Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis: is it to be taken literally?
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 5 of 301 (106417)
05-07-2004 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 4:23 PM


Literalism is the invented slur intended to eviscerate Genesis of meaning. This was done, in part, as a reaction to the nonsense of YEC. Let me ask rhetorically: Since when does Genesis not mean what it says or say what it means ? What basis is there, from Genesis, or anywhere in the Bible to conclude that it doesn't mean what it says ? There isn't any, it just that certains do not like what it says so they change it or the way it should be understood.
Genesis means what it says and says what it means UNLESS there is symbolism, typology, analogy, or parable being clearly employed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 4:23 PM Proboscis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ramoss, posted 08-14-2004 1:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 8 of 301 (106485)
05-07-2004 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Buzsaw
05-07-2004 9:08 PM


Buz, there are eons and eons of time between 1:1 and 1:2.
1:2 : "and the Earth became a waste and a desolation"
I believe Lucifer and his crowd caused much of the waste.
Point being, YEC is nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 05-07-2004 9:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 13 of 301 (106495)
05-07-2004 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mission for Truth
05-07-2004 10:01 PM


Re: say again?
Sorry, the 1:2 quote is the literal hebrew reading for that verse according to Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mission for Truth, posted 05-07-2004 10:01 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 31 of 301 (106613)
05-08-2004 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brian
05-07-2004 5:21 PM


Hi Brian !
From your post:
"Genesis.......creation myth(s)"
Why is the creation account of Genesis assumed a myth ?
The CLAIM of Genesis is that it is the PROTECTED account of what happened, protected by God as His version of how things were and went. (what validates the claim to be true is another subject)
In this case, as in all cases when God is communicating what He wants known, His subjective views become the objective truth. Therefore if the creation account of Genesis is true, then this would logically explain every other similar account fact or fiction. This also explains why these stories have common denominators and it explains their differences in that the Genesis account is the protected version of facts and the others are unguarded by God as they evolve over time and change.
The existence of similar stories in other civilizations fact or fiction and the threads of common denominators only say one thing : There is a source, a beginning of the central and common facts therein. That source is the account of Genesis from which all the others flow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 05-07-2004 5:21 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 05-08-2004 2:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 33 by JonF, posted 05-08-2004 2:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 34 by jar, posted 05-08-2004 5:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 48 of 301 (106880)
05-09-2004 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Brian
05-08-2004 2:21 PM


Brian quote:
_____________________________________________________________________
Anyway, just to let you know that ‘myth’ does not equal ‘fiction’.
_____________________________________________________________________
If you want to stipulate that then I cannot prevent it, but everyone knows that when Genesis is equated with the adjective "myth" that the author is saying that they believe the claims of Genesis are NOT TRUE.
Brian quote:
_____________________________________________________________________
But the ‘truth’ is always objective, whether something is true or not is not affected by what anyone believes.
_____________________________________________________________________
Yes, I completely agree. My point was that God's subjective views are the only subjective views that become objective, automatically, IF HE IS.
Brian:
Once again, if you or anyone refers to Genesis as myth, they are saying the claims are not true - fine. But, to go on and redefine myth is essentially a worthless stipulation. Nobody is going to reconfigure their perception of what myth means.
There are many similar creation accounts through out the worlds civilizations. Genesis was authored and protected by God to be His version of the truth of the genesis of the universe and mankind.
Brian quote:
_____________________________________________________________________
the Genesis narratives are not detailed, technical accounts of how He achieved this.
_____________________________________________________________________
This comment was made in the context of God creating the universe. The other 65 books fill in the details. The N.T. declares that God created all things through Christ (John, Colossians) AND "the big" detail that He simply spoke the universe into existence (Hebrews 11) out of nothingness.
These are basically invulnerable claims, they are accepted by faith, even though God did leave His fingerprints in creation according to Romans.
There are inumerable stories and sources that contradict and challenge Genesis. No problem. Evangelicals claim the Genesis record is the genuine and protected version of events. This particular way of viewing Genesis, and the scholarship of persons like Dr. Scott demonstrate the details of the claims are evidenced to be true time and time again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 05-08-2004 2:21 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 05-09-2004 9:00 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 79 by Brian, posted 05-11-2004 11:34 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 78 of 301 (107157)
05-10-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Sylas
05-09-2004 9:17 PM


Re: Genesis should be treated just like any other theory that no longer serves a purpose
Sylas quote: (context of what Genesis is)
______________________________________________________________________
It is a creation myth
______________________________________________________________________
That is your subjective opinion.
Sylas quote:
_____________________________________________________________________
The basic purpose of the first chapter of Genesis is most likely to defend monotheism in the face of surrounding polythesitic cultures.
______________________________________________________________________
This is an ancient belief that defies the text. Genesis DOES NOT initiate monotheism, it DECLARES the one and only true polytheistic Deity - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph.
How so ?
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created...."
Wrong translation !
It should be translated "In the beginning GODS created...."
The original hebrew says "Elohim", that is the plural name of God.
It means what it says, hence, God is letting everyone know that the Godhead as revealed elsewhere in scripture created the heavens and the Earth. Go ahead and check me out in any hebrew commentary on Genesis.
Sylas quote:
______________________________________________________________________
The carefully structured arrangement of events has noticable parallels with other creation accounts of the time
______________________________________________________________________
Yes.
Why ?
Because the Genesis account is the God-protected version of the truth. All the others are unguarded by God. These other accounts evidence a common source (Genesis) and they corroborate that these events did happen. This explains the similarities and common denominators. The claim made for Genesis is that it is God's eternal word, authored by God as a record of the truth.
Any evos reading this ?
Tell me how ToE disproves Genesis without using the filter of your worldview ?
Sylas quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Ancient readers, prior to the rise of science, did tend to take these accounts as "true", but this was basically a consequence of the fact that there were no alternatives,
______________________________________________________________________
In other words Sylas is placing himself on a pedestal, then he looks down on the ancients from his lofty perch erected upon matter-based deity, and subjectively declares that the scientific worldview is the only pathway to determine truth.
Let a theist interpret: Genesis is above your head - your self inflated dismissal indicates the lack of any spiritual sense or understanding. You sound like the religionists that science ridicules for having a closed mind.
Sylas quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Genesis is about. It is expressing theological principles,
______________________________________________________________________
Theology is superior to any other principle because God's subjective views are objective truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Sylas, posted 05-09-2004 9:17 PM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by matt_dabbs, posted 05-11-2004 12:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 85 of 301 (107572)
05-11-2004 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by matt_dabbs
05-11-2004 12:41 PM


Re: Genesis should be treated just like any other theory that no longer serves a purpose
Matt Dabbs excerpt:
______________________________________________________________________
I don't understand this...are you saying the Bible actually says it was GODS (plural) that created the universe and not God himself? Of course, that would make more sense since God repeatedly says us throughout the creation story:
Gen 1:26a -- Then God said, "Let US make Adam in OUR image, according to OUR likeness;"
______________________________________________________________________
I am saying what any O.T. hebrew commentary will tell you, which is that the original hebrew for Gen. 1:1 has "Gods", plural, despite the singular found in most translations.
Yes Matt it would make more sense especially in lieu of "us" elsewhere.
When the scripture says God is one, that is speaking about unity. Clearly the entire record of the 66 books reveals a three Personage Godhead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by matt_dabbs, posted 05-11-2004 12:41 PM matt_dabbs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 05-11-2004 6:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 87 by Loudmouth, posted 05-11-2004 7:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 90 of 301 (107778)
05-12-2004 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
05-11-2004 6:42 PM


Re: we and us and GODs
Jar quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Or simply polytheism.
______________________________________________________________________
Agreed.
BUT, polytheism already being strictly defined to the Gods of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 05-11-2004 6:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 05-12-2004 7:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 121 of 301 (108269)
05-14-2004 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Loudmouth
05-11-2004 7:11 PM


Loudmouth quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Genesis 1 and 2, Elohim and Yahweh (or was it Adonai?). The two inter-related but different creation stories in Gen. 1 and 2
______________________________________________________________________
Are you saying that the different names for God is evidence for differing creation accounts ?
What two different creation stories are you assuming ?
Loudmouth quote:
______________________________________________________________________
My feeling is that if the Genesis accounts of both creation and the Noachian flood can be told in different ways to reflect different theologies (with Elohim and Yahweh being used separately in each version), then why should either be taken as literal fact.
______________________________________________________________________
Then you are believing as literal fact features from the text as a basis to dismiss both as literal fact, all because God reveals His name differently in the overall text.
Whats the harm in assuming the claims of Genesis as literal fact ?
Genesis means what it says and says what it means unless typology, symbolism, imagery, or analogy is clearly being employed. Where does Genesis give way to figurative symbolism/typology in the creation declaration ?
The first deployment of symbolism doesn't arrive until the serpent (type of Satan) appears.
Loudmouth quote:
______________________________________________________________________
That is, the creation and global flood myth are not being stressed as literal fact
______________________________________________________________________
The text means what it says. The only reason the debate exists (literal fact/not literal fact-but myth) is because forces that be are trying to establish a precedent that God does not mean what He says, which entrenches doubt, which is the message of the serpent/Satan who exists to convince that God does not mean what He says, which is why the first question mark in the Bible is in the context of the serpent/Satan sowing doubt to Eve, which is in the context of Satan attempting to destroy mankind via a belief that God is not to be taken seriously, which if successfull guarantees the serpents/Satan's objective of blinding mankind to the reality of eternal judgement.
Loudmouth quote:
______________________________________________________________________
My contention is that the myths in Genesis are not supposed to be taken literally, but rather figuratively. It is a theological lesson, not a scientific lesson
______________________________________________________________________
When Genesis is not taken literally, (which said word "literally" has been successfully associated with unattractive fundementalism) then this is the pay off for Satan's work in achieving that the rest of the Bible is not to be taken literally, hence, his target is for the judgement of hell not to be taken literally. This is old fashioned satanic deception and it is working. Satan and his Biblical status is as much part of doctrine as Jesus is.
You are right Loudmouth that Genesis is a theological lesson and not a scientific document. BUT you must remember that the claims of theology are eternal/supreme objective truth with no equal peer.
IF God IS, then how can creation and science contradict ? They don't. Only the understanding of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Loudmouth, posted 05-11-2004 7:11 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024