Moses and God's Days

[Willtor]

The most common complaint is that scripture is all poetry, and not historical.
As your argument only focuses on "poetic" the fight is to be expected.

This quote from ICR covers the true stand:
"Lisle repeatedly appealed to Ross and Rana that God’s Word should be read
in the most straightforward, literal manner possible recognizing that there are
poetic and allegorical passages which need special consideration. "

The Institute for Creation Research

Rather than reading it in the "most straightforward, literal manner" I prefer to try to understand how it was intended and read it that way. That's how we read everything else -- why not the Bible? If I wrote a book, that's how I'd expect it to be treated by others.

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by Papias View Post

After all, Very few scholars take Genesis literally in the first place.

Then you should be stunned by how persuasive that handful is.
Show some respect. They have you slammed.


One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible Is Literally True

Oh yes - so you are saying that the popular data shows that they are right.

We can also see that a literal reading of the scriptures show a very different arrangement of earth, etc, even though very few Christians follow the literal reading showing a flat earth with the sun going around it. http://www.geocentricity.com/

Then you should be stunned by how persuasive that handful is.
Show some respect. They have you slammed.


1 In 4 Americans Thinks The Sun Goes Around The Earth, Survey Says : The Two-Way : NPR

 

[SkyWriting]

Rather than reading it in the "most straightforward, literal manner" I prefer to try to understand how it was intended and read it that way. That's how we read everything else -- why not the Bible? If I wrote a book, that's how I'd expect it to be treated by others.

If you want something top be regarded as true, honest, and

the path to God Himself,

then you avoid including any fictional stories.
So, there were none included.

 

[Papias]

SW wrote:

If you want something top be regarded as true, honest, and

the path to God Himself,

then you avoid including any fictional stories.
So, there were none included.

If Genesis 1 is a poem about the creation by God, not intended to be a literal description, are you saying this is "fiction"?

So are you saying that a symbolic or figurative story is "fictional", if it is not literally true? So we have to stick to what the text actually says without using symbolic meanings?

In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[Calminian]

SW wrote:




If Genesis 1 is a poem about the creation by God, not intended to be a literal description, are you saying this is "fiction"?

So are you saying that a symbolic or figurative story is "fictional", if it is not literally true? So we have to stick to what the text actually says without using symbolic meanings?

In Jesus' name-

Papias

Considering we know what hebrew poetry looks like, and Genesis 1 is nothing like it, I say the point is moot.

But poetry doesn't mean something is not literally true. There are true stories set in poetry. And you can read those true stories literally, and they will still be true. Take Moses' song after the Israelites crossed the red sea. It's poetry, and it's literally true. There is no false data in it contradicting the true story. There may be poetic expression, but none of them contradict the true history.

In Gen. 1 you have the opposite. If evolutionary/BB theories are true, the entire narrative of Gen. 1 is false, whether you read it poetically or not. You have a huge problem with scripture if you want to trust in man's theories of origins. Poetry or not, you have a false narrative.

 

[Willtor]

Considering we know what hebrew poetry looks like, and Genesis 1 is nothing like it, I say the point is moot.

Sure it looks like Hebrew poetry. We know this because we know what poetry looks like.

But poetry doesn't mean something is not literally true. There are true stories set in poetry. And you can read those true stories literally, and they will still be true. Take Moses' song after the Israelites crossed the red sea. It's poetry, and it's literally true. There is no false data in it contradicting the true story. There may be poetic expression, but none of them contradict the true history.

Hence the surprise at the opposition to recognizing the creation account as poetry.

In Gen. 1 you have the opposite. If evolutionary/BB theories are true, the entire narrative of Gen. 1 is false, whether you read it poetically or not. You have a huge problem with scripture if you want to trust in man's theories of origins. Poetry or not, you have a false narrative.

It's figurative, not false. If you don't understand the distinction, there's a conversation to be had before talking about the interpretation of Genesis.

 

[SkyWriting]

SW wrote:




If Genesis 1 is a poem about the creation by God, not intended to be a literal description, are you saying this is "fiction"?

So are you saying that a symbolic or figurative story is "fictional", if it is not literally true? So we have to stick to what the text actually says without using symbolic meanings?

In Jesus' name-

Papias

Witnesses to crimes in court testimony demonstrate that each
point of view is a fictional story created in the mind of an observer.

The writer can be inspired by true events and we believe in faith
that God's Holy Spirit inspired the writers of scripture.

 

[Papias]

Willtor, thanks for those good answers.

SW wrote:

The writer can be inspired by true events and we believe in faith
that God's Holy Spirit inspired the writers of scripture.

Yep, we agree on that.

In Christ-

Papias