Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 92

Thread: Why we take it literally.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    588

    Default Why we take it literally.

    Some Christians say that asking people to literally believe in the Bible’s account of Adam and Eve and creation hurts the cause of Christ and cons***ute a threat to
    Christianity. But without a real Adam and Eve, the Bible loses its basis for the fall, sin, the need for redemption, and the need for Jesus and atonement. Perhaps it is easy to regard the Creation account in Genesis as a fairytale, but if we say that, what other scripture do we have to discount in order to keep the fairytale premise consistent?
    We have 3 reliable sources who agree with the account of Adam and Eve. Luke’s genealogy in chapter 3 of his gospel links Jesus to Joseph, David, Abraham, and, ultimately, Adam. It would make no sense for Luke to mention real person after real person only to come to the climax of his genealogy by mentioning a mythical figure. One who denies that Adam was a real person has reason to also question whether the rest of Luke’s figures are actual people as well. If one denies that Adam was a real person, it is difficult to make sense of Paul’s ****ogy of the relationship between Christ and Adam. Paul tells us that sin came into the world through one actual person (Rom. 5:12). Paul also makes a direct connection between Adam and Christ: 1 Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:45: “Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
    Even if one p***es over Luke and Paul, one must deal with Jesus and his teachings. In Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4, Jesus refers to Genesis, speaking of God’s order in creating Adam and Eve and relating that literal act to the ins***ution of marriage. It’s difficult to think that Jesus could be wrong about his own creative event.
    So if we say these things are only stories and opt for evolution, how do we ask people to follow Christ? Why should they? They have no basis to believe they need redemption.

  2. #2
    Christodoulos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    Some Christians say that asking people to literally believe in the Bible’s account of Adam and Eve and creation hurts the cause of Christ and cons***ute a threat to
    Christianity. But without a real Adam and Eve, the Bible loses its basis for the fall, sin, the need for redemption, and the need for Jesus and atonement. Perhaps it is easy to regard the Creation account in Genesis as a fairytale, but if we say that, what other scripture do we have to discount in order to keep the fairytale premise consistent?
    We have 3 reliable sources who agree with the account of Adam and Eve. Luke’s genealogy in chapter 3 of his gospel links Jesus to Joseph, David, Abraham, and, ultimately, Adam. It would make no sense for Luke to mention real person after real person only to come to the climax of his genealogy by mentioning a mythical figure. One who denies that Adam was a real person has reason to also question whether the rest of Luke’s figures are actual people as well. If one denies that Adam was a real person, it is difficult to make sense of Paul’s ****ogy of the relationship between Christ and Adam. Paul tells us that sin came into the world through one actual person (Rom. 5:12). Paul also makes a direct connection between Adam and Christ: 1 Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:45: “Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
    Even if one p***es over Luke and Paul, one must deal with Jesus and his teachings. In Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4, Jesus refers to Genesis, speaking of God’s order in creating Adam and Eve and relating that literal act to the ins***ution of marriage. It’s difficult to think that Jesus could be wrong about his own creative event.
    So if we say these things are only stories and opt for evolution, how do we ask people to follow Christ? Why should they? They have no basis to believe they need redemption.

    All you're saying is that if religion is true then science must be false.

    And this is why you are seriously hurting the cause of Christ.

    This is why you are holding him up to ridicule by his sworn enemies.

    Mankind is in need of redemption with or without evolution.

    You never address the question or the point that all the books of the Bible were not written at the same time or for the same purpose.

    You don't understand that in ancient times allegory was the means of conveying spiritual truths.

    The problem that you and others like you have is that allegories or parables do not have to be geographically, historically or even theologically correct to be spiritually true.

    The Bible infers a flat earth[ disk shape] ;does that mean that Galileo was lying to us?

  3. #3
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    588

    Default

    “All you're saying is that if religion is true then science must be false.”

    No, I think proven scientific discoveries show the Bible to be correct. Christianity
    has nothing to fear from real science, theories are something else.


    “And this is why you are seriously hurting the cause of Christ.”

