Creation

[Guest shiloh357]

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 7:51 AM, one.opinion said:

Then why were you making such an effort to explain why we needed to look at literary style to determine the meaning of the passage?

I said nothing about literary "style."   At least not in how you are using that terminology.   The fact that there is a supernatural environment in play with things happening that defy the rules of the natural world does not play into how we determine historicity.   If it  did, then by your logic, we need to discount any and all supernatural events that occur in the Bible.

We interpret a passage based on things like genre, historical/cultural data, figurative devices, grammar/syntax, etc.   But the fact that we have a story with a talking serpent doesn't mean we simply discount the story as metaphorical.

Quote

Yes, that’s why I find it so interesting that you and I (and others) can have such different views on the timeline, but have very similar understandings of what the core theology is.

The difference is that I don't have a selective acceptance of biblical theology.   You and I do NOT have a similar understandings of what theology is.  In fact, your approach is one of theologically illiteracy.  You and I are not at all alike.  The fact that you keep harping on what you call "core" theology is evidence of that fact.

Quote

I believe a reasonable conclusion would be that Genesis 1-3 was never meant to be a historical account.

Which makes my point about how different we are when it comes to what you call "core" theology.   For YOU, Evolution is the rule and authority and the Bible is judged by that rule.  For you, the Bible is subservient to Evolution and if the two cannot be reconciled, it is the Bible that must be modified to accommodate Evolution.   That's why your "theology" is incoherent and why the Bible cannot really mean what it says in Genesis.  It can't be historical for YOU, because Evolution doesn't work with biblical history.   
 

Quote

 

I understand the concern about how my different interpretation of the passage might be a sign of underlying theological error. 

“What I mean is that you know the "right" things you are supposed to say you believe.”

Your implication by using the words “are supposed to say” is clearly that I do not truly believe them. I assure you that I do. If you are truly curious about my theology, then I invite you to ask what I believe, rather than assume there must be something cult-level-wrong somewhere. Please try this - list what you feel is core doctrinal truth to the Christian faith and ask me to agree or disagree. I know that is much easier and simpler to just assume the worst, but I would appreciate the effort.

 

We have been over what you believe.  The problem with your theology is in the way you disconnect Genesis from the Gospel and your utter lack of understanding of basic hermeneutics.    "Core" theology is viewed by many as that which only pertains to salvation.   And so, as long as you believe the "right" things about Jesus, it doesn't really matter what you believe about anything else in the Bible.   That logic has been used to justify disregarding what the Bible says about other areas of the historicity of the Bible, and not just in Genesis.   The idea that we can maintain "core" theology but reject the historicity of the entire first five books of Moses, was big back in the 70's.

Your "core" theological claims make no sense if Genesis 1-3 are not historical.  If it is all metaphorical, that includes the origin of sin.  If it is all metaphorical, then man didn't fall in the garden and the Bible's claims about sin and the curse resulting from it, never happened.   It flies in the face of the rest of the Bible that treats Genesis as historical.

But your approach is a direct assault on the "core" doctrines of salvation, which is what I find ironic. While claiming to hold to "core" salvational doctrine, you maintain a worldview that requires you to allegorize and thus render non-historical, the very events that made necessary the need for redemption.   If the events of Genesis 1-3 are non-historical, man didn't fall, and the very curse that Paul teaches that Jesus died to reverse, never happened.   That's what I mean by incoherent theology.    You believe  the "right" things, but you cannot defend the historicity of the doctrines you allege to believe.

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

You and I do NOT have a similar understandings of what theology is.  In fact, your approach is one of theologically illiteracy.  You and I are not at all alike.

Then prove it. Show me what you think essential doctrines are. Then we can all see if we truly “are not at all alike”.

 

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

you maintain a worldview that requires you to allegorize and thus render non-historical, the very events that made necessary the need for redemption.

I’m not sure how else to explain this other than what I already have - but I affirm a historical Adam and Eve and a literal sin that broke their connection with God.

