• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,775
52,552
Guam
✟5,135,185.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,775
52,552
Guam
✟5,135,185.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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,
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
 
Upvote 0

EternalDragon

Counselor
Jul 31, 2013
5,757
26
✟28,767.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
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.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,775
52,552
Guam
✟5,135,185.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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:
... 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.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,775
52,552
Guam
✟5,135,185.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
"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
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
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.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,775
52,552
Guam
✟5,135,185.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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?
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟90,577.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

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.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

Evolution and Intelligent Design are virtually the same thing. Both actually anticipate future changes in the environment and prepare organisms accordingly. Curious.
 
Upvote 0

LBP

GONE
Apr 5, 2010
471
55
✟910.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others

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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.