Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[outhouse]

Genesis can easily be seen as a history of mankind as we evolved advanced and became a society. It can be seen as foundational since it sets the relationship between man and god, man being somewhat at an elevated status which got them kicked out of paradise. The whole of the bible is mankind trying to return to the paradise that was lost since the beginning.

How would a multicultural race of people who didnt even exist until about 3,200 years ago, be able to explain anything about human origins that existed 200,000 years before they did ?

 

[CG Didymus]

Well where does the Bible say they were vegetarians? It doesn't. They could use the fleeces at this time for clothing; assuming they did not know how to make wool at first. They also needed sacrifices.
As for what God gave them. We don't know other than two pairs of clothing made from animal skins. But, since we see that He gave them this then He could give them other things as well.

Gen 1:29-30 says that God gave the humans and the animals plants for food. In Gen 9:3-4 talks about God telling Noah that every "moving" thing is now food for you. I've heard many pastor and TV evangelist say that, up to the time of Noah, people and animals were vegetarians. These same people say there was no rain until the time of Noah and the flood. They use the verse, Gen 2:6, to build that theory. Those particular Christians have committed themselves to a strict literal interpretation. I don't think their followers realize what a complicated mess that becomes. It is too easy for them to say they believe in a young Earth and a six-day creation, but they can't ignore this minor details that holding to a literal Bible interpretation includes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Fair enough. Got any biblical evidence to prove "asah" can never mean "appointed" or "set"?

That is a pathetically childish question and an even more pathetic attempt to transfer the burden of proof. If and when you can provide scholarship supporting your idiosyncratic and self-serving rendering of Genesis, feel free to do so.

I didn't think so.

Nor have you defended your 'translation' ...

 

[CG Didymus]

Firstly, define "literal".

That's the problem. Some Christians say "literal" when it suits them and "allegory" when the verse doesn't make "literal" sense. People tell me that many Hebrew words have multiple meanings, so I'd like to know what the definition is too.

 

[james2ko]

In what sense do you suggest this assignment was appointed in verses 14 and 16?

In verse 3, God describes the creation of conditions to permit light to penetrate the earth's atmosphere. In verse 14, God is being very specific about certain "lights" that became visible from the surface of the earth. These specific lights were created to serve "for signs and seasons, and for days and years."

On the fourth day, God made visual observation of the sun, moon, and stars possible. Before this, the earth's cloud-cover did not permit an observer on earth's surface to see these heavenly bodies. God diminished the cloud-cover so that clear days would be possible, and thus heavenly bodies could be used to keep track of time.

The term 'asah' is used quite clearly in the sense of appointment in Job 14:5 (appointed) and Psalm 104:9. In the latter instance, we clearly have a reference to Genesis 1:16 and to the appointment of the sun and the moon as markers of time:

Psa 104:19 He appointed [asah] the moon for seasons; The sun knows its going down.​

 

[CG Didymus]

How would a multicultural race of people who didnt even exist until about 3,200 years ago, be able to explain anything about human origins that existed 200,000 years before they did ?

Hey Outhouse, glad to joined in. I'm still waiting to hear from fundy Christians about the three civilizations that existed before, during and after the supposed time of the flood. To me, that's one of the biggest problems with the whole "literal" timeline thing.

 

[Shiranui117]

That's the problem. Some Christians say "literal" when it suits them and "allegory" when the verse doesn't make "literal" sense. People tell me that many Hebrew words have multiple meanings, so I'd like to know what the definition is too.

That isn't what I was getting at. What the early Christians meant by "literal" and what Christian fundamentalists today mean by "literal" are two different things.

The early Christians took "literal" to mean THAT the story actually happened--in other words, yes, God did in fact create the heavens and the earth. However, they did NOT believe that the creation story is an exact description of what happened, but is merely explained in ways that humans can understand. And the Fathers do point out things such as light being created before the sun and stars as indicating that the story is not a true description of how God made the world, but it is told in such a way to teach us. Is Genesis an allegory? No, not at all. It's just explained very simply in a manner that people back then could understand, with the additional factor of teaching us about God.

tl;dr, yes, Genesis is literally true. Just not "literally" as fundies define the word.

 

[james2ko]

Nor have you defended your 'translation' ...

