Should Genesis be taken literally?

[SeventyOne]

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.

It's actually a whole lot of confirmation bias and the ad populum fallacy.

Also, creationists are not rejecting evolution. Get it straight. Evolution is the new kid on the block and was devised to defy creationism. Creationists do not reject evolution as much as Evolutionists reject creationism.

 

[SeventyOne]

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.

Oh my goodness, you're right!! How could we ever claim the gospel is true when we agree with Jesus concerning God creating everything when we have thousands to Christ-haters telling us what He's saying is a lie instead? How silly could we be?

In reality, I'm guessing your testimony isn't that strong when you tell people Jesus is God, but lied about creation. I don't know who this liar God is, but apparently you do.

 

[KWCrazy]

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.

Exactly!
For all their false teaching they can't come up with a single verse to support evolution. Not one. Only by twisting phrases out of context and saying things like "the Earth formed the grass," while ignoring that it happened in one day. If there are no verses to support evolution, then teaching evolution is heresy and false teaching. Jesus said “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.” That means exactly what is says. Man and women did not evolve. They were created by God from the beginning. Anyone who believes in both evolution and the Bible understands neither.

 

[SeventyOne]

I get it. It's supposedly silly to believe in creation when there are thousands of people out there telling us we evolved from a sterile rock instead. Makes perfect sense.

Behold, your ancestor!

 

[Archivist]

Oh my goodness, you're right!! How could we ever claim the gospel is true when we agree with Jesus concerning God creating everything when we have thousands to Christ-haters telling us what He's saying is a lie instead? How silly could we be?

In reality, I'm guessing your testimony isn't that strong when you tell people Jesus is God, but lied about creation. I don't know who this liar God is, but apparently you do.

I for one do not believe that God "lied about creation." I do believe that He presented an allegory in the Book of Genesis that could be understood by the people of the time. That isn't a lie on God's part.

Tell me, is the parable of the Good Samaritan any less real if there was not an actual Good Samaritan?

 

[4x4toy]

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.

I agree that God does not lie .. If I quote and believe God's Word as it is written I don't believe I'm lying or believing a lie .. Is there reason to believe the End time will be more abrupt than the Beginning of time when natural creation both began and ends ? Do you believe we exist eternal as created to either live with God or away from God in hell ? I've seen all the arguments so excuse me if I believe God and not you Dr. Bruce .. I'm like another poster said , we contend for the faith in case another person reads your view on God without hearing from the other side .. If I get to heaven and Jesus says , I was only kidding, I'll laugh then . Science gives more validation to creation than to evolution any day of the week as far as existence and life are concerned ..
Talk about gap theory ...

 

[KWCrazy]

Just as a curiosity, what criteria do people use when you decide which portions of the Bible you will accept and which you will reject?

 

[Speedwell]

Oh my goodness, you're right!! How could we ever claim the gospel is true when we agree with Jesus concerning God creating everything when we have thousands to Christ-haters telling us what He's saying is a lie instead? How silly could we be?

In reality, I'm guessing your testimony isn't that strong when you tell people Jesus is God, but lied about creation. I don't know who this liar God is, but apparently you do.

I'm more likely to tell people that Jesus is God, but steer clear of those creationists--they have invented some really bizarre ideas about the Bible.

 

[SeventyOne]

I for one do not believe that God "lied about creation." I do believe that He presented an allegory in the Book of Genesis that could be understood by the people of the time. That isn't a lie on God's part.

Tell me, is the parable of the Good Samaritan any less real if there was not an actual Good Samaritan?

That's not really what I was referencing. I was referencing the actual words of Jesus. Such as...

Mat_19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,​

This is direct confirmation of the creation account from His own lips.

Also...

Mar_10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
Mar_13:19 For 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.
​

Don't kid yourself, to deny the creation account is to say Jesus lied.

 

[Speedwell]

Just as a curiosity, what criteria do people use when you decide which portions of the Bible you will accept and which you will reject?

I accept all of it--it is all the word of God, is it not?

 

[SeventyOne]

I'm more likely to tell people that Jesus is God, but steer clear of those creationists--they have invented some really bizarre ideas about the Bible.

So have evolutionists.

 

[expos4ever]

I get it. It's supposedly silly to believe in creation when there are thousands of people out there telling us we evolved from a sterile rock instead. Makes perfect sense.

Behold, your ancestor!

Deeply misleading.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. That, scientists acknowledge, remains a mystery.

 

[expos4ever]

I accept all of it--it is all the word of God, is it not?

Do you believe that the story of the three little pigs - you know, the one with "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blooooow your house down"?

Presumably you do not.

Do you think that this fable, despite not being literally true, communicates an important message?

 

[SeventyOne]

Deeply misleading.

Evolution does not deal with the origin of life. That, scientists acknowledge, remains a mystery.

You're right, extremely misleading. I got it from reading evolutionary websites. Quite laughable, no?

 

[expos4ever]

Don't kid yourself, to deny the creation account is to say Jesus lied.

No.

First, no one is denying that God is involved in shaping the character of the world around us, including the male-female distinction. We are simply honouring the facts - human beings evolved from other life forms. We can coherently claim that God is, in some sense, behind that whole process without having to believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

Second, and I know this will be controversial although it should not be, there is no reason to assume that Jesus had correct knowledge of the world's history. I believe that Jesus did believe in a literal Adam and Eve even though we now know such a belief is not correct. Remember, Jesus took on human perfection including human imperfections, no doubt including incomplete knowledge of the world.

Why do you seem to think that Jesus was essentially an omniscient God "stuffed" into a suit of flesh? You get this over-simplified idea from Sunday School, not the Old and New Testaments.

 

[expos4ever]

You're right, extremely misleading. I got it from reading evolutionary websites. Quite laughable, no?

Let's clear something up:

The study of the naturalistic origins of life is called abiogenesis, and while scientists have not developed a clear explanation of how life might have developed from nonliving material, that has no impact on evolution. Even if life did not begin naturally but was started due to the intervention of some divine power, evolution would still stand on the evidence as our best explanation so far for how that life has developed.

Now, it is true that biological evolution and molecular evolution (the basis of naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis) do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) is what drives biological evolution. So, it is not necessarily invalid to join the two — especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life.

The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists.

 

[SeventyOne]

No.

First, no one is denying that God is involved in shaping the character of the world around us, including the male-female distinction. We are simply honouring the facts - human beings evolved from other life forms. We can coherently claim that God is, in some sense, behind that whole process without having to believe in a literal Adam and Eve.

Humans evolving from other life is not a fact at all.

Second, and I know this will be controversial although it should not be, there is no reason to assume that Jesus had correct knowledge of the world's history. I believe that Jesus did believe in a literal Adam and Eve even though we now know such a belief is not correct. Remember, Jesus took on human perfection including human imperfections, no doubt including incomplete knowledge of the world.

And another fine example of when Jesus said that if one didn't believe the writings of Moses then how could they believe Him. This is a denial of both for the same reason.

Why do you seem to think that Jesus was essentially an omniscient God "stuffed" into a suit of flesh? You get this over-simplified idea from Sunday School, not the Old and New Testaments.

I don't know why you label yourself a Christian, honestly. You seem to create a god in your head that conforms to your sensibilities, rather than you conforming to His. Maybe you're a 'Pick-N-Choosian'.

 

[Archivist]

That's not really what I was referencing. I was referencing the actual words of Jesus.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan wsn't the actual words of Jesus?

Such as...

Mat_19:4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,​

This is direct confirmation of the creation account from His own lips.

Also...

Mar_10:6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
Mar_13:19 For 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.​

​

Those confirm that God was responsible for creating everything. They work just as well if I regard the two Genesis creation accounts as allegories.

Don't kid yourself, to deny the creation account is to say Jesus lied.

I am not denying the creation account, but I do not believe that it is a literal account. I'm not saying that Jesus lied.

 

[Colter]

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.

Both Father and Son are present in spirit and available to all who seek God inside or outside of religion. But it is true, the written word has imperfectly preserved "truths" and historical events as they were pinched through the minds of man. Nothing that man touches is infallible.

 

[expos4ever]

I don't know why you label yourself a Christian, honestly. You seem to create a god in your head that conforms to your sensibilities, rather than you conforming to His. Maybe you're a 'Pick-N-Choosian'.

Are you prepared to have a Biblical debate about the nature of the Incarnation? I think that is not something you will want to get into, since I suggest the evidence will show that Jesus was not "superman" - in taking on human form, he also shared in many of our weaknesses including, of course, the fact that 2000 years ago, people had no idea about how human beings came to be.

I notice you are good with the insults; are you equally skilled at conducting a Biblically-grounded debate?

We shall see, if you are up for it.