Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[metis]

That is an interpretation. Notice that the Torah puts the order of domestication of plants, domestication of animals and inventions in the right order. (with an argument about camels.) It even has the location of the domestication of wheat exactly. A later creation would have gotten some facts wrong. The Babylonians had a tradition of reworking stories to fit the then current thinking. The Hebrews have a tradition of passing stories literally. For the Genesis story to have come from possibly as early as 9,000 BC, it would have to have been passed literally until the invention of writing. A better theory is that the Sumerians/Assyrians/Babylonians reworked the genesis story to fit their Gods.

The Babylonian accounts predate the writing of Genesis by around 2000 years (roughly 3000 b.c.e.). Also, we did not pass stories on just literally, but used a mixture of approaches, some being quite subjective. The early oriental "mind" was quite subjective.

As anthropologist, we follow these written traditions within cultures, and we also attempt to follow the oral traditions. The advantage of oral traditions is that they can change with the times and, therefore, be "up to date".

Also, note that the order in Gen. 1:1 and 2:4 are different, but that's a minor item compared to the fact that we now have a much more objective, scientific idea as to how Earth evolved. As the RAMBAM stated, there's no reason why we must take these accounts literally for this and the other reasons mentioned..

 

[CMike]

But the creation passages are "murky" because they not only pose a problem with accepting them literally, they also appear to have an earlier and different origin (Babylonian) whereas our people reworked the narrative to reflect our morals and values. Every culture has done this, and our is no exception.

Anyhow, please read this:

Philo was the first commentator to use allegory on Bible extensively in his writing.

Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. -- Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia? Seriously?

I rewrote wikipedia's summary on Orthodox Judaism because of the gross mistakes.

State from the Torah that it's not to be taken seriously?

 

[CMike]

The Babylonian accounts predate the writing of Genesis by around 2000 years (roughly 3000 b.c.e.). Also, we did not pass stories on just literally, but used a mixture of approaches, some being quite subjective. The early oriental "mind" was quite subjective.

As anthropologist, we follow these written traditions within cultures, and we also attempt to follow the oral traditions. The advantage of oral traditions is that they can change with the times and, therefore, be "up to date".

Also, note that the order in Gen. 1:1 and 2:4 are different, but that's a minor item compared to the fact that we now have a much more objective, scientific idea as to how Earth evolved. As the RAMBAM stated, there's no reason why we must take these accounts literally for this and the other reasons mentioned..

That's not what he said.

 

[ruffen]

IF one is to believe Genesis as a literal description of the creation of the world, and one is to believe the genealogy of Jesus as stated in the New Testament (which essentially lists all the fathers and father-fathers of the step-father of Jesus - and therefore dates the Earth and the Universe to about 6,000 years), one is in big big trouble scientifically.

There is an overwhelming amount of evicence, biological, DNA, geological, astronomical, cosmological etc. that clearly shows that the world is A LOT older than that, and it shows that species on Earth are related to each other, and that the Universe is vast and ancient.

I find it totally incredible that anyone can believe in Genesis literally in 2013.

 

[metis]

Wikipedia? Seriously?

I rewrote wikipedia's summary on Orthodox Judaism because of the gross mistakes.

State from the Torah that it's not to be taken seriously?

Except that every single article, including from Jewish sources, says essentially the same thing. Check out these sources found in Google if you think I'm exaggerating: "maimonides biblical literalism".

OK, please do this: cite one or more sources that have it that the RAMBAM says that these accounts must be taken literally only. I really want to see this.

And where exactly did I supposedly say that "it's not to be taken seriously"? On top of this, please stop the stereotyping of "liberal Jews", because we're all over the board on so many items.

 

[metis]

IF one is to believe Genesis as a literal description of the creation of the world, and one is to believe the genealogy of Jesus as stated in the New Testament (which essentially lists all the fathers and father-fathers of the step-father of Jesus - and therefore dates the Earth and the Universe to about 6,000 years), one is in big big trouble scientifically.

There is an overwhelming amount of evicence, biological, DNA, geological, astronomical, cosmological etc. that clearly shows that the world is A LOT older than that, and it shows that species on Earth are related to each other, and that the Universe is vast and ancient.

I find it totally incredible that anyone can believe in Genesis literally in 2013.

And most Jews, including most orthodox Jews that I converse with, do not take the accounts literally as I mentioned before. What's truly important in these accounts are the teachings of morals and values, and these accounts have many such teachings. In the long run, what difference does it truly make if the Earth is thousands of years old or billions of years old from a faith perspective?