    Could you explain how believing what the Bible says hurts the cause of Christ?
    People discount the Resurrection as much as the creation account, should we also
    call that an allegory?


    “This is why you are holding him up to ridicule by his sworn enemies.”

    God inspired the scriptures, not you or I.

    “Mankind is in need of redemption with or without evolution.”

    So was man created perfectly sinless or not? How did sin enter the world, did man choose
    to sin or is sin part of evolution?


    “You never address the question or the point that all the books of the Bible were not written at the same time or for the same purpose.”

    I don’t disagree with that.


    “You don't understand that in ancient times allegory was the means of conveying spiritual truths.”

    So what Luke and Paul wrote about Adam and what Jesus said about creation are allegories”

    The problem that you and others like you have is that allegories or parables do not have to be geographically, historically or even theologically correct to be spiritually true.”

    I think that works fine if you are a gnostic.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    Some Christians say that asking people to literally believe in the Bible’s account of Adam and Eve and creation hurts the cause of Christ and cons***ute a threat to
    Christianity. But without a real Adam and Eve, the Bible loses its basis for the fall, sin, the need for redemption, and the need for Jesus and atonement. Perhaps it is easy to regard the Creation account in Genesis as a fairytale, but if we say that, what other scripture do we have to discount in order to keep the fairytale premise consistent?
    We have 3 reliable sources who agree with the account of Adam and Eve. Luke’s genealogy in chapter 3 of his gospel links Jesus to Joseph, David, Abraham, and, ultimately, Adam. It would make no sense for Luke to mention real person after real person only to come to the climax of his genealogy by mentioning a mythical figure. One who denies that Adam was a real person has reason to also question whether the rest of Luke’s figures are actual people as well. If one denies that Adam was a real person, it is difficult to make sense of Paul’s ****ogy of the relationship between Christ and Adam. Paul tells us that sin came into the world through one actual person (Rom. 5:12). Paul also makes a direct connection between Adam and Christ: 1 Cor. 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:45: “Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
    Even if one p***es over Luke and Paul, one must deal with Jesus and his teachings. In Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4, Jesus refers to Genesis, speaking of God’s order in creating Adam and Eve and relating that literal act to the ins***ution of marriage. It’s difficult to think that Jesus could be wrong about his own creative event.
    So if we say these things are only stories and opt for evolution, how do we ask people to follow Christ? Why should they? They have no basis to believe they need redemption.
    There is an obvious premise in your argument here - "if the creation account in ch. 1 is figurative, then Adam cannot be a literal person." Or else, "if Adam was a literal person, then Gen. 1 MUST be interpreted literally." I don't agree with your premise. There was time between the beginning and the creation of man, which your proof texts do not address.

    There are some things about the Gen 1 account of a literal 6-day creation that contradict things about known science today, such as (not an exhaustive list):
    1. There were 3 evening/morning days (24 hr periods - literal days) before the sun, moon, and stars were created
    2. The light on day 1-3 had to have a different source than the sun, moon, and stars, which source does not exist today
    3. Day and night were not governed by lights until the 4th day - so how do you get evening/morning the 1st 3 days

    Then you have to somehow reconcile the YEC 6000 year old universe with evidences of long ages (100's of 1000's of years), such as observations of supernovas and ice core samples which accurately and mathematically put events in space and on earth at > 100,000 years. So then there are only a few possible conclusions we can arrive at, e.g. these two:

    1. Gen. 1 is a scientific, historical, chronological account, and the scientific evidence we see is simply an illusion; then we have to take Gen. 1 literally with blind faith. (the YEC stand)
    2. Gen. 1 is a figurative account of creation which has no scientific basis (its value is religious, not scientific). Therefore the "6 days" is about creation order, not about science. Then the scientific evidences about long ages of the universe and of earth can be accepted, as well as the archeological evidence of the existence of man which appears to be about 6000 years.

    I happen to think that #2 is more reasonable.
    TD

  5. #5
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    the bible does not teach that the sun was created on the 4th day...

