Understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal or non-literal

[ParanoidAndroid]

Wrong. The reasoning I provide requires that we examine the figurative imagery of the Song of Solomon in the light of the applicable historical-cultural context in order to determine the literal truths behind the text. Furthermore, you cannot compare the imagery-rich text of the Song of Solomon with text of Genesis 1-11. There is simply no similarity between the texts. Again,

[ParanoidAndroid]

Now we arrive the most problematic part of your position. You are claiming that Paul was wrong concerning Adam

[Guest shiloh357]

I did not intend to compare Song of Solomon to Genesis 1-11. I was simply using it to clarify your point - as you say, ""literal" always follows the intent of the author". That makes the intent of the author of Song of Solomon to be that of poetry - thus poetry is a "literal reading of that text". You seem to confirm that in your comment here while disagreeing with me at the same time (quite perplexing).

It is only perplexing because you are still missing the meaning of

[Guest shiloh357]

But the sheer scope of many generations having a through-line that builds and builds on itself before climaxing is just not historical.

Sure it is. It is the story of the world we live in and it has been building and building even to this day and we are headed for the most climactic event of the ages. Since the beginning of time, and all through the Bible, we see a constant crescendo of both good and evil. The world continues to get worse and worse. There are more people separated from God today, than at any time history. Just over the last 100 years, we have fought the bloodiest, costliest wars imaginable. Today man is further from God than at any time in history. Far from evolving, the world is devolving further and further down into an endless spiral of sin and destruction. It started in the Garden of Eden, and has brought us to where we are today.

I am making no such challenges against the authority or inspiration of scripture. I am simply saying that Paul was writing within the cultural framework of his society,

Let me try to explain this again. Paul did not

[Guest shiloh357]

Third post

The same can be said of the character, Enoch. We know very little about him beyond the fact that he walked with God and did not die. It is no coincidence that the genealogy of Genesis 5, Enoch is the seventh generation removed from God. Of all the people in this genealogy, he is the only one to have lived for God, walked with God. The repetition of "and then he died" in all the other genealogies echoes in stark contrast to Enoch being taken up to be with God. As noted previously, the number 7 in Hebrew culture was a number of perfection, and it appears obvious the purpose in Enoch's genealogy being the seventh generation removed from God (after Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalal, and Jared).

The intention of the author is obvious - the seventh generation walked with God and was rewarded for it, in contrast to the generations before and since that lived and died. Was there such a character as this? Very possibly. Was it the exact seventh generation - probably not. Beyond the imagery of the number 7 here, there is also the little-known fact that ancient authors had a tendency to skip generations in their genealogies, omitting names that they deemed were not worthy enough to be included in line. This served a dual purpose: 1- to save space on costly parchment, and 2- to improve the look of the family line. Thus two genealogies written by two different people, but about the same family line, may be slightly different, since different authors may not necessarily agree as to who was important enough to warrant mention in a family line.

The problem here again, is that the Bible does not support that theory. You are reading alot into the intention of author. The intentions YOU ascribe to him are not shown anywhere in the Bible to be true. It is just a case of you assigning your values to the text. The New Testament in every reference to Enoch, refers to him as a real person not a symbol for a generation. In Hebrews it reads:

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.

(Hebrews 11:5)

In Jude we find:

It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

(Jude 1:14-15)

In Genesis 5, we find another genealogy that would be entirely unnecessary in a nonhistorical document particularly where it comes to listing the ages of each person listed AND listing their ages at the time of their offspring. This is simply not a characteristic of nonhistorical literature. You are trying to read imagery and symbolism into a text that does not indicate at any point that it is being symbolic or figurative.

And yet again, we can say the same thing about the Tower of Babel. There was likely a tower that was being built by the people - a monstrous construction that they had hoped to honour themselves. Something in the construction went wrong though - perhaps the plan was too ambitious for the technological skills of the craftsmen. The plan was abandoned and the author based this event again on God's judgement (and again, perhaps there was a manner of Judgement - but the author's intention in writing was not an historical approach but a theological one).

