Should Christians take Genesis literally, Veeky Forums?

SNOWNIGGER PRIDE WORLD WIDE

It is the word of God.

Yes.

Define 'literal'.

IT WAS 2500+ YEARS AGO HAHA ITS WRONG BECAUSE CURRENT YEAR

Empiricism is a far more archaic system.

Yeah sure whatever you say Luther

>Language is subjective and flawed, meaning must be interpretted by a reader
>Bible is written in a human language
>Bible is written in different languages with different grammar, words and norms
>Those languages and the context within which they existed have been dead for millenia
>Bibile is translated/revised through generations of completely different people with differing levels of familiarity with the original and new languages
>Bible is literal and infalliable
>The specific edition of the bible I have in 2016 in my bookshelf is literal and infaliable

Yeah right. Please don't give me the bullshit that god divinely inspired everyone of those different writers/translators to get it exactly right.

...

>My definition is the literal one

I hate that, thats why ill never be a practicing christian.

Answer: No.

Why: The Catholic Church says so and it is the final authority regarding all matters of faith and morals.

Case closed.

Adam and Eve is a story about how Man is made into a fool by Woman and her silly excuse. The Serpent could have been anything.

Nope the deceiver has scales.

Yes, those fools that take the Bible literally. Now allow me to take the part that talks about God himself literally while I berate others for taking the fucking thing literally.

10/10

>Language is subjective and flawed, meaning must be interpretted by a reader

Language preference may be subjective but its rules are objective. Different languages, different rules sure. But the rules the reader is dealing with doesn't change because of the readers' opinions or feelings.

There can be wrong interpretations but there are right ones. This goes for anything.

1+1=2 is infallible and it is objective. But you can have idiots and arrogant people argue for days what that means and some will interpret symbols differently. Of course this sounds less likely for math and people arguing about 1+1=2 sounds crazy. But there are people who argue about very easy mathematical statements and concepts. (but more difficult than simple arithmetic).

The reasons why something like the Bible would get much more debate and controversy than something like math, other than the language, are morality, politics, social issues and personal agenda. Further the Bible is easily accessible by anyone which can easily make it open to any interpretation. There is an infinite number of wrong interpretations.
>Bible is literal and infalliable
While I don't think the Bible is infallible and I'm not sure theologians would necessarily believe it to be so as it isn't even supposed to be God's literal word, it being literal and infallible would have nothing to do with whether or not some people choose to not get understand it or be incapable of understanding it.

>stories
>evidence
user, really?

Also, have you not considered the fact that the dawn of agriculture and civilization is preceded by the end of the last ice age, with a significant and sometimes violent rise in sea levels.

also, have you not considered the fact that the dawn of agriculture and civilization is preceded by

>hundreds of ancient societies from all over the world with no contact tell of the same events
>(((pure coincidence)))

>papists hate the bible this much
Kek

Catholics aren't Christian

>Hundreds of ancient societies from all over world with no contact have a God of Fire
>Hundreds of ancient societies from all over the world with no contact belive that certain old women have spiritual powers
>Hundreds of etc. etc. etc.

Certain thematic or structural similarities in the mythological and religious traditions of certain cultures is not evidence they share a common source

not a coincidence
they all experienced the same events. rising sea levels and the floods that came with it.

Yes, take all of it literally. Otherwise you're just bullshitting yourself. All or nothing, everything in-between is just cherrypicking to make yourself feel good.

Category error. The flood is a detailed historic event. If it were just a myth it would not exist in so many cultures, let alone with such great similarity.
>they all experienced the same events
Yes, a global flood.

meant to link

I mean it's somewhat appropriate because what I posted disproves your reply to it

Unless you want to tell me witches must be real?

*tips fedora*

The account of the earth's creation could be argued (I'm more a literalist myself, but God's time is not our time), but without the events concerning Adam and Eve, the rest of the Bible kind of falls apart. It wasn't just two people getting kicked out of Earth's VIP section, it was describing the fall of mankind into our current state of existence. Without this specific pretext, Christ's life, ministry, and sacrifice are robbed of much of their meaning.

