Have you ever tried to google the many counter arguments to evolution? Why are you such an eager supporter of evolution? The e-coli has been discussed amongst creationists and they are still creationists.
You need to give my question more thought.
Creation -v- Evolution: For The Young People
- Thread starter Brother_Mike_V
- Start date
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Does it make sense an ape would do this?
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Yet Adam and Eve still referred to as "man".
I wasn't being snooty. I should have added a
after the comment. Most people would take it that way anyway.But you do not say why! Why? on what do you base this assertion?
Don't you think that your argument is very dishonest?
Yes there is poetry in the Bible, and yes there is parallelism in Genesis: that is even evident in our modern language translations contrary to the assertions of that linked article. It is even apparent in the Septuagint a work by Hebrew scholars.. But to say as you have..."What reasoning do you have to look at the bible literally? Especially when it is a poem?" When you say the 'Bible', you refer to a collection of 66 books and they are certainly not all poetic..they are not even all written in Hebrew!
OK, so now I'm not understanding you. Creation is creation how is modern creation different from the creation that God did and told us about? What is it you see that has changed? You keep talking about modern creation, but nothing has changed. You keep saying that you provide a number of sources to support your point, but all they do is refute your position.
Humble_Servant
Inactive
I already supported my assertion that your view is wrong: Genesis 1 is poetry, and creationism is a modern invention not believed by anyone until after the enlightenment.
No I'm not being dishonest at all. I should have said "what reasoning do you have to look at Genesis 1 literally" not "...the bible literally..." Why would you take Genesis 1, which is a poem, to be literal?
Yes, I agree that you are not understanding me. The way that you interpret Genesis 1, that is called "creationism" nowadays... by "modern creationism", I mean a literal reading of Genesis 1. This "modern creationism", or literal reading of Genesis 1, was not a view that was held historically until the historical period called "The Enlightenment"... about 200-250 years ago. All of the sources I have cited have been examples of why Genesis 1 SHOULD NOT be taken literally.
So please, since Genesis 1 is a poem, and has historically been seen as a poem, and only taken literally in the last 200-250 or so years, why should Genesis 1 be taken literally?
Humble_Servant
Inactive
None of the arguments against evolution are good ones... That's why. I don't think that anyone who really understands the science behind the theory of evolution has any justifications for not being an evolutionist. That's why we're discussing it. I also think evolution is a beautiful theory, and I give God glory for it.
I don't think I do need to give it more thought. Again, I'm not on trial. I don't know why I need to explain and defend every facet of my beliefs when the premise of your belief has yet to be justified or supported here.
Humble, please share your resources on Genesis. I think you mentioned something about it's history. I would appreciate it and am interested in taking a look. Thank you!
I think what we need here are links to good, reputable sources instead of going back and forth.
Humble_Servant
Inactive
Life,
this link will give you the poetic language that Genesis 1 was written in. It's an ancient form of poetry that was common in the Hebrew writing culture at that time.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html
Here is a history of how people would view scripture. this is long... so I recommend only reading section 1. Looking at Genesis 1 like a literal, historical account is about 200-250 year old idea... No one saw Genesis 1 as a literal, historical account before then.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#HisCre
this link will give you the poetic language that Genesis 1 was written in. It's an ancient form of poetry that was common in the Hebrew writing culture at that time.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html
Here is a history of how people would view scripture. this is long... so I recommend only reading section 1. Looking at Genesis 1 like a literal, historical account is about 200-250 year old idea... No one saw Genesis 1 as a literal, historical account before then.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/#HisCre
"I eat my peas with honey;
I've done it all my life;
It makes the peas taste funny;
But it keeps them on the knife."
=========================
That is poetry, but it can be true at the same time.......try it.
I've done it all my life;
It makes the peas taste funny;
But it keeps them on the knife."
=========================
That is poetry, but it can be true at the same time.......try it
.So now you wish to modify your words? OK.
Because Jesus took it literally. He quoted from it, He inspired it and I take my cue from that.
