Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Thief]

There is God's creation. I obeys the laws that God made. Anything that is a result of obeying those laws is not a miracle. When God acts to do something that is different from the laws being obeyed is a miracle. Walking on water, healing a man born blind without medical treatment, iron axe floating on water. Those are miracles. The creation of life from inanimate chemicals could have been a miracle. God could have put the universe together so that life would occur by obeying the laws. Don't matter to me. Either way, God made life. I see no reason I have to find miracles. I am quite content with my understanding of Genesis 1-4 to have humans having arisen as a result of evolution, and Adam being born naturally and just the first "saved" man under a new system. Or Mankind could have arisen as a result of a miracle. Content either way.

There's a distinct difference between chemistry that obeys law.....(not that substance possesses intention)
and the intention of installing life.

If chemistry is all there is to it.....then ANY chemical reaction is a form of life.

We know better....don't we?

Your post allows disbelief in God's handiwork.
It allows the notion we are not God's intention.
(if you digress to morality rather than chemistry....you could then speak of the misintention)

 

[Bunyip]

Theif

If chemistry is all there is to it.....then ANY chemical reaction is a form of life.

How did you figure that? Why would any chemical reaction be a form of life, just because life is a chemical reaction? Where is the logic there?

 

[Thief]

Theif



How did you figure that? Why would any chemical reaction be a form of life, just because life is a chemical reaction? Where is the logic there?

It's a rhetorical statement.
If the post holds ground...then any chemical reaction has life.

Draw the line.
We humans live in our chemistry......we are not our chemistry.

 

[Sonofason]

There's a distinct difference between chemistry that obeys law.....(not that substance possesses intention)
and the intention of installing life.

If chemistry is all there is to it.....then ANY chemical reaction is a form of life.

We know better....don't we?

Your post allows disbelief in God's handiwork.
It allows the notion we are not God's intention.
(if you digress to morality rather than chemistry....you could then speak of the misintention)

Actually, I don't really know better.

I have been given the impression that all things have a sense of awareness. I might not go so far as to call it life, but all things have been created by a God who has given Himself the name "The Life".

"I am the Truth and The Life. No man comes to the Father but by me?
"...Even the rocks would cry out."

 

[CG Didymus]

As to the "literal genesis"...I would like to kick CG Didymus' arsse for creating it !!!
But then....it has been interesting, if one ignores the start.
And if one forgets about the cultivation crap, and the rib, and the snake, and the fig leaves, and the killing, and the direction of the eastern cities....
Oh hell....I'd still like to kick his arsse !
~
'mud

What did I do? I just asked the question. Besides, you'll have to catch me first!

 

[allfoak]

And that experience and observation is obtained through exegesis, not guesswork.

Exegesis:

1. critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible.



This is about knowledge that is found within.
The Bible is a catalyst not the source.
Many people have different things that work as a catalyst to learning who they are.

The literal interpretation of the Bible is a detriment to learning who we are.
The only purpose for a literal interpretation is if we are going to sell it to others as the truth...Literally.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why do creationist make this sort of argument, without understanding the science behind it?

I am not a creationist. That sort of leads your argument in the wrong place from the off i think
What makes you think I don't understand science? It is not understanding science which is the problem. That is for scientists to do, and for us to accept. It is understanding scripture which is the problem.... as it plainly tells us.

In any case, most people don't live in the polar regions, and the Genesis weren't written for those who do. Genesis was only written for one group of people originally - the Israelites - and none of them live there.

It does not matter where they live. The point was that time is relative. He shows us that quite easily in that. Genesis was originally for one group of people... but I see know argument in that.

And the creation myth of Genesis never mention only hours. Genesis 1 only divided a day, between light and darkness, and respectively between morning and evening (or night).

a 'myth' does not necessarily mean it is not true. If you are saying it is not true, then you would have to prove it. If not, then your words are not helpful in understanding. As scripture is spiritually discerned, and therefore spiritually accepted, it would be hard to imagine that you would understand it, with the greatest of respect

But how do you daylight or morning without the sun; because the sun was created till the 4th day of creation...

that is when our sun became apparent, became visible. It does not mean taht there were no other stars there beforehand.

Genesis 1:5 was very specific that the light was called "day" and darkness called "night" (as well as to morning and evening in 1:5, meaning that this light and day is referring to "daylight", but how do you you get daylight without the sun?

Exactly. Now you are answering it for me. You cannot have a day without a sun. So then there was a sun. A day is a luminary of period of light. If you keep thinking of it as a 24 hour period, then you will never understand it... that is assuming that is what you are doing here.

...and if you are one of those crazy Christian creationists who believe in Peter's verse that one day equals to one thousand years and so on, then that mean 3000 years of no sun. That 3000 years of daylight and morning without the sun. How do you create vegetation (3rd day) and survive for a thousand years before the sun existed?

Peter shows, again, that time is relative. It is speaking of higher-consciousness. When you speak of such things here in the physical realm, it will not run out exactly the same way. Each realm is to its own, though following a fractal pattern.
But it does, even for all those thousands of years ago, show that there is an order through which all things come, waters, vegetation, animals, man.

Reading Genesis 1 & 2, it is clear that it is neither a science book, nor a history book.

It is not a science book. It is Scripture. It is to be read by those who have eyes to see... even then it is difficult. It is a history book, but only when you understand it. If you take as given, then it will not work.

Fundamentally you misunderstand me, and Scripture I feel.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I treat those ignorant to biblical education and knowledge the same, who make ignorant statements of certainty.

Their error will be noted.

You can't make judgements on people though when you don't know them or exactly what they know. That is a fundamental problem with your thinking. And scripture is spiritually discerned, so the one who does not have the spirit is the one that should be listening

 

[Robert.Evans]

What did I do? I just asked the question. Besides, you'll have to catch me first!

haha... keep running buddy!

 

[Thief]

Actually, I don't really know better.

I have been given the impression that all things have a sense of awareness. I might not go so far as to call it life, but all things have been created by a God who has given Himself the name "The Life".

"I am the Truth and The Life. No man comes to the Father but by me?
"...Even the rocks would cry out."

Sorry...that last line was a quote misused.

As the Carpenter came riding into the City, the Pharisees objected to the attention He was getting.....and did say, 'tell the crowd to be still.'

His reply....
The stones will speak.

( a threat of action by the crowd)

I have no illusion there are many levels of life.
Many things come and go and are oblivious to our greater nature.

Likewise, as scripture reports....
What is Man that God is mindful of him?

 

[sojourner]

Exegesis:

1. critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, especially of the Bible.



This is about knowledge that is found within.
The Bible is a catalyst not the source.
Many people have different things that work as a catalyst to learning who they are.

The literal interpretation of the Bible is a detriment to learning who we are.
The only purpose for a literal interpretation is if we are going to sell it to others as the truth...Literally.

No, this is about the veracity of a literal creation account. Therefore, it isn't about knowledge that is "found within." It's about determining the source, audience, style, genre, etc. of the writing.

If the bible is a catalyst, we have to understand the catalyst, in order to have any kind of honest relationship with it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, this is about the veracity of a literal creation account. Therefore, it isn't about knowledge that is "found within." It's about determining the source, audience, style, genre, etc. of the writing.

If the bible is a catalyst, we have to understand the catalyst, in order to have any kind of honest relationship with it.

Sort of wise words I think. But who the heck am I

But I have to add, it is also about that 'found within'

 

[outhouse]

Sort of wise words I think. But who the heck am I

But I have to add, it is also about that 'found within'

No one said it is not.


It is just not a credible historical record, it is not a literal book.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It is just not a credible historical record, it is not a literal book.

It is a literal book to me, just not to you. This is no surprise as it is written for me, not for you.

 

[sojourner]

It is a literal book to me, just not to you...

...or hundreds of bible scholars and thousands of Christians and Jews...

 

[Robert.Evans]

...or hundreds of bible scholars and thousands of Christians and Jews...

It is still a literal book. 2plus2 does not add up different because other people don't know maths

 

[Iti oj]

It is still a literal book. 2plus2 does not add up different because other people don't know maths

your the one suggesting it equals 5.

 

[sojourner]

your the one suggesting it equals 5.

Indeed.

 

[outhouse]

It is still a literal book

Not only does it ruin the book, it turns the book into lies.


It is better just to go with the reality of legends, poems, songs, mythology, allegory and metaphor and pseudo history to teach morals and lessons, then to ruin it trying to make things happen in the past that never did.

 

[Sonofason]

Sorry...that last line was a quote misused.

As the Carpenter came riding into the City, the Pharisees objected to the attention He was getting.....and did say, 'tell the crowd to be still.'

His reply....
The stones will speak.

( a threat of action by the crowd)

I have no illusion there are many levels of life.
Many things come and go and are oblivious to our greater nature.

Likewise, as scripture reports....
What is Man that God is mindful of him?

That is an interesting perspective that I have not considered. I will certainly take that into consideration. It certainly makes sense. But then, so does how I was interpreting it.

Not to the point, but consider the words, "heavenly bodies" How do you take that?

"There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another."
1 Corinthians 15:40)

The KJV uses the words "celestial bodies"