Debate with Liberal Methodist

[christianasbookshelf]

Brothers and Sisters,

I'm in an online debate with a liberal Methodist who does not believe that the Bible is to be taken literally. For example, he does not believe that Adam and Eve were real people, but rather symbols of the human race. (He is a theistic evolutionist, so he can't believe they are real.) I've challenged him on that stance, pointing out that if they are symbols everything directly associated with them are also symbols. (Like the fall, for example, or their children and what took place from that.) Holding to that position opens up a big doctrinal can of worms.

Here is where the argument has gotten to. I'm being challenged to reconcile the literal readings of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The question is, what came first the animals or man? I have held my ground that the animals came first on day 5, and man on day 6, according to Genesis 1. I've also said that Genesis 2's account is simply a retelling, a summary, or maybe an appendix to chapter 1. It wasn't meant to be a detailed account, or a second creation. It's just a summary. He (and others with him) doesn't buy that. So he's listed the account in Genesis 2 to try and demonstrate that a literal reading forces me to conclude that the animals came after man, and therefore, a clear contradictions exists between Genesis 1 and 2. (Thus concluding that you can't accept the account as literal.) Follow?

Anyway, below are his statements. I'd like some insight into this if anyone can help. To be honest, I'm getting weary with it all and I'm hoping that someone can show me something I hadn't considered. I still say Genesis 2 is a summary, but he's pushing for an answer related to a literal reading.

What say you?

Now, let's put it all together.

1. It is not good that man should be alone.
2. I will make a him an help meet.
3. Out of the ground the Lord created every beast and every bird.
4. The Lord brought them to Adam to see what Adam would name them.
5. Adam named them.
6. That was their name.
7. Adam gave names to all the cattle
8. and names to the fowl of the air
9. and to the beast fo the field
10. But for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
11. God caused a deep sleep to fall on "Adam"
12. "Adam" slept
13. God took one of his ribs
14. God closed up the flesh.
15. God took the rib and made woman
16. God brought her to "Adam" just the same as he had done with the animals.
17. "Adam" gave a name to her just the same as he had done with the animals.

You want to read it literally, then lets do so. You rightly claim that context determines when we read something literally, metaphorically, allegorically or otherwise. Show me within this context how and where we should read Genesis 2:18-23 as anything other than God seeing that man was lonely so he created animals and brought them before Adam, but found no suitable help meet, and so he then created woman.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Brothers and Sisters,

I'm in an online debate with a liberal Methodist who does not believe that the Bible is to be taken literally. For example, he does not believe that Adam and Eve were real people, but rather symbols of the human race. (He is a theistic evolutionist, so he can't believe they are real.) I've challenged him on that stance, pointing out that if they are symbols everything directly associated with them are also symbols. (Like the fall, for example, or their children and what took place from that.) Holding to that position opens up a big doctrinal can of worms.

Here is where the argument has gotten to. I'm being challenged to reconcile the literal readings of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. The question is, what came first the animals or man? I have held my ground that the animals came first on day 5, and man on day 6, according to Genesis 1. I've also said that Genesis 2's account is simply a retelling, a summary, or maybe an appendix to chapter 1. It wasn't meant to be a detailed account, or a second creation. It's just a summary. He (and others with him) doesn't buy that. So he's listed the account in Genesis 2 to try and demonstrate that a literal reading forces me to conclude that the animals came after man, and therefore, a clear contradictions exists between Genesis 1 and 2. (Thus concluding that you can't accept the account as literal.) Follow?

Anyway, below are his statements. I'd like some insight into this if anyone can help. To be honest, I'm getting weary with it all and I'm hoping that someone can show me something I hadn't considered. I still say Genesis 2 is a summary, but he's pushing for an answer related to a literal reading.

What say you?

Here is a site that might give you some ideas-

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/eve.htm

My folks attend an UMC. John, Charles, and George must be spinning in their graves.

I will pray for you to have wisdom and for this man to get saved.

 

[christianasbookshelf]

Here is a site that might give you some ideas-

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/eve.htm

My folks attend an UMC. John, Charles, and George must be spinning in their graves.

I will pray for you to have wisdom and for this man to get saved.

Thanks!

He claims to be saved, and has railed on me several times because I've pressed him for a testimony. God knows. Maybe he is. But he's messed up on the Bible for sure. It's a slippery slope when one doesn't take the Scriptures literally, where they are supposed to be take litereally.

 

[David Lamb]

Brothers and Sisters,

I'm in an online debate with a liberal Methodist who does not believe that the Bible is to be taken literally. For example, he does not believe that Adam and Eve were real people, but rather symbols of the human race.

I imagine that the logical and erroneous outcome of his belief must be that Jesus Christ, too, is not a literal Person, for He is called "the last Adam".

 

[tinytim]

I have always veiwed Gen. 1 as a creation hymn.
Then Gen. 2 as more detailed...


Nothing in this:
2. I will make a him an help meet.
3. Out of the ground the Lord created every beast and every bird.
4. The Lord brought them to Adam to see what Adam would name them.

Says that the animals were created after Adam...
3. could have happened before, and put in as a afterthought.

 

[christianasbookshelf]

I imagine that the logical and erroneous outcome of his belief must be that Jesus Christ, too, is not a literal Person, for He is called "the last Adam".

Good point! Thanks.

 

[Dan V.]

I imagine that the logical and erroneous outcome of his belief must be that Jesus Christ, too, is not a literal Person, for He is called "the last Adam".

Good point!

Dan V.

 

[just-want-peace]

As we all know, satan, when tempting Jesus, quoted scripture and did so extremely accurately. He's good at this, and can show his human minions how to do so as well.

The problem with his use of scripture was the usage of isolated verses that conformed to his dastardly desires.

The only truly successful defense is to also quote scripture, as Jesus did, but know the true meaning by knowing the circumstances and context of the original inspiration.

Good luck with your task! I certainly do not envy you, and hope that you are better adapted to "logical debate" than I am!!

God bless you in your efforts.

 

[pinoybaptist]

I imagine that the logical and erroneous outcome of his belief must be that Jesus Christ, too, is not a literal Person, for He is called "the last Adam".

Which means that he should not take his salvation as a literal one, too.

Which makes the atheist better than he is, because at least the atheist doesn't believe in damnation, hell, heaven, salvation or Jesus Christ.

 

[angelfire]

Hi David.
The whole Bible can not be taken literally , God says he has "wings" to shelter us--does this make Him a ckicken? Christ calls Himself the "bright and morningstar." Does this make Him a super nova? I think you get the point.
(which "translation are you two guys using? ? NIV is vague ---Majority texts are far better.)
Genesis ,I believe , should be taken literally ,and you are correct to say that Gen.2 is a summary. There are some fine points in Genesis I would like to mull-over with you ---BUT Paul tells us to..."give a testimony.." "if it isnt accepted ---shake the dust off your feet and move on.." After all it isnt up to US to convict a person of right and wrong; Its up to the Holy spirit to work with the TRUTH presented from the Gospel and it seems you are on the right track
in Christ angelfire

 

[just-want-peace]

The whole Bible can not be taken literally---

This is one of those statements that can be twisted like a pretzel.

I personally accept as LITERAL any passage that does not give instructions otherwise; "The kingdom of Heaven is LIKE---"; Jesus told a PARABLE of ---; "The LAMB of God.

Most (all?) of the woes etc in end times prophecy I accept as literal usually, OR symbolic if I do not understand the description of the event.

For instance, the following would have made absolutely no sense to Zechariah as he received this from God;

[URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=45&chapter=14&verse=12&version=31&context=verse"]Zechariah 14:12

This is the plague with which the LORD will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths.

[/URL]

With the advent of nuclear weapons, this becomes totally understandable. How much more will be made clear as the end approaches?

Therefore, IMNSHO, one will do far better to believe God's Word as written, rather than someone who has been educated beyond his intelligence telling you what God meant, as opposed to what He says.

But, to each his own!!

 

[David Lamb]

Hi David.
The whole Bible can not be taken literally , God says he has "wings" to shelter us--does this make Him a ckicken? Christ calls Himself the "bright and morningstar." Does this make Him a super nova? I think you get the point.
(which "translation are you two guys using? ? NIV is vague ---Majority texts are far better.)

Of course the bible uses "word pictures," such as God having "everlasting arms", "wings", and so on. The reality that such a picture illustrates is clear. Mother birds do indeed shelter their young under their wings, the idea of Christ being the "light" of truth shining in the world is common in Scripture. But if we say that a passage like 1 Corinthians 15.45 and 47 is picture-language, what is it illustrating?

45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life–giving spirit.
47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven.​

Did the first man Adam become a living being, or is it a picture? Did "the last Adam", Jesus Christ, become a life-giving spirit, or is it a picture? Was the first man of the earth, made of dust, or is it a picture? Is the second Man the Lord from heaven, or is that just a picture? And if they are pictures, what are they pictures of?

I mostly use the New King James Version.

 

[Plain Old Bill]

When Jesus talked with the scribes and pharisees He would always say "ye do err not understanding the Scriptures". He never once corrected anything in the first 11 chapters of Genesis which would imply to me that Moses wrote it down the way God said it happened. Here God was with us in the form of Christ and would certainly have cleared up any misunderstandings we had about what was written in His Word.:godisgood: