What is worse and more offensive than saying it is an allegory is to say it is a near eastern myth.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Top Ten: Myths about Evolution
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
What is worse and more offensive than saying it is an allegory is to say it is a near eastern myth.
The problem is that Jesus confirmed the actual historial events of creation, as did paul, so unless you decide to have the Bible not be inspired/inerant than can hold those views!
Inspired and inerrant aren't the same thing. Yes to inspired, you have to define what you mean by inerrant for me to give you a yes or no answer. Generally the answer is no. I use inspired and trustworthy.
The problem is that Jesus confirmed the actual historial events of creation, as did paul, so unless you decide to have the Bible not be inspired/inerant than can hold those views!
I would say Jesus and Paul affirmed the traditional Jewish understanding of creation, which is not strictly literal.
What is worse and more offensive than saying it is an allegory is to say it is a near eastern myth.
Retelling. Using an accepted genre, creation myth, common to the day and retelling the story in a new manner as to communicate God's truth.
myth
miTH/
noun
noun: myth; plural noun: myths
1.
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
Retelling. Using an accepted genre, creation myth, common to the day and retelling the story in a new manner as to communicate God's truth.
myth
miTH/
noun
noun: myth; plural noun: myths
1.
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
I know what it is, studied it in college. I had an entire class devoted to it showing the myth is a myth. It is not necessary to see it that way. In fact there is very little evidence to support it. When we let things like science and other cultures interpret scripture for us then the word of God is diminished. The reason for the conservsative resurgence in the SBC was because of things like this. Our men were coming out of our seminaries viewing scripture as far less reliable and significant after they were taught this junk. Praise God for men who had the courage to take a risk and stand strong on the word of God.
Last edited by a moderator:
Another myth is that the Bible supports and teaches evolution!
Do you believe that all 950,000 species of insects and around 1,500,000 species of animals were all represented on the ark?
Do you believe that all 950,000 species of insects and around 1,500,000 species of animals were all represented on the ark?
It is doubtful any insects were on the ark, at least by commandment of God, insects could have very easily survived the flood.
I would say Jesus and Paul affirmed the traditional Jewish understanding of creation, which is not strictly literal.
Jesus said that God created Adam and eve, not evolved them from lower primates, and paul affirmed one man one woman as historical truth...
And jesus said that they were created in the beginning of creation....
Do you think Jesus was wrong, or that he was not their creator?
Do you believe that all 950,000 species of insects and around 1,500,000 species of animals were all represented on the ark?
Why would God have them take aboard creatures able to survive even the Flood though?
Inspired and inerrant aren't the same thing. Yes to inspired, you have to define what you mean by inerrant for me to give you a yes or no answer. Generally the answer is no. I use inspired and trustworthy.
Do you believe that the Bible recorded down to us actually full truth, as there were no errors/mistakes i the originals as penned down under inspiration of the Holy spirit?
So there was a world wide Flood, God created mankind in a spexial/unique way?
or do you have to force the Bible to accept assumed"scientific facts?"
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Do you believe that all 950,000 species of insects and around 1,500,000 species of animals were all represented on the ark?
GOD preserved on the Ark what HE wanted preserved on the Ark. That should be sufficient for all to understand. If you don't believe that GOD destroyed everything he did not want to keep alive by a worldwide flood then say so!
Isaiah 40:8. The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
I know what it is, studied it in college. I had an entire class devoted to it showing the myth is a myth. It is not necessary to see it that way. In fact there is very little evidence to support it. When we let things like science and other cultures interpret scripture for us then the word of God is diminished. The reason for the conservsative resurgence in the SBC was because of things like this. Our men were coming out of our seminaries viewing scripture as far less reliable and significant after they were taught this junk. Praise God for men who had the courage to take a risk and stand strong on the word of God.
Disagree with first part, myth meaning and understanding.
Laugh at second part. Mind keeps returning the the story about the emperor who had no clothes.
Jesus said that God created Adam and eve, not evolved them from lower primates, and paul affirmed one man one woman as historical truth...
