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

[JacksBratt]

Consider these 4 POV statements.

1. The Bible is correct when it comes to its historic account (Gen 1:2-2:4) of how it is that all life on earth gets here in a literal 7 day week as we see defined in legal code - Exodus 20:11. ("Legal code" is not parable or allegory or ...)

• It is "compatible with science fact" -- so then salt still has the same properties and hot air still rises in our atmosphere no matter that life on Earth was created in 7 days. Example: Lazarus was raised from the dead as a fact of what happened in nature - and this did not destroy science or refute science fact.

• Moses was not a darwinist nor a teacher of darwinism in his Gen 1-2 statements see also Genesis 2:1-3.
  
• Science fact is in perfect harmony with this fact of origins in the same way that a hurricane making landfall is a real event and science sees the result of what happened in nature, observations in nature help us understand the fact.

2. The Bible account for origins is myth or maybe allegory or something of that sort (even though it is in legal code in Ex 20:11) and therefore is compatible with any doctrine on origins including any and every form of evolution past, present or future - and of course evolution is science fact.

3. The Bible account for origins cannot be bent at all in favor of evolution - but evolution is science fact, so the Bible is wrong. (Atheism - So not included in the list of options to vote on)

4. The Bible account cannot be bent to fit evolution, evolution is science fact, the Bible is wrong on this point but I "feel" the Bible is ok anyway, it does not matter if it is wrong on such things.

• Many non-Christians describe Christians this way (as option 4) .. And my guess is that some Christians might describe themselves this way.

===========================
Clarification on one option above in the list.

Many creationists accept that Bible doctrine is compatible with science fact -

For example:
Christ raises Lazarus from the dead - but that act does not "destroy science" nor is it 'anti-science" or "opposed to science" just because Mary and Martha cannot then take some secret science knowledge and use it to raise the dead. They are free to study science and be 100% scientifically correct in their statements AND ALSO admit that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and that they can't do that.

In the same way that you can take commercial jet across the nation - and yet admit that rocks don't turn into commercial jets ... and also admit that you do not have all the aeronautics engineering skill to make one yourself. Admitting that they "exist" is still not "anti-science". You are simply admitting someone else has that knowledge and ability ... not you, and that said jet flight "did not arise out of rocks over time" as if it is an inherent property in rocks to self-organize and provide jet flights across the nation.

Lazarus was raised from the dead and yet salt still had the same properties that it always had before that resurrection and hot air still rises. The fact of his resurrection "is compatible" with science fact - - but it does not mean that man's level of science has the same ability to explain how God raised the dead three days later.

We don't reject science fact as Christians just because we know that Christ raised Lazarus from the dead. We see no conflict at all there.

My use of the term "is compatible" simply means - "does not oppose" or reject or contradict science fact. It does not mean that our level of science has fully acquired all the knowledge to do what God does in order to admit that something did happen in real life - in nature and that God did it.

(Maybe there is an even better way to word it - I concede that as qualifier for option 1)

=================

not everyone will agree with creationists on that point and everyone has free will.. and may choose as they wish.

I'm still looking for one good reason why it cannot be taken totally literally.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

And I don't believe that the Bible is all allegory or all historic account.

I am glad to see we agree on something in that case.

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?

1. This is not me saying someone else must do something.. this is me saying my free will choice in Genesis 1-2 and the legal code of Ex 20:11 is to see the literal historic account details in those texts and leave it as it is. Everyone else has free will as well and can do as they choose.

2. Your question then becomes

• "how do you justify your own choice of taking the memorial view of 1 Cor 11 "do this in remembrance of me" - while at the same time taking a literal view of the historic account text in Gen 1-2 and Ex 20:11"?

A question which is already answered apparently.

 

[K2K]

I'm still looking for one good reason why it cannot be taken totally literally.

First - Jesus our Lord is a Teacher and The Word of God (not the Scriptures but the One who has been given all things by the Father including the words of God for us which the Spirit takes of and speaks to our spirit) so He tends to speak in parables like; A day is like a 1,000 years and a 1000 years are like a day to God.

