- Aug 11, 2017
- 25,854
- 8,380
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I don’t understand why it would seem figurative. Can you please elaborate?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is why it seems obviously a figurative description, not a literal history.
But again, any problems with such an interpretation can be cleared up by tossing in another miracle.
I don’t understand why it would seem figurative.
a good example of the text itself saying it is literal in Ex 20:11 - in legal code --- no symbolism --- as it points directly to Gen 2:1-3
To me incest is gross, was never God's intention, and not likely commendable at any time. And I'm not convinced that Cain married one of his sisters. Yes Adam had more children but the text seems to indicate that Cain and Abel were the only children of Adam at the moment when Cain left for Nod. Notice how the chapter ends:Well it’s certainly a good thing that you view incest as sexual immorality but it was God who declared that and given the circumstances at creation I don’t think that God actually viewed it as detestable at the time. I think that was something that He decided to decree once man’s population was established.
Not absurd, as explained at post 3. Genesis defined a "day" as a period of light followed by a period of darkness. That's all. Hence the Light of Christ's face can produce Daylight.For example, mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. Taken literally, it's logically absurd. But it makes sense as a figurative listing of creation.
For example, mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. Taken literally, it's logically absurd. But it makes sense as a figurative listing of creation.
To me incest is gross, was never God's intention, and not likely commendable at any time. And I'm not convinced that Cain married one of his sisters. Yes Adam had more children but the text seems to indicate that Cain and Abel were the only children of Adam at the moment when Cain left for Nod. Notice how the chapter ends:
Light was created on the first day. God called the light day and the darkness night. So evidently God had it under control.
Not absurd, as explained at post 3. Genesis defined a "day" as a period of light followed by a period of darkness.
Bending definitions? That's a narrow-minded take. How about capitalizing on the sheer flexibility of words? At post 3, I said that Christ's Light both:But "morning" and "evening" are quite specific in Hebrew. And defined by a sun. So this clearly shows that the text is not a literal history. If you have to bend definitions to make it work the way you want, that's a pretty good clue that you're not following the meaning.
Well it should be easy to create life in a laboratory then. It is, if you already have the sperm and eggs. Not if you are starting with non life.If you think so, you don't know much about probability. There are about:
810000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible ways to shuffle a deck of cards.
Nope. In fact ,most of those have never actually been done. But all the ingredients exist for ribosomes.
This is why the probability argument is such a loser. But there's another reason. You're assuming random processes. But observing the way short proteins spontaneously form on hot volcanic rocks, we see that the process is not random:
Peptides, one of the fundamental building blocks of life, can be formed from the primitive precursors of amino acids under conditions similar to those expected on the primordial Earth, finds a new UCL study.
The findings, published in Nature, could be a missing piece of the puzzle of how life first formed.
"Peptides, which are chains of amino acids, are an absolutely essential element of all life on Earth. They form the fabric of proteins, which serve as catalysts for biological processes, but they themselves require enzymes to control their formation from amino acids," explained the study's lead author, Dr Matthew Powner (UCL Chemistry).
Origin of life insight: Peptides can form without amino acids
J Phys Chem Lett
.2021 Jun 24;12(24):5774-5780
Water Microdroplets Allow Spontaneously Abiotic Production of Peptides
J Phys Chem Lett
2022 Jan 20;13(2):567-573
Aqueous-Microdroplet-Driven Abiotic Synthesis of Ribonucleotides
So all the parts needed for ribosomes are already known to form abiotically.
You seem very adamant and one-sided about this. Maybe that's understandable. Somehow for me this happens to be one of those areas where I'm less invested. I'm sympathetic to both sides of the debate. I personally think Genesis 1 is very literal but find it very understandable that science-minded people disagree.For example, mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. Taken literally, it's logically absurd. But it makes sense as a figurative listing of creation.
Wasn't following this discussion - sounds like you're talking about abiogenesis?If you think so, you don't know much about probability. There are about:
810000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible ways to shuffle a deck of cards.
...But all the ingredients exist for ribosomes.
This is why the probability argument is such a loser. But there's another reason. You're assuming random processes. But observing the way short proteins spontaneously form on hot volcanic rocks, we see that the process is not random:
Peptides, one of the fundamental building blocks of life, can be formed from the primitive precursors of amino acids under conditions similar to those expected on the primordial Earth, finds a new UCL study.
The findings, published in Nature, could be a missing piece of the puzzle of how life first formed.
"Peptides, which are chains of amino acids, are an absolutely essential element of all life on Earth. They form the fabric of proteins, which serve as catalysts for biological processes, but they themselves require enzymes to control their formation from amino acids," explained the study's lead author, Dr Matthew Powner (UCL Chemistry).
Origin of life insight: Peptides can form without amino acids
J Phys Chem Lett
.2021 Jun 24;12(24):5774-5780
Water Microdroplets Allow Spontaneously Abiotic Production of Peptides
J Phys Chem Lett
2022 Jan 20;13(2):567-573
Aqueous-Microdroplet-Driven Abiotic Synthesis of Ribonucleotides
So all the parts needed for ribosomes are already known to form abiotically.
But no sun. And you need a sun to have mornings and evenings by definition. So the text itself says that it's not a literal six days.
Again, flexibility of words. Jesus said you must be re-born. Nicodemus soon found out that it did NOT literally mean a return to the womb.Yes. If you have to redefine morning and evening to fit your new doctrines then it's clear that there's a problem with them.
Wasn't following this discussion - sounds like you're talking about abiogenesis?
Another big area of skepticism because I'm not sure that probability estimates fully take into account the assembly of all this stuff.
And then other component parts might need a slightly different set of conditions (e.g. a different temperature) to stand a chance of assembly.
I used to think that human cells were just uniform protoplasm
Randomly assembly? I don't believe it.
Again, flexibility of words.
I take it you feel justified in dismissing, as figurative text-to-ignore,
all chapters of the Bible that refer to born-again?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?