Should Genesis be taken literally?

[expos4ever]

As you have quoted the scripture, exactly what textbook or source of knowledge that was not perfect, would you allow for teaching, reproof, correction and training in, of all things, righteousness? Righteousness being the state of moral perfection, would be impossible to reach if the knowledge supplied was flawed. Also, righteousness could not be reached if it was the product of flawed teaching or correction.....

I don't think your reasoning works. First of all, the fact that scripture is suitable for training in righteousness does not logically entail commitment to the achievement of moral perfection. Going to Harvard medical school is suitable for training in "doctoring" but they are not claiming to produce perfect doctors. Second, it is not at all clear that moral perfection requires perfect knowledge of the facts of the world. Why would someone's moral status be any less if they happened to not know that I have 37 dishes in my closet at home?

You appear to believe that, in order to be authoritative, a source needs to be "perfect". Why do you believe this?

 

[Speedwell]

So, scientific inquiry, that discredits the word of God, is held, by you, as more valid than the word of the Living God?

More valid, perhaps, than your interpretation of the word of God, which I would be dissatisfied with even in the absence of scientific inquiry.

Scientific inquiry that I have heard on so many occasions to be said "proves nothing"

Have you not heard that? That "science proves nothing"?

Quite true, but science can nonetheless disprove.

Sorry, but I will go with the Bible being: inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

No need to be sorry. We're all Christians here and believe it, too.

 

[expos4ever]

If it is that difficult for you to understand which scripture is literal and which is not...... we have religious theologians and teachers to help you with it.

Again, this is not argument you want to make. I am quite confident that the majority of scholars / theologians believe the creation account is not literal. I suggest you may be limiting your definition of who is a "theologian / teacher" to American fundamentalists.

 

[expos4ever]

So, scientific inquiry, that discredits the word of God, is held, by you, as more valid than the word of the Living God?

A false "either-or". Science only "discredits" the literal interpretation of the Genesis account.

Scientific inquiry that I have heard on so many occasions to be said "proves nothing"

How does this support your case? Of course science does not prove anything! But that doesn't undermine its capability to provide with explanations (e.g. evolution) that are well-supported by the evidence.

 

[KWCrazy]

False. Simply not correct. You misrepresent science - no properly educated scientist will say that any of this stuff is impossible. Science is not in the business of making absolute statements like "such and such is impossible".

Really?
You don't believe there scientists who believe in natural law?
What, then, would they believe in?
Most would use natural law to discredit miracles but you use miracles to discredit natural law.
Tell you what. Find a scientist who believes as you do. I'd like to talk with him.

 

[expos4ever]

Are you saying that it is scientifically possible for a steel axe head to float on water, a man to walk on water, from shore out to the middle of a sea, and people who have been dead for several days to come back to life with no ill affects?

Yes, of course.

Science never says anything is impossible.

 

[expos4ever]

Really?
You don't believe there scientists who believe in natural law?
What, then, would they believe in?
Most would use natural law to discredit miracles but you use miracles to discredit natural law.
Tell you what. Find a scientist who believes as you do. I'd like to talk with him.

Science is not in the "proving" business. Period.

A properly educated scientist would not say miracles are impossible.

I am not going to "find a scientist" for you. You may not have been educated about this (and therefore it is not your "fault", but it is widely known that scientists are not in the business of making absolute pronouncements of any kind.

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't think your reasoning works. First of all, the fact that scripture is suitable for training in righteousness does not logically entail commitment to the achievement of moral perfection. Going to Harvard medical school is suitable for training in "doctoring" but they are not claiming to produce perfect doctors. Second, it is not at all clear that moral perfection requires perfect knowledge of the facts of the world. Why would someone's moral status be any less if they happened to not know that I have 37 dishes in my closet at home?

You appear to believe that, in order to be authoritative, a source needs to be "perfect". Why do you believe this?

My main objection is to the insinuation that Christ was flawed. This would both be in your post stating such about Jesus Christ being in Error and also in the claim that His apostles were in error as well.

This whole concept corrupts the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was without sin combined with the fact that the Bible is His Words...

It is impossible to have "the Word" become flesh if "The Word" has errors and then, the messiah being incorrect about the Holy Scriptures..

I apologize, but, if the Bible is not the true, inerrant word of God which is God breathed and Inspired by the Holy Spirit to be recorded by men...... then it's just another book of words.

The result means that what we stand for, as Christians, or Jews, is a joke.

 

[JacksBratt]

Again, this is not argument you want to make. I am quite confident that the majority of scholars / theologians believe the creation account is not literal. I suggest you may be limiting your definition of who is a "theologian / teacher" to American fundamentalists.

As I have said before, and, no doubt, will have to state again.....

Truth is not a democracy. IF every man, woman and child on the face of the earth, except one lone uneducated soul, believed in a false hood and the one lone uneducated soul believed the truth...... the truth would not change and the one lonely uneducated soul would be the only correct person on the earth.

 

[JacksBratt]

Yes, of course.

