Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Thief]

Well a good example would be plants existing before the sun.


Thanks for the question.

I have considered that.....and I rationalize the situation.

God and Moses....one on one.
How do you explain to him.....everything.

And what is likely?....that even if the whole thing makes sense to him.....
what happens to it when he brings it down that mountain and gives it to everyone else?

Continuity?

I doubt it.

 

[gnostic]

I don't see that as a problem for genesis per se, only for Young Earth Creationists who rely on translating the hebrew word 'Yom' to mean a 24 hour period. Yom is translated elsewhere in scripture as day, age, era, season. forever, ago and so on.

Except that Genesis 1 is quite specific with which "yom" in context.

It connect "yom" to DAY, not to weeks, months, years, decades, centuries or millennia, SO DEFINITELY NOT TO THIS "period", "age", "epoch" or "era".

And the context can be found here:

God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

This "And there was evening and there was morning, the [...] day" is repeat in all 5 other verses - 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23 & 1:31.

An "evening" and a "morning" never equal to a period of 1000 years. Judging by all 6 verses, the evening and morning does add up each day.

This is why I don't like Christian interpretation (especially YEC's) to Genesis 1, because they have the tendencies to twist words around to make Genesis fit in with 2 Peter 3:8. It give us the impressions they are liars.

So yes, I have great deal of problems with Young Earth Creationists.

 

[gnostic]

As to truth, there are things that are true and things that are not true - adding 'spiritual' to 'truth' seems to remove from the word 'truth' any useful meaning.

You can say that again.

Apologies.

I don't think you need to apologise.

Spiritual truth seemed to be different to every other definitions to "truth".

The "spiritual" in truth has been twisted, so that lies are now truths, and real truths are now lies.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I have considered that.....and I rationalize the situation.

God and Moses....one on one.
How do you explain to him.....everything.

And what is likely?....that even if the whole thing makes sense to him.....
what happens to it when he brings it down that mountain and gives it to everyone else?

Continuity?

I doubt it.

He could have at least mentioned them in the right order, one would think.

 

[Thief]

He could have at least mentioned them in the right order, one would think.

And maybe He did.

but when dealing with an eighty year old man.....
who climbed to the mountain to meet his Maker.....
who likely had no intention of going back down the mountain....

And then expect him to relay the details to a large crowd....
most of which might not be literate....
and the details do have fantastic images.....


It's a wonder any portion of that meeting was retained at all.

 

[Thief]

Except that Genesis 1 is quite specific with which "yom" in context.

It connect "yom" to DAY, not to weeks, months, years, decades, centuries or millennia, SO DEFINITELY NOT TO THIS "period", "age", "epoch" or "era".

And the context can be found here:



This "And there was evening and there was morning, the [...] day" is repeat in all 5 other verses - 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23 & 1:31.

An "evening" and a "morning" never equal to a period of 1000 years. Judging by all 6 verses, the evening and morning does add up each day.

This is why I don't like Christian interpretation (especially YEC's) to Genesis 1, because they have the tendencies to twist words around to make Genesis fit in with 2 Peter 3:8. It give us the impressions they are liars.

So yes, I have great deal of problems with Young Earth Creationists.

And somewhere else in the scripture it is noted that a day is like unto a thousand years to God.

Not exactly a thousand years.....like unto....a thousand years.....

Ever wonder if the literal version requires reading between the lines?

And yet I can find no manner to discount the Creator as real.
A bit disembodied.....hard to spot.....very quiet....

 

[gnostic]

And somewhere else in the scripture it is noted that a day is like unto a thousand years to God.

But the Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23 & 1:31 make it quite clear that each creative day, comprised of the evening-and-morning, not to a period of 1000 years.

There are no between line in "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.", or for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th day.

Mixing 2 Peter 3:8 verse with Genesis 1, is not reading between the lines: it is complete reinterpretation by wishful-thinking Christians.

Beside that, 2 Peter 3:8, is nothing more than similes, using words such "like" or "as" depending on translations, are symbolic meaning, not literal meaning:

that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

Using "is like" and "are like" clearly should be read as symbolic, not as literal. It (2 Peter 3:8) doesn't say:

...one day is a thousand years...​

...or...

...a thousand years are one day.​

That's the only way 2 Peter 3:8 can be read as literal, by dropping the word "like" from the verse.

