Can we take Genesis Seriously

[solarwave]

I think it is safer to assume that things work the same way now as they always have unless God is purposely deceiving us. Creationism also makes assumptions, such as Genesis being literal which you can't prove.

It just seems to me nothing is gained from a literal understand or Genesis that can't be gained from a non-literal approach, but a literal understanding will harm how Christianity is seen by people.
I would also like to see a link to somewhere which explains the comet thing.

 

[Anonymousftw]

You can't. Christianity is monothiestic (only worshiping one god, dening all others) but it clearly makes reference to 'Nefilim' who were a race of ancient mesopotamian Gods.
Genesis Chapter 6, verses 1 through 4 mentions Nephilim:

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
—[8]
​

They are mentioned again in Numbers chapter 13, verses 32–33, in a description of the inhabitants of Hebron:

So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, "The land through which we have gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.

(doncha just love copypasta)

anyway, this means that if the bible is to be taken literally, then QED the entire religion would have to change to include the Nefilim, the Anunakki, and the Elohim (which is hebrew for God(s), which i think is not allowed to be used, dont know why, i just study the stuff?) there goes monothesim and here comes pollythesim
​

 

[solarwave]

In what way does this mean Christianity is polytheistic? No where there does it say there is more than one God. At most it says 'sons of God' and what that actually means I have no idea (I don't want to look it up at the moment).

I really don't know what to think of those verses but it by no means makes Christianity polytheistic.

 

[Stjernkvist]

With carbon dating and such, how can anyone take the story of genesis literally. If you do i would love to hear your opinions.
Thanks..

Throw my opinion, Yes we can! I haven't read the hole Genesis but, we can take it literally, for you as being an atheist you can at least imagine that God is there and all that. Why wouldn't he make the world on 6 days? he have absolutely the power to do it.
And I also believe that The bible is the words of God and Jesus, (but it is not easy to understand it, sometimes the NT talks against the OT and stuff like that. but the New Testament is the Time of Jesus and there for have that as main guidelines .)

 

[solarwave]

Throw my opinion, Yes we can! I haven't read the hole Genesis but, we can take it literally, for you as being an atheist you can at least imagine that God is there and all that. Why wouldn't he make the world on 6 days? he have absolutely the power to do it.
And I also believe that The bible is the words of God and Jesus, (but it is not easy to understand it, sometimes the NT talks against the OT and stuff like that. but the New Testament is the Time of Jesus and there for have that as main guidelines .)

Just because God has the power to make the world in 6 days doesn't mean He did.

If belief in a young earth helps your faith then ignore me, but if for you it wouldn't affect you faith that I would say Genesis 1 is most definetly non-literal (but the meaning and point of the story is true) and Genesis 2 maybe symbolic or literl.

 

[Stjernkvist]

Just because God has the power to make the world in 6 days doesn't mean He did.

If belief in a young earth helps your faith then ignore me, but if for you it wouldn't affect you faith that I would say Genesis 1 is most definetly non-literal (but the meaning and point of the story is true) and Genesis 2 maybe symbolic or literl.

I had thought for this for a while, and talked with people about the worlds creation, and there for i decided to believe in Young Earth creation, but it might be as you say that Genesis is just not literal.
Since the bible isn't always literal so why not Genesis is like a metaphor or so?
But i think that God made the earth, on 6 days. But I'm not saying that i'm right.

 

[solarwave]

I had thought for this for a while, and talked with people about the worlds creation, and there for i decided to believe in Young Earth creation, but it might be as you say that Genesis is just not literal.
Since the bible isn't always literal so why not Genesis is like a metaphor or so?
But i think that God made the earth, on 6 days. But I'm not saying that i'm right.

The thing that really hit me when I realised it (I don't know how I didn't before) is that there are two conflicting creation accounts in Genesis. Genesis 1 says the world was made in 6 days with plants on day 3 before animals (day 5 and 6) and humans (day 6). In Genesis 2 it tells the creation story again but different with humans made before plants and animals.

So my question is which story is the literal truth? Obviously they can both be true. And if one of the storys is symbolic (or something like that) then maybe both are somewhat.

 

[Stjernkvist]

The thing that really hit me when I realised it (I don't know how I didn't before) is that there are two conflicting creation accounts in Genesis. Genesis 1 says the world was made in 6 days with plants on day 3 before animals (day 5 and 6) and humans (day 6). In Genesis 2 it tells the creation story again but different with humans made before plants and animals.

So my question is which story is the literal truth? Obviously they can both be true. And if one of the storys is symbolic (or something like that) then maybe both are somewhat.

I'll read Genesis 1-2 tonight and take a closer look in to it.

 

[Stjernkvist]

I'll read Genesis 1-2 tonight and take a closer look in to it.

I have read it and i can say that i disagree. God must have made the world on 6 days, if these days is not literally, then think of the 40 years in the desert flying from Egypt, or the 3 days before Jesus came to life again?

But solarwave, please tell me more about how you think. i am very interested of other ways to see the bible. or if you already done that, just copy paste the post or tell me where it is.

 

[solarwave]

I have read it and i can say that i disagree. God must have made the world on 6 days, if these days is not literally, then think of the 40 years in the desert flying from Egypt, or the 3 days before Jesus came to life again?

But solarwave, please tell me more about how you think. i am very interested of other ways to see the bible. or if you already done that, just copy paste the post or tell me where it is.

Well I think Genesis 1 in the least is symbolic and used to express spiritual truths. In that case Genesis 1 is no the same type of writting as the other writtings in the Bible. For example the psalms are poetic, and revelation is a vision (unless you take revelation to be literally true too). This doesn't mean the whole bible is poetic though.

How would you explain how Gen 1 and Gen 2 has a different order of creation? I also had the structure of Genesis 1 explained to be a while ago which finally confirmed to me that Gen 1 was more poetic than literal (not that is it a poem lol).

Sure if you want. Want to ask anything more specific like on salvation, hell, or whatever topic since its hard for me to answer how i think off the top of my head.

 

[Stjernkvist]

Well I think Genesis 1 in the least is symbolic and used to express spiritual truths. In that case Genesis 1 is no the same type of writing as the other writings in the Bible. For example the psalms are poetic, and revelation is a vision (unless you take revelation to be literally true too). This doesn't mean the whole bible is poetic though.

How would you explain how Gen 1 and Gen 2 has a different order of creation? I also had the structure of Genesis 1 explained to be a while ago which finally confirmed to me that Gen 1 was more poetic than literal (not that is it a poem lol).

Sure if you want. Want to ask anything more specific like on salvation, hell, or whatever topic since its hard for me to answer how i think off the top of my head.

I think it is in that order Gen 1 says it is, because it stands in Gen 2 that God when he created heaven and Earth, but earth was no good, then he flooded it with water an from there created human. and then in 2:8 it stands (New international)

"Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed."

He had formed the garden already, so i think that the earth he made human of was outside Eden, and then put the human in Eden that he created plants and animals before the human ,
Later in the ending of Gen 3
Gen 3:23
"So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. "

He sent us back to work the ground which we where taken from, he watered the earth when he took us, so we could grow things here. since he said we had to work the ground, i guess that we have to work to get our food. not just walk up to the first best tree and take a fruit like we could in Eden.

 

[solarwave]

I think it is in that order Gen 1 says it is, because it stands in Gen 2 that God when he created heaven and Earth, but earth was no good, then he flooded it with water an from there created human. and then in 2:8 it stands (New international)

"Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed."

He had formed the garden already, so i think that the earth he made human of was outside Eden, and then put the human in Eden that he created plants and animals before the human ,
Later in the ending of Gen 3
Gen 3:23
"So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. "

He sent us back to work the ground which we where taken from, he watered the earth when he took us, so we could grow things here. since he said we had to work the ground, i guess that we have to work to get our food. not just walk up to the first best tree and take a fruit like we could in Eden.

So you are saying God created the world like in Genesis 1, then He flooded the earth in the time of Noah then created it again like in Genesis 2? Im not sure.

Still Genesis 1 seems to say that God created plants over the earth, but the garden doesn't seem to be made till man or after man. Even if the garden was first God creates birds after man in Gen 2 but before man in Gen 1.

 

[Stjernkvist]

So you are saying God created the world like in Genesis 1, then He flooded the earth in the time of Noah then created it again like in Genesis 2? Im not sure.

Still Genesis 1 seems to say that God created plants over the earth, but the garden doesn't seem to be made till man or after man. Even if the garden was first God creates birds after man in Gen 2 but before man in Gen 1.

No that's is not what i meant, don't mix Noah in to this.

to be true, i'm getting really confused and the bible gives me no answers about this matter, i've checked, New International version, and two Swedish version. and have not come forward to anything. I've tried to look at it in the old earth creation, and young,
Gen 1 says, 6 days, plants, animals, Adam ( Adám. )
Gen 2 says, Adam ( Adám. ) was created before plants and animals.

i can't talk this matter anymore. because i have no idea to think about this, and if i don't know what to think then i can not give a proper post.

Sorry i would really like to but, this really turned my head up-side-down. If i continue i will be so confused that I probably i'll go mental.

 

[solarwave]

Ok, that is fair enough.

But if it does help at all there is a fairly easy old creation answer, so it is no reason to think the bible is false.

 

[ActingDude17]

Genesis should not be taken literally. Humans existed 200,000 years ago and writing had not been invented at the time. Genesis' opening chapters is the product of a human being (possibly Moses) trying to explain common aspects of life - the existence of good and evil, why childbirth is painful, why we must work to live, why we clothe ourselves, etc.

Genesis, in reality, is a myth. Does that belittle its significance? Of course not. I prefer figurative writing to literal writing anyway.

 

[solarwave]

I agree with the above post, but would also like to add that it was God inspired.

Acting dude: How would you reply to the fact that Genesis 2 is written in what seems to be a much more historic way (it has details like where rivers flow and the ore in the ground) compared to Genesis 1? Just a a more highly detailed myth?

Ok so for those who believe in a Old Earth: When in Genesis do you think it becomes literal history?

 

[ActingDude17]

I agree with the above post, but would also like to add that it was God inspired.

Acting dude: How would you reply to the fact that Genesis 2 is written in what seems to be a much more historic way (it has details like where rivers flow and the ore in the ground) compared to Genesis 1? Just a a more highly detailed myth?

Ok so for those who believe in a Old Earth: When in Genesis do you think it becomes literal history?

Yeah, it's inspired by God, but so are the posts of these forums. Paul, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. were all God-inspired yet very fallible just like the rest of us.

How would I reply to the difference in writing style between Genesis 1 and 2? The simple answer of there more than likely being different authors.

I actually answered your at-large question in another thread: perhaps it doesn't.

 

[solarwave]

Yeah, it's inspired by God, but so are the posts of these forums. Paul, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. were all God-inspired yet very fallible just like the rest of us.

How would I reply to the difference in writing style between Genesis 1 and 2? The simple answer of there more than likely being different authors.

I actually answered your at-large question in another thread: perhaps it doesn't.

Thanks for your answers. I was aimming it more at creationists to see how they would reply lol.

I considering understanding the Bible in the way you suggest (as being inspired but fallible) but it is also quite unorthodox so I would rather keep orthodox untill I am better informed.

You say the Bible never becomes literal history? I would say at the very least the book of Acts is most likely literal history. And at the very least you must believe Jesus lived, died and rose again. Just giving you some thoughts to ponder

 

[LadyGemini]

Well I think Genesis 1 in the least is symbolic and used to express spiritual truths. In that case Genesis 1 is no the same type of writting as the other writtings in the Bible. For example the psalms are poetic, and revelation is a vision (unless you take revelation to be literally true too). This doesn't mean the whole bible is poetic though.

How would you explain how Gen 1 and Gen 2 has a different order of creation? I also had the structure of Genesis 1 explained to be a while ago which finally confirmed to me that Gen 1 was more poetic than literal (not that is it a poem lol).

Sure if you want. Want to ask anything more specific like on salvation, hell, or whatever topic since its hard for me to answer how i think off the top of my head.

I would just like to throw in here that Gen 1 and 2 do not have different orders of creation. Gen 2 really has nothing to do with 1 it is telling the story of what happened on day 6 "Genesis 2:4 (NKJV) This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

It only says that God makes Eden on day six and puts man into the Garden then he creates (or recreates however you want to look at it) all of the animals that already exsited and then tell Adam to name them. "Genesis 2:19 (NKJV) Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name." Then God puts Adam to sleep makes Eve and they live happly ever after (well sorta anyways).

 

[jpcedotal]

Can we take Genesis Seriously?

Once we start questioning and doubting Genesis, we might as well doubt the plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, Samson's strength, Jonah and the Fish.....

oh yeah, and Jesus Christ coming back from the dead.

That's why it is such a slippery slope. Once one starts discrediting how time began, then nothing else is immune.

Satan knows this btw and I understand as an atheist this argument falls short to you. As a Christian, I believe the Bible is the literal Word of God. Yes, there is symbolism and parables in the Bible, these are clearly stated as such...in the Bible.

The world was made in 6 literal days about 6000 years ago. Man is only a few literal days younger than the earth itself.