|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis: is it to be taken literally? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Loudmouth quote:
______________________________________________________________________ Genesis 1 and 2, Elohim and Yahweh (or was it Adonai?). The two inter-related but different creation stories in Gen. 1 and 2 ______________________________________________________________________ Are you saying that the different names for God is evidence for differing creation accounts ? What two different creation stories are you assuming ? Loudmouth quote: ______________________________________________________________________My feeling is that if the Genesis accounts of both creation and the Noachian flood can be told in different ways to reflect different theologies (with Elohim and Yahweh being used separately in each version), then why should either be taken as literal fact. ______________________________________________________________________ Then you are believing as literal fact features from the text as a basis to dismiss both as literal fact, all because God reveals His name differently in the overall text. Whats the harm in assuming the claims of Genesis as literal fact ?Genesis means what it says and says what it means unless typology, symbolism, imagery, or analogy is clearly being employed. Where does Genesis give way to figurative symbolism/typology in the creation declaration ? The first deployment of symbolism doesn't arrive until the serpent (type of Satan) appears. Loudmouth quote:______________________________________________________________________ That is, the creation and global flood myth are not being stressed as literal fact ______________________________________________________________________ The text means what it says. The only reason the debate exists (literal fact/not literal fact-but myth) is because forces that be are trying to establish a precedent that God does not mean what He says, which entrenches doubt, which is the message of the serpent/Satan who exists to convince that God does not mean what He says, which is why the first question mark in the Bible is in the context of the serpent/Satan sowing doubt to Eve, which is in the context of Satan attempting to destroy mankind via a belief that God is not to be taken seriously, which if successfull guarantees the serpents/Satan's objective of blinding mankind to the reality of eternal judgement. Loudmouth quote:______________________________________________________________________ My contention is that the myths in Genesis are not supposed to be taken literally, but rather figuratively. It is a theological lesson, not a scientific lesson ______________________________________________________________________ When Genesis is not taken literally, (which said word "literally" has been successfully associated with unattractive fundementalism) then this is the pay off for Satan's work in achieving that the rest of the Bible is not to be taken literally, hence, his target is for the judgement of hell not to be taken literally. This is old fashioned satanic deception and it is working. Satan and his Biblical status is as much part of doctrine as Jesus is. You are right Loudmouth that Genesis is a theological lesson and not a scientific document. BUT you must remember that the claims of theology are eternal/supreme objective truth with no equal peer. IF God IS, then how can creation and science contradict ? They don't. Only the understanding of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rick Rose Inactive Member |
It would be good to see people of science and religion set ethical standards instead of follow them. Nevertheless, thanks for the consideration.
rickrose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rick Rose Inactive Member |
We are having our C.O. visit now. Our D.C. is in July. My cousin lives in Rome and he will play Luke in the drama.
rickrose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rick Rose Inactive Member |
An interesting topic on another thread: Where Does It Say In the Bible That The Universe Is Only Six Thousand Years Old? I Don't see you there.
rickrose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cromwell Inactive Member |
Rick Rose..Welcome brother!
I have very little time,having to meet deadlines in my line of work.So i can't often post as prolifically as some.(I gave up on the Exodus topic.) I will look at the topic you suggest. Regards Rod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rick Rose Inactive Member |
Rod, If you want to email me, I'm at tymepassenger@hotmail.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mpaul73 Inactive Member |
I am a 6 day young earth creationist. I'll be upfront and say I have chosen to believe the Genesis record as a historical account because I am confident that God exists and that the Bible is God's revealed word to us. Seeing the weakness of the evidence for evolutionary explanation for life gives me even more confidence that God created this world just as He has said in the Bible.
By the way. For those who say that the days in Genesis could not have been literal days because the sun was not created until day 4, I would answer by saying that God can have day and night if he chooses without the sun being in existence. Light was created on day 1, and God separated the light from the darkness calling the light day and the darkness night. Therefore the light that God made on day 1 was already acting like the sun with a day and night cycle established. On day 4 the sun was created and took over from the original light source of day 1. To me it makes sense. To others it will be a myth but to me the evolutionary explanation for the universe/life is impossible. RegardsMartin Paul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
mpaul73
to me the evolutionary explanation for the universe/life is impossible. Would you like to clarify what you find to be impossible with evolutionary explanation for life? As for the universe evolution theory has nothing to say with the origins of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mpaul73 Inactive Member |
"Would you like to clarify what you find to be impossible with evolutionary explanation for life?'
