Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I do. Do you claim you do and are superior in understanding to all those who disagree with you?AV1611VET said:Do you?
Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Should Genesis be taken literally?
One of the reasons is...Paul took Genesis as literal.
Think about this...Paul in a letter to Timothy said this to the women there...
1st Tim 2:11 A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.
The question is, just what did Paul base that instruction to women on? The answer follows....
13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.
Would Paul instruct women how to act in church and base his reasoning on a non literal event that never happened?
It was asked "why pick the literal approach for Genesis as opposed to the allegorical approach?" The answer is simple...Paul chose the literal approach.
For many it didn't even require learning more about the universe to recognize that there is plenty in Genesis that isn't meant to be taken literally.
For many of the ancient fathers, such as Origen and St. Augustine, that the creation stories aren't supposed to be read literally was taken as a given.
"Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars— the first day even without a sky?
And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account. The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual signification.
Among the Early Church Fathers that would be a minority opinion. While he showed strong intellectual and educational prowess his teachings are not purely Christian. The man dabbled in heresy:" - Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis, Book IV, ch. 16
-CryptoLutheran
Apparently it was a very big deal to be repeated three times in connection with the strongest word for God's creative work in the Hebrew. Bear in mind the 'image of God' was created in Adam and Eve but perfected only in Christ. What it would include is the divine attributes of God that are communicable, as opposed to incommunicable which would be omnipotence, omniscience...etc. There is a running debate between Catholic and Calvinist theology whether the image of God was utterly destroyed or simply damaged and repairable, Calvinists believe it was ruined, only a miraculous recreation can restore it, thus new birth. We can speculate with regards to what was damaged or destroyed as a result of the fall but there can be no question of how it is perfected, it can be restored and perfected only in Christ.But Adam and Eve were created in God's image, and they were a brand new creation right (even if other humans were around)? Can it not emphasise how big a deal it was to be given the image of God and the responsibility that came with it?
When God breathed the breath of life into Adam, Adam became a living being. (Genesis 2:7) So prior to that point, Adam was a clay statue, according to the literal wording of the text.YouAreAwesome said:In my view, Adam and Eve were created by God in a special and different way to the rest of creation. They were made in Gods Image. Until that point evolution was in motion and continues to be. This verse by Paul are literal and do not conflict with an allegorical creation pre Adam.
Yes I haven't decided on a firm stance with regard to Adam, whether God formed Him in the one day, or whether He "breathed His life" into Adam - the "neanderthal". ANd this "Life" would include "His image", "human understanding" etc.When God breathed the breath of life into Adam, Adam became a living being. (Genesis 2:7) So prior to that point, Adam was a clay statue, according to the literal wording of the text.
I have no understanding if Adam could move prior to that moment. (I direct the reader's attention to the Hebrew concept of 'golem', without prejudice toward acceptance or rejection.) However, in our understanding, when God 'breathed' into Adam, Adam became alive as we understand it and was able to think as humans do. This ability to think is - in human terms - the major difference between humans and animals. In accord with this, God never mentions particular animals having 'evil' intent in the sense of rebelling against Him.
So when did man become man? The Genesis account can be read as all this (the Creation episode) happening all in a short period. However, the first three chapters of Genesis can be understood as a late Stone Age story designed to explain the 'why' of God and God's Creation and not a detailed mechanical depiction of the 'how' it all happened.
Later in Genesis, Adam and Eve have offspring. I believe that happened literally - much as it does now, except with no doctors or bills. However, one notes the Genesis account skips the biological or human emotional details of mating and the internal process of Eve to form a human child.
Using the logic of the YEC community regarding the Creation of the Universe, this would indicate none of that is needed to reproduce.
I am not a YEC adherent at all - except the part about God being in charge and guiding light (so to speak).YouAreAwesome said:Yes I haven't decided on a firm stance with regard to Adam, whether God formed Him in the one day, or whether He "breathed His life" into Adam - the "neanderthal". ANd this "Life" would include "His image", "human understanding" etc.
On the fourth day the sun, moon and stars were not 'created' but 'set', indicated in the Hebrew by two very different words.
Also, let me muddy the waters further by suggesting 'breathing life' may be a metaphor for a totally non-physical (but supernatural and real in that sense) action which made Adam a human.
I'm not completely married to the idea, but it is a possibility.YouAreAwesome said:No that doesn't muddy the waters, this is how I think of it also, at least, as a possibility.
Possible? Sure. Likely? I don't know.YouAreAwesome said:But do you think then that it is possible that ONLY Adam and Eve (the two chosen from the tribe of many pre-humans) were inducted into a "Garden of Eden" spiritual place (not a physical Eden, a spiritual state of being) where from that place they were given purpose from God to take dominion over the earth?
Genesis 1:14
and Elohiym said, the luminaries will exist in the sheet of the skies to make a separation between the day and the night and they exist for signs and for appointed time and for days and years,
Genesis 1:16
and Elohiym made two of the great luminaries, the great luminary for the regulation of the day, and the small luminary for the regulation of the night, and the stars,
The words in the original Hebrew is not set the sun, moon and stars, but made.
Literal it is wai'ya'as
and~he~will~DO (VerbTo bring to pass; to bring about; to act or make; Make, use. [Strong's #: 6213]
http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mt/translation1.html
In my view, Adam and Eve were created by God in a special and different way to the rest of creation. They were made in Gods Image. Until that point evolution was in motion and continues to be. This verse by Paul are literal and do not conflict with an allegorical creation pre Adam.
Genesis 1:1
in the summit Elohiym fattened the skies and the land,
בָּרָא
he~did~FATTEN (Verb)
FATTEN (V)
The following is an excerpt from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center Website.
The Hebrew root ברא (BaRA) is a child root formed out of the parent by adding the letter ברא. As a verb this word is used 46 times in the Hebrew Bible. Below are just a couple of these occurrences in the KJV translation (the underlined word is the translation of the word ברא).
The first thing to remember when researching the original meaning of a word is that you need to find the "concrete" meaning of the word. Since "create" is an abstract it would be a foreign concept to the ancient Hebrews. We find the concrete meaning in 1 Samuel 2:29 which are "fat". The actual word in this passage is lehavriyackem (LHBRYAKM). The L means "to", the H makes the verb causative (make), BRA is the root, Y (placed between the R and A is also part of the causative form and the KM is "you" (plural) or yourselves". Literally this word means "to make yourselves fat".
Now let's see how this meaning applies to the other verses listed. In Genesis 1:1 it does not say that God "created" the heavens and the earth, instead he "fattened" them or "filled" them. Notice that the remaining chapter is about this "filling" of the heavens with sun, moon, birds and and the "filling" of the earth with animals, plants and man.
The "Create in me a clean heart" of Psalms 51:10 would better be translated as "fill me with a clean heart".
The passage in Ecc 12:1 translates this verb (which is in the participle form meaning "one that fattens/fills") as "Creator" but the truth is that this word is in the plural form and they should have at least translated it as "Creators". This is often a problem when relying on a translation as the translator will often "fix" the text so that it makes more sense. But as this word means to fatten or fill, this should be understood as "fatteners" or "fillers". I believe this verse is speaking about the "teachers" (ones who fill you with knowledge) of your youth.
The following is an excerpt from the book His Name is One.
A "creator" is theologically understood as, "one who makes something out of nothing". The Hebrew for "creator", is בורא (borey), the participle form of the verb, literally meaning "one who fattens". Without an understanding of the cultural background of this word, the idea of God "fattening" the heavens and earth is as foreign to our Western mind as the idea of creating something from nothing is to the ancient Hebrews. As we have previously discovered, the Hebrews always view their world with a concrete mind rather than an abstract mind. A "creator" or "one who creates" is an abstract thought which the ancient Hebrews would have had no way of comprehending.
Through our modern Western perspective, we have read the story of creation as an account of God's miraculous creation of the universe by his command, the reason for which being unclear. This is not the concept that the author of Genesis chapter one implies in the language of the ancient Hebrews. This misconception begins with the Hebrew word ברא (bara) as found in the first verse of the chapter. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).
The word ברא (bara), translated as "created" above, comes from the parent root בר (bar) which we have previously discussed, meaning "grain". The grains were very important staples to the Hebrews. They were used in making breads and feeding the livestock. This parent root also has the meaning of "fat" as livestock fed on grain become fat. The child root ברא (bara), also means, "fat" as seen in the following verse. "And the ugly cows that looked thin ate the seven beautiful cows that looked fat" (Genesis 41:4).
A "fat" cow is one that is "full"; therefore, ברא (bara) Hebraicly can mean, "to fill". When we read the first two verses of Genesis from a Hebraic perspective we can see this imagery clearly. "In the beginning God filled the sky and the land because the land was empty and unfilled" (Genesis 1:1, 2).
This "filling" up of the sky and land is also described in the days of creation, which are written in true Hebrew poetry. The first three days of creation describe the separating of the skies and the land, this is paralleled with the last three days that describe the "filling up" of the skies and the land.
The first day is the separation of light and darkness and parallels the fourth day where the light and darkness is filled with the sun and moon. The second day is the separation of the water and the sky, it parallels the fifth day where the water and sky are filled with fish and birds. The third day is the separation of water and land and it is paralleled with the six day where the land is filled with the animals and man.
The word בורא (borey) is derived from the child root ברא (bara) and literally means "one who fills". As we see in the Creation story, God is the one who fills the waters, skies and the land.
Your literal meaning from the primitive root does not stand up to close scrutiny:
I've seen the site and I don't think your getting what Benner is trying to do here.This is not "my" meaning---that is a direct quote from a Jewish site, from the Mechanical translation of Genesis. You are free to believe other versions, I will stick with those who know the ancient Hebrew language and culture, esp, when they themselves are Jewish.
I am in complete agreement with your observation about 'breathing life into' includes 'His image', human thought and so on.
Also, let me muddy the waters further by suggesting 'breathing life' may be a metaphor for a totally non-physical (but supernatural and real in that sense) action which made Adam a human.
But here we're back to talking about just how directly God inspired scripture. He didn't inspire scripture word for word, or we wouldn't see distinct differences between the various authors of the Bible. If God said to Paul, "Tell the people of the importance of Christ's redemption of their sin that they all suffer from and that all mankind has suffered from" and Paul decides to explain it with words taken directly from Genesis that he interpreted as literal, that doesn't make Paul's words uninspired.But, you see, I don't believe Paul is speaking merely from "his perspective." He is a divinely-inspired writer of the word of God, not someone just offering his personal views on things religious. So, when Paul makes the explanations he does about Adam and Christ and the origin of sin, he is communicating divine truth to me. Am I free, then, to dismiss Paul's words as simply the ignorant speculations of someone far removed from the events he is speaking to? As Paul would say, "God forbid!"
If Paul says that sin entered through Adam into the world, and he is speaking under the inspiration of God when he does, then I cannot alter, or correct his statements, or dismiss them. If what he is writing originates with the Almighty Creator of Everything, then it is crucially important for me to accept his words.
None of this shows the importance of it being one man that sin entered the world. Even if it's true, that is still an unimportant detail. If God created ten pairs of people in the beginning, and the entire group rebelled, then what would be the difference to the rest of the Bible? Nothing that I can see.If what Paul says is true, is it not important for that reason alone? I think so. In speaking of Adam's sin, Paul explains why Christ had to atone for our sins. The Fall of Man in Eden is the reason, the context, for Christ's Redemption of humanity. If death is actually a normal part of Creation, then Christ conquering it, as Paul asserts Christ did through his atonement for us on the cross, makes little sense. Why "conquer" what God intended should be part of His "good" Creation? Why is death held up in the New Testament as the great evil afflicting humanity? Treating the Genesis account of the Fall as allegory only magnifies and multiplies these sorts of questions and makes the account impotent in providing satisfactory answers.
Actually, @mmksparbud won this point for you with an explanation of the Hebrew words we translated to "day".Yes, I understand. You made this point in your last post to me. It seems very evident to me that, since Adam and Eve didn't die the instant they ate of the Forbidden Fruit, that we must read God's promise of death as a process of decay leading to death that began when Adam and Eve sinned.
One perfectly good explanation, in my opinion, is that death was natural for animals, and when God raised up humans, He planned to give them eternal physical life to set them apart, just like He gave them a soul to set them apart. Even a mechanical translation doesn't seem to indicate that animals were allowed to eat the fruit from that tree. Humans were given fruit to eat and animals were given the "green things" which sounds like vegetation to me. I suppose the fruit could have been green, but it would be strange then to make specific mention that humans get fruit, and then neglect that mention for animals.I simply don't know how, exactly, to perfectly reconcile what Paul says about death coming through Adam with the presence of the Tree of Life in Eden. Why was such a tree in Eden in the first place? Did God need such a tree in order to confer immortality upon his creatures? That seems very unlikely. Were there other such peculiar trees of power in Eden? Why was the Tree of Life not forbidden to Adam and Eve but the Tree of Knowledge was? The Genesis account offers no answers. What it does make clear - as other passages in Scripture do - is that death - physical as well as spiritual - entered Creation through the sin of Adam. I can speculate, I suppose, on what the presence of the Tree of Life might mean, but not at the expense of the clear, explicit declaration of Scripture.
These verses all point to immortality bestowed on humans. He promises to remove these things from His children, but animals aren't His children, so there's no reason to assume God isn't perfectly fine with animals dying. Heck, Cain was being bad by not killing animals for God, so why would you assume death for animals is bad?I don't think its a stretch to say God does not think death and pain are good. These are the things He promises to His children will be absent in the afterlife. (Rev. 21:4)
Death is an enemy to be conquered (1Cor. 15: 53- 57; Rev. 20:14) not a good friend to be embraced.
To look at it that way is to ignore why death is bad and to understand the corollary between physical and spiritual death. God let Satan separate Job from his family, it isn't the death part that is inherently bad without the consequence of separation. Separation is the terrible thing to be avoided, not the ceasing to live part.Yes, He is. But this is not to suggest that God thinks death is good. Saying, "I am the Boss," is not the same as saying, "Death is good." Clearly, Satan thought death was an evil thing, for it was one of the means whereby he hoped to make Job sin. And God seems to recognize this since He allows Satan to use death as a test of Job's commitment to God.
Well of course there was something supernatural about it, Satan and Jesus didn't hike up that mountain. But there's no significance to taking Jesus to a mountain top except that that is where people can see things that are far away. If the mountain wasn't written in there to explain how Jesus was able to see all the kingdoms, then Satan might as well have stayed put, or even taken Him to a cave.Luke 4:5 adds an interesting - and clarifying - phrase to the story:
Luke 4:5
5 And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
Sounds like whatever happened, it was supernatural in character, an event not constrained by the physical laws under which you and I labor. I don't think, then, that the story indicates a flat Earth at all.
Well that's even better. If the Hebrews already had a bunch of stories that they used to explain the existence of things they saw in their lives and God told Moses to write them down, who's to say how those stories were inspired in the first place? Maybe Adam passed it on word for word his account in the Garden of Eden, maybe not. Maybe they were stories written by men to explain the things they saw in the world, and God told Moses to use them, maybe add to them and emphasize parts of them, to teach the important lessons with something that people were already familiar with. That people interpreted those stories as literal for a long, long time says nothing about whether they are literally true or not.The general consensus is that most of what Moses wrote down was from oral tradition (except, of course, those events involving him directly) rather than a vision, or some such thing.
Geez, putting "Christians" in quotes like that if they don't take Genesis literally? Sheesh...It isn't God doing the nit-picking but liberal "Christians" and atheists. I believe God superintended the writing of both the Old and New Testaments, ensuring that what was recorded was accurate in those things He meant to express. So, I don't believe Moses got anything wrong in what he wrote.
The Sun doesn't rise. So it is false and in error to say it does. The Bible says the Sun rises, so... maybe we need a better understanding of the Bible than, "the Bible says so".None of this addresses my point. If the word of a perfect God is false or in error in any way, then it cannot be the word of God.
God is not so small, so weak, as to be incapable of overcoming the ignorance and failings of those He chose to pen holy Scripture.
Those are two very different questions.Why wouldn't a christian not take Genesis as literal? YOu know, believe what is written?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?