[_ Old Earth _] Evolutionism denies the fall.

[Barbarian]

When all of mankind stands before Jesus, He will not judge them according to what they knew about scripture.
He will judge them according to what they did or did not do.

Precisely. Even YE creationists will not be punished for their new doctrine. It doesn't affect one's salvation at all.

 

[Barbarian]

You continue to call it a parable but you are unable to say what the parable is or what it means?

Already did. You weren't paying attention? Do you want me to tell you all of it again? Instead pick something and we'll see what it says.

 

[civilwarbuff]

No you didn't; yes tell it again......I need the laugh.

 

[Edward]

Already did. You weren't paying attention? Do you want me to tell you all of it again? Instead pick something and we'll see what it says.

I want to hear it. I thought i was paying attention but I never heard you explain the parable. I like to learn. What is it?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Already did. You weren't paying attention? Do you want me to tell you all of it again? Instead pick something and we'll see what it says.b

No you didn't; yes tell it again......I need the laugh.

But you declined to pick anything. One thing in the creation story. What is it?

 

[Edward]

Precisely. Even YE creationists will not be punished for their new doctrine. It doesn't affect one's salvation at all.

The new doctrine? You men the one where in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He created it all in 6 days and formed man from the dust of the ground? That's not a new one, that uh, what it says, lol. It's good to know I wont lose my salvation for believing that yarn though, lol. I can't wait to see what it really means. I've been misinterpreting it all these years!

 

[Barbarian]

The new doctrine? You men the one where in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. He created it all in 6 days and formed man from the dust of the ground?

Where men decided that it couldn't be a parable or allegory, and tried to rework it into a literal history. That's a very new doctrine, invented in the early 20th century.

It's good to know I wont lose my salvation for believing that yarn though, lol. I can't wait to see what it really means. I've been misinterpreting it all these years!

Yep. Before the Seventh-Day Adventists invented young Earth creationism, most creationists were old Earth.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You continue to call it a parable but you are unable to say what the parable is or what it means?.......In case you don't know what a parable is:
A parable is a succinct, didactic story, in prose or verse, which illustrates one or more instructive lessons or principles. It differs from a fable in that fables employ animals, plants, inanimate objects, or forces of nature as characters, whereas parables have human characters.[1] A parable is a type of analogy.[2] wiki

So what instructive lesson or principle does the creation account illustrate?

Still waiting for your explanation......

 

[civilwarbuff]

Parables are not one liners; what is the parable in/of the creation story and what does it mean? (based on the definition of parable above).

 

[Cygnus]

You're still trying to revise the parable into a literal history. It won't work, as Christians over a thousand years ago, noted. It's not evolution you're fighting here.

Yes I know. It's a complete disregard for scripture that I'm fighting

 

[Edward]

Where men decided that it couldn't be a parable or allegory, and tried to rework it into a literal history. That's a very new doctrine, invented in the early 20th century.



Yep. Before the Seventh-Day Adventists invented young Earth creationism, most creationists were old Earth.

So even though it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it's not a duck? I almost fell for that too, Brother. Good thing you're here to explain the parable to us...???

You are going to explain the parable to us, aren't you?

 

[civilwarbuff]

You are going to explain the parable to us, aren't you?

I for one am on pins and needles waiting for this knowledgeable and outstanding explanation......it might be worth a book deal......

 

[Barbarian]

Yes I know. It's a complete disregard for scripture that I'm fighting

It's scripture you're fighting.

 

[Barbarian]

I for one am on pins and needles waiting for this knowledgeable and outstanding explanation......it might be worth a book deal......

For a second time, you've declined to tell me what particular part you want me to show you.

Barbarian, earlier:
But you declined to pick anything. One thing in the creation story. What is it?

(civilwarbuff declines to say)

Why so shy about this? What in Genesis do you think is not a parable?

 

[civilwarbuff]

The parable of the entire creation story......parables are not one liners.......SHEESH

 

[jasonc]

One cant simply ignore the Hebrew culture in this.silly Hebrews .they took the time described in the first book as literal.i have done a feast. Hannukah doesn't start until sundown ,not at midnight, just as shabbat does. It's based on how the bible called it a day.still 24 hours.

They also use a religious calender that is a count from the time Adam was created.odd a Catholic is against oral traditions of this type when a lot of things they do is based on the same idea.

 

[Barbarian]

The parable of the entire creation story......parables are not one liners.......SHEESH

You can't find even one thing that you think would stand up as literal history? Not one thing? Why do you believe it is, then?

Just one thing. Here, I'll help. It's literally true that there was an original pair of humans from whom all humans today descended. As you learned, this is consistent with evolution. So there's one thing that's not a parable. But as you know, it's possible to have parables about real people.

Now, do you think you can find something else in the creation account that's literal history? C'mon. I even helped you.

 

[Barbarian]

So you have nothing

Not until you step up and tell me what part of the creation story you think is literal history. This is the third time you dodged the question. I even gave you one example of something that is literally true in the story, and you still won't committ yourself. I suspect you're being cautious because you already know what will happen if you actually make such a claim. If you have so little faith in your new doctrine, isn't that an important tip-off for you?

(this is open to anyone else who thinks they can identify something else literally true)

We've already discussed how the creation of Adam is a parable, and the creation of Eve also is a parable for God's making man and woman "one flesh."

Anyone else?

 

[Barbarian]

Again, you have nothing........Edited

Edited You just believe a new interpretation of His word. I accept it as it is.

Could I be wrong, as you are? Yes, that's possible. It's one of many, many reasons why salvation doesn't depend on how you think God created things. It's fun to argue about it, but make sure you don't get so carried away with it that you forget what really matters.

 

[Silmarien]

Only after I began reading Genesis literally did my understanding of many other scriptures become more clear. Genesis is history, and not some metaphorical fable concocted to teach us a lesson but only after having dissected and far reaching intwisterations of it. The Lords Gospel is simple. God is not the author of confusion. God means what He says, and says what He means. Simple as that.

I didn't intend to post again, but I finally saw this last night, and I really do not know how you can make these sorts of claims. I don't think the Gospel is at all simple--at the heart of Christianity is a God who chooses to teach through parables, explicitly so that people will have difficulty understanding him. How is this consistent with the idea that God has any intention to spell things out as clearly as possible? I would argue quite the opposite. I don't think it's a matter of confusion, though, but rather that the point is humility.

It almost has to be pride for one to cling so tightly to worldly education. We need to (and are instructed to!) lay aside the worldly knowledge and become as a little child to be able to receive of the mysteries and knowledge of the Kingdom of God...through His Holy Spirit.

I rejected Christianity as a little child because I read Genesis literally and thought it was ridiculous. My error was in insisting upon an all-or-nothing face value approach to Genesis, and I see the same exact reasoning from atheists all the time. If a literal reading is helpful for you, go ahead and read Genesis literally, but there's nothing holy about anti-intellectualism. There's nothing humble about saying that you have the correct interpretation and that anyone who disagrees must be coming from a place of pride.

The most frustrating thing about the conflict between science and religion is how utterly unnecessary it is. Does science have a decidedly atheistic bias? Yes, and I do wish there were a greater recognition of the fact that naturalism is an unverifiable (and ultimately arrogant) worldview. But I really do not think that the most appropriate response is to insist on a biblical interpretation more restrictive than orthodox Christianity has ever required simply to spite science.