/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

We don't know how much time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

>>573493

Yes.

which world? pre flood or post flood

>>573493

>>573504

Was Origen saying that the Book of Genesis is to be taken figuratively?

>>573493

Why not both. We know quantum mechanics is the language of God and that things only exist when a conscious mind knows them (including their past which is back generated as God exists outside of time which is a creation). God may have used the fast forward button to skip through time until humans were created

>>573514

Yes, you could even say that he was the first orthodox christian. Anyway, his creation belief was at the other extreme, as instead of believing in seven days, he believed that creation was instant, saying that an omnipotent God wouldn't need seven days.

>>573517

See >>573506

>>573523

You're a meme and so is evolution.

>>573504

>/pol/ Deus Vult

cringe

>>573523

>Evolution needs death before seven thousand years ago, Christians don't believe in death before the fall, evolution is heresy

it was about death of humans

>>573506

http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/debate-hughross-jasonlisle.mp3

And for those that want a decent summary.

https://winteryknight.com/2017/08/30/how-long-are-the-days-of-genesis-hugh-ross-and-jason-lisle-debate-3/

>>573504

>trusting Origen "Satan will repent" Adamantius

>implying that taking Genesis literally is some sort of innovation despite the fact that the vast majority of all Christians throughout history did

>le deus bult maymay :DDD

>>573521

>MUH QUANTUM MAGIC

>MUH THINGS ONLY EXIST WHEN OBSERVED

crypto-gnosticism and a jewish lie

>How old is the universe?

This isn't a question that matters to Christianity. God is outside of time, as He created all things, including time itself. Also, to the One who created all out of literally nothing, it would be trivial to set things up so that we have certain scientific illusions which conceal any possible "proof" of His existence.

He wants us to decide without proof. It goes along with why He gave us free will. I

>Is Genesis literal?

Of course not. Can serpents i.e. snakes speak? What language do cottonmouths use, Ebonics? Do rattlesnakes stutter?

Most of the Bible, New and Old Testaments, is symbolic, but especially all mentions of numbers of time. Jewish numerology uses numbers as adjectives for their connotations, and as symbols of other things, and also makes use of rabbinic exaggerations (even the jewish encyclopedia claims that there's no way 600,000 male jews, plus servants and womenfolk, fled Egypt). The hebrew word for "day" has connotations of a completed act and is used in Genesis to that effect, it doesn't mean a literal 24 hours any more than the various 42 months of judgments in Revelation literally mean 42 months (it's 3.5 years, it's half of 7, so it has a numerological meaning) and any more than the ten kings of Revelation 17 will actually rule for a literal 60 minutes.

The idea of the Bible as "holy dictations" which need to be taken with rote literalism is a very recent and very stupid and damaging heresy. Christians of anywhere from 200 to 2000 years ago would laugh at those who view it that way.

>>573620

My understanding is that this is something of an urban legend and that his commentary on that verse implies he probably wouldn't do so. It's a good meme though

>>573629

Gou realize the snake was satan right? It wasn't a normal snake you heretic

>>573629

>Muh loquacious snake

Every freaking time. Learn to Bible

>(((the jewish encyclopedia)))

>The idea of the Bible as "holy dictations" which need to be taken with rote literalism is a very recent and very stupid and damaging heresy. Christians of anywhere from 200 to 2000 years ago would laugh at those who view it that way.

This is retarded, go back to reddit

>>573699

Of course it's not a literal snake you moron, that's the fucking point, it's NOT LITERAL. It's symbolic. As is the language of "day" in Genesis, or "an hour" or "42 months" in Revelation, or "muh 600,000" in Exodus, etc.

Which, when or IF you protties ever consider your recent heresies of looking at the Bible literally, might make you think that "young earth creationists" are sad and ridiculous people.

>>573703

You sure have the right tag? Orthodox interpretation is above, the snake isn't a snake, and Genesis isn't to be taken literal. The comment about the hebrew meaning of "day" comes straight out of the Orthodox Study Bible comments on the use of "day" in Revelation and certainly applies to Genesis as well.

>>573629

>The idea of the Bible as "holy dictations" which need to be taken with rote literalism is a very recent and very stupid and damaging heresy. Christians of anywhere from 200 to 2000 years ago would laugh at those who view it that way.

<ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…

- 2 Timothy 3:16 [emphasis mine]

>>573708

It literally was a being in the appearance of a serpent. It literally was Satan. Both are true, there is no contradiction.

I'm so tired of your kind not reading any of the early fathers and then throwing out some post first millenium western autists and acting like everything is settle. I have the right flag and anyone who is familiar with traditional Orthodox beliefs would have no problem with that, but you might not get it if you exposure to Orthodox is Ancient Faith podcasts

>>573709

This. I'm so tired of modernists with apostolic aesthetics denying the faith delivered to the apostles themselves

>>573708

Also, please stop meming this "early Church Fathers would hate creationists" meme. It's not an innovation and has been the clear position of all Christian creeds throughout history. But here are some quotes to prove it:

"[Christ] opened for us today Paradise, which had remained closed for some 5000 years."

- Saint John Chrysostom

"For five thousand years five hundred and some years God left Adam (i.e. man) to labor on the earth."

- St. Isaac the Syrian

""Let us omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race…They are deceived by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have passed."

- Blessed Augustine of Hippo

"…from Adam to the flood 2242 years, thence to Abraham 1141 years, thence to the Exodus 430 years, thence to the passover of Joshua 41 years, thence to the passover of Hezekiah 864 years, thence to the passover of Josiah 114 years, thence to the passover of Ezra 107 years, and thence to the birth of Christ 563 years."

- St. Hippolytus of Rome

"…that those who are involved in a second marriage, and have been slaves to sin up to the fifteenth of the past month of January, in the past fourth Indiction, the 6109th year, and have not resolved to repent of it, be subjected to canonical deposition…"

- Quinisext Ecumenical Council

"The Holy Fathers (probably unanimously) certainly have no doubt that the chronology of the Old Testament, from Adam onwards, is to be accepted 'literally.' They did not have the fundamentalist's over-concern for chronological precision, but even the most mystical Fathers (St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Gregory Palamas, etc.) were quite certain that Adam lived literally some 900 years, that there were some 5,500 years ('more or less') between the creation and the Birth of Christ."

- Fr. Seraphim Rose, writing on the patristic mindset around Genesis

Lastly, there will be people who bring up instances of early Fathers saying things other than 7 days, but it is always instant. Augustine said that creation taking 7 days was too long because God only needs an instant to make everything. Saint Basil the Great also said something similar. But the ones who thought this are not liberals, they are even more extreme than the creationists on this point.

>>573708

Stop being such a fucking heretic. Do you know what miracles are? And God spoke through a donkey.

>>573493

last tuesday

>>573711

Sage for off topic

what is wrong with ancient faith podcasts? Do they misrepresent Orthodoxy?

>>573579

>if you pre-suppose my interpretation of Genesis, then the universe is young

I've noticed a trend, that when people who reject some part of the bible wish to continue maintaining the facade that they actually believe it they call that part of the bible someone else's interpretation. For example, a queer told me Leviticus 20:13 is "just my interpretation".

The point is that if we are Christians we must start every intellectual endeavor with God, because we believe anything that is true is true because of God, so if scientists decide to interpret evidence by a hermeneutic which does not start with the existence of God and the truth of His word, they are doing science falsely.

>>573809

>comparing old-earthers to sodomites

>attempts to place himself on the moral high ground

And how are you so sure you have started with God? My old theology teacher considers the earth ancient, and bear in mind this man has a degree in theology. Has probably studied the Word for decades, longer than anyone I know. And out of anyone, I'd hold him as probably one of the most faithful individuals I've met in quite some (knowing them by their fruits). What does that say about your assertion of "I'm putting God first by saying the earth young, you aren't?"

>>573831

>>comparing old-earthers to sodomites

That's a legitimate parallel and if you could argue against it you would.

>And how are you so sure you have started with God?

Because I have allowed God's word to speak for itself instead of inserting atheistic presuppositions into it to make it something it isn't

>My old theology teacher considers the earth ancient, and bear in mind this man has a degree in theology. Has probably studied the Word for decades, longer than anyone I know

Are you really making an appeal to authority? Well, I can play at that game too: God has more authority than anyone on any subject, and He says the world is young

>What does that say about your assertion of "I'm putting God first by saying the earth young, you aren't?"

Nothing at all. Allow me to ask you something, if you were absolutely convinced that the bible taught a young earth, would you believe it?

>>573833

Ok, it's clear I'm talking to a brick wall here. I'm going to go my way, and you can go yours.

>>573839

Answer my question please. Would you believe young earth if you were convinced God's word taught it?

>>573842

But it doesn't, so I don't.

>>573805

Some are fine and some are trash just like most websites, but Ancient faith is more trash on the liberal side theologically while Russiaboo or Grecophile sites would be trash in an ethnic conservatism way

>>573845

I didn't ask you if it does, I asked you if you were convinced it does, would you believe it?

>>573852

The first step in that is convincing me, and that's not going to happen.

>>573857

And I'm telling you it's an unrealistic question.

>>573862

I think the reason you're refusing to answer is that you either have to say yes, in which case we will go to the bible and you will be forced to abandon this atheistic nonsense, or you can say no and publically repudiate Jesus Christ. So, anon, now is the time for a decision; will you choose secular science or Christ? Which god is more important to you? Do you choose the idol or the true God?

>>573845

Jesus believed in YEC

>That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

>From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Have a mindful literal interpretation. In Isaiah 14 God speaks to Satan before genesis 1:2. There is a old earth and a literal seven day formation of the earth and seas. The deep is a different matter.

>>573948

Christ says that the blood of the prophets has been spilled "from the foundation of the world". He then identifies Abel as the first person whose blood was spilled. So if one is to say that the Earth is millions of years old, then Abel's blood was spilled nowhere near the foundation of the world; but if one is to say that the Earth is near 6000 or 7000 years old (I say 7526 years old, but the exact number isn't as important as you think) then it lines up perfectly, as Abel would've been killed much closer to the start of the world.

>>573960

Oh, that makes a lot of sense. Went right over my head the first time but I'll definitely use those scriptures in the future.

>>573964

The six days were literal, as was the seventh day, otherwise Exodus 20:11 is a bold faced lie. You aren't so much interested in explaining fossils as you are in being accepted and accepting worldly authority and respectability. Also the fact your theology teacher is old only shows the fact he is a boomer liberal progressive. Especially since, if he teaches day-age theory as you already linked here, that means he rejects Exodus 20:11 as having any real bearing or meaning whatsoever.

>>573967

>Exodus 20:11

http://www.oldearth.org/exodus20.htm

>understanding fossils means I want (((their))) acceptance

I could care less about what fedoras think, but I'm also not going to listen to young-earthers babble on like idiots about something they aren't trained in. Only one who came close to a comprehensive method for classification was rejected by the YEC community as a whole.

>old

Pretty young, at least in his mid-30s

>boomer liberal progressive

He actually considers himself a centrist, but has more right-wing values. Also calls for more traditional values, and opposes same-sex relationships. He is anything but liberal.

>day-age

Never really specified what his perspective was, only that the earth was much older than 6,000 years.

>>573979

>the YEC community

Who cares? I'm concerned with reality, not with popular opinion. They reject me too, for the time being. That doesn't mean I have to discount proper exegesis of Genesis 1 and the rest of the words of God. It says objectively that there were days, an evening and a morning for each. So you either accept that this is the word of God itself, or not, set aside for a moment what anyone else may think this further implies.

>comprehensive method for classification

You understand any arbitrary classification system is going to have its limitations. We should really be using the one given to us in the Bible, even if most flood geologists today are misusing that system, I'm not going to hand over the Bible to them.

>Pretty young, at least in his mid-30s

You called him old so that's where I got that from. Well, "theology class" is already a red flag. Unless it was being run out of a local church that had actual good theology of course.

>Never really specified what his perspective was,

Well if you linked it here why wouldn't it be. I guess it's a bad time to make any more reasonable assumptions.

>>573982

>either young earth or atheism

Seems like a false dichotomy.

>one given in the Bible

Such as?

>called him old

As in a previous teacher.

>red flag

It was called a Bible class, but theology seemed to fit better. Also the school I was taught in was owned by a local church, albeit one of the larger ones.

>you linked it here

I was giving an example.

