Why do fellow creationists use natural explanations to unnatural events?

[Jonathan Walkerin]

What do aliens -who are really demons

How do you figure that and how would you know ?

 

[coffee4u]

How do you figure that and how would you know ?

A few reasons.
The Bible says that God made the angelic host, animals and humans. Nothing else is mentioned.
Some angels fell and became demons and that they are the enemy.
Ephesians 6:12
12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
We know that they can change form and deceive.
2 Corinthians 11:14
And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

But people are not ignorant any more. We are not going to be praying to a wooden idol and sacrificing young women in fear of a bad harvest. Those old methods don't work any longer, but that doesn't mean Satan and his demons have given up. New tricks for a new age. What better way than masquerading as aliens.

1 Timothy 4:1
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

People are not going to simply follow something that looks like a demon. It will look tempting. Probably like benevolent saviours to a world in the grip of killer diseases or global warming. They will probably claim to have the answers to all of our problems. Obviously speculation, but it says 'some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits' so it will happen and it would have to be a really good hox because people are not simple it will take a lot more than some smoke and mirrors.

We know Satan and demons want worship.
We see this in all the old testament idols and at the temptation of Jesus.
Matthew 4
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only."

There are numerous alien cults who worship aliens and believe they will one day be beamed away/changed. Sounds awfully like a counterfeit church rapture/second coming of Christ.
List of UFO religions - Wikipedia
Remember Heaven's Gate cult? The whole group committed suicide in 1997
“Cult leader believed in space aliens and apocalypse,” “Tapes left by cult suggest comet was the sign to die"
And this was all without any signs and wonders. Even if there was nothing else, the fact that there are people who worship aliens is to me a big red flag.
Matthew 12:30
"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

To me posing as aliens would be a perfect deception for this day and age. Many people believe in the existence of aliens and want to see them. If they perform lying signs and wonders why wouldn't many believe? Or like so many movies maybe they will take over peoples bodies and then the possessed will perform the signs and wonders. Either way, people are far more open to aliens than they ever were before and why wouldn't a demon take advantage of it? So yes, this is why I think aliens either have been or will be demons.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

The Bible says that God made the angelic host, animals and humans. Nothing else is mentioned.

There is a quite lot of stuff the Bible does not mention so that is a pretty thin argument.

What does the Bible say about Moon and Mars colonies, asteroid belt mining, genetherapy, rail guns, internet, VR, high speed rail network or bioengineered sheeps ?

But people are not ignorant any more. We are not going to be praying to a wooden idol and sacrificing young women in fear of a bad harvest.

But we still think that universe of current estimate of two trillion galaxies with estimated few hundred billion stars each only has us as species because we are just so special ?

Galaxy - Wikipedia

It doesn`t really sound like some of us have any less incredulity then the people who sacrificed those women ages ago.

 

[MrsFoundit]

What does the Bible say about Moon and Mars colonies, asteroid belt mining, genetherapy, rail guns, internet, VR, high speed rail network or bioengineered sheeps ?

We know people are making these.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

We know people are making these.

Yet they are not mentioned in the Bible. So does it make any sense to use something not being mentioned in the Bible as being a reason something not existing ?

 

[MrsFoundit]

Yet they are not mentioned in the Bible. So does it make any sense to use something not being mentioned in the Bible as being a reason something not existing ?

It depends what it allegedly is.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Because atoms and gravity do not destroy Biblical doctrine. There are no verses stating anything against atoms or gravity. The doctrine of original sin is a vital part of salvation and if you do not have a literal Adam who literally sinned so that a literal Jesus could come and be the second Adam, the whole thing falls apart.

According to your implications, since we cannot possibly understand the method of God's creation(and the fact that atoms and gravity are 'man-made' concepts also)that should be enough to bar it from the belief system. Personally, I don't think the validity of the bible rests entirely on any allegorical title given to Jesus. And even if it did, I already explained why I do not think the concept of the 'original sin' has been lost.

There is no God in evolutionary theory. It is secular science.

Am I supposed to be impressed by a revered? Who again is just a man and just as infallible as anyone else.

"he did not know what was up there" Exactly. A true man of God knows what is "up there" it is God.

