Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[look3467]

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.

Imop, Gods point of view can be understood via Jesus's revelation of Him in His actions.
Jesus said what He saw the After do, that's what Jesus did.
Jesus the express image of who the Father is, expressed in human form.

So we do know what God thinks via Jesus. So is Jesus, so is the Father.
Jesus told Peter, "only the Father could have revealed to Peter who Jesus was, giving credence to Devine revelation.

In keeping with my point, understanding is spiritually discern ed.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Bunyip]

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.

I agree.

 

[CG Didymus]

Salvation is a universal spiritual truth

It is? Then how come I never heard of it until I was 25? I was raised Catholic and never, ever heard of being born again or personal salvation. All I heard was that if I don't go to Church it's a mortal sin. If I die with a mortal sin on my soul I'd go to hell. If I go to confession and do penance, then all is well again. If I die with venial sins on my soul then it's doing easy time in purgatory for a while and then going to heaven, not too bad. Then, as a hippie, I was taught new age type of thoughts, we could become like Christ. We could become one with God. I liked that. It was a journey. I could take as many detours as I wanted.

Then the Christians found me. "Do you know Jesus?" "Know him? Someday I'll be the same as him." "No, no, admit you are a hopelessly lost sinner and he will save you. Just confess that you are a no good, worthless person and that you need Jesus and his blood to cleanse you." I said, "Sure, that's easy. Is there anything else I need to do?" "No, you are now saved. You are a child of God. Your name is written in the lamb's book of life." "Cool, and there's nothing else?" "Well just a few minor details. Go and sin no more even though you are going to sin some more and read and study the Bible, but mainly the NT. And remember, every word in there is the literal absolute truth."

A few months go by, Bible studies, Christian rock concerts, Pentecostal Christians telling me that I hadn't received the "whole" truth yet until I got baptized by the Spirit, then I start asking questions: "Seriously, I got to believe Genesis to Revelation as the literal truth?" Sorry, I'd love to believe and hang out with all you Christians, but it don't make sense. Metaphorically? Fine. But if you say it has to be literal then I'm out of hear." These are some of the things I've heard: It didn't rain until the time of Noah. And, because of that, there were no rainbows until then. Dinosaurs were on the ark and only died out recently. Plants only had to survive one day without the sun. Noah only had to bring "kinds" of animals with him. So a wolf covered it for all K-9 types of creatures. Supposedly, from Ken Ham's TV show. Wolves have all the genes necessary for other animals like dogs and coyotes to evolve, or more like, de-evolve from the wolf. Oh, and a new question, Why did Adam have nipples? Biologically aren't men and women almost the same? Just a few chromosomes and a little hormonal action apart? Oh, and if the "kinds" thing is right. Would that mean that Noah only had to take a "kind" of primate on the ark? Like maybe himself? And all the apes and monkeys de-evolved from him?

 

[Thief]

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.

Well...if you're not willing to accept the text...translated or not....
and you don't see any history in it.....

Then your end of the discussion is dead.....right?

 

[Bunyip]

Well...if you're not willing to accept the text...translated or not....
and you don't see any history in it.....

Then your end of the discussion is dead.....right?

Why would you say that? Surely the fact that people have different positions is what this site is all about - the idea that genesis is not a history is perfectly reasonable, are you saying that you refuse to engage unless your opponant agrees with you to start with?

 

[Thief]

Why would you say that? Surely the fact that people have different positions is what this site is all about - the idea that genesis is not a history is perfectly reasonable, are you saying that you refuse to engage unless your opponant agrees with you to start with?

Not at all.....by all means.....continue.

It serves as a platform for my next rebuttal.

 

[Thief]

Imop, Gods point of view can be understood via Jesus's revelation of Him in His actions.
Jesus said what He saw the After do, that's what Jesus did.
Jesus the express image of who the Father is, expressed in human form.

So we do know what God thinks via Jesus. So is Jesus, so is the Father.
Jesus told Peter, "only the Father could have revealed to Peter who Jesus was, giving credence to Devine revelation.

In keeping with my point, understanding is spiritually discern ed.

Blessings, AJ

Ok....and I wouldn't want to contradict my Inspiration....

If only the Father could have opened Peter's perspective....
then the rest of us are calling upon the Carpenter.....
when we should be turning our eyes directly to heaven!