Lining ones understanding with the Word of God should be more important than trying to appeal to the ever changing (yet consistently misguided) sensibilities of the World. Many have faced worse than a couple of jokes at their expense for maintaining their faith.

>But the rules the reader is dealing with doesn't change because of the readers' opinions or feelings.

Except what clearly is changed is how the rules interact with eachother.

If the wording is ambiguous then it is up to the interpreter to make sense of it according to their biases.

Literal reading of the bible is something the world can thank American Christians for...

>Over 200 ancient flood stories that talk about:
>>A global flood that covered the entire world
sure
>>A family of 8 surviving on a boat
no
>>A large tower was built after
no

>implying literal reading streams haven't existed since early times

Yes they were called heretics.

Yes.

Anti-literalists are compromisers.

Of course.

>DUDE METAPHORS LMAO

Christians should rediscover the difference between faith and fact.
Fact is something that is.
Faith is something that, regardless of it being or not, you act as if it is.

Example:
If I work hard, I will succeed. Everyone knows this isn't necessarily true, and that some people don't succeed despite working hard. Despite that, people still work hard, BELIEVING that they will succeed. Not knowing that they will succeed, but acting as if they know that they will succeed.
Belief is the process of acting as if any claim X is true, even if you don't know it to be true, or even despite knowing it to not be true.

So acting as if there is a God, and haven, and hell, and good, and evil, even if you don't know them to exist (and nobody knows them to exist) is faith. In fact, you can act as if they existed, even if you know them to not exist. That is faith, and that is what religion was meant to be, before stupid people got a hold of it and failed to comprehend it.

Protuip: the greeks knew that there are no gigantic men hurling lightning in the mountain on the other side of town. They took their sheep there and collected berries and herbs and shit. They acted as if there are, because it was a useful way to keep the collective sharp.

I can find 2000 forum posts saying Obama's wife is a man. Too much evidence to ignore. Also a lot of evidence that he is secretly Osama bin Laden, and a lizard, and a wizard, and a wizardlizard.

>what is archeology
>what is geology
>what is ancient records

yes, too much evidence to ignore

>archeology and geology support the bible

"no"

bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm

indeed it does

>Archaeological evidence of the flood
>Archaeological evidence of the garden of eden at at the mouth of the Tigris and Euphrates
>Archaeological evidence of the Exodus from egypt, splitting of the red sea, etc.

>No evidence

Pick one

>www.bible.ca

This is like linking to Stormfront to support your Holocaust claims.

Not an argument.

>argumentam ad /pol/um fallacy

Reddit has arrived

>can't refute the arguments and excavations made
>resort to ad hominems

you lost.

>floods exist
I agree.
>farms exist
I agree.
>jewish tribes existed
I agree.
>thus the bible
No.

>my bible.com blogpost proves the bible, BTFO!
No.

You haven't refuted or addressed any arguments made.

You're sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!".

You are unreasonable, irrational and in denial.

>Denying the bible despite abundant evidence

You're going straight to hell if you don't reform your ways

>my bible.com blogpost proves the bible, BTFO!
strawman

you asked for archeology evidence
i posted articles with archeology evidence

you resort to shitposting because you got proven wrong

You've made no arguments.
Floods having occurred doesn't prove that Noah got all the animals on a boat and sailed around until God drank enough sea water to make dry soil appear again.
People farming in the most fertile area of the then known world doesn't prove that there was haven on Earth and that people were created there from clay or whatever.

You are not arguing, you are pretending to argue, and get mad when people point it out.

>it's just a coincidence that the Chinese mention Nuu and 8 people surviving

>it's just a coincidence that universal legend goes that a boat survived the global flood

lol the only argument atheists have is: "It's just a coincidence!!"

or it really happened, but you dont want to admit that because that would mean the Bible is God's Word and that would hurt your feelings because you desperately wanted God not to exist.

Just stop replying to him, he's a shitty troll.

Evolutiontards are brainwashed and nothing will change their mind.

true, but i have nothing better to do

1. Its not universal, the americans and south africans don't have it.
2. Its not a coincidence, someone made it up and it spread.

