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?

[hERICtic]

I think its pretty clear the Bible describes a flat earth.

Isaiah 40:22
ESV
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Ths issue here is most focus the on the "circle" aspect of the verse....ignoring what comes after. The heavens (sky) are a tent. Picture a tent. Flat ground, tent on top of it, over it. Flat earth, dome above.

This is probably the best description of the earth as being flat...

Job 38:14

14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.

A clay seal is circular...and flat.

[William]

[Replying to 1213 in post #60]

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.

According to the Big Bang theory, Light existed before our sun did.

[POI]

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

Exactly what observation(s) lead you to believe Noah's flood actually happened?

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Exactly what observation(s) lead you to believe Noah's flood actually happened?

We already know what is the only apologetic - if there is one. To take the 'Observation' and try to fiddle it to support the Flood. A classic is trying to make the grand Canyon a feature produced by a torrent of water which it isn't but a meandering shape that indicates erosion over millions of years. Also the objections to the flood (strata, salt mines - long dried oceans - fossils in evolutionary order) are explained away. Logically this would not make their explanation the best one but that is not how Bible apologetics works.It is not which theory best fits the facts but whether the evidence debunks the Bible. It is a different approach and is why got here if a failure to communicate.

That's if they come back with anything more than 'Some evidence will turn up later to produce the flood', 'If the Bible says so, it must be true', and many denialist and faithbased fingers in the ears, if we get a response at all. We shall see.

I recall the slam dunk evidence of speciation through the cetan sequence. It was just denied and then ignored.That isn't unique - it is typical of Biblical apologetics.

[1213]

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

Exactly what observation(s) lead you to believe Noah's flood actually happened?

1) modern continents, the result of the collapse of the original single continent.
2) Mid-Atlantic ridge, the result of the collapse of the original single continent and evidence for the "fountains of the great deep".
3) Oil, gas and coal fields, the result of vast amount of sunken organic material
4) Orogenic mountains, , the result of the flooding water and collapse of the original single continent.
5) Marine fossils on high mountain areas, the evidence for that the areas were covered with water, or that the flood carried such a stuff to higher areas.
6) Stories of similar flood all over the world, not just in the Bible.
7) Ice age evidence and great glaciers in north and south pole, results of the cooling of the planet, because of the long rain period.

[1213]

I think its pretty clear the Bible describes a flat earth.

Isaiah 40:22
ESV
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Ths issue here is most focus the on the "circle" aspect of the verse....ignoring what comes after. The heavens (sky) are a tent. Picture a tent. Flat ground, tent on top of it, over it. Flat earth, dome above.

This is probably the best description of the earth as being flat...

Saying "is like", is not the same as "it is". Heavens can be around a sphere like a curtain, meaning it can cover the surface of a planet like a curtain. No good reason to think that means earth must be flat.

Job 38:14

14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.

A clay seal is circular...and flat.

Is planet earth not circular?

[TRANSPONDER]

I think its pretty clear the Bible describes a flat earth.

Isaiah 40:22
ESV
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Ths issue here is most focus the on the "circle" aspect of the verse....ignoring what comes after. The heavens (sky) are a tent. Picture a tent. Flat ground, tent on top of it, over it. Flat earth, dome above.

This is probably the best description of the earth as being flat...

Saying "is like", is not the same as "it is". Heavens can be around a sphere like a curtain, meaning it can cover the surface of a planet like a curtain. No good reason to think that means earth must be flat.

Job 38:14

14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.

A clay seal is circular...and flat.

Is planet earth not circular?

No.It is globular or Round if you prefer. the Hebrew 'dwr' would have been used rather than 'chwug', which you had to concede was a flat (scribed) circle which you arbitrarily flapped on a round earth as there are limits to your dinial, and apparently tries to argue that this fitted the Bible. But the Bible does not say God made the world and then drew a circle on it and called it Earth (when it was limited to Eden which is hardly circular nor ringed by mountains. It's a cunning apologetic and some may like it. But it is just the usual making stuff up to avoid the fact that what the Bible says fits what they knew back in Babylon rather than what we know now. Apart from which - again you are arguing that what the Bible appears to say is not what it really means.

That passage from Job is good.It absolutely depicts a flat circle and not a globe. Pretty much all these quotes better fit a flat earth concept than a round one.

[POI]

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

Exactly what observation(s) lead you to believe Noah's flood actually happened?

1) modern continents, the result of the collapse of the original single continent.
2) Mid-Atlantic ridge, the result of the collapse of the original single continent and evidence for the "fountains of the great deep".
3) Oil, gas and coal fields, the result of vast amount of sunken organic material
4) Orogenic mountains, , the result of the flooding water and collapse of the original single continent.
5) Marine fossils on high mountain areas, the evidence for that the areas were covered with water, or that the flood carried such a stuff to higher areas.
6) Stories of similar flood all over the world, not just in the Bible.
7) Ice age evidence and great glaciers in north and south pole, results of the cooling of the planet, because of the long rain period.

But it's pseudo-science which suggests these events happened because of a recent flood (i.e.) 6-10K years ago.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Exactly what observation(s) lead you to believe Noah's flood actually happened?

1) modern continents, the result of the collapse of the original single continent.
2) Mid-Atlantic ridge, the result of the collapse of the original single continent and evidence for the "fountains of the great deep".
3) Oil, gas and coal fields, the result of vast amount of sunken organic material
4) Orogenic mountains, , the result of the flooding water and collapse of the original single continent.
5) Marine fossils on high mountain areas, the evidence for that the areas were covered with water, or that the flood carried such a stuff to higher areas.
6) Stories of similar flood all over the world, not just in the Bible.
7) Ice age evidence and great glaciers in north and south pole, results of the cooling of the planet, because of the long rain period.

But it's pseudo-science which suggests these events happened because of a recent flood (i.e.) 6-10K years ago.

It is. Modern continents are evidence of break up of a supercontinent - even Creationist theory endorses this
Mid - Atlantic ridge says nothing about a 'collapse'of a single continent which split apart. It is a childish trick of starting with a claim, looking at what we have and claiming what we have is evidence of what is claimed.
Oil, gas and coal fields are what you say, but it talks of millions of years of regular organic deposits, not just all organic material on the earth over a year or so.
Mountains are the result of proven tectonic plate movement. To say they are anything else is science -denial. I fail to see how they are anything to do with the Flood -theory.
Marine fossils on high mountains are in situ on sea floors showing that what happened is the sea floors were raised up in geological formations. Of course Creationism is now tending to adapt Geological, palaeontological evidence and even evolution, (after the Ark) but all crammed into a year, a few years or a few hundred years.

"Evolution is impossible - there wasn't enough time". creationists used to say. We don't hear that anymore.

Stories of similar floods - but nothing like the 'Great Flood'.Which should have been the common story because nobody else was left. A Flood is handy in Cathartic destruction -myths because it is so destructive. And of course China and Egypt do not have such a myth, despite Creationists lying about what their legends are to make them a 'Global Flood'.

Glaciers are (like the supercontinent) regular features of the varying climate the earth went through. It is NOT evidence of a Flood, great or otherwise. It is - again - taking whatever we have and claiming it is a relic of the great flood and just inventing stuff to try to make it fit.

Pseudo - science indeed. And borrowed. I would bet our pal just cut and pasted some stock Creationist claims or alpologetics and never even bothered to understand how they were supposed to work, never mind what science had to say about it.

P.s I just had a look at the debunk of the mid - Atlantic ridge being anything to do with a flood, but it was debunking Kent Hovind's 'look and guess' method. And there may be a revised Creationist story about how the mid - Atlantic ridge figures into that. I trust they are not stillc iting crass old Hovind claims. Mind, they are still peddling 'sea shells on mountains' which was debunked decades ago.

[1213]

But it's pseudo-science which suggests these events happened because of a recent flood (i.e.) 6-10K years ago.

Please explain, what makes it pseudo-science?

There is a solid theory and all of those are clear observable matters. Therefore I think ti is not pseudo-science.