The Instigator
3DCrew
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
killa_connor
Con (against)
Winning
36 Points

Should the Genesis account of creation be read literally?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,483 times Debate No: 1459
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (15)

 

3DCrew

Pro

This is one of those "nagging" questions that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all have to deal with at some point. I can't say that I have a sure answer at this point but I am surely leaning toward "yes".

First, let's define the bounds of the assertion. I'm speaking of the assertions that the bible makes about the genesis of the universe, the Earth, Sun, and us. My core sticking point is the story of Adam and Eve. I would be inclined to opt for a more liberal interpretation accept for this one point: Adam and/or Eve were mentioned in the bible (old and new testaments) 30 times. Here are some of the NT examples.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli,
...
Luke 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

It is clear that the OT and NT writers took the Genesis account literally. Shouldn't we?
killa_connor

Con

I hesitated accepting this challenge because I wasn't sure which direction you were going to take it. You haven't given any examples or reasons for me to believe that the Genesis was meant to be a literal account for the creation of the Universe / Life besides the fact that the New Testament reaffirms the Old Testament. This in itself is a flawed basis for support because the New Testament was written operating under the assumption that the Old Testament was true. You're going to need more objective support then that! I'm going to take a shotgun approach to this first round and just offer as many examples as I can that are preposterous and clearly false to prove that to interpret the Genesis as a literal account for Creation (and base your life around such an interpretation) is stupid because it is supernatural nonsense.

"2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

This seems unlikely. We are composed of mostly water not dust. Our internal organs and circulatory system is not really accounted for in this "dust explanation". It really goes against what even our basic intuition would tell us about our basic composition let a lone scientific evidence. Sounds sort of similar to other fantasy fairy tale explanations for things rather then a true account.

"2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

This also seems ridiculous to me. The first women came from a man's rib? It's completely non-sensical and goes against every aspect of nature that God allegedly designed. There is a burden of proof upon you to provide some sort of explanation for why this account should be deemed credible because to me it seems completely preposterous and requires people to abandon reason in order to accept.

"3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

Talking snakes. Are you kidding me?

"3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?""

The omniscient God of the Old Testament is asking questions? He's asking them just for fun? Does he really not know?

"3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

According to a literal interpretation of the bible God wants the husband to "rules over" the wife. Kind of sexist wouldn't you say?

"3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Flaming sword? Again this sounds like a fairy tale and not based in reality. Where is this tree of life? Did it die?

You also claimed in the comment section that you are NOT a young earth creationist. However, in your opening response you appear to describe the Biblical lineage of Joseph and argue that such specificity must be credible. I disagree. You mention Enos, do you realize that this character was supposed to be 905 years old! Keep in mind that the average lifespan back then was around 60 years. This seems ridiculous and doesn't lend itself to a literal interpretation at all. Young Earth creationists use the 6000 year old timeline because it is MOST consistent with a literal account of the bible. Which is why I must ask again, which parts of the bible do you take literally?!

Ultimately, when we're making important cosmological decisions about the origins of human life/Earth/etc. It's best we use reason and logic to come to these conclusions. When we subscribe to literal accounts of Creation we are forced to abandon even our most basic sense of rationale. This isn't to suggest that the Bible is incompatible with reality. Simply that a LITERAL account for the Bible is not consistent with basic laws of nature or morality and should therefore not be interpreted literally. It is merely an account offered by humans 2000 years ago with no grasp of technology or science (Keep in mind that the bible had dozens of authors) and is lacking empirical support.

Hopefully next round we can evaluate why believing in a literal account could have detrimental consequences. I think an actions consequence is important to consider when discussing whether we should believe something (or at least something that is clearly not supported by evidence). I would argue that a literal account of Genesis has troubling environmental and social implications. It's up to you. I look forward to your response!

-connor
Debate Round No. 1
3DCrew

Pro

I tend to give God a LOT of leeway especially where creation is concerned. By that I mean that he is capable of abosultely anything whether we can understand or approve of his methods. I'm not going to argue the following assertions but merely list them so you know upon what foundation my postion rests.
1. God is eternal. In his words, "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end."
2. All that is made is made by God from the only material there was in the beginning - God's own essence.

I don't know how long it took God to make the universe but I have no need to believe that it happened in 6 - 24hour days. To say that God literally made Adam from the dust of the Earth means just that. How long did that take? The bible doesn't say. The theory of abiogenesis makes this very same claim oddly enough. Life from non-life. The only difference is that God CAN and did make life from the dust of the Earth (that he also created). By literal we don't have to imagine that God picked up a hadful of ground and blew air through his lips into Adam's dusty nose. He could have spoken him into existance with a word. The "breathe of life" speaks of spiritual life that ones needs to exist as a human and not "air". The phrase, "and man became a living soul" bears that out.

Given the context of the creation of Eve from Adam's rib I believe we do need to accept that one as-is. The Gen 2:7 says that "he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof". I don't imagine that God was wearing his clean room scrubs wielding a shiny scalpel to excise a rib. God is the designer and creator of Adam. He came up with the concept and reality of DNA which has one purpose, to replicate itself. It is certainly reasonable to believe that God used the DNA from Adam's rib to literally produce a modifed Adam - a woman he named Eve. The flesh was open so I imagine that there was blood spilled at that point. Throughout the OT we see illustrations of "what is to come". While Christ, called the "last Adam", shed his blood to produce new life in dead sinful humans, we could look at this opening illustration by God literally to mean that he spilled (the first) Adam's blood in the creation of the human race. These two humans were perfect in body and spirit until the eventual first sin (the fall).

Regarding the serpant, I have more trouble understanding why God allowed satan into his perfect garden than I do that there is a literal satan. However, reading Job we find that satan cannot do anything unless God allows it. Counterintuitive? Yes. But let's take God at his word and visualize that he allowed satan into the garden. Why was satan there? I presume that it was allowed for the same reason that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good an Evil was allowed - to provide a choice. There is no free will without the presence of choice. God allowing (creating!) a talking snake makes as much sense to me as a talking human or a talking parrot. If God wills it for his purpose, it can happen. That we cannot understand it is of no consequence to God (and no surprise either).

"3:11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"
No surprise there. He was asking Adam to admit his sin. By asking this question God clearly illustrates Adam just what sin had done - separated man from God.

Flaming sword? Sure. The word flame means "angelic flame" not fire like you and I know. If you don't have a grasp of the reality of the angelic realm then there is little opportunity to explain that any further. I believe in God so believing in angels is not an issue whatsoever.

Adam and Eve were created perfect. They were eternal in body and in spirit. When they chose to sin against God, death entered the world. First spritual death and, later, physical death. To believe that Enos lived to be 905 (I didn't fact check that) is not surprising at all. The bible tells us that the early generations lived quite long lives. For a body so close to perfection to live longer than 60 years is not hard to believe. Nine hundred years stretches the imagination because it doesn't line up with our own experience. For a man and a woman created perfect to live forever both in human form and sprit form eternally was the original plan. It was the choice that caused death to come to the world as a whole.

Isn't it possible for an old Earth and the relatively recent advent of the human race to coexist even in a literal reading of Genesis? I believe so.
killa_connor

Con

An elegant response that was articulate and easy to follow. I appreciate it.

I am going to attack your two basic assumptions going into this debate because by letting them stand God is suddenly endowed with unexplainable supernatural abilities. Which would affirm your position because these powers are not at all specified and can operate on every level of reality. I don't feel like we can have a candid discussion about the literal truth of the Bible unless we argue the existence of God. If I allow you to assume he exists then there is no end to the "mystery" of his power and his ways. Anything can be rationalized. Like here:

"To say that God literally made Adam from the dust of the Earth means just that. How long did that take? The bible doesn't say. The theory of abiogenesis makes this very same claim oddly enough. Life from non-life. "

There is no objective support for a claim like this. You're assuming that the Bible is describing these events correctly and that these events actually occurred! I explained why the Bible in itself can hardly be considered support for these claims because it was written with the assumption that God was an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent divine entity. This in itself is not proof of his existence or that the Bible is correct. You would have to prove somehow that the Bible does deserve the kind of cosmological authority that you are granting it. How do you know it's true?

Abiogenesis most commonly used to describe the formation of life from a primordial soup. It's a stretch for me to believe that the Biblical authors were describing a liquid with the term 'dust' or that Abiogenesis could develop a living man after being literally "formed" and molded by God. It's interesting that you provide a natural explanation to represent divine work which is inherently super natural (or at least the kind of work being described by a literal account). Either way I'm going to try my best to address both theological and scientific arguments. I feel that my argument stands regarding the basic composition of humans not being dust. If you believe he meant dust in a more allegorical way then you still have contradicted the topic by not interpreting the Bible literally. Allegorical interpretations by their very nature require the reader to abandon the literal description of the events and accept an alternative and more imaginative interpretation (that may be more empirically supported). This, however, doesn't change the fact that the literal interpretation is still a flawed account.

"By literal we don't have to imagine that God picked up a hadful of ground and blew air through his lips into Adam's dusty nose. He could have spoken him into existance with a word."

I agree that the wording can lend itself to multiple interpretations but the LITERAL interpretation should accept (in some way) the events that you just described and that the Bible describes. The description of these events lends themselves to being interpreted as an intangible "breath of life" being transferred into Adam from God, perhaps even from the lips of God himself. Despite your arguments regarding abiogenesis, the literal account for human life is as based in reality as Zeus or Thor.

"Given the context of the creation of Eve from Adam's rib I believe we do need to accept that one as-is."

A literal interpretation requires you take take it as is. The Bible goes into considerable detail describing the incision and how he presented Eve to Adam, how is this detail less credible? Is there a cut-off point when the claim gets too ridiculous to accept so you have to rationalize or supplement it with an allegorical significance?

"It is certainly reasonable to believe that God used the DNA from Adam's rib to literally produce a modifed Adam - a woman he named Eve."

It might be more reasonable but it's not what it said. There is a difference between using some DNA and taking a whole freaking rib! A difference that I would hope an omniscient God would be able to discern.

Your serpent arguments depend on the assumed vast power of God rather then presenting any real reason that this account could be true.

"God allowing (creating!) a talking snake makes as much sense to me as a talking human or a talking parrot. "

Except that snakes don't have vocal chords. So no, it doesn't really make any sense at all.

"If God wills it for his purpose, it can happen. That we cannot understand it is of no consequence to God (and no surprise either)."

But it is of consequence to mortals like us trying to determine whether a literal account is true or whether the Bible is better explained by an allegorical account. You expect me to embrace the same blind faith in such events when in reality if this proposition were to be evaluated by the merit of its support (which is what I thought we were arguing), then it would and should be quickly discarded.

"No surprise there. He was asking Adam to admit his sin."

Yep. Good point. I'm dropping this one.

"I believe in God so believing in angels is not an issue whatsoever."

... I guess not. Same would go with Santa and Superman though.

"First spritual death and, later, physical death. To believe that Enos lived to be 905 (I didn't fact check that) is not surprising at all."

Well to me it's pretty surprising. Have you ever seen a 100 year old person? They fall and it could be game over. 900 years? Any basic scientific assessment of the human body or early man would reveal that our body is not capable of that life-span. If you claim that spiritual life can manifest itself in physical healthiness then you have done so without any support or examples (other then the Bible's assumed infallibility).

"Isn't it possible for an old Earth and the relatively recent advent of the human race to coexist even in a literal reading of Genesis?"

Many claim they cannot coexist. It's interesting you disagree since you used Joseph's lineage and example of a literally correct account from the OT, and the Yound Earth Creationists argue that this same specificity is what compels them to believe that the Earth is so young. I'm going to quote Wikipedia here who summaries Young Earth Creationist's interpretation of Genesis:

"The Genealogies of Genesis record the line of descent from Adam through Noah to Abraham. Young Earth Creationists interpret these genealogies literally, including the old ages of the men; up to Methuselah who lived 969 years. Differences of opinion exist regarding whether the genealogies should be taken as complete or abbreviated, hence the 6,000 to 10,000 year range usually quoted for the Earth's age."

Wouldn't this account be more literal then your account? How is this an incorrect literal interpretation?
Debate Round No. 2
3DCrew

Pro

Thank you Connor for your time and your excellent points.

It is true, in fact, that in order to even consider taking the Genesis account literally one must recognize the boundaries within which God works. That there are none is a pretty tough pill to swallow I grant you. Like I said, I give God a lot of leeway (as if I even have such an option) when it comes to what he is capable of. So why do I believe that? I suppose that I must go into that at least a little bit in order to shore up my foundation.

"... by letting them stand God is suddenly endowed with unexplainable supernatural abilities."
Well, he's not suddenly endowed as he is eternal but for the purposes of this debate I do understand your point. It's impossible to argue that something is literal when there's a God around that is able to define what literal is as he pleases. I mean, if he was so inclined, he could change the name of Adam in every bible every printed in every form to "Connor" if it suited his purposes without our even knowing about it. One cannot even hold a proper debate under such circumstances. I suspect that we can agree on that.

There are a great many things in this universe that just ought not to be! Time runs more slowly near a massive body? Proven. Photons split and sent down two fiber cables once detected both show the same state as if they are tied together at some as-yet-undiscovered level with "unexplainable supernatural abilities". I mean, how can a particle be in two places at once? All I'm saying here is that the more we dig into the underpinnings of the universe, the more supernatural-like phenomenon we find. This place, this universe, is just plain weird. I've studied some weird stuff in my day and that's just at a layman's level. I can't even imagine what the "big boys" know about things like time travel, quantum states, aether, etc. We seem to want to define the term supernatural as "all that we have not yet explained through science". Once science understands time travel (if that can even be) the will have converted it from the supernatural to the natural.

So it's proof of God that you're seeking. Is there a "genie in a bottle" out there making things happen that we just can't hope to make sense of? In a metaphorical "word", yes. Issac Asimov said, ""Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Replace "advanced technology" with "being" and you have a layman's version of what God is. How can you even question a being capable of being eternal? One that can create the universe of a trillion trillion stars on a whim? We can't. Can I prove that to you? Not in this debate but I've proven it to myself which is why I choose to stand firm on that foundation. From that perspective, if God is who he says he is, if God is who the universe proclaims him to be, then who in their right mind can say that "God is not capable of creating Adam from the dust of the ground?"

Let's take a look at your primordial soup recipe. What's in that anyway? I think we can agree that atoms and sub-atomic particles exists. Abiogenesis regardless of the recipe means "life from non-life". Literially, from atoms that automatically form into amino acids that automatically form into useful proteins that automatically form into useful parts of cells, then primordial cells, then multicellular organisms (and a few billion years) you and me. While I realize that you find a literal interpretation of Genesis to be absurd, I find the thought of primordial soup (just add water?) a recipe for the biggest hoax going today. Science is by it's very nature right ... right now. It is correct until proven wrong. It is law until new data appears. It cannot be trusted. While God's creation is perfect, man's interpretation of God's work (science) is imperfect. The same is true for the bible. If it was created by God (a whole other debate) then it's perfection is not soiled by man's inability to translate it properly.

"A whole frickin' rib" - Funny. Quite right and absurd sounding but I'm going to have to assume that he had an illustratory reason for doing it in just that exact way. Why a rib anyway? Why not � a brain? Why not a sperm cell and an egg created from the dust of the ground? All are equally plausible in comparison to each other but he chose the rib for a reason I don't understand. I can't defend that point any further as I don't know what God was trying to tell us there. Let's let Adam teach us:

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This [is] now 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 shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Regarding the serpent, the literal interpretation is that he "said" something to Eve. When reading the bible "literially" we must also take into account what translations have done to the text. The bible was not written in English as you know full well. The Hebrew word for "said" is "Qal" that can be taken to mean "to say in one's heart". It's communication but not necessarily speech as you and I know it. Another assumption that we make is that the biology of animals and man were the same in Eden as they are now. That's not necessarily true.

