Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Speedwell]

But what tells you about Christ, about salvation, if not the Bible?

How many times am I going to have to answer that question? How can you people know so little about Christians you hate so much?

 

[AnnaliseH]

How many times am I going to have to answer that question? How can you know so little about Christians you hate so much?

I don't hate you. I think your viewpoint is unsound, unScriptural, and ultimately not God-honoring. But that is ultimately between you and Him.

If you are referring to Apostolic Tradition, then here is what the definition you pointed someone else to says about the Scriptures. Note the emphasis.
Sacred tradition or holy tradition is a theological term used in some Christian traditions, primarily those claiming apostolic succession such as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Catholic and Anglican traditions, to refer to the foundation of the doctrinal and spiritual authority of the Christian Church and of the scriptures

 

[joshua 1 9]

survival of the fittest?

Science tends to avoid use of the term: "survival of the fittest".

death came into the world because of sin.

Paul said: "death through sin". That does not mean there was not death in the world before sin entered into the world. The snake was already in the Garden and Eve made a choice to follow the snake in his rebellion against God.

 

[joshua 1 9]

my salvation comes from Christ, not the Bible.

Jesus is the Word of God: John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us".

 

[joshua 1 9]

But what tells you about Christ, about salvation, if not the Bible?

The Holy Spirit gives life to the Word of God. He is our Teacher to guide us and lead us into all truth.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's OK. I've already been damned to hell by your colleagues several times just on this thread already.

Well, only God knows your heart.

I don't think "He said."

Well, if you believe that the Bible is the Inspired word of God and that every word is God breathed.... then "He said".

I'm not sure exactly what that means, but my impression is that you are trying to force the text into a modern form of historical narrative which has no precedent in ancient Hebrew literature.

What I'm say'n is... every parable is indicated by a certain pattern of text or presentation by Christ that indicates that it is a parable. Davids poetry and songs are indicated by the scripture that they are such. Every part of Revelations that is a metaphor is easily determined by the context of the scripture....

Meanwhile, Genesis is written as a historical event and there is no indication that it is anything but a historical event that took place as indicated.

Your belief that evolutionary biology is a fraud concerns me. I'm not a scientist, my background is in math and engineering, but I am passing familiar with science and have worked with scientists and it seems implausible and not a little paranoid to me. What would be the motive? The number of scientists who are theists who are scientists argues that it is not an atheistic conspiracy and quite frankly YECism is too small a segment of Christianity to merit so much effort.

There are numerous proven cases of fraud in the history of people trying to validate the hoax of evolution.

As Tesla said about Einstein and other mathematicians...

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

I use science every day. I am a metallurgical technologist. I can take 2kg of mining ore and concentrate the chalcopyrite into a sample that is 30% copper. We can smelt that down and produce copper metal that is 30% of the total weight of the concentrated mineral....

That is science. It works every time, all the time....

Evolution is assumptions, extrapolations and guesses.. It's not science.

As for how many scientists believe in the TOE or YEC is of no matter..... Truth is not a democracy.

Even if only one scientist in the whole world had the integrity to tell us that the TOE is wrong.... they would be the only one who was right.

 

[JacksBratt]

Sacred tradition - Wikipedia

And where did this sacred tradition get it's intel on Christ?

 

[Speedwell]

And where did this sacred tradition get it's intel on Christ?

Let's see... There was Clement, mentored by St. Peter and chosen by him to be successor Bishop of Rome. How could he know anything about Christianity? Then there were Polycarp and Ignatious, students of St. John. Might as well throw their books into the toilet--after all, they're not The Bible. And so on, but never mind. None of them were "real" Christians, because they were not conservative Evangelical Protestants so you don't really care to hear about them, except to find fault.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

We have clay tablets today that tell the story of Noah and the Ark before Moses wrote Genesis. So if the exact Bible version was around or not there were still written versions of the story outside of the Bible.

The Animals Went in Two by Two, According to Babylonian Ark Tablet - Biblical Archaeology Society

Clay tablets are for city dwellers. Abraham was a nomad.

 

[Speedwell]

Meanwhile, Genesis is written as a historical event and there is no indication that it is anything but a historical event that took place as indicated.

Here's a little thought experiment for you. You have a chance to be the first creationist who hasn't dodged it: Suppose convincing and unassailable documentary evidence came to light that the Garden story was intended by its (divinely inspired) author to be an etiology--a "Just-So" story. What would that do to your faith? Would you quit being a Christian?

There are numerous proven cases of fraud in the history of people trying to validate the hoax of evolution.

Not so numerous, and all uncovered by other scientists--not creationists.

 

[AnnaliseH]

Here's a little thought experiment for you. You have a chance to be the first creationist who hasn't dodged it: Suppose convincing and unassailable documentary evidence came to light that the Garden story was intended by its (divinely inspired) author to be an etiology--a "Just-So" story. What would that do to your faith? Would you quit being a Christian?

No. Because the evidence would be wrong. Because no matter what 'truth' is uncovered, the Bible is still the ultimate truth. And anything contradicting what is clearly taught in the Scriptures is a lie.

 

[AnnaliseH]

Let's see... There was Clement, mentored by St. Peter and chosen by him to be successor Bishop of Rome. How could he know anything about Christianity? Then there were Polycarp and Ignatious, students of St. John. Might as well throw their books into the toilet--after all, they're not The Bible. And so on, but never mind. None of them were "real" Christians, because they were not conservative Evangelical Protestants so you don't really care to hear about them, except to find fault.

Not saying that people like Clement, Polycarp, Ignatious were not Christians. Their works do have value. Just not equal to or greater than God's Word.

Besides, since you mention them as part of your Apostolic tradition, what were their views on Genesis?

 

[Big Drew]

No. Because the evidence would be wrong. Because no matter what 'truth' is uncovered, the Bible is still the ultimate truth. And anything contradicting what is clearly taught in the Scriptures is a lie.

Isn't it possible that it's the truth but not the whole truth? As in, we were given the basic idea, but we had to write out the full equation? The first verse of Genesis says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." Ok, but how? I don't believe science is trying to prove God didn't do it...I mean, I'm sure there are some scientist that this is there purpose...but I believe there are also many that are just trying to figure out how.

 

[AnnaliseH]

Isn't it possible that it's the truth but not the whole truth? As in, we were given the basic idea, but we had to write out the full equation? The first verse of Genesis says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." Ok, but how? I don't believe science is trying to prove God didn't do it...I mean, I'm sure there are some scientist that this is there purpose...but I believe there are also many that are just trying to figure out how.

What's to figure out? God Himself said how He did it.

 

[Big Drew]

What's to figure out? God Himself said how He did it.

Ok...God said let there be...so what happened then? Did He say it and poof it was there, or did something begin to happen...say, a mountain, for example...was there just suddenly a mountain, or did God speak and suddenly the earth start shifting and rising and falling until a mountain was formed? Maybe the former is true, but it could be the latter, as well...and, if it is...it doesn't change the fact that He did it.

 

[AnnaliseH]

Psalm 33:9 makes it quite clear. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

 

[mark kennedy]

If you read further in the thread you can see that my belief is indeed that God created, to me there is no denying that...as another poster said, Genesis gives us the essentials, and does a beautiful job of it...but, I don't necessarily think it gives us all the details...and I think that's where science comes in...to, fill in the blanks, if you will. Not to be in opposition.

Of course, now I know I've opened another can of worms with the term "fill in the blanks..." Lift off in 3...2....

I'm pretty much died in the wool creationist now but for a while I was on the fence. I finally decided, based on, believe it or not, the discrepancies of natural history that Darwinism didn't reflect real world adaptive evolution. However, I had spent some time rethinking my theology, rearranging this and rationalizing that. It was only after a considerable amount of time that my thoughts turned to a series exposition of Genesis 1 and the text could not be any clearer. Indeed, there are always a few blank that need to be filled in but one thing is crystal clear and in the strongest possible terms, God created life in general and man in particular.

And God created ( בָּרָא bara', H1254) great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:21)

So God created H1254 man in his own image, in the image of God created H1254 he him; male and female created H1254 he them. (Gen 1:27)
​

This word translated, 'created', is 'bara', in this form it's used only of God in Scripture. Not only did God create life but righteousness, salvation and the nation of Israel:

But now thus saith the LORD that created H1254 thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine. (Isaiah 43:1)

Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created H1254 it. (Isaiah 43:8)
​

It's used once in Genesis 1 to speak of the creation of the universe, 'the heavens and the earth' (Gen. 1:1). The creation of life (Gen. 1:21) and in Gen. 1:27 it is used three times to describe the creation of man. When the ancient Hebrews wanted to emphasis something they would use a literary device known as a parallelism. the 27th verse is a triple parallelism that puts special emphasis on the creation of man, at the heart of the emphasis.

Now I get that sometimes there are things that leave some of the step wise logic we would like to have. But when it comes to the creation of life the Scriptures could not be more emphatic, this is written in the strongest possible terms. That's just something you might want to consider since the incarnation, resurrection and the washing, renewing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit (aka born again), is inextricably linked to God being Creator:

In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:4,5)
​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Big Drew]

Psalm 33:9 makes it quite clear. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

I agree with that, I just want to know the details...I can tell one of my daughters, "Go clean your room." And it's done. But there's a process in between there. The process doesn't make the statement, "I told my daughter to clean her room and it was done," less true.

 

[KWCrazy]

Let's see... There was Clement, mentored by St. Peter and chosen by him to be successor Bishop of Rome. How could he know anything about Christianity? Then there were Polycarp and Ignatious, students of St. John.

The Church Fathers (AD 100–600) were theologians after the apostles. Based on Scripture, they opposed naturalistic theories of origins. Some, including Clement of Alexandria (c. 152–217), Origen (c. 185–254), and Augustine (c. 354–430), interpreted Genesis 1 allegorically. To them, the six days were a symbolic presentation of God’s creation in one instant.

Augustine believed the earth was created instantaneously, not progressively, and was, according to Scripture, less than 6,000 years old.

Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history. The six days were 24-hour days. Ephraim (Ephrem) the Syrian (306–373) and Basil of Caesarea (329–379) argued for the literal sense of Scripture against the distortions of allegory. Basil said twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day. Even Ambrose of Milan (330–397), mentor of Augustine, believed each day consisted of twenty-four hours, including both day and night. In addition to this, the Fathers believed that the earth was less than 6,000 years old.

Medieval (AD 600–1517) theologians, until later years, followed Augustine. They viewed creation as instantaneous, and the six days as a literary framework. An example is Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033–1109).

Bede (c. 673–735) moderated Augustine’s view. He believed creation had occurred instantaneously but was formed over six 24-hour days. Others, such as Andrew of St. Victor (c. 1110–1175), rejected Augustine’s view and interpreted Genesis 1 literally. source

Like your other claims, the claim that the early church reject Genesis as mythology is false. Your claim that belief in a young earth is relatively new is false. None of the early leaders believed in an ancient earth. None of them rejected creation or the flood. The revered the Bible as the inspired word of God. Wouldn't it be great if everybody did?

 

[HenryM]

I agree with that, I just want to know the details...

Have it occurred to you that maybe it's not for us to know the details? What's certainly for us is to believe in God. There is a reason why pride is a sin.

I could see Adam, reaching at that apple, and saying, "You know, I agree with God, but I just want to know the details..."