Young Earth Vs. Old Earth

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
31
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟9,383.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The problem with taking many parts of the bible as scientifically inerrant is that the purpose of the Bible was never to teach us science: whether it be quantum physics, or the origins of life.

But if one is consistent, a literalist needs to accept that the entire universe is 6000 years old, was created in 6 literal days, that the sun revolves around the earth (i.e. literally "rises" & moves across the sky), that the stars are attached to a solid firmament above the earth, that light was created before its source, that the earth is flat, that heaven is "up" and hell is "down", and that a mustard seed is literally the smallest seed in the world. These are all taught or implied in scripture, and are all demonstratably false.

But the problem evaporates when one realises that the Bible was written according to its human authors' own knowledge of science and natural history, and that such facts are incidental to the spiritual or theological messages being communicated by the Holy Spirit. As someone once said, "scripture tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go".

Read "I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution" for a fuller account of this idea.

1. You have committed the fallacy of false analogy because the things you have stated are irrelevant to an actual Biblical Creationist. We do not believe the earth was flat because the Bible states the earth was round. Read the Book of Job & Isaiah. If you cannot find them I will post them for you. We do not believe that the light was produced before its source, how about you quit committing prejudicial conjectures and do your homework on Biblical Creationists who interpret Genesis as "literal" before you make assumptions about what they believe because it is only fallacious like I have shown by the fallacy of false analogy. You say we imply that heaven is up and hell is down, no where have I ever read that Biblical Creationists who believe in the literal Genesis believe this, where did this "assumed" proof of ignorance come from? (Note - Not a Flaming statement. Anyone in this world especially highly educated Biblical creationists would know heaven and hell are not "literally" up or down. The same with the mustard seed, there different things to take literally and not literally. This is just Ignorance because of the prejudicial conjectures that have been committed and therefore fallacious. Not a Flaming statement. Just pure common sense can prove this.)

Note Mick - "demonstratably" = You really mean - "demonstratively."

Note Mick - "realises" = You really mean - "realizes."

Mick just to save the time, quit committing these prejudicial conjectures. But if you persist to commit these prejudicial conjectures. I will have to tell you myself I guess because the Bible clearly teaches science and Romans 1:20 backs up that evidence for "creation" is clearly shown. Tell me Mick, if Genesis was not literal how can the Book of Revelation state that the world will later be "restored" to the point back before the "fall" of Adam? If Genesis is not literal in this view, then Revelation cannot be Literal either which means that our new glorified bodies are not literal either because there will be no restoration therefore there will be no justification for the resurrection of any of the saints which will later question God's death on the cross and resurrection. We can clearly see that a literal view is needed for Exodus 20:11. And a literal view is need to explain Genesis 1:1 and Mark 10:6. If not there is no basis for such things and I can state many more things that Evolution contradicts with the Bible.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
lol, I will show you the problems with your reasoning tomorrow sometime, i have school tomorrow, lol. =]

Okay! :)

If you are not drawing a line in the bible at a particular point that before is myth, and the after is true history, then you cannot be taken seriously.

You are just picking and choosing what you want to believe.

I'm afraid you don't understand what I'm saying. That may be my fault. Let me try another way:

First, I don't believe I used the term, myth. I have deliberately avoided it because I find that most people (Christian or otherwise) who have not studied literature cannot get beyond the popular usage (e.g., as in "Mythbusters") and think that myth == false.

Second, recall that the Bible is actually comprised of many books. We talk about Genesis -- this is one of the books. It is different from, say, the Psalms. They were written by different people to communicate different things in different ways. It is important to understand this when thinking about interpretation. The Bible was first compiled into a form we would recognize in the fourth century. Prior to that, although the individual texts were widely recognized as being given by God through their respective authors, people would not have had some of the conceptual difficulties they have today in thinking of the Bible as a single text.

I don't think that my responses to your questions will make sense to you until we can get past this point.
 
Upvote 0

Mick116

Regular Member
Jul 14, 2004
650
51
42
✟8,869.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
1. You have committed the fallacy of false analogy because the things you have stated are irrelevant to an actual Biblical Creationist. We do not believe the earth was flat because the Bible states the earth was round.
The bible says "round", but it probably meant round like a disc rather than round like a sphere.
Read the Book of Job & Isaiah. If you cannot find them I will post them for you. We do not believe that the light was produced before its source, how about you quit committing prejudicial conjectures and do your homework on Biblical Creationists who interpret Genesis as "literal" before you make assumptions about what they believe because it is only fallacious like I have shown by the fallacy of false analogy. You say we imply that heaven is up and hell is down, no where have I ever read that Biblical Creationists who believe in the literal Genesis believe this, where did this "assumed" proof of ignorance come from? (Note - Not a Flaming statement. Anyone in this world especially highly educated Biblical creationists would know heaven and hell are not "literally" up or down. The same with the mustard seed, there different things to take literally and not literally. This is just Ignorance because of the prejudicial conjectures that have been committed and therefore fallacious. Not a Flaming statement. Just pure common sense can prove this.)
I am well aware what young-earth creationists believe - I argued passionately for their cause during my high school and early university years. I'm not saying that creationists believe these things that I mentioned - I know they don't; just that these are taught or implied in scripture, because these were the understandings of its human authors. If one should take Genesis literally as natural history, then why not scriptural statements that the sun literally moves across the sky? Why the inconsistency? Why reject one aspect of what amounts to an ancient scientific understanding, but keep the other? Again, have a read of "I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution" by Denis O. Lamoureux, he can explain this idea better than I can in a single post.

