Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
Where's the "figurative" even hinted in ANY scripture related to creation in the Bible? Please quote it so that I can consider it.
Everytime creation is the topic the days are presented as being literal days, not ages of untold millions of years.
|
In summing up the creation account that you have cited from
Genesis 1, as part of the segue to an alternate account in Chapter 2, the Author of Genesis says in
Genesis 2:4:
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..."
We haven't even moved more than just a few verses beyond the passage you cited and already the Bible itself contradicts your theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
The same school of thought denies the legitimacy of Noah and the Ark, making it to be a fairy tale. Once you start whittling down what God is able to do, there is ALOT of Bible to whittle down.
|
We've covered this so many times it's almost ad naseum. Just as you were wrong to have worked yourself up into a "vomiting" mode because you misheard John MacArthur on the matter of "God's counsel" (and not "council") - so you have also decided to become a firebrand for another issue that you really have never studied out.
Stay cool, Bro. I'm here to help!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
Noah and the Ark-just figurative. Probably wasn't even a man named Noah.
|
Was there "really" a "rich man" and a "beggar named Lazarus" in
Luke 16? The "rich man" character appears frequently in a number of parables in this chapter and even the broader context of Jesus' teachings at the feast in the home of the pharisee.
You blithely accept the idea that there was "really" no "rich man." And, the Lazarus we know from the Gospel of John was hardly a "beggar" since he owned a house and property. (In fact, many commentators have posited that our Lord's unnamed host in
Luke 14:1 -
Luke 17:10, may have been the Lazarus that Jesus raised from the dead in
John 11). Thus Jesus may have deliberately introduced the name of his host into the parable as He disputed with the other pharisees present - but that's a different topic.
The point here is that parables contain details that are REAL, though the "story" itself is not intended to be understood as "history."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
Sodom and Ghommorah? just figurative, God just wants people to be nice....you know, the sin wasn't "really" homosexuality, but unhospitality.
|
You would have to concede that homosexual gang rape is an "inhospitable" act, wouldn't you? The "hospitality" that the rulers of Sodom failed to show the visitors (angels) wasn't that they didn't leave a mint on their pillows. That's the point the hand wringing liberals leave out. By "hospitality" in the ancient setting, they were supposed to protect the sojourners from violence, robbery and crime. The "men of Sodom" were guilty of even baser crimes.
And, there is geological and archeological evidence that "cities" in the ancient pattern existed in the area that is now covered by the Dead Sea. With the Dead Sea shrinking at a rather fast pace, more discoveries will certainly turn up.
But the point is, we have evidence as to a "literal" judgment befalling communities in that area. We have no evidence that all of the continents were covered by a flood of water up to 5 miles deep just 4,000 years ago. And, why didn't anyone match up the genealogies like Bishop Ussher did until he performed the feat in 1640? Why didn't the mass of Christendom already have a "date" and "age" for the world long ago? You Young Earth literalism is actually a novelty as ideas go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Badejo
Lot's Wife... just figurative
The Red Sea Crossing....not real either
Manna from heaven....have YOU ever seen manna?
Virgin birth......impossible
Ressurection......just figurative
Eternal life.......
on and on it goes.
|
No, "on and on" YOU go. And by the fumbling manner that you handled
Genesis 1 & 2, I'd have to say that you probably don't speak for many people who have actually studied this matter.
No offense intended. But you should limit your "firebrand" comments for the issues that you're a bit more familiar with.