Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

…we have beaten to death the Genesis 1 creation story we should move on…[/quote]

Beaten to death? It’s barely been scratched.

My personal opinion is if you want to talk about the Bible and Christianity at all and you don’t have Genesis figured out it’s all a moot point. Genesis is the foundation. If you don’t know your foundation, your roots, you’re gonna be floppin’ around all over the place on the other stuff.

With that in mind the proposal: “Ok, how about this? If, and I’m not saying that it is, stories from the Old Testament such as creation, Noah, Lott, etc. are parables and didn’t really happen, does it change the credibility of the Bible?” My answer is yes.[/quote]

Ok, how do you feel it changes the credibility of the Bible? I’m not giving my answer just yet. I want to give others a chance first to state their side and explain why or why not.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

Sorry, I wasn’t paying attention. I didn’t realize you asked me a direct question. Ok, how about this? If, and I’m not saying that it is, stories from the Old Testament such as creation, Noah, Lott, etc. are parables and didn’t really happen, does it change the credibility of the Bible?[/quote]

To whom is that question directed?[/quote]

I think it is an open question for discussion. BBreire is the OP and Since he started the thread and we have beaten to death the Genesis 1 creation story we should move on. This thread is really good, and very civilized. We had a few run ins, but it continues on to new topics.[/quote]

I agree. I’ve actually put a couple people on ignore so they could be posting their negatives, and I just don’t know it though. Not just dealing with creation though, other stories and books: Lott, Job, the plagues of Egypt, etc.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
[Warning: sheer speculation coming]

Maybe God specifically created vegetation on Day 3 and the sun, moon and stars on Day 4 precisely to thwart the idea that the creation days were eons of time long.[/quote]

…warning. Sheer observation coming.

Maybe it’s pointless to debate scientific fact with theists because they always have the “God can do whatever He wants!” failsafe.

Seriously, whats the point of arguing when, if your position is thoroughly and conclusively proven to be completely impossible, you can just say “Well, um, skymagic.”?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

…we have beaten to death the Genesis 1 creation story we should move on…[/quote]

Beaten to death? It’s barely been scratched.

My personal opinion is if you want to talk about the Bible and Christianity at all and you don’t have Genesis figured out it’s all a moot point. Genesis is the foundation. If you don’t know your foundation, your roots, you’re gonna be floppin’ around all over the place on the other stuff.

With that in mind the proposal: “Ok, how about this? If, and I’m not saying that it is, stories from the Old Testament such as creation, Noah, Lott, etc. are parables and didn’t really happen, does it change the credibility of the Bible?” My answer is yes.[/quote]

I personally disagree. All Genesis 1 tells us is that God created it all. I think it is a moot point trying to determine if it took 2 miliseconds to create, 6 - 24 hour periods, or 20 million years. We as humans can not determine this with our inferior minds. Will we find out one day? Yes, but it will be when we stand before Jesus at judgement day. This is just my opinion.

The foundation of Christianity is what Jesus did for us at the cross and the resurrection, so if you think differently that is your opinion. Do I beleive that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? Yes, but there are the mysteries of the Bible that we can only speculate about and Genesis 1 is one of those mysteries. We have to take it on Faith how much time it took. I beleive that God created everything and placed it all in motion, but I see that God is active in his creation everyday and moves in his children through the Holy Spirit.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
[Warning: sheer speculation coming]

Maybe God specifically created vegetation on Day 3 and the sun, moon and stars on Day 4 precisely to thwart the idea that the creation days were eons of time long.[/quote]

…warning. Sheer observation coming.

Maybe it’s pointless to debate scientific fact with theists because they always have the “God can do whatever He wants!” failsafe.

Seriously, whats the point of arguing when, if your position is thoroughly and conclusively proven to be completely impossible, you can just say “Well, um, skymagic.”?[/quote]

I agree with you Captin Planet. I am a theist and I beleive that God can do whatever he wants to do, but there are just some things we are not going to understand. I do not know. I can speculate all day long of why, but really that is all it is speculation. It is a hypothesis that I can make, but never verify. I think Faith and Science can come together to work this out, but it is too hard to fathom.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

Push with all due respect, do me a favor. Get a Bible and read Genesis chapter 1 carefully because it is obvious you did not do that.

[/quote]

I’d be willing to wager I’ve read Genesis 1 a hundred times more than you have, FTR.[quote]

Genesis 1:12,12 states:
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds . And God saw that it was good.

Think!! Verse 12 states that the land produced vegetation and trees bore fruit . What tree do you know of that grows to the point of bearing fruit in a 24 hour period from a seed. That verse shows that vegetation and trees went through the natural growth cycle from seed up. So it is clear my friend that this did not happen OVER NIGHT. [/quote]

You’re making this too complicated.

God, just like He did with Adam and Eve, made the plants mature at the instant of creating them. That is, they were bearing fruit and seeds immediately when they appeared on earth.

God did NOT create seeds and then sit back and wait for them to go through their natural cycle. Verse 12 clearly supports plants with an “appearance of age.”

Another problem with your scenario is insects including those necessary for pollination were not created until Day 6. You can’t have a fully functioning plant ecosystem without the requisite insects; so this is more evidence that it is appropriate to adhere to a 24 hour day in Genesis 1.[quote]

Also, on the first day God said let there by light and states the difference between night and day so it is clear that the sun was already in existence before day 4.[/quote]

No, God created light on Day 1. He clearly states he created the sun on Day 4. There is no reason to conclude the sun existed before Day 4 in direct contradiction to the Scripture.

Despite my previous posts that plant life may have sat there in a brief darkness on Say 3 waiting for the light from the sun on Day 4, it is entirely plausible that the earth was rotating on its axis and receiving light (and all kinds of electromagnetic energy) FROM the light/energy THAT WAS produced on Day 1. In other words the sun itself was not necessary for the earth’s energy source on Days 1 - 3. It is now of course and that is why Day 4 happened.

Again don’t mix and match and twist and warp Genesis 1. Read it in a straightforward manner. It was written simply and meant to be interpreted literally. In fact, the writer of chapter 1, probably God himself, could not have penned the words any more succinctly to indicate a literal six day creation week with 24 hour days.

Also, Exodus 20:11 supports this. In context of the giving of the Ten Commandments it says, "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Now if a “day” in Genesis 1 means a thousand or millions of years I guess that meant the Israelites in Exodus were supposed to work six thousand years or six million years before they could rest for one thousand or one million years on the Sabbath. That doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Additionally, the words “evening” (Hebrew ereb) and morning (Hebrew boqer) ALWAYS mean a literal 24 hour day EVERYWHERE they are used in the O.T. and that is more than 100 times.[quote]

I meant to include this in my previous post but forgot. The heavens mentioned at Genesis 1:1 is not referring to the spiritual heavens where spirit creatures reside it refers to the physical heavens which is outer space. Bible writers often use the term heavens to refer to the upper atmosphere or outer space. Isaiah 13:10 (NIV) states this well which reads:
“10 The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.”

1 Corinthians 15:40 (NIV) states:
“There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.”

This will hold up to both critical and casual thinking. [/quote]

I agree although there is no reason to believe that the spiritual heavens were not created simultaneously with the physical heavens. In fact it seems likely. Know why?
[/quote]
No you’re making this too complicated. God making the sun after the earth is more complicated than the solar system existing along with the rest of the universe before God started the creative days on earth. If you want to get into Hebrew words(I hate getting into Hebrew words, it just complicates things), the Hebrew verb bara which means create is not used. Instead the Hebrew word asah meaning make is used. Since the sun, moon and stars are included in the heavens mentioned at Genesis 1:1 they were created long before day 4. Again, the point of verses 14-18 are two show how God used the sun and the moon from the surface of the earth’s perspective to distinguish between day and night and so man can determine seasons, days months and years. He made them visible from earth’s land.

Are you seriously saying insects are the only way plant life spreads? What about pinecones, various acorns, those annoying puffy weeds that grow in your lawn and disperse seeds that float throught the air. Watch a nature channel and you’ll see that there are thousands of ways plants spread their seeds without the assistance of insects.

Of course the Hebrew words for day and evening that are used in the Hebrew scriptures to denote a 24 hour period are going to be the same as the day and evening mentioned in Genesis chapter 1. That’s because all of the instances use the same words. You’re missing the fact that a day for God is longer than a human 24 hour day. Just because the same word “day” is used doesn’t mean that they are the same length. A 24 hour day for a human is determined strictly by how long it takes the earth to rotate on it’s axis. That is how we humans on earth measure time. God is outside of the confines of the earth, also God is eternal so it only makes sense that a day for God is much longer than a 24 hour earth day as stated at 2 Peter 3:8.

God resting on the seventh day and then blessing it and making it a special day for the Israelites does not support the fact that his day is a 24 hour earth day. God made the seventh day special for humans because his seventh day in the earths creative process was special. When this law came about 24 hour earth days and 7 day weeks were already established from a human perspective so God would not apply his length of days to a human 24 hour day. So no God would not have a human work six thousand years and on the seven thousandth have them rest. That would be impossible because humans in our current state do not live that long. So God could not have applied his length of days to humans. He would apply the sabbath command to human time which is determined by earth rotating on it’s axis.

By the way since you have read the Genesis account a hundred times more than me, do you understand and know the significance of how Adam was created and both Adam and Eve eating the fruit? If people closely examined that account several MAJOR christian religious doctrines would be dispelled.

By the way how do you break up someones quote so that you can respond to a posters specific sentence like I see you often do?

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
[Warning: sheer speculation coming]

Maybe God specifically created vegetation on Day 3 and the sun, moon and stars on Day 4 precisely to thwart the idea that the creation days were eons of time long.[/quote]

…warning. Sheer observation coming.

Maybe it’s pointless to debate scientific fact with theists because they always have the “God can do whatever He wants!” failsafe.

Seriously, whats the point of arguing when, if your position is thoroughly and conclusively proven to be completely impossible, you can just say “Well, um, skymagic.”?[/quote]

Not all theists are creationists. I am not. And I most certainly not a “God of gaps” person. I love science.
I believe God created the universe(s), but I don’t believe he often manipulates it. He set in motion what he set, and all things obey the laws they are supposed to. We’re the wild card. I don’t know if we are the only wild cards and how much of a wild card we actually are, but we are the only ones who can trump his will if we want to.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

…we have beaten to death the Genesis 1 creation story we should move on…[/quote]

Beaten to death? It’s barely been scratched.

My personal opinion is if you want to talk about the Bible and Christianity at all and you don’t have Genesis figured out it’s all a moot point. Genesis is the foundation. If you don’t know your foundation, your roots, you’re gonna be floppin’ around all over the place on the other stuff.

With that in mind the proposal: “Ok, how about this? If, and I’m not saying that it is, stories from the Old Testament such as creation, Noah, Lott, etc. are parables and didn’t really happen, does it change the credibility of the Bible?” My answer is yes.[/quote]
I too would answer yes. Second Peter 3:3-13 mentions the flood account and compares it to when God is going to act and remove the wicked. Jesus mentions the flood account at Matthew 24:37-39 and compares how people took no note of the signs in the days and years leading up to the flood event with how people will take no note of the signs during the days and years of Jesus’ presence leading up to armegeddon.
Second Peter 2:5,6 mentions the flood event and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and how those two events sets the pattern for the future destruction of ungodly men.
So if those event weren’t true then Jesus and other Bible writers are lying and this would compromise the whole Christian faith.

One point I would like to make is that a person either has faith or has reason/science. There is no way that this can be true. Everyone has faith. People just have faith in different things. Everyone gets up everyday having faith that the sun will be there, there will be the right amount of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere to breathe, gravity will still hold it’s effect on the planet, etc.

With Christianity, it is no different. Christians believe when they get up everyday that Jesus was God, he died for our sins, and by believing in him we have salvation. So if I put my faith in God, can I not also put my faith in science? What if the scientific findings seem to contradict the Bible?

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

…we have beaten to death the Genesis 1 creation story we should move on…[/quote]

Beaten to death? It’s barely been scratched.

My personal opinion is if you want to talk about the Bible and Christianity at all and you don’t have Genesis figured out it’s all a moot point. Genesis is the foundation. If you don’t know your foundation, your roots, you’re gonna be floppin’ around all over the place on the other stuff.

With that in mind the proposal: “Ok, how about this? If, and I’m not saying that it is, stories from the Old Testament such as creation, Noah, Lott, etc. are parables and didn’t really happen, does it change the credibility of the Bible?” My answer is yes.[/quote]
I too would answer yes. Second Peter 3:3-13 mentions the flood account and compares it to when God is going to act and remove the wicked. Jesus mentions the flood account at Matthew 24:37-39 and compares how people took no note of the signs in the days and years leading up to the flood event with how people will take no note of the signs during the days and years of Jesus’ presence leading up to armegeddon.
Second Peter 2:5,6 mentions the flood event and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and how those two events sets the pattern for the future destruction of ungodly men.
So if those event weren’t true then Jesus and other Bible writers are lying and this would compromise the whole Christian faith. [/quote]

Good point. We do know that Jesus often spoke in parable though. How can we be sure that he was not simply mentioning the flood account, which he took as a story with a moral, to make a point?

[quote]BBriere wrote:
One point I would like to make is that a person either has faith or has reason/science. There is no way that this can be true. Everyone has faith. People just have faith in different things. Everyone gets up everyday having faith that the sun will be there, there will be the right amount of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere to breathe, gravity will still hold it’s effect on the planet, etc.

With Christianity, it is no different. Christians believe when they get up everyday that Jesus was God, he died for our sins, and by believing in him we have salvation. So if I put my faith in God, can I not also put my faith in science? What if the scientific findings seem to contradict the Bible?[/quote]

Man you have some really deep questions, that I have thought about just never vocalized them. I am going to have to think about this one for a little while.

[quote]BBriere wrote:
One point I would like to make is that a person either has faith or has reason/science. There is no way that this can be true. Everyone has faith. People just have faith in different things. Everyone gets up everyday having faith that the sun will be there, there will be the right amount of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere to breathe, gravity will still hold it’s effect on the planet, etc.

With Christianity, it is no different. Christians believe when they get up everyday that Jesus was God, he died for our sins, and by believing in him we have salvation. So if I put my faith in God, can I not also put my faith in science? What if the scientific findings seem to contradict the Bible?[/quote]

If the Bible were a science book then that would be a problem. It’s not, so it’s not. People argue all kinds of things about the bible, thinking it’s all kinds of things, a math book, science book, as archeological book, a history book, etc. It’s book of truth and faith. The word of God.
This would be presented to different audiences through out history and the context matters. Paul’s letters for instance, would not make any sense to 5th century BC man. But Genesis does.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
One point I would like to make is that a person either has faith or has reason/science. There is no way that this can be true. Everyone has faith. People just have faith in different things. Everyone gets up everyday having faith that the sun will be there, there will be the right amount of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere to breathe, gravity will still hold it’s effect on the planet, etc.

With Christianity, it is no different. Christians believe when they get up everyday that Jesus was God, he died for our sins, and by believing in him we have salvation. So if I put my faith in God, can I not also put my faith in science? What if the scientific findings seem to contradict the Bible?[/quote]

If the Bible were a science book then that would be a problem. It’s not, so it’s not. People argue all kinds of things about the bible, thinking it’s all kinds of things, a math book, science book, as archeological book, a history book, etc. It’s book of truth and faith. The word of God.
This would be presented to different audiences through out history and the context matters. Paul’s letters for instance, would not make any sense to 5th century BC man. But Genesis does.[/quote]

True. The Bible discusses, for instance, the creation of the Earth but never goes into detail about how exactly it was made. However, what about for the skeptic that says evolution has proven the Bible wrong? One of the worse things we can do as believers is say “because it’s in the Bible” or the Bible is true because “I believe it.” A skeptic may believe in Buddhism. So how do we provide proof?

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
One point I would like to make is that a person either has faith or has reason/science. There is no way that this can be true. Everyone has faith. People just have faith in different things. Everyone gets up everyday having faith that the sun will be there, there will be the right amount of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere to breathe, gravity will still hold it’s effect on the planet, etc.

With Christianity, it is no different. Christians believe when they get up everyday that Jesus was God, he died for our sins, and by believing in him we have salvation. So if I put my faith in God, can I not also put my faith in science? What if the scientific findings seem to contradict the Bible?[/quote]

Man you have some really deep questions, that I have thought about just never vocalized them. I am going to have to think about this one for a little while.[/quote]

I was actually watching a show last night on dealing with skepticism and how to approach a skeptic. The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
…The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

This is true but it brings back my supremely salient point (thank you) that the foundation, Genesis, is the key. If Genesis is discounted THE OTHER STUFF gets discounted too. If kids can be convinced macroevolution really happened (even in the face of little evidence and NO proof), i.e., Genesis is a fable, then let’s face it - all the rest of the Gospel can be shoved into the fable category and there’s no need for a Redeemer.

I want Pat or any other Christian on this thread to make an argument for the necessity of a Redeemer, a Messiah, if Adam’s sin did not bring death into this world like the fable says is did.

Tell me the real meaning of the cross if Jesus Christ is not God, the Creator, in the flesh as the Bible insists (John 1:1-14).
[/quote]

Fine, Genesis gets discounted as an ancient man’s interpretation of stories he was told about the beginnings of our universe. Doesn’t change your story about Jesus and what that means. Personally I think a lot of purported Christians (not all by a long stretch) miss the entire point of Jesus anyway. Jesus didn’t come here to just be worshiped, he came here as an example of how to live YOUR life. Way too many people disrespect their temple, act in very “un-Christian” ways all week and then expect a little repenting on Sunday to be their Savior, you are God and God works through you, just like Jesus. Sure worship and thank him for his sacrifice for us but more importantly recognize that with the same type of training that Jesus undertook (fasting, meditation, i.e. eastern yogic techniques) you too can be more like him and more of a true representative of God.
Sorry but just because you go to church or proclaim one’s self a Christian will not undo your obesity, racism, negativity and unconscious behavior no matter how much you want to believe it.

Not addressing anyone on this board in particular btw.

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
One point I would like to make is that a person either has faith or has reason/science. There is no way that this can be true. Everyone has faith. People just have faith in different things. Everyone gets up everyday having faith that the sun will be there, there will be the right amount of oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere to breathe, gravity will still hold it’s effect on the planet, etc.

With Christianity, it is no different. Christians believe when they get up everyday that Jesus was God, he died for our sins, and by believing in him we have salvation. So if I put my faith in God, can I not also put my faith in science? What if the scientific findings seem to contradict the Bible?[/quote]

Man you have some really deep questions, that I have thought about just never vocalized them. I am going to have to think about this one for a little while.[/quote]

I was actually watching a show last night on dealing with skepticism and how to approach a skeptic. The main problem that we dealing with today is that even of kids that come up in a church the vast majority are leaving at college age due to what they are being taught as true.
[/quote]

I have read that 80% do not return to the church after college. I was almost one of the statistics.