Genesis 1 made more sensible and scientific

[Crucible]

Various Bible authors, and even Jesus refer to Genesis as true history. I also accept Genesis as true history

No they didn't, they appealed to the purpose of those stories which is to explain the fallen nature of man and his adversary. King David seems to not have a literal interpretation of the Flood, which means that the common Jewish idea wasn't literal either. In fact, many cultures examine the same story and come to a like conclusion- it simply wasn't an apocalyptic event.

What you fail to realize is that everything from Eden to the Ark is straight up Jewish oral tradition eventually recorded by Moses' successors. Y'all act like the Bible miraculously fell from the sky one day.

In reality, these stories are heavily codified and symbolic. The Serpent, fallen from Heaven and crawling the Earth, Eve made from Adam's rib, The Tree of Knowledge, The Tree of Life- even the precious stones in the rivers- all these things have symbolic meaning to them.

Jesus on the Cross is the Tree of Life, Satan is adorned with those stones in the river in Ezekiel, The Tree of Knowledge is of the world..
I mean, how do you just deny these things and continue on blindly with an arbitrary presumption

 

[Wick Stick]

I mean, how do you just deny these things and continue on blindly with an arbitrary presumption

religious "programming"

 

[Stripe]

All these things have symbolic meaning to them.

Which means they cannot be real events how?

 

[Stuu]

Which means they cannot be real events how?

Sure indication of a conspiracy theory.

Symbolism, intended as such, but seen as a literal historical account with scientists and maybe theologians trying to suppress the truth.

See Dan Brown for more details.

Stuart

 

[Ben Masada]

This interpretation doesn't fit any of the Hebrew language used in the Genesis account. There was no "mankind" or "Isreal" when God said "let there be light" (Genesis 1:3). Moreover, the purpose of the "light" was to separate "evening and morning" (Genesis 1:4-5; Genesis 1:14-18).

Just because "light" and "darkness" were later used (metaphorically) to refer to spiritual knowledge and spiritual blindness, it doesn't logically follow that this was the meaning in the context of Genesis 1. In the context of the Creation story, the "light" came from the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:14-18).

If the prophetic "Let there be light" in the first day was not a reference to the children of light risen many years ahead of the children of darkness according to the meaning in the context of Genesis 1:3 it's because your approach is literal. If you wanna insist on going literal with this, you must explain why the sun in charge of supplying the earth with light came only on the 4th day. My explanation is that the light of the first day was metaphorical, not literal.

 

[themuzicman]

Do you know what a fallacy is, or are you just trying to sound smart?

Why not give a substantive response if you have a better interpretation to offer.

Why? So you can get away from your own exposed errors?

 

[Rivers]

Actually, there are indications they did. Biblically, see Ezekiel's wheels within wheels. Extra-biblically, the Book of Enoch spells it out in some detail. Ancient peoples were avid watchers of the night sky, since they didn't have Netflix.

Ezekiel's vision can be interpreted numerous ways. There is no vocabulary in the vision that corresponds to "planets" or "orbits." Thus, I think it's unlikely that his description had anything to do with that concept.

 

[Rivers]

Your addition of secular ideas into scripture warps the gospel. God did not use millions of years of death to create.
"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned" Rom.5:12

I haven't proposed any of these "secular ideas." If you're going to critique someone's opinions, please make sure you represent them accurately. I think you have me confused with someone else.

 

[Rivers]

Why? So you can get away from your own exposed errors?

You haven't exposed anyone's "errors." If you're going to claim that someone has committed a "fallacy" you should be able to claim what it is. Anybody can say that someone commits a "fallacy." I'm still not sure you even know what the word means.

 

[Rivers]

If the prophetic "Let there be light" in the first day was not a reference to the children of light risen many years ahead of the children of darkness according to the meaning in the context of Genesis 1:3 it's because your approach is literal. If you wanna insist on going literal with this, you must explain why the sun in charge of supplying the earth with light came only on the 4th day. My explanation is that the light of the first day was metaphorical, not literal.

The reason most people take a "literal" approach to interpreting the language in Genesis 1-2 is because the use of the ancient Hebrew vocabulary makes perfectly good sense when taken at face value (and compared to how it was used everywhere else in the Hebrew scriptures).

If you claim the "light" is "metaphorical" then you need to be able to show from the context why a non-literal interpretation is necessary (or more likely).

The reason we know that the "light" on Day One came from the sun is because the writer tells us that there was a separation of "light and darkness" and "night and day" and "evening and morning" (Genesis 1:4-5) which were things caused by the sun (Genesis 1:14-18).

 

[Caino]

Genesis was written and rewritten with a literal intent. It's just wrong. The Bible was written by holy men, some more holy than others. The reason that there is so much debate is that it's wrong in the light of modern scientific discovery.

 

[Rivers]

Genesis was written and rewritten with a literal intent. It's just wrong. The Bible was written by holy men, some more holy than others. The reason that there is so much debate is that it's wrong in the light of modern scientific discovery.

Claiming that the Genesis story is "wrong" is unnecessary. Rather, we must interpret the story within the limited context of its ancient vocabulary (which is easy to define based upon its usage throughout the rest of the Hebrew scriptures). Thus, the challenge is to understand it correctly.

It seems to me that the story makes the most sense if it is understood as a simple geocentric historical account of the restoration of the ancient land of Eden from a devastating regional flood (Genesis 1:2). There's no need to extrapolate any of the language to account for modern scientific knowledge or speculation about planet Earth or the Universe.

 

[Ben Masada]

Genesis was written and rewritten with a literal intent. It's just wrong. The Bible was written by holy men, some more holy than others. The reason that there is so much debate is that it's wrong in the light of modern scientific discovery.

Do you, by any chance, believe that the Universe is only six thousand years old? No. It means that the metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is to be considered to get into the spiritual realm of the Truth.

