Genesis 1 is to be taken literaly - it is the only logical option

DamianWarS said:

1, 2, & 3 maybe. the dictation, however, is implicit in the text. my issue is that strawmen are thrown out saying God is all-powerful so is able to do it in 6 days if he wanted and doubting this would be doubting the infallibility of God. Well if God is indeed all-powerful than he also has the power of revealing absolute truth in non-literal accounts. the "power" card means he can do anything so non-literal accounts are not out of bounds.

Click to expand...

I think people are trying to get more from the doctrine of inspiration than what it actually was.

solid_core said:

I think people are trying to get more from the doctrine of inspiration than what it actually was.

Click to expand...

I disagree. the creation account is greater than people claim it is, it just doesn't have to be a literal account.

let's take for example day 1. we have primordial waters and ubiquitous darkness over it. Then God says let there be light and the light overpowers the darkness and is separated from it and the chaos is organized. Could possibly light and darkness be metaphors for something greater? If we only read literal details we to miss the depth of the account and it just turns into stuff that happens and in the end is still chaos.

DamianWarS said:

I disagree. the creation account is greater than people claim it is, it just doesn't have to be a literal account.

let's take for example day 1. we have primordial waters and ubiquitous darkness over it. Then God says let there be light and the light overpowers the darkness and is separated from it and the chaos is organized. Could possibly light and darkness be metaphors for something greater? If we only read literal details we to miss the depth of the account and it just turns into stuff that happens and in the end is still chaos.

Click to expand...

This concept is present in almost all ancient mythology. So its not specifically unique for the Genesis account. Therefore no special inspiration was needed for this concept.

Whats specific and unique for the Genesis account, then? Pure monotheism. Sun is not a god, moon is not a god, but there is one true God and the rest is His creation.

solid_core said:

Whats specific and unique for the Genesis account, then? Pure monotheism. Sun is not a god, moon is not a god, but there is one true God and the rest is His creation.

Click to expand...

that is a hint towards it's uniqueness but I get where you're coming at. post-exodus Hebrews were theologically messed up. Creation was 2500 removed from them, the flood 1500 years. These accounts would have wide overlap with neighbouring cultures so it would be reasonable to think that more dominant cultures like the Egyptians would have wide influences on them. In fact, the Egyptian creation myth reads very similarly to the Hebrew creation account.

So how does Moses rise up out of this pagan saturation and get everyone to follow this completely counter-culture monotheistic system one the Hebrews didn't even seem to embrace? One could argue Muhammad had the same challenge and was successful at it but he had both Christian and Jewish cultural surroundings so I don't think that's a fair comparison.

People don't like change so had Moses come down the mountain and told them some complicated and completely years before it's time account he probably would be stoned to death. Of course, we know what happened, they were caught worshiping another god that their high priest made and Moses slaughters a pile of them. That's how sensitive the dynamics were and a mob could quickly rally and turn on its leader so Moses ends up telling accounts that were familiar and ones they could grasp (and ones Moses could grasp too). I would suggest that divine inspiration is how the words are uniquely delivered, perhaps with a familiar mythical style, they were used to but in ways to affirm foundational truths that transcend the accounts but each word is positioned very deliberately and we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as common myth or ignore their depth through literalness. We also shouldn't be crediting Moses only with these carefully placed moves which I think was above him but instead direct influence from God.

God speaks light into the darkness which is the beginning of a salvation narrative that continues throughout the entire bible as a single thread that we identify later as Christ. So I wouldn't call it myth but rather redeemed contextualized accounts and pagan cleansing based on perhaps a mash-up of surrounding myths the ancient Hebrews were already familiar with and this is so they could accept the accounts and ultimately accept God and his salvation upon them. But not under the creativity of Moses and Aaron but from direct influence from God, otherwise what's the point, just tear the pages out.

It is an example of God reaching people where their understanding is in a similar focus to the incarnation itself. John tells us "the Word became flesh"... what "Word"? the contextual incarnation word that bridges the unfathomable to flesh contained even in these early Genesis accounts and that Word eventually becomes flesh meeting us uniquely where we are, exactly what these accounts are doing in their time.

solid_core said:

- repetitions "and it was evening and it was morning, day xyz"
- talking serpent
- trees
- woman from a rib of man
- man from a dust
- putting "lights" into "firmanent" above
- clear mythological themes of that era, for example starting with chaos (uncreated waters)

What does it look like to you more:
a) like a cosmological scientific literal history
b) a mythological/dramatical expression of the beginnings, written from a human point of view?

Click to expand...

You're barking up the wrong tree with me. I actually have a degree in Biblical Literature. I have studied this stuff backwards and forwards up and down and sideways.

People that do not take it to be literal like to use the arguments you present. But they don't hold water. Repetitions mean nothing when you are making a specific point in description. That's obvious is this case as God is defining for us how long it took Him to create and what he created and when. He could have said "God created the heavens and earth and all things in the heavens and earth.". But he didn't. He was specific as to what he created, when he created it and how long. People love to argue the word for day in the Hebrew. God was specific in that he described what a day was, so we wouldn't misunderstand. It's a violation of the context and language to say that the repetition means something it doesn't. Especially when you have other passages that assist in the understanding of Genesis 1 and 2. Such as Exodus, Chronicles, the Gospels, and the Apostles.

A talking serpent means nothing. It is not just a literary mythogical device. It's an actual event and it is ONLY an assumption from those who wish to deny the historical context of the scripture. This passage is supported by other authors and other writings of scripture as an actual event.

All that you mention are not clear mythological themes of that area. The biblical account is extremely different than those other accounts.

You hit on the head on why you believe the way you do. It's based upon your view of science, particularly the theory of evolution. I have yet to find a believer that says, "I believe is the Genesis account and believe in evolution.".

No it's always "I believe in evolution or science and therefore I do not believe in the Genesis account." Science ALWAYS comes first. So rather than tailor ones belief to scripture they tailor scripture to fit their belief. It's the "I believe science so scripture, Jesus, the Apostles etc all must be wrong or they misunderstood."

DamianWarS said:

that is a hint towards it's uniqueness but I get where you're coming at. post-exodus Hebrews were theologically messed up. Creation was 2500 removed from them, the flood 1500 years. These accounts would have wide overlap with neighbouring cultures so it would be reasonable to think that more dominant cultures like the Egyptians would have wide influences on them. In fact, the Egyptian creation myth reads very similarly to the Hebrew creation account.

So how does Moses rise up out of this pagan saturation and get everyone to follow this completely counter-culture monotheistic system one the Hebrews didn't even seem to embrace? One could argue Muhammad had the same challenge and was successful at it but he had both Christian and Jewish cultural surroundings so I don't think that's a fair comparison.

People don't like change so had Moses come down the mountain and told them some complicated and completely years before it's time account he probably would be stoned to death. Of course, we know what happened, they were caught worshiping another god that their high priest made and Moses slaughters a pile of them. That's how sensitive the dynamics were and a mob could quickly rally and turn on its leader so Moses ends up telling accounts that were familiar and ones they could grasp (and ones Moses could grasp too). I would suggest that divine inspiration is how the words are uniquely delivered, perhaps with a familiar mythical style, they were used to but in ways to affirm foundational truths that transcend the accounts but each word is positioned very deliberately and we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss them as common myth or ignore their depth through literalness. We also shouldn't be crediting Moses only with these carefully placed moves which I think was above him but instead direct influence from God.

God speaks light into the darkness which is the beginning of a salvation narrative that continues throughout the entire bible as a single thread that we identify later as Christ. So I wouldn't call it myth but rather redeemed contextualized accounts and pagan cleansing based on perhaps a mash-up of surrounding myths the ancient Hebrews were already familiar with and this is so they could accept the accounts and ultimately accept God and his salvation upon them. But not under the creativity of Moses and Aaron but from direct influence from God, otherwise what's the point, just tear the pages out.

