LOL… MY friend, God WROTE ALL OF SCRIPTURE. Wow! (Peter 1:20-21) “You must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” 
Really? 
Seriously, Frodo Baggins? If Genesis is not true, and Jesus knew Genesis was not true, but used Genesis as his basis for truth, then Jesus is deliberately misleading by providing false information. It’s pretty simple, my friend
No, He didn’t.
What a great example of not reading the Bible. Look at it again.
For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but MEN SPOKE from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
It says very clearly there “men spoke” (talking about prophecy). You throw that out, and read it as “God wrote the Bible”. That is a classic case of YECs not reading what the Bible actually says. Why not just write your own Bible, if that’s the way you’re going to treat God’s Word?
2 Likes
Is the parable of the Prodigal Son true?
Is the love poetry in Song of Songs true?
Are the apocalyptic visions in Revelation true?
How can they be true if they are not literal history?
2 Likes
Have you even heard Jesus reiterate a parable. Just the fact that it is called a parable, people knew it to be so. There is no misleading going on , my friend
Why would he need to reiterate? He should only need to say it once, right? 
But your are right — maybe this isn’t productive. 1 Timothy 1:4 comes to mind, and then much more importantly: verse 5 after it, and, well … everything else we read in the Bible, and are moved toward by the Spirit.
1 Like
Except for, you know, the times when he didn’t say it was a parable and people thought it was real.
I didn’t say there was misleading going on. My point is that I believe the parable of the Prodigal Son is true. That God really does wait for his children to return to him and that he runs to them to extend grace and forgiveness at the first sign of repentance. The narrative didn’t have to literally happen to a father and son to be true. I believe the Genesis narrative is true. God really did create everything that is and that he created humanity in his image to relate to him and one another in a special way. I believe humanity sinned against God and God promised a path of redemption to make things right and restore his broken relationship with his creation. All these things are true. I don’t see how their truth depends on the literal history of Adam and Eve anymore than the truth of God’s bountiful grace in the parable of the Prodigal Son depends on its literal history.
1 Like
Like when he said they would destroy the temple, but he would build it again in three days, and people got really upset? Right, there is not always a “this is figurative language” label.
2 Likes
Bingo! And when he was talking about the leaven of the Pharisees and the disciples thought “Ah, he’s telling us off for not bringing bread!”, when in fact he was referring to the teaching of the Pharisees.
Ya, I don’t know what parable you are talking about, but even if your were right. The argument is moot, because Jesus did not reiterate parables from the book of Genesis as truth
I know. I did
Ya, I can’t trust that, because sin’s origin is from the book of Genesis and since I cannot take it literal, then neither can I trust that what I think as sin actually exist, or for that matter,that I am a sinner who should repent
and yet you have no solid foundation for that truth
Again, Genesis
It does if Jesus made us to think that he thought of them as real, and spoke about them as real when in reality he did not believe this to be the case but went on anyway misleading many with false ideas.
And yet I had to take it in a literal manner in order to see what it means. If I heard someone say, that I was so hungry that I can eat a horse. Do I really believe that this person could eat a whole horse? course not, but the only way that I could surmise what he was meaning to say is to take it literal, in that he is very hungry
In the words of Inigo Montoya:
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”
3 Likes
There is a debate on the use of “literal” in our camp, in that, we shouldn’t use it, because it tends to confuse people, since it can be interpreted different ways. But I am steadfast in my refusal in not not using this word. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I truly believe that God’s word can be understood by ears who want to hear, my friend
And how does this relate to Genesis 1. What is God saying here? "5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
The author of Genesis is saying God created everything and established a good home for humanity. God created time. God created weather.
We have plenty of articles on the BioLogos website detailing how biblical scholars interpret Genesis in its ancient context. Perhaps you should read some of them instead of just telling people who don’t share your interpretation what they can and can’t believe. How Should We Interpret the Bible? - Common Question - BioLogos
I do appreciate that, really I do. But I don’t believe Genesis 1 needs any interpretation. It’s as easy as 1-2-3. God said it, and that’s that
There is no such thing as not interpreting language if you want to understand it. For words to have any meaning, you have to give them an interpretation. You decided what it is that you think God said. That is an interpretation.
2 Likes