Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[greentwiga]

I would keep in mind two things. How would you express yourself so that men of 1500 BC could understand. Because their scientific understanding was minimal, I might compare it to how I would explain quantum physics to a 10 year old. It seems accurate in a minimalistic way, though we could easily misinterpret what is being said and then shoot it down because of our misunderstanding.
The second point is we should consider all the God's of the time. Star Gods, Ocean gods, Sun and moon gods, vegetation Gods, Animal Gods. This account shoots down all these Gods. They are just creations, not even lesser Gods. From that viewpoint, Genesis Ch 1 is extremely to the point.

 

[s2a]

So many things don't add up in Genesis. Like the Sun and stars, not only were they created after the Earth, but created after plants? But then, I was wondering; Adam gets kicked out of Eden and has to till the soil? This is based on Gen 4:23 and 4:2 where Adam is sent out to "cultivate" the ground and his son Cain was a "tiller" of the ground. What did they till it with? Did God make them a plow and a hoe or something? And then Abel, why was he keeping flocks? Weren't they vegetarians? Was it for wool? Did God make Eve a loom and Abel some shears?

I see Genesis as religious poetry, but some Christians, and I guess some Jews, see it as literal. Ken Ham on his TV show Answers in Genesis, insists that it must be taken literal, that it is foundational, without it the whole of the Bible falls. What do you think.

I think it is bunk too

 

[Thief]

I think it is bunk too

So instead of trying to 'fix' the narrative as factual.....

Approach it from the intellectual effort.
See if you have what it takes to find something useful.

 

[s2a]

So instead of trying to 'fix' the narrative as factual.....

Approach it from the intellectual effort.
See if you have what it takes to find something useful.

Yep... been there.done that. bought the T-shirt too.

Very few here seem interested in debating "faith" as a source of anything other than "providence and/or unimpeachable" "fact.

I find the confines of any self-imposed "bubble" to be a poor residence, but concede that amongst some of willful ignorance... it is the last bastion of safety and collective numbers... so be it.

Shame me now as you will...

 

[CG Didymus]

I think it is possible for it to be literal, just not complete. Maybe everything that is written happened exactly as it is written, but it doesn't mean that there aren't many more details, some that we probably could not even understand, that are not written. That's what you need to keep in mind when discussing with someone who believes in the literal account.

How literal are we going to take it? Does anybody really take it completely literal? I know some fundy Christians say they do, but they don't. They find ways to allegorize what they need to.

But to me, it doesn't have to be real. It seems like it is religious poetry. It gets people to think of one God that's all powerful and demands obedience. What if it was made up? A few generation down the line, who would know? It would accomplish what it was meant to, get people to follow the Law or else. Would ordinary, not so fantastic stories have done the job? Without God's wrath being in the equation would people have any reason to fear God? I was brought up Catholic and the stories had an effect on me. I was a little worried about God's punishment. We had mortal sins. If you died without confessing one of them, you'd be sent to hell. Not going to Church on Sunday was a mortal sin. I was in big trouble all the time.

How about for you as a Jew? How did the Genesis stories effect you?

 

[Thief]

Yep... been there.done that. bought the T-shirt too.

Very few here seem interested in debating "faith" as a source of anything other than "providence and/or unimpeachable" "fact.

I find the confines of any self-imposed "bubble" to be a poor residence, but concede that amongst some of willful ignorance... it is the last bastion of safety and collective numbers... so be it.

Shame me now as you will...

Ok.....
Genesis would be unbelievable in the days of Moses.
And in the days of Moses, shame and death unto nay sayers.

The terms of the narrative are fantastic.
Take a rib from a man....while he sleeps....and not kill him?......ridiculous.
Use the rib to make another human...a woman?.....impossible.
Test them beyond their ability to just say 'no'...?.....unfair.