It is an example of God reaching people where their understanding is in a similar focus to the incarnation itself. John tells us "the Word became flesh"... what "Word"? the contextual incarnation word that bridges the unfathomable to flesh contained even in these early Genesis accounts and that Word eventually becomes flesh meeting us uniquely where we are, exactly what these accounts are doing in their time.

Click to expand...

Pure hogwash. Thats liberal theology that limits the power of God and his inspiration. God is apparently not strong enough to inspire Moses and the prophets to write truth. Somehow Moses is too dumb, despite being in the very presence of God to get it. You say "of course we know what happened", yet claim so much of scripture is myth. If that is true you don't know what happened. The entire event on mountain, God meeting with Moses and the whole golden calf thing may not have happened at all. It's all just a story to portray a greater truth, perhaps that God is the only God and no one should worship anyone else. It's just a story to explain how serious God is about that.

Your theory is so full of assumptions is silly. It twists like snake crawling through a rocky hillside. It violates the understanding of Biblical Liturature and how things are written. It limits the power of God and limits his inspiration

solid_core said:

Observations are possible, but will not make any sense.

"simple organisms turned to a complex ones in time" is a statement describing what we observe in nature.

Click to expand...

Yet there is NO evidence that a bacteria of ancient unknown origin turned into everything alive today. Or that it is even possible. Nothing in observable science has shown that such a thing is possible.

rjs330 said:

You're barking up the wrong tree with me. I actually have a degree in Biblical Literature. I have studied this stuff backwards and forwards up and down and sideways.

People that do not take it to be literal like to use the arguments you present. But they don't hold water. Repetitions mean nothing when you are making a specific point in description. That's obvious is this case as God is defining for us how long it took Him to create and what he created and when. He could have said "God created the heavens and earth and all things in the heavens and earth.". But he didn't. He was specific as to what he created, when he created it and how long. People love to argue the word for day in the Hebrew. God was specific in that he described what a day was, so we wouldn't misunderstand. It's a violation of the context and language to say that the repetition means something it doesn't. Especially when you have other passages that assist in the understanding of Genesis 1 and 2. Such as Exodus, Chronicles, the Gospels, and the Apostles.

A talking serpent means nothing. It is not just a literary mythogical device. It's an actual event and it is ONLY an assumption from those who wish to deny the historical context of the scripture. This passage is supported by other authors and other writings of scripture as an actual event.

All that you mention are not clear mythological themes of that area. The biblical account is extremely different than those other accounts.

You hit on the head on why you believe the way you do. It's based upon your view of science, particularly the theory of evolution. I have yet to find a believer that says, "I believe is the Genesis account and believe in evolution.".

No it's always "I believe in evolution or science and therefore I do not believe in the Genesis account." Science ALWAYS comes first. So rather than tailor ones belief to scripture they tailor scripture to fit their belief. It's the "I believe science so scripture, Jesus, the Apostles etc all must be wrong or they misunderstood."

Click to expand...

You have a "degree in biblical literature" and do not recognize clear mythological themes mirroring Summerian, Babylonian and Egyptian mythology?

What University did you attend to get that degree?

rjs330 said:

Yet there is NO evidence that a bacteria of ancient unknown origin turned into everything alive today. Or that it is even possible. Nothing in observable science has shown that such a thing is possible.

Click to expand...

Geological strata. Genetics. Speciation occuring all the time in every living genus.

When you observe geological strata, you observe steps from simple to complex organisms.

Plus plenty of other evidence that our Universe is old.

Say, while we're smiling and making lists and inviting scientists to vomit all over our sacred accounts of origins: What say we give them a crack at some of our core beliefs as well? Shouldn't we get their okay on things such as:

-God Who is 1 and 3 at the same time--you know, 1+1+1=1?
-One of which becomes a man via virgin birth?
-Who also lives a completely virtuous life?
-Who dies and is risen from the dead?
-Who then floats away to Heaven?
-and by this divine course of events makes it possible for us to live forever?

