[_ Old Earth _] Genesis and Moses: Literal or Legend?

[Barth Jones]

My personal intent here is primarily to discuss, with the understanding that there will be primarily debate, respecting all the implications and consequences of the diverse interpretations of Genesis and Moses. Also, with the motive question of necessity, what is the correlation, as far as truth and authenticity are concerned, between Moses and the New Testament? Simply put, as Ken Ham has also duly charged less directly, how can a Christian maintain integrity without a literal interpretation both of such things, as healing by the literal laying on of Jesus's hands, Jesus literally walking on water and literally dying and being raised on the one hand, and the literal origin of sin on the other?

 

[Barbarian]

The Christian understanding of Genesis was formed largely by St. Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Gensis), which was accepted by almost all Christians until the last century, when YE creationism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists. By "literal" Augustine meant "what it really says", that is, some of it literal history and other parts of it figurative descriptions of things that are not easily explain in human terms.

Hence, a real Adam and Eve, but not literal six days of creation, which as the early Christians knew, were categories of creation, not time elements. While Genesis flatly denies the YE notion of life ex nihilo, it does show God using nature to make living things, something for which we are beginning to see a great deal of evidence.

Hamm is stunned by the idea that some things in the Bible might be literal history and other things might be parables or poetic description. But most Christians are not. It's very clear that all of that exists in the Bible in many places.

 

[TOG]

As I pointed out in another thread, Augustine lived in the 4th and 5th centuries, but written records show that Christians in the first and second centuries believed the earth to be only a few thousand years old. It's not something that was invented in recent times as Barbarian claims. I believe that the events recorded in Genesis are literal, including creation, the fall, the flood and the tower of Babel.

The TOG​

 

[Pizza]

I see most of what was written about Jesus to be literal. I believe that most of what He said was to be taken literally.
But I don't believe this about a lot of what is in early Genesis.

When it comes to matters of the age of the earth, or how long we humans have been here, I think of these verses.
Isaiah 55:8-9
New International Version (NIV)

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

So, you want to tell me that the earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC? Do you realize what you are saying? You are saying that all of creation dates only back 6,000 years. You are telling me that I can wrap my head around God's creation to the point that I know how long the planet and, in fact, the UNIVERSE has been here?

I find God to be infinite in every way. And the more that science learns about the universe, the more they seem to think the UNIVERSE is infinite in every way - unlike what some sects of Christianity say. When you think you have God's plan and creation all figured out, you only fool yourself.

I sure don't buy it.

 

[Barbarian]

The Church has made no determination about the age of the Earth, or the literal/figurative wording in Genesis, and the question is still open as far as Christianity goes. It has been shown that Augustine was the most influential theologian of his time, and was seen as an authority by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians alike. And yet, when he made this determination, not one person thought to contradict him. That clearly shows that Genesis as a literal history, was not the prevailing view before or after Augustine.

As far as the first century was concerned, the prevailing view seems to have been "a thousand years is like a day to God", and since the Sun wasn't there for the first day, it couldn't be a standard human day. But of course, the Church made no definitive statement on that. It's pretty clear that most Christians didn't see it as literal 24-hour days, or Augustine and others would have had a lot of controversy on their hands.

Part of the reason we don't see much about it, is that it wasn't a meaningful issue until the Adventists made YE a doctrine that had to be believed. It's totally irrelevant to your salvation, which way you go on this issue.

Isaiah 55:8-9
New International Version (NIV)

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Well cited. As usual, God has the final word.

 

[turnorburn]

Yes Barbarian God does have the last word as well as the first..

Exodus 20
(8) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

(9) (Six days) shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

(10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

(11) For in (six days) the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Exodus 31
(15) (Six days) may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

(16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

(17) It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

six days

Genesis 1

And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

tob

a friend put this text together.. nicely done i might add

 

[Free]

Interesting how those who argue for a literal reading of the creation account, read into the account what they want and don't actually read all of it literally, conveniently overlooking an important detail. Needless to say, one cannot determine the age of the earth from the Bible.

 

[Barbarian]

There's no logical reason why you can't map real weeks on an allegorical week, which is what was done in Exodus.

 

[Barth Jones]

As I pointed out in another thread, Augustine lived in the 4th and 5th centuries, but written records show that Christians in the first and second centuries believed the earth to be only a few thousand years old. It's not something that was invented in recent times as Barbarian claims. I believe that the events recorded in Genesis are literal, including creation, the fall, the flood and the tower of Babel.

The TOG​

Thank you! Please frequent here. And come on guys, I know there's more y'all!

 

[Barth Jones]

Interesting how those who argue for a literal reading of the creation account, read into the account what they want and don't actually read all of it literally, conveniently overlooking an important detail. Needless to say, one cannot determine the age of the earth from the Bible.

And which detail is being overlooked?

 

[turnorburn]

The atheists i know and i know quite a few want to replace faith in God with science its more logical to their genre more apprapoe, "I wish I knew who originally said this....it is SO appropriate for our times...... can't be a literal 6 day creation science has shown us this, science has shown us that, one thing they haven't shown us yet is how to raise the dead but I'm sure their working on it.. Then if we can convince a church to side with us we're home free no hell no punishment for sin everyone is welcome to do as they please.. Sounds to me like something the devil would say..

tob

 

[Barth Jones]

Scripture

The Christian understanding of Genesis was formed largely by St. Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Gensis), which was accepted by almost all Christians until the last century, when YE creationism was invented by the Seventh i-Day Adventists. By "literal" Augustine meant "what it really says", that is, some of it literal history and other parts of it figurative descriptions of things that are not easily explain in human terms.

