Literal Reading of Genesis and its So called Contradictions

[Didaskomenos]

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.

If I may intrude...Even taking the serpent as at least a type of Satan, your misgiving fails on two points:

1) "You will surely die" was not referring to literal physical death, even within the story, and so the serpent's evil deed was not getting Eve to question how literal God's command was, but getting her to question its (and God's) truthfulness.
2) It is indeed a fallacy (though not "sin" strictly) to interpret something meant literally as non-literal. The trick is analyzing case-by-case what should be taken literally and what should not. If the serpent's deception was in mischaracterizing something literal as non-literal, the problem was doing it in the wrong place. It is no less an error to misconstrue a non-literal passage as literal.

 

[GenemZ]

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

What you need to see will take you five minutes to read.... The introduction does not take that long to view. He shows how the GAP understanding is not a new theory as YEC"s try to tell you. They see it as an understanding that is not warranted by the Scriptures, and only see it as an understanding created at the time of Darwin in attempt to harmonize the fossil findings with Scripture.

Yes, at that time Dr Chalmer's did renew interest (but did not originate it) this teaching at the time of Darwin's claims. Sadly, what the YEC's fail to recognize, is that even first century Christian scholars were seeing the Scripture to be pointing to a prehistoric creation which had been destroyed.

Since the YEC's I have had contact with do not want to be bothered with the GAP understanding, they left it at Dr. Chalmers being the originator, and fail to realize that even ancient Jewish Scholars saw this phenomenon appearing in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew and NT texts speak of other creations. But, YEC's feel that they are on a mission from God in their crusade to refute the TOE's, and it must be done with what is a commonly held error of man's tradition.

It will take only five minutes of your time to get the gist of it....

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

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

If I may intrude...Even taking the serpent as at least a type of Satan, your misgiving fails on two points:

1) "You will surely die" was not referring to literal physical death, even within the story, and so the serpent's evil deed was not getting Eve to question how literal God's command was, but getting her to question its (and God's) truthfulness.

The Hebrew indicates two deaths. It refers to both the spiritual death, and as a result, physical death.

The Hebrew words translated literally looks like this...

"In dying you shall die."

Now, I have seen scholars and pastors (who know this factor) explain that in dying "spiritually" (which Adam and Eve experienced as soon as they ate) it would eventually result in dying physically. Which is what took place after they ate. "In dying you shall die." Many translate that to mean "surely die." Yet, death is mentioned twice in God's words. Two deaths took place in the fall.
Grace in peace, GeneZ

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

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.

Simple. Commands are intended to be taken literally. Therefore, Adam and Eve should take God's command literally.

Myths on the other hand are like parables in that they convey meaning through stories. They are not intended to be taken literally, and they should not be.

 

[Didaskomenos]

The Hebrew indicates two deaths. It refers to both the spiritual death, and as a result, physical death.

The Hebrew words translated literally looks like this...

"In dying you shall die."

Now, I have seen scholars and pastors (who know this factor) explain that in dying "spiritually" (which Adam and Eve experienced as soon as they ate) it would eventually result in dying physically. Which is what took place after they ate. "In dying you shall die." Many translate that to mean "surely die." Yet, death is mentioned twice in God's words. Two deaths took place in the fall.
Grace in peace, GeneZ

Very good. I have heard that, but I'd forgotten it. This highlights that the deception of the serpent had nothing to do with taking a literal statement and making it figurative, but with openly calling the veracity of the statement into question.

 

[GenemZ]

Very good. I have heard that, but I'd forgotten it. This highlights that the deception of the serpent had nothing to do with taking a literal statement and making it figurative, but with openly calling the veracity of the statement into question.

I leave the figurative argument to those who wish to bend the truth which they can not deny, so they resort to the figurative ploy when it is not there. Satan does not usually resort to that. He would rather resort to subtracting or adding to the Word.

Quite often, Satan has a way to reverse the order of truth.

God says, "I AM."

Satan says, "Am I?"

No wonder they found backmasking on recordings in the 70's.....

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GodSaves]

"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Psalms 118:8

God Bless

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

But I do trust God. I trust Him not to plant fake evidence in His creation to mislead people as to how He created.

Let me make this clear.

If God created the retro-viral insertions in the genome that so clearly point to common descent, and yet did not actually create in this manner, then God is a liar.

If God formed the human chromosome 2 in such a way to make it look exactly like a fusion even between two ape chromosomes, but it was not actually so, then God is a liar.

If God so created the earth to have all naturally occuring radioisotopes with a half life greater than 10^8 years, and none of those with a shorter half life, save those that are in the decay chains of long half-life isotopes, and yet the earth is only 6000 years old, then God is a liar.

Fortunately, He is not, and evolution is how He created, and the earth is billions of years old.

What I don't trust is your purely human interpretation of Genesis 1.

 

[feo]

Sometimes we sit around, and we pray to God... and we yell at Him. Asking "God, why arnt you hooking me up? I need help" And I believe God is smart. God gave us things to use to help us. God instructs us to put on our holy armor... God teaches us how to use it.

I believe the same can be said, with how we came about. We can sit here and ask God... but God may not provide a sufficient answer. (Job didnt get answered directly by God either!) But what God did give us, are beautiful brains that are capable of so much. God expects us to use our gifts, and God instructs us on how to use such gifts.

I dont really see how Theistic Evolution puts God out of the picture.

If any of you YEC's can tell me how, I'll be willing to listen.

Bye ! Take care

 

[Faith In God]

Simple. Commands are intended to be taken literally. Therefore, Adam and Eve should take God's command literally.

Myths on the other hand are like parables in that they convey meaning through stories. They are not intended to be taken literally, and they should not be.

myth. genesis is not. in the gospels, Jesus' lineage is traced back to adam and past him, God. Jesus is a decendant of Adam, and you cannot be a decendant from a myth.

 

[Faith In God]

But I do trust God. I trust Him not to plant fake evidence in His creation to mislead people as to how He created.

the bible says that He confounds the wise. the wise are the ones who use this argument. I trust God at His word. You might say that it is a test to see whether we trust in His word or the word of man.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I leave the figurative argument to those who wish to bend the truth which they can not deny, so they resort to the figurative ploy when it is not there. Satan does not usually resort to that. He would rather resort to subtracting or adding to the Word.

What? Why would I wish to bend any undeniable truth?! Many who hold to the literalist argument are trying to hold on to their own primitive understanding of a passage rather than situate it historically and generically. I would much have preferred to hold on to the view that the creation account is some special divinely-given scientific knowledge. I just can't do it honestly.

 

[Didaskomenos]

the bible says that He confounds the wise. the wise are the ones who use this argument.

You said that it was a wise argument, not the Bible.

I trust God at His word. You might say that it is a test to see whether we trust in His word or the word of man.

Maybe so. But I doubt seriously that it's a sound principle to say that the correct explanation will always be the opposite of the reasonable one.

 

[Faith In God]

You said that it was a wise argument, not the Bible.

the bible says confound the wise. the people. not the ideas they come up with. ask scientists if they think they are at all wise in any sense.

Maybe so. But I doubt seriously that it's a sound principle to say that the correct explanation will always be the opposite of the reasonable one.

what? reason says God means what He says. opposites don't have anything to do with it.

 

[GodSaves]

But I do trust God. I trust Him not to plant fake evidence in His creation to mislead people as to how He created.

Let me make this clear.

If God created the retro-viral insertions in the genome that so clearly point to common descent, and yet did not actually create in this manner, then God is a liar.

If God formed the human chromosome 2 in such a way to make it look exactly like a fusion even between two ape chromosomes, but it was not actually so, then God is a liar.

If God so created the earth to have all naturally occuring radioisotopes with a half life greater than 10^8 years, and none of those with a shorter half life, save those that are in the decay chains of long half-life isotopes, and yet the earth is only 6000 years old, then God is a liar.

Fortunately, He is not, and evolution is how He created, and the earth is billions of years old.

What I don't trust is your purely human interpretation of Genesis 1.

An example of taking a verse I posted, not to a TE or a YEC but for all, and misunderstanding it and directing it at oneself. It is logical that if my position can be wrong, then it is logical that your position can be wrong. Science is not perfect, science when mixed with men sometimes has an agenda. We do not know the mind of any of the men who helped in putting together the evolutionary theory. We do not know if they really did have a hidden agenda. If one states plainly that this is untrue that we do know their minds and we do know that they never had anything hidden in their thoughts then what are we saying of ourselves? We are God-like? We can read the mind of dead men and alive men? No, no one can. One puts their trust in these men that they did not have a hidden agenda, such as trying to prove the world could have come into existence without God. One trusts that these men were being completely honorable and truthful and looking at all evidence even the Bible.

For me that is alot of trust in man. Everything I have read, in the Bible, about man is that man has a wicked heart, man has been given over to foolishness, don't put your confidence in man. When it comes to things that are written in the Bible, I will always believe the Bible over man. For me, it is a matter of faith that God did not mislead me or try to confuse me with the Bible. Faith, even when everyone tells me I am stupid, dumb, naive, misguided, unintelligent, and so forth.

Try not to confuse my thoughts here as the way you should be. It is what I have learned from the Bible for how I should live my life. I personally think Satan is so much wiser/smarter then all of us combined. He is the great deceiver and none compare to him in this area. He will use anything and everything to bring one away from God, even when it is something that seems so logical in man's small brain. When I see some Christians say the Bible is fallible, that the Bible is always correct, for me I see this as the deceiver working in these people to slowly take them away from God's Word, make them skeptical. That is how it all starts, being a skeptic of God's Word. In my experience people who have said things like this have all been TE's. I don't think that is coincidence. I don't believe in coincidences.

Evolution doesn't need the Bible for evidence. Creationism relies on the Bible as evidence. Evolution takes one away from the Bible when dealing in this subject as has been proven here by many TE's referring to everything but the Bible. Creationism brings one back to the Bible.

Again, realize this is an expression of how I feel and see it. By all means call me what you will, but don't say I am trying to tell you of anything other then sharing my thoughts. Because I am not.

I apologize for my ramblings and if I have offended anyone. We obviously are never going to reach an agreement here. Maybe we can extend our energies in telling unbelievers about Christ???

God Bless

 

[gluadys]

the bible says that He confounds the wise. the wise are the ones who use this argument. I trust God at His word. You might say that it is a test to see whether we trust in His word or the word of man.

What about the word of creation? That is the word Karl is referring to. Does creation come from God or not? Can creation lie about itself?

 

[Didaskomenos]

the bible says confound the wise. the people. not the ideas they come up with. ask scientists if they think they are at all wise in any sense.

My point was that your identification of modern scientists with "the wise" in that verse is too simplistic. In context, "the wise" probably referred to the Jewish religious leaders who refused to accept the new Christian understanding of the God they had known. I might as easily identify those "wise" with Christians who are not humble enough to consult every possible method for determining the meaning of the Scriptures.

what? reason says God means what He says. opposites don't have anything to do with it.

Again, too simplistic. Ok, God means what he says. He said something using the Genesis account of creation - but the whole debate is over how he said it! Like a historical account, which the earliest Hebrews were not very familiar with, or in the form of a medium they did understand: mythology.

 

[Faith In God]

What about the word of creation? That is the word Karl is referring to. Does creation come from God or not? Can creation lie about itself?

Adam could not tell how old he was from his physical body...

of course creation comes from God. Everyone here agrees with that.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

myth. genesis is not. in the gospels, Jesus' lineage is traced back to adam and past him, God. Jesus is a decendant of Adam, and you cannot be a decendant from a myth.

The lineage in the Gospels is the lineage of Joseph. Jesus is not Joseph's biological child, so he does not depend on Joseph's lineage. Unless, of course, you deny the virgin birth.

 

[Faith In God]

My point was that your identification of modern scientists with "the wise" in that verse is too simplistic. In context, "the wise" probably referred to the Jewish religious leaders who refused to accept the new Christian understanding of the God they had known. I might as easily identify those "wise" with Christians who are not humble enough to consult every possible method for determining the meaning of the Scriptures.

i don't see conviction as arrogance.

Again, too simplistic. Ok, God means what he says. He said something using the Genesis account of creation - but the whole debate is over how he said it! Like a historical account, which the earliest Hebrews were not very familiar with, or in the form of a medium they did understand: mythology.

I think God's word was meant for everyone (of the time and at present) and He would not lie to make a point.