Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[outhouse]

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?

Does the mythology hold up to reality, is what he is asking.

It is a solid no.

 

[gnostic]

Does the mythology hold up to reality, is what he is asking.

It is a solid no.

Well, I think you know my stance.

While I can admire the Genesis' creation for its story, that's how I see it, as a "story", a mythological literature.

I don't think it is history, nor do I think either the creation or flood, to be scientifically possible.

 

[Thief]

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.

So the words got mixed up on the way down the mountain.

That does not discount Spirit....or Spirit as Creator.

What?....you want to focus your sense of belief on dictation more than 3thousnad years old?

And even if you never believe Moses.....so what of it.

Genesis works for me as I have an open mind and science doesn't get in the way.

What really is holding you back?

Genesis introduces God.
It sets in place God as Creator.
It sets inn place Man as creation.

What's so hard about that?
So...green life before the sun.....
Our sun?.....

 

[outhouse]

Well, I think you know my stance.

While I can admire the Genesis' creation for its story, that's how I see it, as a "story", a mythological literature.

I don't think it is history, nor do I think either the creation or flood, to be scientifically possible.

Agreed.


Its why there has been nothing but empty rabble rabble rabble out of apologist.


Why do some think opinion and faith stands up to and against reality?

 

[Thief]

Agreed.


Its why there has been nothing but empty rabble rabble rabble out of apologist.


Why do some think opinion and faith stands up to and against reality?

Stands quite well ...thank you.

You can't use history to set aside belief.

On a good day....when you use it as you should...you could support belief.

You cannot dismiss belief with your history book.

 

[Bunyip]

So the words got mixed up on the way down the mountain.

That does not discount Spirit....or Spirit as Creator.

What?....you want to focus your sense of belief on dictation more than 3thousnad years old

That is once again an argument against a literal translation, not for it.

You seem to be disagreeing with me for no reason. Sure, the words get mixed up - that is why a literal translation doesn't work - that was my point.

 

[greentwiga]

I find that traditional interpretation is mythological. A careful exam of scripture shows something else. For example, there can only be one mountain described as the location of the garden of Eden. It is the mountain Karacadag. Scientists agree with scripture that the first farmer lived at Karacadag.

Another example is that scripture preserves the info that the Ark was a giant reed boat. This agrees with history and the science of large boats. The flood clearly describes the mechanics of a flood plain flood, just what you would find in Sumer. Tradition, though doesn't agree with the Bible.

 

[outhouse]

. Scientists agree with scripture that the first farmer lived at Karacadag..

There is another guy that promotes Karsag, and he makes a poor case that gets laughed at.


Scripture in no way places the garden there.


And something else your failing to tell people is that there are many early places where agriculture started in the general area.

They were working agriculture in Gobekli Tepe 13,500 years ago.

As more archeology is done more sites are popping up all over that had agriculture after the last ice age.

AND in no way is the biblical place which most people think is 100% mythical, have any ties to what you posit.

Another example is that scripture preserves the info that the Ark was a giant reed boat. This agrees with history and the science of large boats. The flood clearly describes the mechanics of a flood plain flood, just what you would find in Sumer. Tradition, though doesn't agree with the Bible

There is no mystery here. We know the mythology came down from Sumerians from the Euphrates flooding. The word used is "wood" not reed, so you have nothing at all that helps you in any way shape or form.

 

[look3467]

Does the mythology hold up to reality, is what he is asking.
>>>outhouse

Excellent question!
The reason it is so is because it gives credence to blind faith!
Stories such as Jonah and the whale,..."a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it", the tower of Babel, Jesus' 40 days and 40 nights, Moses' 40 + 40+ 40 years, Nebuchadnezzar dream's etc. etc. have a spiritual component that requires faith to have understanding.

Blind faith in God is in a word... TRUST.

Otherwise, they are all as ..."a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal", of little value to a non-believer.

Which is the case in many of these debates.

There is a spiritual string that ties them all together into one central theme....and that is the work of God in creation and the saving of His creation with the beginning of a new one. The latter, is the one without end.

If we are to debate, lets debate the spiritual significance of those stories being that one can see a spiritual significance to them.

Blessings, AJ

 

[outhouse]

Excellent question!
The reason it is so is because it gives credence to blind faith!
Stories such as Jonah and the whale,..."a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it", the tower of Babel, Jesus' 40 days and 40 nights, Moses' 40 + 40+ 40 years, Nebuchadnezzar dream's etc. etc. have a spiritual component that requires faith to have understanding.

Blind faith in God is in a word... TRUST.

Otherwise, they are all as ..."a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal", of little value to a non-believer.

Which is the case in many of these debates.

There is a spiritual string that ties them all together into one central theme....and that is the work of God in creation and the saving of His creation with the beginning of a new one. The latter, is the one without end.

