Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you remove all that, the Bible then becomes a metaphor.
No. Because the Bible is not a book. The Bible is a library of many books in many genres. Some are history. Some are poetry. Some are songs. Some are diaries. Job is a play. Lots are letters. And even in the histories, you aren't dealing with scientifically exhaustive histories as we think of them today.
But you can't force 100% literalism on every single word. Otherwise, when Jesus told us to be "innocent as doves," you must conclude He meant for us to fly and lay eggs. Or when the psalmist speaks of the trees clapping their hands, you'll have to get visions of the Ents out of The Lord of the Rings. And what about all the many-eyed many-winged monsters in Daniel and Revelation? Does the End Times really look like a Godzilla movie?
Adam's sin didn't create evil. Lucifer's did. The Fall of Man did not create evil. That's just when mankind chose sides.
I agree. The question of evil is not necessarily what this topic is about. It's about whether or not God created the world as we see it today. If He did, it wouldn't agree with Scripture's portrayal of Him. For instance, God would have created us to die and created us as we are today. Yet for some reason He sees it as so much of a problem, that He sends Jesus to change everything. That doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
If you're going to interpret Genesis 100% literally, then how do you explain the talking snake? Yes, tradition tells us that was Satan, but that's not what Genesis says. Genesis says quite literally "the serpent." As soon as you say, "Yes, it says serpent, but that's not what it really means," then you're no longer interpreting literally. You're admitting there is some metaphor and symbolism going on. And Genesis says nothing about the serpent being "possessed" by Satan. Not a word.
I definitely believe it was a talking snake. In fact, if you take Genesis literally, everything was different from how the world operates today. Think about it, there are a few bird species that has the ability to talk. So a talking animal is not so insane, especially animals having the ability to talk/communicate with humans before corruption came in. (By the way I'm not saying that all animals talked, because I don't know what the world was like before sin)
The bottom line is, it's not so hard to believe these things, when you take in all the facts. Of course there will be little to no direct evidence to this world, because everything is now corrupt. All living creatures, have evolved since that time, but not from a common ancestor.
Last edited by Heavenese; 03-25-2013 at 02:48 PM..
I definitely believe it was a talking snake. In fact, if you take Genesis literally, everything was different from how the world operates today.
Which is a pretty good clue as to why you shouldn't take Genesis literally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Think about it, there are a few bird species that has the ability to talk.
No animal species on this planet (other than humanity) has the ability to talk like what you're seeing in Genesis. Many species can mimic or repeat. Apes and dolphins have amazing communicative abilities. But you are not going to have an in-depth conversation with an animal. Even our closest biological relatives, the chimpanzees, cannot speak. Their skulls, mouths, and throats are not shaped in a way that would allow advanced vocalization to the degree you see in humans. And snakes can't manage much more than a hiss, much less noun and verb concepts.
It's simple. Adam's disobedience created a disconnect from God. In God we were perfect. Yet, without Him, we can't operate as we once was, and if we are utterly diconnected from Him, we just waste away. Our very breath comes from Him. Most people look at Adam's sin as just something he did. Yet what He actually did was created a seperation from God. God is like the outlet in the wall. Appliances only work if they are plugged in. Adam disconnected the creation from the outlet in the wall. Now nothing is working like it was in the beginning.
Poor analogy. An unplugged appliance just sits their idol until it's turned on again. It doesn't go bouncing around the kitchen destroying every other appliance in its path, nor does it damage itself.
Quote:
Yet let's say Genesis wasn't supposed to be taken literal. That would void a great deal of meaning from the Bible. It would mean God created us to be sick and die, as the world sees those things as a natural occurence.
Who said G-d didn't create sickness and death? The Tree of Life seems rather redundant if everyone was already immortal. That's proof creation was mortal. And what did Adam and Eve eat? Plants? Plants are living. That's still cellular death.
Quote:
Yet why would Jesus heal anyone, if God created us to be sick? That would mean Jesus is going against the Father's will. Augustine can call me a fool, but where would that leave him?
Jesus healed people to prove his claims and to end their suffering. Just because sickness is part of creation doesn't mean G-d forced it on people. If a person drinks too much alcohol, they may end up with liver damage. Does that mean alcohol is evil or the result of sin? No, Jesus drank alcohol. It's that person's sin of gluttony and over excess that led to their condition. Adam's disobedience didn't make alcohol lethal nor did it make that person choose to drink too much.
Adam's sin didn't create evil. Lucifer's did. The Fall of Man did not create evil. That's just when mankind chose sides.
There is no such thing as "Lucifer". Lucifer is a mistranslation of the KJV because it retained the Latin Vulgate translation of a human king's title based on the Roman name for Venus. It was later embellished into a fictional mythology through the works of John Milton and Dante.
There is no Angelic fall anywhere in the Hebrew Bible.
No. Because the Bible is not a book. The Bible is a library of many books in many genres. Some are history. Some are poetry. Some are songs. Some are diaries. Job is a play. Lots are letters. And even in the histories, you aren't dealing with scientifically exhaustive histories as we think of them today.
But you can't force 100% literalism on every single word. Otherwise, when Jesus told us to be "innocent as doves," you must conclude He meant for us to fly and lay eggs. Or when the psalmist speaks of the trees clapping their hands, you'll have to get visions of the Ents out of The Lord of the Rings. And what about all the many-eyed many-winged monsters in Daniel and Revelation? Does the End Times really look like a Godzilla movie?
