Genesis (Literal or Not)?

[POI]

Taken from post 359 of here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2#p1139292)

Apparently, 'scholarly' debate still exists as to whether or not Genesis, (especially chapters 1-11), are meant to be a literal account of events or not?

For debate:

1) Is Genesis meant to be a literal account of events, as written, or not? The reason I do not specify is because I have even debated theists who claim the resurrection was not a literal event. Hence, we will first need to see where each theist thinks the Genesis account is literal, versus not? Please also provide scholarly evidence to support your answer where applicable.
2) Should God be pleased with his lack in clear communication here? Many have fallen away from the Bible, because such claims do not comport with their reality. If God's intent for Genesis was not to be literal, why do so many Bible scholars think God's message was literal? Further, if God's intent is to bring people to him, why give an unclear message which instead causes many to fall away, due to not aligning with their reality?

[POI]

The overall message re that conversation was that the bible taken literally or not (for whatever personal reason the individual has in making that decision) is of no intrinsic value because that is not how The Father has set up/arranged the rule-set.

Then "the father" is wrong here. My son fell away, primarily because he perceived the Genesis events as being literal. And such literal expressed events did not comport with his relaity. Prior to this, his intentions were to serve God and proselytize in his name in as many facets as possible. I guess 'the father' does not care. But I digress... Regardless of if 'the father' deems the topic of Genesis being (literal or not) important/other, the author of this book STILL meant for these claims to be literal or not. So, for example, is Noah's flood a literal event, or not? If so, was it local/global? Was it a few thousand years ago, or longer? Inquiring minds still would very much like to know? Apparently, it is a scholarly debated topic. So, for at least to resolve the debate, please ask him to tell you. And then you can tell all of us and settle part of this topic once and for all.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #51]

Then "the father" is wrong here. My son fell away, primarily because he perceive the Genesis events as being literal.

Assuming you are referring to yourself as "my son" here, the choice to perceived the Genesis events as being literal cannot be The Father's fault since this fallen-away son is basing the claim on information said son believes to be true information.

Prior to this, his intentions were to serve God and proselytize in his name in as many facets as possible.

The sons intentions may well have been to form relationship with The Father, but it is apparent that this son was following false information re the rule set The Father established.

I guess 'the father' does not care.

Not only does The Father care, but made it possible for relationship to form between The Father and The Son through the already mentioned rule set.
It may be that the son in this case, does not care to engage with the rule set, but would rather argue a false teaching as "true".

Regardless of if 'the father' deems the topic of Genesis being (literal or not) important/other, the author of this book STILL meant for these claims to be literal or not.

Okay.

So, for example, is Noah's flood a literal event, or not?

As has already been pointed out to you, since (if) the author meant for the stories to be either taken literally by the listeners or not (then) it is up to each listener to decide, since the author did not say how the stories should be taken.

If so, was it local/global?

If the story is to be taken literally, then (from memory) the author writes in a way which implies the event was global.

Was it a few thousand years ago, or longer?

From memory, there is no timeline mentioned by the author of the story.

Inquiring minds still would very much like to know? Apparently, it is a scholarly debated topic. So, for at least to resolve the debate, please ask him to tell you. And then you can tell all of us and settle part of this topic once and for all.

That's is not how the rule set works. If I were to write and share a conversation I have with The Father, it is not for the purpose of being a medium for other sons. This is specifically what was mentioned in the post I linked, where I pointed out that it was not The Fathers intention (re the rule set) for the bible or any book or any writing (such as what you are requesting from me) to provide anyone with a means through which a Son could establish a relationship with (draw closer to) The Father.

The rule set is that if a Son wants to know, a Son has to engage with The Father. Not "ask someone else to do that on his/her behalf".

[POI]

Assuming you are referring to yourself as "my son" here,

Well, your assumption is wrong. But this topic was interesting, as it piggybacks off of another thread (Does Science debunk the Bible?). Which tells me others leave because they think it can. But if Genesis is indeed not literal, then the physical sciences cannot really touch it. But many, my son included, think it does. And then reject the Bible. In the future, you might want to instead ask 'the father' before you incorrectly assume. Or maybe not? See below...

the choice to perceived the Genesis events as being literal cannot be The Father's fault

Well of course it couldn't. But I do find it odd....? I went to church with my wife today. I spoke to the pastor, who makes similar claims as you. I asked him the same Q about Genesis. But "the father" told him something different? Does this mean?

a) the other one is mistaken
b) you are mistaken
c) "The father" gives conflicting answers
d) you are both mistaken about getting any information from an actual 'father' at all, and you guys are instead deducing your own conclusions alone

I'm now going with answer d). Why should I not?