Science never says anything is impossible.

Maybe your science...... not mine.

Yours is pseudo science that "cannot prove anything".
Mine is used for just that purpose... as proof.

Of course, I live in the real world where science is used to prove concepts that can give numbers and predictions that can be taken to a bank so that people with money can get more money to continue to move this entire civilization forward.

Without my science, the bank vault stays closed.

Yours is the science of which Tesla spoke when he said:

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Nikola Tesla

 

[Archivist]

My main objection is to the insinuation that Christ was flawed. This would both be in your post stating such about Jesus Christ being in Error and also in the claim that His apostles were in error as well.

This whole concept corrupts the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was without sin combined with the fact that the Bible is His Words...

It is impossible to have "the Word" become flesh if "The Word" has errors and then, the messiah being incorrect about the Holy Scriptures..

I apologize, but, if the Bible is not the true, inerrant word of God which is God breathed and Inspired by the Holy Spirit to be recorded by men...... then it's just another book of words.

The result means that what we stand for, as Christians, or Jews, is a joke.

But believe that the two creation accounts in Genesis are allegories doesn't mean that you believe that the Bible is "just another book of words."

 

[expos4ever]

My main objection is to the insinuation that Christ was flawed.

I am not insinuating it, I am out and out saying it! Look - we know that Jesus was "flawed" in the sense that He took on human form and thereby our weaknesses. This is mainstream theology, so why are you opposed to it?

This whole concept corrupts the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was without sin combined with the fact that the Bible is His Words...

No. It challenges the non-Biblical view that Jesus was perfect in all senses - He clearly was not.

It is impossible to have "the Word" become flesh if "The Word" has errors and then, the messiah being incorrect about the Holy Scriptures.

Not sure what you mean by "errors". We know that Jesus' knowledge was limited - He states that He does not the time at which He will return. And it is not at all clear that Jesus not knowing about evolution in any way constitutes an "error". Is it an "error" that I happen to not know the number of ducks presently alive in the world? Not according to most people.

At the end of the day, to say that my position on the creation account is effectively a declaration of "error" is liking a saying the author of Animal Farm (universally acknowledged to be a political allegory) committed an "error" in writing that book. In short, you are arbitrarily dismissing the possibility that the creation account was intended to be taken as non-literal.

 

[expos4ever]

Maybe your science...... not mine.

No. My interpretation of what science is about is correct, and yours is mistaken.

From an Oregon State University Website:

Another word that is commonly misused (sadly, sometimes even by scientists, who should know better) is "proof".

What "proof" means in everyday speech:
In casual conversations, most people use the word "proof" when they mean that there is indisputable evidence that supports an idea.

Scientists should be wary of using the term "proof". Science does not "prove" things. Science can and does provide evidence in favor of, or against, a particular idea. In science, proofs are possible only in the highly abstract world of mathematics.

 

[expos4ever]

Yours is the science of which Tesla spoke when he said:

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Nikola Tesla

No.

Tesla is saying that science is about testing hypotheses against the evidence of the real world and he is objecting to those who depart from the true path of science. This in no way challenges anything I have posted.

 

[expos4ever]

As I have said before, and, no doubt, will have to state again.....

Truth is not a democracy. IF every man, woman and child on the face of the earth, except one lone uneducated soul, believed in a false hood and the one lone uneducated soul believed the truth...... the truth would not change and the one lonely uneducated soul would be the only correct person on the earth.

You are the one who suggested I needed to be corrected by theologians and teachers. I merely pointed out that most of them will agree with me.

 

[KWCrazy]

A properly educated scientist would not say miracles are impossible.

Definition of natural law:

1. 1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.
2. 2. an observable law relating to natural phenomena.

Definition of impossible: not able to occur, exist, or be done.

Definition of a miracle: a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

Science is the study of the natural world. Miracles are supernatural and fly in the face of natural law. For the naturalist (not allowed to post in this forum) there can be no force which runs contrary to natural law and as such any such thing is "disproven."
But since you asked me to do what I asked you:
“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.” - David Hume.

1. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature.
2. Firm & unalterable experience tells us that the laws of nature are never violated (i.e. that miracles never occur).
3. Therefore, experience teaches us that miracles never occur. - JL Mackie

“A miracle is the violation of mathematical, divine, immutable, eternal laws. By the very exposition itself, a miracle is a contradiction in terms: a law cannot at the same time be immutable and violated.” - Voltair

 

[rjs330]

