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

[BobRyan]

"The only logical option" may be too strong a statement -- how about "the best logical option given all the texts".

2 primary positions that appear on this thread and the first one has two opposing views within it - they are all posted on this thread.

1. The Bible is clearly specifying real 24 hour days - 7 days for Creation week - Ex 20:11, Gen 2:1-3
1.A -- the Bible is reliable and accurate the topic of origins/creation and the timeline in real life
1.B -- the Bible is wrong. The bible writers were not qualified to speak accurately on the topic of origins/creation and the timeline in real life

as an example of 1B --

Moses was an ancient man, not knowing that sun is a distant huge star, much bigger than whole the Earth. He thought that sun,moon and stars are just lights in firmanent.

Therefore, in his imagination, it was very feasible to think that earth was created first and then the lights "above it".

2. The Bible appears to be stating a 7 day week but in fact Moses was a Darwinist and his readers were inclined to some form of evolutionism. They would have read his words as indicating long ages possibly billions of years.
2.A in that view then - those who see it as stating a real 7 day week are simply "reading it wrong", "interpreting it wrong".
===================================
some Christians say: "I find it very difficult to believe those who say they take all of the creation account in Genesis literally." -- but is that position logical??


We know that in Genesis 1, God separates light from darkness. God calls one Day and the other Night. This is the 1st day of the 7 day creation week we find in Genesis 1-2:3 and summarized in legal code in Ex 20:11.

But some will complain that the luminaries of the sky (Sun, moon) have yet to be created at that point -- not created on day 1 so then the question is "How could God possibly know how to have a source of light other than the fusion reactions on the sun 93 million miles (on average) from Earth?)" -- indeed "how could God possibly know"... when your objection gets to that point you know you made a wrong turn somewhere.

A literal day is, at the very least, a twenty four hour period in which the earth rotates on its axis is the time for day and night cycles to complete but to have that rotation viewed from the surface of the earth as composed of day and night we need a single-side light source... which of course some assume God would not know how to provide without the sun in place.


Let's be honest and admit that for case of those tossing out the historic reliability of the Genesis account, one has to make some massive unproven speculative assertions in the above.

1. They must "assume" God only has the capacity to know of 'one source of light' and so failing to create the sun first he is simply "mistaken" in his recollection of what He did. That is not a logical position .. as if the only source of light known to God is a fusion reaction 93 million miles from Earth.

2.They must "assume" that the rotation of the planet (no matter if it is day or night) cannot possibly happen (or cannot possibly be 24 hours ) IF the light source God uses is anything other than the sun created on day 4. The imagination that the "observer" at the surface of Earth would not "notice" day or night during that single rotation IF the light was anything other than "fusion reactions 93 million miles away" demonstrates a paucity in logic that is difficult to take seriously. "AS IF" the rotation of the planet had not even started 6000 years ago. That is not logical

3. They then place their own unproven assertions in the steps outlined above - and make those assumptions "the infallible rule" / foundation from which to reject the entire historic account of Genesis 1-2:3 as being "literal". Because after all what is "most true" at that point is their own own unproven assertion. That is not logical - their proposal is to munge the text into a forced symbolism where instead of day and night what we have is "God found out the difference between right and wrong" in what? in one rotation planet earth?? linking Earth's rotation with God finding out right -from- wrong is complete nonsense. It makes much more logical sense to link that rotation with "day and night".

Obviously they only go down that road because they are convinced Their unproven assertions are infallible?

Legal Code -- Ex 20: "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

=======================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

Having noted that detail - there is an option that I do not take but that is posted on this thread - not unlike the view that James Barr takes when he rejects scripture as unreliable.

You may accept that man is infallible when writing the scripture, I don't. ..

I do not accept that premise that the scripture is perfect and without error.

Scripture is inspired but written by men and more to the point. Scripture was written by patriotic Jews with a vested interest in proclaiming their own greatness.
.

Not very "unlike" this ... of course

Here is what Professor James Barr had to say regarding the inerrancy of the scripture.

In common parlance the fundamentalist Christian is the person who "takes the Bible literally." This description is not quite accurate, because we shall see that many "liberal" scholars, particularly in connection with Old Testament cosmology (see Chapter 13), take the texts much more literally than conservatives do. With regard to biblical authority the ruling axiom for evangelical rationalism is inerrancy, not literalism. James Barr has shown that evangelical exegetes generally naturalize Old Testament miracles and divine interventions, rather than taking the events literally. As Barr states: "In order to avoid imputing error to the Bible, fundamentalists twist and turn back and forward between literal and non literal...exegesis....The typical conservative evangelical exegesis is literal, but only up to a point: when the point is reached where literal interpretation would make the Bible appear 'wrong,' a sudden switch to nonliteral interpretation is made. "1 This fanatical devotion to inerrancy compromises the integrity of evangelical theology right at its roots.
[INSPIRATION AND INERRANCY
From N. F. Gier, God, Reason, and the Evangelicals (University Press of America, 1987), chapter 6.]

"In order to avoid imputing error to the Bible, fundamentalists twist and turn back and forward between literal and non literal.

In other words those Christians trying to get Moses and his readers to be "darwinists" expressing evolutionism in "very crafty well-disguised terms" about a "7 day week" -- are getting hammered in Barr's POV

"the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’ "

 

[BobRyan]

another argument against taking God's Word as reliable true history is "the tree of life"

Some will claim they cannot imagine how food or enzymes in food could have any impact on longevity.

foods contain enzymes that activate genes.. we call it epigenome. The argument against the tree of life is most often "from the void" of what the opposers admit they don't know as if their having no knowledge of certain facts ...deletes those facts

Diet changes in babies affects their telomeres
Breast-Fed Babies May Have Longer Telomeres, Tied to Longevity

And what about the enzymes in the fruit of that tree they never saw? Did they claim that they know the properties of the fruit - the epigenome effects of that fruit? the chemistry involved to the point of declaring "God can't do that.. it is beyond him"??

The cell's ability to divide is limited by its telomeres.

For example stem cells express the enzyme telomerase which maintains and lengthens telomeres.

More on the chemistry of cell aging and death - and how telomerase affects it.
https://naturalbiohealth.com/2012/09/26/the-science-of-telemerase-and-telemere-lengthening/

But without that knowledge about enzymes and cell life - you expect to be taken seriously that nothing God can think of to put in food would change the effect of aging?? Seriously??

Here is the important part. Even if someone were able to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally, it would do them no good. What matters is not affirming its historical reliability.

Attacking the reliability of scripture (The Word of God), is of high importance and matters to 'who'?? Just who had that as their # priority in Genesis 3??

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

2.They must "assume" that the rotation of the planet (no matter if it is day or night) cannot possibly be 24 hours with a light source other than the sun for the "observer" at the surface of Earth. "AS IF" the rotation of the planet had not even started 6000 years ago. That is not logical

Is it necessarily correct to even think that the planet rotates? !

footnote: Einstein and a dozen or more of the mathematicians able to do the calculations showed that it is not necessary for the earth to move at all in the current state of things.
It really , or literally?, is all depending on 'perspective' to say otherwise, but mathematically is the same (if the earth moves/rotates, or not) ... and cannot be proven that the earth does move. (relatively it does, obviously, but actually, maybe not)

 

[roman2819]

When Genesis 1 said God created the earth in six days, i believe the word 'day' means a stage. In first stage, God creates light, second stage atmosphere.. fourth stage marine life etc. God created in an orderly manner, stage by stage.

Why did the Bible use the word 'day'? The Scripture is a religious manuscript, not a science text book. The word 'day' fits the prose of writing in a religious manuscript. It is not a literal 24 hour day.

 

[solid_core]

Genesis 1 & 2 are obviously not literal. Its a dramatical piece by and for ancient Hebrews. Its partly a polemic with Mesopotamian myths, partly an original material.

 

[JackRT]

I believe that Genesis was the effort of an entirely pre-scientific tribal people to understand their world, their God and how human beings related to both. They used the only tool that ancient peoples had to do this --- mythology. I believe that to regard it as literal and historical is to miss the underlying spiritual lessons to be learned.

 

[JohnTh]

Rather that thinking with our own minds how it was, it is better to read what the saints said upon the topic - for example Saint John of Damascus - here is a small trailer.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Genesis 1 & 2 are obviously not literal. Its a dramatical piece by and for ancient Hebrews. Its partly a polemic with Mesopotamian myths, partly an original material.

Assemblies of Ekklesia have accepted Genesis as God's Word, Truth, for thousands of years.
Men's opinion change, of course, but God's Word does not change, ever.

 

[fwGod]

1Jn.1:5
"God is light and in Him is no darkness at all."

Gen.1:2
"Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep."

It was dark, but there was no darkness in God.

Gen.1:3
"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."

When God said "light be" is not when the sun was created.

Those who read the chapter, thinking in natural terms, mistake that the light came from the sun. But it came directly from God.

In the Revelation of John, it's said that in the Millennium there will be no night. The sun will not be the light of the world.
Rev.21:23
"The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp."

 

[solid_core]

Assemblies of Ekklesia have accepted Genesis as God's Word, Truth, for thousands of years.
Men's opinion change, of course, but God's Word does not change, ever.

Not literal does not equal to not true. Jesus is a door. Not literally, but that does not mean its not true.

 

[BobRyan]

Legal Code -- Ex 20: "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Not literal does not equal to not true. Jesus is a door. Not literally, but that does not mean its not true.

how much legal code in scripture based on an appeal to fiction to establish law?

=========================================

And because at least "one person" may end up saying I am ignoring the view of world class scientists on this thread... tossing them a help line.

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:


Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

--======================= second quote


Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) in a talk given at the American Museum of Natural History 1981

Patterson:“Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing…that is true?

I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural history and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said “I know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school”

"...I'm speaking on two subjects, evolution and creationism, and I believe it's true to say that I know nothing whatever about either...One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let's call it non-evolutionary , was last year I had a sudden realization.

"For over twenty years I had thought that I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it. "That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long...

It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and perhaps that's all we know about it...

about eighteen months ago...I woke up and I realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way."

=========================================
You will not find "True confessions" such as that by its own diehard adherents in any real branch of science .. because in the real sciences - the theories are tested "to see if" they are true.

You are totally makling up that baloney Bob. Evolution is proven beyond all possible doubt.

At this point it is unclear whether you are trying to make your point or illustrate mine

 

[BobRyan]

I believe that Genesis was the effort of an entirely pre-scientific tribal people to understand their world, .

Many Christians like me believe that "ALL scripture is inspired by GOD and is to be used for instruction" 2 Tim 3:16

"Holy men of old moved by the Holy Spirit --- spoke from GOD" 2 Peter 1:21

So just what is it that "God did not know"??

 

[BobRyan]

When Genesis 1 said God created the earth in six days, i believe the word 'day' means a stage. In first stage, God creates light, second stage atmosphere.. fourth stage marine life etc. God created in an orderly manner, stage by stage.

Why did the Bible use the word 'day'? The Scripture is a religious manuscript, not a science text book. The word 'day' fits the prose of writing in a religious manuscript. It is not a literal 24 hour day.

Legal Code -- Ex 20: "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Notice how the "legal code" hard wires the Gen 1-2:3 account into 24 hour days the same as at Sinai

Ex 20:8-11 "Six days you shall labor ...for in six days the LORD made..."

One has to "wrench" that legal code to get it any other way.

 

[solid_core]

how much legal code in scripture based on an appeal to fiction to establish law?

Law was given to Israel and was based on what Israel needed it to be based upon.

If it was given to the 21st century Switzerland, it would be based differently.

 

[BobRyan]

Is it necessarily correct to even think that the planet rotates? !

footnote: Einstein and a dozen or more of the mathematicians able to do the calculations showed that it is not necessary for the earth to move at all in the current state of things.

Well the notion that the entire universe orbits the Earth every 24 hours would mean that almost everything in the universe travels faster than the speed of light using the Einstein principle of relative motion in the context of "frame of reference" and that would be extremely illogical.

It would mean that the probes we send into space for months and years - would never detect motion in the stars because they too would be orbiting earth in that frame that you propose is all uniformly orbiting earth to get the result that we see looking up without having the earth spin.

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis 1 & 2 are obviously not literal. Its a dramatical piece by and for ancient Hebrews. Its partly a polemic with Mesopotamian myths, partly an original material.

Anyone can say anything they like. The challenge as in the OP is "given the facts" that we see in the text --

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Well the notion that the entire universe orbits the Earth every 24 hours would mean that almost everything in the universe travels faster than the speed of light using the Einstein principle of relative motion in the context of "frame of reference" and that would be extremely illogical.

Not according to Einstein and the others, no.
Everything would not change from what it is/ was except the 'knowledge' or perspective that the earth is and remains stationary. All the speeds and motions observed are "relative" to other things anyway, whether the earth was moving or stationary. The confusion / difference came after man's ideas overrode what was known before, as if science was dependable and honest.

 

[BobRyan]

Legal Code -- Ex 20: "11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Not literal does not equal to not true. Jesus is a door. Not literally, but that does not mean its not true.

how much legal code in scripture based on an appeal to fiction to establish law?

Law was given to Israel and was based on what Israel needed it to be based upon.

If it was given to the 21st century Switzerland, it would be based differently.

That does not address the question. There are "no examples" of God giving legal code where the basis of a command is fiction or myth. Legal code does not work like that . No one says "go 55 miles per hour because that is how fast a camel goes through the eye of a sewing needle". for example. Legal is never based on fiction in the Bible.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Law was given to Israel and was based on what Israel needed it to be based upon.

If it was given to the 21st century Switzerland, it would be based differently.

Where is this ever even indicated at all by Yahuweh ? From all Yahuweh Says and Does, TORAH does not change with country nor with culture nor with time, per se, except as Yahuweh Says. It is Yahuweh's Way of setting apart His people , no matter what country or what time or what culture they live in, right ?

 

[solid_core]

Where is this ever even indicated at all by Yahuweh ? From all Yahuweh Says and Does, TORAH does not change with country nor with culture nor with time, per se, except as Yahuweh Says. It is Yahuweh's Way of setting apart His people , no matter what country or what time or what culture they live in, right ?

These are the statutes and ordinances and laws which the LORD established between Himself and the sons of Israel through Moses at Mount Sinai.
Lv 26:46

...Israelites, to whom belongs ...the giving of the Law and the temple service...
R 9:4

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "This is the ordinance of the Passover: no foreigner is to eat of it;
Ex 12:43

Etc. Its on many places throughout the Bible. Law and Prophets were limited by both time (temporal) and place/people (Israel). It was never meant to be universal.