Should Genesis be taken literally?

[The Times]

What about the millions of Christians who are conservative and who still don't buy into YEC notions about the Bible--supposing they have even heard of them? Copts, for example,who have hardly had a new theological idea since Jesus lived in Egypt? Armenians? Chaldeans? Thomas Christians? Go ahead and rail against liberal Christians all you want--I quit the Episcopal Church for some of the same reasons. But don't go thinking that everyone who is not a YEC like you is some airy-fairy new age Protestant and that your idea about the Bible is the ancient and traditional view.

In politely responding, with no disrespect. The idea is nonsense.

 

[Big Drew]

Yea, probably angry, and sorry if you felt it was directed at you personally.

If we begin to assume that some portions of the bible are fable, then who decides, and what portions? I believe God wanted us to have His revelation of how things happened in the beginning. Not that this tells us all things that we might like to know, but God has decided what He feels is sufficient. I'm willing to go with God on this.

P.S. And Jessie James was my great-grandfather's uncle. (I am of Dalton decent.) Long live the Dalton gang.

As I said in the OP, I'm not suggesting that Genesis is a fable, I believe it to be true to its purpose...I just wonder if we have misunderstood its purpose with our wholly literal approach to the Bible.

Sidebar: Belle Starr was a great great great aunt, another relative to the James and Younger gang.

 

[Speedwell]

In politely responding, with no disrespect. The idea is nonsense.

In what respect? The beliefs and the history of non-YEC Christian groups is no secret. Haven't you ever wondered why it is that only conservative Evangelical Protestant Christians have so much conflict with evolution and other modern science? I'm not necessarily saying that YECs are wrong about the Bible; whatever brings you closer to Christ is fine. But yours is a distinctly Protestant and a distinctly modern and minority view. Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, self-interpretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration were unheard of before the Reformation and unknown in most of Christendom even now.

 

[expos4ever]

Be honest in your answers, because I know the truth lives in me, there is no requirement of me to show you evidence or facts of objective truths, as is the case for anyone asking me to prove to them if God exists.

A very dangerous worldview you have there. Consider these words written by Jacob Bronowski as he contemplated the deaths of millions at Auschwitz:

“It's said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That's false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance, it was done by dogma, it was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods.

Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken."

I owe it as a scientist to my friend Leo Szilard, I owe it as a human being to the many members of my family who died here, to stand here as a survivor and a witness. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power.

 

[Big Drew]

God gave me a spirit of discernment to discern the ploys of the enemy. I don't need facts and credible evidence as you think it necessary, but all I need is to prove the intent of Liberal thinkers who try to discredit God's character, which is directly tied to his Holy Word, found only in the Holy Bible. So by exposing their intent, I have focussed people's attention to further scrutinise what the intended outcome that the Orginal Poster wants to achieve out of this.

I have done what I need to do, that is to expose the falsehood of liberal theology that has all the haul marks of an anti gospel narrative.

This is what one of the liberal heroes has to say about the word of God

1) Spong’s World View
Spong rejoices in uncertainty and the supposed relativity of all truth in Into the Whirlwind (ITW pp. 12 ff.). Also, in Resurrection: Myth or Reality? RMR (pp. 34–35) he claims:

No word is objective; hence no word ever passes from the lips of one person into the hearing of another without being changed in meaning. … Words are never the truth. They are only the medium of truth … Words become the vehicles by which experiences are shared.

Yet Spong wants us to believe that his words are true and that fundamentalists are most certainly wrong. Such absolute and certain statements sound strange from a bishop who condemns a church for prescribing certainty and absolutes. However, we must now look at why Spong thinks that the church has got it wrong and why liberal scholarship and morality is on the right track. To answer these questions, we must look at Spong’s world view.

So the original poster parrots his prodigy Bishop Spong as follows....



Now here is the link exposing the cult of Liberal Theology......

What’s Wrong With Bishop Spong?

Watch the YouTube video by Walter Martin who exposes the cult of liberal theology, that denies the objective power of Jesus Christ as the Almighty God.

What liberal theology does is to try and deny the Genesis account and to deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, is so much to deny his deity as the God of the Holy Bible.

Do not believe one word they say...because to deny the Word of God is to infuse subject morality within an autonomous law society that is inclusive of all worldly sins because man is deity according to their anti gospel, in that man can wing salvation themselves by their own subjective morality.

That is why you see Liberals accepting homosexual sins, accepting transgender sins, and even embracing the defiling of God's image through the transhumanist agenda.

Walter Martin in one particular video between himself and Bishop Spong asked Spong if Jesus said something, do you accept Jesus as the final authority on any given issue?

