Why Acceptance of the Genesis Account is Extremely Important For Christians

[Jipsah]

Dang, this zombie has more topics than Texas has cows. First it was the 7 solar day creation (even when there was no sun), then it mutated into Spacemen & Flying Saucers, and now it's about Young Earthism. Not much about the Illuminati, Nephelim, or 911 Trutherism yet, but it surely can't be long before they show up. The sort of stuff you get when you use the Bible for a starting point and then let your imagination take over. And these folks can't understand why they're considered fringe groups. Whee!

 

[Shane R]

Rejection of the Genesis account as mere myth strikes at the very heart of Christianity for the following reasons.

1. Jesus himself is described as lending it historical credence
2. Peter. Paul, Jude, Luke, Mathew, John, specifically lend it historical credence
3. It removes the basis for the theme of paradise lost to paradise regained.
4. It removes the need for redemption and a redeemer-the fall of man from original perfection.
5. It strikes at Jesus' authenticity as the Son of God by describing him as gullible and a propagator of mere myth.


These five things alone are extremely serious reasons why Christians are opposed to accepting the anti biblical demonically inspired, propaganda which has become popular during these last days.

Define your terms better, if you know how.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm very, very, very sure that not only will we disagree about the nature of the first chapter of Genesis, as well as about the practical nature of science itself, we will disagree, too, about the very nature of the written word of the Bible itself.

Bingo!

The issue here is not science - it is "the Bible"

 

[Jipsah]

The issue here is not science - it is "the Bible"

I think we've seen that your group allows for quite a bit of, shall we say, plasticity, in what they find in the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

I think we've seen that your group allows for quite a bit of, shall we say, plasticity, in what they find in the Bible.

not in real life.

In real life we argue for sola scriptura testing - and you are at war with it.

Were we "simply not supposed to notice"??

 

[Jipsah]

In real life we argue for sola scriptura testing - and you are at war with it.

Y'all may argue it, but you obviously don't believe it. Else you couldn't invent wholly unscriptural dogmas like "investigative judgement" or cast aside the very Word of our Lord when it runs counter to your doctrines.

Were we "simply not supposed to notice"??

Are we supposed to swallow the ridiculous notion that SDAs are "sola scriptura" when a largish portion of their most dearly held beliefs are made up from whole cloth?

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Y'all may argue it, but you obviously don't believe it...

I think your response is why I bowed out of this thread. (I agree with you.)

 

[bcbsr]

Rejection of the Genesis account as mere myth strikes at the very heart of Christianity for the following reasons.

1. Jesus himself is described as lending it historical credence
2. Peter. Paul, Jude, Luke, Mathew, John, specifically lend it historical credence
3. It removes the basis for the theme of paradise lost to paradise regained.
4. It removes the need for redemption and a redeemer-the fall of man from original perfection.
5. It strikes at Jesus' authenticity as the Son of God by describing him as gullible and a propagator of mere myth.


These five things alone are extremely serious reasons why Christians are opposed to accepting the anti biblical demonically inspired, propaganda which has become popular during these last days.

All Christians accept Genesis. But not all Christians agree upon its interpretation.

 

[Radrook]

All Christians accept Genesis. But not all Christians agree upon its interpretation.

There is a limit to how far we can interpret the Bible without losing its meaning, stumbling others into disbelief or offending its author. Example? Telling people that not all Christians qualify to partake of the Emblems of the Eucharist when Jesus did not indicate it. Example, telling people that Christian standing before God is primarily to be determined by church attendance and constant and frenetic preaching. Or that a sinful person who accepted Christ is to be totally shunned by both former friends and family. Or telling people that it is OK for Christians to slaughter each other on the field of battle at the whim of national leaders for national interests. Or telling people that it is OK to murder the unborn. There is definitely a limit to how far we can go with our supposed right to interpret the scriptures. In this case, the limit is that we should not CARELESSLY insinuate that Jesus was deluded about the events of Genesis because doing so disqualifies Jesus as the Messiah or Christ and therefore strikes at the very precious and essential basis of our salvation..

Matthew 12:36
But I tell you that men will give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.

Yes, we Christians are expected to CARE about the effect which our scripturally- interpretative words might have not only on fellow believers but on non-believer as well who might be swayed against the Gospel after listening or reading our casual opinions . Jesus expressed the seriousness of our responsibility to avoid doing so in he following manner.

