the major parts regarding Jesus and God in general are still possibly true.
And? What does that have to do with evolution?
Evolution
by DonExodus 50 Replies latest members adult
-
Happy Harvester
-
serotonin_wraith
DonExodus, what was the whole point of Jesus coming to Earth and dying on a cross? Or didn't it happen?
You say the Genesis creation account didn't happen. You say the worldwide flood never happened.
The stories of magical hair that gives strength, a man living in a whale for three days, a talking donkey and sticks turning into snakes seem too ridiculous to have actually happened. Perhaps they did, but there's no reason to think they did.
Exactly what is left in the Bible that is accurate? The book is falling to pieces (metaphorically speaking). None of it is holding up to scrutiny. You're holding on to the tattered remains and claiming it still has something to do with the creator of the universe? A god that lies? A god that writes a book of fiction?
I think you're halfway to becoming a deist anyway as you don't agree with much of the Bible.
-
lovelylil
seratonin,
I see all the questions you asked and wow it is a lot. I think I will try to tackle the one about Adam and Eve. This account bible scholars agree was written down by Moses for the Jewish nation. However the creation story would have been told and retold by the Jewish nation for many generations before Moses. It other words it was orally passed down. So by the time Moses put it in written form, it is hard to say how old this story really is.
I think sometimes we get so caught up in the little details of the story that we miss the big picture. For one, I agree with you that if God's purpose was to create humans to fill the earth in the beginning, then he did not create Eve because Adam was lonely. He created Eve because it was always his purpose to create her. So then why does the account say otherwise? Well, you can take your pick of answers. It could be a mistake, it could have been someone's opinion and they interjected it into the story during the oral passing on of it, or it could say that for any other number of reasons. We cannot know for sure. For me as a believer in God, it does not make any difference at all becuase it does not change the purpose of the creation account.
The creation account was written down by Moses because he felt it was important to preserve for generations to come for a reason. And more importantly, he felt a obligation to God to record it for the latter generations. And the simple reason is to teach us that we had a creator who created us for a purpose which was to fill the earth and subdue it. Man was made Lord of the earth will all lower animal forms in subjection to him. That is the big picture. Again, the little details of the story are not that important because they do not change the essential message the account is trying to convey. I hope this makes sense.
Many argue that the Genesis account along with others cannot be trusted at all because they are not literal, and there is much truth to this. The Bible as a whole uses allegories and other similiar writing styles that are not to be taken literally but that do convey literal truths. You have to understand the writing style of the Bible.
Jesus of the NT is a great example of this. He used many allegories, illustrations and figures of speech to convey real truths to people. But we know the details of his stories were not to be taken literal. .
So in conclusion, when reading the Bible, we need to step back and look at the broader picture instead of concentrating on the little, literal details of the story. Because the bible is filled with much figurative language, we will drive ourselves crazy if we put too much emphasis on it. We simply need to look at what the lesson or main point is that the writer is trying to convey rather than trying to get the correct or literal meaning of every word written. Hope this makes sense.
Lilly
-
serotonin_wraith
It appears you've not answered the questions, but instead said the Genesis account may be a metaphor or mistake. If it is a mistake, it cannot be the inspired word of God- any part of it could be a mistake. There would be no way to know which parts are true or not.
If it is a metaphor, then a metaphor for what?
The lengthy family line from Adam to Jesus found in the gospels must be a mistake or metaphor too if Adam was not the first man. Original sin can't mean anything. Jesus' sacrifice for the original sin can't mean anything. Is that all a metaphor or mistake?
How can God's word be full of mistakes, even from the very start of its writing?
When Adam is mentioned later in the Bible, is that a metphor of a metaphor? The questions just keep coming...
-
Awakened07
I am not going to go into a Bible debate;
Since we have here a thread about Evolution, I just wanted to say that if anyone reading this is interested in knowing what evolution theory is really about, and are not afraid to find out, they should read Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker". I'm almost done reading it now, and although I already knew a lot of the things in it, it amazes me that this book was first published in 1986! All the debates and creationist criticism of evolution theory I've seen lately is covered and answered directly or indirectly in that book! Printed over 20 years ago! I'm not saying you have to agree with everything he says - heck, even I don't necessarily do - but if you have any interest in the theory, and want to learn the truth about how it's supposed to work, I think it's a great starting point. There are a whole lot of misconceptions and disinformation out there on what the theory is about and how it works.
-
lovelylil
seratonin,
I absolutely did answer your question. You wanted to know why the bible account said that Eve was created for Adam because Adam was lonely. I said, I agree with you that Eve was always going to be created because God's purpose was to create man to fill the earth. I said basically there could be any number of reasons why the story says Adam was lonely. There is no way of knowing at this point so it does no good to try to come up with an answer.
I did not say at all that God's word is "filled with errors". I said some of the details of the accounts could have been edited as the account was retold over many generations. But that the details you are questioning are moot points at best. They do not change the essential message that the writer is conveying. Moses wrote down the creation account in Genesis to preserve the fact for generations to come that God created man and it was for a purpose.
