Why Acceptance of the Genesis Account is Extremely Important For Christians

[ViaCrucis]

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.

So relying on sight and reason to say that Jesus didn't mean the bread and wine were His body and blood is fine; but to do the same to recognize an innumerable amount of evidence which points us to an old universe, an old earth, an millions of years of evolution of life on this planet is wrong because, it is insisted, that we read a poetic telling of creation as literally true and all evidence to the contrary must be discarded.

Again. Backward.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Again, are we going to dunk our robes in a bucket of blood and scrub them in the blood of Jesus? '''''.

Is that what coming boldly to the throne of grace is? I think not. It's much more personal than that

 

[mmksparbud]

I don't see anywhere in the rest of the bible where it was considered just poetry. Even in the NT, no one seems to consider it as poetry.
Luk_3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Rom_5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1Co_15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co_15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Ti_2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti_2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Jud_1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

 

[Radrook]

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

I have never met a Christian who believed that the snake itself was the one talking.

Even Milton's Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained describes the snake as a mere puppet used by a spirit being.

 

[Radrook]

It was all a few really stupid assertions deserved.

Well, saying they are stupid is merely expressing an opinion and opinions are considered the shadows cast on the wall with no real substance in Plato's famous cave allegory.

 

[Armoured]

This is a point of view held by a minority of Christians.

The real reason is "because I can't mount an actual evidence based argument against evolution, so appeal to authority is all I have left".

 

[Radrook]

I don't see anywhere in the rest of the bible where it was considered just poetry. Even in the NT, no one seems to consider it as poetry.
Luk_3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Rom_5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1Co_15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co_15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Ti_2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti_2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Jud_1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Yep! Denying that it was actually accurate history requires us to view Paul Luke and Jude as totally deluded. Which of course means that they were not inspired,. Which of course means that everything else they wrote can be placed in doubt as well. Satan is very sneaky indeed.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have never met a Christian who believed that the snake itself was the one talking.

Even Milton's Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained describes the snake as a mere puppet used by a spirit being.

I understand that. Though two points:

1. The idea that the serpent was, in fact, the devil is not present in the text itself, but is a view which developed significantly later.

2. I was using the talking serpent largely as emblematic of the features of the creation narratives, I could have just as easily pointed to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The point being that these things are being insisted upon as being taken as literal, and taking them literal is critical to the Christian faith while simultaneously taking the Lord's own statement about the Supper as non-literal.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radrook]

I understand that. Though two points:

1. The idea that the serpent was, in fact, the devil is not present in the text itself, but is a view which developed significantly later.

2. I was using the talking serpent largely as emblematic of the features of the creation narratives, I could have just as easily pointed to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The point being that these things are being insisted upon as being taken as literal, and taking them literal is critical to the Christian faith while simultaneously taking the Lord's own statement about the Supper as non-literal.

-CryptoLutheran

Please note that the Mosaic Law prohibited the consumption of blood.
Eating blood would have been a sin against the Law Covenant.
That's why some who heard Jesus speak about eating his blood were extremely offended ad walked away.

He immediately explained to his disciples that the things he was referring to were of a spiritual significance and not literal.

John 6: 63
GOD'S WORD® Translation
Life is spiritual. Your physical existence doesn't contribute to that life. The words that I have spoken to you are spiritual. They are life.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't see anywhere in the rest of the bible where it was considered just poetry. Even in the NT, no one seems to consider it as poetry.

It wasn't "just poetry", but it is poetry nonetheless. There's no where in Scripture that mentions that the Apocalypse of St. John is an apocalypse, but that is what it is.

Luk_3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of GodRom_5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
1Co_15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co_15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Ti_2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
1Ti_2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Jud_1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Here's the problem, you're assuming that reference to figures and elements of the stories is itself evidence that they are to be read literally as history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Please note that the Mosaic Law prohibited the consumption of blood.
Eating blood would have been a sin against the Law Covenant.
That's why some who heard Jesus speak about eating his blood were extremely offended ad walked away.

He immediately explained to his disciples that the things he was referring to were of a spiritual significance and not literal.

Then to use the same language others regularly use to accuse me and others with, why do you reject God's word? If Jesus didn't mean what He said then you can't trust anything in the Bible. Sound familiar?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radrook]

The Mosaic Law also prohibited wearing mixed fabrics.

-CryptoLutheran

I fail to see the relevance.

 

[Radrook]

Then to use the same language others regularly use to accuse me and others with, why do you reject God's word? If Jesus didn't mean what He said then you can't trust anything in the Bible. Sound familiar?

-CryptoLutheran

Would you accuse Shakespeare or any other literary personage of never meaning what he said because he regularly employed symbolic language such as similes and metaphors?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yep! Denying that it was actually accurate history requires us to view Paul Luke and Jude as totally deluded.

Well, no it doesn't actually.

Which of course means that they were not inspired,.

Which it doesn't.

Which of course means that everything else they wrote can be placed in doubt as well.

And thus the grand house built on sand was constructed.

Satan is very sneaky indeed.

Aye. he seems to have managed to fool a lot of Christians into believing that their salvation does not depend upon the all sufficient work of the Lord Christ, but instead on a firm rejection of evidence based reality. And the fruit of this is that people have been abandoning the Church and throwing away their hope in Christ because they concluded, wrongly, that if Genesis ch. 1 wasn't literally true then the Gospel couldn't be true.

The devil is very sneaky indeed.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I fail to see the relevance.

If Christ can't be believed because the Torah forbids consuming blood, and yet you are fine with doing other things which Torah forbids then you are engaging in flippant hypocrisy.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Would you accuse Shakespeare or any other literary personage of never meaning what he said because he regularly employed symbolic language such as similes and metaphors?

Without realizing it you've actually just argued my point.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radrook]

If Christ can't be believed because the Torah forbids consuming blood, and yet you are fine with doing other things which Torah forbids then you are engaging in flippant hypocrisy.

-CryptoLutheran

Strawman:

I never said that Christ can't be believed.
That is your conclusion because you choose to reject that Jesus was capable of speaking symbolically-something that he does in the entire book of Revelation which is the most symbolic book in the entire Bible.

Also, the prohibition of consuming blood predates the Torah. It is found in Genesis right after the Flood. So it did not come into existence with the Torah but was merely included within it. It is also mentioned in the Book of Acts as still binding. In fact, first-century Christians were very careful to avoid eating blood.

Genesis 9:4 - But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat



Acts 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.”

King James Version (KJV)

The Council of Jerusalem or Apostolic Council was held in Jerusalem around 50 AD. It is unique among the ancient pre-ecumenical councils in that it is considered by Catholics and Orthodox to be a prototype and forerunner of the later ecumenical councils and a key part of Christian ethics. The council decided that Gentile converts to Christianity were not obligated to keep most of the Law of Moses, including the rules concerning circumcision of males. The Council did, however, retain the prohibitions on eating blood, meat containing blood, and meat of animals not properly slain, and on fornication and idolatry, sometimes referred to as the Apostolic Decree or Jerusalem Quadrilateral.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem

 

[Radrook]

Without realizing it you've actually just argued my point.

-CryptoLutheran

I really don't see how.

 

[Armoured]

The real reason is "because I can't mount an actual evidence based argument against evolution, so appeal to authority is all I have left".

Oh, and "threats of damnation against anyo e who disagrees with me".

 

[Armoured]

I really don't see how.

Wow.