You have favs? I bet they totally ignore the one's about gays and the everlasting fire that Jesus clearly warned us about.
Genesis as allegory? - History versus allegory
- Thread starter St. SteVen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
(a) That's talking about Revelation
(b) The discussion here is centered on parts of Genesis being not-literal, not completely missing
Where does it say it's only about Revelation? It doesn't! Are you looking for excuses to chop up the Bible? Do you just pick out the parts you like?
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
Abraham made a covenant for (a) protection, (b) wealth, and (c) an heir (Genesis 15:1-3). In exchange, God required of Abraham to (a) move to a land that He would show him (12:1), and to (b) walk before Me, and be thou perfect (17:1). Abraham's belief was reckoned to him for righteousness. (15:6)
God overfulfilled the terms of the covenant, by giving Abraham not only a son as his immediate heir, but also the adoptive father of all those Gentiles who believed going forward through history.
God didn't create everything *ding* perfect. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth AND THE EARTH WAS FORMLESS AND VOID. Afterwards He formed the creation out of that state of chaos into something orderly. (Gen 1)
It works the same with mankind. Our process starts out chaotic, and He gradually works on us over time to mold us into a state of maturity.
I do understand it, though. Adam and Eve is the ancestral myth of the Edomites. It explains why they were expelled from their ancestral home in Lebanon and came to inhabit the wilderness south of the Dead Sea.
No, I just took the time to understand them and found something better than a literal-historical interpretation.
I already refuted this twice. Do you not have any other argument? I can repeat myself as many times as you - mankind would still need salvation even without the Fall of Man. We all sin.
Mankind would still need salvation even without the Fall of Man. We all sin. It really is that simple.
Genesis 1:31
31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
Yes it does. The verse says "this book." It doesn't say "this collection of books." You have erred by extending the statement to all the books in the Bible.
Do you always make up things about people? Are you 12 years old?
It's very sad watching you chop your name from the Book of life! Which parts of the Bible do you chop out that you don't like?
Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
Yeah, kinda that. But he'll get older and wiser. Hopefully.
Davy
Well-Known Member
I assume you are pointing to the Genesis creation account. (And NO, I don't care to watch your posted video).
Genesis 1 about God's creation is SCIENTIFIC FACT. The controversy is with 'men's traditions' that don't like the idea of science being involved (and NO, I'm not referring to man's false theory of evolution.)
I strongly believe, and not without evidence, that only... when the believer disciplines their self in study of all of God's Word, will God actually open up one's understanding as to just how... the Genesis 1 creation account is scientific fact. But allow me to explain about that word science.
1. There is man's PSEUDO SCIENCE, which is actually NOT fact, like Darwinist evolution of the species of man theories. Scientists have actually admitted that they 'cheated' on the carbon dating of some ancient artifacts, to make their theories more believable. It is also a fact that the Smithsonian has certain ancient artifacts stored in its warehouse that is not exposed to the public. One such item was the Bat Creek Stone found in Louden, TN. in the 1800's, discovered in a so-called Indian burial mound, yet it was found under the skull of the human skeletons buried there, and the inscription on the stone could only have been made by a Hebrew Massorah scribe. It revealed in that burial mound were Hebrews, not Indians.
Also, Archibald Sayce, a British Assyriologist, manipulated the date translation discovered on the Babylonian cuneiform stone tablets of the time the ancient Sumerians told of Sargon I first appearing in their land. Sayce admitted his original translation date for Sargon I appearing among the Sumerians was circa 3800 B.C. Because that was a much earlier date for all the wealth of civilization being introduced to the Sumerians by Sargon, Sayce instead moved that date to much later, to fit in with the present theories of Assyriology in his day. Mind you his discovery of the 'original' 3800 B.C. date for Sargon I is much more interesting, because per the dating of the man Adam in God's Garden by bishop Ussher's chronology from The Bible begats, and which the British Bible scholar E.W. Bullinger also repeated and confirmed, it showed that God formed Adam circa 4004 B.C. Now that is only... 204 years difference between God forming the man Adam and Sargon I appearing among the ancient Sumerians in 3800 B.C. as written in the Babylonian tablets.
2. Then there is TRUE SCIENCE, which will always agree with God's Word. There have been some very revealing essays on the many links of God's written Word with scientific fact. Thus like everything else in this present world, one may listen to Truth, or confusion based on lies, even by those who claim a truth, but a deeper look often exposes their manipulation of data.
At Genesis 1:1 was God's 'original' perfect creation, the old world which was much different than today's state of creation.
At Genesis 1:2, per the Hebrew, it is showing an existing earth in a waste and ruined condition with a flood of waters overspread upon all of it. (The traditional view proposes man's pseudo-science, with claiming the earth was not formed yet at Genesis 1:2, but instead was in some kind of 'nothingness' creation state. That is not what Hebrew tohu va bohu means ("without form, and void". Furthermore, God said in Isaiah 45:18 that He did not create the earth 'tohu', i.e., "without form". The Hebrew tohu word is translated to "in vain" there in the KJV.)
At Genesis 1:6-9, God is restoring... His creation of old, but not 'fully'. This was revealed in Jeremiah 4:23-28 and Romans 8:18-25.