Genesis query

[krobbyzw]

Howdy folks, I wanted to ask whether any of the members here believe that Genesis was written as a literal history of God's creation of the world? I know that Jesus Christ Himself quoted from it eg in Matthew 19, so I wanted to check what your opinions are on His referring to it.

[Pablo Rafael]

I do not think that the book of Genesis was never intended to be a literal account of creation and the patriarchs. Those who interpret Genesis literally have a terribly hard time trying to explain everything and must ignore science to do it. The creation story is much more meaningful to me if it is taken figuratively.

The ancient Hebrews themselves didn't use the literal, linear thinking that we use today. They used stories that didn't necessarily have to be factual.

Jesus did quote the Old Testament, but I think he was trying to convey ideas rather than give historical facts. Some of the most meaningful teachings of Jesus are contained in His parables. They were never meant to be taken literally, but that doesn't lessen their value.

[keltic63]

there is a problem with the question as one has to decide which creation story to believe: the first in Genesis Chapter One, or the second in Genesis Chapter Two. They contradict each other. So which one do we choose as being the literal and true account?

I'd rather think of Genesis as allegory.

[Alecto]

I always found it fascinating that we have Jesus, God's son, using parables in his teachings left and right but people think the Word of God as written through humans has to be 100% literal.

[Rick336]

I always found it fascinating that we have Jesus, God's son, using parables in his teachings left and right but people think the Word of God as written through humans has to be 100% literal.

And even parables are confusing and prone to misinterpretation.

Rick

[Rick336]

I always found it fascinating that we have Jesus, God's son, using parables in his teachings left and right but people think the Word of God as written through humans has to be 100% literal.

And even parables are confusing and prone to misinterpretation.

Ezekiel 17:2 "Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;"

But, why not make his message easy to understand especially when eternal hell is in the balance?

Rick

[Pablo Rafael]

And even parables are confusing and prone to misinterpretation.

Ezekiel 17:2 "Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;"

But, why not make his message easy to understand especially when eternal hell is in the balance?

Rick

I think that sometimes it is much more valuable to search for meaning than to have it delivered. There is value in the search itself. Since I think that the workings of God are past human understanding, maybe the looking is more worthwhile than is a doctrine.

[Lenny]

Greetings!

We cannot conveniently cast aside the creation epic as mere parable. When we begin to decide what is and what isn't parable, we become revelation, and not the Word. We become Judge. Who then is to say that the resurrection, or the existence of Jesus himself, is not one grand parable in which we may use to infer esoteric knowledge?

With this, we bring forward a protestant principle: Scripture interprets scripture. Do we find individuals in scripture reading the account in Genesis as purely a parable?

No. The New Testament writers accepted a literal historicity of Adam and Eve. Take for example Romans 5, detailing the entrance of sin into the world via one man. It continues with saying "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners..." and it is through the second adam, or another man (Jesus), that the correction takes place. To place Adam and Eve as merely parable, or fictitious, is to necessitate the same for Jesus. In this verse the historical entrance of sin through one man is placed along the same plane as the historical person of Jesus. You can't knock one off without putting in question the other.

Other NT works suggest the same:


"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Tim 2:13-14, containing another reading of Gen 2-3 as literal history).

Also notice how Luke 3:38 contains a literal genealogy which includes ultimately Adam. Adam is placed as historical along that genealogy with Seth, Enos, and Jesus (and a host of others).


In addition, let me say something else about the idea of taking Genesis as parable. Within the New Testament, we find formulas for the usage of Parables (parabolic element). When Jesus uses them, you'll find some beginning with "The kingdom of God is like..." It then contains a parable to explain some ethical or spiritual truth.You'll also find later admissions of some being a parable, complete with an explanation. No such structure is found in Genesis. Rather, it simply explains itself in the beginning of the human race. You find a view of it being historical from the OT throughout the NT.

We may be inclined to see it as myth, given a talking snake, but Rev 20:2 ("that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan",) and Balaam's donkey (Num 22:28) are used for communication by Satan and Jehovah. Obviously we don't find examples of snakes talking, but is it far-fetched that Satan would use such a device to communicate through? To ignore Jehovah's ability to communicate through a donkey is to deny the supernatural, and that quickly leads to a rejection of a physical bodily resurrection of Jesus, thus undermining the entire Christian faith.

In short, Scripture reads Genesis as historical. For that reason, given it is revelation and we are not, it should be seen as such.

[Rick336]

...Balaam's donkey (Num 22:28) are used for communication by Satan and Jehovah.

To ignore Jehovah's ability to communicate through a donkey is to deny the supernatural.....

David Berkowitz who was a serial killer of several young women in New York in the late seventies said that his dog told him to kill the girls. So why didn't the cops arrest the dog and interrogate him?

The answer; people who believe animals can talk are considered to be out of touch with reality. Therefore, there was no reason to arrest the dog.

Rick

[Lenny]

Rick, there is a difference between insanity and the supernatural. The man could have claimed it was God telling him to kill people through the dog, it still would not prove God really did it.

You're completely ignoring the point. Does man sit in judgment to determine what is and isn't real in scripture? You would then make the presumption that the supernatural is impossible, and we must then remove every perceivable supernatural occurrence within the bible (scripture and Jesus are opposite, giving them make the presumption Supernatural IS real, and necessary). This would include the resurrection of Jesus, the entire premise of the Christian faith. If Jesus was wrong in believing in the supernatural, then his teachings are all meaningless. This would also extend to the very existence of God.

(1) To remove the supernatural from scripture is to undermine the possibility of bodily resurrection,
(2) To remove the bodily resurrection, is to remove the Good News of the Gospel, and make Jesus and the Scriptures a Lie.

" 12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. " (1 Cor 15:12-14)

Understandably, if you reject the existence of an all powerful Creator, you would reject the premise of supernatural occurrence (such as talking snakes and donkeys). Clearly they do not talk by their nature (such as your example). However, within the hands of a Supernatural God, and within the revelation of scripture, the possibility is there.

Again, this question asked by the individual was whether we should take the Genesis creation account as literal. Our answer: Scripture both OT and NT take it as literal as the person of Jesus, and as such, being Scripture is our standard (1 Tim 3:16), we should follow it's lead, and not make ourselves the Lords of relative interpretation.

If you deny supernatural, it is difficult even to take part in this discussion. The point is moot.

[Rick336]

Rick, there is a difference between insanity and the supernatural. The man could have claimed it was God telling him to kill people through the dog, it still would not prove God really did it.

You're completely ignoring the point. Does man sit in judgment to determine what is and isn't real in scripture? You would then make the presumption that the supernatural is impossible, and we must then remove every perceivable supernatural occurrence within the bible (scripture and Jesus are opposite, giving them make the presumption Supernatural IS real, and necessary). This would include the resurrection of Jesus, the entire premise of the Christian faith. If Jesus was wrong in believing in the supernatural, then his teachings are all meaningless. This would also extend to the very existence of God.

(1) To remove the supernatural from scripture is to undermine the possibility of bodily resurrection,
(2) To remove the bodily resurrection, is to remove the Good News of the Gospel, and make Jesus and the Scriptures a Lie.

" 12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. " (1 Cor 15:12-14)

Understandably, if you reject the existence of an all powerful Creator, you would reject the premise of supernatural occurrence (such as talking snakes and donkeys). Clearly they do not talk by their nature (such as your example). However, within the hands of a Supernatural God, and within the revelation of scripture, the possibility is there.

Again, this question asked by the individual was whether we should take the Genesis creation account as literal. Our answer: Scripture both OT and NT take it as literal as the person of Jesus, and as such, being Scripture is our standard (1 Tim 3:16), we should follow it's lead, and not make ourselves the Lords of relative interpretation.

If you deny supernatural, it is difficult even to take part in this discussion. The point is moot.


I am saying that there is no reliable evidence that animals have ever spoken a human language. Whether is be a god's voice or the animal's voice, the bottom line here is that animals can not talk. The belief that they can goes against reason and rational thinking.

I am saying that there is no reliable evidence that the supernatural is real. None. There is not a single piece of scientific evidence that the supernatural exists. If there ever is a scientific discovery that the supernatural exists, it would be the biggest news story in the history of mankind.

Is there the possibility that I am wrong and that the supernatural exists? Yes. There is always the possibility that our opinions are wrong.

