Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[james2ko]

Second. If I am reading Genesis properly and in the order of each day, there were no atmosphere or even the sky (which KJV had translated to the firmament) on the first day. The earth's atmosphere doesn't appear until the 2nd day. So what is this atmosphere are you talking about?

Fifth grade science tells us "atmospheric" pressure is needed in order for liquid water to exist. Basic logic dictates in order to have atmospheric pressure, you need an "atmosphere". Since the earth was surrounded by liquid water prior to day one, we can conclude an atmosphere, in some form, was in place.

First, sources, please?

Unfortunately, I no longer have my fifth grade science text book

 

[james2ko]

So, neither Big bang, nor Evolution have any truth in them? Then what about all these scientific evidence?

How God decided to create the universe is not as important to me as "why". As far as evolution, I have yet to see a positively identified transitional human life form.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

How God decided to create the universe is not as important to me as "why". As far as evolution, I have yet to see a positively identified transitional human life form.

What do you mean by a identifiable transitional human life form?

 

[james2ko]

What do you mean by a identifiable transitional human life form?

I don't know. I've never seen one.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I don't know. I've never seen one.

lol.

But then you're asking for something that might not actually be that.

If you can define what that term means you can then see if science has actually found that. Or if your definition is different than what is meant by evolution. In which case you would have to decide which one of you is potentially correct.

 

[james2ko]

lol.

But then you're asking for something that might not actually be that.

If you can define what that term means you can then see if science has actually found that. Or if your definition is different than what is meant by evolution. In which case you would have to decide which one of you is potentially correct.

How about this? I'll change my view about evolution once I'm convinced by science one exists. BTW, I've seen them all so far and not one is even remotely convincing. Topic for another thread, though.

 

[Windwalker]

That isn't what I was getting at. What the early Christians meant by "literal" and what Christian fundamentalists today mean by "literal" are two different things.

The early Christians took "literal" to mean THAT the story actually happened--in other words, yes, God did in fact create the heavens and the earth. However, they did NOT believe that the creation story is an exact description of what happened, but is merely explained in ways that humans can understand. And the Fathers do point out things such as light being created before the sun and stars as indicating that the story is not a true description of how God made the world, but it is told in such a way to teach us. Is Genesis an allegory? No, not at all. It's just explained very simply in a manner that people back then could understand, with the additional factor of teaching us about God.

tl;dr, yes, Genesis is literally true. Just not "literally" as fundies define the word.

I think this just confuses things. To say a story is literally true indicates it is factual in its details. When someone says the story of Genesis is true, it can be true in what it indicates allegorically, or mythologically, without be literally true in factual details. An allegory does not mean there is no truth in it! The truth is in the symbols.

This is the problem in fact with literalists, with Creationists. They are incapable of understanding symbols. Symbols are either literally true, or literally false (in which case they cease to be symbols and rather become mere signs). You are either a "True Believer", or you become an Atheist. The mindset cannot think in allegorical ways, in "as-if" ways, and therefore something like a literal reading of Genesis becomes "foundational" to their beliefs. They cannot see the symbols can be re-positioned on any stage in any backdrop of characters. It must be the one stage and cast of characters in the play they're familiar with, otherwise the entire meaning is lost. They see only the actors, not who or what they symbolize.

Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

How about this? I'll change my view about evolution once I'm convinced by science one exists. BTW, I've seen them all so far and not one is even remotely convincing. Topic for another thread, though.

The lol was actually cause I found your response funny, not to mock you.

I'm curious about what your definition of it is. Simply because you must have one for science to not have fulfilled it right?

 

[james2ko]

The lol was actually cause I found your response funny, not to mock you.

I'm curious about what your definition of it is. Simply because you must have one for science to not have fulfilled it right?

Hey, you are the second person ever to tell me you find my corny jokes funny. The first is my wife.

