[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism denies the fall.

[Barbarian]

It seems to me the only ones around here not happy with how God created man are the evolutionists

We're content with the way He chose to do it. Creationists object to the way He did it. It's not a salvation issue, but if you accepted it His way, you might find a closer relationship with Him.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
This is what creationists believe; this is what evolutionists deny.....pretty simple.......

 

[Jim Parker]

Basing a rule on a non-event....is what we were talking about.
Considering it was pretty childish, did you understand my point?

Of course.
But I don't have to agree with you.

 

[Cygnus]

There are some Christians who don't accept that God uses parables in Genesis. But most of us accept that He does. You're still a Christian if you don't, of course.

Yawn, yes. Paul based his guidance towards women in the letter to Timothy on a parable.

So, barbarian, as a christian, explain original sin.

 

[Cygnus]

Gen 2:7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
This is what creationists believe; this is what evolutionists deny.....pretty simple.......

They deny what the Bible says.....they have more faith in the religion of evolutionism

 

[Cygnus]

Of course.
But I don't have to agree with you.

Yes, you are allowed to be wrong.

 

[Jim Parker]

Yes, you are allowed to be wrong.

As are you.
We will not be judged on what we knew but on what we did.

 

[Barbarian]

Yawn, yes. Paul based his guidance towards women in the letter to Timothy on a parable.

Yep. Jesus directs on on parables all the time. Paul is just following God.

So, barbarian, as a christian, explain original sin.

Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Remember, you're hung up on "evolutionism", which is the set of misconceptions that creationists have about evolution and evolutionary theory. The real thing is not at all what they told you it is.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What 'misconception' about evolution and evolution theory?

 

[Cygnus]

Yep. Jesus directs on on parables all the time. Paul is just following God.



Adam and Eve disobeyed God. Remember, you're hung up on "evolutionism", which is the set of misconceptions that creationists have about evolution and evolutionary theory. The real thing is not at all what they told you it is.

You're a pretty good dancer.

 

[Cygnus]

What 'misconception' about evolution and evolution theory?

I've been wondering myself...too much evo-dancing here lately

 

[Jim Parker]

Yawn, yes. Paul based his guidance towards women in the letter to Timothy on a parable.

No, not on a parable, on the creation story.

Jesus often taught using parables.
Parables are not about historic people, places and things. They are stories which use familiar things to convey a truth.

The truth of the two creation stories in Gen 1-3 is in the fact that God made the heavens and the earth from nothing. They came into being by His command as did everything else on earth and in the universe.

The creation story is told in the manner of an ancient, middle eastern creation myth; a form of literature the people of the time would understand. It begins with the genealogy of the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1 through 2:3) and then moves to the story of mankind, beginning with Adam, through the flood to the separation of mankind into nations. (Gen 2:4 to 11:19)
That is followed by a genealogy (the standard manner by which episodes are separated in ancient middle eastern literature) and then the story of the people of God who are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who was called Israel.
It is at this point that the Genesis account becomes what we would call "history."

 

[Cygnus]

Jesus often taught using parables.

Which creates quite a problem for you...parables that Jesus taught were based upon actual events or events that could actually happen.

Now, according to you Genesis isn't an actual event nor could it ever happen....which kinda says something about your claim.

Why would Paul base an instruction to women based upon an event that didn't happen nor could not happen?

 

[civilwarbuff]

The creation story is told in the manner of an ancient, middle eastern creation myth;

I thought that was a claim only used by non-believers......learned something new today.....

 

[Jim Parker]

Which creates quite a problem for you...parables that Jesus taught were based upon actual events or events that could actually happen.

Right. That's not a problem for me.

Now, according to you Genesis isn't an actual event nor could it ever happen....which kinda says something about your claim.

I never said that.
Creation very definitely happened and God did it.
A also never said that Genesis was a parable.

Why would Paul base an instruction to women based upon an event that didn't happen nor could not happen?

That question has been answered for you by Silmarien's post #38.
"It'd be like someone in an English speaking culture referencing Shakespeare to teach something,"
I re-posted it at my post #40.
If you are unable or unwilling to try to understand then I can't help you.
And if you just want to say the same things over and over, I'm really not interested.

 

[Silmarien]

Good post, but consider how Paul knew what the scriptures contained.
Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

And this after being caught up into heaven by our risen LORD. According to Col 1:26 Paul received even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

2Co 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
2Co 12:3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)
2Co 12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

On the other hand, Paul himself admits that he doesn't know everything in 1 Corinthians 13, so it's a bit of a leap for me to say that divine inspiration means that he understands Scripture completely and perfectly. That is a stronger claim than he himself makes, and I do not believe that the question of whether Adam and Eve were factual or allegorical has anything to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I am also unconvinced that he would even make the distinction between factual and allegorical if there weren't a concrete need to do so.

Why would Paul base the rule on an event that didn't happen? Was the inspired Paul....wrong?

Why wouldn't he? Take a look at Galatians 4:24. Paul is quite capable of viewing Scripture allegorically and using it to illustrate a doctrinal point, so I see no reason to think that it mattered to him whether or not the Garden of Eden was factual. Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture, the fact that something was historical fact is not what made it authorative. It was God's revealed revelation regardless. I think we're seeing distinctions that he may well not have cared about. It was not uncommon to read Genesis figuratively in the Early Church, so I'm not sure why people suddenly see the need to "fix" viewpoints that have acceptable throughout the entire history of Christianity.

I'm actually fully comfortable with the idea that Paul was wrong on certain things, though. Which is obviously less orthodox of me, but I view divine inspiration differently than most people around here.

 

[Jim Parker]

Why wouldn't he? Take a look at Galatians 4:24. Paul is quite capable of viewing Scripture allegorically and using it to illustrate a doctrinal point, so I see no reason to think that it mattered to him whether or not the Garden of Eden was factual. Holy Scripture was Holy Scripture, the fact that something was historical fact is not what made it authorative. It was God's revealed revelation regardless. I think we're seeing distinctions that he may well not have cared about. It was not uncommon to read Genesis figuratively in the Early Church, so I'm not sure why people suddenly see the need to "fix" viewpoints that have acceptable throughout the entire history of Christianity.

 

[Eugene]

I'm actually fully comfortable with the idea that Paul was wrong on certain things.

Are you able to point them out with scripture? Thanks.

 

[Jim Parker]

I thought that was a claim only used by non-believers......learned something new today.....

People seem to have a great deal of difficulty grasping the fact that the Bible is literature.
The literature of Genesis is exactly what would be expected to be written by people in that culture at that time.
To approach it as the transcript of the video taped documentary of the creation is beyond absurd.

Did God create the heavens and the earth and everything that exists?
Yes.
Is genesis the transcript of the video tape that the angels took?
No.

 

[Cygnus]

I'm actually fully comfortable with the idea that Paul was wrong on certain things, though. Which is obviously less orthodox of me, but I view divine inspiration differently than most people around here.

Considering you're not a christian....