Why Acceptance of the Genesis Account is Extremely Important For Christians

[ChristsSoldier115]

Only the Genesis account. It is the literal. The bread and wine are symbolic. The blood has always been symbolic. I know of none who has been literally drenched in the blood of Christ to have their sins removed. If you want to believe that it is the real blood of Christ and His real body--that's your choice. So we're told to not eat blood, then told to do so?
Act_15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act_15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Act_15:20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Act_15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Rev_7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Are we really going to put our robes into a bucket of blood and literally wash our robes in that blood?
Unless you have Jesus indwelling in your heart, there is no life in you. It is through His shed blood that we are saved. Once--it was shed once and that is all that was needed, not over and over again as the mortal priests did with mortal blood. His is immortal and once for all. We are to have the bread and wine "as a remembrance"--

So it seems to be that Christians will forever fight over what should be taken literal and what should be allegory. It all depends on the culture that interprets scripture. How does allegory make it less true?

 

[mmksparbud]

So it seems to be that Christians will forever fight over what should be taken literal and what should be allegory. It all depends on the culture that interprets scripture. How does allegory make it less true?

In stating Genesis is not true, then we call God a liar for He says in 6 days He created the earth, and again, in the Sabbath commandment, He says it is to commemorate the 6 day creation week. To make it allegory denies God has the power to do as He says. It says He spoke and it was. Deny His power, you deny Him, and if you deny him, He will deny you.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Maybe I'll just say that in a post by itself:

How does interpreting Genesis as allegory make it less true?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

In stating Genesis is not true, then we call God a liar for He says in 6 days He created the earth, and again, in the Sabbath commandment, He says it is to commemorate the 6 day creation week. To make it allegory denies God has the power to do as He says. It says He spoke and it was. Deny His power, you deny Him, and if you deny him, He will deny you.

By not taking literally doesn't mean they don't believe God created the earth in 6 days.

 

[tatteredsoul]

.

 

[mmksparbud]

If they believe He created it in 6 days, than it is literal. There is no room for stretching that day into a thousand years each day--it is a morning and evening. You can make up some spiritual connotations to each day all you want--but the actual creation is still 6-- 24 hr days.

 

[nChrist]

I love Genesis & I believe it is literal and historically accurate, and that it contains the true creation story of earth & humans

Amen! I'll go with God's Word every time as the ultimate source of truth.

 

[Archivist]

In stating Genesis is not true, then we call God a liar for He says in 6 days He created the earth, and again, in the Sabbath commandment, He says it is to commemorate the 6 day creation week. To make it allegory denies God has the power to do as He says. It says He spoke and it was. Deny His power, you deny Him, and if you deny him, He will deny you.

But you said earlier that you see Holy Communion as being only symbolic. Aren't you then calling God a liar when He says "This is my body given for you." Please note that He did not say "this bread is a symbol of my body." He said that it was His body. Doesn't that equally deny that God has the power to do as He says?

 

[mmksparbud]

Do this in remembrance of me.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Do this in remembrance of me.

Which is why we do it, that doesn't address what it is. What it is was defined by Christ: His body and blood.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is of constant bewilderment that certain Christians will insist until they are blue in the face that it is absolutely essential that I believe, literally, in a talking snake; but when the Son of God tells us "This is My body" they gaffaw at the mere thought that it could actually be what He says it is.

Talking snakes: Absolutely literal, really happened historically, can't be anything else.
Bread and wine being the actual body and blood of Jesus: Not literal, can't be literal, clearly figurative, can't be anything else.

Bronze age near eastern creation story: Literally true.
God in the flesh saying something: Not literally true.

This often, I find, also tends to have overlap in regard to the Apocalypse of St. John, so that again:

Monster-faced locusts coming up out of the abyss as recorded in an apocalyptic text: Literally true.
God in the flesh saying "This is My body": Not literally true.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

It is of constant bewilderment that certain Christians will insist until they are blue in the face that it is absolutely essential that I believe, literally, in a talking snake; but when the Son of God tells us "This is My body" they gaffaw at the mere thought that it could actually be what He says it is.

