Genesis - Lets Hear It From The Other Side

[Digit]

Heyas,

I would like to hear from all those who believe Genesis is a literal telling of Creation, and what in Genesis makes you believe that it is literal.

So, to clarify, what (in Genesis) leads you to believe that it is a literal story?

I'm obviously not going to answer this with my reasons for believing it's literal, as I've pumped out several pages of worth debating in the museum thread. So please only those who believe it's literal respond here.

Thanks in advance,
Digit

P.S.: If you can quote scripture along with what you are referring to, that would also be of immense help, and I would appreciate it. Thanks kindly in advance for any such efforts.

 

[Digit]

I asked for the other thread to be closed, as you started debating which I specifically asked you not to do.

For those that wanted a pro-literal say, please post here, and for those that don't believe Genesis is literal, now is the time to hush. Thank you in advance.

Digit

 

[laptoppop]

One problem is that you are asking for "literalists" -- which is a straw man group, invented only to make it easier to put a group down. The better term is "conservative" or "traditional", which represents Biblical analysis that considers a wide range of factors, including the "plain" meaning, the spiritual meanings, word pictures, poems, allegories, double meanings, parables, meanings to the people who first heard it as well as deeper truths to be communicated across the ages, historical context, etc.

For example, Adam. In many ways, he represents the human race, or he is a representative of the human race. However, he is also a specific person, created uniquely by God, tempted and failed. He had kids who are names, and is part of a genealogy all the way up to Christ. He was the first Man, who fell -- Jesus is the second, who redeemed us for all time.

In any case, you are not likely to find many strict literalists, or folks that like that term. It is not that we interpret everything literally, but that we consider each passage carefully, and don't lump them into big vague buckets of myths with some sort of vague spiritual message. Instead, the Scriptures stand as one of the clearest communications between God and Man -- initiated by God, but carried through by men. It is not that they were mindless machines, but that they were folks powerfully used by a loving, omnipotent, omniscient God to provide His message.

 

[Assyrian]

No conservative does not work because there are conservative scholars who don't acccept the YEC interpretation.

Traditional is difficult too because day age and the Gap theory have been reconciling Genesis and science since the nineteenth century (I do find it odd that Gap is now lumped in with YEC, but it goes to show how new traditions get accepted). Before that, a much older tradition in the church is the one from Augustine and Aquinas which saw the days as figurative. An exclusive young earth intepretation would only have been found in Protestant churches from the Reformation to the 18th or 19th centuries.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The literal account must be left intact and carefully studied in order to understand fully its meaning. Whether or not you believe the event actually happened we need to continue to study it as written.

Consider the creation of Eve. Adam was put to sleep, then operated on. A rib was taken and the woman formed from it, etc. Now this is just impossible to many, but you cannot change the story. You must study it as written or you'll never get what God wants you to understand from it.

gluadys has a great analogy of the relationship between the literal and the figurative. When building a great stone arch scaffolding must be used to support the stonework until it is complete. The literal story is the scaffolding that upholds the arch-the greater spiritual truth. No one would remove the supporting scaffolding before the arch is completed and can stand on it's own.

I want to add to her analogy; Consider that the final piece of knowledge that completes this spiritual arch is the 'keystone', the one that holds the arch firmly in place, keeping it from collapsing when the support structure is removed. Then and only then can the literal story be removed, or dismissed from consideration. This would of course represent complete knowledge of the subject. How many have complete knowledge of any scripture?

How many are so knowledgable that they can remove the literal without having the stones of incomplete spiritual knowledge crash down on them?

 

[Digit]

So do you feel that Genesis is a factual account of what occurred during that period of time? (addressed to all) Trying not to use the term literal here. >_>

Do you feel the entire Bible is the word of God, or parts of it, or none at all?

Also, do you feel that this is the root of the Creationist issue (6 literal days, rather than millenia), or rather just a part of it, or not related at all?

Digit.

 

[laptoppop]

Factual? Sure. Some parts are told using word pictures, poetry, etc. -- but the important events are as portrayed. For example -- was the serpent a literal serpent or just a phrase commonly used through Scripture for Satan? I can be convinced either way. 6 days? Pretty darn clear. Adam as a real person, starting a specific genealogy leading up to Jesus, the promised messiah? Also clear.

