Literalists are divided on Gen 1:31. Some accept it applies to stars, dry land, trees, serpents, and people. Others try and restrict it to people. What they all do is add a lot of detail to “very good” – ignoring how Scripture uses the phrase. Some also demand their additions are accepted as Scripture.
Old earth creationists have death and mortality happening before Adam, stopping for a while and restarting all because of Adam. They insist only they read Romans 5:12 literally. We “fixed” it so it matches their belief. It’s fundamental. It’s simple. It’s not what Romans 5:12 says.
Now this so-called fundamental comes from a much disputed passage. Debate about the only possible way its final clause can be understood has raged for centuries, well before our community inherited some views and took sides. Why don’t people just find other places where the Bible says what they want it to say, instead of quarrelling about Romans 5:12? Continue reading
The Spirit of God hath made me, And the breath of the Almighty hath given me life….Behold, I am according to thy wish in God’s stead: I also am formed out of the clay
Could be Adam speaking but is actually Elihu in Job 33:4-6. Adam needed to breathe. Just like Elihu. The point should be obvious.
![Literally] The first man [ever](https://christadelphiansoriginsdiscussion.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/literally-the-first-man-ever.png?w=625)
Was Paul talking in types and federal heads or teaching biology with the reference to Adam? Biology say the literalists. The jump from literal history to spiritual needs clarification. Of course old earth creationists need extra fixes. They think Adam is literally and historically the first man of this creation. The Bible inconveniently doesn’t mention these creations, nor does the geological record. They believe there were men before Adam in these other creations. So Adam is the first one this time. Complicated for first and fundamental principles hey?
More “corrections” to the Bible from the literalist collection. There’s something quite disturbing about being told we must agree with so-called fundamentals that are not in the text. If so much has to be read in, is it really fundamental?
Please understand we at COD cheerfully share fellowship in Christ with all manner of creationists. But when some seek contention about what they think the Bible says, we will point out how much pressure their reading puts on the text. So we “fixed” Gen 2:17 to read as the literalists simply read it. Quite different isn’t it.
