[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

So it was just an idle threat then?

Was Jesus predicting the End Times before all His disciples died an "idle threat"? We're still waiting for that, you know?

I don't have a problem with God declaring bad consequences and then holding off on His righteous judgement. I call that grace. Why would you call it an "idle threat"? His word was in no way idle - Adam did indeed die. Why are you so insistent that God not wait on His judgement? He doesn't declare Himself impatient.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Buzzword

Even holding complete, incontrovertible proof that our solar system DID in fact require millions of years to form into its current, and that life on this planet DID in fact require millions of years to develop and grow into what we have today.....some people just refuse to come down from the trees.

And some people bury their heads in the sand.

It is impossible to study literature and still believe the Genesis creation stories (there's more than one there!) are literal, barring one's own stubborn adherence to ignorance.

Genesis is historical narrative. It's impossible to read the bible and not hold to that hermeneutic.

The first chapters of Genesis (1-11:27) read like Native American/Ancient Greek/Ancient Japanese/Ancient Sumerian "this is why the way things are they way they are" stories.

And that is what sort of evidence that the events described did not happen - how, exactly?

- Obviously the Earth exists, so we'll tell you a story of how God got it there.
- Obviously people exist, so we'll tell you a story of how we got here.
- Obviously people are screwed up, so we'll tell you a story of how that all started.
- Obviously there are rainbows...
- Obviously people speak different languages....

And why does this mean the events described did not happen as stated?

Especially since all of these stories were passed down ORALLY. Orally = changed over time = NOT STRAIGHT FROM GOD. For most people that's a DUH, but apparently not everyone, judging by this thread.

Written stories change over time as well. How does an oral tradition (ignoring the fact that it might not have been solely such) bear evidence that the events described did not happen?

Genesis 1 is a POEM.

How does the style of writing bear evidence that the events described did not happen?

You wouldn't try to convince someone that The Raven (Poe) or Auspex (James Lowell) are literal accounts of events.

Or The Charge of the Light Brigade.

Honestly, you really have to think your ideas through a little more clearly. You opened in vitriol and ploughed through an acre of nonsense and ended up facedown in a cow pat.

In fact the bible describes the history and origin of the planet we live on. Either you accept that fact or reject it. You have chosen to reject it and it would be far simpler if you could only bring yourself to face that fact. Discussion otherwise becomes ridiculous - as we see here from your insistence that poems cannot describe real events.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Was Jesus predicting the End Times before all His disciples died an "idle threat"? We're still waiting for that, you know?

I don't have a problem with God declaring bad consequences and then holding off on His righteous judgement. I call that grace. Why would you call it an "idle threat"? His word was in no way idle - Adam did indeed die. Why are you so insistent that God not wait on His judgement? He doesn't declare Himself impatient.

Stripe, I'm not really interested in your problems or non problems, but in the interpretation of scripture. The Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve didn't have eggs on toast for breakfast. So am I justified in believing they did?

In every other place where God holds off judgement, the Bible says why he does it. I can give you numerous examples. Nothing of the sort is said here. In fact, the repeated insistence on "and he died" seems to only to confirm the point, not to override it. You are just giving your own interpretation of the scripture to avoid the embarrassment of being caught in a hypocritical position.

Adam did indeed die but not on the day God said he would. That is, on the day which you say means a normal 24 hour day. Your excuse that God was having mercy is just an invention.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Buzzword

Even holding complete, incontrovertible proof that our solar system DID in fact require millions of years to form into its current, and that life on this planet DID in fact require millions of years to develop and grow into what we have today.....some people just refuse to come down from the trees.

Where is the incontrovertible proof for either one of these claims?

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

Stripe, I'm not really interested in your problems or non problems, but in the interpretation of scripture. The Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve didn't have eggs on toast for breakfast. So am I justified in believing they did?

In every other place where God holds off judgement, the Bible says why he does it. I can give you numerous examples. Nothing of the sort is said here. In fact, the repeated insistence on "and he died" seems to only to confirm the point, not to override it. You are just giving your own interpretation of the scripture to avoid the embarrassment of being caught in a hypocritical position.

Adam did indeed die but not on the day God said he would. That is, on the day which you say means a normal 24 hour day. Your excuse that God was having mercy is just an invention.

You don't believe adam died on the day God said he would? You believe death is purely a physical phenomena from God's perspective?

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by voltaire

You don't believe adam died on the day God said he would? You believe death is purely a physical phenomena from God's perspective?

I think you are misunderstanding me. Someone said that the world was created in 6 24 hour days and I said that if this is so then God must have lied when he said to Adam that on the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would certainly die. And then Stripe chipped in.