Note Mick - "demonstratably" = You really mean - "demonstratively."
Demonstrably is also a word, e.g. "In such a manner as to be capable of being demonstrated, shown or proved" en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demonstrably

Note Mick - "realises" = You really mean - "realizes."
Depends which side of the Pacific you're from, mate...

Mick just to save the time, quit committing these prejudicial conjectures. But if you persist to commit these prejudicial conjectures. I will have to tell you myself I guess because the Bible clearly teaches science and Romans 1:20 backs up that evidence for "creation" is clearly shown. Tell me Mick, if Genesis was not literal how can the Book of Revelation state that the world will later be "restored" to the point back before the "fall" of Adam? If Genesis is not literal in this view, then Revelation cannot be Literal either which means that our new glorified bodies are not literal either because there will be no restoration therefore there will be no justification for the resurrection of any of the saints which will later question God's death on the cross and resurrection. We can clearly see that a literal view is needed for Exodus 20:11. And a literal view is need to explain Genesis 1:1 and Mark 10:6. If not there is no basis for such things and I can state many more things that Evolution contradicts with the Bible.
I think many Christians differ on how much of Revelation they take literally. And redemption only requires the existence of sin and judgement, not necessarily a historical, literal fall.

The bible will contradict modern science, because the bible was written by men with a very limited understanding of the natural world; and it wasn't necessary for the Holy Spirit to correct such errors for its spiritual message to be communicated. Again, it comes back to the purpose of scripture: was it written to inform us of science (if so, why no mention of galaxies or DNA or atoms or quarks?), or was it written to tell us about God, and how we can relate to God?

Thanks for this interesting discussion. And don't feel that I'm trying to "convert" you to my way of thinking... I'm simply telling you what I personally believe, and why I believe it.

Peace and blessings,

Michael.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
31
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟9,383.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The bible says "round", but it probably meant round like a disc rather than round like a sphere.
I am well aware what young-earth creationists believe - I argued passionately for their cause during my high school and early university years. I'm not saying that creationists believe these things that I mentioned - I know they don't; just that these are taught or implied in scripture, because these were the understandings of its human authors. If one should take Genesis literally as natural history, then why not scriptural statements that the sun literally moves across the sky? Why the inconsistency? Why reject one aspect of what amounts to an ancient scientific understanding, but keep the other? Again, have a read of "I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution" by Denis O. Lamoureux, he can explain this idea better than I can in a single post.

Demonstrably is also a word, e.g. "In such a manner as to be capable of being demonstrated, shown or proved" en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demonstrably

Depends which side of the Pacific you're from, mate...

I think many Christians differ on how much of Revelation they take literally. And redemption only requires the existence of sin and judgement, not necessarily a historical, literal fall.

The bible will contradict modern science, because the bible was written by men with a very limited understanding of the natural world; and it wasn't necessary for the Holy Spirit to correct such errors for its spiritual message to be communicated. Again, it comes back to the purpose of scripture: was it written to inform us of science (if so, why no mention of galaxies or DNA or atoms or quarks?), or was it written to tell us about God, and how we can relate to God?

Thanks for this interesting discussion. And don't feel that I'm trying to "convert" you to my way of thinking... I'm simply telling you what I personally believe, and why I believe it.

Peace and blessings,

Michael.


The Bible says "round" that can mean a spherical shape. Round - If you type it in Yahoo Images . com you will receive pictures in the shape of a circle. If you are in space looking from the moon to the earth, it would look like a circle not a sphere. Besides not only this way of telling that the earth is spherical. There are other passages that I have stated in this thread that shows the spherical state of the earth not just this verse of scripture that you talk about. Just because Biblical Creationists view "Genesis" as literal does not mean they have to take the WHOLE Bible literal. Because there are some parts you just don't take literal. Genesis however has to be literal for any creation to be true, If it is just a figurative story then How did God create His Creation? (Prove this biblically). If it is just a figurative story, Where did the curse of sin start (prove this biblically). If it is just a figurative story where is the justification for a "new body" ; "New Heaven - New Earth" ; Restoration point of before the fall of Adam and the resurrection and death of Jesus Christ (Prove this Biblically).

The reason I say, "prove this biblically" is because you cannot prove this biblically without "ADDING" to the Bible from outside information. You have already 'assumed' that the Bible has no science based on the knowledge of mankind back at the time it was written and that science 'today' is correct and infallible. Which it is not, the Bible has a lot of science you just have to understand it. The fossil record goes pretty well with the Flood of Noah. If it was a figurative story in GENESIS, why do we have rainbows as a promise from God to never flood the earth? You see I can tell you how the Biblical Creation has to be "literal" for anything to be known to mankind through the preconditions of intelligibility. If it was a allegorical message then these preconditions would be useless because there would be know justification that they were created by God because it is metaphorical. You view JESUS' death on the cross literal. Why do you believe this is literal?

///////////The bible will contradict modern science, because the bible was written by men with a very limited understanding of the natural world; and it wasn't necessary for the Holy Spirit to correct such errors for its spiritual message to be communicated. Again, it comes back to the purpose of scripture: was it written to inform us of science (if so, why no mention of galaxies or DNA or atoms or quarks?), or was it written to tell us about God, and how we can relate to God?//////////////

This statement in the paragraph is fallacious. You comparing the Bible to modern science and saying that modern science is the correct is just fallacious. Just because the Bible will contradict modern science does not mean that the Bible "has" to be metaphorical just because 'science' assumes what has happened in the beginning when in fact they do not know jack on a stick about what happened because they cannot not prove it and they never will be able to prove it. Let me ask you this question. Since you view Genesis as nonliteral.

Do you believe this verse is non-literal?

Genesis 1:1 - "In The Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth."

If so why do you hold this as literal? You said Genesis is not literal. If Genesis 1:1 is literal why isn't the rest of Genesis 1 literal and how can you prove it is not?

(Also the Bible was inspired by God, Man kind did not write what they wanted too. So to say that the Bible is contradictory to modern science is to say that God's knowledge does not measure up to that of scientists today. This is saying that God does know much, which is fallacious. It is not because he doesn't measure up to scientists...It is because you do not understand your Bible as he told them what to write. You are basing the Bible from Outside information. For "SCIENCE" modern science to have any effect in the Christian view, GENESIS has to be non-literal or Evolution is false and modern science is wrong. This is why you all view it as non-literal, you are deceived by modern science telling, "you" the way it was then putting those assumptions in the Bible by saying Genesis is non-literal so you can fit these ideas in the Bible. Revelation = "literal" ---correlates to --- Genesis = "literal" --- Relates to --- Crucifixion of Christ and resurrection of Christ. How? (1 Corinthians 15:21-the rest of scripture.)

Most of you guys based this verse of scripture on, "spiritual" only so it will not date back to Genesis with Adam and the fall because of the non-literal view, but the Bible here clearly shows the physical death and why he had to go through it, and this means physical death, because it will have a Cross Reference to Genesis talking about Adam. When TE's take this verse of scripture and say it is spiritual only, they are lying to themselves because this is based upon their presuppositions in which are based on modern science in which they have believed over the infallible word of God.

(Not a flaming statement to anyone. Just trying to show them how science compared to the Bible is fallible.)
 
Upvote 0
L

LightSeaker

Guest
Mick just to save the time, quit committing these prejudicial conjectures. But if you persist to commit these prejudicial conjectures.
I think you need to take the time and actually listen to Mick and not brush him off. A lot of time will be saved that way.


You accuse Mick of "prejudicial conjectures" when all he was doing was pointing out the truth of the social/religious lens through which the authors of the various text of the Bible wrote. To understand and see that the authors of the text of the Bible were in fact writing through the lens of their own religious biases is in no way “prejudicial conjectures”. It's a truth that all human beings would be guilty of.

I will have to tell you myself I guess because the Bible clearly teaches science and Romans 1:20 backs up that evidence for "creation" is clearly shown.
But than here you raise your own "prejudicial conjectures" by stating that the Bible is a science book...which it is not nor was it ever was intended to be. The Bible is a book about man's relationship with God. It is NOT a science book. My fellow Christians are making themselves look rather silly when they insiste on using the Bible as a science book.


.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick116
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
31
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟9,383.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I think you need to take the time and actually listen to Mick and not brush him off. A lot of time will be saved that way.

You accuse Mick of "prejudicial conjectures" when all he was doing was pointing out the truth of the social/religious lens through which the authors of the various text of the Bible wrote. To understand and see that the authors of the text of the Bible were in fact writing through the lens of their own religious biases is in no way “prejudicial conjectures”. It's a truth that all human beings would be guilty of.

But than here you raise your own "prejudicial conjectures" by stating that the Bible is a science book...which it is not nor was it ever was intended to be. The Bible is a book about man's relationship with God. It is NOT a science book. My fellow Christians are making themselves look rather silly when they insiste on using the Bible as a science book.

.

You have committed the fallacy of False Analogy.

