Genesis: is it to be taken literally?

I'm not a scientist either. But there is plenty of information available in popular books. Relying on a single source is never a good idea - especially when there are books are written by working scientists or people with actual experience working in science.

Let's see if we can head back towards the question of whether Genesis should be taken literally.

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
or
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum

Is a God day equal to a solar day? If there was no light how would God know if a day had passed and is the concept of time relevant to an eternal being?

The day/night cycle is set up in Genesis 1:3-5, so there is no problem of how long a day is.

check post #2 in this thread:http://EvC Forum: Neotony in the development of H. sapiens -->EvC Forum: Neotony in the development of H. sapiensI think this is a good example of what scientific argument requires and serves as a contrast to what Hovind does, and why I find Hovind irresponsible.lfen

yes, well, there are very old midrashim that interpret this as the literal days it took god to tell moses about the creation.personally, i don't think that's what it's about at all. but people have been reading it in other (literal) ways for thousands of years.

yes, well, that's also very inaccessible to ordinary person. hovind is a preacher, not a scientist, and i think it's best that we (and his followers) remember that simple distinction. i think hovind himself may be a tad confused on the matter.

I've not seen any other literal interpretation that adequately explains why the light would be separated from the dark (or need to be separated). And when the light is explicitly named day and the dark night the matter seems quite settled.(And regardless of whether the literal story is the real message it is still very much present).

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.

I guess you have to pick one of two choices then:1) You ignore the evidence collected over centuries and maintain your view based on belief only.2) You examine the actual evidence and reasoningThere may be one of two outcomes:A)You can find a flaw in it that allows your belief about evolution (and timing of man's appearance etc.) to stand. We would be very interested in this since no one manages to be very convincing. The last resort (for the few that stick it out at all) is that God is actually Loki (the mischievious god of the Norse who lies).B) You may realize that based on the available evidence the only conclusion is that of the current scientific consensus. This does not have to do any damage to your religious beliefs if you have a half way sophisticated theology like the majority of Christians.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-28-2004 12:49 PM

Glad you came over. As a Christian, I think that what you quoted is one of the reasons that Genesis was never meant to be taken literally.You laid out the sequence: There it describes creating light and dark on day one yet the sun, the sources and cause for light and dark, is not created until day 4.Of course that is only one of the indications, the conflicts between the versions of Creation within Genesis is yet another. And there are many, many other indications that Genesis is no more than a collection of fireside tales that have been woven together, including multiple versions where needed for political or cultural reasons.Genesis has value in that there are lessons to be learned from the tales, but they were no more meant to be taken literally than Little Red Ridinghood, the Pied Piper, or Hansel and Gretel.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

How about getting the age of the earth sorted out then?Could you start by explaining the correlations discuss in this thread? Age Correlations and an Old Earth

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

Take your time then. That beats rushing off too soon.That particular thread is not just about radiometric dating, some of it is just about counting things.Note as you read, the big deal is correlation between all of them. That is what needs to be explained.