Should Genesis be taken literally?

[SeventyOne]

Citation please - you are not being truthful. No properly trained expert will agree that evolution explains the origin of life.

Please stop saying false things.

I've said no false thing.

Find any evolutionary website and they'll all say about the same thing. I won't do the details justice here because it isn't deserving enough.

Nothing banged, created something with energy and matter.
Eventually, this energy and matter started pooling together in denser areas of the nothing.
For some reason, this matter started forming together, getting hot, and spinning.
As it spun, it released gasses and other matter out of itself which spun with what is now called a star.
Over time, this spinning matter collected on itself forming sterile balls of rock.
While cooling, these sterile rocks started spewing out a wide array of gas compounds.
Instead of floating off into space, these gas compounds chose to hang out with the rock for a while and created an atmosphere.
Then, POOF! Life somehow appeared on the surface of the sterile rock.
Then goo, small stuff, fish, apes, and us. Blah, blah, blah.
​

Now when people tell me all these "smart" people agree with this, I have a hard time accepting the description of "smart". They may be highly educated but educated within the framework of the lie only. They live in a little box, surrounded by the lie, but it's ok because all their friends and colleagues are there with them in the same little box. And the others say, "Look at all those people in that box. They couldn't possibly all be wrong. Looks like fun, we should all jump in."

 

[SeventyOne]

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.

I will not debate you because you do not understand the concept of biblically-grounded. These discussions will do just fine for you.

 

[4x4toy]

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.

Thanx, and thanx for steering clear ..

 

[SeventyOne]

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

I'm not talking about the Good Samaritan. I don't even know why you brought that up.

​

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

One account. Genesis 2 is just a detailed look at a portion of Genesis 1.

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.

Well, when He states that in the beginning, God created us male and female, but then grab ahold of an idea that actually at first there was an asexual life form, then it's saying he was wrong at best and an outright liar at worst.

 

[Aboma]

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.

I think the problem here is that you compare human writings with the HOLY Bible! It may have been penned by men but how do you interpret 2 Tim. 3:16 - 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness'? We should not make the same assumptions of how history of men is written by non-divinely inspired individuals. Here it is obvious there is room for biased opinions as history is generally written by the "winners", right?

Secondly, people use the talking snake as a proof that it cannot have been real and it should be taken metaphorically rather than literally. A talking snake, along with other events, just doesn't fit into the realm of our scientific understanding. But how does God, the resurrection, forgiveness fit into that realm? There are many things we cannot fit there so why exclude the possibility that a snake could be talking? Especially if this snake was an embodiment of satan.

Finally, the Holy Bible does carry meaning in its text that is beyond what it actually says, but it is at the same time 100% true in what it says. I firmly believe this is the only way we should approach it if we don't want to leave ourselves open for misinterpretation and being mislead. Don't forget who the biggest and most efficient deceiver is. Let's not leave ourselves open to compromise the Word of God and its meaning in our lives.

many blessings.

 

[expos4ever]

I've said no false thing.

Find any evolutionary website and they'll all say about the same thing. I won't do the details justice here because it isn't deserving enough.

Nice try. You said evolutionary websites said that evolution dealt with origins. You need to support that claim by pointing us to the sites. It is not my job to find these sites. It will be hard for me to do this, since no such reputable site exists.

 

[expos4ever]

I will not debate you because you do not understand the concept of biblically-grounded. These discussions will do just fine for you.

Code for: I know that I cannot Biblically defend my belief that Jesus had complete and unflawed knowledge of human origins.

 

[expos4ever]

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

I ask again: which sites?

 

[KWCrazy]

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

Great.
So you accept the six day creation, the creation of man on day six, the fall of man, the Garden of Eden, the Great Flood and the genealogies of the Bible?

 

[KWCrazy]

Code for: I know that I cannot Biblically defend my belief that Jesus had complete and unflawed knowledge of human origins.

You DO realize that Jesus knew Adam and Even personally, right?
You DO realize that Jesus handed down the judgment of the Father because, while man could hear His voice, man could not look upon Him and live, right?
You DO realize that despite being in human form that Jesus had a great knowledge of the Scriptures and held pointed discussions with the elders when He was 12, right?
You DO realize that, though a human, Christ remained the only righteous man who ever lived, and as such had an unrivaled hunger for the Scriptures, right? You now He probably had every word committed to memory by the time He was an adult, right?

 

[expos4ever]

A talking snake, along with other events, just doesn't fit into the realm of our scientific understanding. But how does God, the resurrection, forgiveness fit into that realm?

There is an important difference. I am quite confident (although I have not actually confirmed this) that it can be shown that, within Hebrew culture, the snake is seen as a symbol of evil quite apart from Biblical writings. That should tip us off to the possibility that the snake in Genesis is a symbol.

 

[expos4ever]

You DO realize that Jesus knew Adam and Even personally, right?

Please prove it with Biblical texts. Good luck.

 

[Calminian]

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

Wrong. There's strong evidence writing existed long before Abraham and there is internal evidence in the book of Genesis that suggests writing existed before the Flood. I suggest doing research on this. You can start here:

The Origins of Genesis: Solving the Toledoth Mystery

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

No because your whole argument is based on a false premise.

 

[Sine Nomine]

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 don't believe that Genesis has been corrupted by oral transmission. Oral cultures are quite faithful in their transmission of their history/stories. A priori, there is no reason to take Genesis as exclusively historic or exclusively metaphorical. A priori, it is difficult to distinguish factual accounts from fictional accounts that fit with common experience (might Oliver Twist be a "true account"? Without knowing it to be fiction and it's historical context, one might be hard-pressed to demonstrate its origin as literature (not history) and it's intent).

That said, prior to the Reformation, metaphorical and anogogical reading of scripture was prevalent (although literal senses were not ignored)--thus passages that we take literally (e.g. Jesus turning water into wine at Cana) were given significance far beyond the literal. The Reformation altered (for good or ill) this approach and resulted in a preference for literal reading.

A figurative reading of the creation story along with Adam and Eve in particular from the rest of Genesis seems essential in light of both common experience and modern science. Augustine said where observation of reality clearly conflicts with our understanding of Scripture, we don't understand Scripture.

I see no position that provides a bases for accepting a literal reading that doesn't resort to a faith statement. I suspect that a literal reading in this case is indefensible.

So, my answer is there is no reason to take Genesis (early chapters) literally. The figurative reading has good support. As I believe it is the Word of God, I believe there is significant theological value in the text (the lack of literalness doesn't preclude truth) that is of immense value for both understanding and coming to know, trust, and rely upon the person of Christ (i.e. Salvation).

 

[expos4ever]

You DO realize that despite being in human form that Jesus had a great knowledge of the Scriptures and held pointed discussions with the elders when He was 12, right?

Yes, I do know this. But how is this relevant? The fact that Jesus knew the scriptures is not evidence that He had comprehensive knowledge of the entire history of human development.

 

[KWCrazy]

Please prove it with Biblical texts. Good luck.

I did earlier.
Genesis 3:8-24
John 1:18
1 John 4:12
Exodus 33:20
Exodus 3. 14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ” 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’

John 8.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

Jesus very specifically called Himself I AM. Jesus is and has always been the intermediary between man and God. It has been so since the creation and will be so until the end of time when man will either live in the eternal presence of the Father, or the eternal separation from the Father.

Case made and proved. The Scriptures are the divine word of God. You are teaching heresy. Please stop.

 

[joshua 1 9]

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

This is what they teach when you are in a study to get a Doctor of Divinity degree. Plus I have studied ancient history for over 50 years now so I am well aware of the clay tablets before Moses. In fact the first written law goes back 1,000 years before Moses gave us the Law in the Bible. Abraham was from the Ancient city of Ur. When his father died God called him out to separate himself from them because they had truth and error mixed together and God wanted Abraham to represent the purity of the truth. That is why Abraham was told to come out from among them. Many many people today in the middle east are descended from Abraham. The New Jerusalem will be 1500 by 1500 miles and will take up the whole Arab Continental Plate. This is the land that God gave to Abraham and his descendants. Both the descendants from his son with Sarah and the descendants of Abraham with the hand maiden Hagar.

 

[SeventyOne]

Nice try. You said evolutionary websites said that evolution dealt with origins. You need to support that claim by pointing us to the sites. It is not my job to find these sites. It will be hard for me to do this, since no such reputable site exists.

Sure. One would think for such a proponent of evolution, at least you'd be familiar with its concepts. It's not that hard as the myth that the planets were spit out of stars, where life just happened to "poof", is all over the place. Here are a few 'non-reputable' sources for you, like Space.com and Harvard University.

The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth?

Over time, stars gravitated together to form galaxies, leading to more and more large-scale structure in the universe. Planets coalesced around some newly forming stars, including our own sun. And 3.8 billion years ago, life took root on Earth.​

5(a). Evolution of the Universe

As the Universe expanded, matter began to coalesce into gas clouds, and then stars and planets. Our solar system formed about 5 billion years ago when the Universe was about 65% of its present size​

5(b). Early History of the Earth

The Earth formed as cosmic dust lumped together to form larger and larger particles until 150 million years had passed. At about 4.4 billion years, the young Earth had a mass similar to the mass it has today. The continents probably began forming about 4.2 billion years ago as the Earth continued to cool. The cooling also resulted in the release of gases from the lithosphere, much of which formed the Earth's early atmosphere. Most of the Earth's early atmosphere was created in the first one million years after solidification (4.4 billion years ago). Carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor dominated this early atmosphere.

As the Earth continued to cool, the water vapor found in the atmosphere condensed to form the oceans and other fresh water bodies on the continents. Oxygen began accumulating in the atmosphere through photo-dissociation of O2 from water, and by way of photosynthesis (life). The emergence of living organisms was extremely important in the creation of atmospheric oxygen and ozone. Without ozone, life could not exist on land because of harmful ultraviolet radiation.​

Astronomy 280: Evolution of the Universe

The course includes the origin of the simplest chemical elements shortly after the Big Bang, the condensation of matter in the early universe into large structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies, and scenarios that explain why we find different types of galaxies in the universe. The Milky Way is used as a specific example of a spiral galaxy to examine how matter is cycled from the interstellar medium into stars that evolve and eventually die, putting their matter back into the interstellar medium. This process creates more complex elements, including those necessary for life as we know it.​

Here's a video for you: Watch the entire evolution of the universe in under 3 minutes

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_plan_2.html

Current consensus envisions the genesis of a planetary system as a natural, perhaps frequent, outgrowth of the birth of a star. The condensation model can generally account for each of the 7, earlier-noted properties characterizing our Solar System today. But exactly how those atoms of gas and grains of dust managed to coalesce into the present planets and moons remains one of the great riddles of modern science.​

5.1 - Planetary Evolution

a large, slowly rotating cloud of interstellar gas and dust about a light-year in diameter begins to slowly shrink. As it draws itself together gravitationally over a period of perhaps ten million years,1945 it becomes denser...As the protostar collapses, its magnetic field lines of force are dragged closer together but are held firmly in place...The planets themselves form in the disk of matter surrounding the protostar.​

 

[HenryM]

Why are monkey ancestors so obsessed to put everybody in monkey line?

Those of you who believe you came from monkeys, keep on believing it if you want to. Why do you drag others into monkey ways? Each of our flesh will be dust anyway, so why be so rigid about it?

Your position is not based on science (I don't know how many times to repeat that even liberal Wikipedia cannot get itself to define evolution as science) and was brought to the world by con men and liars (which is a historical fact). Fabricated fossils, fabricated dna findings, fabricated graphs that shaped the "evolutionary" view world knows today.

More importantly, your position has absolutely nothing to explain about most valuable human traits - consciousness, love, abstract thinking, creativity - while it has some questionable interpretation of data that drags people down to apes, courtesy of atheists.

 

[SeventyOne]

Code for: I know that I cannot Biblically defend my belief that Jesus had complete and unflawed knowledge of human origins.

Making more stuff up. At least you're consistent. I'll grant you that much.