Genesis: is it to be taken literally?

Literalist (and a newcomer) here!Jar invited me into this thread. Thanks, Jar.I take the days to be literal days. All that is needed for a day is a light source and a rotating planet...both are apparently present by day 1. Genesis days CERTAINLY are no analogy for evolutionary epochs; as there is no correlation whatsoever between the days of Genesis and evolutionary epochs.

Day 1: Heaven, earth, light (Day), and dark (Night)

Day 2: The firmament, separating the waters above the firmament from those below the firmament

Day 3: Sea, Dry land, and vegetation

Day 4: Sun, moon, stars

Day 5: Marine life and birds

Day 6: All land-dwelling creatures, including Man

​

This account has the sun and stars produced on day 4, after the earth, even after plants. Insects, like bees, which are necessary for pollenation of plants are created on day 6, the 3rd day after the plants were created (it would be kinda rough on "them" plants, waiting thru one typical evolutionary epoch, let alone two or three, for a bee to come pollenate them). Also, the plants of day 3 include ALL plants, including fruit trees, and, unless I am mistaken, according to evolution, fruit trees evolved long after insects of some fashion arrived on the scene. I could blather on about this, but my point is that Genesis is NOT some analogy to evolutionary epochs as some people think.

​

Jesus said in Matthew 19:4

quote:

---

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female ~ KJV

---

So, Jesus is stating that God made people in the BEGINNING. Evolution teaches that humans have arrived on the scene near the END in the overall scheme of things.

​

I see no reason not to take Genesis literally. Nor do I feel any pressure to try to make it fit in with evolution, which, imo, is, as apostle Paul said, "science falsely so called." In other words, I consider evolution to be untrue.

​

This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-28-2004 02:14 AM

​

---

I Interpret Genesis literally.

NosyNed,Now, if you mean examine relevant facts and then determine, based on those facts, whether or not the evolutionary model is flawed; well, that sounds interesting.Currently, I don't believe the facts provide ANY evidence for abiogenesis, macro-evolution, an earth age of 4.5 billion years, a universe age of 20 billion years, a big bang, a nebula becoming a solar system, etc.I also consider these ideas to be illogical.Truth is it's own defense; so, it stands on its own; my knowledge and debating skills neither helping nor harming it.

Yes, I shall look at the thread. And radiometric dating is a subject I am keenly interested in (though, unfortunately, my knowledge is sparse).I hope you don't mind if I put this off till later (perhaps tomorrow evening...just to LOOK at the thread...MAYBE begin responding). Cuz, I gat no sleep last night, went to work at 4AM, and my eyes really want to close. .I can tell EvC forum isn't going to help my natural propensity for a lack of discipline

Alrighty, then. Will do.

quote:

---

some of it is just about counting things.

---

Oh, great! I knew I shoulda watched more Sesame Street (just kidding )

You are assuming that the Creator cannot create light independently of the sources of light with which we are familiar. The Bible is clear. He created light and then the sun and stars. Perhaps, God Himself was the source of light at that time.Regardless, how can I limit the Creator's actions by my understanding of how things work NOW, when conditions would necessarily be very different during the actual Creation process? Whenever is an automobile on an assembly line except during it's initial fabrication? (Admittedly a poor analogy.) Things are different during creation. And we are part of the creation with very limited knowledge not only of ourselves but also of everything around us.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-29-2004 09:45 PM

Jar,You apparently believe in a Creator, which I consider the only logical choice considering the complexity of matter and life (life being far more complex than matter).You may have different reasons for reaching your conclusion that there is a Creator, but those are mine.That you consider the universe to be sort of a "book" left by the Creator is a rather neat analogy with which I quite agree. The Bible agrees with you on this one point, if no other. I just wanted to point out this area of agreement. To me, so far, the stories of solar system development seem quite ridiculous; these modern speculations are the fireside stories, imo (I'll probably get more reading assignments from this assertion ) Where can I find more information about this? I seriously doubt this claim. (MORE reading assignments...) Yes, we do. But regarding one-time, non-repeatable, historical events (i.e., the creation of the universe, this solar system, and life ~ though it be created as stated in Genesis or as thought by modern scientists), we have only speculations and, at best, models. All such exploration is, necessarily, outside the realm of strict science (as I understand it), though not necessarily outside the realm of logic.In this realm, particularly, our knowledge will ever be severely limited. But I also contend that we know only a little about the universe about us, it being so far beyond our reach.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-29-2004 10:51 PM

Jar,I posted before I was done... I have come across the two-Genesis-creation-accounts before.It is chapters 1 and 2, right? Why exactly do you think these are two different accounts?(Were I more familiar with the issue I could probably rattle them off, but you are probably more familiar with this than I am...though I MAY be able to resolve any perceived differences after they are pointed out. So, if you are able to rattle them off (i.e., if it isn't something you gotta go research), go ahead. If you are not that familiar with it, but wish to discuss it; perhaps we can over time.)

Due to the fact that light travels at a constant velocity (so it appears)?Two things:

Can light accelerate under certain conditions? (that's an honest, not leading, question ~ I would think it could)

Are you assuming that the Creator of light cannot do things with the light that we do not see it do now that He is done setting the system up?

​

My answer is: yes, but I don't think this proves that since the light source is x-lightyears away the light must have required x-years getting to earth.

​

The assumption is that light travelled all the way from the source to the earth under conditions now existing, but I see no reason why a creator couldn't simply put the light in place or cause it to go faster initially so that it reached the earth in one day. I do not see the Creator bound by ANY laws of physics.

Well, if it involves reading assignments, which I certainly don't mind, it will be a slower discussion.I am here, not so much to show off my knowledge and logic capabilities, but to see where what I say might be weak in logic.I have immersed myself in creationists' materials...can those explanations and assertions take a little scrutiny...I think most of them can...if I have been told something incorrect, it will be helpful for me to have that pointed out, won't it? Especially, if I'm gonna go around talking about it to others.Also, after a few discussion with atheists, agnostics and such, I have found they are concerned about some things which I never bother considering.No, they haven't swayed me. I just think that SOME of their concerns MIGHT have answers. I figure it wouldn't hurt me to discover their questions, as I cannot even hope to find an answer to a question which I do not know.

Can you say POUNCE!?!LOL.I certainly don't see it as "lying" or "useless."Maybe more like, "Wow...look what He can do!"

If we can conceive that God is not bound by physical laws, then we have no logical reason to charge Him with lying just because it appears He may have operated outside those laws during creation or any other time. Miracles ~ e.g., the healings Jesus performed ~ would be examples of the Creator operating outside the laws of the creation after the creation event.I would consider it most logical to operate outside the laws of the creation during the creation process. That would seem the only way to do the job.Why lock yourself up in that line of thinking?This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-29-2004 11:52 PM

I am certainly interested in exploring this issue, but will have to take it up later.

Not trying to be mean, but, really, I don't see how what a fellow human might think is a good way to go about it even matters. It seems much like a piston ring telling some little bolt, "Well, if *I* were going to build a truck, first thing I'd do is..." Should the bolt be very impressed with whatever the piston ring says next? Perhaps the bolt can just glance around and understand that there is no way the piston ring, who has always been near the bolt, has any clue how to build a truck.Is Ford Motor Company lying to its consumers because it doesn't leave wrenches and machining equipment in the engine compartments of its vehicles? No, the tools used to create the vehicle, but which have nothing to do with the operation of the vehicle, are left at the plant! What if some consumers get all confused and think spark plugs are used to make vehicles? Perhaps some will reach this strange conclusion, but Ford Motor Company won't care, and it still hasn't lied; it's merely been misunderstood by people with limited knowledge about car manufacturing.Likewise, the laws found operating in the creation, being part of the creation, are not the logical tools, with which to construct the creation. I would consider it highly *unlikely* that the principles responsible for the creation events should be found operating anywhere within the creation.

Crashfrog,I can see your point to an extent.I suppose every analogy will have limits because, were the two things being compared so similar they had no differences, no analogy would be needed and, likely, they are the same object or concept.But here's another:Joe and Bob are both cooks at Hardees (like me). Both were lucky to graduate from highschool. Joe likes watching reality TV and going to the downtown scene on weekends. Bob likes watching football and drinking beer.The district manager owns a really sweet 2004 Ford Mustang. Joe and Bob are admiring it one day after the breakfast shift. Both fellows realize that the car was designed by experts and built in a factory under highly managed circumstances. But now Joe starts telling Bob how he would have designed the car and the manufacturing processes. Should Bob be impressed and have Joe build him a 2004 Ford Mustang?Can't both realize that intelligence went into the design and construction of the car? Don't you think Bob has good reason not to ask Joe to build him a 2004 Ford Mustang? This would be magnified many times over if Joe and Bob were part of the Mustang and carrying on such a conversation.Somehow, I think it is possible to look at what humans design and build and conclude that the universe must have been designed and built. I also think it is possible to look at the universe and then look at the humans around us and conclude that none of them even remotely knows how to make a universe.I may yet not be making my point in a clear fashion.Edited to add the point:
Joe and Bob do make things ~ biscuits stuffed with various things like sausage patties. They might even do simple house repairs or car maintenance (in between Survivor episodes, six packs, and football games). They can recognize design, but Bob can also realize that Joe's unqualified for the job of automobile engineer/manufacturer.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 11-30-2004 06:52 PM

Well, the whole thing melted down on light speed and star distances.Light speed is a physical constant (maybe) and obviously part of the creation. I see no way to use any part of the creation to judge when or how the creation event occurred.