  6. #6
    Christodoulos
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    the bible does not teach that the sun was created on the 4th day...
    so what? did it stand still also?

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    the bible does not teach that the sun was created on the 4th day...
    Gen 1:16-19
    God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

    I disagree with your statement.
    TD

  8. #8
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    Gen 1:16-19
    God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

    I disagree with your statement.
    TD
    look for the text say the "sun" was made..........it does not say that the sun was made.
    what does it say was made?.........LOL

    also notice the part that says the stars was "made" was added....it does not actually say the stars was made on the forth day.....

  9. #9
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    so when does the bible say the sun and the moon and all the stars as well as all the things in space were made?................the answer is genesis 1:1

  10. #10
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    a lot of bible students are taught by their teachers that "God made the sun on the 4th day"....but if the bible student were to actually go read the text for the 4th day , they would see that "This is not what the text says..."

    The problem is that if you just take the Text as written, then you totally destroy all the Young Earth arguments....
    Yes, its true.
    If you just read and believe the Genesis text as we see it written in the bible you don't find any issues with their being an Old earth,,,or any disagreements with Evolution....nor any reason for Bible students to worry that they need to invent all kinds of anti-science concepts like the "sourceless light"


    most if not all the arguments that bible students hear about the great "Genesis /Evolution" debate are actually a debate between good science on the one hand, and false teachings about what the bible says on the other.




    What Im saying is this:

    If we as Bible students just read the Text of Scripture as it is written, then we will never need to fear science, never need to think the Bible stands against the teachings of Evolution, never live in fear that our children are learning bad things in school....






    So what does the bible say?
    It says that the first thing God made in the beginning was_________?
    The answer is that the very first thing God made in the beginning was the "Heavens"

    Now there are a few different meanings to the word "heavens" to be sure in the Bible....and Im not here to force you to believe that the term "heavens" must mean only one thing here at Genesis 1:1.

    But I am here to tell you that among the many different ways to correctly understand the word "heavens" that one of these correct meanings is the idea for the sun, the moon, and all the things up in the sky like stars and planets, and asteroids and black holes, and etc, etc, etc....all that stuff out there in space.

    This fits correctly with what Science teaches by the way...

    So right here in the Bible we find an accurate account of how the universe was made.

    No need to invent a "sourceless light".........no need to have the Genesis "day" be any different in its nature and cause than any other day.


    Now the word 'day" is also important to see how both Science and Genesis walk in agreement.....but I shall deal with that in a later comment.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    159

    Default

    I agree with what you say about not believing in a "sourceless light." But here is where we differ in interpretation:
    Gen. 1:1 is a general introductory statement to what is said in ch. 1; and ch. 1 is introductory to ch 2 and beyond. Therefore, when it says "God created the heavens and the earth," this is a brief introduction to how it was done in ch. 1.

    Furthermore, "the great lights" mentioned on day 4 has to be the sun and moon, since the same context says "he made the stars also." Most everyone who has a common-sense approach to Gen. 1 agrees with this idea, therefore if you are wanting to correct everyone else with your idea, the burden of proof is on you to show by exegesis just exactly what those great lights are, if indeed you don't believe them to be the sun and the moon.

    You argue that day 4 doesn't say "sun", but neither does it say "sun" in verse 1 either!! It appears to me that you're just nitpicking at words. Give us a hermeneutic that proves what the great lights are. You can see that my interpretation is based on context and what historic orthodox Christian teaching has given us. If you want to change this idea, you need to do a lot more work on it.
    TD

  12. #12
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    I agree with what you say about not believing in a "sourceless light." But here is where we differ in interpretation:
    Gen. 1:1 is a general introductory statement to what is said in ch. 1; and ch. 1 is introductory to ch 2 and beyond. Therefore, when it says "God created the heavens and the earth," this is a brief introduction to how it was done in ch. 1.
    Where does it say in the Bible that Genesis 1:1 is only an introduction?.......

    is that idea in the Bible or did some guy make it up because it agreed with some other things that he agrees with but that are also not in the bible?

    if you can find me any verse in the Bible that teaches what you said about Genesis 1:1 I will have a look.
    But if all you got to support that idea is the fact that it agrees with what you want the bible to have said?.......then you are alone on that.



