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?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #19]

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?

I have no answer to that observation. I think that many Christians do move on/extend outwards but not all become atheists as a result or drop altogether all relevance the Bible might offer.
For example, that is why I am open to the idea that the bibles stories can be understood within the framework of the Jungian Archetypes.
I certainly didn't become an atheist or felt it was necessary to do so, just because I no longer called myself a Christian and have never been convinced by any atheist (be they ex-Christians or otherwise) that atheism is the way forward (for me particularly).

[POI]

[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.

I got the humor. But did you read the rest of what I wrote there?

[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.

I got the humor. But did you read the rest of what I wrote there?

Yes. I even wrote that "I have no answer to that observation."

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #19]

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?

I have no answer to that observation. I think that many Christians do move on/extend outwards but not all become atheists as a result or drop altogether all relevance the Bible might offer.
For example, that is why I am open to the idea that the bibles stories can be understood within the framework of the Jungian Archetypes.
I certainly didn't become an atheist or felt it was necessary to do so, just because I no longer called myself a Christian and have never been convinced by any atheist (be they ex-Christians or otherwise) that atheism is the way forward (for me particularly).

The point I was making is that the stuff, in which the Bible claims, which are falsifiable, and have been falsified, (even to their own standards), then become a pivot for Many. Meaning, 'well, maybe those verses were not meant to be literal after all."

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #24]

The point I was making is that the stuff, in which the Bible claims, which are falsifiable, and have been falsified, (even to their own standards), then become a pivot for Many. Meaning, 'well, maybe those verses were not meant to be literal after all."

Understood.
The point I was making is that one does not have to become an atheist (have such pivot one in that direction) in order to come to that understanding.

[POI]

The point I was making is that one does not have to become an atheist (have such pivot one in that direction) in order to come to that understanding.

Sure, this is why I've asked you many times now. What is YOUR position?

[1213]

You even posted the combined resurrection texts but with the contradictions left out

That is not true, I had every passage from Bible, nothing left out.

Never mind the mess of denial over the daylight before the sun ...

I am disappointed to you that you still spread lies. I have not said there was not light before the sun.

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.

Everyone with eyes can see that earth is not flat, for example because it has mountains.

Radiometric dating is not useful, because it is based on assumptions that can't be checked.

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".

Science doesn't say "Genesis is wrong", it is the people who have elevated "science" as their god, who make the claims.

Bible means what it explains it means.

or leap on the Flat circle (1) and claim it means 'sphere' (which it doesn't, and proclaim 'science in the Bible'.

Circle is not a sphere, but it can be drawn on a sphere.

Genetic modification by getting sheep to stare at a stick

Do you understand that you ruin your credibility by spreading obvious false claims?

[TRANSPONDER]

You even posted the combined resurrection texts but with the contradictions left out

That is not true, I had every passage from Bible, nothing left out.

I recall clearly that you did.I reposted what you had presented and pointed up the bits you had left out. We can do it again if you want and you can tell me why they do not contradict.

Never mind the mess of denial over the daylight before the sun ...

I am disappointed to you that you still spread lies. I have not said there was not light before the sun.

I am exasperated but not surprised that you are still being crafty by changing (strawmanning) what i said.I said 'daylight', not light. Sure, you had to have light but it was an imitation of daylight by the 'cosmic radiation' (the sun not yet being made, folks, note). Wasn't it? Are you not the one who is not being strag,ht with me, you and everyone else?

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.

Everyone with eyes can see that earth is not flat, for example because it has mountains.

Dude, even a flat earth - theory has mountains. The 'stamp seal' simile in the Bible has markings and features on.

Radiometric dating is not useful, because it is based on assumptions that can't be checked.

Of course, not only by different methods of radiometric dating but by stratification, ice cores and C14 dating cross- checks. RATE tried to debunk Radiometric dating and had to accept they had failed. You are in denial of science and not for the first time.

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".

Science doesn't say "Genesis is wrong", it is the people who have elevated "science" as their god, who make the claims.

Don't pull the "exact words" ploy. It sets out the order of creation and it is wrong according to stratification. The sea life appeared before there was plant life on land. And are you still saying the earth was made before the sun?

Bible means what it explains it means.

It explains nothing; it makes claims (bald statements) which conflict with science, and apologists have to invent stuff to ry to get around it, or deny science altogether.

or leap on the Flat circle (1) and claim it means 'sphere' (which it doesn't, and proclaim 'science in the Bible'.

Circle is not a sphere, but it can be drawn on a sphere.

Yes, but the Bible talks of a circle OF the earth, not ON the earth, and the 'Eden' location (which is where Man was created) from Cush to Mesipotamia (Gen 2 10--14) is hardly a 'circle'.

Genetic modification by getting sheep to stare at a stick

Do you understand that you ruin your credibility by spreading obvious false claims?

I do indeed. But you seem to fail to understand how you ruin yours by doing what you accuse me of. And the striped stick altering the coloration of sheep is well - known Bible nonsense. You will not do your cred damage by being oblivious that I am having a bit of a laugh at the actual Bible story. Which I assumed you knew.

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/a ... enesis-30/


Now that of course is an apologetics site and tries to explain it. It is improbable. Sheep mate like other animals - when and where and never mind the colour. They do not use drinking venues as a place to mate. Not even humans do that, but go home to do it.

[1213]

...I am exasperated but not surprised that you are still being crafty by changing (strawmanning) what i said.I said 'daylight', not light. Sure, you had to have light but it was an imitation of daylight by the 'cosmic radiation' (the sun not yet being made, folks, note). Wasn't it? Are you not the one who is not being straight with me, you and everyone else?

Are you saying that sunlight is the only light that can be called daylight? Why?

Of course, not only by different methods of radiometric dating but by stratification, ice cores and C14 dating cross- checks. RATE tried to debunk Radiometric dating and had to accept they had failed. You are in denial of science and not for the first time.

That is like priest telling atheist, you are just in denial, if you don't accept God is real.

It sets out the order of creation and it is wrong according to stratification. The sea life appeared before there was plant life on land. And are you still saying the earth was made before the sun?

I believe things went as told in the Bible. By it, earth (dry land) was before sun.

Stratification doesn't really tell what is the correct order. It only tells that certain animals were trapped in certain way.

Circle is not a sphere, but it can be drawn on a sphere.

Yes, but the Bible talks of a circle OF the earth, not ON the earth, and the 'Eden' location (which is where Man was created) from Cush to Mesipotamia (Gen 2 10--14) is hardly a 'circle'.

The original continent was circular, apparently the edge went approximately where the "ring of fire" is. And yes, it was circle of earth, not circle on earth, because Bible also tells earth means dry land, not the whole planet.

I do indeed. But you seem to fail to understand how you ruin yours by doing what you accuse me of. And the striped stick altering the coloration of sheep is well - known Bible nonsense. You will not do your cred damage by being oblivious that I am having a bit of a laugh at the actual Bible story. Which I assumed you knew.

The sticks were in the drinking water of the animals. It would be interesting to study, would drinking water have an such impact in sheep.

[TRANSPONDER]

...I am exasperated but not surprised that you are still being crafty by changing (strawmanning) what i said.I said 'daylight', not light. Sure, you had to have light but it was an imitation of daylight by the 'cosmic radiation' (the sun not yet being made, folks, note). Wasn't it? Are you not the one who is not being straight with me, you and everyone else?

Are you saying that sunlight is the only light that can be called daylight? Why?

I am saying the Bible says is was day and night, dark and light, morning and evening. Either the sun was doing it of God had made a sort of imitation day and night before the sun was made.

Of course, not only by different methods of radiometric dating but by stratification, ice cores and C14 dating cross- checks. RATE tried to debunk Radiometric dating and had to accept they had failed. You are in denial of science and not for the first time.

That is like priest telling atheist, you are just in denial, if you don't accept God is real.

It is not because geological dating has evidence (unless you reject science - or at least that that isn't useful for you) and religion has no real evidence, just denial and faithclaims.

It sets out the order of creation and it is wrong according to stratification. The sea life appeared before there was plant life on land. And are you still saying the earth was made before the sun?

I believe things went as told in the Bible. By it, earth (dry land) was before sun.

You are welcome to deny science. Folks, this guy really thinks the earth was made before the sun. Why you deny the earth was also flat I can't think.

Stratification doesn't really tell what is the correct order. It only tells that certain animals were trapped in certain way.

Of course it tell what the order of deposit of rocks was and the order of the animals fossilised in them. I say again, Evolution -deniersd have got to understand the science before they try to debunk it. And again I say, you may fool yoursel, but you can't fool me. I know when someone os talking (denying) science they clearly don't understand, nor want to.

Circle is not a sphere, but it can be drawn on a sphere.

Yes, but the Bible talks of a circle OF the earth, not ON the earth, and the 'Eden' location (which is where Man was created) from Cush to Mesipotamia (Gen 2 10--14) is hardly a 'circle'.

The original continent was circular, apparently the edge went approximately where the "ring of fire" is. And yes, it was circle of earth, not circle on earth, because Bible also tells earth means dry land, not the whole planet.

Ring of fire? What's that?You are surely not talking about the Pacific volcanic ring?That is nowhere near Eden as describes in gen 2. In any case, however you try to bend the Bible and geography to your wishes, I maintain the Bible is talking of a flat (circular) earth with a dome over it and sun and planets added as decoration afterwards. Just like the Babylonians and Egyptians believed and why someone who thinks the sun was made later is still balking at a flat earth i again can't think.

I do indeed. But you seem to fail to understand how you ruin yours by doing what you accuse me of. And the striped stick altering the coloration of sheep is well - known Bible nonsense. You will not do your cred damage by being oblivious that I am having a bit of a laugh at the actual Bible story. Which I assumed you knew.

The sticks were in the drinking water of the animals. It would be interesting to study, would drinking water have an such impact in sheep.

Yes. I was kidding a bit it was sticks in the water, and it was discussed here and despite hits at some genetic stuff getting into the water and mutating the sheep (about on the level of "maybe we can get rid of covid by injecting bleach..ya think that would work?" there is no evidence that striped sicks in drinking water does anything but taint the water.