Why a literal Genesis?

[Tree of Life]

Just look at all the animosity between Christians on the matter. I've seen both sides of the debate accuse the other side of calling God a liar.

So the fact that this is a controversial issue is a reason to taken Genesis non-literally?

If the idea of a non-literal Genesis is even plausible without causing any harm to the core tenants of Christianity then there's no need for the aggressive debate and people can get on with more important matters. Plus, for those who accept the evidence of an old earth, an old universe, and evolution, needing to accept Genesis as literal is just another barrier to faith.

My denomination allows pastors to hold to a literal view of Genesis 1-2 and an allegorical view of Genesis 1-2. Other churches even allow for greater diversity than that. Depending on the church that you're involved in there could be a wide range of diverse viewpoints that live in harmony with one another.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So the fact that this is a controversial issue is a reason to taken Genesis non-literally?

Would ending the controversy be a reason to take it literally?

My denomination allows pastors to hold to a literal view of Genesis 1-2 and an allegorical view of Genesis 1-2. Other churches even allow for greater diversity than that. Depending on the church that you're involved in there could be a wide range of diverse viewpoints that live in harmony with one another.

I wonder what the pastors think of each other?

 

[Tree of Life]

Would ending the controversy be a reason to take it literally?

No. The only legitimate reasons to take it literally or allegorically lie in the text itself.

That there is a controversy bothers me not one bit. I don't believe that Christians must agree on every single matter of doctrine in order to live together in peace and unity.

I wonder what the pastors think of each other?

We live together in peace and unity . We respectfully disagree with one another but we honor one another's right to hold and preach their views.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. The only legitimate reasons to take it literally or allegorically lie in the text itself.

I would think reality would also have a say in it. Truth, after all, is that which corresponds to reality.

That there is a controversy bothers me not one bit. I don't believe that Christians must agree on every single matter of doctrine in order to live together in peace and unity.

Nor do I -- but I am bothered when Christians try to convince each other... and very much bothered when they try to convince non-Christians (sometimes via the democratic process and/or force of law).

We live together in peace and unity . We respectfully disagree with one another but we honor one another's right to hold and preach their views.

Many people would do well to learn from such an example.

 

[Moral Orel]

So the fact that this is a controversial issue is a reason to taken Genesis non-literally?

No, and the rest of my post makes it clear that I wasn't suggesting this at all.

My denomination allows pastors to hold to a literal view of Genesis 1-2 and an allegorical view of Genesis 1-2. Other churches even allow for greater diversity than that. Depending on the church that you're involved in there could be a wide range of diverse viewpoints that live in harmony with one another.

That's great for your little corner of the world. And there are of course other places who handle things the same way. These forums aren't one of those places though, just as one example, and I'm sure you're aware that there are plenty of other places as well.

No. The only legitimate reasons to take it literally or allegorically lie in the text itself.

To an extent I can agree with this. If there's good reason to take it literally, in that it could be harmful to central doctrine to see it any other way, then sure. But what about, like TK said, using reality to determine whether something is literal or figurative? The Sun doesn't literally rise, but if we only use scripture to determine if that is literally true, then it's the Sun that's moving through the sky and not us spinning in front of it.

 

[Tree of Life]

That's great for your little corner of the world. And there are of course other places who handle things the same way. These forums aren't one of those places though, just as one example, and I'm sure you're aware that there are plenty of other places as well.

Forums aren't real life. I wouldn't take what goes on here as a good indication of what's really going on in churches. Are you part of a church or family of churches in real life?

To an extent I can agree with this. If there's good reason to take it literally, in that it could be harmful to central doctrine to see it any other way, then sure. But what about, like TK said, using reality to determine whether something is literal or figurative? The Sun doesn't literally rise, but if we only use scripture to determine if that is literally true, then it's the Sun that's moving through the sky and not us spinning in front of it.

