We're asking you to consider the evidence for the Bible.Did you mean to say here "When science fails...."?
We're asking you to consider the evidence for the Bible.
We also discuss facts and evidence. Opinions are a dime a dozen.
Rather, your claims are the result of looking at secular dogma. In other words, it's not science.
Speak for yourself.
Applying science to scripture is what we've been asking for from the secular scientific community for the past however long. They refuse to comply, because doing so might invalidate their a priori notion of millions of years and evolution and the Big Bang (not that that hasn't already been upended...).
At no point has a literal interpretation of scripture (not woodenly literal, mind you, but a consistent application of reasoning, where what is written as literal is taken literally, and what is written as a figure of speech or metaphor is taken as such) ever made Christianity a mockery. Other religions, yes. But not Christianity.
What makes a mockery of Christianity is when people refuse to take God at His word, mashing it up and saying "it's all figurative."
Was there ever a point when there were no humans?
If so, was there ever a point where there was more than one human?
If so, then how do you go from zero humans to more than one human, without ever crossing having the point where there is a first human?
Satan certainly is a serpent.
One that caused the entire solar system to be affected? Yup, that did happen.
Yup, that existed too.
For most, and then 7 of other animals.
You should think about visiting the Ark Exhibit in Kentucky, run by Ken Ham and AiG.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Yes, those stories of REAL events do hold wisdom. Saying it's all symbolic, however, removes any wisdom you might gain from them, however.
Ever heard of the Tower of Babel?
It happened within a few hundred years of the Flood.
Guess what happens when you take a group of people who have the same history, then split them up by changing their native language and send them out across the earth?
You end up with nearly every culture on earth having those same stories about the flood and garden of Eden, even if they're all mashed into one.
Guess what happens when the actual account is preserved by God, and given to Moses, who wrote Genesis?
You get the Pentateuch, and then all you need are various authors of scripture throughout the next 1600 years or so.
Except that the things in the Bible actually happened (or in the case of Revelation, will happen).
True, but that doesn't mean that what he wrote should be taken allegorically or non-literally.
You should listen to the recent episodes of Real Science Radio, where this exact subject is talked about.
Here's the links:
Duh. Yet he breathed life into Adam. It's a figure of speech that means he started the process of life. See the above kgov shows for reference.
It's also what man does.
Nope.
The image of God is the image that He created for His Son to indwell, whom He then created man in the image of. (ie, head, torso, two arms, two legs, a face, etc...)
A spirit is something that isn't physical. What occurred when God breathed life into Adam was the start of a physical process, and the attachment of a soul/spirit to Adam.
Yes.
Correct.
Yes.
No.
Eve was the first woman. An actual living, breathing, human woman.
Procreation is involved, but Eve is not just a walking womb.
Nope, Adam was a human man, the first man.
Both Adam and Eve had souls and spirits.
False.
Correct. Literally.
That's what makes man so special.
No.
No, they're not.
Adam and Eve were created perfect. Then they sinned, and as a result, God cast them out of the Garden.
New-age nonsense.
More new-age nonsense.
Lead balloons do float, by the way...
Sorry, no emojis here.
Try telling her that she's actually just Eve, the human life force.
Bet you she smacks some sense into you.
That's exactly what I am doing, in light of what we know to be true. We know that Adam was not literally the first human. There are countless hundreds of thousands of scientists who have worked in the various sciences and their evidence, though always being refined, tells us that modern humans have existed for at least 70 to 80k years and perhaps longer.
Now to refute this literalists go on an endless search for the slightest flake of contradictor evidence, or an odd date reading, anything to substantiate a belief that Adam was literally the first man. This is simply not true. The Bible and especially Genesis was written for a place and a time and a capacity for understanding that has no comparison to this age.
You can't make something true by belief, you have to look at all the evidence and that includes science. Science does no more than reveal the attributes of Creation. It does not invent reality. It does not reveal anything that does not already exist in the natural order of God's plan. So when amoral science reveals the history of humankind going back many, many thousands of years before Genesis, how is it then possible to call this, considering the Bible evidence? It's not considering the evidence, the science of our age is also part of the evidence. What you claim to be evidence is accepting a literal reading of a work that is symbolic and contradicts all know science.
Sure there are a tiny group claiming to be scientists who build impossible scenarios as to how Genesis might be literal, but in the scheme of things they amount to nothing.
Adam was not the first man, Eve was not made from his rib, the earth is billions of years old, the universe was not made in 6 days, a global flood did not cover the earth, etc, etc. These are simple mental images for a much simpler humanity back in a Bronze Age era. These teachings if thought as literal back then still conveyed meaning and an education, but today we can extract the real gems of meaning because we are aided by science to help us divide symbolic, allegoric, poetic language from literal language.
Is God the Creator, yes. Did He Create humans, yes. Did He Create the universe, yes. How, we don't know, but it seems highly probable that the natural order and laws of natural order were employed over vast ages. Now when Teaching simple Bronze Age people who had no concepts of even the basic states of natural order you write Genesis as a simple story because it is a perfect truth for the age and capacity of the people.
Today we know without the slightest doubt that these stories are not literal, they contain a great symbolic truth embedded in a simple story. The simple story served greatly the first people to hear these stories and much later our generation living in an age of science can extract an even greater insight because we now have an understanding to extract the deeper symbolic meanings.
I do accept the Bible, that's why I have not rejected it for science like so many others have, that said, there is nothing to be gained by claiming something that is impossible to be God's word. God's word also exists in the symbolic meanings of these ancient Scriptures.
Thanks for you reply.