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?

[William]

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? Please provide scholarly evidence to support your answer.
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 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?

I am unaware that there is any indication in the stories of Genesis which say that the stories should/have to/must be taken literally.

I think it bodes well for the individual sensibilities to compare those who take the stories literally, with those who do not, and analyze the different pathways which define the beliefs that evolve from those positions.

If God's intent is to bring my awareness of God being real in order to then create a relationship between God and I, one would have to expect that this would align with one's reality, otherwise, how could that happen?

[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? Please provide scholarly evidence to support your answer.
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 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?

I am unaware that there is any indication in the stories of Genesis which say that the stories should/have to/must be taken literally.

I think it bodes well for the individual sensibilities to compare those who take the stories literally, with those who do not, and analyze the different pathways which define the beliefs that evolve from those positions.

Thank you for your opinion. But this is not what I'm asking. Please re-read question 1). Also, you missed question 2).

[William]

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? Please provide scholarly evidence to support your answer.
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 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?

I am unaware that there is any indication in the stories of Genesis which say that the stories should/have to/must be taken literally.

I think it bodes well for the individual sensibilities to compare those who take the stories literally, with those who do not, and analyze the different pathways which define the beliefs that evolve from those positions.

Thank you for your opinion. But this is not what I'm asking. Please re-read question 1). Also, you missed question 2).

I am unaware that there is any scholarly indication re the stories of Genesis which say that the stories should/have to/must be taken literally.

I think it bodes well for the individual sensibilities to compare those who take the stories literally, with those who do not, and analyze the different pathways which define the beliefs that evolve from those positions.

Re Q2;

If God's intent is to bring my awareness of God being real in order to then create a relationship between God and I, one would have to expect that this would align with one's reality, otherwise, how could that happen?

[POI]

I am unaware that there is any scholarly indication re the stories of Genesis which say that the stories should/have to/must be taken literally.

Saying you are unaware, adds little/nothing to this topic. The Tanager suggests, in the other thread mentioned in the OP, that scholarly debate still exists as to whether or not Genesis 1 -11 is meant to be fully literal or not. Do you disagree with him, on this point?

I find it odd you have, again, not answered question 1)? This more and more so tells me the God you believe in is unclear in his word. IS Genesis meant to be literal, as written, or not? It's a (yes or no) question, for starters.

I think it bodes well for the individual sensibilities to compare those who take the stories literally, with those who do not, and analyze the different pathways which define the beliefs that evolve from those positions.

Again, thanks for your opinion.

Re Q2;

If God's intent is to bring my awareness of God being real in order to then create a relationship between God and I, one would have to expect that this would align with one's reality, otherwise, how could that happen?

God would know that many fall away, due to Genesis not aligning with their reality. Why did God not better clarify that Genesis was not meant to be taken literally, if that is indeed what he meant? God is crystal clear when he wants to be.

[William]

I am unaware that there is any scholarly indication re the stories of Genesis which say that the stories should/have to/must be taken literally.

Saying you are unaware, adds little/nothing to this topic. The Tanager suggests, in the other thread mentioned in the OP, that scholarly debate still exists as to whether or not Genesis 1 -11 is meant to be fully literal or not. Do you disagree with him, on this point?

Being unaware, I nether agree or disagree with Tanager on this point. Do you agree or disagree with Tanager on this point?

I find it odd you have, again, not answered question 1)? This more and more so tells me the God you believe in is unclear in his word. IS Genesis meant to be literal, as written, or not? It's a (yes or no) question, for starters.

As I pointed out, there is no indication I know about in Genesis where we are instructed to take the stories as literal or figurative.
I can only add to that observation the conclusion could be that it is left up to the individual as to how they take the stories.

I think it bodes well for the individual sensibilities to compare those who take the stories literally, with those who do not, and analyze the different pathways which define the beliefs that evolve from those positions.

Again, thanks for your opinion.

I take it by your comment, you agree with my opinion.

Re Q2;

If God's intent is to bring my awareness of God being real in order to then create a relationship between God and I, one would have to expect that this would align with one's reality, otherwise, how could that happen?

God would know that many fall away, due to Genesis not aligning with their reality.

I cannot say re the information available that such "falling away" would be exactly what God would expect re the writing under question.

Why did God not better clarify that Genesis was not meant to be taken literally, if that is indeed what he meant?

Perhaps you are conflating the author(s) of Genesis stories with "God"? If so, why are you taking literally the idea that God was the author of said stories and is it necessary for you or anyone else to do so?

God is crystal clear when he wants to be.

Then one would do well to listen to the crystal clarity and follow its directive? Not? Something else?

[POI]

Before I begin, the fact you cannot answer (yes or no) further confirms my prior point. God is not clear but can be, if he chooses.

Being unaware, I nether agree or disagree with Tanager on this point.

Hmm, and yet, a simple 5 second Google search would answer your 'unawareness' (i.e.):

http://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-bl ... -literally
http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/09/did- ... literally/

But go head and remain completely agnostic, for safety's sake

As I pointed out, there is no indication I know about in Genesis where we are instructed to take the stories as literal or figurative.
I can only add to that observation the conclusion could be that it is left up to the individual as to how they take the stories.

Then the Bible is not clear!

Further, is the Bible based upon literal/actual events, or not? If <yes>, then if the Bible does not say otherwise to a specific claim, then why is Genesis not also meant to be literal/actual? If <no> to the aforementioned question, then "game over".

