Literal Reading of Genesis and its So called Contradictions

[herev]

Genesis 2:4-5 “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens – and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,”

You see in the second sentence that no vegetation had yet sprung up. You see why, 'for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth...' What is the next verse?

Genesis 2:6 “but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground –“

When you have plants what do you do to help them grow? You water them correct? This isn't a lie, right? And what did God do? He watered the earth. Why did He water the earth? The sentence before 2:6 says why. Vegetation had yet to spring forth because it had not rained on them. Could we also say the vegetation had not been watered? Is rain water? Of course, so we can safely say God had not watered the vegetation when it says God had not sent rain for the vegetation to spring forth.

It could just as easily be interpreted this way
no shrub or plant had yet appeared because there was no water
God watered the earth,
created man,
then made plants
(in fact, that is a literal reading)
to insert that he made plants between watering the earth and creating man is not literal reading, it is interpretation--which I have no problem with you doing, but as you often ask us TE's--you should just admit it--it doesn't say it, so you read into it based on something else--in your case, it is somewhere else in the Bible, but it is still something else

 

[herev]

Can you do the same? Can you find evolution to be in harmony with everything in the Bible? Can you present Bible verses that denote one is to read Genesis 1 and 2 allegorically?

I don't find evolution to be in conflict with any part of the bible, so I guess it is in harmony as I interpret it, but not in the way you interpret it.

 

[GodSaves]

again, death here is not physical, but spiritual--And again, I have no problem with believing Adam actually did live, actually did sin, and actually did fall, actually did get thrown out of the garden, etc. But, if I didn't, I would still beleive that Adam represented created man, so the reason for Christ's death is still valid
Despite your trying again and again to tell me and others that we really don't believe--WE REALLY DO...Christ is still our savior

Really? Then what was the point to the Tree of Life? It is called life. You added the meaning that death is only spiritual. I think death is death, both spiritual and physical. I think this because of these reasons:

First, there is the Tree of Life, and it is called this for a reason.
When Christ was crucified, He died physically and spiritually due to the fact that all of the sins of every person of all time was upon Him. Do you agree Christ died physically? Do you agree that Christ died spiritually? If not, I can present the verses that support this too. The Bible says Christ saved us from death and sin, this is salvation. Why does the Bible say death and sin? Because they are both different. Death is physical death. Sin causes death of the soul. Read Revelations where it says the second death, not of the body but of the soul. The Bible clearly teaches two different deaths and Christ saved us from both. Adam brought in both, otherwise Christ would not have need to save us from both.

God Bless

 

[herev]

Then you don't believe Paul when he said test everything against scripture. And for you to make the statement to ask me to find in Darwin's books for evidence of taking Genesis literally is absolutely silly. Why, oh why would I look to a pagan man to understand God and His creation? Sigh. I cannot believe you said this.

You're missing the point, I wouldn't really ask you to do that--I don't think we can read one to prove the other or disprove the other, they are not in conflict, nor do they depend on each other. Yet, you want me to not believe something if the Bible doesn't say it, so, we're back to the same argument. The Bible, in Hebrew often speaks of someone's love coming from their bowels. IN our day and age, we say it comes from the heart. IN reality, we all know that it is in the brain that feelings exist, so If I belive that the feelings come from the brain, the bible says differently, would you tell me not to rely on science, but the Bible for this, too?

 

[GodSaves]

It could just as easily be interpreted this way
no shrub or plant had yet appeared because there was no water
God watered the earth,
created man,
then made plants
(in fact, that is a literal reading)
to insert that he made plants between watering the earth and creating man is not literal reading, it is interpretation--which I have no problem with you doing, but as you often ask us TE's--you should just admit it--it doesn't say it, so you read into it based on something else--in your case, it is somewhere else in the Bible, but it is still something else

Doing this you would create a fallacy because you didn't add in the next verses that you claim is where the plants were made. You obviously have not read my posts, so let me post it again.

Genesis 2:4-5 “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens – and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,”
Genesis 2:6 “but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground –“
Genesis 2:7 “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being.”
Genesis 2:8 “Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.”

What does GENESIS 2:7 say about where these plants are? Does it say on the whole earth? Yes this is a literal reading. If you claim that where it says EDEN is not EDEN but the whole earth then you are changing scripture.

God Bless

 

[herev]

Evolution, in part, is to explain how we came into existence without a divine being. And you mix this with God's Word. You won't present scripture to give support for reading Genesis 1 and 2 allegorically because you cannot. You can however present verses that lend support to read Genesis 1 and 2 literally. And yet you and many others disagree with those scriptures and believe in something that the Bible lends no support for. And I ask for support because evolution is to take the place of creation which is written about in the Bible. So therefore I can ask for Biblical evidence or support for this belief.

not without a divine being--it doesn't say that, it merely addresses the how, not the who.

there are no scriptures that tell us to interpret Psalms allegorically, either are there? (genuine question here, I know of none).

as to the scriptures that support reading them literally, I addressed those
evolution does not take the place of creation which is written in the Bible--again, it is the interpretation of Genesis one and two, not that we want to throw it out

 

[GodSaves]

You're missing the point, I wouldn't really ask you to do that--I don't think we can read one to prove the other or disprove the other, they are not in conflict, nor do they depend on each other. Yet, you want me to not believe something if the Bible doesn't say it, so, we're back to the same argument. The Bible, in Hebrew often speaks of someone's love coming from their bowels. IN our day and age, we say it comes from the heart. IN reality, we all know that it is in the brain that feelings exist, so If I belive that the feelings come from the brain, the bible says differently, would you tell me not to rely on science, but the Bible for this, too?

Where in Genesis 1 and 2 does it use this type of symbolism. Just because in other passages in the Bible it uses symbolism doesn't mean you can haphazardly go into the rest of the Bible and read that way too. You seem to say if anywhere in the Bible uses metaphors, symbolisms, hyperboles, parables, then you are free to read any part of the Bible in that way. And you use evolution as your reason to read Genesis 1 and 2 as such, even though it is clearly lacking that type of language.

God Bless

 

[herev]

Doing this you would create a fallacy because you didn't add in the next verses that you claim is where the plants were made. You obviously have not read my posts, so let me post it again.

Genesis 2:4-5 “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens – and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,”
Genesis 2:6 “but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground –“
Genesis 2:7 “the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being.”
Genesis 2:8 “Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.”

What does GENESIS 2:7 say about where these plants are? Does it say on the whole earth? Yes this is a literal reading. If you claim that where it says EDEN is not EDEN but the whole earth then you are changing scripture.

God Bless

Yeah, I read it, but I disagree. Ok, lets say that in 2:7 (actually, its 2:8), we're only talking about the garden, let's at least agree that 2:4-6 doesn't mention when God created plants in the rest of the earth, agreed?

 

[GodSaves]

not without a divine being--it doesn't say that, it merely addresses the how, not the who.

there are no scriptures that tell us to interpret Psalms allegorically, either are there? (genuine question here, I know of none).

as to the scriptures that support reading them literally, I addressed those
evolution does not take the place of creation which is written in the Bible--again, it is the interpretation of Genesis one and two, not that we want to throw it out

So you don't read Psalms and clearly pick up on the poetic-ness of it? So evolution doesn't take the place of creation? Rather they both happened? Which one happened? If one happened isn't it taking the place of the other? Did God create the way it is clearly written, or is man's explanation better?

Ok if evolution is the interpretation of Genesis then give me a run down, verse by verse explanation of what happened. You know like I did for you.

God Bless

 

[herev]

Where in Genesis 1 and 2 does it use this type of symbolism. Just because in other passages in the Bible it uses symbolism doesn't mean you can haphazardly go into the rest of the Bible and read that way too. You seem to say if anywhere in the Bible uses metaphors, symbolisms, hyperboles, parables, then you are free to read any part of the Bible in that way. And you use evolution as your reason to read Genesis 1 and 2 as such, even though it is clearly lacking that type of language.

God Bless

that, we will disagree with, I don't go to any ole part of the bible and read it that way, but Genesis creation accounts are very similar to other cultures' creation myths in style and in content--so I do see that type of language there.

 

[GodSaves]

Yeah, I read it, but I disagree. Ok, lets say that in 2:7 (actually, its 2:8), we're only talking about the garden, let's at least agree that 2:4-6 doesn't mention when God created plants in the rest of the earth, agreed?

Actually if you take the creation account as a whole instead of unwisely splitting it up saying one means one and the other means another, it clearly tells when the plants were created. They were created on the third day after the ground watered the earth, before man was created. I don't see how this is unclear. Maybe looking at the modern day Bible is hindering you. You realize that the original scriptures did not have subtitles, it was just one flowing book. There was no punctuation, no paragraphs, just written accounts. Read it like that. Compare Genesis with other things that Moses wrote so you can learn how Moses writes. This too will help you understand his writing style.

GoD Bless

 

[herev]

So you don't read Psalms and clearly pick up on the poetic-ness of it? So evolution doesn't take the place of creation? Rather they both happened? Which one happened? If one happened isn't it taking the place of the other? Did God create the way it is clearly written, or is man's explanation better?

Ok if evolution is the interpretation of Genesis then give me a run down, verse by verse explanation of what happened. You know like I did for you.

God Bless

its one thing to clearly pick up on it, but you said that the bible clearly says when it is allegorical, so where does it state that in Psalms?
Part of the trouble in the rest is wording. YOu say creation as if I don't belive in creation--do you mean creationism? So on the surface, I'd say, yes, it's obvious both happened, evolution was a means of creation. All of it revolves around taking Genesis 1 and 2 literally. It's not (and surely you realize this is insulting when you say it) that we choose man's explanation over God's--we don't elevate men over God, we do not think men's wisdom is better than God's--please believe me--that' just not so--take my word literally here--I believe in God!
to give you a rundown verse by verse would be silly, since, as I have posted before, I don't believe it is literal, but is meant as an etiology and a means for us to understand God as creator and author of life, why would you then ask me to do something I don't believe in?

 

[herev]

Actually if you take the creation account as a whole instead of unwisely splitting it up saying one means one and the other means another, it clearly tells when the plants were created. They were created on the third day after the ground watered the earth, before man was created. I don't see how this is unclear. Maybe looking at the modern day Bible is hindering you. You realize that the original scriptures did not have subtitles, it was just one flowing book. There was no punctuation, no paragraphs, just written accounts. Read it like that. Compare Genesis with other things that Moses wrote so you can learn how Moses writes. This too will help you understand his writing style.

GoD Bless

Please do not assume that I have not studied scriptures as much as you. I have studied the Pentateuch in great detail. I agree that if you look at Genesis 1 and 2 as one story, you do not come to my conclusion, but I do think that there is a clear break--actually, you do too. You just think part two is a detailed writing of some of part 1, I don't

 

[GodSaves]

that, we will disagree with, I don't go to any ole part of the bible and read it that way, but Genesis creation accounts are very similar to other cultures' creation myths in style and in content--so I do see that type of language there.

You realize that you and others like yourself state those as myths. The people of that time believed them. The writings that have been found of some pagans belief that man was created from mud. Because of their beliefs you will state them as myths? You don't see any resemblance between these pagans belief and the written account in Genesis? Well, I would say that nothing will convince you that God created as written in Genesis. This is not limiting Him, for HE gave this account, I didn't. I hope you are careful in your following of evolution and where it may go. Maybe one day you will understand Paul when he said test everything against the scriptures. He wouldn't state this to pertain to things that are not in the scriptures such as computers. Unless you think Paul is that dumb. Anything that is said or done that covers something in scripture we are to test it against it. Evolution is treading on creation, so we test it. It fails the test, but it still captures those who call themselves Christians. You have read what I have said and how it affects one. You claim it doesn't. You claim man's teachings and God's live in harmony. How many other things will you comprimise on and say they are in harmony with the scriptures. TEst them as we are instructed to do. If you do not then you will be decieved.

God Bless

 

[GodSaves]

This can go on forever. I gotta eat. haha. I sincerely instruct you to test everything against scripture lest you be decieved. If there is a teaching like one of the Bible test it. No need to be silly and bring up computers or whatever, you are smart enough to know what I mean. Look to all of the Bible for its teachings on creationism or whatever teaching is out there that is like that of the Bible, test it. God instructs us, follow His command, lest yee be decieved.

God Bless

 

[herev]

You realize that you and others like yourself state those as myths. The people of that time believed them. The writings that have been found of some pagans belief that man was created from mud. Because of their beliefs you will state them as myths? You don't see any resemblance between these pagans belief and the written account in Genesis? Well, I would say that nothing will convince you that God created as written in Genesis. This is not limiting Him, for HE gave this account, I didn't. I hope you are careful in your following of evolution and where it may go. Maybe one day you will understand Paul when he said test everything against the scriptures. He wouldn't state this to pertain to things that are not in the scriptures such as computers. Unless you think Paul is that dumb. Anything that is said or done that covers something in scripture we are to test it against it. Evolution is treading on creation, so we test it. It fails the test, but it still captures those who call themselves Christians. You have read what I have said and how it affects one. You claim it doesn't. You claim man's teachings and God's live in harmony. How many other things will you comprimise on and say they are in harmony with the scriptures. TEst them as we are instructed to do. If you do not then you will be decieved.

God Bless

I truly thank you for your concern. Trust me when I tell you that my belief in theistic evolution came many years ago--and it has not affected my beliefs in one single way--I am still a faithful Christian who reads and studies the Bible. I still believe in miracles, I still believe in every one recorded in the Bible--really, I do. I really, really, really do test everything against the scriptures. See, the main difference betwen TE's and creationists is that we don't tell you you are dumb or ignorant or faithless, or limiting God or anything for your beliefs, we recognize that our interpretation is merely that--an interpretation--and I for one, recognize that my interpretations cannot all be right. But when I discuss this (usually in person) with a creationists, they tell me about my beliefs as if they knew them better than I. They tell me I am lacking in faith--they tell me I am on a slipperly slope, they tell me that I don't believe God's word, they tell me that I trust men more than God. And some have gone so far as to tell me that my salvation is in danger (something you have NEVER done--thank you).

as to the myth thing--myth is not a bad word-I shouldn't have used it because it bothers so many people--they equate it with untruth, but that is not the definition of the word. My point was that the creation accounts in Genesis were written to ease understanding with the original hearers of God's word--they understood it, they recognized it as a story of the creation, not necessarily as fact. There is a thread I started in General apologetics called Help, I need some opinions. I started it in regards to an email from someone who was worried about my soul and more importantly about my witness to non-believers--she said I couldn't "win anyone to Jesus" with my evolutionary beliefs. Read that thread and pay attention to the answer from the Jewish man who tells of how the Jews interpreted GEnesis 1 and 2 during the time of Christ and Paul, who of course were both Jewish.
thanks again for your concern
tommy

 

[herev]

This can go on forever. I gotta eat. haha. I sincerely instruct you to test everything against scripture lest you be decieved. If there is a teaching like one of the Bible test it. No need to be silly and bring up computers or whatever, you are smart enough to know what I mean. Look to all of the Bible for its teachings on creationism or whatever teaching is out there that is like that of the Bible, test it. God instructs us, follow His command, lest yee be decieved.

God Bless

thanks, it's been enjoyable--remember, my main thing is not to disprove your beliefs--that's none of my business, but I do want to be respected for mine. I do not believe anything that I think contradicts the Bible--period. enjoy dinner, see you around
Tommy

 

[GodSaves]

Thank you for pointing me a thread where almost every person ridicules and makes fun of YEC's. I appreciate it. I am glad that you found many non-believers who think you holding evolution as a belief is the right thing. It is very reassuring to have so many always adding ridicule for us(YEC) putting so much faith in God and His Word and not believing in any new teaching that comes up and is popular among man. And I mean that, honestly without sarcasm. If today's Christians are not persecuted, why not? Throughout history Christians have always been persecuted, and if Christians are not, maybe one needs to look at how strong their stance in Christ is.

I have never questioned any TE's salvation. I have questioned TE's overall strength of faith in God because they hold to mens teachings which has no support from the Bible. We test worldly teachings that contend with Biblical ones against the Bible and if they don't stand we don't believe in them.

Between you and I, herev, this discussion is moot. I will continue to hold to Paul's and the Bibles teachings and put them into practice.

God Bless

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Fragmentsofdreams, are you stating you question God? Questioning Him about how He created when it is clearly written implies you lack faith. Read my posts above, tell me where the contradictions are that you feel you have to turn to evolution for the explanation of how God created.

Genesis clearly gives the how and who. As Eric_C posted, read Hebrews 11.

Hebrews 11:1-3 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the UNIVERSE WAS FORMED AT GOD'S COMMAND, so that WHAT IS SEEN WAS NOT MADE OUT OF WHAT WAS VISIBLE."

Notice the capitalized parts and tell me if evolution stands up against the test against scripture? Now, read Romans:

Romans 1:18-23 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

Did God make it plain to us? God created this universe for us, this tells us alot about God and His love for us. So again, did God make it plain to us?

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned - before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come."

How does evolution stand the test against this scripture? Sin entered the world through one man, in sin was death. TE's say Adam never lived, but did Moses live? And if he did, why does Paul say this "time of Adam to the time of Moses," giving a clear teaching that Adam did in fact live and through Adam's sin death entered the world. Evolution still stand the test against scripture?

I Corinthians 15:21-22 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

How is evolution standing up in the test against scripture? Death came through a man, resurrection of the dead came through a man. If Adam never lived, then this scripture would make no sense because Christ lived. Adam had to have lived for Christ to live here among us. Through Adam death came, through Christ life. Adam had to have been a real man because of his original sin, death came into the world through sin, because of his original sin Christ came to live in our world to conquer death. To dispute the existence of Adam and Adam's fall is to dispute Christ and His reason for giving of salvation. For if Adam never fell, then when did sin enter the world and by whom? If it was not by man then why did Christ come to us as a man? How is evolution standing now against the test of scripture?

God Bless

There is a difference between questioning God and asking God questions. When I ask God how He created, I look at His Creation to guide me. I do not question His Wisdom in designing it this way.

 

[GenemZ]

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.---

I may read a book of proper protocol for appearing in court. But, that same book is not going to provide the evidence I need to prove my case. It will only tell me what is acceptable evidence. Does that mean, if I can not find evidence I need? That I tell the judge to take a hike because he does not provide the evidence?

The Bible is the protocol to finding truth, and it also contains truth which is self evident. You are telling the judge to take a hike because he will only tell you the guidlines to gathering true evidence, but will not provide your needed evidence for your particular case. He says he did not create using evolution. That means the evidence you need has not yet been secured if you claim your evidence requires the acceptance of the theory of evolution.

As I have been telling all here. The Bible indicates various creations in the past. The Jews saw this, as well as Christian scholars. I will point you once again to a page done by a Ph.D and M.A..

Arthur C. Custance - WITHOUT FORM AND VOID

You should read this! Its online. Free. (I have the book). Excellent scholarly work that fits the courtroom protocol, and supplies answers as to why there appears to have been evolution... yet the all important missing links, yet remain missing.

Grace in peace, GeneZ