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

[GodLovesCats]

Which environment requires modern humans to have hairs on their backs?

Evolution is proven partially by stuff like this. At some point, humans did not need as much hair on their backs as they did millions of years earlier.

 

[GodLovesCats]

And so praise God I did not

I was talking to Yeshua.

 

[DamianWarS]

this has turned into a creation/evolution debate. I would suggest this is out of scope from the OP. The OP is about discussion the literalness of the creation account proposing that a literal view is the most logical view. Although a resolution of a non-literal view may lead to an evolution discussion it seems too premature for this thread. can we perhaps stick to a discussion as to why the creation account is literal or non-literal? For example what sort of clues does the creation account show us that would suggest it is literal or non-literal? The OP tells us legal code demands it to be literal, does everyone agree with this?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Damien, evidence (proof) of evolution is how we know Genesis 1 must not be interpreted literally.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Damien, evidence (proof) of evolution is how we know Genesis 1 must not be interpreted literally.

Depends on what you mean by Literal. According to Carl Sagan & Neil Degrass Tyson (hosts for cosmos) it took God 12.9 BILLION years to create Adam and Eve. Yet we find Adam and Eve in Eden 6,000 years ago. I happen to be a dispensationist so I think a day in the Bible represents 1,000 years. Still a day could be a literal 24 hour day because the day marks when God was finished with his work.

"Male and female He created them, and He blessed them. And in the day they were created, He called them “man.” Genesis 5:2. Here we see the DAY they were created. If we look at the first letter of the word DAY we see a YOD, this is the smallest letter and it is the little that holds a lot. This is seen in the Big Bang when the entire universe was the size of a mustard seed. A little that holds a lot. We see that God holds the whole world in the Palm of His hand.

 

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

this has turned into a creation/evolution debate. I would suggest this is out of scope from the OP. The OP is about discussion the literalness of the creation account proposing that a literal view is the most logical view. Although a resolution of a non-literal view may lead to an evolution discussion it seems too premature for this thread. can we perhaps stick to a discussion as to why the creation account is literal or non-literal? For example what sort of clues does the creation account show us that would suggest it is literal or non-literal? The OP tells us legal code demands it to be literal, does everyone agree with this?

Premature at post #223? Creating a thread such as this one in the "Creation & Theistic Evolution" Forum is bound to result in what you're claiming to be "out of scope." Perhaps a relocation of the thread would be more effective.

 

[solid_core]

this has turned into a creation/evolution debate. I would suggest this is out of scope from the OP. The OP is about discussion the literalness of the creation account proposing that a literal view is the most logical view. Although a resolution of a non-literal view may lead to an evolution discussion it seems too premature for this thread. can we perhaps stick to a discussion as to why the creation account is literal or non-literal? For example what sort of clues does the creation account show us that would suggest it is literal or non-literal? The OP tells us legal code demands it to be literal, does everyone agree with this?

Genesis account is not literal, because:
1) it does not correspondent to reality
2) it was a standard to write mythological beginnings, in every ancient nation; you must first prove that this should be some kind of exception, but:
3) there are clear poetic and symbolic themes in the text

There is no evidence that it was dictated by God, therefore there is no point in forcing people to take it word for word or even scientifically.

 

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

Genesis account is not literal, because:
1) it does not correspondent to reality
2) it was a standard to write mythological beginnings, in every ancient nation; you must first prove that this should be some kind of exception, but:
3) there are clear poetic and symbolic themes in the text
4) There is no evidence that it was dictated by God, therefore there is no point in forcing people to take it literally and scientifically.

Your declaration is glaringly flawed, in that it betrays incorrect assumptions on your part, specifically that:
1) the Bible is subject to your conception/perception of reality
2) the Bible is subject to the literary conventions of other ancient texts
3) the Bible is subject to your opinion that poetic, symbolic, and literal themes cannot coexist therein
4) the Bible is subject to your opinion that its testimony must be dictated directly by God to be valid in matters of scientific concern (or any others, no less)

And I guess I missed the part where "force" was being applied.

 

[solid_core]

Your declaration is glaringly flawed, in that it betrays incorrect assumptions on your part, specifically that:
1) the Bible is subject to your conception/perception of reality
2) the Bible is subject to the literary conventions of other ancient texts
3) the Bible is subject to your opinion that poetic, symbolic, and literal themes cannot coexist therein
4) the Bible is subject to your opinion that its testimony must be dictated by God to be valid in matters of scientific concern (or any others, no less)

And I guess I missed the part where "force" was being applied.

You basically say that you have a book and you ignore anything else, any cultural contexts, any evidence. You just go blindly by the book, because its your faith.

 

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

You basically say that you have a book and you ignore anything else, any cultural contexts, any evidence. You just go blindly by the book, because its your faith.

More accurately, I would say that virtually all are privileged, in the post-Industrial Revolution period, to have The Book Of Books ready at hand, and the fact that I'm called into question for defending Its authority by one who identifies as "Protestant" strains credulity for me. If you wish to see and depict me as a blind follower and ignorer of "anything else," you are certainly at liberty to do so. If you expect me to reply to such an (ironically) ignorant expression, I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Joshua, there clearly is only one definfition of literal: the meaning of each word. Day can only mean from sunrise to sunset (meteorological) or 23 hours and 56 minutes (astronomical), depending on the context. In Genesis 1, there is no way a day can literally mean either because of the evidence we have.

Where in the world did you get 5,000 years from? Or 1,000 years? All evidence points to billions of years.

 

[rjs330]

this has turned into a creation/evolution debate. I would suggest this is out of scope from the OP. The OP is about discussion the literalness of the creation account proposing that a literal view is the most logical view. Although a resolution of a non-literal view may lead to an evolution discussion it seems too premature for this thread. can we perhaps stick to a discussion as to why the creation account is literal or non-literal? For example what sort of clues does the creation account show us that would suggest it is literal or non-literal? The OP tells us legal code demands it to be literal, does everyone agree with this?

I think it's pretty tough not to go to evolution/creation route with this. Evolutionists just hate anything that might contradict evolution. If Genesis is literal then it debunks evolution. That's why evolutionists will.not support or trust that Genesis can be literal.

I believe Genesis is literal. I have found nothing in the language or the rest of the Bible to indicate it's not.

 

[rjs330]

Genesis account is not literal, because:
1) it does not correspondent to reality
2) it was a standard to write mythological beginnings, in every ancient nation; you must first prove that this should be some kind of exception, but:
3) there are clear poetic and symbolic themes in the text

There is no evidence that it was dictated by God, therefore there is no point in forcing people to take it word for word or even scientifically.

The difficulty with that position is we have know way of determining what things in Genesis or the rest of the scripture for that matter are fact and which ones are fiction. In order to determine if something is a fictional story rather than history you need to show that. Genesis is written from the beginning to end as an historical event. There is no language in the Genesis account that would say it's allegory. In fact Genesis is supported in Exodus as fact by God himself.

 

[BobRyan]

and ecology, paleontology, zoology, botany, geology, etc.

yep all kinds of actual "observations in nature" very possible without having to first imagine that a bacteria will "turn in to a rabbit" given enough time and chance.

 

[DamianWarS]

Premature at post #223? Creating a thread such as this one in the "Creation & Theistic Evolution" Forum is bound to result in what you're claiming to be "out of scope." Perhaps a relocation of the thread would be more effective.

a spin-off thread would be better. the OP sets the context and the context is about the literalness of the creation account.

 

[DamianWarS]

Genesis account is not literal, because:
1) it does not correspondent to reality
2) it was a standard to write mythological beginnings, in every ancient nation; you must first prove that this should be some kind of exception, but:
3) there are clear poetic and symbolic themes in the text

There is no evidence that it was dictated by God, therefore there is no point in forcing people to take it word for word or even scientifically.

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.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Yep all kinds of actual "observations in nature" very possible without having to first imagine that a bacteria will "turn in to a rabbit" given enough time and chance.

Sciencets don't imagine stuff like that when creating a hypothoses

 

[solid_core]

The difficulty with that position is we have know way of determining what things in Genesis or the rest of the scripture for that matter are fact and which ones are fiction. In order to determine if something is a fictional story rather than history you need to show that. Genesis is written from the beginning to end as an historical event. There is no language in the Genesis account that would say it's allegory. In fact Genesis is supported in Exodus as fact by God himself.

- 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?

 

[Bro. Dave Gardner]

-

 

[solid_core]

yep all kinds of actual "observations in nature" very possible without having to first imagine that a bacteria will "turn in to a rabbit" given enough time and chance.

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.