It also sounds as if you are saying that because I hold an opposing view in this discussion that I should not be contributing to this thread and that my opinions are not valid. If my opinions are not valid in this discussion then do you also say that the opinions of Buddhists, Pagans, Muslims, Jews, and Jehovah Witness are also not valid here?

Am I misinterpreting your post?


Rick

[Lenny]

"I am saying that there is no reliable evidence that animals have ever spoken a human language."

Again, you're making a assumption that is incompatible with the inner discussion. This assumption is that Scripture is not a reliable source of evidence.

You're also making the assumption that something doesn't exist if it cannot be proved by science. That in itself is a statement that cannot be scientifically proven. You're making a philosophical statement about the absolute nature of empiricism (all that exists is that which can be proved empirically through science). You cannot scientifically prove that statement (if you can, please point me to the empirical proof of that statement, otherwise you're proposing a faith/belief amongst others).

This is in addition to two other fallacies: (1) believing something does not exist because science has not proved it to exist (think atoms and germs before their discoveries. It didn't warrant their nonexistence), and (2) That something supernatural (hence the name) is subject to natural explanation. It's like trying to explain Goodness with an experiment of soil composition. Case in point being the creation of the universe and it's interpretation within a text that is revealed divine knowledge.

As to the last point, yes, I am. The discussion is not whether or not the supernatural exists. On that ground any of those individuals can participate, and to a considerable degree. The discussion, however, was whether Genesis is to be taken as a literal historical creation account within this specific tradition (hence the reference to Jesus as possibly authoritative in an interpretation).

If you remain outside of the community in which this is discussed (the monotheistic three), the height of your contribution is "I do not believe in the bible, hence I have no say in whether we take Genesis as a historical occurrence, or myth fabrication." Sure, that's somewhat of a contribution, but it does little to even address the question besides speak of a grander objection. It's like a man posing the question "Should I wear a red or blue shirt," and you responding with "I don't believe in wearing clothes". Sure, your response would be some type of contribution, but it would do little to answer whether your friend should wear red or blue.

The Buddhist and others are as equipped to contribute to the inner-discussion of the historicity of Genesis as the president of Iran is equipped to discuss proper interpretation of the US Constitution. Of course this doesn't mean the president of Iran can't comment on how to interpret the Constitution, but just that it can have little worth in addressing the centrality of the question (thus your attempts to divert the discussion to snakes and an objection to the supernatural).

[kara speltz]

Hey Lenny: The forums are a place for discussion and I agree with Rick that you came on like you hold the decisions on what the boundaries of the discussion are.

I am a practicing Catholic and feel absolutely clear that the bible is filled with contradictions, some of which have been pointed out to you, such as the two versions of the Creation story.

While at the same time, I am also a mystic, that knows that God's power is amazing and that I can place my life in God's hands and know that all will be well.

I hope you'll let go of your dogma, long enough to listen to other people's opinions. For it is clear to me that just about every spiritual path has much to teach us, if we have the ears and hearts to listen.

So just, "chill" and enjoy the ride. Kara

[bnmoore]

Why was the Genesis 19 discussion moved to the Foyer and this one not? It seems to have gotten slightly disrespectful to other Faiths.

[Lenny]

Kara, my apologies if anyone found offense. Perhaps I should summarize myself. The individual who generated the discussion can correct me if they wish.

In a discussion regarding whether Genesis is a literal creation epic, two groups really exist. (1) Those people of the Book who believe Scripture reveals some form of a Creation story. (2) Those outside of this tradition who disregard the validity of Scriptural claims.

Group number two can have another discussion, in regards to why scripture is not authoritative to begin with (or why the supernatural does or does not exist, as made evident by the earlier individual). This group rejects the book.

The first group has an inner faith discussion, meaning the they accept the book, and now discuss the details. This specific example being they accept this Narrative in Scripture, and now wish to discuss whether this narrative is literal, allegorical, or a bit of both.

This second group is hinted by a reference to Jesus' interpretation. Sure, a buddhist can offer his input on this, but it would really be a reference more to the first' groups objections, then an inner study of why we should take it as a literal creation story.