Bishop Spong said no!

The cult of liberal theology is what is being promoted by the original Poster.

I don't need to prove anything, for the proof is in the pudding, but please don't eat their pudding, because it has a stench from here to heaven. Don't buy it, and certainly don't promote Liberal Theology subjective morality garbage that states that words don't mean what they mean from an objective context, rather they have only applied meaning subjectively and so every one can have a completely different views about morality and about God and still be saved and that's how they can all sing Gomba Yah together.

So...umm...I don't even know who Bishop Spong is. Does he post here?

As for what I wanted to achieve...I expressed my view on the subject in order to get other people's views...looks like I've done a pretty good job of that.

 

[Speedwell]

So...umm...I don't even know who Bishop Spong is. Does he post here?

As for what I wanted to achieve...I expressed my view on the subject in order to get other people's views...looks like I've done a pretty good job of that.

John Shelby Spong is a retired Episcopal Bishop who went off the rails (probably due to a rigid and oppressive Fundamentalist upbringing) and became a mystic. His influence is limited, even in the hyper-liberal Episcopal Church, but he has become a boogeyman for "Bible-believing" Christians.

 

[Big Drew]

John Shelby Spong is a retired Episcopal Bishop who went off the rails (probably due to a rigid and oppressive Fundamentalist upbringing) and became a mystic. His influence is limited, even in the hyper-liberal Episcopal Church, but he has become a boogeyman for "Bible-believing" Christians.

Thanks for explaining.

If we're talking about Anglican theologians...I'm a Tom Wright fan, personally.

 

[KWCrazy]

LOL! So you read ancient Hebrew fluently? You understand ancient Hebrew literary constructions, tropes and genres? Or do you just read it in translation under the influence of the doctrine of perspicuity, a 19th century novelty?

Do you?
Modern Bibles are put together by people who study these things and try to make them as accurate as possible, because inaccuracy means that nobody will buy your product. It's a flagrant misrepresentation to claim that modern Bibles are so inaccurate and flawed that they have an entirely different meaning. In fact, the oft repeated famous quote from Bob Barr a Hebrew professor says that he knows of no authority on the Hebrew language who disagrees that the author intended it to mean 6 literal solar days of creation.

One of my pastors had a doctorate and could read in the original Hebrew. He never found any noteworthy differences. save a few differences in punctuation. Your argument is without merit.

 

[expos4ever]

The cult of liberal theology denies the truth of Christ and promotes their narrative according to their subjective word view to make Christ's instructions allegories, so that even the authority of Jesus needs to comply with their world view otherwise it is tossed out as fundamentalist and not compatible with their autononous law society, thar embraces subjective morality.

Oh dear, where to begin? These statements are examples of the kind of thought-stopping doublespeak which, unfortunately, insinuates itself into the discourse of the church.

Examples:

1. Your use of the word cult is an example of the "poisoning the well" error;
2. You resort to unsubstantiated speculation about the motives of others as a clear ploy to avoid having to engage their actual arguments;
3. You introduce the entirely irrelevant topic of subjective morality in a transparent attempt to tar those who you disagree with a moral taint.
4. Elsewhere in your post, you invoke magical thinking to the extent that you imply that the gift of the Spirit - which I do not deny - puts you in a position where you see yourself as effectively beyond the possibility of error.

 

[Speedwell]

Thanks for explaining.

If we're talking about Anglican theologians...I'm a Tom Wright fan, personally.

I haven't read him extensively, but yeah, that's about my speed.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you?
Modern Bibles are put together by people who study these things and try to make them as accurate as possible, because inaccuracy means that nobody will buy your product. It's a flagrant misrepresentation to claim that modern Bibles are so inaccurate and flawed that they have an entirely different meaning. In fact, the oft repeated famous quote from Bob Barr a Hebrew professor says that he knows of no authority on the Hebrew language who disagrees that the author intended it to mean 6 literal solar days of creation.

One of my pastors had a doctorate and could read in the original Hebrew. He never found any noteworthy differences. save a few differences in punctuation. Your argument is without merit.

Who said modern Bibles are inaccurate and flawed? My point is that a layman who can only read an English translation is in no position to be as arrogant and condescending about it as you are. BTW, I agree with Barr, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[KWCrazy]

Well, I think I have a pretty good understanding of the Bible, and I believe there are two differing creation accounts. And guess what, I can actually read objectively and I have reached this conclusion.

Please explain what this means.
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
How could something give an account of creation beginning with, "Everything was done?"
You aren't the only one to make this claim. Many do. All are wrong.
"A great many people, including Bible-professing Christians, will insist that Genesis 1 and 2 reflect different creation accounts. Some will say that because the chapters contradict each other the Bible is not infallible. Others will say that the differences allow for a race of pre-humans to exist before the arrival of Adam and Eve. Neither is justified by the text. When the Bible gives an account, the literal translation is always the one we should assume first. Genesis 1:1-2:3 give a summary of creation while Genesis 2:4-25 give details regarding the creation of Adam and Eve." source

It is always important to pay attention to details of any Scripture, especially the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2. These are not two contradictory accounts of creation. Genesis 1 covers the six days of creation. God pronounced it good at the completion of the sixth day. Genesis 2, from verse 4 onward, is a looking into the details of the events of Day 6, the origin of the human race. These accounts are not contradictory. Genesis (Hebrew Beresheeth-means in the beginning, titled by the first words) has a specific structure throughout its record, especially when it comes to the flood, the genealogies and the forming of nations, giving geography and the generations of families from Adam through the flood (the taldot- generations) are specific in detail.

Genesis 1 focuses on God calling the universe into existence ex nihilo, “out of nothing.” And the preceding days where he arranges the universe and the earth for habitation.

Genesis two gives us the details missing from Genesis 1. source

 

[thesunisout]

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

It's not a faith tradition that Jesus said the Old Testament as we have it today is Gods word

 

[dannheim]

Let me ask you a question: While you are free to believe what you like, does it not trouble you that you have to believe some rather implausible things to deny that evolution is a fact, namely (to repeat):

1. Tens of thousands of experts are all wrong;
2. Tens of thousands of experts are engaged in a conspiracy to propagate falsehood.

And do you not realize, that by dismissing the content of the Scientific American article, you are putting yourself in the position of not engaging a clear, well-articulated counter-argument to your position. And that will not score you any points with readers who may be on the fence on this issue.

Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution.
Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect. Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies – they are still fruit flies! Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information. This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution.

Natural Selection is conservative, not creative.
The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types. Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types. However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn’t create new ones. For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years. This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal. In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong.

There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true.
If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

Evolutionist quickly forget that the odds of a 100 left side protein forming in the so called primordially soup are 1 in 10^160. Statistics define anything above 10^50 as statically impossible. So it is statically impossible for life to be formed from non-life.

 

[Speedwell]

Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution.
Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information. The vast majority of mutations are harmful or have no apparent effect. Over 100 years of fruit fly experiments have clearly demonstrated that mutations only result in normal, dead, or grotesquely deformed fruit flies – they are still fruit flies! Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information. This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution.

Natural Selection is conservative, not creative.
The concept of natural selection was originally developed by natural theologians, who thought that it worked to preserve distinct created types. Darwin argued that natural selection, if given enough time, could actually create new types. However, field and laboratory observations of natural selection in action confirm that it only changes the relative abundance of certain already-existing characteristics, and doesn’t create new ones. For example, Darwin observed that the average beak size of finches increased in dry years, but later observers noted that this trend reversed in wet years. This is very different than the kind of changes that would be required to transform a finch beak into some other structure or a finch into a completely different kind of animal. In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong.

There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true.
If evolution were true, we should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don’t see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between every major “kind” of life. Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven’t been.

Evolutionist quickly forget that the odds of a 100 left side protein forming in the so called primordially soup are 1 in 10^160. Statistics define anything above 10^50 as statically impossible. So it is statically impossible for life to be formed from non-life.

Off topic. This thread is about interpreting Genesis, not about evolution.

 

[JacksBratt]

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

Even if it was passed down. Adam was alive when Methuselah was alive. Methuselah knew Noah's son, Shem. Shem was alive when Jacob was alive.

So........even the "it was passed on through generations, so it's flawed" story is toast.

 

[The Times]

In what respect? The beliefs and the history of non-YEC Christian groups is no secret. Haven't you ever wondered why it is that only conservative Evangelical Protestant Christians have so much conflict with evolution and other modern science? I'm not necessarily saying that YECs are wrong about the Bible; whatever brings you closer to Christ is fine. But yours is a distinctly Protestant and a distinctly modern and minority view. Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, self-interpretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration were unheard of before the Reformation and unknown in most of Christendom even now.

In keeping with the relevance of the thread, when reading a text like Genesis, you need to first determine the text type it is.

The text types are.......

Factual texts
Persuasive texts
Literary texts

Factual texts fall under the following catogories......

Factual description
Factual recount
Information report
Procedure
Procedural recount explanation

Persuasive texts fall under the following catogories....

Exposition
Discussion

Literary texts fall under the following catogories......

Literary description
Literary recount
Literary response
Review
Narrative

We can now one by one rule out any text type that is not compatible with the way that Genesis is written.

We come to the conclusion that the way Genesis is written, that it falls under the factual recount catogory of a factual text type.

You see, words do mean what they mean within a factual recount of historical events.

However the cult of Liberal Theology according to Bishop Spong and in his own words.....

No word is objective; hence no word ever passes from the lips of one person into the hearing of another without being changed in meaning. … Words are never the truth. They are only the medium of truth … Words become the vehicles by which experiences are shared.

Here is the link that exposes the LIE of Liberal Theology.....

What’s Wrong With Bishop Spong? - CMI Mobile

Words certainly mean what they mean, if we are to make any rationale discernment, within any given text types.

Liberal Theologians try to impose on the Genesis account a narrative catogory within a literary text type, by infusing their world view upon it, as can be understood by Bishop Spong's following statement....

Words are never the truth. They are only the medium of truth … Words become the vehicles by which experiences are shared.

In other words the Genesis account is only truthful, in so much as today's or tomorrow's generations can twist it to be in harmoney with their subjective world view. So from future generation to generation the shared experiences are a completely different truth to the intended original truth documented by the inspired author of the Genesis account.

So absolute truth does not exist and if absolute truth does not exist then God does not exist, because man's shared experiences become the only recognised truth for that particular generation that is, their autonmous society revolving around their subjective world view.

God said I am the same yesturday, today and tomorrow and so if there is no objective moral truth from the Creator, then the people/anthropos of sin take God's place as those having a form of godliness but at the same time deny the power of God altogether.

That is why when the late Walter Martin questioned Bishop Spong if Jesus said something, is he the final authority in all matters?

Bishop Spong responded NO!

So we have the anthropos/man of sin being revealed in our time, where they sit in the temple of God, that is of the Holy Ghost body and proclaim themselves as gods in their own shared experiences, as they sing Gomba Yah.

Have no part of this strong delusion my beloved brothers and sisters in Christ for the truth of God is clearly seen to be replaced by a lie from the author of lies Satan who said to Eve in the Garden.....

4“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3:4-5)

There you have it from the mouth of the serpant, a doctrine of subjective morality that has a form of godliness, that is you will be like God knowing good and evil from your autononous community based shared experiences.

We see the same lie being marketed today, to the unsuspecting that the truth of God which is directly tied to his Holy Word that he inspired Holy men to write, as a testimony, is now according the cult of Liberal Theology from the 80s been replaced with a lie.

If God's word doesn't mean what it means from a given text type, then God doesn't exist and only Liberal advocates exist as the only objective truth because they believe their subjective shared community experiences trumps God's testimony, his Holy inspired word.

These man/anthropos/people of sin will continue to have pleasure in unrighteousness and to serve their own autononous world view agenda, until God reigns in his justice arm upon those reprobates who have foresaken the covenant of his only begotten Son.

8Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.9Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. (Hebrews 13:8-9)

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

I love it when people believe that Christ was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, preached for three years, turned water to wine, walked on water, healed the deaf, dumb and blind, healed crippled people, lepers, one woman as she just touched Him.

Then He was beaten, flogged, crucified, a spear thrust through His heart, caused darkness over the earth during daytime, caused an earth quake, caused recently dead people to come back to life.

Died, three days later came back to life, talked to His friends, talked to hundreds of people. Walked through walls, ate food.

Then, at the end, rose up into the sky and disappeared behind a cloud in front of several of His friends.

They believe all of this. All of this supernatural, unproveable, untestable, unrepeatable and, to some, unbelievable events.....

BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO IF THEY WANT TO BELIEVE IN THEIR SALVATION.

All the rest of equal, or lesser supernatural events.... they kick to the side. They say "that doesn't need to be true for me to be saved"

What hypocrites.

They only believe what they think will save them.

Well, let me tell you... the entire 66 books are as true as the gospel. Those of you that sift through the words of God and put in your pocket the things yo believe are for your benefit and burn the rest.... you need to take a good look at what your burning.

 

[JacksBratt]

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

They usually pick out a random word and ask you to define it too. Oh, and the other two..."wheres the evidence" and "are there any peer reviewed papers"

 

[JacksBratt]

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?

Why not start with where "life" came from. Any self respecting explanation of the events that caused all the animals, fish, birds and mankind to end up on this earth..........MUST tell me where "life" came from.

I know, I know, evolution doesn't deal with where life came from.

Well, for that reason... it is dead in the water... pun intended.