Guest shiloh357 Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 9 minutes ago, one.opinion said: For the most part, these are not doctrines. No, those are ALL doctrines Quote 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. Doctrines have to be explained, but those are doctrines. Quote I'm still unsure why you believe that these brief glimpses into doctrine require a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3. Because it is their point of origin. Genesis 1-3 isn't metaphorical or allegorical or mythical or whatever liberals want to argue that it is. And you can't have some of it literal and some of it not. You cannot have it literal when you need it to be and figurative when it suits you. You cannot even make a textual argument for it being anything but literal history. You cannot and you never will be able to offer ONE shred of textual evidence for a metaphorical device of any kind employed in Genesis 1-3. None. Absent any proof of metaphors, allegories, etc. the default understanding is literal. Quote 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. It's not different at all from what Gen. 1-3 teaches. But you can't really go off of what the Bible teaches, because for you Evolution is a higher authority and the Bible has to be non-literal and can't mean what it says due to your higher rule of evolution and what it requires in order to be true. The Bible is only as literal as evolution can allow and so death can't mean what the Bible teaches because Evolution requires Adam to be an evolved person and there has be to billions of years of death prior to Adam. Quote I affirm 18 of the 19 bullet points here. How could I possibly do that if it is all "tied to a literal interpretation"? That's just it. It's what I meant when I said that you have incoherent theology. It is all tied to a literal and not a figurative interpretation because if the text is metaphorical then none of the things depicted in those chapter really happened. If the story of creation and the fall is metaphorical then there was no creation, no fall, no Adam, no Eve, no sin, no curse, no judgement, no garden, nothing in those chapters really exist including God because it is all metaphorical. It's either a metaphor or it isn't. It's either Evolution or its the Bible. If its all metaphorical, then sin doesn't exist because there was no fall which brought sin into the world. If it's all metaphorical then God's original plan for marriage and the family doesn't exist and who can really say that homosexuality is a sin (since sin was only a metaphor in Gen. 1-3)? Biblical doesn't exist in a vacuum. Sin didn't just pop in out of nowhere. It has a point of origin and it started when Adam and Eve rebelled and ate from the tree that God said not to eat from. The Bible doesn't offer an alternate explanation for how sin came into the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 20, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 20, 2018 27 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: No, those are ALL doctrines Incorrect - many of your bullet points are single words without any sort of position regarding those words. It's ok to admit when you are wrong, trust me. I may not always like it, but I still do it - a lot! 30 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: And you can't have some of it literal and some of it not. Why is that out of the realm of possibility? Revelation is a book full of both literal and metaphorical references. I don't see any reason why this could not be possible for Genesis 1-3, as well. 33 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: You cannot have it literal when you need it to be and figurative when it suits you. You cannot even make a textual argument for it being anything but literal history. You cannot and you never will be able to offer ONE shred of textual evidence for a metaphorical device of any kind employed in Genesis 1-3. None. Let's take a look at two specific passages: Genesis 2:19-21 Quote 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. Do you think God paraded all livestock, birds, and wild animals in front of Adam in order for Adam to find a "suitable helper", but just couldn't find one? Obviously, this is a non-literal device. Genesis 3:13-14 Quote 13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?" The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life. The "serpent" must be metaphorical. Otherwise, the serpent, another of God's animal creations, was inherently evil and complicit in the Fall of humanity. Now take a moment... and reflect on this... and stop offering the persistent claim that I have never presented any evidence of anything non-literal in Genesis 1-3. I have presented this several times before. You will not find this evidence convincing, I am sure. But to continually say I have never presented anything is just plain wrong. 1 hour ago, one.opinion said: I suspect what you mean by "death" refers specifically to physical death and differs from what Genesis 1-3 actually teaches. 