Ps 78 Listen, O my people, to my instruction; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old,

Second - What we call a day is the Earth rotating once, but the earth didn't even exist for a few days, according to what was written.

Third - It is written that knowledge we increase and we have seen that happening, just like it is written, and it is clear from that increase in knowledge that it wasn't seven literal days.

Forth - So it also becomes clear that God was right in saying about us 'With their eyes they don't see and with their ears they don't hear nor to they understand.

So all this is written and was meant to teach us to turn to the Lord but we have made the Bible our Lord, the Word of God, instead of the Christ. The Bible was written so that we might be taught of Him but we lean on our own understand, taking an obviously stubborn stance throwing out any part of the Bible we so desire (like He speaks in parables, He teaches us, He is the Word of God, a thousand years is like a day to Him and that is also just a saying, and most importantly we don't listen to the truth who is Him because with our ears we don't hear like it is written about us) Then amazingly we try to justify our selves by the Bible instead of being justified by Him.


Prov 8:1 Does not wisdom call, And understanding lift up her voice?

Yes He does call with His voice but we don't listen.

Mat 13:15 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'

The Lord once told me "Karl don't ever forget that I am God of the whole world. The whole world the whole heavens, the whole everything, but especially the whole world. Don't ever forget that."

That means He is God over the trash man and the President, the teachers and the students, the theologian and the scientist, those that know Him and those that don't, and He is holding all things together with His hands whether they know Him or not. So we know that we have knowledge but if anyone supposes they know anything then they do not yet know as they ought. If you don't suppose you know then you will turn to Him, the truth, and find out that He is over the scientist and the theologian and also that few of either actually turn to Him and listen. Still knowledge increases because He said it would and He is running things.

So is the cosmologist correct in saying there was a big bang 13 to 15 billion years ago? Probably not, but that is the subject God uses them in. So what about the theologians with debate whether it is a literal translation or not, are even they turning to the Lord for answers or has the Bible and their understanding of it become their god?

A real theologian should understand that though they have knowledge they don't know because it was written and they claim to know what is written in the Scriptures, but because of their stubbornness instead of listening to the Lord they have had major conflicts with scientist so that the scientist often don't want to believe in God simply because the silliness of theologians. So neither turn to the Lord and both dig in to their own understanding.


Seven literally days? The scientist laugh at you because that is not the truth. And you dig in claiming 'no, we know because of the Bible it's seven literal days' thereby throwing away parts of the very Bible you are claiming to follow. And you then say vote for the Bible when you should have been turning the living and active Word of God Jesus Christ like the Bible tells you. If you had you would know the Psalmist was correct in saying that He talks to you in parables and dark saying, but as it is you show your stubbornness and proving that He was right to say that with your ears you don't hear.

 

[BobRyan]

"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.

And there is also the challenge of legal code "six days you shall labor... for in six days the Lord made" in Ex 20 making the 6 working days of Gen 2:1-3 the same as the 6 working days at Sinai.

So while I do agree that everyone has free will and can believe whatever they wish - that 7 day week in Genesis 1-2 is hardwired into legal code in Ex 20:8-11 that is very difficult to "allegory away" so to speak.

 

[BobRyan]

First - Jesus our Lord is a Teacher and The Word of God (not the Scriptures

And yet it is Jesus who teaches that the OT is the "Word of God" in Mark 7.

He tends to speak in parables like; A day is like a 1,000 years and a 1000 years are like a day to God.

1. That is from 2 Peter 3 and is not a parable.
2. It is also not a rule for translating day to 1000 since the text also says it in the reverse "and a day is as a 1000 years" - because in context it is making the point that no time is too short or too long for God to work (as it addresses the issue of the second coming having not happened yet... so context is everything).

Second - What we call a day is the Earth rotating once, but the earth didn't even exist for a few days, according to what was written.

