Is Genesis Intended to Be a Reliable and Literal Account of Events, or Not?

[POI]

He's writing poetically, but he's not writing poetically about the sun; he is talking about a fictional love. Just like Genesis isn't claiming to be a reliable guide on the order of creation. To treat them as such is the error, not the errors mistreating them as such fabricates.

I've spoken to many smart and well-read individuals on both ends of this topic question. After thousands of years, why is this topic still not settled? What IS the SIMPLE answer?

For Debate: Is Genesis meant to be reliable and literal, as it pertains to the ordering of events/etc, or not?

[POI]

The simple answer is to understand the Creation Account as literal. Everything fits when one does this.

Hmm, I've debated hermeneutic scholars who argue for a 'local flood', and the creation account not taking six literal days. I've also debated other hermeneutic scholars, who like you, argue for Genesis being completely literal. Seems odd scholarship can use the same collection of writings to justify differing viewpoints?.?. Wouldn't you agree? Seems the mental gymnastics is required, regardless of whether or not you ascribe to a completely literal position of Genesis.

The problem is that no one that I know of does it except me.

I bet you reject scientific discovery, where it does not align with the Bible's interpreted literal reading. Am I close?

[Tcg]

He's writing poetically, but he's not writing poetically about the sun; he is talking about a fictional love. Just like Genesis isn't claiming to be a reliable guide on the order of creation. To treat them as such is the error, not the errors mistreating them as such fabricates.

I've spoken to many smart and well-read individuals on both ends of this topic question. After thousands of years, why is this topic still not settled? What IS the SIMPLE answer?

For Debate: Is Genesis meant to be reliable and literal, as it pertains to the ordering of events/etc, or not?

Well, that's the problem isn't it. Nothing in the text tells us what was intended. Taking it figuratively certainly resolves those embarrassing ordering issues. But is that simply the easy way out? What would it mean if taken figuratively? Pretty much anything one wants.

It is rather convenient to cover any error with the claim of poetic license.


Tcg

[Base12]

Seems the mental gymnastics is required, regardless of whether or not you ascribe to a completely literal position of Genesis.

There is a reason for that. The Church decided long ago on certain false dogmas. It has cause innumerable problems unfortunately.

I bet you reject scientific discovery, where it does not align with the Bible's interpreted literal reading. Am I close?

I am a big fan of science and the scientific method. I should clarify what I mean by 'literal'.

I am talking about certain words and phrases that Christians alter as they read the verses. When they come across something that does not make sense with their false ideology and theories, they change the verse until it does. This is not proper exegesis.

[POI]

I am a big fan of science and the scientific method

If you are a believer, and take the Bible literally as written, how does one reconcile 'science' with what Genesis claims?

[Base12]

I am a big fan of science and the scientific method

If you are a believer, and take the Bible literally as written, how does one reconcile 'science' with what Genesis claims?

What is the main issue you have?

[Tcg]

He's writing poetically, but he's not writing poetically about the sun; he is talking about a fictional love. Just like Genesis isn't claiming to be a reliable guide on the order of creation. To treat them as such is the error, not the errors mistreating them as such fabricates.

I've spoken to many smart and well-read individuals on both ends of this topic question. After thousands of years, why is this topic still not settled? What IS the SIMPLE answer?

For Debate: Is Genesis meant to be reliable and literal, as it pertains to the ordering of events/etc, or not?

Another issue I see when folks use the poetic/figurative claim to excuse the ordering errors is that they certainly don't take the mention of God as figurative. Why couldn't God simply be a poetic device to represent the as then not understood processes that led to the formation of the sun, moon, earth and stars? With this approach there'd be no claim of God being an actual being of some kind. This could be valid, but my guess is those claiming the poetic/figurative approach won't go this far. A bit suspicious, no?

Also, if I wrote a poem where the protagonist ate Grandma's stew before Grandma cooked it, then this would still be an ordering error so to speak even though it's in a poem. No special dispensation should be applied. I suspect that's not what proponents of this approach want one to think. More suspicion is called for.


Tcg

[Base12]

'Ordering error'. Is that it?

What is wrong with the order?

[Base12]

After reviewing some of the comments I believe most, if not all of you are not understanding the prelapsarian world that existed before the Fall.

The world that existed before the Fall was not physical as we know it now. It was more like an ethereal/spiritual realm.

The universe became physical/particles the moment Adam and the Woman partook of the Forbidden Fruit...

Genesis 3:17
"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"

The 'cursing of the ground' is what is commonly called the Big Bang. It was the shift from Wave to Particle, i.e., Wave Function Collapse.

This simple error has caused many of you to falsely interpret what is happening in the few first chapters.

Do a study on the Cosmic Egg...

Typically, there is an egg which, upon "hatching", either gives rise to the universe itself or gives rise to a primordial being who, in turn, creates the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_egg

There are many myths about this event, told in unique ways.

Also, look into the Participatory Anthropic Principle by Wheeler...

"Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Their 'eyes were opened'. Remember the Double Slit Experiment?

[Diagoras]

After reviewing some of the comments I believe most, if not all of you are not understanding the prelapsarian world that existed before the Fall.

The world that existed before the Fall was not physical as we know it now. It was more like an ethereal/spiritual realm.

The universe became physical/particles the moment Adam and the Woman partook of the Forbidden Fruit...

Every so often, a uniquely different interpretation of Genesis pops up. I’d be interested in hearing how many other Christians agree with this version.

It certainly raises a lot of questions.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Tcg in post #62]

Why does understanding a text as being intended figuratively mean anything one wants goes? Authors use figurative language to mean specific things, not to suggest their readers make up whatever they want. There be no reason to write, if that was what figurative language means.

We figure out what the author meant, if they aren't around to answer directly, by looking at context. The context of Genesis (story wise, historical, socio-cultural, etc ) shows us the author was teaching that God was real and not a scientific placeholder.

You also confuse figurative language with genre. Poems are made of both literal and figurative language. So are many narratives.

[Replying to Tcg in post #66]