This we could agree upon.

 

[outhouse]

Well...if you're not willing to accept the text...translated or not....
and you don't see any history in it.....

Then your end of the discussion is dead.....right?

Society, colleges, professors, historians, scholars all agree with me as well as the Jewish religion to whom the books belong too.

What is your REAL point here?

 

[gnostic]

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.

But that may be the case, bunyip, but from the little that I understand about the Hebrew language, context is found in the whole sentence or paragraph, and not just on the single word.

I know that if you just use a single Hebrew word, that single word may have multiple meanings, which is why the whole line, verse, sentence, or paragraph must be read together.

You have to read all 3 verses of the 1st day (Genesis 1:3-5), to understand what it is saying:

3 וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י אֹ֑ור וַֽיְהִי־אֹֽור׃

4 וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָאֹ֖ור כִּי־טֹ֑וב וַיַּבְדֵּ֣ל אֱלֹהִ֔ים בֵּ֥ין הָאֹ֖ור וּבֵ֥ין הַחֹֽשֶׁךְ׃

5 וַיִּקְרָ֨א אֱלֹהִ֤ים ׀ לָאֹור֙ יֹ֔ום וְלַחֹ֖שֶׁךְ קָ֣רָא לָ֑יְלָה וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר יֹ֥ום אֶחָֽד׃

1:3 waYomer élohiym y'hiy ôr way'hiy-ôr

1:4 waYar' élohiym et-häôr Kiy-†ôv waYav'Dël élohiym Bëyn häôr ûvëyn hachoshekh'

1:5 waYiq'rä élohiym läôr yôm w'lachoshekh' qärä läy'läh way'hiy-erev way'hiy-voqer yôm echäd f

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

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

When you read them all particular verses 4 and 5 together, you will understand why god had separate light and darkness, dividing the complete day into day and night (Genesis 1:4), and again into morning and evening (1:5), and that is the beginning of the 1st day.

None of the above indicate it will be a period of 1000 years. If it did, wouldn't it say "1000 years" somewhere?

If we are to believe 2 Peter 3:8, would it say אֶ֪לֶף שָׁנִ֡ים or elef shäniym - "a thousand years"?

It doesn't make sentence to go on about dividing light from darkness, day from night, in verse 1:4, and then speak of "age" or "period" of 1000 years, in verse 1:5.

Do you agree that the context of any given Hebrew word, must be read and understood with other words in that sentence or verse?

 

[Bunyip]

Not at all.....by all means.....continue.

It serves as a platform for my next rebuttal.

Your previous 'rebuttals' were non sequiturs, perhaps before moving on to the next, you could respond to the previous point directly - rather than posting another response that does not relate to it?

You asked for an example where genesis is clearly wrong, I gave the example of plants coming before the sun.

You gave two responses, but neither engaged with that point.

 

[Bunyip]

But that may be the case, bunyip, but from the little that I understand about the Hebrew language, context is found in the whole sentence or paragraph, and not just on the single word.

I know that if you just use a single Hebrew word, that single word may have multiple meanings, which is why the whole line, verse, sentence, or paragraph must be read together.

You have to read all 3 verses of the 1st day (Genesis 1:3-5), to understand what it is saying:





When you read them all particular verses 4 and 5 together, you will understand why god had separate light and darkness, dividing the complete day into day and night (Genesis 1:4), and again into morning and evening (1:5), and that is the beginning of the 1st day.

None of the above indicate it will be a period of 1000 years. If it did, wouldn't it say "1000 years" somewhere?

If we are to believe 2 Peter 3:8, would it say אֶ֪לֶף שָׁנִ֡ים or elef shäniym - "a thousand years"?

It doesn't make sentence to go on about dividing light from darkness, day from night, in verse 1:4, and then speak of "age" or "period" of 1000 years, in verse 1:5.

Do you agree that the context of any given Hebrew word, must be read and understood with other words in that sentence or verse?

Certainly I agree that you must examine the context to understand the meaning. I do not accept that you can conclusively establish that 'yom' in this context refers to a 24 hr period. In fact, it can not have done. A day is the period between sunrises, before the earth and the sun existed there was no 24 hr day. And of course the fact that the term '1000 years' is not used is for the same reason - before the earth and sun, there was no year.

