Should Genesis be taken literally?

[expos4ever]

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.

No, I guarantee you will not be able to actually explain why the fact that abiogenesis (the origin of life) remains largely a mystery justifies the conclusion that evolution is "dead in the water".

 

[Speedwell]

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.

Slanderous. What is the matter with you people? I haven't brought up the theory of evolution at all in this discussion. I don't really care about the theory of evolution. It's only a scientific theory, and scientific theories come and go--the history of science is littered with failed theories. My faith is based on Christ. It will stand whatever happens to a mere scientific theory.

 

[expos4ever]

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

You speculate - with no supporting evidence - about motive, just like some other creationists have done. That is not legitimate debate - you have no magical powers to discern what goes on in the minds of others.

We Christians who accept reality - and evolution has the status of being a fact about reality - are simply being rational and honouring facts. You can rail and protest against reality all you like but reality is what it is. There is no credible explanation why tens of thousands of highly trained experts would all be wrong, or all be conspiring to hide truth.

And we needn't be having this battle anyway, save for the stiff-necked refusal of (mostly American) fundamentalists to accept the demonstrable possibility that the Genesis account is inspired myth.

 

[expos4ever]

In other words, scientific studies of natural selection demonstrate, without exception, that Darwin was wrong.

Name one.

 

[expos4ever]

All I read is the same ubiquitous drum role of the Liberal Theologian being regurgitated through a different perverted means and having the same intent to sway people away from the testimony of God and to lead them to the testimony of reprobate men who live in their generation.

When the facts are not on your side, your only option is to morph the focus onto the moral character of those who do have the facts on their side.

Hence the word "liberal" used as an insult.

Hence the word "perverted", used to poison the well.

Hence the assertion that those who happen to approach the world rationally are "reprobate".

 

[Speedwell]

You speculate - with no supporting evidence - about motive, just like some other creationists have done. That is not legitimate debate - you have no magical powers to discern what goes on in the minds of others.

We Christians who accept reality - and evolution has the status of being a fact about reality - are simply being rational and honouring facts. You can rail and protest against reality all you like but reality is what it is. There is no credible explanation why tens of thousands of highly trained experts would all be wrong, or all be conspiring to hide truth.

And we needn't be having this battle anyway, save for the stiff-necked refusal of (mostly American) fundamentalists to accept the demonstrable possibility that the Genesis account is inspired myth.

I remain convinced that there is something else in play here besides a desire to protect what they see as the biblical basis of essential Christian doctrine. The amount of slanderous filth generated doesn't seem justified by it. Something else must be at stake for them.

 

[expos4ever]

The theory of evolution has always been dependent on a deliberate falsifying of the fossil evidence, hiding evidence detrimental to faith in evolution,....

I guarantee you are making this up - you will not be able to support the absurd claims.

 

[expos4ever]

The amount of slanderous filth generated doesn't seem justified by it. Something else must be at stake for them.

To quote Steven Pinker:

It's important to realize, though, that the problem is not scientific literacy. Most laypeople who believe in evolution or who acknowledge human-made climate change are just as ignorant of science as those who deny them. The issue is identity. People treat opinions as badges of loyalty to a tribe or coalition.

When a creationist is confronted with the fact of evolution their sense of personal identity, as defined by being a member of the tribe that believe in creationism, is threatened. And people get very defensive when they believe their identity is under threat. Tribalism affects us all, of course. I though this sounds snotty, but I prefer to be a member of the tribe whose members share the attribute of commitment to rational, evidence-based thinking. That way, my identity is not at such high risk of being challenged.

 

[Big Drew]

The original poster reiterates exactly what the leading advocate of Liberal theology states below....

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.

And this is what the OP states.......

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...

So the question that needs to be answered is, does this thread fall within the same intent of Liberal Theologians who want to do away with God's word by imposing their shared community experience over and above the factual text type that is the Genesis account.

Liberal Theologians can not put their own spin on the book of Genesis, they must read it as the factual text type it is.

If you ask a liberal theologian do you apply your own narrative into a factual text type?

They would say no.

So why impose your narrative into a text type that is a factual text type.

Just because one doesn't understand it, it doesn't mean that there are contradiction that permits a person or a group of people to alogorize a factual text type.

All I read is the same ubiquitous drum role of the Liberal Theologian being regurgitated through a different perverted means and having the same intent to sway people away from the testimony of God and to lead them to the testimony of reprobate men who live in their generation.

