Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Norbert L]

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.

Moses did see and talk to an eye witness of creation face to face. In addition that witness made a covenant with Israel and became their ruler.

 

[AnnaliseH]

Here is an interesting quote for all you evolutionists out there.

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a prioriadherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. [Emphasis in original.]

If you want to substantiate this quote, just Google 'Divine foot in the Door.'

 

[Chrisss7]

An interesting way to look at it is this:-

When we die and come before God. If He was to ask us whether we believed in the Bible account of creation or instead man's account of evolution.

I doubt we'd score any brownie points for putting our faith in the latter

 

[Archivist]

Why is it that otherwise intelligent people willfully embrace ignorance when it suits them?

Why is it that some people become so defensive when others disagree with them?

Since you ignored my last explanation let me give you another one which explains things in even simpler terms.

I did not ignore you last explanation. I read it and responded accordingly.

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.

Yes, I've heard all this before. No contradiction regarding plant life if we assume that the reference in Genesis 2 is to farmable plant life. No contradiction regarding animal life if we assume that the words in Genesis 2 actually refer to some type of naming ritual of animals that already existed. Of course, this doesn't even address men and women being created at the same time (Genesis 1) vs. man being created first (Genesis 2).

Of course I could copy and paste material as well but I have been avoiding that since this is off topic in this thread. I hope that you would do the same.

Get it? Got it? Good!

I don't buy you argument. And the conflict between the two accounts doesn't matter to me because I view it as an allegory that simply shows that God created everything.

 

[Archivist]

An interesting way to look at it is this:-

When we die and come before God. If He was to ask us whether we believed in the Bible account of creation or instead man's account of evolution.

I doubt we'd score any brownie points for putting our faith in the latter

I don't think He is going to ask that on that last great day. John 11:25 tells up “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die." I don't see anything about belief in the Biblical account of creation in there.

 

[KWCrazy]

Genesis cannot even support creationism because it gives two contradictory accounts of how God made the world.

How many times do we have to explain to you how and why you are wrong before we just concede that you prefer to lie?

 

[KWCrazy]

If you read the chapters, the orders are different.

Note; GENESIS TWO IS NOT A CREATION STORY.
Genesis two details the formation of man and how God placed him in Eden to care for tillable plants to eat.
Secondly, originally Genesis did not have chapters.

By the way, this isn't my opinion - this is what any serious bible scholar will tell you.

Actually, I posted what actual Bible scholars teach.
You're posting a lie which is easily disproved by simply reading the first verse which begins, "So the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them was completed."

 

[KWCrazy]

You can't support immunology with the bible, or combustion engines.

Neither of those attempt to contradict the Bible. In fact, the Bible warns of germs as "things unseen." Pork was considered unclean because of trichinosis.

 

[Archivist]

How many times do we have to explain to you how and why you are wrong before we just concede that you prefer to lie?

So those who disagree with your interpretation are liars?

 

[KWCrazy]

Of course, this doesn't even address men and women being created at the same time (Genesis 1) vs. man being created first (Genesis 2).

Genesis 1 does NOT say they were created at the same time. It says, "Male and female, created He them." Chapter two details the creation of man. Chapter one describes the entire process in very broad manner.

 

[Archivist]

Genesis 1 does NOT say they were created at the same time. It says, "Male and female, created He them." Chapter two details the creation of man. Chapter one describes the entire process in very broad manner.

According to your interpretation.

 

[KWCrazy]

So those who disagree with your interpretation are liars?

When there is no basis for your "interpretation,
When you persist in making the same claims even after being proven wrong,
When you make the same claims as atheists who seek to discredit the Bible without even considering that those claims are baseless,
When you demonstrate absolutely no comprehension for the fact that the second chapter only spans the course of day six,
Then yes, I doubt your veracity.

 

[Archivist]

When there is no basis for your "interpretation,

But there is.

When you persist in making the same claims even after being proven wrong,

No one has proven me wrong.

When you make the same claims as atheists who seek to discredit the Bible without even considering that those claims are baseless,

I know of no atheists who view Genesis as being an allegory.

When you demonstrate absolutely no comprehension for the fact that the second chapter only spans the course of day six,

According to your interpretation.

Then yes, I doubt your veracity.

Where we differ is that I think that you are entitled to you interpretation of scripture, just as I am entitled to my interpretation. Unfortunately you seem to think that those who don't share your interpretation are "liars."

 

[expos4ever]

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."

You do a grave dis-service to the gospel with this inflammatory rhetoric. I am quite sure you are not allowed to question another member's status as a Christian, which is what you are clearly doing here. Evolution is a fact - no qualified expert will disagree with this (or, at most, only a miniscule minority will disagree).

To frame my position of this issue as entailing a belief that the "Bible is false" is basically a lie, and I am sure you know it.

The level of what pass for "debate" here is absolutely atrocious. It is clear beyond reason that taking the Genesis account as inspired myth is entirely legitimate. And yet you guys basically dismiss this possibility.

And let's be clear about the hell-fire, "you are a pervert and a reprobate" nonsense we see from creationists here. It is clearly an act of desperation - when the facts are against you, and you are not open to changing your mind to face reality - you resort to the mudslinging.

It's almost as if fundamentalists are trained on Wednesday evenings in the church basement to respond to reasoned arguments with a fusillade of demeaning, hateful, and inflammatory rhetoric.

 

[Chrisss7]

I don't think He is going to ask that on that last great day. John 11:25 tells up “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die." I don't see anything about belief in the Biblical account of creation in there.

Not sure what to say about that Archivist, you can't be sure what will happen at such a time actually. HOWEVER to be sure if the Bible has been give to us as God's Word for our lives then faith in evolution rather than the Biblical account probably wouldn't be a good thing

 

[expos4ever]

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

Absolute rubbish. Let's be clear: there are only three possible explanations for this post:

1. You did not read my post properly;
2. You do not understand English;
3. You intentionally misrepresent what I posted.

I said what I said, not what you have twisted my words into. To repeat - please read each word carefully:

I prefer to be a member of the tribe whose members share the attribute of commitment to rational, evidence-based thinking

Now, prithee, explain to us all how "commitment to rational, evidence-based thinking" equals "concern for what other people think" and, worse, "denial of the truth".

Honestly, what it is the matter with you people?

 

[Speedwell]

I didn't realize everyone in the world accepted creationism before evolution came along.

They didn't. They still don't. That is nothing but YEC propaganda. Before the emergence of modern science, most people accepted the Genesis accounts as more or less historical simply because there wasn't any other information available on the subject of how the world came to be, although such belief was never considered essential to the Gospel message and figurative accounts of Genesis were freely entertained. But the Bible doctrines on which YECism rests, the doctrines that they try to convince people are ancient and traditional, are all modern inventions. They would have you believe that all Christians always and everywhere believed what they believe about the Bible until some of us were led into apostasy by Darwin, but that is basically a lie. The characteristic doctrines of YECism--Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, self-interpretability, perspicuity and plenary verbal inspiration--were not heard of before the Reformation and not found in most of Christendom even now.

 

[KWCrazy]

I prefer to be a member of the tribe whose members share the attribute of commitment to rational, evidence-based thinking

What evidence?
Is personal testimony evidence?
Does the testimony of many in this forum who have experienced personal miracles count as evidence? It does in court. Does it with you?
Is your "rational" mind open to the possibility that there are things unseen; entities which exist beyond the scope of the physical world? Are you capable of such abstract thought? Is "reality" the sum total of all existence or just the physical world?

 

[expos4ever]

I believe that this thread is following a common pattern one sees in these kinds of forums:

1. Side "A" (in this case, the young earth creationists) find themselves painted into a corner by the devastating problems with their position.

2. Like all humans, they find it exceedingly difficult to admit they are wrong;

3. So, instead of accepting facts, they lie, they demonize, and they distort drawing on the well-developed arsenal of standard fundamentalist tools (e.g. "you are not saved", "you are a pervert",....).

4. The moderators, understandably, have to intervene to put an end to the carnage.

5. Presto, the member of side A are rescued from their impossible position.

How convenient.

 

[Speedwell]

The grammatical construction of Exodus 20:11 clearly indicates it to be a parenthetical insertion by the transcriber, not something carved in stone by God himself. It's so blatant it even is obvious in the English translation. If you can't defend your position without recourse to falsehoods like that, what good is it?