Question 3

[MikeBigg]

I'm not sure how God could have made it any clearer - either we take Him at His word...or we don't....that's our choice!

What do you get from a literal reading of the creation account that a Christian who doesn't believe in a 24 hour day in genesis doesn't? (ie me).

I still believe as God as creator, as man created in His image and therefore different from animals, that there was a fall because of disobedience and the consequences of that.

I don't see what you gain from your literal belief.

Except the requirement to ignore reasonable evidence that suggests that the account cannot be literal.

Regards,

Mike

 

[ianb321red]

Yet you believe God is more advanced than us, yet needs no designer? Special Pleading.

Why would God need a designer though? God is eternal; He has always existed - there is no cause of God..

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

God has always existed, and existed before He brought the universe in to being....

There's no special pleading here - just a straight reading of the very first verse in the bible.

 

[ianb321red]

I don't see what you gain from your literal belief.

Mike - what do you lose from a literal belief?
And furthermore, what do you gain from a non-literal belief?

 

[ianb321red]

And obviously you speak on behalf of God and no one else.

I've not actually watched it (I posted it on behalf of Danny as he doesn't have enough posts yet to put links up).

So bearing this in mind, is your comment aimed at me or do you have something useful to say about this clip?

 

[ianb321red]

To those that think that the Genesis account is literally correct:

1. Are you aware that ALL of the scientific evidence points to it not being literally correct?
.

Sorry Tony but I think you need be more specific here with you phraseology in terms "Genesis account" and "ALL of the scientific evidence", and finally in terms of "literally correct".

 

[MikeBigg]

Mike - what do you lose from a literal belief?
And furthermore, what do you gain from a non-literal belief?

Answering questions with questions! LOL

From a spiritual or faith perspective, I don't think there is much difference between the two.

From an evangelistic point of view (I'm very evangelistic in nature) you can answer people who question the account without it looking like you've lost your marbles.

From an intellectual point of view, I no longer have to do mental gymnastics to justify my position to myself.

So, how about answering my questions? Why is it important to have a literal belief in Genesis 1?

Regards,

Mike

 

[ianb321red]

So? Paul allegorises so surely that makes him a liberal, surely that means he doesn't really believe the Bible!



I don't know why it's so difficult to grasp that a piece of literature can be poetic in nature and still be describing actual historic events.

The Genesis account of creation is not giving us a literal scientific account, it is a prime example of an Ancient-Near-Eastern Suzerain-Vassal treaty, a covenant, with its introduction of a Great King, the prologue, blessings curses etc. It is clearly a document of its time, it is not a newspaper report, it is not an abstract from a scientific paper. This irrational fear of non-literal language (unless it has a 20 foot sign in neon above it screaming "THIS IS A PARABLE!!") simply betrays how engrained the post-enlightenment modernist way of reading a text is engrained in Christian thinking today. There is a kind of slavery to the thinking that only rationalistic scientific truth can be taken seriously and other forms are lesser so. Unless we try to understand the scriptures as it was intended to be understood by it's first hearers, then we are allowing our own cultural bias to influence our understanding rather than the original intent of the author.

I also suggest you look up Meredith Kline's Framework hypothesis, a work which truly seeks to put the creation account into its cultural context rather than forcing our own onto it.

And how anyone can say that Gen 1 is not like the poetry in the Psalms with its repetition and mirroring of words and phrases is baffling. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it so.

Taking on board what you've said here, but you've not actually addressed my point(s).

To begin with you've mentioned in your post the words scientific account/ scientific truth etc. Did I actually say anything about scientific accuracy at any point? Please point to the post where I've said this.

What follows from this mistake and that you've gotten side tracked with your misunderstanding, and have completely failed to address all of the examples I gave to support a literal reading. I gave approximately 15 examples which are based in scripture that logically show that the bible refers to Adam and Eve as literal people. This is not a fear of non-literal language; no it's simply reading the bible as it presents itself in everyday plain and simply language.

I 100% agree that it is a non-scientific account - but I would throw your argument straight back at you and say, given the 15 or so examples I've given to demonstrate that a literal reading IS justified, what are the grounds for YOU to suggest that I am NOT reading the scripture as it was intended for it's original readership?

I would argue (and have demonstrated) that I AM reading this aspect of scripture correctly and it's rightful context, and I would furthermore argue that it is cultural bias which you refer to that is ironically causing YOU to do the very opposite to what you are preaching.

 

[ianb321red]

From an evangelistic point of view (I'm very evangelistic in nature) you can answer people who question the account without it looking like you've lost your marbles.

Is this limited to the creation story though?

Or are people you speak to evangelistically fine with the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, Jesus's miracles, the bodily ascension, the Trinity, angels and demons etc etc etc??

 

[tonybeer]

Why would God need a designer though? God is eternal; He has always existed - there is no cause of God..

Gen 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."

God has always existed, and existed before He brought the universe in to being....

There's no special pleading here - just a straight reading of the very first verse in the bible.

It was Danny telling me that anything that is complex must have a designer, then turning round and saying God doesn't need a designer. Special pleading: every single example must follow this rule, except for this one example because I wish to define it in a way it doesn't need to follow the rules.

Why do you make the statement "there is no cause of God"? Have you any evidence that something didn't cause God?
Why not then just say there needs to be no cause of the universe? Both are equally valid. Quantum physics implies that not everything does need a cause.

It's a bit of a leap to jump from the words "In the beginning God" to God is an eternal being existing outside of time and space that doesn't need a cause.

To me it seems you are defining a God based on the properties that it needs such that it cannot be disproven. I can define lots of things that cannot be disproven, it doesn't mean they exist.

"Before the universe came into being" is an interesting concept. That would imply there was such a quantity as time before the big bang.

To your later post:
Yeah maybe it wasn't the best choice of phrases, and it is impossible as everyone reads Genesis slightly differently. What I am trying to say is that physics shows the universe to be 13 billion years old and the processes of planet and star creation to be very different to what is described in Genesis. Also the evolutionary biology is very wrong too and there is no way Adam and Eve could have existed 6000 years ago and produced the genetic diversity in humans we see today, nor all the fossil evidence, nor the radioactive dating evidence.

I may be wrong in what some Christians believe Genesis to say, I'm just going off what Genesis says in an internet bible.

No scientific evidence backs up any claim in Genesis.

 

[ianb321red]

So, how about answering my questions? Why is it important to have a literal belief in Genesis 1?

Well, actually my "literal belief" is possible different to Danny's - I'm sure he won't mind me saying that.

I'll say now that I personally don't hold to the literal 24 hour day school of thought, but I do hold to a literal Adam and Eve as opposed to an allegorical
Adam and Eve.....

 

[Danny777]

Answering questions with questions! LOL

From a spiritual or faith perspective, I don't think there is much difference between the two.

From an evangelistic point of view (I'm very evangelistic in nature) you can answer people who question the account without it looking like you've lost your marbles.

From an intellectual point of view, I no longer have to do mental gymnastics to justify my position to myself.

So, how about answering my questions? Why is it important to have a literal belief in Genesis 1?

Regards,

Mike

Hi Mike...

I did not claim to "get" anything that you do not have...

For me, it is a straight forward account of creation that does not appear to to be poetic, allegorical etc etc - it appear to be written to mean what it says and when Moses, Jesus etc refer to creation, they seem to me to have also believed it to be literal (at least there is no evidence that they did not believe it to be literal)

You appear to claim that a belief in a literal six-day creation gives other the impression that I've "lost my marbles". I presume that believing in the virgin birth, Jesus resurrection from the dead etc etc is completely normal then and is never received by other with ridicule?!

One thing I feel you gain with taking the creation account of Genesis literally is consistency. It appears to be written as straight forward narrative - where other passages of straight forward narrative are read (eg the virgin birth of Christ), at least I cannot be accused of picking and choosing which parts of narrative I would like to take literally...

 

[ianb321red]

To me it seems you are defining a God based on the properties that it needs such that it cannot be disproven. I can define lots of things that cannot be disproven, it doesn't mean they exist.

This is that same style of argument again that we get from skeptics..

The argument is not that we believe in something that cannot be disproven (which is actually incorrect anyway), but it is that we DO have good reasons to believe in God.

If you were to postulate a belief in something that could not be disproven, that in itself would be irrelevant if you did not have good reason TO believe in it in the first place.

This is why the whole line of argumentation falls down from people like AC Grayling and so on (who say something along the lines of) "I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in fairies", because no one HAS a good reason to believe in fairies, but we DO have a good reason to believe in a God - not least because millions of perfectly intelligent and rational people hold a theistic belief and among these are plenty of top academics (including scientists and philosophers), which tells me that there clearly ARE a good reasons to believe in God. Whether everyone accepts this is not is a separate issue..

Just because the skeptic community says there is not a good reason/ no evidence for (a belief in) God, it doesn't logically follow that there is..

 

[MikeBigg]

As for the writing style of Genesis 1 - my understanding when speaking recently with a guy who is writing a book on Genesis 1, a Hebrew speaker, is that the style of writing in the Hebrew is not like anything written elsewhere in the Bible. It is unique. I'm not sure when his book is due out.

No offence intended at the marbles comment. The difference between the virgin birth and the resurrection and a literal Genesis 1 (and the young earth belief that seems to go with it) is that there is no evidence against the virgin birth and the resurrection. There is plenty of evidence against a young earth belief. To dismiss that evidence with no actual doctrinal or moral gain seems silly to me.

I have a friend who is absolute on a literal Genesis 1. He won't entertain the idea of anything else. We do laugh about our differences. I call him a Ken Hom disciple and make bad jokes about woks.. I really don't think it matter that much in the big scheme of things.

Regards,

Mike

 

[Danny777]

I see you ignored my first line that you believe God is more advanced than us, yet he needs no designer?

This world - you mean the Earth? It didn't "come into being" via evolution. Evolution describes the adaptation of organisms to their environment.

Can you please describe how you think evolution works.

I cannot prove 100% the Earth is 4.5 billions years old. However all the scientific evidence points to that.

Any scientific evidence, and I have provided some so far, you will refuse to accept so I see no point providing more.

I have evidence on my side, and when I don't know something I will admit that. You however have no scientific evidence on your side.

I cannot explain where God came from anymore than you can explain where all the elements came from that causing the big bang. We BOTH have FAITH in a different theory.

I naturally understand organisms adapt to their environment because we can observe this - I understand this as natural selection. I do not believe that living creatures randomly mutate in a way that INCREASES the genetic information that was there before. Information of any kind needs an information giver. If my car breaks down, it needs someone to FIX it, if a computer breaks down it needs software DESIGNED to fix it - we have bodies that can mend themselves. I am not prepared to believe that while everything else I observe need a maker/designer/fixer, I'm asked to believe that living beings who are far more complex evolved randomly and without design. If observable, testable evidence was given to show different, maybe I would think again.

If am not aware of ANY evidence you've shown to disprove Genesis despite what you say in the post...

 

[Danny777]

Well, actually my "literal belief" is possible different to Danny's - I'm sure he won't mind me saying that.

I'll say now that I personally don't hold to the literal 24 hour day school of thought, but I do hold to a literal Adam and Eve as opposed to an allegorical
Adam and Eve.....

Why would you hold to a literal Adam and Eve but not hold to a literal 24 hour day?

 

[tonybeer]

This is that same style of argument again that we get from skeptics..

The argument is not that we believe in something that cannot be disproven (which is actually incorrect anyway), but it is that we DO have good reasons to believe in God.

If you were to postulate a belief in something that could not be disproven, that in itself would be irrelevant if you did not have good reason TO believe in it in the first place.

Are you saying you could disprove the existence of God?

I'm not saying the reason you believe is because it can't be disproven. However I think God gets pushed into the areas that can't be disproven. However as science advances these areas get smaller.

I think we've discussed a literal Adam and Eve before and why this can't possibly be true with reference to genetics, archaeological evidence and human skulls dated pre 6000 years ago.

 

[Danny777]

As for the writing style of Genesis 1 - my understanding when speaking recently with a guy who is writing a book on Genesis 1, a Hebrew speaker, is that the style of writing in the Hebrew is not like anything written elsewhere in the Bible. It is unique. I'm not sure when his book is due out.

No offence intended at the marbles comment. The difference between the virgin birth and the resurrection and a literal Genesis 1 (and the young earth belief that seems to goes with it) is that there is no evidence against the virgin birth and the resurrection. There is plenty of evidence against a young earth belief. To dismiss that evidence with no actual doctrinal or moral gain seems silly to me.

I have a friend who is absolute on a literal Genesis 1. He won't entertain the idea of anything else. We do laugh about our differences. I call him a Ken Hom disciple. I really don't think it matter that much in the big scheme of things.

Regards,

Mike

One possible reason for the writing style in Genesis to be "unique" is that it was written much earlier than the other books and writing style changes over time.
I have studied Hebrew for 4/5 years (although this doesn't actually make me anymore able to understand the Bible than someone who hasn't) and there are a number of words used in Genesis that do not appear in other books.
This does not mean that the words that are used do not mean what they say!

The word "yom" CAN mean many different lengths of time. That does not mean it cannot be a literal 24 hours period of time. For reasons I've explained in previous posts, I see no evidence that the writer of Genesis did not intend readers to assume he was referring to a 24 hours day.

If you disagree, thats fine - we're both reading the same text...

 

[Robban]

As for the writing style of Genesis 1 - my understanding when speaking recently with a guy who is writing a book on Genesis 1, a Hebrew speaker, is that the style of writing in the Hebrew is not like anything written elsewhere in the Bible. It is unique. I'm not sure when his book is due out.

No offence intended at the marbles comment. The difference between the virgin birth and the resurrection and a literal Genesis 1 (and the young earth belief that seems to goes with it) is that there is no evidence against the virgin birth and the resurrection. There is plenty of evidence against a young earth belief. To dismiss that evidence with no actual doctrinal or moral gain seems silly to me.

I have a friend who is absolute on a literal Genesis 1. He won't entertain the idea of anything else. We do laugh about our differences. I call him a Ken Hom disciple. I really don't think it matter that much in the big scheme of things.

Regards,

Mike

I,m curious about a few things, How do you as a Christian if say you believe Jesus was/is God account for the event in Matthew 8:5-13?
"If You just say one word, he will be healed."
Just wondering, if in the beginning, God said and it was,
would that not be a healthier way to view life.
Instead of dividing backwards and forwards and getting no where.
The angel told Sarah, "This time next year you will have a child." and it was so, Is it not most important that, so the Lord God has spoken, so shall it be.

I took the example in Matthew just to hear how you view it.
Not wanting to intrude, just a wondering.

 

[MikeBigg]

If you disagree, thats fine - we're both reading the same text...

Indeed. No issues with that.

But how do you reconcile the science with a literal Genesis 1 (assuming you are "young earth")?

I certainly wasn't able to do it.

 

[Danny777]

Indeed. No issues with that.

But how do you reconcile the science with a literal Genesis 1 (assuming you are "young earth")?

I certainly wasn't able to do it.

I believe there could have been a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. There IS strong evidence for this in the original Hebrew text. If your interested I will write a much longer post when I have time. This would account for the earth appearing to be much older than 6,000 years.

However, I believe the days as mentioned afterwards were literally 24 hour days and creation occurs as described.

Incidentally, when the text says God created trees I believe the trees were fully grown and not seeds in the ground. To our eyes they would have the appearance of being much older than they were. When Adam was created, he was fully grown, not a baby. God created things fully formed which would give the impression that time was needed to make them fully formed.