Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Thief]

Thank you. Yes, it ruins the beauty of it. I often say the surest way to destroy God is to make God a matter of scientific investigation, like reducing God to a Yeti or something we can dissect on on an operating table in a laboratory. It makes God this object of study, rather than the Subject of our being.

A pox upon those who lack faith and need God to be validated by science.

I believe in God BECAUSE of science.
Just saying.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What does הָיְתָה mean? Hint: it is 3rd person singular feminine past tense.

I realize that. My point was not to allow scholars to do all the thinking for us.

It is clear that you do not allow yourself to be informed by scholarship. Still, you did not answer the question. Nor have you explained your basis for rejecting the consensus translation.

 

[CG Didymus]

...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.

How do you deal with the "literal" six 24 hour day Christians and the young earther's? Or, do you still believe the 6000 or so years of humans on the Earth with a world-wide flood about 4000 years ago?

 

[Windwalker]

I believe in God BECAUSE of science.
Just saying.

I doubt that. Unless of course that belief in God is nothing more than conceptual and intellectual.

 

[james2ko]

How do you deal with the "literal" six 24 hour day Christians and the young earther's?

I have yet to be challenged by a young earther. I do embrace the literal 24 hr rendering but.....

Or, do you still believe the 6000 or so years of humans on the Earth with a world-wide flood about 4000 years ago?

the 6,000 yr count, as well as the 6 day renovation process, start from Gen 1:3-

 

[james2ko]

It is clear that you do not allow yourself to be informed by scholarship. Still, you did not answer the questionWhat does הָיְתָה mean? Hint: it is 3rd person singular feminine past tense.

You and I know it's the conjugated past tense of the verb "to be". But a new or uninformed bible student may be confused or misled by seeing one word in the sacred text [was] only to find it completely missing and defined by another phrase [to become] in a reference source. The difference between "was" and "had become" is huge in this verse. The former denotes a state of continuity with no indication of a change, the latter implies a change from a former state.

Nor have you explained your basis for rejecting the consensus translation.

My we have a short memory --My reply from post 93:

"You don't need any scholars to figure out it was a mis-translation. I believe it has been mistranslated based on its usage in other OT passages; its contradiction with Isa 45:18; the syntax in vs 1 and 2 and the overwhelming scientific evidence. Strong's and BDB confirms hayah can also be translated become."

 

[Dinner123]

Gen 1:1 coupled with Isa 45:18 suggests the earth was initially created to be inhabited and was not created in the empty state we find it in Gen 1:2. That creates a disconnect your theory ignores. Psa 104:30 indicates the narrative starting in vs 3 describes a renovation of a damaged planet --not an ex-nihilo creation.

Isa 45:18 can be referring to the land as well. The land was created to be inhabited. We normally don't live in the sea. That's not really a disconnect.

Good point about Psalm 104:30 I never considered that in this context. I'll think that one over. I'm open minded about the pre-adamic earth theory. Although I wasn't referring to an ex-nihilo creation. By what I was saying before; the actual time when the planet was made is up in the air; so to speak. It could be day one or long before. And I could be wrong. Maybe it does mean the planet. I'm looking for the right answer.

What would be your response to Ex. 20:11 and 31:17? It says God made the heavens and earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th.

 

[CG Didymus]

I agree.

Yes it does miss the point.

Trying to literally interpret this text ruins the beauty of it.


There should be a law to keep people from going off the deep end here. I know it is impossible but its frustrating to see opinions from ignorance.

When I was a Baha'i back in the early 70's, all spiritual writings were beautiful. They were like spiritual poetry. They weren't meant to be taken too literal. Then I got "saved." That lasted four years. Ever since, I've felt like I'm in an X-Files sort of Twilight Zone or something. I know the truth is out there, but I don't know where. Have you seen it anywhere?

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe in God BECAUSE of science.
Just saying.

There's a Christian radio talk show host, Bob Dutko, that says that science supports his Christian Bible beliefs. Ever heard of him? But, regardless, what about your knowledge of science and your knowledge of Genesis? Can you make sense of it? Rain, no rain before the flood? Were people and animals vegetarians until Noah? A talking, walking serpent? 6 literal 24 hour days?

 

[outhouse]

When I was a Baha'i back in the early 70's, all spiritual writings were beautiful. They were like spiritual poetry. They weren't meant to be taken too literal. Then I got "saved." That lasted four years. Ever since, I've felt like I'm in an X-Files sort of Twilight Zone or something. I know the truth is out there, but I don't know where. Have you seen it anywhere?

