Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Speedwell]

So the Book of Hebrews is non-canonical...is it?

The Author of Hebrews is uncertain...some say Paul and some say Barnabas, and others say that one of Paul's companions. I, generally, consider Paul to be the author but some do believe it is Barnabas. In The Acts of the Apostles, Barnabas is highly commended - even though he and Paul separated.

As for the other spurious books attributed to be written by Barnabas - they are not canonical and I disregard them. There is no proof that Barnabas wrote any of the apocryphal texts.

OK, I get it--you only include Barnabas because you imagine him to be the author of Hebrews. I suppose you also reject Clement. Mentored by Peter and selected by him to be successor Bishop of Rome, what could he possibly know about Christianity? Then there were Ignatius and Polycarp, students of John from whom you believe they learned nothing; into the toilet with their books, for sure. And you wonder why we think YECism is silly...

 

[rjs330]

So Fundamentalist also believe that the OT is supposed to be an accurate, unbroken timeline of history from creation to Jesus? Why would you want to believe such a thing?

It's actually a timeline from creation to the end of recorded OT history. There is history that occurred between the end of recorded OT history and Jesus. But yes it is accurate history. There is no reason not to see it as such. Why wouldn't you see the word of God as true and accurate?

 

[rjs330]

We

What, specifically in inconsistent in:

1. Accepting scientific fact;
2. Reading the creation account as "inspired myth".

Here is the elephant in the room for the creationist. It is simply not possible for them to not be aware of the fact that some Scripture entails the use of literary device. So they must be aware of the possibility that the creation account is an example of this.

So please tell us: given the clear precedent of the use of literary device in both scripture and in the broader Jewish literary tradition, on precisely what basis do you reject the possibility that the creation account is not to be taken literally?

Creationists have very good understanding of literary devices. Genesis just doesn't meet that criteria. Psalms is an example of a literary device as is other passages such referring to God as having wings etc. Genesis is supported as history by other biblical passages which confirms that it does not fit the literary device thought.

 

[Speedwell]

It's actually a timeline from creation to the end of recorded OT history. There is history that occurred between the end of recorded OT history and Jesus. But yes it is accurate history. There is no reason not to see it as such. Why wouldn't you see the word of God as true and accurate?

What reason is there to see it as such? The OT is an heterogeneous collection of ancient texts, some historical, some not, with gaps and overlaps. Why would you need to make an unbroken historical timeline out of it?

 

[Speedwell]

We

Creationists have very good understanding of literary devices. Genesis just doesn't meet that criteria. Psalms is an example of a literary device as is other passages such referring to God as having wings etc. Genesis is supported as history by other biblical passages which confirms that it does not fit the literary device thought.

Oh, so? Did not a creationist in this thread divide historical narrative into just two categories: 100% accurate literal, and false?

 

[expos4ever]

Creationists have very good understanding of literary devices. Genesis just doesn't meet that criteria.

What are the criteria?

Genesis is supported as history by other biblical passages which confirms that it does not fit the literary device thought.

Please make the case - this is just a claim.

 

[expos4ever]

One of the PILLARS that up holds Humanism is evolution...but go ahead and disagree.

Nonsense. Simply not true. But even if it were true, you are making the false argument that because one author is "evangelical" in his approach to spreading the doctrine of humanism, this somehow impugns the credibility of evolution. The science behind evolution is what it is - whether people promote it like someone would promote a religious belief is completely irrelevant.

 

[expos4ever]

Yeah, well consider what Hitler and his Nazis did to the youth of Germany! There is more than enough proof

What?!What do the Nazis have to do with evolution? (I can't wait to read what you are going to come up with).

 

[expos4ever]

Oh and Scientific American is faultless and without bias...Please!!!

Look who is quote-mining now?

Oh please. I am quoting from a reputable publication with a long, distinguished history. This is completely different from the creationist strategy of basically making things up and perfecting the art of taking things out of context.

The proof is in the pudding: Please tell us precisely what is incorrect in the Scientific American article.

 

[expos4ever]

The Creation Account is not a myth! I take the creation account as actual history.

You are clearly not answering the question that I posed.

 

[expos4ever]

Have you actually witnessed a transitional type happen? Have you actually seen one of those ancestoral types undergoing change?

You are engaged in either intentional misrepresentation or misrepresentation by ignorance. Post 1010 explains exactly what is misguided about your statement, above.

 

[rjs330]

OK, I get it--you only include Barnabas because you imagine him to be the author of Hebrews. I suppose you also reject Clement. Mentored by Peter and selected by him to be successor Bishop of Rome, what could he possibly know about Christianity? Then there were Ignatius and Polycarp, students of John from whom you believe they learned nothing; into the toilet with their books, for sure. And you wonder why we think YECism is silly...

It depends on what you mean by reject. Most of us recognize those folks, but we don't take their word over Scripture should it contradict Scripture. Why on Earth anyone would is beyond me. They were good and wise men, but did not author inspired Scripture. Therefore if they or anyone proclaims truth that is contrary to Scripture they are wrong.

 

[rjs330]

What reason is there to see it as such? The OT is an heterogeneous collection of ancient texts, some historical, some not, with gaps and overlaps. Why would you need to make an unbroken historical timeline out of it?

Perhaps because the timeline is obvious? When the Bible says such and such happened and then such and such happened and so and so did this and died and his son did this and died why wouldnt you take it as historical. When the Bible proclaims the history or Isreal and the king's and judge's why would you not take it as history? There is absolutely no reason not to.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Have you actually witnessed a transitional type happen? Have you actually seen one of those ancestoral types undergoing change?

You would not agree that it qualified. You would claim it was only variation within a kind, or at a later stage, claim it was merely another instance of different kinds. The changes, you see, would occur over more than one lifetime.

 

[Speedwell]

Perhaps because the timeline is obvious? When the Bible says such and such happened and then such and such happened and so and so did this and died and his son did this and died why wouldnt you take it as historical. When the Bible proclaims the history or Isreal and the king's and judge's why would you not take it as history? There is absolutely no reason not to.

Only if you divide history into "100% accurate literal" and "false."

 

[Speedwell]

It depends on what you mean by reject. Most of us recognize those folks...

Most of the YECs in this forum, including the poster I was responding to, do not.

 

[joshua 1 9]

In fact, there are public schools in the Bible Belt where creationism is taught quite openly.

There is no law against teaching creationism, it is just not required to be taught in most states.

 

[joshua 1 9]

consider what Hitler and his Nazis did to the youth of Germany!

I know one person that was in Hitler's youth group and at the end of the war he got sent to the front line in Poland. He was captured and thrown into a prisoner of war camp where a guard knocked out one of his eyes. Believe it to not he actually wore a patch over that eye. He escaped when he made himself a pole out of a small tree and he pole vaulted over the fence to escape.

 

[rjs330]

Most of the YECs in this forum, including the poster I was responding to, do not.

Well that may be true I guess. Let's face it, unless you study church history you won't know who they are. And you can't just lay that at the feet YEC people. I would guess the majority of believers don't know who they are either unless they have specifically been taught church history. And you certainly don't need to know who they are in order to read and study Scripture and have an understanding of it.

 

[rjs330]

Only if you divide history into "100% accurate literal" and "false."

Are you saying that all the stories in the OT are allegorical or just some. So when the Bible says David did this and David did that are they true and accurate stories or are they made stories like George Washington and the cherry tree? How about Samson or Elijah and Elisha? What about Solomon and Abraham? Are those true history or made up history? What about the Israelites and Egypt? What about God giving them the law? True history or made up?