1. Gen 1 says Earth existed with "water covering the surface of the deep" on day 1.
2. Gen 1:10 - God calls "dry land Earth" so a rotating planet with no dry land was the condition of it before dry land appeared. In vs 2 planet Earth had darkness covering the surface of the deep. In vs 10 dry land appears on planet Earth.
3. In all cases we have a rotating planet which results in "evening and morning" each day.

vs 2.
"The earth" was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
...
9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

==================

So that is "the first" option in the OP set of 4 options. And of course - everyone has free will and can choose as they wish.

 

[JacksBratt]

First - Jesus our Lord is a Teacher and The Word of God (not the Scriptures but the One who has been given all things by the Father including the words of God for us which the Spirit takes of and speaks to our spirit) so He tends to speak in parables like; A day is like a 1,000 years and a 1000 years are like a day to God.

Yes, Jesus Christ... spoke in parables. There are certain aspects of a story that make it a parable.
The description of the creation.. does not fit the characteristics of a parable..

That's like saying that the poem "In Flanders Fields" is a Limerick....

Second - What we call a day is the Earth rotating once, but the earth didn't even exist for a few days, according to what was written.

Semantics... If you are on Venus. are you going to still call 24 hours a day... or 5,832 hours.

Third - It is written that knowledge we increase and we have seen that happening, just like it is written, and it is clear from that increase in knowledge that it wasn't seven literal days.

So, you are trying to say that as knowledge increases... we will prove the literal word of God to be erroneous?

I would beg to differ and say that the more that we learn the more we understand that we don't know.. and.. the more the bible becomes truthful.

Forth - So it also becomes clear that God was right in saying about us 'With their eyes they don't see and with their ears they don't hear nor to they understand.

Yep.. You see the word of God, you read it and say that it doesn't mean what it says.. You have eyes.. but you don't see. You have ears, but hear the scripture and don't hear it.

So all this is written and was meant to teach us to turn to the Lord but we have made the Bible our Lord, the Word of God, instead of the Christ.

Christ... is the word... He never contradicts it. Listening to the Word of God.. is the same as listening to Christ.

John 1:1-3

King James Version


1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


2 The same was in the beginning with God.


3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 1:14

King James Version


14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


(snip)

 

[JacksBratt]

Seven literally days? The scientist laugh at you because that is not the truth.

Finally.

After all these years on this forum. Arguing the six literal days and getting nobody out there who has the fortitude to actually state why it is that they don't take it literally....

There it is.. Bold and beautiful in all it's arrogance:

"The scientists laugh at you"

That is what it really boils down to.

Christians, who put the eternal salvation of their soul on the life and work of Christ.....

will believe mere mortal atheistic Darwinian evolutionists... over the words of their savior as they are recorded in the same canon that their salvation is presented.

Thank you for being honest and presenting the answer. I always knew that this was the reason.. but.. nobody would state it because it is so arrogant and self defeating of an answer... as a child of Christ.

So.. to summarize...

God, wrote that He (Christ) created the entire universe in six days and rested on the seventh..

But... some dudes in lab coats, say it's wrong...dudes who were created by God... say God is wrong..

Thanks.

 

[K2K]

And yet it is Jesus who teaches that the OT is the "Word of God" in Mark 7.

No - we went over that - Mark 7 has things like ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ and then “If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

The problems is that men preaching doctrines and precept of men are not hearing the Lord!! He is called the Word of God because His sheep hear His voice and His voice is not His book!!! There is a book, the Bible, and there is Him the One who speaks to us. He is the Word of God, or have you not read the book which tells you that He is the Word of God? Perhaps you are living by teaching as doctrines of men? What has He told you "Today" via that small voice of His?

1. That is from 2 Peter 3 and is not a parable.
2. It is also not a rule for translating day to 1000 since the text also says it in the reverse "and a day is as a 1000 years" - because in context it is making the point that no time is too short or too long for God to work (as it addresses the issue of the second coming having not happened yet... so context is everything).

This is of that is in parable form - to think otherwise is just ridiculous.

2 Peter 3:8,9 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

So if a day is like a thousand years is literal and not a parable are you then saying each day recorded in Geneses 1 was literally one thousand years, but then people are arguing for it to be 7 literal days as in the spinning of the earth one time. Which literal way is it. And so ore you conclude by your great thinking that you are going to literally figure out which is the specific day the heavens and earth are burnt away?