I really don't see how this can be considered insulting to other faith groups. I provided a response why a believer of the Book should take Genesis' creation story as literal. If you can see anything insulting you may be reading that into my response.

As for two creation accounts, I would reject that argument, but that's a whole different discussion. This was why we should or should not take Genesis as literal history, and I provided a response that focused on inner-biblical evidence to do such. The conversation then merely got sidetracked.

[Lenny]

I would also ask for some direct reference to how other religions were insulted. For context purposes, I was a B.A. student in religious studies at a secular college, and I don't see how in any way stating that a discussion of Genesis' creation account according to scriptural passages is one to be done within the reason of those who accept such authority. It's really no stretch. I'm also not stating that even those who are not within such a framework should be purged from responding. Honestly, one must remove some negative presuppositions and analyze the points I made in my previous post.

My initial response answers the individuals' question, namely being why we should accept Genesis as literal history on the basis of inner biblical evidence. If you reject the bible as a starting point, well it's nothing insulting to say that would be the totality if potential contribution.

[bnmoore]

I would also ask for some direct reference to how other religions were insulted.

I only said it was disrespectful, not insulting.

given it is revelation and we are not

There is no other reason to be nor is there anything else to be. Several religions or belief systems propose that God is all there is. (by any name) The adherents of these belief systems find their own texts or books sacred.

As for me if you're alive I don't see any way to avoid being the Word. It's just not an option.

[tdogg]

Howdy folks, I wanted to ask whether any of the members here believe that Genesis was written as a literal history of God's creation of the world? I know that Jesus Christ Himself quoted from it eg in Matthew 19, so I wanted to check what your opinions are on His referring to it.

Asked of other forum members. So any other forum member has a right to state an opinion. Especially since the inquirer asked them to. Sheesh.

So which creation story do you believe Lenny? Did you answer that one and I missed it?

[Matt Algren]

Asked of other forum members. So any other forum member has a right to state an opinion. Especially since the inquirer asked them to. Sheesh.

So which creation story do you believe Lenny? Did you answer that one and I missed it?
What was it Richard Holloway said in For The Bible Tells Me So? "Biblical literalists are people who 'know' the truth absolutely. So they’re not able to engage in a conversation—they’re only able to engage in a pronouncement."

[Rick336]

As to the last point, yes, I am. The discussion is not whether or not the supernatural exists. On that ground any of those individuals can participate, and to a considerable degree. The discussion, however, was whether Genesis is to be taken as a literal historical creation account within this specific tradition (hence the reference to Jesus as possibly authoritative in an interpretation).

If you remain outside of the community in which this is discussed (the monotheistic three), the height of your contribution is "I do not believe in the bible, hence I have no say in whether we take Genesis as a historical occurrence, or myth fabrication." Sure, that's somewhat of a contribution, but it does little to even address the question besides speak of a grander objection. It's like a man posing the question "Should I wear a red or blue shirt," and you responding with "I don't believe in wearing clothes". Sure, your response would be some type of contribution, but it would do little to answer whether your friend should wear red or blue.

I'm an atheist now but I was a Christian for most of my life which I think makes my viewpoint valid here. Also, I've read most of the Old Testament which also makes my contribution to this discussion valid.

Your question was whether any of the members here believe that Genesis was written as a literal history of God's creation of the world. I am a member of this group. My opinion is that since I don't see any evidence that the supernatural exists, I don't believe the Old Testament is literal history.

You also said that you believed that Balaam's donkey talked. My opinion was that no matter what the Bible says, the belief that animals can talk is irrational and doesn't meet with reality.

You asked a question, I gave you my answer. But because you were disturbed by my answer, you said my viewpoint didn't fit this discussion.

Rick

[bnmoore]

"A people's belief about the world's beginnings is usually called a creation myth, mythology, story, or tale by other peoples. It should be noted, however, that to the people involved, these are not myths or stories. They are real, not in a linear, literal, scientific sense, but nevertheless real, and part of the authentic plurality of humankind's truths. Thus, a more useful and respectful way to describe these "myths" is to call them "sacred narratives," especially when the people to whom they are sacred are still living and revering these stories."

This was copied and pasted from a website with links to "Sacred Narratives" from diverse cultures. I don't feel that it would do anyone harm or shake anyone's faith to read how other's believe we got here.

