True2Ourselves
Already a member? login
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
Divider
  
+
Register FAQ A-Z directory Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

True2Ourselves Forums   > Community Topics > Christianity & Science  > Literal Biblical Creationism

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-25-2012, 09:42 PM
irondumpty
 
Posts: n/a
Default Literal Biblical Creationism

If a person truly believes in God and trusts Scripture, then that person should take the Genesis account seriously and filter data through the lense of Scripture.

This thread is dedicated to discussing the details of the account and how it is supported by science.
Some of my theories include,
1) Dinosaurs were the "serpents" who were said to be "beasts of the field".
2) Genetic perfection in Adam coupled with environmental perfection is responsible for the long lifetime of humans. Environment is probably more responsible seeing as lifetimes declined steadily after the flood.

Any thoughts?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-26-2012, 07:15 AM
Suspended for Review
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,673
Default Re: Literal Biblical Creationism

Quote:
Originally Posted by irondumpty View Post
1) Dinosaurs were the "serpents" who were said to be "beasts of the field".
So it was a dinosaur that tempted Eve in the Garden?

Weren't they condemned to "crawl on their belly" forever after? So what's with all those dinosaur fossils with legs?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-26-2012, 07:46 AM
Giuliano
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Literal Biblical Creationism

Quote:
Originally Posted by irondumpty View Post
If a person truly believes in God and trusts Scripture, then that person should take the Genesis account seriously and filter data through the lense of Scripture.

This thread is dedicated to discussing the details of the account and how it is supported by science.
Some of my theories include,
1) Dinosaurs were the "serpents" who were said to be "beasts of the field".
2) Genetic perfection in Adam coupled with environmental perfection is responsible for the long lifetime of humans. Environment is probably more responsible seeing as lifetimes declined steadily after the flood.

Any thoughts?
I would say if we take the Bible seriously, we shouldn't think the authors wrote foolish things. If something would be absurd if taken by the letter, we should seek the spiritual reality being described.

Can four rivers come from one spring? Show me such a thing anywhere in the physical world.

Do serpents talk? Can there be day and night before the sun was set in the firmament? These things should be clues that a spiritual reality is being described, not something physical.

Genesis says there are cherubim guarding the Tree of Life -- should we really believe there are cherubim with swords standing somewhere on the physical earth? If that is true, how did John see the Tree of Life later in the Holy City? Did God move it? Of course not. It's still there, in Eden. When Jesus told the thief he would meet him in Paradise, he meant "the Garden." Paradise means garden.

I think Genesis is very true; but that doesn't mean it's describing something earthly.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:45 PM
irondumpty
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Literal Biblical Creationism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray View Post
So it was a dinosaur that tempted Eve in the Garden?

Weren't they condemned to "crawl on their belly" forever after? So what's with all those dinosaur fossils with legs?
When a dinosaur skeleton is unearthed, they are on their belly and filled with dirt.

As for the serpent question: all reptiles were called serpents at one time. It was common to refer to reptiles as serpents and everything in the ocean as "fish". Culture was different back then.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-26-2012, 01:50 PM
irondumpty
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Literal Biblical Creationism

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuliano View Post
I would say if we take the Bible seriously, we shouldn't think the authors wrote foolish things. If something would be absurd if taken by the letter, we should seek the spiritual reality being described.

Can four rivers come from one spring? Show me such a thing anywhere in the physical world.

Do serpents talk? Can there be day and night before the sun was set in the firmament? These things should be clues that a spiritual reality is being described, not something physical.

Genesis says there are cherubim guarding the Tree of Life -- should we really believe there are cherubim with swords standing somewhere on the physical earth? If that is true, how did John see the Tree of Life later in the Holy City? Did God move it? Of course not. It's still there, in Eden. When Jesus told the thief he would meet him in Paradise, he meant "the Garden." Paradise means garden.

I think Genesis is very true; but that doesn't mean it's describing something earthly.
I thank you for your opinion, but I disagree based upon the fact that if it were symbolic, someone would have taught so. No apostle, no prophet considered it figurative. If they did, they didn't say so.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-26-2012, 06:01 PM
irondumpty
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Literal Biblical Creationism

Even if the serpent was a snake, dinosaurs were spoken about in Job. Behemoth and Leviathan. Definitely dinosaurs
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-26-2012, 06:10 PM
Suspended for Review
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,359
Default Re: Literal Biblical Creationism

Quote:
Originally Posted by irondumpty View Post
I thank you for your opinion, but I disagree based upon the fact that if it were symbolic, someone would have taught so.
Ah, there lies part of the problem. I don’t think that the asterix was invented until well after the bible was written, so there was no method of appending footnotes. Otherwise we'd have got this:

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die” *

*NOTE: This is a metaphor. There are no such things as talking snakes and this is obviously NOT to be taken literally.

But this never occurred to our chums at AnswersinGenesis, who really believe in talking snakes:

'it makes more sense that the serpent could make the sounds capable of speech'

And has nobody picked up on the fact that the snake's punishment was 'to crawl on your belly...all the days of your life'. Say what? How was a snake getting about before it crawled on its belly? What sort of punishment was that? It's like telling a cow that its punishment means that it has to eat grass for the rest of its life.

