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]

My point is, any answers (including ones that you come up with) depend on ones' personal interpretation because the answer to your question cannot be answered by the actual author, here on this internet message board.

My point is, why is this the case for Genesis, but not say.... the Gospels?

[Difflugia]

My point is, any answers (including ones that you come up with) depend on ones' personal interpretation because the answer to your question cannot be answered by the actual author, here on this internet message board.

You lately seem to be seriously leaning into the notion that since we can't for sure know authorial intention, we shouldn't even ask about it and instead should just be super mystical about it.

Historians disagree with you.

Whether their methods are valid and whether we on this message board understand how to apply them correctly is a different and valid question, but I might suggest that your recent attempts to derail all such threads into the mire of your own brand of woo is neither useful nor interesting. Nobody bothers you when you start mystical threads on your own terms, so please let those of us trying to engage with the text in a rational, methodical way do so on ours.

[2ndpillar2]

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?

Like with Yeshua and his parables (Mt 13:13-14, Genesis is meant to be reliable, but in the form of parables, whereas only the righteous will be able to have insight (Daniel 12:10). The imagery of Genesis is key to understanding the physics of creation. That is why Newton relied on the bible to uncover the basics of science.

1) Is anyone deemed 'righteous'?
2) How does one know if one is 'righteous'?
3) If some are 'righteous', what is the answer given by the ones who are deemed 'righteous'?
4) What exactly do you mean by, "that is why Newton relied on the bible to uncover the basics of science." ??

Righteousness is to do what is right. What is right? Well, that would be to keep God's Law, which has been nailed to a cross by the followers of Paul. If a person can pray to God and have the sins of a repentant person forgiven, and that person healed (James 5:15), well, that would be an indication that that the praying person is righteous, because God does not listen to sinners, the wicked. The only problem is that only the desires of the righteous are granted (Proverbs 10:24). Which is to say, only those God desires to be healed will be healed. The righteous are not independent sources of power. They know what to do when they desire to do it. In general, they let the fears of the wicked "come upon them". As for Newton, he studied the Scriptures and wrote more about them than he did science. Most of his writings were hidden until they have been found recently. Apparently, he thought he found the Philosopher's stone, and I think he did, as its geometry would be sequestered in the numbers of the Bible. Having the Philosopher's stone and being able to use it with the technology of the time, is another story.

Proverbs 10:24 The fear of the wicked, it shall come upon him: but the desire of the righteous shall be granted.

[1213]

...Assuming you took science courses in school, if/when you come across any parts which do not appear to align with any of the claim(s) in Genesis, how do you proceed? Do you just reject the scientific discovery, or other?

I proceed by looking, what is actually discovered and known and what is just imagination or scientific belief. I have not yet seen any real scientific discovery that would be against the Bible or Genesis.

Further, what do you think the author of Genesis would say regarding some later scientific discoveries not aligning with some the claim(s) from Genesis? Would he ask that we ignore those discoveries, or other?

I think he probably would first ask, what are the discoveries. Then he probably would see that all real discoveries support the Biblical story.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Assuming you took science courses in school, if/when you come across any parts which do not appear to align with any of the claim(s) in Genesis, how do you proceed? Do you just reject the scientific discovery, or other?

I proceed by looking, what is actually discovered and known and what is just imagination or scientific belief. I have not yet seen any real scientific discovery that would be against the Bible or Genesis.

Further, what do you think the author of Genesis would say regarding some later scientific discoveries not aligning with some the claim(s) from Genesis? Would he ask that we ignore those discoveries, or other?

I think he probably would first ask, what are the discoveries. Then he probably would see that all real discoveries support the Biblical story.

Astounding. "You have not seen" slam dunk evidence in front of your face. You even posted the combined resurrection texts but with the contradictions left out (so you knew what they were) and then denied you'd done it.

Never mind the mess of denial over the daylight before the sun or the attempt to evade the evidence (cetan sequence) for speciation, your denial and not seeing what you don't want to see is there for all to see.

But you aren't the only one, not by a long shot.

The science is in the geological sequencers order of stratified evidence of animal (and plant) progress in complexity and radiometric dating. Even you don't deny the scientific claim that the world is not flat and fight the Genesis picture of a world that is flat with a dome over.

So the science says Genesis is wrong, and some Believers accept that and try to skip over it as 'Metaphorically true'. e.g 2nd pillar in #2 "Genesis is meant to be reliable, but in the form of parables, whereas only the righteous will be able to have insight" which when translated from Theist to English means "The Bible means whatever we want it to mean".

But as usual, it is not down to what the excuser can ignore, deny or wave away, but what the rational looker in (we have over 100 which is splendid) who will hopefully take the message outside where it counts, as It doesn't count for much in this this limited but valuable forum, will see as the better case. Does one accept the evidence that the earth evolved over geological ages and biological forms with it, or does one believe what Genesis says?

Take the flip -flop excuses where some apologists try to make the Bible fit the science, e.g divide the age of the universe by 7 and call each one a day [and ignore morning and evening] or leap on the Flat circle (1) and claim it means 'sphere' (which it doesn't, and proclaim 'science in the Bible'. That is, those who don't deny the science and maintain the sun was indeed created after the earth, like our pal 1213. Of course it isn't the only thing, (Bible apologists love to take points in isolation, though they appeal to 'cumulative evidence' when it suits them) because you have faults and problems all the way through from the sun standing still to Genetic modification by getting sheep to stare at a stick, and the same with the NT, demons causing illness and, even those who might say "Demons means viruses" get stuck with proving that viruses can be removed by prayer. So maybe that's why I haven't heard that one. But aside the flat earth debate - the pinnacle of the Temple means up in orbit (where one still couldn't see the kingdoms on the other side of the dwr (globe [cue "?" ]) our pal trying to pull that one, as well, and Jesus referring to false history (Eden and Flood) we have have wrong history like no Passover release,and we don't hear that anymore. It's odd how the old arguments of my early days seem to have been sidelined in favor or even favour of the genesis - literalist debate. which is where we came in.

(1) chwug or similar pronunciations (2), meaning a scribed circle with compasses...and for 2,000 years the Hebrew - reading Bible experts ignored that) and I gotta say, I seem to be the only one pointing this out, or that John has no transfiguration or that the 'missing governorship' was actually filled by Varus. I sometimes wonder what the Bible debate has been about. I suspect the apologists have been able to control the debate all this time withe the irrelevant 'one angel or two' debate.

(2) the right pronunciation being a favourite misdirection. "You don't use the right hebrew diacritals, therefore we may dismiss everything you say" and the like. The pointless point being as useful a rhetorical tool as the Big Lie. Sorry to go on but the rhetorical method is actually of more use to Bible apologetics than the factual data.

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #12]

You lately seem to be seriously leaning into the notion that since we can't for sure know authorial intention, we shouldn't even ask about it

Ask all you like, the true answer will be the same.

and instead should just be super mystical about it.

Straw. What I wrote was "My point is, any answers (including ones that you come up with) depend on ones' personal interpretation".

No mystery there.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, but personal interpretation depends on the 'choice' - to take science as the baseline, some religion - dogma, or just make stuff up. Science has (or so I'd argue) earned its' credit, give or take ongoing areas of discussion, religions have lost credit by losing ground despite desperate rearguard polemics, and making stuff up has to gain any cred at all.

I did a detailed explanation of the evidence for speciation on the best test -case, cetan sequence. That ought to be good enough to make a credible case; all the argument went down other than dating of the land critter and the amphibian overlapping, but like they say, there are still monkeys.

Against that, what has Genesis?A lot of conflicting excuses for being wrong. Including 'Metaphorically true' (e.g not true at all) .

You owe yourself better. Argue for a Cosmic mind, if you must, but leave the Genesis fairy - tale by the side of the road as roadkill hit by the truck of scientific evidence, and don't try to make a meal of it.

p.s still over 100 guests. how good is this? let's hear the views of some of them, for or against the Bible, Christianity and irreligion. The pig -wrestling swamp has plenty of room and the pigs don't enjoy it half as much as they used to.

[POI]

...Assuming you took science courses in school, if/when you come across any parts which do not appear to align with any of the claim(s) in Genesis, how do you proceed? Do you just reject the scientific discovery, or other?

I proceed by looking, what is actually discovered and known and what is just imagination or scientific belief. I have not yet seen any real scientific discovery that would be against the Bible or Genesis.

Hmm? Have you even really looked?

Further, what do you think the author of Genesis would say regarding some later scientific discoveries not aligning with some the claim(s) from Genesis? Would he ask that we ignore those discoveries, or other?

I think he probably would first ask, what are the discoveries. Then he probably would see that all real discoveries support the Biblical story.

Ah, so basically the same position as Ken Ham and friends?

[POI]

My point is, any answers (including ones that you come up with) depend on ones' personal interpretation because the answer to your question cannot be answered by the actual author, here on this internet message board.

You lately seem to be seriously leaning into the notion that since we can't for sure know authorial intention, we shouldn't even ask about it and instead should just be super mystical about it.

Historians disagree with you.

Whether their methods are valid and whether we on this message board understand how to apply them correctly is a different and valid question, but I might suggest that your recent attempts to derail all such threads into the mire of your own brand of woo is neither useful nor interesting. Nobody bothers you when you start mystical threads on your own terms, so please let those of us trying to engage with the text in a rational, methodical way do so on ours.

I also find it a bit convenient that all such told events, from Genesis and beyond, which happen to not likely of been real events in our earth's past, are maybe not to be taken literally after all. Curious....? However, scholars are not really questioning the author's intent of the Gospels. And yet, we do not require the use of a Ouija board here. as William suggests for Genesis. The reason I point to Genesis specifically, and also the Exodus in another thread, where Christians also basically ignore here, is that such claims exist within the pages which are researchable and/or falsifiable. I reckon the ones which understand there is a pretty good chance that those told events have been falsified, even to their own satisfaction(s), are now 'wondering' what the author's real intent truly was for Genesis/Exodus?

The reason I created this thread, is because countless Christians have now become ex-Christians, because the pages of the Bible lead them to 'untruth'. Were their position shifts in haste? Is the Bible not really literal, as the OP asks? Seems 'education' is slowly reducing the Christian populous. Do believers care?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #19]

And yet, we do not require the use of a Ouija board here. as William suggests for Genesis.

I didn't mean or intend to mean that one should take my advice literally. I also didn't think I needed to explain that it was a statement of humor more than a mysterious/ambiguous statement offering serious advice.

If anything serious about the statement might be construed, it would be that since the option to take or not take the stories literally is up to the individual's choice of interpretation and since there is no accompanying disclaimer by the author(s) in which the individual can use to assist them with their interpretation, and since the author(s) have moved on and since the ouija is commonly thought of/touted as being an instrument which can assist in getting answers to questions from those who have lived and since moved on, that if one was really keen to have such answers and those answer were not satisfactory forthcoming from the posters on this message board, one could try another type of message board and see what might happen.

Hench the humor...but I see now that I may have been better to accompany that advice with a disclaimer...to assist those who tend to take things literally rather than figuratively, humorously or some other way which isn't literal.