[_ Old Earth _] Questions for Young Earth Creationists

[unred typo]

Perhaps we can’t agree to disagree. Maybe some of us prefer to be insulting. No problem. I take a literal view of scripture when ever the text supports it. If you feel the need to change literal history into an allegory, that’s your privilege. You have to answer for what you teach others and so will I. Saying that you didn’t believe God meant what he said to be taken literally doesn’t sound like a very good excuse to me but I‘ve been wrong before.

 

[Barbarian]

Perhaps we can’t agree to disagree. Maybe some of us prefer to be insulting.

I don't think it does you any good.

I take a literal view of scripture when ever the text supports it.

And sometimes when it doesn't.

If you feel the need to change literal history into an allegory, that’s your privilege.

I merely observe what the text says. And it says that God could not have been speaking literally to Adam about death.

Saying that you didn’t believe God meant what he said to be taken literally doesn’t sound like a very good excuse to me but I‘ve been wrong before.

Making up positions, and falsely attributing them to others is probably not a good idea, either.

 

[Imagican]

Hey Guys,

Isn't it completely obvious that When God stated that if Adam were to disobey and eat the fruit that on that day he would surely die He meant that up until that point there had been no limit placed on the physical life of Adam. Just as when God placed a limit of 120 years, if He were capable of creation then, He is certainly capable of manipulation of the genetic material that regulates our age.

Adam did not die a spiritual death that we know of. It's just like an inmate getting a death sentence. On the day that he receives the death penalty, unless he is pardoned, he will surely die for his crime. Get it?

Adam was never completely separated from God. He and his wife were simply punished by being banished from the garden from the day they sinned. God, with all his wisdom and understanding already realized the possibility of man sinning or he wouldn't have warned them of their punishment were they to disobey. Do you not think that God also understood how easy it was for man to give in to temptation? Come now, let's offer our Creator a bit more credit than that.

And there's a really good chance that he allowed Satan to influence man so that upon Lucifer's judgement he wouldn't only be judged for his pride but for the suffering of man also.

And who's to say that sin and everything that's happened since weren't needed for our spiritual growth. In other words, everything that's happened may have been the only way that man could grow to the point of acceptance by God. Too immature at first, it's taken thousands of years for us living with each other in order to grow up and even with all that time, only a few.

 

[unred typo]

Imagican wrote:

Adam did not die a spiritual death that we know of. It's just like an inmate getting a death sentence. On the day that he receives the death penalty, unless he is pardoned, he will surely die for his crime. Get it?

That’s a very plausible explanation. The only problem is the game here is not to make sense of scripture but to discredit and destroy it’s credibility. Get it? Some people just want it to be silly and unreliable. Excellent try though. I liked it.

 

[Barbarian]

Adam did not die a spiritual death that we know of. It's just like an inmate getting a death sentence. On the day that he receives the death penalty, unless he is pardoned, he will surely die for his crime. Get it?

The only problem I can see with that, is that it isn't what God said.

We should not add to scripture. If your wishes don't match up with scripture, change your wishes, not the Bible.

 

[unred typo]

Imagican wrote;

“Adam did not die a spiritual death that we know of. It's just like an inmate getting a death sentence. On the day that he receives the death penalty, unless he is pardoned, he will surely die for his crime. Get it? â€Â

and Barbarian replied:

“The only problem I can see with that, is that it isn't what God said.

We should not add to scripture. If your wishes don't match up with scripture, change your wishes, not the Bible.

Why isn't it? I'm liking Imagican's explanation better and better. It's better than mine, in fact. These are the recorded words of God; “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.â€Â

Now read the following statement and understand the sense of what is being said in Genesis 2:7:

The day you murder someone, you shall surely die (because of your crime.)

This is a literal statement but it is understood by the reader that the day of the murder is not the day you pay for the crime but it is literally the day you seal your fate.

You are using one word in one scripture to base an erroneous concept on. You think if you can make this verse figurative, you can make all parts of Genesis that bother you to be figurative. It won’t wash. Genesis is literal and should be understood as such.

 

[Barbarian]

Imagican wrote; Quote:
“Adam did not die a spiritual death that we know of. It's just like an inmate getting a death sentence. On the day that he receives the death penalty, unless he is pardoned, he will surely die for his crime. Get it? â€Â

Barbarian observes:
The only problem I can see with that, is that it isn't what God said.

(God didn't say he would die someday. He said Adam would die that day.)

We should not add to scripture. If your wishes don't match up with scripture, change your wishes, not the Bible.

Why isn't it? I'm liking Imagican's explanation better and better. It's better than mine, in fact.

Imagican is simply trying to "improve" scripture, by changing it to something more compatible with his own preferences. By denying God meant what He said when He told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree, he has made it a better story, in his view.

These are the recorded words of God; “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.â€Â

Right. No wiggle room. "Eat it, and in that day you will die."

Now read the following statement and understand the sense of what is being said in Genesis 2:7:

The day you murder someone, you shall surely die (because of your crime.)

A bit different. It no longer says "in the day that you (do something) you shall surely die."

This is a literal statement but it is understood by the reader that the day of the murder is not the day you pay for the crime but it is literally the day you seal your fate.

