Understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal or non-literal

[Guest shiloh357]

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).

No Peter was not saying that time is irrelevant to God. Peter was addressing the mockers who misinterpreted the delay in Jesus

[Guest shiloh357]

The text is too stylised to be a categorical statement of history.

It contains too much historical information to not be history. Style does not have anything to do with it. That is a condition YOU are setting.

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). - As I noted, two issues stick out - the clearer of these being the distinction between the whole word and the "known world" (a distinction not made in early writings), the lesser of these being the dual understanding of the Hebrew that can refer to plots of land as well as the whole earth.

The problem is that rest of Scripture outside of Genesis tells us that the whole earth was covered by water and that the only people who survived the flood were Noah and his family.

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. - Saving the animal kingdom then...... where did the Kangaroos come from? How long did it take for the three-toed sloth to make the ponderous journey to the ark? This is what I am trying to say - the events likely did happen, but did they happen in the exact way described here - going back to the stylised account, there is enough evidence to suggest not.

You are still missing the point. For one thing you cannot assume that the distribution of the animal kingdom is the same as it is today. Furthermore, if the flood was purely local, there was nothing to save the animal kingdom from.

If it doesn

[Guest shiloh357]

Genesis 6-7 shows the sin of all men rejecting God. Genesis 11 shows the sin of all men wanting to BE God.

The text never says they were trying to

[ParanoidAndroid]

First, I would like to apologise for the delay in this post. Since school has gone back I

[Guest shiloh357]

I am not "disregarding" it, Shiloh. As I have said, it is likely based on real events with real figures. But the way it is presented indicates that the events did not happen in the exact way described. The inclusion of a specific narrative with genealogies and events serves to show the passage of time as humanity grew and continued its slide into sin. The genealogies are real, the people are real - but the theological considerations take precedence.

But you ARE disregarding it as an historical account. You have provided NO reasonable degree of support for the assertion that the events did not occur as described in the text. The very existence of genealogies defeats your assertion, as does the many geographic references, as well. There are simply too many details included in the text to discount it as a nonliteral account. You have not, in this debate, really grappled with the evidence presented which speaks against your position. You just brush it aside and continue to parrot your

[Guest shiloh357]

I know you were trying to point out what you saw as a flaw in my argument that the Bible never says one way or the other about what happens to those who never hear the gospel,

No, I have shown that the Bible is very clear on the matter.

but in doing so you have really shot your original argument in the foot - if all these people who never heard of God could have seen God because of his invisible qualities, then they have all rejected Him, and it is a fallacy to say that today people are rejecting God in greater numbers than at any time in history.

Again, that is not what I said, though. So really, you are trying to refute an argument I did not raise.

For the record, there is still a strong case that suggests that even though God's invisible qualities may be seen, those who die without hearing the message of salvation will be given the chance to accept or reject that message at some time before Judgement.

There is no strong BIBLICAL case for that. What you are talking about is similar to universalism and is really fallacious and nonChristian belief.

Personally, I take an "I don't know" stance

You do that. I will take the

[Guest shiloh357]

*It contains no mixture of human wisdom or influence* None at all???? I can think of several places where the role of divine revelation is removed and taken specifically as author's opinion (a very considered and wise opinion, but not the same as commands from the Lord that must be obeyed). Two in particular stand out, but since these are not relevant to the debate I won't dwell on them here unless you request it.

I know what you are referring to, but you can feel free to present it. You present your evidence and I will show you why you are wrong.

That is not the same thing at all! If John lies, then John lies. God is absolutely truthful in everything he says. And the Bible is infallible (ie, no errors). Paul's views on Adam and Eve are accurate - the first humans to sin caused sin to enter our being. He may not have been correct in taking Creation as an historical account, but his claims about the first man and woman remain consistent, regardless. That is clearly not inconsistent. Paul made comments based on his own cultural experiences, and because what he said did not contradict the theology behind scripture, there was no need to rectify. If Paul had said something that was clearly theologically inconsistent then that would be an issue worth exploring. If Paul said that God had thousands of incarnations and we could choose to worship whichever we chose, then that is a theological inconsistency that needs to be addressed. But the point that Paul spoke of about the first person sinning is a quite realistic statement.

See, this is what I mean. You really don

[Guest shiloh357]

But if we take it more along the second view as simply being born with the ability to sin, then it does not matter if that first sin was disobedience in eating a piece of fruit - humans sinned for the first time, and this has led to the ability to sin being passed down to all humans in every successive generation.

If you take the second view, then you would not be correctly understanding Original sin, and you would rejecting the plain teaching of Scripture on the matter.

I am forcing nothing. The Bible makes every room to hold this view - the stylistic conventions and symbolic issues addressed in previous posts are clear indicators of this.

The Bible does not ANYWHERE make room for your view. As I stated EVERY biblical reference to the events of Gen. 1-11 in other parts of the Bible, presume a literal, historical understanding of the text. If you reject the testimony of Scripture then you need to historical data to demonstrate that the Bible is wrong. Your stylization argument is not an adequate challenge to the historicity of the Bible. If you cannot provide genuine historical data to support your assertion that the Gen. 1-11 account is not historically accurate, then you really don

[Guest shiloh357]

In some instances the author even separates what they say as their own opinion from what they say as commands from God. However, as noted earlier this goes a little beyond the scope of the debate.

Yeah, I know what you are referring to, and you are wrong.

What is relevant is that I am not arguing that Dual Authorship means it is sometimes Paul, sometimes God. That would be an incorrect appraisal of my beliefs. It is always God's word, but the author cannot be removed from the text - as you say, God used their personality, language and culture to express His Word. That is all I am saying is happening here.

I am sorry, but everything from you has been up this point, an argument that the Paul wrote out of his own cultural understanding and, therefore, got some things wrong. You have made the very clear that you see the Bible as being a product of human and Divine input. Your argument for

[Guest shiloh357]

And still the point remains that the text does not differentiate between the "world" and the "known world". To ancient writers they are often the same thing