Total Posts:150|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is The Creation Account Literal?

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 2:25:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.


The seven days in Genesis can only be a metaphor if it was understood that way originally. If it was understood by the early readers to mean literal days, then it was exquisitely poor at expressing the mind of god if he really meant periods of time vastly greater than a day. After all, the writers of the Bible are said to be inspired by "God", and this god is said to be omnipotent and omniscient. It seems to me, such a god would have used language that would not change meaning over time and would have remained crystal clear for as long as scripture was necessary.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 2:38:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't believe the creation accounts have any basis in fact. The authors were trying their best to explain how we got here in the days before science.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 2:45:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.



Is The Creation Account Literal?
Obviously not.
Anyone who believes a man was magically created from literal dust and a woman from the mans ribs is believing a myth rather than facing reality. You might as well believe a stork brings babies.
Any stories which include talking animals and magical trees which give you knowledge are not historical documents but are mythical tales.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 6:24:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 2:25:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.


The seven days in Genesis can only be a metaphor if it was understood that way originally. If it was understood by the early readers to mean literal days, then it was exquisitely poor at expressing the mind of god if he really meant periods of time vastly greater than a day. After all, the writers of the Bible are said to be inspired by "God", and this god is said to be omnipotent and omniscient. It seems to me, such a god would have used language that would not change meaning over time and would have remained crystal clear for as long as scripture was necessary.

Note that some of the books have changes in how they use literature. For example. Judges 4 is a historical account, but the next chapter is a poem? How can you tell? The grammar and language. And even the early church fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr and Iraneus didn't believe in literal days.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 6:27:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 2:45:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.



Is The Creation Account Literal?
Obviously not.
Anyone who believes a man was magically created from literal dust and a woman from the mans ribs is believing a myth rather than facing reality. You might as well believe a stork brings babies.
Any stories which include talking animals and magical trees which give you knowledge are not historical documents but are mythical tales.

What you think of the video explaining the topic?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 6:36:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 6:24:21 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/21/2015 2:25:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.


The seven days in Genesis can only be a metaphor if it was understood that way originally. If it was understood by the early readers to mean literal days, then it was exquisitely poor at expressing the mind of god if he really meant periods of time vastly greater than a day. After all, the writers of the Bible are said to be inspired by "God", and this god is said to be omnipotent and omniscient. It seems to me, such a god would have used language that would not change meaning over time and would have remained crystal clear for as long as scripture was necessary.

Note that some of the books have changes in how they use literature. For example. Judges 4 is a historical account, but the next chapter is a poem? How can you tell? The grammar and language. And even the early church fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr and Iraneus didn't believe in literal days.

The problem is the writing style of Genesis is not written in a poetic or metaphorical manner. There is no obvious shift in writing styles from one section to another and facts such as the listing of complete genealogies, geographical locations, objects etc. Consistently throughout the narration only leads to the conclusion that it was intended to be literal.

You can interpret it as metaphorical, yes, but that distorts what was likely the meaning of the passages when they were composed.

Then again genesis probably had multiple authors and was constructed as a progression over the years, and only once the Pentateuch got canonised did the version we have today achieve uniformity. So the notion of 'intention' gets murky since we don't have one author writing for one reason.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 6:36:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 6:24:21 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/21/2015 2:25:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.


The seven days in Genesis can only be a metaphor if it was understood that way originally. If it was understood by the early readers to mean literal days, then it was exquisitely poor at expressing the mind of god if he really meant periods of time vastly greater than a day. After all, the writers of the Bible are said to be inspired by "God", and this god is said to be omnipotent and omniscient. It seems to me, such a god would have used language that would not change meaning over time and would have remained crystal clear for as long as scripture was necessary.

Note that some of the books have changes in how they use literature. For example. Judges 4 is a historical account, but the next chapter is a poem? How can you tell? The grammar and language. And even the early church fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr and Iraneus didn't believe in literal days.

Ergo the stories are precisely that, just stories trying to explain what confused the cavemen who invented them.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 7:01:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 6:36:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 2/21/2015 6:24:21 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/21/2015 2:25:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.


The seven days in Genesis can only be a metaphor if it was understood that way originally. If it was understood by the early readers to mean literal days, then it was exquisitely poor at expressing the mind of god if he really meant periods of time vastly greater than a day. After all, the writers of the Bible are said to be inspired by "God", and this god is said to be omnipotent and omniscient. It seems to me, such a god would have used language that would not change meaning over time and would have remained crystal clear for as long as scripture was necessary.