I'm asking <you>. (4th attempt). Is Genesis meant to be literal, as written, or not?

I cannot say re the information available that such "falling away" would be exactly what God would expect re the writing under question.

Is it unreasonable for people fall away from the Bible after reading Genesis and then seeing that such claims do not align with their reality?

Perhaps you are conflating the author(s) of Genesis stories with "God"? If so, why are you taking literally the idea that God was the author of said stories and is it necessary for you or anyone else to do so?

Hmm, so Genesis was the work of men alone? If yes, I would then agree, along with all the other books of the collective Bible being the work of men alone.

Then one would do well to listen to the crystal clarity and follow its directive? Not? Something else?

You want me to follow the directive of other human's opinions alone? How do you know which parts were, and were not, inspired by anything other than mere human opinion alone?

[William]

Overall the thread subject and questions and your further questions don't appear to have a particular point of focus.

What is apparent is that the obvious answer to the question (Literal or Not?) is that it is left up to the individual to decide what they believe and do not believe, or prefer to stay currently undecided about, and what opinions they will develop re their choices on answering said question/follow-up questions.

[POI]

Overall the thread subject and questions and your further questions don't appear to have a particular point of focus.

Yes, they certainly do have particular points of focus. But you demonstrate why they cannot be answered.

1) Is Genesis literal, as written, or not? Unknown/debatable even among scholars, which means the Bible is not clear.
2) Is God happy that the apparent mistranslation of Genesis is the reason many later reject the Bible? It's a follow-up question to another question asked, and avoided: "Is it unreasonable for people fall away from the Bible after reading Genesis and then seeing that such claims do not align with their reality?"

What is apparent is that the obvious answer to the question (Literal or Not?) is that it is left up to the individual to decide what they believe and do not believe, or prefer to stay currently undecided about, and what opinions they will develop re their choices on answering said question/follow-up questions.

No. It's not subjective. Either God meant for Genesis to be literal, as written, or not. The fact that you cannot answer means the Bible is not clear. And the fact that you opted to instead not respond to my last post, and instead respond in general, leads me to conclude you agree.

And since the Bible is not clear, the other thread question, (does science debunk the Bible?), is essentially placing the cart before the horse. Why? Until we know whether or not Genesis is literal, we cannot assess if science could even challenge it's claims or not?

[William]

Overall the thread subject and questions and your further questions don't appear to have a particular point of focus.

Yes, they certainly do have particular points of focus. But you demonstrate why they cannot be answered.

Is that the point of focus then? To show that the questions cannot be answered?

1) Is Genesis literal, as written, or not?
2) Is God happy that the apparent mistranslation of Genesis is the reason many later reject the Bible?

My question re these questions is "Can these questions be answered outside the structure of personal opinion?" and currently (as I understand) the answer is "No they can not."

What is apparent is that the obvious answer to the question (Literal or Not?) is that it is left up to the individual to decide what they believe and do not believe, or prefer to stay currently undecided about, and what opinions they will develop re their choices on answering said question/follow-up questions.

No. It's not subjective.

What is "not subjective"? The question? The answers? Both the questions and any answers?

Either God meant for Genesis to be literal, as written, or not.

So if that is true, we can only answer that if "yes", then (such and such) or if "no" then (such and such.) but either answer would still be personal opinion, would it not?

The fact that you cannot answer means the Bible is not clear.

But I plainly did answer. I wrote that Genesis does not state whether the stories are to be taken literally or not. Therefore it is clear that the stories can (at least) be taken either way, producing whatever effect such beliefs would evidently evolve.

And the fact that you opted to instead not respond to my last post, and instead respond in general, leads me to conclude you agree.

Yet clearly one could also conclude that I opted to try and avoid repeating myself (re responding initially) only to have that ignored/misinterpreted/et al.

And since the Bible is not clear, the other thread question, (does science debunk the Bible?), is essentially based upon a false premise. Why? Until we know whether or not Genesis is literal, we cannot assess if science could even challenge it's claims or not?

What makes you think that?

For example, one of the first stories of Genesis has it that some voice in a garden claiming to be "God" gave out some instructions to a pair of human beings.
If one is to take that literally, what current scientific knowledge would we be able to use to explain that happening?
And if not taken literally, why bother using current scientific knowledge or even ask any scientists the question let alone expect them to provide an answer?

In that, it would appear the asking scientists to answer the question is asking the wrong folk, even if Genesis was actually taken literally.

The underlying question appears to be "Why didn't God make things a lot clearer in Genesis if it is to be taken literally?" and a sensible answer does not appear to even need to be presented by scientists because it is not a question of science, but comes from an atheist.

Even so, it is not a question borne of atheism (which is creedless) but of an atheist who apparently thinks it is an important question to have answered implying "science" should be able to answer it because "its not subjective".

My answer to the question "Why didn't God make things a lot clearer in Genesis if it is to be taken literally?" would be.
1. It is not meant to be taken literally, therefore God didn't need to "make things a lot clearer".
2. It is meant to be taken literally, therefore it is clear enough.

re 2. It would have to be shown where in Genesis, things are not clear enough that we should take those things literally.

So perhaps that is a better place to start. What are you asking about that should or shouldn't' be taken literally re Genesis, or are you meaning the whole book?