one.opinion Posted March 17, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.09 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 17, 2018 1 hour ago, JTC said: So WHY is it still taught as fact? For the answer click the link I'm providing. It's the same site Pahu gives but a different page. Scroll down and read what's in the yellow box. Design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. In my opinion, there is plenty of evidence for both. Your link argues against atheistic evolution, but does not refute evolution as a tool of the Creator at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. In my opinion, there is plenty of evidence for both. Your link argues against atheistic evolution, but does not refute evolution as a tool of the Creator at all. The Bible and authentic New Testament Christianity do an excellent job of refuting it. Edited March 17, 2018 by shiloh357 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted March 17, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.09 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 17, 2018 36 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: The Bible and authentic New Testament Christianity do an excellent job of refuting it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, as we’ve discussed before, my opinion differs from yours. Since we are brothers in Christ, I’d rather not re-hash previous pointless arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, one.opinion said: You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, as we’ve discussed before, my opinion differs from yours. Since we are brothers in Christ, I’d rather not re-hash previous pointless arguments. It's not a pointless argument and I didn't say that as much for your benefit as I said it for others who might be tempted to compromise with the world and accept evolution as biblical. Edited March 17, 2018 by shiloh357 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted March 17, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.09 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 17, 2018 57 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: It's not a pointless argument and I didn't say that as much for your benefit as I said it for others who might be tempted to accept evolution as biblical. Very well, then for everyone else’s benefit, I believe the following. 1. I believe is ample evidence suggesting that the world is much older than 6,000 years. 2. I believe there is ample evidence suggesting that life developed on the plants over very long periods of time. 3. I believe Christianity is based on the sinful nature of mankind, our need of a Saviour in the person of Jesus Christ, His sinless life and sacrificial death on our behalf, His triumphant resurrection and defeat of death, and His offer of eternal life to all who believe in Him (as in Acts 16). 4. I believe (here comes the real controversy) there is sufficient reason to read the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 as poetic allegory rather than literalistic history. For example, why would all snakes be punished with the loss of legs for Satan’s role in tempting Eve? It would be completely inconsistent with the Bible to suggest that the animal was somehow complicit. 4b. I believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. An allegorical view does not mean I believe the Bible is in error. 5. I believe it is erroneous to claim that one must hold to a specific interpretation of Genesis in order to have authentic faith in Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted March 17, 2018 Share Posted March 17, 2018 45 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Very well, then for everyone else’s benefit, I believe the following. 1. I believe is ample evidence suggesting that the world is much older than 6,000 years. 2. I believe there is ample evidence suggesting that life developed on the plants over very long periods of time. 3. I believe Christianity is based on the sinful nature of mankind, our need of a Saviour in the person of Jesus Christ, His sinless life and sacrificial death on our behalf, His triumphant resurrection and defeat of death, and His offer of eternal life to all who believe in Him (as in Acts 16). 4. I believe (here comes the real controversy) there is sufficient reason to read the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 as poetic allegory rather than literalistic history. For example, why would all snakes be punished with the loss of legs for Satan’s role in tempting Eve? It would be completely inconsistent with the Bible to suggest that the animal was somehow complicit. 4b. I believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. An allegorical view does not mean I believe the Bible is in error. 5. I believe it is erroneous to claim that one must hold to a specific interpretation of Genesis in order to have authentic faith in Christ. As to the first two points, one must decide whether to be believe theories by fallible men, or believe the word of an infallible God who cannot lie, make mistakes, and has preserved His word as we have it. As to the 3rd point, everything you said about the foundation of Christianity is directly linked to Genesis 1-11 and to a literal interpretation of those chapters. As to point 4, there is no linguistic evidence to read any part of Genesis as poetic allegory, as Hebrew poetry follows a pattern and structure that occurs nowhere in Genesis. As for the serpent, that is not allegory, nor poetry. You evidently have no ability identify types of literature or figurative devices. The serpent was Satan, not a snake as we know them. The curse of crawling on his belly and eating the dust of the earth" was a figurative statement of regarding his defeat. There was a similar idiom about eating ashes, which was a reference to defeated foes. As to point 4b. The allegorical view does mean that you don't believe the Bible. The allegorical view is an attempt to circumvent what the Bible relates as history. There is no allegorical devices employed and I publicly defy you to provide ONE thing that is allegorical in Genesis 1-3 and prove that the Bible meant it to be understood that way. Allegories in the Bible are always explained, so if there is an allegory, the Bible always tells us when an allegory is being used and what it means. Unless you can produce that from Genesis, the allegorical claim is DOA. In order to have a coherent and internally consistent theology, one must approach the Bible literally. That is the only rational, intelligent approach to biblical interpretation. The Bible isn't literal, when it suits you. It's not a smorgasbord where you can pick and choose according to your taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAZARD Posted March 18, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 320 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 6,830 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 3,570 