1. I have took the time to read his posts. Not "listen."
2. You are "assuming" what he has said is truth according to your presuppositions. And yes these are prejudicial conjectures because simply doing your homework at your local library will confirm the things I have stated. Like he said taking the mustard seed literally. That is so nonsensical. This is a prejudicial conjecture, How? If you do your homework you will see that people who take Genesis literally does not view everything in the Bible "literally" like he is implying.
3.This is where you commit the fallacy of false analogy because I have never said the Bible was a "science book" for the last time. For a science book to be a science book, it has to be nothing but "science" what I am implying is that Bible does "have science" in it, if you would simply do your homework and put two and two together. If Genesis 1 does not involve science then how do we explain what we see today? You all believe God created everything correct well if Genesis is metaphorical how did God create all of Creation? Why does the Bible talk about the spherical shape of the earth if it was not science? In the Bible JESUS does Mathematics like, telling Noah how to build the Ark by the Dimensions. Or like telling Solomon how to build the temple of the Lord by cubits and many other measurements. But does this make the Bible a MATH BOOK? "NO"...JESUS uses many Similes in the Bible with the word, "as" and the books of prophecy like Ezekiel uses symbols like, tree's to refer to as "multitudes of people." This is Language, but does it make the Bible a "Language Book?" NO....The Bible does use science in the Book of Genesis, Isaiah, Job, etc...But does this make the Bible a "science book" ? NO....The Bible in the old testament has tons and tons of history in it. Does not make the Bible "only" a history book? NO....The Bible is the Bible, I use NO OUTSIDE INFORMATION to make my presuppositions. I use the Bible alone for my presuppositions. Therefore Genesis is literal, it is not an interpretation. for Genesis to be metaphorical, people have to use outside information to do so which is an, "interpretation." I use no outside information at all. I go by with what the Bible says. Let me ask a question to EVERYONE!

IS (To You) GENESIS 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." A literal verse of scripture or is it metaphorical?
 
Upvote 0
L

LightSeaker

Guest
You have committed the fallacy of False Analogy.

1. I have took the time to read his posts. Not "listen."
2. You are "assuming" what he has said is truth according to your presuppositions. And yes these are prejudicial conjectures because simply doing your homework at your local library will confirm the things I have stated. Like he said taking the mustard seed literally. That is so nonsensical. This is a prejudicial conjecture, How? If you do your homework you will see that people who take Genesis literally does not view everything in the Bible "literally" like he is implying.
3.This is where you commit the fallacy of false analogy because I have never said the Bible was a "science book" for the last time. For a science book to be a science book, it has to be nothing but "science" what I am implying is that Bible does "have science" in it, if you would simply do your homework and put two and two together. If Genesis 1 does not involve science then how do we explain what we see today? You all believe God created everything correct well if Genesis is metaphorical how did God create all of Creation? Why does the Bible talk about the spherical shape of the earth if it was not science? In the Bible JESUS does Mathematics like, telling Noah how to build the Ark by the Dimensions. Or like telling Solomon how to build the temple of the Lord by cubits and many other measurements. But does this make the Bible a MATH BOOK? "NO"...JESUS uses many Similes in the Bible with the word, "as" and the books of prophecy like Ezekiel uses symbols like, tree's to refer to as "multitudes of people." This is Language, but does it make the Bible a "Language Book?" NO....The Bible does use science in the Book of Genesis, Isaiah, Job, etc...But does this make the Bible a "science book" ? NO....The Bible in the old testament has tons and tons of history in it. Does not make the Bible "only" a history book? NO....The Bible is the Bible, I use NO OUTSIDE INFORMATION to make my presuppositions. I use the Bible alone for my presuppositions. Therefore Genesis is literal, it is not an interpretation. for Genesis to be metaphorical, people have to use outside information to do so which is an, "interpretation." I use no outside information at all. I go by with what the Bible says. Let me ask a question to EVERYONE!

IS (To You) GENESIS 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." A literal verse of scripture or is it metaphorical?
You say the Bible is not a science book...yet you argue that it is the only book you use for science.

Talk about "prejudicial cconjectures"...Sheesh!!

.
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
31
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟9,383.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You say the Bible is not a science book...yet you argue that it is the only book you use for science.

Talk about "prejudicial cconjectures"...Sheesh!!

.

Light Seaker, Do not try to sound smart and say I commit prejudicial conjecture about science. Because I am currently in highschool, I am in Physics and Chemistry class, I have already taken "biology" class. Never once have I said, "I only use the bible for the source of science." True science comes from the Bible. You just have to "see" it from a "literal" Genesis PoV. If you don't you will not see how this is possible.

Whenever I use the term "science" I am not referring to all sciences are being wrong. Because I do not reject science which is on your part is the fallacy of false analogy. I reject "evolution" as "science" because it is not science. Evolution is just mere opinions of the past. But TE's take this "Evolution" and try to add it to the bible by saying, Genesis is non-literal when in fact it is literal. And How come you have not answered my question that I asked everyone to answer? Whenever I use science or learn about science, I base it upon the Bible and it lines right up with the Bible. Because in the literal Genesis it makes sense to have the things we see today in the present. You don't suspect that when God created us he didn't use science? That's fallacious. We already know he knows mathematics as shown in the post before this.