Beyond science?.....apparently not.
We now know of surgery, cloning, genetic manipulation.
So was Adam given his twin sister for a bride?....looks that way.
(and Eve had no navel)

Shame now unto nay sayers.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Ok.....
Genesis would be unbelievable in the days of Moses.
And in the days of Moses, shame and death unto nay sayers.

The terms of the narrative are fantastic.
Take a rib from a man....while he sleeps....and not kill him?......ridiculous.
Use the rib to make another human...a woman?.....impossible.
Test them beyond their ability to just say 'no'...?.....unfair.

Beyond science?.....apparently not.
We now know of surgery, cloning, genetic manipulation.
So was Adam given his twin sister for a bride?....looks that way.
(and Eve had no navel)

Shame now unto nay sayers.

lol So Eve only had one chromosome?

 

[Thief]

lol So Eve only had one chromosome?

Eve was not born of woman.

 

[CG Didymus]

Eve was not born of woman.

Was your response to FranklinMichaelV.3

So Eve only had one chromosome?

So I take the creation story as religious myth. I see no reason to think that's how things went down. But, for you, why is there so much randomness in reproduction? And, if all types and colors of people came from Adam and Eve, then shouldn't there have continued to be a lot of variation in the children of each mating pair? Like somehow, Noah and his kids had all the potential for all the variations of people, shouldn't those kids have made children with even more variation? Like once a male child was born dark brown, and even if he had sex with a brown sister or cousin, shouldn't the genes still give them all sorts of kids with different characteristics than their parents?

 

[Thief]

Was your response to FranklinMichaelV.3 So I take the creation story as religious myth. I see no reason to think that's how things went down. But, for you, why is there so much randomness in reproduction? And, if all types and colors of people came from Adam and Eve, then shouldn't there have continued to be a lot of variation in the children of each mating pair? Like somehow, Noah and his kids had all the potential for all the variations of people, shouldn't those kids have made children with even more variation? Like once a male child was born dark brown, and even if he had sex with a brown sister or cousin, shouldn't the genes still give them all sorts of kids with different characteristics than their parents?

Man was made Day Six.
No names.... no garden.... no law.
Go forth, be fruitful...multiply. Subdue the earth....dominate all things.
We did.

Day Seven....rest. And no more will be created.

THEN Chapter Two.
A story of manipulation.
The Garden event is an obvious effort to change the body...and spirit....and direction of Man.

Obviously, Man was overtaking the earth too quickly and the spiritual portion was developing too slow.
We would have overrun the earth's resources without evolving into the intended spiritual creature God had wanted.

Evolution?.....sure....I believe in it.

Intervention by the hand of God?.....yes of course.
Separating the Creator from His creation is a fruitless argument.

 

[s2a]

Ok.....
Genesis would be unbelievable in the days of Moses.
And in the days of Moses, shame and death unto nay sayers.

It would? Really?

In the days of utter and nearly complete inability to even write one’s own native language?

Some guy guy that seems to be wise or smart in your opinion (never having traveled more that 15 miles from your home, like ever), is now, somehow unbelievable?

The terms of the narrative are fantastic.
Take a rib from a man....while he sleeps....and not kill him?......ridiculous.
Use the rib to make another human...a woman?.....impossible.
Test them beyond their ability to just say 'no'...?.....unfair.

“Fantastic, unbelievable, impossible, unfair.”

Indeed. Beyond any scope of reason, skepticism, doubt, or BS radar of human cognizance. Agreed.

Absent the faith asked of poly-theists in those days, absent ANY aspect of experimentation of collection of datum, much less any method of sharing those results in that day…. even many abiding and pious ?Jews of that time were polytheists… not monotheists…so...

…yes.

Of course yes.

Beyond science?.....apparently not.

There was no conceptual aspects of “science” 2000 years ago… none.

Barely 500 years ago…

C’mon

We now know of surgery, cloning, genetic manipulation.

Yep. All within the last 150 years, at a really long stretch.

“Modern Medicine”...even the notion of “washing hands” before operative measures is barely more recent that self-propelled automobiles… or indoor plumbing, or electricity in the home… so… how far back are we to revise historical fact now?

So was Adam given his twin sister for a bride?....looks that way.
(and Eve had no navel)

And this is your provided evidence of “divine” manipulation of genes and heredity?
Does any Scriptural reference, regardless of the dozens of transcription revisions and translations over the centuries, even hint or mention Eve having no belly button?

All of these revelations occurring in the midst of cultures that insisted upon the truth of talking snakes (even from inanimate sticks), gods/spirits that consumed celestial objects in the sky, and plagues of frogs raining from the sky?

Cyclops, flying fire-breathing dragons, minotaurs?

Cat-people, Man-tigers, mole-people, wolfmen, wolf-women, vampires, martians, and zombies?

Really?

Shame now unto nay sayers.

I will note that Pope Francis recently opined that he “believes” by His own faith that even heretical unbelievers and “atheists”, if they live otherwise decent and moral lives, will receive redemption from“God’s” own mercy and grace and ascend to “Heaven” with pious and lifelong devout believers existing side by side as neighbors and lawns to mow…

Shame now unto nay sayers?

 

[CG Didymus]

I“Modern Medicine”...even the notion of “washing hands” before operative measures is barely more recent that self-propelled automobiles…

Microbes and viruses and the like? I wonder why God didn't mention germs? Why did Jesus "heal" the lepers rather than tell them how to prevent the disease? Why didn't he tell them to do ceremonial washing... with soap and water? Anti-bacterial soap of course. But I guess to the true believer there were no germs in the beginning. It was only after the curse that they came into being.

 

[greentwiga]

So far, all I see is proving that the traditional Genesis creation story is not literal. If you are willing to examine the story afresh, you would see it is literal. For example, look at the location. We know it is between the Tigris and Euphrates. The other two rivers are not determined. One thing people don't consider in determining the location is that Adam and Eve made clothes out of fig leaves. Therefore the garden had to be where fig trees grew. Before people transported them beyond mountain and desert barriers, the wild figs grew in Syria and in southern turkey. The area between the Tigris and Euphrates where they grew is less than 100 miles wide, all in southern Turkey. From the description of the rivers dividing, Eden was on a high point such as a mountain. There is only one mountain in the area, Karacadag. The Bible states that there were no domesticated plants (Plants of the field) because there was no man to cultivate them. After being kicked out, Adam was to eat bread (Made from wheat) by the sweat of his brow. Thus Adam was the first wheat farmer, and lived around Karacadag. Now Scientists say that all domesticated wheat comes from Karacadag, just like the Bible says. Genesis is not meant to be a scientific book, but everything in the story of Eden fits science and history

 

[s2a]

Microbes and viruses and the like? I wonder why God didn't mention germs? Why did Jesus "heal" the lepers rather than tell them how to prevent the disease? Why didn't he tell them to do ceremonial washing... with soap and water? Anti-bacterial soap of course. But I guess to the true believer there were no germs in the beginning. It was only after the curse that they came into being.

I won't tire you with the vast numbers of "believers" over the years that I have encountered that would argue that "God" "invented" math, science, medicine", etc (at His own answerable pace and measure, of course)...

..so it would be rather futile to dispel any arguments dependent upon a conspiracy theorists interpretations of Scripture...

..especially when omission of simple fact is submitted as a "proof" of a purposed objective that only time would reveal... by divine selective otcome and control...

*rolls eyes*

 

[gnostic]

I will note that Pope Francis recently opined that he “believes” by His own faith that even heretical unbelievers and “atheists”, if they live otherwise decent and moral lives, will receive redemption from“God’s” own mercy and grace and ascend to “Heaven” with pious and lifelong devout believers existing side by side as neighbors and lawns to mow…

If lawn exist in heaven, then I would think that I'm really in hell...hell, because I have always suffered from hay fever from grass pollens.

Imagined being eternally suffering from hay fever...it would be sheer hell.

 

[Ouroboros]

If lawn exist in heaven, then I would think that I'm really in hell...hell, because I have always suffered from hay fever from grass pollens.

Imagined being eternally suffering from hay fever...it would be sheer hell.

And someone has to cut all that darn lawn, and infinite acres of it. Would the import people to do the work? From hell maybe?

 

[CG Didymus]

If lawn exist in heaven, then I would think that I'm really in hell...hell, because I have always suffered from hay fever from grass pollens.

Imagined being eternally suffering from hay fever...it would be sheer hell.

We'd all have glorified bodies, so it stands to reason that we'd have glorified grass that would neither go to seed or need to be seeded. So you should be okay, but how's your harp playing?

 

[CG Didymus]

So far, all I see is proving that the traditional Genesis creation story is not literal. If you are willing to examine the story afresh, you would see it is literal. For example, look at the location. We know it is between the Tigris and Euphrates. The other two rivers are not determined. One thing people don't consider in determining the location is that Adam and Eve made clothes out of fig leaves. Therefore the garden had to be where fig trees grew. Before people transported them beyond mountain and desert barriers, the wild figs grew in Syria and in southern turkey. The area between the Tigris and Euphrates where they grew is less than 100 miles wide, all in southern Turkey. From the description of the rivers dividing, Eden was on a high point such as a mountain. There is only one mountain in the area, Karacadag. The Bible states that there were no domesticated plants (Plants of the field) because there was no man to cultivate them. After being kicked out, Adam was to eat bread (Made from wheat) by the sweat of his brow. Thus Adam was the first wheat farmer, and lived around Karacadag. Now Scientists say that all domesticated wheat comes from Karacadag, just like the Bible says. Genesis is not meant to be a scientific book, but everything in the story of Eden fits science and history

When did the flood literally happen? 4000 or 5000 years ago? There was only eight people that survived the flood? From them the people that built the Tower of Babel finally got scattered around the world? So no other people lived in the other parts of the world until then?

 

[greentwiga]

If you take the Hebrew word for "world and insist it can only mean world, you get in trouble. If you see that it also means region or country then you have options. 5,000 years ago (3,000 BC), a flood in Shinar/ Sumer that inundated the whole region would mean that all people in the region died, but not all people died. This fits the discontinuity of the Jemdat Nasr period and is supported by the Sumerian version of the flood, which was set about 3,000 BC. Due to the Flandrian transgression and Sumer being the flattest land in the world, a flood could have devastated the region. With only Shinar being empty, Gen 11:2 makes sense.

 

[CG Didymus]

If you take the Hebrew word for "world and insist it can only mean world, you get in trouble. If you see that it also means region or country then you have options. 5,000 years ago (3,000 BC), a flood in Shinar/ Sumer that inundated the whole region would mean that all people in the region died, but not all people died. This fits the discontinuity of the Jemdat Nasr period and is supported by the Sumerian version of the flood, which was set about 3,000 BC. Due to the Flandrian transgression and Sumer being the flattest land in the world, a flood could have devastated the region. With only Shinar being empty, Gen 11:2 makes sense.

I like that explanation. It makes it so the entire planet doesn't have to be covered with water just to kill the unwanted humans and Nephilim... and all the unwanted plants and animals. Unfortunately, some Christians need the whole Bible to be as literal as possible or else their theology and doctrines don't work.

If there are some of those literalist Christians out there, I have another question for you. How would you explain the fruit from the tree that Adam and Eve ate from? A tree produces lots of fruit with lots of seeds.The fruit ripens and falls off the tree. The fruit is supposed to be eaten or rots away anyway. Insects, birds, animals all could have eaten the fruit. What happened? Did they get little mini-curses? What about the seeds? Did new trees sprout up? I don't know about you, but the story sure sounds symbolic to me.