Just because atheists have adopted unrealistic and, quite frankly, sometimes unscientific views on evolution does not make it false or less viable. If everything comes down to us being infallible human beings, I have no reason to listen to you over anyone else either.

My point was that Charles Darwin was not a militant atheist like most paint him to be. He was the pioneer of the evolutionary theory--although he most certainly did not do it to 'spite' Christians or disprove God, like many portray.

Of course it matters when the Bible says differently. Gods breathed word versus man, who wasn't there, didn't see, does not know everything.
Why do you assume it is true?

The Bible does not say fire is cold.
Nobody saw the big bang, no one saw supposedly 1 cell creatures evolve into 2 or more, no one saw dinosaurs turn into birds or primates turn into man.
Fire, on the other hand, can be seen and experienced right now.

I sometimes wonder whether or not you purposefully misunderstand my points just to irk me. I was using it as a hypothetical example; IF the bible said that fire was cold when in reality it was hot, that does NOT mean God's word is wrong; it means WE, INFALLIBLE MAN(As you like to say)have misunderstood or twisted it to be something else. After all, it wouldn't be the first time the church has abused it's power, now would it? Or do you think that Pharisees are a thing of the past, and Jesus removed all corruption from the world when he died?

I already said that the big bang is a model for a theory--it is not being claimed as truth, it is simply an option of what COULD be the truth that has been proposed. Which, by the way, was also a concept brought about by a devout Catholic. We can observe evolution and the changes it makes in living animals' genetics in realtime thanks to the study of epigenetics--essentially evolution on a minor scale. There are also many other factors that go into the theory of evolution that you nor I am even qualified to discuss.

Scripture is not in conflict, you can find verses about creation through both the Old and the New Testaments, it is in harmony. It isn't in harmony with evolution because that is a man-made attempt to understand the world and it is wrong.
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness";

Science is observation. It is not trading in one reality for another, and if one does so then they are not very honest scientists. Besides, science can and will change at the drop of a hat--I never said evolution was 100% an absolute, and I did mention creationism is a viable possibility as well. I simply do not find any personally convicting reason to sway either way...other than creationism is far less attractive due to the Christian forefathers(ken ham comes to mind)shamelessly committing the sin of lying and purposefully twisting evidence that contradicts their viewpoints. I would respect them more if they simply stuck with their guns on claiming creationism instead of trying to cater to the opposition with clever fabrications and laughable pseudoscience.

Also pretty sure the 'wisdom of this world' would be referring to a theory that purposefully excludes God. Which, as I said, none do(and if they do, they are significantly less valid in the eyes of their own scientific methods)

Childish ways is referring to immature ways of acting, to merely reading the milk rather than the meat of the word, it wasn't about coming in faith with an open heart like a child.

Matthew 18:2-4
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

You weren't referring to it in the 'coming in faith with an open heart'--you were referring to scripture being simple enough for a child to understand. Bad strawman.

Yom, as used in Genesis with evening and morning and numbers always means a 24 hour day. The author's intention (probably Moses) was to convey literal days. This has already been debated many times. If you want to drag this up again I guess I can find my notes.

There are not two conflicting accounts. Again this has also been debated and I can find my notes on this as well if need be.
Genesis 1 gives you the details of what was made each day in order. Genesis 2 goes down to mankind's level and looks into the creation of the garden and in more detail and about how the animals and man had been made. They are the same account from a different angle. It is not in the wrong order, the order is not mentioned. You are not meant to take the order of creation from this. Mosses is talking about what had previously been made as he assumes everyone knows the order from Genesis 1.

I mean honestly, even if it did mean literal days that doesn't discount the theory that Genesis is an allegorical, easy to understand poetic version of a much more complex, true event.

No, there are very clearly two separate accounts of creation in the bible. For example, the first account states that mankind came very last in the creation process. The second, in genesis chapter 2, has man being created before animals, plants, shrubbery--anything, really. There is absolutely no way to reconcile this as being 'a detailed description of the 7 day creation' because it doesn't follow the same order at all. For pity's sake, the first chapter didn't even cover the garden of eden.

