I can safely disregard this, right? It's ill-natured and painful to read...

I can safely disregard this, right? It's ill-natured and painful to read. It also makes no sense and I don't see any value in reading it.

I'm just skipping to Matthew.

Attached: Open-Bible-Genesis1.jpg (960x490, 106K)

More power to you

No, it is likely that the timeline may be a bit off, but the Darwinist theory of evolution is manifestly ill-founded, Creationism is indeed true. At least read so you understand the origin of evil.

It is very much NOT metaphorical or symbolic, and many people on here would agree with me.

>not metaphorical or symbolic

Attached: HMM.jpg (525x503, 58K)

That's right, it's why you have people in Veeky Forums claiming dinosaurs are fake or stating that they were just wiped out in the flood.

To be completely honest we would like to see some evidence of Nephilim, and who is to say that isn't what the dinosaurs' bones should be interpreted as?

Yeah, skip the first half for brain dead jew shit..
Skip the second half for brain dead hippie shit.
Go get a job and die from heart disease.

The best explanation of Genesis historically is catastrophism; i.e. the fall of man was a cosmos-wide catastrophe which introduced death and decay into the universe, thus fundamentally altering its operations. Some of this appears to be gradual, with the decreasing lifespans of humans, and there is also the later catastrophe of the flood. Point being, humans are incapable of scientifically observing anything past these catastrophic points, as our observations of the current functioning of the universe cannot be applied to a period in which the universe functioned differently. We can't look back and assume things worked in the same way, because they didn't, and we don't know exactly how they did.

samefag

its pretty interesting.
you know, the serpent was born in eden, its was human folly that gave into temptation and learned of the knowledge of good and evil. so the biggest part about the deceiver, Satan is that his victims deceive themselves, this is reiterated with Jesus on the mountaintop and a few other times im sure.
so that part is very interesting and a great allegory on the brutal nature that is found in all primates. Cain and able is similar, same with noah and Sodom and gammora and Abraham
over all it has some interesting takes on human nature and the culture it came from is very much reflected. overall the moral is, "look we all want too do naughty things, but if we do the divine boogeyman will get us so better not, also mutilate your baby boys, women are servants, and you should be very ashamed about having sex organs, also apparently incest is okay.
all the actual origin story in genesis is just hand wavy filler the authors used because they didn't want to spend time world building.

so its pretty interesting, ive actually convinced myself to read the bible for the first time since i was a kid.
what text has the genesis that closest to the original, whatever those jews with the ridiculous hair read?

Attached: hehe.png (190x266, 5K)

I like how ethics are presented concisely in the New Testament. The only good thing about the old one are the ten commandments. I went through Genesis and nothing makes sense. It's fine as mythology but it's painful to read when you know dew isn't steam from the earth and there are no giant flaming swords in the Middle East - the latter may be a metaphor but the former is definitely something they believed at the time. Also Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 literally contradict each other, it's very sloppy.

And Jesus chased jews around with a whip, I wouldn't call him a hippie.

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-03-13 02-00-04.png (347x113, 7K)

Now this is an interesting post indeed, because what you're stating here is that the reality of the situation is delicate and perceptual.

However this may be true, we cannot deny that the reality we are given is a cause of God. And that the fall of man is inherently a cause of sin entering our lives through Adam.

It is an error to view these sorts of things as metaphorical, because I'm sure we agree they come to a complete manifestation in the form of Adam and Eve. All problems of the common man do.

>the culture it came from is very much reflected
that's my problem with it. i like the 'knowing good and evil' stuff, it's interesting to think about, i don't like the jewish family trees and genital mutilation

>people in Veeky Forums are historically ignorant
>this means Genesis is literal
>empirical backing may be dinos
mine nog is jogged

Attached: MUCH THOUGHT.png (516x440, 157K)

The people who don't take Genesis literally don't believe academia is corrupted i.e. they most likely believe in evolution and neuroscience, and the idea of I.Q.

It's all flawed, and it's all bullshit. I study mathematics and differential economics, I love intelligent literature, I just cannot for the life of me stand the evolutionists.

I'm sure you can imagine the type of person I am. The Bell Curve makes my skin crawl.

Yes, Genesis was literal. Many other sources verify this kind of thought.

>Econ-Math
>thinks he's at all qualified to understand genomics or evo-bio much less physics or neuroscience
you should off yourself man, bragging about econ is embarassing bragging about econ-math is also embarassing
>differential economics
sounds like differential christian science, both are about as intelligent. you can make any fake subject sound real by adding math to it or evo. the difference is that biology and ecology are real subjects so mathematical biology and ecology makes them quantitative and also real subjects. You should probably study biology, geology and physics before you say stupid shit that makes you look like a lunatic. your beliefs do not negate scholarly inquiry into reality. tens of thousands of people who could easily do what you do (i study, so you aren't even a fucking professional or a teacher) believe in evolution and there is overwhelming evidence that darwin's theory modified with gene theory and other newer understandings of things like cell machinery and peptides is accurate to an absurd degree.

are the "other sources" your only cause of faith?

>I'm just skipping to Matthew.
Just skip it all and go straight to the epistle of james. All of the good things you need to know are condensed into that short 4 pages. It's true christianity, in a nutshell, with all the bullshit thrown out.

There are many sources for belief in God.

Lest you turn into a raving buttmad lunatic like this retard (), you would do well to consult the theologians across ages. Aritstotle, Proclus, Martin Luther, Avicenna, to name a few.

sage advice, but i was more referring to your literalism. who from the covey of genius theologians read Genesis bereft of metaphor & symbolism? it's an interesting position; i'm curious.

No one, because the purest forms of symbolism are reflected in events which actually occur.

I agree.

This thread gave me braincancer

>people who don’t take genesis LITERALLY
that’s some genius