Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I will believe that when I SEE whales walking out of the sea on legs. ... And when pigs fly.

Thank you for agreeing with me that evidence does not matter to such as you.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I still didn't get an answer, and would like to know:

What is universally accepted scientific law (not theory), expressed in a formula, that's discovered within macro evolution, and that's now used in science?

I guess there is something, since some people seem to have little shame, but would be interested to see if any of those here who stand for evolution know such thing.

Your verbal tricks don't determine what is and what is not science.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This price thing is such a joke. Can science prove electricity exists? Can science prove that humans have a heart that pumps blood through the body? Can science prove that water boils at certain temperatures? Of course it can. But when it comes to evolution it can't. And then claims it doesn't have to because science can't prove anything. Such nonsense. It's only an excuse. And a dumb one at that.

Evolution has been proven in the same sense that water boils at certain temperatures. That water always boils at certain termperatures has NOT been proven in the same sense the evolution has not been proven. You are allowing the confusion of different meanings of the word "proven" to make your illogical point.

In one sense, nothing is proven unless it is a strictly logical outcome of accepted axioms.

In another sense, things are proven if the evidence is so strong it is unreasonable to withold consent to its truth.

Every verdict of a jury that ever was only proved the guilt of the accused in the second sense, not the first.

Evolution is proven in the second sense.

 

[expos4ever]

Earlier pre humans would have died without being immortal, wouldn't they?

Not sure what you are asking. Let me try to spell out the challenge that I think I face as someone who:

(1) believes that evolution happened;
(2) believes in the authority of scripture (but allows for some texts to be interpreted as literary device).

Here is the challenge of trying to integrate my views (above) with your hypothesis (as I understand it) that there was a real Adam who introduced sin into the world even though there were "pre-humans" before him:

1. I think the Biblical case is clear that it is specifically the introduction of sin into the world that brought mortality to humans (it is not at all clear that there is a way to "allegorize our way out of this".
2. If Adam introduced sin, then wouldn't all of his predecessors still be alive at the time Adam sinned (they may well have died afterward as a consequence of Adam's sin). Many of them would be thousands and thousands of years old.
3. This seems implausible.

It seems that you believe that Adam's predecessors still died even though death had not yet been introduced into the world. And that seems to not make sense. Can you please clarify.

 

[KWCrazy]

Pull the other one. I've lived in the Bible Belt, chum. I've seen for myself what unpleasantness and even violence fundamentalists get up to when they think they have the upper hand. And what other group in Iraq at the time had a motive for seeing the collection destroyed?

During the Oil-For-Food program Iraqi officials got rich while much of the country went hungry. When the Iraqi government there was a lot of looting from those who had nothing helping themselves to the riches of their country. Some of the artifacts were, in fact, taken and hidden by the curators. Others were later recovered by Army investigators. Some are still unaccounted for. Amazingly, proof that Genesis is not literal was not listed among the items taken.

 

[Speedwell]

During the Oil-For-Food program Iraqi officials got rich while much of the country went hungry. When the Iraqi government there was a lot of looting from those who had nothing helping themselves to the riches of their country. Some of the artifacts were, in fact, taken and hidden by the curators. Others were later recovered by Army investigators. Some are still unaccounted for. Amazingly, proof that Genesis is not literal was not listed among the items taken.

How do you know what was there? How do you know that there were no artifacts which might show that Genesis was historical and true but not literal and inerrant?

 

[KWCrazy]

Another flame and another violation of the rules. No personal attacks are allowed.

No personal attacks were made. I said your post was false. It is.

Psalm 90 was written by Moses v4: "A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night."
2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Moses does not clearly teach that a day equals a thousand years. Moses and later Peter are saying that God is timeless; that what seems like a long time to us is a twinkling compared to God's eternal nature. This is a common misrepresentation by those trying to claim long ages. The holiness of the Sabbath affirms that God intended for six days to mean six days.

 

[expos4ever]

deleted own post.

 

[KWCrazy]

How do you know what was there? How do you know that there were no artifacts which might show that Genesis was historical and true but not literal and inerrant?

How do you know there wasn't proof that UFO's operate out a a secret base in Peru and that there are remains of ET's at area 51? Likely the Bigfoot deniers took the evidence of Bigfoot and the Jews took evidence that would prove once and for all that the Holocaust never happened.

 

[Speedwell]

How do you know there wasn't proof that UFO's operate out a a secret base in Peru and that there are remains of ET's at area 51? Likely the Bigfoot deniers took the evidence of Bigfoot and the Jews took evidence that would prove once and for all that the Holocaust never happened.

The real question is, why would Genesis being historical and true not be enough for you? Why does it have to be "literal and inerrant" as well?

 

[expos4ever]

In one sense, nothing is proven unless it is a strictly logical outcome of accepted axioms.

In another sense, things are proven if the evidence is so strong it is unreasonable to withold consent to its truth.

Every verdict of a jury that ever was only proved the guilt of the accused in the second sense, not the first.

Evolution is proven in the second sense.

I agree, but I suspect the creationists will still want to play games with words. If you have been reading my posts, you will know that I have repeatedly asserted, with much stamping of feet, that science never claims to "prove" anything. I mean this in the sense you mean by your statement about logical axioms. While I understand your point about the second sense of "proof", I think you are begging for trouble since the creationist, ever agree to mangle, twist, distort, or obfuscate, will no doubt cry:

"Aha! Scientists on the one hand claim that things can be proven, and on the other, claim that evolution cannot be proven!"

They are mixing up the two senses of "prove". I politely suggest that we who understand what science can and cannot do refrain altogether from using the word "proof" in relation to scientific activity.

It's just asking for trouble.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Not sure what you are asking. Let me try to spell out the challenge that I think I face as someone who:

(1) believes that evolution happened;
(2) believes in the authority of scripture (but allows for some texts to be interpreted as literary device).

Here is the challenge of trying to integrate my views (above) with your hypothesis (as I understand it) that there was a real Adam who introduced sin into the world even though there were "pre-humans" before him:

1. I think the Biblical case is clear that it is specifically the introduction of sin into the world that brought mortality to humans (it is not at all clear that there is a way to "allegorize our way out of this".
2. If Adam introduced sin, then wouldn't all of his predecessors still be alive at the time Adam sinned (they may well have died afterward as a consequence of Adam's sin). Many of them would be thousands and thousands of years old.
3. This seems implausible.

It seems that you believe that Adam's predecessors still died even though death had not yet been introduced into the world. And that seems to not make sense. Can you please clarify.

Adam's predecessors would have died. Adam was the first to have the chance to live forever. And even in his case, it was not settled for sure as he had not yet partaken of the tree of life.

 

[expos4ever]

Adam's predecessors would have died.

Ok, I think I see where you are going with this. If I may try to fill things in a bit to create a fuller picture.

1. Evolution happened.
2. We call everyone till Adam a "pre-human".
3. No pre-human had been endowed with immortality, so they, of course, died like all other life forms died.
4. Adam was the first "creature" to be endowed with immortality - a free gift of God.
5. Adam sinned and lost that immortality and lost it for the rest of us who followed.

The above argument then allow us to accept that evolution happened and yet that death, in a setting where immortality had been offered, first arose due to what Adam did.

One can, I suggest, support this argument further by noting parallels to the role of Abraham and Jesus:


1. Adam was chosen as the one man who would carry forward God's free gift of immortality to the entire human race going forward.

2. Adam sinned and the gift of immortality was lost.

3. Abraham was chosen as the one man who would initiate a project whereby the world would be rescued from Adam's sin and death (I realize this is a very dense statement, but I believe it is highly orthodox and can be robustly defended - it's what the covenant was all about).

4. While Abraham ultimately failed (Paul is pretty clear about this), Jesus (God the Son) steps in again as the one man - the one faithful Abrahamic descendent - who will rescue the world from the curse engendered by Adam.

5. Jesus fulfills the rescue mission on the Cross.

 

[KWCrazy]

The real question is, why would Genesis being historical and true not be enough for you? Why does it have to be "literal and inerrant" as well?