48 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: It's not different at all from what Gen. 1-3 teaches. But you can't really go off of what the Bible teaches First, you are starting into your apparently unavoidable ad hominems again. It's probably about time to wrap this up. Second, let's again see what the Bible says. Genesis 2:16-17 Quote 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Adam did not die on the day he ate of it. It appears obvious that this death was not a physical one. One possible conclusion is that Adam suffered spiritual death (a broken connection with God) on that day, rather than physical death. As an extension, the Romans 5 passage would then also refer to spiritual death. Another possible conclusion is some figurative language in "the day that you eat of it you shall surely die", but that would likely be unpalatable for you. 49 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: That's just it. It's what I meant when I said that you have incoherent theology. Whether or not my theology is coherent to you is of very little importance to me. But I would like you to consider this possibility - it is possible to understand what the Bible teaches without claiming that "my way of viewing Genesis 1-3 is the one and only correct view." The fact that we completely agree on 18 of the 19 bullet points you listed earlier strongly supports that possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted November 20, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 107 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,820 Content Per Day: 1.29 Reputation: 4,806 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted November 20, 2018 5 minutes ago, one.opinion said: [1] Why is that out of the realm of possibility? Revelation is a book full of both literal and metaphorical references. I don't see any reason why this could not be possible for Genesis 1-3, as well. [2] Genesis 2:19-21 Do you think God paraded all livestock, birds, and wild animals in front of Adam in order for Adam to find a "suitable helper", but just couldn't find one? Obviously, this is a non-literal device. Genesis 3:13-14 The "serpent" must be metaphorical. Otherwise, the serpent, another of God's animal creations, was inherently evil and complicit in the Fall of humanity. [3] Genesis 2:16-17 Adam did not die on the day he ate of it. It appears obvious that this death was not a physical one. One possible conclusion is that Adam suffered spiritual death (a broken connection with God) on that day, rather than physical death. As an extension, the Romans 5 passage would then also refer to spiritual death. Pardon me for coming in late to this conversation. [1] The book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is cryptic in several places for a reason. Just like Jesus said he gave the parables in the manner he did - so that people would NOT understand [at that moment] and be healed. And John, writing about the visions he saw of the future could not possibly describe them as we could perfectly understand. Just like Daniel, Ezekiel, and other apocryphal places in the Bible. Genesis is not apocryphal. It is history. Biblical history is not cryptic. Genesis 1-3 is literal history. [2] Yes, I believe God brought animals to Adam. Did he have to bring 5,000 head of cattle? No, just one or two would suffice. And just like Noah, whom I also believe to be a literally man with a literal story, God brought the animals. Adam and Noah did not have to go rounding them up. And there were not nearly as many species than as today for either man to deal with. No German shepherd, no pick-a-poos. [3] No, the serpent was not inherently evil. The devil used the creature to speak with Eve. [4] Of course Adam died the day he ate the fruit. He died in two ways. Spiritually - in that he was hell bound without God's mercy. And that day, his body began a descent into entropy and ultimate corruption into death. He didn't draw that last breath for over 900 years, but he began the aging process that ends in death because of the wages of sin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 20, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 20, 2018 13 minutes ago, Jayne said: Pardon me for coming in late to this conversation. Anytime is a good time to join in. 25 minutes ago, Jayne said: [1] The book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ is cryptic in several places for a reason. Just like Jesus said he gave the parables in the manner he did - so that people would NOT understand [at that moment] and be healed. And John, writing about the visions he saw of the future could not possibly describe them as we could perfectly understand. Just like Daniel, Ezekiel, and other apocryphal places in the Bible. Genesis is not apocryphal. It is history. Biblical history is not cryptic. Genesis 1-3 is literal history. You're right, Revelation is probably not a good comparison. But I don't believe it would be completely inconsistent with the rest of the Bible to contain both historical and figurative events. 27 minutes ago, Jayne said: [2] Yes, I believe God brought animals to Adam. Did he have to bring 5,000 head of cattle? No, just one or two would suffice. And just like Noah, whom I also believe to be a literally man with a literal story, God brought the animals. Adam and Noah did not have to go rounding them up. And there were not nearly as many species than as today for either man to deal with. No German shepherd, no pick-a-poos. The biggest issue with Genesis 2:19-21 is not the line of animals but with the search for a helper. God would not have to parade all of the animals in front of Adam to determine that a suitable helper was not present among them. The lack of a female was sufficient enough! Thus, the context shows this to be figurative. 29 minutes ago, Jayne said: [3] No, the serpent was not inherently evil. The devil used the creature to speak with Eve. Then God punished the serpent for something it had no control over. Again, figurative language appears to be the best explanation. 