Some try to reconcile this with the fact that the chapter wasn't about forming the earth, but forming the garden of eden. But that begs another question; what happened to the 'mankind' created in the first chapter, if Adam and Eve are the first man and woman?

Yeah...I'm supposed to take the entire creation account as literal fact, except for the order? OK , that's totally reasonable and not at all contradictory.

Origin of life
Origin of life - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most experts agree that all life today evolved by common descent from a single primitive lifeform.[2] It is not known how this early form first lived, but scientists think it was a natural process which happened about 3,900 million years ago.

You can bet they are doing their best to discover this 'natural process'. God is not in this picture.

Naturalism is a philosophy; not science. There are certainly things and popular ideas in the scientific field I disagree with, and I'm not going to argue that there are definitely anti-religious people using it as a bandwagon against theists. Even then, God would still fit into naturalism because...you know, he created us? He is 'natural' because he exists, and we came from Him. He is part of the 'natural' way of the universe.

As I said again, all you'll hear on the origins of life are possible theories; no facts, because science makes no claims to ultimate truth. That's where God comes into the equation for people like myself.

So you view some early man waking up one morning and finding himself sentient? Do you believe God came to him and offered him a choice? What was his one sin that caused physical and spiritual death?

No, I believe man was created with pre-existing fleshly parts and given the gift of sentience--what I consider to be the physical proof of a soul. Considering I also believe the entire evolutionary process was more than likely closely controlled/monitored by God, as to what would branch off/stay the same...since we do know a major flaw in the default evolutionary theory is that the process has no way of telling which genes are useless and which ones are vital.

I believe the original sin could've happened many different ways--although, we'll keep it simple and just call it the realization of good and evil, since that's what it is.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

You do realize in the creation that the world was without death (evolution requires millions of years of death) and that animals only ate plants? That sin is what caused death to enter the world. Spiritual and physical death. Which is also why death was required to save the world.

A world without death...for humans. We aren't even sure if it's talking about physical or spiritual death, really. Animals are almost entirely left out of the equation, and it would seem God is not as concerned with them due to his orders for man to 'subdue' them and the fact that we were given permission to eat them after the flood. If carnivorous animals such as lions could have existed and lived on plants during those times , I don't think there's much of an issue.

There's also the interesting idea that Adam and Eve were placed in a garden, walled off from the dangerous land outside...

The allegory exists because Adam was real-Jesus was real.
He isn't being likened to a fairy tale.
Adam brought it in sin and death- Jesus saves us from sin and death.

Wow, if Genesis actually is allegorical...you calling it a fairy tale is pretty offensive. Would it lose it's meaning if it was a simplified version of true events?

I can call myself dr.jekyll and mr.hyde depending on my mood; but that doesn't make them real. I, on the other hand, am quite real however. Either way, the allegory itself is what's important. It doesn't need to be literal to be meaningful.

God could have created anyway he chose, but the Bible clearly states that he created over 6 days.

What scripture do you have to back up your position? I will say you have none because your position does not come from scripture but science and as I asked above, why do you believe man's word (evolution) over God's? You believe in Jesus and science won't back up the virgin birth or the resurrection, so why not believe Genesis?

Scripture is not a science book, again. Second, if I don't need scripture to validate the existence of atoms and molecules, I don't need it to validate a theory to break down the kind of process specifically God used to create us. I believe what is true, and considering God was both the ultimate author of the Bible and he also created the world that science is currently observing...you know.

Science can't even back up human morals or altruism. Just because science can't explain it, doesn't mean it isn't true. However, that being said, there's also no tangible evidence that Mary, for example, found a baby in a bush rather than gave birth to Jesus--like there is the likelihood that evolution played a key role in our creation.

Then why not believe scripture when it says 6 days, that God made Adam, that Adam sinned? Genesis 1 is laid out very plainly there is nothing to interpret.
As I already said but you choose to ignore I am just as happy using the Old King James version or even the Torah.

This is God's word we are talking about, not a folk tale. God preserves his word.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Revelation is laid out very plainly, so are many of the prophecies in the bible...yet many people understand they aren't literal word-by-word descriptions of future events, but rather more allegories to prepare us for what's to come.

The fact that you see the bible as having no value unless every single part of it is 100% literal shocks me, to an extent. Lat time I checked, God's laws were written into our hearts; not parchment.

