Should Genesis be taken literally?

[HenryM]

Oh please. To say that evolution is not science is dishonest at worst, ignorant at least.

If things could be proven with "Oh please", life would be easier. Evolution is generally considered as "fact and theory", because they can't establish it as a science, so they go by the next best label they can get away with.

Science is "an act of building and organizing knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." Key words are "testable explanations and predictions". Master key word is "testable". Evolution gives none of those. So it's not science.

But they use math, biology and such in their endeavor, to at least look like they are serious.

Listen, just because evolutionist uses some chemistry doesn't mean that what he or she is doing is science. Circus operator can use physics to calculate how far trapeze swings under the weight of trapeze artist, and that doesn't make him a scientist either.

 

[thesunisout]

The bible tells us God will preserve His word to all generations. We know, for instance, that we have the same Old Testament today that Jesus had in His time. He testified it was all true, and He spoke about it literally. Shouldn't we look at it the same way that Jesus did?

 

[AnnaliseH]

I think the main problem here is assuming that it was up to MOSES to decide what to write, and how to write it. While Moses was the one to do the actual writing, GOD inspired every word that he wrote. GOD made sure that it was written in the exact way that it happened - not diluted by being passed down from generation to generation.

The real question boils down to whether or not you accept the Bible as the complete, inerrant word of God. Not a series of helpful stories written down by some long-ago people (who, let's face it, couldn't possibly be as smart as modern man).

Because you cannot prove from the Scriptures alone that a non-literal explanation of Genesis is accurate. You can only use Evolution, a "science falsely so called," which is the wisdom of men - and set it against the Scripture, which is the wisdom of God.

 

[Greyy]

Before Moses the stories were on clay tablets.

That sounds like something you want to believe, rather then anything based on historical evidence.

Only there are different versions of the story and Moses handed down the authorized version. There is an oral tradition known as the Kabbalah today. Einstein says: If you can't explain something simply then you to not understand it well enough. Moses gave us Genesis chapter one in 32 sentences. There are hundreds of thousands of books that attempt to explain what Moses gives us in those 32 sentences. Gerold Schroeder talks about this.

Mosed didn't give Chapter 1. It comes from oral tradition, which is why there is a chapter 2, a different version of events from another tribe.

They have computer software now so they can determine who wrote what. The software confirms what the theologians have been saying all along.

Computer program to reveal who wrote the Bible | Daily Mail Online

You didn't understand the article. The program does not tell who wrote something. The program can detect if a passage has the same author as another, but not WHO the author is, that's impossible. The program relies on textual and literary criticism scholars have used for years.

Your statement that it "confirms what theologians have been saying all along" makes no sense as it is without context. Are you suggesting that theologians believe Moses wrote Genesis? Because serious scholars do not.

 

[Greyy]

So, is it possible that this is what happened with Genesis? That after years of oral tradition some of the "facts" changed? I'm not saying this as a dig at creationism, or anything like that. Nor am I saying that there is no truth to be found in Genesis...I believe it paints a beautiful picture of creation, of God's desire to have a relationship with His people, of man's biggest obstacle to overcome being his sinful nature, and how the foundation was being laid for the Christ.

Genesis, like the other four books, is a compilation of different sources of oral tradition. For scholars, this can become painfully obvious at times.

I don't think anything has "changed" per se, as both contradictory accounts of creation are kept (Genesis chapter 1 and two). Genesis is about understanding ourselves and finding meaning, not a precise account of how we came into existence.

 

[Greyy]

It really just kind of boils down to this. Jesus states if one doesn't believe what Moses wrote, they wouldn't believe Him either.

John 5:46-7 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”​

There is nothing unbelievable about the Genesis creation account.

Except for all of it and all of science.

Genesis is a book, creationism is a man made theory. One can accept creationism Genesis without accepting creationism. This is the poor argument that if one doesn't accept a particular interpretation or theology, they don't accept the bible. Even worse, in this case, Jesus.

 

[Zoii]

But literal Genesis is the basis for learning of our acquiring the sinful nature and the need and promise of a Savior...Genesis 3:15. Romans is a N.T. book which cites the original sin, the promise and the need and act of Jesus reversing the sin...Romans 5...you can't reject literal Genesis w/o rejecting the main doctrine of the N.T.

I totally understand you. I'm just saying where I am at personally. I dont reject Genesis outright, but I acknowledge some key issues such as the origin of the universe versus Einstein's theory of relativity & Big Bang, creationism v evolution, The great flood etc are not in keeping with the scientific view I have. That still sits Ok with me though as a Christian but I totally appreciate that for many here my view is unacceptable.

