Genesis 1 - Literal or not??

Consider that the gospel writers were merely attempting to give Jesus a place in the pantheon of Greco-Roman gods. Your milieu argument is spurious.

Agree.

Disagree. The argument is merely that we have two texts, both narrative in nature. Neither are poetic or contain other literary forms that require special attention. You simply feel comfortable believing the one and not the other.

Fully agree. But you just happen to like this evidence - eye witness accounts and perhaps some other juicy tidbits. Get an unbeliever to listen to your "evidence" and I think he would have a field day with it. Perhaps this is the reason Jesus told Thomas blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. That pesky issue of faith in things not seen - like God creating ex nihilo.

There are plenty of "theories" available to someone who does not want to believe in the resurrection - just like there are plenty of theories for those who do not like the natural rendering of the text of Genesis.

 

So a presumably innocent humanity (aside from Adam and Eve) were punished for a sin nature and a sin they never committed? How can mankind be guilty before God if some never received Adam's sin nature and possibly never sinned themselves?
All humanity is guilty in Adam because all of mankind is a direct descendant of Adam - not some group of humans living outside of the Garden who may or may not have ever known sin. A prerequisite of sin-guilt is common ancestory. Adam and Eve must have sinned and been evicted from the Garden prior to procreation. Otherwise how can Christ die for those of us without a sin nature?

I agree that the creation story is not a detailed analysis nor is it a diary of the lives of Adam and Eve. It is a summary. As such some "gaps" in time may exist. Were children born to Adam & Eve after Abel was born but before his murder? Sure. Why not? We only know that Seth was born after the murder as a statement of fact.

 

How can you be sure when our "clock" wasn't created till day 4:

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years :
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

So days as we know them didn't exist prior to day 4.

Why is here no evening of the 7th day? Some would say we are still in it.

I find this interesting. I argue that very point concerning Revelation.

Revelation 1

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass : and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John;
2 who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, even of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand .

I am told "shortly" and "at hand" are not to be taken literally. Then they quote II Peter:

II Pet. 3:8 But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

They say, "You see God's time is not our time". Yet when it comes to Genesis, II Peter doesn't apply it must be literal.

 

Yep, that is what I am saying.

Who says that the prerequisite of sin-guilt is comman ancestory? (scripture please)

The entire world changed as the result of Adams sin. Why would it only affect their decendents? I thought God didn't visit the sins of the father onto the children. Why would he change the rules just for this case?

As far as children born between Abel and Seth I don't think you can even assume that. The Bible says God gave Seth as a replacement for Able. THEN it says that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters. Where is there time then for a sister to be born that would be old enough to move to a different land and be settled in time for Cain to marry her?

 

That is a huge jump without merit. God would well have established 24 hour periods prior to day 4. This is the type of jump necessary to reach your conclusion, but totally unsupported by the text.

Paul, in Rom 5. The whole point is that all men are sinners in Adam. Every descendant of Adam possesses his sin nature.

 

The Bible says! Read Acts 17: 26 and see how Paul states this truth. Then go to Romans 5: 12-21 (as Pastor Larry said) and you will clearly see how sin was brought through one man. This one man who is the earthly original ancestor of all peoples according to the Scripture. It is in the Word one just has to decide if they believe the Word or not.

Bro Tony

 

Context, context, context. God took great care to inspire the writer of Genesis to specifically speak of "evening & morning" in describing a day. It is quite clear in other passages that the word day is speaking of a period of time or an era. The clear context makes all the difference in the world.

 

When you notice what 2 Peter and Psalms actually say, you see that it doesn't apply anyway. They say that one day is as as a thousand years, not that one day is a thousand years. That little word makes all the difference. The point is that God's is not bound by the limitations of man's timekeeping. It says nothing whatsoever about the meaning of YOM in Genesis 1.

Exodus 20 provides another solid reason why Gen 1 is 24 hour days. The work week of man is based on the creation week of God. If that creation week consists of millions of years, can you imagine the work week of man? How absurd ...

In addition, the word YOM as it is used in Gen 1 always means a 24 hour day. Any use of YOM as a period other than 24 hours is a completely different construct. This is a major error of Ross. He cites a source to prove that YOM means long periods of time, but the source he cites says that YOM in Genesis 1 means 24 hour days.

 

When you notice what 2 Peter and Psalms actually say, you see that it doesn't apply anyway. They say that one day is as as a thousand years, not that one day is a thousand years. That little word makes all the difference. The point is that God's is not bound by the limitations of man's timekeeping. It says nothing whatsoever about the meaning of YOM in Genesis 1.

Exodus 20 provides another solid reason why Gen 1 is 24 hour days. The work week of man is based on the creation week of God. If that creation week consists of millions of years, can you imagine the work week of man? How absurd ...

In addition, the word YOM as it is used in Gen 1 always means a 24 hour day. Any use of YOM as a period other than 24 hours is a completely different construct. This is a major error of Ross. He cites a source to prove that YOM means long periods of time, but the source he cites says that YOM in Genesis 1 means 24 hour days.

 

I see very clearly how sin entered the world through one man. That is not even a question. But that doesn't mean that I am physically decended from him. Spiritually we are all Adams decendents because that is who God chose to be the first to choose between life and death. Adam even calls Eve 'the mother of all living'. But that could be a spiritual reference not a physical one.

Anyway non of it really matters. Christians should have FAITH that God can accomplish all things regardless of whether or not human intelligence can comprehend how He did it.

 

You still have not dealt with what Paul said in Acts 17: 26. He was not "spiritualizing" a truth.

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of teh earth..."

You are a literal physical descendant from Adam whether you like it or not. This is what the Bible teaches and it does matter in relation to the effects of sin on all people.

Bro Tony

 

Actually, depending on what you believe about the great flood he could simply be speaking about Noah.

 

So the creation account is just a fable God made up to show the Israelites that YHWH was above the creation myths? This makes God a very deceitful being -- especially when he repeats the info that the world was created in 6 days in Exodus 20. All those Isrealites listening to this and reading this would assume it was just a plain, true account.

I do not think God gives fables when he has bothered to give us a clear narrative with no hint or indication that it is not to be taken as it is written -- a literal and true account.

I said earlier:

Grasshopper responded (in part):

Look at Gen 1.5:

Also, ditto to posts by Pastor Larry and Bro Tony on this.

The further we try to read things into God's word that are not there or make some theory to explain it differently than what it plainly shows, the more and more in trouble we will get eventually, imo.

 

Again, I would encourage you to look at the context of what Paul is saying. In verse 24 of Acts Chapter 17 he says, "God, who made the world and everything in it,..." Then he continues to verse 26 to talk about all nations coming from one blood. Regardless, what you believe about the great flood, Paul is clearly talking to these philosophers about the beginning of time and the work of God in it and that we all come from one blood. One just needs to read the entire passage to keep it in context.

BTW- NOt that it will make any difference to anyone here I do believe the Bible teaches the reality of a world wide flood.

Bro Tony

 

The Bible does teach a World wide flood. There is evidence all around for it you have coal and oil deposites cause by plant debry carried and layed down in the Water. Mt Saint Helen is a good example most of the Trees were blew into the lake are the eruption and floated in a mass until becoming water logged the bark and leaves fell off and fell to the body and no pete which is the beginnings of coal is being formed. You have Flood Legends in every culture talking of a world wide flood. You have the soil on the Earth laid down in layers of settlement. The Ice Age is a big piece of evidence for the Flood, Fossils are another.

 

I think the issue is not whether there was a flood, but what was meant by the author when the flood depiction was penned. The known world at the time was not the world as we know today. The world then was only concieved of the region. Even in the Gospel of Luke, the world was only know as that which Rome had discovered: And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. So this lends the question: Is the minimal requirement for a Christian to believe in a global deluge, or a deluge which amounted to affecting the world as known at the time of the writing?

 

How does a non-worldwide flood destroy all the living creatures on the earth? I don't think anyone disputes that "world" has different meanings depending on the context. But neither should we dispute that at flood reckoned by God as covering the highest mountains and destroying all life is a worldwide flood.

 

The description in Genesis talks about the highest mountains being covered. It talks of all humanity and living creatures being destroyed. It really seems a stretch that the Scripture was speaking of a regional flood.

Bro Tony

 

You know I did look at the context of the passage, but since we are pulling out of its original context(that of a sermon meant to make the people of Athens realize there was real God to worship that they already recognized but didn't understand) it didn't seem to matter.

Paul was not using this sermon to expound on creation. He was trying to lead people to the knowledge of Gods power. He doesn't even bring the original creation up in this passage. He simply tells the people that God in his power gave everything that lives breath(huh what about the plants?). He then goes on to tell how the nations were divided from one blood(remembering Babel) and determined their times and boundaries so that they would look for the Lord. Noah's blood works just as well here.

As a matter of fact Genesis 10 describes the nations that decended from Noah. Verse 32b even says 'and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.'

This is off topic but I also believe in a world wide flood. There would have been no reason for God to have Noah carry all those animals on the ark if they could have repopulated themselves from another region of earth. For that matter Noah could have travelel a loonngg way in the 120 years he spent building the boat.