The sons intentions may well have been to form relationship with The Father, but it is apparent that this son was following false information re the rule set The Father established.

"The Father" could have easily guided him accordingly. Further, the pastor I spoke with today instead instructed me to tell my son to question the science.

Not only does The Father care, but made it possible for relationship to form between The Father and The Son through the already mentioned rule set.
It may be that the son in this case, does not care to engage with the rule set, but would rather argue a false teaching as "true".

As with the story of Saul/Paul, Jesus can intervene, without permission or readiness, any time he so chooses, and apparently has.

As has already been pointed out to you, since (if) the author meant for the stories to be either taken literally by the listeners or not (then) it is up to each listener to decide, since the author did not say how the stories should be taken.

Well, I think you are saying this because YOU do not know. Not because there is any 'father' telling you so. Since the paster and you differ, I now know at least one of you, or both, are full of beans.

[1213]

This would explain your pushback towards some science, in favor of pseudo-science.

Please explain what do you mean with some science, if you don't mean with that the opinions and beliefs of some people identifying as scientists?

[TRANSPONDER]

This would explain your pushback towards some science, in favor of pseudo-science.

Please explain what do you mean with some science, if you don't mean with that the opinions and beliefs of some people identifying as scientists?

I wouldn't drift toward science -denial if I were you. We already saw that you refused to go with the circle of the earth as what the Bible (in Hebrew) says that means and tried to wangle it onto a globe because you prefer the science of the round earth to the pseudo - science of the flat earthists. You also refuse to go with what the Bible says about sun made after daylight and prefer to wangle that as meaning something else (I'm sure it was you) and would not go with a pseudo -science of Genesis being right in what it says. Clearly you go with these supposed scientists if not to do so would get you laughed at, but you deny science when you think you have the support of the pseudo -science of creationism.

Howsoever, science is a discipline that requires expertise and validation, not a bunch of amateurs denying validated science. It is an invalid position to trust science where it doesn't conflict with the Bible (as interpreted by you) as we all do every day, but dismiss it as some people calling themselves scientists if it conflicts with your faith that you are the only one interpreting it correctly. You don't see the need for a good long hard look in the mirror?

[POI]

This would explain your pushback towards some science, in favor of pseudo-science.

Please explain what do you mean with some science, if you don't mean with that the opinions and beliefs of some people identifying as scientists?

You think Genesis is, as told, a literal string of physical events. Take 'Noah's flood' for instance. You believe it was global, right? Please identify the scientific source(s) to demonstrate a global flood took place a few thousand years ago, or longer? This will expose what I mean by pseudo-science.

Further, another Christian here essentially acknowledges your believed upon position is fringe. Meaning, common scholarly consensus has concluded Genesis is myth/other. See post 48.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #53]

Assuming you are referring to yourself as "my son" here,

Well, your assumption is wrong. But this topic was interesting, as it piggybacks off of another thread (Does Science debunk the Bible?). Which tells me others leave because they think it can. But if Genesis is indeed not literal, then the physical sciences cannot really touch it. But many, my son included, think it does. And then reject the Bible.

Okay so you were being literal in that when your wrote "my son" you were talking about your son, rather than you self.
Thus, an author of words has shown how one is to take his words - in this case, "not figuratively".

Well of course it couldn't. But I do find it odd....? I went to church with my wife today. I spoke to the pastor, who makes similar claims as you.

Should I take that literally or figuratively? What claims are you referring to and why are they similar?

I asked him the same Q about Genesis. But "the father" told him something different?

Is that a question or a typo?

Does this mean?

a) the other one is mistaken
b) you are mistaken
c) "The father" gives conflicting answers
d) you are both mistaken about getting any information from an actual 'father' at all, and you guys are instead deducing your own conclusions alone

I'm now going with answer d). Why should I not?

I cannot say as you have not provided enough data for a person to answer that question satisfactorily. The data as it is currently presented, has one leaning to a forgone conclusion (d) , because the vital piece of that data is missing in what was presented and requires some clearing up.

