Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[outhouse]

It does not ruin the Bible to understand how it's author intended it to be treated; .

Well your wrong

"all" Parables is not how it was intended to be read.

 

[Delta-9]

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.

I think the original authors of the first few chapters in Genesis did not take it literally, at least not in the sense that Ken Ham is taking it literally. It is, technically, mythology, but like most mythology it is a wild story that was a primitive attempt to explain real observations and questions people had at the time. I doubt many of the educated elite, in any culture, took their mythology literally.

I think there is a great article on the "My Jewish Learning" site that examines the Genesis creation story along with the other creation stories in the Bible titled "Genesis As Allegory". I would link to it directly but I'm a newbie and can't use links yet.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think there is a great article on the "My Jewish Learning" site that examines the Genesis creation story along with the other creation stories in the Bible titled "Genesis As Allegory". I would link to it directly but I'm a newbie and can't use links yet.

Here's the link to "My Jewish Learning". Here's some interesting things from the article.

"In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so." In fact, as we shall argue below, even the compilers of the Bible do not seem to have been concerned with a literal reading of the text…
…They incorporated several accounts of creation in the Bible even though no two accounts agree in detail with Genesis 1 or with each other. Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world in six days. The second account of creation is the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2).
Several other accounts are found in poetic form in Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. Genesis 1 says that man was the last living creature created; Genesis 2 says that he was the first…
…The most notable difference between Genesis and all the other accounts is that none of the others mentions the idea that the world was created in six days. This idea--which is the centerpiece of the whole creationist movement--was apparently not considered important enough in the Bible to be repeated in other accounts of creation.
The fact that so many differing accounts were all accepted in the Bible shows that its compilers were not concerned about these details…

I think the most important point it says is that "compilers" or "redactors" put it together. That changes the whole idea that God told Moses exactly what happened and then he wrote it all out verbatim. That makes it very likely that Genesis has ideas borrowed from other cultures, which is what Outhouse and several others have been saying all along.Thanks Delta, great article and very much to the point of this thread.

 

[Thief]

A great way to understand the bible is to remove all bias, and learn cultural anthropology of the peoples who wrote it.

Only then can it be more fully understood. Without historical knowledge, most are in the dark.


Its why your supposed to go to a church and learn it from someone who has studied it. Of course that supplies a biased version of apologetics.

A great way to understand the bible is to have a little faith.

 

[ScuzManiac]

A great way to understand the bible is to have a little faith.

Faith in what?

Should we also have faith in a cyclops? Or perhaps Medusa?

Maybe we should also have faith that when we go to war, Odin will be with us?

Hm....

 

[CG Didymus]

Faith in what?

Faith in the Bible... as taught to you by who ever you chose to have faith in that they are telling you the truth. If you get afflicted by some disease, faith that God will heal you. And if you die, you loved can have faith that it was God's will that you not be healed. Football games is a good one too. Faith that your prayers will be heard over the prayers of the other team, and your team will prevail over them. Which is similar to war, but these days it's mostly Godly nations fighting evil nations, so there's really no question whose side God is on. It is just a question as to whether he wants to test our faith for awhile before he lets us win.

 

[greentwiga]

A great way to understand the bible is to remove all bias, and learn cultural anthropology of the peoples who wrote it.

Only then can it be more fully understood. Without historical knowledge, most are in the dark.


Its why your supposed to go to a church and learn it from someone who has studied it. Of course that supplies a biased version of apologetics.

Of course you could doubt those at the church and study the history and anthropology (as well as biology and geology yourself. If you accept the church version which basically means George accepts Frank's version, based on Sam's version which he got from Mike ... and so on, then you have to throw out science. If you accept science, then you have to say that it is all allegory, or some such to accept the Bible. Both these methods are lazy methods. If you study for yourself, you can see it fits with science, history, culture, etc. Unfortunately, it takes years of research.

 

[s2a]

Faith in the Bible... as taught to you by who ever you chose to have faith in that they are telling you the truth..

Is there a difference to be discerned between "faith" and "belief" as you you suggest within your own premised context? If so, what is that distinction, and what differences does it present for unbelievers?

If you get afflicted by some disease, faith that God will heal you.

Is that presumption based upon any modern medicine interventions, or solely upon prayer?

And if you die, you loved can have faith that it was God's will that you not be healed.

So....hmmmm...prayer does not really have any effect upon the will of God?

Football games is a good one too.

Go on....

Faith that your prayers will be heard over the prayers of the other team, and your team will prevail over them. Which is similar to war, but these days it's mostly Godly nations fighting evil nations, so there's really no question whose side God is on.

So God does take "sides" then? Even when opponents pray for the same hoped for deliverance from "evil"?

It is just a question as to whether he wants to test our faith for awhile before he lets us win.

