Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

[AV1611VET]

Christianity demands that at least some of the Bible be taken literally not matter how unlikely it may seem'

Correct.

The Bible is literal, yet contains metaphor; not the other way around.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh yes, without the evil women there would be no sin. It is impossible for the devil to have convinced men directly. This religious misogyny is just amazing.

Trying to garner the symphathy of the Women's Liberation Movement, are you?

For the record, Adam gets the blame for our sin nature.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,

 

[KWCrazy]

Additionally, the Bible itself is telling us that you cannot take certain parts literally, by the fact that the first 2 chapters of Genesis themselves are in disagreement!

No they're not.
Genesis 2 begins by saying:
"Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."

It goes on to tell about specific things within the creation. An eight year old could read the verses and know they are not sequential. This is a lie non-believers tell continually. Read the actual text.

"5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, " This was day three.

"6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. " - This was day five.

"7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." - This was day six.

"8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." - Had planted means that prior to day six and the creation of man, God planted the Garden of Eden. Man was placed into the garden after God made him.

It's not hard to understand if you have any reading comprehension skills and you aren't blinded by the lies others tell you. Saying these verses, which are NOT chronological and which sync perfectly with each other are somehow contradictory demonstrates a laziness and unwillingness to examine the text closely. Study the Word. The truth is in the Word.

 

[EternalDragon]

The order of creation is different between Genesis 1 and 2. As much as you want to deny this, both are given as sequences of events and they contradict one another, any person that reads the accounts can tell you that. End of story.

That's because the order of creation in Genesis 2 was for the special Garden where God put Adam. Genesis 2 is a detailed view of day 6 of creation. They do not contradict each other. The compliment each other.

 

[CabVet]

That's because the order of creation in Genesis 2 was for the special Garden where God put Adam. Genesis 2 is a detailed view of day 6 of creation. They do not contradict each other. The compliment each other.

Keep believing that if it makes you feel good. That is not what the text says though.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's because the order of creation in Genesis 2 was for the special Garden where God put Adam. Genesis 2 is a detailed view of day 6 of creation. They do not contradict each other. The compliment each other.

He and I have been through this before.

I even broke ranks with the KJV and made this up for him:

Here you are, Cab -- just for you.

It's not even KJV -- it's NIV.

Chapter 1 in black; Chapter 2 in red.

I did change the word "mankind" to "man" in a couple verses for clarity.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created man in his own image,

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

... only to see him trample it.

He's not interested in learning theology, in my opinion.

He's just here to push us around with questions.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is not what the text says though.

Like you would know.

Not that it matters anyway, right?

Was Jesus born of a virgin; in your opinion?

The Text says He was.

 

[CabVet]

Yet, you'll do the inverse.

You'll claim they're all on an equal plane, yet make claims that some versions won't substantiate.

Because the inverse is not inconsistent. Here:

Inconsistency: Saying that one version is better than all but abandoning that version when it doesn't clearly supports you.

Consistency: Saying that all versions are equal and that none supports your point.

 

[CabVet]

Like you would know.

I read the Bible, just like you did, so yes, I do know. If you need anything other than the text to interpret it correctly, your interpretation is not literal.

Not that it matters anyway, right?

To you? Not one bit.

Was Jesus born of a virgin; in your opinion?

The Text says He was.

According to the story in the Bible? I can say that would be a 100% yes, no contradiction there.

 

[Loudmouth]

"Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5. The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Dr. Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

 

[AV1611VET]

That is very true, creationism could play a big hand in the abandonment of the Christian religion in the US.

Let's pray it doesn't.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's pray it doesn't.

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris."
The Clergy Letter Project

That is signed by nearly 13,000 christian clergy.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is signed by nearly 13,000 christian clergy.

We have a word for that: ecumenical.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes let's pray that it's just creationism that's abandoned.

To who?

 

[Loudmouth]

We have a word for that: ecumenical.

I have another word for that . . . Omphalos.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have another word for that . . . Omphalos.

Uh ... yeeeahokay ...

Whatever that was supposed to mean?

Do you know what "ecumenical" means?

Do Satan's Promise Keepers & Emmaus Walk come to mind?

 

[KWCrazy]

Professor Darrel Falk has recently pointed out that one should not take the view that young-earth creationism is simply tinkering around the edges of science. If the tenets of young earth creationism were true, basically all of the sciences of geology, cosmology, and biology would utterly collapse. It would be the same as saying 2 plus 2 is actually 5.

