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.
Because a literal interpretation is irrelevant to the message. If you want literalism devoid of message, read an academic science paper.Manning said:If we cannot believe many of the parts then why should we believe this message that you claim is from God?
Only if you assume God intended Genesis to be historically factual.Correct, but the parts that do deal with facts of the past need to be correct if we are going to accept that this book is indeed from God.
I disagree. God is capable of inspiring allegory. When we view Renaissance art, we don't need to assume that the depictions are physically accurate to derive meaning (and feeling) from the artwork.Of course not. However if I write down a story of how the earth and everything on it was formed, how Noah took two of every animal, and how God destroyed Soddom and Gomorah and then want people to accept it was inspired by God it better be dead on to what current evidence shows us actually happened.
selfinflikted said:my point being, if god didn't mean he made the universe in seven days, why did he say it?
Manning said:My main problem with all of this is that people want to pick and choose which parts they believe. If this was divine scripture passed down from God then why should we not take all of it as historical fact? To me it seems intellectually dishonest to say "Well I like all that love and Jesus stuff, but that Genesis chapter contradicts scientific evidence we know exists, so I'll just believe what I want to".
Why didn't the space shuttle discovery hit the solid dome over the Earth then?AV1611VET said:My take on this is that God created the universe in 144 hours (6 days).
I take Genesis 1 literally.
Jase said:Why didn't the space shuttle discovery hit the solid dome over the Earth then?
AV1611VET said:What solid dome over the earth?
nvxplorer said:Only if you assume God intended Genesis to be historically factual.
God is capable of inspiring allegory.
rmwilliamsll said:the evidence from this forum and hundreds like it, thousands of books on evolutionary theory and yet a significant minority of people disbelieve and misunderstand the theory of evolution today show this to be a false hope.
GoSeminoles! said:By interpreting everything in the Bible literally and insisting that it must all be true or all be false, you have set up a situation in which the existence of Jehovah can be falsified. With this approach, if anything in the Bible can be shown to be factually incorrect, then the Bible is not divinely inspired and Jehovah is a myth.
Jase said:Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
A firmament or raqiya in Hebrew is solid.
AV1611VET said:What solid dome over the earth?
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Then you assume that God intended Genesis to be historically factual.Manning said:If Genesis was indeed from God I would expect it to be historically accurate.
Because I have no reason to, and because science has shown a literal interpretation to be historically incorrect.Why would you not expect this?
Perhaps the authors did believe it to be literal truth. Or not. However, from my limited study, the purpose of myth was not to convey literal facts, but rather to connect to and understand the supernatural (as well as the world around them).It is certainly possible. Yet I see no reason to believe that when these stories were recorded they were meant to portray anything other than what the authors/god/whatever believed to be the literal truth, not a metpahor.
nvxplorer said:Because I have no reason to, and because science has shown a literal interpretation to be historically incorrect.
However, from my limited study, the purpose of myth was not to convey literal facts, but rather to connect to and understand the supernatural (as well as the world around them).
God clearly tells us that a day is 1000 years. We could go over all the various scriptures, but I do not think that is what your asking. I think that Jesus answered your question when He said that He spoke in parables.selfinflikted said:If a day to god is something other than a day, why does it say "day" in the bible, and not years... my point being, if god didn't mean he made the universe in seven days, why did he say it?
God clearly tells us that a day is 1000 years. We could go over all the various scriptures, but I do not think that is what your asking. I think that Jesus answered your question when He said that He spoke in parables.selfinflikted said:If a day to god is something other than a day, why does it say "day" in the bible, and not years... my point being, if god didn't mean he made the universe in seven days, why did he say it?
Why do you give Atheists the credit and say that they're the only ones who don't believe in 6 Days?nvxplorer said:It's funny how most atheists are fully aware of this, but it eludes biblical literalists. As an atheist, I can gain much wisdom from the myths of all religions. It's also curious that (much) myth is humanistic in nature, but many fundamentalists treat humanism as evil. There is a wealth of wisdom in various religious myth. Sadly, many miss this wisdom in an effort to validate their personal need for literalism.
I said literalists, not Christians.HappyHealthyHolyRoller said:Why do you give Atheists the credit and say that they're the only ones who don't believe in 6 Days?
I am a Flaming Christian and I don't believe in 6 Days!
AV1611VET said:The upper waters was a dome of water that refracted the sunlight evenly over the earth's surface, creating a global tropical climate.
The lower waters were the oceans.
In between was the firmament, or atomosphere.
Gus2009 said:No, it was a solid dome. The original Hebrew says so. Why do you not take Genesis literally? Why must you try and fit Genesis into youre scientific worldveiw, modern translation of the Bible and use of the word "firmament"? If God didnt mean a solid dome, why would He say it? Do you not believe He meant what He said?
Genesis 1:7 --- AV1611 --- King James said:And God made the firmament; and diuided the waters, which were vnder the firmament, from the waters, which were avoue the firmament: and it was so.
Genesis 1:7 --- AV1587 --- Geneva Bible said:Then God made the firmament, and separated the waters, which were vnder the firmament, from the waters which were aboue the firmament. and it was so.
Genesis 1:7 --- AV1568 --- Bishops' Bible said:And God made the firmament, and set the diuision betwene the waters which [were] vnder the firmament, and the waters that [were] aboue the firmament: and it was so.
Genesis 1:7 --- AV1534 --- Tyndale Version said:Than God made the fyrmament and parted the waters which were vnder the fyrmament from the waters that were above the fyrmament: And it was so.
Genesis 1:7 --- AV1389 --- Wycliffe Version said:And God made the firmament, and departide the watris that weren vndur the firmament fro these watris that weren on the firmament; and it was don so.
Edx said:AV you said yourself there was windows in the sky before Noah.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?