The sons intentions may well have been to form relationship with The Father, but it is apparent that this son was following false information re the rule set The Father established.

"The Father" could have easily guided him accordingly.

I agree (if indeed The Father is all powerful re that) however, there is the matter of the rule-set mentioned in my previous post. The Father could easily use all sorts/every sort of medium to accomplish this feat. But that is not the nature (rule set) of The Game Board (situation we players find ourselves occupying).

Further, the pastor I spoke with today instead instructed me to tell my son to question the science.

Perhaps the pastor understands that this is what scientists also tell one another.
Or perhaps some scientists don't. Perhaps too, the pastor was being figurative in that he meant "question the science IF it dares to have us question the Bible"?
(I do not know because - again - the data you give (words you author) is sparce.)

Not only does The Father care, but made it possible for relationship to form between The Father and The Son through the already mentioned rule set.
It may be that the son in this case, does not care to engage with the rule set, but would rather argue a false teaching as "true".

As with the story of Saul/Paul, Jesus can intervene, without permission or readiness, any time he so chooses, and apparently has.

Is that what your son told you or what you told your son? Do you both agree with this train of thought?

As has already been pointed out to you, since (if) the author meant for the stories to be either taken literally by the listeners or not (then) it is up to each listener to decide, since the author did not say how the stories should be taken.

Well, I think you are saying this because YOU do not know.

Your thinking here is presumption. The truer answer is that I do not CARE. The reason for that, (as I have already explained), is because no book or story or piece of writing is a medium between the personality and The Father.
"The personality" is referring to the "I am" consistently changing into ("growing") and sometimes self-referred to as "The Son" - thus, there is no requirement for me to care whether (as in this case) I take Genesis literally figuratively or not at all.

Said another way, my "not knowing" whether to take (anything - including the Bible stories) literally or not, is besides the point regarding my relationship with The Father, as a Son.

As to "readiness" re the story of Saul you mentioned, It is apparent to me that he was ready (as far as The Father was concerned) and certain types of intervention are allowed re the rule set re an individuals "readiness".
I know the feeling first hand of being "visited" - seemingly "without permission" but this is allowed and more common than many might think. It is an aspect of the seeking and finding Bible stories (and not just Bible stories) tell about.

This information of course doesn't help the dad (you) or your son, while The Father withholds such experience from you both.
The thing about that is (for me) I learned that I had indeed granted The Father permission for a visitation event to occur, even that at the time the event occurred, I didn't fully appreciate or understand exactly what was taking place, and spent the good part of the next 40 years working out. But I was obviously (to myself) "ready" for such an event, even that it "caught me by surprise".

I would say "yes" that The Father would indeed arrange a visit if you and your son genuinely wanted such to occur in order to boast your ability to "Draw Closer" (as you put it) to The Father.
That it has yet been the case, is a (possible) sign that neither of you are ready for such a thing to have occurring in your life's experience.

The question is, do you or your son really want that? And if not, then how will you ever be ready for such?

Of course, your wider point is that if The Father can do that for some, why doesn't The Father do it for everyone, or more appropriately (perhaps) "IF The Father can, THEN The Father should."

My answer to that is "of course".

I think you and I might be able to agree in that IF this were the case THEN we would be experiencing a totally different universe...or perhaps more to the point - experiencing the same universe, a totally different way.

And since that is NOT the case, we can blame The Father for not doing what we see clearly, The Father SHOULD do.

On top of that you could also argue that my dedication to the nurturing of my relationship with The Father (and accompanying recognition and acceptance of the rule set enforced) is simply a case of "a captives infatuation with his captor syndrome." (Stockholm)

Only - in your estimate, "the captor" is best thought of as imaginary (immaterial/non-existent) than real, as this means your brief experience in this universe will end as it began - a (preferable) blank thing where you no longer exist so don't have to concern yourself with anything.

Am I correct that this is a good approximation of your and your sons position on the matter?
Or am I still presuming incorrectly?

Not because there is any 'father' telling you so. Since the paster and you differ, I now know at least one of you, or both, are full of beans.

Just taking your words at face value, I could be forgiven my presumptions re my impressions of the position(s) you(s) are coming from.

I don't know if I am "full of beans" or am simply shaking the beans I do have, but I am willing to turn a blind eye (not be offended) if it might help someone help themselves. (Re a Sons Relationship with The Father).