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/16/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2018 Hi one.opinion You wrote, "I believe (here comes the real controversy) there is sufficient reason to read the accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 as poetic allegory rather than literalistic history. For example, why would all snakes be punished with the loss of legs for Satan’s role in tempting Eve? It would be completely inconsistent with the Bible to suggest that the animal was somehow complicit." Gen. 3:14-15. V. 14, And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: V. 15, And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. The devil made a pact with the serpent to try and deceive Adam and Eve and take back control of the earth. This is why God cursed the serpent because he was the first to yield to Satan to cause the fall of man. The devil was too wise to begin with the very head of the re created earth. He began instead with the highest of animal creation, who lived with Adam and Eve before the fall. He made a league with Lucifer and started opposition to God's Word, which has been Satan's sphere of activity ever since. The serpent was cursed above all creatures and was to go upon his belly and eat dust all the days of his life (Isa. 65:25). He was deprived of walking upright and of his speech and he became a poisonous loathsome creature, despised by man whom he had betrayed and deceived (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14). The serpent was not the personal devil and never could be, but merely a tool of the devil and a creature of the field which God had made as proved by Gen. 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? No statement in Scripture ever teaches that Satan as an angel can turn into a literal serpent or any other creature. The curse upon the serpent continues upon literal snakes even in the Millennium when the curse is removed from all other animals (Isa. 65:25). If a literal serpent was not involved in the fall of man, why should it be cursed above all other creatures? Eve was acquainted with the literal serpent in the garden, but she knew nothing of the devil; so if a strange person had appeared to her she would have been afraid to converse with him. The serpent was literal and Eve was acquainted with him and most likely had talked with him on other occasions. The devil made a pact with the serpent to try and deceive Adam and Eve and take back control of the earth. This is why God cursed the serpent because he was the first to yield to Satan to cause the fall of man. The devil was too wise to begin with the very head of the re created earth. He began instead with the highest of animal creation, who lived with Adam and Eve before the fall. He made a league with Lucifer and started opposition to God's Word, which has been Satan's sphere of activity ever since. The serpent was not the personal devil and never could be, but merely a tool of the devil and a creature of the field which God had made as proved by Gen. 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? No statement in Scripture ever teaches that Satan as an angel can turn into a literal serpent or any other creature. The curse upon the serpent continues upon literal snakes even in the Millennium when the curse is removed from all other animals, " The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpents meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD. (Isa. 65:25). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted March 18, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.09 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2018 34 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: As to the 3rd point, everything you said about the foundation of Christianity is directly linked to Genesis 1-11 and to a literal interpretation of those chapters. I think it is quite evident that a literalistic interpretation is not required to believe as I do. 57 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: The curse of crawling on his belly and eating the dust of the earth" was a figurative statement of regarding his defeat. So figurative elements are ok, just as long as they match your a priori assumptions? 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: The allegorical view does mean that you don't believe the Bible. You clearly can’t dictate what I believe. You telling me that I don’t believe the Bible is no more accurate than me claiming that you believe in Santa Claus. 40 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: I publicly defy you to provide ONE thing that is allegorical in Genesis 1-3 and prove that the Bible meant it to be understood that way. I publicly defy you to prove that you can have a conversation on this topic without resorting to inaccurate assertions, hyperbole, high drama, and ad hominem attacks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted March 18, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.09 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2018 Hi Hazard, 19 minutes ago, HAZARD said: No statement in Scripture ever teaches that Satan as an angel can turn into a literal serpent or any other creature. I agree with you here, but I would also suggest that there is no evidence that God created animals with the ability to talk or collaborate with Satan to bring about the downfall of humanity. This is one of the major reasons why I conclude that the garden accounts are allegorical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAZARD Posted March 18, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 320 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 6,830 Content Per Day: 0.84 Reputation: 3,570 Days Won: 1 Joined: 02/16/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Hi Hazard, I agree with you here, but I would also suggest that there is no evidence that God created animals with the ability to talk or collaborate with Satan to bring about the downfall of humanity. This is one of the major reasons why I conclude that the garden accounts are allegorical. Hi one.opinion. So why do you think God will leave the curse He placed upon the serpent even during the millennium when God removes the curse from all other animals? The curse upon the serpent continues upon literal snakes even in the Millennium when the curse is removed from all other animals, " The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpents meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD. (Isa. 65:25). Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. The devil is not the serpent, never was, never will be. The devil does not slither along the ground on his belly? Gen 3:14, And the Lord God said unto THE SERPENT, (not Satan), because thou hast done this, thou art cursed ABOVE ALL CATTLE, and above every beast of the field; and upon they belly shalt thou go, And the LORD God said unto the serpent, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts