Is Genesis literal or a myth

[Jimlarmore]

I think it may be time to open this thread here. This discussion has been an ongoing thing on another thread that is not titled for this. I would like to briefly start out with the validity of the book of Genesis. Specifically, the creation account and the Global flood. I have debated this on several occasions with mainstream scientists and atheists/agnotics but I really didn't expect to have to do that on an SDA forum. I find it incredible that there are those amoung us SDA's who don't accept the Bible's account as being literal.

Let's start with the creation account. I accept the Bible's rendition of how life started because the alternative is impossible even given 15 billion years. The main reason this is true is because of the complexity that exists within the cell, which is the bottom line of all life. Inside the cell there is what is known as irreducible complexity. That is a fancy name for systems that could not have come about by random or slow mechanisms. Additionally, they all had to be there in the beginning for them to work. One prominent scientist who came up with this idea a few years back uses the illustration of a mouse trap. Take anyone part of a mouse trap apart and it won't work. It's the same in many ways with biochemicals and biosytems within the cell. From the cell membrane or wall if it's plant life there is a profusement of irreducible complecity.

Additonally, there is a probability factor of life arising ( a single cell ) from random modalities that is so high that it is outside the realm of good likely-hood even given all the time they say the universe has existed. Something like 1 X 10 ^123rd power. That's a one with 123 zeros behind it. A number so astronomically high it's incredible. To give you some perspective of what this number represents you need to realize that every time a zero is added to one of these scientific notation numbers the quantity it represents increases ten fold. For example 1 X 10 ^3 is one thousand. Add a zero and you get 1 x 10 ^4 which is ten thousand, 1 x 10^5 is 100,000, 1 x 10^ 6 is 1000,000 or a million and so forth. The size of 1 X 10 ^123 is larger than we can imagine.

Let's discuss briefly another aspect of life that is astounding and indicates an intelligent designer. Amino acids are the main component for proteins and enzymes in the cell and can exist in several forms or 3-D shapes. A biomolecules 3-D presentation is known chemically as it's chirality and can be right handed or left handed. One should expect if life originated in random ways that we should see both right and left amino acids in living sytems but we don't. What we find is nothing but left handed amino acids in all living systems, no exceptions. The plot thickens when we also look at the DNA which is coded to make all the enzymes and proteins in the cell is biomolecularly right handed only.

Additionally, the DNA is actually a code as mentioned before and represents a bio-language of such. There has never been observed in any form of natural randomness a code or language created by fortuitous or random modalities of any kind.

God created the cell and life. It actually takes more faith in my opinion to believe the mainstream paradigm than it does to have faith that God created all that we know and see.

I'll post again on the flood.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

Let's continue with a few things that tells us that the global flood was a literal event not a local place to place event.

Stratigraphic layers are consistent with rapid hydological sedimentation not slow billions of years accumulation. Some other things that tell us the global flood was literal is:

1. The entire surface of the earth shows evidence of massive hydrological catastrophy.

2. Massive fossil formation and accmulation all over the planet. This would only be possible if a global wide catastrophy had occurred.

3. Human artifacts found contemporary to dinosaurs and in formations like coal and crystalates that supposedly predate human arrival on the scene.

4. Observational support for catastrophic plate tectonics world wide.

5. Excessive deposits of relatively pure minerals like lime, chalk and salt that would not be produced by todays zoological rate of production given the amount of time the earth has supposedly been here.

These are just a small amount of things that can be used to support the global flood, there are many many more things.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

This is a very interesting topic, and an important one. The first arguments you have put forth are fine for arguing intelligent design, which is quite different to the "literal" interpretation of genesis.

The flood arguments are alright, but by no means the final word on flood geology. Our very own Geoscience Research Institute has trouble providing evidence for a singular global flood, not to mention the can of worms that is plate techtonics which is the stongest evidence for an earth over 100 billion years old.

The problem of debating the text of genesis is that most people assume that the first account must be talking about some specific time period when it mentions "days". (whether you say 24 hours or "long ages") I don't claim expert knowledge (others will have read more than I) Hebrew scholars will say that day in genesis is deffinately 24 hours (which in my mind closes the day-age argument), however, genesis was written in order to affirm God as creator of all, and the Genesis author has most likely used a pre existing cosmological model from Mesopotamia mythology, only with God at the centre of a peaceful creation rather than a violent one. (Reading the second genesis account can further support this)

This idea is usually called the poem-polemic view, and is supported by a number of top Hebrew scholars and a growing number of christian scientists.

The idea of the poem-polemic view is not to discredit and undermine God's word, but to see it for what it is - a poetic cosmological account that imintates pre existing mythologies, but affirms God at the centre.

An example of something similar is Christ using the parable of looking from heaven down into hell and conversing between the two worlds. This is agreed by Adventists to be Jesus using a pre existing myth to teach a point. Jesus was not teaching that there was an eternal hell and that people in heaven could look down and talk to people in hell. And believing this does not undermine scriptural authority.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

What I wanted to say first though, is that most of the time, any discusion of concepts like "literal" and "myth" presuppose that literal means true and myth means false. Or evcen more so that "literal" is the only case for scriptural autority and "myth" can only lead to undermining scriptural authority. It seems that there is nowhere in between.

I disagree that "literal" is the only path to scriptural authority. It is possible to say something true, but use mythological or even metaphorical language. If that were not the case, then the Bible would not use so many literary devices (poetry, parable, story, letters, apocolyptic) and would be formatted in a straight history and science text book style. If the Bible (particularly Genesis for this point) were strictly literal, than we might have an account of how God used and manipulated physics, or why we see stars billions of light years away. Instead we have two conflicting accounts told in poetic manners which contradicts various laws of science.

 

[capnator]

Is Genesis literal or a myth? Any and every view on the origin of the world takes faith! In the past Science has been wrong over and over and over again, you can debate and theologise all you want it's a go nowhere and frustrating argument with each side needing to have equally ridiculous leaps of faith.

If you doubt some of the Genesis story, then how on earth do you decide which bits you want to believe?? Just make up your own religion, based on the findings of some "intelligent" boffin who says whatever seems to tickle your ears.

The bible is full of the "riduculous", Creation, fall of man, flood, demons, angels, visions, insane miracles, raising the dead, angels slaying armies of people, the end of the world, God becoming a man, possessed people, spiritual gifts... and much more. Honestly if this stuff is rubbish why then would you believe anything else this crazy book says.

 

[capnator]

For those who want to place their faith in SCIENCE and the so called intelligence of those who want to brandy about big words and "complex" theories, You are putting your faith in people who have a legacy of coming up with the most ridiculous theories of all about how things work... but who in the present are always right

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I don't really care if someone wants to believe in Genesis as being literal or a myth. What I don't like is the assumption that you must believe it is literal or you don't believe in God or inspiration. So for those who want to look at the story a little closer here is an article I wrote a while ago,

Genesis in Symbol and Substance​

By Ron Corson​

My 7-year-old son came to me after watching a video about the Creation and the Garden of Eden.


He stood beside me wrapped in a blanket since he as most of my children have determined clothing is not necessary at home. As I was cleaning the table, he said, "if they had not eaten the fruit of that tree then we would all live forever". I told him that is right and asked him why did they eat the fruit of that tree. He looked back at me blankly, so I said the real problem was that they, Adam and Eve did not trust God. They thought they knew more than God did, they rejected God by their actions, but it was their attitude that caused the problem, not the tree or its fruit. As you can imagine the light did not go on over his head, he has enough respect not to tell me I was crazy. Yet, the look on his face told me that to him, it was the act of eating from the bad tree that caused us all to have to die. However, as with most of the Bible, understanding the substance behind the stories can lead to far greater understanding the then literalism that a child sees.


In the last century there has been much written about the first chapters of Genesis. Much has dealt with the literal or figurative nature of the seven days of creation. Even with all that has been written there is a great divide which remains between the different proponents of each idea. Whether a Genesis day is 24 hours or 1000 years is not the focus of this article. Instead, the focus is on the substance behind the things written in the first few chapters of Genesis, that is, how to look for the meaning within the story. As with most stories the goal may not be to present a precise time line and sequence of action of our beginnings. But to express to the listener in general terms how we are in the situation that we see around us now.


The first six days of creation are quite easily understood. In fact, it is stated in the very first verse.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1
The steps in the process are listed as on one day something was created and it was good, and the next day something else was created. It is a simple formula which reemphasizes the central thought of the chapter, that God created everything we see. How it precisely was done is not indicated energy changed to matter or creation from nothing to something simply by the will of God. It is of little importance for even in a society as technologically advanced as ours today is, it is a mind-boggling idea. Would it be any more understandable to the hunter or the shepherd of ancient Israel? Still the substance remains; God created the Heavens and the Earth.


The story continues that after all we see was created man was added to the scene. The story does not concern itself with details, how did man learn to talk, was he created with knowledge of did he have to learn the multitudes of things which humans have to learn to live. Man is given dominion over all he sees. This is demonstrated in the small but amazing detail which tells us that man gave names to all the animals. No small task even if man only spent one second on each animal. (Scientist speculate that only 10% of the species that have ever lived are currently alive.)


The story has told us so far that God created the Heavens and the Earth, Sun and moon, plants and animals and mankind. That is the substance, the how’s and why can still be debated as vigorously as anyone wants to debate them. What it has done is to set the stage with everything that mankind sees around them.


Now of course a problem occurs, the problem is clear to all people, we are not living in a paradise where mankind rules all of nature. The story moves to tell us how we arrived at the current situation. It has presented us with a God created world which is good, however now the focus changes to man, God the prime mover thus far steps back from the action.


Adam means, "man" in the symbol we see him as the representation of all men. Eve means life-giver literally the first woman, the representation of all women. Our focus is to look at the substance of the story, what is the story trying to tell us as well as those who first heard the story. The story is often viewed as historical, but as we look at the story do not remove the possibility that there is symbolism which can lead more to the expression of concepts rather then merely lessons from their failures.


