Everything in Genesis before Abraham is allegory right?

read this to see if it's not heresy

Attached: DENZH_r.jpg (900x1317, 310.35K)

According to Exodus 20:11, which uses creation as reasoning for the sanctification of the Sabbath, the earth was created in 6 days. The earth was created in 6 regular days.

God has made it abundantly clear that Genesis is history. Read Ex. 20:11. Which evidences can you offer that it is allegorical?

Attached: trust.png (331x132, 30.15K)

St Augustine for one argued for it: answersingenesis.org/reviews/books/augustines-commentaries-on-genesis-one-and-modern-theology/

There's nothing there to either confirm or deny whether it was literal days though. Just because regular days are mentioned doesn't have anything to do with how long the creative days were. We don't build theology out of single, isolated verses of scripture where ambiguity exists - that's not how biblical exegesis works. The Genesis account works equally well as a literal account or a metaphor, or a combination of the 2. Given that this was contentious as far back as the early Church and even among the Jews it's not an issue we're going to settle now. If you find it supports your faith either way, go for it - it's not something critical to salvation.

Yes it is. You would have to be a bit nutty to think it is the literal word for word account of what happened. For example it's very clear the universe is billions of years old, not ~6000 years old

that's a pretty clear indication that the genesis story is not literal truth

How?

If you choose to take Genesis literally, you run into a lot of problems. Not just logical problems, but theological problems.

Gap theory is a fan fiction, it’s not in the text.
Well you’re wrong there too, in two different ways. The Theophanies in the OT were often The Abgel of the LORD (Jesus)
Again, that was Jesus, and you are making a huge assumption that they were the exact same rivers. How many towns called Tork are there in the world? There’s and Alexandria less then 100 miles from me, and I don’t leave anywhere near Africa.
Yes? Why is this a problem?
It doesn’t state that either. They were the three specific humans named; Adam and Eve had other children after the births of Cain and Abel. Seth was merely the first sin born after Abel’s death.
Why in God’s name are you afraid of what heathens think of us?

Where do you get the idea that the Angel of the Lord is actually Jesus?

All the places where He accepts worship.
22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.

ITT: several fools rejecting the Word of God that was not only affirmed by Christ who quoted Genesis when speaking of Creation and marriage (Matt 19:4-6), but also inspired by Christ who is the Word that inspired these writings

oh god this, i wish more people understood

Evolution and Adam & Eve are not reconcilable
Noah's Ark and two of each animal being impossible
Talking serpents
Sin entering through death when dinoaurs died before human existed to be able to sin
etc.

It must be allegory? I'm a Catholic not an Atheist by the way.

No op

Its a middle ground, just stay clear that God created everything. Dont fool yourself, cience and religion are not opposites, but of course you are not going to solve cientific questions by the bible, you open a cience book for that.

Yes, and most of it afterwards, at least in the Old Testament, is allegory too. The Bible uses lots and lots of symbolism to convey meaning that go far beyond the literal. It's not a collection of facts, but a compilation of books inspired by the Holy Spirit, and is the Spirit and the Word of God what one should look for in the Bible, and not treat it as a history book. Everything in the Bible is true, not in a literal way, but in a meta-literal way.

Not sure why you would trust someone in a lab coat over moses but whatever

You are a heretic. I bet you also think that the jews never went to egypt, and that they werent descended from abraham, but instead canaanite tribes.

What a cop-out. Why are you so afraid of the history that Jesus quoted as history?

there is anatomical allegory in it
as in the whole bible

Maybe because the Bible wasnt written by Moses but by Jews as the years went by, and this isnt "herecy" dont blind yourself, be faithful, not stupid.

Everything in Genesis after Peter Gabriel left was shit.

John 5:46-47

Again, be faithful, not stupid. What you read came from Moses for sure, but he didn't wrote it, dont fool yourself.

Why is that idea dumb? It actually says in the pentateuch that moses put the pentateuch into the ark of the covenant if I remember. How could that happen if he or his scribes didnt write it? You are falling for the claims of the textual critics

Evolution works in theory, but when you take into account the limitations of natural selection and the fact that way more negative mutations occur than beneficial ones, it seems very unlikely that it is how life came to be.

I suggest you all read Genetic Entropy, written by John Sanford the inventor of the "gene therapy gun" that was used to create the first GMOs.

He presents irrefutable evidence through logic and scientific data that evolution by natural selection has virtually zero chance of being how we came to be.

Why stop with Abraham? If genesis is allegorical, then what is stopping you from casting the entire bible as "allegory"?

Attached: IMG_20190731_214527.jpg (400x400, 19.07K)

I'm the type of person who believes the earth is 2 billion years old (or how ever old it is) but also at the same time believe that Adam and Eve were real people. So I would like some clarification here, as it seems right now I'm a fence sitter.

If the earth was 2 million years old we would have assuredly had the technological revolutions way earlier. We would be so much more advanced of a people. 6000 years makes so much more sense

It doesn't even work in theory hence the evolutionists need to construct ad hoc hypothesis after ad hoc hypothesis in order to save it. Only the most dogmatic adherents to Scientism still have unquestioning faith in it.

claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/

It can't answer the question of ultimate origins but only origins of things assumed to already have an origin. Abiogenesis is as ridiculous and speculative as any ancient creation myth. Let's not even mention panspermia.

