Should Genesis be taken literally?

[JacksBratt]

Ruse has clearly stated that he believes Darwinian theory is CORRECT.

Yep, and a religion.

So, an evolution believing Doctor says evolution is a religion.

Not only that but he states that it is an alternative to Christianity.

 

[Douvie]

Sorry double quote. Technology failure

 

[expos4ever]

Yep, and a religion.

So, an evolution believing Doctor says evolution is a religion.

Not only that but he states that it is an alternative to Christianity.

No. No. No. Ruse believes in the science supporting evolution. Must I prove this? He also believes that scientists PROMOTE evolution in the same manner that religious people do.

Big difference.

 

[Douvie]

Completely false. There is no one (aside from the perhaps the odd exception) outside the community of creationists who would agree with your claim. Belief in evolution is not a "faith" in any remotely reasonable popular understanding of what the term "faith" means. In perhaps an exceedingly contrived and strained sense it can be called a "faith", but, in that case, belief that smoking causes cancer - universally held to be true - would also fall into the category "faith".


I will bet a flagon of fine October ale that this is patently false - you are either quoting someone without proper education or training or you are not giving us the full context. And I will bet that it is the latter.

But, please, prove me wrong. Give us the name and put me in my place.

Sure but you can keep the ale to yourself.

Evolutionism, is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, Thursday 8 March 1984, p. 17.)

Is that good enough? Should I quote more?

Here is another quote:
Pro 23:29-35

Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes?

30 They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine.

31 Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

32 At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. note

33 Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things.

34 Yea, thou shalt be as he that lieth down in the midst of the sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a mast. note

35 They have stricken me, shalt thou say, and I was not sick; they have beaten me, and I felt it not: when shall I awake? I will seek it yet again. note

 

[expos4ever]

You can keep the ale to yourself.

Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research - as quoted in "The Advocate, 8 March 1984, p. 17.)

Is that good enough? Or do I need to quote more?.

Please my post carefully, I never denied that there might be the odd exception.

And I just checked on the Bounoure quote. I will give you a chance to retract your claim. If you dont, I will prove the quote is taken out of context.

 

[Douvie]

Traits of all kinds (physical, mental) that favour survival till offspring are produced. This should not be new to someone who is at least somewhat conversant with evolutionary theory.


Is this a serious question? Evolution, at least the kind that is really at issue here, operates over relatively long time-scales - you can't see it happening on a day-to-day basis.

Well you must be in disagreement with various other evolutionists which are taking the catastrophic approach.

 

[Douvie]

J

Please my post carefully, I never denied that there might be the odd exception.

Just one you say! Do you want me to quote more?

 

[Douvie]

Completely false. There is no one (aside from the perhaps the odd exception) outside the community of creationists who would agree with your claim. Belief in evolution is not a "faith" in any remotely reasonable popular understanding of what the term "faith" means. In perhaps an exceedingly contrived and strained sense it can be called a "faith", but, in that case, belief that smoking causes cancer - universally held to be true - would also fall into the category "faith".


I will bet a flagon of fine October ale that this is patently false - you are either quoting someone without proper education or training or you are not giving us the full context. And I will bet that it is the latter.

But, please, prove me wrong. Give us the name and put me in my place.

Obviously you do not know the 4 basic tenets that proves that Evolutionism is a Religion/Faith. And scholars agree! But I'm surprised that you don't know!

 

[expos4ever]

J

Just one you say! Do you want me to quote more?

Go wild. The Bounoure quote is demonstrably taken out of context. If I were you, I would not pursue this.

But I bet you will.

 

[rjs330]

Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretability and plenary verbal inspiration.

So apparently the early church and the early church fathers including Jesus and the disciples were Sola Scriptura literal innerrancy etc etc people. They were also creationists. I'd say we are in pretty good company.

 

[expos4ever]

Obviously you do not the 4 basic tenets that proves that Evolutionism is a Religion/Faith. And scholars agree! But I'm surprised that you don't know!

Nonsense. Name one scholar who agrees that evolution is a religion.

And no, finding a scholar, like Ruse, who believes evolution IS scientific, yet PROMOTED like a religion doesn't count.

 

[Douvie]

I am reminded of the quip "Just because no one understands you, that does not make you an artist."

Here is your argument, expressed so that the problem is obvious:

1. Jesus was considered a madman and a trouble-maker;
2. Jesus had access to the truth:
3. I (the creationist) am termed a madman and a trouble-maker);
4. Therefore, like Jesus, I must have access to the truth.

Do you see the problem now? We all (Christians at least) believe in 1, 2, and 3. But 4 certainly does not follow logically.

Maybe I should quote again - a little more direct.

Mat 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?

 

[Douvie]

So apparently the early church and the early church fathers including Jesus and the disciples were Sola Scriptura literal innerrancy etc etc people. They were also creationists. I'd say we are in pretty good company.

Amen Brother.

 

[Michael Scaman]

Mods, if this isn't in the right section please move, I wasn't sure where the best place for this discussion would be, as this has more to do with the entire book and not only creation.

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.

I would take it mostly as history. But also take it in the sense of the literature, which is not always in a wooden literal manner. God creating sea monsters can be a poetic way of saying God is greater than the Baals who fought sea monsters to make the world

The ten toledoth accounts are history but taken in the sense of the literature... in this case mostly historic literature
Moses spoke face to face with God for 40 years and so... not a problem that Moses wasn't there since God was.

 

[rjs330]

Jesus' use of scriptures proves that He thought they are the authoritative word of God. What he thought of the creationist doctrine of literal inerrancy is not recorded. Paul's use of the scriptures also proves that he thought they are the authoritative word of God. It also appears from his writings that he thought Genesis was in a real sense historical, as did the early Church and most Christians today. But that is a long way from the Bible doctrine of the creationists and it is deceptive to impute it to them.

It is not deceptive in the least. It is actually deceptive not to. Literalness is not measur d by using the word "literal". You are the one continually harping on modern history interpretation of OT. Yet you use the same argument to try and say since the apostles and Jesus didn't use the modern words modern words therefore we can't say they believed the same way. Nonsense. If you take their words, their words define what they believed. The modern words are things WE came up with to out a word on the belief. Similar to the word Trinity. The word Trinity isn't in the bible either but the things that Jesus and the apostles taught show they believed in the trinity even though they didn't use the word. The words they used and the things they said are proof they believed in Sola Scriptura and all those fancy words describing the inspiration of Scripture.

 

[Speedwell]

So apparently the early church and the early church fathers including Jesus and the disciples were Sola Scriptura literal innerrancy etc etc people. They were also creationists. I'd say we are in pretty good company.

LOL! If so, you've got an uphill battle on your hands. All of the non-YEC denominations are teaching their flocks something different than that about Christian history, even those which reject evolution. During the gulf war the YECs sent missionaries into Iran under the protection of our crusader army to convert the local Assyrian and Armenian Christians to your one true version of Christianity. How did that work out for you? Do you really think you will be able to convince the Catholics that they have never believed in Sacred Tradition? Do you really think you can make fundamentalist Protestants out of the Copts? The Ethiopians?

 

[Douvie]

Nonsense. Name one scholar who agrees that evolution is a religion.

And no, finding a scholar, like Ruse, who believes evolution IS scientific, yet PROMOTED like a religion doesn't count.

How about this quote:

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof. (L.Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of Species, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, p. xi.)

You want some more?

 

[KWCrazy]

Care to withdraw before I show otherwise?

List them.
Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

 

[rjs330]

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.

The Bible tells us how that happened. Why do we need "some other way?". And since the Bible doesn't give us another way, anything else is man's speculation. The Bible is God's word on how it happened.

 

[Douvie]

LOL! If so, you've got an uphill battle on your hands. All of the non-YEC denominations are teaching their flocks something different about Christian history, even those which reject evolution. During the gulf war the YECs sent missionaries into Iran under the protection of our crusader army to convert the local Assyrian and Armenian Christians to your one true version of Christianity. How did that work out for you?

Oh yes you are definitely right at about "decieved teaching the decieved!" BUT, that certainly doesn't make it right. Because:
*[[Mat 7:13]] KJV* Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: