Literal Genesis?

Really?

Do you also assume that people over 2000 years ago would have believed any of it? Or even understood it?

The bible is about spreading a belief, not being a science text book.

I doubt christianity would exist today if the writtings were put in perspective of the times.

I can just see someone 2000+ years ago, reading about DNA and how it can vary and mutate, and not just throw the book away because of how stupid they thought it was.

the bible also lacks any evidence that electricity can be used to power your computer monitor. Does that mean our ability to harness electricity doesnt exist?

Today at 09:51 PM Badfish said this in Post #34



Doesn't make you right.

If Genesis isn't literal, then it's a fable. I realize there are other *theories*, like Lucifers flood and pre existence of man which God created, but if these other creation theories are correct God didn't really want us to know about them or he would have inspired scripture about it.

Click to expand...

So if we find populations of species alive today that according to the evolutionary model were superseded millions of years ago, then we've falsified your position? How do you account for the species that are alive today that are assumed to have evolved millions of years ago, and yet remain unchanged.

Is it just me or do you find yourself bouncing from one "reason" why genesis should be literal to another. None of the claims or thoughts are completly finished out.

Why do I get the feeling that this is just a general "im right your wrong" thread, as one group is on the offense and another is on the defense and nothing seems to be actually talked out and debated.

Today at 02:06 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #42



I assume this was addressed at me.

Yes, I originally entered the whole creation/evolution debate after I took an interest in theology. Reading up on Christianity eventually led me to the controversy surrounding evolution. I started out (since I was mainly reading Christian sites at the time) reading articles from places like AIG, ICR, etc. I'd never really cared about evolution, so I took those sites at face value (since they made some pretty convincing arguments, and were seemingly backed up by proper scientific resources).

Well, flashforward a couple months, and after spending time reading debates in various forums, and pouring over material at places like talk.origins, I began to see the weaknesses in a lot of creationist arguments. Eight months later, and here I am.

Regarding the Christian faith itself, I am still confused by a large number of issues. One issue happens to be the various doctrinal interpretations Christians put forth. Which is why I start threads like this. To learn why people believe the way they do.

Click to expand...

I'd encourage you to continue your search. Instead of asking everyone else their interpretation, why not try something yourself. Pray to God, and let Him know you honestly seek the truth (and mean it). Ask Him to guide you as you read His word, and show you His truth. Then, be willing to act on the truth He reveals. In the end this will be a step of faith. Scripture makes it clear that until we are prepared to make that step, you wil not find the truth. I'd suggest starting with the gospel of John.

Also the find in Alaska of "fresh bones" indicates at the dinosaurs did not become totally extinct millions of years ago.


Reference?

Click to expand...

Pete, take a look at the TalkOrigins feedback page for Nov 2001. There's a piece of feedback about this near the bottom.

Also take a look at the discussion about a third of the way down this page:

http://www.skepticfriends.org/letter53.html

It gives more details of the J. Paleontol article as well as author names and page numbers. Seems as if the claim that millions-of-year-old bones are unfossilised is a bit of a stretch.

Today at 10:00 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #40



Um, you just contradicted yourself here. If there's no phsyical evidence of creation (as described in Genesis), then how can one find evidence that suggests it is correct?

Click to expand...

No I didn't contradict myself at all, the fact remains that there is no known observable evidence of spontaneous creation, also there is no known observable evidence of evolution.

I am operating on the premise that to me creation better fits the scientific model of man's origins.

I may be Christian, but can I *prove* that spontaneous creation is true? Can I demonstrate? No. I can however read the relatively accurate lineage account from Genesis on.

I mean you can admit Pete that evolutionary sciences haven't *proven* macroevolution. Can't you?

I think that's it for me. I'm bushed. Long day at work. I could present more, but why? We would be here all night. Remember Nick? (Npetreley), Moons ago I watched him stay up all night building (literally graphic) images, and models to show how the fossil record has been misconstrued.

OTOH, I can't remember who, but they also built models to show how evolution could be true.

Beisdes I think we may be off topic.

Simply Genesis has to be literal, if we are to take the bible and it's record of lineages seriously.

Have you ever thought that there might be a God and he would not allow man (or the evidence doesn't exist) to find irrefutable evidence of Creation, it would negate faith if Geenesis could be proven.

Also, I find it odd that man keeps coming up against these barriers, if God truly exists I don't believe he would allow a falsehood like evolution to be proven (mostly because it didn't and isn't happening.) I'm not saying this as fact, I am saying this hypothetically.

Interesting study though, I wish I had 3 brains and the time.

So if we find populations of species alive today that according to the evolutionary model were superseded millions of years ago, then we've falsified your position? How do you account for the species that are alive today that are assumed to have evolved millions of years ago, and yet remain unchanged.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should read Darwin's discussion about living fossils in Origin of Species. The finding of very ancient species in modern times isn't a problem for evolution.

Goodnight guys

Have a good night.

Round and round we go, where we stop, is way too obvious.

Just to point out assumption and opinion are not evidence or facts. So far, they are all creationists have to go on.

Hello everyone, I'm new here, and I'm a little...awed? by the length of thesed topics...lol, anyway...

Yesterday at 09:35 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #1

I notice some people are so stringent about interpreting Genesis (specifically Genesis 1 & 2) as literal history of the Earth, that it becomes an automatic reaction to reject any real-world historical evidence to the contrary.


This view perplexes me, to say the least. I'm just curious if Christians can answer for me why it is so necessary to believe the things in Genesis 1 & 2 as literal history of the Earth. I'm also wondering why these people feel it is a threat to their faith if Genesis 1 & 2 are not taken as literal history of the Earth.

Click to expand...

Why :

First, it's not "necessary" I don't think, to be saved. But it does make sense.
if your going to believe parts of the bible, why not all of it? the bible claims to be "the word of God" if parts of it are wrong, if God says "this is how the earth was made" and lies, what's the point in believing the rest of what he says?
In that way, it is a threat, because by not believing one point, you make room for other points to be questioned aswell.

Yesterday at 09:35 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #1
To my mind, the position of requiring Gen 1 & 2 to be a literal history as part of their faith is precarious at best, because if the real-world evidence contradicts it, the effect can be disastrous for that person. So, why take it as literal history in the first place? Isn't it safer to take it as a parable, instead?

Click to expand...

Safer, but of course.

1. I believe that the Gen account IS literally true,
if it's proven false, what else in the bible am I believing that isn't true?

2. I don't believe that it has been or can be proven false, after all, if it's true, it can't be false, right?

your right, it's a precarious faith, which is why allot of people take the easy way out, that you mentioned

The hard part is that there is allot of real-world evidence that contradicts the idea of a literal seven twenty-four hour day creation, this evidence can be disproven if you do enough reasurch, but that in turn can be explained away too. (different topic)


Neah, I'll post this, but I'm frustraited because I feel like I'm not explaining myself in a clear understandable way

I think you raise some good points. It is not easy sometimes to remain true to God's word when the physical evidence seems to contradict what Scripture teaches. But Christains have been going through this for years and as new evidence surfaces, the Scripture is proven correct time and again.

Today at 12:43 AM Badfish said this in Post #30



No, it's actually a good argument (at least for me), that can't be answered to my satisfaction.

So your saying if we evolve our ancestors cease to exist?

If evolution is correct people and primitive ancestors of people have lived for millions of years, why would all humans today be in their fully evolved state or why wouldn't their be ancestors going through the transitional state?

Click to expand...

What he is asking for is a partial human partial ape that is living today. Or in other words the "missing link". Some believe this is how the myth of Bigfoot got started. Trying to prove evolution. It's been documented in the recent past of those who killed people and boiled the flesh off of them and tryed different things to make the bones look aged. Of course these things were proven by science to be frauds but the fact remains there aren't any living missing human/ape links.

Doc


 

Today at 01:17 AM Micaiah said this in Post #47



I'd encourage you to continue your search. Instead of asking everyone else their interpretation, why not try something yourself. Pray to God, and let Him know you honestly seek the truth (and mean it). Ask Him to guide you as you read His word, and show you His truth. Then, be willing to act on the truth He reveals. In the end this will be a step of faith. Scripture makes it clear that until we are prepared to make that step, you wil not find the truth. I'd suggest starting with the gospel of John.

Click to expand...

Perhaps something like this?

2 Kings 6:
15 When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. "Oh, my lord, what shall we do?" the servant asked.
16 "Don't be afraid," the prophet answered. "Those who are with us are more than those who are with them."
17 And Elisha prayed, "O LORD , open his eyes so he may see." Then the LORD opened the servant's eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

Could it be that those who aren't believers don't have their eyes open?

Doc

1. I believe that the Gen account IS literally true,
if it's proven false, what else in the bible am I believing that isn't true?

What if the bible was written in symbology to impart moral lessons to the people?
How many people 2000 years ago would understand a computer? If they wouldnt understand what a computer was, why do you think they would understand how the world was really created?

The bible is a spiritual book. It was made to teach spiritual and moral lessons to the people. The best way to do this is symbology, not actual events. By only taking the bible literally, many people miss a lot of the lessons the bible is teaching.

The bible lacks any description of DNA or Nuclear power, but that doesnt mean they are false.

The hard part is that there is allot of real-world evidence that contradicts the idea of a literal seven twenty-four hour day creation, this evidence can be disproven if you do enough reasurch

Nope, the evidence hasnt been disproved. Its only been disproved by using false facts, missunderstanding, twisting the interpretation of the bible to fit current evidence (interpretation, is not literal translation), and re writting the bible to explain it away.

Today at 07:10 AM EZ-D said this in Post #56

Hello everyone, I'm new here, and I'm a little...awed? by the length of thesed topics...lol, anyway...




Why :

First, it's not "necessary" I don't think, to be saved. But it does make sense.
if your going to believe parts of the bible, why not all of it? the bible claims to be "the word of God" if parts of it are wrong, if God says "this is how the earth was made" and lies, what's the point in believing the rest of what he says?
In that way, it is a threat, because by not believing one point, you make room for other points to be questioned aswell.



Safer, but of course.

1. I believe that the Gen account IS literally true,
if it's proven false, what else in the bible am I believing that isn't true?

2. I don't believe that it has been or can be proven false, after all, if it's true, it can't be false, right?

your right, it's a precarious faith, which is why allot of people take the easy way out, that you mentioned

The hard part is that there is allot of real-world evidence that contradicts the idea of a literal seven twenty-four hour day creation, this evidence can be disproven if you do enough reasurch, but that in turn can be explained away too. (different topic)


Neah, I'll post this, but I'm frustraited because I feel like I'm not explaining myself in a clear understandable way

Click to expand...