Of course scripture is helpful and at the point in time that verse was written, I have no doubt it was probably perfectly preserved as it was intended...despite the new testament not even existing yet but still. Although, there's no disputing that people have certainly changed things around past the age of Jesus without God's intervention...need I bring up the gnostic gospels, the extra books in the Catholic bibles, or translation errors that change the context of the verse? ('Tree of life' being changed to 'Book of life' in the KJV, for example)

You believe in Jesus and then you literally attack God's word? The Gospels are also God's word, in which case you also believe a book that's "been painstakingly translated...how many times again?" You can't have it both ways, trash one part of the Bible while upholding another part.

The fact that I believe the bible could have been potentially tampered with does not mean I don't believe there aren't indisputable truths in it from God, or that his word will always be revealed to those who look hard enough to find it. I also never trashed the bible in any parts; simply pointed out a possibility. In any case, undoubtedly perfect scripture exists--I'm just not always certain it is what we're being given. Either way, I believe in Jesus Christ and God...and that's the ultimate thing of importance.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Demons and angels? certainly not.

I was referring to the creatures, not demons and angels.

 

[coffee4u]

There is a quite lot of stuff the Bible does not mention so that is a pretty thin argument.

What does the Bible say about Moon and Mars colonies, asteroid belt mining, genetherapy, rail guns, internet, VR, high speed rail network or bioengineered sheeps ?



But we still think that universe of current estimate of two trillion galaxies with estimated few hundred billion stars each only has us as species because we are just so special ?

Galaxy - Wikipedia

It doesn`t really sound like some of us have any less incredulity then the people who sacrificed those women ages ago.

You asked why I thought this way and that is my answer. I am not here to debate this issue. If you are not interested in my thought process do not ask for it.

 

[coffee4u]

According to your implications, since we cannot possibly understand the method of God's creation(and the fact that atoms and gravity are 'man-made' concepts also)that should be enough to bar it from the belief system. Personally, I don't think the validity of the bible rests entirely on any allegorical title given to Jesus. And even if it did, I already explained why I do not think the concept of the 'original sin' has been lost.

I never said that man could not discover things, but they need to be done within a Biblical framework because man wasn't there and he didn't see and he can't test non-observable things.

How is original sin not lost is all you have is a group of ape-men? And what of death? Sin brought in death, there was no death before sin. Evolution has death for millions of years. I guess when Adam died 930 years later that was an allegory that died as well?

Just because atheists have adopted unrealistic and, quite frankly, sometimes unscientific views on evolution does not make it false or less viable. If everything comes down to us being infallible human beings, I have no reason to listen to you over anyone else either.

Which is why I quote the Bible. I don't base my beliefs simply on my own thoughts or on the findings of man but on Gods breathed word. If the Bible indicated evolution I would follow that, but it does not.

What do you think God meant when he had Mosses pen those verses? What verses do you use to back up your own interpretation? If you have none then it is not an interpretation at all because scripture always interprets scripture.

Now if someone says they don't believe in God or the Bible fine, I don't expect them to use scripture, but you say you do believe scripture so I want to see what verses you use, or at least be honest and say that you are not using scripture to back up your position at all. If you have no scripture than this is not a Biblical debate nor is it an interpretation but a debate between the Bible and secular science.

My point was that Charles Darwin was not a militant atheist like most paint him to be. He was the pioneer of the evolutionary theory--although he most certainly did not do it to 'spite' Christians or disprove God, like many portray.

You know what, that is why he was so dangerous. The devil is far easier to spot than a person in a position of power who believes a lie.

2 Timothy 4
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

I sometimes wonder whether or not you purposefully misunderstand my points just to irk me. I was using it as a hypothetical example; IF the bible said that fire was cold when in reality it was hot, that does NOT mean God's word is wrong; it means WE, INFALLIBLE MAN(As you like to say)have misunderstood or twisted it to be something else. After all, it wouldn't be the first time the church has abused it's power, now would it? Or do you think that Pharisees are a thing of the past, and Jesus removed all corruption from the world when he died?

Sometimes I forgot what your point was. These posts are way too lengthy for me to keep absolute track of. I got that it was a hypothetical example but using fire as an example when it can be seen and experienced is a very bad example up against a theory of explaining how the world came to be that has not been observed and goes against how scripture says the world was made. Fire is in line with scripture, so that is true science.

Instead of looking at scripture and saying, "God says this, but our tests say this, so something must be wrong with our tests, we have not taken all variables into account" No, man says our tests are right and the Bible is wrong. The assumption is that they are right. You obviously believe they are right and didn't answer any of my questions about that. So again, why do you believe them?

Of course it has because 'the church' is not 'the body of Christ'. The real church is the body of believers who have truly taken on Jesus as their saviour. People who have abused their power, done terrible things over and over again while hiding behind the church or Christianity were not Christians at all. Just because someone claims to be something doesn't make them one. If a true believer does something really bad they will be repenting of it, making up for it. We all know good people can do bad things, but they don't make it a lifestyle.

I already said that the big bang is a model for a theory--it is not being claimed as truth, it is simply an option of what COULD be the truth that has been proposed. Which, by the way, was also a concept brought about by a devout Catholic. We can observe evolution and the changes it makes in living animals' genetics in realtime thanks to the study of epigenetics--essentially evolution on a minor scale. There are also many other factors that go into the theory of evolution that you nor I am even qualified to discuss.

Some of this is word choice. I don't believe what you call 'evolution' here to be evolution at all because I mean something different by the word. When I use the word 'evolution' I mean one species turning into another and only that. What you call 'minor scale' I call that specialization of kinds. God made kinds with a wealth of DNA and they spread from the original pairs into many varieties. Evolution on the other hand claims a 1 cell creature came to life, it changed and become something else and over millions of years of gradual change turned into man. Simple to complex. The creation model starts with complex forms, with DNA breaking off and being isolated, mutations causing harm not as a mechanism for upward change.

Science is observation. It is not trading in one reality for another, and if one does so then they are not very honest scientists. Besides, science can and will change at the drop of a hat--I never said evolution was 100% an absolute, and I did mention creationism is a viable possibility as well. I simply do not find any personally convicting reason to sway either way...other than creationism is far less attractive due to the Christian forefathers(ken ham comes to mind)shamelessly committing the sin of lying and purposefully twisting evidence that contradicts their viewpoints. I would respect them more if they simply stuck with their guns on claiming creationism instead of trying to cater to the opposition with clever fabrications and laughable pseudoscience.

Yes observation, nobody has observed what they claim. They see similarities and claim common decent. They didn't observe that, that is their conclusionsabout the facts. Why is my claim that the same creator made them from the same materials also not a valid assumption? The facts haven’t changed only the interpretations have.

When did you ever mention that creationism is a viable possibility? Your stance does not indicate that. The fact that you laugh at ken Ham says that too. I'm not saying I agree with everything he says but he makes a lot of good points that you would be open to if you didn't already believe in evolution.

Also pretty sure the 'wisdom of this world' would be referring to a theory that purposefully excludes God. Which, as I said, none do(and if they do, they are significantly less valid in the eyes of their own scientific methods)

I think it can be applied to any science or man made knowledge that leaves out God.

You weren't referring to it in the 'coming in faith with an open heart'--you were referring to scripture being simple enough for a child to understand. Bad strawman.

I was thinking of them both. But coming like a child in faith was what I meant a couple of posts back.

I mean honestly, even if it did mean literal days that doesn't discount the theory that Genesis is an allegorical, easy to understand poetic version of a much more complex, true event.

That is your prerogative. I view all of Genesis 1-3 not only a true event but as a picture of the end times.

No, there are very clearly two separate accounts of creation in the bible. For example, the first account states that mankind came very last in the creation process. The second, in genesis chapter 2, has man being created before animals, plants, shrubbery--anything, really. There is absolutely no way to reconcile this as being 'a detailed description of the 7 day creation' because it doesn't follow the same order at all. For pity's sake, the first chapter didn't even cover the garden of eden.

Some try to reconcile this with the fact that the chapter wasn't about forming the earth, but forming the garden of eden. But that begs another question; what happened to the 'mankind' created in the first chapter, if Adam and Eve are the first man and woman?

