Should Genesis be taken literally?

[expos4ever]

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.

You are basically arguing that we should read these texts with the naivete and lack of education of a little child. Again, you are in an impossible position if, repeat if, you are arguing that metaphor and allegory are never used in Scripture. The only plausible stance for you is to acknowledge the possibility that the creation account is an allegory and then make an actual case as to why we should take the creation account literally. But YECers often don't do this - many of them choose to invoke the clearly flawed claim that "to allegorize or to write in metaphor makes God to be a liar".

 

[Speedwell]

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.

That is a bald-faced lie. And, the most important reason for rejecting YECism, that YECs haven't the moral training to refrain from telling lies like that.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

No, you can't see, because you are a YEC who holds to the YEC doctrine of Perspicuity.

 

[expos4ever]

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.

The same claim could be made about the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears - why not take the account as a literal account of three bears who sleep in beds and a little girl who visits their home?

Are you going to object that this account is clearly not to be taken literally since we know bears don't sleep in beds?

Well, I think you know my response: we know the creation account cannot be literal since we have mountains of evidence for both evolution and an old earth.

 

[Speedwell]

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

So why would God begin His speech with "And God spoke all these words?" Doesn't that sound a little strange to you?

 

[expos4ever]

That is a bald-faced lie. And, the most important reason for rejecting YECism, that YECs haven't the moral training to refrain from telling lies like that.

Setting aside the particular thing you claim is a lie, I want to join you in objecting to the manifest lying we see all over the place on this board. And this is not a criticism of the moderators - it is effectively impossible for them to police the lying.

But we see lying time and time again on this board. And those who do the lying probably know they can get away with it and appear to have no moral inclination to stop.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Well, I think you know my response: we know the creation account cannot be literal since we have mountains of evidence for both evolution and an old earth.

Hah, I knew the fanciful notion of evolution and long ages was behind all this rejection of God's clear words somewhere. Hasn't anyone ever told you that there is tons of evidence why evolution / long ages can't be true either? You will never hear of it though unless you seek it out yourself.

 

[Archivist]

I can't see why any interpretation is necessary or justified.

But you are taking two differing accounts and reading them together. That is interpretation.

he text is plain enough for anyone with a basic understanding of the written language to understand.

Of course the text is plain. It is an allegory.

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.

And the accounts diffrer.

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?

Because Luke was writing based on what he knew.

 

[Speedwell]

Sounds very much like a smokescreen response to me and you made no attempt to answer my question about sin.

Was that question? You said, "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." Was that meant to be a question? It just looked like an inane logical fallacy to me.

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?

The False Dichotomy can be an effective technique for sophists if not overused. Why don't you give it a rest for a while?

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.

God forbid that I should defend the YEC view of the Bible.

 

[SeventyOne]

Hah, I knew the fanciful notion of evolution and long ages was behind all this rejection of God's clear words somewhere. Hasn't anyone ever told you that there is tons of evidence why evolution / long ages can't be true either? You will never hear of it though unless you seek it out yourself.

Very true, but he's admitting to be judging the word of God in light of the word of man. That's where the source of his faith in such things lie. Sort of like a reversal of scripture, 'Let God be a liar and every man be true'.

 

[Archivist]

Hah, I knew the fanciful notion of evolution and long ages was behind all this rejection of God's clear words somewhere. Hasn't anyone ever told you that there is tons of evidence why evolution / long ages can't be true either? You will never hear of it though unless you seek it out yourself.

You won't mind directing me to peer-reviewed articles in accredited scientific journals that contain the "tons of evidence" that prove that the Theory of Evolution is wrong.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

You are basically arguing that we should read these texts with the naivete and lack of education of a little child. Again, you are in an impossible position if, repeat if, you are arguing that metaphor and allegory are never used in Scripture. The only plausible stance for you is to acknowledge the possibility that the creation account is an allegory and then make an actual case as to why we should take the creation account literally. But YECers often don't do this - many of them choose to invoke the clearly flawed claim that "to allegorize or to write in metaphor makes God to be a liar".

I never said or implied that ALL of the Bible is about real events, but when it isn't, such as when Jesus is talking in parables, it's usually pretty obvious. There is no such indication of Genesis 1 & 2 being anything other than historical narrative and the onus would be on you to show, using the Bible only, why that could be justified. By the way, I'm not a YEC, I just believe the Bible to be the true word of God and if that conflicts with the OEE (Old Earth Evolutionists) then they must be wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

Very true, but he's admitting to be judging the word of God in light of the word of man. That's where the source of his faith in such things lie. Sort of like a reversal of scripture, 'Let God be a liar and every man be true'.

But there is a flaw in your argument. If the important thing for YECs is to defeat the theory of evolution, why are YECs so nasty about all non-YEC Christian denominations, even those which reject evolution?

 

[expos4ever]

Hah, I knew the fanciful notion of evolution and long ages was behind all this rejection of God's clear words somewhere. Hasn't anyone ever told you that there is tons of evidence why evolution / long ages can't be true either? You will never hear of it though unless you seek it out yourself.

Here is the problem you face:

1. There is an overwhelming consensus among highly trained scientists that evolution happened and that the earth is very old;
2. Scientists operate under a system that encourages and rewards skeptical inquiry - this acts as a powerful check against incorrect ideas becoming entrenched as truth. And science works - there is plenty of evidence for this.
3. You are therefore face with two wildly implausible options: (a) argue that all these experts are wrong; (b) argue that all these thousands of experts are engaged in a carefully managed conspiracy to propagate falsehood.

Your response?

 

[expos4ever]

There is no such indication of Genesis 1 & 2 being anything other than historical narrative and the onus would be on you to show, using the Bible only, why that could be justified.

An absurd constraint. Why should facts derived apart from the Bible be excluded from consideration?

 

[Speedwell]

I never said or implied that ALL of the Bible is about real events, but when it isn't, such as when Jesus is talking in parables, it's usually pretty obvious. There is no such indication of Genesis 1 & 2 being anything other than historical narrative and the onus would be on you to show, using the Bible only, why that could be justified. By the way, I'm not a YEC, I just believe the Bible to be the true word of God and if that conflicts with the OEE (Old Earth Evolutionists) then they must be wrong.

Why "using the Bible only?" Why should the rest of us be bound by your doctrine of Sola Scriptura? In any case, you will never understand fully what the Bible has to say if you only read the Bible.

 

[SeventyOne]

But there is a flaw in your argument. If the important thing for YECs is to defeat the theory of evolution, why are YECs so nasty about all non-YEC Christian denominations, even those which reject evolution?

I'm failing to see what does the attitude of people have to do with what I said? Attitudes do not change argument points for either side.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm failing to see what does the attitude of people have to do with what I said? Attitudes do not change argument points for either side.

You didn't make an argument, just an unpleasant remark--clearly expressive of "attitude."

 

[SeventyOne]

You didn't make an argument, just an unpleasant remark.

"Accurate" remark.

And not every post has to be an argument.

So... I don't see the problem.

 

[Speedwell]

"Accurate" remark.

And not every post has to be an argument.

So... I don't see the problem.

So maybe what it is, is that YECs want to deny there could be any other reason for rejecting YEC Bible doctrine than the theory of evolution.
Could that be the reason for your comment?
Could that be why anyone who criticizes it is accused of having no other motive than the promotion of evolutionary theory?
Does that explain the condemnation of Christian groups who reject YEC Bible doctrine even thought they also reject evolution?