    I believe there is a far better way to read the bible that does not require adding things and discounting verses as being only an "introduction"
    The better way is to just read the Text as it is written....and believe it as written.

    Thats all......
    Just read and believe.

    No need to invent things to add to the text, no need to make some verses meaningless...no need to add concepts that flay in the face of science.
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-17-2014 at 02:37 PM.

  13. #13
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    Furthermore, "the great lights" mentioned on day 4 has to be the sun and moon, since the same context says "he made the stars also."
    But friend, the Text does not actually say that !

    Go look it up,,,check it out...*
    The text does not say that God "made" the stars also on the 4th day!



    What this means is that if you support the idea that the "greater light has to be the sun with the idea that God made the stars also on the 4th day, but that in truth the Bible does not say that the stars were made on the 4th day, then your whole support for the 'sun and moon" stuff falls like a House Of Cards!



    * http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-1-16/

  14. #14
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    You argue that day 4 doesn't say "sun", but neither does it say "sun" in verse 1 either!!
    But I have never said that God ONLY made the sun on the 1st day!

    Have I ever said that the sun was the only thing made on the 1st day?.......

    So what did God make on the first day according to the text?.....
    The answer is?......EVERYTHING!


    Thats right, God made everything in the cosmos on the 1st day...from not only our own star the sun, but also all the billions and uncountable billions of galaxies that are themselves filled with uncountable billions and billions of stars and worlds and moons and rocks, and dust and giant gas bodies, and black holes that all the other things that our science is yet to discover!

    All created here in Genesis 1:1......all given the correct ***le too by the way.
    For the word the Bible uses is the really only correct word it could use to describe just how much God created at this first moment of creation!>>>>>>>>"Heavens"!


    In the beginning God created........_________, what?

  15. #15
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    Give us a hermeneutic that proves what the great lights are. ....
    "Hermeneutics" = is the theory of text interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts.


    Here you go Tdidymas....
    The "light" of the 1st day is the very same "light" talked about on the 4th day.

    The light is the same.....

    So if the light is the very same light that we have already talked about on the 1st day, what is so different now on the 4th?

    The answer is found in what we read about the light on the 4th day..
    Thats all we have to do to learn the answer...Just read the text!


    It's than simple.

    Just read the text as it appears and dont feel the need to twist the text into saying things that dont appear .

    For what we read is that there is now a "greater" light...and a "lessor" light.


    So the light of the 4th day and the 1st day is the same light, but the "AMOUNT" of light seen on the earth is now changed!


    The source is still the same source.
    The source for the light on the 1st day is the same source on the 4th day, AND (You are going to want to pay attention to this next part).......and its the very same source for the same light we see today!

    The source for the Light never changed from Genesis 1:1 to today .
    The source is still the same.

    But on the 4th day we do now find that the "AMOUNT" of light is said to now have changed.
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-18-2014 at 04:30 AM.

  16. #16
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    http://www.geocreationism.com/script...oon-stars.html

    I think this is a nice way to understand the Genesis text that does not require a person add to the word of God, nor take away things, make other things meaningless, etc.

    Its a lot more easy just to read the text as it appears and believe it....

  17. #17
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    "Hermeneutics" = is the theory of text interpretation, especially the interpretation of biblical texts.


    Here you go Tdidymas....
    The "light" of the 1st day is the very same "light" talked about on the 4th day.

    The light is the same.....

    So if the light is the very same light that we have already talked about on the 1st day, what is so different now on the 4th?

    The answer is found in what we read about the light on the 4th day..
    Thats all we have to do to learn the answer...Just read the text!


    It's than simple.

    Just read the text as it appears and dont feel the need to twist the text into saying things that dont appear .

    For what we read is that there is now a "greater" light...and a "lessor" light.


    So the light of the 4th day and the 1st day is the same light, but the "AMOUNT" of light seen on the earth is now changed!


    The source is still the same source.
    The source for the light on the 1st day is the same source on the 4th day, AND (You are going to want to pay attention to this next part).......and its the very same source for the same light we see today!

    The source for the Light never changed from Genesis 1:1 to today .
    The source is still the same.

    But on the 4th day we do now find that the "AMOUNT" of light is said to now have changed.
    This answer I have to say is one of my best to this issue of the lights of the 4th day.

    I may have to copy/paste it on a few forums Im a member of?

  18. #18
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    seems I always get the last word......
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 10-14-2017 at 07:35 AM.

  19. #19
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    588

    Default

    Hi Alan, You said:
    "a lot of bible students are taught by their teachers that "God made the sun on the 4th day"....but if the bible student were to actually go read the text for the 4th day , they would see that "This is not what the text says..."

    The problem is that if you just take the Text as written, then you totally destroy all the Young Earth arguments....
    Yes, its true.
    If you just read and believe the Genesis text as we see it written in the bible you don't find any issues with their being an Old earth,,,or any disagreements with Evolution....nor any reason for Bible students to worry that they need to invent all kinds of anti-science concepts like the "sourceless light"


    Ok, so looking at the text from the King James Version,
    14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
    15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
    16 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.
    17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
    18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

    We know today that all it takes to have a day-night cycle is a rotating Earth and light coming from one direction. The Bible tells us clearly that God created light on the first day, as well as the Earth. Thus we can deduce that the Earth was already rotating in space relative to this created light. This was not a "sourceless" light, the Creator was the source.
    God can, of course, create light without a secondary source. We are told that in the new heavens and Earth there will be no need for sun or moon (Rev 21:23). In Genesis, God even defines a day and a night in terms of light or its absence.
    On the fourth day the system we have now was ins***uted as the Earth’s temporary lights (until the new heaven and earth) were made (vs. 16), so the diffused light from the first day was no longer needed. I don't see this explanation adding to or changing the text, nor is it anti-science.

  20. #20
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdidymas View Post
    There is an obvious premise in your argument here - "if the creation account in ch. 1 is figurative, then Adam cannot be a literal person." Or else, "if Adam was a literal person, then Gen. 1 MUST be interpreted literally." I don't agree with your premise. There was time between the beginning and the creation of man, which your proof texts do not address.

    There are some things about the Gen 1 account of a literal 6-day creation that contradict things about known science today, such as (not an exhaustive list):
    1. There were 3 evening/morning days (24 hr periods - literal days) before the sun, moon, and stars were created
    2. The light on day 1-3 had to have a different source than the sun, moon, and stars, which source does not exist today
    3. Day and night were not governed by lights until the 4th day - so how do you get evening/morning the 1st 3 days

    Then you have to somehow reconcile the YEC 6000 year old universe with evidences of long ages (100's of 1000's of years), such as observations of supernovas and ice core samples which accurately and mathematically put events in space and on earth at > 100,000 years. So then there are only a few possible conclusions we can arrive at, e.g. these two:

    1. Gen. 1 is a scientific, historical, chronological account, and the scientific evidence we see is simply an illusion; then we have to take Gen. 1 literally with blind faith. (the YEC stand)
    2. Gen. 1 is a figurative account of creation which has no scientific basis (its value is religious, not scientific). Therefore the "6 days" is about creation order, not about science. Then the scientific evidences about long ages of the universe and of earth can be accepted, as well as the archeological evidence of the existence of man which appears to be about 6000 years.

    I happen to think that #2 is more reasonable.
    TD
    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.

  21. #21
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    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.
    I totally disagree with about everything you have posted above....from the start I think you are adding things to the text and building one false argument on top of another....