And jesus said that they were created in the beginning of creation....
Do you think Jesus was wrong, or that he was not their creator?
They affirmed the traditional Jewish thinking of the day which wasn't strictly literally and certainly pre-scientific.
Do you believe that the Bible recorded down to us actually full truth, as there were no errors/mistakes i the originals as penned down under inspiration of the Holy spirit?
So there was a world wide Flood, God created mankind in a spexial/unique way?
or do you have to force the Bible to accept assumed"scientific facts?"
Originals were inspired and the original text were just what the Holy Spirit wanted them to be. No issues there. Oh, there is one - we don't have the originals, so you could legitimacy claim anything you wanted about them and no one could deny the possibility that you were correct. Makes the whole inerrant in the originals complete nonstarter.
Flood could have been worldwide, sure, also could have been a "local" event. I don't have a strong opinion about the extent of the Flood because I don't think the extent of the flood and the depth of the water is the reason for the account in the first place.
They affirmed the traditional Jewish thinking of the day which wasn't strictly literally and certainly pre-scientific.
Was Jesus speaking as the creator God to us when he spoke of events in genesis, or not though?
Since he was there while all of that was happening, why do you not trust his word over assumed "scientific fact?"
Originals were inspired and the original text were just what the Holy Spirit wanted them to be. No issues there. Oh, there is one - we don't have the originals, so you could legitimacy claim anything you wanted about them and no one could deny the possibility that you were correct. Makes the whole inerrant in the originals complete nonstarter.
Flood could have been worldwide, sure, also could have been a "local" event. I don't have a strong opinion about the extent of the Flood because I don't think the extent of the flood and the depth of the water is the reason for the account in the first place.
Do youhold then that the Bible when speaking to spiritual issues os correct/thrustworthy, but while addressing historical events and science, not so much?
Man am I glad we got control back of our seminaries.
I think that you mean "deny it", in reference to a literal interpretation of Genesis, or am I off base with my thought?
If you're intending what I think you are, I would say that "deny" is the wrong word. I don't deny God is/was Creator. I don't think Genesis was intended to be a literal telling of how things happened, but a telling of the who is behind/source/initiator of creation. That is my interpretation. A difference of interpretation is not a denial of the whole.
I hold loosely to the the claims of science (humanity). They are often wrong and in need of change quite often. Right now science says billions of years...okay, fine, my faith is not grounded in humanities ability to figure out dates and times of this or that. I'm not nervous about scientists doing research or demanding they affirm my faith with their findings. Get in there scientists, dig around, since all truth is God's truth, I have nothing to worry about, it will ultimately find it's way back to God.
I believe in a Genesis literal creation in the Bible... You state that you understand it a different way and that is your interpretation. That is how you see it. 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first that no prophecy is of any private interpretation. 21: For prophecy came not of old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. I read the article by Lewis and would rather go with the literal words I read in my Bible inspired by the Lord. You want to speculate feel free but those who do the scripture covers them too. Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time you ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and have need of milk and not strong meat. 13: For everyone that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14: But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. I'm glad I understand the Lord and his literal creation. Now let go to Timothy and see what the Lord has to say there. Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: I guess Evolution fits that catagory. Now here is the kicker... 21: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Looks to me like you have erred... So why don't you trot off to the Land Of Narnia the allegory that Lewis' carnal mind created.
Last edited by a moderator:
Was Jesus speaking as the creator God to us when he spoke of events in genesis, or not though?
Since he was there while all of that was happening, why do you not trust his word over assumed "scientific fact?"
Yes, but also as a man to humans without Creator level knowledge.
It isn't a matter of trusting Jesus over or instead of science. Jesus spoke at a specific time and place to a particular people with a particular basis of knowledge. It wasn't that Jesus couldn't explain Creation, or anything else for that matter, in great detail that would shame modern scientists, not at all. He affirmed their understanding, because it was accurate for that time and place and did not promote further error, in order to make a greater more important point. He accommodated himself to the limits of humanity.
Liberals often place greater limits on people of the past than need to be justify their denial of literal truths.