The phrase "word of God" is a hot button around here. Many folks (interestingly, on the TE side (exclusively?)) try to use John 1:1 as a proof text to say anywhere word of God is mentioned it means Jesus. To me, that's sloppy exegesis. Yes, many times where the Scriptures talk about "word of God" you can see it as Jesus - or as a dual fulfillment in Scripture and in Jesus. But there are lots of times (do a word search on blueletterbible.com) when the phrase is used as referring to scriptures. Psalm 119 is a classic example. What about the New Testament? Peter refers to Paul's letters as Scripture, and the early church councils codified what should and should not be in the canon. Personally, I feel they did a great job, and put an authoritative stamp on what could have been contentious. There are a tiny handful of places where the writer of Scripture makes it clear that it is their personal opinion, not the Lord's. This was important because the assumption was that the rest of it was from the Lord. I think one of the biggest issues is not "word of God" -- but rather should we see the Scriptures as direct revelation from God through the authors ("God-Breathed"), or as a nice collection of myths with spiritual messages?

Interestingly, I do NOT feel that the 6 days is the root of the issue. Apart from methods of Biblical interpretation, I see the root issue as the flood of Noah. If it happened as the Scriptures portrayed, then a global flood would leave a TON of evidence. Fortunately, the evidence we have (the fossil record, the geologic formations, etc.) can easily and solidly be interpreted as matching the plain reading of Scripture. If however, you want to interpret the evidence as representing evolution, then you must either make Noah's flood a little local event (which has many problems) or call the whole thing a myth, excusing any pretext of historicity, and letting you just look for spiritual messages, while ignoring the method in which it is told.

 

[Dannager]

One problem is that you are asking for "literalists" -- which is a straw man group, invented only to make it easier to put a group down.

You know, I'm just about done hearing this from you. I don't care if you don't like calling yourself a literalist. In fact, I don't think any of us care. We're not necessarily directing our arguments at you. There are dozens of creationists that we've encountered here over the years that describe themselves as literalists. We're using the label they've provided us, and it just so happens that it's also pretty accurate. So stop calling it a straw-man argument. We didn't build it. If you think it's a straw-man, get together with your fellow creationists and come up with a united front to put forward.

Lord knows you guys could use one.

 

[laptoppop]

You know, I'm just about done hearing this from you. I don't care if you don't like calling yourself a literalist. In fact, I don't think any of us care. We're not necessarily directing our arguments at you. There are dozens of creationists that we've encountered here over the years that describe themselves as literalists. We're using the label they've provided us, and it just so happens that it's also pretty accurate. So stop calling it a straw-man argument. We didn't build it. If you think it's a straw-man, get together with your fellow creationists and come up with a united front to put forward.

Lord knows you guys could use one.

Wow! There's a pile of anger there. Me thinks thou protesteth too much.

The best discussion of any position is done using its most fully developed form. For example, it is appropriate and proper for evolutionists to correct people with misunderstanding about evolution which has come from other folks. In the same way, I will continue to correct the perception that only "literalists" are creationists. They represent a tiny fraction of the overall group, and are certainly not representative of the whole. Sorry if this bugs you.

 

[Dannager]

Wow! There's a pile of anger there. Me thinks thou protesteth too much.

You've used the complaint before, and I've brought up why it isn't valid before, and you continue to use it.

Something like "We aren't all literalists," is completely reasonable for you to be saying. "The term 'literalist' is a straw-man invented to make us look bad," is not reasonable, because it makes it appear as though the term "literalist" is something that evolutionists invented when it very clearly is not.

 

[laptoppop]

You've used the complaint before, and I've brought up why it isn't valid before, and you continue to use it.

Something like "We aren't all literalists," is completely reasonable for you to be saying. "The term 'literalist' is a straw-man invented to make us look bad," is not reasonable, because it makes it appear as though the term "literalist" is something that evolutionists invented when it very clearly is not.

In my unhumble opinion - the term is around here to try to categorize all creationists as unthinking KJV-only Hovind followers. Since that is an incorrect categorization, I will continue to correct it. Sorry if it bugs you.

I believe that each group should be defined as THEY want to be defined. For example, that's why I try to use TE instead of "pro-evolutionist" because I recognize that there is a lot more to the gathered TE group than just accepting evolution. Of course, there's just as much variation among TEs as among creationists. That's why God created "other" in the answer to polls. <grin>

 

[crawfish]

In my unhumble opinion - the term is around here to try to categorize all creationists as unthinking KJV-only Hovind followers. Since that is an incorrect categorization, I will continue to correct it. Sorry if it bugs you.

I believe that each group should be defined as THEY want to be defined. For example, that's why I try to use TE instead of "pro-evolutionist" because I recognize that there is a lot more to the gathered TE group than just accepting evolution. Of course, there's just as much variation among TEs as among creationists. That's why God created "other" in the answer to polls. <grin>

Heh. You're assuming we're "pro-evolutionists", when some of us (well, me, at least) aren't primarily concerned with evolutionary theory. I'm more a believer in the harmonious and unconflicting relationship between the bible and the scientific method.

 

[laptoppop]

Heh. You're assuming we're "pro-evolutionists", when some of us (well, me, at least) aren't primarily concerned with evolutionary theory. I'm more a believer in the harmonious and unconflicting relationship between the bible and the scientific method.

No, my point was that I am NOT assuming that, so I don't use the term "pro-evolutionist". (my problem with applying the scientific method to historical events, especially those where the Scripture speaks, is that it specifically EXCLUDES God (the supernatural) in requiring repeatable, observable results. Since we cannot directly observe creation, it does not apply. We can verify that what we CAN observe *could* have been caused by the events as described in Scripture, but we cannot *prove* them scientifically.)

 

[crawfish]

No, my point was that I am NOT assuming that, so I don't use the term "pro-evolutionist". (my problem with applying the scientific method to historical events, especially those where the Scripture speaks, is that it specifically EXCLUDES God (the supernatural) in requiring repeatable, observable results. Since we cannot directly observe creation, it does not apply. We can verify that what we CAN observe *could* have been caused by the events as described in Scripture, but we cannot *prove* them scientifically.)

Sorry. I obviously skimmed over your post a bit too quickly and misread it. My apologies.

I believe that science HAS to be agnostic, and has to be agnostic about being agnostic. It should try to interpret the evidence in the best way possible, without trying to fit God in it, because I do not believe the bible tells us exactly how God does fit in it.

In other words, if scientists assume God is behind a particular process, or assume that the bible is absolutely literal in a certain passage, then they'll disregard some paths of thought that might otherwise prove to be true. When we limit our exploration of God's creation by making assumptions from our interpretations of God's word, we're liable to miss something. I think it's more likely that we'll understand God's word better by understanding creation better - it'll eliminate meaning that wasn't intended in the first place and let us focus on the true message.

 

[laptoppop]

I believe that science HAS to be agnostic, and has to be agnostic about being agnostic. It should try to interpret the evidence in the best way possible, without trying to fit God in it, because I do not believe the bible tells us exactly how God does fit in it.

And that is where I disagree -- assuming the NON action or presence of God is as prejudicial as assuming His reality. One cannot assume a reality without God for the purpose of scientific examination without affecting the solution set.

In other words, if scientists assume God is behind a particular process, or assume that the bible is absolutely literal in a certain passage, then they'll disregard some paths of thought that might otherwise prove to be true. When we limit our exploration of God's creation by making assumptions from our interpretations of God's word, we're liable to miss something. I think it's more likely that we'll understand God's word better by understanding creation better - it'll eliminate meaning that wasn't intended in the first place and let us focus on the true message.

YEC scientists will openly admit that they see the Bible as a source of truth. Since it is coming from the One who knows ALL things -- that's a pretty reasonable assumption. Limiting our view of what is true in the Bible sets other things up to judge it.

 

[crawfish]

And that is where I disagree -- assuming the NON action or presence of God is as prejudicial as assuming His reality. One cannot assume a reality without God for the purpose of scientific examination without affecting the solution set.

I don't say we assume God is NOT there. That is the meaning of "agnostic about being agnostic" - we make no assumptions, simply evaluate the facts to come up with the best possible conclusions. Any other way will bias the science and invalidate the entire method.

YEC scientists will openly admit that they see the Bible as a source of truth. Since it is coming from the One who knows ALL things -- that's a pretty reasonable assumption. Limiting our view of what is true in the Bible sets other things up to judge it.

I agree that God knows all things, but I do not agree that He revealed all things. Especially things scientific. It all comes down to how we interpret the bible. When we set the bible up with a strict true/false dichotomy in the areas where it doesn't speak, we weaken our overall position when it's discovered that what we're pushing is false. As it was with geocentrism and flat-earth.

 

[laptoppop]

I don't say we assume God is NOT there. That is the meaning of "agnostic about being agnostic" - we make no assumptions, simply evaluate the facts to come up with the best possible conclusions. Any other way will bias the science and invalidate the entire method.

Then I will challenge you as YECs are often challenged: How do you propose we do that? The currently used and defined scientific method assumes only natural processes. How would you extend/change it to include one time only supernatural events? (that by nature are not directly observable or repeatable)

 

[crawfish]

Then I will challenge you as YECs are often challenged: How do you propose we do that? The currently used and defined scientific method assumes only natural processes. How would you extend/change it to include one time only supernatural events? (that by nature are not directly observable or repeatable)

You're not going to like my answer. I say, "you don't". Supernatural events cannot be observed or repeated, as you said, and thus are not science. They should be held as a matter of faith only.

An honest application of the scientific method will only lead us further into the truth of creation. False theories will eventually fail; true theories will eventually solidify. It will work itself out. I'm one who believes that God created the universe and the laws that govern it; if we continue to search for truth, we'll end up at God.

I think the solution is to explain very clearly how the scientific method works, what it says, and what it does NOT say. Evolution, big bang, etc. do NOT rule out the possibility of God - they only rule out the vision we've had of Him based on our prior knowledge. As uncomfortable as this thought may be to you and other conservative brethren, it's the way things have been for hundreds of years, and the way things will continue to be. Must we always sit on the end of the curve in this?

 

[laptoppop]

You're not going to like my answer. I say, "you don't". Supernatural events cannot be observed or repeated, as you said, and thus are not science. They should be held as a matter of faith only.

You are right. The method you (accurately) describe is not agnostic towards God, but specifically excludes Him. Since I believe in a reality where a living involved God exists and is active, such science is of value -- but only in discovering how things normally work -- not anything which could be supernatural.

An honest application of the scientific method will only lead us further into the truth of creation.

Not if it specifically excludes God.

False theories will eventually fail; true theories will eventually solidify. It will work itself out. I'm one who believes that God created the universe and the laws that govern it; if we continue to search for truth, we'll end up at God.

Not if it specifically excludes God. If natural processes only are a presupposition, you will never end up with God.

I think the solution is to explain very clearly how the scientific method works, what it says, and what it does NOT say. Evolution, big bang, etc. do NOT rule out the possibility of God - they only rule out the vision we've had of Him based on our prior knowledge. As uncomfortable as this thought may be to you and other conservative brethren, it's the way things have been for hundreds of years, and the way things will continue to be. Must we always sit on the end of the curve in this?

No, but if the explanation is based on a methodology that specifically excludes the supernatural, you are describing a different reality than mine. God is real, and active. (which I actually think we both would agree with -- I'm just trying to help you see the limits of the scientific method -- one must understand the results of presuppositions.)

 

[juvenissun]

Heyas,

I would like to hear from all those who believe Genesis is a literal telling of Creation, and what in Genesis makes you believe that it is literal.

So, to clarify, what (in Genesis) leads you to believe that it is a literal story?

Sounds like you have something to say after someone jumped out. So, here I am, a literalist.

There are several reasons, just name two: 1. If we do not read the Bible literally, it would be like to drive in the open field: any direction would be OK. 2. Problems caused by literal reading may not be real problems. Ancient people read the Scripture and thought the earth is flat. That was OK. It hurt nothing. Now we read the same verses and can appreciate the wisdom hidden in the words. That is beautiful. You think you know what is flat and what is round. Don't be so sure until you learn some geometry in topology. If we turned the Earth inside out (like what we think the Venus is doing), it may not be so round. It may even be truly flat after all.

Read the 4000 years old Scripture by having a modern scientific glasses on, not only the old old verses are more and more conformable with the understanding of modern science, but they are still able to guide the direction of future scientific research. Well, I can only see the All Wisdom of God in His Words. I would NOT want to read the Bible any other way.

So, what are you going to say?