I do of course believe that Adam died on the day he ate from that tree. But either Stripe doesn't believe it or he is a hypocrite because he says one thing about so called 'literal' days in genesis 1 and a different thing in Genesis 2/3. He interprets each passage according to his own rules and thus brings about the embarrassment that is so often inevitable when YECers are confronted with the illogicality and unsustainability of their position.

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by voltaire

You don't believe adam died on the day God said he would? You believe death is purely a physical phenomena from God's perspective?

A few other things:

YECers have limited options on how they react to this:
1. They can accept, as you appear to, that the meaning of "you will surely die" is metaphorical or spiritual. But this option is unpalatable to them because if they do, they have to accept that 'day' is also metaphorical and this undermines their interpretation of Genesis 1. Their big argument is that we have to take the so called 'plain meaning' of the words.
2. They can dig a deeper hole by saying that in the same sentence 'die' is the spiritual meaning but 'day' is the literal one. Obviously this will be seen for the pathetic special pleading that it is.
3. They can invent some new unsubstantiated interpretation, which is what Stripe does when he says that God simply changed his mind from one day to the next without explanation. Thus God said that Adam would die (physically) on the very day (24 hours) and that was true then, but then God changed his mind and let Adam live a bit longer. Again, this will I am sure bee seen by most as another, albeit slightly more veiled, attempt at special pleading.

It's actually not fun to watch Stripe and other YECers squirm over this. But I continue to point it out in the hope that some of them might one day see some sense and get some honesty in their interpretation.

[DaveDodo007]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Was Jesus predicting the End Times before all His disciples died an "idle threat"? We're still waiting for that, you know?

What are you waiting for, an update after 2,000 years? Good luck with that!

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by voltaire

You don't believe adam died on the day God said he would? You believe death is purely a physical phenomena from God's perspective?

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

I think you are misunderstanding me. Someone said that the world was created in 6 24 hour days and I said that if this is so then God must have lied when he said to Adam that on the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would certainly die. And then Stripe chipped in.

I do of course believe that Adam died on the day he ate from that tree. But either Stripe doesn't believe it or he is a hypocrite because he says one thing about so called 'literal' days in genesis 1 and a different thing in Genesis 2/3. He interprets each passage according to his own rules and thus brings about the embarrassment that is so often inevitable when YECers are confronted with the illogicality and unsustainability of their position.

What is different about the "days" in genesis 1 and the "days" in genesis 2/3?

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

A few other things:

YECers have limited options on how they react to this:
1. They can accept, as you appear to, that the meaning of "you will surely die" is metaphorical or spiritual. But this option is unpalatable to them because if they do, they have to accept that 'day' is also metaphorical and this undermines their interpretation of Genesis 1. Their big argument is that we have to take the so called 'plain meaning' of the words.

You have made it so that only two options are available, and that is not correct. To not die physically but still die does not mean it is metaphorical. It means to be separated from God. Since I don't take "die" as metaphorical, I don't have to take "day" as metaphorical either. I am not sure what they or you mean by "plain meaning", but it is not right to read things metaphorically or allegorically when there is no reason to. Context should determine this.

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

2. They can dig a deeper hole by saying that in the same sentence 'die' is the spiritual meaning but 'day' is the literal one. Obviously this will be seen for the pathetic special pleading that it is.

Why is it special pleading? How in the world do you spiritualize the word "day"? Paul says we were all "dead" before we were saved. We are still physically alive. This is why we interpret "die" in genesis as we do. Where else is "evening and morning" described as a metaphorical time period. What does a metaphorical day even mean?

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

3. They can invent some new unsubstantiated interpretation, which is what Stripe does when he says that God simply changed his mind from one day to the next without explanation. Thus God said that Adam would die (physically) on the very day (24 hours) and that was true then, but then God changed his mind and let Adam live a bit longer. Again, this will I am sure bee seen by most as another, albeit slightly more veiled, attempt at special pleading.

If Stripe says God meant for adam to die physically in a literal day and then changed his mind, he is wrong. What is his basis for saying so?

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

It's actually not fun to watch Stripe and other YECers squirm over this. But I continue to point it out in the hope that some of them might one day see some sense and get some honesty in their interpretation.

I can see why you would think stripe is squirming, but after you read my comments, you are going to have to try harder to show why you think I am squirming.

[The Barbarian]

If Stripe says God meant for adam to die physically in a literal day and then changed his mind, he is wrong. What is his basis for saying so?

So the omnipotent and omniscient God rethinks His earlier decision, and realizing it wasn't a good one, decides to go back on His word and let Adam live anyway.

But even aside from the logical issues, that doesn't work, because we are told in the Bible that Adam brought death into the world. So it has to be a spiritual death, seeing as Adam lived on physically for a very long time.

[genuineoriginal]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

So the omnipotent and omniscient God rethinks His earlier decision, and realizing it wasn't a good one, decides to go back on His word and let Adam live anyway.

God chose to have mercy on Adam and instituted the subsitutionary death of an animal in Adam's place, creating animal sacrifices.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

But even aside from the logical issues, that doesn't work, because we are told in the Bible that Adam brought death into the world. So it has to be a spiritual death, seeing as Adam lived on physically for a very long time.

The first animal that died did so because of Adam's sin.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
So the omnipotent and omniscient God rethinks His earlier decision, and realizing it wasn't a good one, decides to go back on His word and let Adam live anyway.

God chose to have mercy on Adam and instituted the subsitutionary death of an animal in Adam's place, creating animal sacrifices.

That's not what it says. And by suggesting imperfection in God, it's very disrespectful of Him.

Barbarian observes:
But even aside from the logical issues, that doesn't work, because we are told in the Bible that Adam brought death into the world. So it has to be a spiritual death, seeing as Adam lived on physically for a very long time.

The first animal that died did so because of Adam's sin.

That's your addition to the Bible. In fact, Jesus came to save us from that death. If it could be removed by killing an innocent animal, His death and resurrection would be unnecessary. To save creationism, you are ready to toss away Christianity.

[genuineoriginal]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

And by suggesting imperfection in God, it's very disrespectful of Him.

Suggesting God is a liar and a deceiver is your way of being very disrespectful of Him.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

That's your addition to the Bible. In fact, Jesus came to save us from that death. If it could be removed by killing an innocent animal, His death and resurrection would be unnecessary. To save creationism, you are ready to toss away Christianity.

The killing of an innocent animal is a shadow of the atonement provided by Jesus. Ignoring animal sacrifice is how you are ready to toss away Christianity to serve the god of evolutionism.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

Stripe, I'm not really interested in your problems or non problems, but in the interpretation of scripture. The Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve didn't have eggs on toast for breakfast. So am I justified in believing they did

If you're not interested, feel free to not respond.

In every other place where God holds off judgement, the Bible says why he does it.

He didn't in the example I gave.

I can give you numerous examples.

Please do.

Nothing of the sort is said here. In fact, the repeated insistence on "and he died" seems to only to confirm the point, not to override it. You are just giving your own interpretation of the scripture to avoid the embarrassment of being caught in a hypocritical position.

The bible I read is in English. No interpretation necessary. God said "on that day, you will surely die". Adam did not die "on that day", but sometime later.

There are three rational responses to this story:
a) God changed His mind, or
b) The author of this piece of writing was a nincompoop, or
c) Some other explanation.

And given there is no written explanation, I think my answer is just as valid as any other - and better than your non-response.

Adam did indeed die but not on the day God said he would. That is, on the day which you say means a normal 24 hour day. Your excuse that God was having mercy is just an invention.

Your insistence that days are not 24 hours is just an invention.

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

I think you are misunderstanding me. Someone said that the world was created in 6 24 hour days and I said that if this is so then God must have lied when he said to Adam that on the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would certainly die. And then Stripe chipped in.

I do of course believe that Adam died on the day he ate from that tree. But either Stripe doesn't believe it or he is a hypocrite because he says one thing about so called 'literal' days in genesis 1 and a different thing in Genesis 2/3. He interprets each passage according to his own rules and thus brings about the embarrassment that is so often inevitable when YECers are confronted with the illogicality and unsustainability of their position.

I'm not embarrassed about believing God to be merciful and gracious.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And by suggesting imperfection in God, it's very disrespectful of Him.

Suggesting God is a liar and a deceiver is your way of being very disrespectful of Him.

You're a little confused. I said He told Adam the truth, and did not deviate from it. You're telling us that He told Adam one thing and did another. C'mon. You should know better than to hope we'll buy that story.

Barbarian observes:
That's your addition to the Bible. In fact, Jesus came to save us from that death. If it could be removed by killing an innocent animal, His death and resurrection would be unnecessary. To save creationism, you are ready to toss away Christianity.

The killing of an innocent animal is a shadow of the atonement provided by Jesus.

But that's not what it says, is it?

Ignoring animal sacrifice

Christians don't do animal sacrifices. I thought you knew.

is how you are ready to toss away Christianity to serve the god of evolutionism.

Maybe you don't know what Christianity is about, if you think that. Here's a way to find out of evolution is a god or not:

As a scientist why he accepts evolution. If he says "because the great prophet Darwin said so", it's religion. If he starts talking about evidence, it's science. Check it out and learn from it.