Should Genesis be taken literally?

[joshua 1 9]

Adam had no ancestors.

I am glad you brought that up. The genealogy in the Bible is very exact. This is what Bishop Usshers book is all about, the genealogy and the history of the last 6,000 years.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There is a problem between the pseudo-science of evolutionism and the bible.

What part of the Biology book do you have problems with?

 

[expos4ever]

If you knew in advance exactly how to build a car, would you deliberately keep trying to assemble any random bits and pieces until you finally achieved what you originally set out to do? In my mind, there is no escaping the fact that to believe that God used evolution is to either assume that he is not directly involved in his creation or to imply that he doesn't really know what he is doing and is basically experimenting with his creatures in the hope that they will develop as he would wish them too. Either way, it's not exactly acknowledging the power and glory of our creator is it?

These are good questions but I politely suggest you are in an impossible position - you are choosing to believe that a firm consensus achieved by tens of thousands of highly credentialed experts is either mistaken, or is effectively a hoax.

But to your questions. I think many people would see God as having even greater creative power if he created a Universe in which human beings arise by "natural" means. In this respect, I don't think that the theory of evolution even remotely touches on the matter of what the Universe needs to be "like" in order for evolution to happen - the experts simply know that evolution has, in fact, happened.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Me, earlier:

Whales have vestigial hip bones and sometimes, on rare occasions, actual vestigial legs sticking out, which they would not have if they had not descended from land animals. And we have, now, transitional whale fossils.

Prove it.

Here's an article listing transitional whale forms now known:

Evolution -- Land-to-Sea Transitional Series

Here's another site, discussing the vestiges found in whales.

True Vestigial Structures in Whales and Dolphins | NCSE

It includes this quote:

In June 1962, V. 1. Borisov observed a sperm whale with well-developed protuberances on the ventral region of the body, while working in the whale factory at Skalistii (Central Kuril Islands). One of these protuberances could even be X-rayed.

Those who can be persuaded by evidence will agree it has been proved.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This is a perfect example of someone who has elevated a scientific theory to become a religion.

That's simply a crazy use of the word religion. Misusing words like that allows all kinds of logical errors to be made.

 

[expos4ever]

Genesis is written in plain language. There is no interpretation required. It means what it says.

Interpretation cannot be avoided - it is demonstrably impossible for any human being to read words on a printed page and avoid an act of interpretation.

When you read the words printed on the page in Genesis 1, do not have to interpret the words? I do. And so does every other human being.

The key point is this: the creationist has to sweep the possibility of "inspired myth" under the rug. And they often - not always but often - do so with no justification whatsoever. No reasonable person would deny that at least some parts of the Bible involve the use of literary device (Revelation for example). Now to be fair, there are perhaps arguments against a "myth" reading. But, either way, facts are facts. And by any reasonable interpretation of the concept of "fact", evolution is a fact.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is no problem between science and the bible. There is a problem between the pseudo-science of evolutionism and the bible.

There is no problem between the science of evolution and the Bible. There is a problem between the pseudo-biblical YEC interpretation of the Bible and science.

My goodness! Look at the similarities, the reflective equalities, in these statements! How can any man choose between them, logically?

OO I know . . . lets look at the evidence!

Uh. . . . the science has the evidence. The YEC view does not.

Well, that settles that.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Using this sort of anti-Biblical scenario, when exactly did sin arise?

Sin began with Eve in the Garden of Eden. The first time we see the word: "sin" was in Gen 4:7 "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

The word SIN is used 182 times in the Bible. Why don't you read the verses that use the word sin and maybe you will start to get an idea of the meaning of the word by doing a study of the context and how the word SIN is used in the Bible. The second time the word sin is used has to do with Sodom and Gomorrah. Also the Bible dictionary has a lot of information on sin.

Gen 18:20

And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin H2403 is very grievous;

Genesis Chapter 1 (KJV)

Sin (2) Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

 

[joshua 1 9]

Interpretation cannot be avoided

Do you know what expos means? Have you heard of the Vine's Expository Dictionary? This means to explain or describe something. To expose means make (something) visible, typically by uncovering it.

I tend to take an expository approach to the Bible to seek and search for the hidden meaning. Jeremiah 29:13 "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart". Deut 6:5 "seek the lord with all your heart mind soul and strength"

Matthew 7:7

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.…

God knows our heart and He knows who is seeking to know Him. For those who seek God He will make Himself and His greatness known to them.

 

[expos4ever]

That's simply a crazy use of the word religion. Misusing words like that allows all kinds of logical errors to be made.

Of course! Let's be clear - notwithstanding other aspects of the back-and-forth here, the creationists (perhaps not all, but many) are clearly misrepresenting some basic facts:

1. Evolution is clearly not a religion - to suggest this is a violent perversion of proper thinking.

2. The theory of evolution was developed using scientific reasoning (this would be true even if the scientific consensus turns out to be mistaken).

3. It is clearly not valid reasoning to arbitrarily (without justification) rule out the possibility of a metaphorical reading of the creation account. This is because it is otherwise clear that some parts of the Bible are not intended to be taken literally.

4. The "it's just a theory" argument, which is based on either an intentional or an ignorance-based misrepresentation of what scientists mean by the word "theory".

And there may be more.

 

[expos4ever]

I want to go on record as expressing the belief that acceptance of evolution forces one to deny that death of all forms is a result of the fall. And that certainly may present a challenge to those of us who wish to affirm the inerrancy of the Bible while not committing the intellectual suicide that is unavoidable if you deny the fact of evolution.

 

[SeventyOne]

I want to go on record as expressing the belief that acceptance of evolution forces one to deny that death of all forms is a result of the fall. And that certainly may present a challenge to those of us who wish to affirm the inerrancy of the Bible while not committing the intellectual suicide that is unavoidable if you deny the fact of evolution.

You've made it clear over and over that you reject what the Bible says. Yet another rejection shouldn't really surprise anyone.

 

[expos4ever]

You've made it clear over and over that you reject what the Bible says. Yet another rejection shouldn't really surprise anyone.

This is a lie, and I am not afraid to make this claim publicly - you cannot possibly believe what you have written if you have been reading my posts and have a modicum of sense.

 

[Speedwell]

You've made it clear over and over that you reject what the Bible says. Yet another rejection shouldn't really surprise anyone.

All creatures have always been subject to cessation of life, but only humans have the ability to contemplate their own mortality, to 'know death." Thus, death came into the world when we acquired that ability, whether it was as literally described in Genesis or in some other way.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I want to go on record as expressing the belief that acceptance of evolution forces one to deny that death of all forms is a result of the fall. And that certainly may present a challenge to those of us who wish to affirm the inerrancy of the Bible while not committing the intellectual suicide that is unavoidable if you deny the fact of evolution.

And I would like to go on record that the death that comes from the sin of Adam is not the death of animals, but rather the death of Adam and his descendants.

 

[expos4ever]

And I would like to go on record that the death that comes from the sin of Adam is not the death of animals, but rather the death of Adam and his descendants.

I am aware of this possibility. That is why I very intentionally used, and underlined the word "may" in my post:

And that certainly may present a challenge

Do you not agree that we also have to concede that, if we take Adam to be a real human being - or even if we take him as a symbol for all humanity at some point in time - we need to concede that earlier "pre-humans", even ones almost identical to Adam, would not be subject to the "death via sin" effect.

So I think you and I, as believers in evolution, still have some work to do. Don't you agree?

 

[SeventyOne]

This is a lie, and I am not afraid to make this claim publicly - you cannot possibly believe what you have written if you have been reading my posts and have a modicum of sense.

Since you call the evolutionary lie as truth, I'm not sure you are qualified to make such a claim concerning the veracity of my post.

 

[expos4ever]

All creatures have always been subject to cessation of life, but only humans have the ability to contemplate their own mortality, to 'know death." Thus, death came into the world when we acquired that ability, whether it was as literally described in Genesis or in some other way.

Please see post 814 - interested in your thoughts.

 

[SeventyOne]

All creatures have always been subject to cessation of life, but only humans have the ability to contemplate their own mortality, to 'know death." Thus, death came into the world when we acquired that ability, whether it was as literally described in Genesis or in some other way.

Show me.

 

[expos4ever]

Since you call the evolutionary lie as truth, I'm not sure you are qualified to make such a claim concerning the veracity of my post.

The matter of the truthfulness of the theory of evolution is not the point.

The point is that you lied about what I have written in my posts.