-
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!
Does anyone take genisis literally
- Thread starter 33ad
- Start date
how do you define "literally?" though?
I take it literally. By literally I mean we respect and understand the writing for what it is. Genesis is a written history. There is nothing that suggests it to be allegory.
BTW, Genesis 38 is not a condemnation of birth control. We must remember the context of the situation and what was actually commanded of Onan.
Jesus often spoke in parables and allegory is a tool used in many passages of the Bible. In John 6 Jesus is trying to get people to realize that physical acts cannot save. Jesus must be your all in all and no rites and no rules will save you. Jesus says His flesh is true food and He calls it spiritual food. The error of making an illustration to be a literal command is what the RCC has done in order to support what can only be described as poor attempt at sorcery.
BTW, Genesis 38 is not a condemnation of birth control. We must remember the context of the situation and what was actually commanded of Onan.
Jesus often spoke in parables and allegory is a tool used in many passages of the Bible. In John 6 Jesus is trying to get people to realize that physical acts cannot save. Jesus must be your all in all and no rites and no rules will save you. Jesus says His flesh is true food and He calls it spiritual food. The error of making an illustration to be a literal command is what the RCC has done in order to support what can only be described as poor attempt at sorcery.
Gospel of John filled with jesus giving spiritual truths, that people took wrongly as referring to the physical!
Such as inJohn 4, as Apostles thought jesus had eatten lunch, when he said his food was to do the Will of God!
I take the book at it Historical Grammatical meaning. So, I say yes to a Six Day (24 hour day) Young Earth Creation and to a world wide catastrophe flood (Noah). And I'll take the account of Onan literally. However, Onan wasn't judged for "birth control." He was judged for his disobedience in not raising up a son for his brother.
Last edited by a moderator:
Good gravy, brother!!
Genesis 38 isn't about the condemnation of birth control! :flower: :flower:
I see this as God protecting the childless widow and the failure of one man to comply with the law of the levirate marriage. Being a widow and having no son to provide for you was deadly business. A woman in those days was 110% dependent on a father, husband, or son for every bite put in her mouth and every shelter and every need for her and her children. If her husband's name is blotted out in Israel and she doesn't have a son, then her only recourses are: marrying someone else (probable, but difficult if she were older or since she is not a virgin anymore), prostitution, slavery, and/or begging. In that patriarchal society, it was nearly impossible for a woman with no husband to survive and provide for herself without ending up an a undesirable and unhappy situation.
Also, the first-born son is a "type", if you will, of Christ - being he always received the double portion of inheritance and 100% of the blessing. It was important that a family not be blotted out and it was important to maintain the family number.
Also, with Onan, I'm of the thinking that he did not impregnate Tamar because he knew that if she had a male child, it would be Er's and that child would receive the double portion and blessing from Judah. And Onan wanted it for himself. He enjoyed sex with Tamar but ejaculated on the ground so as to avoid losing his dead brothers inheritance that would go to him, if no son for Er was produced.
Onan was greeeeeedy little man. Greedy for sex on his terms and greed for his father's wealth.
The sin here wasn't one of making a decison to not have a child or birth control. The sin was disobedience to God, dishonoring the law of the levirate marriage, dishonoring one's father (Judah told Onan to take Tamar in), and dishonoring one's wife (Judah told Onan that he had a duty to her) and the sin of keeping her a childless woman with no security.
And, in my opinion, the overarching sin was the sin of greed.
humblethinker
Active Member
Frankly Scarlett, you are absolutely correct! Good analysis and articulation!
:thumbsup:
humblethinker
Active Member
The literal interpretation of John 6:53 is that he was speaking figuratively.
What form of congentital retard thinks that the 38th chapter of Genesis condemns "birth-control" as a matter of course?? It does not, in any way do such a thing...And what further form of ill-educated idiot thinks that John 6:53 is even remotely related on any level?.......No one who asks questions like this is worth serious consideration...grow up an allow "33 A.D" to post as he wishes.......Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ died 30 a.d....not 33 a.d. anyway...trolls are so obvious...don't feed them. "33 ad" is an atheist troll...Oh, my word....It is so obvious that 33 ad is a "religious fanatic" of sorts to the faith of materialistic Atheism....he would not, however, know how to debate with any form of intelligent Christian at all...This is a troll people......He/she/it is ACTUALLY somehow asking questions about Genesis 38....and John 6:53 at the same time...He is trying to trap you ( in a stupid sort of way) into engaging his irrelevant thought process. This is too obvious ad....wake up and repent, lest you burn in Hell sir...
Actually it is a very common line of thought. I have encountered it more times than I can count from Roman Catholics.
1. They do believe the Onan event is about spilling the seed. It is foundational to their teaching on birth control.
2. They use John 6 to support their psuedo-sorcery known as transubstantiation. Since Jesus said "true food" they take it as being a command to literally eat Him. They don't know anyway to make that happen without transubstantiation.
If you understand their thinking, and the question on literal interpretation in this context, then it makes sense. It isn't right. It is, in fact, some very twisted theology and demeans our Lord and His Word....and sadly very common.
Alive in Christ
New Member
HeirofSalvation
You posted...
Do you have any idea how the parents of beautifull mentally challenged kids will feel when you make a statment like that?
I see its a habit of yours. you have hurt...DEEPLY...many people who have read, or will read these posts
Be proud. :BangHead: Be very proud. :tear:
.............
You posted...
Do you have any idea how the parents of beautifull mentally challenged kids will feel when you make a statment like that?
I see its a habit of yours. you have hurt...DEEPLY...many people who have read, or will read these posts
Be proud. :BangHead: Be very proud. :tear:
.............
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't forget sisters with one sibling who is mentally challenged. It's hurts us too.
Alive in Christ
New Member
Scarlett...
Oh my.
I am so sorry that person was so crass.
I do not have challenged kids..or adults, in my life, but I worked in a facility for a while that worked with them and helped them. It changed my entire view of them. It changed my life.
God bless.
Oh my.
I am so sorry that person was so crass.
I do not have challenged kids..or adults, in my life, but I worked in a facility for a while that worked with them and helped them. It changed my entire view of them. It changed my life.
God bless.
Last edited by a moderator:
Into the Ditch
This thread really went into the ditch.:tonofbricks:
Heir of Salvation: It's not a matter of being "politically correct." It's a matter of too many of us having close friends and relatives with mental and developmental challenges. :tear:
This thread really went into the ditch.:tonofbricks:
Heir of Salvation: It's not a matter of being "politically correct." It's a matter of too many of us having close friends and relatives with mental and developmental challenges. :tear:
Yes.
No it doesn't.
Obvious figurative language, handled easily by grammatical-historical interpretation.
I take Genesis 1 literally, I believe God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six 24 hour days.
Gen 38 is not about birth control.
John 6:53 is obviously figurative language.
Q- What do they call a fellow who doesn't believe in birth control?
A- Daddy! Daddy! :laugh:
I should know, I have 8 children.
Gen 38 is not about birth control.
John 6:53 is obviously figurative language.
Q- What do they call a fellow who doesn't believe in birth control?
A- Daddy! Daddy! :laugh:
I should know, I have 8 children.
Not sure. Never read "genisis" before.
But yes for Genesis.
Genesis 38 in no way condemns birth control.
no