Is Genesis Literal?

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Jul 6, 2004

Andy - you've nicked half of your post from Werner Gitt. This is plagiarism. That it wasn't worth plagiarising is not the point.

My website contains an appraisal of the essay you plagiarised if you're interested.

gluadys · Jul 6, 2004

Andy D said:
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.

Hello, Andy

I almost didn't read this thread, seeing who began it, and I am glad I began at the end and saw your posts first before I realized it was started over a year ago. I'll respond to some of your comments from the point of view of a theistic evolutionist (Christian). I don't expect you will agree, but I hope it clarifies where you are mistaken about the TE approach.

Adam and Even being real people is a major part of the Christian message.

Well, no it is not. Everything important in the bible about Adam and Eve is true whether or not they are archetypes of humanity or individuals. IMO, Adam works better as an archetype than as an individual who lived a long, long time ago.

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.

So what is wrong with having a symbolic representation? It doesn't take anything away from the reality of sin or the need for salvation. And a symbolic representation stands the test of time the way a more prosaic account would not. Such archetypal symbols transcend differences of language and culture and history. Could be why God uses them.

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.

We know sin is real just by observation. We know that we do what we ought not to do and fail to do what we should; we consistently fail to live up to our own standards of good behaviour. And since sin is real and inescapable, the need for grace and salvation is equally real. How does insisting on a myth being literal add anything to our daily experience of the reality of sin and grace?

I don't follow how Adam's sin, if Adam is an individual, has anything to do with me. But if Adam is an archetype, then Adam is me. Then the story of the fall makes sense to me, because I can identify with it as a participant in the fall.

The fact that was made about genealogy and references to Adam and Eve and Noah from the NT all make perfect sense to me.

There are all sorts of genealogies connecting historical people to non-historical people. It is a standard part of the mythology. The family tree of the Emperor of Japan can be traced back to the marriage of two divinities. At what point does the historical become the mythological?

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.

It is certainly important to study the bible with a mind open to God, but the key word is 'study'. Naivete is not a commendable quality in a student of scripture. If we truly want God to lead us and guide us, we must be prepared to deal with the depth of scripture, not just its surface features. A story may appear to be history (especially if that is how you have always been taught to read it) and actually be myth, legend or fiction when you dig into it. Note that in saying this I am not doubting inspiration. I am just saying God can choose to inspire a writing of mythical or fictional character as well as a writing of a reportorial nature.

gluadys · Jul 6, 2004

Andy D said:
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?

If God purposed from the beginning to save humanity through the death of his son, then it makes no sense at all to say God intended to destroy all of humanity and indeed all life on earth in the flood, but as a sort of afterthought saved Noah and his family and the animals in the ark.

In fact, you are conflating the OT and the NT here. The writers of the Hebrew scriptures knew nothing of the intepretations Christians would later attach to their work. To get the author's original meaning, you have to screen out the later Christian use of the text. That doesn't mean the Christian use is wrong---only that it was not how the Israelites (and is not how modern Judaism) understands the text.

The story of Noah must be myth or legend for the simple reason that it cannot be historical. A real event would have left evidence of its occurrence. We do have evidence of local floods (some quite major) in the general area, so that could have been the basis for a legend. But that the flood was literally global is a physical impossibility given what we know of both geology and history.

Nevertheless, the story is a wonderful archetype of salvation. In the NT it is connected with baptism.

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.

Yes, God often used real people, like Moses and David and all the biblical prophets and writers. But God does not have to use real people. Just as God can use real people, God can also tell stories with a point. There is nothing wrong with a teacher using a plurality of teaching methods. What right have we to put limits on how God chooses to communicate with us?

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?

But the question is "how is it intended to be presented?" You are assuming a priori that a straight-forward literal presentation is the intention of the biblical writer. Your assumption could be wrong.

gluadys · Jul 6, 2004

Andy D said:
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!

Ohhh, soooo many assumptions----where does one begin?

Did our soul come from outside of us? Or is it what we are? Is a soul something we have or something we be? What does Genesis 2:7 mean when it says "the man became a living soul"? Doesn't sound like a soul was added to the man, but that the man was transformed from a lifeless piece of dust into a living soul--and that the body is as essential to being a soul as the spirit is.

This is one of the significant differences between the Hebrew 'nephesh' and the Greek 'psyche'. 'nephesh' always includes the body as essential to the soul, while 'psyche' treats the soul as only spiritual and the body as unessential baggage, even as a prison. Much church teaching on the soul owes far more to Plato than to the bible.

What is spiritual death? Is it not losing the connection of fellowship with our Maker, the source of life? What is needed is to restore that connection.

As for when in the course of human evolution, we acquired the "image of God", it is much the same question as asking when in the course of gestation an embryo or fetus develops the same nature. There can be no response based on fossils alone, since they preserve only physical remnants and give no insight into the consciousness or the spirit. The best we can do is make some guesses based on the appearance of cultural artifacts and rituals. When we find deliberate burials for example, it's a pretty good clue that the people had some concept of life after death. Or when we find art work such as the cave paintings, we know the artist had a conscious understanding of what s/he was doing.

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!

Is it not clear that we need salvation because we sin? How does evolution affect that reality?

We are animals. The bible says we are the same as beasts; no Christian of ancient or medieval times ever denied it. The Christian, Linnaeus, who designed the system for classifying plants and animals included humans among the animals (we aren't plants are we; neither are we angels)--in the sub-phylum Vertebrata, in the class Mammalia, in the Order Primates (along with the apes). Linnaeus produced his work before Darwin was born, so he was not influenced by evolution. Nor have I ever heard that any theologian had a problem with his classification of humanity.

What you are really objecting to is not that we are animals, since we are, but to the proposition that we are nothing more than animals, acting on instinct and without reason. But the theory of evolution never says we are nothing more than other animals. There is no contradiction between being human in the full spiritual sense of that term, and being the product of biological evolution.

As for purpose, tell me, when a potter takes clay and places it on the wheel to make a jar, whose purpose guides the process? Is the wheel aware of its purpose? Is the clay aware of its purpose? Or does the purpose reside in the mind of the potter?

Why should the process of evolution, which is a tool in the hands of the Creator, show any evidence of having a purpose? A process is not a consciously acting agent with a purpose. The mechanisms of evolution (e.g. mutation, natural selection, speciation) have no discernable purpose, because they are tools, processes, and nothing more. Don't look to evolution to find its purpose. Look to the one who designed the process and uses it to accomplish his purpose.

gluadys · Jul 6, 2004

Monkies and whales and all other animals do not live eternally.

Who says so? There is a very real connection of humans to animals and the rest of creation. One of the purposes for the salvation of humanity is the salvation of the world of nature, which, according to Paul's letter to the Romans, will be set free of the cycle of futility and decay. The prophetical visions of the kingdom of God always include animal and vegetable life. The bible gives no support to the idea that God's purpose is to pluck us out of creation, but to restore creation (and us in it) to its original, unspoiled glory.

What did He create with theistic evolution?

Everything. Theistic evolution is not about whether God created this or that, but about how God created. When God uses natural means to create, it is still just as much God's creation as when God uses means beyond nature. The idea that a natural process excludes the action of God is an essentially atheist idea. Insisting that God's work is seen only in super-natural action is a "god-in-the-gaps" fallacy.

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?

There is no scripture which says humanity was created immortal. This again is a borrowing from Plato who believed the soul is immortal by nature. What scripture says is that in the garden, the man and woman had access to the tree of life, and if they ate from it, then they would live forever. Genesis 3:22 implies that they had not ever eaten from it.
The bible consistently represents eternal life as a gift from God, not something inherent in human nature. That is one reason Christianity has always insisted on resurrection, not re-incarnation. Re-incarnation makes sense if the soul is immortal. But if humans are naturally mortal, and must be given immortality, then what is needed is resurrection and transformation. (1. Cor, 15:50-55)

Evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one's purpose (in relation to God).

Right, because it is a scientific theory describing the diverisification of life on earth. It is not a religious proposition. Faulting it for this reason is like finding fault in the law of gravity because it doesn't allude to one's purpose in relation to God.

Sin is made meaningless,

How so? Is sin made meaningless by the speed of light? by learning what causes tides? by the discovery of electromagnetism or radioactivity? Evolution is science, not theology. It has no capacity to make sin meaningless.

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.

Sin is not an evolutionary factor at all, and it is certainly not harmless. The basic problem here is that you are trying to compare apples and horseshoes. Evolution does not comment on theology and has nothing to say about sin one way or another.

The Bible teaches that the first man's fall into sin was a real event

Every fall into sin is a real event. Naturally, the first one was as well. Our sinful choices are 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).

Please note especially that last phrase: "for that all have sinned."

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).

Please do not add to scripture what is not there. The word 'directly' does not appear in Gen. 2:7 That is your personal inference. As a matter of fact, science does acknowledge that humans, like all other forms of life on earth, are made of the same stuff the earth is made of.

Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance.

"Merely"? A mythical tale given to us by God is not to be sneered at. Undervaluing the importance of myth is the besetting interpretive error of the literalist, which s/he then projects onto theistic evolutionists and liberal interpreters in general. If you think "myth" = "worthless" , a "mere" trifle, I can understand your reluctance to deal with it seriously. But it is your thinking that is at fault, not the fact of biblical myth.

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.

Indeed they are, and this is one of the great passages of scripture in which we see Adam presented as the archetype of the natural human state, while Christ is presented as the archetype of redeemed humanity. For me, this passage confirms that the Genesis story is best read as myth, for only so does it have universal application. And that affirms the universal application of the redemption in Christ. Otherwise I have difficulty with the concept that either a particular sin of one individual or the particular death of one individual has anything to do with me.

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).

In respect to creation there are no biblically given measures of time---only human interpretations of some sketchy information, at least some of which is likely symbolical.

This can lead to two errors:

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

False conclusions based on a false premise. This error is similar to the statements which discount the value of myth. You assume the theistic evolutionist would not take statements of the bible seriously if they are not literal, because YOU do not take them seriously if they are not literal. You are projecting your own premises onto other people who do not accept them.

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

That is a flat out lie. Theists who accept evolution fully affirm 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:

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

Is this a cut and paste? Sounds like it. Where is the reference? My apologies if it is your own work, but I will only respond to it if you confirm that it is.

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

Keep reading. You are still a long way from understanding theistic evolution. A reminder of some points.

For the Christian theistic evolutionist, evolution is strictly science. It is not a commentary on Christian theology. For guidance on matters spiritual, our primary source is the Bible not Darwin.

We believe God is not limited in choosing the means of creation to the super-natural only. We reject the atheistic notion that natural=without God.

We believe God is not limited in choosing the literary format in which scripture will appear. If God chooses to inspire legend, story, drama, fiction, myth, parable, allegory, etc then these forms of scripture are to be taken with utmost seriousness just as more literal forms such as historical narratives are to be taken seriously.

We believe the creation which science explores is God's handiwork and is God's other revelation to humanity. As Paul says to the Romans, creation testifies of the eternal power and majesty of God. As such creation cannot lie about how God created.

So when scientific study tells us something about creation which seems to contradict scripture, and we are as sure of the science as it is humanly possible to be, it follows that we must revise our concept of scripture. Biblical scholars have been doing this since before the birth of Christ. Before the Christian era began, the biblical cosmology, based on a flat earth and a solid dome-like sky was replaced by the Ptolemaic concept of concentric spheres containing the earth and moving around it to generate the motions of celestial bodies. Sixteen centuries later, this cosmology was replaced by the Copernican system of a moving earth, orbiting the sun and sky open to infinite space. Both of these major scientific revisions required re-interpreting many passages of scripture by re-assigning them from "literal description" to "figurative description". There is no good reason not to follow these historical examples in reference to geology and evolution as well. Scientists are constantly re-interpreting science. Historically, theologians have constantly re-interpreted scripture in light of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, drawing from its storehouse treasures both old and new.

It seems to me that literalists want to stop this and make the scripture stand still on the page instead of permitting the Spirit to breathe through it. But a scripture that is never re-interpreted becomes a lifeless and sterile icon of a dead past. It can no longer function as the Word of God to the present generation.

gluadys · Jul 6, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Andy - you've nicked half of your post from Werner Gitt. This is plagiarism. That it wasn't worth plagiarising is not the point.

My website contains an appraisal of the essay you plagiarised if you're interested.

Ah, so it was a cut and paste! Glad I called it right and didn't wade through the many errors in it, since you've already done that.

Andy D · Jul 6, 2004

Treasure the Questions said:
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

Thanks for that insight Karin.

The reason I still dont have a problem with plants being created before sunlight is because another light was present. I am sure that with the literal Genesis account, God would have accounted for this and if the light was His light, He is the sustainer of life so the plants would have thrived under His light. (Just another comment)

Andy D · Jul 6, 2004

Karl - Liberal Backslider said:
Andy - you've nicked half of your post from Werner Gitt. This is plagiarism. That it wasn't worth plagiarising is not the point.

My website contains an appraisal of the essay you plagiarised if you're interested.

Yes sorry...I added comments and then forgot to put the reference in. This is the first time I didnt reference it. I am a university student so I understand having to reference. I am off on vacation today so I guess I was running short on time. (No excuse though )

I would be interested for sure in the appraisal of the essay. Please send me a pmp with your website then

Andy D · Jul 6, 2004

gluadys said:
Hello, Andy
There are all sorts of genealogies connecting historical people to non-historical people. It is a standard part of the mythology. The family tree of the Emperor of Japan can be traced back to the marriage of two divinities. At what point does the historical become the mythological?

It is certainly important to study the bible with a mind open to God, but the key word is 'study'. Naivete is not a commendable quality in a student of scripture. If we truly want God to lead us and guide us, we must be prepared to deal with the depth of scripture, not just its surface features. A story may appear to be history (especially if that is how you have always been taught to read it) and actually be myth, legend or fiction when you dig into it. Note that in saying this I am not doubting inspiration. I am just saying God can choose to inspire a writing of mythical or fictional character as well as a writing of a reportorial nature.

I agree that we need to read and study the Bible in depth. From reading the NT and OT and seeing the many links between the two, I dont think the genealogy could be mythological. I beleive it is historical information just as all other genealogy in the OT and NT. For me to beleive the genealogy is mythical with regards to Adam all the way to Abraham, I would also have to believe the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus was also mythical and therefore all those characters including Solomon and King David were fictional characters. This really puts me in danger of assuming Jesus was fictional too. Now we know this is not true, so where do I draw the line? Even the muslims believe in Abraham being a REAL person. I cant see how genealogy from Adam through to Abraham would be fictional to some point and then historical after a certain point. However I can see that maybe it could be believed that only the part regarding Adam was fictional and from then on we start the records. This still doesnt make sense to me of course.

Andy D · Jul 6, 2004

gluadys said:
The story of Noah must be myth or legend for the simple reason that it cannot be historical. A real event would have left evidence of its occurrence. We do have evidence of local floods (some quite major) in the general area, so that could have been the basis for a legend. But that the flood was literally global is a physical impossibility given what we know of both geology and history.

But the question is "how is it intended to be presented?" You are assuming a priori that a straight-forward literal presentation is the intention of the biblical writer. Your assumption could be wrong.

For all the mountains and land to be covered in a large region, it would still need to be a lot of water and if the water was like what was described in Genesis, then wouldnt the water just run into the ocean straight away? Why was it sooo long of no land at all anywhere around them before they settled on the mountain? I have those questions...maybe I am just blonde...but they were circling around my head.

Andy D · Jul 6, 2004

I am off on vacation. I will continue to learn when I come back. May God bless you all.

gluadys · Jul 6, 2004

Andy D said:
IFor me to beleive the genealogy is mythical with regards to Adam all the way to Abraham, I would also have to believe the genealogy from Abraham to Jesus was also mythical and therefore all those characters including Solomon and King David were fictional characters.

Why? There is absolutely no logical reason why a genealogy must be all historical or all mythical. Historical genealogies which fade into mythical genealogies are pretty standard fare in many cultures.

This really puts me in danger of assuming Jesus was fictional too. Now we know this is not true, so where do I draw the line?

We draw the line where we have evidence or reasonable belief that the person named actually lived. In terms of hard evidence, I am not sure if that goes back even as far as David or Solomon. We don't have a lot of evidence that names individuals. But I don't know too much about the archeological finds relating to those times.

But in terms of reasonable belief, my personal opinion is that we may be able to go back as far as Abraham.

Even the muslims believe in Abraham being a REAL person. I cant see how genealogy from Adam through to Abraham would be fictional to some point and then historical after a certain point.

Given the multiplicity of such genealogies in all ancient cultures, that seems to be the norm. I don't find anything surprising about it.

Personally I believe Abraham was a real individual though there is no way to prove it. I also believe that most of the biblical record about Abraham is legend rather than history. Legends often gather around a real person, but develop a life of their own that goes beyond actual events.

gluadys · Jul 6, 2004

Andy D said:
For all the mountains and land to be covered in a large region, it would still need to be a lot of water and if the water was like what was described in Genesis, then wouldnt the water just run into the ocean straight away?

Nope. If the flood is global, the ocean is already full and can't take any run-off from the land. If it were not, the water would run into the ocean and then the mountains would not be covered. The flood would only be in coastal areas. The question of where all that water came from (obviously it did not come from the ocean since the ocean was still there---it had to be added to the ocean) and what happened to it afterward, and why it left absolutely no geological trace it had ever existed are only the beginning of the problems with a global flood. Numerous creationist attempts to solve this puzzle have only confirmed the scientific impossibility of a global flood.

Why was it sooo long of no land at all anywhere around them before they settled on the mountain? I have those questions...maybe I am just blonde...but they were circling around my head.

Because that's the way the story-teller told the story. Story-tellers get to decide what happens in the stories they tell.

gluadys · Jul 6, 2004

Andy D said:
I am off on vacation. I will continue to learn when I come back. May God bless you all.

Have a good one. Cheers!

brinley45cal · Jul 7, 2004

I belive it to be literal,i think its just an interpratation problem.For example most christians are taught that adam and eve were the first people on earth but as i studied this i dont find that to be true,Let me explain.And dont take my word for it check it out and see what you think.
In genesis chapter 1:26-27 it talks about making man in his image and it says that god created he him male and female created he them. And he didnt say it was adam and eve,just male and female,correct? Ok so if you read on down into chapter two and read Genesis 2:5 it says toward the end of that verse that, and i quote"God had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there WAS NOT A MAN TO TILL THE GROUND".so what happened to the people that was spoke of in chapter 1:27?
Well if you go to chapter 2:6 it talks about a flood.Now in chapter 2:7 it talks about creating man AGAIN and that was adam which you find out when you read further.
So as you can see Adam and eve were not the first people on earth.Why he destroyed the first bunch i have no idea,it dosent say.
So i belive the bible is literal but people sometimes misinterpret what its say.sometimes we just have to dig a little but its all there.anyway hope this helps some,God Bless

Treasure the Questions · Jul 7, 2004

Andy D said:
Thanks for that insight Karin.

The reason I still dont have a problem with plants being created before sunlight is because another light was present. I am sure that with the literal Genesis account, God would have accounted for this and if the light was His light, He is the sustainer of life so the plants would have thrived under His light. (Just another comment)

I heard that one, too. It seemed rather contrived to me. I think that was what brought the whole creationist pack of cards down in my thinking. Up to then I'd thought the theory of evolution and Genesis 1 didn't contradict each other.

I beleive God gave us brains and scientific understanding so that we could use them. I think it dishonours God and shows ingratitude when we don't.

Have a nice holiday.

Karin

Treasure the Questions · Jul 7, 2004

P.S.

It's not that I don't think it possible - "nothing is impossible with God" - I just don't think it probable, considering what various branches of science have to say about the origins of life.

Karin

gluadys · Jul 7, 2004

brinley45cal said:
Well if you go to chapter 2:6 it talks about a flood.Now in chapter 2:7 it talks about creating man AGAIN and that was adam which you find out when you read further.
So as you can see Adam and eve were not the first people on earth.Why he destroyed the first bunch i have no idea,it dosent say.
So i belive the bible is literal but people sometimes misinterpret what its say.sometimes we just have to dig a little but its all there.anyway hope this helps some,God Bless

The problem is that you are ignoring information that has been discovered about WHEN different parts of the bible were written. Genesis is a composite book. Various parts of it were written by at least three different writers who lived in different times and places. Then a fourth person, from a still different time and place acted as editor to put the different sections together.

The editor put the stories in a sensible chronological order as best as he could, but where his sources both included an account of an event, he usually included both versions. This means that often a section that was written earlier appears in Genesis AFTER a section that was written later.

This is what happened with Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Gen. 2:4b ff.

The section beginning with "In the day the LORD God made heaven and earth..." (2:4b) is the first sentence in a creation story that was written two or more centuries BEFORE everything in Genesis 1 up to Gen. 2:4a. (Chapter and verse divisions are not part of the original scripture at all---they were added in the middle ages. Punctuation is also not part of the original scripture which was written with no indication of where one word or sentence began or ended.)