Well, there ya go. Whomever "wins" in any war was on "God's" side at the outset. Except when, well...they were commies, dictators, czars, imams, bishops, pharaohs, etc. Even when the "evil" win, they will eventually "lose", even if it takes 1000s of years. Gotcha.

 

[outhouse]

Of course you could doubt those at the church and study the history and anthropology (as well as biology and geology yourself. .

Doing it.

I don't doubt the theology taught at church, only the historical lines they cross using mythology and pseudo history.

If you accept the church version which basically means George accepts Frank's version, based on Sam's version which he got from Mike ... and so on, then you have to throw out science.

Anyone who throws science out to me has no intellect I would like to see passed down in future genes.

If you accept science, then you have to say that it is all allegory,

False.

If you accept science and don't have bias, you learn more about which style the author intended, which is not all allegory. That is a rather ignorant comment.

or some such to accept the Bible.

No.

Many scientist follow the theology, they just understand what is an important moral or lesson, and what is mythology.

Both these methods are lazy methods.

Agreed.

If you study for yourself, you can see it fits with science, history, culture, etc. Unfortunately, it takes years of research

The mythology will remain mythology. One can try and reconcile it any way one wants, but it will never be historical.

 

[ScuzManiac]

Faith in the Bible... as taught to you by who ever you chose to have faith in that they are telling you the truth. If you get afflicted by some disease, faith that God will heal you. And if you die, you loved can have faith that it was God's will that you not be healed. Football games is a good one too. Faith that your prayers will be heard over the prayers of the other team, and your team will prevail over them. Which is similar to war, but these days it's mostly Godly nations fighting evil nations, so there's really no question whose side God is on. It is just a question as to whether he wants to test our faith for awhile before he lets us win.

So this is one of those arguments that if you get cancer....

And pray (and modern medicine fixes it)....God saved you?

But if you pray and it doesn't work...God had better plans for you?

Pretty good logic if ya ask me!

 

[Thief]

Faith in what?

Should we also have faith in a cyclops? Or perhaps Medusa?

Maybe we should also have faith that when we go to war, Odin will be with us?

Hm....

How about Something Greater?
Or do you prefer to say we humans are top of the line life form?

 

[ScuzManiac]

How about Something Greater?
Or do you prefer to say we humans are top of the line life form?

Well, no.

God wouldn't exactly be a life form now would he?

I just think we should invest our time in that which can be proven...

Not that which was created by man (in thousands of different forms).

 

[outhouse]

Not that which was created by man (in thousands of different forms).

And the history is clear on this, more so with the created abrahamic deity due to the writing, and clear evolution of the concept.

 

[ScuzManiac]

And the history is clear on this, more so with the created abrahamic deity due to the writing, and clear evolution of the concept.

Glad you agree!

 

[Thief]

Well, no.

God wouldn't exactly be a life form now would he?

I just think we should invest our time in that which can be proven...

Not that which was created by man (in thousands of different forms).

God is dead?
To you perhaps.

 

[ScuzManiac]

God is dead?
To you perhaps.

Why put words in my mouth?

I never said God was dead.

But would you really consider something that supposedly doesn't have a beginning...

A life form?

Name ONE other life form that doesn't have a beginning, end, or both.

 

[greentwiga]

Doing it.

I don't doubt the theology taught at church, only the historical lines they cross using mythology and pseudo history.




Anyone who throws science out to me has no intellect I would like to see passed down in future genes.




False.

If you accept science and don't have bias, you learn more about which style the author intended, which is not all allegory. That is a rather ignorant comment.





No.

Many scientist follow the theology, they just understand what is an important moral or lesson, and what is mythology.






Agreed.




The mythology will remain mythology. One can try and reconcile it any way one wants, but it will never be historical.

It is too easy to say it is mythology. If it is, it is mythology set in history. The background of the story is clearly the point and location of the domestication of plants. (Adam was the first farmer.) The events show a battle between the worship of the mother goddess and the God of the Bible. I could understand someone claiming that this part of the story was mythology. Never-the-less, the background is historically accurate.

 

[Thief]

Why put words in my mouth?

I never said God was dead.

But would you really consider something that supposedly doesn't have a beginning...

A life form?

Name ONE other life form that doesn't have a beginning, end, or both.

God....

 

[ScuzManiac]

God....

ONE OTHER.....



And thanks for ignoring my question. Helps my case tremendously.

Yours on the other hand...

 

[outhouse]

It is too easy to say it is mythology. If it is, it is mythology set in history. The background of the story is clearly the point and location of the domestication of plants. (Adam was the first farmer.) The events show a battle between the worship of the mother goddess and the God of the Bible. I could understand someone claiming that this part of the story was mythology. Never-the-less, the background is historically accurate.

This is an explanation from complete ignorance. because you do no understand the source mythology in Mesopotamia.


To make a statement like yours one has to throw out all of the story as written anyway.


Your doing mental gymnastics to try and force history where it does not go.

It is obvious you do not understand the history of the people you wish to debate.