Genesis - Actual history or not?

Not_By_Chance said:

Personally, I cannot see from a straight reading of the English translations, that there is any doubt that Genesis is referring to six literal days for creation; that creation being just a few thousand years ago if you add up the genealogies from other parts of the Bible.

Click to expand...

The entire book of Genesis (including the first two chapters) is to be taken in its plain, literal, chronological, historical, and factual sense, and almost nothing in Genesis is purely allegorical. So you are perfectly correct in believing that Genesis gives us six, literal, 24 hour days of creation, defined by "evening" and "morning" according to Hebrew reckoning. Exodus 20:11, which is an integral part of the Ten Commandments, confirms this also.

So why did people start trying to "re-interpret" Genesis? (a) Because it is totally in opposition to evolution and (b) because Satan wants to sow doubt in the minds of those who are seeking the truth and would be saved.

The two creation stories in Genesis were actually written several hundred years apart by two different people having much different agendas. Genesis 2 ff is the oldest and more primitive story and in an allegorical way tells the story of man leaving animal status behind and evolving (graduating) into full humanity. I say this as both a Christian and as a scientist. At least half the scientists I have met in my career have Christian and many others have been Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and B'hai. I don't think that I ever met a scientist who does not accept the theory of evolution as a valid model of how life has come to be as it is.

The great bible scholar Rabbi Maimonides' advised that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not to be taken as literal history --- they are folklore and borrowed myth to fill in the gap in the period before the Israelites' emergence as a self-aware cultural entity.

I tend towards seeing the first 11 chapters as allegory (which makes them no less truth or historical than the parables of Jesus). There a quite a few evidences that I see in Scripture for this interpretation. I'm typing on my phone now, so I'll leave one to start with. Genesis 1 presents a radically different order of creation than Genesis two. Most notably, in Genesis 1, the animals are created before Adam. In Genesis 2, they are created for and after Adam.

I personally side with the "Gap Theory". The stuff that happened in Gen 1:2 and beyond was a re-working of the earth that was previously destroyed. Read it slowly. Its obvious that the earth was already there.

It's literal. However, many people have trouble accepting it for what it says, because it contradicts what modern science tells us

Which then asks the questions: who's telling the truth?

The scriptures point to a flat earth more than a globe.

The scripture tells us we live in a geocentric universe. Modern science tells us we live in a heliocentric universe. They can't both be right...

Genesis, Not by Chance, offers two contradictory chronologies, written by different scribes at different times. That is one major objection to taking it literally. Another objection came from St. Augustine. He had God solely outside of time. Hence, he believed God created the world in a flash, n instant, not seven days. The major Reformer Calvin argued, in his commentary on Genesis, that God did not intend the Bible to give us a science lesson. God accommodates himself to our feeble intellects, talks "baby talk" to us. Same with Augustine.

I chose to believe that it is literal. because if you read the entire bible from Genesis all the way to Revelations, it reveals that God have supernaturally done things that seems impossible, for example, a donkey speaking, a bush on fire but not burnt, hailstone that turn into fire, the parting of the red sea, the floating ax head, etc,etc. all those events are impossible scientifically, but God could do it. If he could do any of those, then we should believe that God can create Earth just the way He want to do it. an already mature planet, fully mature animals and plants, a man created already adult sized and mature, a woman already mature, and so on.

The secular science is focused on the status quo. They do not like being criticized or being said that they are wrong. it is difficult to change 500 or more years of "science education". They do not like the idea that a spiritual being called God created us. They prefer factual evidence that says that we evolved from cells. Atheist tend to be militant and would harass, even mock us as being simpleton, ignorant, even silly and childish for even believing in God and Jesus.
The bible says that if we stay true to the truth, and keep hold on to it until the end, God will bless us. We will suffer the persecution because of our faith and belief. Don't despair because there are many fellow believers who suffer with you. i choose to believe in God's Holy words regardless of what the world says.

P

The Bible definitely does not say, Paul K, that God created the world just the way he wants it. Read Gen. 6:6. And science is not at all anti-God. Actually, science is neutral on the question of God, since thi8s is not a scientific question. I don't know where you are getting these militant atheists. Most I know raise very serious and appropriate issues and objections. Incidentally, an obvious problem you have here is this: If God could create people fully formed, why do we have to start out as babies? If anything, the mockers trend to be the creation-science people. Check out J.P. Holdings at Tektonics online.

