Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Dinner123]

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.



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.

Thanks for your explanation of the passage in Ex. I'll consider what you bring up.

But, the sea is beside the point; perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it. In context of verse 12 the Lord is talking about humans on the earth not sea creatures and even if you do include animals; that doesn't mean that when it says earth it couldn't mean the land.

The Bible often separates the earth from the sea mentioning them separately. Rev. 10:6 for example.

 

[Thief]

Why would they be wild when even more wild stories were being told a the time. Kings were Sons of Gods, Alexander the Great was a descendent of Heracles, so on and so forth.

All that you described about genesis: Surgery, Cloning, Genetic Manipulation...doesn't fit with how any of those things are actually done.

God took Adams Rib to make Eve is not unbelievable because it's God (other nations had stories from where man and woman came from)

Eve would not be considered a clone

There is no explanation of Genetic manipulation just an assumption made by you that a change must have happened to be a woman.

That is taking from the text and attempting to make it fit to science. Stick to the philosophy of it. The myth that tells a story of how it was believe man came to be...not an attempt to fit it with science. You do the religion a disservice by doing so.

Can't rewrite the account for your win.
That won't happen.

It is unbelievable to take a rib and not kill the man.
Previous generations 'believed' in God.
They didn't have science.
We do....and therefore no excuses.

A sample increased to full stature would be an exact copy.....male as to male.
Genetics would be needed to insure a female copy.
Eve would be a clone...twin sister to Adam....no navel.

That's a lot of science....in one Garden.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Can't rewrite the account for your win.
That won't happen.

It is unbelievable to take a rib and not kill the man.
Previous generations 'believed' in God.
They didn't have science.
We do....and therefore no excuses.

A sample increased to full stature would be an exact copy.....male as to male.
Genetics would be needed to insure a female copy.
Eve would be a clone...twin sister to Adam....no navel.

That's a lot of science....in one Garden.

You do realize that even in cases of parthenogenesis in which case a female will give birth without a male (no male has ever produce an offspring by parthenogenesis as far as I know). It's always female. One X chromosome will get you a female, one Y Chromosome will get you nothing.

They didn't have science? No they didn't have modern science. It is unbelievable to take a rib and not kill a man? Yeah it is...unless if you're God. In which case things like that aren't unbelievable. They would never believe man could do it but they would believe God could. If you went back in time and told people you could do a heart transplant they wouldn't believe you, if you told them that God gave you a new heart they probably would. Superstitious lot the public. But science existed there were plenty of people studying and observing the world around them.

But what is described in the Garden isn't science. Just you trying to make it into that.

Like I said. You believe in the bible because of philosophy not science.

 

[Thief]

You do realize that even in cases of parthenogenesis in which case a female will give birth without a male (no male has ever produce an offspring by parthenogenesis as far as I know). It's always female. One X chromosome will get you a female, one Y Chromosome will get you nothing.

They didn't have science? No they didn't have modern science. It is unbelievable to take a rib and not kill a man? Yeah it is...unless if you're God. In which case things like that aren't unbelievable. They would never believe man could do it but they would believe God could. If you went back in time and told people you could do a heart transplant they wouldn't believe you, if you told them that God gave you a new heart they probably would. Superstitious lot the public. But science existed there were plenty of people studying and observing the world around them.

But what is described in the Garden isn't science. Just you trying to make it into that.

Like I said. You believe in the bible because of philosophy not science.

oh yes it is.
That you deny it....doesn't take it away.

Superstition?.....to the previous generations......maybe so.

We don't have that luxury.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

oh yes it is.
That you deny it....doesn't take it away.

Superstition?.....to the previous generations......maybe so.

We don't have that luxury.

No it's not.

You can try to squeeze the two as hard as you want. But it's not.

 

[Thief]

No it's not.

You can try to squeeze the two as hard as you want. But it's not.

Your denial is noted.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Your denial is noted.

Thank you...though I'm sure I'm not the one in denial.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe God isn't using your math.

This isn't a problem for God but it is a big problem for those who hypothesize a chain of events that happen by themselves.

The second creation story takes place in 5000 BC. There were people on the earth at least from 10,000 BC so the second creation story is well after the first one.

