If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

[Subduction Zone]

Eh, maybe I overstated when I said offensive. One, it is irritating for someone to assume that you're an atheist just because you have a firm grasp on basic scientific knowledge. Two, it just shows how ignorant a person is when they make a comment about how deep time or evolution is somehow inherently atheistic.

I know, at Galileo's time heliocentrism was "atheistic".

Science cannot prove that God exists. It can "prove" that certain versions of God do not exist. I find it rather amazing that creationists think that they can tell their God how he had to make the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

If their beliefs were correct they would find support through scientific channels.

I couldn't disagree more.

 

[HitchSlap]

I know, at Galileo's time heliocentrism was "atheistic".

Science cannot prove that God exists. It can "prove" that certain versions of God do not exist. I find it rather amazing that creationists think that they can tell their God how he had to make the world.

Well, if man can make god in their image, what's to stop them from telling him what he couldn't do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I couldn't disagree more.

That is because you know that if you follow reasonable channels you will lose. That refutes anyone that claims that you have not learned anything here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, if man can make god in their image, what's to stop them from telling him what he couldn't do?

It is rather amazing that the die hard creationists can't see that their god is exactly the god that they want. In other word man was not created in the image of god, it is the other way around.

 

[Merlin]

What do you mean "their" history? Wasn't Noah and family the only ones to experience the flood and live to tell about it?

Their meaning possessive.
If they have a common ancestry then they must have a common history

 

[Resha Caner]

You should check out some of the countless other creation myths from civilizations around the world. Genesis is actually pretty boring and simplistic compared to some of them, and it's impossible for all of them to be true.

Which ones do you mean?

I haven't done an exhaustive study of creation myths, but I have read the Epic of Gilgamesh and Popol Vuh. I thought them rather childish and poorly written.

 

[Loudmouth]

Their meaning possessive.
If they have a common ancestry then they must have a common history

Then why are the flood stories different? It would seem to me that if the flood stories are different then they came from different floods.

 

[Beaker]

If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

God Bless!

If you don't believe the beginning of Genesis, I would ask, do you believe ANY of the Bible? if so, how do you chose which bits to believe and which bits not to?

 

[paulm50]

If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

God Bless!

They were true to the stories Bronze Age men told to each other around the camp fire at night. And that's it.

No, it is only at odds with your beliefs.

No it fits the beliefs of Bronze Age Men. And up until The Elizabethan period.

You know about the Catholic's wars to stop people being able to read the bible and executing those who disagreed with their version? Well that's what fundamentalist want to do now. In all religions.

 

[gadz]

If you don't believe the beginning of Genesis, I would ask, do you believe ANY of the Bible? if so, how do you chose which bits to believe and which bits not to?

It's a thing of faith really. Jesus said that not one Jot (stop) or tittle (daguesh) would pass away until all be fulfilled. I believe that with all my heart. It's by faith that we know that God made the heavens and the earth. We accept science but faith in what God has said in His word overrules the theories that people come up with out of their heads. Evolution etc. simply remains a theory but what God says in His word remains the constant reality. All will know that one day.

 

[paulm50]

If you don't believe the beginning of Genesis, I would ask, do you believe ANY of the Bible? if so, how do you chose which bits to believe and which bits not to?

Common sense works for me.

 

[paulm50]

It's a thing of faith really. Jesus said that not one Jot (stop) or tittle (daguesh) would pass away until all be fulfilled. I believe that with all my heart. It's by faith that we know that God made the heavens and the earth. We accept science but faith in what God has said in His word overrules the theories that people come up with out of their heads. Evolution etc. simply remains a theory but what God says in His word remains the constant reality. All will know that one day.

He also said people living in his time would see a lot that never happened.

So was he lying or the people who wrote his story?

 

[hgkeller771]

If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

God Bless!

I understand that Moses wrote the first few books of the Bible. I guess that would include Genesis. Moses was not a scientific man who was inspired by God. If God included all the details about how He created the earth and the stars, the Bible would have been a science book. The population at the time it was written would not have been interested. It would have been 100 volumes larger than it is. God's message would not have been conveyed.

I believe the Bible and especially Genesis is figuratively true and to a certain extent literally true. The Bible was written for a nonscientific audience. There is a passage in the Bible that says the earth is round. I read it and didn't take note of it. Haven't been able to find it since then. The nonscientific audience believed the earth was flat.

Consider "time". On the fourth day God created the heavens and the sun, moon and stars. We define a day as 24 hours and a year as 365 days because of the mechanics of the sun and earth. In day 1,2, and 3 there was not a sun. So how does God define as a day? To God, time is meaningless. To Him a day could be a million years. Or, four billion years. Who knows? No one. His use of the term 'day' in Genesis was for Moses and His followers understanding. Scientifically meaningless.

You must read and understand the Bible as a great teacher about God and His wisdom. Don't try to figure it all out. It was not meant for us to question and define. It is for us to learn lessons about life and how to live on earth and be happy worshiping the Lord. There will be great rewards for you.

 

[hgkeller771]

No, it is at odds with the evidence. That is why well over 90% of all scientists accept evolution. When it comes to people that understand that topic the best it is over 99% and approaching or even passing 99.9%. To reject the theory of evolution one must eventually rejects all science.

Fourty eight(48.7%) percent of all statistics are made up. Evolution and creation are the same. "David's Gifts" explains.

 

[eslombe]

No, it is at odds with the evidence. That is why well over 90% of all scientists accept evolution. When it comes to people that understand that topic the best it is over 99% and approaching or even passing 99.9%. To reject the theory of evolution one must eventually rejects all science.

how is rejecting evolution at odds with all science?! for the last 5000 years of recorded and documented history i am still waiting for the slightest evidence that an ape or any animal for that matter is evolving into something else. let alone say what humans are evolving into? someone just give me anything.As far as i am concerned evolution is the biggest hoax ever concocted by men who had not answers ti their origin let alone explain their very existance.

 

[lewiley]

I've seen this discussion so many times but rarely has anyone discussed what "literally" means because I never see OT Hebrew scholars weigh in. Therefore, "literally" means according to the standard English translations. Well, there are many grammatical difficulties in the first chapter that are interpreted to make smooth English out of the text. For example, "In the beginning" is a grammatically imperfect translation. There is no article to translate as "the". Others translate the phrase as "at the beginning of". There is a vocalization change for this but at least it answers ,"The beginning of what." So what is it the beginning of: the story, time, days? Grammatically it is definitely not "In The beginning."

We often talk dogmatically about things we should keep our mouth shut about. I hold my translations and my science loosely, but nor inconsistently.

 

[Anguspure]

If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

I think you'll find that the Genesis account is literally true.
What might be a problem however is men reading translations of the text with little understanding of the original text or of natural laws that the Creator has put in place.
When a text is read in ignorance of these things all sorts of aberrant "literal" interpretations become possible and in doing the interpreter does a disservice to and brings discredit to the author of the text.
For example, with regard to the literal length of time that God took to create, Rabbi Moses ben Naḥman Girondi is known to have calculated the 6 days of creation to have occurred over a period of about 15 billion years. He came to this figure from a detailed literal reading of Genesis and his understanding of time relativity as relates to the expansion of the universe (interestingly about 800 years before Einstein).

 

[Loudmouth]

how is rejecting evolution at odds with all science?! for the last 5000 years of recorded and documented history i am still waiting for the slightest evidence that an ape or any animal for that matter is evolving into something else.

You were never shown the transitional fossils?

You were never shown the genetic evidence?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

 

[01tj]

Ken Hamm provides scientific evidence that supports the creation as presented in Genius