Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[CMike]

So is it possible that science will discover that the Earth was flat after all in 1,000 years and the whole spherical Earth revolving around the Sun in a galaxy in a universe shared with hundreds of billions of galaxies were all just wrong?

Do we know what science will correct 100 or 1000 years from now?

Do you know?

How does that work with a "literal" understanding? Is the word literally not the word "day" there? If it means 1,000 years, isn't that using the word in a figurative way rather than literal? Besides, even 1,000 years for a day isn't enough to match the epochs nature is showing us. It would rather be "day" as in millions and billions of years.

It means there are different interpretations that a day during that time may not have been 24 hours.

Because that's how they work. If they didn't need rain or sun, then their genetic makeup and basic design must've been different which means that God had to create them anew and modify their physical design after there was rain. It would require macro-evolution guided by God. So then macro-evolution is acceptable after all as a tool in God's hands?

You are assuming that G-D can't do anything and that he has to follow how plants worked at that time.

 

[metis]

If anybody could have survived why not one of the nephilim? Like on an iceberg or driftwood? Or hanging on to the back of the ark?

Nah, but I think my ancestor tried to water-ski behind it. However, the smell...

 

[Ouroboros]

Do we know what science will correct 100 or 1000 years from now?

Do you know?

No. But I'm quite certain that the science for the age of Earth and that it's a sphere in orbit around the Sun is extremely solid.

Most modifications of science refines it and makes it more accurate, not that established truths suddenly are obsolete and untrue.

Besides, your argument goes both ways. Do you know what science will have disproved in your religion in 100 years? Perhaps science will finally prove your God to be non-existent? Do you know?

It means there are different interpretations that a day during that time may not have been 24 hours.

The word "literal" means that you can take a word for exactly what it means without having to do a series of arbitrary or subjective interpretations. Literal, is close to formal. Like math. Literal means that if you read a word "day", then it means day and not peanut butter sandwich.

Here's two definitions of the word "literal":

taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory.
"dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread"
antonyms: figurative
informal
absolute (used to emphasize that a strong expression is deliberately chosen to convey one's feelings).
"fifteen years of literal hell"
2.
(of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text.

In other words, a literal understanding of Genesis is when you don't interpret it but use the words in the exact definition, i.e. in the denotation of each word. Any figure of speech, simile, analogous use, etc are not literal.

When you're using the word "day" as meaning "time period that is not a day," you're essentially using it in a connotative way, not denotative or literal. (Connotation is to take a words meaning beyond the literal/denotative way and apply wider ideas to it, like "day" meaning "epoch" instead of just "day".)

You are assuming that G-D can't do anything and that he has to follow how plants worked at that time.

God can use evolution. It's you who is assuming that a literal understanding of genesis is necessary to understand God. God can do anything, therefore he could have created the world in a completely different way than what someone called Moses dreamt about 2,500 years ago. Nature speaks for itself. If there's a God who created Nature as Nature is, then Nature speaks to how God created Nature. To deny Nature's own testimony in favor of an ancient story is to deny reality and God's power.

 

[CG Didymus]

Nah, but I think my ancestor tried to water-ski behind it. However, the smell...

Yes, don't swim downstream from the ark. Probably don't breathe downwind from the ark either.

 

[Ouroboros]

If anybody could have survived why not one of the nephilim? Like on an iceberg or driftwood? Or hanging on to the back of the ark?

The nephilim did survive according to the bible, so the whole flood was a huge waste of effort.

Num 13
"So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, "The land through which we had gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

 

[greentwiga]

Or it's two different stories?

Don't you mean two conflicting stories? I am proposing that it is two stories that don't conflict. Why insist on an interpretation that makes them conflict when there is a reasonable one that does not. Are you looking for a reason to reject the Bible?

 

[greentwiga]

Yes, don't swim downstream from the ark. Probably don't breathe downwind from the ark either.

Considering that the ark could only run before the wind, water-skiing behind it would have the freshest air. That is why Noah always stood in the back to steer and sent his sons up front to adjust the sails.

 

[CG Didymus]

... Are you looking for a reason to reject the Bible?

I am, but only the parts I don't agree with.

 

[Thief]

I am, but only the parts I don't agree with.

So...you are you're own standard?
Good for you.

 

[greentwiga]

I am, but only the parts I don't agree with.

I just ask that you be willing to reject the interpretation and think for yourself. Many traditional interpretations done over 100 years ago are wrong. Right now, I am correlating Mursili's Eclipse, the Venus tablets of Ammisiduqa, the Helical rising of Sothis, C14 dating of the Pharoahs, and the eruption of Santorini with Biblical history from Joseph to Joshua. It fits well. It just doesn't fit traditional interpretations.

 

[CG Didymus]

So...you are you're own standard?
Good for you.

Who's standard should I use? Yours? Which is what? Do believe in a literal 6 day creation, a world-wide flood, that "sons of God" had sex with the daughters of men and made giants? That it didn't rain on the Earth until Noah's day? That God forgot to make a suitable mate for Adam? That one day everybody spoke the same language than in a moment, they all forgot it? And, somehow, started speaking another language? And all this happens in a few chapters? Sounds like a quick summary. Are you sure nothing important was left out? Probably not, you no doubt feel the ending is what's important, and a few minor details left out at the beginning is insignificant. But even Christians don't agree with each other on how much of the beginning and end is literal. Then add Jews and the whole Christian"addition" to the story becomes a journey into make believe. How am I to judge that? Who's standard do I use there?

 

[Thief]

Who's standard should I use? Yours? Which is what? Do believe in a literal 6 day creation, a world-wide flood, that "sons of God" had sex with the daughters of men and made giants? That it didn't rain on the Earth until Noah's day? That God forgot to make a suitable mate for Adam? That one day everybody spoke the same language than in a moment, they all forgot it? And, somehow, started speaking another language? And all this happens in a few chapters? Sounds like a quick summary. Are you sure nothing important was left out? Probably not, you no doubt feel the ending is what's important, and a few minor details left out at the beginning is insignificant. But even Christians don't agree with each other on how much of the beginning and end is literal. Then add Jews and the whole Christian"addition" to the story becomes a journey into make believe. How am I to judge that? Who's standard do I use there?

So we might not be too different.
I think for myself.
I have no dogmatic belief....no following and I follow no one.
(though the Carpenter is my Inspiration)

I can rationalize many of the beliefs most hold without 'proof'.
So I do hold some of the long standing notions firmly so.

The rest of the scripture I take as useful perspective.
I do have intention of leaving this life....(as if I might be in control...ha ha )

It is simply a suspicion of serious consideration....I might continue.
Scripture must be sorted through and no two people have the same results.

 

[CG Didymus]

The nephilim did survive according to the bible, so the whole flood was a huge waste of effort.

Num 13
"So they gave out to the sons of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, "The land through which we had gone, in spying it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great size. There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight."

So what was the purpose of the flood? Kill the giants? Unsuccessful. Irradicate evil? No, didn't work. So what was God thinking he would accomplish?

 

[psychoslice]

So what was the purpose of the flood? Kill the giants? Unsuccessful. Irradicate evil? No, didn't work. So what was God thinking he would accomplish?

That is so true, if there was a god making all of these decisions, he would have to be an idiot.

 

[Ouroboros]

So what was the purpose of the flood? Kill the giants? Unsuccessful. Irradicate evil? No, didn't work. So what was God thinking he would accomplish?

God needed a place to flush out some dirty water from the heavenly palace. So he inveted the excuse that humans were evil. Bbath tub water essentially.

 

[Ouroboros]

That is so true, if there was a god making all of these decisions, he would have to be an idiot.

Yes, God of the Bible is an idiot. Making very rash and unefficient decisions. And the same goes for the "perfect" design.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well if you take Genesis Literally, than we you also have to accept that Man was formed in the actual image of Gods (hence the usage of US), and not a spiritual one.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well if you take Genesis Literally, than we you also have to accept that Man was formed in the actual image of Gods (hence the usage of US), and not a spiritual one.

Which means God must be a biological creature with DNA, liver, heart, digestive tract, etc. I'm having a hard time thinking of an all powerful God who can create the whole Universe would be something tiny like a human.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Which means God must be a biological creature with DNA, liver, heart, digestive tract, etc. I'm having a hard time thinking of an all powerful God who can create the whole Universe would be something tiny like a human.

Well given that those things weren't really known back then (I mean ancient Egyptians believed the brain to be fairly useless and the heart that mattered). I would think that in image is the physical form and way of looking. Meaning God looks like a human (doesn't mean God is human).

It helps that there weren't Gorillas and Chimpanzees in the area for them to readily identify and be like (wait...they look...kinda like us?).

 

[Ouroboros]

Well given that those things weren't really known back then (I mean ancient Egyptians believed the brain to be fairly useless and the heart that mattered). I would think that in image is the physical form and way of looking. Meaning God looks like a human (doesn't mean God is human).

It helps that there weren't Gorillas and Chimpanzees in the area for them to readily identify and be like (wait...they look...kinda like us?).

Good idea for a sci-fi movie. God is coming back, but he's an ape. Looking around at us and asks "What the hell happened to you?"