Should Genesis be taken literally?

[KWCrazy]

By foundational doctrine I presume you mean the literal inerrancy of of scripture. Some churches never taught such a thing, so there was nothing to "replace" and they rejected evolution anyway.

Foundational doctrines include:
The creation,
Creation of man from dust,
Creation of woman from Adam's rib,
The binning of knowledge of good and evil,
The fall of mankind through one man,
The betraying nature of Satan,
The judgment of God,
The salvation of man physically through one man; a predecessor for the eternal salvation of man through one man,
The Holy Trinity etc.

All major Christian doctrines have their source, directly or indirectly, in the book of Genesis. Preachers, missionaries and theologians who fail to see this have lost the foundation for what they teach. Conversely, those who do see this have the God-given proper basis for all their Christian witnessing, preaching, counselling, and teaching. source

 

[KWCrazy]

How do you know that Adam had no predecessors? Before you answer, please be sure you understand the Jewish approach to story-telling.

Jesus quoted from Genesis two, from the beginning God made them male and female; not partway into an evolved world, from the beginning. "From dust you came and to dust you will return." Dust does not equal millions of years of pre-humanoid apes last I checked.

 

[KWCrazy]

Ladies and gents: witness the rhetorical art of the creationist. When presented with things that annoy them - such as the demonstrable fact that the Jews have a long-established tradition of using literary device to make theological points - how does the creationist respond?

Jews are not Christians. They didn't accept Christ as their messiah and are still awaiting His arrival. The talk of literary devices is irrelevant. It has long been established that the writer of Genesis meant it to be a straightforward literal history. As it has been pointed out, Hebrew scholars do not see it as a metaphor and frankly even the most tortured misinterpretation can't get it there. It's too specific. It means a six day creation and man from dust. Period. Don't like it? Too bad. That's what it says.

Instead, we get the tired "you are a minion of Satan" thought-stopping ploy.

A servant is known by the master he serves. Undermining the integrity of the Bible on a Christian website does not in any way serve the Lord.

 

[expos4ever]

Dust does not equal millions of years of pre-humanoid apes last I checked.

Last time you checked? I don't suppose you are going to be able to rule out the possibility that "creating man from dust" is a compact metaphor that captures the important theological truth that God made man out of the very fabric of the created world while leaving out the theologically irrelevant detail that this was achieved through the mechanism of evolution?

This will be a challenge for you given the known fact that Jews often used unrealistic metaphors (check out Revelation for obvious examples) to present theological truths.

 

[expos4ever]

Jews are not Christians.

Not the point! Jews wrote the book of Genesis.

It has long been established that the writer of Genesis meant it to be a straightforward literal history.

I guarantee you will not be able to come even close to proving this reckless statement which flies in the face of years of careful analysis by scholars of much greater competence that you or me.

This is the problem with forums like these - while there are, of course, rules against goading, flaming, etc., there are no rules against posting patently untrue statements. If there were such a rule, your statement would fit the bill.

Note what I am not saying: I am not saying that scholars have definitively shown that the intention of the author of Genesis was to present myth; I am merely objecting to the manifestly false claim that it is "well-established" that the intent was that of a literal history.

 

[Speedwell]

Foundational doctrines include:
The creation,
Creation of man from dust,
Creation of woman from Adam's rib,
The binning of knowledge of good and evil,
The fall of mankind through one man,
The betraying nature of Satan,
The judgment of God,
The salvation of man physically through one man; a predecessor for the eternal salvation of man through one man,
The Holy Trinity etc.

All major Christian doctrines have their source, directly or indirectly, in the book of Genesis. Preachers, missionaries and theologians who fail to see this have lost the foundation for what they teach. Conversely, those who do see this have the God-given proper basis for all their Christian witnessing, preaching, counselling, and teaching. source

That's not a Christian source. CMI is a fraud run by a con man named John Safarti who has no theological training and may not even be a Christian himself. Don't you have any links to reputable theologians from your own denomination?

 

[Speedwell]

Not the point! Jews wrote the book of Genesis.


I guarantee you will not be able to come even close to proving this reckless statement which flies in the face of years of careful analysis by scholars of much greater competence that you or me.

This is the problem with forums like these - while there are, of course, rules against goading, flaming, etc., there are no rules against posting patently untrue statements. If there were such a rule, your statement would fit the bill.

Note what I am not saying: I am not saying that scholars have definitively shown that the intention of the author of Genesis was to present myth; I am merely objecting to the manifestly false claim that it is "well-established" that the intent was that of a literal history.

Actually, all he's got is that mined quote from Dr. John Barr to the effect that the author of Genesis 1 had no intention of communicating a day-age interpretation.

 

[expos4ever]

It means a six day creation and man from dust. Period. Don't like it? Too bad. That's what it says.

Perhaps you should try to publish paper using this well-thought, well-documented, sophisticated argument.

 

[mark kennedy]

Since you were there--my respects to you BTW--I will take your word for it. But I can't believe there was no rejoicing among the Fundamentalist missionaries sent to "convert" indigenous Christians when they heard of it.

Iraq has a Christian community, I met a Kurd who drove a dump truck on VBC. Religiously motivated vandalism wasn't a part of the original invasion, you have Christian fundamentalists confused with Sunnis ISIS. After the invasion the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es had a majority so they got political power in Bagdad. The Kurds got the oil in the north by brokering a deal with then CEO of Exxon. The Sunnis out in the Al Anbar region got dirt, their chief of police was fired simple over being Sunnis over the objections of coalition forces.

