/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>615104

science is tentative to change, it can never find absolute truth. So there is always wiggle room for some doubt specially when we're talking about very ancient history.

the creation account isn't trying to be scientific, genesis was aimed at illiterate farmers for thousands of years, the bible is an inspired text not a verbatim dictation. The writer (moses?) could've had visions or intuitions and tried his best to express them accurately…

The flood could have been global or close to it, there's evidence of major flooding going on thousands of years ago in certain areas.

>>615104

Like my Amish friend says: Whatever the opinion of the Church and scientists may be, Genesis stands as true.

I take Genesis literally. There's no reason not to. Science has been changing, whereas the Bible has remained constant and has not been disproven one bit. That said, believing in Christ is a lot more important than this issue, and being wrong on it (either way) won't damn you to hell. Phil Collin > Peter Gabriel

>>615137

Bump for accidental sage.

>>615104

I believe Adam existed, but was not the first man as many believe. Nowhere does the Bible say that Adam was the first man. The flood was not global, it only covered the whole land of Mesopotamia. I do not know why so many translators choose the word "Earth" over "land" from the Hebrew, but maybe back in the day "Earth" was synonymous to a limited area as well. The Bible is never in contradiction with anything, but Churchianity twisted our views on what the Bible said significantly. Sometimes, or rather, often I ask myself why there are certain things written and translated as they are, especially in Genesis and other parts of the OT. On the other hand, when you consider that Jesus spoke in parables it makes sense that God intends that certain parts of the Bible are taken to be literally or metaphorically. The Earth is also not 6000 years old either. We do not know what a day for God is - during the creation process - and how long it had been between the Sabbath and the creation of Adam. For all we know the Earth could be, truly, millions of years old.

The Fall happened outside of time as we know it. It corrupted all of creation, including time itself, and so time as we understand it now is necessarily post-fall. It will be restored to its original holiness at the final judgment, when the new creation will be fulfilled. So it doesn't really matter that science disagrees with the first chapters of Genesis, because they tell us of a world that was before the Fall.

The flood is said to be worldwide, but that could refer to what was the known world for the author, namely, the Levant (I think? I don't remember).

I don't bother reconciling the differences. I study geology, which is naturally reliant on deep time, evolution, and other principles typically seen as opposed to Christianity. On the other hand, I don't really doubt Genesis or attempt to construct some sort of worldview to "justify" the Bible's account of primordial Earth. Sort of like cognitive dissidence. Am I in the wrong for doing this?

>>615164

>I believe Adam existed, but was not the first man as many believe.

Now thats stupid. Sin came to man due to Adam and due to us being his decedents. I'm not YECtard, but Adam and Eve MUST be first humans, otherwise concept of original sin wouldn't make sense.

>>615351

>Adam and Eve must be first humans

This, plus Eve is called the mother of all living.

Doubting Genesis is doubting the other 65 books. God is not a liar.

>>615104

Nobody used the term "world" to mean "planet" - they didn't have a concept of that. Hell, you know how the US is called the "New World", I didn't need a rocket to het there the last time I went. So water covering Mesopotamia? And even far further? Sure, 100%. But kangaroos swimming to Noah to avoid the literal planet being covered? That's retarded.

The Adam and Eve thing has been well addressed already.

OP, are you American? I ask that, because it sounds like you've been listening to the Calvinist heretics dominating Christianity in the US for too long and you've gotten confused. Next thing you'll start wondering if the Earth is flat (obvious psyop to discredit "conspiracy theories" is obvious).

>>615370

>>615351

Found the Americans listening to heretics they shouldn't.

>>615275

Not at all. They serve different functions. Maybe just research more on what the Church has to say. Starting with St Augustine, who was the first to discuss it as far as I'm aware.

>>615378

Eve wasn't the mother of all living?

We should doubt Genesis??

God IS a liar???

It sounds like you're the heretic here, guy.

>>615374

I’m not American and I’ve been listening to all sides in this debate. I don’t actually believe in YEC, but I do believe YEC are nevertheless less heretical than people who think that Adam and Eve never existed and that there was no fall.

>>615378

And judging by this post, I am concerned you might be one of those people.

>>615137

>Phil Collin > Peter Gabriel

whats this in reference to?

>>615104

>I have a hard time understanding how the creation account and global flood could be 100% literal and also scientifically accurate.

If it's scientifically inaccurate, then why do you believe the Bible? If scientists say that the resurrection is scientifically inaccurate, then why believe in any of it?

People who don't believe the Bible claim that science is on their side. Creationists who believe the Bible also claim that science is on their side. Why would you take the wisdom of ungodly people as more authentic and accurate than the wisdom of your brothers and sisters in Christ?

>>615588

The band Genesis. Collin was a typo; should be Collins. They both were singers for the band.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Genesis_band_members