TheBibleSender
New Member
Does a literal interpretation of Genesis matter? You bet http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1143.asp
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!
From Matthew 5:Originally posted by just-want-peace:
Rom 3:4 Let God be true, and every man a liar.
OOPS!!!Forgot about all the "wisdom, advanced education, and scholarly PHD's" we have today that God did not have available when He inspired His word!
Proper quote should be: "Let God be true, and every man a liar, 'cept sometimes when logic tells us that God did not mean exactly what He said, and did the best He could with the materials at hand!!"![]()
![]()
Perhaps if you did more Bible study than Bible arguing you would know that what was being said here was clearly understood by the listeners.From Matthew 5:
27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old,"You shall not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
Do you have both of your eyes and both of your hands? Are you sure you are accepting the Bible literally?
Wow... That came across as incredibly hostile...especially for you, Helen.Originally posted by Helen:
Perhaps if you did more Bible study
than Bible arguing you would know that what was being said here was clearly
understood by the listeners.
I never said that there was...Genesis, however, is not presented idiomatically. It is presented as
straightforward, eyewitness history, replete with conversations and
descriptions.
There is no comparison between Genesis and the idiomatic material you
referenced.
They referred to them as true events, but necessarily "literal".You might also consider that Bible explains Bible, and EVERY author of the
Bible who referred to the beginning or associated events, referred to them
as literally true events. Jesus also did.
Not necessarily.The implicit claim of anyone who tries to 'interpret' Genesis to mean
something other than what it is actually saying is that the Bible authors
and our Lord really did not know what they were talking about.
I'm not either.I'm not in that camp.
How do you know? It could be referring to one of the other books of Moses onward. In context, Jesus was not trying to explain authorship of the first five books of the Bible, but simply making reference to the commonly accepted term for the first five books of Moses.Originally posted by blackbird:
Jesus began at "Moses and expounded to them" through scripture the things concerning Himself. I believe that when God's word says that Jesus began at Moses--it is refering to Genesis 1: 1.
No problem. It was uncharacteristic of you and I figured you had either made a mistake or was having a *really* bad day.Originally posted by Helen:
Baptist Believer, I apologize. I had you confused with someone else who has seemed to make it a point to disagree with me every time I turn around and I was anticipating. I'm really sorry. Thank you for your gracious response. Sometimes I just go too fast and don't catch what should be caught. God bless you.
Of course that assumes you have no leadership and do not make any course corrections.Originally posted by Robert J Hutton:
If you are on a journey and you deviate slightly at the beginning, the chances are that within a short space of time you will be well away from your intended destination.
The "slippery slope" is a false premise. It assumes that the person has no other beliefs that hold bind them to truth.If you have doubts about the historical accuracy of Genesis then it won't be long before you start denying other things. Eg. the fall of man, the literal nature of the miracles of Exodus, or Daniel - where will it end. My advice to those who are struggling with Genesis is to simply accept it as God's word.
I certainly hope you are not pointing the finger at me...This book has been attacked more than any other, the reason being that the Devil knows it lays the foundation for the rest of the Bible. It is such a shame that he uses professing Christians to achieve his aims.
I am sure some may disagree with this exposition, but I find compelling Ross' commentary on the issue, found Here. From the link,When I was a new Christian, someone showed me the apparent contradictions between the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
Blessings, -VanThe questions arising from Genesis 1 focus more on physical creation issues-the what, the where, the how, and the in-what-order of creation. Genesis 2 zeros in on the why of creation. So the questions arising from it tend to address theological and philosophical concerns, most of which I touch on in the paragraphs that follow.