Do you believe in the literal word-for-word Genesis account of creation? I believe that is how it happened. I am sure at one point in time you have heard from believers of evolution that the biblical account is not literal because God could not explain evolution to people who didn't even know what a light bulb is or that God's passage of time is different than man's passage of time.If God is almighty,all knowing and the creator of everything wouldn't God have the ability to explain evolution to people back then in a way that they could understand it and still be understandable to future generations regardless of technological advancement?If God used one life form to spawn many wouldn't God say this?After all God told Many people to do things and they have done it,so shouldn't that be a testament to the faith that these people had and if people had such faith wouldn't evolution be just as believable as the literal biblical account of creation?
Do you believe in the literal word-for-word Genesis account of creation?
- Thread starter jamesrage
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
read Swampfoxs studies on Sin in The Garden and Three earth ageshttp://www.christianityboard.com/gods-word...-study-f22.html
BUT... James you have to look a the ORIGINAL WORD... these words have been lost because of mens interferance with the Word..the lignuists who the languages... know all agree the orginal sin was not eating fruit but partaking of a sexual act. ... Christ even explained it as did Paul...This is the truth... you need to ask yourself why you cannot accept it?...why do you desire traditional fairy tales over truth?
(betchevy;10715)
BUT... James you have to look a the ORIGINAL WORD... these words have been lost because of mens interferance with the Word..the lignuists who the languages... know all agree the orginal sin was not eating fruit but partaking of a sexual act. ... Christ even explained it as did Paul...This is the truth... you need to ask yourself why you cannot accept it?...
The Original Sin does not explain creation in Genesis 1:1-31 and Genesis 2:1-25.
why do you desire traditional fairy tales over truth?
Do you not believe God is powerful enough to create the earth as described in the Bible?
BUT... James you have to look a the ORIGINAL WORD... these words have been lost because of mens interferance with the Word..the lignuists who the languages... know all agree the orginal sin was not eating fruit but partaking of a sexual act. ... Christ even explained it as did Paul...This is the truth... you need to ask yourself why you cannot accept it?...
The Original Sin does not explain creation in Genesis 1:1-31 and Genesis 2:1-25.
why do you desire traditional fairy tales over truth?
Do you not believe God is powerful enough to create the earth as described in the Bible?
I do believe He created it... I do not believe the current stories in Genesis tell the whole truth unless you search the orginal language and texts
(betchevy;10731)
I do believe He created it... I do not believe the current stories in Genesis tell the whole truth unless you search the orginal language and texts
There are a lot of words in the English dictionary that have multiple meanings,some of those alternate meanings are defined and some of those alternate meanings are slang.Why wouldn't the same thing be true for words back then in other languages?
I do believe He created it... I do not believe the current stories in Genesis tell the whole truth unless you search the orginal language and texts
There are a lot of words in the English dictionary that have multiple meanings,some of those alternate meanings are defined and some of those alternate meanings are slang.Why wouldn't the same thing be true for words back then in other languages?
Its the explaintions the Christ and Paul gave and the texts and what they say... not the translations...if you want the truth you can find it.. If not... continue until God teaches you the hard way..
(betchevy;10735)
Its the explaintions the Christ and Paul gave and the texts and what they say... not the translations...if you want the truth you can find it.. If not... continue until God teaches you the hard way..
The interpretation of the original sin is a whole other chapter in Genesis,creation is in chapters 1 and 2 if Genesis.As christians are we supposed to pick and choose which parts of the bible we are supposed to believe and which we do not,seems to open the door to not obeying God's commandments.I think the study is flawed because in Genesis 1:27-28 God created man and says be fruitful and multiply,Genesis 2:9 says God created every tree, and in Genesis 2:16-17 God says you may eat of every tree in the garden but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.So if we take those four verses into consideration it contradicts what the study regarding sin said.Why would the original sin be sex if God told man to be fruitful and multiply,that seems to contradictory.Would would sexual contact be a sin if God said be fruitful and multiply,it would be kind of hard to reproduce back then without sexual intercourse. It seems kind of odd that literal meanings and sexual innuendos/metaphors would be so closely together,If the original sin was sexual contact why would God go ahead and say eat of any tree except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17)?And if the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the devil why would God need to create something again that he already created(Genesis 2:9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.)?