Hence, a real Adam and Eve, but not literal six days of creation, which as the early Christians knew, were categories of creation, not time elements. While Genesis flatly denies the YE notion of life ex nihilo, it does show God using nature to make living things, something for which we are beginning to see a great deal of evidence.

Hamm is stunned by the idea that some things in the Bible might be literal history and other things might be parables or poetic description. But most Christians are not. It's very clear that all of that exists in the Bible in many places.

Of course there's allegory in Scripture but it's always very obvious and intentional. It would be ludicrous and reckless to give a child a book of a twisted nature where the child can't determine which parts are historical and which parts are fancy. No, the text itself makes that very clear. For example, when Christ uses parables, it's obvious they are parables, not history. Yet all the the principle, of poor Lazarus' antagonist, for example, and his agony without hope of relief is fast.

 

[Barth Jones]

The Christian understanding of Genesis was formed largely by St. Augustine's De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim (The Literal Meaning of Gensis), which was accepted by almost all Christians until the last century, when YE creationism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists. By "literal" Augustine meant "what it really says", that is, some of it literal history and other parts of it figurative descriptions of things that are not easily explain in human terms.

Hence, a real Adam and Eve, but not literal six days of creation, which as the early Christians knew, were categories of creation, not time elements. While Genesis flatly denies the YE notion of life ex nihilo, it does show God using nature to make living things, something for which we are beginning to see a great deal of evidence.

Hamm is stunned by the idea that some things in the Bible might be literal history and other things might be parables or poetic description. But most Christians are not. It's very clear that all of that exists in the Bible in many places.

Who is Augustine? As far as I'm concerned, Augustine is a man.

 

[Barth Jones]

I see most of what was written about Jesus to be literal. I believe that most of what He said was to be taken literally.
But I don't believe this about a lot of what is in early Genesis.

When it comes to matters of the age of the earth, or how long we humans have been here, I think of these verses.
Isaiah 55:8-9
New International Version (NIV)

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

So, you want to tell me that the earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC? Do you realize what you are saying? You are saying that all of creation dates only back 6,000 years. You are telling me that I can wrap my head around God's creation to the point that I know how long the planet and, in fact, the UNIVERSE has been here?

I find God to be infinite in every way. And the more that science learns about the universe, the more they seem to think the UNIVERSE is infinite in every way - unlike what some sects of Christianity say. When you think you have God's plan and creation all figured out, you only fool yourself.

I sure don't buy it.

You're using those two verses entirely out of context. Isaiah was of the same school of prophets as Jesus's Apostle John, who says, "See that what you have heard--from the beginning--remains in you." 1 John 2:24 (dashes added for emphasis)

 

[Barth Jones]

The Church has made no determination about the age of the Earth, or the literal/figurative wording in Genesis, and the question is still open as far as Christianity goes. It has been shown that Augustine was the most influential theologian of his time, and was seen as an authority by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians alike. And yet, when he made this determination, not one person thought to contradict him. That clearly shows that Genesis as a literal history, was not the prevailing view before or after Augustine.

As far as the first century was concerned, the prevailing view seems to have been "a thousand years is like a day to God", and since the Sun wasn't there for the first day, it couldn't be a standard human day. But of course, the Church made no definitive statement on that. It's pretty clear that most Christians didn't see it as literal 24-hour days, or Augustine and others would have had a lot of controversy on their hands.

Part of the reason we don't see much about it, is that it wasn't a meaningful issue until the Adventists made YE a doctrine that had to be believed. It's totally irrelevant to your salvation, which way you go on this issue.

What is certainly relevant, is confession that Jesus Christ is Lord. Again, is Jesus Lord? For the moderators, this is indeed on topic since the question is about integrity of truth: 1 Cor 12:3, 1 John 4:1-3

 

[agua.]

Hence, a real Adam and Eve, but not literal six days of creation, which as the early Christians knew, were categories of creation, not time elements.

This is the interesting part Barbarian. Do you believe at some stage God inspired 2 hominids to become humans or the whole race ? I can't visualise the process.

 

[Barth Jones]

This is the interesting part Barbarian. Do you believe at some stage God inspired 2 hominids to become humans or the whole race ? I can't visualise the process.

This is definitely over my head, but I think I'll stay tuned. I definitely want to hear how this unfolds! Lol!

 

[Barbarian]

This is the interesting part Barbarian. Do you believe at some stage God inspired 2 hominids to become humans or the whole race ? I can't visualise the process.

It's pretty clear that we are all descended from a single pair of humans, given immortal souls directly by God. He still does it that way. Our physical bodies are created naturally, but God gives each of us an immortal soul, and does that directly.

 

[Barbarian]

What is certainly relevant, is confession that Jesus Christ is Lord. Again, is Jesus Lord?

If you're a Trinitarian Christian, you know that Jesus is fully God and fully man. If this puzzles you, we can talk about it.

 

[Pizza]

You're using those two verses entirely out of context. Isaiah was of the same school of prophets as Jesus's Apostle John, who says, "See that what you have heard--from the beginning--remains in you." 1 John 2:24 (dashes added for emphasis)

I have no idea what your point is, nor do I see how I am taking anything out of context.

Barbarian observed something about you and I really see it now: You really DO add a lot to scripture. But you don't see it as adding to scripture, do you?