What is shows clearly is that you are not actually hearing from Him. I say that because when hearing from Him you find out that He is eternal and outside of time, because He is God. Him being outside of time, His concept of it and yours are not the same and that shows up when just having regular conversations with Him. So understanding comes from hearing from Him not your great study. That results in men declaring themselves to be wise but they are fools, because they don't seek Him but lean on their own understanding.

Let me give you a quick example - and it is just one simple example. One day He told me that He was going to take me to get my hair cut tomorrow and pointed my eyes to a salon across the parking lot. That was interesting because I went to a barber for that and never a salon. Yet I didn't think about it further until one week later He sudden said, 'Ok Karl, we are going to get your hair cut.' How did day become a week? Yet I when I listen and followed Him He took me to that salon instead of my usual barber. While there He told me that lady cutting my hair was about to get married.

So I asked her, 'So you are about to get married?' Yes she said, how did you know. It always feels a bit weird trying to explain to people who don't listen to the Lord that we can hear from Him. Yet she understood. She was a real Christian who did understand about hearing from the Lord. Then the Lord gave me a quick parable about marriage to give to her. It was about 2 cartoonish chipmunks who were the best of friends because they always put the other first. That is how a marriage should be. She understood it and loved it and the timing was perfect. The day had to be a week because His timing is always perfect.

The point is that this Christian lady just working in a salon knew what most theologian didn't! She knew the Lord and I was sent to her. But leaning on your own understanding instead of actually seeking Him will not give you understanding!!

Prov 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding.

Perhaps you read your Bible, but missed the fact that knowledge and understanding come from His mouth, not His book nor your leaning on your own understanding. The lady cutting hair did not miss that, but I am sure you have probably read the Bible more than her, but did you actually believe what you read. Do you believe Jesus Christ is the Word of God? It is in the Book!!

1. Gen 1 says Earth existed with "water covering the surface of the deep" on day 1.
2. Gen 1:10 - God calls "dry land Earth" so a rotating planet with no dry land was the condition of it before dry land appeared. In vs 2 planet Earth had darkness covering the surface of the deep. In vs 10 dry land appears on planet Earth.
3. In all cases we have a rotating planet which results in "evening and morning" each day.

What was the earth on day one?

God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters
which were above the expanse; and it was so.

That is a parable too, to help give us some understanding!

Luke 16:26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’

Do you not even understand the connection between the expanse in Gen 1 and the great gulf fixed in Luke 16?

You are going to have to cross over from the physical to the spiritual to get to heaven but you can only think in the physical. The problem is that God is spirit. To hear Him you have to use your spiritual ears. If you do use your spiritual ears He is going to have to start teaching you about the spiritual because all you have been doing is thinking in physical terms. This is why you might have read in John things like:

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
and
“Most assuredly, I say to you, we speak what we know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive our witness.
and
If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

In Geneses God is trying to make a connection between the flesh, which you know, and the spirit which you don't know. But you can't make it because you do not accept receive our witness. He told you truly that we would speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen; it is spiritual because God is spirit. The Christian hair dresser could receive but she heard from the Lord, but like Nicodemus, not all hear and understand.

 

[Monna]

Your integrity and credibility is destroyed.

My integrity is not dependent on any arguments about Genesis 1. My integrity is more closely related to my life, my daily behaviour in relation to others. And in the long term, it is not my integrity that counts. It is my faith in God and the work of His Son. I don't stand before God on the basis of my own integrity - I am clothed in Jesus' righteousness. It is not my voice, and definitely not any combatative argument that my view is the only right view on Genesis 1, that convicts others of sin, or draws them to Jesus.

