If a literal reading of Genesis flood and destruction of Sodom and Gomorah is false, how should we explain direct New Testament references to the Genesis accounts?

Not only that, but several things have very much defied expectations, even resisting efforts to force them back to those expectations. And I see that as good evidence of an objective reality.

What, like automatic writing? I don’t think that’s how being a prophet works.

Where’s that in the text? Answer: it isn’t. That’s made up.

They’re not at all the same, as evidenced by the fact that the Holy Spirit reduced 616 items of instruction to just 4.

Neither. The text gives no reason to think that the Accuser didn’t belong there.

1 Like

Odd then that the study of evolution has brought more than a few people to the Gospel; the ones I knew were atheists or agnostics who due to the elegance of evolutionary theory concluded there must be a Designer, then went looking for evidence that the Designer had sought to communicate with the self-aware creatures He/She/It had designed and settled on the Bible as the most likely candidate and after making it to the Gospels decided that Jesus was the Designer come to live among His creations.

Human death – there is no reason from the text to think anything else is meant.

That can’t be concluded from the text; the most that can be said is that He regarded it as authoritative.

I’ve never met anyone who studied biology who would respond to this claim with anything other than laughter – they wouldn’t even bother to correct you, the idea is so ludicrous. Then there are those who came to Christ on a path that started with learning about evolution, who would mostly just pity you.

Where do people get the idea that the only alternative to “historical” is “allegorical”? That shows a total failure to actually think about the text! Jesus could have thought it was mythological, or more likely – assuming He didn’t set aside such knowledge when He became flesh – He knew the actual literary genres and saw no point in trying to explain the differenc(s).

The first step in studying any ancient literature is to ask what literary genre the writer employed – and it has to be a genre known to his culture. As far as the first Genesis Creation account goes, the writer was brilliant since he wove two different literary genres together in one account, while following the order of events of the Egyptian creation story in order to show they were totally wrong.

1 Like

Making stuff up now? I didn’t mention science, and neither did Mike.

So you’re putting your understanding of science above scripture.

Once again you pretend to know better than the inspired Apostle, who wrote:

There is . . . one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

You are unbelievable

It is a matter of all or nothing?

No, * doubt that Paul expected everyone to think as he did, but it appears that you do think that every one (or at least me) should think as you do.

vanity, vanity


You use that as a defense mechanism quite well: any time someone points out where you have erred, you demote what they’ve said to their opinion.

1 Peter 1:10-12 is what I was referring to

1 Like

Genesis is theology. Christ, Isaiah, Paul, etc. refer to Genesis not for its historical significance but for the theological message. Facts carry no weight until a mind interprets them. Genesis is full of things that fit into complete sentences, a.k.a. facts, but when referenced [[ the 27 books in the New Testament refer to Genesis just over 100 times ]] the result is always to emphasize or illustrate a Truth, a theological point.

God is spirit; we are creatures that blend Spirit with sinful flesh. At our passing the flesh will be no more, to be replaced in time by a perfect body. We are unable to do the necessary reverse engineering to know how God fuses spirit and flesh, and by the same token to know what a perfect body will be. And you can rest assured that it will not focus on our physical appearance at its momentary best. It will pass right on by that the way singing surpasses the notes on the page.

That is the pot calling the kettle black. You claim mine is an opinion (in error) because it does not agree with you.

You do not hold the hight ground here.


No, I point out that your opinions disagree with what is supposed to be the foundation of Christian opinion.

Biblical understanding is not dictated by popular or even orthodox understanding. Nor is it understood by human learning. If you wish to set the Reformation view of sin and death against science and reality (as in the existence of good outside Christianity) then you are no better than the YECs or other Biblical fundamentalists.
All your learning and study yet you cannot see past the written word. Scripture does not dictate reality.


If you’re seeing past the written word, you’re seeing whatever you imagine.

Scripture reveals reality.

That is what YECs think. You should know better.

No. My faith is real.

God is real

Scripture is the written words of inspired humans, but humans nonetheless. It is not God in written form, nor to be revered as such


This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.