Should Genesis be taken literally?

[KWCrazy]

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.

Indeed they are. As Christ said, man cannot serve two masters. Likewise, man cannot believe two conflicting world views. You cannot believe in God and reject His supernatural authority because that is the definition of God. If you have faith only in what can be demonstrated scientifically, then you have no faith whatever. God is not an illusionist. He is the Creator and Lord of the universe. Natural law yields to His divine will. His word is always the absolute truth without fail. The Bible is His written word, inspired and penned by man, carefully preserved through the ages, and there for all to see what God expects from man.

It's hard for modern people, educated in the ways of the world without regard to God's authority, to read the Scripture and believe what is written. It's easier to believe their teacher who says that man evolver rather than their God who declared that He created the first and and woman. The occurrence of a global flood erases any possibility that life evolved and so all fields of study attack the flood as a myth and they ridicule the believers as uneducated and simple. The choice, however, is simple. You either accept the word of God or you reject it. There is no in between. There is no option to selectively believe the parts you like. Accept it or reject it. Anything else is trying to serve two masters. You end up serving neither.

This does not point fingers at anyone. Only you know what you believe or what you do not. Anyone can post words on a message board. Whether you are a devout person posting as non-religious to get other perspectives or you're non-religious posting as a devout Christian for the same reasoning is known only to you. Personally, I'm just a sinner lost but for the saving grace of Jesus Christ. However, I know that God is real and that the word of God is real. Christ said that man cannot live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD which comes from the mouth of God. This doesn't mean that we pick and choose what we wish to believe. This means that we accept it or reject it. Creating God in our image is not an option.

 

[Archivist]

The choice, however, is simple. You either accept the word of God or you reject it. There is no in between. There is no option to selectively believe the parts you like. Accept it or reject it.

Or you accept the Genesis creation accounts as an allegory.

 

[SeventyOne]

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?

That's a weird set of assumptions you are operating under over there. You don't know a thing about what I think, apart from evolution being complete nonsensical trash and made-up stories used to brainwash children.

 

[Archivist]

You don't know a thing about what I think, apart from evolution being complete nonsensical trash and made-up stories used to brainwash children.

Scientific research and investigation says otherwise.

 

[SeventyOne]

Scientific research and investigation says otherwise.

A particular interpretation of the research and investigation says otherwise. Nothing more. Confirmation bias is alive and well in the 'scientific' community.

 

[SeventyOne]

I don't claim to know your thoughts. I was commenting on the observed behavior of YECs. Why do you keep bringing evolution into it, if not for the reason I speculated?

Just wondering why you are asking me about YECs if you're claiming not to know my thoughts. Nonetheless, I haven't seen any attitude differences between YEC's, old-earthers, and strict evolutionists. Some are good, some are bad. Some are reasonable, some are not. And some are just a mixture of both. All three get attacked in one form or another, and all three respond in a variety of manners.

I don't think it's fair to ask why one side is doing something in a critical manner when all sides are corporately guilty of the same thing.

 

[Archivist]

Just wondering why you are asking me about YECs if you're claiming not to know my thoughts. Nonetheless, I haven't seen any attitude differences between YEC's, old-earthers, and strict evolutionists. Some are good, some are bad. Some are reasonable, some are not. And some are just a mixture of both. All three get attacked in one form or another, and all three respond in a variety of manners.

I don't think it's fair to ask why one side is doing something in a critical manner when all sides are corporately guilty of the same thing.

I've been saying throughout this thread that people are entitled to their own interpretation of scripture. I've been called a "liar" and a "false teacher" by others because I regard the Genesis creation accounts as allegories, but I haven't used those terms to describe those who disagree with me.

 

[Archivist]

A particular interpretation of the research and investigation says otherwise. Nothing more. Confirmation bias is alive and well in the 'scientific' community.

You won't mind directing me to peer-reviewed articles in accredited scientific journals that say otherwise.

 

[SeventyOne]

You won't mind directing me to peer-reviewed articles in accredited scientific journals that say otherwise.

Peer reviews are meaningless if the peers are agreeable to the same lie.

 

[KWCrazy]

Or you accept the Genesis creation accounts as an allegory.

Allegory for what? If for evolution, it fails miserably.
Based on what? What passage in the Scriptures indicates that it is allegory.
Jesus quoted Genesis and said that from the beginning God made them male and female. Beginning of what?
Here is a list of Biblical references to the events in Genesis. Clearly the Bible is written with the understanding that these events were real. What proof do you have that they are not?

