Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Archivist]

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

Try actually reading the order in the accounts themselves. The order differs.

 

[The Times]

Click on the link below to find out the truth in the matter to the thread topic....

Should Genesis be taken literally?

 

[Archivist]

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"

If you are ever arrested and put on trial I expect that you will want your lawyer to ask "where's the evidence."

 

[Colter]

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.

I don't belive that Jesus ever told anyone to kill the men, women and children who were the refugees of war, allowing the killers to keep the female virgin children for themselves. Those atrocities were committed by men and ascribed to God. Much of the OT was written by the kind of people who killed Jesus.

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill

every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls

who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

(Moses - Numbers 31:17

 

[Colter]

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.

Evolution came from God, it was his technique of creation. It's in the fossil record which doesn't look anything like the creation story that the Hebrews created.

 

[UpandDown]

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.

Should Genesis be taken literally?? YES! And for very good reason.

 

[Speedwell]

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 know this how?

As to the rest of your rant, no one here is defending Spong or his views, or even cares very much about it. I doubt that there are any parties to this discussion who fit your stereotype of a "liberal Christian."

 

[The Times]

You know this how?

As to the rest of your rant, no one here is defending Spong or his views, or even cares very much about it. I doubt that there are any parties to this discussion who fit your stereotype of a "liberal Christian."

So do you support Spong, who is one of the leading advocate of Liberal Theology?

Simple question deserves a simple reply, that's all?

 

[Speedwell]

So do you support Spong, who is one of the leading advocate of Liberal Theology?

Simple question deserves a simple reply, that's all?

As I said, I don't believe anyone here supports Spong. I certainly don't; I left the Episcopal Church over liberal ideas a lot less whacky than his.

 

[Waggles]

Oh please. To say that evolution is not science is dishonest at worst, ignorant at least.

But that is the truth of the matter. Evolution is NOT science.
It is at best speculation. Wishful thinking. Groping for alternatives to the obvious truth of the creation.
The theory of evolution has always been dependent on a deliberate falsifying of the fossil evidence, hiding evidence
detrimental to faith in evolution, posturing highly improbable theories as to how wonderful biological engineering
designs came about.
Worse is the fascism and totalitarian thought control by academia attacking and purging all other opinions that
choose real evidence to indicate the truth of intelligent design and engineering specific to complex biological
structures and functions.

200 years after Darwin and not one evolutionist can take me to a museum of natural history and show me any real
evidence for transition from one previous life form to another. There is no real evidence to show how birds built nests,
nor how caterpillars became butterflies, or how kidneys evolved, or the digestive tract, etc, etc, etc...

Evolution still remains artists illustrations in books. Books which are constantly rewritten as new evidence trashes previous
theories and agreed faith. But the Bible [original scriptures in original languages] has not changed nor needed to be
rewritten since its author [Jesus] inspired them to be written. Truth stands eternal.

 

[Speedwell]

But that is the truth of the matter. Evolution is NOT science.
It is at best speculation. Wishful thinking. Groping for alternatives to the obvious truth of the creation.
The theory of evolution has always been dependent on a deliberate falsifying of the fossil evidence, hiding evidence
detrimental to faith in evolution, posturing highly improbable theories as to how wonderful biological engineering
designs came about.
Worse is the fascism and totalitarian thought control by academia attacking and purging all other opinions that
choose real evidence to indicate the truth of intelligent design and engineering specific to complex biological
structures and functions.

200 years after Darwin and not one evolutionist can take me to a museum of natural history and show me many real
evidence for transition from one previous life form to another. There is no real evidence to show how birds built nests,
nor how caterpillars became butterflies, or how kidneys evolved, or the digestive tract, etc, etc, etc...

Evolution still remains artists illustrations in books. Books which are constantly rewritten as new evidence trashes previous
theories and agreed faith. But the Bible [original scriptures in original languages] has not changed nor needed to be
rewritten since its author [Jesus] inspired them to be written. Truth stands eternal.

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

 

[The Times]

As I said, I don't believe anyone here supports Spong. I certainly don't; I left the Episcopal Church over liberal ideas a lot less whacky than his.

I sincerely have empathy for you, with no disrespect I see a well intentioned person who has rolled with the whacky liberal swine.

I know if I was in your position I would be scarred for life spiritually speaking. That is why I implore you to support a text type for what it is from a literacy point of view, without having to contend over doctrine.

Just believe it on faith value, that is what the Christian Fath is all about. You don't need to know the details as to the whys and hows, but establishing a one to one relationship with Jesus Christ is all it matters, as an obedient prisoner of Christ.

Just follow Jesus and his instructions documented in scripture.

 

[Speedwell]

I sincerely have empathy for you, with no disrespect I see a well intentioned person who has rolled with the whacky liberal swine.

I know if I was in your position I would be scarred for life spiritually speaking. That is why I implore you to support a text type for what it is from a literacy point of view, without having to contend over doctrine.

Just believe it on faith value, that is what the Christian Fath is all about. You don't need to know the details as to the whys and hows, but establishing a one to one relationship with Jesus Christ is all it matters, as an obedient prisoner of Christ.

Just follow Jesus and his instructions documented in scripture.

Thank you, but I am satisfied with my relationship with Christ as it is.

 

[AnnaliseH]

Do you know what I find is interesting? What I can see from the answers posted in this thread? That belief in evolution then requires you to have to explain why Jesus said things that did not fit, which means you have to explain how He could lie or be mistaken, which takes you right to where you deny Jesus's divinity. It is a clear example how one error leads to a more serious one, until you end up at a place that is not even Christian at all.

Jesus was still wholly God while He was on this earth. Just as He was wholly man. Yes, it is hard for us to wrap our human, flawed minds around this. Yes, it does not make sense. But God's ways are not our ways.
And being wholly God means that He still shared all of the Father's attributes, omipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.
HE says Himself in John 10:30, I and my Father are one.
That means that everything that God is or has or knows, belongs to Jesus as well, even while He was on earth. As it says in Hebrews 13:8, Jesus Christ the same yesterday and to day, and forever.

You cannot trust Science above the Word of God, just because a majority of fallible men claim that they can prove Evolution. Science can be mistaken. Or do you need a reminder of how, in the Medieval Period, the majority of scientists said that the earth was flat, that the universe revolved around earth. Or throughout the ages, scientists have been proven to be wrong, even about something that had seemed until that point to be THE TRUTH. If Science could be wrong then, it could just as well be wrong now.

 

[Waggles]

No one takes the bible 100% literally all the time.

Really!!! You should spend more time with real Christians.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you know what I find is interesting? What I can see from the answers posted in this thread? That belief in evolution then requires you to have to explain why Jesus said things that did not fit, which means you have to explain how He could lie or be mistaken, which takes you right to where you deny Jesus's divinity. It is a clear example how one error leads to a more serious one, until you end up at a place that is not even Christian at all.

What I see from the answers posted in this thread is that it is YECs who keep bringing up evolution as if it was the only reason for rejecting YEC bibliolatry. For my part, if the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow, I would not change my view of Genesis on account of it.

 

[Zoii]

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

My point was - that I disagree - that my belief is that my teachings (if I chose to teach) would be consistent with known scientific truths, and the paradigms of the bible. You see its my belief to ignore scientific evidence is flagrantly false teaching. There is a place for both science and Christianity...but if I were to ignore science when Im using it in so many practical ways; well that would make me appear before others ignorant and hypocritical.

 

[AnnaliseH]

For my part, if the theory of evolution was overturned tomorrow, I would not change my view of Genesis

You claim the "overwhelming evidence" in support of evolution as your reason for believing in it, yet turn around and say that you would believe what you believe whether or not evolution was proven true or false.

So what exactly DO you found your belief on? Because it certainly isn't the Scriptures.

 

[expos4ever]

But that is the truth of the matter. Evolution is NOT science.

Nonsense! Virtually all qualified experts will disagree with you. I challenge you to find one person teaching at an accredited, real university who will agree with you.

Christians give other Christians a pass on this too often. I understand the motive - the Christian (who knows better and accepts evolution) sees his fellow believer who denies the plain fact of evolution and bends over backward not to offend them by setting them straight. Well, that does the gospel a grave dis-service since it presents the church as out of touch with reality and unwilling to accept the plain facts that the world offers us.

I will bet it is only in the United States that a majority of Christians deny evolution. Denying a well-established scientific fact only strengthens the negative image of the believer as simple-minded, naive, and uneducated. We need to accept the world as it is and move on.

 

[expos4ever]

Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution......

I am virtually certain your arguments are invalid. How do I know this since I, like you no doubt, am not an expert?

I know you are wrong just like I know it is wrong to deny the earth orbits the sun, that vaccines work, and that smoking causes cancer.

And the reason is this: because I trust the overwhelming consensus of trained experts, that's why.

I will be shocked if the material you posted is your own - you copied and pasted it from someone who, I will almost guarantee, is not an appropriately credentialed expert.

Here is the problem with getting into debates about the actual science: it gives the false impression (to the naive) that the matter is still up for debate. It is not. It has been settled to a very high degree of certainty.