. Culture was different and generations separating the events.

But, the bible is a living Word.. It is for all generations.. It was written by an all knowing God who knew you even then..

This was not written for a bunch of "sheep herders" that couldn't grasp the truth. These were intelligent people as well.

If so, God could easily have said.. "In the beginning God created life and over time, this live changed and became the animals and living beings of today"...

If you are going to claim that their intelligence or culture couldn't handle the truth.. I disagree. The above concept could be understood by a kindergartener.....

As for the many generations concept... The old "broken telephone" excuse...

Not so fast.. These men lived hundreds of years.. Which means Adam knew Methuselah.. Methuselah new Noah's sons.. Noah's sons knew Abraham....

That's not the same as being past down as stories over many generations..

 

[JacksBratt]

3. It depends on which literal six "day" creation you are referring to.

What assumptions are you making when you take a particular point of view? Do you think God is more powerful or glorious because He did all of this in 6 days (as defined as periods of one earth rotation in 2020), rather than +/-13 billion years? If so, my argument would be that your god is feeble if it took him 6 days rather than 6 minutes! (God said "let there be light, and there was light" doesn't take 24 hours) Do you think the fossil record, is proof of an incredibly creative Being, who builds as self-replicating and unbelievably diverse living ecosystem, and shows his immense patience in doing so (He is not a product of this day of instant gratification)? Why is the timescale so critical to your concept of God - who is beyond time altogether?

And again, so what, in terms of how your interpetation equips you for "every good work?" Paul said "every inspired word of God is given for this purpose. Either Gensis 1 is included here, or Paul was wrong and his letter was not inspired. So if you accept that Genesis 1 (and Paul's letter to Timothy) are part of God's inspired word, then it also must somehow "equip you" for every good work. How does your interpretation of Genesis 1 do this? Or does it? If you cannot make the link, where does that leave you in trying to understanding the word of God? Are you even starting from the right point?

Those questions apply to me just as much as to everyone reading this.

The position that I take.. is "literal".. As in exactly what it says...

The words that destroy any chance of time dilation or a gap or millions of years.. is when, in His infinite wisdom, God knew that people would debate this.. SO.. He put in, from the very first day.....

"And, there was evening, and there was morning... the first day"

You can cross your fingers, stick your tongue out one side of your mouth, squint really really hard and jump up and down on one foot.... and you're not going to twist that into more than a literal day.

 

[JacksBratt]

My question was - how does holding a particular interpretation equip you for "every good work" - the good work being defined from God's perspective?

If you cannot take Genesis literally....

Then you cannot tell people about an all knowing, wonderful creator and God.. Who was:

Born of a virgin
Turned water to wine
Walked on water
Made crippled walk
Made blind see
Made deaf hear
Stopped the weather by speaking
Fed more than 5000 with two fish and five buns and had 12 baskets of left overs
Took on my sins, your sins, their sins
Died
Rose again
Is in heaven at the right hand of His Father and has a place just for you.

Your integrity and credibility is destroyed.