Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Greyy]

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.

I don't see any cited peer reviewed articles promoting creationism on the website.

 

[Greyy]

This is a great example of not believing what Moses wrote, but rather putting your trust in man.

The Torah was not written by Moses. Unless Moses was a schizophrenic who had a time travel machine.

Oh wait, I don't believe in silly MAN MADE TRADITIONS.

You don't have to believe it, just don't tell me lies about it either.

That's a nice statement - where did I lie to you?

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?

Where did Jesus say that unless you believe in the man made tradition of creationism, you don't believe in Jesus? No one questions the inspiration of Genesis, the issue is the MAN MADE TRADITION OF CREATIONISM.

 

[Greyy]

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

Would you care to explain why God uses the same nucleotide sequences to transcribe the same amino acids? And why they differ in relation to supposed evolution?

 

[SeventyOne]

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.

Evolution is not THE scientific view. It is just the most vocal of a certain method of interpreting evidence, as well as the most taught because they've managed to monopolize the education process and fill our heads at an early age with their way only.

Too many people fall for the "Evolution is true, because science" mantra. It's not real. It's a deception, and apparently a very good one. You eluded to it on your post, it takes one away from believing what God tells us. It's a modern day manifestation of the serpent saying, "Did God really say...?"

 

[SeventyOne]

The Torah was not written by Moses. Unless Moses was a schizophrenic who had a time travel machine.

Oh wait, I don't believe in silly MAN MADE TRADITIONS.



That's a nice statement - where did I lie to you?

Here: "Genesis is a book, creationism is a man made theory. One can accept creationism Genesis without accepting creationism."

Where did Jesus say that unless you believe in the man made tradition of creationism, you don't believe in Jesus? No one questions the inspiration of Genesis, the issue is the MAN MADE TRADITION OF CREATIONISM.

Jesus never said anything about man made creationism.

However, He did say, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female"

And "or in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be."

It's true that since you don't believe what Moses wrote, you aren't believing Jesus in this matter either.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

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.

Moses was a prophet. He was inspired by God to write what He wrote. But the Bible is full of many genres of writing, sometimes allegorical, sometimes historical, sometimes something in between. Jesus Himself taught the crowds using parables, but became more literal and detailed when teaching His disciples. But it was all true.

When it comes to such complex events like the Creation of the universe, we must understand that the people of that time could not have understand the science and in fact did not need to know it. They (like us) mostly needed to know that God did it, that He used His words to do it, and that He did it in a particular developmental order. The details are simply not important; the reason for the Bible is for our spiritual understanding, not for our quest for technological knowledge.

When my four year old asked about sex, I only gave her the overview, not the details. I did not lie, I just gave her what she could understand at her present developmental level. God did the same kind of thing in the first parts of Genesis.

 

[Archivist]

Moses was a prophet. He was inspired by God to write what He wrote. But the Bible is full of many genres of writing, sometimes allegorical, sometimes historical, sometimes something in between. Jesus Himself taught the crowds using parables, but became more literal and detailed when teaching His disciples. But it was all true.

When it comes to such complex events like the Creation of the universe, we must understand that the people of that time could not have understand the science and in fact did not need to know it. They (like us) mostly needed to know that God did it, that He used His words to do it, and that He did it in a particular developmental order. The details are simply not important; the reason for the Bible is for our spiritual understanding, not for our quest for technological knowledge.

When my four year old asked about sex, I only gave her the overview, not the details. I did not lie, I just gave her what she could understand at her present developmental level. God did the same kind of thing in the first parts of Genesis.

Well said! The Bible is not a science book.

 

[KWCrazy]

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.

Not only is that statement completely divorced from reality, it shows that you haven't even read the book of Genesis. Anyone who read would know that chapter two begins by saying that the creation was complete and then goes into morse specific detail about the creation of man and woman.

 

[KWCrazy]

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.

However, when you teach others the things you believe which are contrary to the Scriptures you become a false teacher.

 

[KWCrazy]

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

Man cannot live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.
What words are those?
The Bible says that the Scriptures are the breathed word of God.
2nd Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
You are being a false teacher when you try to convince people heresy which is contrary to the Scriptures.

 

[KWCrazy]

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

No, I'm saying you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.
You claim evolution is science. It is not. It is a scientific theory. Science is a field of study which has many theories. If any of them are proven wrong it doesn't detract from the integrity of scientific study. Science studies the physical world around us and makes predictions based observations. Evolution is a theory of common descent. They are NOT synonyms.

 

[KWCrazy]

When it comes to such complex events like the Creation of the universe, we must understand that the people of that time could not have understand the science and in fact did not need to know it. They (like us) mostly needed to know that God did it, that He used His words to do it, and that He did it in a particular developmental order.

The problem is, there is not a single passage in the Bible which confirms what you say.
Jesus said that if you didn't believe what Moses wrote you wouldn't believe Him. Part of what Moses wrote includes the Lord talking with Adam and Eve. No human can see the face of God and live. No human has ever seen the face of God. It was Jesus in the garden with Adam, not the Father. Jesus affirms it because He was there, and Moses wrote of Him. This is in the Scripture. Your words are not.

 

[HenryM]

When my four year old asked about sex, I only gave her the overview, not the details. I did not lie, I just gave her what she could understand at her present developmental level. God did the same kind of thing in the first parts of Genesis.

And now you understand creation much better than our ancestors thanks to, what? Theory of evolution, courtesy of atheists? Don't kid yourself, man. God's creation is incomprehensible act of awe for us here now, as was for our ancestors, as will be for all who pass through this world.

 

[KWCrazy]

Creationism is a man made theory without any evidence.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

 

[dannheim]

I understand the appeal of this line of reasoning, but I think it is highly vulnerable. The fact that Jesus agrees that Moses spoke of Him tells us, at best, that Jesus believes that, in some sense, the book of Genesis has prophetic material about Him (Jesus); it certainly does not follow that Jesus believed the entire Genesis was literally true in all respects.

And there is certainly a mountain of evidence to not take the creation account literally in the "young earth" sense.

There is a mountain of evidence for natural selection which even the flood account supports but there is absolutely no concrete evidence for evolution. Natural selection doesn’t drive molecules-to-man evolution; Some scientists are giving natural selection a power that it does not have—one that can supposedly add new information to the genome, as molecules-to-man evolution requires. But natural selection simply can’t do that because it works with information that already exists.

As far as "young earth' evidence we can conclude from both argon and helium diffusion rates that the earth is only thousands of years old.

 

[Archivist]

As far as "young earth' evidence we can conclude from both argon and helium diffusion rates that the earth is only thousands of years old.

Only if you want to ignore scientific evidence.

 

[expos4ever]

There is a mountain of evidence for natural selection which even the flood account supports but there is absolutely no concrete evidence for evolution.

Untrue - but there is little hope that creationists will ever accept facts; they simply have too much of their personal identity wrapped up in their rejection of evolution.

It is staggeringly improbable that tens of thousands of highly-trained experts, committed to a system of acquiring knowledge that demands evidence and rigour, are either all wrong, or, worse, are all engaged in a massive conspiracy to shield the world from the truth.

 

[expos4ever]

Let's be clear what is at stake here. I have no idea how the creationist rationalizes the patently absurd notion that the earth is 10,000 (or less) years old to themselves. Remember: tens of thousands of highly-trained experts unanimously agree that evolution is correct. And, importantly, they have achieved this consensus working within a framework which requires that all claims be subject to brutal skepticism.

But the bigger issue is the credibility of the more general gospel claim: When we proclaim Jesus as Lord, on the one hand, while on the other hand making a claim that is effectively the same as asserting that the Easter bunny delivers chocolates to good children, well it is no wonder we are ridiculed and the important truth of the gospel is ignored.

 

[AlexDTX]

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.

In the book of Genesis we do not have symbolic language as we do in the prophets and Revelation, so one must take it literally unless there is scriptural justification not to do so. For example, if the antediluvians did not live the centuries we are told, then how can we believe the rest? If one believes they did live as long as we are told, then after adding up their ages, one must accept a young Earth date 1,650 years before the flood. If one does not believe the accuracy of Genesis, neither should one believe the accuracy of the rest of the Bible. Why? Because the integrity of the Bible is not maintained by man, but by God.

Isa_55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

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!

More of the same...I suppose you actually believe you have enlightened me. If you know Christ you came to know Him through the preaching and teaching of His Word...now you...as your own appointed God...would like to tell us what is and is not to be relied upon.