Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[outhouse]

I think I have a good grasp of my view point.
I am simply defending it.

Perhaps you might be the one lacking the 'reach'?

But you don't have anything to defend.

You have created something with no evidence or backing or sources.


I can defend yellow ducky the creator ducky of all and everything. As a matter of fact, my yellow ducky told me he created the body and a spirit is not part of it, he says people often confuse spirit for consciousness.

And you cannot prove me wrong.

That sis the kind of unsubstantiated circular argument you posit.

 

[Thief]

But you don't have anything to defend.

You have created something with no evidence or backing or sources.


I can defend yellow ducky the creator ducky of all and everything. As a matter of fact, my yellow ducky told me he created the body and a spirit is not part of it, he says people often confuse spirit for consciousness.

And you cannot prove me wrong.

That sis the kind of unsubstantiated circular argument you posit.

God is not my creation....and my viewpoint is a reflection.

Prove you wrong?.....you do it for me......continually.

Now wash your history book and drown your duck.

That part about spirit and consciousness might be a good start....
In the beginning......"Let there be light!'.

Sounds like the consequence of ....'I AM!'...

 

[outhouse]

God is not my creation....and my viewpoint is a reflection.

Prove you wrong?.....you do it for me......continually.

Now wash your history book and drown your duck.

That part about spirit and consciousness might be a good start....
In the beginning......"Let there be light!'.

Sounds like the consequence of ....'I AM!'...

So you still have nothing.

 

[Thief]

So you still have nothing.

More than you.
Or perhaps you care to go another round of what you think you've got?

 

[outhouse]

More than you.
Or perhaps you care to go another round of what you think you've got?

Getting back to the OP, you have nothing that can hold a literally version, even by your unsubstantiated account.

A literal history account genesis is not.

 

[Thief]

Getting back to the OP, you have nothing that can hold a literally version, even by your unsubstantiated account.

A literal history account genesis is not.

Don't care your line drawn about history.

Genesis happened.

That your historian was on a coffee break.......too bad.

 

[outhouse]

Genesis happened.

.

Prove it then.


Supply some kind of credible source, because science has shown it to be mythology.

Science says no flood, archeologist state no exodus, historians state Canaanite origins, archeologist state no evidence for moses and creation is mythology.

We know you cannot refute anything at all

 

[outhouse]

This is viewed a truth for most of the educated world, and contains

substantiated facts to back their position.

IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We agree that the following evidence-based facts
about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[look3467]

If the flood account was a myth, then doesn't that leave the possibility that other parts of the Bible are myths as well... such as the Virgin Birth, Jesus' Resurrection, the Trinity, Heaven, Hell, etc.?

The point in all of it is faith.
If you look at the Genesis account of creation without faith that God is the true creator as stated, then all or part of it can be a myth.

But, by faith, a belief that God is true in the account in Genesis, then Jesus, Mary and all the rest are not myths.

I trust, thereby I believe by faith, in God that the accounts are true in its spiritual nature, be it actual or not, the message remains clear and to the point....God created and God saves His creation.

Mankind is free.....to decide to believe it or not. That's the beauty of it all.

Either way, imop, does not change who or what God is, and what He worked in the life of humanity.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Bunyip]

Sure, but the Genesis account is proveably wrong - and so faith in it would be misplaced. So faith in that context would be simply believing in a falsehood.

 

[look3467]

Sure, but the Genesis account is proveably wrong - and so faith in it would be misplaced. So faith in that context would be simply believing in a falsehood.

Not if you know the spiritual story line.
There are allot of distractions in the accounts in the bible that have to be filtered out via the help of the Holy Spirit.

To see an actual account of something that really happened without the spiritual insight of it, is to accept it for face value.

The story of Jonah and the whale is one good example. Be it actual real happening or not, the spiritual story line is a true picture of Jesus's experience going to the cross, swallowed up by the grave and sped out the third day as His resurrection.

Looking at it for face valve.......well....believe the story or not.

Blessings, AJ

 

[outhouse]

Not if you know the spiritual story line.
There are allot of distractions in the accounts in the bible that have to be filtered out via the help of the Holy Spirit.

To see an actual account of something that really happened without the spiritual insight of it, is to accept it for face value.

The story of Jonah and the whale is one good example. Be it actual real happening or not, the spiritual story line is a true picture of Jesus's experience going to the cross, swallowed up by the grave and sped out the third day as His resurrection.

Looking at it for face valve.......well....believe the story or not.

Blessings, AJ

But why try and ruin the beauty of these allegorical works with a literal or personal translation?


Why not realize them for the positive lessons they teach, and how important some mythology was to ancient people ?

 

[Bunyip]

Not if you know the spiritual story line.
There are allot of distractions in the accounts in the bible that have to be filtered out via the help of the Holy Spirit.

To see an actual account of something that really happened without the spiritual insight of it, is to accept it for face value.

Accept it at face value? You mean interpret it literally?

Excuse me for saying so, but 'filtered out via the help of the holy spirit' is an all purpose method for editing something into whatever form you wish.

 

[look3467]

Accept it at face value? You mean interpret it literally?

Excuse me for saying so, but 'filtered out via the help of the holy spirit' is an all purpose method for editing something into whatever form you wish.

Salvation is a universal spiritual truth the same for every soul whether that soul has knowledge of it or not, whether that soul believes it or not.
That is consistent through out and understood only by the regeneration of our spirit by the Holy Spirit.
Every thing else, is a personal perspective.
A good analogy is parents with many kids are not loved equally to the same degree, yet they are all still loved by the parents equally.I know, I have six of my own.
Blessings, AJ

 

[Thief]

Sure, but the Genesis account is proveably wrong - and so faith in it would be misplaced. So faith in that context would be simply believing in a falsehood.

Which portion do you think is 'wrong'?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

But you don't have anything to defend.

You have created something with no evidence or backing or sources.


I can defend yellow ducky the creator ducky of all and everything. As a matter of fact, my yellow ducky told me he created the body and a spirit is not part of it, he says people often confuse spirit for consciousness.

And you cannot prove me wrong.

That sis the kind of unsubstantiated circular argument you posit.

There is no god but the Yellow Creator Ducky, and Outhouse is his prophet. (Peace be upon him) :bow::bow::bow:

 

[Bunyip]

Salvation is a universal spiritual truth the same for every soul whether that soul has knowledge of it or not, whether that soul believes it or not.
That is consistent through out and understood only by the regeneration of our spirit by the Holy Spirit.
Every thing else, is a personal perspective.
A good analogy is parents with many kids are not loved equally to the same degree, yet they are all still loved by the parents equally.I know, I have six of my own.
Blessings, AJ

I'm sorry, but I don't see what point you are trying to make or how your comment relates to the topic.

As to truth, there are things that are true and things that are not true - adding 'spiritual' to 'truth' seems to remove from the word 'truth' any useful meaning.

Apologies.

 

[Bunyip]

Which portion do you think is 'wrong'?

Well a good example would be plants existing before the sun.


Thanks for the question.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Well a good example would be plants existing before the sun.


Thanks for the question.

And let's not forget that somehow "days" existed before the Sun was even created.

 

[Bunyip]

And let's not forget that somehow "days" existed before the Sun was even created.

I don't see that as a problem for genesis per se, only for Young Earth Creationists who rely on translating the hebrew word 'Yom' to mean a 24 hour period. Yom is translated elsewhere in scripture as day, age, era, season. forever, ago and so on.

Cheers