[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism denies the fall.

[Cygnus]

It's significant that the Bible begins and ends with allegorical lessons for us, and in between are numerous texts showing how God actually wants us to live and serve Him and each other.

I don't see any possibility of making Genesis or Revelation into literal histories.

When will you explain the fall of mankind.

 

[Barbarian]

That's because you're over-educated, Brother.

That's impossible. Particularly for a Christian. God says to know the truth, and the truth will set you free. A Christian should never fear the truth.

IMO, you're hanging on to your worldly knowledge

The Bible does not strike me as worldly. It is God's word to us.

The reality is, spiritual matters are spiritually discerned, and intellectual knowledge has no part in the race to find and be one with God and His Kingdom.

You do not have to turn your back on the truth to love God. He is truth. The more you know about Him and His creation, the better.

It is sometimes a matter of pride to cling to one's personal interpretation of scripture in defiance of all other things. This is what made Mark Twain describe faith as "believing what you know ain't so." It isn't like that.

All you have to do is accept the very simple message of Genesis, and leave the intellectual fiddling to the Pharisees.

 

[Barbarian]

When will you explain the fall of mankind.

Already did. God made us to be happy and free with Him forever. We disobeyed him and from that came sin and hence the need for a Redeemer, which He promised us and Who came and died for us.

Why is this so hard for you to accept?

 

[Cygnus]

Not at all. God's message is very simple and easy to understand. God made us to be happy with Him. We disobeyed Him and brought all sorts of trouble upon ourselves. The confusion comes in, when we try to make it into some kind of a science text. No complex thinking required. Just don't add anything that isn't there.

Just don't add anything tat isn't there? Seems strange that you would include that in your reply.
So, just how did man fall? Answer without adding please.

 

[Cygnus]

Already did. God made us to be happy and free with Him forever. We disobeyed him and from that came sin and hence the need for a Redeemer, which He promised us and Who came and died for us.

Why is this so hard for you to accept?

How can a pre-human primate or a just became human disobey God?

 

[Cygnus]

It is sometimes a matter of pride to cling to one's personal interpretation of scripture in defiance of all other things. This is what made Mark Twain describe faith as "believing what you know ain't so." It isn't like that.

PRIDE? It's prideful to accept what the Word of God says and believe man was formed from the dust the woman from mans rib? How the heck is that prideful Barbarian?
What's prideful is claiming the Bible got it wrong and your interpretation of a pile of rocks is right.

 

[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. ESV
I don't see what part of this I have misrepresented. The only misrepresentation I have seen here is calling it a myth, fable, parable or allegory. As Edward said God says what He means and means what He says.....it really is pretty simple.

 

[Barbarian]

PRIDE? It's prideful to accept what the Word of God says and believe man was formed from the dust the woman from mans rib?

It's pride to insist that your new interpretation is the only valid one. There's really no problem for you, if you accept that your personal interpretation is not the only one held by Christians.

What's prideful is claiming the Bible got it wrong

You're the only one who came up with that. No one else even suggested that.

 

[Edward]

Not at all. God's message is very simple and easy to understand. God made us to be happy with Him. We disobeyed Him and brought all sorts of trouble upon ourselves. The confusion comes in, when we try to make it into some kind of a science text. No complex thinking required. Just don't add anything that isn't there.



See above. If deeper theology is your thing, you might want to read Genesi Ad Litteram, written by Augustine about 450 AD.

Aurelius Augustinus (354–430) is often simply referred to as St. Augustine or Augustine Bishop of Hippo (the ancient name of the modern city of Annaba in Algeria). He is the preeminent Doctor of the Church according to Roman Catholicism, and is considered by Evangelical Protestants to be in the tradition of the Apostle Paul as the theological fountainhead of the Reformation teaching on salvation and grace.

See, that's the thing. We don't need any big explanation for the Genesis text. I'm not making it a science, you have before. The text doesn't say anything about evolution. It says Jesus spoke, and by the power of His word, things were created. It sounds like man was hand formed by Him , but most of it was just by His word. I'm not sure where you ever got the notion that evolution is real because it isn't and there's no scriptures which imply it even.

There's a scripture which says that everything is upheld by Jesus, and held together or whatever, as if there's some sort of continuing maintenance on the universe required some times. (of course that's a paraphrase), but nothing about evolution. Genesis is literal. Cut and dried. It's easy to understand. Belief may be the hard thing for some, but I take it literal and it's interesting history.

 

[Edward]

Already did. God made us to be happy and free with Him forever. We disobeyed him and from that came sin and hence the need for a Redeemer, which He promised us and Who came and died for us.

Why is this so hard for you to accept?

Oh, come on. You started explaining how evolution is true and now you're dodging following up about that. It's not hard to accept scripture, so where's the scriptures on evolution?

 

[civilwarbuff]

I am kinda waiting to see what scripture states that God made us to be "happy and free" with Him forever. I don't believe I have ever come across that before......sounds kinda humanistic to me....

 

[Jim Parker]

So let's boil this down....
1. God lied to Moses and that is not how man was created.
2. Moses did not write down what God told him and instead made it all up, therefore lying to God and the Jews.
3. God and Moses colluded to deceive the Jews (and all mankind).
4. What is written in Genesis is true.
5. God and Moses never spoke and therefore the entire bible is a lie.
I think believing Christians would go with Door #4 and not write off Genesis as nothing more than "literature".

I never suggested any of that crap.
Do try not to lie about what I said.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I never suggested any of that crap.
Do try not to lie about what I said.

No lie there; just my perspective on what you said. If you believe yourself misinterpreted please spell it out.....

 

[Jim Parker]

No lie there; just my perspective on what you said. If you believe yourself misinterpreted please spell it out.....

I did spell it out.
I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT God lied.
I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT Moses made it all up and lied.
I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT God and Moses colluded to deceive the Jews and all mankind.
I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT God and Moses never spoke and therefore the entire bible is a lie.

That is crap that you made up.
Those are lies that you made up about what I said.
You have purposely misrepresented what I posted in an attempt to slander me.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I did spell it out.
I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT God lied.
I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT Moses made it all up and lied.
I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT God and Moses colluded to deceive the Jews and all mankind.
I NEVER SUGGESTED THAT God and Moses never spoke and therefore the entire bible is a lie.

That is crap that you made up.
Those are lies that you made up about what I said.
You have purposely misrepresented what I posted in an attempt to slander me.

Sorry you see it that way but it was you who suggested that the biblical creation account in Genesis was simply literature, was it not?
edit: is this not what you said:
"The literature of Genesis is exactly what would be expected to be written by people in that culture at that time."
Did I misunderstand what you were saying?

 

[Jim Parker]

Sorry you see it that way but it was you who suggested that the biblical creation account in Genesis was simply literature, was it not?

"Simply literature"?????
No wonder it went over your head.

 

[civilwarbuff]

"Simply literature"?????
No wonder it went over your head.

You are the one who called it 'literature' not me.....I call it scripture....

 

[civilwarbuff]

"Simply literature"?????
No wonder it went over your head.

BTW, you did not answer the question....

 

[jasonc]

Jim Parker if you are alluding to How the Hebrew look at Genesis ya might want to clarify that. they don't use Genesis to fight the toe but more of its part of the Torah and a literal account. just saying.

 

[Jim Parker]

You are the one who called it 'literature' not me.....I call it scripture....

Scripture IS literature.
If you don't understand that then you have no business talking about what the Bible does and does not contain.