 

[Archivist]

Peer reviews are meaningless if the peers are agreeable to the same lie.

Or if it is true.

 

[Archivist]

Allegory for what? If for evolution, it fails miserably.

Apparently you haven't bothered reading my posts in this thread.

Based on what? What passage in the Scriptures indicates that it is allegory.

What passage in scripture indicates that the Parable of the Good Samaritan is a parable?

Jesus quoted Genesis and said that from the beginning God made them male and female. Beginning of what?

Beginning of humankind.

Here is a list of Biblical references to the events in Genesis. Clearly the Bible is written with the understanding that these events were real.

Already discussed this.

What proof do you have that they are not?

I don't have to have proof. I'm the one who keeps saying that you are entitled to your interpretation of scripture just as I am entitle to my interpretation. You are the one who is saying that it is your way for the highway.

 

[SeventyOne]

Or if it is true.

If only it worked that way.

If I were to write a paper on the existence of the Christian God and have it peer reviewed by 100 other people who also believe in the same God, would the weight of the peer review be enough to convert atheists?

Nope. All a peer review does ensure the thoughts presented are consistent with those sharing the same mindset, not to establish truth.

 

[SeventyOne]

It might not pass peer review, which is limited to examining logical exposition and methodology. Peer review doe not guarantee the author's conclusions, and is not intended to.

It was a hypothetical situation used as an example to make a point. And yes, I agree, peer review doesn't guarantee the author's conclusions, regardless of if the peers agree with it completely or not.

 

[Archivist]

If only it worked that way.

If I were to write a paper on the existence of the Christian God and have it peer reviewed by 100 other people who also believe in the same God, would the weight of the peer review be enough to convert atheists?

Nope. All a peer review does ensure the thoughts presented are consistent with those sharing the same mindset, not to establish truth.

Then you apparently don't understand the concept of peer review. The great thing about science is its ability to be flexible enough to change when it needs to. In science, if all the sudden "black" really does become "white", theories must be adjusted. In science if you can't adjust your theories to new data, the body of science will just, eventually, leave you behind.

 

[Archivist]

In the first place, calling "Genesis" an "allegory" is a grotesque oversimplification.

And actually I have never said that the whole of Genesis is an allegory. I limited that description to the creation accounts.

 

[SeventyOne]

Then you apparently don't understand the concept of peer review. The great thing about science is its ability to be flexible enough to change when it needs to. In science, if all the sudden "black" really does become "white", theories must be adjusted. In science if you can't adjust your theories to new data, the body of science will just, eventually, leave you behind.

Ah, yes. The old "you are just too stupid to understand" rebuttal. I'll admit, it's a classic.

I guess that means our conversation is over. Toodles.

 

[KWCrazy]

You will never understand fully what the Bible has to say if you only read the Bible.

Jesus only read the Scriptures, but then He believed and taught that they were true as written. Perhaps he should have studied the opinions of others who had a more worldly opinion.

The YEC claim is not about whether the events were real, it's about the text of the stories describing the events. It is entirely possible to believe the events were real and still reject YEC "literal and inerrant" Bible doctrine.

So God created the world in six days and created man on the sixth, but somehow that message got lost in a poorly written text. Got it.

 

[Speedwell]

Jesus only read the Scriptures,

You don't know what He read. The Hebrew Canon was not even closed at that point but more important, he did study the opinions of others--studying the commentaries of eminent Torah scholars is an important part of reading scripture for a Jew.

 

[Papias]

Jesus quoted Genesis and said that from the beginning God made them male and female. Beginning of what?

What? Didn't you read Genesis? In the Genesis story, God does *not* make them male and female from the beginning. If read literally, Jesus contradicts Genesis for at least two reasons.

First, God makes Adam, a male first. That's not making "male and female" from the beginning - that's making male from the beginning.

Secondly, in that verse (Mark 10:6), Jesus is clear about exactly what he's talking about. He says "from the beginning of creation". But if we read Genesis, we see that humans aren't made until the very end - after all other creation is finished. That's not "from the beginning of creation" at all!

Theistic evolution, using all of God's revelation (including His creation itself), agrees with Jesus. As apes gradually evolved into humans, there were always both males and females.

This is a place where Jesus is clearly telling us that His word, Genesis, is not meant to be interpreted literally. Jesus himself is telling you that he created using evolution. Won't you listen to Him, even if you won't listen to us?

In Christ-

Papias