Instead of simply being able to pick fruit off trees.

There is no Biblical evidence to answer this except that it says there was no tilling. Man was required to work the earth but it doesn't say how.

I believe the Norse gods had much to do with the dispensation of Adam and Eve, so it is quite conceivable that things were taught including tilling the ground and animal husbandry. Another possibility is that the knowledge came with the eating of the tree of knowledge.

I believe this is an assumtion based on Adam and Eve having fruit to eat in the Garden of Eden but once they were cast out they could eat anything.

I believe that is highly unlikely.

I believe it tells what happened but couches things in terms that might be more easily understood. I also believe that God tells this story by giving only the facts He considers pertinent and that there is much more to the story.

 

[rusra02]

Some Christians do go to the extreme of a literal interpretation. I'm glad you're not one of them. But you do say it is accurate? Is that to say that other ancient Holy Books aren't accurate? After all, when the NT tells me I need Jesus and he's the only way and that the whole Bible is the Word of God and therefore absolute truth, then it better be very accurate. If there's some inconsistencies, then it's hard for me to trust what it says.

Yes, each person needs to examine the evidence for the Bible's authenticity and accuracy. Seeming inconsistencies virtually always have a reasonable explanation. Jesus was convinced God's Word was truth. (John 17:17) In fact, he staked his life on it. We can also, I believe.

 

[james2ko]

But, the sea is beside the point; perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned it. In context of verse 12 the Lord is talking about humans on the earth not sea creatures and even if you do include animals; that doesn't mean that when it says earth it couldn't mean the land.

The Bible often separates the earth from the sea mentioning them separately. Rev. 10:6 for example.

That's a good point. But doesn't Isa 45:18 coupled with Exo 20:11 make an implication of the parts of the planet that would be inhabited ?

In six days I, the LORD, made the earth, the sky,the seas , and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested. That is why I, the LORD, blessed the Sabbath and made it holy.​

Additionally Hag 2:6 tells us the components that made up the earth (planet) created in Gen 1:1:

Hag 2:6 "For thus says the LORD of hosts: 'Once more (it is a little while) I will shake heaven and earth, the sea and dry land;​

Can we safely conclude the "earth" created in Gen 1:1, billions of years ago, consisted of both dry land and the sea . And as the grammar and syntax of vs 2 can imply, it "had become" without form and void?

 

[Muffled]

The sun and stars were created in Gen 1:1-perhaps billions of years prior to verse 2. (in the Masoretic text there is a mark called a rhebia after verse 1 indicating a disjunctive pause before verse 2). The sun and stars were already in orbit prior to the commencement of Gen 1:2. If the sun were not in orbit, verse two would have read, "...and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the "ice" [qerach-קרח].

I believe this is preamble to the start of creation in verse 3. Unless of course God was making atoms which would have spaces betweencomponents of the atom which could be called heavens and the components themselves earth. A creation of elements would precede the creation of larger bodies such as stars and the Earth. Remember at the time no-one had an inkling about atomic structure so what God could tell them had to be put in language they could understand.

I don't believe water means H2O. I think it is more likely that God is moving from the element of hydrogen to more complex elements which releases a great deal of energy including light. (I would love to have a physicist explain to me how that happens)

 

[Muffled]

Fair enough. Got any biblical evidence to prove "asah" can never mean "appointed" or "set"?

Is this the word that is translated "let."? It matters little because it is quite evident that whether God appoints, sets it or simply speaks it, the stars and moon go into place at this time.

 

[james2ko]

I believe this is preamble to the start of creation in verse 3. Unless of course God was making atoms which would have spaces betweencomponents of the atom which could be called heavens and the components themselves earth. A creation of elements would precede the creation of larger bodies such as stars and the Earth. .

1. I would love to see a missionary today explain that to potential converts of the Amazonian Nukak tribe.

Remember at the time no-one had an inkling about atomic structure so what God could tell them had to be put in language they could understand

2. The average person today doesn't understand atomic structure. So does that mean only the Einstein's of the world could understand it?

I don't believe water means H2O. I think it is more likely that God is moving from the element of hydrogen to more complex elements which releases a great deal of energy including light. (I would love to have a physicist explain to me how that happens)

3. The bible uses two different terms to describe liquid [mayim] and ice [qerach]. If there was no sun during the Gen 1:2 narrative, any liquid [mayim] on earth would have been a block of ice {qerach]. No sun=no water or no sun=ice. Simple, logical and no physicist required.

Is this the word that is translated "let."? It matters little because it is quite evident that whether God appoints, sets it or simply speaks it, the stars and moon go into place at this time.

4. It matters quite a bit as it would imply God made the sun (which is a star) twice. Once in Gen 1:3:

Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.​

and again in vs 14:

Gen 1:14-15 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.​

 

[CG Didymus]

The bible uses two different terms to describe liquid [mayim] and ice [qerach]. If there was no sun during the Gen 1:2 narrative, any liquid [mayim] on earth would have been a block of ice {qerach]. No sun=no water or no sun=ice.

Speaking of ice, when do you think the ice age happened in relation to the Bible story? And, if there was ice during the flood, theoretically, people and animals could have survived on an ice pack, so what would be the point of the water having to cover all the land and mountains?

 

[CG Didymus]

In six days I, the LORD, made the earth, the sky,the seas , and everything in them, but on the seventh day I rested. That is why I, the LORD, blessed the Sabbath and made it holy.

Hey James2ko, I often hear young Earthers say that Noah only had to take "kinds" of animals. So that a wolf would be enough to repopulate the planet with all dog-like animals. But, from that verse you quoted, "everything in them," the intent sounds like all animals were created and didn't "micro-evolve." Otherwise, in the beginning we'd have wolves that gave rise to coyotes, foxes and dogs etc. And then, after the flood, they would have to do this all over again? Or, in the beginning, there were all the different dog-like animals, but then Noah only took a representative from the "kind," let's say a pair of wolves, and from them came all other dog-like animals? Even though, these animals were created as separate creatures in the beginning? I'm asking you, and would appreciate your thoughts, but would really like to hear from a young Earthers also. Thanks.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Of course not. I fear for the sanity of those who take any religious writing literally.

 

[Hawkins]

You don't have to use only one pan to fry eggs, do you ? Have you tried to fry eggs using 2 pans at the same time ?

God doesn't need to make earth in the same space where this universe is located. He can make it else where Day 1 ~ 3 then plug it to its current position on day 4.

 

[Thief]

You don't have to use only one pan to fry eggs, do you ? Have you tried to fry eggs using 2 pans at the same time ?

God doesn't need to make earth in the same space where this universe is located. He can make it else where Day 1 ~ 3 then plug it to its current position on day 4.

Was there any satisfaction in any answers you've seen so far?

 

[Hawkins]

Was there any satisfaction in any answers you've seen so far?

Yes, that can be the case if it's more convenient for planet earth to be created that way. You don't randomly make explosions inside a garage in the hope that a car will be formed this way. You "create" it else where then bring it to your garage, as it is a more efficient way.

He doesn't need to make a big bang then spot for a suitable place to grow humans. He can trigger a big bang to make a universe then put earth and whatever necessary to their corresponding positions. He doesn't need to explain this is done to Moses or anyone as ancient humans didn't understand science. He just need to briefly describe what happened in the Bible as a witness/record that earth and everything on it is created.

The Bible is meant to be a scientific book. The problem on the other hand is that, how human scientists calculate the age of earth if this is the case.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yes, that can be the case if it's more convenient for planet earth to be created that way. You don't randomly make explosions inside a garage in the hope that a car will be formed this way. You "create" it else where then bring it to your garage, as it is a more efficient way.

He doesn't need to make a big bang then spot for a suitable place to grow humans. He can trigger a big bang to make a universe then put earth and whatever necessary to their corresponding positions. He doesn't need to explain this is done to Moses or anyone as ancient humans didn't understand science. He just need to briefly describe what happened in the Bible as a witness/record that earth and everything on it is created.

The Bible is meant to be a scientific book. The problem on the other hand is that, how human scientists calculate the age of earth if this is the case.

The Bible is meant to be a scientific book?

How? It wasn't even written by the same people, nor was it attempting to address science.

You also realize that the Bible is a collection of books...not just one.