Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis: is it to be taken literally?
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 211 of 301 (164175)
11-30-2004 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by TheLiteralist
11-30-2004 7:29 PM


Re: Why it cannot be taken literally.
In the universe, what is the 27 years of wear and tear or the thick layer of grease equivalent to?
This subject has been discussed pretty extensively in the "Dates and Dating" forum. Just for starters, there are a dozen or so lines of evidence from radioisotopes that all point to "old" in most every rock you pick up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by TheLiteralist, posted 11-30-2004 7:29 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 301 (164177)
11-30-2004 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by crashfrog
11-30-2004 7:34 PM


Hoo Boy!
Crashfrog,
Well, you haven't changed my mind, of course, about Arachnaphilia's qualifications for universe building, but you have succeeded in making me regret that I ever mentioned my opinions on the matter.
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-30-2004 07:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by crashfrog, posted 11-30-2004 7:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by arachnophilia, posted 12-01-2004 2:07 AM TheLiteralist has not replied
 Message 217 by crashfrog, posted 12-01-2004 11:32 AM TheLiteralist has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 213 of 301 (164179)
11-30-2004 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by TheLiteralist
11-30-2004 7:23 PM


Re: Back on Topic - Sorta
I see no way to use any part of the creation to judge when or how the creation event occurred.
We are not, for the moment, even discussing the creation event. That happened 13.7 Gyrs ago. We are discussing if the earth is only 6,000 years old and if all forms of life were created in a one week period.
We can use all parts of creation to determine in what fashion the creation of life occured and when it happened. When the speed of light issue came up your answer was, in part, that we were being fooled because God made it that way.
Our point is that if God made the tremendous numbers of individual, corrolating pieces of evidence to "make it look that way" then the only conclusion we can come to is that God is a liar.
Do you still want to stick to the GMILTW (God made it look that way) argument? If so we can tell you in great detail just how God made it look. He did not make it look like it matches the Genesis account.
So either your interpretation of Genesis is wrong or a huge amount of evidence has been left that makes it look wrong which we then have to explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by TheLiteralist, posted 11-30-2004 7:23 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 214 of 301 (164253)
12-01-2004 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by TheLiteralist
11-30-2004 6:41 PM


Re: analogy limits
The district manager owns a really sweet 2004 Ford Mustang. Joe and Bob are admiring it one day after the breakfast shift. Both fellows realize that the car was designed by experts and built in a factory under highly managed circumstances. But now Joe starts telling Bob how he would have designed the car and the manufacturing processes. Should Bob be impressed and have Joe build him a 2004 Ford Mustang?
ok, now suppose joe is a mechanic. and he presents a problem to bob with placement of the fuel tank and lines, and explains how he would have done it better had he worked for ford.
it doesn't neccessarily take a genius to find problems with things. for instance, i routinely break computer software. i should be a beta tester, because i have this innate ability to mess things up beyond repair, very, very quickly. give me a new piece of software, i'll destroy it within half an hour. i've even done this to security software.
i'm not a hacker. i'm not a programer. i wouldn't have the first idea how to go about writing some of these programs. but i can find problems with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by TheLiteralist, posted 11-30-2004 6:41 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 215 of 301 (164254)
12-01-2004 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by TheLiteralist
11-30-2004 7:29 PM


Re: Why it cannot be taken literally.
In the universe, what is the 27 years of wear and tear or the thick layer of grease equivalent to?
If it's light speed and star distances...well, I know I'm tired of that subject, too . Are there other lines of evidence?
well, the fossil record is one i'm pretty familiar with. it sure looks old to me, and well, just about everyone else.
but like someone else said, take that up in the dating forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by TheLiteralist, posted 11-30-2004 7:29 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 216 of 301 (164255)
12-01-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by TheLiteralist
11-30-2004 7:58 PM


Re: Hoo Boy!
Well, you haven't changed my mind, of course, about Arachnaphilia's qualifications for universe building, but you have succeeded in making me regret that I ever mentioned my opinions on the matter.
i may not be qualified to build or repair cars, but given a 67 chevelle and a custom 2004 ford mustang convertible, i can tell you which is which without any doubt in my mind.
do i need to be qualified to MAKE a universe to make observations about one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by TheLiteralist, posted 11-30-2004 7:58 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 217 of 301 (164339)
12-01-2004 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by TheLiteralist
11-30-2004 7:58 PM