It also seems that you do not really know what the terms, "prejudicial conjectures" mean, it means that someone creates an argument which is indeed faulty because if you would simply do your homework you would see that it has already been answered. I am not committing any prejudicial conjectures. Because I have done my homework. The Bible is a reliable source for Science, Math, Language, and history but this does not make the Bible a Science Math Language history book. The Bible = The Bible. Not a science book even though it contains science.

God later is going to create a 'New Heaven and a New Earth.' Note it says, "New." This means there was an "old" if Genesis 1 was nothing but metaphorical and allegorical like you all say, How do you explain Genesis 1:1 ?

God said he is going to restore the 'New' Heaven and Earth back to the way it was back before the fall of Adam. If this "literal" how could there be any justification for this if Genesis 1-3 is metaphorical and not literal?
 
Upvote 0

Mick116

Regular Member
Jul 14, 2004
650
51
42
✟8,869.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The Bible says "round" that can mean a spherical shape. Round - If you type it in Yahoo Images . com you will receive pictures in the shape of a circle. If you are in space looking from the moon to the earth, it would look like a circle not a sphere. Besides not only this way of telling that the earth is spherical. There are other passages that I have stated in this thread that shows the spherical state of the earth not just this verse of scripture that you talk about. Just because Biblical Creationists view "Genesis" as literal does not mean they have to take the WHOLE Bible literal. Because there are some parts you just don't take literal. Genesis however has to be literal for any creation to be true, If it is just a figurative story then How did God create His Creation? (Prove this biblically). If it is just a figurative story, Where did the curse of sin start (prove this biblically). If it is just a figurative story where is the justification for a "new body" ; "New Heaven - New Earth" ; Restoration point of before the fall of Adam and the resurrection and death of Jesus Christ (Prove this Biblically).
The answer is, "we don't know". The bible doesn't have all the answers to our questions, religious or otherwise.
The reason I say, "prove this biblically" is because you cannot prove this biblically without "ADDING" to the Bible from outside information.
We ALL add our interpretation to the text; it is impossible to read a passage of scripture without looking at it through our own set of cultural glasses, so to speak. We each bring our own presuppositions to the text.
You have already 'assumed' that the Bible has no science based on the knowledge of mankind back at the time it was written and that science 'today' is correct and infallible. Which it is not, the Bible has a lot of science you just have to understand it. The fossil record goes pretty well with the Flood of Noah.
Actually, it doesn't go that well at all. Why are fossils sorted into different geological layers, for example? If fossils were formed in a single, worldwide flood, we should see a great mixing of different types of organisms in the same geological layer. Really, the theory of evolution is the easiest theory to prove false; all a creationist needs to do is find a single fossil dog or rabbit or human in the "Pre-Cambrian" layer, and we'd have to return to the drawing board on the theory, so to speak, or even become special creationists ourselves. But not a single fossil has ever been found out of place, that is unexplainable by evolutionary theory. Not a single one.
If it was a figurative story in GENESIS, why do we have rainbows as a promise from God to never flood the earth? You see I can tell you how the Biblical Creation has to be "literal" for anything to be known to mankind through the preconditions of intelligibility. If it was a allegorical message then these preconditions would be useless because there would be know justification that they were created by God because it is metaphorical. You view JESUS' death on the cross literal. Why do you believe this is literal?
Genre is important. The gospels were written directly by, or by close associates of, Jesus' closest followers. Genesis was written by Moses 2-3 thousand years after the supposed events of Genesis 1-2 took place, and was probably based on hymns sung around a campfire, and myths and legends passed down largely by word-of-mouth for many generations.

///////////The bible will contradict modern science, because the bible was written by men with a very limited understanding of the natural world; and it wasn't necessary for the Holy Spirit to correct such errors for its spiritual message to be communicated. Again, it comes back to the purpose of scripture: was it written to inform us of science (if so, why no mention of galaxies or DNA or atoms or quarks?), or was it written to tell us about God, and how we can relate to God?//////////////

This statement in the paragraph is fallacious. You comparing the Bible to modern science and saying that modern science is the correct is just fallacious. Just because the Bible will contradict modern science does not mean that the Bible "has" to be metaphorical just because 'science' assumes what has happened in the beginning when in fact they do not know jack on a stick about what happened because they cannot not prove it and they never will be able to prove it. Let me ask you this question. Since you view Genesis as nonliteral.

Do you believe this verse is non-literal?

Genesis 1:1 - "In The Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth."
This is probably the first line of a beautiful, divinely-inspired hymn, and I'm not the first Christian to think so (e.g. R J Berry, a committed Christian and biologist, and Augustine of Hippo, the great Christian proponent of salvation by grace, to name just a couple).