You are leaving out a lot of information about this story.

1. The tower was most likely what we call a

[ParanoidAndroid]

Thank you for bearing with me, Shiloh. I am sorry I do not have the ability to respond every 2 or 3 days. The focus of this post (beyond refutation, of course) is to discuss the issue of how important an historical or non-historical approach is to our salvation, and to our deeds in service to God who saved us. First to refutation:

It is only perplexing because you are still missing the meaning of

[ParanoidAndroid]

Sure it is. It is the story of the world we live in and it has been building and building even to this day and we are headed for the most climactic event of the ages. Since the beginning of time, and all through the Bible, we see a constant crescendo of both good and evil. The world continues to get worse and worse. There are more people separated from God today, than at any time history. Just over the last 100 years, we have fought the bloodiest, costliest wars imaginable. Today man is further from God than at any time in history. Far from evolving, the world is devolving further and further down into an endless spiral of sin and destruction. It started in the Garden of Eden, and has brought us to where we are today.

I don't buy that. Are we further today from God than back 2000 years when people lived and died in Australia and China (as two examples) never having even heard about Yahweh (these people are "separated from God" simply by not hearing about God - though arguments about their eternal souls will rage for as long as Christianity exists, since the Bible does not tell us what happens to those who die never hearing about God at all). As it stands, Christianity continues to spread throughout the world. However, you are right that Christianity is declining more in recent times than it has at any time in the past 1700 years.

While I agree the world is building to something, just looking at history we cannot see any particular through-line as we can in the opening 11 chapters of Genesis, which is the entire point of my current argument.

Let me try to explain this again. Paul did not “write” the Scriptures ultimately. The Bible’s ultimate and overall author is God. God is the source for what Paul wrote. To say Paul got it wrong, is to say God got it wrong. To say otherwise, demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what “inspiration” means when we use it terms of how God communicated His words to human authors.

I understand what you are trying to say. I just reject the notion that inspired by God means that the author had no impact whatsoever on the material. Whenever we read the Bible, it is absolutely critical to understand the audience to whom the author was writing at the time, the events surrounding the writing of the text, and any pertinent information on the author themselves. This helps with a greater understanding of how the Bible relates to our world today.

What you do not take into consideration (or at least play down significantly) is the role of "dual authorship" - The Bible is written both by man and by God, written for one person or group of people at a specific time in history but at the same time, the Bible is inspired by God, intended for all people for all time. This dual authorship is absolutely vital in understanding how the Bible needs to be understood in times beyond those of the intended audience.

The role of the human author is absolutely vital then, to understand the Bible. Yes, I agree it is written by inspiration of God, but there is the original author and the original context to consider as well. I thus have no problem with this concept of dual authorship suggesting that an author can make a comment like this and still keep the Bible as the inspired and infallible word of God. Because whether Paul was completely right or not, the effects of his comments are still theologically accurate - sin came into existence when the first human chose to disobey God.

The problem here is that you are comparing two entirely different things. First of all the book of Joshua denotes theme not authorship. We do not know who put pen to papyrus where the book of Joshua is concerned. Joshua is not considered by most to be the author, but is simply the main character. The author of Joshua correctly and truthfully records what Joshua said. It is not a teaching on how the sun operates, but truthfully records what Joshua said. The Bible also truthfully records of Satan as well, but that is not an approval of what Satan says, but simply the truthful record of what he said.

In terms of inspiration, the author of Joshua didn’t “get it wrong.” Keep in mind, Joshua’s prayer was not “inspired.” Joshua was not speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when he called on the sun to stand still. The author of Joshua was inspired to include Joshua’s words, but the mere recording of Joshua’s words does not attribute any divine origin or inspiration to what Joshua said nor is it a statement of belief or science on the relationship of the sun to the earth.

As a side note, it also bears noting that even today, meteorologists still use terms like “sunrise” and “sunset” in their weather report although neither terms are scientifically accurate.