Not_By_Chance said:

From the responses so far, there are clearly some radically different views on how to understand the opening chapters of the Bible. The interpretation that I have been exposed to the most states that Genesis 1 is the overview of what God did (in six literal days) and that Genesis 2 is merely God providing more details to the creation account already provided in Chapter 1.

I think I shall need to try to find some experts in ancient Jewish history and the Hebrew language in order to find out what they make of all this.

Click to expand...

The problem that I see with that interpretation is that Gen 1 and Gen 2 each provide a chronology. There are enough differences between then that they both can't be historical accounts. Either Adam was created before animals or after; it can't be both.

Dkh587 said:

They can't both be right...

Click to expand...

On a spiritual level they could both be right.

God's Word is Spirit, therefore must be interpreted by The Spirit.
It's not about History, it's about our Redemption.
The Seven days is 7,000 yrs. of God's plan to Redeem All mankind through The light, His Son.

2Pe_3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Not_By_Chance said:

I hope I'm posting this in the correct forum!

There seems to be a lot of argument amongst Christians as to whether Genesis, especially the first two chapters, should be taken as literal history or whether it should just be regarded allegorically.

Personally, I cannot see from a straight reading of the English translations, that there is any doubt that Genesis is referring to six literal days for creation; that creation being just a few thousand years ago if you add up the genealogies from other parts of the Bible.

Now, ignoring any claims to the contrary from secular scientists, could someone explain to me what evidence there is to support the idea that Genesis was not meant to be taken literally? I do have other questions for those who do not accept a literal Genesis, but I'll start another thread about that later on. For the moment, I'd just like to concentrate on the above question.

Click to expand...

The difference between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is that Genesis 1 is given from the perspective of Jesus Christ creating, hence why "God said...." is used. Genesis 2 is given from the perspective of YHWH God, hence why "LORD God..." is used. Genesis 1 is more of a summary, whereas Genesis 2 goes into greater detail, especially what happened on the 6th day when man was created first, then woman, on that same day.

Not_By_Chance said:

I hope I'm posting this in the correct forum!

There seems to be a lot of argument amongst Christians as to whether Genesis, especially the first two chapters, should be taken as literal history or whether it should just be regarded allegorically.

Personally, I cannot see from a straight reading of the English translations, that there is any doubt that Genesis is referring to six literal days for creation; that creation being just a few thousand years ago if you add up the genealogies from other parts of the Bible.

Now, ignoring any claims to the contrary from secular scientists, could someone explain to me what evidence there is to support the idea that Genesis was not meant to be taken literally? I do have other questions for those who do not accept a literal Genesis, but I'll start another thread about that later on. For the moment, I'd just like to concentrate on the above question.

Click to expand...

What does His Word say about "evidence"?

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, this word "faith" means persuasion taken from the base word to convince, are you convinced by men that it is only to be taken literally or is God trying to persuade you to understand it spiritually?

First comes the natural and then the spiritual, you already have a natural understanding of it ..... now walk in faith into the unknown and understand it spiritually.

It is day one of creation, the separation of the light from the darkness ...... the separation of the spiritual from natural .... only then can you continue your walk into day two where God shows you what is from Him (The above waters) and what is from men (the below waters).

Blessings brother, for you are at the door, walk in

JackRT said:

On a spiritual level they could both be right.

Click to expand...

How?

If in all physical examples are hidden spiritual truths, why can't they both be right?

If it did literally happen, we know through His Spirit teaching us, that we come to the spiritual understanding of it, meaning we come to understand what takes place in inside of us that is manifested through the physical.

2KnowHim said:

The Seven days is 7,000 yrs. of God's plan to Redeem All mankind through The light, His Son.

Click to expand...

The Bible says no such thing.
BTW, how did all the plant life survive a thousand years of darkness?
Beyond that, the chronology of creation doesn't fit even pretending thousand year days.

2Pe_3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring the second part of the sentence. A thousand years is like a day. It means that God is timeless, not that days were 1,000 years long.