And your "is like unto" is not to be taken as literal.

This can't be any more clearer.

 

[CG Didymus]

And maybe He did.

but when dealing with an eighty year old man.....
who climbed to the mountain to meet his Maker.....
who likely had no intention of going back down the mountain....

And then expect him to relay the details to a large crowd....
most of which might not be literate....
and the details do have fantastic images.....


It's a wonder any portion of that meeting was retained at all.

That's a nice tradition, but do you really think all of the Torah was told to Moses on the mountain? The Hebrews knew nothing of their past until God told them? "This guy begat this guy and he begat so and so"? It doesn't sound like the things God would need to say. But it does sound like the kind of things people would say their God said.

 

[look3467]

I'm sorry, but I don't see what point you are trying to make or how your comment relates to the topic.

As to truth, there are things that are true and things that are not true - adding 'spiritual' to 'truth' seems to remove from the word 'truth' any useful meaning.

Apologies.

Precisely my point. There is a spiritual message that cannot be seen for looking at them for face value.
Take for example the story of the battle of Jericho. I mean, march around the walls of the city and on the 7th time around the walls come tumbling down?

What is the spiritual message there? Same as with Jonah and the Whale, the fig tree, the journey through the wilderness and many more. Some are real experiences and I believe others are not.
But because they are not, does in no way take away the message intended.

Let me ask you a question. If God gave mankind a story to write and written in simple language, that even a child could understand, and yet within that story lies a more profound spiritual message, won't it be incumbent on Him to
give understanding?

If you answer Yes, then you may understand what I am talking about.
But if your answer is no, then there is no hope of your understanding its spiritual significance.

The story of the fruit tree "Tree of knowledge of good and evil" was not a real physical tree was it? Yes? No?

If yes, there is no spiritual understanding. If no, then there are two options.
1.Don't believe in it at all and or 2. have spiritual understanding.

The bible is put down consistently since its creation simply because, what is within its pages can not be seen spiritually to gain understanding.

That's my whole point.

Without faith in God, spiritual understandings of His scripture can not be unlocked.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Thief]

But the Genesis 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23 & 1:31 make it quite clear that each creative day, comprised of the evening-and-morning, not to a period of 1000 years.

There are no between line in "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.", or for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th day.

Mixing 2 Peter 3:8 verse with Genesis 1, is not reading between the lines: it is complete reinterpretation by wishful-thinking Christians.

Beside that, 2 Peter 3:8, is nothing more than similes, using words such "like" or "as" depending on translations, are symbolic meaning, not literal meaning:



Using "is like" and "are like" clearly should be read as symbolic, not as literal. It (2 Peter 3:8) doesn't say:

...one day is a thousand years...​

...or...

...a thousand years are one day.​

That's the only way 2 Peter 3:8 can be read as literal, by dropping the word "like" from the verse.

And your "is like unto" is not to be taken as literal.

This can't be any more clearer.

Sure it can!.....look at it from God's point of view....yes you can!

 

[Thief]

That's a nice tradition, but do you really think all of the Torah was told to Moses on the mountain? The Hebrews knew nothing of their past until God told them? "This guy begat this guy and he begat so and so"? It doesn't sound like the things God would need to say. But it does sound like the kind of things people would say their God said.

And I do agree!
What came down from the mountain was NOT the same man that climbed it.
And when delivering what he met.....unto the people....
there was a problem immediately at hand.

As I recall.....3thousand of his followers died.

So.....Is Genesis a neatly composed package of content?
I think not.
But the details work.

Kinda like a puzzle with some of the pieces poorly placed.
It's all there.....but do not read it like it should be spoon fed information.

That would be shallow.

 

[gnostic]

Sure it can!.....look at it from God's point of view....yes you can!

A) There is no God's point of view...

B) because there are most probably, no God...

C) you are basing words of (supposedly) Peter and writing of another book, which are certainly unrelated...

D) who said that Peter even know what's in God's mind (that if God did exist or that Peter is even the apostle Peter)?

E) what make you think 2 Peter 3:8 even remotely referring to Genesis 1?

F) do I need to go on?

 

[technomage]

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.

The answer in two parts:

1. Of course it can't.

2. Those who insist that it can are not interested in evidence or counter-arguments to the contrary.

On this question, creationists are every bit as blind and close-minded as (for instance) Dawkins on the existence of God, or Doherty on the existence of Jesus, or ... well, you get the point.

Ken Ham said it best. When asked what could possibly change his mind, he said "Nothing."

 

[Thief]

A) There is no God's point of view...

B) because there are most probably, no God...

C) you are basing words of (supposedly) Peter and writing of another book, which are certainly unrelated...

D) who said that Peter even know what's in God's mind (that if God did exist or that Peter is even the apostle Peter)?

E) what make you think 2 Peter 3:8 even remotely referring to Genesis 1?

F) do I need to go on?

Really?.....no God's point of view?
So then...God is blind?

I'm not much a follower of any one disciple.
I follow no one.

I was thinking my previous post had notation in Genesis.
I can double check.

 

[look3467]

Using "is like" and "are like" clearly should be read as symbolic, not as literal. It (2 Peter 3:8) doesn't say:
...one day is a thousand years..>>>gnostic

I am going to agree with you on the symbolic reading of it.

One day as a thousand years is in reference to Jesus.

Genesis account of creation was 6 days of work and one day of rest for a total of 7.

That account of creation is detailed as the seven day creation.
The second account of creation only took one day.

So, for Jesus to re-create the lost estate of the first creation must encompass the original 7 day creation account... as one day.

The spiritual significance of that is lost in understanding its spiritual message via a literal interpretation.

There are literal and non literal views of interpretation needing wisdom in understanding.

Together they are like oil and water, different needing understanding between the two.

Blessings, AJ

 

[gnostic]

Really?.....no God's point of view?
So then...God is blind?

No, I don't know if God is blind. I don't even know if he has eyes.

A lot of what you believe is within the book that you called the "Bible", but I doubt very much it tell us what he is thinking.

You are the one with the belief, not me. Do you know what God is thinking, at any given time?

Can you really confine God's mind or point of view in a book?

I thought your god supposed to transcend all.

 

[Thief]

I am going to agree with you on the symbolic reading of it.

One day as a thousand years is in reference to Jesus.

Genesis account of creation was 6 days of work and one day of rest for a total of 7.

That account of creation is detailed as the seven day creation.
The second account of creation only took one day.

So, for Jesus to re-create the lost estate of the first creation must encompass the original 7 day creation account... as one day.

The spiritual significance of that is lost in understanding its spiritual message via a literal interpretation.

There are literal and non literal views of interpretation needing wisdom in understanding.

Together they are like oil and water, different needing understanding between the two.

Blessings, AJ

ok...I like agreement.....

But I'm real strong on that 'God's point of view'.

Who can say what a span of light and darkness mean to God?

A day and a night for God could be eons.

 

[Bunyip]

I have considered that.....and I rationalize the situation.

God and Moses....one on one.
How do you explain to him.....everything.

And what is likely?....that even if the whole thing makes sense to him.....
what happens to it when he brings it down that mountain and gives it to everyone else?

Continuity?

I doubt it.

I mean no offence, I'm afraid I found that response illegible.

 

[Bunyip]

Except that Genesis 1 is quite specific with which "yom" in context.

It connect "yom" to DAY, not to weeks, months, years, decades, centuries or millennia, SO DEFINITELY NOT TO THIS "period", "age", "epoch" or "era".

And the context can be found here:



This "And there was evening and there was morning, the [...] day" is repeat in all 5 other verses - 1:8, 1:13, 1:19, 1:23 & 1:31.

An "evening" and a "morning" never equal to a period of 1000 years. Judging by all 6 verses, the evening and morning does add up each day.

This is why I don't like Christian interpretation (especially YEC's) to Genesis 1, because they have the tendencies to twist words around to make Genesis fit in with 2 Peter 3:8. It give us the impressions they are liars.

So yes, I have great deal of problems with Young Earth Creationists.

Sorry, but there is no Hebrew word for morning or evening either though, so that doesn't work. Ereb and boqer can also be translated as end and beginning, dark and light, cold and warm.

 

[outhouse]

Sorry, but there is no Hebrew word for morning or evening either though, so that doesn't work. Ereb and boqer can also be translated as end and beginning, dark and light, cold and warm.

While you have a point.

A literal interpretation of English or Hebrew, still does not hold up.

To me it ruins the beauty of these epic pieces taking them out of context.