The burden of proof is on the well-informed expert in Judaism and Hebrew. Who should have an easy time correcting the hopelessly idiosyncratic, self-serving, pathetic,(did I miss an adjective?) interpretation of a Christian that "asah" can never mean "appointed". Well?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

In verse 3, God describes the creation of conditions to permit light to penetrate the earth's atmosphere. In verse 14, God is being very specific about certain "lights" that became visible from the surface of the earth. These specific lights were created to serve "for signs and seasons, and for days and years."

On the fourth day, God made visual observation of the sun, moon, and stars possible. Before this, the earth's cloud-cover did not permit an observer on earth's surface to see these heavenly bodies. God diminished the cloud-cover so that clear days would be possible, and thus heavenly bodies could be used to keep track of time.

The term 'asah' is used quite clearly in the sense of appointment in Job 14:5 (appointed) and Psalm 104:9. In the latter instance, we clearly have a reference to Genesis 1:16 and to the appointment of the sun and the moon as markers of time:

Psa 104:19 He appointed [asah] the moon for seasons; The sun knows its going down.​

Well, I wouldn't have problem with saying God appointed Sun and the Moon on the fourth day .
Then how do you reconcile the third day? How could the grass and fruits appear on earth before Light comes to the earth. Moreover, perhaps before the light appear on earth the temperature was not suitable for fruits and grass to appear. What are your thoughts on these?

 

[james2ko]

Well, I wouldn't have problem with saying God appointed Sun and the Moon on the fourth day .

Then how do you reconcile the third day? How could the grass and fruits appear on earth before Light comes to the earth. Moreover, perhaps before the light appear on earth the temperature was not suitable for fruits and grass to appear. What are your thoughts on these?

By the third day, enough atmospheric debris was cleared away to make the atmosphere translucent but not yet transparent. The atmosphere was made transparent on the fourth day. Enough so that one standing on the surface of the earth can measure times and seasons by physically observing the heavenly bodies. Plant life only needed to survive one cloudy 24 hr period.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the latter instance, we clearly have a reference to Genesis 1:16 and to the appointment of the sun and the moon as markers of time:

Psa 104:19 He appointed [asah] the moon for seasons; The sun knows its going down.​

JPS

104:19 He made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows when to set.​

Stone

104:19 He made the moon for festivals, the sun knows its destination.​

Chabad

104:19 He made the moon for the appointed seasons; the sun knows its setting.​

Segal

104:19 He made the moon to mark the set times; 4-the sun knows when to set.​

Alter

104:19 He made the moon for the fixed seasons; the sun -- He appointed its setting.​

NRSV

104:19 You have made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting.​

NJB

104:19 He made the moon to mark the seasons, the sun knows when to set.​

 

[james2ko]

JPS

104:19 He made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows when to set.​

Stone

104:19 He made the moon for festivals, the sun knows its destination.​

Chabad

104:19 He made the moon for the appointed seasons; the sun knows its setting.​

Segal

104:19 He made the moon to mark the set times; 4-the sun knows when to set.​

Alter

104:19 He made the moon for the fixed seasons; the sun -- He appointed its setting.​

NRSV

104:19 You have made the moon to mark the seasons; the sun knows its time for setting.​

NJB

104:19 He made the moon to mark the seasons, the sun knows when to set.​

Sigh.....Cherry picking translations is never a good idea:

NKJV
He appointed the moon for seasons; The sun knows its going down.

King James Bible
He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.

American Standard Version
He appointed the moon for seasons: The sun knoweth his going down.

English Revised Version
He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.

Webster's Bible Translation
He appointeth the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.

World English Bible
He appointed the moon for seasons. The sun knows when to set.
​

Got any evidence that's not fallacious?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sigh.....Cherry picking translations is never a good idea: ...

What hypocrisy ...

 

[james2ko]

What hypocrisy ...

If that is all you can come up with, it was well worth it

 

[InvestigateTruth]

By the third day, enough atmospheric debris was cleared away to make the atmosphere translucent but not yet transparent. The atmosphere was made transparent on the fourth day. Enough so that one standing on the surface of the earth can measure times and seasons by physically observing the heavenly bodies. Plant life only needed to survive one cloudy 24 hr period.

So are you saying the third day was 24 hours and the fourth day was a long period? Or each day was 24 hours?

 

[Ouroboros]

I see Genesis as religious poetry, but some Christians, and I guess some Jews, see it as literal. Ken Ham on his TV show Answers in Genesis, insists that it must be taken literal, that it is foundational, without it the whole of the Bible falls. What do you think.

It can't be true. There is too much evidence to prove that there were a very long time between simple tools (like olduvai tools) and the tiller. The mattock came before the tiller, and that was in the bronze age less than 6000 years ago. The olduvian was something like 1.8 million years ago. A very, very long time between Adam and his first agricultural endeavors.

 

[Ouroboros]

By the third day, enough atmospheric debris was cleared away to make the atmosphere translucent but not yet transparent. The atmosphere was made transparent on the fourth day. Enough so that one standing on the surface of the earth can measure times and seasons by physically observing the heavenly bodies. Plant life only needed to survive one cloudy 24 hr period.

Day? Based on which time zone? Israeli time?

The sun is constantly rising and setting all over the planet at all times all 24 hours. There isn't any global "day" or "night". There's a constant day and a constant night at any given point on Earth. Why would God create the Andromeda galaxy on the first "day" in some Palestinian time zone? God's majestic and infinite throne was place on some little place of dirt on a minuscule planet in a small galaxy somewhere? It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Dinner123]

Gen 1:29-30 says that God gave the humans and the animals plants for food. In Gen 9:3-4 talks about God telling Noah that every "moving" thing is now food for you. I've heard many pastor and TV evangelist say that, up to the time of Noah, people and animals were vegetarians. These same people say there was no rain until the time of Noah and the flood. They use the verse, Gen 2:6, to build that theory. Those particular Christians have committed themselves to a strict literal interpretation. I don't think their followers realize what a complicated mess that becomes. It is too easy for them to say they believe in a young Earth and a six-day creation, but they can't ignore this minor details that holding to a literal Bible interpretation includes.

Gen. 2:6 should be kept in context of 2:5. It says there was no man to till the earth. That was no longer the case from at least the time of Cain. Afterwards there was simply more and more farmers until the flood. So we don't know (from the scriptures) if it rained before the flood or not.

If they didn't eat animals why tell Noah to take 7 of every "clean" kind of animal?
Genesis 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. If they are clean then aren't they good to eat? I'm not sure why God told them He gave them the animals after the flood but that doesn't prove they didn't eat animals before that. They certainly gave sacrifices.

But if you insist that they that they had to be vegetarians (Which I do not believe.) Then there are still reasons to raise sheep.

1. religious - sacrifices
2. clothing - fleeces and wool (whenever they learned that.)
3. Milk?

I actually suspect the giants(gen. 6) went beyond just eating animals and that they were likely cannibalistic. Of course that isn't scriptural fact. But it's hard for me to imagine so many people and not one of them trying out some animal meat for a change of diet and as it is never forbidden (that we know of) by God before the flood then why not eat animals?

I believe it is mankind in his "wisdom" that makes a mess of understanding the scriptures. The scriptures are not at fault.

 

[outhouse]

Hey Outhouse, glad to joined in. I'm still waiting to hear from fundy Christians about the three civilizations that existed before, during and after the supposed time of the flood. To me, that's one of the biggest problems with the whole "literal" timeline thing.

Sorry brother, carry on

 

[nazz]

In verse 3, God describes the creation of conditions to permit light to penetrate the earth's atmosphere. In verse 14, God is being very specific about certain "lights" that became visible from the surface of the earth. These specific lights were created to serve "for signs and seasons, and for days and years."

On the fourth day, God made visual observation of the sun, moon, and stars possible. Before this, the earth's cloud-cover did not permit an observer on earth's surface to see these heavenly bodies. God diminished the cloud-cover so that clear days would be possible, and thus heavenly bodies could be used to keep track of time.

The term 'asah' is used quite clearly in the sense of appointment in Job 14:5 (appointed) and Psalm 104:9. In the latter instance, we clearly have a reference to Genesis 1:16 and to the appointment of the sun and the moon as markers of time:

Psa 104:19 He appointed [asah] the moon for seasons; The sun knows its going down.​

Fair enough. I once made the same argument back when I was trying hard to reconcile Genesis with science. But one has to wonder why such things would be written from the perspective of terrestrial being regarding the heavens above. Considering that one one was around to see it when it happened.