If we are to debate, lets debate the spiritual significance of those stories being that one can see a spiritual significance to them.

Blessings, AJ

The problem is not with faith.

It is with a literal interpretation when much of the theology was allegorical and metaphorical and rhetoric was a means of telling these mythological legends.

 

[Thief]

That is once again an argument against a literal translation, not for it.

You seem to be disagreeing with me for no reason. Sure, the words get mixed up - that is why a literal translation doesn't work - that was my point.

So at what 'point' do we count God out the picture?

Let the be light?
Let us make Man in our image?
The Garden event?

It may require the reader to stretch his thinking as the words go by.....but...
Genesis is an introduction setting the Creator and His creation in 'order'.

Exact dictation to suit your frame of mind?
Probably not.

 

[Bunyip]

So at what 'point' do we count God out the picture?

Let the be light?
Let us make Man in our image?
The Garden event?

It may require the reader to stretch his thinking as the words go by.....but...
Genesis is an introduction setting the Creator and His creation in 'order'.

Exact dictation to suit your frame of mind?
Probably not.

Why would you 'count god out of the picture'?
I'm new here, so forgive me if I have misunderstood something - but the topic is whether or not a literal translation of genesis is workable. You are being extremely condescending and patronising, and yet seem to agree with me that genesis is not to be taken literally.

Please resist the temptation to preach and pontificate, I have not suggested that a non-literal interpretation of genesis disproves faith or god - in fact I pointed out several posts ago that the majority of christians do not interpret genesis literally.

You say tha the words and their meanings have changed - so that means that a literal translation is not workable correct?

 

[Thief]

Why would you 'count god out of the picture'?
I'm new here, so forgive me if I have misunderstood something - but the topic is whether or not a literal translation of genesis is workable. You are being extremely condescending and patronising, and yet seem to agree with me that genesis is not to be taken literally.

Please resist the temptation to preach and pontificate, I have not suggested that a non-literal interpretation of genesis disproves faith or god - in fact I pointed out several posts ago that the majority of christians do not interpret genesis literally.

You say tha the words and their meanings have changed - so that means that a literal translation is not workable correct?

The truth is there...in a straight forward manner.

What you are saying is.....it's more important HOW it is told.
and here in this life that technique does count for something.
It's important to tell....and hear...the truth.

But at the moment....it seems you cannot hear it.

A 'day' in the ongoing heaven would be quite different than here in this life.
God does not sleep.

Time isn't real.
And couldn't be applied anyway. Not to Someone who was, is, and shall always be.

And rendering the entire formation of the universe and all that is within it....
to an eighty year who man....
whose only intention on the mountain was to meet his Maker....and die....
and then to have that one page essay respected by all?

That does seem a bit of a stretch....so many who cannot hear.
So many that cannot see.

 

[Bunyip]

The truth is there...in a straight forward manner.

What you are saying is.....it's more important HOW it is told.
and here in this life that technique does count for something.
It's important to tell....and hear...the truth.

But at the moment....it seems you cannot hear it.

A 'day' in the ongoing heaven would be quite different than here in this life.
God does not sleep.

Time isn't real.
And couldn't be applied anyway. Not to Someone who was, is, and shall always be.

And rendering the entire formation of the universe and all that is within it....
to an eighty year who man....
whose only intention on the mountain was to meet his Maker....and die....
and then to have that one page essay respected by all?

That does seem a bit of a stretch....so many who cannot hear.
So many that cannot see.

So that was a YES right?

You are agreeing that a literal translation of genesis is unworkable - and proceeding to the delivery of some form of unasked for sermon, mostly insulting me for what you imagine to be my deafness and blindness?

 

[Thief]

So that was a YES right?

You are agreeing that a literal translation of genesis is unworkable - and proceeding to the delivery of some form of unasked for sermon, mostly insulting me for what you imagine to be my deafness and blindness?

I've been blind...seven days.
I've known my limbs when they were cold and unresponsive.

Seeing is not always what you have read.



How are YOU doing?

 

[Bunyip]

I've been blind...seven days.
I've known my limbs when they were cold and unresponsive.

Seeing is not always what you have read.



How are YOU doing?

You write like a random word generator possesed by the ghost of Shirley Maclain.

I give up trying to get a straight answer out of you, rather than gibberish.

 

[Thief]

You write like a random word generator possesed by the ghost of Shirley Maclain.

I give up trying to get a straight answer out of you, rather than gibberish.

If only she could have a word here.

 

[religiousfreedom]

A "Day" in the bible doesn't have to mean a 24-hour period. It can be consistent with science.

 

[Bunyip]

A "Day" in the bible doesn't have to mean a 24-hour period. It can be consistent with science.

Even if you do not count them as days, there are still many conflicts with historical and scientific reality - plants coming before the sun for example.

 

[outhouse]

:biglaugh:

Time isn't real.
.

Ridiculous excuse.