Literal Reading of Genesis and its So called Contradictions

Late_Cretaceous · Aug 5, 2004

Genez. Since when are you God's spokesman to go around saying "well God could have done is this way" or "God would have done it that way". ANd you accuse me of questioning God?

I prefer to let God speak for Himself thankyou.

Late_Cretaceous · Aug 5, 2004

Godsaves said "It is on the beginning and creation of our universe. "

That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution.

Late_Cretaceous · Aug 5, 2004

Godsaves also said "They choose to use man's logic and reasoning instead of scripture"

You seem to forget that the scriptures are also a product of man's reasoning and logic. Remember, the bible was written by fallible humans not God Himself.

Faith In God · Aug 5, 2004

[sign]subscription- not a good hour to be awake[/sign]

Faith In God · Aug 5, 2004

Late_Cretaceous said:
Godsaves also said "They choose to use man's logic and reasoning instead of scripture"

You seem to forget that the scriptures are also a product of man's reasoning and logic. Remember, the bible was written by fallible humans not God Himself.

but i will say this.

when you write a letter, who writes it?

you, or the pen?

man is the instrument, and God is the Writer.

GenemZ · Aug 6, 2004

Mestel said:
But in the real world Scripture does not help you solve the real problems of science, technology or engineering. You might as well use tea leaves as Genesis et al. Thus, there is a place for 'mans logic and reasoning' and a place for scripture.

Scripture was not meant to solve real problems of science, etc. It was meant to guide the scientist away from erroneous speculation at times. Speculation is not the same thing as having facts and verifiable truth. The theory of evolution is just that. Theory.

Dr Custance http://www.custance.org/insight.html who had a Ph.D in engineering and a M.A. in Hebrew and Greek (Oriental languages), stayed the course, and discovered truths that those who run to hide behind the theory of evolution will miss, and will find out what jerks they were when they face the Lord at their evaluation.

When God's Word says one thing, and men's speculation says another, then be assured, that these men are coping out on truth. They are missing out on a treasure of understanding that is buried treasure they refused to dig for.

"There is a way that seems right to a man,
but in the end it leads to death. " Proverbs 14:12 niv

"Obviously! All the data we have just proves that the theory of evolution has to be correct! Obviously!" (and, it was obvious to men at one time that the world had to be flat) "Obviously!"

Grace and peace, GeneZ

fragmentsofdreams · Aug 6, 2004

butxifxnot said:
[sign]subscription- not a good hour to be awake[/sign]

GodSaves · Aug 6, 2004

Late_Cretaceous said:
Godsaves also said "They choose to use man's logic and reasoning instead of scripture"

You seem to forget that the scriptures are also a product of man's reasoning and logic. Remember, the bible was written by fallible humans not God Himself.

Then by your own logic you cannot trust any scripture to be literally true. That would go with salvation, Jesus' resurrection and ascension. The Bible is deduced to just a book of good teachings nothing more which can lead to the saying there is no God. This is the currently held thought by many atheists.

You seem to think that God did not inspire men to write what is told to them by the Holy Spirit. And if God did not then again we are left with only a good book with some stories, no actual truths. This is the fallacy of not trusting in God.

God Bless

Ave Maria · Aug 6, 2004

GodSaves said:
Ok. So many TE's claim that Genesis has contradictions when read. All the ones I have run across have also claimed that the Bible is fallible. So I ask each person who responds to answer these:

I assume that TE stands for Theistic Evolution right? Anyway, I'll gladly answer all your questions!

1. Is the Bible fallible? (yes or no)

No, the Bible is not fallible. It is infallible. However, it is not inerrant. There is a difference between infallible and inerrant in my opinion.

2. Are you a TE or a YEC?

I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I don't believe God lied when he said he created the universe in 6 days.

3. How does Genesis suggest evolution?

Genesis does not suggest evolution in any way shape or form.

4. Why did God choose evolution over creation in creating the universe?

He didn't. God created the entire universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th.

5. What are the contradictions in Genesis?

There are no contradictions in Genesis that I am aware of.

6. If you are TE present Bible verses, not science as your proof for evolution.

I'm not a Theistic Evolutionist. I am a Young Earth Creationist.

7. Do you believe that the creation story was really given by God, or did Moses just make it up to give some sort of beginning account?

God inspired Moses to write the creation story as a factual historical account of how God created the universe in six 24-hour days and then rested on the seventh day.

artybloke · Aug 6, 2004

butxifxnot said:
but i will say this.

when you write a letter, who writes it?

you, or the pen?

man is the instrument, and God is the Writer.

That makes the Bible equivalent to the Quran. And it removes all human consciousness from the writers and makes them mere stenographers, not creative thinkers with minds of their own. Robots, in fact.

Plus, of course, there's nowhere in the Bible such a process is described.

Human beings are not pens.

artybloke · Aug 6, 2004

Then by your own logic you cannot trust any scripture to be literally true.

Not true. What you do is look at the genre of the writing concerned and ask is this intended to be literal/historical, or poetic/symbolic/mythical?

As in: Simon Schama's History of Britain series is historical/factual. So, although he will use literary tropes and devices, we can trust that the facts are going to be as accurate as he can make them.

TS Eliot's The Wasteland, however, is a poem, it's intention is to express ideas and emotions in a poetic/symbolic form, therefore any facts it might contain would be subservient to the overall meaning, and it will more likely contain non-factual presentations of ideas and emotions.

With the Bible, that would mean that the Gospels are presented, generally, as having at least a historical framework, and should be read as such. Genesis 1-11, however, are poetic/symbolic/mythic texts and should be read as such.

A little genre criticism goes a long long way...

herev · Aug 6, 2004

artybloke said:
A little genre criticism goes a long long way...

now that is worth repeating

Eric_C · Aug 6, 2004

Hello GodSaves

"1. Is the Bible fallible? (yes or no)"

No. (with out answers to questions not asked)

"2. Are you a TE or a YEC?"

YEC, humbly.

"3. How does Genesis suggest evolution?"

It does not. (again, no rhetoric)

"4. Why did God choose evolution over creation in creating the universe?"

Let me rephrase your question so that those with an education that require a pedestal can understand it.

Why did God use the things that are seen to create that which does appear (evolution), as opposed to Hebrews 11:3 "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."?

My answer: God did not use evolution to create anything, He used His word as Hebrews 11:3 says. The writer of Hebrews correctly presents the answer to this question as philosophical/theological in nature "Through faith we understand". Science has no business attempting to answer such questions, science by nature is the opposite of faith, Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.".

"5. What are the contradictions in Genesis?"

There aren't any.

"6. If you are TE present Bible verses, not science as your proof for evolution."

The truth is, there are no verses in the Bible that support the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is the result of poor interpretation of scientific data, of course, thats just my interpretation... ha ha ha.

Since it is the prevailing theme here in this forum that the only qualification for a valid interpretation is the mere possession of it, my (YEC) interpretation of the scientific data is just as valid as any other. I will not let anyone hold me to a double standard, such as: to tell me "thats just your interpretation of the Bible" and then turn around and say something like "science doesn't lie" as if the TE's, or any other evolutionist interpretation of the scientific data is the absolute truth. No, I do not accept that.

Historically, The YEC position has in its favor thousands of years of the orthodox literal interpretation of the creation account. Biblically, it has the confirmation of the giving of the fourth commandment, God HimSelf referring to the creation week as seven literal days. It also has in its favor the fact that Jesus confirmed the literal interpretation by keeping the Sabbath every seventh day. Now if The Jews had misunderstood what God said concerning the creation account, surely Jesus would have corrected this, to the contrary, He affirmed the writings of Moses by quoting them.

"7. Do you believe that the creation story was really given by God, or did Moses just make it up to give some sort of beginning account?"

Yes!

And No, Moses didn't make up any stories.

"I don't see anyones thinking being changed, rather though we can clear up these so called contradictions and this so called fallible Bible statement made by some in the past."

You're probably right about not changing anyones thinking (mind), only God can do that. I still have hope though.

"God Bless"

Thank you GodSaves, I return it back to you.

Eric

__________________________________________

I have a two part challenge for the Theistic Evolutionist.

1) You say that you can interpret the Genesis creation account as non literal. Please demonstrate that this hermeneutic works in another passage of same type, such as, Jesus walking on the water, feeding the multitudes with a few loaves and a few fish, The Resurrection, restoring sight to the physically blind. All of these are an account of a supernatural event, as is the creation account.

2) Causing space, matter and life on the earth to come into existence is a supernatural event. The only way that we can understand what happened is to read the literal meanings of the words that describe the event, if the literal meanings don't apply, how then, do we know what happened? That is a rhetorical question.

Please explain to me how it is that you come to the notion that by studying the natural universe and all of its processes, including life, that you're going to explain how God brought it into existence?

The only Scripture I know of that God addresses science is this.

Job 12:7-9

But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?

He only says that they will tell you that He did it, not how He did it!

There is nothing that is being brought into existence from nonexistence today in the physical universe, except for the procreation of life, but that is not original creation.

Job 9:7-10

Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south. Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.

So what makes you think that you're going to understand how God did it?

BTW, telling me that you don't interpret Bible that way, or thats just my interpretation, right back at you on the scientific data. If you ask me what makes me qualified, again, back to you. Where are your credentials in koine Greek and Hebrew?

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

ThePhoenix · Aug 6, 2004

GodSaves said:
Ok. So many TE's claim that Genesis has contradictions when read. All the ones I have run across have also claimed that the Bible is fallible. So I ask each person who responds to answer these:

1. Is the Bible fallible? (yes or no)
Qualified no. Certain parts of the bible are not meant to be taken literally (hence metaphor). Certain translations are just plain wrong.
2. Are you a TE or a YEC?
TE
3. How does Genesis suggest evolution?
How does Genesis support creation? It is meant to be sung (or chanted) and is poetical. Poetry can convey deep truth, and is very beautiful, but is lacking in the absolute factual accuracy.
4. Why did God choose evolution over creation in creating the universe?
I don't know. It's somewhere on my list of things to ask him (unfortunately much more important ones like "Why is chocolate bad for you and spinach good for you?" come first).
5. What are the contradictions in Genesis?
Length of creation (one day versus one week) order of creation, order of man's creation (man and woman he created them, versus Adam before Eve), the fact that the land comes from the waters and later the waters spring forth from the dry land.
6. If you are TE present Bible verses, not science as your proof for evolution.
Ok, God created this earth, and God gave us domion over the earth. God clearly intended us to learn from his creation. How can we ignore what his creation teaches us?
7. Do you believe that the creation story was really given by God, or did Moses just make it up to give some sort of beginning account?
It was really inspired by God, because it gives a fundimental moral understanding of the beginning. A textbook explaination of the big bang on forward would not teach us anything about the nature of sin and forgiveness, of knowledge, and of betrayal. There would be no moral lessons in such an account. Therefore God saw no need to impart on us what we could discover on our own.

GodSaves said:
I don't see anyones thinking being changed, rather though we can clear up these so called contradictions and this so called fallible Bible statement made by some in the past.

God Bless

Faith In God · Aug 6, 2004

ThePhoenix said:
3. How does Genesis suggest evolution?
How does Genesis support creation? It is meant to be sung (or chanted) and is poetical. Poetry can convey deep truth, and is very beautiful, but is lacking in the absolute factual accuracy.

hmm. interesting. I was not aware that Moses wrote poetry...and besides, it does suggest creation (duh) in this so-called poetry.

Length of creation (one day versus one week) order of creation,

no mention of what day does not equal one day. 'then', 'once' this kind of terminology is not time specific.

order of man's creation (man and woman he created them, versus Adam before Eve),

what? God created man, then eve. He created both. that's it.

the fact that the land comes from the waters and later the waters spring forth from the dry land.[/color]
6. If you are TE present Bible verses, not science as your proof for evolution.
Ok, God created this earth, and God gave us domion over the earth. God clearly intended us to learn from his creation. How can we ignore what his creation teaches us?
7. Do you believe that the creation story was really given by God, or did Moses just make it up to give some sort of beginning account?[/color]
It was really inspired by God, because it gives a fundimental moral understanding of the beginning. A textbook explaination of the big bang on forward would not teach us anything about the nature of sin and forgiveness, of knowledge, and of betrayal. There would be no moral lessons in such an account. Therefore God saw no need to impart on us what we could discover on our own.

Click to expand...

i think Godsaves would like to answer the rest.

Click to expand...

GodSaves · Aug 6, 2004

I am actually waiting to see if any TE's will answer Eric_C's post. He made some very good points.

God Bless

GenemZ · Aug 6, 2004

artybloke said:
That makes the Bible equivalent to the Quran. And it removes all human consciousness from the writers and makes them mere stenographers, not creative thinkers with minds of their own. Robots, in fact.

Plus, of course, there's nowhere in the Bible such a process is described.

Human beings are not pens.

If I told you to write down the following? You could not?

"George was afraid of mice. Yet, George was afraid of others knowing he was afraid of mice, more than he was afraid of mice."

What's the big deal with God having someone write down a report of an account that God wants on record? What the prophets experienced was many years of life with God, yet their writings only cover moments. You mean that you could not record an accurate recollection of something you did in a moment of time? If you saw a car crash into another, and you had a pen and paper right there with you? You could not write down what you actually saw?

Likewise, God could use his chosen vessels to record what he wanted to go on record. It is not half as difficult as you make it out to be.

"Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." Exodus 34:27 niv

"Then the LORD replied: "Write down the revelation and make it plain on tablets so that a herald may run with it." Habakkuk 2:2 niv

I think the real problem you have is simply believing God is real. If you did not, you would know it would be quite easy to get a chosen person to write down what you wanted written. After all, personal secretaries are not super humans, are they? Even they get it right, when told to write. Right?

Grace and common sense..... GeneZ

GenemZ · Aug 6, 2004

rmwilliamsll said:
you keep asking the same question.
and we continue to answer it.

In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.

GOD created the heavens and the earth.

it answers the question WHO?
if you desire the answer to the question how? you address science.
the Scriptures speak only to WHO and WHY?
not mechanism.
i can't quote Scripture as to what happened, in what order because the answer is not there.

i don't know how to answer your question any other way.

----

The Hebrew tells us the HOW. "Bara", means to create 'out from nothing.' Ex nihilio, The Bible does tell us how. You just do not get it in the English conveyed as such. Religious Jews never use the Hebrew word "bara" in relation to anyone but God. For they know only God can create 'out from nothing.'

Now? Want to "make" something of it?

Spin meister alert! Need help!

Always at your service..... GeneZ

rmwilliamsll · Aug 6, 2004

genez said:
The Hebrew tells us the HOW. "Bara", means to create 'out from nothing.' Ex nihilio, The Bible does tell us how. You just do not get it in the English conveyed as such. Religious Jews never use the Hebrew word "bara" in relation to anyone but God. For they know only God can create 'out from nothing.'

Now? Want to "make" something of it?

Spin meister alert! Need help!

Always at your service..... GeneZ

bara is still not an answer to a 20thC scientific mechanism.
at best it distinquishes between a creation ex nihilo and a re-creation from pre-existent matter. nothing is being said, nor intended to be said to satisfy our cultural/scientific/historical mileu that desires answers in the form of cause-effect, mechanism, methods, technique.

we are children of our age, questing for a particular type of answers to our existential questions. the ancient hebrews lived in a far different time where the questions and the range of acceptable/desirable answers are not the same as ours.

we ask questions of astronomy such as: how far, what type of star, what is it made of. we answer questions like this in impersonal and material terms.

the ancients asked questions far more personal- what effect on my life does the stars have. while their answers are personified and concerned with relationships and final purposes.
questions unfairly and wrongly put to ancient ways of conceiving of the world.

bara ties into this because Gen 1 is directed at polytheism, the denial that the universe contains gods that can compete with the LORD, a denial that the stars or the sun or the moon have anything to do with ours personal lives. they are objects, depersonalized, de-theologized, de-mythologized.
this is the import of bara---a universe that is separate from God, continguent, yet providentially controlled by Him....

to seek modern scientific historical answers from a word like bara is foolishness, making the exegetical task one of application to us, rather than extraction of what is originally meant to the first hearers and then application.

---

Faith In God · Aug 6, 2004

rmwilliamsll said:
bara is still not an answer to a 20thC scientific mechanism.
at best it distinquishes between a creation ex nihilo and a re-creation from pre-existent matter. nothing is being said, nor intended to be said to satisfy our cultural/scientific/historical mileu that desires answers in the form of cause-effect, mechanism, methods, technique.

we are children of our age, questing for a particular type of answers to our existential questions. the ancient hebrews lived in a far different time where the questions and the range of acceptable/desirable answers are not the same as ours.

we ask questions of astronomy such as: how far, what type of star, what is it made of. we answer questions like this in impersonal and material terms.

the ancients asked questions far more personal- what effect on my life does the stars have. while their answers are personified and concerned with relationships and final purposes.
questions unfairly and wrongly put to ancient ways of conceiving of the world.

bara ties into this because Gen 1 is directed at polytheism, the denial that the universe contains gods that can compete with the LORD, a denial that the stars or the sun or the moon have anything to do with ours personal lives. they are objects, depersonalized, de-theologized, de-mythologized.
this is the import of bara---a universe that is separate from God, continguent, yet providentially controlled by Him....

to seek modern scientific historical answers from a word like bara is foolishness, making the exegetical task one of application to us, rather than extraction of what is originally meant to the first hearers and then application.

---

does this mean that 'it is no longer true'? because that is what you are saying.

Literal Reading of Genesis and its So called Contradictions

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

A little FIG is all we need...

A little FIG is all we need...

Well-Known Member

Critical loyalist

Well-Known Member

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CL--you are missed!

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

A little FIG is all we need...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

avid reader

A little FIG is all we need...

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

<font color="#880000" ></font&g

<font color="#880000" ></font&g

<font color="#880000" ></font&g