[Lenny]

I have read in depth on the various creation epics. Fascinating stuff, especially the various accounts of a flood.

As for the supposed 'dual Genesis accounts', I would enjoy having the discussion. As I said earlier, I didn't address it as the topic was focused on whether the event is historical (thus the inner scriptural arguments taken as historical), and engaging in the issue of 'dual creation accounts' was a tangent and separate discussion.

However if you would desire such a discussion, I would join in, as long as we also address the best explanations for the Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. I would be interested how the naturalist seeks the best explanation.

I hope to see some of you guys and gals tomorrow. God's Blessings.

[bnmoore]

I'm not sure who you were talking to but if it was me we go to the definition of Christos which means "anointed" or "enlightened one". We teach Christ as a universal idea, and each one "puts on the Christ" to the degree that he or she surrenders a limited sense of life to the divine realization of wholeness and unity with Good, Spirit-God. We teach the message of Christ as unconditional love, non judgment, forgiveness, brotherhood, and peace. Lifestyle more than religion. We also include other teachers.

As monists we don't separate into creator and creature. It's all one thing. An easier concept could be the Hindu "Atman is Brahman Itself". Phrasing that as "Soul is God" might be confusing. I would call creation and evolution both universal constants. Neither seem to be slowing down.

There are members on this board that do call themselves Christians. Perhaps they would like to engage in dialog. I don't indulge in quarreling theology.

[krobbyzw]

Cool, thanks, Pablo. Have you had the time to check out Answers in Genesis or Creation Science evangelism? I have also come across the argument [from them] that evolution is a religion, since it requires belief in a set of circumstances that we cannot reproduce or observe, since it requires a time scale that no human can spare. The evolutionists, of course will say 100% that evolution is science and point to fossils as evidence. The creationists also point to the same fossils as proof of the literal global flood.

I do agree with you though on the Hebrews not using linear thinking. Our culture I would say has a more Greek way of thinking.

I wondered if you thought Jesus was merely 'conveying ideas rather than give facts' when He said 'I am the way, the truth and the life.'

I can see the point that if we 'chip away' too much at the book of Genesis by defining it as 'stories' then we deny the literal history of it. If we do that, then it becomes easier to dismiss more and more of the Bible as 'not necessarily factual' and that, I would say, works to Satan's advantage.

Thanks for your time!

[krobbyzw]

Hi Keltic, I found an answer in Kent Hovind's DVD 7 for you of the 'two creation stories.' He has called it 'Questions and Answers' and explains how there is no contradiction. It is available for download free of charge. Thanks for your reply.

[krobbyzw]

Hi Alecto, that is a good point. The argument that I have heard creationists use is that Jesus when dealing with Pharisees and scribes of His time, always went back to the 'authority of the Word of God,' for example 'Have you not read...?' and then He would quote Genesis in Matthew 19:4 when answering a question on divorce. Would be interested to know if He ever used parables when answering questions on divorce. Nothing comes to mind at the moment. Have a good day!

[krobbyzw]

Good point Pablo! I would agree with you.

[krobbyzw]

Thanks bnmoore, would I be correct in thinking you feel a literal six day creation is not historically accurate then? Would the 'millions of years' proposed by evolutionists be closer to the truth in your opinion?

[krobbyzw]

Hi Lenny, was wondering if you had come across Kent Hovind's DVD 7 - Questions and Answers in your research? I mentioned it to Keltic. I can quote from his explanation of the topic if you prefer, let me know what works for you.

Obviously the explanations he [and I] believe for the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus [and subsequent appearing to the disciples and ascension back into heaven] are that they were literal and historical.


Enjoy your day!

[krobbyzw]

Hi Ben, thanks for that! Wanted to ask when you say you "would call creation and evolution both universal constants" I wondered how the evolution concept of millions of years fits in the six-day creation account in your understanding?

Am I correct in thinking you do not see yourself as Christian?

[bnmoore]

Thanks bnmoore, would I be correct in thinking you feel a literal six day creation is not historically accurate then? Would the 'millions of years' proposed by evolutionists be closer to the truth in your opinion?

I don't think how we got here matters. Is the six days in chronos or kairos time? How does one measure time in Eternity? It's always now.

