Should genesis be taken liberally or not?

[super animator]

That is the question that we should be focusing.

So what is your opinion on it?

 

[Dark_Lite]

I'm assuming you mean literally, in that we should take things exactly as the text says. The answer is sometimes. The creation account, as it is written, could not have happened given the evidence we see today. Therefore, the creation account, to some extent, is non-literal. There are other events in Genesis that are likely literal, however, as there is no reason for us not to take them literally.

 

[The Thumb]

Yes! Without Genesis as a true record, you can do away with the rest of it. Genesis, as with all other Books in the Bible, is better understood the more you read it. Of course, we always have the nay sayers who wish with all thier hearts to find the Scriptures at variance with itself, and they come up with such things as, "there are two stories of Creation in Genesis." Careful reading says "Not so!"

I use this story, which is mine, to convey a message regarding the "understanding" we have of things in the distant past and also in the future, however distant: When I was a child in the West Virginia Mountains the only book I had to read was the Bible. I read in Revelation that the two witness that are killed, are viewed by the world for three days. I had never heard of a television. I said to myself, "That is impossible!" Today we have not only television but satillite and real time viewing is absolutely a fact. See, God knew that when He inspired that Scripture being written.
When we are making judgements about the accuracy of Scriptures, we should be careful to understand, that "WE ain't got all the facts!" So we must depend on the accuracy of Scripture as it's facts have unfolded to us, and believe that God is accurate, although we may not understand it with our stored intelligence. If we will look closely there are things to be known that are underpinned throughout the Scriptures and we could get smarter for it.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Without Genesis as a true record, you can do away with the rest of it.

I find this to be an erroneous conclusion. God's creation and the Bible are not and cannot be at odds with one another. Your idea might be right if this was not the case. But since the creation and the Bible cannot be at odds, we are left with only two options:

1. Science is wrong.
2. The creation account is not literal.

While scientific evidence can never be 100% "proven" (because it is empirical), the available evidence we have points in the complete opposite direction of a young Earth. Therefore, option number two is quickly becoming the wrong option. Indeed, for many people, it already has.

Of course, we always have the nay sayers who wish with all thier hearts to find the Scriptures at variance with itself, and they come up with such things as, "there are two stories of Creation in Genesis." Careful reading says "Not so!"

The second chapter of Genesis is a re-telling of the first story. The order of creation is different in each one. The second chapter describes the creative acts of God again, so yes, there are two stories.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

That is the question that we should be focusing.

So what is your opinion on it?

Shall the pawn of history ask the King or Queen their view point when he too may be soon in their shoes? We know what we are told, if we believe it. I have no problem believing Genesis, for I believe the one listed as the teller. Why would miracles be limited by science or so-called evidences? I have witnesses miracles (some of God and some questionable). I have no trouble with science, for it will be used by God, especially in the case of unbelieving souls.

 

[Mallon]

What does it mean to take Genesis "liberally"?

 

[super animator]

What does it mean to take Genesis "liberally"?

Sorry, I meant to say "literally". I use Firefox spell checker for that one. My spelling and grammar isn't strong.

 

[Assyrian]

Don't you just hate it when, not only is the the typo a real word, it even makes some sort of sense in the context. Welcome to the forum super animator

And welcome to The Thumb too

 

[Mallon]

I'm happy to read the opening chapters Genesis literally, but that doesn't mean we should believe that they record historical events (historical/scientific concordism). Genesis 1 literally says birds were formed from water. Genesis 2 says they were formed from earth. These discrepancies, combined with the stylistic differences between the two chapters, suggest to me that the Genesis creation accounts are not historical events. They're stories given to convey much deeper meanings.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

I'm happy to read the opening chapters Genesis literally, but that doesn't mean we should believe that they record historical events (historical/scientific concordism). Genesis 1 literally says birds were formed from water. Genesis 2 says they were formed from earth. These discrepancies, combined with the stylistic differences between the two chapters, suggest to me that the Genesis creation accounts are not historical events. They're stories given to convey much deeper meanings.

Gen Ch1 does not say that birds were formed from water.

What are the hidden meanings that you speak of?

 

[Mallon]

Gen Ch1 does not say that birds were formed from water.

The KJV certainly implies it. I'm no Hebrew scholar, though. Perhaps someone here could clarify.
Regardless, there remain other differences between the two stories (different orders of creation, writing styles, etc.). Taken together, these things suggest strongly to me that the Genesis creation accounts are not historical events.

What are the hidden meanings that you speak of?

They're not hidden meanings at all. They're quite evident if you're willing to look beyond creation science concepts like "created kinds", "water canopies", and "catastrophic plate tectonics". The messages God intended to deliver in Genesis relate to our relationship with Him, the importance of the Sabbath, the sanctity of marriage, the fallen nature of humanity and our need for a saviour, etc.

 

[icamewithasword]

I find this to be an erroneous conclusion. God's creation and the Bible are not and cannot be at odds with one another. Your idea might be right if this was not the case. But since the creation and the Bible cannot be at odds, we are left with only two options:

1. Science is wrong.
2. The creation account is not literal.

While scientific evidence can never be 100% "proven" (because it is empirical), the available evidence we have points in the complete opposite direction of a young Earth. Therefore, option number two is quickly becoming the wrong option. Indeed, for many people, it already has.



The second chapter of Genesis is a re-telling of the first story. The order of creation is different in each one. The second chapter describes the creative acts of God again, so yes, there are two stories.

So, am I understanding correctly that you think Genesis is a "work of fiction" AND that there are contradictions in Scripture?

 

[icamewithasword]

The KJV certainly implies it. I'm no Hebrew scholar, though. Perhaps someone here could clarify.
Regardless, there remain other differences between the two stories (different orders of creation, writing styles, etc.). Taken together, these things suggest strongly to me that the Genesis creation accounts are not historical events.


They're not hidden meanings at all. They're quite evident if you're willing to look beyond creation science concepts like "created kinds", "water canopies", and "catastrophic plate tectonics". The messages God intended to deliver in Genesis relate to our relationship with Him, the importance of the Sabbath, the sanctity of marriage, the fallen nature of humanity and our need for a saviour, etc.

Do you have any other opinions on where God or Christ lied to us in Scripture? Is the Genesis "fiction" the only book you have issue with?

 

[wayseer]

That is the question that we should be focusing.

What is so special about 'focusing' on this particular question?

I guess you think Genesis is literally true and that anyone who says otherwise is not a Christian. Am I somewhere near the marks?

 

[wayseer]

Do you have any other opinions on where God or Christ lied to us in Scripture? Is the Genesis "fiction" the only book you have issue with?

I suggest that perhaps it might be you who is the one having an 'issue' with scripture.

To suggest that God or Christ 'lied' demonstrates a narrow view of scripture constrained by your own belief system. Genesis is not fiction - myth is not fiction.

 

[icamewithasword]

I suggest that perhaps it might be you who is the one having an 'issue' with scripture.

To suggest that God or Christ 'lied' demonstrates a narrow view of scripture constrained by your own belief system. Genesis is not fiction - myth is not fiction.

Yes, I'm very well aware of your take on the Genesis "mythology". FYI, I don't have an issue with scripture; I have issue with the heresies that accompany those that feel they are smarter than Genesis accounts. I'm sure that next you'll try to persuade me that the Spirit of Truth has revealed this "myth" to you.

 

[Assyrian]

Do you have any other opinions on where God or Christ lied to us in Scripture? Is the Genesis "fiction" the only book you have issue with?

Well there's the Book of Revelation fiction, Daniel fiction, Ezekiel fiction and Zechariah fiction. We find Jesus lies in the Gospel where Matthew and Mark tell us Jesus worked as a Carpenter while in in the Gospel of John, Jesus says he was a shepherd. The parables would count as Jesus lies too. We have a classic God lie in Exodus 19:4 where God tells us the Israelites were flown out of Egypt by eagles. I really like the God lie in Ezekiel where God tells us Jerusalem was a little girl God found and raised, but she grew up like her sisters Sodom and Samaria. Very similar to the God lie in Deuteronomy 32 where he tells us about the boy he found called Jershurun. We used to sing about that God lie in church, ''None is like Jershurun's God...'' Really icamewithasword, you shouldn't limit yourself to Genesis, if you are going to reject everything that isn't literal, you will find the whole bible is a treasure trove of of 'fiction' and 'lies'.

 

[Dark_Lite]

So, am I understanding correctly that you think Genesis is a "work of fiction" AND that there are contradictions in Scripture?

Since when does fiction have to be non-truthful?

And yes, the two different creation accounts DO have contradictions from a literal reading. Therefore there are several options:

1. It's literal and they were meant to be contradictions and God inspired this.
2. It's literal and they were meant to be contradictions and God didn't inspire it.
3. It's literal and they weren't meant to be contradictions and God inspired this.
4. It's literal and they weren't meant to be contradictions and God didn't inspire this.
5. They are non-literal, which solves the problem of contradictions, and God inspired this.
6. They are non-literal, which solves the problem of contradictions, and God didn't inspire this.

The only option that makes sense is 5. We believe in God, we believe in scripture, we recognize science.

 

[Mallon]

Do you have any other opinions on where God or Christ lied to us in Scripture? Is the Genesis "fiction" the only book you have issue with?

I don't have a problem with God using non-historical accounts in order to deliver spiritual messages. Christ spoke in parables, after all.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

The KJV certainly implies it. I'm no Hebrew scholar, though. Perhaps someone here could clarify.
Regardless, there remain other differences between the two stories (different orders of creation, writing styles, etc.). Taken together, these things suggest strongly to me that the Genesis creation accounts are not historical events.

The KJV reads, "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that many fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." (Gen 1:20)

Strong's Concordance: 'bring forth abundantly' was translated from word # 8317. sharats (shaw-rats')

A primitive root; to wriggle, i.e. (by implication) swarm or abound -- breed (bring forth, increase) abundantly (in abundance), creep, move.


Genesis 1:20

NASB
Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."

ESV
And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."

NKJV
Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”

NIV
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."


Now we see from Strong's that the Hebrew word "sharats" does not mean "formed". So the way that the KJV was translated, it does seem to imply to modern readers that birds were formed from water which would be inconsistent with Gen 2:19. We have to remember that the KJV does not contain modern English. The antiquated English usage of the KJV will simply not be as accurate (for the modern reader at least) as today's modern, literal translations such as the NASB and ESV.


Now if we look at Gen 2:19 KJV it reads, "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air..."


Strong's Concordance: 'formed' was translated from word # 3335. yatsar (yaw-tsar')

Probably identical with yatsar (through the squeezing into shape); ((compare yatsa')); to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively, to determine (i.e. Form a resolution) -- X earthen, fashion, form, frame, make(-r), potter, purpose.

They're not hidden meanings at all. They're quite evident if you're willing to look beyond creation science concepts like "created kinds", "water canopies", and "catastrophic plate tectonics". The messages God intended to deliver in Genesis relate to our relationship with Him, the importance of the Sabbath, the sanctity of marriage, the fallen nature of humanity and our need for a saviour, etc.

All of those ideas are great and all but they don't fully explain the narratives in Genesis. There are so many different episodes within the book of Genesis which must have a "hidden" meaning/message to them if they are to be considered as unhistorical narratives. What is the message/meaning behind the genealogies, Cain & Abel's account, Jubal's account, Tubalcain's account, Canaan's account, the Nephilim, the tower of Babel, etc