Do Genesis literalists also take the rest of the Bible literally?

[KWCrazy]

By the way, not all those are in Leviticus, you should read 1 Timothy when you have a chance.

I think you refer to Timothy 1, Chapter 2:
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
The Bible preaches in many places about humility. This is an admonition about dressing in flashy clothes and being flamboyant about supposed wealth or affluence to rub it in the nose of those who are less wealthy. It is an admonition against pride, which is a recurrent theme in the Bible.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

God put man in authority over woman, even as Christ is in authority over the church. That doesn't mean that women are inferior or second class citizens, it means that the man should be her leader and the woman should support him. Likewise, men are commanded to love their wives, even as Christ loved the church. Man was created first and Eve was created as his mate. Eve tempted Adam into sin, so Adam was given authority over her.

Regarding Leviticus, as it has been pointed out many times there was no refrigeration back then, no knowledge of what caused trichinosis, no understanding of botulism etc. Beyond that, the laws were written for a besieged nation under constant threat of war. Producing warriors was a requirement for their continued survival. For that reason many of the laws were designed to keep the nation of Israel strong and had little to do with Godliness. Jesus ushered in the new covenant. You no longer had to sacrifice animals (Which was a destruction of wealth and food; thus resulting in a loss to the sinner) to attain forgiveness. You need only believe in Jesus Christ as your personal savior and you will be saved.

 

[CabVet]

Regarding Leviticus, as it has been pointed out many times there was no refrigeration back then, no knowledge of what caused trichinosis, no understanding of botulism etc.

There was no knowledge of evolution either, nobody knew about DNA, fossils, etc. But it's funny how you can take Leviticus as "cultural" but Genesis not.

 

[AV1611VET]

But of course, only your literal interpretation is the "true" one, correct?

What's your literal interpretation?

Or do you not have one, but you sit in judgement of those who do?

 

[Radagast]

when the Bible says: "do not eat pork", people explain it away by saying "well, that was cultural"

No Christian I've ever met says that. Do you have data to support your hypothesis?

The one in 1 Timothy for example I have no answer for. Why isn't that taken literally today? It is in the NT.

All Christians agree that it was a literal command. There is debate on precisely what it meant, and whether it was a universal command, or one specific to a local situation

Yeah, so all of that applies "only" to the people to whom they were addressed, but not Genesis, right? I do know what "literal" means, it is the inconsistency that I do not like. If you think Genesis was written for people living today you should also think everything else was written for people living today.

There is no "inconsistency." This is not the place to get into why Christians believe most Old Testament laws no longer apply, but those reasons exist.

The issue with Genesis here was not whether it was "written for people living today," but whether it was intended to be taken literally or metaphorically -- whether it was intended to be history or myth.

Unless you've changed the purpose of the thread in mid-stream to be yet another anti-Christian rant? It seems from what you say that your misuse of "literal" is deliberate.

And FWIW, most conservative Christians would fall into none of your 4 poll categories.

 

[Elendur]

I voted for:
"None of it, the Bible was written in a different cultural and social setting"
Since it was open for everybody.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will try to make it very clear for you, why when the Bible says: "do not eat pork", people explain it away by saying "well, that was cultural",

Acts 10:9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

... but when we talk about Genesis, that is not cultural and everyone has to take it literally even against all scientific evidence.

That's because there is no Acts 10 equivalent to Genesis 1.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I will try to make it very clear for you, why when the Bible says: "do not eat pork", people explain it away by saying "well, that was cultural", but when we talk about Genesis, that is not cultural and everyone has to take it literally even against all scientific evidence.

As verysincere points out below, some passages explicitly state that the ruls are intended for Hebrews only:

Because the Hebrew text clearly says:

A) That all citizens of the Tribes of Israel are to observe the laws, duties, and rituals that identify one as a COVENANT MEMBER OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL.

B) "Covenant" simply means a CONTRACT between those citizens and YHWH.

C) A violation of any of those COVENANT OBLIGATIONS is a rejection of the community and a violation of membership in the nation.

D) Kosher food regulations are among those COVENANT OBLIGATIONS. To disobey them is to say (a) I reject and renounce my contract with YHWH, and (b) I defy my community and my obligations to the community.

As for Genesis - well, I'm not a YEC so perhaps I'm not the best person to ask.

You suspect wrong, I read all of it. I do know some of the answers, but not others.

The fact that you didn't recognise the dietary laws as being cultural makes me doubt that.

 

[Radagast]

No Christian I've ever met says that.

OK, one Christian says that.

The fact that you didn't recognise the dietary laws as being cultural makes me doubt that.

The dietary laws weren't "cultural"... they were largely ritual, and are no longer observed by Christians.

 

[KWCrazy]

If God blesses a hamster, you can eat a hamster.
If God blesses hemlock, you can drink hemlock.
If God blesses toadstools, you can eat toadstools.
If God blesses pork, shellfish, or anything else you can fit in your mouth, you can eat it.
Just as God blessed a few loaves and fishes and fed thousands, God will provide for His own. That was the message God gave to Peter.

Personally, I think it's rather disgusting when people attempt to use the Bible to discredit it by distorting what is written or taking it out of context. You bring this back to Genesis and attempt to say that the very clear, very specific statements and time frames that are spelled out there must be allegorical as well, but there is no ambiguity in "the evening and the morning." Everyone knows that defines a day. Everyone knows that water 15 cubits over a mountaintop means a global flood. You just refuse to accept anything that violates your molecules-to-man denial of Creation.

 

[verysincere]

Personally, I think it's rather disgusting when people attempt to use the Bible to discredit it by distorting what is written or taking it out of context.
[

/quote]

I agree. Your misuse of the scriptures frustrates me greatly as a Bible-affirming Christian.

You bring this back to Genesis and attempt to say that the very clear, very specific statements and time frames that are spelled out there must be allegorical as well, but there is no ambiguity in "the evening and the morning."

If it is "very clear", why do equally devote Christian believers who consider the Bible authored by God disagree? (Even many Young Earth Creationists disagree on various meanings in Genesis 1.)

As to "the evening and the morning", that defines ONE NIGHT, not a 24 hour day----which in the Hebrew culture, then and now, is considered SUNSET TO SUNSET.

No, you err in thinking Genesis was written in English rather than Hebrew---and you fail to understand that it SEEMS clear to you because somebody else has made the translation decisions for you!

I was a Young Earth Creationist for many years until I learned enough Hebrew and linguistics to determine that "the evening and the morning" was an idiom meaning "from start to finish." Even English is rich with such expressions: "the dawn of civilization", "the sunset of the Industrial Age and the dawn of the Space Age", and I well remember the Ronald Reagen presidential campaign commercials: "It is morning in America."

Everyone knows that water 15 cubits over a mountaintop means a global flood.

Only those ignorant of the Hebrew text.

Genesis says that the flood waters rose to 15 cubits in depth, high enough to cover the highest hills. (The Hebrew word that the KJV translates as "mountains" also includes "hills" in its semantic domain. The Hebrew word does not make the relative size distinction between "mountain" and "hill" that we have in English.) The flood waters topped out around 23 feet deep. There is NO EVIDENCE within the text that the flood was "planet wide". English Bible readers misunderstand "earth" when it serves as a translation of ERETZ, a word which even the King James translates as "land" or "country" or "region". (Even today, ERETZ ISRAEL means "Land of Israel" or "Nation of Israel", not "Planet Israel.)

Even many King James Version study Bibles have footnotes pointing out the error you just made. You are confusing TRADITION with what the Biblical text actually says.

TRADITION is a very powerful force---so powerful that what many Christians defend as their cherished interpretation of what they THINK the Bible says, actually has little to do with what is actually stated by the scriptures.

 

[KWCrazy]

An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis is “literally true” rather than a story meant as a “lesson.”
Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.

A Harris poll of 2,201 adults charting “Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2003” found last year that 93 percent of the nation’s Christians believe in miracles, 95 percent in heaven, 93 percent in the virgin birth of Christ and 96 percent in Christ’s resurrection.
source

Nearly half of Americans — 46% — believe God created the human race in a single day 10,000 years ago, a newly-released Gallup poll found.

Seventy-eight percent of Americans today believe God played some role in how people came to exist, while only 15% attribute it to evolution alone, according to the survey.
source

 

[mzungu]

An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis is “literally true” rather than a story meant as a “lesson.”
Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.

A Harris poll of 2,201 adults charting “Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2003” found last year that 93 percent of the nation’s Christians believe in miracles, 95 percent in heaven, 93 percent in the virgin birth of Christ and 96 percent in Christ’s resurrection.
source

Nearly half of Americans — 46% — believe God created the human race in a single day 10,000 years ago, a newly-released Gallup poll found.

Seventy-eight percent of Americans today believe God played some role in how people came to exist, while only 15% attribute it to evolution alone, according to the survey.
source

Good bye science! Welcome to the united Taliban states of America!

 

[Eric Hibbert]

Sorry. I answered the OP before I read the rest of CabVet's posts.

I thought he was sincere but it looks like he just wants to bicker and belittle Christians.

 

[juvenissun]

But of course, only your literal interpretation is the "true" one, correct?

Not necessary. In fact, you may agree a lot with my literal views of the Bible.

For example, eating pork is more health hazardous than eating beef. It is correct in a statistical sense.

 

[KWCrazy]

Good bye science! Welcome to the united Taliban states of America!

People who don't understand science make the most unbelievable statements. Seriously, if you don't understand the limitations of sceince, then you don't understand anything about it.

Science can't explain miracles. Denying their existence doesn't make them go away. Denying God doesn't make Him go away.

 

[Naraoia]

People who don't understand science make the most unbelievable statements.

Oh, that they do.

Science can't explain miracles. Denying their existence doesn't make them go away.

Equally, asserting their existence doesn't make them exist.

Denying God doesn't make Him go away.

God exists =/= [insert religious worldview] is correct.

 

[mzungu]

People who don't understand science make the most unbelievable statements. Seriously, if you don't understand the limitations of sceince, then you don't understand anything about it.

Are you referring to yourself

Science can't explain miracles. Denying their existence doesn't make them go away. Denying God doesn't make Him go away.

Denying FSM (pbuh)does not make him go away!!!

 

[Split Rock]

An ABC News poll released Sunday found that 61 percent of Americans believe the account of creation in the Bible’s book of Genesis is “literally true” rather than a story meant as a “lesson.”
Sixty percent believe in the story of Noah’s ark and a global flood, while 64 percent agree that Moses parted the Red Sea to save fleeing Jews from their Egyptian captors.

A Harris poll of 2,201 adults charting “Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2003” found last year that 93 percent of the nation’s Christians believe in miracles, 95 percent in heaven, 93 percent in the virgin birth of Christ and 96 percent in Christ’s resurrection.
source

Nearly half of Americans — 46% — believe God created the human race in a single day 10,000 years ago, a newly-released Gallup poll found.

Seventy-eight percent of Americans today believe God played some role in how people came to exist, while only 15% attribute it to evolution alone, according to the survey.
source

1. Popularity does not define reality.
2. This poll shows that like most creationists do, most Americans read what ancient cultures wrote the same way they would read a modern newspaper. That does not make it any more accurate.

 

[Split Rock]

Science can't explain miracles. Denying their existence doesn't make them go away. Denying God doesn't make Him go away.

Denying what science tells us about ourselves and our world does not make reality any different.

 

[Split Rock]

I was a Young Earth Creationist for many years until I learned enough Hebrew and linguistics to determine that "the evening and the morning" was an idiom meaning "from start to finish." Even English is rich with such expressions: "the dawn of civilization", "the sunset of the Industrial Age and the dawn of the Space Age", and I well remember the Ronald Reagen presidential campaign commercials: "It is morning in America."

This is the first time I have seen any one has explain "the evening and the morning" this way. I have to admit I always thought the terminology supported the intention that GEN1 was refering to 24 hour days. Interesting...