The woman at the well in Samaria brought many many people to meet Jesus. She was not a woman of high integrity. God used her anyway. God is not dependent on my or your integrity. Rahab of Jericho was not a woman of high integrity. God saved her anyway - and it had nothing to do with her views of how God created the universe or mankind. Samson was not a man of great integrity, but God used him anyway, and he was considered one of Israels great "judges" in the Bible. Moses and David were murderers, David an adulterer, and apparently not particularly successful as a parent. Yet God considered him a man after His own heart. And Moses was close enough to God to be able to meet him "face to face" and to argue with him and save the Israelites from God's fury. Jacob was a thoroughly deceitful fellow, and another rather unsuccessful parent. Also a polygamist. Does he meet your criteria for integrity? But God maintained the covenant He had made with Jacob's grandfather, inspite of his failings.

My integrity and credibility regarding the Word of God (Jesus) is destroyed as soon as I am a belligerent, antagonistic, argumentative defender of a particular Biblical interpretation (regardless of what that interpretation is) but don't live in love or show grace to others - especially those who don't agree with me.

 

[Monna]

Does anyone have a reason why Genesis cannot be literal?

Apparently they do. Otherwise you wouldn't be running this survey or having this discussion.

 

[Monna]

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.

The Living Word of God is Jesus. Even the Bible maintains that. The Bible is a collection of sacred writings (yes), a literary work, that we have in the form of a book. That is the literal truth. That book, as a book, is not living, and without the work of the Holy Spirit it doesn't give life. The Person it presents as its focus is living and is the very source of life.

I wonder how you would translate Psalm 23 into a language that does not have words for shepherd, sheep, who live in arid countries without still waters. Or other parts of scriptures into languages and cultures that don't have cattle, camels, or goats, lions, fig trees, wheat or any other cropping systems or animal husbandry. Languages that don't have words for desert or forest. Yes, the scriptures are for everyone, but putting it into languages and cultural contexts that don't have even the metaphors that are so fundmental to understanding the message, requires a different level of understand of the meaning and intent of the literal words presented. How can you give a "literal" translation to the verses "all we like sheep have gone astray" or "as a sheep before her shearers is dumb so he opened not his mouth" into a language that has no word for sheep, or shearer, a culture that does not keep animals, has no idea what sheep are like, or that they are kept in part for their wool (no word for that either) that must be sheared?

And incidentally, a recurring theme of the Old Testament is just how often and thoroughly God's own people "couldn't grasp the truth." Solomon was a given the gift of wisdom. How wise (or intelligent) do you think it was for him to have 300 wives and 700 concubines ? - presumably many of them acquired through "international" treaties - and treaties with surrounding countries was explicitly forbidden in Exodus 23:31-32, (see also 2 Chron 16:1-9) as were marriages with foreigners (Joshua 23:12-13). The very fact that they insisted on having a King was a betrayal of their trust in God.(1 Sam 8:7-8). The people of Israel wandered for 40 years in the desert because they couldn't grasp or accept the truth that God would give them the land of Canaan. Joshua failed to conquer the whole land. The book of Judges is a repetitive narrative of people who turned from the truth and sought other gods and became subject to foreign powers. The books of Samuel, of the Kings and the Chronicles are long repetitive stories of the failure of people, and particularly the elite, to grasp the truth. All of the books of the Prophets are messages to people who in their stupid stiff necked consistency refused to accept or grasp the truth. Is this your measure of intelligent people? Yes, there were Godly people among them throughout this long history (though only TWO survived the full 40 years in the wilderness and entered the land) but generally it is difficult to argue that the people of Israel were on the whole folk who grasped the truth. And we are not all that much better today, I'm afraid (yes, I speak for myself). If they grasped the truth, why did they crucify their messiah?

 

[Monna]

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

So let's take this passage in its totality and be very literal.
Genesis 1:3-5
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. Already you have two different uses of the word "day!"