Abject stupidity. That ranks right up there among the most incredibly mindless comments ever made.

Does a golfer need to know the history of a golf ball, its construction, the materials used, the gross national product of each nation that contributed materials to it to play the game?

Science is the study of the physical world around us. It is NOT dependent on anyone's theories of origins.

 

[OllieFranz]

Abject stupidity. That ranks right up there among the most incredibly mindless comments ever made.

Does a golfer need to know the history of a golf ball, its construction, the materials used, the gross national product of each nation that contributed materials to it to play the game?

Science is the study of the physical world around us. It is NOT dependent on anyone's theories of origins.

First, that is what Creationists don't get concerning Evolution. Evolution is about change in existing populations. The populations must exist, but how they came to exist does not matter.

Second, because Creationists have defined so-called "theories" like "Creation Science," and "Intellegent Design," specifically to discredit evolution, they also discredit any other branch of science that relies on the conclusions of evolution.

It is true that Falk's seems absurd, but that is because he is employing the argument technique known as Reducio ad Absurdum. That is a technique in which you assume the proposed conclusion is true (in this case, Creationism is right and evolution is wrong). Then you work your way back to the known facts. If instead, you reach an impossible statement,then something was wrong with your starting point -- the proposed conclusion.

Evolution validates those portions of geology which energy companies use to find coal, oil, and natural gas. The same geologic principles with other data help find ores, clays, and other minerals. Slowly you build up a web encompassing most of the physical sciences all supported by principles from evolution or based on priciples supported by evolution, etc. If we assume evolution is a lie, it all crumbles and building computers is n impossible dream.

Since we can build computers, we know the assumption that evolution is a le was false, and evolution is true.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

First, that is what Creationists don't get concerning Evolution. Evolution is about change in existing populations. The populations must exist, but how they came to exist does not matter.

Second, because Creationists have defined so-called "theories" like "Creation Science," and "Intellegent Design," specifically to discredit evolution, they also discredit any other branch of science that relies on the conclusions of evolution.

It is true that Falk's seems absurd, but that is because he is employing the argument technique known as Reducio ad Absurdum. That is a technique in which you assume the proposed conclusion is true (in this case, Creationism is right and evolution is wrong). Then you work your way back to the known facts. If instead, you reach an impossible statement,then something was wrong with your starting point -- the proposed conclusion.

Evolution validates those portions of geology which energy companies use to find coal, oil, and natural gas. The same geologic principles with other data help find ores, clays, and other minerals. Slowly you build up a web encompassing most of the physical sciences all supported by principles from evolution or based on priciples supported by evolution, etc. If we assume evolution is a lie, it all crumbles and building computers is n impossible dream.

Since we can build computers, we know the assumption that evolution is a le was false, and evolution is true.

Evolution and Intelligent Design are virtually the same thing. Both actually anticipate future changes in the environment and prepare organisms accordingly. Curious.

 

[LBP]

Abject stupidity. That ranks right up there among the most incredibly mindless comments ever made.

Does a golfer need to know the history of a golf ball, its construction, the materials used, the gross national product of each nation that contributed materials to it to play the game?

Science is the study of the physical world around us. It is NOT dependent on anyone's theories of origins.

No, it is your post that qualifies for the "abject stupidity" label (although I resort to that impolite phrase only because you used it to slur Loudmouth). YE creationism is contrary to a massive body of scientific evidence -- such a massive body that its acceptance, as the Professor correctly states, would require virtually all contemporary science to be flushed. Creationism is indeed a matter of "origins." YE Creationism goes far beyond origins. The age of the earth is not a matter of origins, and the best evidence suggests the earth is billions of years older than YE Creationists believe. Old Earth Creationism, which I happen to find plausible, does not pose anything like the same number of issues as does YE Creationism. As an avid golfer, I can tell you that your golf analogy is badly flawed. YE Creationism is more the equivalent of a golfer saying "I believe this 5-iron is going to go 420 yards, and I don't care if the scientific evidence says my 85 mph swing will send a 5-iron only about 150 yards and that the laws of physics say no human can hit a conventional golf ball 420 yards on a flat fairway at an altitude of 500 feet above sea level." When the ball splashes into the water 151 yards off the tee, our YE Golfer will find some goofy way to explain away the result as an aberration.