Talking snakes: Absolutely literal, really happened historically, can't be anything else.
Bread and wine being the actual body and blood of Jesus: Not literal, can't be literal, clearly figurative, can't be anything else.

Bronze age near eastern creation story: Literally true.
God in the flesh saying something: Not literally true.

This often, I find, also tends to have overlap in regard to the Apocalypse of St. John, so that again:

Monster-faced locusts coming up out of the abyss as recorded in an apocalyptic text: Literally true.
God in the flesh saying "This is My body": Not literally true.

-CryptoLutheran

This is my body in the spiritual sense is not the same as a talking ass in the literal sense

Also I was sure I saw Monster-faced locusts coming up out of the abyss in the news clips from the Vietanam war

 

[Archivist]

Do this in remembrance of me.

This is my body. This is the New Testament in my blood. Don't see the word symbol anywhere in there.

 

[Archivist]

This is my body in the spiritual sense is not the same as a talking ass in the literal sense

Wouldn't you hate to go down in history as being the guy with the talking ass?

 

[Hieronymus]

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.

6. It reduces the better part of the Old Testament to 'probably a myth'.

 

[Hieronymus]

I vehemently reject this. Mostly because of the statement of 'mere myth'.

Myth is not some children story or fantasy. It is an important vehicle to deliver truths, which is why very intelligent and educated grown men have spent centuries investigating them.

God himself used myth.

Exactly that statement proves the point of the OP.
And never mind the evidence that supports the "myth" either, those are just desperate fanatics in panic clutching at straws, right?

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is my body in the spiritual sense is not the same as a talking ass in the literal sense

No, but insisting that one has to believe in a literal talking snake or otherwise one ultimately doesn't believe the Gospel and to say the entire theological structure of Christianity collapses while simultaneously saying that God Incarnate's own words, "This is My body" is only meant "in a spiritual sense" and isn't that big of a deal ultimately is, in my opinion, both ironic and backward.

It's like coming to a mountain to admire a pebble.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

No, but insisting that one has to believe in a literal talking snake or otherwise one ultimately doesn't believe the Gospel and to say the entire theological structure of Christianity collapses while simultaneously saying that God Incarnate's own words, "This is My body" is only meant "in a spiritual sense" and isn't that big of a deal ultimately is, in my opinion, both ironic and backward.

It's like coming to a mountain to admire a pebble.

-CryptoLutheran

It's actually not those who say that the Lord's supper is spiritual but those who are saying it means literal that say the entire theological structure of Christianity collapses w/o it. We don't have that problem.

 

[mmksparbud]

Who says it's a literal talking snake?? As far as I know, most think of it as Satan possessed the snake as in when Jesus caste the demons into the pigs. The talking donkey was, by what is written, an act of God, not Satan.

Again, are we going to dunk our robes in a bucket of blood and scrub them in the blood of Jesus? Jesus says the kingdom of God is come upon us---do you see a kingdom with the New Jerusalem anywhere?
Creation week describes something God has done within a certain time frame---it is strictly the power of God that is being talked about. What is the bread and wine?---that is something that we do, we are the ones eating and drinking it. He says this is my body and my blood. OK---I look at it, I've never seen the wine become blood, I've never seen the bread turn into a piece of raw meat. He doesn't say, It will become blood and my body in you, He says it is. The diciples did not say anything about looking at the wine and bread and seeing blood and raw meat. I've never encountered anyone who has seen this. Maybe you have. I only see the bread and the wine, and looking around, that is what everybody else sees. I would probably gag and throw up if I were to drink blood and eat raw flesh.

 

[mmksparbud]

Wouldn't you hate to go down in history as being the guy with the talking ass?

I've know several!!!