Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Speedwell]

Verse from Psalm 146 comes to mind:

Don’t put your trust in human leaders.
Don’t trust in people who can’t save you.
When they die, they return to the ground.
On that day their plans come to nothing.

That's why I put my trust in Christ, not Protestant bibliolators.

 

[expos4ever]

So in your world, repeating what the Bible clearly states is lying. Got it.

Are you reading what I write? Either you are not, or you have difficulties with reading comprehension, or you are intentionally misrepresenting.

I have posted nothing that would support your conclusion about "my world".

You are lucky that this site does not enforce the principles of proper debate. And that is no criticism of them, since it is work enough for them to quell the nastiness.

 

[expos4ever]

Verse from Psalm 146 comes to mind:

Don’t put your trust in human leaders.
Don’t trust in people who can’t save you.
When they die, they return to the ground.
On that day their plans come to nothing.

And this is relevant why?

 

[Big Drew]

An interesting way to look at it is this:-

When we die and come before God. If He was to ask us whether we believed in the Bible account of creation or instead man's account of evolution.

I doubt we'd score any brownie points for putting our faith in the latter

I doubt that is going to be something He asks...

 

[CodyFaith]

Ladies and Gentlemen: Here we have the smoking gun - the admission by the fundamentalist that he/she believes that they basically cannot be mistaken.

This is magical thinking, profoundly at odds with the clear evidence that you and others are wrong very often indeed.

Worse, it is dangerous for our society as a whole. When people believe that they have perfect knowledge of truth, with no need to test their beliefs in the real world, we are all put in very real danger.

Indeed. There is a much larger issue here than the matter of evolution. This thread is literally festooned with misrepresentation, probable outright lies, demonization, and inflaming rhetoric. And almost all of it - and don't make me prove this because I will - coming from the "YEC" side.

We have a lot more to worry about than the problems, if any, that arise in virtue of people not believing the facts about how human life arose. There is arguably such a thing as fundamentalist mindset, and it is arguably a very dangerous thing for the health of our society. I hope and expect we will see fundamentalist thinking decline as it butts heads with reality and is slowly eroded away. But, in the meantime, we need to be on our guard against it's insidious and pernicious influences.

Lol. "Threat to humanity." "very real danger".

You know this site is enlightening. I once saw a man that posted an article that was against the gospel (believe and Jesus and be saved and have your sins paid for by his blood) as "cancer".

It's enlightening because I see how many people are so dead-set against truth that they start using words that you are using.

It's really not all that funny though, because this is how Christians will be persecuted in the future. Words used exactly like yours.

 

[Speedwell]

LOL.

YEC ARE A THREAT TO HUMANITY. BURN THEIR BOOKS, SILENCE THEM.

They'd like that, wouldn't they? Then they could whine about "persecution." No, all that is necessary is to counter their falsehoods from a Christian perspective whenever we come across them.

 

[CodyFaith]

They'd like that, wouldn't they? Then they could whine about "persecution." No, all that is necessary is to counter their falsehoods from a Christian perspective whenever we come across them.

Oh so a Christian perspective is to doubt that God created Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from his rib and instead favor a liberal, evolutionary worldly view that we evolved from fishes? That Adam was not personally created from dust? That the entire account in Genesis is just fables?

 

[CodyFaith]

.

 

[dannheim]

Macro-evolution is not repeatable observable or verifiable.

 

[cre8id]

Mods, if this isn't in the right section please move, I wasn't sure where the best place for this discussion would be, as this has more to do with the entire book and not only creation.

Genesis is the history of Israel's roots...most believe Moses to be the author of the book, and if we go by the chronology from Genesis to Exodus, he wouldn't have been born until a couple thousand years after the account of Adam. Prior to this, these stories would have been handed down through oral tradition.

When stories are told from one generation to the next things change. Some things may be added, others taken away...things become embellished...that's just how it is. It doesn't mean that anyone is lying, necessarily, just that what we hear as a child and what we teach to our children about a subject may change slightly based on our recollection. And then there are those that like to add their own spin to make things more interesting, and it sticks...

A good, more modern example of this would be the story of Jesse James...many accounts made him out to be a Robin Hood of his day, only stealing from the rich and helping the poor...after the Civil War there was a lot of distrust in this country, and people wanted a hero they found him in this notorious outlaw...the truth of the matter was he was your typical run of the mill thief...albeit a very good one...but stories were made up about him in newspapers, books and songs...and now, 140 years later, there are those that think he was, as the "The Ballad of Jesse James" said, "a friend to the poor that would never have a brother suffer pain." In this instance, of course, we can look back at actual accounts from the day and easily put these claims to rest.

So, is it possible that this is what happened with Genesis? That after years of oral tradition some of the "facts" changed? I'm not saying this as a dig at creationism, or anything like that. Nor am I saying that there is no truth to be found in Genesis...I believe it paints a beautiful picture of creation, of God's desire to have a relationship with His people, of man's biggest obstacle to overcome being his sinful nature, and how the foundation was being laid for the Christ.

The "Toledoth theory" of Genesis may have been brought up already (I have not had time to read through the thread yet)... if so, I apologize. But, basicly, the different "toldoth" or "generations" sections in Genesis would have been written by authors from those generations and Moses would have basically been the editor of much older documents that had been passed down.
See the article http://www.talkgenesis.org/genesis-toledoth-mystery/ for a more compete explanation.

I do not believe the liberal interpretation and slaps against Genesis. I believe I saw something in one post about a new algorithym program designed to separate and sort out the phrases used by supposedly different authors. But they didn't address the biases often hidden in these programs... not necessarily intentionally deceptive, but everyone is biased and those biases of the programmer often hide in such programs.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh so a Christian perspective is to doubt that God created Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from his rib and instead favor a liberal, evolutionary worldly view that we evolved from fishes? That Adam was not personally created from dust? That the entire account in Genesis is just fables?

No, what I mean is countering falsehoods like the one in post 333:

"Because the only reason for you not to interpret Genesis literally is because you are coming to the book with a prior conviction that evolution is true."

This is easily disprovable. Consider the Oriental Orthodox churches. Some of them have never accepted evolution, the Copts come to mind, for reasons well beyond the comprehension of a YEC. Yet they also reject the literal inerrancy of Genesis for the heterodox Protestant novelty it is--as I do--and they haven't changed their interpretation of scripture for a thousand years or more.

You people can believe what you like about Genesis, but telling blatant lies like that about other Christians is going to get you some flack.

 

[expos4ever]

Oh so a Christian perspective is to doubt that God created Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from his rib and instead favor a liberal, evolutionary worldly view that we evolved from fishes? That Adam was not personally created from dust? That the entire account in Genesis is just fables?

Yes, because we are supposed to be interested in, you know, truth.

Evolution is not a "world-view", it is a robustly supported scientific theory.

The simple facts are these:

1. One can very legitimately interpret the Genesis account as divinely inspired myth. In this respect, it almost seems that the creationists here have been drugged, operated on, and had the part of their brains that understand the concept of literary device removed.

2. Tens of thousands of highly trained experts all agree that evolution happened. Period. Trying to sweep this under the carpet as a mass conspiracy, or mass incompetence is, frankly, laughable - you might as well argue that the moon is made of green cheese.

 

[HenryM]

Verses from Psalm 49 come to mind also:

One can see that wise die the same as fools,
they die and leave all they have to others.

Grave will be their new home for ever and ever,
even though they named lands after themselves.

They may be wealthy, but they can't stay long,
for they will die like the animals.

That is what happens to all who trust in themselves,
and to those who follow them.

They are just like sheep, with grave as their pen.

 

[expos4ever]

I seem to have missed the verses where Christ taught about evolution...

This is like shooting fish in a barrel!

Are there verses where Jesus teaches about quantum mechanics?

I leave it to the reader to draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[expos4ever]

That is what happens to all who trust in themselves.

Are you referring to those who believe they have an inerrant ability to properly interpret Scripture, unlike the rest of we mere mortals?

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution is not THE scientific view. It is just the most vocal of a certain method of interpreting evidence, as well as the most taught because they've managed to monopolize the education process and fill our heads at an early age with their way only.

Too many people fall for the "Evolution is true, because science" mantra. It's not real. It's a deception, and apparently a very good one. You eluded to it on your post, it takes one away from believing what God tells us. It's a modern day manifestation of the serpent saying, "Did God really say...?"

Evolution isn't one thing but two that are equivocated. Evolution as a natural phenomenon is defined scientifically as, 'the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time'. Charles Darwin added a naturalistic assumption, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition'. (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Preface 6th ed.). It's the philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism that the doctrine of creation is diametrically opposed to. If Genesis 1 is teaching us anything it's that God created life (Gen. 1:21) and man

Genesis is the history of Israel's roots...most believe Moses to be the author of the book, and if we go by the chronology from Genesis to Exodus, he wouldn't have been born until a couple thousand years after the account of Adam. Prior to this, these stories would have been handed down through oral tradition.

When stories are told from one generation to the next things change. Some things may be added, others taken away...things become embellished...that's just how it is.

Moses and the Levitical priesthood based their teachings concerning the Law on a living history that continues to this day. The first five books of the Old Testament, just like the first five books of the New Testament are historical narrative. You can discern figurative language from historical narrative if you are aware of the literary features the author will do it for, they get to tell the story. There is no figurative language in the Genesis account of creation and very little throughout the Pentateuch. Genesis is the history of humanity starting with Adam, the first parent of humanity, following the lineage through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and the miraculous deliverance of Israel from Egypt and establishing them in the promised land of Canaan.

Discerning that it's historical narrative and overwhelmingly literal in it's language isn't a serious question, it's obvious. The question is whether you believe it or not because John 1, Hebrews 1, Romans 1 all are predicated on the miraculous creation of Genesis 1. It's no coincidence that the Nicene Creed's first three stanzas are dedicated to a profession of faith regarding creation, and Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of life.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[KWCrazy]

Are there verses where Jesus teaches about quantum mechanics?

What foundational theology is contra-indicated by quantum mechanics?
Jesus taught that in the beginning, God created man and woman. Evolution claims otherwise. Unless you have some verses where Jesus claims we evolved, then we have to conclude Jesus would not support evolution.
I leave it to the reader to draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[expos4ever]

This might be too complicated for you.
If I quote from God's word and God is not wrong, then what I say is never wrong.
This doesn't cover my words, but it certainly covers God's words.

Is there something the matter with you?

Look. Only the fundamentalist, with head firmly planted in a dark place, does not realize that even if God is the author of inerrant Biblical text, there remains the possibility that imperfect humans will misinterpret the meaning that such inerrant text embodies.

How you cannot realize this is unfathomable.

 

[Big Drew]

Evolution isn't one thing but two that are equivocated. Evolution as a natural phenomenon is defined scientifically as, 'the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time'. Charles Darwin added a naturalistic assumption, 'all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition'. (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, Preface 6th ed.). It's the philosophy of natural history known as Darwinism that the doctrine of creation is diametrically opposed to. If Genesis 1 is teaching us anything it's that God created life (Gen. 1:21) and man


Moses and the Levitical priesthood based their teachings concerning the Law on a living history that continues to this day. The first five books of the Old Testament, just like the first five books of the New Testament are historical narrative. You can discern figurative language from historical narrative if you are aware of the literary features the author will do it for, they get to tell the story. There is no figurative language in the Genesis account of creation and very little throughout the Pentateuch. Genesis is the history of humanity starting with Adam, the first parent of humanity, following the lineage through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and the miraculous deliverance of Israel from Egypt and establishing them in the promised land of Canaan.

Discerning that it's historical narrative and overwhelmingly literal in it's language isn't a serious question, it's obvious. The question is whether you believe it or not because John 1, Hebrews 1, Romans 1 all are predicated on the miraculous creation of Genesis 1. It's no coincidence that the Nicene Creed's first three stanzas are dedicated to a profession of faith regarding creation, and Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of life.

Grace and peace,
Mark

If you read further in the thread you can see that my belief is indeed that God created, to me there is no denying that...as another poster said, Genesis gives us the essentials, and does a beautiful job of it...but, I don't necessarily think it gives us all the details...and I think that's where science comes in...to, fill in the blanks, if you will. Not to be in opposition.

Of course, now I know I've opened another can of worms with the term "fill in the blanks..." Lift off in 3...2....

 

[expos4ever]

What foundational theology is contra-indicated by quantum mechanics?
Jesus taught that in the beginning, God created man and woman. Evolution claims otherwise. Unless you have some verses where Jesus claims we evolved, then we have to conclude Jesus would not support evolution.
I leave it to the reader to draw the obvious conclusion.

It is almost as if you do not understand the concept of literary device. It is, of course, entirely conceivable that God set up the universe to ultimately give rise to human being through an evolutionary process, and yet wanted to spare us the grisly details and gave us an inspired myth to teach us important things such as our role as stewards over creation and our innate propensity for evil. So, yes, we get things like a talking snake.

That you and others do not see a talking snake as a "hit-you-over-the-head" hint that the creation account is a bit of allegory is positively mystifying.

What next? Does there have to be a literal Goldilocks and a literal three bears in order for that tale to tell us something truthful and foundational?