Last edited by Brad : 04-26-2012 at 06:20 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-26-2012, 06:11 PM
Suspended for Review
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,673
Default Re: Literal Biblical Creationism

Quote:
Originally Posted by irondumpty View Post
When a dinosaur skeleton is unearthed, they are on their belly and filled with dirt.
That's hardly surprising given that when they died they fell down. On the dirt.

Quote:
As for the serpent question: all reptiles were called serpents at one time.
I don't think I believe that - lizards maybe, but not dinosaurs. Convince me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giuliano View Post
I would say if we take the Bible seriously, we shouldn't think the authors wrote foolish things. If something would be absurd if taken by the letter, we should seek the spiritual reality being described.
"If we look silly saying this really happened, it must mean something else". How often has this been the cause of biblical passages being changed from "literal" to "symbolic" over the years?

Quote:
Originally Posted by irondumpty View Post
I thank you for your opinion, but I disagree based upon the fact that if it were symbolic, someone would have taught so. No apostle, no prophet considered it figurative. If they did, they didn't say so.
The men who wrote it were ignorant of the absurdity of what they wrote. They considered everything to be literal because they knew no better. We do know better, which is why apologists constantly have to reinterpret passages to combat the advance of human knowledge.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:30 PM
Suspended for Review
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 214
Default Re: Literal Biblical Creationism

Quote:
Originally Posted by irondumpty View Post
If a person truly believes in God and trusts Scripture, then that person should take the Genesis account seriously and filter data through the lense of Scripture.

This thread is dedicated to discussing the details of the account and how it is supported by science.
Some of my theories include,
1) Dinosaurs were the "serpents" who were said to be "beasts of the field".
2) Genetic perfection in Adam coupled with environmental perfection is responsible for the long lifetime of humans. Environment is probably more responsible seeing as lifetimes declined steadily after the flood.

Any thoughts?
Jesus confirmed the Genesis account as being literal, by telling the Pharisees with regard to divorce, quoting Genesis 2:24: "Did you not read that he who created them from [the] beginning made them male and female and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh’? "(Matt 19:4, 5)

Too, the apostle Paul wrote that "It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."(1 Cor 15:45) There would have been no need for "the last Adam", Jesus, as a redeeming sacrifice if the first Adam was just an allegory. Hence, Adam and Eve were real persons that were "created" (Greek ktisas, Hebrew bara) by God.

If Adam and Eve were not literal, then who were our original parents ? Paul wrote that "through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned."(Rom 5:12) If Adam and Eve were just an allegory, then where did literal sin come from, causing sickness and death ?

The Genesis account is real, and that is why a literal heavenly government was created by Jehovah God for the specific purpose of restoring what Adam lost for his offspring - life everlasting on a paradise earth in perfection, and in which the first prophesy in the Bible laid out a vital detail, saying that the "woman's seed " (Jesus) would "bruise the serpent in the head" (that will not be completed till the end of Jesus thousand year reign, Rev 20:10) whereas the serpent would "bruise the woman's seed in the heel."(Gen 3:15, which was done when he had Jesus put to death on a torture stake on Nisan 14, 33 C.E.)

The serpent (Hebrew na·chash´) did talk, but not of its own will, but rather was used, like a dummy, by the wicked angel that later came to be called Satan, and was the first ventriloquist.(Gen 3:1-5: Rev 12:9) This ventriloquism seduced Eve, causing her to genuinely believe the lie that Satan told her, for the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression."(1 Tim 2:14)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-26-2012, 08:34 PM
Suspended for Review
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,359
Default Re: Literal Biblical Creationism

Quote:
Originally Posted by irondumpty View Post
When a dinosaur skeleton is unearthed, they are on their belly and filled with dirt.
If I find one lying on its back, does that prove that the bible is not inerrant?

On a midafternoon stroll with his wife on a Sunday in January 1997, amateur dinosaur hunter Ray Stanford stumbled upon something extraordinary. While walking in the riverbed near his home in College Park, Md., he found the tiniest example of an armored dinosaur anyone has ever seen.

"The little guy was lying on its back, kind of curved,and the depression was filled with silt."
Tiniest Baby Dinosaur Discovered by Amateur Fossil Hunter | Baby Dinosaur, Armored Dinosaurs & Fossils | LiveScience

I can't believe I actually looked that up.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Biblical men and women BishopPaul2 General Discussions 4 08-23-2010 11:47 AM
God's Fire is Spiritual NOT Literal Benoni Theology 20 08-02-2010 02:29 PM
Biblical test Mysteryman Bible Chat 87 04-27-2009 08:49 AM
Biblical Perspective PASHA General Discussions 1 04-19-2009 09:37 PM
Welfare--biblical or Non-biblical antonio Theology 19 04-13-2009 02:55 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM.


true2ourselves
 
 
 

Flashcoms

You need to upgrade your Flash Player.

Version 8 or higher is required.

download from http://www.adobe.com/go/getflashplayer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29