We should also consider what we learn from natural revelation (science, history, reason, etc...) as we interpret Scripture. Natural revelation does help us make sense of Scripture and the example you've cited of the sun rising is a good example. Sincere Christians disagree as to how the modern consensus of science concerning evolution and origins ought to influence our interpretation of Genesis 1-2.

 

[Moral Orel]

Forums aren't real life. I wouldn't take what goes on here as a good indication of what's really going on in churches. Are you part of a church or family of churches in real life?

What goes on inside of a church? No, of course not. Churches are designed to bring like minded individuals together. But how church members interact with one another inside their own group isn't indicative of what happens when people from different churches come into contact, and what happens when creationists come into contact with unbelievers.

We should also consider what we learn from natural revelation (science, history, reason, etc...) as we interpret Scripture. Natural revelation does help us make sense of Scripture and the example you've cited of the sun rising is a good example. Sincere Christians disagree as to how the modern consensus of science concerning evolution and origins ought to influence our interpretation of Genesis 1-2.

If that consensus is correct, then it should influence your interpretation of scripture. It sounds like you just disagree with scientific consensus, and that's fine, I won't discuss science here. But there are plenty who say they don't care what science can prove, you shouldn't change interpretation either way. That's what this thread is about.

 

[Philip_B]

Churches are designed to bring like minded individuals together.

I am having trouble with this statement. It seems to reduce the Church to being a social club. I need to fit that into being One Holy Catholic and Apostolic in a world where I believe each of those words has meaning.

Truth is carried in a variety of means, not simply history and science, and if you wonder about it, look at the US Presidential Race where each candidate enunciates their truth. They both tell us they want the best for the United States of America, and I take that to be true, but rather than find the common ground ....

 

[aiki]

But what about, like TK said, using reality to determine whether something is literal or figurative? The Sun doesn't literally rise, but if we only use scripture to determine if that is literally true, then it's the Sun that's moving through the sky and not us spinning in front of it.

The Bible makes very clear that the physical reality accessible to empirical study is not the only or most fundamental reality that there is. The Core of Reality is the supernatural Creator revealed to us in Scripture who gives substance and sustaining power to the physical reality science observes. This Ground of all Reality that Christians call God is where understanding reality begins. We must move outward from Him to the universe He has made, from Creator to creation, in order to properly understand reality. I'm not suggesting we throw out science altogether, or that it has no value in properly comprehending the physical universe. I'm suggesting that if we want to get it right about reality we must start with the supernatural, not the natural, and reconcile ourselves to the fact that God does not operate as we do, constrained by the physical laws and limited knowledge that characterize human existence.

Isaiah 55:8-9
8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord.
9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Selah.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The Bible makes very clear that the physical reality accessible to empirical study is not the only or most fundamental reality that there is. The Core of Reality is the supernatural Creator revealed to us in Scripture who gives substance and sustaining power to the physical reality science observes. This Ground of all Reality that Christians call God is where understanding reality begins. We must move outward from Him to the universe He has made, from Creator to creation, in order to properly understand reality. I'm not suggesting we throw out science altogether, or that it has no value in properly comprehending the physical universe. I'm suggesting that if we want to get it right about reality we must start with the supernatural, not the natural, and reconcile ourselves to the fact that God does not operate as we do, constrained by the physical laws and limited knowledge that characterize human existence.

Isaiah 55:8-9
8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord.
9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Selah.

I agree, but doesn't this lead to the same inconguencies faced by those in the past? Such as a geocentric universe etc. using the bible to do science can pitt the bible against science and build unnecessary barriers for bright minds. Seems that we're not learning from the past. Galileo the heretic. Darwin the heretic. I think it's amazing that the bible does fit with evolution.

 

[Moral Orel]

I am having trouble with this statement. It seems to reduce the Church to being a social club. I need to fit that into being One Holy Catholic and Apostolic in a world where I believe each of those words has meaning.

Truth is carried in a variety of means, not simply history and science, and if you wonder about it, look at the US Presidential Race where each candidate enunciates their truth. They both tell us they want the best for the United States of America, and I take that to be true, but rather than find the common ground ....

I'm not trying to reduce what churches are by merely mentioning a big factor in how they attract congregants to their specific church. Of course churches are a lot more than a social club, but how Christians get organized into their specific churches is, by and large, based on being like minded. That's why Baptist churches have a set doctrine, Catholicism has a set doctrine, etc. If you agree with the doctrine of being a Baptist more than any other group, you go to a Baptist church. That's all I meant.

Some people don't fit into a mold well, but from my purely subjective viewpoint, that seems to not be the norm. It's likely that most people don't fit the mold perfectly, most seem to close enough.

 

[Moral Orel]

The Bible makes very clear that the physical reality accessible to empirical study is not the only or most fundamental reality that there is. The Core of Reality is the supernatural Creator revealed to us in Scripture who gives substance and sustaining power to the physical reality science observes. This Ground of all Reality that Christians call God is where understanding reality begins. We must move outward from Him to the universe He has made, from Creator to creation, in order to properly understand reality. I'm not suggesting we throw out science altogether, or that it has no value in properly comprehending the physical universe. I'm suggesting that if we want to get it right about reality we must start with the supernatural, not the natural, and reconcile ourselves to the fact that God does not operate as we do, constrained by the physical laws and limited knowledge that characterize human existence.

Isaiah 55:8-9
8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," says the Lord.
9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

Selah.

I used too broad of a term by saying "reality", that was my mistake. Obviously reality is going to encompass more than the physical realm. What I meant was physical reality, though I didn't say as much.

Now it seems to me that science is doing a great job of understanding our physical reality. And I think it's completely fine to adjust what we think the Bible has to say about our physical reality if we find things to be different. Much in the same way we changed our beliefs about the shape of the Earth and heliocentrism.

And no, God isn't constrained by natural laws, I wouldn't suggest anything of the sort either. I think the main focus of theistic evolution is that He wrote those laws though. Maybe He wrote the laws and designed the systems in a way that we can predict how the natural universe acts so that we recognize those times when He supersedes those rules. Taking Genesis as allegory isn't done because people think God is incapable of doing it the way Genesis describes, it's because people think God didn't want to do it that way, which is a big difference.

Seems to me that since God created for His own pleasure, and He created a lot of self-sustaining systems that work all on their own, He enjoys designing systems more than He enjoys creating in a poof of supernatural ability. It's just a guess, and of course I can't know the mind of God, but it seems totally plausible to me that God would enjoy designing a system like evolution more than He would enjoy molding people out of dust, if we take all the other things He's designed as an example.

Unless there is some core belief of Christianity that is annulled by evolution being real, I don't see why it isn't a safe assumption that God designed the system itself. I don't know what qualifications you think a concept needs to be considered a "core" belief, but I would say only things that might keep you out of Heaven for getting it wrong would qualify.

 

[aiki]

I agree, but doesn't this lead to the same inconguencies faced by those in the past? Such as a geocentric universe etc. using the bible to do science can pitt the bible against science and build unnecessary barriers for bright minds.

Oh, I'm not suggesting we "use the Bible to do science." As I'm sure you know, the Bible is not a science text but a spiritual/historical one. It does, though, provide the proper supernatural context within which science should be done and its findings interpreted. At the moment, it is naturalistic interpretations of science that Christians are trying to synthesize with the supernatural revelation of the Bible. Not surprisingly, they are having significant trouble maintaining high fidelity to Scripture while working to reconcile its declarations to the Godless naturalism through which secular scientists filter the findings of scientific research.

Seems that we're not learning from the past. Galileo the heretic. Darwin the heretic. I think it's amazing that the bible does fit with evolution.

Well, I would urge you to speak for yourself here. Nothing I've written warrants your criticism here.

I don't think evolution and the Bible fit well together at all. And as a theory the ToE is less than impressive. It is full of very serious problems which its proponents, pressed by the powerful inertia of popular sentiment, generally cannot acknowledge. Check out the following links to see what I'm talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDcutHq_SxBgdQUABkIJFdA

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV4Zy3ry9DrDCdxwyAxXs0g

Selah.

 

[Moral Orel]

Scripture is the revelation of God's will and truth (as far as He has deemed it fit to share these things with us); Scripture is not given by God with the intent of confusing and obscuring His will and truth from those who wish to know it.

Confusing? No, I agree it isn't there to confuse people. Obscuring though? Kind of. What about the prophecies in the Bible that use symbolic language such as in Revelation. It isn't telling us the truth of what those events are going to be, it's hiding what the real truth is so that we don't really recognize the prophecy until it already came true.

So it seems plausible that Genesis was written in a way that we wouldn't realize the truth about it being allegory until later, and that wouldn't be a case of God confusing the truth at all. The core truth of Genesis (God created everything, and humans ruined it) is still there no matter what.

 

[Moral Orel]

At the moment, it is naturalistic interpretations of science that Christians are trying to synthesize with the supernatural revelation of the Bible. Not surprisingly, they are having significant trouble maintaining high fidelity to Scripture while working to reconcile its declarations to the Godless naturalism through which secular scientists filter the findings of scientific research.

That's what this thread is about. What specific troubles do you see with people fitting their understanding of the natural universe into the Bible.

And as a theory the ToE is less than impressive. It is full of very serious problems which its proponents, pressed by the powerful inertia of popular sentiment, generally cannot acknowledge. Check out the following links to see what I'm talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDcutHq_SxBgdQUABkIJFdA

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV4Zy3ry9DrDCdxwyAxXs0g

This is not what the thread is about, so I won't respond to arguments about the science. For the sake of the discussion, imagine that hypothetically the evidence is beyond reproach.

 

[aiki]

Now it seems to me that science is doing a great job of understanding our physical reality.

In many respects, yes, science is doing a good job. But as has been observed, science doesn't say anything, scientists do. Scientists interpret what the work of science uncovers. And they do so in conformity to their philosophical presuppositions. Generally, secular scientists hold to some kind of naturalism/materialism/scientism which rules out God from the get-go. As a consequence, they are blind to all instances where science may point to a Creator and deeply biased against even the suggestion of a supernatural dimension. Christians come along and try to reconcile this severely anti-theistic, naturalistic interpretation of science to the God-centered assertions of the Bible. Clearly, in this circumstance, the fundamental incompatibility of these two approaches to understanding physical reality is going to require a capitulation of one approach to the other. As far as I can see, in liberal Christian circles, the capitulation has been all on the theist's side.

And I think it's completely fine to adjust what we think the Bible has to say about our physical reality if we find things to be different. Much in the same way we changed our beliefs about the shape of the Earth and heliocentrism.

I agree that science can sometimes help us to better interpret the meaning of Scripture. But I can't as a Christian make science - or, rather, the naturalistic interpretations of it - superior to the straightforward declarations of the Bible which, it seems to me has happened quite a lot over the last several decades.

Maybe He wrote the laws and designed the systems in a way that we can predict how the natural universe acts so that we recognize those times when He supersedes those rules.

Inasmuch as God says nothing on this head in His word, I refuse to speculate. It seems evident to me, though, that the universe is stamped with a divine signature that the Creator intends, as we investigate His universe, should lead us to Him, not away from Him as modern science, captured by naturalistic philosophy, has been made to do.

Taking Genesis as allegory isn't done because people think God is incapable of doing it the way Genesis describes, it's because people think God didn't want to do it that way, which is a big difference.

I think it is very evident that allegorizing the Genesis account of Creation and the Fall of Man is a capitulation to the dominating anti-theistic interpretation of science that can only lead ultimately to a badly compromised faith.

Seems to me that since God created for His own pleasure, and He created a lot of self-sustaining systems that work all on their own, He enjoys designing systems more than He enjoys creating in a poof of supernatural ability.

This is something of a false dichotomy you've created here. It doesn't have to be that God created systems in His Creation and therefore would not create by divine fiat. Scripture plainly indicates that God spoke and Creation came instantly into being. And Scripture also gives us to understand that God sustains His Creation moment-by-moment. All of Creation is entirely contingent upon God for its continued existence so there is no truly "self-sustaining" system in the universe.

It's just a guess, and of course I can't know the mind of God, but it seems totally plausible to me that God would enjoy designing a system like evolution more than He would enjoy molding people out of dust, if we take all the other things He's designed as an example.

But for the Christian person this sort of speculation is dangerous and inconsistent with what Scripture reveals is God's intent in creating the universe. God intends to glorify, to display, Himself in the universe. That's its fundamental reason for being. What would display God's power better? The slow, mechanical process posited by the ToE? Or the instantaneous creation ex nihilo of the universe the Bible declares? The latter seems to me to display God's power far more than the former.

I would also point out that an omniscient God does not design or plan anything. He simply knows - and has always known - how things are and will be. Making the universe was not a chance for God to tinker and play with design as humans like to do. The creation of the universe with all of its intricacies was not something God had to figure out and calibrate but was always fully understood and willed by God. This is what it means, at least in part, to be God.

Unless there is some core belief of Christianity that is annulled by evolution being real, I don't see why it isn't a safe assumption that God designed the system itself.

Apart from the many serious flaws in the theory? Or the Bible's philosophical incompatibility with the theory? Or the textual problems and compromises inherent in subjecting the Bible to the ToE?

I don't know what qualifications you think a concept needs to be considered a "core" belief, but I would say only things that might keep you out of Heaven for getting it wrong would qualify.

I think the Genesis Creation account and the account of the Fall of Man are integral and fundamental to the story of Redemption that is at the heart of the Bible. Diminishing these accounts, making them mere allegory, confuses and diminishes the Gospel, the work of Christ as our Saviour.

Selah.

 

[Moral Orel]

In many respects, yes, science is doing a good job. But as has been observed, science doesn't say anything, scientists do. Scientists interpret what the work of science uncovers. And they do so in conformity to their philosophical presuppositions. Generally, secular scientists hold to some kind of naturalism/materialism/scientism which rules out God from the get-go. As a consequence, they are blind to all instances where science may point to a Creator and deeply biased against even the suggestion of a supernatural dimension. Christians come along and try to reconcile this severely anti-theistic, naturalistic interpretation of science to the God-centered assertions of the Bible. Clearly, in this circumstance, the fundamental incompatibility of these two approaches to understanding physical reality is going to require a capitulation of one approach to the other. As far as I can see, in liberal Christian circles, the capitulation has been all on the theist's side.

If you want to know about the natural universe, you have to study the natural universe. Settling for what is revealed in the Bible not only doesn't take you very far, but it leads to errors, like heliocentrism as we've discussed. I could try other examples, but let's stick with what I know we agree on. And we agree that the Bible said the Sun moves around the Earth in a straightforward enough manner that people believed it for thousands of years, even though that is wrong.

Since the supernatural cannot be detected by natural means, how do you suppose science is supposed to study the supernatural? People can be amazed at how big and complex and intricate the universe and life was created by God without having to wonder how He did it.

It sounds to me like the problem is that science explains too much, and you can't be in wonderment of creation without the mystery. Well, there was a lot more mystery before we could explain things like the weather, and plate tectonics, and the formation of solar systems and galaxies, but aren't those systems worthy of awe just as much as wondering how God did it would be?

I agree that science can sometimes help us to better interpret the meaning of Scripture. But I can't as a Christian make science - or, rather, the naturalistic interpretations of it - superior to the straightforward declarations of the Bible which, it seems to me has happened quite a lot over the last several decades.

Again, the Sun revolving around the Earth is stated in a straightforward manner in the Bible, but it's okay that is wrong, so there needs to be more justification than thinking it must be a certain way because that's how it appears at first glance.

Inasmuch as God says nothing on this head in His word, I refuse to speculate. It seems evident to me, though, that the universe is stamped with a divine signature that the Creator intends, as we investigate His universe, should lead us to Him, not away from Him as modern science, captured by naturalistic philosophy, has been made to do.

I don't see that it has. It may sound like an argumentum ad populum, but I'm not using at as evidence to support the ToE, so I think it's appropriate to point out that most Christians accept the theory of evolution. So I don't see it leading people from God. However, arguing that you have to choose between the Bible and accepting the ToE very likely will. And that's what this thread is about. Is it justified to make the claim that the ToE and the Bible cannot both be accepted by the same person? I've seen a lot of vague comments about it diminishing the Bible, but I'm looking for specifics.

I think it is very evident that allegorizing the Genesis account of Creation and the Fall of Man is a capitulation to the dominating anti-theistic interpretation of science that can only lead ultimately to a badly compromised faith.

Again, most Christians accept the ToE. Are you saying most Christians have a badly compromised faith because of that? Do they love God and Jesus less because they think God is okay with them understanding the "how" of part of His creation?

This is something of a false dichotomy you've created here. It doesn't have to be that God created systems in His Creation and therefore would not create by divine fiat. Scripture plainly indicates that God spoke and Creation came instantly into being. And Scripture also gives us to understand that God sustains His Creation moment-by-moment. All of Creation is entirely contingent upon God for its continued existence so there is no truly "self-sustaining" system in the universe.

I didn't say it had to be either/or. I talked about likelihoods. God enjoys designing systems, that should be pretty clear. So if we discover a system by which He could diversify life, then it shouldn't be discarded out of hand because it seems plain to us that He already described the "how" of what He did. Some of the OT prophecies seemed to plainly state that Jesus would be a king that would conquer nations with an army on Earth. How did that work out for the Jews that read that plainly?

But for the Christian person this sort of speculation is dangerous and inconsistent with what Scripture reveals is God's intent in creating the universe. God intends to glorify, to display, Himself in the universe. That's its fundamental reason for being.

Can you back that up with scripture? I've tried to look into the reason for God creating everything and all I found was that it was "for His pleasure".

What would display God's power better? The slow, mechanical process posited by the ToE? Or the instantaneous creation ex nihilo of the universe the Bible declares? The latter seems to me to display God's power far more than the former.

I think the answer to this question is all about phrasing. So let's try mine:

What would display God's power better? An intricate and delicately designed set of balanced rules and forces that drive basic matter to develop autonomy and consciousness, or dust suddenly coming alive?

I think it all comes down to perception when you ask this question.

How about this, is it more impressive to build a robot or design and create a machine that designs and builds robots and improves upon the design of the robots it builds? Please don't go reading into my use of a "robot" analogy and bring up free will...

I would also point out that an omniscient God does not design or plan anything. He simply knows - and has always known - how things are and will be. Making the universe was not a chance for God to tinker and play with design as humans like to do. The creation of the universe with all of its intricacies was not something God had to figure out and calibrate but was always fully understood and willed by God. This is what it means, at least in part, to be God.

Plan? Maybe not. But did you really just say we weren't designed by God?

I said "maybe" to the plan part because if we go toying around with the concept of middle knowledge, I might be able to make another case for Him desiring a system like evolution rather than instantaneous creation. That's going pretty far out there though.

Apart from the many serious flaws in the theory?

I said in the OP and several times throughout the thread this is off topic, so no, I don't want to hear what problems you think the ToE has. If you've frequented the science boards on these forums then you likely know how quickly a thread can degenerate into chaos when this topic starts being discussed.

Or the Bible's philosophical incompatibility with the theory? Or the textual problems and compromises inherent in subjecting the Bible to the ToE?

Yes, this. This is what I keep asking for examples of. As I stated in the post you responded to, there's no reason to throw out "God created everything" and "humans screwed it all up". So what specifically is harmed with an allegorical approach to Genesis?

I think the Genesis Creation account and the account of the Fall of Man are integral and fundamental to the story of Redemption that is at the heart of the Bible. Diminishing these accounts, making them mere allegory, confuses and diminishes the Gospel, the work of Christ as our Saviour.

They're integral in that God created everything and humans screwed it all up. We agree up to that point. Now why are the specifics of that important? As in "how" God created and that is was a single pair of humans that screwed it all up.

If God created all the matter and the energy in the universe, and then wrote the rules that tell them how to act in such a way that they form the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth and then put a tiny speck of life on the planet with the hardwired instructions on how to adapt to it's environment, reproduce and make constantly more complex and more varied versions of itself until such a time that its ancestors produce humans whom, at that time, God reveals Himself to and gives an eternal soul via the breath of life, only to have those humans reject Him and try to lead their lives their own way leading to a contamination of that soul which is inherited from generation to generation...

What is diminished? What contradicts the story of redemption at the heart of the Bible?

 

[Radrook]

You know the mind of Jesus do you?

Jesus' thoughts are clearly revealed in the Scriptures. Have you read the Gospels and the rest of the NT?

 

[Radrook]

Imagine for a moment that evolution and deep time and all the other things that can take a hike are true, would God attempt to explain those concepts to people back then? If so, how? Would that be important to them?

If indeed it happened that way via God choosing to do it that way then he would have explained it that way very easily in Genesis by telling us that we are derived from the lower animals. Instead he clearly tells us that we are distinct because of being made in his image. Something he refuses to say about the other material creatures he created. Instead he places humanity over them.

 

[aiki]

Yes, this. This is what I keep asking for examples of.

Both Anastasia and AvgJoe have already explained the doctrinal problems with allegorizing the Genesis account of Creation and the Fall of Man.

They're integral in that God created everything and humans screwed it all up. We agree up to that point. Now why are the specifics of that important? As in "how" God created and that is was a single pair of humans that screwed it all up.

Why shouldn't the details be significant? Surely, the writer of the Genesis account could have done as you did here and said, "God created and humans screwed up His creation." It would have saved a lot of time and effort. Instead, we have a fairly elaborate explanation of the events of Creation and of those that led up to the Fall of Man. Why? Well, we find in the details of Creation and the Fall facts that are fundamental to the doctrines of the Christian faith. For example, the Genesis account describes the advent of death and corruption into Creation as a direct consequence of Adam's sin. But if we say that organisms lived and died long before Adam and Eve showed up, how do we understand death to be a consequence of human sin? We have to start layering on qualifications and explanations the text of Scripture doesn't make or even imply in order to make sense of the Genesis account of the Fall. As Occam's Razor suggests, this multiplication of explanations often indicates a departure from the truth.

The bottom line is whether or not the Bible is trustworthy. Trust is directly related to truth. People don't trust liars; they don't put their faith in what has been shown to be dishonest and/or false. When believers start to say of Scripture, "This bit is wrong," they open the way for those who want to erode the authority and veracity of the Bible entirely to do so. If the Bible is false in one instance, how do we assert it isn't so in any other? Surely, science has shown that seas don't divide as the Red Sea did for Moses and the Israelites fleeing Egypt. And, of course, science makes it clear that miracles don't happen. The blind can't be made to see with some mud and spit; no one can walk on water; five loaves and two fishes cannot feed thousands; certainly, science is unequivocal about the impossibility of someone rising from the dead three days after their decease. When we say, "Science must confine and order the accounts of Scripture," we must immediately discount all supernatural events. And when we do that, the Bible is emptied of its authority and its truth and becomes nothing more than just another text of silly moralizing mythology.

Selah.