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.
I'm gratified that you've read that much of the New Testament.John's Gospel starts this way
John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Are there a great many more atheists you can adduce to support your position?James Barr is one atheist who fully admits that there is not a single professor of Hebrew or OT studies at any world-class university that does not know that the T.E. Bible bending of Genesis 1 is a total farce.
Are there a great many more atheists you can adduce to support your position?
Creeds come from the Bible, Bob. I'm amazed that you don't know that! But then SDA kind of make up their own creeds on the fly, don't they?Notice everywhere we have a Bible statement some creed-ists want to delete the Bible and replace it with "creed"
For instance?-- right up until the Bible says something to contradict one of their creeds - exposing their creed as a man-made-creed.
Creeds come from the Bible, Bob.
Then again, I can't see how an SDA can honestly object to man-made creeds when they all accept the man-made doctrine of Investigative Judgement. Different strokes for different folks, eh Bob?
Shazam! Let me write that one down for future reference! <Laugh>But the Bible is the judge of the creed.
Dang, you got another'n right!the creed is not the judge of the Bible
It had something to do with the fact that I'm talking to an SDA, and it seems to be representative of the sort of stuff that they believe. (That, and Investigative Judgement and Spacemen and other not-from-the-Bible stuff of that ilk.)surely you did not just begin to imagine to yourself that the only ones admitting to the Bible facts on origins and creation in Genesis - are SDAs?? Did you just forget this entire thread and then begin imagining that to yourself?
Shot who?Who goes for that??
That's is balderdash based on wishful thinking and an irresistible urge to contradict for lack of an adequate rebuttal.
Name someone in this thread who believes the things you mentioned. Name someone in this thread who made one of those arguments.
-CryptoLutheran
Your modus operand seems to exclude that and seems to tag it as mere human opinion to fix what you consider biblical absurdities.
I never claimed that anyone on this thread had made any of those statements.
It wasn't a matter of eating a piece of fruit.I'm not excluding non-literal readings of the creation stories. Quite the opposite in fact.
I believe Genesis 1, and 2 and 3, etc. I just don't believe they describe literal, historical events. I don't believe Genesis 1 is a literal description of how the universe came into existence, but a poetical description of creation done in such a way as to frame creation as the purposeful handiwork of God; I don't believe that Genesis 3 intends for us to believe that sin entered the world because people ate a piece of fruit, but it does describe the fall of man and the universal realities of sin and death common to us all.
-CryptoLutheran
No, those are wrong becauseSo 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.
Biblical literal history has a deeper meaning too, you see."Myth" doesn't mean "a false story" or "not true", but means a story that communicates a deeper meaning.
There are no technical details in there, so in that sense it doesn't describe how God did it, only THAT He did it, and that He did it in 6 days and rested on the 7th, hallowing the 7th day.I'm not excluding non-literal readings of the creation stories. Quite the opposite in fact.
I believe Genesis 1, and 2 and 3, etc. I just don't believe they describe literal, historical events. I don't believe Genesis 1 is a literal description of how the universe came into existence,
Dr. John Lennox, another Oxford professor believes in the Genesis account and has written a book about "Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science"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.
Ahhh the opening bash against
virgin-birthists,
bodily-resurrection-ists,
ascension-of-Christ-ists,
miracles-of-Christ-ists,
Bible-creation-ists,
Bible-flood-ists,
Bible-defined-marriage-in-Genesis-2-ists
Perhaps there is no survey, but I believe it is clear that it is only in the USA that a sizeable fraction of Christians take the Genesis account as literal. So I am quite confident that, worldwide at least, the majority of Christians do indeed take the account as myth.Do you have a survey that supports your statement that a majority of Christians believe the Genesis stories are myths?
Perhaps there is no survey, but I believe it is clear that it is only in the USA that a sizeable fraction of Christians take the Genesis account as literal. So I am quite confident that, worldwide at least, the majority of Christians do indeed take the account as myth.
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?