Genesis 1 - Literal or not??

You are right. But as he was sharing with these lost people he shared the truth. The truth that God created all things, the truth that out of one blood came all the nations of the earth. Paul's reference have nothing to do with the flood it is not even inferred as he is sharing the realty that God is the creator of all things and that in the beginning all men came from one blood.

Bro Tony

 

PL, I'm simply surmising here, playing adovactus diaboli here: If the author perceives the entire world to be only as far as his eye can see, then when everything that the eye can see is destroyed, then, to him, every living creature on earth has been destroyed.

Even many on this board will say that life in the water (fishes, etc) would not have died in the flood. This despite the fact that the account says that all flesh will perish. When someone says that fish would have survived, we don't point there heretic finger at them. But when the topic of "world" as perceived by the author comes up, all of a sudden, we get up in arms. I don't think there's a need to do so.

 

John,

Interesting point, but you may want to re-read the whole account. Genesis 7: 21-23 to see this view does not hold up biblically. Common sense would tell us that the fish could live in water and not have to be taken in the ark. But if common sense is not enough for some people here is what the Scripture says,

"And all flesh died that move on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrls was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground; both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth. Only Noah and those who wre with him in the ark remained alive."

Bro Tony

 

Yes, Bro Tony, I do understand that. However, in Gen 5:13, God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

He didn't say only flesh on land.

 

I find it impossible to believe anything other than the literal "6 Day" creation fact.

Genesis 1-11 are to be interpreted as literal. Literal 6 day creation of young earth---with day #7 as the Sabboth Day Rest of God----His Holy Day!

Literal world wide flood

Genesis 1-11---is God Almighty "firin' from the Hip!"----telling it like it is---was---and always will be!

Jesus said that if He told us about physcial things that occured and we believe not-----how will we believe if He were to tell us of the spiritual things!

IOW---if we can't believe Him in Genesis 1----how will we believe Him in John 3??

Blackbird

 

Right, but you must keep the whole account in context. Reading the whole account lets us know that when he referred to all of flesh he was speaking of the animals on the ground and the birds of the air. Anything else is reading into the account that which is not there. God accounted for the fish, so we don't have to wonder what Noah was referring to in his statement.

Bro Tony

 

BT, I just realized that the topic is Gen1, and we're out of that context. I'm going to respect the original poster and bow out of the discussion at this point. I don't want to hijack the thread...

 

Thanks though for the good discussion.

Bro Tony

 

Well the world at that time seemed to be One big Land Mass. I am pretty sure both Creationist and Evolutionist believe this also the Mountains would have been lower because there would not have be Techtonic Plates moving until the fountians of the deep opened up splitting the continents( Just my Opnion) So the amout of water needed to cover the highest mountain by 20feet would not be as much needed now. And the term the whole world could have applied to the super Land Mass. Both the OLD and Young Earth believe God created the Earth but Young Earther's believe there was no death and sin until Adam and Eve took of the Fruit. The Old Earther's will have to allow for death and destruction and God calling Death and Destruction Good. If all it took was a bit from the fruit to get kicked out of God's presents and was viewed by God as bad and yet animals ripping the flesh from other animals and killing others just because the strongest survive is good. Than the Old Earther may have a problem with Scripture.

 

I think it was the disobeying that was the problem, not the just the eating.

Rob

 

Jesus took the events of Genesis as literal. He reprimanded Pharisees and Saducees because they either ignored the literal interpretation, or did not grasp the meaning of the literal interpretation.

All christians believe in a 6-day creation story.

 

1. What does "day" mean is the unresolved question for some. I personally have no problem either way.

2. So if one doesn't believe as you they are not "christian"?

 

Yes, in the matter of sin it was not the apple in the tree but the pair on the ground

 

GONG BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION.

IMO, NO the two do not marry together. If Genesis has errors of time, the rest is fallible and our hope is in vain. The biggest Gap that we have is the GAP of unbelief. Behind all of this is the hiss of the Devil, “Yea, hath God said.” Did He really mean what He said, YES HE DID! If I am in error then let it be on the side that holds to an honest God, who says what He means and means what He said.

Roy.

 

My answer would also be yes.

 

It seems I posted this response on the wrong thread; here's a re-posting of my thoughts.

“Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical or life sciences.”

I urge you to look over the “ The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy ”; The quoted sentence above comes from the book, “Inerrancy” (edited by Norman Geisler, Zondervan, 1980, sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy). [I’m pretty sure Geisler is an OEC].

Scholars have developed rules to interpret Scriptures that aid immensely us in our search for truth; these same rules also help us to avoid pitfalls that could lead us into err. But these methodologies have evolved into almost legalistic standards.

Consider the NT uses of various prophetic passages. We observe a lot of questionable interpretational issues that would never pass the the scholarly standards of today (e.g. Psalm 69:4/John 15:25 and Jeremiah 31:15/Matt. 2:16-18 among many others).

So what leads some of us to question the simple reading of Genesis 1 and 2?
The observed universe around us! God’s own general revelation! As said elsewhere on this thread there are a myriad of scientific proofs that support an ancient earth. Many of the theological difficulties can and have been answered.</font>

• Death before sin - regards animal life, not mankind and can be explained by the presence of satan.</font>

</font>

• God's "good" creation, even with death? Yes, God created the universe to serve His purpose, it therefore is good.</font>

</font>

• The Exodus 20 passage connecting days of the week to creation is no problem, it is simply a comparison; not one-to-one but event to event.</font>

What are some other seemly biblical beliefs that have been held as a standard and later have been set aside? </font>

• Ethnocentrism (an earth center cosmology)-Copernicus (1500’s)</font>

</font>

• The 360-day year (now called a “prophetic year”) - Modified about 56 B.C.</font>

</font>

• The shape of the earth</font>

</font>

• A thinking heart or liver or bowel</font>

...and we still can maintained the doctrine of inerrancy.
They were not Biblical errors, they were errors of interpretation.

Rob

 

The problem is that there is no other way Moses (or whoever, that's another thread!) could have written of the creation in a more-literal sense. IOW...Moses is not vague about 24-hour days, supposing he wanted the reader to understand that the creation in a period of 6 24-hr days, he could not have been any more clear linguistically than he was. However, had he wanted to imply a long-age creation, there are numerous ways he could have done that without trying to pass it off as a literal 6 days. Why would he do that anyway? Presumably, he was writing to pass on God-given truth.