Why do people even want to put evolution in the equation?

[The Barbarian]

But we don't need to go all the way back to the original Creation to see that Theistic Evolution denies God's judgment upon mankind by a worldwide flood in Noah's day.

I notice that God doesn't say it's worldwide, either. We don't know for sure if the flood was a literal event or not, but if it was, scripture gives us no reason to suppose it was worldwide.

(Because theistic-evolutionists necessarily adopt the belief that sedimentary layers accumulated gradually along with evolving populations over deep-time, and that present-day biogeography is a result of millions of years of evolution and migration, and not migratory event from a single region where the Ark landed.)

It's that pesky evidence again. And since the Bible does not say that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, there's no reason to hold on to such a doctrine. Even informed YE creationists admit that the fossil record in the rocks is a presently-unsolved problem for YE creationism:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
...
At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60(Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetuswith the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Wise believes there may eventually be a good explanation for these problems, but at present, there is nothing. He does offer some ways in which he thinks a worldwide flood might be saved, however.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

 

[The Barbarian]

Well you'd have to level the same accusation towards Peter then.

No. If you have some evidence that an apostle repeating an allegory, changes it to a literal history, I'd be happy to look at it.

I have to admit, it's somewhat amusing to keep being told that you're just believing the plainly stated accounts in the Bible, and agreeing with Jesus and the apostles, when you are asserting things that they never said.

Throwing half of the Bible in the garbage in favor of 20th century Adventist doctrine is not faithful to doctrine. Professing themselves to be wise, they become fools indeed.

I have absolutely zero concern that I am causing people to lose their faith by sharing the faith.

But that's not what you're doing. You're preaching a new doctrine that is not an essential part of Christian belief. And that does cause people to lose their faith in God. This is the real damage that YE does to faith:

Although I was fascinated by geology and had found a scientific field that I loved, my faith was in shambles. Based on what I had believed and read in the Young Earth Creationist literature, if the geologic ages were real, if the earth was old, if evolution had happened then the Bible was false, Christianity wasn’t true, and Christ’s death on the cross was meaningless. So what was left? I felt betrayed and seriously considered leaving the church.
...
I have seen students break down into tears as they stood on an outcrop of rock and saw evidence that contradicted what their church had taught them. I have comforted my own daughter when she was told by a Sunday School teacher that she couldn’t be a Christian if she accepted evidence for evolution. I have talked with scientists who were once raised in a church and are now bitter agnostics because the church “lied to them” about science.
A Christian geologist tells his story

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly ten year withdrawal from publication. ... I was still a young-earth creationist but I did not know how to solve the problems. ... Eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology had turned out to be true. I took a poll of all eight of the graduates from ICR's school who had gone into the oil industry and were working for various companies. I asked them one question, "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?" That is a very simple question. One man, who worked for a major oil company, grew very silent on the phone, sighed, and softly said, "No!" A very close friend that I had hired, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. No one else could either.
Being through with creationism, I was almost through with Christianity. I was thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that if the earth were not young and the flood not global, then the Bible was false. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
ICR graduate and former YE creationist Glenn Morton
Former Young-Earth Creationists (personal stories)

It's not a rare or isolated problem. I don't consider YE creationists guilty for this, but YE is a great atheist-maker. And those who acknowledge openly that it's not a salvation issue aren't part of the problem.

 

[BoomsTheory]

The Bible is absolutely true. But of course people's interpretations of it are less reliable. The Bible has been cited to support racism, YE creationism, flat earth, and similarly obviously incorrect ideas.
Adobe Acrobat

When a man interprets scripture to support things that are obviously wrong, he is worshiping himself, and not The Heavenly Father.



There is no "incorrect scripture", only incorrect interpretations. The oft-quoted verses about pi being equal to three is merely an historical artifact of a mathematics system unable to use decimals, and therefore using approximations. No one has ever correctly written the exact value of pi in numbers. A little humility would go a long way here; no one should assume absolute understanding of His word in all respects.



In the 1950s, most evangelicals thought that blacks and whites must be kept separate and that whites were innately superior. To give credit where it's due, I should point out that the Southern Baptist Convention formally apologized for those beliefs, a courageous and Christian action. But it should be pointed out that their earlier stance wasn't intentionally evil; they honestly thought that those beliefs were plainly written in scripture.



Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Here, "evil" means misfortune, not wickedness, but you see that God is not fair as humans consider fairness. We should remember that God could have created a perfectly just and fair universe without suffering. I believe He is doing what is necessary to make us being worthy of fellowship with Him.

 

[loveofourlord]

Sounds almost as crazy as us spending on a ball a thousand miles an hour going through an ever-expanding universe at 515,000 miles an hour and somehow all the stars lining up and we don't ever feel any motion or anything lol

Tell me about is, as soon as I'm on a train and it reaches 100 miles per hour or more I'm just plastered against the back wall and can't move.

 

[lifepsyop]

No. If you have some evidence that an apostle repeating an allegory, changes it to a literal history, I'd be happy to look at it.

Why would Peter (and Jesus) be warning of the power of God's future judgment by referencing an allegory? This is no small point of contention. If "the word" refers to nothing more than stories and fables, then why would it carry any weight as a dire warning for future judgment?

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
- 2 Peter 3:6-7

But that's not what you're doing. You're preaching a new doctrine that is not an essential part of Christian belief.

Believing the Bible isn't a new doctrine, and that accusation carries zero weight coming from the position of theistic-evolution.

And that does cause people to lose their faith in God. This is the real damage that YE does to faith:

Although I was fascinated by geology and had found a scientific field that I loved, my faith was in shambles. Based on what I had believed and read in the Young Earth Creationist literature, if the geologic ages were real, if the earth was old, if evolution had happened then the Bible was false, Christianity wasn’t true, and Christ’s death on the cross was meaningless. So what was left? I felt betrayed and seriously considered leaving the church.

This is sad to say, but honestly it sounds like this person was just being logically consistent. If you're going to choose to disbelieve so much of scripture, especially the foundations of God's covenantal relationship with humanity, and the very things that the Lord attested to, then it's no surprise that you may begin to disbelieve elsewhere in scripture. I imagine the apostles would say the same thing. (because they specifically warned of this doubt in God's judgment.) You either believe in God's judgment or you don't. I think a lot of believers are still working this out in their heart and God bless them to lean more into His word and less the words of men.

Nobody forced this person to disbelieve, they were persuaded by the philosophies of men. Every generation has had its 'councils of wise men' (mystics, diviners, seers, scientists, philosophers, academics) and all of them have claimed to be the highest authority of knowledge of the world. It is no different in our present age where neo-Epicurean philosophy (Naturalism/Evolution) is the reigning wisdom of men.

...
I have seen students break down into tears as they stood on an outcrop of rock and saw evidence that contradicted what their church had taught them. I have comforted my own daughter when she was told by a Sunday School teacher that she couldn’t be a Christian if she accepted evidence for evolution. I have talked with scientists who were once raised in a church and are now bitter agnostics because the church “lied to them” about science.

A Christian geologist tells his story

Naturalist philosophers opining about how old an outcrop of rock is should not shake one's faith so easily. People, even scientists, are often in error, even when they are fully convinced they are correct.

By 1986, the growing doubts about the ability of the widely accepted creationist viewpoints to explain the geologic data led to a nearly ten year withdrawal from publication. ... I was still a young-earth creationist but I did not know how to solve the problems. ... Eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationism. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology had turned out to be true. I took a poll of all eight of the graduates from ICR's school who had gone into the oil industry and were working for various companies. I asked them one question, "From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true?" That is a very simple question. One man, who worked for a major oil company, grew very silent on the phone, sighed, and softly said, "No!" A very close friend that I had hired, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. No one else could either.
Being through with creationism, I was almost through with Christianity. I was thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that if the earth were not young and the flood not global, then the Bible was false. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.
ICR graduate and former YE creationist Glenn Morton
Former Young-Earth Creationists (personal stories)

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/experiences.htm

...For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. - 2 Timothy 4:3-4

I do not know the person you quoted, or their heart. Maybe they truly were persuaded to abandon belief in the scripture by physical observations. What I think is more likely is that they were starting to tire of the social cost of professing belief in Biblical history. I don't think this is unique to the question of earth history, but Biblical teaching in general. We tend to abandon whatever teachings bring persecution, or else threaten our wealth/status/comfort. Likewise we've seen a huge rise in the 'progressive church' in order to meet the demands of the surrounding culture.

It's not a rare or isolated problem. I don't consider YE creationists guilty for this, but YE is a great atheist-maker. And those who acknowledge openly that it's not a salvation issue aren't part of the problem.

I would respond that teaching people that the Bible is a book of myths and fables is a great way to make people doubt the truth of the Bible.

 

[The Barbarian]

If you have some evidence that an apostle repeating an allegory, changes it to a literal history, I'd be happy to look at it.

Why would Peter (and Jesus) be warning of the power of God's future judgment by referencing an allegory?

Why does god use allegories to warn us? He seems to think it's a good idea. Jesus constantly used parables and figurative language to tell us things.

This is no small point of contention.

Among men. I'll go with Jesus on this on.

If "the word" refers to nothing more than stories and fables, then why would it carry any weight as a dire warning for future judgment?

Why does any allegory or parable in scripture matter? Because it's God's message to us. BTW, "world" used in Peter's time was not what some might think...

Luke 2:1 AND it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.

In other words, the Roman Empire. The κοινός. The common civilization of the Mediterranean world.

Believing the Bible isn't a new doctrine,

YE creationism is the new doctrine, not the Bible.

and that accusation carries zero weight coming from the position of theistic-evolution.

The Bible says nothing at all about how species came to be, except that God willed it so. But well over a thousand years ago, Christians recognized that "beasts" developed from the creation God had done. (St. Augustine) On the other hand, YE creationism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 20th century, based on the visions of an Adventist "prophetess."

This is sad to say, but honestly it sounds like this person was just being logically consistent. If you're going to choose to disbelieve so much of scripture, especially the foundations of God's covenantal relationship with humanity, and the very things that the Lord attested to, then it's no surprise that you may begin to disbelieve elsewhere in scripture.

As you now see, he was entirely accepting of scripture. He finally realized that the modern stories men invented about scripture were the problem, and thereby realized that the problem was not scripture but men's revision of it. But some people don't get that, and they lose their faith when they learn the stories of YE creationists cannot be true.

Every generation has had its 'councils of wise men' (mystics, diviners, seers, scientists, philosophers, academics) and all of them have claimed to be the highest authority of knowledge of the world.

They include the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and other revisionist sects. They claim to have the highest authority to interpret scripture. Most Christians don't pay much attention to them.

You're preaching a new doctrine that is not an essential part of Christian belief. And that does cause people to lose their faith in God. This is the real damage that YE does to faith.

I would respond that teaching people that the Bible is a book of myths and fables is a great way to make people doubt the truth of the Bible.

YE creationists may do that. But those who accept evolution do not mock Jesus for using allegory or parables by terming them "fables." That's very disrespectful, and I would caution you not to do that.

 

[lifepsyop]

If you have some evidence that an apostle repeating an allegory, changes it to a literal history, I'd be happy to look at it.

Why does god use allegories to warn us? He seems to think it's a good idea. Jesus constantly used parables and figurative language to tell us things.

Jesus spoke in parables to communicate higher spiritual truths, things that are true regardless of specific times, places, or people. The parable of the sower for example (Matthew 13:18) describes a general dynamic between the hearer of the Word, and how he receives or rejects that Word after hearing it.

This is not the same thing as the recorded history of God’s specific covenants, blessings, cursings, judgments, and prophecy, which describe specific interactions and relations between God and his people. For example, when Jesus is teaching in the synagogue and announces that he has just fulfilled a specific prophecy of Isaiah.

“And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”
- Luke 4:21

And after this Jesus begins attesting to the history of the prophets Elijah and Elisha, referencing specific accounts recorded in scripture.

But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.

• Luke 4:25-27

Is there any difference between Jesus referencing the times of the Kings and the times of Noah? Both are specific historical accounts with genealogies, covenants, blessings, cursings, prophecies. This is the Word, the Faith... that God does what he said he did, and will do what he says he’s going to do. Just like the blood shed on the cross was real, as real as the blood painted on the lentils in Egypt, and the resurrection of Jesus was as real as the wounds Thomas felt upon his body.


Let me ask you, do you believe Jesus will return to the earth as he prophesied?


For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

• Matthew 24:27-30

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

This is the Word, the Faith... that God does what he said he did, and will do what he says he’s going to do. Just like the blood shed on the cross was real, as real as the blood painted on the lentils in Egypt, and the resurrection of Jesus was as real as the wounds Thomas felt upon his body.

Amen.

 

[The Barbarian]

Jesus spoke in parables to communicate higher spiritual truths, things that are true regardless of specific times, places, or people.

So you think the lessons in the creation story don't apply to us? Seriously?

Let me ask you, do you believe Jesus will return to the earth as he prophesied?

First, I'd like to hear your explanation as to why you think the lessons in Genesis don't have universal application to us regardless of specific times, places, or people.

And it's not hard to figure out what His promise to return means; don't you believe that Jesus was an actual person, and the Gospels a history of His ministry? If not, why not?

Until you can distinguish between history and parables, this is going to be a constant problem for you.

 

[lifepsyop]

So you think the lessons in the creation story don't apply to us? Seriously?

Clearly not what I said. Parables express universal types or patterns of truths (such as redemption and salvation for the obedient believer in God), and those truths are instanced numerous times in reality within specific types of events. The same promised salvation is pictured in God's saving of Noah and his family in the flood, and saving of the Israelites by opening a door through the Red Sea, and a myriad other of examples. It is God's actual promise and fulfillment of these things which make them true and powerful.

(Even in the creation week we find pictures of these truths. For example the "first fruits" are created on the Third Day, just as Jesus is the first-fruit of resurrection who emerged from the tomb on the Third Day. Reality itself is infused with God's spiritual truth.)

One of the most important lessons of the creation is that it has fallen from its original state of perfection and that humanity needs salvation to again walk in the presence of our creator. The Genesis 11 Tower of Babel account is actually a picture of the banishment from Eden, where humanity united and exalted itself in its own wisdom and power, only to be confused and scattered by God over the face of the earth. (The same spiritual theme is pictured in the later exiles of Israel. )

This is one of the reasons why theistic-evolution is such a problem. It's not really about the millions/billions of years time aspect, but more importantly it's because it turns upside down the fundamental covenantal framework of God's relationship with his creation. Evolution says bloodshed and death is the driving force of the original creation and that this death gave rise to the first humans. It is a total inversion to God's word, which says the creation began perfect, and was later cursed by the sin of rebellion, and now waits for restoration after the final judgment.

According to Jesus, the blood of Abel (of Genesis 4) will bring condemnation just as the blood of the prophet Zechariah. It's not allegorical or mythological blood. It's real blood going back to the beginning.

That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
- Matthew 23:35

Being "covered" by the grace and mercy of God is a spiritual truth going back to the original creation as well, first instanced by the covering of Adam and Eve with the blood and skins of sacrificed animals. Instanced later by the blood of the passover lamb that 'covered' the heads of the faithful Israelites in Egypt, and finally exampled in the blood shed on the cross by Jesus which has paid for the sins of the entire world, and covers anyone who believes and enters into His salvation. It's all as real as it gets.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

The Genesis 11 Tower of Babel account is actually a picture of the banishment from Eden, where humanity united and exalted itself in its own wisdom and power, only to be confused and scattered by God over the face of the earth.

I believe the Babel judgment is still in effect. No matter how hard man tries to achieve "oneness" it eludes him. It is God who enforces the divisions and only in Christ Jesus does he offer to take them away and provide oneness.

The world rejects this and will eventually get their Man (666) who will propose a counterfeit to end all counterfeits.

 

[The Barbarian]

So you think the lessons in the creation story don't apply to us? Seriously?

Clearly not what I said.

Well, let's take a look. I pointed out that the text itself tells you that the creation story in Genesis is not a literal history but a figurative account. You demurred, saying:

Jesus spoke in parables to communicate higher spiritual truths, things that are true regardless of specific times, places, or people.

I don't get how you figure those things don't apply to the creation story. Tell us about that.

This is one of the reasons why theistic-evolution is such a problem. It's not really about the millions/billions of years time aspect, but more importantly it's because it turns upside down the fundamental covenantal framework of God's relationship with his creation.

Nonsense. The idea that if God used nature to produce living things (as He says He does, in Genesis) then our relationship with him is overturned, is just silly. God's relationship with us has absolutely zero to do with the way He created our bodies. It has everything to do with the way He created our souls.

Evolution says bloodshed and death is the driving force of the original creation

No. That's wrong. You're trying to lock God into your idea of what is right. Let him be God and decide what is right.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

Stop telling God what to do.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

God's relationship with us has absolutely zero to do with the way He created our bodies. It has everything to do with the way He created our souls.

Zero?

"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not: but a body thou hast fitted to me:"—Hebrews 10:5

 

[The Barbarian]

Zero?

Yes. How our bodes were created by God is not even remotely connected to our relationship. That He is our Creator, and that He loves us and expects us to love him and each other, is all that matters in that regard.

 

[Believer000]

Why does this impossible process, with impossible odds, seem so rational to this new breed of Christians? It's growing, and it might be blasphemy. Aren't they calling God a liar?

So they do not have to answer to God for their actions. In convincing themselves He does not exist it gives them a false sense of security to continue to sin without guilt.

 

[The Barbarian]

So they do not have to answer to God for their actions.

We are merely accepting God's creation as He does it. It has nothing whatever to do with our actions. It has to do with His actions. If he had just poofed life into existence, what He expects of you would not have been different.

If you're inclined to sin, being a creationist is no more accommodating to that, than accepting the fact of evolution as part of His creation.

And I reject the idea that creationists believe as they do, so as to be able to safely sin. I don't know of one like that.

 

[lifepsyop]

So you think the lessons in the creation story don't apply to us? Seriously?

I don't get how you figure those things don't apply to the creation story. Tell us about that.

I already clarified this. I never suggested it was 'one or the other'.

Parables express universal types or patterns of truths (such as redemption and salvation for the obedient believer in God), and those truths are instanced numerous times in reality within specific types of events.

Picture a parable as a 'movie theme' and a historical event as the actual movie.
The movie expresses the theme (e.g. Salvation or Judgment), and yet the theme itself represents a truth outside of the particular movie.

The flood of Noah is an expression of the truth of God's salvation of the righteous and judgment of the wicked, on a worldwide scale. (Which is why Jesus compared his future return to the days of Noah.)

God's salvation/wrath can still be expressed in a multitude of other real events (giving Israel passage through the Red Sea while drowning the Egyptians), or the pattern of that salvation can be described in the form of a parable. (God gathering the wheat into his barn and casting the tares into the fire.)

The account of Noah is obviously not a parable because it is bound up in specific ages, durations of time, locations, sacrificial covenants, and records actual genealogies of the ancestors of the nations.

The only reason you need Genesis to be allegory/metaphor/myth is because it conflicts with your philosophy of naturalism. Nothing in the scriptures themselves lead you to that conclusion.

 

[The Barbarian]

I already clarified this. I never suggested it was 'one or the other'.

Parables express universal types or patterns of truths (such as redemption and salvation for the obedient believer in God), and those truths are instanced numerous times in reality within specific types of events.

So then the figurative language in the creation story fits nicely. That's all we needed to hear from you.

The account of Noah is obviously not a parable because it is bound up in specific ages, durations of time, locations, sacrificial covenants, and records actual genealogies of the ancestors of the nations.

We don't know for sure if the Noah story is a parable or not. It certainly could be, but there was a massive flood in the Middle East at about the right time for it to have been an actual event. What scripture does not say, is that it was a worldwide flood. That is a later addition by men.

The only reason you need all of Genesis to be a literal history is because it conflicts with your new doctrine of YE creationism. Nothing in scripture itself leads you to that conclusion.

 

[lifepsyop]

So then the figurative language in the creation story fits nicely. That's all we needed to hear from you.

The entire Bible contains figurative language and the use of recurring types. The sacrificial passover lamb was a figure of the cross of Christ. The Mosaic tabernacle was a figure of the true heavenly temple and the throne room of God.

Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
- Hebrews 9:9

For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
- Hebrews 9:24

This is not at all an argument against Biblical historicity.

We don't know for sure if the Noah story is a parable or not. It certainly could be, but there was a massive flood in the Middle East at about the right time for it to have been an actual event. What scripture does not say, is that it was a worldwide flood. That is a later addition by men.

It is obviously described as a worldwide flood, and thus it was a fitting event for Jesus to reference in comparison to his return when he judged the world.

Let me ask you, do you believe the Exodus account?

According to mainstream "science", the entire account is a myth, and the nation of Israel wasn't even located in Egypt at the time. Likewise the accounts of Israel's conquest of Canaan in the book of Joshua are claimed to be entirely mythological. What do you think?

 

[steve78]

Bro I'm not a fool I know I'm smart but every time I try to explain to people that evolution is a straight-up lie I've got a bunch of so-called Christians trying to defend science and evolution and all of this stuff and completely twisting scripture to fit what they wanted to say

It's not a lie though. Viruses and bacteria all evolve. All the various strains of COVID 19 around proves evolution. Young earth creationism is the lie and all disprovable by science.