As to whether or not Genesis 1:1 is literal, I would say the author was trying to extol God for his creation of all things, so the statement in Genesis 1:1 is probably accurate. But to break Genesis 1 down into what is literal and what is not misses the whole point of the poetry; it's kind of like taking the famous hymn, "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound!" and wondering if "grace" can actually, physically, make a sound, or not. Getting caught up on what "grace" sounds like is to rob the hymn of its beauty and power, and to use the text in a way its author never intended it to be used.

If so why do you hold this as literal? You said Genesis is not literal. If Genesis 1:1 is literal why isn't the rest of Genesis 1 literal and how can you prove it is not?

(Also the Bible was inspired by God, Man kind did not write what they wanted too. So to say that the Bible is contradictory to modern science is to say that God's knowledge does not measure up to that of scientists today. This is saying that God does know much, which is fallacious. It is not because he doesn't measure up to scientists...It is because you do not understand your Bible as he told them what to write. You are basing the Bible from Outside information. For "SCIENCE" modern science to have any effect in the Christian view, GENESIS has to be non-literal or Evolution is false and modern science is wrong. This is why you all view it as non-literal, you are deceived by modern science telling, "you" the way it was then putting those assumptions in the Bible by saying Genesis is non-literal so you can fit these ideas in the Bible. Revelation = "literal" ---correlates to --- Genesis = "literal" --- Relates to --- Crucifixion of Christ and resurrection of Christ. How? (1 Corinthians 15:21-the rest of scripture.)

Most of you guys based this verse of scripture on, "spiritual" only so it will not date back to Genesis with Adam and the fall because of the non-literal view, but the Bible here clearly shows the physical death and why he had to go through it, and this means physical death, because it will have a Cross Reference to Genesis talking about Adam. When TE's take this verse of scripture and say it is spiritual only, they are lying to themselves because this is based upon their presuppositions in which are based on modern science in which they have believed over the infallible word of God.

(Not a flaming statement to anyone. Just trying to show them how science compared to the Bible is fallible.)
It's not so much that TE's think the biblical authors only wrote a spiritual message: we can see as plainly as any creationist that the creation story recorded in scripture alludes to the physical as well as the spiritual, but it was also written according to a pre-scientific understanding of the natural world, and it was not the intention of the Holy Spirit to correct errors of scientific understanding. And unlike many old-earth or progressive creationists, we take the "days" of Genesis 1 to be exactly that: literal, 24-hour days. But the genre is poetry, not science or history, and should be interpreted with caution; better yet, it should be enjoyed for its beauty and theological overtones.
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
31
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟9,383.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The answer is, "we don't know". The bible doesn't have all the answers to our questions, religious or otherwise.
We ALL add our interpretation to the text; it is impossible to read a passage of scripture without looking at it through our own set of cultural glasses, so to speak. We each bring our own presuppositions to the text.
Actually, it doesn't go that well at all. Why are fossils sorted into different geological layers, for example? If fossils were formed in a single, worldwide flood, we should see a great mixing of different types of organisms in the same geological layer. Really, the theory of evolution is the easiest theory to prove false; all a creationist needs to do is find a single fossil dog or rabbit or human in the "Pre-Cambrian" layer, and we'd have to return to the drawing board on the theory, so to speak, or even become special creationists ourselves. But not a single fossil has ever been found out of place, that is unexplainable by evolutionary theory. Not a single one.
Genre is important. The gospels were written directly by, or by close associates of, Jesus' closest followers. Genesis was written by Moses 2-3 thousand years after the supposed events of Genesis 1-2 took place, and was probably based on hymns sung around a campfire, and myths and legends passed down largely by word-of-mouth for many generations.

This is probably the first line of a beautiful, divinely-inspired hymn, and I'm not the first Christian to think so (e.g. R J Berry, a committed Christian and biologist, and Augustine of Hippo, the great Christian proponent of salvation by grace, to name just a couple).

As to whether or not Genesis 1:1 is literal, I would say the author was trying to extol God for his creation of all things, so the statement in Genesis 1:1 is probably accurate. But to break Genesis 1 down into what is literal and what is not misses the whole point of the poetry; it's kind of like taking the famous hymn, "Amazing grace, how sweet the sound!" and wondering if "grace" can actually, physically, make a sound, or not. Getting caught up on what "grace" sounds like is to rob the hymn of its beauty and power, and to use the text in a way its author never intended it to be used.

It's not so much that TE's think the biblical authors only wrote a spiritual message: we can see as plainly as any creationist that the creation story recorded in scripture alludes to the physical as well as the spiritual, but it was also written according to a pre-scientific understanding of the natural world, and it was not the intention of the Holy Spirit to correct errors of scientific understanding. And unlike many old-earth or progressive creationists, we take the "days" of Genesis 1 to be exactly that: literal, 24-hour days. But the genre is poetry, not science or history, and should be interpreted with caution; better yet, it should be enjoyed for its beauty and theological overtones.

