Literal Genesis?

[Pete Harcoff]

I notice some people are so stringent about interpreting Genesis (specifically Genesis 1 & 2) as literal history of the Earth, that it becomes an automatic reaction to reject any real-world historical evidence to the contrary.

This view perplexes me, to say the least. I'm just curious if Christians can answer for me why it is so necessary to believe the things in Genesis 1 & 2 as literal history of the Earth. I'm also wondering why these people feel it is a threat to their faith if Genesis 1 & 2 are not taken as literal history of the Earth.

To my mind, the position of requiring Gen 1 & 2 to be a literal history as part of their faith is precarious at best, because if the real-world evidence contradicts it, the effect can be disastrous for that person. So, why take it as literal history in the first place? Isn't it safer to take it as a parable, instead?

 

[TidalWave]

Only certain Christians take genesis 1 & 2 so literally. Sometimes people make the mistake of identifying people with a certain view as "The Christians". Many denominations of the Protestant faith see Genesis 1 & 2 as figurative. The Catholics dealt with this issue long ago, seeing science and faith as working together. Typically the more fundamentalist sects of Christianity see Genesis 1 & 2 as literal. However, the Christian tent is much larger than many think.

 

[Arikay]

Because its easier to believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong, then to actually admit that your views were wrong.

The ironic part is that admiting your views were wrong is a humble way to go.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 10:35 AM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #1

I notice some people are so stringent about interpreting Genesis (specifically Genesis 1 & 2) as literal history of the Earth, that it becomes an automatic reaction to reject any real-world historical evidence to the contrary.

This view perplexes me, to say the least. I'm just curious if Christians can answer for me why it is so necessary to believe the things in Genesis 1 & 2 as literal history of the Earth. I'm also wondering why these people feel it is a threat to their faith if Genesis 1 & 2 are not taken as literal history of the Earth.

To my mind, the position of requiring Gen 1 & 2 to be a literal history as part of their faith is precarious at best, because if the real-world evidence contradicts it, the effect can be disastrous for that person. So, why take it as literal history in the first place? Isn't it safer to take it as a parable, instead?

As you would know, you can't eat your stolen pie and have it too. Are you a Christian?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 10:53 PM Micaiah said this in Post #4

Are you a Christian?

No, I'm not. Which is why I don't understand why some people need to take Genesis as literal history of the Earth in order to have faith. And why some people see it as a threat to their faith if the real-world evidence contradicts a literal reading of Genesis.

Basically, to my non-believing eyes, Biblical literalism seems like precarious grounds for faith.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 12:05 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #5



No, I'm not. Which is why I don't understand why some people need to take Genesis as literal history of the Earth in order to have faith. And why some people see it as a threat to their faith if the real-world evidence contradicts a literal reading of Genesis.

Basically, to my non-believing eyes, Biblical literalism seems like precarious grounds for faith.

As you have said, your lack of faith accounts for the inability to understand the Christian perspective. That is plainly taught in Scripture.

I'll assume you understand the Christian gospel. If not I'd love to share it with you. The gospel contains God's plan for salvation. Why does man need salvation? Look around a the sin and suffering in the world. That was not what God originally intended. It resulted from man's disobedience. The story is given in Genesis. The NT authors and Christ recognised the historicity of Genesis. The whole plan of salvation is rooted in real historical events that are recorded in Genesis. Christians have staked their lives on the word of God throughout history.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:20 PM Micaiah said this in Post #6

I'll assume you understand the Christian gospel. If not I'd love to share it with you. The gospel contains God's plan for salvation. Why does man need salvation? Look around a the sin and suffering in the world. That was not what God originally intended. It resulted from man's disobedience. The story is given in Genesis. The NT authors and Christ recognised the historicity of Genesis. The whole plan of salvation is rooted in real historical events that are recorded in Genesis. Christians have staked their lives on the word of God throughout history.

I've already got a copy of the King James and NIV. I know the whole bit behind sin, salvation, etc, etc.

What I'm trying to figure out is why things like God creating everything in 6 days or a 6000 year old Earth is so vital to that. I mean, if God is real, then does it really matter if He created in 6 days or 14 billion years?

 

[OldBadfish]

If Genesis isn't literal then the whole OT isn't literal, since it all follows genealogies. The OT in general repeatedly makes references to Genesis (Creation) as being literal.

If a Christian cannot trust that they were created the way Genesis explains, what need is there of Christianity? It would pretty much make the whole bible useless.

There is no biblical evidence to suggest that Genesis is not literal, if there is, someone please enlighten me.

 

[OldBadfish]

Today at 08:24 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #7



I've already got a copy of the King James and NIV. I know the whole bit behind sin, salvation, etc, etc.

What I'm trying to figure out is why things like God creating everything in 6 days or a 6000 year old Earth is so vital to that. I mean, if God is real, then does it really matter if He created in 6 days or 14 billion years?

Yeah, it matters. Evolution orchestrated by the God of the bible is not consistent with the account of the creation of mankind.

If God can flood the world with a snap of his fingers, he can literally speak the cosmos into existence spontaneously.

 

[Micaiah]

The significance of these facts is that Scripture plainly teaches them to be so. To undermine the plain teaching of Scripture on these matters is to call into question the plain teaching of Scripture on other matters. One of those things is the whole doctrine of sin. See my comments above on the historicity of Genesis.

God could have created the universe in billions of years or an instant if He chose. By creating the world in six days, and resting on the seventh, God set a pattern for us to follow. The OT law states this pattern was to be adopted by man, and western countries follow this pattern today.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:39 PM Badfish said this in Post #8

If Genesis isn't literal then the whole OT isn't literal, since it all follows genealogies. The OT in general repeatedly makes references to Genesis (Creation) as being literal.

Where?

If a Christian cannot trust that they were created the way Genesis explains, what need is there of Christianity? It would pretty much make the whole bible useless.

This is something else I've never understood. The whole "slippery slope" into non-belief. Is your faith really so dependent on every single little aspect of Genesis being correct? In which case, then wouldn't evidence to the contrary be dangerous to that faith? This doesn't strike you as being problematic?

 

[Micaiah]

Spot on Badfish. YOu beat me to it!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:42 PM Badfish said this in Post #9

Yeah, it matters. Evolution orchestrated by the God of the bible is not consistent with the account of the creation of mankind.

Yet, the account of creation of mankind in the Bible is not consistant with the evidence in His Creation of our 'creation'.

Basically, some people are telling me, "this is how He did it". Yet, if I examine what He supposedly did, the two accounts don't line up. So, either those people are wrong or He didn't do it.

 

[Arikay]

I would say that anyone who needs Genesis to be literal to believe in christianity really needs to question their own faith.

There are plenty of christians that have complete faith in god and jesus without taking the OT literally. So if they can do it, without a literal genesis, then I think the people whos faith is really in question are the people who Need the bible to be literal to be able to accept god.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:51 PM Arikay said this in Post #14

There are plenty of christians that have complete faith in god and jesus without taking the OT literally. So if they can do it, without a literal genesis, then I think the people whos faith is really in question are the people who Need the bible to be literal to be able to accept god.

This is precisely why I'm trying to find why some people do feel the need to take Genesis as literal history. Because, as you say, there are plenty of Christians who don't, yet have no trouble with the whole sin/salvation/etc components of Christianity.

Which is why I'm having a hard time believing the people that tell me that it is necessary to the Christian faith to believe in a 6 day creation, etc. Either that, or I have to believe everyone else in the world is lying to me, but I'm not that paranoid (yet).

 

[OldBadfish]

Today at 08:46 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #11



Where?

Everywhere.

This is something else I've never understood. The whole "slippery slope" into non-belief. Is your faith really so dependent on every single little aspect of Genesis being correct? In which case, then wouldn't evidence to the contrary be dangerous to that faith? This doesn't strike you as being problematic?

Yes, overwhelming evidence would, but the theory of evolution is far from being convincing, even evolutionary scientists debate veraciously against one another.

Nothing has been proven to the extent of being a known fact.

I had some great info on the lack of transitional fossils and I can't find it.

It amazes me that people who believe in total evolution can accept this manmade theory with so much missing evidences.

 

[OldBadfish]

Today at 08:55 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #15



This is precisely why I'm trying to find why some people do feel the need to take Genesis as literal history. Because, as you say, there are plenty of Christians who don't, yet have no trouble with the whole sin/salvation/etc components of Christianity.

Which is why I'm having a hard time believing the people that tell me that it is necessary to the Christian faith to believe in a 6 day creation, etc. Either that, or I have to believe everyone else in the world is lying to me, but I'm not that paranoid (yet).

Christians really don't need to worry about Genesis, Jesus is the focus of the faith, everything else is history and doesn't really make a difference in the salvation process.

But to challenge Gods inspired word that genesis is a literal account is also challenging the account of the lineage of people that originated from the spontaneous creation of Adam.

If God spoke the cosmos into existence, and breathed life into the nostrils of his creations, what would evidence is there, that this process would take millions or billions of years?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 11:58 PM Badfish said this in Post #16

Everywhere.

How about a specific passage or two then?

Yes, overwhelming evidence would, but the theory of evolution is far from being convincing, even evolutionary scientists debate veraciously against one another.

Yes, but the debate in scientific circles isn't over whether or not evolution occured. And, having spent the past year examining the evidence for evolution, it seems plenty convincing to me. At least, convincing enough to refute a literal creation as described in Genesis.

Nothing has been proven to the extent of being a known fact.

So? My very existance hasn't been proven to the extent of being a known fact. The whole world could have popped into existance 5 minutes ago, or be a dream, or the Matrix, etc, etc. But, you have to ground yourself somewhere. I choose to ground myself in believing that the world is indeed real and so is the evidence found within it.

I had some great info on the lack of transitional fossils and I can't find it.

But, there are transitional fossils. I can't tell you the number of hours I've spent pouring over the evidence for transitions.

It amazes me that people who believe in total evolution can accept this manmade theory with so much missing evidences.

But the evidence is not missing. Yes, the theory still has aspects that are being worked out. But this is true of every theory in science. However, ideas like the theory of evolution, a 4.5 billion year old Earth, etc, etc was formed because this is what the evidence points to. It's the evidence for these things that is the issue. And that evidence exists.

 

[Cantuar]

If a Christian cannot trust that they were created the way Genesis explains, what need is there of Christianity? It would pretty much make the whole bible useless.

If that Christian happens to be scientifically literate and understands the science behind geology and nuclear physics, he's going to know that the Earth is billions of years old. If he's then faced with Genesis and told that it must be taken literally and that it says the Earth is 6000 years old, he's going to conclude that he can't trust what it says. And that would also pretty much make the whole Bible useless.

This argument cuts both ways. If God created the Earth, he did so in reality as well as in scripture. And the Earth itself, when examined by techniques based on the laws of nature that God created, gives evidence of great age. Biblical literalists are the only ones who insist that that adding up genealogies is the only appropriate way to determine the age of the Earth. God didn't have to make radioactive decay constant, and he didn't have to leave fossils all over the geological column, if he wanted people to depend entirely on scripture to figure out the age of the Earth. But he did do those things. He left clues. And now we're asked to believe that people who take those clues and study them and draw conclusion on that basis are somehow dishonouring God?

 

[Micaiah]

If you choose to become a Christian you should do so with your eyes open. There is a cost. The cost may be financial, respect from other friends, a relationship, a habit that is inconsistent with Christain behaviour. Often the response to the challenge of Christian truth is that thre cost is too high. People are reluctant to give up these things.

Jesus said if you want to follow Him, then He requires total trust, obedience and commitment. A Christian is one who accepts Christ as both their Saviour and their Lord or Master. Jesus likened the Christian life to daily being prepared to take up a cross. It requires self denial and loyalty in the face of rejection and hate.

If you want to become a Christian, and God convicts you that your world view is incompatible with the plain teaching of Scripture, then that is something you need to change. To fail to make those changes will result in problems down the track. Scripture likens those who start out on the Christian path without counting the cost to those who begin to build a house and run out of money. We've heard the sad testimony on these threads of some with 'unfinished houses'.