Nothing under the Sun is new!

I was unclear as to what the OP's train of thought was...you know, given that I'm the OP...I said to myself, "Self (because that's what I call me) what do you mean by what you posted here? I hope some well meaning soul comes along and explains our words to us." And you did, so thank you for that.

But seriously, I feel like it's the 1990s and I'm at a Sisqo concert, "Let me see that Spong..." over and over again...until another poster explained who he was to me a few hours ago, I had never even heard of this guy...and from what little bit I have heard...I've heard enough to know my thoughts and his are not the same...although, of course, if you say they are, then they must be...given that you're the all knowing keeper of the thoughts....

 

[KWCrazy]

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

Why is it that otherwise intelligent people willfully embrace ignorance when it suits them?
Since you ignored my last explanation let me give you another one which explains things in even simpler terms.

There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” So, which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for “vegetation” are different in the two passages. Genesis 1:11 uses a term that refers to vegetation in general. Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener. The passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation, and Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing “farmable” vegetation to grow until after He created man.

The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals. source

Get it? Got it? Good!

 

[KWCrazy]

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

What about if you actually READ the book of Genesis?
I was told the earth was billions of years old. After actually reading the Bible I leaned that this was impossible. It's easy to have opinions regarding things about which you know very little.

 

[KWCrazy]

I though this sounds snotty, but I prefer to be a member of the tribe whose members share the attribute of commitment to rational, evidence-based thinking.

I prefer to be part of the tribe who serves God and goes to Heaven, not the tribe who is cast into the hellfire and consumed with the false teachers. Teaching things contrary to the Scriptures will incur the wrath of God. Seriously, it's better to say "This is what I believe" rather than saying "Evolution is a fact and the Bible is false."

 

[KWCrazy]

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.

I'm quite confident that Jesus Christ would be called an evolution denier by those who think like you do. I wonder if He would consider you any better than the Pharisees who also taught false doctrine. You stand with your science teacher. I'll stand with my Lord.

 

[Speedwell]

What about if you actually READ the book of Genesis?
I was told the earth was billions of years old. After actually reading the Bible I leaned that this was impossible. It's easy to have opinions regarding things about which you know very little.

What makes you think I haven't? I particularly like the Garden story for its subtle complexity. Almost every time I read it I find something new to think about.

 

[Speedwell]

I prefer to be part of the tribe who serves God and goes to Heaven, not the tribe who is cast into the hellfire and consumed with the false teachers. Teaching things contrary to the Scriptures will incur the wrath of God. Seriously, it's better to say "This is what I believe" rather than saying "Evolution is a fact and the Bible is false."

So we're going to hell for not being YECs? And all you want to do is gloat about it--it's the YEC Christian thing to do.

 

[AnnaliseH]

I prefer to be a member of the tribe whose members share the attribute of commitment to rational, evidence-based thinking. That way, my identity is not at such high risk of being challenged.

In other words, you are more concerned about what people think of you, than about the truth.

 

[SLB]

Any question about how literal Genesis is should be put to rest by:

Genesis 30:37 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

The first time I read that I thought WOW there's something supernatural going on. On a later reading I considered that the pealed sticks would have left stains on the wool. Not so supernatural after all, but it would leave all of the healthy sheep and goats in Jacobs flocks striped and spotted. Jacob was, after all, a duplicitous person.

 

[SLB]

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.

Personally I think Genesis should be taken literally. I'm not a scholar, I don't read it in the original Hebrew, but one thing I know, I can trust Jesus. There are some things that seem to contradict. OK. Maybe it doesn't really, and I just don't know enough, or I'm not inherently capable of understanding what was really going on. I can admit that. I know I'm not capable of speaking a universe into being. But I know that God is.

Is it possible that Moses, (or whoever, we have it, it was written, I don't care what the guys name was, mostly because that's irrelevant) got his information not from human sources but from God himself when he was up on that mountain? Is it possible that God made sure that the important, essential bits got included in the Genesis account?

Is is possible that a serpent in the Garden of Eden could talk? What were the characteristics of a serpent before the fall of man? I don't know, I have a parrot that talks so that doesn't seem to me to be a huge leap. Maybe that's just because my mind is too simple and I can't see the obstacles.

Do I need to know for sure that the world was created the way the Bible says it was? Do I need to know for sure that Sodom was destroyed by a storm of fire and brimstone? I don't know but there is that great big salt sea unlike anything anywhere else. Do I need to know whether Jacob wrestled with God or an angel? I don't know. Does it matter? It just seems that there is enough information given in the Genesis account where you could look at it and say, maybe.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but every time I read the Genesis account it just seems to have an indefinable something about it that always leaves me thinking WOW, what an awesome God I serve. So until someone comes up with an explanation that crosses all the t's and dots all the i's, I'll just muddle along believing that it's literally true.

 

[Big Drew]

Personally I think Genesis should be taken literally. I'm not a scholar, I don't read it in the original Hebrew, but one thing I know, I can trust Jesus. There are some things that seem to contradict. OK. Maybe it doesn't really, and I just don't know enough, or I'm not inherently capable of understanding what was really going on. I can admit that. I know I'm not capable of speaking a universe into being. But I know that God is.

Is it possible that Moses, (or whoever, we have it, it was written, I don't care what the guys name was, mostly because that's irrelevant) got his information not from human sources but from God himself when he was up on that mountain? Is it possible that God made sure that the important, essential bits got included in the Genesis account?

Is is possible that a serpent in the Garden of Eden could talk? What were the characteristics of a serpent before the fall of man? I don't know, I have a parrot that talks so that doesn't seem to me to be a huge leap. Maybe that's just because my mind is too simple and I can't see the obstacles.

Do I need to know for sure that the world was created the way the Bible says it was? Do I need to know for sure that Sodom was destroyed by a storm of fire and brimstone? I don't know but there is that great big salt sea unlike anything anywhere else. Do I need to know whether Jacob wrestled with God or an angel? I don't know. Does it matter? It just seems that there is enough information given in the Genesis account where you could look at it and say, maybe.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but every time I read the Genesis account it just seems to have an indefinable something about it that always leaves me thinking WOW, what an awesome God I serve. So until someone comes up with an explanation that crosses all the t's and dots all the i's, I'll just muddle along believing that it's literally true.

I don't find your view stupid, at all. Thank you for explaining it so nicely, and not labeling me a heretic, as others in this thread have.

I haven't closed the door on it being literal. As you said, and I also believe, the essentials are there.

The book shows us why we are and why we are in need of a Savior.

I sometimes feel like other believers get so hung up on the literal meaning of it all, that they end up losing sight of the full picture.

 

[The Times]

Hence the assertion that those who happen to approach the world rationally are "reprobate".

Scripture states that those who conform to the autonomous and subjective wicked ways of the world have enmity towards God.

The witnesses found in scripture calls them reprobates, that is if we are to take to faith and truth, the testimony of scripture within the authority of the 1st century Jewish Church in Jerusalem.

4Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. (Jannes 4:4)

4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:4-8)

According to scripture a reprobate is a person or persons who sell out Jesus Christ in order to appease the world.

A reprobate according to scripture will condone homosexual lifestyle, transgender lifestyle and Transhumanist agenda. All these worldly sinful acts that require repentence and turning away from the fleshly desire of this world, are all flagrant attacks on the image of God. Those who support those who break the law and defile the image of God are also found to attack the Orthodox church and attack the very character of God and his written testimony.

This is what scripture states....

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,31Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:18-32)

According to Paul a reprobate is one who has an outward form of godliness in professing to know Jesus, yet they side with the world in condoning and embracing

ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.

This means they profess to hold the truth by saying Jesus Jesus and Lord Lord in their Gomba Yah's communities, but support and condone unrighteous lifestyles mentioned above.

It is the witnesses of scripture that calls such people reprobates. I can only reitetate that scripture does in fact agree with Liberal statements like this.....

Hence the assertion that those who happen to approach the world rationally are "reprobate

With a reply like this.....

when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,

This is what has come to our generation, where never before happened historically speaking, that an autonomous law society would emerge to embrace subject morality concocted from a shared community experience as the Liberals would lead the unsuspecting to believe.

I am not falling for this lie, neither will God fearing Christians who love Jesus. What has been proven by my posts is that the enemy wants to dethrone Christ from within his church.

Think and reflect why would Liberals alogorize Genesis by imposing a literary text type narration, when it should be taken as a factual text type?

To attack the Image of God that declares God as the owner of human beings, by then changing the Image to make man as the owner.