>>573967

Simple explanation for fossils are, they are measured wrong. Fossils themselves have no carbon in them to measure accurately. So they measure the dirt around them to guess indirectly the age of the fossil by assuming that they got there by a meteor caused extinction event.

Since the only thing to be sure of is the age of the dirt they come to the wrong conclusion. There is a old earth that got reformed in a literal seven days. The fossils got there from the second flood that destroyed the world and the flood that killed all but those aboard the ark.

Have a timeline, Genesis 1:1 God created the heaven where He dwells and the earth. Now God also created the angels at this time because of Isaiah 14 and ezekiel 31:4. Jesus speaking in proverbs 8:22-29 described the creation of "the deep" spoken of in psalms 104:2-6 and genesis 1:2. In Genesis 9:11 God said there will never be any more a flood to destroy the earth. God didn't destroy the earth though because in Genesis 8 Noah stepped down onto the earth with no problem as all. What God had done was destroy all flesh on the earth save the ark. So there was another flood which destroyed the earth based off of genesis 9:11 and ezekiel 31:4. Where did the water come from? See ezekiel 31:4, Genesis 1:2, Genesis 8:2, and Genesis 7:11.

>comprehensive method for classification was rejected by the YEC community

Who cares what men think other then men? Serve God.

I came as an atheist to Christianity by researching Genesis to troll man-made climate change believers with Young Earth Creationism.

Result was a strong faith in God and the truth of the Bible.

>>573992

That's a beautiful testimony, brother. Reminds me of the end of Joseph's story. What was meant for evil, God turned around and made good.

Genesis 50 19-21 And Joseph said unto them, Fear not: for am I in the place of God? But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly unto them.

>>573988

>Seems like a false dichotomy.

Yeah it is. The reality is close to YEC but they make a few wrong assumptions that need to be worked on. Mainly their assumption that there is no noticeable time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. It's definitely older than what YEC say it is because of this. But that doesn't mean I'm an evolutionist or insert millions of years to fit in evolution. I do neither of those things and completely reject evolution for all the main reasons they do. Again, false dichotomy.

>Such as?

Those primitive skeletons are all beasts of the field. Men are defined as descending from Adam, who did exist around the time YEC say he did.

>>573989

Right, Isaiah 45:18 also says that

>"God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain,"

The word used there it's the same word used to describe "without form and void." Basically proving that the Earth was not created like that, it was destroyed and flooded by the time of Genesis 1:2. A formless, lifeless chaotic waste, as it says.

Now if someone tries to say Exodus 20:11 proves that Genesis 1:1 was included in the six days, that's easy to disprove because Exodus 20:11 is only referring to the "making" of the heaven and earth (which refers to Genesis 1:3-10).

Or if someone tries to say Nehemiah 9:6 shows that this is "creation," note that Nehemiah 9:6 never says anything about six days. Our God both created and made all of those things. There is no timeframe here. Some things were made earlier than others.

>>574010

>But which is meant to be which?

Ok first of all I don't think that really matters much to us because fossils are all dead now.

But what does matter is, the simple fact that they could be beasts of the field eliminates all the "problems" that Christians typically have with the concept of primitive beings like this existing, assuming they did. Despite this allowance, I don't automatically believe all digitally remastered ((specimens)) they produce.

Also the secular scientific classification of "species" is arbitrary, and therefore, so is the concept of "evolution of species." If two "species" are in the same kind then they may well indeed adapt to each other, but that says nothing about two "species" that are in different kinds. Proving one does not prove the other, because your subdivisions were arbitrary, but there are real divisions that you can't cross.

>>574005

>their assumption that there is no noticeable time gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2

Verse 2 carries no exegetical signs of difference of time from verse 1. Reading it naturally shows it as immediately after verse 1.

>>574040

>exegetical

I can cite exegetical scholars that agree with our analysis on this matter. But I don't think the current translation requires any changes for this to be seen straightforward in the text as it stands. As I said, Isaiah 45:18 proves that the assumed nonexistence of time is contradictory with clear scripture. I directly says in no uncertain terms that God did not create the earth in that state.

I'm willing to accept your view if you hold to YEC, that just means you have reason to believe the time elapsed was very short. That doesn't contradict anything in scripture.

