Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What did I quote"
"Adam's predecessors would have died."
Adam had no predecessors. Sin and death came into the world through Adam's sin. That's just one more piece of foundational doctrine you have to reject to accept evolution.

Well, evolution happened. Evidence says so. For example, look at your little toe. It has no use. Its a vestige from a previous species in which it had a use.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You brought up theory of gravity (although, speaking of gravity, law of gravity is where it's at). There are some theories in physics, but physics is built with laws, not theories. There are massive amount of laws of physics that are used everyday, for calculation in science or applied science, in order to produce a product or more complex knowledge about our physical world. I am merely interested 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 don't propose it doesn't exist. I would just like to know what you would offer as best example.

Calling something a law instead of a theory is just a verbal difference that has no real meaning. You are wrong to make such word differences your key to accepting science. For one thing, calling discoveries a "law" is out of fashion now.

But you can talk to Monsanto chemical company and farmers about what happens every time they develop a new way to kill off the pests. It happens inevitably due to evolution. You could call it a law . . . pests always evolve resistance to pesticides.

 

[expos4ever]

Nope. God created a mature world. Nothing evolved.

Why thank you.

I guess there are two omniscient beings in the Universe: God and KWCrazy.

My point is that you are clearly begging the question - merely asserting that your view is correct without an actual argument to support it.

 

[AnnaliseH]

Well, evolution happened. Evidence says so. For example, look at your little toe. It has no use. Its a vestige from a previous species in which it had a use.

Maybe you should perform a small experiment to test the validity of that statement. Try cutting off your little toe. I mean, since it has no use and all ....

 

[KWCrazy]

Not the point! Jews wrote the book of Genesis.

God wrote it. Moses was the scribe. He was Hebrew, educated as an Egyptian.

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.

I posted the James Barr quote.
My pastor can read Hebrew and he concurs.
The fact is that nobody you can name can validate evolution using the Scriptures. it can't be done.

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.

The fact is, evolution is a lie. The gibberish about Genesis being allegorical is just that. The point was made absolutely positively clear that the author meant six literal days. Beyond that, the sequence flies in the fact of everything evolution claims.

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'm calling you out on that lie. Prove it.
Evening and morning used together always means one day.
Numbered days are always one day.
Six days of rest and the Sabbath corresponds to six days of creation and a day of rest.
The last "Biblical Scholar" ran away when I pressed him for specific passages to validate his claims. I caught him in multiple misrepresentations. Bring it.

 

[KWCrazy]

Maybe you should perform a small experiment to test the validity of that statement. Try cutting off your little toe. I mean, since it has no use and all ....

Or try radiating fruit flies for a hundred years.
Wait.... that didn't work.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Maybe you should perform a small experiment to test the validity of that statement. Try cutting off your little toe. I mean, since it has no use and all ....

I'll do that as a thought experiment only. Ouch it would hurt but after the injury heals, I can still walk, run, do everything else I do now. OK there you

 

[AnnaliseH]

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.

Yes, I can know. The Bible is 100% accurate. Anything contradicting it is wrong. I do not need proof.

Here's an interesting quote from Stuart Chase.
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.

 

[AnnaliseH]

I'll do that as a thought experiment only. Ouch it would hurt but after the injury heals, I can still walk, run, do everything else I do now. OK there you

But if you don't need it, why bother keeping it?

 

[AnnaliseH]

2 Peter 2:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Sounds like a lot like the people on this thread....

 

[Speedwell]

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.

As I understand it, Dispensationalism views the OT as an accurate, unbroken timeline of history from creation to Jesus.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

Yes, his qualifications as an Hebrew scholar and theologian are certainly impressive.

 

[expos4ever]

Calling something a law instead of a theory is just a verbal difference that has no real meaning. You are wrong to make such word differences your key to accepting science.

Welcome to the world of the creationist - they very often base their arguments on (intentional or otherwise) abuse of terminology. To wit:

1. Evolution is "just a theory" (Error = not understanding how scientists use the word "theory" as contrasted with popular usage)
2. Evolution cannot be "proven" (Error = not knowing that science does not deal in "proof").

These are right up there with this common error of a different category: If we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?

 

[expos4ever]

God wrote it. Moses was the scribe. He was Hebrew, educated as an Egyptian.

I posted the James Barr quote.
My pastor can read Hebrew and he concurs.

Oh well, then, if your pastor agrees, I guess that settles the matter.....

 

[AnnaliseH]

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

If you take Genesis exactly as it is, no interpretation is required.
I do not say that I am without fault, but at least I don't have to wheel and deal to make what I believe fit the Scriptures.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh well, then, if your pastor agrees, I guess that settles the matter.....

One wonders why the good Christian scholar James Barr is not a YEC?

 

[AnnaliseH]

Yes, his qualifications as an Hebrew scholar and theologian are certainly impressive.

If you read my earlier post, you will notice that I actually said that he is of Jewish extract. As for being a theologian, going to seminary is not required. Anyone who studies God's Word is by definition a theologian.

But if you want to make statements about him being a con man, why don't you try reading his book Refuting Compromise, where he refutes those who try to reconcile evolution and the Bible - using Scripture and evidence.

 

[expos4ever]

The fact is that nobody you can name can validate evolution using the Scriptures. it can't be done.

Agree. This is because there a significant branch of scholars who agree that the Bible is not intended to be a science book but is rather a complex mix of history and metaphor designed to impart theological truth. And if, as many (and I would bet most) scholars believe (and no someone with a degree from the internet is not a scholar), the Genesis account was never intended as any kind of scientific treatment.

 

[expos4ever]

The gibberish about Genesis being allegorical is just that. The point was made absolutely positively clear that the author meant six literal days.

It would be nice if this naked assertion had an actual argument to support it. Please explain to us precisely why we cannot read the creation account as inspired myth?

 

[KWCrazy]

One wonders why the good Christian scholar James Barr is not a YEC?

It doesn't matter if he believes or not. What is significant is that an authority on Hebrew confirms that the intent of the author of Genesis intended it to mean exactly what it says; a six day creation. I don't care if he doesn't believe a word of it. He's only quoted to refute the claims of others that the majority of Hebrew scholars find the creation account a metaphor for evolution.