If I use the term 'evolution' I'm referring to the Spiritual not Darwinian. Or the infinite self-knowingness of God.

[Rick336]

Science, which uses evidence as a measurement, puts the creation of the universe at around 14 1/2 billion years (give or take a few billion). That seems like a more accurate time line.

Rick

[krobbyzw]

[QUOTE=bnmoore;74720]Is the six days in chronos or kairos time?

Hi Ben. The way it was explained to me is that the Hebrew word for 'day' used in the creation account is the same one as used when describing Jonah in the big fish and the Israelites marching around Jericho. Sounds like 'chronos' to me.

[krobbyzw]

Science, which uses evidence as a measurement, puts the creation of the universe at around 14 1/2 billion years (give or take a few billion). That seems like a more accurate time line.

Rick

Hi Rick, interesting that you should use the word 'science' there. I looked it up and found it was 'knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment' which means to me that anything that is not observable is not scientific.

Billions, or millions or thousands of years are not observable by humans, since we live to around 100 years at the most [122 for Jeanne Calment according to Wikipedia on 19Mar2010].

That's why evolution is defined as a religion - you have to have faith in what you cannot observe and test.

Thanks for your reply.

[Rick336]

That's why evolution is defined as a religion - you have to have faith in what you cannot observe and test.

Thanks for your reply.

You're welcome.

However, I disagree with your statement. Evolution and the big bang are theories accepted by most scientists because they are based on mountains of tested evidence. Religion, however, is based on faith in ancient stories of the supernatural passed down for thousands of years.

Example: Even though there is no empirical evidence that Satan lurks in the shadows, most Christians continue to believe he does. That's called faith. Unlike science, faith requires no evidence.

Science is not a religion because if science discovers new evidence on a theory, it changes its position. Religion, on the other hand, rarely changes in light of new evidence or lack of evidence which is more likely the case.

Some Christians undermine evolution by calling it a religion because they believe if people see evolution as just another religion, then maybe people will be less willing to accept evolution as fact just as Christians are unwilling to see other religions as fact.

Recent research, however, may be discovering evidence that it could be in our biological human make-up to believe that there is "something out there" that we can't see, or hear. This means that beliefs in the "unknown" may actually be genetic. In other words, the sense of ancient, cave-dwelling humans that there was "something out there," may be part of the natural selection process to protect our species.

For example, a million years ago if you walked away from the campfire at night and something attacked you, you were unlikely to survive. If you feared the unknown and stayed by the fire, you were more likely to survive and produce offspring. Over the next million years, those who feared the unknown and survived continued to produce offspring.

During this same time, the belief that there's "something out there" that can't be seen or heard may have evolved into a belief in the supernatural, the fear of an angry god, and evil force, and eventually religion.

But this is just a theory subject to change from new evidence.


Rick

[krobbyzw]

Hi Rick, I do see that the 'mountains of tested evidence' that evolutionists refer to are normally the fossils that creationists point to as evidence of a global flood. Do you have any other examples of evolutionary evidence? Would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

If you are serious about empirical evidence that Satan is lurking in the shadows, ask the satanists that have genuinely 'sold their souls' to him and faithfully attend black mass, etc. I have not personally done that, but I have read books by ex-satanists who describe what goes on there. I would recommend you read the books first before you meet them though, I would say they seriously have no respect for human life and may abuse any relationship they set up with you. Please be warned.

I do agree with on on religion not changing though. I would that is because when an all-knowing, all seeing, all-powerful Creator of the universe who can see the end from the beginning tells you something, He will tell you the truth from the start, so there is no reason for the story to change.

Good talking to you!

[Pablo Rafael]

Cool, thanks, Pablo. Have you had the time to check out Answers in Genesis or Creation Science evangelism?

I have not had a chance to check this out. I will have to do so.

I wondered if you thought Jesus was merely 'conveying ideas rather than give facts' when He said 'I am the way, the truth and the life.'
I think that statement is an major principle of the Bible. A principle is much more substantial than a simple fact. Whether Jesus actually said those exact words doesn't make any difference. I believe that the Bible tells us what God wants us to know, whether it be in figurative or literal language.

I can see the point that if we 'chip away' too much at the book of Genesis by defining it as 'stories' then we deny the literal history of it. If we do that, then it becomes easier to dismiss more and more of the Bible as 'not necessarily factual' and that, I would say, works to Satan's advantage.

I feel that if we take the Bible literally, we must start "chipping away" at it. When a literalist comes across the contradictions in the Bible they must choose what to believe and what to discount. For example did Judas hang himself or throw himself off of a cliff? The Gospels have different stories of this event. They can't both be factual. Literalist have to ignore one of the events.

The flood is a good example of the impossibility of a literal interpretation. If the flood happened around 3500BC, which is just a second in geologic terms, we would see evidence of it all over the earth. Why is there no evidence? The Americas were inhabited thousands of years before 3500 BC. Why were native Americans not destroyed in the flood? How did Noah get all the animals of the earth on the ark when many animals did not even live in the Middle East? Trying to explain the flood literally brings up a multitude of problems. A figurative interpretation of the story eliminates the need to make up false "science" to explain things. It allows one to focus on what message is God trying to show us in this section of Genesis.

[Rick336]

If you are serious about empirical evidence that Satan is lurking in the shadows, ask the satanists that have genuinely 'sold their souls' to him and faithfully attend black mass, etc. I have not personally done that, but I have read books by ex-satanists who describe what goes on there. I would recommend you read the books first before you meet them though, I would say they seriously have no respect for human life and may abuse any relationship they set up with you. Please be warned.


The fact that people believe they have sold their souls to the Devil is not empirical evidence that the Devil exists anymore than selling one's soul to Bigfoot means that Bigfoot exists. It makes me wonder however, how exactly one sells his or her soul to anything. What do they get in return besides a lot of wasted time?

As for meeting with a Satanist, I have no interest in doing that. But if I ever do, my advice may be for them to seek maturity.

As for evidence of evolution, there are volumes and volumes of information on this, way too much to list on a forum thread. If you've ever read anything on natural selection however, you may find it easily explains how humans and animals evolved.

And as for the great flood story in the Bible, there is growing evidence that around 5,000 years ago a meteor slammed into the Indian Ocean causing a huge tsunami that devastated the areas surrounding the impact. Interestingly, of the ancient civilizations that lived in the areas around the Indian Ocean, many have creation stories about "the great flood."

Rick

[krobbyzw]

Hi Pablo,

Thanks again for your reply.

"For example did Judas hang himself or throw himself off of a cliff? The Gospels have different stories of this event. They can't both be factual."
Let me know if http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#79 does not answer this question for you adequately.

"The flood is a good example of the impossibility of a literal interpretation. If the flood happened around 3500BC, which is just a second in geologic terms, we would see evidence of it all over the earth. Why is there no evidence?"
Creationists will tell you fossils and oil are the evidence.

"The Americas were inhabited thousands of years before 3500 BC."
According to who? Would be interested to know.

"Why were native Americans not destroyed in the flood?"
In my understanding, Native Americans migrated there after the flood. If you feel this is not possible, please let me know why.

"How did Noah get all the animals of the earth on the ark when many animals did not even live in the Middle East?"
How do you know what animals did and didn't live in the Middle East 4400 years ago?

"Trying to explain the flood literally brings up a multitude of problems."
What other problems can you think of?

Thanks Pablo, enjoy your day.

[krobbyzw]

Hi Rick,
Thanks for your answers!

"What do they get in return besides a lot of wasted time?"
As far as I understand, they do get as much money as they want, as much power as they want, as much sex as they want and as many narcotics as they want. Certainly an immature life, as you pointed out, however, you will agree that we have some immature people on this planet.

"If you've ever read anything on natural selection however, you may find it easily explains how humans and animals evolved."
Natural selection, in my understanding, does not establish any beneficial mutations. Have a look at Kent Hovind's 7 free DVDs for more on this.

"And as for the great flood story in the Bible, there is growing evidence that around 5,000 years ago a meteor slammed into the Indian Ocean causing a huge tsunami that devastated the areas surrounding the impact. Interestingly, of the ancient civilizations that lived in the areas around the Indian Ocean, many have creation stories about "the great flood.""
--Cool! Would you let me know of any websites that cover the story? Have heard that the Chinese language has been influenced by it too. Would you say that China is far from the Indian Ocean? The water only has to get over Bangladesh, Burma, etc in the meteor version of the great flood, and covers the entire planet in the Genesis version, so admittedly quite a difference. Have heard another flood legend that the Totlec Indians of Mexico have – certainly further away from the Indian Ocean. The Hovind theory, interestingly, involves a meteor as well.

Good talking with you!

[bnmoore]

That brings up a question I have for the Christians on the forum. Do you practice Mystical Christianity or Orthodox Christianity? From some of the comments it seems that most lean toward the allegorical view.

[Rick336]

Hi Rick,
Thanks for your answers!

"What do they get in return besides a lot of wasted time?"
As far as I understand, they do get as much money as they want, as much power as they want, as much sex as they want and as many narcotics as they want. Certainly an immature life, as you pointed out, however, you will agree that we have some immature people on this planet.

All the money, power, sex, and drugs come flowing to them because they worship and invisible monster? I find this difficult to believe. I suspect there's more to this story.

"If you've ever read anything on natural selection however, you may find it easily explains how humans and animals evolved."
Natural selection, in my understanding, does not establish any beneficial mutations. Have a look at Kent Hovind's 7 free DVDs for more on this.

"And as for the great flood story in the Bible, there is growing evidence that around 5,000 years ago a meteor slammed into the Indian Ocean causing a huge tsunami that devastated the areas surrounding the impact. Interestingly, of the ancient civilizations that lived in the areas around the Indian Ocean, many have creation stories about "the great flood.""
--Cool! Would you let me know of any websites that cover the story? Have heard that the Chinese language has been influenced by it too. Would you say that China is far from the Indian Ocean? The water only has to get over Bangladesh, Burma, etc in the meteor version of the great flood, and covers the entire planet in the Genesis version, so admittedly quite a difference. Have heard another flood legend that the Totlec Indians of Mexico have – certainly further away from the Indian Ocean. The Hovind theory, interestingly, involves a meteor as well.

Good talking with you!

Here's a link to Discovery Magazine and an article about the Indian Ocean meteor....or actually I think it was a comet.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/nov/did-a-comet-cause-the-great-flood

Thanks.

Rick

[krobbyzw]

That brings up a question I have for the Christians on the forum. Do you practice Mystical Christianity or Orthodox Christianity? From some of the comments it seems that most lean toward the allegorical view.

Hi Ben, I would say I lean more towards orthodox, since I have not even heard of Mystical Christianity.

[krobbyzw]

Hi Rick, thanks for that! Looks interesting.

[bnmoore]

Hi Ben, I would say I lean more towards orthodox, since I have not even heard of Mystical Christianity.

If you didn't have an Internet connection you wouldn't be here. You could find out all about it if you were interested. I'm also pretty sure I noticed the orthodoxy already. The question wasn't really intended for you, beloved. The group's Christians seem unwilling to talk to you.

[krobbyzw]

Ah, thanks Ben!

[krobbyzw]

All the money, power, sex, and drugs come flowing to them because they worship and invisible monster? I find this difficult to believe. I suspect there's more to this story.


Rick

Hi Rick, interesting quote I've found from Alice Cooper - "If you believe that this is just mythology, you're a prime target because you know that's exactly what Satan wants: To be a myth. But he's not a myth, of this I'm totally convinced. More than anything in the world, I'm convinced of that."

I would say Alice Cooper has more experience in these types of things than I do.

Enjoy your weekend!

[Pablo Rafael]

That brings up a question I have for the Christians on the forum. Do you practice Mystical Christianity or Orthodox Christianity? From some of the comments it seems that most lean toward the allegorical view.

I am probably closer to the Orthodox end of the continuum than the mystical end. While I think some of the Bible is figurative, I believe that a lot of it is factual. I do believe that the Bible is meant to be a tool given to us by God. It is not the object that we worship, nor is it a history or science textbook. I believe that God wishes us to dig into the Bible for ever deeper understandings that are below the surface. We will never comprehend all there is to God through the Bible, but in it we see God's salvation history through the eyes of the Hebrew people coming to a climax in the incarnation of God on earth in Jesus Christ.

[bnmoore]

Thanks for answering Pablo.