Yeah...I'm supposed to take the entire creation account as literal fact, except for the order? OK , that's totally reasonable and not at all contradictory.

He isn't being created then; Mosses is looking back at how it happened. It is not two different accounts. The same way the Gospels show differences in the same story it is a different angle of the event, not conflicting events.

The plants in Genesis 2 if you look at the Hebrew is referring to crops and cultivated plants. I have a post on this somewhere but I am running out of time here. But the words used are different. God only planted these plants in the garden. It is not talking about the plants of Genesis 1 which talks about plants in general across the world. It is not saying that man was made before plants and animals. Mankind in Genesis 1 is the same man, only it takes a closer look at how he was made in Genesis two.

You don't want to believe in creation, because if you did I wouldn't be arguing over evolution but looking at supporting verses and into what the Hebrew says and how things all tie together but I haven’t really had a chance to because instead I am having to defend and answer back other stuff. You say your mind isn't made up? Your starting position and arguments state otherwise.

Naturalism is a philosophy; not science. There are certainly things and popular ideas in the scientific field I disagree with, and I'm not going to argue that there are definitely anti-religious people using it as a bandwagon against theists. Even then, God would still fit into naturalism because...you know, he created us? He is 'natural' because he exists, and we came from Him. He is part of the 'natural' way of the universe.

As I said again, all you'll hear on the origins of life are possible theories; no facts, because science makes no claims to ultimate truth. That's where God comes into the equation for people like myself.

Of course they believe they have the ultimate truth. You might not believe they have, but they believe it.

No, I believe man was created with pre-existing fleshly parts and given the gift of sentience--what I consider to be the physical proof of a soul. Considering I also believe the entire evolutionary process was more than likely closely controlled/monitored by God, as to what would branch off/stay the same...since we do know a major flaw in the default evolutionary theory is that the process has no way of telling which genes are useless and which ones are vital.

I believe the original sin could've happened many different ways--although, we'll keep it simple and just call it the realization of good and evil, since that's what it is.

You are free to believe it, but that is not what the Bible teaches.

A world without death...for humans. We aren't even sure if it's talking about physical or spiritual death, really. Animals are almost entirely left out of the equation, and it would seem God is not as concerned with them due to his orders for man to 'subdue' them and the fact that we were given permission to eat them after the flood. If carnivorous animals such as lions could have existed and lived on plants during those times , I don't think there's much of an issue.

Both physical (ageing) and spiritual death occurred after sin. Man was cut off from God spiritually and began to die physically. He could not live forever because he was in sin. The whole reason the garden was set up this way was to be an imperfect picture of the New Heavens and New World to come. In the garden you see two trees, the one of life was Gods way and the one of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan’s way. When you turn to Revelations and the picture is completed. You still find two trees but both are now the tree of life. Because sin caused death this is why death and bloodshed was needed to redeem us. A lot of people ask why is blood needed or why did Jesus have to die, that is why. Original sin is so important because there was no sin or death before it. How can there be evolution from one cell to man with millions of years of death if there was no death? The two views do not mesh.

Even the temptation is the garden is a shadow. Adam was tempted and failed. Jesus was tempted and succeeds. You see it over and over again through out scripture. Incomplete or failing in the OT and perfection/completion in the NT. These things fit together all the way though starting with creation. Even if I wanted to believe in men suddenly becoming sentient it doesn't fit. It’s like a puzzle piece from another picture trying to be shoved in. It doesn’t fit or make any sense with the narrative or the rest of the bible.

There's also the interesting idea that Adam and Eve were placed in a garden, walled off from the dangerous land outside...

As I said before you don’t really want to look at this seriously, this is why all you do is try and find problems.
It wasn't dangerous, it became dangerous after they were cursed because the world was cursed too.
Romans 8:22-24

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Wow, if Genesis actually is allegorical...you calling it a fairy tale is pretty offensive. Would it lose it's meaning if it was a simplified version of true events?

I can call myself dr.jekyll and mr.hyde depending on my mood; but that doesn't make them real. I, on the other hand, am quite real however. Either way, the allegory itself is what's important. It doesn't need to be literal to be meaningful.