>>574065

>I can cite exegetical scholars that agree with our analysis on this matter

Scholars shouldn't determine exegesis

>Isaiah 45:18 proves that the assumed nonexistence of time is contradictory with clear scripture. I directly says in no uncertain terms that God did not create the earth in that state.

Isaiah 45:18 also says "he formed it to be inhabited". So, is Isaiah talking about the actual first moments of the earth? No, he's talking about the purpose of the earth and saying that its initial state was never intended to be final. This is why it is brought up in the context of a promise to save Israel, He is saying that He did not create the Church to let it die, and cites the earth as proof that He does not work vainly.

Genesis 1:2 is qualifying verse 1. When it says that the earth was without form and void, this is describing 'the earth' of verse 1.

>>573525

But it's written in the Bible that it took 6 days. Augustine has a very good point, but I need help with this.

>>573620

is the guy going to jump into a fire?

>>574096

God could create the heaven and the earth in any way he wanted. It's up to us to accept his description of events as they are given to us through his word, not to exclude parts of the Word that we can't emotionally reconcile with our first understanding, or to make up assumptions about things that aren't even written.

Deuteronomy 29:29

The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

>>573994

>That's a beautiful testimony, brother. Reminds me of the end of Joseph's story. What was meant for evil, God turned around and made good.

His ways are amazing, I never expected that outcome.

Now I'm drawn to an independent Baptist church.

>>573937

>A Creator who does not confound His creation with the remains of ancient man-like creatures.

Only as interpreted by atheists from partial remains. Australopithecus was less man-like than a chimpanzee.

>>574431

Two thoughts on that. First is that looks like a fat human with a larger skeletal structure for the ribs and a cross between a nigger and kike skull. My second thought is the bone in >>574428 first pic's bottom right leg looks totally different because it has a small bone growth on the middle to the right of the leg. The right shoulder and arm look completely different from the left shoulder. Which leads me to believe they don't have all the right parts to that skeletal structure.

>>574442

>looks like a fat human

Probably just how they placed the ribs in the photo.

>bone growth

I think that's just a fractured limb.

>right and felt shoulder/arm don't look identical

One was a bit more distorted than the other. I'm sure the papers that are coming out soon will cover this in more detail.

>>574428

There’s no test, it’s just fact. Australopithecus had a smaller braincase than a chimpanzee, and even larger bone projections on the hand and feet for an arboreal lifestyle. Why do you put more faith in the incredibly biased interpretations of godless materialists than in God?

>>574581

You can say that, but then you'd be saying God lied in Exodus 20:11 when he said it was done in literal days and gave that as the reason why the seventh day was the sabbath.

>>574581

Because then God is a liar

>>574581

You can make that formulation but it's contradictory to Sacred Scripture

>>574794

No actually he has a valid interpretation. It is said in psalms 90:4

>For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

and again in 2 peter 3:8

>But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So it is indeed possible that a day to God in Genesis 1 or elsewhere is as a thousand years. Was it really a thousand years? Is there a way to definitively prove or disprove otherwise? We can discern that because of Isaiah 14 and ezekiel 31:4 that there is an old earth that could be a indefinite age.

But because of Genesis 1:2-31 the sun, moon, and stars would be about 11,000 years old because they were made on the third day so that's 4000 + 7000 if a day is as a thousand years to God. Or their age would be 7000 or so years then if it is literally a day. Is there any way to get ahold of space rock and confirm it came from the moon and not a fake from the earth? Because that could be dated to get a accurate measurement of how old the moon is which would confirm either 11,000 or 7000 ish.

>>574798

>No actually he has a valid interpretation. It is said in psalms 90:4

>For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

>and again in 2 peter 3:8

>But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Exodus 20:11

Exodus 20:11 KJV

> For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

>made

That's not created, that's made for the sake of an old earth. It's also talking about the heavensky see 1 kings 8:27 note how there is a "heaven" and a "heaven of heavens" then turn to 1 kings 8:35 and note where water comes from. How is 2 peter 3:8 not able to be applied here? It still could be so. Granted I don't care one way or the other if it's literally seven days or 7000 years. It still destroys evolutionists and normal old earthers who don't think a literal seven day creationwhether 2 peter 3:8 applies or not when it comes to doctrine.