But to be "Frank" (pun fully intended ), any human-like transitional life forms that have been found would be early primordial creations by God.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hey, you are the second person ever to tell me you find my corny jokes funny. The first is my wife.

But to be "Frank" (pun fully intended ), any human-like transitional life forms that have been found would be early primordial creations by God.

You seem to be edging towards a theistic view of evolution

 

[james2ko]

In places it really sounds like man talking about God. But then who did write Genesis? Did God dictate it to Moses? If so, didn't the Hebrews write down any of their own history? Or at least have some oral legends and traditions that they had? Or, did God have to tell them where they came from? That there was a flood and a Tower when all the languages got confused? They didn't know or remember any of this until God told them? But then why is the story so short? God only gave them the highlights? Why did it only take a few pages to cover from the very, very beginning all the way to Noah? In fact, how much time does Genesis cover? A couple thousand years? One chapter for a couple of thousand years? Are you sure God didn't forget some important parts of man's early history?

If He can, not only count, but remember the name of 300 sextillion (that's 300 followed by 21zeros) stars (Psa 147:4) , I highly doubt He forgets anything. He may intentionally leave something out, but forget?

Ooh, and another problem, since Christians need the devil/satan to fall, when did that happen? I've heard some people say it was in day one. If that's so, then all these freshly made "messengers" of God rebelled in a matter of only a few hours after being created?

Satan's rebellion may have taken place after Gen 1:1 when the earth was created to be inhabited (Isa 45:18). I suspect it was initially created for the angels (Job 38:7; Jud 1:6) and perhaps other life forms under the angel's care. But in Gen 1:2, we find the earth in an uninhabitable state. Opposite of the way Isa 45:18 suggests it was initially created. Biblical and scientific evidence suggests a passage of time between Gen 1:1 and vs 2 of perhaps billions of years. Enough time for angels to rebel and as a consequence their habitation, along with its life forms, were destroyed. God began the renovation process in Gen 1:3.

And, then God didn't confine all of them but left some of them to raise havoc with the yet to be created humans? What's going on with that?

He confined them all. They are on an annoying "spiritual" leash awaiting their judgment (Jud 1:6) . In the meantime, God uses them as unwitting servants to carry out His will throughout the earth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Biblical and scientific evidence suggests a passage of time between Gen 1:1 and vs 2 of perhaps billions of years.

What biblical evidence?

 

[james2ko]

You seem to be edging towards a theistic view of evolution

Theistic evolution IMO is an oxymoron. God creates and destroys. There is no "evolving" of His created life forms.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I find that just the opposite is true. Specifically, to believe that one can understand and appreciate a Narrative without some appreciation of the cultures that evolved and sustained it strikes me as being naive in the extreme.

As I understand it the two creation stories pre-date Judaism and were passed down orally and only took their final forms when the Israel and Judah tradition was eventually put into written form... neither took precedence over the other but both were incorporated.
I know nothing of the culture that developed those first stories, nor do I suspect does any one else.

Very little indeed is known about the cultures of any peoples that did not leave written evidence of it. which includes those involved in the creation stories.

There is little doubt that those and other myths influenced Jewish culture ... not the other way round.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Theistic evolution IMO is an oxymoron. God creates and destroys. There is no "evolving" of His created life forms.

When and where did he say so..............

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

God creates and destroys. There is no "evolving" of His created life forms.

Certainly not in one of them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is little doubt that those and other myths influenced Jewish culture ... not the other way round.

I suggest you read Sarna's commentary on Genesis.

 

[james2ko]

What biblical evidence?

It's a collection of passages and syntax coupled with science and simple logic. Read point 2 in post 71 for starters.

 

[Thief]

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.

You're focused on the details.
Stand back and consider.
Man as a species ...Day Six.

THEN something happened to alter the body and spirit of Man.

Chapter Two chalks that up to a manipulation....by God.

The Creator not allowed to 'tweak' His creation?

 

[james2ko]

When and where did he say so..............

In the same place it states Genesis was a myth.