Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Not_By_Chance]

Since you brought this subject up I've been wondering about a couple of things in the Genesis account.
Firstly, is it possible that the age of Adam as recounted in Genesis is only counting the period of time that he aged after the fall? Maybe that's a dumb question that a Biblical scholar would scoff at, but it got me thinking.
Secondly, the Bible states in:
Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
That suggests a cataclysmic change of the earth, maybe even something big enough to throw off the rotation of the earth which might change the length of a day.
Just wondering.

Anything is possible, but what does the text say? It seems pretty straightforward to me:-
Gen 5:5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

Second point: You are right, there was a "cataclysmic change of the earth;" it was the global flood of Noah's day that wiped out most of God's original creation and changed the face of the earth completely. That is why it is pointless to speculate about where the Garden of Eden would have been, because the earth's surface has been completely changed. Next time you go to the seashore, you will see the remains of the flood - it's in the oceans where there is some much water it would completely cover the earth to over a mile deep if the earth's surface were flat. That's why God had to raise up the mountains after the flood to once again provide dry land for us to live on. That's why you find fossils on the tops of mountains.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

They're not difficulties if we realize the point that Peter was making was not that a day is a literal thousand years to God, but that to Him time makes no difference...God is here in the present time, He's there in the past, and He's ahead in the future simultaneously, because He's God...a day equaling 24 hours is how we, humans, explain the earth's rotation on its axis...but it means nothing to Him.

But when God is speaking to us, he of course refers to time because it is part of our lives, so it makes sense that he would do so in truth and in a way that we would understand. So when his revelation to us states that he made something in a day, we either accept that it is the true word of God or else it is a falsehood, knowingly or otherwise, that someone other than God has introduced. So the choice is, do you believe Genesis 1 & 2 are the words of God and therefore mean what they say or do you reject them as being from God?

 

[AnnaliseH]

Really? Where, exactly in Genesis are you taught to misrepresent science (I.e. evolution) as religion?

I am going to say this again, as CLEARLY as I can. You are talking about Science and Evolution as though the two words were interchangeable. Science is Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, etc. Evolution is the interpretation of that Science.

Both creationists and evolutionists look at the same science. They merely interpret the same facts differently, in accordance with their corresponding beliefs. Creationists look at man - and see that they are created in God’s image. Evolutionists look at man - and see Goo to You, via the Zoo.

 

[expos4ever]

I am going to say this again, as CLEARLY as I can. You are talking about Science and Evolution as though the two words were interchangeable. Science is Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, etc. Evolution is the interpretation of that Science.

You are mistaken in two respects. First, I NEVER suggested science and evolution are interchangeable. Second, evolution most certainly is NOT the "interpretation of science."

 

[AnnaliseH]

Do I need to quote your post a second time? You said Science (i.e evolution) - i.e. means in other words.

 

[AnnaliseH]

You are mistaken in two respects. First, I NEVER suggested science and evolution are interchangeable. Second, evolution most certainly is NOT the "interpretation of science.

Evolution is an interpretation of science, not science itself.

Here is a quote by Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia) in a 1980 Assembly week address.
Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictiond. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing search grants.

 

[AnnaliseH]

Or another by Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'The calidation of continental drift' in his book Ever Since Darwin, Burnett Books, 1978, pp 161-162
Facts do not "speak for themselves"; they are read in the light of theory. Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the motor of changing opinion. Science is a quintessentially human activity, not a mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation.

 

[expos4ever]

deleted own post.

 

[expos4ever]

Do I need to quote your post a second time? You said Science (i.e evolution) - i.e. means in other words.

OK you are right, it was a typo. Evolution and science are in different categories. Science is an approach to acquiring knowledge of the world, whereas the theory of 'evolution by natural selection' is an established scientific fact.

 

[expos4ever]

Evolution is an interpretation of science, not science itself.

Here is a quote by Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia) in a 1980 Assembly week address.
Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictiond. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing search grants.

No. evolution is not an "interpretation", at least in the sense you are implying. You could call it an interpretation only in the very technical sense that evolution is not "provable" in the sense that one can prove that the angles in a triangle always sum to 180 degrees. But evolution is still a 'fact' in the sense that the evidence for it is so overwhelming that no reasonable expert denies that evolution "happened".

Now about Whitten: you are not giving the whole story. From Conservapedia (I added bolding):

Max Whitten of the University of Melbourne said:[16]

“ Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants. ”

Whitten, however was referring not to a fundamental problem with the theory of evolution itself, but with the difficulty of overcoming entrenched ideas in all forms of science. Whitten recently expounded on this in his article "Facts Are Not Everything in Science" for Issues magazine:[17]

"Despite what some scientists might think, very little biological research is designed to challenge the robustness of a prevailing worldview like evolution. Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true. If something happens that is consistent with the theory, all well and good. If it doesn’t happen, we will likely
find a satisfying explanation within our prevailing worldview. I cannot call to mind a credible experiment that would challenge the theory of evolution.

It is not a technical issue that Whitten addressed, but a social issue throughout research in general.

 

[AnnaliseH]

Science is facts, and the gathering thereof. Evolution is the interpretation of those facts to fit a particular viewpoint. A theory ( as you called evolution yourself above) cannot be a fact. Those terms are mutually exclusive.

 

[AnnaliseH]

Some biologists would claim that they are validating the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Not true.

He himself is admitting that they are not proving evolution.

 

[-57]

Evolution is a religion of Atheism and it has no place within the Christian faith.

Evolution is an attack on God's character and many pundants of Evolution declare that life was created by....

a god who is cruel, wasteful, stupid and deceitful and therefore the god of evolution theory is not THE GOD of the Holy Bible.

We need to differentiate between the god of evolution and the God of the Bible. The God of the Holy Bible is not just loving but is LOVE.

5They are of the world. That is why they speak from the world’s perspective, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. That is how we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deception.
7Beloved, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:5-8)

The Genesis account must be read as a factual text type that is a factual recount of why, how, when and where God created all things, that he declared perfect the first time. God did not create failed attempts of life through millions upon millions of death cycles repetitions until he eventually got it right. This concept is unfounded in scripture.

Either you are with God or against him. If you side with the world and their evolution theory, then you have been conscripted against God.

Evolution is the religion of Athiesm. It has nothing to do with Christianity.

How true...Evolution is the religion of Athiesm

 

[-57]

This is not where I wanted this thread to go at all.

Where did you want it to go?

 

[expos4ever]

He himself is admitting that they are not proving evolution.

But he is NOT denying that evolution is fact! The fact that you arguably cannot run an experiment to demonstrate evolution does not imply it has not otherwise been shown to be a fact.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I NEVER suggested science and evolution are interchangeable.

Evolution is: "the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed" Science is: "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Of course definitions change daily. Sort of like the soup of the day or the flavor of the week. Things tend to change.

 

[expos4ever]

How true...Evolution is the religion of Athiesm

This is obviously untrue but there is little hope that those who have drunk the Kool aid will ever admit it.

 

[AnnaliseH]

If it is a fact, and they are 100% certain of its veracity, then why do they still call it a THEORY?????

 

[-57]

But he is NOT denying that evolution is fact! The fact that you arguably cannot run an experiment to demonstrate evolution does not imply it has not otherwise been shown to be a fact.

Wow, what an exchange. Admitting evolutionism is fact is denying the bible is fact.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But he is NOT denying that evolution is fact! The fact that you arguably cannot run an experiment to demonstrate evolution does not imply it has not otherwise been shown to be a fact.

Evolution is more than just natural selection. A lot of 101 evolutionary theory has been argued and debated so much that just about everyone agrees with micro evolution. The issue has to do with macro evolution. Francis Collins struggles with trying to understand this:

"If God is real, and I believe he is, then he is outside of nature. He is, therefore, not limited by the laws of nature in the way that we are. He's not limited by time. In the very moment of that flash in which the universe was created, an unimaginable burst of energy, God also had the plan of how that would coalesce into stars and galaxies, planets, and how life would arrive on a small planet near the outer rim of a spiral galaxy. And ultimately, over hundreds of millions of years, give rise to creatures with intelligence and in whom he could infuse this search for him and this knowledge of good and evil. And all of that happened in his mind in the blink of an eye. While it may seem to us that this whole process has the risk of randomness and, therefore, an unpredictable outcome, that was not the case for God."

Read more at 'God Is Not Threatened by Our Scientific Adventures'