 

[outhouse]

Certainly I agree that you must examine the context to understand the meaning. I do not accept that you can conclusively establish that 'yom' in this context refers to a 24 hr period. In fact, it can not have done. A day is the period between sunrises, before the earth and the sun existed there was no 24 hr day. And of course the fact that the term '1000 years' is not used is for the same reason - before the earth and sun, there was no year.

What would Israelites know, of the origin of the sun and earth?


They knew nothing of the earths rotation speed in the past.


ALL they knew was that a day was a 24 hour day, and they make that very clear with day and night cycles.

 

[Bunyip]

What would Israelites know, of the origin of the sun and earth?


They knew nothing of the earths rotation speed in the past.


ALL they knew was that a day was a 24 hour day, and they make that very clear with day and night cycles.

If they knew that, unfortunately they had no word for it. There is no word for 'day', for 'evening' or for 'morning'.

So they have not made it clear at all.

For example; 'On the evening of the third day', could as accurately been translated as 'In the darkness of the third eon'.

As you say, the Israelites knew nothing of the orbit of the earth and it's rotation - and Genesis reflects that ignorance.

 

[outhouse]

.

So they have not made it clear at all.

.

I know you have a great take on all this, but they did make it pretty clear and that is why the OT has been translated that way.


It also matches much of other text where they state and mean a single day, not other imagined lengths of time.


Most of the time creationist trying to rationalize the mythology use this excuse, but they ignore other verses that help place it into context.

I do not endorse this site in any way, but it makes good sense for this exercise.

A Day Is A Day

If a day means more than 24-hour period, then how are we to interpret the following verses, as well as scores of others. “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath. . . . in it thou shalt not work... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth… and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:9-11).

Genesis 1:16 (“And God made two great lights: The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night”) states the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night. This obviously is referring to time as we know it, time with days that are 24 hours long with daylight ruling half of each.


If a day is an era, then much of the Old Testament becomes chaotic. For example, in each of the following verses the same Hebrew word “yom” is employed: “And the flood was forty days upon the earth” (Genesis 7: 1 7), “And he [Moses] was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights” (Exodus 34:28), and “Thus I fell down before the Lord forty days and forty nights...” (Deuteronomy 9:25). If “yom” means era instead of a 24-hour period, Moses was “there with the Lord” for a VERY long time.


Adam was made on the sixth day (Genesis 1:26-31) which was supposedly thousand of years long. This was followed by the 7th day which was also thousands of years long. Following the 7th day, Adam fell into sin and was expelled from the Garden. This would mean Adam lived thousands of years, which is false, since he died at age 930 (Genesis 5:5).

enesis 1:5 surely spoke of literal day and literal night, and the inference from the statement, “And the evening and the morning were the first day,” is that it was a literal day of evening and morning, 24-hours. There is no Biblical evidence that the days of this chapter were longer periods.

 

[Bunyip]

I know you have a great take on all this, but they did make it pretty clear and that is why the OT has been translated that way.


It also matches much of other text where they state and mean a single day, not other imagined lengths of time.


Most of the time creationist trying to rationalize the mythology use this excuse, but they ignore other verses that help place it into context.

I do not endorse this site in any way, but it makes good sense for this exercise.

A Day Is A Day

If a day means more than 24-hour period, then how are we to interpret the following verses, as well as scores of others. “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath. . . . in it thou shalt not work... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth… and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:9-11).

Genesis 1:16 (“And God made two great lights: The greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night&#8221 states the sun rules the day and the moon rules the night. This obviously is referring to time as we know it, time with days that are 24 hours long with daylight ruling half of each.


If a day is an era, then much of the Old Testament becomes chaotic. For example, in each of the following verses the same Hebrew word “yom” is employed: “And the flood was forty days upon the earth” (Genesis 7: 1 7), “And he [Moses] was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights” (Exodus 34:28), and “Thus I fell down before the Lord forty days and forty nights...” (Deuteronomy 9:25). If “yom” means era instead of a 24-hour period, Moses was “there with the Lord” for a VERY long time.


Adam was made on the sixth day (Genesis 1:26-31) which was supposedly thousand of years long. This was followed by the 7th day which was also thousands of years long. Following the 7th day, Adam fell into sin and was expelled from the Garden. This would mean Adam lived thousands of years, which is false, since he died at age 930 (Genesis 5:5).

enesis 1:5 surely spoke of literal day and literal night, and the inference from the statement, “And the evening and the morning were the first day,” is that it was a literal day of evening and morning, 24-hours. There is no Biblical evidence that the days of this chapter were longer periods.

Using Moses as an example is not a good idea, there is no extra-biblical evidence that he ever existed and so how long he was 'there with the lord' is evidence of nothing. You are correct in saying that a day means a 24 hr period, the point is that 'yom' does not mean day. In fact 'yom' is translated from other similar contexts to mean a variety of different time periods.

As to Adam living 930 years or 930 thousand years, both are equally implausible. As I said 'yom' is translated in the OT to mean many different things, often in very similar contexts to genesis - from day, year, season and so on to forever and ago.

The reality is that the Old Testament is already chaotic, a 930 year old man for example. I understand that you think attributing 'yom' to mean 'day' makes the OT less chaotic, but the trade off is that you then render it to be utterly absurd - making a planet in a day may make the text more internally cohesive, but it does make it less cohesive with reality. All plant life emerging in a day is no more or less absurd than Adam living for 930 thousand years. However you translate 'yom' a literal interpretation remains impossible to reconcile with reality.

 

[gnostic]

Certainly I agree that you must examine the context to understand the meaning. I do not accept that you can conclusively establish that 'yom' in this context refers to a 24 hr period. In fact, it can not have done. A day is the period between sunrises, before the earth and the sun existed there was no 24 hr day. And of course the fact that the term '1000 years' is not used is for the same reason - before the earth and sun, there was no year.

With regards to Genesis 1, I don't think I have ever referred to day being "24-hour" in this thread or similar ones to this thread. Not once did I ever say 24-hour to you, thief or sincerly in this thread.

I have only been referring to one day being a cycle of one-evening-and-one-morning only, or cycle of daylight and night, but not once as 24-hour day.

Where did I ever say "24-hour"?

 

[Bunyip]

With regards to Genesis 1, I don't think I have ever referred to day being "24-hour" in this thread or similar ones to this thread. Not once did I ever say 24-hour to you, thief or sincerly in this thread.

I have only been referring to one day being a cycle of one-evening-and-one-morning only, or cycle of daylight and night, but not once as 24-hour day.

Where did I ever say "24-hour"?

I'm not sure what you are taking issue with, I don't believe that I have said you did.

Given that 'yom' does not necessarily mean day anyway - are you saying that there is a difference between a 'day and night cycle' and a 24 hr period? And if so, what is it?

 

[look3467]

Ok....and I wouldn't want to contradict my Inspiration....

If only the Father could have opened Peter's perspective....
then the rest of us are calling upon the Carpenter.....
when we should be turning our eyes directly to heaven!

This we could agree upon.

If you understood who Jesus was you would have understood who the Father was.
A if you did, guess who revealed it unto you? Pointing to Jesus as the Father's salvation of your soul.

Couldn't get no simpler than that.
"The Lord is my shepard I shall not want.
blessings, AJ

 

[Thief]

Society, colleges, professors, historians, scholars all agree with me as well as the Jewish religion to whom the books belong too.

What is your REAL point here?

You actually believe all of the people you just listed are on your side?
Really?

 

[Thief]

Your previous 'rebuttals' were non sequiturs, perhaps before moving on to the next, you could respond to the previous point directly - rather than posting another response that does not relate to it?

You asked for an example where genesis is clearly wrong, I gave the example of plants coming before the sun.

You gave two responses, but neither engaged with that point.

With two responses dealt....and you didn't get the 'point'?

Try again....all of you....
Read the Genesis as if you are God.....talking to Moses.
He's an old man who came looking for You.....he came to meet his Maker.....
He came to die.

And you're going to send him back down the mountain with WHAT?
A history lesson for the Jews?
A scientific explanation for the creation of Man?
A photo?....a fingerprint?.....an equation?......
A detailed list of how to make stars?

What do you people think you are asking about?
What do you think you are looking for?

It's a lot easier than what you are doing at this moment.
It's really quite simple.