Or do you think that "It's just a coincidence!!" that the people who have such stories are all on the same trade network, and those outside it don't have those legends?

keep denying science, archeology and historical records.

facts prove the bible is true.

you can
A. stay in denial
B. accept reality

apparently you chose the first, talk about ignorance

You didn't address my argument. Do so.

bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-index.htm

I can't find anything on this site about the biblical flood, can you help me?

google hydroplate theory

>Hydroplate theory is a creationist hypothesis that Earth once had huge chambers of water sandwiched between the earth's crust and its mantle.

But this is stupid, and we know it to be false from geology and simply digging holes very deep.

We know it by faith.

and archeological evidence

All supernatural things in the Bible should be taken metaphorically or symbolically.

t. True christian

There is no archeological evidence for a huge reservoir of water bellow the earth crust coming out and flooding the planet.

Besides, how can you have the garden of Eden in Iraq, and after that the world flooded by this crazy amount of water from under the crust? Wouldn't Iraq be underwater today? Its stupid.

You believe it by faith. You don't know it, since its not true.
Believe all you want, just don't mistake it for knowledge.

How can you be a Christian and a naturalist at the same time?

Christ performed many miracles and as a Christian we believe in his death, burial and resurrection.

You sound like a troll.

>what is the oceanic ridges

the earth shows clear signs of a catastrophic flood, it is covered in scars

Christ was an orator, he didn't perform anything other than making people feel better by being a good speaker and an overall nice guy.

He was a philosopher and christianity is his philosophy.

Heretic, opinion discarded.

if you believe that then you're not a christian.

>what is the oceanic ridges
Tectonics. Nothing to do with floods.

idiot confirmed

He healed by giving people faith in God and in Him. His miracles show that everything is possible through faith.

His resurrection isn't to be taken literal but to be a symbol of the beginning of the Church and thus the eternal life of Jesus Christ.

>he thinks continents float on water

What do you think happens when you take away all the water on earth? All the continents are connected and they cannot be "moved".

>muh pangea myth

t. heretic relativist post-modernist who hates the bible and tries to correct god's word

charles lawson shits on people like you

Where's the arguments, user? You said there'd be arguments.

>he thinks continents float on water
Did you misquote?

>s-stop triggering me!

lol

Yes, duh. Everyone does.

Only Catholics don't, they hate the Bible and they hate the Gospel. It is Satan's counterfeit church.

I'm not a heretic. I interpret the Bible as it is meant to be interpreted according to the written tradition of its time. Like atheists seek only that which the eye can see, you seek only what the words tell you, not what they really mean.

>a global flood.
*sigh*

and where did all the water come from? And where did it all go?

let's face it. this isn't even about believing the bible or not. this is flat out denying science and any crumble of logic and intelligence that may still linger in your brain.

It was all frozen in Antarctica and is coming back with climate change.

This.

...

not enough ice

i still see plenty of land. Some flood.

So was the Tigris and Euphrates area with their fertile valleys on top of high mountains before the flood? Cause they aren't underwater now.

>satan highest angel appears as a snake
>god "punishes" all hardly sentient snakes of his own creation

Proddyniggers not even once.

>proddyniggers
Why are catholics on Veeky Forums so edgy?

But its true, were the roman church has a history of merging hellenist thought and philosophy with faith while the eastern one developed a profound mysticism that is completely cohesive, proddys ended as billions of splintered sects trying to desperately twist the world akin to what the bible literally said to the most autistic detail which led to hysteric cults like snakehandlers often based on what one singled out bibleverse might translate to in the most worldly sense.

Catholics had at least equally deep heresys as gnosticism, the proddys spawned mormons.

While the zeal of some of them is impressive its in its structure just as justified as some curious ethnic polytheists sticking to narration to justifie themselves while it pretends to be more.

were they all from civilizations that lived near a river that flooded every year?

>muh local flood! ancient ppl were stupid!
this typical atheist argument has already been debunked.

if it was a local flood then god didnt need to tell noah to build a boat, or saves animals. just move away.

>The Catholic Church says so
Source?

This one actually made me lol
Thank you

>Christians are this retarded

You mean utnapushtim.

>...the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

t. Pius XII in Humani Generis

He also later notes that Genesis is truth not a myth. The Catholic position is that the Genesis narrative and scientific theories do not conflict.