30 minutes ago, Jayne said: [4] Of course Adam died the day he ate the fruit. He died in two ways. Spiritually - in that he was hell bound without God's mercy. And that day, his body began a descent into entropy and ultimate corruption into death. He didn't draw that last breath for over 900 years, but he began the aging process that ends in death because of the wages of sin. I completely agree with the spiritual death. But since God said "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die", and Adam didn't die, then it is a reasonable conclusion that the "death" was only a spiritual one. A long, slow decline could conceivably have begun due to Adam's sin, but it did not happen "in the day". It is seems incongruent to insist that everything MUST be literal, but make exceptions along the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis1209 Posted November 20, 2018 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 18 Topic Count: 347 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,474 Content Per Day: 2.70 Reputation: 5,380 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/27/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted November 20, 2018 On 11/12/2018 at 5:57 AM, Pencil24 said: Creation makes sense to me. How do you combine people that evolution is not accurate? My personal opinion is, if you truly want to convince someone on creation, Google and watch a bunch of Youtube videos by Dr. Kent Hovind, and/or visit his website. You and I can't convince a hardcore evolutionist, they still have their primordial rocks in their heads and dine on pond scum and starlight dust. It takes God to open the minds and hearts of men. Hovind is the most knowledgeable and articulate individual I've run across on the subjects of; creation, evolution, the flood and dinosaurs. Another great resource I'd recommend if you have questions about creation is; https://answersingenesis.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 15 hours ago, one.opinion said: Incorrect - many of your bullet points are single words without any sort of position regarding those words. It's ok to admit when you are wrong, trust me. I may not always like it, but I still do it - a lot! There is a doctrine concerning every single one of those bulleted items. I simply listed those topics. Quote Why is that out of the realm of possibility? Revelation is a book full of both literal and metaphorical references. I don't see any reason why this could not be possible for Genesis 1-3, as well. Revelation is a different genre. Revelation is prophecy. It is not a historical narrative. Historical narratives don't use metaphors. And "literal" means that we understand a text in the light of the object the author has in view. So to interpret Revelation "literally." It means we look behind the metaphors at the literal truth they are conveying. Your biggest problem is your lack of understanding as to what "literal" means. You use literal the way many people use "face value." "Literal" and "metaphorical" are not opposite terms. Metaphors are aids in determining the literal meaning of a text. You don't interpret a text "metaphorically." You interpret literally and metaphors, similes, etc. are tools to that end. Quote Let's take a look at two specific passages: Genesis 2:19-21 Do you think God paraded all livestock, birds, and wild animals in front of Adam in order for Adam to find a "suitable helper", but just couldn't find one? Obviously, this is a non-literal device. Why is that non-literal? What textual indicators indicate that it must be non-literal (other than the fact that you simply can't believe it happened)? This goes to the inerrancy of the Bible. If the Bible says it happened, it happened. There is nothing in that passage that indicates anything but a literal account of history. Quote Genesis 3:13-14 The "serpent" must be metaphorical. Otherwise, the serpent, another of God's animal creations, was inherently evil and complicit in the Fall of humanity. Now take a moment... and reflect on this... and stop offering the persistent claim that I have never presented any evidence of anything non-literal in Genesis 1-3. I have presented this several times before. You will not find this evidence convincing, I am sure. But to continually say I have never presented anything is just plain wrong. No, you haven't presented anything non-literal. You have presented things that YOU cannot believe are literal. Just because you can't believe it to be true, doesn't indicate that the story is 100% true, as recorded for us in Scripture. Again, you have a problem with inerrancy. As for the serpent, there is nothing in the text that says it must be metaphorical. The serpent is obviously animated by Satan. It was a supernatural event that occurred in what was, at that time, a supernatural environment. If something supernatural is so unbelievable that it must be metaphorical, what about: The death angel that killed the first born of Egypt? The parting of the Red Sea and walking across on dry ground? Moses striking a rock and water flowing from it to quench the thirst of 3 million people Manna falling from Heaven? One angel who killed 185,000 in the book of Judges? Balaam's donkey that spoke? Samson killing 1000 Philistines with a donkey jaw bone? Eiljah running faster than horses? Elijah calling down fire at Mr. Carmel? The miracles of Jesus? The miracles in the book of Acts? If you can't believe the story in Genesis about the talking serpent, then all of those supernatural events must also be nothing but metaphors, right? Quote First, you are starting into your apparently unavoidable ad hominems again. It's probably about time to wrap this up. I said nothing of the sort. I am simply identifying the motive behind your approach to Genesis which is to prop up Evolution because for you Evolution is true and you have to modify what the Bible says or means, in order to accommodate that secular view. Quote Second, let's again see what the Bible says. Genesis 2:16-17 Adam did not die on the day he ate of it. It appears obvious that this death was not a physical one. One possible conclusion is that Adam suffered spiritual death (a broken connection with God) on that day, rather than physical death. As an extension, the Romans 5 passage would then also refer to spiritual death. Another possible conclusion is some figurative language in "the day that you eat of it you shall surely die", but that would likely be unpalatable for you. Adam's immediate consequence was spiritual death, but physical death IS a consequence of the Fall and all credible biblical scholars will affirm that fact. The original Hebrew can be rendered, "dying you shall die." It is an immediate consequence spiritually that leads to a physical consequence. We know this because the removal of physical death is directly linked to the plant of salvation is one of the benefits of salvation. Jesus saves us to the "uttermost" (Heb. 7:25) and in the Greek "uttermost" refers to being saved in every way and forever. That means we are saved spiritually, mentally and physically. We are saved in every way that we can be saved. Eternal life will be both a physical and spiritual reality. Right now, we only have the spiritual aspect, but the removal of physical death is a benefit that we will realize as a direct result of Jesus' work on the cross. If physical death occurred prior to Adam's fall (which is impossible as Adam was the first man), and engineered by God then it would not be part of the plan of redemption. But the Bible teaches that God is eradicating sin and when that happens, the result will be the end of death, both physically and spiritually. God hates both forms of death, because are both the result of sin and He never engineered either of them into creation. Quote Whether or not my theology is coherent to you is of very little importance to me. But I would like you to consider this possibility - it is possible to understand what the Bible teaches without claiming that "my way of viewing Genesis 1-3 is the one and only correct view." The fact that we completely agree on 18 of the 19 bullet points you listed earlier strongly supports that possibility. The Bible says what is says. It is not "my way." I am simply holding up for the Bible teaches. I hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, one more doctrine that you and I disagree about. You believe what you want the Bible to say/mean, but I hold to the Bible, period. The Bible is correct and evolution is wrong and is a lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 24, 2018 Share Posted November 24, 2018 One of the biggest contributions of Evolution is the devaluing of human life. If human beings are nothing more than higher primates as evolutionists maintain, then human life has no intrinsic value. A human is worth no more than a skunk or a mole in an evolutionary worldview. Humans are not made in God's image if human are simply the result of evolution from some unknown primate. If Evolution is true, then abortion isn't sin. Killing unborn children AND euthanizing elderly when they are too much of a burden are amoral acts in that worldview. In fact, if evolution is true, then murder of any kind isn't a sin and should not be a crime. In an evolutionary worldview, why shouldn't we decide who lives and who dies based on what is convenient for the living? Why shouldn't we be like the ancient Spartans who only allowed the physically perfect to be part of their society? Evolution is an naturalistic and atheistic theory that goes squarely against the existence of a personal Creator who operates with purpose. Evolution, negates the existence of a Creator, as its rule is naturalism. Evolution is impersonal and wholly based on naturalism. This is why it stands squarely against the Bible's claims as to man's origin. Trying to fit the Bible to Evolution is like trying to meld Christianity with Atheism. There is simply no possible way to mix the two. But can't God use Evolution to create? No. Because the Bible says that God created human beings. But Evolution teaches that death created human beings. In Evolution DEATH, not God, is the creator. Death is the creative element that eventually led to the existence of man. Only in the Bible does man's existence have purpose. Evolution offers no purpose, no reason to exist, no plan and certainly place no special value on mankind above the rest of the created order. Evolution is anti-Bible, anti-God and anti-Christian. It may work with cultural Christianity, but it is anti-biblical Christianity. The devaluing of human life that comes from Evolution finds its origin in the worship of Baal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 25, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 25, 2018 On 11/24/2018 at 6:01 AM, shiloh357 said: One of the biggest contributions of Evolution is the devaluing of human life. If human beings are nothing more than higher primates as evolutionists maintain, then human life has no intrinsic value. A human is worth no more than a skunk or a mole in an evolutionary worldview. Humans are not made in God's image if human are simply the result of evolution from some