breece: sorry but i can't argue with you cause it's all what it means to YOU. i could show you hard evidence yet you wouldn't belevive cause it's not what it means to YOU.
^ exactly. How is this a debate?
its a dubate cus i sais so
WELL if you read my Original Post you'll see that this was mostly aimed at an assertion Half.note made to me a long time ago that Genesis did not logically support an allegorical interpretation.
So it wasn't really aimed at you I guess :P
Then I'll limp outa this convo
Breece: Logically? This isn't logic. Its guesswork. Your basing this all off of "if's" and "mabyes".
There is no reason to think that God was describing creation from a man's point of view. Honestly, I think thats ludicrous. When you read Genesis, do you picture yourself sitting on a large rock while watching God seperate the waters? The general feel is what God saw.
Contemplator (I think):
This is logic :D I'm showing that the creation process doesn't logically contradict what we observe today if interpreted to be allegorical.
There is a reason to think God was describing creation from a man's point of view, the limited nature of information given is one point.
Does Genesis ever say, "And then God created gravity"?
Does Genesis every say, "And then God created atoms and the weak and strong nuclear forces"?
Does Genesis ever say, "God created electricity"?
Or "God created fungi"?
Or "God created black holes?"
No. The information given in Genesis is EXTREMELY limited.
Do you know what experiencing creation would be like from God's point of view? Unimaginable.
A man's point of view and I would go so far as to include an allegorical point of view is the only way it makes sense.
breece: no it makes perfect sense to us. it just doesn't make sense to YOU therefore it must be wrong. i'm done arguing on this thread for good.
That response in no way gives any insight into my arguments at all and is completely useless.
I therefore declare it a bow out.
THANK YOU FOR CONCEDING MY GOOD MAIDEN
I'd like to continue this, but can you list the things you'd like refuted instead of stating your opinion? I wrote a long reply about how a literal interpretation makes sense as well.
Alright, let's get down to business then :D
Your first post is basically, "The rules of the world now weren't the same back then".
There's plenty of biblical evidence for this, but all the scientific evidence contradicts it. I see how this, hypothetically, could be true, but if everything we see in nature by observing seems to conflict with it, I don't think it's right.
If you can provide me some scientific evidence that people lived for 900 years or plants can come into existence without sunlight, I'd believe it :P
My problem with your second post (besides the lack of scientific evidence):
The Bible says God created light, if he is light... how did he create himself...?
Overall, I agree that a literal interpretation makes sense purely from a completely biblical point of view, but it contradicts everything we know about the world.
The apostle Paul at one point says that not hearing the Gospel is not an excuse to not believe in God, because we can see him in nature.
I agree, and what I see in nature doesn't match up with a literal interpretation, which is my evidence against such an interpretation :)
You know what? (This is really shocking to me).
Read Job 38:4-9 it actually says there was a giant cloud covering the earth.
I'm not changing my opinion as of yet, but I just thought that was interesting :P
alright i lied, i decided to calm down a little.(imagine that:P)
ok well first i'll reply to what you directed at contemplator.
Does Gensis ever say, "and then G-d created gravity"? well it was common sense to create gravity so we could stay on earth, and gravity is actually just a man made word that describes the force that holds us down on earth.
Does Genesis ever say, "And then G-d created atoms and the weak and strong nuclear forces" have you not known that atoms are a theory, and i honestly don't know enough about nuclear forces. but it would've been pretty cool if he did:P
Does Genesis ever say, "G-d created electricity" well this is getting nitpicky, but you make a good point, but i'm sure there was electricity involved when creating the earth:)
or "G-d created fungi"?
And Elohim said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the plant that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth." And it came to be so.
And the earth brought forth grass, the plant that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And Elohim saw that it was good.
And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the third day.
or " G-d created black holes" this is controversial whether or not they exist.
i don't know if i proved your point or not but those are my vauge answers to your questions.
alright now what was directed at callie.
i will have to research and come back to you on this:)
Shalom Alechiem and Barucha!
Glad you came back :D
Lots of misconceptions here:
Gravity is not just a force that holds us on the earth, it is the natural attractions between any two objects based on their mass.
It does a lot more than hold us onto earth, it holds the Earth together, it holds the sun together, it holds you together.
Seems like a pretty important part to mention.
"Atoms are just a theory" - I'm not gonna respond to this. :P
You're missing my point, the creation story excludeds TONS of stuff, therefore it is not from a Godly perspective or else it would include everything.
A fungus is not a plant, it is it's own Kingdom.
If you were in 10th grade, I'd think you'd know that by now :P
The Bible also never mentions Prokaryotic or Archaebacteria, in fact it never mentions viruses or germs at all.
But they're just a theory :)
Again, to hear the creation story from God's point of view would be IMMENSE, it probably wouldn't fit in the whole Bible.
Hence, it's from Man's point of view.
let me ask you: who made those kingdoms? didn't man make them up to support evolution?
have you ever wondered if G-d let us have an imagination so he didn't have to tell us everything. i mean he created us with thoughts, so maybe he wants us to figure it out:) well i know i nitpicked but that seemed to be your main argument:) shalom alechiem!
Breece: what's the purpose of the bible? To tell the story of God's interaction with mankind.
IT IS NOT A TEXTBOOK. THAT'S WHERE OUR BRAINS COME IN. An imbecile can absorb information just as they're told.... Why make humans intelligent if you give them all the answers?
Even the creation story in Genesis is God relating how he first establish a relationship with mankind, and how he prepared the earth to make it inhabitable to us.
Lets say Bible = God's diary .... One he intended for us to read. SO WE COULD KNOW HIM.
If you crammed a whole bunch of science into Genesis, it would take the focus away from God.
No, we've had these kingdoms far before evolution was even a concept.
In fact they have nothing to do with evolution.
I do believe God wants us to figure it out ourselves, hence him not going up to Moses and explaining DNA and evolution, he simplified it and let us figure out the rest.
You're actually arguing for my side with that statement.
You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about Biology, have you taken it yet?
And you still haven't responded to anything else yet, you're grasping at straws at this point.
You're doing the same thing Packer is doing right now, arguing for my side :)
Yes, the Bible's not a textbook, it doesn't explain everything.
He wants us to figure it out ourselves, hence why there's a reason to make it figurative, so he could get the point across without taking away us discovering everything else.
We're talking about reasons why you would think it's allegorical:
Point 1: The Bible's not a textbook, putting everything in there literally would be unnecessary and impractical.
i am taking biology and i'm not entirely through the course. and i told you that i'm just going for the base of the argument.
wait you made a really good point, he didn't tell moses about DNA and evolution. but guess what? he couldn't cause evolution never happened. G-d would be contridicting himself if he said that he created something then told him, "you know whay moses i lied, you actually came from this little thing floating around in a pre-something soup and it rained on the rocks for millions of years, i know you know your genology that tells you that the earth is not quite 2 thousand, but it's a lie all your genology, it really did take millions of years for you to come to the way you are. and guess what else a day is actually a million years and a million years as a day"
Shalom Alechiem and Barucha!
p.s. you replied to Jade not contemplator:P
Breece: About your reply to Contemplator....
Now you're proving MY point XD
But anyways. Back to allegory. Saying that God provided us with an allegory (and basically that our textbook is right about evolution and the Big Bang) means that Adam and Eve were not really two people who had babies (magically, of course, cuz se.x is evil.... jk....anyways) and spread the human race over the earth.....
Then it creates problems for Christ's crucifixion:
Paul tells us that the behaviour of Adam and Eve caused sin to enter the world. He also says this is the reason for Jesus' blood sacrifice. In Romans ch 5 he puts it this way...
Rom 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
Rom 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
If the Adam and Eve story about the introduction of sin into the world is allegory then surely the reasonable interpretation of the story of the crucifixion is that it, too, is an allegory.
Obviously we can't have that because: 1 Corinthians 15:14 "And if Christ had not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."
The reason people are replying to your post by saying "the Bible isn't a textbook" is because you listed a bunch of things the Bible doesn't include, such as "Does Genesis ever say 'God created electricity?'" etc. on the assumption that if he doesn't say that it's because "an allegorical point of view is the only way it makes sense" to humans.
Agreed, to a point.
I've already said that God simplified things. But my version of Genesis follows the things God DOES say, and yours implies things that are scripturally unsound.
There's a lot of speculation when you start talking like that.
sorry for the weird spacing XD
Or, he didn't tell them because it's an allegory.
At that point it's about determining whether it's true, or not, and you're arguments about evolution are all the same thing:
Oh no that's craaazy!
That's not an argument. Right now you're not achieving anything except ignoring the bulk of my arguments.
And yeah, I realized that I replied to the wrong person xD
That is by far the best argument against my points I've yet to see in this thread.
I genuinely congratulate you on that, it's a very valid and difficult point.
My thoughts on this are not solid by any means.
Let me explain my self questioning and why I'm unable to provide a good answer:
Why is it moral that one man's sin taints everyone elses souls? Why is moral that one man's death can free us all?
Wouldn't the just thing to happen would be for everyone to bear their own responsibility for our sins?
I just don't understand honestly.
I'd be glad for your thoughts on this :) And anybody else's for that matter as well.