Gen 3:14 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:

It would seem that God has the power and authority not only to create animals and man from the dust of the ground and woman from man but can also alter his creations as he sees fit.

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Did God change the woman's physiology from perfect to cursed such that she would now feel pain in childbirth, menstruate, and become lesser than her male partner at least in authority but also possibly in other ways as he saw fit?

Regarding the "old" people of the OT, Adam was created to live physically in an eternal body that didn't die, as I stated, until sin entered Eden by choice. It is not correct to assume that the poor condition of our 21st century highly drugged, irradiated, mutated, perverted bodies bear any resemblance to the perfection of Adam's body. Things get worse over time and shorter and shorter life spans are inevitable. The bible says that God binds all of this (us, the universe, atoms, everything) together by his will and his great power. What happens when God backs away even slightly from his perfect creation? Slow death, slow compounding degradation.

ALL of this is predicated on who God is. If there is no God then the bible is patently false through and through, an invention of man who came about in ways that science feels right about now but will realize how wrong they are over and over and over ad infinitum. And yet we exist, we debate, we reproduce within our "kind" as the bible foretold long before geneticists explained why that is. I'm on God's side here.
killa_connor

Con

I'm going to intentionally steer away from turning this debate into one revolving around whether or not God exists. We're going to keep this strictly to whether a literal interpretation of the Bible is consistent with the natural world, the nature of the presupposed Christian God, and the morality endorsed by the Bible. I feel that the literal interpretation is not rooted in scientific reality at all, it suggests that God is not as powerful as he has been assumed to be, and Genesis encourages active sexism which if read literally would be interpreted as the will of God.

Your examples of the scientific super-natural are interesting but I think fundamentally different from the kind of supernatural power that God claims to control. The scientific phenomenons you described are still observable traits of nature and are therefore capable of being explain by nature. Just because we don't have that explanation doesn't make them supernatural. However, the sweeping assertions you've made about the extent of God's power are both unfounded (in that they have never been observed) and cannot be empirically supported on any level. Thus the need for these assertions to be taken on "faith".

This abiogenesis discussion is interesting because you claim that the literal Genesis interpretation is describing a form of abiogenesis (you have yet to show me how dust being molded into a man has any scientific similarity to the theory of abiogenesis) yet you apparently reject the idea most commonly associated with abiogenesis, the primordial soup theory. It's strange to me because you seem to understand that abiogenesis describes the production of life on the cellular level and yet you attempt to equate this natural process with a man being molded out of dust. I don't think there is much to refute here because a literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't resemble abiogenesis in any observable manner except for the fact that "inorganic matter is made organic".

Onto the rib conversation:

"I can't defend that point any further as I don't know what God was trying to tell us there."

This is a good fall back for being unable to subscribe a modern understanding to a literal interpretation of the Bible. The "mystery" of God isn't a defense of a literal interpretation of the Bible it's more of a concession really. It's conceding that there is no apparent reason for such a blatant discrepancy in the Bible. Doesn't this amount to another reason to not take the Bible literally?

I don't know what else to say about the snake because the offered explanation was that the snake communicated telepathically with Adam and Eve which seems equally ridiculous to me.

"Did God change the woman's physiology from perfect to cursed such that she would now feel pain in childbirth, menstruate, and become lesser than her male partner at least in authority but also possibly in other ways as he saw fit?"

This was part of my attacks on the moral authority of the Genesis account of Creation. Genesis clearly approves and promotes active sexism and submission of women. This is a problem for a literal interpretation because it is clearly a mandate that puts the woman beneath the man in the hierarchy of family and society. An allegorical interpretation could possibly make this assertion compatible with modern day morality but unfortunately a literal interpretation is bound by the belief of the words on the page.

This conversation about the 900 year olds in the Old Testament is indeed predicated on the belief that God is real. But really all I'm trying to do is present enough absurdity on behalf of the Old Testament to make the point that it is not based in reality and therefore shouldn't be interpreted as the literal history and reality of the past. Also this linked into my argument against the young earth creationist account for the age of the earth because it's clear that you accept the detailed account for the age of the earth found in the Old Testament. Which would logically make you a young earth creationist but the fact you reject this interpretation only contradicts your assertion that the Bible is literally true.

Ultimately, I think that in order to definitively discover our origins we shouldn't interpret facts with the presupposition that God was in charge of it and he described it in the Bible. Your whole argument appears to do this by mapping modern day science onto Biblical wording. This has happened a lot this debate. Molded dust becomes a form of abiogenesis. A rib becomes some perfect specimen of DNA. A talking snake becomes a telepathic snake... Okay not so much. But either way I think that these pre-suppositions are dangerous for the future of free thought and reason. We investigate this world using nature and what we can observe and by merely asserting and assuming the existence of God we undermine the investigatory process that should be employed when considering questions regarding our origins.

Great debate. Truly a pleasure.

-connor
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
3dCrew - I learned an enormous amount. Thank you for this experience.
Posted by 3DCrew 9 years ago
3DCrew
Thank you Connor. Just the act of engaging in a thought provoking debate at this level is only bound to help both side embrace a wider world view. I hope to have an opportunity to debate with you on other subjects in the future.
Posted by Robert_Lee_Hotchkiss 9 years ago
Robert_Lee_Hotchkiss
Just because there is internal consistency in various different works that were at much later date compiled in an anthology doesn't tell you anything. Any such related stories have a tendency to share similar facts. When you look at Arthurian legends, Star Trek novels, Star war novels, Sherlock Holmes novels, Dr. Who stories, they all pretty consistent. Further there is strong tendency for stories to become more consistent overtime as stories deviant stories get rejected. Internal consistency says nothing about whether the authors or consumers of the story believe it to be factual or not.

The real mystery is that the bible is as full of inconsistencies as it. This is most likely caused by certain book becoming fixed in a canonical form before they were united with other parts.

Fundamentalism serves a very specific political advantage. it allows one group to rob another group of legitimacy. This occurs in many different systems such religion, medicine, various political groups especially Communism. This almost always leads to a crisis as the fixed nature of a fundamentalist reading leads to stagnation.

At the time of the birth of Christianity Judaism was in sever crisis. For the following reasons.

It had become a Nationalist cult without a nation.
It promised that the good would be rewarded but does not seem true in life.
It had been contaminated by fear so that the God it described was a horrible racist genocidal monster who tortured people for incomprehensible reasons.
If you read the old testament it is clear that bible was never universally recognized as literally true.

Jesus didn't seem to believe in scriptural literalism. He for example explained why sometimes it was ok to break the sabbath. And in fact the God he describes bares little resemblance to the Old Testament God.

But by the time the bible was closed as a canonical work it is clear that literalism had returned as various factions attempted to rob each other of legitimacy.
Posted by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
"I'm speaking of the assertions that the bible makes about the genesis of the universe, the Earth, Sun, and us."

But I can touch on those subjects since you introduced them. Could you describe your beliefs to me? Do you accept the theory of evolution?

If you feel these questions give me an unfair advantage you don't have to answer. I just want to specify my response so that we aren't arguing past each other.

Thanks!
Posted by 3DCrew 9 years ago
3DCrew
Hi Connoer. No, I am definitely not in the young earth camp. I would like to focus mostly on the literal creation of the human race through Adam more than that of the universe but feel free to use whatever depth of argument you see fit to support a non-literial Adam.
Posted by killa_connor 9 years ago
killa_connor
I'm going to take a day to put my response up. But is it safe to assume that you believe in a Young Earth interpretation of the Bible (suggesting the earth is about 6000 years old)?

Do you pick and choose what you read literally or does it apply to everything in the Bible?

Thanks! I'll have my response up soon!

-connor
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 3DCrew 9 years ago
3DCrew
3DCrewkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
3DCrewkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
3DCrewkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by gabriel04 9 years ago
gabriel04
3DCrewkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Lenfent 9 years ago
Lenfent
3DCrewkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by d4l 9 years ago
d4l
3DCrewkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Luna3 9 years ago
Luna3
3DCrewkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
3DCrewkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by transpicuous 9 years ago
transpicuous
3DCrewkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
3DCrewkilla_connorTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03