Humble_Servant
Inactive
I believe Genesis 1 is true. I don't believe it is literal."I eat my peas with honey;
I've done it all my life;
It makes the peas taste funny;
But it keeps them on the knife."
=========================
That is poetry, but it can be true at the same time.......try it
Jesus took it literally. He quoted from it, He inspired it and I take my cue from that.
I believe Jesus thought it was true as well... that doesn't mean He thought it was literal. It's like when the old Puritan authors would quote from Greek myths... did they really think they were literally correct? Obviously not... but they did find them true.
If I quoted a line from Lord of the Rings, would I be saying that LoTR literally happened? No... then why would you say that is the case with Genesis 1?
Can you explain why the panel of 70+ Hebrew scholars did not know about the poetry of their own language while translating it into Greek? You can cite documents 'till the cows come home' but the facts of scripture will remain facts.
Here is just one example of Jesus quoting from, validating, endorsing Genesis.
Mark 10:2. And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
Mark 10:3. He answered them, "What did Moses command you?"
Mark 10:4. They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away."
Mark 10:5. And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mark 10:6. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.'
Mark 10:7. 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,
Mark 10:8. and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh.
Mark 10:9. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
Jesus was of course referring to Gen 2:23. Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Gen 2:24. Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
But of course if what Jesus believed is not good enough for you?.....................
Humble_Servant
Inactive
Nothing you quoted conflicts with what I believe. Can you explain why you think that it does?
I don't think Genesis 1 is wrong, I don't think that Jesus thinks it is wrong. However, it being a literal account is a different matter.
Humble_Servant
Inactive
also Jesus was quoting Genesis 2 in that passage.
To be honest, you argue like a thoroughbred atheist.
Gen2 is also about the creation account .
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
Gen 2:3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Pay particular attention to verses 3 and 4.
Jesus quoted from Genesis 2, which is a follow on from Genesis 1. He quoted it He took it literally and so do I.
Note well that the very opening of Chapter 2 Verse 1 demands that what follows is a consequence of or is an amplification of that which has just preceded it. Indeed, the chapter divisions were not in the original Hebrew; they were added later. One more reason to not separate what is in ch2 from ch 1.
If you choose to not take it literally that is up to you.
But I will not continue a discussion with an atheist mind set regardless of what hat it wants to wear. I'm done with you.
Gen2 is also about the creation account .
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
Gen 2:3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Pay particular attention to verses 3 and 4.
Jesus quoted from Genesis 2, which is a follow on from Genesis 1. He quoted it He took it literally and so do I.
Note well that the very opening of Chapter 2 Verse 1 demands that what follows is a consequence of or is an amplification of that which has just preceded it. Indeed, the chapter divisions were not in the original Hebrew; they were added later. One more reason to not separate what is in ch2 from ch 1.
If you choose to not take it literally that is up to you.
But I will not continue a discussion with an atheist mind set regardless of what hat it wants to wear. I'm done with you.
Humble_Servant
Inactive
I hope some day you can open your heart to accept someone who is different from you, and not need to explain them away.
You seem to get hung up on the reading scripture literally thing... all you've done is quote a scripture, without telling me why you think it is literal. You also keep saying Jesus took it literally, but just because he quoted from Genesis 1 doesn't mean He took it literally (remember the LoTR thing I brought up? That applies here).
I argue like an atheist? Why insult me? I won't tell you what you argue like, because that would be insulting.
I also want to note, before you go, that you have yet to justify your premise of taking Genesis 1 literally.
You seem to get hung up on the reading scripture literally thing... all you've done is quote a scripture, without telling me why you think it is literal. You also keep saying Jesus took it literally, but just because he quoted from Genesis 1 doesn't mean He took it literally (remember the LoTR thing I brought up? That applies here).
I argue like an atheist? Why insult me? I won't tell you what you argue like, because that would be insulting.
I also want to note, before you go, that you have yet to justify your premise of taking Genesis 1 literally.