 

[6days]

I haven't proposed any of these "secular ideas." If you're going to critique someone's opinions, please make sure you represent them accurately.

Yes Rivers...you propose adding secular ideas into scripture and a compromised gospel. The idea of other people besides Adam and Eve originates from some form of evolutionism. Because of your secular additions into scripture, you are often trying to explain that scripture means something different than what it says. *

I'm not sure but it seems you are embarassed to say what you really believe. Was there many thousands of years of death, cannibalism, suffering, thorns and decay before sin? *Was Eve created from a rib actually the mother of all? *Was the earth inhabited with spiritless humans? Why did Jesus have to physically die?

 

[Caino]

Do you, by any chance, believe that the Universe is only six thousand years old? No. It means that the metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is to be considered to get into the spiritual realm of the Truth.

Some elements of Genesis were grounded in real ancient events, but the Hebrew userpers of Mesopotamian history invented the creation narrative culling from other cultures. Moses did not originally attempt to trace blood lines back to Adam, the Hebrew redactors did.

 

[Rivers]

Yes Rivers...you propose adding secular ideas into scripture and a compromised gospel. The idea of other people besides Adam and Eve originates from some form of evolutionism. Because of your secular additions into scripture, you are often trying to explain that scripture means something different than what it says. *

I'm not sure but it seems you are embarassed to say what you really believe. Was there many thousands of years of death, cannibalism, suffering, thorns and decay before sin? *Was Eve created from a rib actually the mother of all? *Was the earth inhabited with spiritless humans? Why did Jesus have to physically die?

I haven't made any "secular additions" to scripture. I'm the one who's explaining everything from scripture. If you followed my example, you might gain some credibility here.

 

[Rivers]

Do you, by any chance, believe that the Universe is only six thousand years old? No. It means that the metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is to be considered to get into the spiritual realm of the Truth.

The Genesis creation story has nothing to do with the "universe" as we know it today. The writer indicated that he was referring to a specific region where the land of Eden was located about 4,000 BC (Genesis 2:8-14).

A literal reading of the "six days" doesn't require that the Earth or the universe is only 6,000 years old. It only requires that the regional events happened at that time. There was already "deep waters covering the land" before the "six days" even started (Genesis 1:2).

 

[Rivers]

Some elements of Genesis were grounded in real ancient events, but the Hebrew userpers of Mesopotamian history invented the creation narrative culling from other cultures. Moses did not originally attempt to trace blood lines back to Adam, the Hebrew redactors did.

All this is entirely speculative. How does it help us interpret anything in Genesis 1-2?

 

[Caino]

All this is entirely speculative. How does it help us interpret anything in Genesis 1-2?

Its not really speculative, it relies on the most recent revelation of truth to our world, the Urantia Book of which I have been a student for 30+ years. I agree with 6Days and others, a plain reading of Genesis clearly shows that the authors said what they meant and meant what they said. Their story is a YEC story. I can also understand how contemporary men of faith are wise enough to realize that, all things considered, the earth isn't young.

What's fascinating about the Urantia revelation is that many parts and pieces of Genesis were in fact based in truth. The material universe is a creation, it just took longer than 6 days, or 6,000 years. Pre-Adamic man evolved from a much older life implantation. The "crafty beast" had already fallen into sin long before Adam and Eve materialized on their mission of redemption. They came from another world, they were incarnate celestial beings. The "sin" was Eve mating with Cains real Father, a Nodite from outside the garden. It was her own little plan of world saving, influenced by her conferences with "the crafty beast". But that was a HUGE no no, she knew better. But it was too late, the deed was done and for a 2nd time an enormous default occurred on our world. Cain was a constant reminder of the default. Able taunted his half brother to the point of rage! We know the rest.

There are simply so many clues in Gen such as the one you already pointed out, Cain leaving in search of his real fathers people in the Land of Nod. There he found a wife and built a city. The Nephilim also had a basis in truth as well as the pains of child birth which was the result of Eves premature genetic mixing. The 6 day creation story came from the fact that Adam and Eve spent the first 6 days on earth surveying their new garden home prepared for them by Van and his staff, one of the loyal remnants of the previously fallen staff. Adam and Eve arrived on earth nearly 40,000 years ago, the cultures in Mesopotamia preserved the ancient traditions for ages up until the writing of Genesis.

 

[6days]

I'm not sure but it seems you are embarassed to say what you really believe. Was there many thousands of years of death, cannibalism, suffering, thorns and decay before sin? *Was Eve created from a rib actually the mother of all? *Was the earth inhabited with spiritless humans? Why did Jesus have to physically die?

I haven't made any "secular additions" to scripture. I'm the one who's explaining everything from scripture. If you followed my example, you might gain some credibility here.

No... you actually try to explain scripture away. And, you didn't answer the above questions.

Genesis 1 says "In the beginning..."
* * Rivers says Genesis 1 was not the beginning.

Genesis 1 says God made the stars on day 4
* * Rivers says God did not make the stars on day 4

Scripture tells us that Eve was the mother of all.
* * *Rivers says Eve was not the mother of all.

Scripture tells us God created everything in six days.
* * *Rivers says it was a re-creation...and millions of years in the making.

God says death, pain, thorns and sufferring are a result of mans sin.
* * *Greg says (I think) that God used millions of years of death as a creative process and called it very good.*

Jesus said male and female were from the beginning of creation.*
* * *Rivers says Jesus meant that humans came billions of years after creation.*

Exodus tells us God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in six days.
* * *Rivers says this was a local event only.

Moses said the flood waters rose 15 cubits over the highest mountain..
* * *Rivers says .....??? Moses meant the local hills?

Rivers...your secular additions to scripture end up causing you to compromise throughout scripture