Man, (this is not a flaming statement or intended to be offending) but man. I am not going to even reason with your logic. Saying the Genesis was probably sung around a Camp fire? Saying that "we don't know how" whenever it is right in front of your face. You believe man's fallible assumptions over God's infallible word that promised us with a Physical rainbow we see today to never flood the earth again? I am not mad, but I simply refuse to reason any further with your reasoning when you do your homework. Let me know and I might get back to you.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mick116

Regular Member
Jul 14, 2004
650
51
42
✟8,869.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Man, (this is not a flaming statement or intended to be offending) but man. I am not going to even reason with your logic. Saying the Genesis was probably sung around a Camp fire? Saying that "we don't know how" whenever it is right in front of your face. You believe man's fallible assumptions over God's infallible word that promised us with a Physical rainbow we see today to never flood the earth again? I am not mad, but I simply refuse to reason any further with your reasoning when you do your homework. Let me know and I might get back to you.
I've asked this of you a few times: how does a young-earth creationist reconcile the sorting of the fossil record with a "flood-geology" theory, because I've honestly never seen a decent answer to this question. And if the fossil record does, in fact, show millions of years of death and decay before Adam, where does a historic fall and curse fit into the picture?

Clearly, biblical interpretation and how (or whether) the scripture relates to science is not quite as clear-cut as you seem to think. Genuine, committed Christians have been divided over how to reconcile evolution with the Genesis account for over 150 years; furthermore, Christians have differed in their understandings of creation for almost 2000 years, way before the theory of evolution was ever formulated; and yet we are nowhere near a concensus.

With this in mind, a little agnosticism - answering "I don't know" to questions of the origin of sin, for example - seems quite appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
37
✟13,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You believe man's fallible assumptions over God's infallible word that promised us with a Physical rainbow we see today to never flood the earth again?

I find it rather amusing every time I hear the 'man's assumptions versus God's infallible Word' argument. You DO realize that YOU have the exact same 'man's fallible assumptions' about the Bible, right? Since they were inspired by God (note: the Bible does NOT say anywhere it was dictated word for word in its entirely), everything any human has ever thought about them was from the same 'man's fallible assumptions'.

So the choice is not between the Infallible Word of God and fallible word of man, it is between the fallible ideas of man and fallible ideas of man on the Bible that either conflict or jive with other fallible ideas of man.

Metherion
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mick116
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
31
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟9,383.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I find it rather amusing every time I hear the 'man's assumptions versus God's infallible Word' argument. You DO realize that YOU have the exact same 'man's fallible assumptions' about the Bible, right? Since they were inspired by God (note: the Bible does NOT say anywhere it was dictated word for word in its entirely), everything any human has ever thought about them was from the same 'man's fallible assumptions'.

So the choice is not between the Infallible Word of God and fallible word of man, it is between the fallible ideas of man and fallible ideas of man on the Bible that either conflict or jive with other fallible ideas of man.

Metherion

Metheriron, You have go to remember that this statement is fallacious since the Bible says that, "EVERY WORD OF GOD IS PURE" This shows it is not fallacious, I do not think an infallible God would make a Bible that was fallacious because Man is Fallible whenever God told them what to write in the Book. Note to self: I have said time and time again. The "literal" view is not an interpretation. Because the "literal" view is based on the BIBLE ALONE. Okay here we go.

1. I TAKE THE BIBLE FOR WHAT IT SAYS ALONE
2. ADD NO INFORMATION FROM OUTSIDE (Science, History, Etc.)

TE's will "add" and change through the Word of God by saying it is metaphorical which this cannot be true since Revelation would be metaphorical also because of the correlation between the two. I will send you the questions if you like at how Genesis has to be literal, if the Christian is to have ANY HOPE of JESUS' return and have the rapture happen. If it not literal there is no foundational knowledge for the Gospel and no Hope for the consummation of all things then which will deteriorate the Power of the Gospel. TE's do this:

1. Take the Bible; Read the Book of Genesis
2. Add the presuppositions of science, history, etc...
3. It must be a non-literal Genesis according to science.

Oh, Also, Mick16, I will answer your question thoroughly whenever you quit committing prejudicial conjectures. (Not a flaming statement.)


 
Upvote 0

metherion

Veteran
Aug 14, 2006
4,185
368
37
✟13,623.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Metheriron, You have go to remember that this statement is fallacious since the Bible says that, "EVERY WORD OF GOD IS PURE"
But pure != true only if in the literal sense and false otherwise, like you seem to imply.

This shows it is not fallacious, I do not think an infallible God would make a Bible that was fallacious because Man is Fallible whenever God told them what to write in the Book.
But God INSPIRED the Bible. Nowhere does it say God dictated it word for word. And the fallibility of the Bible isn’t the topic here, it’s the fallibility of man interpreting it literally.

Note to self: I have said time and time again. The "literal" view is not an interpretation.
Yes it is. Any way of reading it is an interpretation. Assuming that the text must be literal and nothing else can possibly matter is an assumption made by you, a fallible human.

