Talk:Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If you take into account Second Peter chapter 3 and consider that the first earth is the one that became 'without form and void,' then this 'second earth,' as he calls it, is the one God restored in the first chapter of Genesis.

I don't see how you can take Genesis literally on its own without allowing other verses (Second Peter, Isaiah, etc.) to more fully explain exactly what occured.

With other verses included into consideration, do you believe Genesis should be read literally, then? --Trend 19:39, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

No, it should not be taken literally. First of all, nearly every people on earth have a creation myth, we just take this one more seriously because it is a part of all of the great three monotheistic religions.The hebrew word used to describe God in genesis is "Elohim". Both plural and female in context. Taken with the coptic texts and even The tetragrammatons use of moses, john right after john 3:16 Jesus tells his disciples that they must raise him up as moses lifted the serpent to heal the people of thier wounds. Taken with the coptic texts, jesus is considered the serpent, and only comes to bring humans knowledge of good and evil. The God is portrayed as the blind idiot god, blinded by his ignorance of the creator,blinded by pride, and by jealousy also. But the problems with the story wither way it's interpereted are this, Genesis tells you where the garden of eden is... Mesopotamia "A river from the land of eden flowed through the garden to water it; afterwards the river divided into four branches the pishon, the gihon, the tigris, and the euphrates" From simple genetic marker tests, combined with carbon dating, human migration patterns prove this to be false, man started in west africa. Also, whoever made the comment about DNA and dog breeding... the DNA doesn't change from "Lab" to "german shepherd" It's always "Dog" with specific encoding for how the dog will look. That's why you can't make a mountain lion out of a house cat and a lion... the chromosones will not match. Also, god told Noah to taken 7 pairs of every clean animal, along with 2 pair of every unclean animal... We have found evidence of species that died out hundreds of thousands of years ago. Also, the tale of noah is so very...VERY similar to the epic of gilgamesh...again...mesopotamian. God seems so much cooler if you think of him as an in terms of spiritual infinity, all encompassing... And that evolution and the butterfly effect, all these things that make seem everything so chaotic that people have to simplify it with stories. The God I worship does play dice, but then again, is also the house. He know's where to put the butterfly. That makes him much more awesome. Also... Read revelations within it's historical context and witht he knowledge that it was not neccasarily a crhsitian writing it, it wasn't john the beloved or the baptist, he was on the island of patmos while jerusalem was being sacked by rome. Because every hebrew letter has a number counterpart, the number 666 could be taken to mean nero. Anyone within the roman world,especially in that time period knew Nero. It was about Rome, and christ coming as a POLITICAL MESSIAH. Which was the long standing belief held by the Jews, as they had been under the foot of the romans for hundreds of years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phoenixrising (talk)

If you don't take this part of the bible literally, how can you take the rest? I believe that scripture should be backed up by scripture. Fortunately, all scripture is backed up in one text: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," Titus 3:16. If you actually believe any of the Bible to be true, then you must believe that it is given by inspiration of God and is therefore infallible.