To your second paragraph, who said I force 100% literalism on every word? Why do we take it that far, just because I say Genesis is literal history? Just because I say God created the earth thousands of years ago, why does that also mean I'm saying Jesus is saying we are doves? That's not what I'm saying, there is no connection between the two. I am saying in order for Jesus to make sense, Genesis has to be literal history.
Now I do agree the Bible has many genres. Everything from history to poetry, but that doesn't rule out that Genesis is important to the whole Bible. It's not like Exodus is talking about something completely different from Genesis, or that the two books are talking about two different Gods, with different creations. The whole Bible is talking about the same thing. Genesis is the history of creation. The Psalms are poetry about that creation and the Creator, and so on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
Which is a pretty good clue as to why you shouldn't take Genesis literally.
The world in the day God created it, ran flawlessly. Now unless you say God created hurricanes, earthquakes, and the occasional catastrophic extinction event, the world was different before the fall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S.
No animal species on this planet (other than humanity) has the ability to talk like what you're seeing in Genesis. Many species can mimic or repeat. Apes and dolphins have amazing communicative abilities. But you are not going to have an in-depth conversation with an animal. Even our closest biological relatives, the chimpanzees, cannot speak. Their skulls, mouths, and throats are not shaped in a way that would allow advanced vocalization to the degree you see in humans. And snakes can't manage much more than a hiss, much less noun and verb concepts.
Again, things were different back then. The creatures you see today, including us, have evolved/adapted since then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Poor analogy. An unplugged appliance just sits their idol until it's turned on again. It doesn't go bouncing around the kitchen destroying every other appliance in its path, nor does it damage itself.
Creation is not utterly unplugged just yet. You know how if you have something plugged into the wall, but not plugged in all the way, it will operate but will flicker on and off. For example a light would flicker on and off if it is partially plugged in. That's us, we are kind of operating, but not in the way we once were when we were fully plugged in to God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Who said G-d didn't create sickness and death? The Tree of Life seems rather redundant if everyone was already immortal. That's proof creation was mortal. And what did Adam and Eve eat? Plants? Plants are living. That's still cellular death.
God didn't create sickness and death, those two are pretty much the same thing in that sickness leads to death. I don't think it's so much redundant in having the Tree of Life if everyone was already immortal. Yet that is besides the point. Adam wouldn't have died if he didn't eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. So if he doesn't eat from any of the those trees, where would that leave him? Of course this is something interesting to look into.
Also Scripture says that "life is in the blood". Plants don't have blood, so they are not "alive" in the sense we are and all the animals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiyero
Jesus healed people to prove his claims and to end their suffering. Just because sickness is part of creation doesn't mean G-d forced it on people. If a person drinks too much alcohol, they may end up with liver damage. Does that mean alcohol is evil or the result of sin? No, Jesus drank alcohol. It's that person's sin of gluttony and over excess that led to their condition. Adam's disobedience didn't make alcohol lethal nor did it make that person choose to drink too much.
What about the person who comes down with the flu? Or comes down with some new virus outbreak. What did they do to get that? You would have to say God created the virus, that He created viruses from the beginning, before the fall, with the purpose of people dying from them. Yet here is Jesus, healing people from those same viruses. That doesn't add up.
The Bible tells us that God is going to cleanse the earth with fire, making a new earth. What was wrong with the old one if the world we see today is how God originally created it? Can you see how that doesn't add up?
Also, if we argue we shouldn't take Genesis literally, should we take the Gospels literally? Should we take the miracles of Jesus literally? We have the same amount of evidence for a literal Genesis as the literal miracles of Jesus.
The standard answer to the OP is that creation fell into the quagmire we now live in, and that - I believe - is true but only the riddle...
...I'm more and more convinced that the answer to the riddle is this mess is here because we're supposed to do something about it; to quote Him: "Is it not written in your law, you are gods?"
If we are to take Him at His word, that we have life and death in the power of the tongue, that whatsoever we bind and loose on earth likewise is done in heaven (meaning the natural must obey the spirit), that demons were subject to His followers even before He was crucified...now that He is, we are seated with Him in heavenly places...
If we are to see that which is not as though it were - doesn't it appear that He's waiting for (or designing) a people that will be called sons of God, that scripture says creation is waiting for?
Through our God we shall do valiantly, for it is He who shall tread down the enemy... (Psa 60:12)
This is an Abrahamic covenant, where weird things happen in a world where God is actually believed.
Well you could go another route with that. God said Adam would "surely" die in the day he ate of that tree. That doesn't necessarily mean he would die that day.
There are at least two answers to that.
a] Some translations use the word "dying". Meaning the process of dying started the day they ate from the tree.
b] A day for God is like a 1000 years. (Ps 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8) Adam didn't reach the age of 1000. So Adam died within God's 1000 year long day; not within our 24 hour day.
If you're going to interpret Genesis 100% literally, then how do you explain the talking snake? Yes, tradition tells us that was Satan, but that's not what Genesis says. Genesis says quite literally "the serpent." As soon as you say, "Yes, it says serpent, but that's not what it really means," then you're no longer interpreting literally. You're admitting there is some metaphor and symbolism going on. And Genesis says nothing about the serpent being "possessed" by Satan. Not a word.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