In this verse, there is nothing to indicate where the light and the darkness came from, or were caused by. The light is not coming from the sun, so there is no duration explicity here. Taken literally, the first part of verse (God called the light “day,”) makes it very clear that "day" refers to that part of the cycle when it is light. When it is dark, it is called night. Now, how did God separate the light from the darkness. The sun and the moon were not "created" until day 4. And they were created specifically and explicitly to separate the day from the night. So how did the first three days have an evening (in our thinking the period when daylight changes to darkness) and a morning? We experience the sun's function as given in verses 14-16. Presumably that is when a "24" hour rotation period was introduced. But why should God be bound ahead of time to start with a 24 hour "day" (second meaning of verse 5) 3 "days" before he gave to sun it special function to " serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years." (vs 14)

Is "day" when the light shines, or is it a period that includes both a session of light and one of darkness. And if you think about it, you still use the word day in both of these senses. Where I live, the language has two different words, one that specifically refers to the period of one rotation of the earth (i.e. 24hrs). Now, if you go the arctic, your days and nights have constantly changing lengths, from 0 to several months - at the poles a whole six months of visible sun. Even where the sun sets, the light continues, and far south of the polar circle it is light in the summer all "day" (24 hours). Elsewhere you write that the Bible was given by a God who knows all (I agree) and it was given for all generations, and presumably for all people everywhere. So how are arctic people supposed to understand "day?" It can be light (the first definition of day in verse 5) for several months, and then it can be dark for just as long. Is day for them one evening and one morning? That makes it about a year of clock time. How would you translate these verses into Inuit languages, or Same, the people of northern Scandinavia. For them a 24 hour day that includes both evening and morning (as definited by change from light to dark or vice versa) doesn't exist. Have you determined what latitude God was standing on when the length of day and night (evening and morning) was determined? (that's a bit facetious, I accept.)

What I'm trying to get at with all this is to show that being "literal" ("exactly what it says" - your words) is not so easy if you also want to be consistent. And when you are communicating with people who have very different experiences with regard to something you think so basic as the length of a "day" you have to be prepared for a lot of misunderstanding and confusion. Both may think they are being "literal" but having different understanding of what that actually means. I'm sure it has happened even to you, that you "don't always say what you mean, nor always mean what you say. (literally)"

 

[Bruce Leiter]

Consider these 4 POV statements.

1. The Bible is correct when it comes to its historic account (Gen 1:2-2:4) of how it is that all life on earth gets here in a literal 7 day week as we see defined in legal code - Exodus 20:11. ("Legal code" is not parable or allegory or ...)

• It is "compatible with science fact" -- so then salt still has the same properties and hot air still rises in our atmosphere no matter that life on Earth was created in 7 days. Example: Lazarus was raised from the dead as a fact of what happened in nature - and this did not destroy science or refute science fact.

• Moses was not a darwinist nor a teacher of darwinism in his Gen 1-2 statements see also Genesis 2:1-3.
  
• Science fact is in perfect harmony with this fact of origins in the same way that a hurricane making landfall is a real event and science sees the result of what happened in nature, observations in nature help us understand the fact.

2. The Bible account for origins is myth or maybe allegory or something of that sort (even though it is in legal code in Ex 20:11) and therefore is compatible with any doctrine on origins including any and every form of evolution past, present or future - and of course evolution is science fact.

3. The Bible account for origins cannot be bent at all in favor of evolution - but evolution is science fact, so the Bible is wrong. (Atheism - So not included in the list of options to vote on)

4. The Bible account cannot be bent to fit evolution, evolution is science fact, the Bible is wrong on this point but I "feel" the Bible is ok anyway, it does not matter if it is wrong on such things.

• Many non-Christians describe Christians this way (as option 4) .. And my guess is that some Christians might describe themselves this way.

===========================
Clarification on one option above in the list.

Many creationists accept that Bible doctrine is compatible with science fact -

For example:
Christ raises Lazarus from the dead - but that act does not "destroy science" nor is it 'anti-science" or "opposed to science" just because Mary and Martha cannot then take some secret science knowledge and use it to raise the dead. They are free to study science and be 100% scientifically correct in their statements AND ALSO admit that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead and that they can't do that.

In the same way that you can take commercial jet across the nation - and yet admit that rocks don't turn into commercial jets ... and also admit that you do not have all the aeronautics engineering skill to make one yourself. Admitting that they "exist" is still not "anti-science". You are simply admitting someone else has that knowledge and ability ... not you, and that said jet flight "did not arise out of rocks over time" as if it is an inherent property in rocks to self-organize and provide jet flights across the nation.

Lazarus was raised from the dead and yet salt still had the same properties that it always had before that resurrection and hot air still rises. The fact of his resurrection "is compatible" with science fact - - but it does not mean that man's level of science has the same ability to explain how God raised the dead three days later.

We don't reject science fact as Christians just because we know that Christ raised Lazarus from the dead. We see no conflict at all there.

My use of the term "is compatible" simply means - "does not oppose" or reject or contradict science fact. It does not mean that our level of science has fully acquired all the knowledge to do what God does in order to admit that something did happen in real life - in nature and that God did it.

(Maybe there is an even better way to word it - I concede that as qualifier for option 1)

=================

not everyone will agree with creationists on that point and everyone has free will.. and may choose as they wish.

I didn't vote in your poll because none of them fit my understanding of God's creative work.

First, you say that the seven days have to be 24-hour days, as I understand you. Well, consider these biblical facts about that option. The sun wasn't created until the 4th day, so those days couldn't have been 24 hours. Also, God said twice that the earth should bring forth life. That action had to have been more than 24 hours to take place. In addition, the word "day" is used many times for a longer period of time like the Day of the Lord. For these reasons, I believe on the basis of the Bible itself that they were longer.

Second, you say that evolution is fact. It is the theory of evolution. Until someone clearly observes one species changing into another one, it isn't a fact but fallible scientists' theory. The same thing applies to the Big Bang. No one was around to make scientific observations of it.

Third, scientists tend to pronounce their findings to be facts when, in fact, they are hypotheses or theories. We need to interpret the Bible correctly according to its (God's) own assumptions and then use those clear truths to interpret science's discoveries instead of the other way around.

 

[BobRyan]

I didn't vote in your poll because none of them fit my understanding of God's creative work.

That's fine - everyone has free will and can do as they wish.

First, you say that the seven days have to be 24-hour days, as I understand you.

Yes that is option 1.. some people voted for that.

Well, consider these biblical facts about that option. The sun wasn't created until the 4th day,

agreed.

so those days couldn't have been 24 hours.

1. The text says "evening and morning" were the first day, second day, etc 5th day , 6th day. No change in the measured unit - for each day.
2. evening and morning is "an effect" that results from a rotating planet and a strong light source on one side of the planet but not the other. So the planet was rotating the entire time.
3. The only question left then is "what light source is available to God for Earth on days 1-3?" Some would say the only one possible for God is -- fusion reactions 93 million miles from Earth and that's all God could know about for such a light source. But given that He had a light source providing that effect even before the Sun was created - then apparently God knows "of at least one other option" for that light source.

Also, God said twice that the earth should bring forth life. That action had to have been more than 24 hours to take place.

How so?

In addition, the word "day" is used many times for a longer period of time like the Day of the Lord.

1. There is no case in the Bible where "day" - "yom" is used with "evening and morning" that it does not mean a literal day.

2. There is no case in the Bible where "day" - "yom" is used with a series of ordinals -- "first, second, third,fourth" where day is not a literal day

For these reasons, I believe on the basis of the Bible itself that they were longer.

Everyone has free will - you may believe as you wish.

Second, you say that evolution is fact. It is the theory of evolution. Until someone clearly observes one species changing into another one, it isn't a fact but fallible scientists' theory. The same thing applies to the Big Bang. No one was around to make scientific observations of it.

I don't disagree with you there.

I say evolution is "science fact" in option 2 and 3 and 4 because all three of those options affirm evolution as what actually happened in nature. I don't say that because I believe evolution.. I am just giving people options for what they believe. In my view creation is fact, even science fact because it is what "actually happened in nature".

In my view - if a carpenter makes a chair science will not then say that it is a fact that a bunny rabbit made that chair. Science is not in that business.

Third, scientists tend to pronounce their findings to be facts when, in fact, they are hypotheses or theories. We need to interpret the Bible correctly according to its (God's) own assumptions and then use those clear truths to interpret science's discoveries instead of the other way around.

I also do not differ with you on that either.

Notice that nobody says "do you believe in 2+2 = 4". But when you talk about evolution or creation that terminology shows up - about "what a person believes in".

 

[BobRyan]

So let's take this passage in its totality and be very literal.
Genesis 1:3-5
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. Already you have two different uses of the word "day!"

agreed. context is important. Hebrew is a high-context language

In this verse, there is nothing to indicate where the light and the darkness came from , or were caused by. The light is not coming from the sun

agreed.

, so there is no duration explicity here. Taken literally, the first part of verse (God called the light “day,”) makes it very clear that "day" refers to that part of the cycle when it is light. When it is dark, it is called night. Now, how did God separate the light from the darkness.

rotating planet
strong light source on one side
Yields - "evening and morning".

As you say - God knew of another light source for that ... but we only know of one - and that one consists of fusion reactions 93 million miles from Earth.

As you have pointed out - during days 1-3 that light source was not the sun - but as the Bible points out it still resulted in the effect - of evening and morning -- on this rotating planet.

The sun and the moon were not "created" until day 4. And they were created specifically and explicitly to separate the day from the night. So how did the first three days have an evening (in our thinking the period when daylight changes to darkness) and a morning?

rotating planet
strong light source on one side
Yields - "evening and morning".

We experience the sun's function as given in verses 14-16. Presumably that is when a "24" hour rotation period was introduced. But why should God be bound ahead of time to start with a 24 hour "day"

Why should He be required not to use it? Moses is writing to newly freed slaves from egypt and giving them well-understood terms for time in his "evening and morning... one day" formula.

So the question is what would force God not to make it consistent all the way through since He is using the same terms for unit of time all the way through?

 

[BobRyan]

Apparently they do. Otherwise you wouldn't be running this survey or having this discussion.

To be fair to Jack -- I am the one running the survey.

 

[BobRyan]

My vote is, the 7 day creation is literal and historical fact, and it disagrees/goes against so-called “science”

How about reliable science?
Things that we observe in nature

Pv=nRT state equation for ideal gas... still ok right?
NaCl is still salt right?

The bible doctrine on origins in option 1 - is perfectly compatible with observations in nature ,, reproducible science fact in the lab.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

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

ends with

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

First - Jesus our Lord is a Teacher and The Word of God (not the Scriptures

And yet it is Jesus who teaches that the OT is the "Word of God" in Mark 7.

No - we went over that - Mark 7 has things like ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’

It is Christ that is contrasting the doctrines of men with the "Word of God" and as His prime example of that contrast - He shows that "Moses said" .... "But you say".

Christ is the one in Mark 7 calling the writing of Moses "The Word of God".

Before rushing off to some other part of the bible -- tell me about the details in Mark 7. What exactly is Christ's "proof" as He is the one choosing a sola-scriptura form of hammering for the Pharisees in Mark 7.

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.

"Moses said" = "Commandment of God" = "Word of God" in Christ's teaching found in Mark 7 -- I keep bringing this point out from Mark 7 and I still don't see how you address it. What is your answer to that?

 

[RushMAN]

5. The Bible is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. The Bible is not a history book

I would say it is a history book it gives the history of Israel and mankind's redemption. I would say the Bible is not a science text book

 

[Archivist]

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?

1. This is not me saying someone else must do something.. this is me saying my free will choice in Genesis 1-2 and the legal code of Ex 20:11 is to see the literal historic account details in those texts and leave it as it is. Everyone else has free will as well and can do as they choose.

2. Your question then becomes

• "how do you justify your own choice of taking the memorial view of 1 Cor 11 "do this in remembrance of me" - while at the same time taking a literal view of the historic account text in Gen 1-2 and Ex 20:11"?

A question which is already answered apparently.

You had told another poster in your post 23 that they should start a thread on this topic. I posted simply noting that I had already started such a thread and said where it was posted. All I was doing was trying to help you. The thanks I got from you is to be told that this means this, this means that, this was already answered.

Do you always treat people this way when they are just trying to be nice? Is that your idea of doing unto others as you would like to have done unto yourself?