Its the explaintions the Christ and Paul gave and the texts and what they say... not the translations...if you want the truth you can find it.. If not... continue until God teaches you the hard way..
The interpretation of the original sin is a whole other chapter in Genesis,creation is in chapters 1 and 2 if Genesis.As christians are we supposed to pick and choose which parts of the bible we are supposed to believe and which we do not,seems to open the door to not obeying God's commandments.I think the study is flawed because in Genesis 1:27-28 God created man and says be fruitful and multiply,Genesis 2:9 says God created every tree, and in Genesis 2:16-17 God says you may eat of every tree in the garden but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.So if we take those four verses into consideration it contradicts what the study regarding sin said.Why would the original sin be sex if God told man to be fruitful and multiply,that seems to contradictory.Would would sexual contact be a sin if God said be fruitful and multiply,it would be kind of hard to reproduce back then without sexual intercourse. It seems kind of odd that literal meanings and sexual innuendos/metaphors would be so closely together,If the original sin was sexual contact why would God go ahead and say eat of any tree except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17)?And if the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the devil why would God need to create something again that he already created(Genesis 2:9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.)?
The sin is not in sex itself, I've never stated that in the study. The sin comes in that it was against what God said. That messages holds whether or not you believe in the fairy tale or believe there is more there. It doesn't really come into conflict at all with Genesis 2:16-17. Getting back to the topic at hand. I believe in the Genesis account, but I also believe in the truth contained in the Hebrew. I do believe it is what happened, but the traditional (of men) interpretation I do not agree with because you cannot disregard the Hebrew. Both of these are not issues of salvation, so I don't really care as to whether someone agrees or not. I want people to find the truth, but there are different levels and as long as you understand the big picture, you'll be fine.
(SwampFox;10742)
The sin is not in sex itself, I've never stated that in the study. The sin comes in that it was against what God said.
God told Adam to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam disobeyed God,therefore Adam sinned.
Getting back to the topic at hand. I believe in the Genesis account, but I also believe in the truth contained in the Hebrew. I do believe it is what happened, but the traditional (of men) interpretation I do not agree with because you cannot disregard the Hebrew.
I am not saying I disregard Hebrew.I disagree with a recent interpretation of what those original ancient Hebrew text say.
Both of these are not issues of salvation, so I don't really care as to whether someone agrees or not. I want people to find the truth, but there are different levels and as long as you understand the big picture, you'll be fine.
But little issues like this can open the door to confusion and conflict with other scriptures in the bible,which have the potential to deceive one into seeking salvation through the wrong route.Look at Jehovah's witnesses for example.Those people believe Jesus is really the archangel Michael and they also believe that hell is simply just death not a actual place that non-believers go to when they die and they can show you the verses they believe that support their claims.
The sin is not in sex itself, I've never stated that in the study. The sin comes in that it was against what God said.
God told Adam to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam disobeyed God,therefore Adam sinned.
Getting back to the topic at hand. I believe in the Genesis account, but I also believe in the truth contained in the Hebrew. I do believe it is what happened, but the traditional (of men) interpretation I do not agree with because you cannot disregard the Hebrew.
I am not saying I disregard Hebrew.I disagree with a recent interpretation of what those original ancient Hebrew text say.
Both of these are not issues of salvation, so I don't really care as to whether someone agrees or not. I want people to find the truth, but there are different levels and as long as you understand the big picture, you'll be fine.
But little issues like this can open the door to confusion and conflict with other scriptures in the bible,which have the potential to deceive one into seeking salvation through the wrong route.Look at Jehovah's witnesses for example.Those people believe Jesus is really the archangel Michael and they also believe that hell is simply just death not a actual place that non-believers go to when they die and they can show you the verses they believe that support their claims.
