Should Genesis be taken literally?

[rjs330]

The text indicates that Exodus 20:11 is a parenthetical insertion by the transcriber, not part of what God wrote on stone tablets for Moses.

I completely disagree with that. I know the argument for that, but it simply is not born out by the text. You see that argument is used by those who do not believe in the 6 day creation, so they do have to deal with that passage of scripture. This passage is clear that God spoke the words. The context in chapter 19 combined with 20 make it VERY clear that the words were from God, not man. The parenthetical insertion idea is blatantly wrong.

 

[rjs330]

As long as you realize it's two questions.

1. Yes

2. False dichotomy.

Nice try, you are trying to weasel out of this one I think because you can't really answer the question, because if you do, you have to ascribe to the ability to know which of the stories are historical and which are not.

 

[Speedwell]

I completely disagree with that. I know the argument for that, but it simply is not born out by the text. You see that argument is used by those who do not believe in the 6 day creation, so they do have to deal with that passage of scripture. This passage is clear that God spoke the words. The context in chapter 19 combined with 20 make it VERY clear that the words were from God, not man. The parenthetical insertion idea is blatantly wrong.

So what is your explanation for the change of voicing? Voicing is very important to an author, especially in a language without quotation marks, and is never changed haphazardly. If the passage is not an assertion by the transcriber, what is it?

 

[Speedwell]

Sure you do, it makes the whole point of Jesus' death on the cross for our sins pointless if we can't be sure how or when we came to start sinning in the first place.

Here's a good example. Your statement is a logical fallacy (formally known as denying the antecedent). If you base your theology on fallacious logic, why do you expect me to endorse it?

And once you start with Genesis, why stop there? Was there a worldwide flood that wiped out all mankind and other creatures too or is that made up as well? What about Jesus walking on water or turning water into wine - there's no non-supernatural explanations for those events, so are they allegories too? I think you have a serious problem when you go do that road.

Why do you suppose that I am looking for non-supernatural explanations for the miraculous events of Jesus' earthly career? And why do you suppose that the only alternative to 100% accurate literal history is "allegory?" That is so shallow and ignorant that it is reason in itself to reject YEC theology.

 

[Speedwell]

Nice try, you are trying to weasel out of this one I think because you can't really answer the question, because if you do, you have to ascribe to the ability to know which of the stories are historical and which are not.

Am I going to have to explain that to you again???

 

[rjs330]

Am I going to have to explain that to you again???

Your logic makes no sense whatsoever. To claim that Abraham was a real person and then claim that the stuff that is written about him is not is patently ridiculous.

 

[Speedwell]

Your logic makes no sense whatsoever. To claim that Abraham was a real person and then claim that the stuff that is written about him is not is patently ridiculous.

I'm not going to come right out and call you a liar, but you are certainly imposing your limited concept of what constitutes historical narrative on a person who you know does not subscribe to it, which is at least nasty of you.

 

[rjs330]

So what is your explanation for the change of voicing? Voicing is very important to an author, especially in a language without quotation marks, and is never changed haphazardly. If the passage is not an assertion by the transcriber, what is it?

The change is nothing. Take a look at Exodus 15:26, 20:7, 23:19. These are just a few of the passages in the bible where God is speaking and uses the same type of language. It is not a change to anything unusual at all. There are other passages as well. The only reason some claim the change is because that passage upsets the apple cart. That passage has to be explained away and they came up with the the theory to do so. Just like all the other goofy jumps people do to try and make Genesis into an allegory because it doesn't fit their world view.

 

[Speedwell]

The change is nothing. Take a look at Exodus 15:26, 20:7, 23:19. These are just a few of the passages in the bible where God is speaking and uses the same type of language. And there are reasons for it. What's your reason for Exodus 20:11? It is not a change to anything unusual at all. There are other passages as well.

And there are reasons for all of them. What's your reason for Exodus 20:11?

The only reason some claim the change is because that passage upsets the apple cart. That passage has to be explained away and they came up with the the theory to do so. Just like all the other goofy jumps people do to try and make Genesis into an allegory because it doesn't fit their world view.

What apple cart? If the biblical authors were inspired, then so was the transcriber of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. But you can't answer the question--you're not sufficiently literate--and all you can do is to blow off serious questions like that as attempts to turn Genesis into "allegory." I begin to see the reason that the Catholics didn't like the idea that laymen should read the Bible for themselves.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Here's a good example. Your statement is a logical fallacy (formally known as denying the antecedent). If you base your theology on fallacious logic, why do you expect me to endorse it? Why do you suppose that I am looking for non-supernatural explanations for the miraculous events of Jesus' earthly career? And why do you suppose that the only alternative to 100% accurate literal history is "allegory?" That is so shallow and ignorant that it is reason in itself to reject YEC theology.

Sounds very much like a smokescreen response to me and you made no attempt to answer my question about sin.
With regards to the second point, there's no middle ground here - either Genesis 1 is 100% true (because it's God's explanation of how he created) or it's not (and therefore by definition, not from God). Which is it?
I can see why the previous post stated, "I begin to see the reason that the Catholics didn't like the idea that laymen should read the Bible for themselves." The atheists must be having a chuckle seeing Christians increasingly agreeing with many of their speculative notions and as a result, being forced to reject key parts of the book that they are supposed to be defending. Very sad.

 

[Archivist]

I'm curious - what is it about the creation account that makes you read it as a allegory?

Because we have two differing accounts, probably written at different times, that do not agree.

To me, God couldn't have made it clearer that he was referring to normal 24-hour days

And, as I said, you are entitled to your interpretation.

and it's clear that at least one of the Gospel writers was talking about a relatively recent creation too...

Luk 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
Luk 3:24 the son of........Luk 3:38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
How many years does that span? Even if we concede that a few generations were left out, it's still only going to stretch back a few thousand years at most.

So we have a direct line from Jesus back to Adam and since this was written by someone who has been called one of the finest historians that ever lived, I think we can be pretty confident that it is accurate.

Luke was a man of his time. He was raised to believe that the Genesis account was literal so of course he would reference it as such. BTW I know of few historians who would reference Luke as "one of the finist historians that ever lived."

So I think your sentence ought to be amended to read "And if it is an allegory, which of course is not how a plain reading of the text would imply, I would not expect Jesus would refer to it."

You can think what you want.

Sure you do, it makes the whole point of Jesus' death on the cross for our sins pointless if we can't be sure how or when we came to start sinning in the first place.

Sin entered the world. Why is it so important to you that we know exactly when it did so?

And once you start with Genesis, why stop there? Was there a worldwide flood that wiped out all mankind and other creatures too or is that made up as well? What about Jesus walking on water or turning water into wine - there's no non-supernatural explanations for those events, so are they allegories too? I think you have a serious problem when you go down that road.

And I think you have a serious problem when you think that God created everything in six 24-hour days, particularly when you reach this conclusion based on two differing accounts. A worldwide flood? Probably not. Jesus walking on water. Certainly. Jesus turning water into wine? Certainly. However, unlike you, I again say that you are entitled to your interpretation.

 

[Archivist]

Sounds very much like a smokescreen response to me and you made no attempt to answer my question about sin. With regards to the second point, there's no middle ground here - either Genesis 1 is 100% true (because it's God's explanation of how he created) or it's not (and therefore by definition, not from God). Which is it?

Or it is from God and it is an allegory, a story designed to illustrate complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible to its readers.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Because we have two differing accounts, probably written at different times, that do not agree.



And, as I said, you are entitled to your interpretation.



Luke was a man of his time. He was raised to believe that the Genesis account was literal so of course he would reference it as such. BTW I know of few historians who would reference Luke as "one of the finist historians that ever lived."



You can think what you want.



Sin entered the world. Why is it so important to you that we know exactly when it did so?



And I think you have a serious problem when you think that God created everything in six 24-hour days, particularly when you reach this conclusion based on two differing accounts. A worldwide flood? Probably not. Jesus walking on water. Certainly. Jesus turning water into wine? Certainly. However, unlike you, I again say that you are entitled to your interpretation.

So clearly you think the Bible is liberally sprinkled with inaccuracies, myths/allegories presented as fact, even unreliable gospel authors. No wonder so many people don't even bother to consider reading it if that is what they have been led to believe. I can see why now.

 

[Archivist]

So clearly you think the Bible is liberally sprinkled with inaccuracies, myths/allegories presented as fact, even unreliable gospel authors. No wonder so many people don't even bother to consider reading it if that is what they have been led to believe. I can see why now.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have never stated that "the Bible is liberally sprinkled with inaccuracies." Viewing something as being an allegory does not mean that it is "inaccurate." It is simply written in such a way as to illustrate complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible to its readers. Nor have I ever said that the Bible is filled with "myths." In fact I haven't used the term "myth" anywhere in this thread to describe Genesis, and a myth and an allegory are two different things. And I never said that the authors of the gospels were in any way "unreliable." My exact words were that "Luke was raised to believe that the Genesis account was literal so of course he would reference it as such." Sad when you have to resort to making false statements.

I have said over and over that you are entitled to your interpretation of Genesis. Why do you seem to think that any interpretation that disagrees with yours is wrong?

 

[KWCrazy]

So what is your explanation for the change of voicing? Voicing is very important to an author, especially in a language without quotation marks, and is never changed haphazardly. If the passage is not an assertion by the transcriber, what is it?

Exodus 20:1 And God spoke all these words:
Explains it to me.

 

[expos4ever]

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have never stated that "the Bible is liberally sprinkled with inaccuracies." Viewing something as being an allegory does not mean that it is "inaccurate."

Of course I empathize with your objection. But literalists use this manifestly mistaken argument all the time - they cannot allow an allegorical reading any legitimacy since it poses a devastating challenge. So they attempt to equate allegory with falsehood.

A ridiculous position, of course.

 

[KWCrazy]

Why do you suppose that I am looking for non-supernatural explanations for the miraculous events of Jesus' earthly career? And why do you suppose that the only alternative to 100% accurate literal history is "allegory?"

We get it.
You deny the supernatural authority of God. You look for natural explanations of the events, and if there are none, then you reject that the events ever happened as recorded.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Of course I empathize with your objection. But literalists use this manifestly mistaken argument all the time - they cannot allow an allegorical reading any legitimacy since it poses a devastating challenge. So they attempt to equate allegory with falsehood.

A ridiculous position, of course.

Hand Genesis 1 & 2 to anyone who has not been exposed to man's foolish ideas (for example, a young child) who has never heard of your alternative theories, ask them to read it and then tell you what they think it means. I bet you they wouldn't think it was just a story if you simply explained who God is, they'd just accept it and be in awe that God could do all that. The point is, when something clearly reads as factual, why the need to invent allegories or distort it to try to mean something it doesn't. To me, that seems like a ridiculous position.

 

[Archivist]

Hand Genesis 1 & 2 to anyone who has not been exposed to man's foolish ideas (for example, a young child) who has never heard of your alternative theories, ask them to read it and then tell you what they think it means. I bet you they wouldn't think it was just a story if you simply explained who God is, they'd just accept it and be in awe that God could do all that. The point is, when something clearly reads as factual, why the need to invent allegories or distort it to try to mean something it doesn't. To me, that seems like a ridiculous position.

Which shows that it is an allegory--because it is designed to illustrate complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible to its readers.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have never stated that "the Bible is liberally sprinkled with inaccuracies." Viewing something as being an allegory does not mean that it is "inaccurate." It is simply written in such a way as to illustrate complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible to its readers. Nor have I ever said that the Bible is filled with "myths." In fact I haven't used the term "myth" anywhere in this thread to describe Genesis, and a myth and an allegory are two different things. And I never said that the authors of the gospels were in any way "unreliable." My exact words were that "Luke was raised to believe that the Genesis account was literal so of course he would reference it as such." Sad when you have to resort to making false statements.

I have said over and over that you are entitled to your interpretation of Genesis. Why do you seem to think that any interpretation that disagrees with yours is wrong?

I can't see why any interpretation is necessary or justified. The text is plain enough for anyone with a basic understanding of the written language to understand. And I don't agree with your assumption that Genesis 1 & 2 have different authors as both accounts come from God and he would have ensured that his revelations were accurately recorded.
Also, If Luke is not reporting the genealogy back to Adam and Eve in any degree of accuracy, then he's unreliable and not up to the task. If I gave evidence in a court of law and it was subsequently discovered that what I had said was completely wrong, how do you think that would make me look?