Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 92

Thread: Why we take it literally.

  1. #26
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    But.......lets get back to the text and deal with the first question that now can pop up as we read....

    The question is about the 'darkness"
    If the Bible has told us in unmistakable terms that the stars including our own sun are created....then why is the earth said to be in "darkness"?


    The answer is found in another part of the Bible that happens to also be talking about this very same time in earth's history.....
    *** 38
    https://www.biblegateway.com/p***age...38&version=NIV

  2. #27
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    check *** 38 verse 4 to confirm that we are dealing with the same moment in time as is dealt with in genesis...


    Then look at this -
    "Who shut up the sea behind doors
    when it burst forth from the womb,
    9 when I made the clouds its garment
    and wrapped it in thick darkness'



    So in *** we read about the seas, and them being in "darkness".....but we also are told the reason the *** seas and the Genesis "waters / the deep" are in darkness too.....

    "clouds"

  3. #28
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Gotta go Alan, more tomorrow.

  4. #29
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    Gotta go Alan, more tomorrow.
    dang,,,,,I did not know yu were watching my posts in real time!!!!

    Im screwing around doing laundry and stuff to get ready for a trip...I should have posted a lot more

  5. #30
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    (I will try to make this up to you by posting now a bunch of things so that we have plenty of areas to talk about at your return.)

    Another thing we learn here at *** 38 isall about the "waters" that the Spirit of God is busy "hovering" over in Genesis.....we learn where they came from....
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-18-2014 at 06:34 PM.

  6. #31
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    The seas are said to have "burst forth from the womb,".........

    and according to science, very true too....

  7. #32
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Ok....time to do a little review so we can get a grasp of what we have looked at so far....


    In Genesis the first thing the bible tells us that God made was the "heavens"....
    and the term "heavens" can be talking about all the stars, and our sun is just a star too....so that means that right at the start of the genesis story we have the real "source" for all the light talked about later in the story....

    The earth is said to be covered in water....and in *** we learned where this water came from...

    Now many people have tried to twist into the story that the "waters"and "the deep" was not talking about the seas.....but there is no need to do such things....The "waters" and "the deep" can be just normal ways to talk about the seas of the earth.....

    and the reason why the sea was in darkness is told to us as being just normal but very 'thick" clouds........




    So there is nothing very weird or odd about the opening of the genesis story at all!
    If you just stick to the text you dont need to invent all the stuff that the YEC rely on to make the story read they way they want.....

  8. #33
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Now let us also review where we have seen the Young Earth teachers go off the deep end on the issues we have looked at so far...

    What happens is that because the YE teacher holds that the sun was not made until the 4th day, this has caused them to need to invent an answer that at least 'sounds' correct....even if there is nothing really in the Bible to support it at all.

    Thus because the YE Teacher has to drag the suns creation to the 4th day, they came up with all kinds of ways to light the earth for the "Let There Be Light" verse, that does not need the sun to be around.....


    This is also kinda like what the Young earth teacher will do when they need to deal with the question of "the waters" and 'the deep" that appear in the story before they believe any rain has fell on the earth yet.....

    They invent answers....


    they need to invent all kinds of answers, that pop in and out of favor depending on what YEC book you are reading...
    In one book a YEC writer might push the "sourceless light" idea, but in a later book a different YEC writer might dismiss that idea as silly.....



    I just think that if you stick close to the story as written you dont need to do any of the stuff......
    The story reads just fine as is...and in complete agreement with evolution and science by the way......

  9. #34
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    "he made the stars also."



    So if Im correct, and if the bible does teach that god made the stars at genesis 1:1...then why does the Bible later say that God made the stars on the 4th day?




    The answer is- Thats not actually what the text says on the 4th day.


    But people read it there, How can i say its not there when you can open the Bible and see it there?

    The answer is - go look a bit closer at the text there.
    Here is a link to the text in question. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-16/

    How does the verse read?....
    it reads "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.



    So the way the text reads, Im totally wrong correct?

    except i noticed something odd about that Bible verse....whats with the italic words "he made"?


    and what does it mean again when you read a word in italic in your Bible?
    The answer is that the Bible will put a word in italic when its simply added by the editor and does not appear in any translation or old m****cript.

    So the fact is, the people that push the idea that god made the stars on only the 4th day, base their idea on what is clearly an addition to the text by the editor....and ...well......thats not really a good idea to base a foundational idea on such paper-thin proof.......
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-18-2014 at 03:38 PM.

  10. #35
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    so..if you take out the "he made" addition to the verse, and just stick to the parts you know are meant to be there...does the sentence work?.....
    The answer is YES!......it works just fine......

    "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night the stars also"

    All it says is that the lesser light will rule the night and the stars also.........its no big deal...Thats after all what the lesser light still 'rules" or overpowers the darkness of the night and the sky filled with stars......
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-18-2014 at 03:20 PM.

  11. #36
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    So according to the srict reading of the text...the sun was NOT made on the 4th day
    The moon was NOT made on the 4th day....and
    The stars were NOT made on the 4th day.....



    So all the struggling that the Young Earth teachers do to make that all happen on the 4th day is silly, and not needed in the slightest way.

    The story works just fine as it appears, it does not need us to run around 'fixing' it with our additions.....

  12. #37
    Christodoulos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    So according to the srict reading of the text...the sun was NOT made on the 4th day
    The moon was NOT made on the 4th day....and
    The stars were NOT made on the 4th day.....

    So all the struggling that the Young Earth teachers do to make that all happen on the 4th day is silly, and not needed in the slightest way.

    The story works just fine as it appears, it does not need us to run around 'fixing' it with our additions.....
    All this proves is that Genesis is a compilation of creation stories common to the area ;and that each chapter has a compilation of events within it.

    it's not scientific :get used to it..

  13. #38
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    The Genesis story is religious.....it just happens to agree with the scientific...LOL


    Genesis and science talk about the same time in earth's early history.
    They speak to us from different points of view, but they talk about the same moments.
    They say different things in different ways , but they are always walking in agreement.

  14. #39
    Christodoulos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    The Genesis story is religious.....it just happens to agree with the scientific...LOL


    Genesis and science talk about the same time in earth's early history.
    They speak to us from different points of view, but they talk about the same moments.
    They say different things in different ways , but they are always walking in agreement.
    To a point but the female of the specie was not carved out of man's rib. Where do you see that in science. ?

    The " same moments?" six days is the same as 14 billion years?

    Get real, I thought you were smart..

    And yes, as a life long Christian ; God created the heavens and the Earth through totally natural processes.
    Processess which include the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IN BIOLOGY.
    you need to study more and read a lot more than you have been ..

  15. #40
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christodoulos View Post
    To a point but the female of the specie was not carved out of man's rib. Where do you see that in science. ?

    .
    are you saying that no amount of science will ever in even the next billion years ever understand how you can take a few cells from a person, and manipulate them in such a manner as to produce independent life?

  16. #41
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christodoulos View Post
    The " same moments?" six days is the same as 14 billion years?

    .
    Actually, as we read in Genesis 2, the 14 billion years are spoken of as taking place on a single "day"



    How long are creation days?...well as we read there are endings to the frst 6 days of the creation week...
    But what about the 7th day?...

    The answer is that in all the the book of Genesis or in fact in all of the entire Bible there is no stated ending yet to the 7th day.

    So if the 7th Day of Genesis has not ended yet, how long has it been going on so far?......
    The answer is that its hard to tell for sure in the Text.....but clearly we can see its been running so far for millions and millions of years just counting from the creation of mankind alone...

  17. #42
    Christodoulos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    are you saying that no amount of science will ever in even the next billion years ever understand how you can take a few cells from a person, and manipulate them in such a manner as to produce independent life?
    As an after thought? NO!

    how was man made to reproduce . or was he?

    If not ,then was he created with cojones or not? If so, for what purpose?

    Did Eve come first and then the cojones?

    Or were their two dissections.

    You can't bluff your way through this.

    Hey, I want to ask you .. how do I put someone on a IGNORE MESSAGING ?

    Can you instruct.. there's this **** bugging me ..

  18. #43
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christodoulos View Post
    As an after thought? NO!

    how was man made to reproduce . or was he?

    If not ,then was he created with cojones or not? If so, for what purpose?

    Did Eve come first and then the cojones?

    Or were their two dissections.

    You can't bluff your way through this.

    Hey, I want to ask you .. how do I put someone on a IGNORE MESSAGING ?

    Can you instruct.. there's this **** bugging me ..
    The answer is found at Genesis 1:28
    From the get-go Adam was able to have kids....thus he was as much a male as any of us who came from him....

  19. #44
    Christodoulos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    The answer is found at Genesis 1:28
    From the get-go Adam was able to have kids....thus he was as much a male as any of us who came from him....
    from the get go there was no Eve.. How was he going to procreate? was he a self actualizing **** with a womb?

