P
partridge
Guest
So do you think the Book of Moses is fiction or 100% fact ??
HAVE A NICE DAY !
HAVE A NICE DAY !
- Status
J
jeremy112
Guest
I belive that a portion of the book of Genesis is factual but that a signifacant portion was written as tradition or stories past down from generations which is common in all cultures.But what must be rembered is that it does tell of our begening as humans and, explains why we need God as the center of our lives.I don’t belive the point should be wether or not it is absoult fact in events but weather it is absolute fact in teaching.
Although science has proven many things within the bible to be as they were said I wont say that its not possible to be 100% factual.
Although science has proven many things within the bible to be as they were said I wont say that its not possible to be 100% factual.
E
exoflare
Guest
Genesis is fact, but you have to know the context of the stories to get anything out of them.So do you think the Book of Moses is fiction or 100% fact ??
off-topic… doesn’t the LDS actually have a scripture that’s called the “Book of Moses”?
T
The_Truthinator
Guest
Genesis is reality, yet whether parts are but spiritual realities, so to speak, who could say? The Creation Account in the beginning is a factual account, but the tradition was recorded in a style similar to that of the Babylonian myths. Why? Because the Israelites were proclaiming the superiority of Yahweh over the heathen gods of their captors. So who really knows whether or not the correlation some see between modern science and said account is authentic and really indicated by the text, or whether it is but a rebuttal to the pagans, as if to say, “Our God made everything; yours didn’t”?
G
Greg27
Guest
This question poses a false dichotomy, which really forces a person into a yes/no position, not really allowing them to answer the question properly.
The Old Testament and book of Genesis are sacred scripture, so they teach us the truth about God and his nature and his relationship to humanity. However the writers of the OT wrote thousands of years before the scientific revolution, and things like quantum theory, general relativity or Newtonian mechanics were invented. So you won’t find a current scientific exposition of how the universe came into being in the OT. But you will find key ideas such as God made the universe from nothing, that he saw it was Good, he made the Earth and all living creatures, and also made human beings in his image and likeness. It becomes clear that to a Christian the book of Genesis is fact, but in theological terms. It was written before the rise of modern science. So, if we are talking about ‘origins’, we could clearly take several positions, including accepting the OT also as a sort of scientific textbook.
Some here believe Genesis contains infallible truth not just about theology but also to science, so if science conflicts with the Bible, science has to be wrong, or else the Bible is wrong, and what we believe is false. I believe this is a fallacious false dichotomy which a Christian doesn’t have to be forced into or to believe, and I accept both science and the Bible as true; if there is inconsistency, then theology and biblical interpretation need to work with science so inconsistencies which are logical or theological vanish. The Doctors of the Church have always worked on this, as can be seen in the commentaries of Augustine on Genesis or of St Thomas, who accepted the science of Aristotle.
The Old Testament and book of Genesis are sacred scripture, so they teach us the truth about God and his nature and his relationship to humanity. However the writers of the OT wrote thousands of years before the scientific revolution, and things like quantum theory, general relativity or Newtonian mechanics were invented. So you won’t find a current scientific exposition of how the universe came into being in the OT. But you will find key ideas such as God made the universe from nothing, that he saw it was Good, he made the Earth and all living creatures, and also made human beings in his image and likeness. It becomes clear that to a Christian the book of Genesis is fact, but in theological terms. It was written before the rise of modern science. So, if we are talking about ‘origins’, we could clearly take several positions, including accepting the OT also as a sort of scientific textbook.
Some here believe Genesis contains infallible truth not just about theology but also to science, so if science conflicts with the Bible, science has to be wrong, or else the Bible is wrong, and what we believe is false. I believe this is a fallacious false dichotomy which a Christian doesn’t have to be forced into or to believe, and I accept both science and the Bible as true; if there is inconsistency, then theology and biblical interpretation need to work with science so inconsistencies which are logical or theological vanish. The Doctors of the Church have always worked on this, as can be seen in the commentaries of Augustine on Genesis or of St Thomas, who accepted the science of Aristotle.
F
Fidelis
Guest
The Book of Genesis is part illustrative stories, part history and 100% TRUTH!
T
The_Truthinator
Guest
The above two comments say it all.
P
Publisher
Guest
Genesis is sacred myth. The spiritual truths it conveys reveal God’s dealing with humanity in general and the beginning of the decendents of Abraham in particular.
P
partridge
Guest
i am concerned about those of you who claim that the Book of Genesis is not ALL truth. The Bible is God’s INSPIRED word to us, complete and infallible.
ALL Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
So I ask what part of Genesis do you think is not quite up to standards with 2 Timothy ???
Have a Good Day !
ALL Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
So I ask what part of Genesis do you think is not quite up to standards with 2 Timothy ???
Have a Good Day !
T
The_Truthinator
Guest
No one here is stating that Genesis is anything but inspired, anything but Truth–yet it seems only right to admit that the Creation Mythos is written in a prose so similar to that of the Babylonian folktales that it is near-impossible for modern Christians to understand fully its relationship with the physical, temporal world. There is also a matter of how literally we take certain parts of it, which may emphasize a spiritual reality verses a physical one.
R
richardwy
Guest
100% fact
P
partridge
Guest
Code:
:confused: "Creation Mythos" ?????? :confused:And please note that I am in no way implying that anyone here suggested that they did.
Have a nice day !