Well, you haven't changed my mind, of course, about Arachnaphilia's qualifications for universe building, but you have succeeded in making me regret that I ever mentioned my opinions on the matter.
I definately think you're going to regret the argumentation you've put forth, because it undercuts almost every argument you've made for creationism.
If we can't trust Arach's views on God's creation because he isn't as good as God, we can also discard your theological views for the very same reason. You may be certain that evolution can't be reconciled with a universe where the Bible is the Word of God, but can't we say that, because you're an idiot compared to God, it's simply the case that you don't understand how the two could be reconciled?
I mean, your argument makes it clear that, as soon as the word "God" is mentioned, we're all supposed to shut the hell up because none of us are smart enough to guess how God "really" did things.
Quite frankly I find your argument insulting, and a rollback to a millenia of refusal to investigate the natural world. You and your ilk would take us back to the Dark Ages, before the enlightenment of science. Which is weird because you're sitting there using a computer and reading this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by TheLiteralist, posted 11-30-2004 7:58 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

Montag
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 301 (181083)
01-27-2005 10:30 AM


No genesis doesnt need to be taken literally at all. In fact none of the bible needs to be taken literally, metaphorically, or otherwise since it is just a book of myths and christianity it a complete and total lie.
I dont see why you Jesus freaks dont get it.

"Science without religion is lame; Religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by AdminNosy, posted 01-27-2005 4:34 PM Montag has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 219 of 301 (181141)
01-27-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Montag
01-27-2005 10:30 AM


Not a useful post
Since this post doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion and it isn't backed up with any evidence you should have not posted it.
Don't continue with this kind of post or you will have a temporary suspension of priveleges.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Montag, posted 01-27-2005 10:30 AM Montag has not replied

MiguelG
Member (Idle past 1976 days)
Posts: 63
From: Australia
Joined: 12-08-2004


Message 220 of 301 (181185)
01-27-2005 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 4:23 PM


Reply to Proboscis
A caveat fro prospective readers.
The following contains my own opinions on my Christian faith (impossible to avoid given the nature of Proboscis's question) and does delve somewhat into Christian theology.
Proboscis: Hey I was wondering what all you thought about Genesis, especially those who are Christians. I just thought I'd toss that out there. To the Christians in here, Do you take Genesis literally, or do you think it is figurative? If you think it is symbolic, how do you know what is symbolic and what isn't?
Genesis is symbolic, and should (IMHO) be read as allegory.
Some creationists would opine that all Biblical doctrines have their foundations laid in Genesis (see: Morris, Henry M., 1983. Creation is the foundation. Impact 126).
This is patently in error if one cares to examine the New Testament, especially Matthew 22: 36-40.
Other Creationists would have it that without a literal 'fall' and original sin there was no point for Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
Again, this is erroneous since free will and the dualistic nature of humanity allows us to choose evil (more often than not) over good.
Christ's life & ultimate sacrifice were important as they demonstarted that there is an alternative to selfishness - selfless love.
In fact the entire Bible can be viewed under the lens of Christ's teaching of love (as outlined in Matthew 22).
If a particular scripture does not conform to this central tenet of Christianity, then it cannot be taken literaly.
If we, as Christians, accept that God is unchanging and has always been the apotheosis of what is good & right, then how can we take Genesis literaly and accept a God that slays the innocent along with the guilty? And regardless of original sin, babies, toddlers & little children are still 'innocent' in every sense of the word.
If we, as Christians, accept the omniscience of God, then how can we accept a deity that has second thoughts (the 'fall' and the deluge)?
Obviously we cannot - unless the scriptures in Genesis are taken as parables or allegories which illustrate that evil & ignoring God's teachings have consequences (which we bring upon ourselves).
The Bible does have wisdom to impart to us, but we need to sift through much to find it. It takes, in part, faith, logic & empathy to do so.
A literal reading of scripture without conscious application of these methods does a disservice to God, our faith as Christians, our intellect, and to the rest of humanity - be they theist, agnostic or atheist.
Cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 4:23 PM Proboscis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Terry48420, posted 01-28-2005 3:34 PM MiguelG has replied