Shall we accept these things blindly without the facility of common sense and scientific scrutiny?

Bro. Dave Gardner said:

Say, while we're smiling and making lists and inviting scientists to vomit all over our sacred accounts of origins: What say we give them a crack at some of our core beliefs as well? Shouldn't we get their okay on things such as:

-God Who is 1 and 3 at the same time--you know, 1+1+1=3?
-One of which becomes a man via virgin birth?
-Who also lives a completely virtuous life?
-Who dies and is risen from the dead?
-Who then floats away to Heaven?
-and by this divine course of events makes it possible for us to live forever?

Shall we accept these things blindly without the facility of common sense and scientific scrutiny?

Click to expand...

There is no scientific evidence against God, his existence, His power, against His miracles, against Jesus Christ and against His life, death and resurrection.

There is plenty scientific evidence against the young earth and literal reading of Genesis.

This is the difference.

rjs330 said:

Pure hogwash. Thats liberal theology that limits the power of God and his inspiration. God is apparently not strong enough to inspire Moses and the prophets to write truth. Somehow Moses is too dumb, despite being in the very presence of God to get it. You say "of course we know what happened", yet claim so much of scripture is myth. If that is true you don't know what happened. The entire event on mountain, God meeting with Moses and the whole golden calf thing may not have happened at all. It's all just a story to portray a greater truth, perhaps that God is the only God and no one should worship anyone else. It's just a story to explain how serious God is about that.

Click to expand...

I, in fact, am quite careful not to call it a myth and am explicit that what was written down is from direct influence from God... did you miss that because I'm confused by your comments?

This is simply how Ancient Eastern culture works, they start with the goal and fill the details to meet the goal, the details are true because the goal is worthy of them being true and it being literal or not has less value. Western culture uses the facts to prove the hypothesis and this is the highest form of truth but it's is going to be incompatible with many Eastern accounts (like the creation accounts) and will completely miss the point.

The creation account is 2500 years removed from Moses and it would have had high competition and influence from surrounding cultures. That's like writing the gospels for the first time today having only oral knowledge passed down of it and a pile of different versions circulating around.

It is clear the Hebrews had mass theology misgivings post-exodus but why wouldn't they? They had no scripture, no temple, no priest, no leader (prior to Moses) and no organized religion. Their most coveted and unique accounts would have been Abraham Issac and Jacob and they would have the highest accuracy since it was uniquely their undisputed history... but pre-Abrahamic accounts would have high competition and influence from surrounding cultures. If this was anyone other people group/religion we would laugh at these accounts, labelling them immediately as myth and toss them out.

I don't call them myth but I recognize the myth likeness they carry. Instead, I see God divinely inspiring Moses to present a redeem de-paganized account, highly contextualized, with deep-seated truth to proclaim that God is the creator of all things explicitly rejecting any paganized thinking and implicitly rejecting other competing accounts like the Egyptian creation myth that is very similar to Genesis (but it's older).

Idol worship and pagan ways were a mass problem. Look at what Moses came down to, the high priest of God making an idol, claiming it made itself and everyone worshiping it. Now, what are the first commandment and second commandments? Not to mention the 40 years of wandering in the desert to cleanse the old ways out of them. The creation account is about correct theology not about over literal facts, but this doesn't make it any less truth or real. We don't get it, because we develope our theology form other parts of the bible and the creation account acts as a way to affirm them but this wasn't the purpose of it. The creation account on the surface is about rejecting gods and affirming God and the creator of all things but goes far deeper than this.

to me, literalists have a far greater demand to prove their position but they write the argument off as blasphemous, or what did you say "hogwash", and in doing so miss the grand depth of the account. I personally think I place greater value upon the words of the creation account over any literalist does.

solid_core said:

There is no scientific evidence against God, his existence, His power, against His miracles, against Jesus Christ and against His life, death and resurrection.