Whenever historical narrative is written, there is a trade-off between the "facts" and the literary requirements of creating the narrative. Crudely put, the author has to decide how much he is going to let the "facts" stand in the way of a good story. This is true now, it was true then. How that decision is made varies with the literary purposes of the author and it has varied as well greatly over time. The study of how history is and has been written is called historiography and it is not blind guesswork. Among other things, great historians of the ancient past, Thucydides for example, not only wrote history, they wrote about how they wrote history and there are other investigatory tools as well. Consequently, when you ask me whether the story in the Bible about Abraham is history, I am inclined to say yes, because I believe it is. But if I say yes, you will hold me to your restricted definition of history in order to play some rhetorical "gotcha game" you've got going. So you can see why I am reluctant to answer. If you were not a creationist at battle stations over evolution I could say "yes" and we could calmly discuss what I meant by it. The short answer is that the story of Abraham in the Bible fits somewhere in the broad category of legendary history, a story about a real person (who lies in a tomb in Hebron--can't get realer than that) and the main events of his life of indeterminate factual accuracy according to the mode of writing such a history current at the time it was written, produced to satisfy the heroic image of the founder of his people. Because it is a divinely inspired and thus an authoritative account I am satisfied to take it at face value for its theological import without caring very much to assert that it is 100% factually accurate in all respects. It is, after all, the story that's important.

Ok, I have no serious issue with what you wrote. My concern is why do we not apply that to Genesis 1&2? For example, we find that in Genesis one a pretty bland description of God creating everything in six days. In your thoughts on history what are the facts of Genesis one and what are the parts that are a "good story", but not factual. And how do you tell the difference between the two? And on what basis do you make the decision? I assume that when the bible says, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, that you consider that fact. The rest of the chapter however is not necessarily fact but a good story. Am I correct here or off base?

 

[expos4ever]

For the naturalist (not allowed to post in this forum) there can be no force which runs contrary to natural law and as such any such thing is "disproven."

Well that may be what a "naturalist" believes, but scientists do not, repeat do not, believe this.

You seem to think that, for example, the "law of gravity" is some sort of prescriptive command that scientists believe must be obeyed.

From Wikipedia:

The laws of science, scientific laws, or scientific principles are statements that describe or predict a range of phenomena behave as they appear to in nature.[1] The term "law" has diverse usage in many cases: approximate, accurate, broad or narrow theories, in all natural scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy etc.). Scientific laws summarize and explain a large collection of facts determined by experiment, and are tested based on their ability to predict the results of future experiments. They are developed either from facts or through mathematics, and are strongly supported by empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they reflect causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented

The key point is that there is nothing here that suggests a scientific law cannot be "broken".

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Actually that not true at all. You are removing the power of God here. Are you trying to say that all the miraculous things in the bible never happens? Who is God then and what is he actually capable of? He's not able to make a donkey talk or create a special tree? He is not able to cure an Incurrable disease? He is able to part the red Sea or have Elijah and Elisha part waters either? He is not able to send manna for the Israelites? At what point does God not become all powerful? He can create life on Earth but can't make a do key speak or allow a snake to talk under the power of Satan?

I also think that to say Isaiah could have been mistaken because he knew nothing of [the myth of] evolution is to miss the point that the Bible and its contents is being directed by the God of creation, the one who knows everything and he would have made certain that his record for mankind, present and future, would be accurate (after all, he can see into the future, just as easily as into the past). God would have known that what he told us about in Genesis would try to be dismissed by future generations who would come to think that they knew more than what had been revealed to them, so surely if it were just a made up story, he would have given some indications as such. God, talking through Moses could easily have said something like, "God made the world, the creatures in the world and all the stars in the heavens. One day, how and when he did all this will be revealed to future generations and God's glory will then be revealed for all to see." The fact the he wrote something entirely different should not be dismissed as a fairy story with the excuse that people of those times would not have understood. I think to do that belittles both God and those ancient generations. God told Job things he couldn't possibly have known about or understood, so why not Moses if the universe really did come from a big bang and if it were really billions of years old? And just because it [the Genesis creation account] sounds "ridiculous" to many (but not all) of the top brains of today, doesn't mean it's not true. Remember the warning that God gave?
Joh 9:39 Jesus said, "For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind."

 

[Speedwell]

Ok, I have no serious issue with what you wrote. My concern is why do we not apply that to Genesis 1&2? For example, we find that in Genesis one a pretty bland description of God creating everything in six days.

Hardly bland, it contains what were at the time some revolutionary theological ideas. The structure is not quite formal Hebrew poetry; the most reasonable theory I have seen is that it is hymnody, a hymn of praise to the creator. It is similar in some ways to other ANE creation myths, but the theological differences are striking, notably that creation is the act of a single uncreated God rather than a Manichean conflict between two gods or the mating of male and female gods which were then common theologies. It is a unique pronouncement of monotheism, which is why it is the first text in the book, though it is not the oldest.

In your thoughts on history what are the facts of Genesis one and what are the parts that are a "good story", but not factual. And how do you tell the difference between the two? And on what basis do you make the decision? I assume that when the bible says, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, that you consider that fact. The rest of the chapter however is not necessarily fact but a good story. Am I correct here or off base?

It celebrates facts already known, the uncompromising monotheism of the Hebrews for instance, and hallows the custom already established of a seventh day Sabbath. It is altogether a beautiful work of literature, fundamental to the theology of the Abrahamic faiths and, as I said before, regarding it as mere factual reporting would be a big step down, rather like comparing painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling to whitewashing a chicken coop.