For me "truth" is in as much education and knowledge one can absorb on all topics. But I love science a hair more then I like religious beauty.

For such primitive ignorant people, they could write some epic theology , far over my head.

:thud:

 

[Sha'irullah]

I don't know why the whole Bible would fail without it. The creation story really isn't foundational at all. For Christianity, the death and resurrection of Jesus are the foundational ideas.

I think taking the story literally, or as simply myth (as in the modern view that it is just wrong, or some nice story) is wrong. It takes away the actual meaning of the story, which is quite wonderful.

The using of myths are very important and not wrong at all. I fail to see how that can damage your faith.

To me this is beneficial

 

[Thief]

I doubt that. Unless of course that belief in God is nothing more than conceptual and intellectual.

Cause and effect.
Every science experiment relies on that relationship.
(though science will never be able to use equation or experiment sufficient)

So...the universe(one word) is the effect.
God is....the Cause.

I correct your statement....
God is 'something' more than conceptual and intellectual.
He Is the First in mind and heart.

Someone had to be First.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You and I know it's the conjugated past tense of the verb "to be". But a new or uninformed bible student may be confused or misled by seeing one word in the sacred text [was] only to find it completely missing and defined by another phrase [to become] in a reference source.

You haven't a clue so you babble. It's intellectually dishonest.

 

[rusra02]

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.

Genesis doesn't say the Sun and stars were created after the earth. Rather, Genesis 1:1 states that God created the heavens and earth "in the beginning." What is thereafter described is the preparation of the existing earth for life, and ultimately for mankind. It is not reasonable, IMO, to expect the Bible to give every detail or answer every possible question a person may have about every event recorded. That is an impossible standard for any book. Nor is it necessary to know every detail to see the Bible is an extraordinary, accurate, and God-inspired history of mankind.

 

[james2ko]

Good point about Psalm 104:30 I never considered that in this context. I'll think that one over. I'm open minded about the pre-adamic earth theory. Although I wasn't referring to an ex-nihilo creation. By what I was saying before; the actual time when the planet was made is up in the air; so to speak. It could be day one or long before. And I could be wrong. Maybe it does mean the planet. I'm looking for the right answer. What would be your response to Ex. 20:11? It says God made the heavens and earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th.

This is referring to the six day renovation starting in Gen 1:3. The meaning of the Hebrew verb asah [made] is not creation (ex-nihilo-from nothing) but rather the giving of a new role to something already in existence. The verb is akin to appointing, assigning, or producing an effect of something pre-existing. (see Psa 104:19; Gen 1:16; 1 ki 12:51; Amo 3:6).

Gen 2:4 These are the generations-plural (histories) of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,​

Gen 2:4 is a summary statement of the multiple generations/histories of the earth. This provides another vital clue suggesting a gap of time separating the initial perfect creation of the earth in Gen 1:1 (first history), with the renovation starting in vs 3 (second history). Notice there was a "creation" [barah] (ex nihilo) of the heavens and earth which occurred in Gen 1:1. Then it states the heavens and earth were also "made" [asah]. I believe this is a reference to the six day renovation begun in Gen 1:3.

Isa 45:18 can be referring to the land as well. The land was created to be inhabited. We normally don't live in the sea. That's not really a disconnect.

But sea creatures do. The phrase "to be inhabited" is not limited to humans on land. It can also encompass sea creatures inhabiting the sea.

 

[james2ko]

You haven't a clue so you babble. It's intellectually dishonest.

Much rather be clueless than absent minded

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Cause and effect.
Every science experiment relies on that relationship.
(though science will never be able to use equation or experiment sufficient)

So...the universe(one word) is the effect.
God is....the Cause.

I correct your statement....
God is 'something' more than conceptual and intellectual.
He Is the First in mind and heart.

Someone had to be First.

Switching cause and effect in quantum world? A causes B causes A

 

[Thief]

Switching cause and effect in quantum world? A causes B causes A

And this applies to Spirit in what way?

How about.....
That to say..."I AM!".....
There would be need of some 'effect'.

God is then the simultaneous ....cause and effect.

'Let there be light!'.........'I AM!'

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

And this applies to Spirit in what way?

How about.....
That to say..."I AM!".....
There would be need of some 'effect'.

God is then the simultaneous ....cause and effect.

'Let there be light!'.........'I AM!'

Was it the Us or was it the I that created man in the garden?

And this applies to spirit in what way? It's all science...until you no longer need it ot be

 

[Thief]

Was it the Us or was it the I that created man in the garden?

And this applies to spirit in what way? It's all science...until you no longer need it ot be

I believe because of science.