  22. #22
    Senior Member disciple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    588

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post
    I totally disagree with about everything you have posted above....from the start I think you are adding things to the text and building one false argument on top of another....
    Hi Alan,

    I think it's fine that you disagree. I don't think I have added anything to the text, I have given my opinion and what I believe about the text. There is also a difference between a false argument and one you just don't agree with. What do you consider false about my statements?

  23. #23
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    ..... What do you consider false about my statements?
    thats a very good subject for my next post....I will go over that post and add my own comments where I think things you have stated simply do not find support in the Bible....

  24. #24
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    so while you re-read the Genesis 1 verse1 and attempt to answer my question, Im going to tell you a story.


    a long time ago I was In a cl*** taught by a very well known Young earth Creationist....

    His name was Ken Ham.

    He taught my Sunday morning adult Bible cl*** for around 8 weeks at our church in Seattle.
    He is (I think) the most well known and well respected YEC writer and researcher in the world.

    Well....needless to say after the 8-week cl*** was over a lot of the people in my cl*** had a lot of issuesand questions about Genesis and what we really should believe.
    There were a few voices that did stand up and started to give a bit more bible-backed view of the Genesis story, and I am proud to say I was among them that entered into this work of providing answers to people who had doubts.

    However I was challenged by a lot of the cl*** to as I began to openly disagree with what Ken Ham had been teaching.

    One of the first places where I disagreed was on the question, "What did God make first?"
    This was the real heart of the problem I had with Ken Ham as he had all kinds of ways to prove that "light" was the first thing God made....and as Ken also taught that the sun was not made until the 4th day, Ken Ham had then needed to invent a whole pile of ways to have "light" before there was any 'source" for that light.

    Once the door was open to adding invented ideas , the pile of extra-Biblical ideas that were used as "foundation" for other even more wild ideas grew and grew, the pile-on of one false YEC idea on top of another false YEC idea just never stopped!



    This is the main thing a person has to deal with when debating a believer in Ken Ham's version of creationism.
    The fact that the Young Earther will pile-on one invented idea on top of another....and use this as their foundation to add even more false ideas to the growing pile or error.

    So I had to pin people down on the question as to "What does the Bible say God made first in the beginning?"
    Over and over I would ask them...."What does the Bible say God made first "In the beginning?"



    How did this question do?
    Well, the truth is, that this one simple question actually did a very good *** at helping many Bible students see the real need to allow the Bible to say what it means...
    It also showed the cl*** the members of the cl*** who could disregard easily what they saw clearly the Bible was teaching as they pushed their own YEC agenda.


    The question helped people see that there are some people that have their own ideas what they think the "Bible should have said"....and so they struggle to twist the Bible in an effort to make it more correctly line-up with YEC teachings....






    Just so everyone knows where I stand on YEC teachings....I believe Young Earth Creationism is an invented idea of a bunch of false Bible teachers, and it fools many Bible students that unfortunately never bother to open their Bibles and check out what it being said.
    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-18-2014 at 01:00 PM.

  25. #25
    alanmolstad
    Guest

    Default

    Because i do not understand how to break up your post into nice little sections...(any advice on how to do that would be helpfull) I will just post your whole comment in regular type, and then slide my own comments into the mix in what i hope will be BOLD type...



    Quote Originally Posted by disciple View Post
    Hi TD,

    Thanks for your input. I see no reason not to interpret the creation account as literal
    I agree, I always read the text in Genesis as it it truly means just what it says....



    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.
    "not good"???
    Thats just your opinion...there is not a single word to support this idea you have here...and because you base a lot of other things on this opinion you are building a whole foundation on nothing but your private views...






    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.
    Again this is just your personal opinion....not a word in the Bible supports this view



    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.
    Again, this is your personal opinion.....



    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.

    Now lets move on from all the things you have posted that simply are not found in the Bible, and go back to the simple words of the text and allow the text to tell us whats going on and when.

    First, in Genesis 1 verse 1 , what does the Bible say God made first "In the beginning"?????

    Last edited by alanmolstad; 08-18-2014 at 01:08 PM.

Posting Permissions

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