I am not saying I disregard Hebrew.I disagree with a recent interpretation of what those original ancient Hebrew text say.Quote: What are you talking about Hebrew is a fixed lanuage it is the same now as it was in the time of the dead sea scrolls and some of them were written at least 500 years before Christ and many were copies of books like Enoch that had been written and copieid from before the flood and widley circulated among the religious Jews. We use a strongs concordance a very widely accepted concordance used by many Bible scholars:Strong's Concordance (strictly Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible) is a concordance of the King James Bible (KJV) that was constructed under the direction of Dr. James Strong (1822–1894) and first published in 1890. Dr. Strong was Professor of exegetical theology at Drew Theological Seminary at the time. It is an exhaustive cross-reference of every word in the KJV back to the word in the original text. It includes:The 8674 Hebrew root words used in the Old Testament. (Example: Hebrew word #582 in Strong's) The 5523 Greek root words used in the New Testament. (Example: Greek word #3056 in Strong's) James Strong did not construct Strong's Concordance by himself; it was constructed with the effort of more than a hundred colleagues. It has become the most widely used concordance for the King James Bible.Each original-language word is given an entry number in the dictionary of those original language words listed in the back of the concordance. These have become known as the "Strong's numbers". The main concordance lists each word that appears in the KJV Bible in alphabetical order with each verse in which it appears listed in order of its appearance in the Bible, with a snippet of the surrounding text (including the word in italics). Appearing to the right of scripture reference is the Strong's number. This allows the user of the concordance to look up the meaning of the original language word in the associated dictionary in the back, thereby showing how the original language word was translated into the English word in the KJV Bible.This isnt a new believe in fact its old just not well understood by many who do not know how to research the lanuages themselves.
God told Adam to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam disobeyed God,therefore Adam sinned.
Know what the trees are. I've been there in the study and I'm not going there again if you choose not to believe it. God said don't do it and they did it. The premise is the same regardless of a fairytale apple or whether it was a sexual act.
I disagree with a recent interpretation of what those original ancient Hebrew text say.
Because the church says so. Just be careful, 5/7 were found unfit in the sight of the Lord in Revelation. That's not very good odds. There are a lot of traditions out there that are not of God. If you've studied and feel that's what went down, then fine.
But little issues like this can open the door to confusion and conflict with other scriptures in the bible,which have the potential to deceive one into seeking salvation through the wrong route.Look at Jehovah's witnesses for example.Those people believe Jesus is really the archangel Michael and they also believe that hell is simply just death not a actual place that non-believers go to when they die and they can show you the verses they believe that support their claims.
I have to disagree. Those issues attack the very meaning of salvation. If there is no hell, what exactly are we being saved from? If Jesus is Michael, then what exactly is the way? Both of those deal directly with being saved. The former attacks what we're being saved from and the latter attacks who is doing the saving.
Know what the trees are. I've been there in the study and I'm not going there again if you choose not to believe it. God said don't do it and they did it. The premise is the same regardless of a fairytale apple or whether it was a sexual act.
I disagree with a recent interpretation of what those original ancient Hebrew text say.
Because the church says so. Just be careful, 5/7 were found unfit in the sight of the Lord in Revelation. That's not very good odds. There are a lot of traditions out there that are not of God. If you've studied and feel that's what went down, then fine.
But little issues like this can open the door to confusion and conflict with other scriptures in the bible,which have the potential to deceive one into seeking salvation through the wrong route.Look at Jehovah's witnesses for example.Those people believe Jesus is really the archangel Michael and they also believe that hell is simply just death not a actual place that non-believers go to when they die and they can show you the verses they believe that support their claims.
I have to disagree. Those issues attack the very meaning of salvation. If there is no hell, what exactly are we being saved from? If Jesus is Michael, then what exactly is the way? Both of those deal directly with being saved. The former attacks what we're being saved from and the latter attacks who is doing the saving.
(jamesrage;10667)
Do you believe in the literal word-for-word Genesis account of creation? I believe that is how it happened. I am sure at one point in time you have heard from believers of evolution that the biblical account is not literal because God could not explain evolution to people who didn't even know what a light bulb is or that God's passage of time is different than man's passage of time.If God is almighty,all knowing and the creator of everything wouldn't God have the ability to explain evolution to people back then in a way that they could understand it and still be understandable to future generations regardless of technological advancement?If God used one life form to spawn many wouldn't God say this?After all God told Many people to do things and they have done it,so shouldn't that be a testament to the faith that these people had and if people had such faith wouldn't evolution be just as believable as the literal biblical account of creation?
"Whenever someone says they believe the earth was created in 7 days, I grab a fossil and say, "Fossil." And if they keep talking, I throw it just over their heads." - Lewis BlackHaha, considering that there is much more evidence supporting the theory of evolution than there is concerning God's existence, I tend to think that God created the universe the way logic describes it happened. I believe God created physics, and all of the materials necessary to set evolution and motion, and then set the course and let it run. A Christian can believe the Bible is Inerrant, but still interpret Genesis to say this or that. In the end it really doesn't matter. What's significant is faith in God. The theistic evolutionst is ultimately very similar to one who believes in literal creation. It is still creation, and they both typricallyy believe God is absolute.
Do you believe in the literal word-for-word Genesis account of creation? I believe that is how it happened. I am sure at one point in time you have heard from believers of evolution that the biblical account is not literal because God could not explain evolution to people who didn't even know what a light bulb is or that God's passage of time is different than man's passage of time.If God is almighty,all knowing and the creator of everything wouldn't God have the ability to explain evolution to people back then in a way that they could understand it and still be understandable to future generations regardless of technological advancement?If God used one life form to spawn many wouldn't God say this?After all God told Many people to do things and they have done it,so shouldn't that be a testament to the faith that these people had and if people had such faith wouldn't evolution be just as believable as the literal biblical account of creation?
"Whenever someone says they believe the earth was created in 7 days, I grab a fossil and say, "Fossil." And if they keep talking, I throw it just over their heads." - Lewis BlackHaha, considering that there is much more evidence supporting the theory of evolution than there is concerning God's existence, I tend to think that God created the universe the way logic describes it happened. I believe God created physics, and all of the materials necessary to set evolution and motion, and then set the course and let it run. A Christian can believe the Bible is Inerrant, but still interpret Genesis to say this or that. In the end it really doesn't matter. What's significant is faith in God. The theistic evolutionst is ultimately very similar to one who believes in literal creation. It is still creation, and they both typricallyy believe God is absolute.
Kriss, what does Strong's say about Genesis? I know someone who has a Strong's, but I haven't looked at Genesis, yet.(SwampFox;10753)
I have to disagree. Those issues attack the very meaning of salvation. If there is no hell, what exactly are we being saved from? If Jesus is Michael, then what exactly is the way? Both of those deal directly with being saved. The former attacks what we're being saved from and the latter attacks who is doing the saving.
I assume in their belief that they are saved from not experiencing eternal spiritual immortality with God. If you want to interpret hell, then the most common reinterpretation is the view of hell as nonexistence. To me it doesn't matter much, and I don't have a position on the matter.
I have to disagree. Those issues attack the very meaning of salvation. If there is no hell, what exactly are we being saved from? If Jesus is Michael, then what exactly is the way? Both of those deal directly with being saved. The former attacks what we're being saved from and the latter attacks who is doing the saving.
I assume in their belief that they are saved from not experiencing eternal spiritual immortality with God. If you want to interpret hell, then the most common reinterpretation is the view of hell as nonexistence. To me it doesn't matter much, and I don't have a position on the matter.
(Shingy;10764)
Kriss, what does Strong's say about Genesis? I know someone who has a Strong's, but I haven't looked at Genesis, yet.
Shingy read this short study we are of the belief that the world is millions of years old. Only this age is some 14,000 years old,(the creation week was 7000 years not 7 days one day with Lord is as 1000 years to man) that there are three world ages one has passed, one is now, one to come.http://www.christianityboard.com/earth-age...-study-t79.html
Kriss, what does Strong's say about Genesis? I know someone who has a Strong's, but I haven't looked at Genesis, yet.
Shingy read this short study we are of the belief that the world is millions of years old. Only this age is some 14,000 years old,(the creation week was 7000 years not 7 days one day with Lord is as 1000 years to man) that there are three world ages one has passed, one is now, one to come.http://www.christianityboard.com/earth-age...-study-t79.html
You have been given a opprotunity to learn the truth of the original laguage and texts and instead have chosen the words of men..... and you think we are confused? There is not much we can do for you... be like those who have come here for months and never read one study or increased their spiritual wealth an iota...I am not calling a patricular person a fool, for there are more than one here...but if the shoe fits you'll be offended...
(SwampFox;10753)
Know what the trees are. I've been there in the study and I'm not going there again if you choose not to believe it. God said don't do it and they did it. The premise is the same regardless of a fairytale apple or whether it was a sexual act.
As Christians I thought we were supposed to believe the bible is infallible,wouldn't that open a door to Mr.ACLU ordained at the Universal life church or any other phony claiming to have a doctorate in ancient languages and a Christian claiming that other things in the bible were really metaphorical or that certian things are not sins or that God wants you to do as you please instead of obeying him?
Because the church says so.
I was taught that God is almighty and can do anything and the bible is infallible.The literal Genesis account of creation is an example of God's power.
Just be careful, 5/7 were found unfit in the sight of the Lord in Revelation. That's not very good odds. There are a lot of traditions out there that are not of God. If you've studied and feel that's what went down, then fine.
I realize that most of the churches out there phony,some of them were probably the result of someone's so called "interpretation" of the scriptures.
I have to disagree. Those issues attack the very meaning of salvation. If there is no hell, what exactly are we being saved from?
According to the Jehovah's witnesses it is death that we are being saved from if we seek salvation and that the earth will be recreated where all the righteous shall live forever. Romans 6:23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.Ecclesiastes 9 5For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. 7Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. Psalm 3729 the righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever.Revelation 21 1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Know what the trees are. I've been there in the study and I'm not going there again if you choose not to believe it. God said don't do it and they did it. The premise is the same regardless of a fairytale apple or whether it was a sexual act.
As Christians I thought we were supposed to believe the bible is infallible,wouldn't that open a door to Mr.ACLU ordained at the Universal life church or any other phony claiming to have a doctorate in ancient languages and a Christian claiming that other things in the bible were really metaphorical or that certian things are not sins or that God wants you to do as you please instead of obeying him?
Because the church says so.
I was taught that God is almighty and can do anything and the bible is infallible.The literal Genesis account of creation is an example of God's power.
Just be careful, 5/7 were found unfit in the sight of the Lord in Revelation. That's not very good odds. There are a lot of traditions out there that are not of God. If you've studied and feel that's what went down, then fine.
I realize that most of the churches out there phony,some of them were probably the result of someone's so called "interpretation" of the scriptures.
I have to disagree. Those issues attack the very meaning of salvation. If there is no hell, what exactly are we being saved from?
According to the Jehovah's witnesses it is death that we are being saved from if we seek salvation and that the earth will be recreated where all the righteous shall live forever. Romans 6:23For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.Ecclesiastes 9 5For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. 6Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. 7Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works. Psalm 3729 the righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever.Revelation 21 1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
(betchevy;10771)
You have been given a opprotunity to learn the truth of the original laguage and texts and instead have chosen the words of men..... and you think we are confused?
The same thing can be said about those who chose to believe man's recent interpretations, a man who is not even a prophet,nor a minister or priest.If we are going to start believing in man's recent interpretations of certian words in the bible what is there to stop someone else from getting certain degrees and making up his own study ion order to corrupt the bible?BY th
There is not much we can do for you... be like those who have come here for months and never read one study or increased their spiritual wealth an iota...I am not calling a patricular person a fool, for there are more than one here...but if the shoe fits you'll be offended..
Most people choose to read the book called a bible,not what some university professor who was not a prophet not even a minister or priest in the 1800s said.
You have been given a opprotunity to learn the truth of the original laguage and texts and instead have chosen the words of men..... and you think we are confused?
The same thing can be said about those who chose to believe man's recent interpretations, a man who is not even a prophet,nor a minister or priest.If we are going to start believing in man's recent interpretations of certian words in the bible what is there to stop someone else from getting certain degrees and making up his own study ion order to corrupt the bible?BY th
There is not much we can do for you... be like those who have come here for months and never read one study or increased their spiritual wealth an iota...I am not calling a patricular person a fool, for there are more than one here...but if the shoe fits you'll be offended..
Most people choose to read the book called a bible,not what some university professor who was not a prophet not even a minister or priest in the 1800s said.
Most people choose to read the book called a bible,not what some university professor who was not a prophet not even a minister or priest in the 1800s said.
(Shingy;10764)
Kriss, what does Strong's say about Genesis? I know someone who has a Strong's, but I haven't looked at Genesis, yet..
Heres another kind of fun sitehttp://www.geocities.com/mamamoore7777/word2.html
Kriss, what does Strong's say about Genesis? I know someone who has a Strong's, but I haven't looked at Genesis, yet..
Heres another kind of fun sitehttp://www.geocities.com/mamamoore7777/word2.html
Similar threads