It seems you have a lot to learn about the Iraq war and the role religious bigotry played in giving rise to ISIS. In the Middle East Muslims eat their own when political fortunes are at stake. Fortunately there is no political agenda attached to religious persuasion in the US, just an elitist far left social one led by Ivy League elitists.

 

[Speedwell]

Iraq has a Christian community, I met a Kurd who drove a dump truck on VBC. Religiously motivated vandalism wasn't a part of the original invasion, you have Christian fundamentalists confused with Sunnis ISIS. After the invasion the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es had a majority so they got political power in Bagdad. The Kurds got the oil in the north by brokering a deal with then CEO of Exxon. The Sunnis out in the Al Anbar region got dirt, their chief of police was fired simple over being Sunnis over the objections of coalition forces.

It seems you have a lot to learn about the Iraq war and the role religious bigotry played in giving rise to ISIS. In the Middle East Muslims eat their own when political fortunes are at stake. Fortunately there is no political agenda attached to religious persuasion in the US, just an elitist far left social one led by Ivy League elitists.

Iran does indeed have a Christian community, an ancient and respectable one which has suffered a good deal of persecution. But Franklin Graham, head of Samaritan's Purse (one of the fundamentalist organizations given cover by our Army in Iraq) is on record as saying that they are not "real" Christians and needed conversion. I have heard that the Syriac Patriarch complained to the Army about such Fundamentalist conversion efforts but got nowhere with it. Things have gotten much worse since ISIS took over, but Fundamentalists here don't care much about it. They'd rather whine about the "persecution" they face in this country, like not being able to have creationism taught in public school science classes or having to bake cakes for queers.

 

[AnnaliseH]

CMI is a fraud run by a con man named John Safarti who has no theological training and may not even be a Christian himself.

Get your facts right. First of all, his name is Jonathan Sarfati. Secondly, he does not run CMI. CMI (or Creation Science Ministries, as they used to be called) was founded many years ago by Ken Ham and Carl Wieland.
I have actually heard the man speak myself. He is a Christian and a legitimate scientist, not a con man. He also has a Jewish background. And to add to that, he is a chess genius into the bargain.

 

[AnnaliseH]

And here's another quote for you who believe that Evolution is harmless and has no agenda.

Evolution = atheism, no purpose
Dr William B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University
Quotable Quote“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear, and I must say that these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposeful forces of any kind, no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be completely dead. That’s just all—that’s gonna be the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.”
Reference

1. Provine, W.B., Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy? The Debate at Stanford University, William B. Provine (Cornell University) and Phillip E. Johnson (University of California, Berkeley), videorecording © 1994 Regents of the University of California.
   (See also: Origins Research 16(1):9, 1994; arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm.)
   

 

[AnnaliseH]

And here is Jonathan Sarfati's credentials.

Born in Ararat, Victoria, Sarfati moved with his family to New Zealand as a child, where he became a dual Australian and New Zealand citizen. He attended Wellington College in New Zealand, later graduating from Victoria University of Wellington with a B.Sc. (Hons.) in chemistry, and a Ph.D. in the same subject for a thesis entitled "A Spectroscopic Study of some ChalcogenideRing and Cage Molecules". He co-authored a paper on high-temperature superconductors that was published in Nature in 1987 ("Letters to Nature"),[3] and from 1988 to 1995, had several papers on spectroscopy of condensed matter samples published in other peer-reviewed scientific journals.

 

[AnnaliseH]

In fact, the YEC preoccupation with Genesis always struck me as rather odd, made me wonder if you are not, perhaps, all Dispensationalists.

1) We are not preoccupied with Genesis. But it is one of the books of the Bible, part of God's Word - and therefore of IMMENSE value. Equal to that of every other book in the Scriptures.

2) And what exactly does Genesis have to do with Dispensationalism? Are you sure you're not getting mixed up with Revelations? I would really like you to explain your reasoning on this deduction.

 

[AnnaliseH]

Biblical scholarship.

In other words, you are using the words of men - fallible men - to interpret the Scriptures.

 

[expos4ever]

It did not happen. The only evidence is the conclusion you reach looking at the raw data. Others have a different conclusion.

A little misleading. A more fine-grained characterization would be that the overwhelming majority of trained experts (biologists, paleontologists, etc.) agree that evolution happened while those who deny it (in the North American setting) are almost always evangelical Christians who are not experts.

So, yes, "others" have a different conclusion.

 

[expos4ever]

In other words, you are using the words of men - fallible men - to interpret the Scriptures.

And you are not a human being who reads the pages of your Bible and, yes, interprets the words you read?

 

[expos4ever]

And here's another quote for you who believe that Evolution is harmless and has no agenda.....

Not a valid argument. Yes, Provine is an atheist, but it certainly does not follow logically that all people who believe in evolution are atheists.

 

[KWCrazy]

I don't suppose you are going to be able to rule out the possibility that "creating man from dust" is a compact metaphor that captures the important theological truth that God made man out of the very fabric of the created world while leaving out the theologically irrelevant detail that this was achieved through the mechanism of evolution?

Nope. God created a mature world. Nothing evolved.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I do not know how much clearer I can make my position. Evidence that contradicts the Scriptures is WRONG. The Bible is the only measure of truth.

So in that sense, yes, 'so-called evidence' proving that whales are evolved from land animals does not matter to me. Besides, even if such growths could be called legs (which is an interpretation), they are still WHALES. They have not turned into Dinosaurs.

But you can't know that evidence that contradicts the scriptures is wrong, because you reject, in advance, all evidence on the subject. Clearly, something other than evidence caused you to come to that conclusion. As I see it, the only other possible choices are hypnosis or peer pressure. I don't trust the results of hypnosis or peer pressure on you.