Note that some of the books have changes in how they use literature. For example. Judges 4 is a historical account, but the next chapter is a poem? How can you tell? The grammar and language. And even the early church fathers like Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr and Iraneus didn't believe in literal days.

The problem is the writing style of Genesis is not written in a poetic or metaphorical manner. There is no obvious shift in writing styles from one section to another and facts such as the listing of complete genealogies, geographical locations, objects etc. Consistently throughout the narration only leads to the conclusion that it was intended to be literal.

You can interpret it as metaphorical, yes, but that distorts what was likely the meaning of the passages when they were composed.

Then again genesis probably had multiple authors and was constructed as a progression over the years, and only once the Pentateuch got canonised did the version we have today achieve uniformity. So the notion of 'intention' gets murky since we don't have one author writing for one reason.

At one point in the video, he gives an example of styles of poetic language, such as each phrase beggining with "And God said". There's also the symmetrical pattern that days 1-3 are environments for the individuals created on days 4-6 to reside. Because the sun and moon don't get created til day 4, so how can we have 6 literal days in creation?

Another perspective is to think of it as a parable. If you read Jesus' parables without thinking he's making a metaphor, you'd take the story literal, but it's that we understand or the people back then would've understood the meaning. So Adam and Eve were representing the model for a couple, but also shows the woman can be deceived and in return, can decieve her husband in the end. Also note it is said to be written by Moses as the first book of Moses, so why would it take so long to explain creation when Abraham could've wrote it. Just a thought.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 2:53:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 6:27:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/21/2015 2:45:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.


Is The Creation Account Literal?
Obviously not.
Anyone who believes a man was magically created from literal dust and a woman from the mans ribs is believing a myth rather than facing reality. You might as well believe a stork brings babies.
Any stories which include talking animals and magical trees which give you knowledge are not historical documents but are mythical tales.

What you think of the video explaining the topic?

I think the speaker is making an effort to explain why Genesis cannot be taken literally because he is trying to reconcile his belief in God with his belief in evolution.
He seems to indicate that he believes God created everything through the process of evolution.

It is understandable for a brainwashed person to think that way when they have been brainwashed by both Christianity and Darwinism. Many scientifically minded believers think that way.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 4:06:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 2:53:36 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 2/21/2015 6:27:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/21/2015 2:45:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.



Is The Creation Account Literal?
Obviously not.
Anyone who believes a man was magically created from literal dust and a woman from the mans ribs is believing a myth rather than facing reality. You might as well believe a stork brings babies.
Any stories which include talking animals and magical trees which give you knowledge are not historical documents but are mythical tales.

What you think of the video explaining the topic?

I think the speaker is making an effort to explain why Genesis cannot be taken literally because he is trying to reconcile his belief in God with his belief in evolution.
He seems to indicate that he believes God created everything through the process of evolution.

It is understandable for a brainwashed person to think that way when they have been brainwashed by both Christianity and Darwinism. Many scientifically minded believers think that way.

So what are you if not Christian?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 5:52:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 4:06:01 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/21/2015 2:53:36 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 2/21/2015 6:27:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/21/2015 2:45:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.



Is The Creation Account Literal?
Obviously not.
Anyone who believes a man was magically created from literal dust and a woman from the mans ribs is believing a myth rather than facing reality. You might as well believe a stork brings babies.
Any stories which include talking animals and magical trees which give you knowledge are not historical documents but are mythical tales.

What you think of the video explaining the topic?

I think the speaker is making an effort to explain why Genesis cannot be taken literally because he is trying to reconcile his belief in God with his belief in evolution.
He seems to indicate that he believes God created everything through the process of evolution.

It is understandable for a brainwashed person to think that way when they have been brainwashed by both Christianity and Darwinism. Many scientifically minded believers think that way.

So what are you if not Christian?

If that is a general question, people can be many things besides Christians. There are thousands of other religious labels they can stick on themselves.
In general you are either a believer in "X" or an unbeliever in "X". That "X" can be a religious doctrine or a science theory or whatever else people offer as "something to believe"

If you are asking me personally. I consider myself to be a realist. That is a person who believes in reality as being real and as fantasy as being fictional. I believe all things simply are what they are regardless of how anyone perceives them describes them or believes about them.
I believe in the concept of God being a personification of all that exists in reality and also a personification of all that does not exist in reality but merely exists in the fantasies and imaginations of humans.

