Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Thief]

You have clearly misread the original topic, it was about whether a LITERAL interpretation of genesis holds up.

So theologically or historically the answer remains no.

It can be literal.
Literal does not require history.

 

[Bunyip]

It can be literal.
Literal does not require history.

I didn't say it did. Can you please try harder to provide more direct answers?

A literal translation of genesis requires an internal consistency and logic that the narrative lacks.

 

[outhouse]

You have clearly misread the original topic, it was about whether a LITERAL interpretation of genesis holds up.

.

Exactly


The question is definitely open for it holding up to reality. :yes:


Which includes real history.

 

[Bunyip]

Exactly


The question is definitely open for it holding up to reality. :yes:


Which includes real history.

Absolutely.

All I see is glib brush-offs, not debate.

 

[Thief]

I didn't say it did. Can you please try harder to provide more direct answers?

A literal translation of genesis requires an internal consistency and logic that the narrative lacks.

Dude!...really?
My last point was brief and on the mark!

That you lack what it takes to see how Genesis works doesn't mean the rest of us have a crutch.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, that's your opinion.

Belief, or what you believe, is nothing more than an opinion, that may or may not be true.

Both Genesis 1 & 2 and that of Job 38 - 40 (God's so-called reply), clearly demonstrated that if God did exist, he know nothing about natural science; this God knows no more about nature or natural phenomenons than the authors of either Genesis or the Book of Job.

That for instance this verse, from Job 38:

What are these "storehouses"?

The ancient people didn't understand where snow or hails come from or what cause it to snow or hail, so they provided primitive explanation to natural occurrences of snow or hail, with the images of storehouse.

The "storehouses of snow" or "storehouses of hail".

Science in meteorology provided a far more accurate explanation to the Earth's climate than god's hollow boast that he is the One who cause the sky to snow or hail, or anywhere else in the bible.

Seriously, can morning stars "sing" (Job 38:7)? People used to believe stars were angels, but we know now that's not the case.

And do the sea have "doors" or "womb" (Job 38:8)?

Granted, Job 38-40 give us poetic description of God's supposed awesome power, but none of these verses provide scientific or factual explanations to nature.

Job 38-40 only provide entertaining myth and primitive superstition; and they do so with metaphors and similes. To ignore scientific theories of nature, and to treat biblical accounts, is to remain ignorant to reality.

No one claim that scientists or professors to know everything, but each individual scientists or professors, know what they know in their respective fields.

And sure, they can make mistakes, and sometimes, theories can become obsolete, but with rigorous testings and observant to scientific method and theory is subject to peer review, errors can be corrected, theory either be updated or replaced, because science is all about basing conclusion on the evidence, and not on blind faith.[/quote]

I believe all science is based on belief. I add oxygen to hydrogyn under heat and get water. I believe that water is made of oxygen and hydrogen. God says He knows everything so I believe He knows everything.

I believe this usually means that it is not clearly demonstrated and that one is using the term in order to avoid proof.

I believe this is an a priori argument. The argument says that ancient people didn't understand science so they must have made the statement. There is no evidence that ancient people made the statement. The text says that God made the statement. So what are you saying that snow just magically appears? I don't believe theere is scientific evidence for that. In fact I believe most scintists would say that snow and hail come from clouds that are like houses of stored up water vapor.

I believe this is again an a priori argument, trying to attribute what God says to ancient beliefs. There is no proof that God holds to ancient beliefs.

I believe this is metaphoric. Certainly the womb part is using the metaphoric term "as." I don't know enough science on this to know how it relates.

I believe there is a misapprehesion. I don't ignore science. However I don't believe science knows everything and God does. I believe ignorance is refusing to look at the facts but I have not done that. I take all the facts into account. Do you?

I believe I take nost of my science on blind faith because I don't have the time or interest to replicate experiemnts or study facts that some have studied closely for years.

I believe this isn't always possible as in the case of evolution and ancient history.

 

[Muffled]

Yet there is no evidence at all for a exodus, and no serious credible historian even thinks it has happened. Every credible scholar claims it as theology and a literary creation.

Even Israel's best archeologist claim Israelites factually evolved from displaced Canaanites AFTER 1200 BC

Can you explain why we only see a slow migration of people to the highlands of Israel between 1200 BC and 1000BC ???

There is no mystery about a flood. We know there was a river flood and mythology developed afterwards. Exactly where Israelites claimed their flood came from. The wording is also exact in places. "two by two" and much more.

I believe the Bible serves as credible history for an Exodus. I hope someone isn't wasting his time looking for footprints.

I believe that shows how incredibly insufficient archeology is for determining history.

I believe the Bible says that it was difficult to dislodge some of the more entrenched Caananite people. Part of that was due to the tribes going their sepratate ways rather than acting as a unified force.

 

[Muffled]

By that same token, couldn't you also say that neither did the various authors of the Bible?

Authors don't need to know anything if they are getting their information from God.

 

[Thief]

Authors don't need to know anything if they are getting their information from God.

Not sure if I would go this far.

But it does appear in scripture.....'do not practice your speech.'
'the word will be there in that hour'.

 

[gnostic]

I believe all science is based on belief. I add oxygen to hydrogyn under heat and get water. I believe that water is made of oxygen and hydrogen.

What????!!!!



You seriously don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever study chemistry or done chemistry experiment before?

Yes, water is made of molecule of both hydrogen and oxygen, BUT....

