Originally posted by Artol
I think part of the debate is about whether all or some parts of the Bible are supposed to be read literally or metaphorically.
That is why I specified "true Biblical Christianity". It's obvious to any true Christian that the book of Genesis was meant to be taken literally especially the parts about our origins and the origin of the world and rest of the universe.
It would make no sense for the first book of the Bible to be called "Genesis" if it wasn't describing how things actually were in the beginning. God is not a deceiver or a liar, that is Satan's M.O..
Also, Jesus and many other people in the NT spoke of the miraculous things desribed in the first few books of the Bible as if they really were actual history.
Jesus' words >>>>> man's interpretation of scripture.
I do agree that some parts of the bible are metaphorical and/or filled with symbolism instead of being literal. Doesn't mean the entire book is metaphorical though. You have to judge specific scriptures in the proper context.
Obviously, there was much symbolism used in the prophetic parts of the Bible, for example.
Genesis though is about our beginning and the world's beginning. It just doesn't make sense to me for metaphors to be used there.
One thing I was always wondering about is how people connect Genesis I and Genesis II. I believe you are a fan of the King James Version of the Bible, right?
Genesis I says:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
while Genesis II reads
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
[...]
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
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.
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
So to me it always seemed that in Genesis I it says God made humans (both men and women) on the 6th day and gave them dominion over all of earth. However in Genesis II he creates Adam and Eve after the 7th day, and solely places them in the Garden Eden, while also stating that humans were not made before then. That always seemed contradictory to me, and I wonder how you as a believer interpret these passages.
Originally posted by Artol
One thing I was always wondering about is how people connect Genesis I and Genesis II. I believe you are a fan of the King James Version of the Bible, right?Genesis I says:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
while Genesis II reads
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.[...]
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
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.
8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
So to me it always seemed that in Genesis I it says God made humans (both men and women) on the 6th day and gave them dominion over all of earth. However in Genesis II he creates Adam and Eve after the 7th day, and solely places them in the Garden Eden, while also stating that humans were not made before then. That always seemed contradictory to me, and I wonder how you as a believer interpret these passages.
That is a common misconception that confuses many people. Even the great Kent Hovind had his faith almost destroyed when someone pointed out that supposed "contradiction". Then he finally learned the truth.
The truth is that chapter two is mostly merely a recap of things that went on in chapter one. It's not a separate event except for where God made animals again right in front of Adam so he could name them.
Yes, I absolutely prefer the King James version. So much so that I refuse to even call any other version a "Holy Bible." All of the modern day versions are bad, imo., including the so-called "New" King James version.
Lots of scoffers have claimed that the Bible is filled with contradictions but in reality there are literally zero contradictions in the KJV. It is a perfect, infallible book.
Best known theory of the universes' origin.
Originally posted by wxyz
The universe was not created in six days, that's nonsense.
It's just occurred to me; how could the universe be constructed in any number of days whatsoever when a day is determined by a planets rotation? What would have been considered to be a day at the point when the stars were just forming and all of the particles, rocks, etc were colliding and developing into the rock formations which would become celestial bodies?
Strikes me that if there couldn't have been days back then, it is therefore impossible for the universe to have been created in 6 days.
Originally posted by samhainAhh but god determined the rotation of the planet earth would be 24 hrs to fit what he had called a day... really, and snakes talk and women come from ribs... which would save money on a hooker if you ordered a Chinese first.
It's just occurred to me; how could the universe be constructed in any number of days whatsoever when a day is determined by a planets rotation? What would have been considered to be a day at the point when the stars were just forming and all of the particles, rocks, etc were colliding and developing into the rock formations which would become celestial bodies?Strikes me that if there couldn't have been days back then, it is therefore impossible for the universe to have been created in 6 days.