Should Genesis be taken literally?

[rjs330]

Duplicate

 

[rjs330]

Of course, but you appear to be deliberately ignoring the facts of the Incarnation. The Scriptures are clear:

1. The incarnated Jesus took on our weaknesses. While limited knowledge is not explicitly identified, it is eminently reasonable to assume that Jesus shares our weakness of limited knowledge;

2. We are explicitly told - and I mean explicitly no doubt told - that, yes, there is something that Jesus does not, repeat does not, know: the time that He will return

So all these other vague, handwaving arguments are not enough: we have definitive scriptural proof (item 2) that Jesus' knowledge was limited. So you can appeal all you like to His "divinity", his "oneness with the Father", and His role as creator. However, the hard, inescapable fact remains: as the incarnated Jesus, He did not everything. It therefore follows that He might not have known that humans arose by evolution.

What is so frustrating about this is that you must know I am right, yet you persist in pushing a position - that Jesus knew everything - that is clearly repudiated by the same scriptures whose authority you claim to respect!

What scriptural evidence to you have that Christ didn't know about creation as the creator? Assumption is always a faulty argument. You see your argument is based on a biased thought process and thus you assume one thing because it fits your belief rather than fitting your belief to what the Bible says. The word is clear that Christ was the creator. There is no scriptural evidence that he didn't know that.

This thread is a veritable clinic in errors of argument. It is most certainly not a cop out to truthfully expound the fact that science does not deal in matters of proof. This has been pointed out again and again. Plus, you should have been taught this in grade 9.

The fact that science does not "prove" things in no way diminishes its power to do what it always claimed it could do - provide "explanations" that are consistent with the evidence.

It seems like you are foisting your own, mistaken, conception about what science should be about, and then criticizing science for its inability to live up to that mistaken conception.

This thread when it comes to science is another one showing just how faulty it is. It's only the argument of the weak who can't say they don't prove anything and can't. Can science prove that water boils at a certain temperature? Can science prove the existence of a water molecule? Of course it can. Other things science speculates on based upon evidence they have. Other things they can't prove. But the things they can't prove are speculation and speculation only. Yet they take such pride in proclaiming facts when they really have nothing but speculation. The we don't have to prove anything argument is a copy out. Plain and simple.

 

[expos4ever]

That's what happens when you depend on Wiki. You get biased information.

I don't think you are going to get much mileage by suggesting that Wikipedia - whose members have no obvious religious biases - is "biased" whereas information presented by the "Edinburgh Creation Group" is not.

I don't have the time to get into the history of what the Church has or has not believed.

But I must object to this:

Plus it is irrelevant as there is still NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE that Genesis 1&2 is allegory.

This is like saying "there is no evidence that Goldilocks and Three Bears is an allegory.

What do you expect? That the author of Genesis will declare that he is writing allegory? That would, of course, undermine the power of the allegory. More specifically, the power of allegory, and other literary device, lies in leading the reader to reach their own conclusions about the text in question.

And in the case of Genesis 1&2, I need only bring up the talking snake. I suggest even a 10-year old knows how accounts of talking animals are never intended to be taken literally - the very unrealism of the scenario of a talking snake, or a talking dog, or a talking lion (a la Narnia) is a huge tip-off. Not to mention the clear historical precedent of the use of the snake as a symbol for evil.

And then there is the eating of the fruit. That people would not recognize the clear indicators of literary device speaks to the compelling power of creationist thinking to undermine rational thought.

 

[Archivist]

What question am I not answering?

I have asked several times, provide one account contemporary with Genesis that confirms Genesis as a factual account.

 

[Archivist]

Double post

 

[expos4ever]

What scriptural evidence to you have that Christ didn't know about creation as the creator? Assumption is always a faulty argument.

I have been clear from the start. I never definitively claimed that Jesus didn't know about the creation, just that it was plausible that He did not. And the reason I did that was because you guys cited Jesus' words about the Genesis account as evidence for your position - you argued that Jesus appears to have believed in Adam and Eve.

Indeed He did, but that is precisely where my argument come in - by proving that Jesus was not omniscient, it opens the possibility that He incorrectly believed in the literal Adam and Eve.

And if He didn't know one thing - the time of His second coming - it is clearly plausible that there is something else He does not know: that evolution happened.

It's as simple as that. I suggest my logic is air-tight. But see if you can prove otherwise. But do not misrepresent what I have said. I never claimed to be able to "prove" that Jesus did not know the truth about creation; I have simply shown that the creationist appeal to what Jesus said about creation cannot be used as evidence for a literal take on the creation account.

 

[expos4ever]

deleted own duplicate post.

 

[expos4ever]

This thread when it comes to science is another one showing just how faulty it is. It's only the argument of the weak who can't say they don't prove anything and can't.

You have been shown over and over again that science does not claim to prove anything. It certainly appears you are either not reading the posts or, worse, deliberately misrepresenting what science is all about.

Can science prove that water boils at a certain temperature? Can science prove the existence of a water molecule? Of course it can.

No! You have been shown over and over again that science is not in the proving business. The evidence is mounting - you are deliberately distorting the truth.

 

[Speedwell]

Can science prove that water boils at a certain temperature? Can science prove the existence of a water molecule?

Science cannot prove that water boils at a certain temperature. What science can do is make careful and repeated measurements of the temperature at which water boils and conclude by inductive logic that water boils at a certain temperature. But inductive logic cannot, by definition, offer proof. Only deductive logic and other axiomatic formal systems can offer proof. I don't know why you are playing this word game, but you are losing it.

 

[rjs330]

I don't think you are going to get much mileage by suggesting that Wikipedia - whose members have no obvious religious biases - is "biased" whereas information presented by the "Edinburgh Creation Group" is not.

I don't have the time to get into the history of what the Church has or has not believed.

But I must object to this:


This is like saying "there is no evidence that Goldilocks and Three Bears is an allegory.

What do you expect? That the author of Genesis will declare that he is writing allegory? That would, of course, undermine the power of the allegory. More specifically, the power of allegory, and other literary device, lies in leading the reader to reach their own conclusions about the text in question.

And in the case of Genesis 1&2, I need only bring up the talking snake. I suggest even a 10-year old knows how accounts of talking animals are never intended to be taken literally - the very unrealism of the scenario of a talking snake, or a talking dog, or a talking lion (a la Narnia) is a huge tip-off. Not to mention the clear historical precedent of the use of the snake as a symbol for evil.

And then there is the eating of the fruit. That people would not recognize the clear indicators of literary device speaks to the compelling power of creationist thinking to undermine rational thought.

Ah I see you have no scriptural evidence that it is allegory. So we go to the old "talking snake" proof. So apparently God is big enough to do everything else except by his power to allow an animal to talk. He can make a virgin give birth, turn water into wine, Cause water to turn into blood, destroy Sodom and Gomorrah part the red sea, create the sun. But heaven forbid he cannot under any circumstances cause an animal to speak. And if you check back a few posts you will see a litany of verses that I produced to show how literal Genesis is supported by Scripture. You still have yet to provide any to say it's allegory.

If all we had was Genesis you might have an argument to make. Although you would still have to show how Genesis moves from Allegory to history in its content. Which there isn't any evidence of. But we don't just have Genesis do we? We also have all the other scriptures.

 

[Speedwell]

But heaven forbid he cannot under any circumstances cause an animal to speak.

Nobody claimed He couldn't.

If all we had was Genesis you might have an argument to make. Although you would still have to show how Genesis moves from Allegory to history in its content. Which there isn't any evidence of. But we don't just have Genesis do we? We also have all the other scriptures.

I'm still not sure why you regard Jesus' use of scripture as evidence that He regarded the texts as anything else than divinely inspired and authoritative.

 

[-57]

What do you expect? That the author of Genesis will declare that he is writing allegory? That would, of course, undermine the power of the allegory. More specifically, the power of allegory, and other literary device, lies in leading the reader to reach their own conclusions about the text in question.

The concept of Genesis being an allegory can easily be refuted when one looks at Pauls letter written to Timothy.
In 1 Tim 2:11-12 Paul instructs women on how they should act in church.

Would one expect Paul to base his rule on a myth or allegorical story? One would think not. Paul would base his rule on reality.
Paul based his rule upon 1 Tim 2:13....For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

 

[MrMoe]

And in the case of Genesis 1&2, I need only bring up the talking snake. I suggest even a 10-year old knows how accounts of talking animals are never intended to be taken literally - the very unrealism of the scenario of a talking snake, or a talking dog, or a talking lion (a la Narnia) is a huge tip-off.

Numbers 22 talks about a talking donkey. So this is not intended to be taken literally either?

Indeed He did, but that is precisely where my argument come in - by proving that Jesus was not omniscient, it opens the possibility that He incorrectly believed in the literal Adam and Eve.

There is no evidence in the bible that Jesus spoke from a place of ignorance. We do have evidence that when He did not know something He admitted it. (Matthew 24:36)

And if He didn't know one thing - the time of His second coming - it is clearly plausible that there is something else He does not know: that evolution happened.

Jesus was there at creation in His pre-human form when He is called the Word (John 1:1-14) Jesus knew He existed before He became flesh. (John 8:54-58)

We have no evidence that Jesus had limit knowledge of the past, only that He had limited knowledge of a specific future event.

And why did you say "evolution happened" past tense? According to science, evolution is always happening and will continue to happen.

It's as simple as that. I suggest my logic is air-tight.

I suggest your logic has a big hole in it.

Nobody claimed He couldn't.

But that is what is being implied.

 

[expos4ever]

Would one expect Paul to base his rule on a myth or allegorical story? One would think not. Paul would base his rule on reality.

I see no case here - people routinely refer to allegory and myth to make points about how we should act. In fact, this is precisely the function of a major category of myth - the morality tale.

Consider the fictional account of the tortoise and the hare. The two are racing and, to make a long story short, the tortoise wins in the end because the hare gets lazy and overconfident. This purely fictional account is often appealed to in order to guide behaviour in the real world - for example, an overconfident, high-achieving, but often lazy student may be warned by his parents "remember what happened to the tortoise".

I suggest there is no actual basis to your claim that Paul would never have appealed to a fictional account to make a point about behaviour.

 

[expos4ever]

Numbers 22 talks about a talking donkey. So this is not intended to be taken literally either?

Indeed - I doubt that the donkey account was intended to be taken literally.

There is no evidence in the bible that Jesus spoke from a place of ignorance. We do have evidence that when He did not know something He admitted it. (Matthew 24:36)

I never said there was evidence that Jesus spoke from a position of ignorance. I simply showed it was possible. It's important to follow the details of the back and forth. This whole thing started when people made the following argument:

1. Jesus refers to the creation account as if it were literal;
2. Therefore, the creation account must be literal.

I have shown this argument has no power - since we know that there are some things Jesus does not know, and since we know that the embodied Jesus shared in our weaknesses, it is impossible to discount the possibility that one of those weaknesses is "speaking from ignorance" as you say. And that would certainly not be "sin". Lying - as you see in this forum all the time - is sin, speaking from ignorance is not.

And why did you say "evolution happened" past tense? According to science, evolution is always happening and will continue to happen.

Of course, but my point was simply that human beings arose by the process of evolution.

I suggest your logic has a big hole in it.

What is the hole? Please be specific.

 

[expos4ever]

Science cannot prove that water boils at a certain temperature. What science can do is make careful and repeated measurements of the temperature at which water boils and conclude by inductive logic that water boils at a certain temperature. But inductive logic cannot, by definition, offer proof. Only deductive logic and other axiomatic formal systems can offer proof. I don't know why you are playing this word game, but you are losing it.

Ummm. No kidding.

There are really only a handful of explanations for this continued, erroneous belief that science can generate proof:

1. Inability to understand the argument as you have provided above (hard to believe people cannot understand this - it's not rocket science);
2. Refusal to accept the fact that science is not in the "proof" business.

I suggest number 2 is the more likely explanation.

 

[Archivist]

No you don't have any scriptural evidence. You still have to produce a single verse. And the whole idea that Genesis 1 is allegory because it's poetry is nonsense. Poetry is a literary form. It has nothing to do with history or allegory. There is such a thing as historical poetry you know.

Actually I have produced scriptural evidence, you have just chosen to ignore it. The evidence is Genesis 1 & 2 itself. The accounts differ in the order of creation. They use differing language. They include allegorical figures such as a talking snake and forbidden fruit from a tree of life. Chapter one is written as a poem. None of that bothers me because I don't read them as history, I read them together as an allegory. Of course, as I keep saying, you are free to your own interpretation.

Besides it's not really Hebrew poetry. Hebrew poetry is primarily defined by parallelism in meaning. Like good and bad, wise and unwise etc. Hebrew poetry requires complimentary meanings. They usually come in pairs but sometimes triplets are used. The sentences in Genesis 1 read as Hebrew history as prose. Any idea that it is poetry does not fit the test. Supposed parallels are not really parallels typical in Hebrew poetry.

Of course it is poetry. The following is from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center:

"When we read Genesis chapter one we usually see only one story there, but there are actually many stories. Why don't we see these multiple stories? Because we read the Hebrew Bible from a Modern Western thinkers point of view and not from an Ancient Eastern thinkers view like the Hebrews who wrote it. The Hebrews style of writing is prolific with a style of poetry unfamiliar to most readers of the Bible. This poetry is nothing like the poetry we are used to reading today and therefore it is invisible to us."

The full article can be found here: Poetry in the Hebrew Bible.

But like I said, even if it were it cannot be forced into allegory because poetry is not automatically allegory.

I never said that poetry was automatically allegory. But it is often an indication that a writing is not intended to be historically accurate.

I don't suppose you read any of the verses I've given. It's rather interesting that genealogies can include all the real people. Unless of course you don't think they are a real people. I would like you to go through the genealogies and point out what people were real and which ones were not. Then I'd like to show some reasoning as why you chose the ones you did.

No I'm certainly not going to do that. Remember, you are the one claiming that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation, that the Genesis creation accounts must be accepted literally. I'm not making that claim. In fact I have said over and over and over that you are entitled to your interpretat6ion.

You fully accept Scripture validating Scripture, but only under you narrow set of rules. Who made you the rule maker? What kind of logic is there to say "I accept that Scripture verifies Scripture, but only under these narrow parameters"? Any other time it does not. So according to you anything spoken of in the OT is allegorical unless a contemporary a OT author verifies it. What Jesus and the apostles say about the person or the event is irrelevant to it's history and reality. So when Jesus talks about Abraham and when Abraham is mentioned in Hebrews it is all allegory because we can't verify his existence by contemporary authors in the OT. Why? Because you say so?

When did I ever claim to be the "rule maker"? I'm not the one claiming that anyone else has to accept my interpretation, you are the one making that claim. And when did I ever say that "anything spoken of in the OT is allegorical unless a contemporary a OT author verifies it." Those are not my words.

You still have not shown how Genesis is an allegory using scriptural evidence. I've given you plenty of scripture to peruse that shows otherwise. Including the words of God Himself.

Again, I have done so. You are just ignoring what I have said.

 

[Archivist]

Who made Augustine the great decider? There were other church fathers who thought completely otherwise including Barnabas. Augustine also told us we had to believe what the Bible said despite our doubts.

Where did I say Augustine was the "great decider." Please show me exactly where I made such a claim.

 

[-57]

I see no case here - people routinely refer to allegory and myth to make points about how we should act. In fact, this is precisely the function of a major category of myth - the morality tale.

Consider the fictional account of the tortoise and the hare. The two are racing and, to make a long story short, the tortoise wins in the end because the hare gets lazy and overconfident. This purely fictional account is often appealed to in order to guide behaviour in the real world - for example, an overconfident, high-achieving, but often lazy student may be warned by his parents "remember what happened to the tortoise".

I suggest there is no actual basis to your claim that Paul would never have appealed to a fictional account to make a point about behaviour.

You do know Paul wasn't making a point. Paul was establishing a rule....and you don't establish rules on the out come of a make believe race.

 

[expos4ever]

You do know Paul wasn't making a point. Paul was establishing a rule....and you don't establish rules on the out come of a make believe race.

This is a bald, unsubstantiated restatement of what you have already posted. The relevant point is that we have clear evidence that people can and do appeal to "myth" to guide actions. Notwithstanding your attempt to muddy this by trying to draw an irrelevant distinction between "making a point" and "establishing a rule".

 

[-57]

This is a bald, unsubstantiated restatement of what you have already posted. The relevant point is that we have clear evidence that people can and do appeal to "myth" to guide actions. Notwithstanding your attempt to muddy this by trying to draw an irrelevant distinction between "making a point" and "establishing a rule".

To make matters even worse for you the bible tells us we sin now because of what happened in the garden. Adam and Eve disobeyed. Because of this act of disobedience sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. That man was Adam. This is the reason Jesus came.

When you make Genesis into a myth...you make the reason why Jesus came based upon a myth.
This give you two strikes now.
1) Pauls rule was based upon a myth.
2)The reason Jesus came was based upon a myth.
......do you fully comprehend just what you are doing to the basement tenants of Christianity?