Can we take Genesis Seriously

[solarwave]

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).

At the beginning of it says there were no plants, then it says He created man, then it says he created plants, then it says God wanted to make a helper for the man (Gen 2:18) then it says about animals. It seems like there were made in a different order or that it was written in a wierd way. Even if you don't consider this the style of writting suddenly changes from Gen 1 to Gen 2.

Of course feel free to disargee.

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.

The slippery slope argument isn't a good one. If we accept the earth is flat and the earth isn't the centre of the universe is it not a slippery slope to accepting evolution, determinism and then that there is no God?

Understanding Genesis in a different (but true) way doesn't mean the resurrection isn't true.

 

[LadyGemini]

At the beginning of it says there were no plants, then it says He created man, then it says he created plants, then it says God wanted to make a helper for the man (Gen 2:18) then it says about animals. It seems like there were made in a different order or that it was written in a wierd way. Even if you don't consider this the style of writting suddenly changes from Gen 1 to Gen 2.

Of course feel free to disargee.

Please looks over that passage of scripute carefully, it doesn't say that no plants exsisted it says in chapter 2 verse 5 (NKJV) "before any plant of the field". I live on a farm so I know personally there is a big difference here. You're saying the Bible says that there where no plants at all, but that's not the case there were plants, but they were wild.

If you drops seeds in a forest they will still grow but they are wild plants. Only when you plant them in a feild and raise them are they feild plants which are generally bigger and better than wild plants. Techincally you can eat each, but it's safer to eat a feild plant than a wild plant.

Hope this post clears up that issue

 

[solarwave]

Please looks over that passage of scripute carefully, it doesn't say that no plants exsisted it says in chapter 2 verse 5 (NKJV) "before any plant of the field". I live on a farm so I know personally there is a big difference here. You're saying the Bible says that there where no plants at all, but that's not the case there were plants, but they were wild.

If you drops seeds in a forest they will still grow but they are wild plants. Only when you plant them in a feild and raise them are they feild plants which are generally bigger and better than wild plants. Techincally you can eat each, but it's safer to eat a feild plant than a wild plant.

Hope this post clears up that issue

Firstly would it damage your faith if in fact there were two creation stories? If so then I would rather you didn't continue to discuss this with me. I don't mean I dont want to talk to you, its just in my opinion its better to have faith and be slightly wrong than to be slightly more right yet with less faith.

In my opinion your playing with words to justify the opinion you have. I did search it though and found a web site saying the same thing as you, so I will look into that properly another time. To be honest Im not convinced though. Its hard to find non-bias explainations of what 'shrub/plant of the field' means.

Also if you look at the youngs literal translation: "18And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.'
19And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name."

I normally use NIV but I think this is more close to what was said and here it seems God created the birds here, not before.

 

[LadyGemini]

Firstly would it damage your faith if in fact there were two creation stories? If so then I would rather you didn't continue to discuss this with me. I don't mean I dont want to talk to you, its just in my opinion its better to have faith and be slightly wrong than to be slightly more right yet with less faith.

In my opinion your playing with words to justify the opinion you have. I did search it though and found a web site saying the same thing as you, so I will look into that properly another time. To be honest Im not convinced though. Its hard to find non-bias explainations of what 'shrub/plant of the field' means.

Also if you look at the youngs literal translation: "18And Jehovah God saith, `Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper -- as his counterpart.'
19And Jehovah God formeth from the ground every beast of the field, and every fowl of the heavens, and bringeth in unto the man, to see what he doth call it; and whatever the man calleth a living creature, that [is] its name."

I normally use NIV but I think this is more close to what was said and here it seems God created the birds here, not before.

Ok Solarwave for your first question no they're not two creation stories, and I think you may be taking certain scripture out of context. In Genesis 2:5 it's says (NIV) "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,"
　
Ok so the first thing it says here is that no shrub of the field hat yet appeared and not plat of the feild had sprung up. Then it tells us why that is, because God hadn't sent rain on the earth and noone was around to till the ground. Then we come to verses 6-7 "but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
　
Six I'm not really worried about but seven is important it says here that God formed man. Why would he form man? To work in the garden. That is one of the reasons God made man from the beginning was the take care of the garden "Genesis 2:15 (NIV) The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."
　
Now continuing on to the animals God formed where not all the animals in the world, but all those that were going to help man keep the garden and he had Adam name all of those animals. "Genesis 2:19-20 (NIV) 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found."

The ending of verse 20 is what brings us to God forming woman from Adams rib bone and I think you know that story. There is no second creation, no contridiction, and certainly nothing that hurts my faith. I hope you don't take me as being rude, I'm only trying to help clear up what the Bible says. And I used the NIV since that is your favorite version

 

[solarwave]

Ok Solarwave for your first question no they're not two creation stories, and I think you may be taking certain scripture out of context. In Genesis 2:5 it's says (NIV) "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,"
　
Ok so the first thing it says here is that no shrub of the field hat yet appeared and not plat of the feild had sprung up. Then it tells us why that is, because God hadn't sent rain on the earth and noone was around to till the ground. Then we come to verses 6-7 "but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."
　
Six I'm not really worried about but seven is important it says here that God formed man. Why would he form man? To work in the garden. That is one of the reasons God made man from the beginning was the take care of the garden "Genesis 2:15 (NIV) The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."
　
Now continuing on to the animals God formed where not all the animals in the world, but all those that were going to help man keep the garden and he had Adam name all of those animals. "Genesis 2:19-20 (NIV) 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found."

The ending of verse 20 is what brings us to God forming woman from Adams rib bone and I think you know that story. There is no second creation, no contridiction, and certainly nothing that hurts my faith. I hope you don't take me as being rude, I'm only trying to help clear up what the Bible says. And I used the NIV since that is your favorite version

You make interesting points that I havn't heard before, so I'll have to look into it fully.

 

[ks777]

I didn't read through the whole thread, but Genesis mostly agree's with science... which also proves the biblical God's divinity.

Read about it here Yada Yahweh - Book I-Genesis -- Chapter 1-Hayah
You'll learn a lot, he's a smart man...

 

[PeculiarGuy]

I believe in the direct interpretation of Genesis. Genesis can be interpreted in so many ways, and honestly, I don't care. My view of Genesis will not change how I live, so it really doesn't matter to me. I'm not going to waste my time worrying about it. I don;t like that people have to mix evolution with creation. I think it a way of trying to avoid persecution. No matter how you believe in Christianity, the athiestic science community will think your a idiot.

 

[solarwave]

I believe in the direct interpretation of Genesis. Genesis can be interpreted in so many ways, and honestly, I don't care. My view of Genesis will not change how I live, so it really doesn't matter to me. I'm not going to waste my time worrying about it. I don;t like that people have to mix evolution with creation. I think it a way of trying to avoid persecution. No matter how you believe in Christianity, the athiestic science community will think your a idiot.

It is good that Genesis makes no difference to how you live your life, but it may do to some people because certain interpretations go against what most things in the modern world are built from.

I can tell you for sure though that people don't 'mix evolution and creation' to avoid persecution.

 

[jakeet]

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.

So, what? You mean that we shouldn't accept it as true because it might cast doubt on other parts of the bible? I'm not going to lie, that is a really stupid argument.

The main reason we can't take genesis as literal truth is it doesn't answer anything. In a nutshell genesis's answer is "god did it." Question for you, what method did god use to do it? How can we test his method in a scientific way?
When you really think about it the "god did it" explanation doesn't explain a thing. If you where to ask me "how is a computer made?" and I where to answer "the factory made it", is that a real explanation? How can I use that explanation to test the computer making proses in a lab?
However, if I where to answer your question with a detailed explanation of how the material is extracted from the ground, how it is processed, how it is shipped to the factory, and how it is put together. Could I test that in the lab? Does that explain how a computer is built?
Modern scientific explanations are like the second answer. It offers the theories of evolution, continental drift, and solar formation to answer the question. It uses ice and mud cores, the fossil record, and all types of radioactive dating to back it up. Genesis offers: "god did it."

 

[Gyasi]

Carbon dating has been proven time and time again to be an inaccurate method. How can anyone take CD anymore seriously than the book of Genesis?

THE PROBLEMS WITH CARBON-14 DATING

At one point, evolutionists even claimed to find a skull with a jaw bone that resembled that of an ape but this was later proven to have been false, as it was an ape's jawbone that was attached to a human skull.

YouTube - TOP 10 MYTHS ABOUT EVOLUTION (part 1) (xtranormal)

 

[Tecknoblade]

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
​

I think you need to watch this video series here: Wakeup Project

I was once at the road that you are at now and believe me the info that you have is MADE to LOOK like it discredits the bible but it actually confirms its validity. Like for instance, the hybrid race of angels and humans is told about all over the world just about. It is in no way just in Christianity and Babylonian polytheism. As well, the ancient Israelites always viewed God as having multiple aspects I believe. One bible verse talks about the Israelites worshiping the day that God would be One. Meaning, he obviously has different aspects (the Trinity) and Elohim would reflect this.

Watch the whole series cause it will get to the part of the nephilim I think. Either way it will help alot.



Love you all!
Robert.

 

[solarwave]

Your saying that there were in fact angels who have sex with human women?

 

[NaturallyGone]

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..

i'd just like to point out that carbon dating was created by a human, and thus it is possible to be flawed. Plus, we know that the earth is at least around 3000 years old. we don't exactly know how long it took God to create the earth. What is a day to God could be a vast number of decades to us.

 

[solarwave]

i'd just like to point out that carbon dating was created by a human, and thus it is possible to be flawed. Plus, we know that the earth is at least around 3000 years old. we don't exactly know how long it took God to create the earth. What is a day to God could be a vast number of decades to us.

Computers are created by humans yet we are our countries place alot of trust in them.

 

[NaturallyGone]

exactly. we put a lot of trust in computers and our countries. I put more trust in God and what His word says than I do in my computer.

 

[solarwave]

But do you put more trust in your interpretation of God's word than what has been proven correct.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I think that we need to have a literal interpretation of the Bible. No "Gap-theory" no "Thousand-day theory". How about a good old-fashioned "God theory"? If we don't believe that the Genesis account is a literal interpretation of the actual account, then that undermines the entire Bible itself, and, ultimately, our entire faith. by saying the Genesis account(which is part of the Bible) is relative, that means the rest of the Bible from which flows out of Genesis is relative. And when the Bible becomes relative, it is simply a book, a book which should be of no value. A book that should have no thought written about it. It should be bought and put into your personal library so you can say that you have it. It is a bestseller and nothing more, nothing less. Tell me, do you really want to base your entire worldview on that? Last I looked, not many people were basing their entire worldview from Twilight...

 

[NaturallyGone]

true. plus, most people naturally overlook the first thing God ever created. and twilight really isn't that bad. bad acting, but still an overall good plot

 

[Girder of Loins]

true. plus, most people naturally overlook the first thing God ever created. and twilight really isn't that bad. bad acting, but still an overall good plot

Yeah, not a big vampire guy. Except for Van Helsing. That one was good.

 

[NaturallyGone]

dude, trust me, twilight isn't actually a vampire series. it is a fairy series. classic fairies sparkle in the sun, drink animal blood, and don't attack humans. the closest Meyer came to legit vampires is in The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner.