What are some logical, alternative interpretations or ways of understanding...

[Neogaia777]

From what I can glean from this thread it seems that the creation account offers us very little except as a morality tale. We've got members having to offer up a variety of ad hoc conjectures to make it 'fit' with what we actually know, members insisiting it's 'literally' accurate, members suggesting it's been somehow corrupted over the years, members implying it contains vague 'secrets'.

If the bible does contain the inerrant word of God he didn't do a very good job did he? He managed to sow disagreement amongst his own followers and pass on a story that almost any educated person of modern times can see in no way comports with reality.

Sorry... Not God's fault, that's called our own "free will", and our own tendency to what we want and desire with it, which is most usually not that good... And, what God had to say about that fact is really no big secret and is pretty well explained and well preserved in the truth of scripture (repeatedly)...

God made sure that the most important things, he did not allow man to be able to screw-up, or tamper with, or mess with, to the point that those points wouldn't be able to be clearly communicated, comprehended and understood...

God Bless!

 

[Jimmy D]

Sorry... Not God's fault, that's called our own "free will", and our own tendency to what we want and desire with it, which is most usually not that good... And, what God had to say about that fact is really no big secret and is pretty well explained and well preserved in the truth of scripture (repeatedly)...

God made sure that the most important things, he did not allow man to be able to screw-up, or tamper with, or mess with, to the point that those points wouldn't be able to be clearly communicated, comprehended and understood...

God Bless!

So your saying it's clearly communicated and comprehended? Have you read this thread?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I corrected you on your use a phrase. You challenged me and I explained your error.

Is that enough?

I am not a fan of false beliefs, whatever the source. How life got to its present state is very well explained and supported by the theory of evolution.

I think you are confusing scientific theory with the common use of the word.

 

[Neogaia777]

So your saying it's clearly communicated and comprehended? Have you read this thread?

I said it is clearly communicated and can easily be comprehended our own free will and what we choose to do with it, the bad, evil, wicked, perverse, disgusting and vile things we do with it and what that does to us, or causes God to have to do to us, is easy enough for a child to understand and is no big secret, and is repeated multiple times, and the way out of that is also clearly communicated easy enough for a child to understand... That is the problems with sin... Cause God wanted that to be easy enough for a child to understand...

Not what is being discussed in this thread, that is a sacred secret, one of the bigger mysteries right now, not as easy to understand or comprehend or to communicate...

The scriptures contain both, what is "necessary" for us to "need" to be able to understand at this point in our existence is and can be easily understood, not what might be more "unnecessary" that we only might "like" or "want" to understand at this point in our existence, but might be more "necessary" later on... Like what were discussing here...

God Bless!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Gap 'Theory' borrows a title that it has neither a right or claim to wear. It really should be renamed as Gap Conjecture, Gap Supposition, Gap Assumption, or at best, Gap Hypothesis.

One of the definitions of 'theory' is 'supposition'. The term theory is not the exclusive property of science, and in everyday use simply means an 'idea'. "Gap theory" isn't a scientific or a creationist's term. It is simply an interpretation that seeks to reconcile Genesis 1:2 with the apparent age of the earth.

It's not unlike the 'theory' that Eve nagged Adam to eat of the fruit, not merely 'gave' it to him. (No doubt the translators wanted to avoid sleeping on the couch. )

 

[OldWiseGuy]

From what I can glean from this thread it seems that the creation account offers us very little except as a morality tale. We've got members having to offer up a variety of ad hoc conjectures to make it 'fit' with what we actually know, members insisiting it's 'literally' accurate, members suggesting it's been somehow corrupted over the years, members implying it contains vague 'secrets'.

If the bible does contain the inerrant word of God he didn't do a very good job did he? He managed to sow disagreement amongst his own followers and pass on a story that almost any educated person of modern times can see in no way comports with reality.

There are two realities; the material, and, the spiritual.
You live in one, we live in both.

 

[quatona]

There are two realities; the material, and, the spiritual.
You live in one, we live in both.

