Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Archivist]

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.

I never said that. If you think otherwise that's your problem.

 

[expos4ever]

Very true, but he's admitting to be judging the word of God in light of the word of man.

Ah this again. The fundamentalist makes this kind of sermonizing statement often, but it melts into nothingness under careful scrutiny.

This pitting "the word of God" against "the word of man" has an obvious superficial appeal, but only because the statement tricks you into believing it's an "either-or" choice. The reality, of course, is that the path of wisdom involves using all sources of information to arrive at a sensible conclusion. And what are the sources we, as committed Christians, have with respect to the question of human origins?

1. The Bible
2. The science.

Now let's be clear: there is clear, inarguable precedent for the use of literary device in the scriptures. One would quite literally have to be mentally damaged, or lying, to not agree with this painfully self-evident claim. For example, we have the image of trees singing. Am I guilty of "choosing the world of man over the word of God" if I conclude that this is a metaphor?

So it is perfectly reasonable to raise the possibility that the creation account could be an example of the use of literary device (myth, in this case).

Now what does science tell us? It tells us that evolution happened and that the earth is old. No debate, no dissenting voices (except from perhaps a miniscule minority).

So what would a reasonable person do? Take the science seriously and resolve the possibility that literary device is used in Genesis to the actuality that such is the case.

What does the creationist do. The old one-two punch of clearly wonky thinking:

1. Deny the mere possibility of the use of literary device in the creation account;
2. Reject the clear findings of highly trained scientists.

 

[expos4ever]

Deleted own post.

 

[KWCrazy]

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....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!

Mathew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
AT the beginning, not day one. Day six is still the beginning. Secondly, he was talking about marriage, not about creation. He was talking about Adam and Eve.

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.

You're joking, right?
You don't seriously believe this.

 

[KWCrazy]

2. Reject the clear findings of highly trained scientists.

I'm quite sure that all the educated and enlightened people informed Noah that it simply was not possible for a global flood to occur. Fortunately for Noah he didn't listen. Who was the wonky thinkers, the experts who died or the believer who lived?

 

[expos4ever]

I'm quite sure that all the educated and enlightened people informed Noah that it simply was not possible for a global flood to occur. Fortunately for Noah he didn't listen. Who was the wonky thinkers, the experts who died or the believer who lived?

This "argument" is so circular, I get dizzy just reading it.

I am actually fascinated at how you rationalize such patently incorrect reasoning to yourself. I don't suppose you would be willing to explain?

 

[Archivist]

Mathew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
AT the beginning, not day one. Day six is still the beginning. Secondly, he was talking about marriage, not about creation. He was talking about Adam and Eve.

You're joking, right?
You don't seriously believe this.

Actually at the beginning would be Day 1.

Tell me, do you consider the third inning to be the beginning of a baseball game?

 

[rjs330]

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.

No it shows it is a fact to show us how God works in the world of men and how he deals with us as human beings including how he views sin and his relationship with us. There is NO scriptural evidence that it is allegory. In fact there is no real non scriptural evidence that it is allegory either.

 

[rjs330]

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

No because God didn't physically write the bible. You know that. God inspired people to and the people write what God wants them to write. "And God spoke all these words" is writer telling you he is now going to quote God. That tells you that the following are God's words. And God's words said he made the world in six days. If you don't believe that then you don't believe the Bible. It's pretty simple.

 

[Speedwell]

No because God didn't physically write the bible. You know that. God inspired people to and the people write what God wants them to write. "And God spoke all these words" is writer telling you he is now going to quote God. That tells you that the following are God's words. And God's words said he made the world in six days. If you don't believe that then you don't believe the Bible. It's pretty simple.

I get it. If it's in the first person it's God speaking. If it's in the third person it's God speaking as well, if it's a proof-text against evolution. Otherwise it's someone else.

But I still have a question: you said, "God inspired people to and the people write what God wants them to write." So Exodus 20:11 should have the full force of God's plenary verbal inspiration even if it wasn't written by Him in stone. What's the big deal?

 

[rjs330]

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?

Oh stop with the nasty accusations. It's called passion of a debate. We are no more nasty than you or anyone else on your side of the debate. We've been called a lot of things as well. Neither side is innocent when it comes to being a little forceful at times. But when it come to passion of debate we should be able let a bit of it roll off our backs.

 

[rjs330]

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?

There is overwhelming scriptural evidence that evolution is wrong. I choose to believe God's word over man's science. ESPECIALLY a so called science that can't even test or reproduce it's own theory.

 

[Archivist]

No it shows it is a fact to show us how God works in the world of men and how he deals with us as human beings including how he views sin and his relationship with us. There is NO scriptural evidence that it is allegory. In fact there is no real non scriptural evidence that it is allegory either.

Sure there is. To start there are two creation accounts and they do not agree.

 

[Archivist]

No because God didn't physically write the bible. You know that. God inspired people to and the people write what God wants them to write. "And God spoke all these words" is writer telling you he is now going to quote God. That tells you that the following are God's words. And God's words said he made the world in six days. If you don't believe that then you don't believe the Bible. It's pretty simple.

So you have to believe in a literal six 24-hour day creation or you don't believe the Bible. Interesting.

 

[Archivist]

Oh stop with the nasty accusations. It's called passion of a debate. We are no more nasty than you or anyone else on your side of the debate. We've been called a lot of things as well. Neither side is innocent when it comes to being a little forceful at times. But when it come to passion of debate we should be able let a bit of it roll off our backs.

Actually as Christians we should be polite. Throughout this thread I have repeatedly said that you are entitled to your interpretation of scripture just as I am entitled to my interpretation.

 

[Speedwell]

So you have to believe in a literal six 24-hour day creation or you don't believe the Bible. Interesting.

It's more than that. You not only have to believe in a six-day creation, you have to believe that the Bible is the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration. Just believing in a six-day creation is not enough, or a real Garden of Eden or a real flood. Many Christians do that much, who the YECs despise as "Bible haters.".

 

[KWCrazy]

Actually at the beginning would be Day 1.

The question at hand was marriage, and the first marriage was when God made Eve for Adam.

 

[KWCrazy]

Sure there is. To start there are two creation accounts and they do not agree.

I think you're the only person here who actually believes there are two creation accounts, even after you've been proven wrong.

 

[rjs330]

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.

Because the Bible makes claims that it is the only truth and the only authority. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever used any other writing to proclaim truth. And neither did they tell us to use any other writings to find the truth. Other writings are fine as long as they don't undermine or contradict the inspired word of God.

 

[Speedwell]

I think you're the only person here who actually believes there are two creation accounts, even after you've been proven wrong.

I think it is safe to say that everybody here believes that there are two creation accounts except you YECs.