 

[Zoii]

So you don't believe that God created man.
You don't believe in the fall of man.
You don't believe Christ walked on water.
You don't believe Christ healed the sick.
You don't believe Christ raised the dead.
You don't believe Christ died and rose again on the third day.
All of these things are contradicted by solid scientific evidence.
If you believe that natural law, not Gods law, governs the universe, then you must not believe anything in the Scriptures.
You must not believe in any of the 333 miracles listed in the Bible because all of them run contrary to solid scientific evidence.
That's sad, because your science book can't get you to Heaven, and you're rejecting the one book that can.

Well the birth of Jesus and his achievements comes after genesis and this topic is focussed on that book in particular.
As for man - I believe in evolution and believe the Garden of Eden is a parable to teach us the impact of sin.

This all still sits comfortably with me as a christian and while I acknowledge you feel alarmed for me I have reconciled science and my faith together.

 

[Greyy]

The bible tells us God will preserve His word to all generations. We know, for instance, that we have the same Old Testament today that Jesus had in His time. He testified it was all true, and He spoke about it literally. Shouldn't we look at it the same way that Jesus did?

This is the problem within faith traditions that understand "God's word" as the bible, and nothing more.

 

[Greyy]

I think the main problem here is assuming that it was up to MOSES to decide what to write, and how to write it. While Moses was the one to do the actual writing, GOD inspired every word that he wrote. GOD made sure that it was written in the exact way that it happened - not diluted by being passed down from generation to generation.

Here's another unbiblical man made tradtion. The bible = "the words" of God. Here, God literally speaks word and the person writes down the words he hears.

There is absolutely no basis for such a claim other than your desire to want the bible to work that way.

The real question boils down to whether or not you accept the Bible as the complete, inerrant word of God. Not a series of helpful stories written down by some long-ago people (who, let's face it, couldn't possibly be as smart as modern man).

Because you cannot prove from the Scriptures alone that a non-literal explanation of Genesis is accurate. You can only use Evolution, a "science falsely so called," which is the wisdom of men - and set it against the Scripture, which is the wisdom of God.

Creationism isn't the word of God. It's a man made invention.

So you are comparing a man made theory without evidence versus a man made theory that is consistently proven.

 

[Greyy]

I consider those that remove Gemnesis from the literal and distort it into mythical meanings are doing the bible serious harm.
Greg J in post 3 presents only a handful of verses that need to be re-written when Genesis is changed from literal historic to myth.

Genesis isn't literal or myth. It's just Genesis.

Typically I find christians have been fooled by the religion of evolutionism....religion because it attempts to explains mans fall or sin nature...The explanation ALWAYS incures heretical theological concepts.

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain man's fall or "sin nature." It's not wonder you make arguments against it when you don't even understand it.

 

[Greyy]

Are you sure you go by the evidence, or by deceit? Evolution is not a science.

Then you don't understand what evolution is.

 

[Greyy]

All original scripture is true and sealed by God - the author of his word to us for our benefit.

What do you mean "sealed"?

Every word, every verse, every chapter, every book [all 66 of them] is sealed by Bible Numerics - the mathematical number patterns pertinent to the Holy Scriptures that is not reproduced by any other work claiming to be "God-given."

That's.. nonsense.

 

[AnnaliseH]

If you cannot believe what the Bible says about itself, then how can you believe anything that says at all? The Bible is the only measuring rod that we have to test the truth of anything. How can you have any faith as a Christian without accepting the Bible as the ultimate truth in every respect?

So you are comparing a man made theory without evidence versus a man made theory that is consistently proven

Actually, no. I am comparing the Word of God, who was present at the time when the events took place and cannot lie or be deceived, to a theory made by man, who thinks he is smarter than God.
And if you think that evolution can be proven, then you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Greyy]

Evolution is not science. Claiming that it is would be dishonest at worst, ignorant at least.

Said no one ever in reputable science.

Evolution is a theory of common descent. It is not a requirement for all scientific research.

You are trying to argue that if something isn't required for all science, it isn't scientific.

Immunology is not a requirement for all scientific research. Neither is nano-technology. Virtually any scientific field is not a requirement for all science.

 

[Greyy]

If things could be proven with "Oh please", life would be easier. Evolution is generally considered as "fact and theory", because they can't establish it as a science, so they go by the next best label they can get away with.

Science is "an act of building and organizing knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." Key words are "testable explanations and predictions". Master key word is "testable". Evolution gives none of those. So it's not science.

But they use math, biology and such in their endeavor, to at least look like they are serious.

Listen, just because evolutionist uses some chemistry doesn't mean that what he or she is doing is science. Circus operator can use physics to calculate how far trapeze swings under the weight of trapeze artist, and that doesn't make him a scientist either.

It doesn't sound like you know what evolution is. Evolution is consistently testable and predictable. Molecualr genetics easily shows this consistently, for example. Very basically, proteins are assembled from 20 amino acids, each determined by a group of 3 nucleotides of which there are four possible nucleotides. That is, 3^4 or 64. So, you have 20 different codes for 64 nucleotides, meaning one amino acids is determined by multiple groupings.

That means much of the genetic code can change, without affecting the protein. When analyzing the genetic code of related species, we can find variation in the code, as we would predict. Let's imagine we look at a protein found in humans, (our closely related) chimps, (and less related) monkeys that is exactly the same in structure. Even though the protein for each animals has the exact same arrangement of amino acids, the arrangement of nucleotides that code for the protein would vary among the species.

If things could be proven with "Oh please", life would be easier. Evolution is generally considered as "fact and theory", because they can't establish it as a science, so they go by the next best label they can get away with.

Science is "an act of building and organizing knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." Key words are "testable explanations and predictions". Master key word is "testable". Evolution gives none of those. So it's not science.

But they use math, biology and such in their endeavor, to at least look like they are serious.

Listen, just because evolutionist uses some chemistry doesn't mean that what he or she is doing is science. Circus operator can use physics to calculate how far trapeze swings under the weight of trapeze artist, and that doesn't make him a scientist either.

It doesn't sound like you understand evolution at all. It is very testable and predictable, especially in molecular genetics.

 

[HenryM]

Creationism is a man made theory...

So you are arguing that one explanation of God's incomprehensible act of awe is not real, while some other is, for your standards and wisdom? You must be rather wise, when you understand how God created universe and all life in it. Especially when main explanation you hold onto was forced fed to you, including it's fabrications and lies, by atheists (as evolution is *mainly* their domain).

And just saying "you don't know" doesn't make it so. Evolution is not a science, which is clear when one looks at the definition of what science is. 5 seconds worth of effort might make you even wiser.

To repeat for those who may have missed it, just in case:

Science is "an act of building and organizing knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." Key words are "testable explanations and predictions". Master key word is "testable". Evolution gives none of those. So it's not science.

But it's certainly something.

 

[HenryM]

Evolution is consistently testable and predictable...

No, what is predictable is chemistry, not evolution. You have predictable results, but those results don't prove anything about evolution. That's like me saying here, 2 plus 2 is 4, hence, evolution.

 

[Greyy]

If you cannot believe what the Bible says about itself, then how can you believe anything that says at all?

Creationism is a man made theory.

The bible is a work of literature inspired by God, from which people have various theological deducations and opinions.

The Bible is the only measuring rod that we have to test the truth of anything.

I am not sure where to begin with what is wrong with that statement.

The bible cannot test the truth of anything. The bible provides meaning and purpose. We can find truth in science, and find truth in beauty, art, and fiction.

How can you have any faith as a Christian without accepting the Bible as the ultimate truth in every respect?

The bible doesn't teach creationism, men do.

People decide which parts of the bible to take literally and which parts not to take literally. No one takes the bible 100% literally all the time.

Actually, no. I am comparing the Word of God, who was present at the time when the events took place and cannot lie or be deceived, to a theory made by man, who thinks he is smarter than God.

You are comparing what- Jesus, the Logos to Creationism - a theory made up by men?

Which version of creationism do you believe? Do you follow the order of Chapter 1 or Chapter 2?

How many angels were present at the resurrection?
Did Jesus ride a colt, a donkey, or both (that's a feat!) into Jerusalem?
Which Lord's prayer from the bible is the correct one?
How did Judas die?

Believing the bible is an instruction manual written word for word by God isn't biblical and isn't sensical. If you want that in a religion, call your local Mosque or Mormon temple.

And if you think that evolution can be proven, then you are sadly mistaken.

It consistently is. It is actually used frequently in medical research.

 

[Greyy]

No, what is predictable is chemistry, not evolution. You have predictable results, but those results don't prove anything about evolution. That's like me saying here, 2 plus 2 is 4, hence, evolution.

You completely ignored the rest of my post and in fact, my post.

How is 2 + 2= 4 like noticing variations in nucleotide sequences that produce the same protein structures? With bioinformatics we can examine the differences between proteins of different species and the DNA used to encode them.