Creation is what it is regardless of whether people believe it was created by some supernatural magic or whether they believe it was created in some Big Bang phenomenon and evolved after that or whether they believe that once upon a time nothing existed or believe all things have always existed on some form. It makes no difference to the FACT that EXISTENCE is what it is and all of it can say "I AM THAT I AM" whether it has a voice to say it or not. It "says it" simply by existing. It is self evident. ALL that exists is self evident regardless of whether people believe it is or not.
If they want to make up stories about the existence of "A" proving the evolution or creation of "B" or "C" or that the existence of "B" or "C" proves the existence of "A" etc , they are obviously capable of doing that but should not wonder why people question their logic when their stories and conclusions of their flawed reasoning make no sense.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2015 6:04:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 2:25:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.


The seven days in Genesis can only be a metaphor if it was understood that way originally. If it was understood by the early readers to mean literal days, then it was exquisitely poor at expressing the mind of god if he really meant periods of time vastly greater than a day. After all, the writers of the Bible are said to be inspired by "God", and this god is said to be omnipotent and omniscient. It seems to me, such a god would have used language that would not change meaning over time and would have remained crystal clear for as long as scripture was necessary.

God meant it to be either literal or unliteral, but only He knows for sure which one it is. The meaning of the text does not change with time; our understanding and interpretation of the text has changed with time.
If God did not make it clear, He had a reason for it. If God meant it as it is said with no alternative interpretations needed, then He had a reason for that too. It is impossible to know the mind of God; only a being which is at His level can do that.
I believe it was meant be taken literally, though there is always the possibility that I am wrong.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 1:32:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 6:04:12 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/21/2015 2:25:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.


The seven days in Genesis can only be a metaphor if it was understood that way originally. If it was understood by the early readers to mean literal days, then it was exquisitely poor at expressing the mind of god if he really meant periods of time vastly greater than a day. After all, the writers of the Bible are said to be inspired by "God", and this god is said to be omnipotent and omniscient. It seems to me, such a god would have used language that would not change meaning over time and would have remained crystal clear for as long as scripture was necessary.

God meant it to be either literal or unliteral, but only He knows for sure which one it is. The meaning of the text does not change with time; our understanding and interpretation of the text has changed with time.

Fair point.

If God did not make it clear, He had a reason for it. If God meant it as it is said with no alternative interpretations needed, then He had a reason for that too. It is impossible to know the mind of God; only a being which is at His level can do that.

Assuming God, then if he made it unclear on purpose that suggests he is being deceptive in one way or another. Either he meant it to be literal and allows it to be distorted, or he meant it to be metaphorical and allowed it to be easily misunderstood. At the very least, the message is unclear and we cannot discern what God meant. Also, if the Bible is not meant to allow insights into the mind of god, then what is its purpose?

I believe it was meant be taken literally, though there is always the possibility that I am wrong.

I believe the text was meant to be taken literally as well, considering the genealogies, the confusing nature of the Sabbath (assuming metaphorical), the literal Adam and Eve (based on the genealogies of Jesus), and references within Genesis itself which seem to indicate a literal creation week.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 4:14:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 6:04:12 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/21/2015 2:25:22 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.


The seven days in Genesis can only be a metaphor if it was understood that way originally. If it was understood by the early readers to mean literal days, then it was exquisitely poor at expressing the mind of god if he really meant periods of time vastly greater than a day. After all, the writers of the Bible are said to be inspired by "God", and this god is said to be omnipotent and omniscient. It seems to me, such a god would have used language that would not change meaning over time and would have remained crystal clear for as long as scripture was necessary.

God meant it to be either literal or unliteral, but only He knows for sure which one it is. The meaning of the text does not change with time; our understanding and interpretation of the text has changed with time.
If God did not make it clear, He had a reason for it. If God meant it as it is said with no alternative interpretations needed, then He had a reason for that too. It is impossible to know the mind of God; only a being which is at His level can do that.
I believe it was meant be taken literally, though there is always the possibility that I am wrong.

The story was told by men, no gods involved.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 11:22:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/21/2015 6:27:32 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/21/2015 2:45:10 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.



Is The Creation Account Literal?
Obviously not.
Anyone who believes a man was magically created from literal dust and a woman from the mans ribs is believing a myth rather than facing reality. You might as well believe a stork brings babies.
Any stories which include talking animals and magical trees which give you knowledge are not historical documents but are mythical tales.

What you think of the video explaining the topic?

It is a great video that shows the confusion Christians are running into when interpreting the bible.
1. Christians have to accept the bible was written at a time when very little was known about evolution or cosmology. Early attempts at interpreting the movements of the earth and sun from the reading of scriptures were proven wrong. The video admits that.

2. The language used were deliberately vague in the bible. That was because their understanding were vague and it was reflected in their writing.

3. Metaphors were used extensively in the bible. We know their understanding of the nature of things were very vague. Those were not metaphors, they were simply lies. The writers substituted their lack of understanding not with metaphors by lies. After all they explained through God all things were possible.

4. There is no poetic expression when facts are distorted. If the bible is a book of facts then there is no room for even poetic lies. God could have expressed his humour in better ways.

5. There isn't enough math or science in the bible to even meet the requirements for a grade 6 schooler. For biblical commentators to find scientific explanation in the bible to challenge modern scientific understanding is absurd and Christians should accept no bible commentator is even remotely qualified.

6 . The video attempts to explain the hard problem in the bibles use of language. It tries to show a few word substitutions can make certain passages more easily understood. But it also shows how the entire meaning is also changed by these substitutions. Christians cannot have it both ways. Taking literally what suits them and passing the intangibles as metaphor, poetry or vague interpretations.

If the bible is truly the inspired word of God. It should be judged by how inspired the reader grows. But when it is a book full of controversies, contradictions and errors which is leading to more confusion than inspiration. We should be critical of its intended purpose.

If God tried to fool us once, shame on him. If we let him fool us again, shame on us.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 1:37:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
^ I swear a lot of atheists here are worse fundamentalists than Christians are lol
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 2:28:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 1:37:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
^ I swear a lot of atheists here are worse fundamentalists than Christians are lol

Can you stick to the topic!!!
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 2:37:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Harikrish 16
3. Metaphors were used extensively in the bible. We know their understanding of the nature of things were very vague. Those were not metaphors, they were simply lies. The writers substituted their lack of understanding not with metaphors by lies. After all they explained through God all things were possible.
I think lies is too strong a word. The authors may have written an account of creation to the best of their abilities.

The video is addressed to Christians and therefore assumes the creation account is accurate without justification. In that case obviously, if one holds any trust in modern science, the creation account must be very figurative. With only a little literalism problems start to appear :
- Some events mentioned in Genesis are hard to reconcile with historic events and only ad hoc.
- Important events in astronomy, geology and biology are not mentioned.
- The order of events is wrong.

How that is is explained in the thread 'The Bible's hilarious account of creation' : http://www.debate.org...
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 3:52:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.



CAn't be botherd with teh video, but I'll answer teh question.

Genesis 1 is accurate but not literal in terms of "word for word".

For instance "day" has many meanings, and they are not all time restricted.

Verse 14 is misleading because the sun was already created in verse 1 and it's light reached the ground in verse 3.

Verse 1 is a bland statement of fact.

Verse 2 on is written as if by a reporter n the earth's surface.

However what informations it does supply, and admittedly that is not a lot, is factually correct, which is of course no-one could possibly have known back then.

That leaves us with only one possible conclusion. The information can only have come, directly or indirectly from God.

Therefore the story is literal, just not the actual words.
bulproof
Posts: 25,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:29:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 3:52:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.



CAn't be botherd with teh video, but I'll answer teh question.

Genesis 1 is accurate but not literal in terms of "word for word".

For instance "day" has many meanings, and they are not all time restricted.

Verse 14 is misleading because the sun was already created in verse 1 and it's light reached the ground in verse 3.

Verse 1 is a bland statement of fact.

Verse 2 on is written as if by a reporter n the earth's surface.

However what informations it does supply, and admittedly that is not a lot, is factually correct, which is of course no-one could possibly have known back then.

That leaves us with only one possible conclusion. The information can only have come, directly or indirectly from God.

Therefore the story is literal, just not the actual words.

Madman claims that if you change the meaning of all the words, then it can be read as literal.
What a wanker.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Rant
Posts: 1,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:41:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Bible reads as it reads >metaphor and literal O Ya and parables No Ghost no understanding Enjoy
Rant
Posts: 1,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 6:45:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You people are like swine "Don't waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don't throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 7:54:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.

I finally sat down and watched the video. Sorry, it has taken me so long! My mother was a YEC, so I am fairly familiar with this subject. I went back to my first debate and revisited some of the info I found to support a literal interpretation.

"Genesis 1 does use the word "day" with a number, and every other time this happens in the Bible it refers to a single day. In fact, the creation story matches every single criteria below, and all cases point to a literal day.[5]

" Whenever the word day is used with a number it always means an ordinary day with no
exceptions (410 occasions).
" The term evening and morning used together without day outside of Genesis 1 always
means an ordinary day (38 occasions).
" When the words evening or morning are used together with the word day outside of
Genesis 1 it always means an ordinary day (23 occasions).
" When the word night is used with the word day outside of Genesis 1 it always means an
ordinary day (52 occasions)"


Also, the video glossed over the death issue. If Yom was referring to eons of time, then obviously there is a problem with sin and the consequences: death. Since man was not created until the last creation day/period then there could be no sin and thus no death in the periods before. Assuming eons of time, then omnivores and carnivores would have been killing long before sin was introduced into the world. Some will suggests animals were not part of the curse of sin, however, the Bible gives reason to believe animals were included in the suffering of sin. Romans 8:22 states:

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

I thought this may apply, and help the discussion you were seeking.

http://www.debate.org...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 8:42:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 7:54:54 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.

I finally sat down and watched the video. Sorry, it has taken me so long! My mother was a YEC, so I am fairly familiar with this subject. I went back to my first debate and revisited some of the info I found to support a literal interpretation.

"Genesis 1 does use the word "day" with a number, and every other time this happens in the Bible it refers to a single day. In fact, the creation story matches every single criteria below, and all cases point to a literal day.[5]

" Whenever the word day is used with a number it always means an ordinary day with no
exceptions (410 occasions).
" The term evening and morning used together without day outside of Genesis 1 always
means an ordinary day (38 occasions).
" When the words evening or morning are used together with the word day outside of
Genesis 1 it always means an ordinary day (23 occasions).
" When the word night is used with the word day outside of Genesis 1 it always means an
ordinary day (52 occasions)"


Also, the video glossed over the death issue. If Yom was referring to eons of time, then obviously there is a problem with sin and the consequences: death. Since man was not created until the last creation day/period then there could be no sin and thus no death in the periods before. Assuming eons of time, then omnivores and carnivores would have been killing long before sin was introduced into the world. Some will suggests animals were not part of the curse of sin, however, the Bible gives reason to believe animals were included in the suffering of sin. Romans 8:22 states:

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

I thought this may apply, and help the discussion you were seeking.

http://www.debate.org...

Romans 5:12 states the sin of man brought death on all mankind. It didn't say all creation, but all mankind. So Adam and Eve or not, one man's sin is all it takes.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 8:52:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 8:42:13 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/22/2015 7:54:54 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.

I finally sat down and watched the video. Sorry, it has taken me so long! My mother was a YEC, so I am fairly familiar with this subject. I went back to my first debate and revisited some of the info I found to support a literal interpretation.

"Genesis 1 does use the word "day" with a number, and every other time this happens in the Bible it refers to a single day. In fact, the creation story matches every single criteria below, and all cases point to a literal day.[5]

" Whenever the word day is used with a number it always means an ordinary day with no
exceptions (410 occasions).
" The term evening and morning used together without day outside of Genesis 1 always
means an ordinary day (38 occasions).
" When the words evening or morning are used together with the word day outside of
Genesis 1 it always means an ordinary day (23 occasions).
" When the word night is used with the word day outside of Genesis 1 it always means an
ordinary day (52 occasions)"


Also, the video glossed over the death issue. If Yom was referring to eons of time, then obviously there is a problem with sin and the consequences: death. Since man was not created until the last creation day/period then there could be no sin and thus no death in the periods before. Assuming eons of time, then omnivores and carnivores would have been killing long before sin was introduced into the world. Some will suggests animals were not part of the curse of sin, however, the Bible gives reason to believe animals were included in the suffering of sin. Romans 8:22 states:

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

I thought this may apply, and help the discussion you were seeking.

http://www.debate.org...

Romans 5:12 states the sin of man brought death on all mankind. It didn't say all creation, but all mankind. So Adam and Eve or not, one man's sin is all it takes.

Yes, sin brought death (to mankind) and all of creation suffers together. Written by the same author. It could be argued these verses compliment each other, not contradict.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 9:00:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 8:52:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:42:13 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/22/2015 7:54:54 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.

I finally sat down and watched the video. Sorry, it has taken me so long! My mother was a YEC, so I am fairly familiar with this subject. I went back to my first debate and revisited some of the info I found to support a literal interpretation.

"Genesis 1 does use the word "day" with a number, and every other time this happens in the Bible it refers to a single day. In fact, the creation story matches every single criteria below, and all cases point to a literal day.[5]

" Whenever the word day is used with a number it always means an ordinary day with no
exceptions (410 occasions).
" The term evening and morning used together without day outside of Genesis 1 always
means an ordinary day (38 occasions).
" When the words evening or morning are used together with the word day outside of
Genesis 1 it always means an ordinary day (23 occasions).
" When the word night is used with the word day outside of Genesis 1 it always means an
ordinary day (52 occasions)"


Also, the video glossed over the death issue. If Yom was referring to eons of time, then obviously there is a problem with sin and the consequences: death. Since man was not created until the last creation day/period then there could be no sin and thus no death in the periods before. Assuming eons of time, then omnivores and carnivores would have been killing long before sin was introduced into the world. Some will suggests animals were not part of the curse of sin, however, the Bible gives reason to believe animals were included in the suffering of sin. Romans 8:22 states:

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

I thought this may apply, and help the discussion you were seeking.

http://www.debate.org...

Romans 5:12 states the sin of man brought death on all mankind. It didn't say all creation, but all mankind. So Adam and Eve or not, one man's sin is all it takes.

Yes, sin brought death (to mankind) and all of creation suffers together. Written by the same author. It could be argued these verses compliment each other, not contradict.

Of course. But that verse you stated could go both ways. It doesn't say since the beginning of time, both man and animal (creation) suffered. It merely states they just suffered together and a time is coming when they won't. The first human had a chance to not suffer, but lost that chance and now suffers with the animals.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 9:05:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 9:00:49 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:52:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:42:13 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/22/2015 7:54:54 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.

I finally sat down and watched the video. Sorry, it has taken me so long! My mother was a YEC, so I am fairly familiar with this subject. I went back to my first debate and revisited some of the info I found to support a literal interpretation.

"Genesis 1 does use the word "day" with a number, and every other time this happens in the Bible it refers to a single day. In fact, the creation story matches every single criteria below, and all cases point to a literal day.[5]

" Whenever the word day is used with a number it always means an ordinary day with no
exceptions (410 occasions).
" The term evening and morning used together without day outside of Genesis 1 always
means an ordinary day (38 occasions).
" When the words evening or morning are used together with the word day outside of
Genesis 1 it always means an ordinary day (23 occasions).
" When the word night is used with the word day outside of Genesis 1 it always means an
ordinary day (52 occasions)"


Also, the video glossed over the death issue. If Yom was referring to eons of time, then obviously there is a problem with sin and the consequences: death. Since man was not created until the last creation day/period then there could be no sin and thus no death in the periods before. Assuming eons of time, then omnivores and carnivores would have been killing long before sin was introduced into the world. Some will suggests animals were not part of the curse of sin, however, the Bible gives reason to believe animals were included in the suffering of sin. Romans 8:22 states:

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

I thought this may apply, and help the discussion you were seeking.

http://www.debate.org...

Romans 5:12 states the sin of man brought death on all mankind. It didn't say all creation, but all mankind. So Adam and Eve or not, one man's sin is all it takes.

Yes, sin brought death (to mankind) and all of creation suffers together. Written by the same author. It could be argued these verses compliment each other, not contradict.

Of course. But that verse you stated could go both ways. It doesn't say since the beginning of time, both man and animal (creation) suffered. It merely states they just suffered together and a time is coming when they won't. The first human had a chance to not suffer, but lost that chance and now suffers with the animals.

Perhaps, but then that would go to what a perfect God is capable of and the fact that he found his creation to be good (ie. perfect) Do you think god would intentionally make imperfect creatures? Also, make no mistake, I am playing devil's advocate here. ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 9:18:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 8:42:13 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/22/2015 7:54:54 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.

I finally sat down and watched the video. Sorry, it has taken me so long! My mother was a YEC, so I am fairly familiar with this subject. I went back to my first debate and revisited some of the info I found to support a literal interpretation.

"Genesis 1 does use the word "day" with a number, and every other time this happens in the Bible it refers to a single day. In fact, the creation story matches every single criteria below, and all cases point to a literal day.[5]

" Whenever the word day is used with a number it always means an ordinary day with no
exceptions (410 occasions).
" The term evening and morning used together without day outside of Genesis 1 always
means an ordinary day (38 occasions).
" When the words evening or morning are used together with the word day outside of
Genesis 1 it always means an ordinary day (23 occasions).
" When the word night is used with the word day outside of Genesis 1 it always means an
ordinary day (52 occasions)"


Also, the video glossed over the death issue. If Yom was referring to eons of time, then obviously there is a problem with sin and the consequences: death. Since man was not created until the last creation day/period then there could be no sin and thus no death in the periods before. Assuming eons of time, then omnivores and carnivores would have been killing long before sin was introduced into the world. Some will suggests animals were not part of the curse of sin, however, the Bible gives reason to believe animals were included in the suffering of sin. Romans 8:22 states:

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

I thought this may apply, and help the discussion you were seeking.

http://www.debate.org...

Romans 5:12 states the sin of man brought death on all mankind. It didn't say all creation, but all mankind. So Adam and Eve or not, one man's sin is all it takes.

Yes the bible is full of examples of collective guilt and blame. Jews killed Jesus, but the whole world is implicated in this local Jewish event.
God was displeased with the Jews, but he destroyed the whole world with his flood and saved Noah, his family and all the animals who could fit in a boat.
Adam was a Jew. No other religion or people heard of Adam. The Jewish civilization came thousands of years after the Egyptians, Mesopotamia, India and China. Evolutionists all share the out of Africa migration as the beginning of the human race. Yet Christians believe it all started with Adam in Israel in the garden of Eden. There is no scientific credibility in the creation account.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2015 9:20:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/22/2015 9:05:25 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 9:00:49 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:52:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/22/2015 8:42:13 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 2/22/2015 7:54:54 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/20/2015 10:39:16 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
A thought provoking video I haven't seen in a long time. What do y'all think? Compromising scripture? Desperate Christianity? Reasonable? Let's get a conversation started.

I finally sat down and watched the video. Sorry, it has taken me so long! My mother was a YEC, so I am fairly familiar with this subject. I went back to my first debate and revisited some of the info I found to support a literal interpretation.

"Genesis 1 does use the word "day" with a number, and every other time this happens in the Bible it refers to a single day. In fact, the creation story matches every single criteria below, and all cases point to a literal day.[5]

" Whenever the word day is used with a number it always means an ordinary day with no
exceptions (410 occasions).
" The term evening and morning used together without day outside of Genesis 1 always
means an ordinary day (38 occasions).
" When the words evening or morning are used together with the word day outside of
Genesis 1 it always means an ordinary day (23 occasions).
" When the word night is used with the word day outside of Genesis 1 it always means an
ordinary day (52 occasions)"


Also, the video glossed over the death issue. If Yom was referring to eons of time, then obviously there is a problem with sin and the consequences: death. Since man was not created until the last creation day/period then there could be no sin and thus no death in the periods before. Assuming eons of time, then omnivores and carnivores would have been killing long before sin was introduced into the world. Some will suggests animals were not part of the curse of sin, however, the Bible gives reason to believe animals were included in the suffering of sin. Romans 8:22 states:

22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

I thought this may apply, and help the discussion you were seeking.

http://www.debate.org...

Romans 5:12 states the sin of man brought death on all mankind. It didn't say all creation, but all mankind. So Adam and Eve or not, one man's sin is all it takes.

Yes, sin brought death (to mankind) and all of creation suffers together. Written by the same author. It could be argued these verses compliment each other, not contradict.

Of course. But that verse you stated could go both ways. It doesn't say since the beginning of time, both man and animal (creation) suffered. It merely states they just suffered together and a time is coming when they won't. The first human had a chance to not suffer, but lost that chance and now suffers with the animals.

Perhaps, but then that would go to what a perfect God is capable of and the fact that he found his creation to be good (ie. perfect) Do you think god would intentionally make imperfect creatures? Also, make no mistake, I am playing devil's advocate here. ;-)

I would say this to the Young Earthers. Do you think God was good when he killed people? If death wasn't good, why did he bring it about? I find death to be good AND bad. It has benefits and disadvantages.