Because the "literal" view is based on the BIBLE ALONE. Okay here we go.

1. I TAKE THE BIBLE FOR WHAT IT SAYS ALONE
ADD NO INFORMATION FROM OUTSIDE (Science, History, Etc.)

EXCEPT!
Number one, NOWHERE in the Bible does it say Bible alone. Secondly, (Terrible at chapter and verse) in one of the epistles I believe Paul talks about teaching from scripture and tradition. Third, God says that we shall know Him by His works. Well, earth is one of His works, Genesis 1:1. If you go by Bible alone, you MUST include things outside the Bible because of what the Bible says.

TE's will "add" and change through the Word of God by saying it is metaphorical which this cannot be true since Revelation would be metaphorical also because of the correlation between the two.
What particular part? And why is it so intrinsically tied with a literal Genesis?

I will send you the questions if you like at how Genesis has to be literal, if the Christian is to have ANY HOPE of JESUS' return and have the rapture happen.
I assume this comes from a website? If you wish to PM me the link I will visit it.

If it not literal there is no foundational knowledge for the Gospel and no Hope for the consummation of all things then which will deteriorate the Power of the Gospel.
I blatantly reject and refute this by my very existence.

TE's do this:

1. Take the Bible; Read the Book of Genesis
2. Add the presuppositions of science, history, etc...
3. It must be a non-literal Genesis according to science.
More like this:
Read the Bible.
See where the Bible says we shall know God by His works.
Examine God’s Work (earth).
See that God tells parables and uses allegory and metaphor and does not always tell His audience.
Deduce that if a particular reading of God’s Word doesn’t line up with God’s Work, that reading must not be right.
Continue examination of God’s Word AND God’s Work.
Use the intellect God has gifted us with to try and figure out what He means instead of blatantly disregarding the Work of God that we shall know Him by.

Metherion
 
Upvote 0

JusSumguy

Active Member
Aug 15, 2009
351
26
Surf City
✟627.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
More like this:
Read the Bible.
See where the Bible says we shall know God by His works.
Examine God’s Work (earth).

And.........Stars, nebulae, quasars, gravity, anti matter, space, time, fingernails, backyards, ants, alligators and a few google more.

JusSayin


-
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mick116

Regular Member
Jul 14, 2004
650
51
42
✟8,869.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Oh, Also, Mick16, I will answer your question thoroughly whenever you quit committing prejudicial conjectures.
Doesn't EVERYBODY make prejudicial conjectures (i.e. statements based on presuppositions) when it comes to theology? Honestly, how can it be avoided? Isn't extrapolating divine inspiration into what for-all-intents-and-purposes amounts to divine dictation an example of such prejudice? Isn't assuming that Genesis 1 has to be read as history a prejudicial conjecture as much as reading it as poetry? In any case, I think I've been fairly slow in making any definitive judgements in any of my posts, and I certainly feel I've been keeping an open mind to all possibilities.

But ultimately, I go where the evidence leads me... I am a reluctant convert to evolutionary thinking, and if a recent-creationist can give me a convincing case based on solid evidence, I'll gladly take it on board... but until that time, intellectual honesty demands I go with what makes most sense to me, and with what makes most sense of the facts, scientific and biblical. Am I adding data to what the bible says? Of course I am, most of us do; if we didn't, we'd still all be siding with Martin Luther and other medieval Christians and believe that the sun revolves around the earth.

Most of us today have added the fact that the Earth is a spinning globe which revolves around the sun to our theology without too many problems.
 
Upvote 0

WingsOfEagles07

Jesus loves you friend
Mar 9, 2009
447
22
31
Dunbar, West Virginia
✟9,383.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
You all do not understand whenever I say "Alone."

Take Genesis 1:1 for example. I take it as it is, I do not use Theistic Evolution then say it is Metaphorical. I do use Biblical creationism then say It is a literal interpretation. GENESIS 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the Heaven and Earth." Therefore, In the beginning GOD "literally' created the heaven and the earth. According to the 'context.' I do not take theistic evolution then try to describe Genesis. I don't tell God what he means about Genesis 1:1 or the rest of Genesis. When you say metaphorical your telling God he did not create what he said he created in Genesis 'literally.' I do not see why the rest of the Bible would reflect on the Creation in the 'literal' account of Genesis.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 18, 2009
9
0
✟7,619.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
I do use Biblical creationism then say It is a literal interpretation.

I suppose you know that your approach is at odds with the vast Judaic tradition? Not only did the Torah come out of this tradition, but it has been the subject of intensive investigation and interpretation for thousands of years. Typically, the rabbinical approach is to interpret the Torah from many viewpoints including literal, deep, comparative and hidden perspectives.

There is a story that Aqiba was teaching about the laws in the Torah and Moses dropped in. Moses did not recognize that Aqiba was teaching about the laws handed down at Sinai until Aqiba explained it to him. It's a rather old story. Perhaps you could spend some time thinking about what it means?
 
Upvote 0