unknown primate. From an atheistic perspective this is true. However, one of the main messages of Genesis 1-3 is the establishment of humanity as the pinnacle of God's creative work. Humans are different from other animals not by biology, but by a unique spiritual component. On 11/24/2018 at 6:01 AM, shiloh357 said: But can't God use Evolution to create? No. Because the Bible says that God created human beings. But Evolution teaches that death created human beings. In Evolution DEATH, not God, is the creator. Death is the creative element that eventually led to the existence of man. God can certainly use evolution to create. He can also use death for His purposes, as well. As an eternal, omnipotent entity, He can certainly create both life and death and use either according to His desires. On 11/24/2018 at 6:01 AM, shiloh357 said: Only in the Bible does man's existence have purpose. Only in Jesus Christ does man's existence have purpose. The Bible is certainly a critical component of that purpose. Imagine those that have no access to Bibles but have been taught of the Gospel and have come to salvation through faith in Jesus - certainly they have purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 25, 2018 Share Posted November 25, 2018 1 hour ago, one.opinion said: From an atheistic perspective this is true. However, one of the main messages of Genesis 1-3 is the establishment of humanity as the pinnacle of God's creative work. Humans are different from other animals not by biology, but by a unique spiritual component. The main message of Genesis is contrary to Evolution which makes man just another animal/primate. Evolution devalues human life, as opposed to the Bible which doesn't merely say that man is the pinnacle of God's creation. Rather the Bible places man as the one and only being made in God's image and made separate from the rest of the created order. Evolution devalues human life by placing a value of man that is really no higher than the animal kingdom as man is viewed as being evolved from the animal kingdom. It is not merely a spiritual component that makes man great. We are endowed with physical and mental abilities, a moral awareness and the ability understand self-evident truth, that no other creatures possess and we alone have been given dominion over the earth, which no other animal possesses. We have the ability to be in relationship with our Creator that no other creature possesses. We are physically, mentally superior to any other being. We have the ability to invent, form, make, compose, speak, reason, discover and we possess the communicable attributes of our Creator. It is the Evolutionary world view that views as being no different than other animals, and simply adding the "spiritual component" Quote God can certainly use evolution to create. He can also use death for His purposes, as well. As an eternal, omnipotent entity, He can certainly create both life and death and use either according to His desires. What can do is not at issue. The issue is that he didn't use Evolution to create and an all knowing God wouldn't use evolution because God is incapable of creating imperfection. Death was never engineered into creation by God. God never calls death, "good." And the fact that all forms of death will be destroyed when sin is eradicated tells us that God hates death, that it was never part of His will for creation and especially never part of His will for man. If physical death were intended by God, we would not redeemed from it. But the Bible teaches that we are redeemed from all forms of death, including physical death. It is included in the curse of the fall, from which we are redeemed. Quote Only in Jesus Christ does man's existence have purpose. The Bible is certainly a critical component of that purpose. Imagine those that have no access to Bibles but have been taught of the Gospel and have come to salvation through faith in Jesus - certainly they have purpose. My point is that between Evolution and the Bible, only the Bible gives man purpose and leads Him to Christ. Evolution is an atheistic theory that brings man down to nothing. Stephen Gould taught that man was purposeless, that man was an accidental occurrence and that if this universe were destroyed and new one put in its place, man would not exist in the new universe. That's what the evolutionary worldview looks like. Man has no intrinsic purpose. At several points of comparison, Evolution stands opposed to a biblical worldview. Evolution Bible Man is a higher evolved animal Adam was in a different class than animals and made in God's image Man has no purpose Man has a divine purpose Man came about by an impersonal process Man was brought into existence by a personal Creator Evolution is wholly natural Creation was supernatural Death is necessary Death was not part of God's will in creation and it was man's disobedience that brought death. Sin is just part of the need to compete for resources Sin came through Adams' Disobedience to God and cut man off from God Abortion isn't a sin Abortion is devalues human life made in God's image and is a sin Evolution is atheistic The Bible affirms the existence of God and the Creation account as written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 25, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 25, 2018 28 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: My point is that between Evolution and the Bible, only the Bible gives man purpose and leads Him to Christ. Oh, absolutely! I could not agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts