Literal Reading of Genesis and its So called Contradictions

[fragmentsofdreams]

that doesn't really work if God is consistant in creation.

you look at this as if God created with a 'big bang'. but think about this.

God created Adam and Eve as man and woman, not infants. so when Adam was physically a full grown man, he was only several minutes old.

The same applies with the universe. while it may be several billions of years old physically, it is really only several thousand.

So God created a universe that looks old? A universe that would lead anyone studying His creation to the wrong conclusions? A cosmic lie?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Is it your intention to state that Genesis is not from God, but rather pagan men? This would be equating God's Word with that of pagan men. For me this would explain why you believe in evolution.

God Bless

No. My intention is to show that people took the myths of surrounding cultures and changed them to make points. Their audience was familiar with the old myths, so the changes were very evident to them and the points very clear. A lot of Genesis is God showing how He is not like other gods. Jesus did the same thing in his parables, taking well known stories and changing them to drive a point home to his listeners. His goal in his parables was to show how his message was different from the common wisdom.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Has any TE's have comments on Hebrews 11:1-3 as far as evolution? Does Hebrews 11:1-3 and evolution live in harmony? I am amazed that none of those who believe in evolution and are professing Christians have not tested it against the scriptures. If you have then present more then Genesis 1 and 2 that show evolution and scriptures live in harmony with one another.

All I have seen so far are ones presenting books other then the Bible. Even presenting Darwin as their proof. No one has brought the Bible to show harmony. This is what TE's state, that evolution and the Bible live in harmony, correct?

Some things you may want to search the Bible for to show harmony are:

1. Any scripture that eludes to evolution itself.
2. Scripture that says it wasn't one man who brought death into the world.
3. Scripture that says death only means spiritual death.
4. Scripture that says Jesus died only spiritually.
5. Scripture that talks about Adam not being a real man.
6. Scripture that eludes to things on our earth developing over time.
7. Scripture that eludes that death was in the world before Adam.
8. Scripture that says Genesis is just a song and eludes to the fact that it is historically and literally incorrect.
9. Scripture that says we are to look to creation and mans teaching of it to understand the teachings of the Bible.
10. Scripture that says the Bible is not God's Word.

This is what is meant as testing everything against scripture. If any claim they have done so with evolution that takes the place of creationism then present it. Present the scriptures that you have tested it against. Explain my list of 10, showing with scriptures where it is said. If you cannot then I believe you have not tested evolution against the scriptures. If you turn around and give quotes from Darwin, or some other person/book other then the Bible you aren't doing what is commanded of you by God.(test everything against scripture)

Surely if you have tested this teaching of men against scripture this will be an easy task. For you have already done the work. You just have to present it. Start with the simple verse Hebrews 11:1-3 and explain the harmony that exists between evolution and the scriptures.

Hebrews 11:1-3
"1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.
3By 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."

God Bless

In response to 10, the Bible is quite clear in John 1 the identity of God's Word (Logos).

 

[herev]

hello friend

Has any TE's have comments on Hebrews 11:1-3 as far as evolution? Does Hebrews 11:1-3 and evolution live in harmony? I am amazed that none of those who believe in evolution and are professing Christians have not tested it against the scriptures. If you have then present more then Genesis 1 and 2 that show evolution and scriptures live in harmony with one another.

actually, I did answer it already--very specifically, see post 52
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8746704&postcount=52
tommy

 

[GodSaves]

In response to 10, the Bible is quite clear in John 1 the identity of God's Word (Logos).

Then where did the Bible originate, from the author's thoughts or from God? Do you think when Paul says that all scripture is God-breathed, Paul was speaking truth? If the scriptures is from God, wouldn't He have to convey it to the authors somehow? Maybe God spoke to the authors through dreams, visions, or actually speaking. And if any of these means God used, isn't it really just splitting hairs by saying it is not God's Word, when it really did originate from God Himself? If the Bible is not God's Word, what it is?

God Bless

 

[GodSaves]

hello friend

actually, I did answer it already--very specifically, see post 52
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=8746704&postcount=52
tommy

Hello there friend!

So tell me, does evolution suggest that man evolved from bacteria? How about plants, trees, and other things? Isn't that one part of the evolutionary theory? Doesn't it state that man and apes have a common ancestor somewhere there back in time? Doesn't it say that the universe evolved from matter?

Would the common ancestor of man and ape be seen? Can we see bacteria in a microscope? And if so how does this harmonize with scriptures, especially Hebrews 11:3?

Since you stated you have tested everything against the scriptures, what about those 10 things I talked about? Use the scriptures you tested this teaching against to show the harmony.

God Bless

 

[herev]

Hello there friend!

So tell me, does evolution suggest that man evolved from bacteria?

I don't know if bacteria is the exact statment, but for now, sure, I guess so

How about plants, trees, and other things? Isn't that one part of the evolutionary theory?

again, I beleive so

Isn't that one part of the evolutionary theory?

yes

Doesn't it state that man and apes have a common ancestor somewhere there back in time?

yes

Doesn't it say that the universe evolved from matter?

no, I don't think evolution has anything to do with the big bang theory, but I could be wrong

Would the common ancestor of man and ape be seen?

if discovered yes

Can we see bacteria in a microscope?

yes

And if so how does this harmonize with scriptures, especially Hebrews 11:3?

I see no conflict, again, you seem to think that we belive in evolution without God, we are theistic evolutionists, we belive that God started it. so in reference to the above, God created the bacteria, God created the matter in the universe, God created everything. though I believe that the Big Bang theory is completely separate, I do believe that it is plausable. I don't subscribe to it as strongly as I do evolution, but, see as a theisitic "big banger" don't really know the word for that--I believe that God started it, so everything that was a part of that explosion--every atom, every quark, was all created by God--ex nihilio--from nothing

Since you stated you have tested everything against the scriptures, what about those 10 things I talked about? Use the scriptures you tested this teaching against to show the harmony.

God Bless

I'll do that in a separate post, but for the umpteenth time, I do not look to the scriptures to speak on evolution, it wasn't discovered yet. Give me a minute on the rest--it'll come

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Then where did the Bible originate, from the author's thoughts or from God? Do you think when Paul says that all scripture is God-breathed, Paul was speaking truth? If the scriptures is from God, wouldn't He have to convey it to the authors somehow? Maybe God spoke to the authors through dreams, visions, or actually speaking. And if any of these means God used, isn't it really just splitting hairs by saying it is not God's Word, when it really did originate from God Himself? If the Bible is not God's Word, what it is?

God Bless

Considering God's Word became flesh and died for my sins, I don't think that the Bible is God's Word.

The Bible did come from God. The writers were inspired by God, but it is important to understand that we are the secondary audience of the books of the Bible. Each book was written to a certain audience in response to a certain need. To see it primarily as written to us can cause things to become very confused.

 

[herev]

1. Any scripture that eludes to evolution itself.
as I have said, there is none, nor do I look for any, the theory of evolution was not there
2. Scripture that says it wasn't one man who brought death into the world.
Since I believe that it is one man who brought sin into the world, no answer
3. Scripture that says death only means spiritual death.
as you said in post #57: "I never read between the lines, I let scripture interpret scripture, instead of me interpreting to mean whatever the saying of the current day is. Such as evolution. I and many others use scriptures to understand scriptures, it is the act of letting the Bible interpret itself." so let's look to other scripture for this
I can and will answer, but you will simply say for most that they are referring to physical death--While there are dozens, perhaps this is the best:
1 John 3:14:
14We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.
how can they have passed from death if they are still alive?How can one remain in death if it is physical, and then there is the reference to eternal life--which is spiritual--we all die.
4. Scripture that says Jesus died only spiritually.
Since I believe that Jesus did die physically, no answer
5. Scripture that talks about Adam not being a real man.
Since I believe Adam was a real man, no answer
6. Scripture that eludes to things on our earth developing over time.
see number 1--same question, same answer
7. Scripture that eludes that death was in the world before Adam.
God told Adam and Eve to mulitply and fill the earth--without death, it wouldn't have taken many generations for the earth to be overpopulated and no longer a nice place to live. God said that should adam eat from the tree of Good and evil, that he would die then (kjv--in that day)--they didn't die physically, so did God lie?
8. Scripture that says Genesis is just a song and eludes to the fact that it is historically and literally incorrect.
same answer as last time you asked me, there is no scripture tells us that Psalms are not to be taken literally, but we do
9. Scripture that says we are to look to creation and mans teaching of it to understand the teachings of the Bible.
from one of your favorite passages:
Romans 1:20 (Bold and italics and underline--all mine)
20For 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.
we can understand from what has been made--creation is that which God made. WE can look to it as it is clearly seen from it God's power and divine nature, God's invisible qualities
10. Scripture that says the Bible is not God's Word.
See post earlier, Word is Jesus--John 1:1-14, as you said earlier, Word= Jesus, word=scripture

 

[Faith In God]

fragments, I must say that you did not really answer my comment on how you can't judge the age of something just by how old it is physically. God created the stars to give light to the earth, and some stars are so far away that they died by the time that the light reaches here and will shine (God willing) as long as it lived.

God created man as man, not a child. why not create the universe in the same fashion?

looking through a telescope does not prove that evolution and Genesis are buddies.

 

[gluadys]

BTW, feeding five thousand people with five loaves of bread and a few fish is, in itself, a miracle, it needs no inference.

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

True. But assuming that the miracle was multiplication is an inference. In fact, assuming that only five loaves and a few fish fed all 5000 is an inference.

 

[gluadys]

that doesn't really work if God is consistant in creation.

you look at this as if God created with a 'big bang'. but think about this.

God created Adam and Eve as man and woman, not infants. so when Adam was physically a full grown man, he was only several minutes old.

The same applies with the universe. while it may be several billions of years old physically, it is really only several thousand.

Emphasis added.


And that assumes the literal interpretation of Genesis. If Genesis 2 is a myth, the depiction of Adam being created as a full-grown adult means nothing for the physics of the universe.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

fragments, I must say that you did not really answer my comment on how you can't judge the age of something just by how old it is physically. God created the stars to give light to the earth, and some stars are so far away that they died by the time that the light reaches here and will shine (God willing) as long as it lived.

God created man as man, not a child. why not create the universe in the same fashion?

looking through a telescope does not prove that evolution and Genesis are buddies.

The problem is that I don't believe God created man in the fashion you believe.

 

[gluadys]

Surely if you have tested this teaching of men against scripture this will be an easy task. For you have already done the work. You just have to present it. Start with the simple verse Hebrews 11:1-3 and explain the harmony that exists between evolution and the scriptures.

Hebrews 11:1-3
"1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.
3By 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."

God Bless

I would say, that since the focus here is on the creation of the universe, it does not relate to evolution at all. I would also note that the current theory on the formation of the universe is supportive of this passage.

Some things you may want to search the Bible for to show harmony are:

1. Any scripture that eludes to evolution itself.
2. Scripture that says it wasn't one man who brought death into the world.
3. Scripture that says death only means spiritual death.
4. Scripture that says Jesus died only spiritually.
5. Scripture that talks about Adam not being a real man.
6. Scripture that eludes to things on our earth developing over time.
7. Scripture that eludes that death was in the world before Adam.
8. Scripture that says Genesis is just a song and eludes to the fact that it is historically and literally incorrect.
9. Scripture that says we are to look to creation and mans teaching of it to understand the teachings of the Bible.
10. Scripture that says the Bible is not God's Word.

I take it that throughout the word "eludes" (meaning escape capture, as in "the thief eluded the police") is intended to be read as "alludes" (meaning an indirect reference).

1. Scripture makes no allusion to evolution as the concept was not known to the biblical writers. However, it is noted that in the case of living things, God did not speak them into being directly (as is said for light, firmament, etc.) but that the waters and the earth were enlisted to "bring forth living things".

I do not consider this an allusion to abiogenesis, but the theory of abiogenesis is supportive of the concept here, that living things emerged from the elements of the earth and water. Or to phrase it more theistically, that God so made the elements of earth and water that under God's guidance they had the capacity to bring forth life.

2. Paul's references to Adam and Christ in both Romans and 1 Corinthians clearly portray both as those to whom we are connected by nature--in the one case by the nature of sin and in the other case by the nature of spirit. We live "in Adam" or "in Christ" and it is that one man in whom we are "in" that brings death or life to the world.

3. Different scriptural passages refer to death differently. Some refer only or primarily to spiritual death, some only or primarily to physical death, and some to both. We cannot infer the meaning in one passage from another but must take each in context.

4. Jesus died physically and did not die spiritually.

5. The passages mentioned above in Romans and 1 Corinthians.

6. Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a. Creation was a process that took time. Similarly Gen. 2:7 The creation of humanity was not instantaneous but took time for the formation of the physical body out of earth.

7. Gen. 1:11, 22, 28, 30 There can be neither reproduction nor eating without death.

8. The literary structure of Genesis indicates it was the author's intention to provide a spiritual not a literal description of creation. The days are thematic, not chronological. They correspond to Babylonian gods, which the author is depicting as creations of Elohim--and therefore not gods in themselves.

9. Romans 1:20, Hebrews 11:3. Psalm 19:1-4.

10. Scripture never says that the bible IS God's Word.

 

[gluadys]

Hello there friend!

So tell me, does evolution suggest that man evolved from bacteria? How about plants, trees, and other things? Isn't that one part of the evolutionary theory? Doesn't it state that man and apes have a common ancestor somewhere there back in time? Doesn't it say that the universe evolved from matter?

Would the common ancestor of man and ape be seen? Can we see bacteria in a microscope? And if so how does this harmonize with scriptures, especially Hebrews 11:3?

Since you stated you have tested everything against the scriptures, what about those 10 things I talked about? Use the scriptures you tested this teaching against to show the harmony.

God Bless

None of your questions ties in with Hebrews 11:3 which is about the formation of the universe itself, not about the processes of the physical universe once it was made from the things which are not seen.

As noted in my previous post, Genesis 1 says that living things were made of water and earth---things which are seen.

And, of course, from the perspective of the biblical writers, bacteria would count as one of the "things not seen".

 

[GenemZ]

I set aside Gap Theory because I see no reason in the text for separating Gen 1:1 from day one, other than the theory requires it. Thats not good enough.

If that's all you have been shown, then I would not believe it either. There is much more to it. The Hebrew words (tohu wa bohu) translated in the KJV, "And the earth was without form, and void," means something much more specific when getting an accurate translation from the Hebrew. It would read more like... "And the earth was in chaotic disorder, and and manifesting an eerie sense of emptiness...". That would be like saying God created Adam as retarded and disfigured, with a look of death on his face. That is not how God does things when something comes directly from his hand. That, is why certain scholars see a different way. They do not go by the English watered down translations. And, this has been seen by ancient Jewish believers, as well as early Christian fathers. It is not a new teaching as the YEC's claim it to be.

Go here and read the page. It may help clarify and break through the negative propaganda the YEC's push to those who are not yet well informed on the subject.

http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html

I find the YEC's to be unfair and belligerent when it comes to coming clean on this. They always throw out a few specks, mock it, and move on. They have yet to be honest in their appraisal as far as I have seen. When someone always resorts to mocking, it shows an attempt to create a mob rule mentality. I witnessed to this several times from completely different sources. They always threw out a few sparse details. Mocked. Got the crowd to laugh at their mocking (a form of intimidation against those who see things differently) and move quickly on to what they want others to believe.
We wrestle not against flesh and blood.... Understanding the GAP theory opens a huge door into seeing the prehistoric angelic conflict. Something demons fear having exposed. For if understood, it will make parts of the Bible which appear to be obscured, to now make sense.

Look up that page and please let me know what you think. It is not at all like the YEC's try to tell the uninformed listener.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

What God could do and what God does are not the same. People don't deny that God could dictate all of the books of the Bible. They deny that He did dictate them word for word. Those are two different assertions. Do not try to confuse the matter.

Who said , word for word? God had Adam name all the animals. God did not tell him what to name them. Likewise, there were a good number of times that God wanted the prophet to use his own words to describe what God had caused him to be able to accurately understand. An example?

Jeremiah 1:11-12 niv

"The word of the LORD came to me: "What do you see, Jeremiah?" "I see the branch of an almond tree," I replied.
The LORD said to me, "You have seen correctly, for I am watching to see that my word is fulfilled."


Ezekiel 8:5-6 niv

"Then he said to me, "Son of man, look toward the north." So I looked, and in the entrance north of the gate of the altar I saw this idol of jealousy.
And he said to me, "Son of man, do you see what they are doing-the utterly detestable things the house of Israel is doing here, things that will drive me far from my sanctuary? But you will see things that are even more detestable."

That is only a few examples of many. The Lord would often times present the prophet with a vision, then allow the prophet to describe what he was shown in his own words... with his own personality... and, with his own vocabulary style.
God did not dictate, word for word. God wanted the personality of the prophet to be the medium of expression and to be an intrical part of the record. Just like we can write with broad bold fonts to make an impact, or with fancy fine print to make another type of impression, God also used the personalities of the Prophets to make a unique impression. But, we must know this. These were all men that God had disciplined and prepared. They had all reached spiritual maturity. These were not simply ignorant men that God forced their quills to move to write the words. God can do this. And, he has. Prophets were unique men. Very advanced spiritually.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[Eric_C]

To gluadys and fragmentsofdreams

I want to thank you both for helping me to understand, especially you gluadys, your methodology was most instrumental in my conversion to a higher level of understanding.

It is so simple now and I'm at a loss for words as to why I didn't see it before. All one needs is the is the right literary framework and poof, surface disagreements disappear. It seems logical to me that I can also apply this method to any of TEs postings and with the right interpretation, they are no longer in disagreement with my position. Shame on me for ever interpreting the TEs writings literally... sigh.. you cannot imagine the state of bliss I'm in just now, this is sooo liberating, the subjective truth shall set you free.

Theres just one problem I'm having with a particular passage though, maybe you can help me with it. It is Genesis 3:1-6 where it is shown that the serpent, who is the devil or Satan, is the first one to question the literal meaning of what God said to Adam and Eve. Thus he is dubbed later in Scripture the father of lies, a lier from the beginning. How can I get around this passage? Clearly, if I use this method of non literal interpretation I'm bringing into question the literal meaning of what God said. I fear that I would be fallowing in the foot steps of the serpent. Will you tell me how you deal with this passage?

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

PS don't worry about your response, I'll interpret it to my benefit.

 

[Eric_C]

genez

I haven't had the time to read all of that on the link you gave and I want to hold my questions/comments until I do. I've much to get done this week, so it probably wont be till the weekend.

Peace in Christ Jesus

Eric

 

[gluadys]

To gluadys and fragmentsofdreams

I want to thank you both for helping me to understand, especially you gluadys, your methodology was most instrumental in my conversion to a higher level of understanding.

You're quite welcome.

Theres just one problem I'm having with a particular passage though, maybe you can help me with it. It is Genesis 3:1-6 where it is shown that the serpent, who is the devil or Satan, is the first one to question the literal meaning of what God said to Adam and Eve. Thus he is dubbed later in Scripture the father of lies, a lier from the beginning. How can I get around this passage? Clearly, if I use this method of non literal interpretation I'm bringing into question the literal meaning of what God said. I fear that I would be fallowing in the foot steps of the serpent. Will you tell me how you deal with this passage?

Where in Genesis does it say the snake is Satan?

You might also do a study on all the appearances of the word "ha-satan" (not just the name, the word) in the Old Testament. It might surprise you how often a "ha-satan" was commissioned to his/her task by God. In at least one passage, the "ha-satan" is an angel of God (and not necessarily the same angel as appears with that name in Job.) More often the "ha-satan" is a human being.

Satan, as "the devil" and "father of lies" only appears in the New Testament, and reflects the development of theology (especially apocalyptic theology) in the inter-testamental period.

And the NT doesn't say the snake in the garden was Satan either.