A Son can point a Brother to The Father, but the Brother has to do the actual work with The Father in order to become (grow into) a Son (re the acceptance of the rule-set) and to also accept (in good faith as it were) the impression that they didn't give The Father permission to insert them into this freak-show with its rule-sets in the first place.

(How rude is that!)

[POI]

Before I begin, allow me to elaborate a bit. I already know you are no stranger to many arguments. I also know you are able to read between the lines. If I do actually need to elaborate better, let me know? Otherwise, I assume you get the gist, for the most part.

Should I take that literally or figuratively? What claims are you referring to and why are they similar?

He gets his information, when requested, from the almighty too. He told me Genesis is literal, as written. Meaning, the earth is young, Adam and Eve were created a few thousand years ago, Noah's flood was a real event, etc... He told me the almighty has told him that the 'science' is wrong, and to favor the truth of the Bible in favor of any science which contradicts these literally claimed events. And all of this was also instructed from yours truly, the almighty. No mention of your response, speaking about another rule set. This is a far cry from what you perceive as the almighty telling you, isn't it? So, (in the least), which one of you is clearly mistaken?

a) the pastor is mistaken
b) you are mistaken
c) "The father" gives conflicting answers
d) you are both mistaken about getting any information from an actual 'father' at all, and you guys are instead deducing your own conclusions alone

I'm now going with answer d). Why should I not?

****************************************

(William) I agree (if indeed The Father is all powerful re that) however, there is the matter of the rule-set mentioned in my previous post. The Father could easily use all sorts/every sort of medium to accomplish this feat. But that is not the nature (rule set) of The Game Board (situation we players find ourselves occupying).

(POI) The same source never insinuated any given 'rule set' to the other one who makes the same claims as you. Therefore, see answer d) above.

Again, Jesus/God/other can contact anyone, and at any time, and with or without their say-so. See the story of Saul/Paul. Your given excuses for why he doesn't, are just that, excuses, or Christian apologetics 101. They warrant or merit little/no response. Why? The story of Saul/Paul refutes them. Jesus has demonstrated to cause one to become inexorably drawn to him. Other heard anecdotal stories suggest the same thing.

Your thinking here is presumption. The truer answer is that I do not CARE.

I know you do not care, but the same perceived source has told another to care and said nothing of your 'rule set'. Thus, which one of you, in the least, are wrong? Again, see the multiple-choice question above.

On top of that you could also argue that my dedication to the nurturing of my relationship with The Father (and accompanying recognition and acceptance of the rule set enforced) is simply a case of "a captives infatuation with his captor syndrome." (Stockholm)

You see, I have you right. I do not need to explain every little thing to you. But the reason I'm responding here, is to clarify a bit. I would not accuse you of being in such a relationship. I would instead ask, why you and not also me or my son? Please remember the story of Saul.

[1213]

You think Genesis is, as told, a literal string of physical events.

Yes, I think all that we can observe in nature indicates it to be true.

Take 'Noah's flood' for instance. You believe it was global, right? Please identify the scientific source(s) to demonstrate a global flood took place a few thousand years ago, or longer? This will expose what I mean by pseudo-science.

Further, another Christian here essentially acknowledges your believed upon position is fringe. Meaning, common scholarly consensus has concluded Genesis is myth/other. See post 48.

Since when we started to care about the opinions of other people?

Consensus can be wrong, that is why it doesn't matter to me what the consensus is. To me important thing is what is reasonable and what can be demonstrated to be true. However, I can understand the opinion, because I would think the same way, if I would also use atheistic interpretation and view of the world. I just don't do so, because I think it is biased, irrational and ignorant.

[1213]

...We already saw that you refused to go with the circle of the earth as what the Bible (in Hebrew) says that means and tried to wangle it onto a globe because you prefer the science of the round earth to the pseudo - science of the flat earthists.

I have not claimed a circle means a globe. I have said, a circle can be drawn to any 3D-surface, therefore circle in the bible doesn't in any way mean it is speaking of a flat earth.

You also refuse to go with what the Bible says about sun made after daylight and prefer to wangle that as meaning something else ...

I have not refused to go with what the Bible tells. Sun was made as the Bible tells. And there is not intelligent reason to think there could no have been light before the sun.