So tell me what you believe it means then since you are so set on it being an allegory. As I said last post, show me your verses that support this.

Scripture is not a science book, again. Second, if I don't need scripture to validate the existence of atoms and molecules, I don't need it to validate a theory to break down the kind of process specifically God used to create us. I believe what is true, and considering God was both the ultimate author of the Bible and he also created the world that science is currently observing...you know.

Science can't even back up human morals or altruism. Just because science can't explain it, doesn't mean it isn't true. However, that being said, there's also no tangible evidence that Mary, for example, found a baby in a bush rather than gave birth to Jesus--like there is the likelihood that evolution played a key role in our creation.

Then way are you backing science as being correct about evolution? Your whole stance is pro evolution. Nothing that you have asked has been with an open mind towards creation at all.

Revelation is laid out very plainly, so are many of the prophecies in the bible...yet many people understand they aren't literal word-by-word descriptions of future events, but rather more allegories to prepare us for what's to come.

The fact that you see the bible as having no value unless every single part of it is 100% literal shocks me, to an extent. Lat time I checked, God's laws were written into our hearts; not parchment.

Of course scripture is helpful and at the point in time that verse was written, I have no doubt it was probably perfectly preserved as it was intended...despite the new testament not even existing yet but still. Although, there's no disputing that people have certainly changed things around past the age of Jesus without God's intervention...need I bring up the gnostic gospels, the extra books in the Catholic bibles, or translation errors that change the context of the verse? ('Tree of life' being changed to 'Book of life' in the KJV, for example)
The fact that I believe the bible could have been potentially tampered with does not mean I don't believe there aren't indisputable truths in it from God, or that his word will always be revealed to those who look hard enough to find it. I also never trashed the bible in any parts; simply pointed out a possibility. In any case, undoubtedly perfect scripture exists--I'm just not always certain it is what we're being given. Either way, I believe in Jesus Christ and God...and that's the ultimate thing of importance.

I never said all the Bible was all literal. Pretty sure in one post back I said poetry is poetry, parable is parable. Revelation is anything but plain. Genesis is one of the books of history, Revelation is prophesy. Genesis as a literary text (separate to being the bible) was not written in the form of Hebrew poetry or parable. The author meant it to be taken literally. Jesus refers back to creation as does Paul. They didn’t explain who Noah was they assumed the listeners already knew.

Now the board wont let me edit out a wrongly placed quote code.

 

[coffee4u]

I tried 3 times to edit out that last quote code, the board refuses to remove it.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

I never said that man could not discover things, but they need to be done within a Biblical framework because man wasn't there and he didn't see and he can't test non-observable things.

How is original sin not lost is all you have is a group of ape-men? And what of death? Sin brought in death, there was no death before sin. Evolution has death for millions of years. I guess when Adam died 930 years later that was an allegory that died as well?



Which is why I quote the Bible. I don't base my beliefs simply on my own thoughts or on the findings of man but on Gods breathed word. If the Bible indicated evolution I would follow that, but it does not.

What do you think God meant when he had Mosses pen those verses? What verses do you use to back up your own interpretation? If you have none then it is not an interpretation at all because scripture always interprets scripture.

Now if someone says they don't believe in God or the Bible fine, I don't expect them to use scripture, but you say you do believe scripture so I want to see what verses you use, or at least be honest and say that you are not using scripture to back up your position at all. If you have no scripture than this is not a Biblical debate nor is it an interpretation but a debate between the Bible and secular science.

Not going to lie, I just skipped the entire block of text just because, for yet another time despite my in-depth explanation, you have yet again accused me of saying 'man good, bible wrong' in so many words. If you can't even give me basic respect for my interpretations and have some humility that there is a chance you could be wrong, you aren't someone I wish to be conversing with. The stubborn will never change.

You're entitled to your opinion on how we should interpret scripture, and we will see where the truth lies once we part. This is the last I'll be replying to this thread.

 

[coffee4u]

Not going to lie, I just skipped the entire block of text just because, for yet another time despite my in-depth explanation, you have yet again accused me of saying 'man good, bible wrong' in so many words. If you can't even give me basic respect for my interpretations and have some humility that there is a chance you could be wrong, you aren't someone I wish to be conversing with. The stubborn will never change.

You're entitled to your opinion on how we should interpret scripture, and we will see where the truth lies once we part. This is the last I'll be replying to this thread.

All I asked for was what scripture you are using to back up your position that Genesis is an allegory. You obviously have none.

 

[JackRT]

All I asked for was what scripture you are using to back up your position that Genesis is an allegory. You obviously have none.

Nor have you backed up the interpretation that Genesis is a history.

 

[coffee4u]

Nor have you backed up the interpretation that Genesis is a history.

I have supplied many other scriptural references that talk about creation.

If your interpretation of Genesis is that it is an allegory, what scripture are you using to form this opinion?

 

[JackRT]

I have supplied many other scriptural references that talk about creation.

If your interpretation of Genesis is that it is an allegory, what scripture are you using to form this opinion?

Why should scripture be needed?

 

[MrsFoundit]

Why should scripture be needed?

To believe the Nicene Creed it is not needed, but to support the claimed superior respect for the Bible, and deeper sense of meaning, as have been asserted by non-literalist believers in this thread, it would certainly help.

 

[coffee4u]

Why should scripture be needed?

Because Scripture interprets Scripture. You can find a hundred sermons on this.

Claiming that Genesis is an allegory is making a biblical/religious/Scriptual statement of interpretation. Meaning it needs other scripture to back up this claim.

One of the first things a Christian should learn on becoming a Christian is when listening to someone preach or while reading a Christian book is to 'test the spirits' 1 John 4 What they are teaching must agree with scripture. If it does not they are a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Matthew 7:15

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Not to say someone can't be genuinely mistaken, but they should be open to correction in that case. The Bible also warns that teachers will be held to more accountability.
James 3:1
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.
A person should not undertake being a preacher glibly but with prayer and trembling.

 

[JackRT]

The Bible says that God made the angelic host, animals and humans. Nothing else is mentioned.

The only mention of angels in the two quite different creation stories in Genesis is the angel posted at The Garden to keep Adam and Eve out. However, there is no mention that God made that angel or any angel. People quite frequently read things into scripture largely in order to justify some belief that they had come to quite independently of scripture.

 

[miamited]

The big creationist explanation for the rock layers are semi-natural. I use to agree with this. But after looking for myself.... this is not what my eyes are telling me. Why are we looking for a natural explanation to an event we know to NOT be natural??

Hi geoant,

That's long been a complaint of mine. We have those who want to try and make the parting of the sea some natural phenomenon and some who even argue that it wasn't really a sea at all, as in deep and huge body of water, but merely what is referred to as the 'Reed Sea' which was merely a fairly shallow swamp with reeds growing in it. For those who try to pawn it off as some 'natural' effect that was caused by just the strong wind that God caused to blow on the water, I ask: When's the last time you saw, or heard of evidence that a wind could blow a chasm through a sea at least 40-50 feet deep, and yet normal human beings could just walk through with all of their worldly possessions on their backs? I mean, I lived through hurricane Andrew and I can give personal testimony, that as strong as that hurricane was, it didn't part Biscayne Bay which is generally less than 20' deep throughout. I can also give testimony that even as weak as that wind was blowing, as far as being able to part any body of water, you wouldn't have walked around in it with all sorts of bundles tied up around you. So, I have to try and imagine what kind of wind force would it take to create the account that the Scriptures give us of the parting of the sea, i.e., wall of water on both sides of the chasm and at least big enough for about 1 million people to pass through, and then reconcile the strength of that kind of wind with the fact that about 1 million people did pass through it. Most people can't stand up in a 175mph wind and it would take a much stronger wind than that to create the chasm as explained in the Scriptures.

The flood account is another example. Despite the Scriptures being fairly clear that it flooded the entire earth and that every living creature living on land died, so many want to explain it as a local flood that was just the result of some fairly heavy rain.

And for many of the other miraculous events, i.e., shadow going backwards, sun standing still in the sky, an ass talking an intelligible language, it will be said that such things didn't actually happen but are some sort of spiritual lesson for us. However, when it comes to a baby being born of a woman who never had sexual relations, everybody seems pretty ok with that one.

God bless,
In Christ, ted