A
ahmadhassan
Guest
i think not all of it is true specially when it say that God rests ,i dont believe that God got tired so he need to rest
IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEX.T
alNo book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author–l have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the te.xt, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manus.cripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the S.criptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies. To exempt the scared writings from ordinary conditions a very special providence would have been necessary, and it has not been the will of God to exercise this providence. More than 150,000 different readings have been found in the older witnesses to the te.xt of the New Testament–which in itself is a proof that Scrip.tures are not the only, nor the principal, means of revelation
(catholic enyclopedia)
IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEX.T
alNo book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author–l have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the te.xt, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manus.cripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the S.criptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies. To exempt the scared writings from ordinary conditions a very special providence would have been necessary, and it has not been the will of God to exercise this providence. More than 150,000 different readings have been found in the older witnesses to the te.xt of the New Testament–which in itself is a proof that Scrip.tures are not the only, nor the principal, means of revelation
(catholic enyclopedia)
P
paarsurrey
Guest
Hi
I somwhat agree with you. If it would have been in the original language of the person it was revealed on, it would have been better. It is difficult to translate exactly, so there could be omissions and comissions, always a possiblity.
Then there are things which are metaphoric, it won’t do justice to take them physical and literal.
Thanks
I am an Ahmadi – a peaceful faith in Islam bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/religions/agnostics
The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of Muhammad’sIslam and PromisedMessiahImamMahdi’sIslam is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking only peaceful.
GodAllahYHWH is All-Knowing; one should invariably give Claim and Reason on all important issues from one’s Revealed Book; one shouldn’t try putting one’s own words into God’s mouth.
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
Catholics believe that all things were created by God. How He chose to create is not defined. For example, some Catholics believe that the creation of the world took 6 days, others 6000 years, and still others believe it took millions of years. God is not bound by our time constraints. Creation mythos is simply where a story is used to relay God’s truth to His people. Genesis is relays 100% truth, but not necessarily in a literal way. You’ve heard the expression “it’s raining cats and dogs”, but that is just another way of saying “it’s raining really hard” not " there are felines and canines falling from the sky". The same is true with Genesis— the truth is conveyed, but perhaps not in a completely literal way.
Let me put this another way, do you guys believe in creation or evolution ??
And please note that I am in no way implying that anyone here suggested that they did.
Have a nice day !
Catholics are required to believe that mankind descended from two parents from whom we inherit “original sin”. However, this belief does not contradict some parts of the theory of evolution. Specifically, God may have created various animals by means of evolution. Perhaps one type of a fish evolved into another, perhaps a monkey did evolve into a neanderthal, etc. HOWEVER, those are animals. Mankind descended from two parents who God created in His image.
B
buffalo
Guest
Toledoths of Genesis
This article is all about the true structure of the Book of Genesis; a structure that is so simple and straightforward - as the reader is going to discover - that even a child would have no trouble understanding it in its basic form. The chief credit for having laid bare this structure in all its profound simplicity belongs to the British scholar, P. J. Wiseman(1), upon whose thesis the following article will be based.
…
THE KEY TO THE STRUCTURE OF GENESIS
(A) The Colophon Phrase
Documents written in Mesopotamia were generally inscribed upon stone or clay tablets. It was customary for the ancient scribes to add a colophon note at the end of the account, giving particulars of title, date, and the name of the writer or owner, together with other details relating to the contents of a tablet, manuscript or book.(14) The colophon method is no longer used today - the information originally given in a colophon having been transferred in our day to the first or title page. But in ancient documents the colophon with its important literary information was added in a very distinctive manner.
more…
This article is all about the true structure of the Book of Genesis; a structure that is so simple and straightforward - as the reader is going to discover - that even a child would have no trouble understanding it in its basic form. The chief credit for having laid bare this structure in all its profound simplicity belongs to the British scholar, P. J. Wiseman(1), upon whose thesis the following article will be based.
…
THE KEY TO THE STRUCTURE OF GENESIS
(A) The Colophon Phrase
Documents written in Mesopotamia were generally inscribed upon stone or clay tablets. It was customary for the ancient scribes to add a colophon note at the end of the account, giving particulars of title, date, and the name of the writer or owner, together with other details relating to the contents of a tablet, manuscript or book.(14) The colophon method is no longer used today - the information originally given in a colophon having been transferred in our day to the first or title page. But in ancient documents the colophon with its important literary information was added in a very distinctive manner.
more…
P
partridge
Guest
By accepting the theory of evilution, you accept the idea that death occured prior to sin and that does not make sense, since the penalty for sin was death.
p.s. I have one other ??. What does it mean theat you ‘catholics’ are “required” to believe something. Isn’t the whole idea of faith based on the evidence of things not seen ???
***‘Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, l so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.’ *** Heb 11:1-3
Have a nice day !!
F
Fidelis
Guest
I believe in the first, and believe God could have used the second to accomplish the first.
P
partridge
Guest
I truely mean this with no disrespectI believe in the first, and believe God could have used the second to accomplish the first.
, but evilution is pure humanism. until charles darwin came along with the theory what do you think people believed?? thats right, they believed what the Bible says. i am sure (not being catholic i am really not sure actually) that the early ***‘church fathers’ ***that are always being refered to here did not believe in evilution, they believed it just the way the Bible spells it out. only through time and being desensitized have you come to believe in evilution or parts of it. the Bible says we are to have faith like a child. read the creation account to a child and then ask them how many days it took God to create the world, that my friend is the answer that should be given and without the humanistic bias they try to convince society of such as to God a day is like a thousand years type of things.Have a great day !!
- Status