>>574798

Genesis 1 defines "day" as sunrise to sunrise

>>574809

>How is 2 peter 3:8 not able to be applied here?

Because other than Genesis' own definition of day, the 4th Commandment is clearly talking about ordinary days, because that's what the sabbath is.

>>574820

Well yes that's why I said they are both valid interpretations see Genesis 1:5

>And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

It's very likely that it is a literal day as Genesis 1:5 defined it in the same chapter. But it is still possible for 2 peter 3:6 to apply.

>>574798

>>574809

>A thousand years to God is like a day to us

I cannot fathom why anyone would genuinely hypothesise the possibility of this as a literal interpretation to help build a creation time line. It entirely miss the point of the nature of God. Psalms are poetic, so discount that as a justifcation for it for a start. I'm a noob and don't know the context of 2 Peter 3:8 but from a cursory glance it seems obvious that it is describing what an experience of time with the Lord is like for us. It does not describe God's experience of time. And this is the point: God is not subject to time, God is beyond time, and any shoehorning of scripture to fit this hypothesis needs to go into the trash imo. Chastise me if I'm wrong but it just jumps out at me as being otherwise.

>>574826

>classic copy pasta

Actually the word "evolution" has been mentioned 20 times in this thread, 8 of which occur in your post, of a thread of 80+ replies, so don't think this thread is focussing on evolution but just earth/creation age iirc (read most of the thread the other day so of what i remember)

>>574828

This discussion always revolves around evolution or literal creation. The old earth believers always believe in evolution, with the exception being those who believe in time dilation which I personally accept as a theory.

>>574829

nah

see >>573989 = A happy and sensible medium was presented in this post

Old earth does not need to be conflated with or necessitate evolution, it always gr8s when people think it does

>>574826

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=9q-wuoaFc4s

That masonic fedora really fits the whole "illuminated" doctrine.

>>574881

Well deal with it, if you are a christian then you should accept that God had prophets/men pen down Genesis 1 and that God can not lie titus 1:2. Therefore it is true. If you don't believe God then why are you here?

>>574902

>Welp, time to make a new denomination. That's what Protestants do when they disagree, right?

No because all christians are one in christ and there is one faith and body of Christ i.e Ephesians 4:4-5

<deal with my interpretation of Scripture or you're not Christian

Use scripture and tell me why Genesis 1 is not literal then. There is no prophecy of scripture that is of a private interpretation after all i.e 2 peter 1:20. I explained my interpretation using scripture, what is yours?

>>574915

I think this might be good for you.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/

>>574924

>thegospelcoalition.org

>(((contractprivacy.com)))

….._….._……

The majority of that article is heresay by what men think. The little scripture that is quoted falls back on the exodus 20:11 arguement which neither proves nor disproves old earth. Then there's all the (((hebrew/babylonian))) language that goes unexplained as to how they figured out which (((words))) mean what (((they))) think. Now care to provide your scriptural arguement as to why Genesis 1 is not literal? It is possible to apply 2 peter 3:6 to it, but that doesn't justify evolution tier antics. Also delete yourself.

>>574789

>>574794

>>574793

Don't mix your theologically bankrupt personal interpretations with "God" or "Sacred Scripture".

Say "because then I'm lying" or "it's contradictory to me". That is correct.

>>574994

>theologically bankrupt

>he thinks saying not using philosophy is a insult

do you even colossians 2:8?

>>573894

>>573989

>>574442

>>574798

>>574809

>>574824

>>574884

>>574915

>>574928

>>574998

I'll just remind you, though I doubt that your autistic mind can comprehend it:

Posting massive amount Bible thesis addresses without quoting verses itself doesnt make you to seem smart or intelligent or something else, it makes you to look annoying and retarded. If you want to post the verse, POST THE VERSE

Also, putting echo marks on sources you dislike also make you to look stupid.

I know that this is a cry in a desert and I wouldnt care about it, if you wouldnt come in every single thread and ruin it with your cancerous posting style.

Dont bother to reply, I'm leaving this thread and every time I'll see your abominable """style""" in other threads, i'll leave them too.

>>575002

Don't bother with hafizposter, he's really annoying and always thinks he's right.

>literalists in a nutshell

>>575154

Is this what happens when Protestantism goes too far?