The Bible is very scant on the details about the natural world. It's mostly about us, human beings. This is because its authors understood that, knowledge of ourselves and what we are is more important than knowledge about the external world. Modern science is completely oblivious of this. As far as modern science is concerned, there is no "internal". It's an illusion, a hoax. Everything is a consequence of rationally explained sense phenomena occurring in vitro. The question of what it is that consciously reflects upon them is literally a non-sequitur according to this view, just read your Quine, Popper or Wittgenstein.

I think a lot of people are very afraid of saying "I don't know". They have to have an answer, an explanation even though they can't vouch for it being true. It's better to believe a falsehood you rationally justify than admitting that not only do you not know, but you can not in fact know. But then again, most people confuse rationalization with actual sound use of reason.

Was the Earth created in "six days"? What is a day to God? What is time anyway but a sequence of events placed in chronological order, which are by no means as incontrovertible as we'd like to think? Did Adam and Eve exist in this timeline or were they outside of it? Were their flesh and blood temporal human form something they started with, or was it the "skins" they were wrapped in once they overstepped their boundaries? These are the questions we should be asking,

In a way, yeah I believe that. A day to the Lord can be a billion years in our sense. But I also believe we should put less emphasis on debating if Genesis was an allegory or not, because either way it does not disprove the bible unlike what others in the thread believe. Instead, we should learn from it to be more faithful Christians.

There have been literal interpretations, and ideal interpretations of genisis.

The literal interpretation is pretty much indefensible now, we are well aware of the great antiquity of the world. St. Thomas aquinas for example was caught between the litteral and the ideal interpretation.

Attached: p1545642858107.jpg (1784x1024, 516.53K)

The official position of the Catholic church is that the faith is open to the hypothesis' of the sciences; you are more or less free to discover what you will about early history and believe it. (although of course there are a lot of lies in science from worldview biases against christianity, some of it is still true).

Don't talk about things you know nothing about, please

Admittedly I'm no master on genesis at all, but to my understanding, death could be referring to spiritual death, which did enter the world after defining right and wrong on our own terms.

And in the case of Noah, 2 of every animal depends on how you classify "animal". If they had the taxonomy we have, most definitely all those animals would not been able to fit on the ark, but if it were a few of the general classes of animals, yes you could fit all on an ark. Microevolution (which is epigenetic evolution, like that found in the various dog breeds that we have bred) could possibly create much variation to fill the gaps between the rest of the creatures.

Also a surprising number of civilizations across the world, some even in america also have a flood myth very similar to the one in genesis. It's not completely ridiculous to think maybe there is a kernel of truth to it if it is independently attested to across numerous cultures, many of which do not even know each other.
But to be honest, my real position is I don't know how it happened. We simply do not know enough about Noah, or really genesis in general to make any conclusions.

Origen was a HERETIC. An ecumenical council declared him an anathema. Why dont you find claims from actual church fathers to back up your faulty ideas

Describing a story from the bible as having a "kernal" of truth. The word of God is truth. You would never know this because you have no wisdom, as all wisdom comes from the fear of God, of which you have no fear because you believe him to be a liar. You are a heretic and you dont even know it

Origen had some pretty bizarre ideas, and was influenced a little too much by Greek philosophy to the point where he tried to frame the faith in its terms, but it's not like he pushed for something really deviant from Church teachings, like docetism or Arianism.

Also this isn't warhammer 40k. A heretic was someone who might have been misguided, but to be excluded from the church usually required a hearing and a decision from the hierarchs. To my knowledge Origen was never denounced in this way in his lifetime, therefore it's hard to say whether or not he died as a Christian. The manner of his death suggests that he in fact did. Although the ancients took heresy much more seriously than we do, they were also much more forgiving. My view is that he was a misguided Christian, certainly not a saint, but very much worth studying, although with care and supervision.

Well yes, while origen was never declared a heretic as he died before he was ever given judgement by the church, many of his beliefs were determined to be heretical by an ecumenical council

Kek.

No one in the Bible considered the Genesis as an allegory, nor will I.

Certainly not. The global flood is historically attested by every people in the world. Furthermore, Adam and Eve have to have been literally the ancestors of the entire human race for their sin to affect the entire human race.
That's not to say you're a bad person for thinking this. There have certainly been genuinely good Christians who believed that the creation narrative was allegorical, to include CS Lewis and Fulton J Sheen. And the Confessions of Saint Augustine contain a detailed explanation of how he sees the creation narrative as containing a symbolic representation of the establishment of Christianity.
Personally, I would argue that if there is any part of Genesis to be taken non-literally, it ends at the creation of Adam. Adam must have been a real man, period. It just doesn't work any other way.

Majority of Origen's teachings were used by other church fathers and assembled into philokalia

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070425.html
The very Pope (the former one, Benedict XVI) talking about Origen as one of "the great figures of the early Church" who "impressed an irreversible turning point on the development of Christian thought".