So when Joshua asked God to put his hand to the sun and stop it moving, God did not do what was asked but simply adhered to the spirit of the command.

I do see what you are saying, but what you do not consider here is that for centuries, the Church used passages just like these to adhere to a geocentric view of the universe. Suddenly, science tells us something different and now the text is just reporting what was said, not a factual account of what God did. Sure, we can say that these early Christians got it wrong - they are not infallible, after all. But why is it possible for them to be wrong, but for us we must be absolutely right on everything? That is a key question to consider. I for one know I am not absolutely right on absolutely everything. Such is the nature of God that we cannot know absolutely everything, not until we meet God face-to-face.

In Romans, we have something entirely different. Paul IS teaching and He is making theological statements under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God does not make errors. God is also not limited to any human frames of reference. Paul’s cultural frame of reference had nothing to do with it. For one thing, the Jews of Paul’s day did not teach that sin came through Adam. They still don’t. Judaism does not believe in the doctrine of Original Sin, so Paul could not have derived that teaching from his “cultural frame of reference.”

What you have seemed to miss is what Paul claims as the source for his teachings:

For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

(Galatians 1:11-12)

That means that Paul did not receive it from the apostles nor at the school of Gamaliel, or during his time in Tarsus. It was a special revelation from Jesus. Paul’s gospel encompasses everything from the origin of man’s sin to the full and final eradication of sin from the world. In effect, Paul’s gospel begins in Genesis takes us all the way to the end to full and final manifestation of redemption when God brings this current world’s age to an end.

I did not miss that - I agree, in fact. But that still does not remove the input of Paul as author as well as God as author.

P.S - what is your understanding of "Original Sin" as outlined by Romans 5? I know it's not quite topical, but it might help me to better understand the frame of reference you are using.

Wrong. And I will show why. The structure of Gen. 1-11 is quite historic for the followings reasons:

1. In non-historical accounts we do not find geographical, cultural or genealogical details. In Genesis 2: 10-14, we have geographical detail. In chapters 4, 5 and 11, we find genealogical details. Both of these are more consistent with an historical narrative than a non-historical narrative.
   
2. In Gen. 1-11 there are over 60 geographic references, 88 names of specific people, and 21 items of cultural significance. Again, this is more consistent with nonhistorical patterns we find in the Bible.
   
3. The following passages of Hebrew poetry refer to the creation: (Psalm 104:5-9, Psalms 8 & 19, and Job 38:8-11) These are passages from the Bible that are genuinely poetic, and one can easily see how sharply poetic literature contrasts with the creation account in Genesis 1 as well as the remaining 10 chapters of the Gen. 1-11 pericope.
   
4. The creation account in Genesis is referenced in the rest of the Bible as if it was history .
   

• Moses refers to the six-literal-day creation in Exodus 31:17 and to the division of the nations at Babel in Deuteronomy 32:8.
  
• Joshua 24:2 accepts the account in Genesis 11 of Abraham’s ancestors.
  
• Hezekiah speaks of the creation (2 Kings 19:15) and 1 Chronicles 1:1-28 refers to the genealogies of Genesis 5, 10, and 11.
  
• Nehemiah refers to the creation (Neh. 9:6).
  
• Job refers to both creation and the Flood (Job 9:5-9; 12:15; 26:7-13; 31:33; 38:4-7; etc.).
  
• Psalm 8:3-8 speaks of God giving dominion over the earth to man. Psalm 33:6-9 emphasizes the instantaneous creative acts of God in the beginning. Psalm 90:2-3 speaks of creation and the fall of man. Psalm 148:1-5 tells of the creative acts of God. There are many other such references. Psalms 29 and 104 describe graphically the events during and following the great Flood.
  
• Proverbs (8:22-31) refers to the creation.
  
• Isaiah refers both to the creation (40:26; 45:18) and to the Flood (54:9).
  
• Jeremiah 10:11-13, 31:35, and 51:15-16 all refer to different aspects of the creation.
  
• Ezekiel refers to Noah in 14:14, 20.
  
• Amos also mentions the Flood, in both 5:8 and 9:6. Micah 5:6 refers to the “land of Nimrod,” as does Zechariah 5:11, who speaks of the “land of Shinar,” both passages obviously referring to Genesis 10:10.
  
• The Apostle Paul mentions Adam and Eve several times in a manner demonstrating that he regarded them as real people. Paul refers to them as the first man and first woman on earth. Note the important discussions in Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 11:7-12, 15:21-22, 35-41, 45-47; 2 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:13-15. The effects of the great curse on the earth are discussed in a classic passage in Romans 8:18-25.
  
• The Book of Hebrews contains an important teaching dealing with the completeness of the creation and God’s seventh-day rest (Heb. 4:1-11). Abel, Enoch, and Noah are listed as the first three of the great heroes of faith in chapter 11. Abel is again mentioned in 12:24.
  
• Peter treats the Flood as literal history (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:4-5; and 2 Peter 3:5-6).
  
• John refers to Cain and Abel (1 John 3:12).
  
• Jude metions Cain (verse 11), and to Enoch, as the seventh in the line of patriarchs from Adam listed in Genesis 5 (verse 14).
  
• Jesus cited these verses from Genesis 1-11 in support of some of His most important teachings. His doctrine of marriage was based explicitly on a combined quotation from the first two chapters of Genesis (Matt. 19:3-6; Mark 10:2-9; cf. Gen. 1:27 and 2:24). He compared the days of Noah, just before the universal flood, with the last days before His own return in worldwide judgment (Matt. 24:37-42; Luke 17:26-27). He even referred to Abel as the first martyr and first prophet (Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51). He mentioned “the beginning of the creation which God created” (Mark 13:19). He called Satan the father of lies, referring to the devil’s lie to Eve in the Garden of Eden (John 8:44).
  
• Stephen (Acts 7:2-4) refers to the genealogy of Abraham from Genesis 11:26-32.
  
• Paul preached from the witness given by the creation in Acts 14:15 and 17:24, mentioning also the beginning of the nations in Acts.17:26.
  
  Every one of the above references treat the creation account as literal, historical fact. The problem that faces you is that Bible either claims that Gen. 1-11 is historical fact, or it cites the words of other reliable people who claim this as well. Note the following as well:
  
  
  1. Gen. 1-11 is not written in a manner that would be poetic to a Hebrew reading/speaking Jew. It appears poetic in English, but the structure in Hebrew is far from poetic. We see no rules of Hebrew poetry being employed and those are the only rules that can apply.
     
  2. We find the Hebrew word “vav” (and) used consistently to introduce new actions in chapter 1 denoting a sequence of events. It is significant because this differs from other biblical, poetic accounts of creation such as we see in Psalm 104 or Psalm 19 where the attempt is not to provide a sequential list of events. The sequential nature of the events in chapters 1, and 2 is far different than other genuinely poetic references to creation and shows itself to be consistent with other texts in the Bible that are historical narrative.
     
  3. If Gen. 1-11 is not to be understood historically, then Paul’s arguments in 1 Cor. 11-8,9 and 1 Tim 2:13-14 would be meaningless and would collapse.
     

And how much of this is still theologically relevant if we consider that the events happened, with the same people involved, but not necessarily in the way that Genesis 1-11 portrays. In my last post, I made consistent references to the likely historical basis of the stories. But the style of that writing is unique enough and stylised enough to warrant a non-historical reading. That is what I am saying.

You keep debating this point as if you think I am making the argument that this is entirely a piece of fiction. I have never claimed that, and reject that notion completely. My sole point is that there are enough examples to suggest that the events are not written in an historical account. I have shared these throughout the previous posts, there is no need to repeat them here Suffice it to say that the theological discourses that are arrived through these points remain static, whether it is historical or non-historical.

Every single part of the Bible that intends to be understood as historical fact must be, and that goes for the history in Gen. 1-11. If it were not intended by the Bible to be historic fact, the Bible itself would tell us. The Bible does not provide any alternative understanding explanations for Gen. 1-11 and it can be clearly shown that even Jesus did not treat the stories of this portion of Scripture to be anything less.

And yet the previous posts in this debate point out the themes that show how Genesis 1-11 was NOT written as historical fact!

God did not set any process into motion. In fact, since the Bible notes that man is created in God’s image, That defies a process of evolution. The very wording of the text of Gen. 1 defies the idea that man is just another cog in the wheel of evolution. Everything mentioned in Genesis is mentioned as being created each after his own kind, meaning that there are structures and categories of creation in Gen. 1. Mankind is another one of those categories, except it is a more special category as man is the only creature made in God’s image and we are superior to everything else in the created order. This categorization stands in sharp contrast to any type of evolutionary continuity.

Rather, man is, not only in Genesis, but consistently throughout the Bible, held up as God’s special and unique creation set apart from the rest of the created order. God created man after the rest of creation was already in existence, according to the Bible. Evolution is completely contradictory to creation account particularly as it relates to mankind and is contradictory to the Bible in many ways. Author John Morris denotes the ways that Evolution is theologically contradictory to the Bible:

1. "Evolution is inconsistent with God’s omnipotence. Since He has all power, He is capable of creating the universe in an instant, rather than having to stretch out His creating over eons of time.
   
2. Evolution is inconsistent with God’s personality. If man in His own image was the goal of the evolutionary process, surely God should not have waited until the very tail end of geologic time before creating personalities. No personal fellowship was possible with the rocks and seas, or even with the dinosaurs and gliptodons.
   
3. Evolution is inconsistent with God’s omniscience. The history of evolution, as interpreted by evolutionary geologists from the fossil record, is filled with extinctions, misfits, evolutionary cul-de-sacs, and other like evidences of very poor planning. The very essence of evolution, in fact, is random mutation, not scientific progress.
   
4. Evolution is inconsistent with God’s nature of love. The supposed fact of evolution is best evinced by the fossils, which eloquently speak of a harsh world, filled with storm and upheaval, disease and famine, struggle for existence and violent death. The accepted mechanism for inducing evolution is overpopulation and a natural selection through extermination of the weak and unfit. A loving God would surely have been more considerate of His creatures than this. “One (sparrow) shall not fall on the ground without your Father” (Matt. 10:29), said Jesus.
   
5. Evolution is inconsistent with God’s purposiveness. If God’s purpose was the creation and redemption of man, as theistic evolutionists presumably believe, it seems incomprehensible that He would waste billions of years in aimless evolutionary meandering before getting to the point. What semblance of purpose could there have been in the hundred-million-year reign and eventual extinction of the dinosaurs, for example? “Let all things be done decently and in order,” the Bible commands (1 Cor. 14:40).
   
6. Evolution is inconsistent with the grace of God. Evolution, with its theology of struggle for survival in the physical world, fits perfectly with the humanistic theory of works for salvation in the spiritual world. The Christian concept of the grace of God, providing life and salvation in response to faith alone on the basis of the willing sacrifice of himself for the unfit and unworthy, is diametrically opposite to the evolutionary concept (See Eph. 2:8-9)." (Morris, John. Scripture and Creation, pp. 39-40)
   

None of those are contradictory to evolution. I do agree that if we take the view that God could not have guided evolution then it is indeed possible to arrive at this view. However, since the origins of evolution are not discussed in evolution itself, there is every possibility that God chose that process to create his special creation. Nothing in this suggests that it contradicts God's sovereign authority. Take Gould's approach to NOMA that I addressed earlier, as prime example of this.

Each of those little issues you raised have their own problem to discuss - shall I take time to discuss every single point that John Morris raises? Since it's rather off-topic, I'll take just the first of these:

"Evolution is inconsistent with God’s omnipotence. Since He has all power, He is capable of creating the universe in an instant, rather than having to stretch out His creating over eons of time.

This denies scripture itself which has God creating the world in seven days! Why did the Bible use 7 days rather than an instantaneous creation? Why seven days and not in an instant, or a billion years or something else altogether? Stating that the days are just "units of time" rather than literal 24-hour periods, or suggesting that we don't know how long between creation and the Fall all again contradict the issue of God's purposiveness (another point raised later on in that list), which implies that God would be wasting his time over billions of years, which are all countered by Peter's comments that time is irrelevant to God (2 Peter 3:8).

Since it is not the point of this debate to discuss the merits of evolution, I will simply suffice it to say that regardless of the manner in which God chose to create the world, as long as he is the architect behind it, it is always guided to His specific purpose. Whether that be evolution, or something else entirely it really is rather irrelevant. God is the Creator and the designer - if he used Evolution, then he is guiding it towards His own ends. If he used another means that science may or may not one day ascertain then the point is still the same. If it was entirely miraculous, it changes nothing at all whatsoever.

[*]Again, the author of Joshua did not command the sun to stop. He simply records Joshua’s words. The author of Joshua was inspired to truthfully record Joshua’s words, but Joshua’s words were themselves, not inspired.

[*]Because Paul was writing under what we call the plenary inspiration of Scripture whereby God superintended the human authors so that they composed and recorded without error, his message to mankind. What that means is that Paul could not be in error without God also be in error.

[*]As for the identity of the first man and woman, that point is completely relevant. Again, Paul refers to Adam and Eve as the first man and first woman, not the first to sin. The Bible is unambiguous about this point, and it is a point that is continuously made under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so it cannot be error. You have to choose between your revisionism and the biblical record, as they cannot both be true. Either you trust the Bible and trust God’s integrity, or you choose to believe that the biblical record is inaccurate and full of errors and misstatements.

* - So Joshua was mistaken and God chose not to remedy that mistake. Sounds like a perfect time for God to teach about heliocentric universes. But that was not the point of the story. We know what was said and why it was said, and so God let such a comment slide. The same is said for this instance. Paul wrote about Original Sin through Adam, and since nothing was changed by a non-historical approach, God chose not to correct the issue.

* - But what of the human author? If we consider the complete inspiration of scripture to be for all people for all time, what of the rules and laws and punishments that were written only for certain people at certain times? There is always a human authorship to consider alongside the authorship of God - are you familiar with the concept of "Dual Authorship"?

* - Using some reasonings, the first man and woman are the metaphorical "Adam and Eve". Whether that was their name or not is rather moot - considering the Hebrew A'dam is the same word we use for mankind (not just the first man), this is not an unreasonable suggestion. The exact name of the first person to sin is irrelevant - that is the origins of Original Sin.

You are missing the point.

The curse of the law is death and complete separation from God. According Romans 5:12-19, this came into the world through Adam. If death is not the product of sin, then it something we don’t need salvation from. In fact, the death of Jesus on the cross is presented in the Bible, particularly in Romans, within the context of man’s sin. If death is part of the natural evolutionary process, it follows that it is something that would be outside the purview of redemption. Yet, man’s physical death is shown in the Bible as being within the scope of Jesus’ redemption of mankind and our deliverance from the law of sin and death. One of the passages that demonstrates this most vividly is I Corinthians 15.

In I Cor. 15, Paul our deliverance from physical death within the context of Jesus own physical death and resurrection. He presents our resurrection and the acquisition of our new incorruptible, sinless bodies as the fruit of the redemption Jesus obtained for us on the cross as a result of his bearing the death penalty of sin in his body.

According to you, animals and man were dying long before Adam and Eve sinned, but that is not what the Bible says. In fact, the Bible gives an interesting picture of life under the rule of Christ on earth, where the animal kingdom is concerned:

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.