So, nothing happened to the people created in Gen. 1:27, because when Gen. 2:4b ff was written, that story didn't exist yet. The writer of the second creation account intended it to be a story about the first man and woman. Because this second account was written first, it is not in any way a commentary or supplement to Gen. 1. It is not dealing with anything that happened after the creation of humans in 1:27. So there is no pre-Adamic creation of human beings in scripture.

Now the writer of Gen. 1 lived in a later time and wrote later, even though he was writing about events which occurred earlier. This writer was already familiar with the story told in Gen. 2. He also knew the people he was writing his creation account for were familiar with the story in Gen. 2.

So what he writes is a sort of prequel or prologue to a story that was written long before his. For the earlier writer had not spent any time describing the creation of the heavens, nor given a lot of attention to the non-human creation. So this writer starts, not with the creation of the first humans, but right back at the earliest beginning of creation: the framework of heaven and earth, water, light, sky, vegetation, stars, fish, birds, animals and finally human beings. But he doesn't need to go into detail about the creation of human beings, because the writer of Gen. 2 already did that.

So Gen. 1:26-28 is a summary of the story in Gen. 2. It is not about different people created earlier than Adam and Eve.

Dale · Jul 7, 2004

ArkGuy,

There are indications that characters in Genesis may not be literal persons.

"Thus dwelt Esau in Mount Seir: Esau is Edom." Genesis 36:3 KJV
"Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom." Genesis 36:1 KJV
The same verse in a different translation:
"This is the account of Esau (that is, Edom)." Genesis 36:1 RSV
Also:
". . .he [Esau] was also called Edom." Genesis 25:25 RSV

Genesis very closely identifies Esau, a character in the story, with Edom, a tribe or nationality. You could interpret this to mean that Edom is descended from Esau. It could also mean that Esau is simply a figure who represents the tribe of Edom.

In the same way, Jacob/Israel can be interpreted as the first Jew, the literal father of the Jews, or as a figure who represents the beginnings of the Jewish people.

brinley45cal · Jul 7, 2004

gluadys said:
The problem is that you are ignoring information that has been discovered about WHEN different parts of the bible were written. Genesis is a composite book. Various parts of it were written by at least three different writers who lived in different times and places. Then a fourth person, from a still different time and place acted as editor to put the different sections together.

The editor put the stories in a sensible chronological order as best as he could, but where his sources both included an account of an event, he usually included both versions. This means that often a section that was written earlier appears in Genesis AFTER a section that was written later.

This is what happened with Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Gen. 2:4b ff.

The section beginning with "In the day the LORD God made heaven and earth..." (2:4b) is the first sentence in a creation story that was written two or more centuries BEFORE everything in Genesis 1 up to Gen. 2:4a. (Chapter and verse divisions are not part of the original scripture at all---they were added in the middle ages. Punctuation is also not part of the original scripture which was written with no indication of where one word or sentence began or ended.)

So, nothing happened to the people created in Gen. 1:27, because when Gen. 2:4b ff was written, that story didn't exist yet. The writer of the second creation account intended it to be a story about the first man and woman. Because this second account was written first, it is not in any way a commentary or supplement to Gen. 1. It is not dealing with anything that happened after the creation of humans in 1:27. So there is no pre-Adamic creation of human beings in scripture.

Now the writer of Gen. 1 lived in a later time and wrote later, even though he was writing about events which occurred earlier. This writer was already familiar with the story told in Gen. 2. He also knew the people he was writing his creation account for were familiar with the story in Gen. 2.

So what he writes is a sort of prequel or prologue to a story that was written long before his. For the earlier writer had not spent any time describing the creation of the heavens, nor given a lot of attention to the non-human creation. So this writer starts, not with the creation of the first humans, but right back at the earliest beginning of creation: the framework of heaven and earth, water, light, sky, vegetation, stars, fish, birds, animals and finally human beings. But he doesn't need to go into detail about the creation of human beings, because the writer of Gen. 2 already did that.

So Gen. 1:26-28 is a summary of the story in Gen. 2. It is not about different people created earlier than Adam and Eve.

Ok im with you so far,but who were the authors then?this definatly gives me something to study for sure,thanks,god bless

Is Genesis Literal?

Senior Veteran

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Andy D

Andy D

Andy D

Andy D

Andy D

Legend

Legend

Legend

brinley45cal

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Legend

Senior Veteran

brinley45cal

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency