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?

[1213]

....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....

Bible tells that God created the earth and Bible tells earth means dry land. Bible also tells God stretched the dry land over water, after He had drawn circle on the surface of the water covered planet.

It is interesting that the "ring of fire" seems to go about where I assume the circle God drew was. Perhaps when Bible speaks God drew the circle, it was something like when volcanoes appear.

[POI]

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.

Please provide the source(s) from where you listed your bullet points, which states this is why a global flood happened 6 - 10K years ago.

[1213]

Please provide the source(s) from where you listed your bullet points, which states this is why a global flood happened 6 - 10K years ago.

The points are just logical conclusions from the Bible.

[POI]

Please provide the source(s) from where you listed your bullet points, which states this is why a global flood happened 6 - 10K years ago.

The points are just logical conclusions from the Bible.

Many of your points are NOT logical conclusions, but instead that of the conclusions of Bible believers simply trying to make things fit. This is pseudo-science. Pseudo-science lacks the rigor of the scientific method. Many of the events you listed are not related to a flood event a few thousand years ago.

[TRANSPONDER]

Please provide the source(s) from where you listed your bullet points, which states this is why a global flood happened 6 - 10K years ago.

The points are just logical conclusions from the Bible.

Well there we are. It is not 'what the Bible says'; it is what you often do anyway. Working it out. Logically, one would hope but much more often twisting the meaning like the prayer guarantee doesn't mean what it actually says and of course making stuff up, like (not you as I recall) inventing the Marys rushing from the tomb on different roads in order to account for Mary Magdalene not knowing the angelic explanation. This sort of invention of explanations out of thin air is the norm.

I know why: I have heard it before on my Other board "The Bible says it happened so it must have happened some way". Any explanation will do and it doesn't matter even if it's wrong so long as it enables the Bible apologists to avoid admitting it is wrong, a contradiction or makes no sense. In a sense, the culprit can't fool me because I already know who dunnit.

[1213]

...I have heard it before on my Other board "The Bible says it happened so it must have happened some way". Any explanation will do....

Why should we assume it went the way you insist it went, when your suggestion is irrational?

[TRANSPONDER]

...I have heard it before on my Other board "The Bible says it happened so it must have happened some way". Any explanation will do....

Why should we assume it went the way you insist it went, when your suggestion is irrational?

Your argument is not only irrational but science -denial. From the order of creation to the Flood, tower of Babel, origins of the nations and the origins of the Hebrews. It is trusting in the demonstrably unreliable claims of an old book.

That said, please show where and how my suggestion is irrational. That sounds like a bald claim without support. I'm calling you on it.

Cue -evasion.

[1213]

...I have heard it before on my Other board "The Bible says it happened so it must have happened some way". Any explanation will do....

Why should we assume it went the way you insist it went, when your suggestion is irrational?

Your argument is not only irrational but science -denial. From the order of creation to the Flood, tower of Babel, origins of the nations and the origins of the Hebrews. It is trusting in the demonstrably unreliable claims of an old book.

That said, please show where and how my suggestion is irrational.

Basically you suggest that Bible should be expected to be contradictory and erroneous. And then you make interpretations of it that are contradictory, or make no sense and expect everyone to accept your interpretations. For example the tomb case, you insist that it actually went the way you suggest and interpret, even though your suggestions makes non coherent and irrational story. I have showed that it is not necessary to interpret it like you do. And it is possible to understand without contradictions. So, in other words, your suggestions of what is the right interpretation of Bible is irrational, because it is not logically sound.

[TRANSPONDER]

...I have heard it before on my Other board "The Bible says it happened so it must have happened some way". Any explanation will do....

Why should we assume it went the way you insist it went, when your suggestion is irrational?

Your argument is not only irrational but science -denial. From the order of creation to the Flood, tower of Babel, origins of the nations and the origins of the Hebrews. It is trusting in the demonstrably unreliable claims of an old book.

That said, please show where and how my suggestion is irrational.

Basically you suggest that Bible should be expected to be contradictory and erroneous. And then you make interpretations of it that are contradictory, or make no sense and expect everyone to accept your interpretations. For example the tomb case, you insist that it actually went the way you suggest and interpret, even though your suggestions makes non coherent and irrational story. I have showed that it is not necessary to interpret it like you do. And it is possible to understand without contradictions. So, in other words, your suggestions of what is the right interpretation of Bible is irrational, because it is not logically sound.

That was not an example; it was a blanket accusation. Which of my arguments have been interpreted?The two I made was the daylight (morning and evening) before the sun was made. That is what the Bible says. You not only interpreted but invented a cosmic light that imitated daylight before there was any.

As to prayer, the Bible guarantees it will be answered.It isn't, demonstrably. I even showed a post where you argues that some prayers are not answered. This isn't just 'interpretation by you but denial: denial of that the Bible says, denial of what is the case (prayers are not always answered) and denial of what you said yourself.

I am yet again truly thankful that i don't think like a Bible apologist.

[1213]

Which of my arguments have been interpreted? The two I made was the daylight (morning and evening) before the sun was made. That is what the Bible says. You not only interpreted but invented a cosmic light that imitated daylight before there was any.

Bible doesn't use word daylight, but it speaks of a light before the sun. Why do you insist that no such light could not have existed?

As to prayer, the Bible guarantees it will be answered.It isn't, demonstrably. I even showed a post where you argues that some prayers are not answered. This isn't just 'interpretation by you but denial: denial of that the Bible says, denial of what is the case (prayers are not always answered) and denial of what you said yourself.

Bible doesn't guarantee that all possible prayers by anyone is answered. As i have shows, it depends on is person righteous and has he faith.

Yahweh is far from the wicked, But he hears the prayer of the righteous.
Prov. 15:29
But let him ask in faith, without any doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed. For let that man not think that he will receive anything from the Lord.
James 1:6-7
You lust, and don't have. You kill, covet, and can't obtain. You fight and make war. You don't have, because you don't ask. You ask, and don't receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it for your pleasures.
James 4:2-3

Those mean, if you don't get what you pray, it may be because:
1) You are not a disciple of Jesus.
2) You are not righteous.
3) You don't have enough faith.

And, if you are a righteous disciple of Jesus, then you pray like Jesus taught, that God's will happens, and it will happen.