Simply adding heat to oxygen and hydrogen don't get you water. If the heat should ignite, you are more likely have combination of both gases blowing up in your face. You are going to burn yourself silly.

In order for you get water, the hydrogen molecule (H2) needs to be oxidised, but the oxygen molecule (O2) needs to be reduced (meaning removing 4 electrons from O2).

(Sorry, I don't know how to do subscript of "2".)

I think this process is called "redox reaction" or "redox half-reaction", for I forget which, because it has been long time since my chemistry day (over 20 years ago).

Which ever it is you, you will either get 2 water molecules - 2 (H2O), but if you get it wrong, you will get H2O2, which is a chemical equation for the molecule of hydrogen peroxide, I believe.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I like science.
Too bad you can't turn it into history.
You might learn to believe in Something Greater than yourself.

Who says that non-religious people do not believe in something greater than themselves? I think that the entirity of the universe is greater than I am.

 

[Thief]

Who says that non-religious people do not believe in something greater than themselves? I think that the entirity of the universe is greater than I am.

Ok.....But do you consider yourself as a spiritual being (living in flesh for now)?
Or are you simply a complex chemical reaction?

I am not religious....per say.

I see myself as a spirit taking complexity in mind and heart day by day.

I do not see myself as my own handiwork.

Something Greater is behind all of this.

 

[outhouse]

Authors don't need to know anything if they are getting their information from God.

We do not determine history, using something that could have been confused with imagination.


Supernatural explanations are no better then poor guessing.

 

[Thief]

But we can determine our future.

Of course some people don't think they have one.
One last breath....and that's it!

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Ok.....But do you consider yourself as a spiritual being (living in flesh for now)?
Or are you simply a complex chemical reaction?

I am not religious....per say.

I see myself as a spirit taking complexity in mind and heart day by day.

I do not see myself as my own handiwork.

Something Greater is behind all of this.

I feel as if we are all nothing more than a "complex chemical reaction." That is what is so humbling about it all. Compared to the vastness of our cosmos, we are all nothing.

 

[outhouse]

many people cannot tell the difference between conscious and a mythical spirit.

spirit so far is nothing but ancient mens mythology and does not exist outside mythology.

Its why you have no evidence at all for it.

 

[Bunyip]

Dude!...really?
My last point was brief and on the mark!

That you lack what it takes to see how Genesis works doesn't mean the rest of us have a crutch.

Again you are addressing claims that I have not made.

Anyhoo - I fully understand how Genesis works, it is allegoric - a parable. The topic here was if genesis could be interpreted literally. A literal interpretation of genesis is unworkable.

Biblical literalists assert that the Bible is historically accurate, so the fact that genesis is clearly and incontravertibly not historically accurate remains unchallenged by you.

Now you seem to assume that because I object to a literal translation of genesis it can only be because I don't understand how it works - so on that point I remind you that the majority of Christians agree with me. Biblical literalism is a minority view within Christianity and so there are more Christians in the US (for example) who reject the literal interpretation than there are atheists.

 

[Thief]

Again you are addressing claims that I have not made.

Anyhoo - I fully understand how Genesis works, it is allegoric - a parable. The topic here was if genesis could be interpreted literally. A literal interpretation of genesis is unworkable.

Biblical literalists assert that the Bible is historically accurate, so the fact that genesis is clearly and incontravertibly not historically accurate remains unchallenged by you.

Now you seem to assume that because I object to a literal translation of genesis it can only be because I don't understand how it works - so on that point I remind you that the majority of Christians agree with me. Biblical literalism is a minority view within Christianity and so there are more Christians in the US (for example) who reject the literal interpretation than there are atheists.

Naw it's workable....you just can't be lazy about it.

Try again.
See yourself talking to an eighty year old man.
You want to answer his questions.
You can't tell him all things science.
He won't understand and the details will falter.
So can you expect a better rendering in writing?

And then of course there's all of that translation and interpretation to be considered....dealt over the centuries that followed.

It's not that Genesis is false.
It's just an explanation gone to wayside for cause of word games.

Wanna play?

 

[Bunyip]

Naw it's workable....you just can't be lazy about it.

Try again.
See yourself talking to an eighty year old man.
You want to answer his questions.
You can't tell him all things science.
He won't understand and the details will falter.
So can you expect a better rendering in writing?

And then of course there's all of that translation and interpretation to be considered....dealt over the centuries that followed.

It's not that Genesis is false.
It's just an explanation gone to wayside for cause of word games.

Wanna play?

Sure, and of course what a real god would have told that old man is the truth. Genesis can not be the truth. So yes, of course I would expect genesis to be expressed in simple terms - but factual, which it is clearly not.

Genesis is false, plants did not pre-date the sun.

I would answer the old man's questions, but unlike genesis I would answer them truthfully.

I can't help but point out that the argument you make that genesis is 'just an explanation gone to wayside for cause of word games' is an argument against the workability of a literal translation of genesis, not for it.

 

[gnostic]

That's a lie.

The op does not ask for history.

This thread is not about your history soapbox.

This is theology.
and Genesis is all about theology.
Does Genesis hold fast for theologians?.....it does for me.

You have clearly misread the original topic, it was about whether a LITERAL interpretation of genesis holds up.

So theologically or historically the answer remains no.

The only one who can really answer what the poster meant by "literal", would be to ask CG Didymus to clarify his OP.

From the way I read it, I think he meant "literal" as being any of these particulars (other than theological) - historical, archaeological or scientific. Can everything narrated from Genesis 1 to 11 being done the way it is being done?