(Isaiah 11:6-9)

Nothing you have written here suggests that death must have only come into existence after sin. If there is, could you perhaps show where. Your two passages deal with different issues. 1 corinthians deals simply with physical death - spiritual death is something different and I agree that spiritual death could not have existed before sin. Isaiah on the other hand is prophesying the future - it is not dealing with the past (before sin) but rather the future (after the return of Jesus).

It is a fact that things have been living and dying for millenia, long before mankind existed.

The problem is that you have not really thought out the theological contradictions inherent in your view. As stated if death is not the product of sin, it is not something man can be redeemed from, meaning that the all of the promises to the Christian of physical and spiritual immortality as a result of redemption become hollow promises based on a false hope. If death precedes sin, and is outside the purview of redemption, then we have no hope for deliverance from death spiritual or otherwise.

If the Bible got it wrong about death preceding sin, then its promises pertaining to redemption from death cannot be trusted and thus, NONE of the promises pertaining to redemption could be trusted either. You don’t want what you are putting your ultimate faith and hope in to be wrong.

If the Bible got it wrong on this basic point about death, then the Bible isn’t the Word of God because God doesn’t make errors, and thus an error-filled Bible could not come from God meaning that what we would have no ability to know if Jesus really did rise from the dead as the Bible records or not. Without the resurrection, there is no Christian faith. Your view of the Bible basically erodes the integrity of Scripture at its very base by destroying the very foundation of the purpose of redemption,

There are no contradictions, except the contradictions you have chosen to impose on them. I agree that spiritual death could not have existed before sin. However, this does not deny the possibility of physical death existing since the beginning of Time itself.

I agree with so much of your comment here - except the conclusions. The Bible did not get it "wrong" about death preceding sin. It was correct. However, try to separate spiritual and physical death - the Bible consistently makes such a distinction!

Continued on Next Post

[ParanoidAndroid]

There are several problems with perverting the biblical account into a local as opposed to worldwide flood.

[*]The author of Genesis is according to Scripture writing under the inspiration of God, meaning that the account cannot be in error, to be begin with, and the author is explicit and unmistakable in his assertion that it was a worldwide deluge. God says he is going to destroy the whole earth and ALL flesh with earth (Gen. 6:11-13).

[*]There would have been no reason to save the animal kingdom if it was purely local flood. Moses took a pair of EACH kind of animal into the ark meaning each kind that existed in the earth, not simply the types of animals that existed in his locale.

[*]The Bible describes the height and duration of the flood and in Gen. 7:19-20, it says that it covered the highest mountains and in Gen. 8:5 it tells us that the flood conditions lasted for 10 months after the rain stopped. So assuming that the mountains of Ararat are the same height as they were in Noah

[Guest shiloh357]

I compared non-historical to non-historical. Again, this is detracting from our argument. If your debate strategy is going to encompass nothing more than trying to tell me what I meant in my own posts without listening to a single thing I say in return, perhaps there is little point in continuing further?

I am not telling you what you meant. I understand your intentions. What I am saying is that despite your intentions, you are operating under the false assumption that Gen. 1-11 is not historical in nature. It simply defies reality and any truly serious treatment of the text to make such an assertion. I disagree with the idea that you were comparing nonhistorical to nonhistorical. Gen. 1-11 simply doesn

[Guest shiloh357]

The role of the human author is absolutely vital then, to understand the Bible. Yes, I agree it is written by inspiration of God, but there is the original author and the original context to consider as well. I thus have no problem with this concept of dual authorship suggesting that an author can make a comment like this and still keep the Bible as the inspired and infallible word of God. Because whether Paul was completely right or not, the effects of his comments are still theologically accurate - sin came into existence when the first human chose to disobey God.

The problem with your dual authorship argument is that you are making it in order to justify a contradiction: Paul can be error but the Bible is still infallible. Evidently, you are unable to see the inconsistency in your position. If Paul is in error, if the events in Gen. 1-11 are not accurate, then the Bible is not infallible. It would be like saying,