Should Genesis be taken literally?

[HenryM]

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.

Yeah, yeah, as soon as he needs it, evolutionist starts talking about "variations in nucleotide sequences" and "amino acids".

It's interesting that even Wikipedia can't get itself to plainly say that evolution is a science, but defines it with: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."

At the same time, chemistry, which is science, is defined as such within first words on it's page on Wikipedia: "Chemistry is a branch of physical science that studies the composition, structure, properties and change of matter. Chemistry includes topics such as the properties of individual atoms, how atoms form chemical bonds to create chemical compounds, the interactions of substances through intermolecular forces that give matter its general properties, and the interactions between substances through chemical reactions to form different substances."

 

[Greyy]

So you are arguing that one explanation of God's incomprehensible act of awe is not real,

It's nice that you admit creationism is simply one explanation of an act of God.

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).

While being brain washed by atheists, I always put on my tin foil hat, and cling to my guns and bible. Here you are making the argument that creationism is of God and so to argue against it must mean you are wiser than God.

No. Creationism is a man made theory. It's a really bad one. Rejecting creationism has nothing to do with rejecting God, or accepting atheism.

Creationism is a man made theory. And a bad one.

And just saying "you don't know" doesn't make it so.

What? Why did you "quote" something that I didn't post and doesn't even make sense?

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.

Here you quote wikipedia, quoting Heibron, which you apparenly use to demonstrate evolution is not a science simply by posting a definition.

Evolution is consistently predictable. I have already discussed this regarding molecular genetics, which you have ignored.

 

[Greyy]

Yeah, yeah,

Are you talking to an audience?

as soon as he needs it, evolutionist starts talking about "variations in nucleotide sequences" and "amino acids".

We do?

And- is that your argument?

When someone presents an argument that contradicts your claim, you simply say "as soon as he needs it, [adversary] starts talking about "[insert point]" and "[insert other point]."

That's not an argument.

It's interesting that even Wikipedia can't get itself to plainly say that evolution is a science, but defines it with: "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."

Evolution is a process understood by science. That's as absurd as saying Wikipedia can't get itself to plainly say that London Dispersion forces is a science.

 

[HenryM]

Evolution is a process understood by science...

We got from "it's a science" to "it's a proces understood by science".

Anyway, you seems to have bought the lie hook line and sinker. You stand against Bible rather passionately, while siding with people who believe they came to exist by accident from monkeys. As such, this is not only about you. This is for readers of this thread to witness how strongly one can be deceived in these end of times of ours.

To repeat: chemistry is science, and it's results are predictable. Evolution is not a science (even Wikipedia can't define it as science), it's a theory that interprets some data, while that interpretation is neither testable, provable or exclusive. And, it was promoted into mainstream through fabrication and lies by atheists.

Basically, it's wishful thinking for people who don't like their souls exposed before God, so they cling to godless world. And with them, they attract some Christians too, and spread their damage.

 

[AnnaliseH]

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

I think you are mistaking Science and Evolution as being one and the same. Science is being used in medical research, not evolution. Any facet of science (medicine, chemistry, biology, physics, etc.) can be twisted to support evolution (which is simply a world view created by people who don't want to accept that there is a God before whom they will have to stand and be judged). Evolution is a faith, a belief through which the rest of science is viewed and made to fit.

Just as Creationism has to be taken by faith.

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.

Actually, no. There is only one source of truth, namely Jesus. He says Himself in John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Truth, the only absolute truth, comes from God. And as the Word of God, the Bible can be used to test what is true and what is not.

As it says in Hebrews 4:12, For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

If you believe that you can just decide what parts of the Bible are literal and what are not, if the Scripture is not inerrant, then how can you base any doctrines at all out of it? Then the Bible just becomes a book where I choose what I like to believe, you choose what you like to believe - and God accepts everyone anyway. Because once you strip away the Bible as the basis for right and wrong, as the basis to define truth and error, then you are left with no absolutes.

 

[Greyy]

We got from "it's a science" to "it's a proces understood by science".

Why are you using quotation marks around things I never said? I never wrote "it's a science." I also found in baffling that you can't understand how something can be science and understood by science.

Anyway, you seems to have bought the lie hook line and sinker.

Howso?

You stand against Bible rather passionately, while siding with people who believe they came to exist by accident from monkeys. As such, this is not only about you. This is for readers of this thread to witness how strongly one can be deceived in these end of times of ours.

I am going against the bible because I don't follow man made traditions?

Can you explain why God used DNA to trick people very thoroughly that evolution is correct?

To repeat: chemistry is science, and it's results are predictable. Evolution is not a science (even Wikipedia can't define it as science), it's a theory that interprets some data, while that interpretation is neither testable, provable or exclusive. And, it was promoted into mainstream through fabrication and lies by atheists.

Evolution is predictable.

You can pick any protein synthesized by humans and see it's change in DNA and phenotype from our closer and more distant relatives.

Basically, it's wishful thinking for people who don't like their souls exposed before God, so they cling to godless world. And with them, they attract some Christians too, and spread their damage.

When someone doesn't have an argument, they call the other person godless.

 

[Greyy]

I think you are mistaking Science and Evolution as being one and the same. Science is being used in medical research, not evolution.

Evolution is used all the time in medicine. You can go through an scientific journal to see this.

Any facet of science (medicine, chemistry, biology, physics, etc.) can be twisted to support evolution (which is simply a world view created by people who don't want to accept that there is a God before whom they will have to stand and be judged). Evolution is a faith, a belief through which the rest of science is viewed and made to fit.

Evolution is a scientific theory overwhelming formed and supported by Christians.

Creationism is a man made theory without any evidence.

Just as Creationism has to be taken by faith.

Creationism supposes itself as a scientific theory to be taught equally - so no, it can't be taken by faith.

Actually, no. There is only one source of truth, namely Jesus. He says Himself in John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Truth, the only absolute truth, comes from God. And as the Word of God, the Bible can be used to test what is true and what is not.

So you have gone from the bible to Jesus.

The bible can't be used to test what is true. How do you use the bible to prove that the square of 2 is irrational?

If you believe that you can just decide what parts of the Bible are literal and what are not, if the Scripture is not inerrant, then how can you base any doctrines at all out of it? Then the Bible just becomes a book where I choose what I like to believe, you choose what you like to believe - and God accepts everyone anyway. Because once you strip away the Bible as the basis for right and wrong, as the basis to define truth and error, then you are left with no absolutes.

So you believe all of the bible should be taken literally?

 

[AnnaliseH]

Evolution is a scientific theory overwhelming formed and supported by Christians.

Actually no. There are a large number of Christian scientists out there, who believe in Creationism - and furthermore will be able to prove to you that Creationism is more than just a theory. I suggest you take a good look at Answers in Genesis as an example of just a few of the most vocal of those scientists.

 

[Greyy]

Actually no. There are a large number of Christian scientists out there, who believe in Creationism - and furthermore will be able to prove to you that Creationism is more than just a theory. I suggest you take a good look at Answers in Genesis as an example of just a few of the most vocal of those scientists.

Where are the "Christian scientists" there?

 

[AnnaliseH]

Here, go to this page. Creation Scientists for just a few examples.

 

[Greyy]

Here, go to this page. Creation Scientists for just a few examples.

Where are their peer reviewed publications?

 

[AnnaliseH]

If you looked into a few of the scientists' profiles, you will see that it references that they have been published in various scientific journals. I am sure that, if you took the time to do a little more in depth research, you would be able to find and read those articles.

 

[JoeP222w]

Prior to this, these stories would have been handed down through oral tradition.

Genesis was provided to Moses through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not fallible passed down stories.

When stories are told from one generation to the next things change.

True, they can change. But this is the case of Genesis. As mentioned above, Genesis was written by Moses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. God is able to preserve His word without error.

A good, more modern example of this would be the story of Jesse James...many accounts made him out to be a Robin Hood of his day, only stealing from the rich and helping the poor...after the Civil War there was a lot of distrust in this country, and people wanted a hero they found him in this notorious outlaw...the truth of the matter was he was your typical run of the mill thief...albeit a very good one...but stories were made up about him in newspapers, books and songs...and now, 140 years later, there are those that think he was, as the "The Ballad of Jesse James" said, "a friend to the poor that would never have a brother suffer pain." In this instance, of course, we can look back at actual accounts from the day and easily put these claims to rest.

Major difference though. The stories of Jesse James are not scripture.

So, is it possible that this is what happened with Genesis?

No. Again, Genesis was written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Nor am I saying that there is no truth to be found in Genesis.

But you are implying that Genesis is not inerrant. And that would be a fundamental misunderstanding of scripture being God breathed.

 

[Colter]

Mods, if this isn't in the right section please move, I wasn't sure where the best place for this discussion would be, as this has more to do with the entire book and not only creation.

Genesis is the history of Israel's roots...most believe Moses to be the author of the book, and if we go by the chronology from Genesis to Exodus, he wouldn't have been born until a couple thousand years after the account of Adam. Prior to this, these stories would have been handed down through oral tradition.

When stories are told from one generation to the next things change. Some things may be added, others taken away...things become embellished...that's just how it is. It doesn't mean that anyone is lying, necessarily, just that what we hear as a child and what we teach to our children about a subject may change slightly based on our recollection. And then there are those that like to add their own spin to make things more interesting, and it sticks...

A good, more modern example of this would be the story of Jesse James...many accounts made him out to be a Robin Hood of his day, only stealing from the rich and helping the poor...after the Civil War there was a lot of distrust in this country, and people wanted a hero they found him in this notorious outlaw...the truth of the matter was he was your typical run of the mill thief...albeit a very good one...but stories were made up about him in newspapers, books and songs...and now, 140 years later, there are those that think he was, as the "The Ballad of Jesse James" said, "a friend to the poor that would never have a brother suffer pain." In this instance, of course, we can look back at actual accounts from the day and easily put these claims to rest.

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.

Indeed, stories change, sometimes innocently, sometimes histories are deliberately altered for the benefit of the editing culture. Sometimes histories of older cultures were destroyed based on the superstition of a newer culture.

I live in a small southern town in America where we've been having a contentious debate about weather or not to remove the statue of General Lee in the small, central park in the city named "Lee Park". Some are naturally offended by it, others see it as our cultural heritage in context. Myself, I say that the fact that it is there, that it was ever put there, that Lee was honored by southerners after the war, IS history preserved. Genesis is fragmented, untenable and inaccurate. It served a purpose when it was written by Hebrews and for an Israelite audience. Genesis IS the history of a people with faith which grew out of an agreement with Abram. But between Abrahams blind faith and the Genesis as we have it today, is a great deal of human conjecture, speculation, confusion, racial and cultural bias.

The Bible is as imperfect as we should expect it to be.

 

[SeventyOne]

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 a great example of not believing what Moses wrote, but rather putting your trust in man. You don't have to believe it, just don't tell me lies about it either.

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.

So, when Jesus states that if you don't believe the writings of Moses then you can't believe Him, He was using poor argumentation? Do you not believe He was God in the flesh and therefore an authority to speak on all matters?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Indeed, stories change, sometimes innocently, sometimes histories are deliberately altered for the benefit of the editing culture. Sometimes histories of older cultures were destroyed based on the superstition of a newer culture.

I live in a small southern town in America where we've been having a contentious debate about weather or not to remove the statue of General Lee in the small, central park in the city named "Lee Park". Some are naturally offended by it, others see it as our cultural heritage in context. Myself, I say that the fact that it is there, that it was ever put there, that Lee was honored by southerners after the war, IS history preserved. Genesis is fragmented, untenable and inaccurate. It served a purpose when it was written by Hebrews and for an Israelite audience. Genesis IS the history of a people with faith which grew out of an agreement with Abram. But between Abrahams blind faith and the Genesis as we have it today, is a great deal of human conjecture, speculation, confusion, racial and cultural bias.

The Bible is as imperfect as we should expect it to be.

If you find the Bible to be imperfect you are actually committing the sins warned of in Revelation...adding and subtracting from His Word.
You either accept that you may continue to have an imperfect understanding...which you of course do and will because you come from a view point that the Bible is imperfect already before you look into it and continue to look into it, so why would God bless your arrogance with more wisdom so that you ARE able to comprehend?

This you should be able to comprehend:
I Corinthians 1:18-25:
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

and

I Corinthians 3:18-20:
Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”

 

[HenryM]

This is a great example...

Don't tease that guy Now he is going to return to talk about "variations in nucleotide sequences".

 

[zoidar]

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.

I will give you my opinion about this. When I first became a Christian i believed in the book of Genesis literally. Some years later I started thinking about i lot, and I couldn't get it together with science. So I think I started to "wobble" in my faith a bit. Then I started to think about Genesis, it's meaning and purpose, and it all started to make sense to me. The message is that mankind fell in sin, the important part is not how it happened. Now I believe in the message of Genesis but I don't take it literally. I think of Adam and Eve more like a symbol of mankind, that mankind was tricked by Satan and turned away from God, and now need redemption through Christ. Even so I'm not in any way against the traditional view of Adam and Eve, and I think it's great if you have that belief. Just for me, it made more sense to take it more figuratively. But who am I to know? Maybe the story is exactly how it happened ... though, for me it's no problem to believe in both the scientific view and the biblical view.

 

[Colter]

If you find the Bible to be imperfect you are actually committing the sins warned of in Revelation...adding and subtracting from His Word.
You either accept that you may continue to have an imperfect understanding...which you of course do and will because you come from a view point that the Bible is imperfect already before you look into it and continue to look into it, so why would God bless your arrogance with more wisdom so that you ARE able to comprehend?

This you should be able to comprehend:
I Corinthians 1:18-25:
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

and

I Corinthians 3:18-20:
Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.”

No, that's a trumped up accusation on behalf the church that derives it's authority from the claim that the books the holy men wrote were written by God. Its really a form of idolatry, making the current cannon list a fetish or golden calf. God is the Living Word of truth which can be found by seeking. The Bible books are the Written Word, written by holy men, some more holy than others. The so called Book of Revelation was the last and most controversial book to be added to the cannon list. Its apocalyptic threats are self serving and on behalf of it's authors and are meaningless to me. When Christ returns and has more to say, you will have to explain to him that his additional teachings cant be added to the cannon. Good luck!

 

[SeventyOne]

Don't tease that guy Now he is going to return to talk about "variations in nucleotide sequences".

It's both sad and entertaining when witnessing the reactions of those who really don't like opposition to their religion of evolution.