  20. #45
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christodoulos View Post
    from the get go there was no Eve.. How was he going to procreate? was he a self actualizing **** with a womb?
    again the verse answers your question....from the get-go they were able to have kids.
    There is a strong hint in the story that Adam suffered the loss of a rib, but I see nothing in the text to suggest that anything else was taken or added during this time.

    So if anyone were to suggest that Adam was not created a normal "male" they would need to support this with Scripture....as there is none to support that idea, it fails.

    the Bible does tell us clearly that the first "man" was Adam.
    This is a good text-proof to support the idea that Adam was just created a normal male as are the children who stem from his loins.

  21. #46
    Christodoulos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    again the verse answers your question....from the get-go they were able to have kids.
    There is a strong hint in the story that Adam suffered the loss of a rib, but I see nothing in the text to suggest that anything else was taken or added during this time.

    So if anyone were to suggest that Adam was not created a normal "male" they would need to support this with Scripture....as there is none to support that idea, it fails.

    the Bible does tell us clearly that the first "man" was Adam.
    This is a good text-proof to support the idea that Adam was just created a normal male as are the children who stem from his loins.
    Eve was not part of the original plan.. Only after Adam became lonely and needed a help mate did the rib become Eve.

    So ,how was Adam to procreate if Eve had not been necessary. ? Answer the question without any B.S.

  22. #47
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christodoulos View Post
    Eve was not part of the original plan.. Only after Adam became lonely and needed a help mate did the rib become Eve.

    So ,how was Adam to procreate if Eve had not been necessary. ? Answer the question without any B.S.
    The answer is , was Adam told to have kids before Eve was introduced to him?......no.

    before Adam or any man meets his wife we are not commanded to have children.
    before I met my wife, I was still a male....I still had all the bits I would need.
    So there is no support at all for the idea that Adam was any different than His future children.
    Once again, that idea "Fails"

  23. #48
    Christodoulos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    The answer is , was Adam told to have kids before Eve was introduced to him?......no.

    before Adam or any man meets his wife we are not commanded to have children.
    before I met my wife, I was still a male....I still had all the bits I would need.
    So there is no support at all for the idea that Adam was any different than His future children.
    Once again, that idea "Fails"
    The idea does fail ,because the idea was allegorical from the get go. but good try!

  24. #49
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    so there is nothing in the Genesis story that can not be taken very literal...

    while it is true that we can find great hidden meanings in the events of the story, we also can find very real history too!

  25. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    Hi TD,

    Thanks for your input. I see no reason not to interpert the creation account as literal and as I said in my OP if we don't, then we also have to dismiss what Luke,
    Paul and Jesus said pertaining to Adam and creation. Placing long ages of time between "the beginning" and the creation of Adam presents the problem of having to redefine the “very good” of Genesis 1:31 because God would have to place Adam, as a very late arrival, in a world that was not "very good" at all. Adam would have been walking on the graveyard of literally billions and billions of dead creatures, including the dinosaurs, over which he had never exercised dominion. God would have placed him in a world that would be the domain of a fallen and wicked being, Satan. This is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture.
    Most gap theory advocates claim that the original creation of Genesis 1:1 existed for millions of years but that God in His Word leaves us no clear evidence about its existence. This means that we know nothing about the order of the events of that creation; nothing about its features; and nothing about its history, which would have cons***uted over 99.9% of the earth’s history, since the time from Genesis 1:2 to present day is chronologically calculated to only about 6,000 years. It is then left up to the evolutionists to fill these gaps in our knowledge. It seems more reasonable to trust that a powerful, soverign God would give us a correct account of His creation than to trust in the theories of men no matter how brillant they appear to be.
    You presume again that the entire earth is Eden, but not true. Eden was located in Eastern Turkey, and the garden had distinct boundaries. When they sinned, they were cast out into the larger world where the thorns and thistles already were. We also cannot presume that "good" means pristine, since the Heb. term can also mean "it fits His purpose well", which I believe is true to the context. A good read is "The End of Christianity: Finding a Good God in an Evil World" by William Dembski, in which he points out that God could have created the universe with decay from the beginning, in anticipation of sin coming in with Adam and Eve, such that the effect of sin is retroactive to the beginning of creation, just as Christ's redeeming sacrifice was retroactive to the beginning. So then, Adam and Eve did not experience the curse of the ground until they were cast out of the garden where God kept them separated from it.

    In regard to dominion, Adam had it only in Eden. He was given a command to multiply and fill the earth, a command that God knew Adam would never fulfill. It was when they were cast out of the garden that the environment went from pristine to corrupt. Furthermore, when Rom. 5 says that death came through Adam, it is talking about spiritual death. Physical death of animals and plants already existed.

    TD

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •