Is Genesis Literal?

[Vance]

What is a YEC?

A Young Earth Creationist

This is one of the many approaches within Christendom on the issue of the interpretation of Genesis and our origins.

They believe the earth and the universe is only 6,000 to 12,000 years old, that God created it all in six 24-hour days, and that God did not use evolution as part of His process of Creation.

 

[thekawasakikid]

Thanks
The best I'd come up with was 'young, evangelical christian'!!! :o

My problem with not taking the Creation Account literally is that if I don't, what stops me from taking the rest of the Bible non-literally? I realise that things like parables aren't literal, but of course we have the context of the Christ telling the parable...

I haven't done as much study as some of you on this, because it doesn't particularly bother me whether the Earth is 6000 or 6 billion years old... or for that matter if God created it 6000 years ago, as a 5.999 billion year-old planet...

The reason Creation took 7 'days' surely is that this formed the basis for our working week - thus in everyday life we are reminded of the Creator. Whether the days were 24 hours or 1000 years is neither here nor there.

Someone posted the beginning of their dissertation earlier (sorry, no quotes) but they mentioned that creation had to have been 24-hour days because evolution required geological time and that no humans or animals died before the fall... really? What did predators eat until then? Or was the fall on the 8th day, and God created them with full bellies? Or did lions and tigers turn into predators after the fall? No, wait, that would be evolution. How do you explain kangaroos (not found anywhere outside of Australia, cut off from Middle East) or flightless birds only found on islands in mid-Atlantic? How'd they get there? Evolution does occur on some levels...

Anyway, sorry for the rambling thought-process - it's only 8am here

 

[wblastyn]

Thanks
The best I'd come up with was 'young, evangelical christian'!!! :o

My problem with not taking the Creation Account literally is that if I don't, what stops me from taking the rest of the Bible non-literally? I realise that things like parables aren't literal, but of course we have the context of the Christ telling the parable...

What about when the Bible implies the earth is flat, the sky is hard, fire breathing sea serpents exist? Do you take those verses literally?

The reason Creation took 7 'days' surely is that this formed the basis for our working week - thus in everyday life we are reminded of the Creator. Whether the days were 24 hours or 1000 years is neither here nor there.

Why does an all-powerful being need to rest?

 

[thekawasakikid]

What about when the Bible implies the earth is flat, the sky is hard, fire breathing sea serpents exist? Do you take those verses literally?

Why does an all-powerful being need to rest?

Which verses are these?

An all-powerful being doesn't need to rest, but we needed the template of a working week which included a day of rest, which we were to dedicate as a day of thanksgiving and worship to the all-powerful being which created us into existence in the first place.

 

[Vance]

Which verses are these?

An all-powerful being doesn't need to rest, but we needed the template of a working week which included a day of rest, which we were to dedicate as a day of thanksgiving and worship to the all-powerful being which created us into existence in the first place.

Right, so if he did not literally need to rest, even though this is what is said, and the purpose was to give a template of six work periods for one rest period, why is it necessary to read the text as six 24-hour days, rather than six work periods of a longer duration before resting? The message is the same either way.

This 6 to 1 message from God's creation was also used in Leviticus to mandate six years of planting a field and one year on not planting on it (which is sensible crop rotation anyway). In one place, this message from God is applied to 24-hour days, in another it is applied to years. This means that the original time frames in the Creation need not be either for the message to be valid.

 

[thekawasakikid]

Yeah, although taken absolutely literally, the account of creation does not state that on the seventh day, God needed to rest, only that on the seventh day, He rested. This is the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Almighty God that we're referring to, who could've taken an instant to create absolutely everything. That He didn't was His choice, not because of some limitation He had. Ditto with the seventh day - without it there would have been nothing to institute the sabbath day.

I didn't indicate a preference for a time-frame, only my thoughts on the literal translation of the creation account. I was attempting, however, to explain to wblastyn why the Creator doesn't need to rest for a day, a year, or whatever a 'yom' refers to: we needed the example of a rest-day, which God fit into a ratio of 6:1.

Still waiting for the verses...

 

[oddchild]

I dont see why it would be taken any other way.

 

[Freedom777]

Good Research.Very compelling,Thanks

 

[Bonhoffer]

Adam and Eve must have been real people otherwise there is a flaw in Jesus' family tree. However that might not nessocarily mean that all the fuss about the apple tree was real, although I think it was personally.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Does it matter if there's a flaw in Jesus' family tree? Especially given that Matthew and Luke don't appear to have compared notes over Jesus' paternal grandfather.

 

[Treasure the Questions]

Adam and Eve must have been real people otherwise there is a flaw in Jesus' family tree.

So, if you take Adam and Eve to be representative of the first men and women to ever live, it would be wrong to say Jesus was descended from them?

Karin

 

[Andy D]

First of all, you did, indeed, say that those who don't see the clear meaning of Scripture (as you do) are not truly Spirit-filled and led. If you want to retract that, fine, but don't say you didn't say it.

Second, the Bible is, indeed, pretty clear about what it's ultimate message, but it is anything but clear in all its details. Let's take those few things (among the thousands of interpretive issues Christians face).

Days: God did not say He created in days. He said He created in "Yoms". This word YOM has a number of meanings, just like a lot of words in English. One of these meanings is that of an extended, but indefinite period of time. Another meaning is a 24-hour period of time. Which is it here? This is anything but clear. True, it might read "clear" in English, and this is, indeed, where much of the problem lies.

Global Flood: See my thread on this a while back, but you will see that there are very solid arguments in the text itself (not even looking at the vast evidence of God's Creation) that the flood was very likely not global. Again, not crystal clear by a long shot.

What you are doing is "simply believing" either the most simplistic surface reading of the text or what people tell you it says. Neither is a solid way to reach the true meaning of the Bible.

You must remember that God is able to preserve His Word and also that Adam and Even being real people is a major part of the Christian message. It explains man's fall of sin and if it were not based on real people then we dont have an actual account showing us how we fell from sin but rather some symbolic representation. This doesnt do it for me. Adam and Eve, being real shows me purpose and the full picture of the fall of sin and need for grace. The fact that was made about genealogy and references to Adam and Eve and Noah from the NT all make perfect sense to me. I thank you Ark Guy for writing this first post on this thread. It enlightened me a lot. It gives me a good start on studying all this.

I dont see a problem with 'simply believing' God's word and allowing Him to lead us and guide us as we study it with a mind OPEN to God.

 

[Andy D]

Your last paragraph above is finally getting the point: none of this is a salvation issue, and there are a number of different interpretations that Spirit-filled and led Christians can arrive at. It is, indeed, a matter of free will. If God had wanted to make sure that all Christians believed exactly the same thing, He could definitely have written it in such a way, or He could allow His Spirit to direct a single over-riding interpretation. But, He didn't.

The phrase I still object to is you "take God's word for what it is." This is still acting as if there was one clear meaning which you accept, and the rest are looking for more obtuse and complicated readings. This is not true. You are taking God's word how you take it, that is all.

As for YOM, please look at this issue. Are you saying that a 24-hour period is the only way it is used in the Bible?

As for the flood, I am not sure what you mean. God used a word that does NOT always mean the whole earth, so why do we start with the assumption that He meant the whole earth? He used a word that is used the vast majority of the time to mean a specific region or land, or a specific people and NOT the whole earth. As I said, there is a very specific word He could have used to mean the whole Earth, without causing any confusion: tebel. If He had wanted to say the entire planet, why did He not do so with the best word for that meaning?

As for the partial judgment, the Scripture makes clear that the judgment against all the people in "the land" was complete. Some read this to mean that all humanity was still in a specific region, others read this to mean that all those who lived in "the land" were destroyed. Either works fine with the text, but the latter is more likely based on what we know from archeology about the spread of mankind around the time of the flood. Either way, the concept of a total judgment for those God identifies for judgment carries the exact same meaning as a total world flood.

See my thread on the Scriptural analysis of the local flood a while back.

I just want to say that no matter how often I read that account of the flood, again and again i see reference to all living things, all mankind being destroyed on the earth, taking on the ark all living things, two of each kind. It seems very clear to me that God intended on destroying all mankind here and saved Noah and his family in order to fulfil the purpose (that is, to save mankind from sin by the death of His Son Jesus Christ on the cross and rising again, His spilt blood and broken body). When God desired to single out a couple of cities, He did, remember Sodom and Gomorrah (Spelling). God also didnt have to use unreal people or circumstances to show His many different character traits, He did this through His leading Israel. I dont see why He would do any different all of a sudden with the creation account or Adam and Eve.

I understand that you say things can be understood a different way by different Christians and yet we are all Christians, but there is no reason to believe that the way it is presented here is the way it was intended to be presented is there?

 

[Andy D]

Because despite the scientific debate being over for over 100 years (evolution won, by the way), there are those who keep denying it.


More correctly - your Christian perspective.


The penalty of sin is spiritual death. Adam did not die physically the day he ate the fruit. But he was expelled from the presence of God. God had said that he would die that day. It follows that the expulsion from the presence of God (Eden) is the spiritual death which is the penalty for sin.


Evolution merely tells you how our biological form came about. It says nothing about our spiritual nature, nor about morality or our relative worth compared to animals.


It doesn't even mention genetic variation, so it can't say anything about that. Why do you equate "good" with perfect, and perfect with "unchanging"? What if God's intention was to create a dynamic universe that was changing and evolving? If He did so intend, then He succeeded and His creation is indeed good - exactly what He intended.


What about the two contradictory accounts, and the presence of symbolic elements? Two people called "man" and "mother of all"? A talking snake? Trees bearing spiritually significant fruit? Sounds like mythology to me.


Bzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing. First you must defend your equation of "figurative" with "fallacious", and then explain why the rest of the Bible must be as fallacious or accurate as Genesis 1-3.


No they don't. What does Paul say Scripture is useful for? Scientific knowledge? No. Very specific purposes. In that it achieves its aim.


Except it isn't. Most organisms do not have blood, and yet they are alive. Where is their life? Scripture says the life is in the blood.


Grasshoppers do not have four legs. Bats are not birds. Hares do not chew the cud. The earth is not set on pillars. Rain does not come through holes in the firmament.


No-one is changing the Bible, except some evangelical translators who insert things, like the pluperfect tense in Genesis 2 regarding God's creation of the animals, and the word "Roman" in Luke to correct the apparent (and false) statement that the whole world was to be taxed. They do this to support inerrancy. The Bible left alone is clearly not inerrant.


Actually, I'd agree with you there. That's why I don't hold with the day age theory. But nor do any other theistic evolutionists - 'day age' is an old earth Creationist position.


To an extent I agree. The elements of the story are true within the framework of a figurative narrative. I address this in some detail in an essay I wrote - http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm

I thoroughly enjoyed the essay that this person has ripped apart. I am pretty sure that this was addressed to Christians who would have appreciated the insight. Very well structured essay.

I just want to add a few things that came to my mind as I read it. I would like to ask the CHristian who still believes the creation account is not intended to be read literally, where did our soul come from? At what point did we become humans and not monkies or whatever it is we supposedly evolved from? We were put in dominion over the animal kingdom and we have a spiritual soul....to be in the image of God we simply must have a soul. To believe in God we must believe we have a spirit that died when Adam sinned and needed life again through Jesus.

How can a Christian state they believe in evolution and yet also say it doesnt affect our salvation? If there is no purpose, or fall of man, or spirit breathed into us, if we evolved and our spirit also somehow evolved, even though man's science will never be able to study the spirit world, why do we even need salvation? We must all be animals....come on...if the Bible made it clear about creation and we take it not as literal, please explain to me where all this fits in? I would love to know because I cant find it in the WORD OF GOD!

 

[Bushido216]

Does it matter when God put our souls into us? Perhaps we always had them?

And why do we need salvation. That should be easy. We're fallen creatures. D'uh, we obtained the ability to distinguish between good and evil, and we haven't always consistently chosen good. With cognitive thought comes the responsibility to use it responsibly and we haven't.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Does it matter when God put our souls into us? Perhaps we always had them?

Yes, human beings did always have a soul:
I believe the first man had a soul breathed into him by God on the day He created him.

Surely evolution must say that either a sub-human, soul-less animal gave birth to a fully human baby at some point in history, or that the human soul somehow evolved alongside physical changes.

God bless, Susana

 

[Bushido216]

Oh man... how about one of these days you understand evolutionary theory before pontificating on it, okay?

 

[Treasure the Questions]

Do you creationists not understand that to believe in theistic evolution means to believe that God is Creator? It's only the how that is different. However God created us, surely he could still give us souls.

What do you think a soul is?

In the Adam and Eve myth, (story explaining a truth, but not necessary true in every detail) when God breathes into them he gives them life, not a soul. I don't think the Bible says much about what a soul is or how we get it.

Karin

 

[Andy D]

Do you creationists not understand that to believe in theistic evolution means to believe that God is Creator? It's only the how that is different. However God created us, surely he could still give us souls.

What do you think a soul is?

In the Adam and Eve myth, (story explaining a truth, but not necessary true in every detail) when God breathes into them he gives them life, not a soul. I don't think the Bible says much about what a soul is or how we get it.

Karin

I have already been advised of this thanks Karin. But the question I am asking you is this, WHEN did we become humans who have souls if we evolved? At what point does God decide we are humans? Monkies and whales and all other animals do not live eternally. They are animals, we are made in the image of God and a soul is a VERY important part of that.

I have started to read up about theistic evolution but to me it still seems like evolution, with God still as God. I am trying to understand how it is any different to evolution without a God as creator. How is He creator? What did He create with theistic evolution?

Also, I believe until we sinned, man was to live forever, our flesh had not yet been corrupted by the sin. Why did so many 'models of man' have to die before we got to one where the would not die until they sinned?

Evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does - He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding "God" to the evolutionary scenario.

The Bible teaches that the first man's fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).

Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from "the dust of the ground" by God (Genesis 2:17). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible - Romans 5:16-18. Thus any view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus' work of redemption.

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:

1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
2. Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God's omnipotent acts of creation.



The following evolutionary assumptions are 'generally' applicable to theistic evolution:

• The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted.
• It is believed that evolution is a universal principle.
• As far as scientific laws are concerned, there is no difference between the origin of the earth and all life and its subsequent development (the principle of uniformity).
• Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life.
• The driving forces of evolution are mutation, selection, isolation, and mixing. Chance and necessity, long time epochs, ecological changes, and death are additional indispensable factors.
• The time line is so prolonged that anyone can have as much time as he/she likes for the process of evolution.
• The present is the key to the past.
• There was a smooth transition from non-life to life.
• Evolution will persist into the distant future.
  

In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:

1. God used evolution as a means of creating.
2. The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.
3. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary world view.

I hope I am understanding Theistic evolution more now. I have an essay to read on it.

I will keep on studying

 

[Treasure the Questions]

Theistic evolution means that God was the Mastermind behind creation, whether he literally spoke, or expressed himself in some other way. Remember the Bible describes God and his activity in terms human beings can understand, so may not be precise. It can only give us the nearest human equivalent and something the ancients had a word for. So God guided creation in some way. Perhaps "the Big Bang" was set off by God's voice booming through the void which was to become space. Perhaps scientists think that's unlikely, I don't know. There are all sorts of possibilities of how our Almighty God could have guided creation and maybe even took more direct action.

I agree evolution doesn't offer a neat little package the way Genesis 1 does, but does our God and his work have to come in neat packages? Doesn't that rather limit and demean him rather? This is why I "treasure the questions": there aren't always easy answers and some questions will have to wait for answers until we can ask God himself.

Evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does - He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding "God" to the evolutionary scenario.

What you say is only true of evolution without God as its author. Once you put God back in the picture the story is the same. It just means that the theory of evolution throws a little extra light on Genesis 1.

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:

1. Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.
2. Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

I'm not entirely sure that yom has to mean a 24 hour period, but even if it does the psalmist tells us "For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past, or like a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4)

Trying to understand what words and phrases meant to the people who wrote them down and putting them into the modern equivalent is not the same as not taking the Bible seriously.

I'm not sure what bearing this has on the Second Coming, but shouldn't we be vigilant any way? Our own lives will certainly come to an end and no one knows how much time they have left.

In addition to these evolutionary assumptions, three additional beliefs apply to theistic evolution:

1. God used evolution as a means of creating.
2. The Bible contains no usable or relevant ideas which can be applied in present-day origins science.
3. Evolutionistic pronouncements have priority over biblical statements. The Bible must be reinterpreted when and wherever it contradicts the present evolutionary world view.

I agree with the first point.

There are important principles/truths in Genesis 1. Namely God is Creator of everything and God made everything good. The Bible is a book about God rather than a science book, after all.

Evolutionistic pronouncements throw new light on biblical statements. Quite often we find that people had assumed the Bible meant one thing, but when forced to investigate we find that other meanings are possible. The theory of evolution can be seen to complement the Creation Poem in Genesis rather than contradict it. Apart from plants being made before the sun the biblical account of creation happens in a similar order to the theory of evolution. It was realising that the Creation poem has plants appearing before any sunlight that I started to suspect that it was not written from the point of view of accurate science.

Karin