Before we continue with the story Gen. 2:10-14 diverges to give a geography lesson. The topography mentioned might have had significance to the ancient Israelites or it may have not. We are left with little explanation for this aside in the story. Possibly it is to set Eden in the geographic center, whatever the names indicate they are of far latter origin then the Eden story. We shall for this time ignore the two different accounts of the creation often identified as the account of chapter 1 and the account of chapter 2, and work as if it is one story.


Gen 2:9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; Gen 2:17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."


As we move to the man portion of the story God has set two trees in the Garden, one of life and the other of the knowledge of good and evil. No directions are given for the tree of life, only a restriction for the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There are certain religions which from this tiny amount of information given so far have determined that if the first man and woman had not eaten of this tree mankind would not know good as well as knowing evil. To them, it was necessary for mankind to fail the test. This is here pointed out not to make fun of their teachings but rather as a warning not to jump on something and makes claims that are ill supported. It is a call to look to the substance.


When most Christians read this story they often interpret the events in the light of scripture written latter. This is normal and appropriate for us, but it may also be useful to look at the story the way one hearing it for the first time would think about it. As the story was most likely heard in the format we see now sometime after the exodus from bondage of the children of Israel. To them it would not be a dramatically different story from the ones that the religions around them taught. Order from chaos is a main feature of many ancient myths. Even what we may think is the most unusual aspect of the story, the talking serpent, is not unusual. Talking animals are also common in many ancient myths. We cannot say where the stories began if the myths are distortions of the actual history, or if the myths influenced the Hebrew creation story. We could hide behind a claim that God would never condone the use of myths but that is merely a prejudice we have placed on God. God has always had a tendency to reach people where they were, in the effort of bringing them to where He wants them to be. No one can read the Old Testament from beginning to end without noting how people’s views of God grew and changed. From a God appeased by sacrifices to a God who loved and redeemed. From Warrior God to Redeemer God, God was not changing but people were changing. They moved from the angry God to a God of love.


In the story, God has set before mankind the choice between life and death. Life is shown in the Tree of Life, Death is revealed in the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For the latter tree brings death. If the tree of Life defines itself as Life, then the other tree defines itself likewise. It was against God's will for man to experience the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, this tree represents rebellion against God. The distrust, which says that what God has told us, is not for our good, we know more than God. A God who withholds from us good is selfish at the least and evil at worst. These words are the words the serpent used to tear apart the relationship between God and man. Now out of this chaos God created life so in substance the Tree of Life represents God. The Tree of knowledge of good and evil in substance represents the rebellion against God. What we today like to call sin.


In the story there is a talking serpent; the substance of the serpent is that of an adversary, someone opposed to God, planting thoughts of distrust about God. In the story the serpent gives rise to the questions about God's goodness. It is the voice of doubt, the voice of self-exaltation, the voice of human sinfulness and rebellion.
After Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the forbidden tree, they realize that they have done something wrong. The symbol is that they notice they are naked, they would have no reason to feel ashamed at the way they were created except for now they know they are no longer good as they were declared when created. The nakedness symbolizes their inability to hide from God the wrong they have committed. Even after their actions are discovered the first man and woman pass the blame to others. Adam blames both God and the woman ("the woman you put here with me"), Eve blames the serpent. It is here that we see the consequences given for the actions. The consequences like the other elements in creation are things which we see around us everyday.


The serpent is cursed above all creatures and doomed to crawl on its belly. By using it as the symbol of temptation and rebellion every time a person who has heard the story of the creation and sees a snake the story is remembered. The natural fear which people have of snakes because of their silent stealth and poisonous danger is described as enmity between both the serpent and the woman's offspring. Man will crush the serpent’s head and the serpent with strike man's heel. After the incarnation of Christ, people have looked back at this verse as Christ crushing the head of Satan. Christ as the offspring, and Satan as the ultimate adversary.
For the woman increase of pain in childbirth is instituted, again explaining something that is readily seen around us. The male will rule over you is the next curse placed upon the woman, again explaining the patriarchal society found throughout the world. To Adam the ground is cursed and will require painful toil, producing thorns and thistles. As before the curses declare to the listener things that are ever present on the earth.


The Lord makes for the couple garments of skin, a covering for their nakedness. Many people wrongly assume a sacrificial system inaugurated at this point. Assuming that God killed one or more animals to cover the people with an animal skin. But that is not really indicated it is developed by people inserting events into the story which were not there. The verse never even says animal skins and it is no simple or quick matter to make garments out of a skinned animal without proper preparation. If we are not sidetracked by inserting extra details into the story we can see what the substance of the garments is. The substance is that after the rebellion, and the finger pointing and the curses of mankind and the environment, God shows concern for the people. He covers their nakedness. Later in both the remainder of the Old Testament and again in the New Testament we will see that the covering is symbolic of forgiveness.


Man now experiences the results of evil and is no longer entitled to live in the presence of life. This is symbolized by the Tree of Life which is within the Garden of Eden. Therefore, mankind is banished from the Garden of God. Placing cherubim with a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the Tree of Life. The substance here is that mankind will not find his way back to the Life unless God once again opens the road. Man now lives separated from God. The creation story does not introduce people to the plan of salvation, redemption and reconciliation, they will be revealed later through the prophets and apostles and ultimately through Jesus Christ.


Whether we look at the story as a literal or a metaphorical story the substance remains generally the same. While those who prefer to look at the story as a literal historical occurrence in practice look to the substance of the meaning behind the events. Take for instance the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Even those viewing the story as historical, note that it was the act of disobedience which was the first sin. It was not the fruit of the tree which somehow revealed to mankind what evil was. This is an entirely proper analysis; it goes to the substance of the story. However, if you talk to the same people about the Tree of Life it is the actual fruit that is eaten which provides eternal life. They have left the substance that is that God is the creator and source of life, to a very literal view that the fruit of the Tree of Life provides eternal life. When moving to that literalistic view many unanswerable questions will arise. For instance, did God create mankind with a self-restricting mechanism to die unless they ate from the Tree of Life? Does the devil and his demons eat of the Tree of Life since they do not seem to die?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

part 2 Article can be found at Http://newprotestant/Articles/Genesis.htm


To this point, we have predominately looked at the first three chapters of Genesis in a very restricted view. Looking at the story more in the light of a thoughtful person, who knew little about the Hebrew God, yet was familiar with other religious myths, much like the Israelites. Now we shall begin an analysis using the rest of the Bible to help us understand more of what God has intended for us.

Since we have just looked at the Tree of Life let us begin there again. It has been said by some that a tree is a tree. That usually would be true only if we knew for certain what the writer meant when making his/her statement. Consider the following:

She is a tree of life to those who embrace her; those who lay hold of her will be blessed (Prov 3:18)
The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is wise. (Prov 11:30)
Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life. (Prov 13:12)
The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit. (Prov 15:4) (NIV)

Simple metaphors are represented here in Proverbs, which should confuse few people with their intent. Aside from the verses in Genesis to which we have already alluded and those found in Proverbs, the book of Revelation is the only other place where the phrase Tree of Life occurs.

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God (Rev 2:7)
On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations (Rev 22:2)
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. (Rev 22:14)
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Rev 22:19) (NIV)

As we look at these verses though they are not the simple metaphors of Proverbs they are however much more metaphor then literal when the thoughts around them are observed. Such as phrases like: leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations, and Blessed are those who wash their robes. While overall most Christians do not take Revelation too literally, it is especially noticeable when certain words or phrases are removed for the symbolic or metaphorical context and taken to be literal. This is sometimes the case when certain Christians read books like Isaiah and Ezekiel with the same results. Most often this is seen in those who hold that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are references to Satan. (See Lucifer Misidentified) Ezekiel gives us another excellent example of an instance where a tree is not a tree. Speaking of Egypt the verse says:

"Son of man, say to Pharaoh king of Egypt and to his hordes: "`Who can be compared with you in majesty? (Ezek 31:2)
The cedars in the garden of God could not rival it, nor could the pine trees equal its boughs, nor could the plane trees compare with its branches-- no tree in the garden of God could match its beauty. I made it beautiful with abundant branches, the envy of all the trees of Eden in the garden of God. (Ezek 31:8-9) (NIV)

The metaphor not only provides poetic beauty but it moves the listener past the world of concrete reality to the place where the meaning or the message can be seen. However it requires the listener to look past the concrete language and analyze the words in the full context of the statement.

The tradition within the Christian church has been to see the serpent as the devil, Satan. (It is not until the book of Revelation that the connection is made between the serpent in Eden and Satan, Rev 20:2) This may not have been the typical Jewish understanding since the connection with Satan is not drawn anywhere in the Old Testament. Yet, when the substance of the story is examined it matters very little if Adam and Eve were deceived by an outside being or if the thoughts of rebellion against God came from inside their own minds. The point is that trust in God had been abandoned.

Now think of the serpent used by Moses in the desert to find protection:

The people came to Moses and said, "We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us." So Moses prayed for the people. The LORD said to Moses, "Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live." So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, he lived. Num 21:7-9

It is doubtful that people looked at the snake as a symbol of Satan, as it was lifted up. The snake was, as used in Genesis the symbol of the curse of rebellion, and how nature itself in some ways had become man’s enemy. Their rebellion here in the wilderness and the way out of their destruction lay in the hands of God. The typology of the snake lifted up by Moses is often correspondent with Christ being lifted up on the Cross.
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." John 12:32 (NIV)

The correspondence is that looking to Christ provides the sinner with salvation just as looking to the snake lifted up in the wilderness provided healing from the venomous snakebites. But as we look more at the substance we can see also that as the snake was the symbol for rebellion and the curse of sin, Christ is also the symbol for rebellion and sin. As the children of Israel rebelled against Moses about being led into the wilderness and even complained about the Manna which God provided, Christ stands as the ultimate result of mankind’s rebellion. Christ was lifted up, crucified by the cruel hatred so often demonstrated by humanity. In Christ, we see the ultimate result of sin; that rebellious man would go so far as to kill his or her own creator.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. Acts 3:13-15 (NIV)
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Cor 5:21 (NIV)

Christ brings to light the true nature of the rebellion against God. A dramatic representation of just where our rebellion takes us. Man has killed his fellow man since the very beginning of time, but Christ death shows us that we can indeed commit acts that are more horrible. But we need not be left in our own disgusting circumstances. We can repent and accept again the God who offers us life.

Then Jesus cried out, "When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me. When he looks at me, he sees the one who sent me. I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness. John 12:44-46 (NIV)
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; John 11:25 (NIV)

From the Curse upon the snake in Eden... to the curse of snakes upon the children of Israel in the wilderness... to the curse of a Christ hung on a tree, all point out the rebellion of man. All should lead us to the answer to the problem, to put to death our hostility against God and accept His gift of life. We should not point fingers as did Adam and Eve in the Garden we must learn to accept our own responsibilities for our rebellion. The devil did not cause man’s fall, man did. It may well be that we do not understand the role of the adversary, but it is clear that we can not battle the adversary ourselves. As with all things concerning salvation it is through the power of God working in us that we press toward the mark, the total reconciliation with God.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." Gal 3:13 (NIV)
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit. Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. Eph 2:13-22 (NIV)

When time is spent looking at the substance of the first chapters of Genesis it is possible to see far more then the supposed historicity they are said to contain. The story tells us far more when we do not have to worry about how creation occurred or what time frame may be involved. Problems such as who did Cain marry or just what inspired the people to present animal sacrifices no longer become problems. Our understanding of the ancient world does not have to be based on sparse information. We become free to say that we do not know all we may want to know, and yet what has been provided gives us enough information to recognize our situation. The story of the first chapters of Genesis may indeed be historic; but then again, they do not have to be. The substance behind the story is the key, what does God want us to learn from the stories is the important point.

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. 1 Cor 15:45-49 (NIV)

 

[Jimlarmore]

When time is spent looking at the substance of the first chapters of Genesis it is possible to see far more then the supposed historicity they are said to contain. The story tells us far more when we do not have to worry about how creation occurred or what time frame may be involved. Problems such as who did Cain marry or just what inspired the people to present animal sacrifices no longer become problems. Our understanding of the ancient world does not have to be based on sparse information. We become free to say that we do not know all we may want to know, and yet what has been provided gives us enough information to recognize our situation. The story of the first chapters of Genesis may indeed be historic; but then again, they do not have to be. The substance behind the story is the key, what does God want us to learn from the stories is the important point.

Thankyou for your contribution:

I have no problem with what you have said here except for your statement that the stories don't have to be literal or historic. I think God intended for us to not only see and understand the "substance" and metaphoricaly aspects of His inspired writings but that they actually happened the way the Bible says they did. For instance I think when the Bible says the serpent spoke to Eve that this actually happened in a real way and not only as a literary metaphor to give moral significance later on. When we have questions about the stories that we can't understand then we have to accept them on faith and not question the validity or literalness of the Holy Scriptures.

Jesus Christ made it clear that the flood actually happened as the Bible said it did. He also confirmed the Jonah story, one that skeptics say was a myth or that it couldn't happen. So we have the stories initially given then a confirmation of that story as being valid and real when Christ comes. To me if we reject the literalness of these accouts then we also have to reject Christ who confirmed them.

To me the Bible stands or falls on it's validity. When we in our puffed up intelligent ways start to question the validity of the Holy Scripture we are venturing on dangerous ground. What has been presented is an eloquent explanation of how the Bible presents us with metaphor and substance that have a moral lesson for us to think about and thats good. However, in the process of saying the Bible doesn't have to be literal a shadow of doubt is now thrown upon the Holy Scriptures. A flie in the ointment so to speak. Do you honestly think God would give us stories of man's fall that were just an allegory or mythical tale from man's untrue stories being passed around at that time? I don't think so.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Jimlarmore]

This is a very interesting topic, and an important one. The first arguments you have put forth are fine for arguing intelligent design, which is quite different to the "literal" interpretation of genesis.

Hi Doc, thanks for contributing:

This is quite true however as a Christian the default for fortuitous origins automatically falls to God creating life. I realize there are many others out there that use panspermia or some other intelligent source for how life got started here. I'd say that the majority though from all religious sources is that God , however He is viewed created life. For the muslims God is Allah, for the Hindus there are many gods and incarnation is an ongoing thing but life actually got it's start from one of their god's. I think even the Buddist believe it was a supernatural agent that would be considered a god created life.

The flood arguments are alright, but by no means the final word on flood geology. Our very own Geoscience Research Institute has trouble providing evidence for a singular global flood, not to mention the can of worms that is plate techtonics which is the stongest evidence for an earth over 100 billion years old.

Actually, very rapid plate tectonics according to Dr. Baumgardener was intimately involved. Dr. Walter Brown confirms this as well. There is some good evidence out there that will convince an open mind that it happened but if you want to doubt there will always be evidence to support your doubt too.

The idea of the poem-polemic view is not to discredit and undermine God's word, but to see it for what it is - a poetic cosmological account that imintates pre existing mythologies, but affirms God at the centre.

I have no problem with this until it starts to invalidate the scriptures or impune the inspiration by saying that the stories were mere reflections of stories being passed around at the time. Finding similar stories to me does not put in question the Bible but shows how satan works to make it easy to be skeptical. Also, whose to say just how original some of these stories actually were back then and maybe they started with the actual account that is recorded in the Bible? For instance the story of a global flood exists in hundreds of ancient cultures all over the world, some so far removed and isolated that it's unlikely they came from a mythical story. What makes more sense is that as man spread out from the plains of mesopotamia after the tower of Babel that the flood truth went with them and was passed down from generation to generation.


God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

To me the Bible stands or falls on it's validity. When we in our puffed up intelligent ways start to question the validity of the Holy Scripture we are venturing on dangerous ground.

The question is not valitidy, because a story can be just as valid a teaching tool as literal history. The dangerous ground comes when we deny the human expression of poetic rhetoric and replace it with literalism. In a world that is scientifically literate such appeals to faith in one view of interpretation is not faith at all, merely bias toward one way of looking at something.

 

[Jimlarmore]

The question is not valitidy, because a story can be just as valid a teaching tool as literal history. The dangerous ground comes when we deny the human expression of poetic rhetoric and replace it with literalism. In a world that is scientifically literate such appeals to faith in one view of interpretation is not faith at all, merely bias toward one way of looking at something.

I disagree. I think having faith in the word of God is foundational to the Christian experience. That includes accepting as literal what it says even if we can't understand it now. We can find all sorts of things prophecy wise to confirm the validity of God's word and bolster our faith in God and His Holy Scripture. However, when one says that in a world that is scientifically literate it's not faith just a way of looking at something then that someone is impuning a person's ability to choose man's intelligence and truth over God's truth in the Bible. Besides how can one say what is faith in one is just a way of believing in another?

Sure there are a lot of things in the Bible we will never be able to explain or understand and that's ok. Maybe we shouldn't be able to. The Bible has told us that God's ways are above ours and we know His abilities are far above ours. As a person with a strong scientific background I can tell you not all is truely explained in the mainstream paradigms. As a matter of fact what science does is invalidate not only the existence of God but anything in the Bible as being literal. Good evidence to support the Bible is dismissed off hand because as you said in your post, they are bias towards a way of looking or believing in things.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I disagree. I think having faith in the word of God is foundational to the Christian experience. That includes accepting as literal what it says even if we can't understand it now. We can find all sorts of things prophecy wise to confirm the validity of God's word and bolster our faith in God and His Holy Scripture. However, when one says that in a world that is scientifically literate it's not faith just a way of looking at something then that someone is impuning a person's ability to choose man's intelligence and truth over God's truth in the Bible. Besides how can one say what is faith in one is just a way of believing in another?

Naturally you disagree because you have inserted your assumptions into the Bible. We went over this before, you assume that the Bible is the word of God, the Bible does not make such a claim nor does any particular book that comprises the Bible. So because you have inserted that meaning into the Bible you can't allow for other interpretations. Such as mine that the Bible can contain the words of God but the whole thing is not the word of God because it is clearly a product of human writing. In other words the Bible is meant to teach but that does not make such books as Genesis, Job, Jonah, or the prophets books literal. Because Jesus mentions a story does not make that story an historical fact, things can be mentioned which are references to stories, people do it all the time, the story of the rich man and Lazarus should be enough to dissuade you of that notion because it states that Lazarus was carried to Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22)

Besides how can one say what is faith in one is just a way of believing in another?

Which is why your exclusion of other possibilities is not appropriate. The Bible never asks us to have faith in the stories, or the laws, or the poetry. Faith is to be in God. Unfortunately for the fundamentalist viewpoint faith is based upon their interpretations often based upon questionable suppositions.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Such as mine that the Bible can contain the words of God but the whole thing is not the word of God because it is clearly a product of human writing.

The Bible says ALL Scripture is the inspired word of God. Do you reject this truth?

In other words the Bible is meant to teach but that does not make such books as Genesis, Job, Jonah, or the prophets books literal.

Then you must reject the clear word of Jesus Christ Himself then because He confirmed the stories of Genesis and the Jonah story.

Because Jesus mentions a story does not make that story an historical fact, things can be mentioned which are references to stories, people do it all the time, the story of the rich man and Lazarus should be enough to dissuade you of that notion because it states that Lazarus was carried to Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22)

What Jesus did was much more than a mere mention of the stories. He made what you can say was a matter of fact statement declarative one i.e. " As it was in the days of Noah so shall it be when the Son of Man comes, for they were eating and drinking until the flood came and took them all away. The same thing happened with the Jonah story. In that case He basically said Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nites so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nites. Christ took the events to be literal and not figurative or metaphorical.

Which is why your exclusion of other possibilities is not appropriate. The Bible never asks us to have faith in the stories, or the laws, or the poetry. Faith is to be in God. Unfortunately for the fundamentalist viewpoint faith is based upon their interpretations often based upon questionable suppositions.

You can't have faith in God without having faith in what He inspired us to read and direct our path here in this life. One tells us about the other, Ps 138:2 tells us God places His word above even His name. The Bible is the place God's word is contained, it is the word of God.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

Is Genesis literal or a myth? Any and every view on the origin of the world takes faith! In the past Science has been wrong over and over and over again, you can debate and theologise all you want it's a go nowhere and frustrating argument with each side needing to have equally ridiculous leaps of faith.

If you doubt some of the Genesis story, then how on earth do you decide which bits you want to believe?? Just make up your own religion, based on the findings of some "intelligent" boffin who says whatever seems to tickle your ears.

All I can say is that you must be using your mind at all times and evaluate what someone is saying. You don't accept what a "boffin" is saying just because he/she says it or because they have letters after their name, you accept it because they have a strong argument and have built a convincing case.

To say that science has been wrong over and over does not tell the whole story. Theories are disgarded to make way for more adequate and appropriate ideas. This is because science is always searching and evaluating itself. It doesn't settle on one idea that is limited by human understanding, but searches for better.

The bible is full of the "riduculous", Creation, fall of man, flood, demons, angels, visions, insane miracles, raising the dead, angels slaying armies of people, the end of the world, God becoming a man, possessed people, spiritual gifts... and much more. Honestly if this stuff is rubbish why then would you believe anything else this crazy book says.

For me, the fact that the ridiculous is present in the Bible does not add up to the idea that it all must be literal. This is not choosing what to believe on a whim, but carfully studying and exploring the scriptures.

For those who want to place their faith in SCIENCE and the so called intelligence of those who want to brandy about big words and "complex" theories, You are putting your faith in people who have a legacy of coming up with the most ridiculous theories of all about how things work... but who in the present are always right

This also describes Christians (and other religious thinkers) both medievil, modern, and post-modern. This is the pattern in all human understanding

Actually, very rapid plate tectonics according to Dr. Baumgardener was intimately involved. Dr. Walter Brown confirms this as well. There is some good evidence out there that will convince an open mind that it happened but if you want to doubt there will always be evidence to support your doubt too.



I have no problem with this until it starts to invalidate the scriptures or impune the inspiration by saying that the stories were mere reflections of stories being passed around at the time. Finding similar stories to me does not put in question the Bible but shows how satan works to make it easy to be skeptical. Also, whose to say just how original some of these stories actually were back then and maybe they started with the actual account that is recorded in the Bible? For instance the story of a global flood exists in hundreds of ancient cultures all over the world, some so far removed and isolated that it's unlikely they came from a mythical story. What makes more sense is that as man spread out from the plains of mesopotamia after the tower of Babel that the flood truth went with them and was passed down from generation to generation.


God Bless
Jim Larmore

In my understanding, the majority of geologists support the idea that the Earths crust is too brittle to withstand rapid movement. I have read other similar arguments for rapid plate movement by the Creation Science movement and I will chase these works that you have mentioned.


I do not have sources in front of me, but i have read that the archeological evidence places Mesopoamian cosmologies before the Hebrew account (some hundreds of years)

If Genesis was literal, the world we live in would be a much different place. It would be much smaller, non spherical with to giant pillars on either side and a mountain in the middle where the garden of eden was.

The things that speak to me in Genesis is that it tells me that God created the heavens and the earth (that is, everything) and that sin enters the world and he has a plan for us.

There is definite evidence as you have stated for a global flood mythology which also supports a pre-Babel incident that has been taken by many cultures that covered the earth and told as their own myth.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

The Bible says ALL Scripture is the inspired word of God. Do you reject this truth?

No the Bible does not say that. You keep inserting that into the Bible as I have pointed out before. So what you assert as truth in the above is not truth at all. You use it as an excuse for a viewpoint that the Bible does in no way teach itself.

Even if the verse you try to create in your own desired way in its context would not allow you to use it the way you try to use it. None of those things listed requires that everything in the Bible has to be literal, or historical. Yet that is how you keep trying to use the verse.

[SIZE=+1] [SIZE=+1](KJV) 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](TEV) 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living,
[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](RSV) 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](GodsWord) 2 Timothy 3:16 "Every Scripture passage is inspired by God. All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting people, and training them for a life that has God's approval."
[/SIZE][SIZE=+1](ASV) 2 Timothy 3:16 Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.
[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](Wey NT) 2 Timothy 3:16 Every Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for convincing, for correction of error, and for instruction in right doing;
[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1](Young) 2 Timothy 3:16 every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,
(NIV) 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training for righteousness
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
The context of the verse in question is about seeing salvation in Jesus:

12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13while evil men and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Also go to my blog and read the most recent post which gives a good quiz about what is relevant from the Bible today or not. I did not make up the quiz it is from a SDA Pastor, it should give people pause when they try to declare the Bible the "Word of God".
http://cafesda.blogspot.com

 

[Jimlarmore]

To say that science has been wrong over and over does not tell the whole story. Theories are disgarded to make way for more adequate and appropriate ideas. This is because science is always searching and evaluating itself. It doesn't settle on one idea that is limited by human understanding, but searches for better.

This is generally true.The exception being in some cases scientists totally ignore solid evidence that supports intelligent design or refutes macro-evolution. Paradigms die hard.

For me, the fact that the ridiculous is present in the Bible does not add up to the idea that it all must be literal. This is not choosing what to believe on a whim, but carfully studying and exploring the scriptures.

Of course the symbology in the Bible is not literal but points to or represents something that is literal. What I am trying to do here is make those reading these discussions aware of some trends I have seen in other places concerning this type of thinking. What is prevalent in the mainstream scientific community is that the accounts in the Bible cannot be literal because what it says is outside of observable phenomenon as we know them today. As a matter of fact if you tell some of them that you believe the world was created by fiat creation by a omnipotent God they look at you as if you weren't in possession of all your faculties.

When someone says they believe God created everything then in the same breath impunes the very book that told them that. Then on top of that discounts the possibility of the stories in this book being literal that told them that in the first place, then I'd say that someone has a problem. The problem could be all the scientific influence and man's tendancy to put aside God and rely on himself for everything. Man has made his intellect and accomplishments a god of sorts. The smarter man becomes the less wise he is. The Bible says true wisdom starts with a fear of God. I'm not saying science hasn't accomplished some great things in our world but if in the exchange we have lost sight of what is real and of our creator then we have been short changed indeed. The age of enlightenment ,,,,,"isn't".


God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

When someone says they believe God created everything then in the same breath impunes the very book that told them that. Then on top of that discounts the possibility of the stories in this book being literal that told them that in the first place, then I'd say that someone has a problem. The problem could be all the scientific influence and man's tendancy to put aside God and rely on himself for everything. Man has made his intellect and accomplishments a god of sorts. The smarter man becomes the less wise he is. The Bible says true wisdom starts with a fear of God. I'm not saying science hasn't accomplished some great things in our world but if in the exchange we have lost sight of what is real and of our creator then we have been short changed indeed. The age of enlightenment ,,,,,"isn't".

This is probably the big problem, many people can't understand the books of the Bible are not straight forward in their explanation of God man, angels, or the devil. It is a progressive process that involves thinking on the part of those hearing the stories. And the whole thing begins with a bunch of people who know hardly anything being brought out of slavery. So there is no way this can be a book written to answer our modern questions and no way this could be written to answer the questions of a primitive people starting out on their own. When you realize the limitations of the books of the Bible you can see why this fundamentalism and wooden literalism just can't possible work.

 

[Jimlarmore]

So there is no way this can be a book written to answer our modern questions and no way this could be written to answer the questions of a primitive people starting out on their own. When you realize the limitations of the books of the Bible you can see why this fundamentalism and wooden literalism just can't possible work.

I honestly believe the limitations of the books are personally contrived in the minds of those who would question their validity for people living today. If you study the Bible with the attitude that it can't answer any of your questions then it can't and won't. The Holy Scriptures have to be approached with a certain degree of reverance and open mindedness or you are waisting your time. I find deeper and deeper truth the longer I study the word of God and find it to be totally relevant to me today in all aspects of my life. As far as the things pertaining to science that it doesn't answer I am leaving that to the omnipotent/omniscient God to answer when we get to meet Him face to face. There is a host of things science can't answer either and probably never will. There will always be unanswered questions.

Is the Bible everything to everybody, yes and no. If you study it with the right frame of mind and heart it can be if not then absolutely not.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

Of course the symbology in the Bible is not literal but points to or represents something that is literal. What I am trying to do here is make those reading these discussions aware of some trends I have seen in other places concerning this type of thinking. What is prevalent in the mainstream scientific community is that the accounts in the Bible cannot be literal because what it says is outside of observable phenomenon as we know them today.

Genesis is full of symbology and the book is heavily idealised.

Sometimes it is not the case that it merely falls out of observable phenomena, but that it contradicts scientific foundations.

I don't think my views are as crazy as i may have said - at times I like to play the devils advocate - however, i strongly disagree with a sort of catagorical either/or which characterises a lot of realist and modern thinking. (Scientists fall under the blame for this as well)

I believe that God would be able to convey a "truth" through the medium of a story, poetry or myth without it having to be "literally true"

Also, I think what RC_NewProtestants may be talking about viewing scripture in an "historical-critical" method, or, at least thats what i think he's talking about.