The Genesis Account

[Shannon H]

quote originally from Grazer:

If I recount an event and reference Romeo & Juliet, does that automatically mean I take Romeo and Juliet as historical and true?

No one is questioning the importance of genesis, just how we should treat it.

"Romeo & Juliet" are not in my Bible.

Just how should we treat it ?

 

[farouk]

If I recount an event and reference Romeo & Juliet, does that automatically mean I take Romeo and Juliet as historical and true?

No one is questioning the importance of genesis, just how we should treat it.

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Grazer:

I don't think your question is serious.

And you must know already this is a Christian site where people are going to treat the Bible in a certain way.

 

[Grazer]

quote originally from Grazer:

"Romeo & Juliet" are not in my Bible.

Just how should we treat it ?

It was an example showing that just because someone quotes from something, doesn't mean they believe its literal or true.

That's the question were trying to answer isn't it?

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[Grazer]

Grazer:

I don't think your question is serious.

And you must know already this is a Christian site where people are going to treat the Bible in a certain way.

Oh my question is very serious.

People here treat the bible in a variety of ways but I expect that and don't see it as necessarily a bad thing

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

 

[handy]

I think I can see where you're coming from, Grazer. If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be looking at Genesis the way we can look at Jesus' parables, not actual history, but stories rich with truth. Looking at Genesis the same way we look at Song of Solomon, as opposed to looking at as we do, say the Chronicles, which are a written history of the nation of Israel.

I look at most of Genesis as history, same as Chronicles, with the exception of Genesis 1. I believe that Genesis 1 is an outline of events, highly stylized, poetic even. Truth, absolutely, but not necessarily a historical account.

... and I'll add: not necessarily so detailed that we should separate over it. I become very saddened when I hear some who say that if one doesn't believe that the seven days of creation were 24 hour days, then one cannot even be a Christian.

 

[farouk]

Oh my question is very serious.

People here treat the bible in a variety of ways but I expect that and don't see it as necessarily a bad thing

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

How about the word 'authoritative'.

 

[Vanguard]

I become very saddened when I hear some who say that if one doesn't believe that the seven days of creation were 24 hour days, then one cannot even be a Christian.

Those people are lost on diehard, extremist versions of Christianity, stemming from a very literal 1611 KJV premise. What they fail to realize is that the Classical (original) Hebrew of the OT does NOT say/infer what the English translations claim. Jewish scholars have been screaming at us that we have misrepresented the OT, until they are blue in the face, for centuries. Only recently (2011) have things started to change and agree with the Jewish interpretations of the OT (but still in its revision infancy).

 

[n2thelight]

Actually, Gen 1 is overview of creation and Gen 2 details it further just like Gen 10 and 11. Gen 10 gives the table of nations and finishes by saying they are scattered. Then Gen 11 starts by Nimrod and Babel.

Look at the order