The Scriptures say what the scriptures say. We don't get to edit them to suit our tastes. I'd be perfectly content in an evolved world if that was the process God used. It clearly was not. It could not be historical and true if it details Gods creation of a man who had actually evolved or an original sin which obviously never happened. There is simply no way to integrate long ages and evolution with what is written. You must choose which to believe, the word of God or the opinions of professors.

 

[KWCrazy]

Adam's predecessors would have died.

Just one more bit of foundational doctrine one must deny to believe evolution.

 

[expos4ever]

Just one more bit of foundational doctrine one must deny to believe evolution.

Please tell us specifically what item of doctrine you are referring to.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The Scriptures say what the scriptures say. We don't get to edit them to suit our tastes. I'd be perfectly content in an evolved world if that was the process God used. It clearly was not. It could not be historical and true if it details Gods creation of a man who had actually evolved or an original sin which obviously never happened. There is simply no way to integrate long ages and evolution with what is written. You must choose which to believe, the word of God or the opinions of professors.

We understand the cause for your rejection of evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution being distasteful, or unreasonable; it is merely not found, as such, in the Bible.

However, you are wrong to say it was not the process God used. Evolution actually happened, we have the evidence.

You are wrong to call it "the opinion of professors" as if professors all got together one night and concocted up this story just to get away from believing in God. It is the inevitable conclusion from the evidence.

The evidence was left behind by God, no hand of man had anything to do with setting up the evidence.

If you cannot reconcile the Bible with evolution, then the Bible is in error. I can reconcile the Bible with evolution, and therefore don't have to say the Bible is in error. As I see it, those are the only possible choices. The evidence, you see, is quite clear.

 

[Speedwell]

The Scriptures say what the scriptures say. We don't get to edit them to suit our tastes. I'd be perfectly content in an evolved world if that was the process God used. It clearly was not. It could not be historical and true if it details Gods creation of a man who had actually evolved or an original sin which obviously never happened. There is simply no way to integrate long ages and evolution with what is written. You must choose which to believe, the word of God or the opinions of professors.

I think it is time you gave up the pretense that this is just about evolution. You people have condemned Christian denominations who reject evolution but do not accept your YEC "literal and inerrant" Bible doctrine with the same vigor as you have condemned Christians who accept evolution. Some of you have even accused them of believing YEC Bible doctrine in secret while teaching something else these last 2000 years. What are you really defending and why?

 

[AnnaliseH]

We know it can. What I am needling you about is to find out why. Take Noah's ark for an example. The Bible tells us it was 300 cubits long and 50 cubits wide. Now, we don't know exactly what a cubit was, but the ratio of length to width is established infallibly and exactly at 6:1, right? Now, suppose the real and indisputable remains Noah's ark were discovered. If the ratio of length to width was not exactly 6:1, the Abrahamic religions of the world would nonetheless justifiably rejoice that the story of Noah had been verified. But YECism would be in the toilet, all hope of converting the rest of Christendom lost. A smart YEC who came across Noah's ark would be best advised to torch it and keep his mouth shut; the risk to his religion would be just too great.

Excuse Me?
I remember reading an article about a group of scientists who built a scale model of the ark. It actually floated much better than they expected it to.
Besids if some piece of wood was found that did not match the dimensions mentioned in the Bible, it would not be the real Noah's Ark. I would not burn it though. It can go on the pile with all the other hoaxes, like John the Baptist's little finger and all the pieces of the true Cross...

 

[AnnaliseH]

4. While Abraham ultimately failed (Paul is pretty clear about this), Jesus (God the Son) steps in again as the one man - the one faithful Abrahamic descendent - who will rescue the world from the curse engendered by Adam.

Actually, you are wrong here. Salvation was never meant to be by the law. All of the laws given to the Israelites were meant as a type, foreshadowing the coming of Christ. That is where the Jews failed. They thought that their sacrifices (their works) were what saved them.
Right from the beginning of creation (even before Adam sinned), God planned for His Son to come and die on the cross, to save His people.

Hebrews 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;