 

4 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

You believe  the "right" things, but you cannot defend the historicity of the doctrines you allege to believe.

You have once again thrown in an “allege”. In the interest of decency, it would be nice if you stopped.

[one.opinion]

7 hours ago, enoob57 said:

By understanding the overall intent of God and His people in regards to the that which we have began in sets free the mind not to be entangled in the unimportant.... 

I agree completely, thus my puzzlement at the apparent importance of this topic at this site. If I believed that God created the universe and everything in it in 144 hours, it would not change the way I approach my spiritual walk with God or the way I interact with the people God has placed in my life.

[Guest shiloh357]

50 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Then prove it. Show me what you think essential doctrines are. Then we can all see if we truly “are not at all alike”.

All doctrines are essential.   There is no such thing as "essential" doctrines, as opposed to other doctrines in the Bible.   The Bible contains no non-essential doctrines.   The doctrine of creation is just as "essential" as the virgin birth of Jesus, or the doctrine of the Trinity.   The Bible never compartmentalizes itself into what we need or don't need.  No doctrine of Scripture is expendable. 

Quote

I’m not sure how else to explain this other than what I already have - but I affirm a historical Adam and Eve and a literal sin that broke their connection with God.

You believe that Adam was just one many evolved human beings, and not the first human being.   Even though the Bible says that Adam is a direct creation of God from the dirt, you reject what the Bible says because Evolution is your rule and authority and so you have to arrive at a modification of what the Bible says.   You reject the Bible's claim that Eve was tempted by the serpent and that Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and fell thereby.  You reject the literal fall of man and the Bible's origin of death and muddy the waters about what the Bible says about death because for you, the Bible has to fall in line with Evolution.

Quote

You have once again thrown in an “allege”. In the interest of decency, it would be nice if you stopped.

You cannot defend the historicity of the doctrines you "claim" to believe because you have disconnected them from history.   What people like you don't understand is that ALL of the doctrinal claims of the Bible are rooted in historical and geographic fact.   All of the doctrines have a historical origin and that origin is in the first 3 chapters of Genesis.    But remove those origins and several doctrines can be challenged as to their veracity.

Your view has to discard the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture if not its very inspiration.

[enoob57]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

I agree completely, thus my puzzlement at the apparent importance of this topic at this site. If I believed that God created the universe and everything in it in 144 hours, it would not change the way I approach my spiritual walk with God or the way I interact with the people God has placed in my life.

No that was not my intent on the unimportance … it is man and the opinion of man- As God's Word will be the only thing we answer to with God as the world and things of the world are framed by that Word... thus the Word says 6- literal 24 hour periods of time emphasized in evening and morning _ day... Man and his present observation says it must be other and this is the error. I will not be chastised by God for standing upon the precepts of God's Word especially after the Exodus comparative sealing the deal...  
 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

All doctrines are essential.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines doctrine as "a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief". Doctrine can range from minor things like whether or not it is ok to work on Sundays, or whether or not a woman's head should be covered in church to much more essential doctrines like whether or not Jesus lived a sinless life. Clearly, all doctrines are NOT essential.

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Even though the Bible says that Adam is a direct creation of God from the dirt, you reject what the Bible says because Evolution is your rule and authority and so you have to arrive at a modification of what the Bible says.

I believe the Bible teaches that what makes humanity "image bearers of God" is spiritual, not biological. With the exception of Jesus Christ's time on earth, God is a spiritual entity and not a physical one. It is reasonable to think of the special creation of Adam and Eve in a spiritual sense, and not a biological one.

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

You reject the Bible's claim that Eve was tempted by the serpent and that Adam ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and fell thereby.

I do not reject the claim. I accept this account as a metaphor of humans choosing their own way instead of God's.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

You reject the literal fall of man and the Bible's origin of death and muddy the waters about what the Bible says about death

I do not reject the fall of man, either. I do disagree with you what the Bible teaches about death. I believe Romans 5 and the fact that Adam's sin did not result in his immediate physical death provides strong evidence for my position.

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

You cannot defend the historicity of the doctrines you "claim" to believe because you have disconnected them from history.

You cannot defend the historicity of the doctrines you "allegedly claim", either. We both accept what we believe on faith.

 

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

But remove those origins and several doctrines can be challenged as to their veracity.

ALL doctrines can be challenged, there is no way to "prove" any doctrine. That's where faith enters the picture.

[one.opinion]

53 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

it is man and the opinion of man- As God's Word will be the only thing we answer to with God as the world and things of the world are framed by that Word... thus the Word says 6- literal 24 hour periods of time emphasized in evening and morning _ day...

It is your human interpretation of the passage that creation from beginning to end occurred in 144 hours.

[enoob57]

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It is your human interpretation of the passage that creation from beginning to end occurred in 144 hours.

No it is no human anything it is letting the text speak for itself by immediate context, chapter context, book context, OT context, the whole of God's Word context... all agree to what the passage says of evening and morning _ day...  The human aspect is clearly in your camp where present man interprets from sensual means the assumed what was then because of now... it's all humanism at it's finest! Fact no one can assess by sensual means what the unfallen creation was like and ignoring this fallen man places total weight upon his corrupted mind in a cursed world the interpretation of a false hermeneutic of self imposed thought through present ability... It is God Who has said
Ps 17:4-5
4 Concerning the works of men,
By the word of Your lips,
I have kept away from the paths of the destroyer. 
5 Uphold my steps in Your paths,
That my footsteps may not slip. 
NKJV

Prov 22:28

28 Do not remove the ancient landmark
Which your fathers have set. 
NKJV

Isa 37:26

26 "Did you not hear long ago
How I made it,
From ancient times that I formed it?
Now I have brought it to pass,
That you should be
For crushing fortified cities into heaps of ruins. 
NKJV

Jer 18:15

15 "Because My people have forgotten Me,
They have burned incense to worthless idols.
And they have caused themselves to stumble in their ways,
From the ancient paths,
To walk in pathways and not on a highway, 
NKJV

Rom 1:25

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped
and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
KJV
 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines doctrine as "a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief". Doctrine can range from minor things like whether or not it is ok to work on Sundays, or whether or not a woman's head should be covered in church to much more essential doctrines like whether or not Jesus lived a sinless life. Clearly, all doctrines are NOT essential.

Biblical doctrine is better understood as those principles that form the basis for practical Christian living.  Biblical doctrine and Webster's secular view of doctrine are not at all the same.   Every biblical doctrine is essential because you cannot touch on any aspect of any doctrine that doesn't support and/or depend upon other doctrines.   They can't be compartmentalized as essential or non-essential because of the nature of the Scriptures. 

You cannot separate the Trinity from the deity of Jesus.   You cannot separate the transcendence and immanence of God from His holiness, Omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence.   You cannot separate salvation from fall in the garden, the virgin birth and incarnation of Jesus.   You cannot separate   justification by faith from penal substitutionary atonement.   You cannot separate the Holy Spirit from prayer, salvation, creation, the communicable attributes of God like forgiveness, mercy, grace, etc. 

Doctrine simply doesn't work the way you think it does.  There are no minor doctrines or things that are non-essential when it comes to biblical doctrine.  Biblical doctrines and secular "doctrines" that govern secular institutions are simply not the same thing and not comparable.

Quote

I believe the Bible teaches that what makes humanity "image bearers of God" is spiritual, not biological.

That's immaterial to the point I was making.   My point is that you reject the clear statement that Adam was made from the dirt.   God made Him as a direct creation.   Adam didn't evolve, if we take God at His Word, as telling us the truth.  Either Adam was made from dirt or Adam was evolved.   The biblical data says God made Adam from the dirt.   You say Adam was evolved.   You need to decide if you believe the Bible on that matter or not. 

Quote

With the exception of Jesus Christ's time on earth, God is a spiritual entity and not a physical one. It is reasonable to think of the special creation of Adam and Eve in a spiritual sense, and not a biological one.

No, it is not reasonable to think that way.   Adam was direct creation of God spiritually AND biologically.   That's what we know from the Bible.  You need to decide if the Bible is correct on this matter or not.

Quote

I do not reject the claim. I accept this account as a metaphor of humans choosing their own way instead of God's.

LOL, it's a "metaphor"  because you need for it be in view of Evolution.   As such you DO reject the claim because the Bible doesn't present it as a metaphor.   You are arbitrarily assigning that value to the text.   You cannot show ONE metaphorical device in the text, so you are simply making something up to get around what the Bible says.  Again, you don't believe the Bible on this matter.  You believe your own invented caricature of the text.

Quote

I do not reject the fall of man, either. I do disagree with you what the Bible teaches about death. I believe Romans 5 and the fact that Adam's sin did not result in his immediate physical death provides strong evidence for my position.

This is what I mean by incoherent doctrine.   It's real to the extent you need it to be real.  Everything is metaphorical or not of it is. You can't (with any credibility) just stick "metaphors" into the text where you need them.   Either story is true and historical or it is simply a metaphor.   You cannot render the fall of man a metaphor but argue that sin an death are real.   It doesn't work that way.   Either death came by sin or it didn't.   The fact that Adam didn't die the minute he ate the fruit is immaterial.   The process of physical decay began the day Adam died spiritually.   There was NO death prior to Adam's sin among animals or people recorded in the Bible.   

Again, you have to modify the Bible to account for evolution because Evolution NEEDS death and lots of it. 

Quote

You cannot defend the historicity of the doctrines you "allegedly claim", either. We both accept what we believe on faith.

That's where your wrong.  All biblical doctrines have their origin in Genesis, historically.   For example, in Genesis 1-3 the following doctrines have their point of origin either directly or indirectly:

• The existence of God
• The Holy Spirit
• Blood Atonement
• The omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence of God
• The wisdom of God
• The love of God
• The virgin birth
• The first and second coming of Jesus
• Marriage
• Sin
• Creation
• Holiness
• Eternal life
• Angels
• Death
• Humanity
• The incarnation of Jesus
• Grace
• Judgement

Just to name a few...  All them are historically tied to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. 

Quote

ALL doctrines can be challenged, there is no way to "prove" any doctrine. That's where faith enters the picture.

No doctrine of Scripture can be rightfully challenged because they come from a God who doesn't lie and doesn't preserve a book that got its facts wrong.   The doctrines I  listed above are part of the Bible and are unassailable.   All of those doctrines are proven.   Faith isn't blind.

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

That's where your wrong.  All biblical doctrines have their origin in Genesis, historically.   For example, in Genesis 1-3 the following doctrines have their point of origin either directly or indirectly:

• The existence of God
• The Holy Spirit
• Blood Atonement
• The omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence of God
• The wisdom of God
• The love of God
• The virgin birth
• The first and second coming of Jesus
• Marriage
• Sin
• Creation
• Holiness
• Eternal life
• Angels
• Death
• Humanity
• The incarnation of Jesus
• Grace
• Judgement

Just to name a few...  All them are historically tied to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. 

For the most part, these are not doctrines. Doctrines consist of more than 1-5 words. But you are getting closer to what I've asked for several times in this thread, and numerous times in other threads.

I'm still unsure why you believe that these brief glimpses into doctrine require a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. I affirm every single one of these bullet points, with the exception of death, since I suspect what you mean by "death" refers specifically to physical death and differs from what Genesis 1-3 actually teaches.

I affirm 18 of the 19 bullet points here. How could I possibly do that if it is all "tied to a literal interpretation"?