It seems that you and I agree here, so that above questions should be taken as being rhetoprical.

 

[CMike]

Your position is of liberal Jews,

In no way is this the position of traditional Judaism.


How about quoting from the Torah where G-d said he was just kidding?

 

[CMike]

And most Jews, including most orthodox Jews that I converse with, do not take the accounts literally as I mentioned before. What's truly important in these accounts are the teachings of morals and values, and these accounts have many such teachings. In the long run, what difference does it truly make if the Earth is thousands of years old or billions of years old from a faith perspective?

It seems that you and I agree here, so that above questions should be taken as being rhetoprical.

That's the left wing Jewish position.

 

[ruffen]

And most Jews, including most orthodox Jews that I converse with, do not take the accounts literally as I mentioned before. What's truly important in these accounts are the teachings of morals and values, and these accounts have many such teachings. In the long run, what difference does it truly make if the Earth is thousands of years old or billions of years old from a faith perspective?

It seems that you and I agree here, so that above questions should be taken as being rhetoprical.

Yes, indeed, most religious people today do not take scripture literally but as teachings and allegories etc.

IMO these stories were in fact written to explain the physical world, plain and simple, and meant to be read literally. But I know that people more experienced than myself in reading scripture will disagree on that.

But I'm not sure what moral teachings or values we are supposed to extract from the 6-day creation story, or the story about Babel's tower etc., and if they are meant to have spiritual meaning instead of being a historical description of physical events, why it goes on in such detail on what God did each of the days.

 

[CMike]

The Rambam is one commentator. His words aren't holy.

The words of the Torah are holy for Jews.

 

[CMike]

Yes, indeed, most religious people today do not take scripture literally but as teachings and allegories etc.

IMO these stories were in fact written to explain the physical world, plain and simple, and meant to be read literally. But I know that people more experienced than myself in reading scripture will disagree on that.

But I'm not sure what moral teachings or values we are supposed to extract from the 6-day creation story, or the story about Babel's tower etc., and if they are meant to have spiritual meaning instead of being a historical description of physical events, why it goes on in such detail on what God did each of the days.

Because he is explaining the creation of the world.

It's liberal Jews who don't take it literally.

 

[greentwiga]

Much of what is being rejected is the interpretation of the Bible, not what is says.

For example, one person mentioned the genealogies. Modern men want literal father to son genealogies. In ancient times, they were quite content to mention only certain men in the genealogy but still use the term father/son. Compare David's genealogy to the various Levitical ones. Aaron, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan. It is obvious that there is a gap of hundreds of years years between Salma and Jesse, missing about ten generations. The ten generations before and after Noah could be similarly compressed. The ancient writers, such as Moses don't come from the American culture, and thought differently. They wrote accurately, but not the way we do.

Another point is the problem between Genesis 1 and 2. Who says that they cover the same event and people? That is an interpretation. Adam of Genesis 1 covers both man and woman, and is not even limited to two people. Adam of Genesis 2 clearly covers just one man, and Eve is separate. On mentioned the different order of creation. True, in Genesis 1, plants are created before man, and in Genesis 2, man is created first. Look though at Gen 2. It only states that plants of the field are created after, and that they didn't grow because of the lack of rain and no man was cultivating them. Only domesticated plants need cultivation. Plants of the field is a good term for domestication. In one place, in the field is used in contrast to wild. Domesticated plants did not exist until mankind altered the wild plants.

Am I accurate if I say that Adam of Gen 1 was created 60,000 to 90,000 years before Adam of Gen 2? Am I accurate if I say that Adam of Gen 2 lived about 9,000 BC? Not necessarily. I just point out that this reasonable interpretation eliminates most of the scientific problems. I don't see a need to force an allegorical interpretation if there is a reasonable literal interpretation.

 

[Thief]

Much of what is being rejected is the interpretation of the Bible, not what is says.

For example, one person mentioned the genealogies. Modern men want literal father to son genealogies. In ancient times, they were quite content to mention only certain men in the genealogy but still use the term father/son. Compare David's genealogy to the various Levitical ones. Aaron, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan. It is obvious that there is a gap of hundreds of years years between Salma and Jesse, missing about ten generations. The ten generations before and after Noah could be similarly compressed. The ancient writers, such as Moses don't come from the American culture, and thought differently. They wrote accurately, but not the way we do.