Here's the problem with these debates-no matter what 'evidence' we show or support will be shot down automatically as we have already seen with the article I posted earlier. It is the way of the world-to squash and ignore the voice of God and then complain about why He is not in our lives. There is no 'winning' this debate and the intention of this thread was to inform new Christians about OTHER ideas rather than the theory of evolution which is crammed down every public school kids throat starting in kindergarten up college grads. If you want to debate evolution that is fine-but this forum is about faith building not casting doubt which seems to be your motivation.
So in the end-when it comes to salvation-does this debate really matter?
So in the end-when it comes to salvation-does this debate really matter?
Humble_Servant
Inactive
If your arguments are so easily refuted, why keep them?
I think it is arrogant to presume that everyone who doesn't agree with you, I'm assuming you include me as well, are ignoring God's voice. You assume my motive is to cast doubt, not build faith. I want to build faith in God. However, if there is a teaching that is wrong, should I not cast doubt on it?
Yes this debate definitely does matter. Here is why: I stated that I believe in evolution, and people react by questioning my belief in God. I was just called an atheist...
Also, there are people out there who don't believe in God. There are people who would be open to knowing God, but they are turned off to the idea because they feel they have to sacrifice their intellectual honesty to pursue anything spiritual. Part of the greatest commandment is to Love God with all of our minds. I don't think these people need to sacrifice their intellectual honesty to know God.
When you decree that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is the only Christian view, you are forsaking those people.
Why can't you consider my view? At least can you not question my identity and commitment as a Christ follower? Believe it or not, it was my commitment to Christ that lead me to the views I hold today. Please do not spit on that...
I think it is arrogant to presume that everyone who doesn't agree with you, I'm assuming you include me as well, are ignoring God's voice. You assume my motive is to cast doubt, not build faith. I want to build faith in God. However, if there is a teaching that is wrong, should I not cast doubt on it?
Yes this debate definitely does matter. Here is why: I stated that I believe in evolution, and people react by questioning my belief in God. I was just called an atheist...
Also, there are people out there who don't believe in God. There are people who would be open to knowing God, but they are turned off to the idea because they feel they have to sacrifice their intellectual honesty to pursue anything spiritual. Part of the greatest commandment is to Love God with all of our minds. I don't think these people need to sacrifice their intellectual honesty to know God.
When you decree that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is the only Christian view, you are forsaking those people.
Why can't you consider my view? At least can you not question my identity and commitment as a Christ follower? Believe it or not, it was my commitment to Christ that lead me to the views I hold today. Please do not spit on that...
Well I have considered your views and I believe you are wrong- I can't make you believe what I believe and vice versa. I believe most 'science' today to be biased and flawed to the point that it is irreconcilable to the Word of God. If you want to believe a different interpretation of God's Word-that's fine-call it what it is. That still doesn't prove evolution every happened. We can argue this to our graves-it's just not worth it to me anymore...I chose to believe God's Word over mans. Can you consider my view and accept it?
Have I condemned you or questioned your faith?
Have I condemned you or questioned your faith?
Humble_Servant
Inactive
I have considered your view. I rejected it not because of science, but because it misinterprets scripture... as I have demonstrated. I don't doubt your commitment to God, and I won't label your false beliefs as "choosing man's word over God's". However, I am willing to be a creationist if it is true. But I have yet to find a REASON to think a literal Genesis 1 is the way to go.
I just want you to look at the amount of support I have provided for my views, compared to the amount of support that has been shown for the other view... it is very lop-sided. Why just leave it at "you'll never convince me", isn't that just admitting that you don't have any solid reasoning for your view?
You said that you think my motivation is to "cast doubt" and not to "build faith", and you likened my refutation of the article you posted to ignoring the voice of God.
I just want you to look at the amount of support I have provided for my views, compared to the amount of support that has been shown for the other view... it is very lop-sided. Why just leave it at "you'll never convince me", isn't that just admitting that you don't have any solid reasoning for your view?
You said that you think my motivation is to "cast doubt" and not to "build faith", and you likened my refutation of the article you posted to ignoring the voice of God.
Can we agree to disagree? My apologies if you feel offended...