No, there are three realities. The material, the spiritual, and the supermegaspiritual. You live in two, I live in all three.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, there are three realities. The material, the spiritual, and the supermegaspiritual. You live in two, I live in all three.

I stand corrected.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, there are three realities. The material, the spiritual, and the supermegaspiritual. You live in two, I live in all three.

I was going to say;

The material reality is like a cake.
The spiritual reality is that cake with frosting.
But, your cake has both frosting and candles.

 

[Luke17:37]

"Gap theory" isn't a scientific or a creationist's term. It is simply an interpretation that seeks to reconcile Genesis 1:2 with the apparent age of the earth.

The age earth of the isn't earth isn't apparently old. That's what people who are committed to a naturalist view (that there is no God) require. They have loud and persistent voices, for years claiming that the fairy tale they admire (that nothing created a universe so incredibly complex from nothing) is true history. Unfortunately, many Christ followers have believed their lie to a degree and unknowingly compromised the foundation of the gospel - that is, death is the penalty for man's sin, therefore God took on flesh and died in the place of sinners, so they can be reconciled to Him. They believe death came millions before Adam or his sin, and death was used in the process of creation rather than being the curse from sin. What a powerless god who had to use millions of years of death to create.

It's not unlike the 'theory' that Eve nagged Adam to eat of the fruit, not merely 'gave' it to him. (No doubt the translators wanted to avoid sleeping on the couch. )

I hope you are joking.

Have you not read 1 Timothy 2:14?

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Adam was not deceived, therefore Adam knew what he was doing defying God's clear command. It was because of Adam's sin that sin and death entered the world (1 Corinthians 15:20-21, Romans 5:12).

 

[Neogaia777]

I hope you are joking.

Have you not read 1 Timothy 2:14?

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Adam was not deceived, therefore Adam knew what he was doing defying God's clear command. It was because of Adam's sin that sin and death entered the world (1 Corinthians 15:20-21, Romans 5:12).

About that second part, I have a theory on how to correct that, on how to possibly reverse that... (but, it could backfire and just make the problem worse too) and I'm thinking about posting it, but I don't want to have to sleep on the couch forever either...

God Bless!

 

[Luke17:37]

Nope, in fact all of the evidence out there says that I am correct. Now if God made the world there are two possibilities that I can see, either Genesis was never meant to be taken literally or God lied when he made the evidence that tells us that Genesis is wrong. Even when I was a Christian I could not believe in a lying God so I concluded that Genesis simply cannot be read literally.


What you have done is to make the mistake of thinking that a morality tale should be taken literally. For a nonbiblical example let's look at Aesop's fables. The author was not lying when he wrote them, he was trying to teach a lesson. The stories in Genesis are roughly the same sort of lessons.

Genesis is history. It's not a morality tale. There's no evidence to the contrary. There's just a lot of voices persistently making big claims, essentially that they know history and science better than God (who was there) does. I believe God. His Word is reliable. Everyone will see some day. Even before He (Jesus) comes again, the people of the world who hate Him will seek death to avoid the wrath of Him who sits on the throne (the Father), and of the Lamb (Jesus).

 

[Speedwell]

The age earth of the isn't earth isn't apparently old. That's what people who are committed to a naturalist view (that there is no God) require.

If they are truly committed to a naturalist view then they will not care how old the Earth is and will accept any age determined by science. There is no reason for them to "require" some arbitrary age like the Creationists do.

They have loud and persistent voices, for years claiming that the fairy tale they admire (that nothing created a universe so incredibly complex from nothing) is true history.

When you make up stories about what other people believe, it is best to at least try to make them plausible. Or do you really think that scientists hold to the notion that "nothing created nothing from nothing?"

 

[Jimmy D]

I said it is clearly communicated and can easily be comprehended our own free will and what we choose to do with it, the bad, evil, wicked, perverse, disgusting and vile things we do with it and what that does to us, or causes God to have to do to us, is easy enough for a child to understand and is no big secret, and is repeated multiple times, and the way out of that is also clearly communicated easy enough for a child to understand... That is the problems with sin... Cause God wanted that to be easy enough for a child to understand...

Not what is being discussed in this thread, that is a sacred secret, one of the bigger mysteries right now, not as easy to understand or comprehend or to communicate...

The scriptures contain both, what is "necessary" for us to "need" to be able to understand at this point in our existence is and can be easily understood, not what might be more "unnecessary" that we only might "like" or "want" to understand at this point in our existence, but might be more "necessary" later on... Like what were discussing here...

God Bless!

I'm not quite sure that we're talking about the same thing here. My point was that a literal reading biblical creation account (or trying to use the creation account as a historical record of the origins of life etc) isn't particularly useful to us because it a) doesn't conform with our observations of the natural world.
b) doesn't seem that christians can agree on it's interpretation (as can be seen in this thread).

It seems like you're saying it's vagueness is a good thing because anyone can interpet it in there own way, according to their own biases and it can mean whatever they want it to mean. That is the opposite of 'clearly communicated'.

 

[Jimmy D]

There are two realities; the material, and, the spiritual.
You live in one, we live in both.

How do you know I don't 'live in the spiritual'? Is that exclusive to those with similar beliefs to you?

 

[Neogaia777]

Genesis is history. It's not a morality tale. There's no evidence to the contrary. There's just a lot of voices persistently making big claims, essentially that they know history and science better than God (who was there) does. I believe God. His Word is reliable. Everyone will see some day. Even before He (Jesus) comes again, the people of the world who hate Him will seek death to avoid the wrath of Him who sits on the throne (the Father), and of the Lamb (Jesus).

Genesis is history, Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4 is a complete history of both the heavens and the earth from beginning to end, it even says so, in Genesis 2:4... And, Genesis 2:4 even describes it all, all of it all seven days, as being as one day to him... Because the whole history from beginning to an ending of a heaven, and a earth, are as one day to him...

The seventh day is a day of rest for God, and that does not come until Christ's millennial reign, which is an "age" and not a literal, thousand years, and, even if were literal, then why is Christ's supposedly literal 1,000 year reign described as one day to God... Yet you say God made and according to Genesis 1:1 to 2:4, You say God made, finished and completed everything in six of our literal days...? I suggest you read The creation account a little bit more and closer and your scriptures better, the Creation account isn't that long, I think you can handle it...

How many times in scripture is a count of a thousand of something, used to describe to a people, most of which did not even have sophisticated or developed enough math to even count to, let alone comprehend that much, or that high... Anyways how many times in the scripture is a thousand of something used to express an innumerable amount of something...?

What exists in a spiritual reality or realm or world...? Physical material...? Things are there, as we know them to be here, exactly as we know them to be here...? Literally, in the literal sense, as "we" know it...? Well, apparently, you who think that, as "you" know it, is apparently more than God knows then, right...? What is reality like to them there...? Is exactly like and exactly is like our reality here, or not...?

I know you'd like to put God into your little box for him, but, I seriously doubt that he will fit or choose to reside there...

God Bless!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

About that second part, I have a theory on how to correct that, on how to possibly reverse that... (but, it could backfire and just make the problem worse too) and I'm thinking about posting it, but I don't want to have to sleep on the couch forever either...

God Bless!

It's not an easy thing, being married.

 

[Neogaia777]

How do you know I don't 'live in the spiritual'? Is that exclusive to those with similar beliefs to you?

I think he's just simply saying that the spiritual is not the material, or isn't exactly the same, and is not exactly like, the material or physical, but is beyond that... I think we all have a spirit that exists in the spiritual though, including yourself, if that helps...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

It's not an easy thing, being married.

No, it's not, not long term especially...

Well,

God Bless!

 

[Jimmy D]

How many times in scripture is a count of a thousand of something, used to describe to a people, most of which did not even have sophisticated or developed enough math to even count to, let alone comprehend that much, or that high...

Eh? Don't you think that people could count in biblical times?

then why is Christ's supposedly literal 1,000 year reign described as one day to God.

Can you show us where it says that please?

Well, apparently, you who think that, as "you" know it, is apparently more than God knows then, right...?

Not at all, I don't think God knows anything as I don't believe he actually exists.