Another point is the problem between Genesis 1 and 2. Who says that they cover the same event and people? That is an interpretation. Adam of Genesis 1 covers both man and woman, and is not even limited to two people. Adam of Genesis 2 clearly covers just one man, and Eve is separate. On mentioned the different order of creation. True, in Genesis 1, plants are created before man, and in Genesis 2, man is created first. Look though at Gen 2. It only states that plants of the field are created after, and that they didn't grow because of the lack of rain and no man was cultivating them. Only domesticated plants need cultivation. Plants of the field is a good term for domestication. In one place, in the field is used in contrast to wild. Domesticated plants did not exist until mankind altered the wild plants.

Am I accurate if I say that Adam of Gen 1 was created 60,000 to 90,000 years before Adam of Gen 2? Am I accurate if I say that Adam of Gen 2 lived about 9,000 BC? Not necessarily. I just point out that this reasonable interpretation eliminates most of the scientific problems. I don't see a need to force an allegorical interpretation if there is a reasonable literal interpretation.

So...Man as a species?.....Chapter One
Adam as a chosen son of God?.....Chapter Two

 

[CG Didymus]

...he is explaining the creation of the world.

The young Earth Christians take up the cause of a literal 6 day creation and a literal world-wide flood. One problem with creation and the flood is explaining dinosaurs. They use behemoth and say because its tail was "like a cedar," that it was a dinosaur. Do you believe dinosaurs roamed the Earth with man? Because I would think that if things like T-rexes were walking around they should have been mentioned and mentioned a lot. Oh yes, they also use "dragons" which they say the Bible describes as "flying serpents." They need all these things to be true in their fight against evolutionary atheists. How do Jews feel about a young Earth, a world-wide flood and dinosaurs? Or, is it even something that matters to Conservative or Orthodox Jews?

 

[ruffen]

Because he is explaining the creation of the world.

It's liberal Jews who don't take it literally.

But people who do take it literally (you?) have a lot of work ahead of them to explain all the scientific evidence that shows the world to be a lot older than mankind, and that the literal description given in Genesis cannot possibly be an accurate account of something that really happened.

 

[ruffen]

Much of what is being rejected is the interpretation of the Bible, not what is says.

For example, one person mentioned the genealogies. Modern men want literal father to son genealogies. In ancient times, they were quite content to mention only certain men in the genealogy but still use the term father/son. Compare David's genealogy to the various Levitical ones. Aaron, Heman, Asaph, and Ethan. It is obvious that there is a gap of hundreds of years years between Salma and Jesse, missing about ten generations. The ten generations before and after Noah could be similarly compressed. The ancient writers, such as Moses don't come from the American culture, and thought differently. They wrote accurately, but not the way we do.

Another point is the problem between Genesis 1 and 2. Who says that they cover the same event and people? That is an interpretation. Adam of Genesis 1 covers both man and woman, and is not even limited to two people. Adam of Genesis 2 clearly covers just one man, and Eve is separate. On mentioned the different order of creation. True, in Genesis 1, plants are created before man, and in Genesis 2, man is created first. Look though at Gen 2. It only states that plants of the field are created after, and that they didn't grow because of the lack of rain and no man was cultivating them. Only domesticated plants need cultivation. Plants of the field is a good term for domestication. In one place, in the field is used in contrast to wild. Domesticated plants did not exist until mankind altered the wild plants.

Am I accurate if I say that Adam of Gen 1 was created 60,000 to 90,000 years before Adam of Gen 2? Am I accurate if I say that Adam of Gen 2 lived about 9,000 BC? Not necessarily. I just point out that this reasonable interpretation eliminates most of the scientific problems. I don't see a need to force an allegorical interpretation if there is a reasonable literal interpretation.

There is still the problem of plant life appearing one day before the Sun and the Moon were created. We KNOW that the Sun and the Moon formed long before the first plant life appeared.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is still the problem of plant life appearing one day before the Sun and the Moon were created. We KNOW that the Sun and the Moon formed long before the first plant life appeared.

I like your religion, Reason and rationality. Of all the creation stories of ancient people, why does this one have to be the only one that is correct? And, how can other religions say the Hebrew Bible is literally true but believe their religion is newer and truer than Judaism? Also, supposedly some pine tree is several thousand years old. To think that a pine tree is only a few thousand years younger than the Sun. And, that one of its ancestors, if it were still alive, was a day older than the Sun. To think that Adam lived more than 900 years. That's more than 10% of the time supposedly the Earth, Stars and Sun have been around. But religion doesn't have to be reasonable or rational to work.

 

[ruffen]

The OP asks if a literal Genesis creation can hold up, and to address that question a bit more, here is some of the evidence (off the top of my head) for why the Earth and the Universe are FAR older than mankind.

The examples I'll take here is a generous estimate (as greentwiga talks about almost 100,000 years since the creation, in contrast with the 6,000-10,000 years most literalists believe the Earth to be). So here is evidence that the Earth and the Universe is a lot more than 100,000 years old. The Earth is estimated to about 4 billion years old, and the Universe to about 13.7 billion years old.

But every time I mention 100,000 years, it is no less true for 6,000 year-old-Earth ideas.



- The Universe is big. Any light source more than 100,000 light years away must have existed more than 100,000 years ago, because light travels at light speed and travels 1 light year in 1 year (hence the name - but it's important to rememeber that light-year is a measure of distance). Our very closest neighbour galaxy (excluding the Milky Way and its satellite galaxies) is the Andromeda Galaxy. It is about 2.5 million light years away, so if the Universe was less than 2.5 million years old, light from Andromeda would not have reached us yet. There are other galaxies that are several billions of light years away.


- The Universe contains a lot of stars. There is an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the observable Universe. Each with 10-1,000 billion stars. If all those stars (a very modest estimate is 100 billion x 10 billion = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars) were to be within a sphere of 100,000 years radius from the Earth, it would not be enough room. The heat and light from all those stars would be overwhelming. So it is clear that a lot of the objects we see are more than 100,000 light years away, and therefore emitted their light more than 100,000 years ago


- The Moon and other atmosphere-less bodies in our solar system has lots and lots and lots (and lots!) of ancient impact craters from the early Solar System when accretion of mass meant a lot more asteroids and objects in the solar system. These have taken billions of years to crash into bodies, building up these bodies and marking them with countless craters. The "seas" or "mares" on the Moon's surface are gigantic plains from when parts of the Moon was molten from its formation and large impacts. If all that happened in the last 100,000 years, parts of the lunar surface would still be molten.


- The Earth's core is liquid. Although this at first sight might seem to indicate a young Earth, the nuclear processes that cause this are well understood. But the liquid core causes plate tectonics. Large continental plates drift around - some places they crash and form mountains (it can actually be measured that some mountain ranges are gaining height, but so slowly that it must have taken millions of years to form them)


- Other places continents recede from each other and there are volcanos in the gaps between them. The continents can easily be seen to fit (anyone can see that the Atlantic ocean is roughly the same width in the east-west direction and that the continents on either side seem to fit together). The speed at which the continents move away from each other means that we can calculate or estimate how long ago they were joined, and the answer is at least millions of years (I don't have the numbers in my head but they are available by a google search)


- On each of the receding continents there are species that are genetically similar, and the fossil record on both continents show some of the same species, and if you place the continents together, the fossils lie in bands across both continents, a further indication that they were indeed once joined. The age of the fossils is in agreement with the estimated time when the continents must have been joined based on their speed (a few centimeters per year) and distance (thousands of kilometers) today.


- The fossil record shows that species have evolved ever so slowly over eons of time. The geological Earth layers they lie in, DNA analysis of current species, radiological dating and a lot of other dating techniques confirm their age. There have been life on Earth for billions of years, and it has slowly evolved and diversified.


- The fossil record shows a gradual evolution of apes into various hominids, most of which died out eons ago, but some remained and evolved further and further over millions of years to become modern humans. There is no "missing link" - and the process is well documented and understood.


- The Universe expands. The redshifting of light ("stretching" light to longer wavelengths due to the expansion of space itself) is observed and confirmed for a hundred years now. The farther away a galaxy is, the more redshifted its light is. This means that the Universe must have been much smaller in the past (billions of years ago). One can observe the Cosmic Microwave Bacground Radiation, which is extremely red-shifted (to a temperature of only 2 Kelvins). These photons were released once the Universe cooled enough to become transparent gas instead of opaque plasma. It is evidence of a Universe that was so small (and therefore so dense) in the past that its temperature was high enough that it contained only plasma. Plasma is matter where the nuclei of atoms cannot hold on to their electrons so the electrons flow freely around. Big Bang or not, this is evidence that the Universe was once much much smaller and denser and hotter, and that this must have happened several billions of years ago.


- There are "standard candles" - events of specific luminosities in the Universe. For example if a white dwarf orbits a big star and "steals" matter from it, at some point the dwarf's mass will be above the critical limit and it will go off as a type Ia supernova. All these stars are the same mass when they go, they have a specific signature as to the development of their brightness, and they are a good way of measuring cosmic distances, because if an object of a certain luminosity is twice as far away, its brightness will be 1/4. These supernovae also confirm the fact that the Universe is BIG and that these events must therefore have happened millions or billions of years ago.


- We know how stars form. The accretion of hydrogen (and a bit of helium) from the Big Bang under gravity makes the gas "lumpy" and those "lumps" then gather more mass until they are large and massive enough to ignite fusion and start shining. This takes millions of years. If the Sun was formed naturally only 100,000 years ago, it would not be very stable yet. Of course God could have created the Sun as it is as well as create the natural processes that would create stars but not use them for anything else than confuse us...


Maybe he created us all 10 minutes ago with all our memories and signs of the world being older than 10 minutes, but that's not very likely, is it?


If you're going to believe Genesis over all the scientifically confirmed material, you will have to believe:

- that God planted photons coming towards us from the Andromeda Galaxy and all other galaxies in the middle of deep space, to give the illusion of a large Universe. If the Andromeda Galaxy actually exists we do not know because the light from it would only reach us in over 2 million years. So God must have created fake images of galaxies and stars.

- that God even planted things like redshift into these false images to make them appear more realistic, and he also planted extra bursts of photons to simulate supernovae and gamma ray bursts, but all these are fake as the Universe is far too young for light from real such events to have reached us.

- that God created the continents more or less as they are today, but made them fit together and move slowly away, AND created current species with DNA similarities (to simulate that they are related) on both sides, AND created fake fossils from a time that has never been, to further simulate the fact that they were once joined

- that God has buried fake fossils in specific layers of earth and rock to give the illusion of geological periods on Earth, and that he's been very meticulous in his work to avoid any fossil from being in a wrong layer, as that could cause us to suspect something was wrong with our theories of an old Earth

- that God created lots and lots of fake impact craters on every solar system body that has a thin (or no) atmosphere, and that he created indications of big impact craters on Earth, and then simulated how millions or billions of years of weathering and geological processes would make them look today, and made them so to appear ancient when they aren't

- that God even took the time to simulate billions of years worth of solar system action just for the heck of it - for example Neptune's moon Triton which is in a retrograde orbit, has one of the roundest (least elliptic) orbits we know. This is of course consistent with theories of billions of years of tidal forces and gravitational effects that show that retrograde orbits will be extremely circular and will decay until the moon splashes into Neptune. So God created Triton's orbit this way to, again, simulate an ancient solar system, but it's all a divine hoax.

- that God created mountain ranges where they would naturally form over millions of years, and made them grow slowly due to these natural mechanisms, but the mountains themselves were created where they are by God and made to look like mountains would if they formed naturally

If you are ready to believe all those things (or simply just put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalala" to centuries' worth of scientific evidence), then welcome to the wonderful world of ignorance. If ignorance is bliss then good for you.



But you would still be factually completely wrong to assume an Earth that is only tens or hundreds of thousands of years old.

 

[ruffen]

I think God was especially brilliant when he created open star clusters such as the Pleiades and the Hyades. He created blue stars that would have been younger than many other stars (he made them appear only 75-150 million years old), and he created them within clouds of gas from which they would then seem to have formed, but didn't of course, as the Universe is far too young for such things to have happened naturally.

So he created those stars and went to great lengths, even there, deep in space far away, to make them appear relatively young and to make them appear related and make them appear to have formed from the gas that he created around them.

He must be a very clever God with a good sense of detail.

 

[CMike]

Yes, indeed, most religious people today do not take scripture literally but as teachings and allegories etc.

IMO these stories were in fact written to explain the physical world, plain and simple, and meant to be read literally. But I know that people more experienced than myself in reading scripture will disagree on that.

But I'm not sure what moral teachings or values we are supposed to extract from the 6-day creation story, or the story about Babel's tower etc., and if they are meant to have spiritual meaning instead of being a historical description of physical events, why it goes on in such detail on what God did each of the days.

Religion which people? Not religious jews. They do take it literally.

The Torah is about the jews journey until entering Israel.

The reason G-D started with saying he created is the world, is because he was stating that I created the world, I own all the real estate, and I can give any people what I want.

It is not a history book.