There is plenty scientific evidence against the young earth and literal reading of Genesis.

This is the difference.

Click to expand...

There is plenty of scientific evidence that people don't live forever.
And that 1+1+1 do not equal 1.
And that virgin birth is impossible.
What about common sense? Isn't science based entirely on it?
And miracles?
There is no difference.
The absence of evidence is as compelling to scientists as its presence.
Give me a break.

Bro. Dave Gardner said:

Shall we accept these things blindly without the facility of common sense and scientific scrutiny?

Click to expand...

eyewitnesses are far more credible than a 2500 year long game of telephone. A divinely given non-literal account gives the creation account the most depth where a literal one stops digging. If we know God didn't do it exactly how the creation account puts it we stop batteling the literalness of it and start reading it with greater meaning and purpose.

Bro. Dave Gardner said:

There is plenty of scientific evidence that people don't live forever.
And that 1+1+1 do not equal 1.
And that virgin birth is impossible.
What about common sense? Isn't science based entirely on it?
And miracles?
There is no difference.
The absence of evidence is as compelling to scientists as its presence.
Give me a break.

Click to expand...

You still do not get it.

There is no scientific evidence that God cannot intervene and change things. You mix natural order of things with impossibility of change.

Genesis is not literal because its simply not what happened. Earth is older, life evolved in various stages, we share common history with animals etc.

The argument is not "its not natural", but "we have evidence it did not happened this way".

solid_core said:

You still do not get it.

There is no scientific evidence that God cannot intervene and change things. You mix natural order of things with impossibility of change.

Genesis is not literal because its simply not what happened. Earth is older, life evolved in various stages, we share common history with animals etc.

The argument is not "its not natural", but "we have evidence it did not happened this way".

Click to expand...

Oh, I get it, all right. Academia elitist-driven, faithless hog swill is what I get.

God can change things that are of a natural order but He cannot be trusted to tell us how they came to be in the first place. What's good for the goose turns out not to be so good for the gander, after all. Miracles are fine as long as they don't occur while we're watching or at the beginning of time or the creation of what we can now pick apart and investigate. And whatever we don't have evidence for is safe to believe.

Yes, I get it.

Bro. Dave Gardner said:

Oh, I get it, all right. Academia elitist-driven, faithless hog swill is what I get.

God can change things that are of a natural order but He cannot be trusted to tell us how they came to be in the first place. What's good for the goose turns out not to be so good for the gander, after all. Miracles are fine as long as they don't occur while we're watching or at the beginning of time or the creation of what we can now pick apart and investigate. And whatever we don't have evidence for is safe to believe.

Yes, I get it.

Click to expand...

God did not tell us how things came to be. Hebrew Scriptures are not God.

You mix everything together. You must properly divide.

DamianWarS said:

eyewitnesses are far more credible than a 2500 year long game of telephone.

Click to expand...

There are no eyewitnesses to what happened at creation, except God who inspired the writing of the Book of Genesis.

DamianWarS said:

A divinely given non-literal account gives the creation account the most depth where a literal one stops digging.

Click to expand...

Quite a qualified opinion.

DamianWarS said:

If we know God didn't do it exactly how the creation account puts it

Click to expand...

Who's this "we" you're talking about? I don't know any such thing. The condescending tone is a nice touch, though.

Bro. Dave Gardner said:

There are no eyewitnesses to what happened at creation, except God who inspired the writing of the Book of Genesis.

Click to expand...

that's the point. Moses allegedly penned them 2500 years later. Anything to do with Christ, however, had thousands of eyewitnesses so it is irresponsible to say the literalness of one is inherited by the other.

solid_core said:

God did not tell us how things came to be.

Click to expand...

Yes, He most certainly did.

solid_core said:

Hebrew Scriptures are not God.

Click to expand...

Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (John 5:39)
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelled among us (John 1:14)

solid_core said:

You mix everything together. You must properly divide.

Click to expand...

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God. (Matthew 4:4)