Terry48420
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 301 (181405)
01-28-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by MiguelG
01-27-2005 7:16 PM


Re: Reply to Proboscis
Quote MiguelG:
_____________________________________________________________________
The Bible does have wisdom to impart to us, but we need to sift through much to find it. It takes, in part, faith, logic & empathy to do so.
_____________________________________________________________________
The Bible must be taken literally unless the context dictates otherwise. If we start sifting through the Bible looking for wisdom and truth, we would end up throughing out the entire thing based on human wisdom and logic. All acts of God or miracles performed by God through anyone in the Bible would have to be thrown out according to most on this site. Creation, Noah's Flood, the virgin Birth of Jesus, healing someone borned blind, the resurection of Jesus and etc. There would be nothing left of the Christian or Jewish faiths if this were done. I take all of these things very literally. I may not be able to produce a mathematical fourmula to prove the acts of God because I believe that God can work outside the natural laws we observe today. That's why they are called miracles. Christians are on a very slippery slope if they start deciding for themselves which parts of the Bible to believe and which to refect as myth.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by MiguelG, posted 01-27-2005 7:16 PM MiguelG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Coragyps, posted 01-28-2005 3:55 PM Terry48420 has replied
 Message 230 by MiguelG, posted 01-30-2005 10:22 AM Terry48420 has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 222 of 301 (181412)
01-28-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Terry48420
01-28-2005 3:34 PM


Re: Reply to Proboscis
Creation, Noah's Flood, the virgin Birth of Jesus, healing someone borned blind, the resurection of Jesus and etc. There would be nothing left of the Christian or Jewish faiths if this were done.
Huh, that's odd! My dad was a missionary and minister for about 45 years, and never felt that a six-day creation or Noah's Flood were literal....and the same goes for about half the Christians in the U.S. Why is that, do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Terry48420, posted 01-28-2005 3:34 PM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Terry48420, posted 01-28-2005 4:34 PM Coragyps has replied

Terry48420
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 301 (181424)
01-28-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Coragyps
01-28-2005 3:55 PM


Re: Reply to Proboscis
Coragyps says:
___________________________________________________________________
Huh, that's odd! My dad was a missionary and minister for about 45 years, and never felt that a six-day creation or Noah's Flood were literal
___________________________________________________________________
I can't speak for him, but I am an elder in the Church of Christ and everyone in my congregation is a six-day creationist and believes Noah's Flood is literal. Jesus believed in a six day creation also. According to Mark 10:6ff man was in the "begining of creation" having been created on the sixth day. I know most will not accept proving the Bible by the Bible as a real proof, but a Christian should.

Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Coragyps, posted 01-28-2005 3:55 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 01-28-2005 4:45 PM Terry48420 has not replied
 Message 225 by Percy, posted 01-28-2005 4:48 PM Terry48420 has not replied
 Message 226 by Coragyps, posted 01-28-2005 4:50 PM Terry48420 has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 224 of 301 (181428)
01-28-2005 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Terry48420
01-28-2005 4:34 PM


Re: Reply to Proboscis
Speaking as a Christian, I would like to ask you a couple questions.
Do you agree that GOD made man before he made trees?
Do you agree that GOD made man before any animals?
Do you agree that GOD's first plan was for sheep to be Adam's companion and not women?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Terry48420, posted 01-28-2005 4:34 PM Terry48420 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 225 of 301 (181429)
01-28-2005 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Terry48420
01-28-2005 4:34 PM


Re: Reply to Proboscis
I think Coragyps was making a different point. You said that there would be nothing left of Christian or Jewish faith if we didn't accept the literal truth of creation, Noah's flood, the virgin birth, and so forth. Coragyps provided the example of his father who never accepted these things as literal and yet demonstrated his Christian faith through his 45 years as a missionary and minister. This is evidence that one doesn't have to accept a literal interpretation in order to have Christian faith.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Terry48420, posted 01-28-2005 4:34 PM Terry48420 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024