Matthew 18:6 ►
New International Version
"If anyone causes one of these little ones--those who believe in me--to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

There is a limit to how far we can interpret the Bible without losing its meaning, stumbling others into disbelief or offending its author. Example?

Telling other Christians they aren't 'really' Christians because 'they' don't agree with the judgmental Christian on every point and quit thinking about what God actually said.

 

[BobRyan]

Telling other Christians they aren't 'really' Christians because 'they' don't agree with the judgmental Christian on every point and quit thinking about what God actually said.

the post you responded to pointed to logical gaps in the argument that attacks the Bible doctrine on origins. Is this your response to "the details"??

 

[BobRyan]

There is a limit to how far we can interpret the Bible without losing its meaning, stumbling others into disbelief or offending its author.

"How far we can interpret" or "how far we can bend-and-wrench" the Bible?

Example? Telling people that not all Christians qualify to partake of the Emblems of the Eucharist when Jesus did not indicate it. Example, telling people that Christian standing before God is primarily to be determined by church attendance and constant and frenetic preaching. Or that a sinful person who accepted Christ is to be totally shunned by both former friends and family. Or telling people that it is OK for Christians to slaughter each other on the field of battle at the whim of national leaders for national interests. Or telling people that it is OK to murder the unborn. There is definitely a limit to how far we can go

There are differences between Christian groups - but there is a limit to the bible bending - because if there were no limit - then atheists could just take the Bible- bend it and make it their Bible.

This is the whole point of the safeguards that are had using the "sola scriptura" solution.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[JackRT]

"How far we can interpret" or "how far we can bend-and-wrench" the Bible?

Enough to make it correspond to reality. When one's belief ignores reality then it is doing you harm.

 

[BobRyan]

Enough to make it correspond to reality. When one's belief ignores reality then it is doing you harm.

1. Step 1 -- admit to what the Bible says.
2. Step 2 - decide if you will toss out the Virgin Birth - the bodily resurrection of Christ, the bodily ascension of Christ, the 7 day creation week clearly stated in the Bible -- all because "tiny man cannot reproduce it all in his laboratory".

It is pretty easy and obvious to get this part of the discussion.

I think we can all see that.

As easy as that is -- we can always get a rocket scientist that might come and stump all of us with --

Dang, this zombie has more topics than Texas has cows. !

 

[JackRT]

Step 1 -- admit to what the Bible says.

What did the author intend in writing this scripture? What was his cosmology? How did the target audience understand this scripture? Are there hidden or allegorical meanings? How would unforeseen new knowledge affect all this?

 

[BobRyan]

Enough to make it correspond to reality. When one's belief ignores reality then it is doing you harm.

1. Step 1 -- admit to what the Bible says.
2. Step 2 - decide if you will toss out the Virgin Birth - the bodily resurrection of Christ, the bodily ascension of Christ, the 7 day creation week clearly stated in the Bible -- all because "tiny man cannot reproduce it all in his laboratory".

It is pretty easy and obvious to get this part of the discussion.

I think we can all see that.

As easy as that is -- we can always get a rocket scientist that might come and stump all of us with --

What did the author intend in writing this scripture?

Indeed - how can we bend the fact in the text that they have food for 6 days and no food the 7th day each week and that the Jews to this very day keep that same 7 day week - with even the Christians admitting that Sunday is week-day-1 making Saturday the seventh day.

And the fact that Exodus 20:8-11 applies that same model directly to Genesis 2:1-3.

Iron clad.

Locked in.

James Barr says that even our atheist friends in all "world class universities" can admit to what the text is saying and the intent of the author.

 

[BobRyan]

How would unforeseen new knowledge affect all this?

??

There is always "hope" for evolutionism in some future "unforeseen new knowledge" that might help it out of the ditch.

 

[Radrook]

??

There is always "hope" for evolutionism in some future "unforeseen new knowledge" that might help it out of the ditch.

That's tantamount to saying that there is hope that something will eventually prove Jesus wrong about Genesis.

 

[Radrook]

Enough to make it correspond to reality. When one's belief ignores reality then it is doing you harm.

The problem arises when the proposed reality doesn't quite mesh with the reality that the Bible clearly describes. Then a choice must be made.

 

[Radrook]

Telling other Christians they aren't 'really' Christians because 'they' don't agree with the judgmental Christian on every point and quit thinking about what God actually said.

I didn't say that they are not Christians in God's eyes.