Sure. I find it impossible (or beyond what I am willing to believe at least) that all life on this planet has arisen by purely natural/mechanistic processes without any need of a Creator. And I have no basis for believing that God created life in this manner. Many Christians do believe it but I would argue that there is no biblical basis (or compelling scientific evidence) for accepting it, assuming they take the scripture seriously that is. "As for the universe evolution theory has nothing to say with the origins of that. " Evolutionism (from what I understand) is a complete worldview that teaches that the entire comsos (starting with the big bang) *made itself* by way of purely naturalistic processes that are still in operation today. RegardsMartin. This message has been edited by mpaul73, 08-01-2004 03:28 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
mpaul73
Sure. I find it impossible (or beyond what I am willing to believe at least) that all life on this planet has arisen by purely natural/mechanistic processes without any need of a Creator. This is no explanation but we may now narrow your objection down to this question.What is it about purely naturalistic/mechanisitic processes that you do not understand could have produced the evidence we find all around us?
Evolutionism (from what I understand) is a complete worldview that teaches that the entire comsos (starting with the big bang) *made itself* by way of purely naturalistic processes that are still in operation today Evolution theory deals with the means by which life has changed since life began.How life began is a study known as abiogenesis. How the universe began is a part of the field known as cosmology. I am an atheist and have no God to go by but,as some people here will attest,belief in God and an understanding of the processes of evolution as we model it in evolutionary theory are not mutually exdclusive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mpaul73 Inactive Member |
"This is no explanation but we may now narrow your objection down to this question.
OK. Let me expand on my answer a little. Evolutionary theory says that life arose by purely naturalistic processes and that by these same processes all life on this planet can be accounted for. *I have heard no explanation that even comes close to explaining how this could happen by natural processes?* The natural selection/mutation method just does not persuade me at all. Life is too complex. If evolution is a process then evolutionists better have a good explanation of what this process is. They don't. But they still religiously cling onto their theory proclaiming it as 'fact' and presenting it to the public as such. "could have produced the evidence we find all around us? could have produced the evidence for what? Evolution? The evidence I have seen for evolution so far does not presuade me at all, the opposite in fact. And I would agrue that the same data evolutionists use to support thier theory can be interpreted in a much better way that agrees with the presupposition of a Creator. "Evolution theory deals with the means by which life has changed since life began.How life began is a study known as abiogenesis. How the universe began is a part of the field known as cosmology." Yes but the point is is that all life (even how it originated) and the entire universe is to be explained by purely naturalistic processes in an evolutionist world view. Evolution is not just about how life has developed on this planet since it arose. Evolutionary thought saturates every scientific disipline. Not just biology. It is a belief based on a philosophy that everything must be explained by naturalistic/mechanistic processes. "I am an atheist and have no God to go by but,as some people here will attest,belief in God and an understanding of the processes of evolution as we model it in evolutionary theory are not mutually exdclusive." I understand some people have this view but I do not agree with it. RegardsMartin Paul. This message has been edited by mpaul73, 08-01-2004 04:37 PM This message has been edited by mpaul73, 08-01-2004 04:39 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Georgi Gladyhev demands that if any of what I said was true there must be a COMPLETION of the process. There is not doubt that my attempts to bring this all togther DO have something to do with what in the Defender's STUDY Bible Morris refers numbers for. It is possbile that by brining it to China some to the issue of dx/dy which were symbols for Russel might be the line in Mendel better paid for. I can (not)say how economics it to NOT affect the information age of biology but it should be the population not the $ that drives any change that the pinheads make whalegums for in that part of theworld.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-01-2004 04:49 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
This thread is not about Evolution, we will certainly get to discuss that with you in other threads, but about whether Genesis should be taken literally.
There is nothing in Christian Dogma that requires or even suggests that Genesis is to be taken literally. In fact, any attempt to take Genesis literally fails when you move from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2. Given that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are mutually exclusive if taken literally, how do you reconcile any belief that requires such an act of gymnastics? As Bishop Sims said when talking about using Genesis as a basis for describing how the life we see around us came about,
Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mpaul73 Inactive Member |
Thanks Jar. Yes things were getting a bit off topic but I felt I should respond to the question sidelined presented me with.
I take Genesis literally because Jesus Christ took it literally, amoungst other reasons. Genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict if you *understand* them correctly. No act of 'gymnastics' is required to reconcile them if you can think reasonably, IMHO. RegardsMartin Paul.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I take Genesis literally because Jesus Christ took it literally, amoungst other reasons. I must admit to be rusty on the bible, where does Jesus say this?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024