I also stated that since the bible uses figurative language to teach real truths, that you have to step back and focus on the whole account, not each and every word and miniscule detail because that is not the immportant thing to do. You have to find the overall message the writer is trying to convey. That is the answer. Where the bible is using figurative language it is usually obvious to those of us who are avid Bible readers.
Lilly
-
serotonin_wraith
God making a woman for Adam makes no sense because 6,000 years ago, the earth was already full of women.
I didn't say the whole thing was full of errors, and I didn't say you did. I said that if there are ANY errors, then none of it can be trusted. Any part COULD be an error. There would be no way to know.
What is our purpose?
What is the real truth underneath the metaphor?
You're saying there's a deeper meaning, but what is that deeper meaning? How can you possibly know what it is, if there even is one?
(I'm off now, so I'll get back to this tomorrow).
-
lovelylil
seratonin,
I'm leaving you this mesage for tommarrow. That is when I will be back too.
Now I understand what you are saying. I never said God created Eve 6,000 years ago. I believe man is much older than that. I am not sure if I addressed this issue on this thread or the other one but here goes;
Not all the geneological records of the Jews are recorded in the OT. Bible scholars agree that only the generations pertinent to proving the line of the Messiah are included, in between them some that are not as important are not included. Also, when the OT lists someone as a "son" it could also mean grandson or great-grandson. So instead of listing each generation after Adam consecutively, to save time and space, some generations list "grandsons" as "sons" and even "great-grandsons" as "son". This puts many gaps between the generations and makes man much older than 6,000 years.
I know the JW's and other groups teach man and the earth is only 6,000 years old but there are many other Christians, myself included that do not believe this. I believe if Scientists have evidence that man is much older, that this is in agreement with the scriptures. Especially if you look at it in light of the generational gap that Bible scholars now understand there to be.
I am not saying the Genesis account is a total metaphor, although the Bible does use metaphors. I believe Adam to be the first man and Eve the first women. Interestingly, Adam actually means "mankind" and is not just a personal name. What I was saying is some of the details in the creation account, which was passed on orally for generations may have been changed a little but the overall message of the account is intact. I believe this is so with all the Bible that God preserved the pertinent information we need. So the essential message of the creation story has not changed.
Moses wrote it down many generations after its original telling orally simply convey the truth that there was a "God" or higher power who set forth creation in motion (created us), and it was for a purpose. Whether or not all the other little details are absoluty true or not does not matter. The Bible since it was written in a lot of figurative language and metaphors, etc. was not to be interpreted in such a literal narrow way in every text. Usually it is obvious whether or not the details are literal or figurative. You have to step back and look at the larger picture so you don't miss the overall message the writer is trying to convey.
I hope this answers your Q better. Lilly
-
serotonin_wraith
Are you able to tell me why the Bible uses the word 'son' or 'father' instead of grandson or great grandson or grandfather in the family line, yet does use these words elsewhere in the Bible?
If there are gaps in the family line, it may aswell not be in there as it is no longer reliable for showing how Jesus was related to David or Abraham or Adam.
You say Adam and Eve were the first man and woman. Could you take a look at this site http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/ and tell me which of these ancestors you think Adam and Eve were a part of, and can you also explain how if they were supposed to be first, there were many others like them around at the same time?
Do you think the story was passed orally for about 100,000 years before Moses wrote it down?
What is the overall, essential message of the creation account?
Going back to my last post, what is the deeper meaning, the underlying message from God, the real purpose of our lives?
You say there is one, but you don't tell me what it is.
-
lovelylil
seratonin,
For the last time I did answer your Q you just do not want to accept it. In the OT records "son" would sometimes be used for "grandson" or "great-grandson", because that is how the tradition was with the Jews. A grandfather would consider his grandson to be on the same level to him as his own son.
I am not saying the Jews did not have accurate records, I am saying when Moses put the records down in the Genesis account he did not list all the consecutive generations the way it was originally thought. He needed to show the lineage to Jesus and could have done that even if he skipped some generations, (to shorten the records) by using son to list grandson or greatgrandson. Think about it, if man is millions of years old, how many generations would there have been between Adam and lets say Moses even. The Genesis account would not be able to hold all the records. But again, the pertinent records are there.
How old really is the Genesis account of creation? No one really knows, because it was passed on orally a long time before Moses put it in writing.
Why did God create us? Because he wanted to. And he gave us a purpose which was to be Lord of the earth and have everything in subjection to us. Isn't this a good enough reason? It is actually the same reason I would give my kids if they wanted to know why I had them? Because I wanted to.
I know these answers will probably not be enough for you. We just do not have all the answers we may want from God. But some of us believe in him anyway. That is where faith comes in. I believe I have all the information needed about God even if the original bible accounts may have been revised somewhat. I am confident that the essential messsage of the Bible is exactly the same as it was originally intended.
Bible scholars agree because looking back on the oldest manuscripts, although they found some minor changes, also say the essential message has not changed.
And lastly, again, the Genesis account of creation was written down so that latter generations will know that God was behind our making and gave us a purpose.
I think this is about all the time I can spend answering the same Q's over and over. So If you don't mind, I'll stop here. Looking forward to "talking" to you more on other threads. Peace, Lilly