Nice try. But they don't say the same thing. Again, you are trying to adjust scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

You are using one word in one scripture to base an erroneous concept on.

And you're trying to argue what "is" is. I'm taking it as it is. You're trying to find a way to show that God didn't mean what He said.

You think if you can make this verse figurative, you can make all parts of Genesis that bother you to be figurative.

I'm taking it as it is. God says that the day Adam eats from the tree, he will die. He did. But not physically.

Adam was always going to die, as God alludes to later, when He expresses concern that Adam might become immortal.

It won’t wash. Genesis is literal

As you see, if you let scripture interpret itself, it cannot be literal. Only by adding things to it, can you make it otherwise.

 

[Jimbob]

If Genesis is literal, the how come I've never seen any talking snakes?

(Hey, that makes more sense than "I've never seen a dog turn into a pig")

 

[unred typo]

Jimbob wrote:

If Genesis is literal, the how come I've never seen any talking snakes?
(Hey, that makes more sense than "I've never seen a dog turn into a pig")

Genesis 11:1 says the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. It doesn’t mention animals but I don’t know if you could rule them out. So after Babel, they spoke 'Serpentish.' I don’t personally know of any people that have learned to speak that language.
:wink:

 

[Jimbob]

Jimbob wrote:

If Genesis is literal, the how come I've never seen any talking snakes?
(Hey, that makes more sense than "I've never seen a dog turn into a pig")

Genesis 11:1 says the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. It doesn’t mention animals but I don’t know if you could rule them out. So after Babel, they spoke 'Serpentish.' I don’t personally know of any people that have learned to speak that language.
:wink:

Then how do you explain Numbers 22:28?

EDIT: Actually Numbers 22:29 and Numbers 22:30 as well

 

[unred typo]

Balaam‘s donkey spoke ‘assinine‘ which Balaam, the ass that he was, understood it perfectly. ;-)

 

[Jimbob]

Concession accepted.

 

[unred typo]

Were you serious? :-?

 

[Jimbob]

I was if you were.

 

[unred typo]

Concession accepted. :-D

 

[Jimbob]

That's not the way it works :roll:

 

[reznwerks]

another problem

Jimbob wrote:

If Genesis is literal, the how come I've never seen any talking snakes?
(Hey, that makes more sense than "I've never seen a dog turn into a pig")

Genesis 11:1 says the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. It doesn’t mention animals but I don’t know if you could rule them out. So after Babel, they spoke 'Serpentish.' I don’t personally know of any people that have learned to speak that language.
:wink:

You seem to have another dilemma unred.
"From these the coastland peoples spread. These are the sons of Japheth in their lands, each with his own language, by their families, in their nations ... These are the sons of Ham, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations ... These are the sons of Shem, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations." (Genesis 10:5, 20, 31)

You should also note that the chapter is from 10 which preceeds 11. An obvious contradiction or should I say contradictions since I am certain that you believe Moses wrote the first five books of the bible. So here again we have an either / or situation but you can't have both. It's not Burger King.

 

[unred typo]

You seem to have another dilemma unred.
"From these the coastland peoples spread. These are the sons of Japheth in their lands, each with his own language, by their families, in their nations ... These are the sons of Ham, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations ... These are the sons of Shem, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations." (Genesis 10:5, 20, 31)

You should also note that the chapter is from 10 which preceeds 11. An obvious contradiction or should I say contradictions since I am certain that you believe Moses wrote the first five books of the bible. So here again we have an either / or situation but you can't have both. It's not Burger King.

What is your problem? Chapter 10 is the outline of how the populations were divided. Chapter 11 is the details of why their families split. This is the same type of illogical arguments that make me shake my head and go back to reading a good book. You don’t want to believe it…don’t believe it. Fine. But please spare us these tediously asinine reasons.

 

[Jimbob]

I believe he meant the part about 'their languages' mentioned in plural, when it later says they had one language.

 

[unred typo]

I believe he meant the part about 'their languages' mentioned in plural, when it later says they had one language.

Uh huh. That’s what I thought he meant. He thinks the Bible was completely fabricated from the imaginations of men with little, if any, basis in truth. He attempts to show this by pointing out every possible error he can drum up. Even if the Genesis history were all fiction, the writer would have to be an incompetent idiot to make the errors Rez imagines. Some of them are actually more funny than sad. This one isn’t or maybe my back being out has me in poor humor. Forgive me for snapping.

Chapter 10 is the overview of the way the world is divided by families, tongues, and lands to the present time when this history was written. The writer then back tracks to shortly after leaving the ark when men began to journey from the east to the plain of Shinar to explain to the reader how the languages came about. The book of Jasher records the situation at the tower in much more graphic detail. The Genesis writer spares us that horrific tale. As you read on, you will see the writer then goes back to the ark days and picks up the history of Shem in order to bring us into the story of Abraham.

What Rez has done is find fault simply for the joy of finding fault. Pick up any book and you will see examples of this literary style. An American history book may begin the history by saying the slaves were freed by Abraham Lincoln and then go into the story of how Abraham Lincoln began as a poor boy himself.