⋆.ೃ࿔࿐ྂfaith & fantasy⋆.ೃ࿔࿐ྂ discussion
✯Games✯
>
⭒First [Extended] Thoughts⭒
message 301:
by
Jasmine (Jazzie)
(new)
Jul 17, 2024 06:06PM
Same here with my grandmas, though the reason for one of them is because I don't see her often, the other, well.... I don't know how I could even begin explaining it...
reply
|
flag
Mod
Mod
Mod
I'm sorry she died, I lost my great grandma several years ago but I wasn't super close to her.
Mod
(My literal first thought.... 🤷🏼♂️)
I'm really not sure. That always struck me as kind of weird too. But is it the only place?
Mod
Genesis 1 has a very unique writing style. It's extremely poetic and lyrical language (in the Hebrew) compared to the rest of Genesis and most of the rest of the Bible, and naturally, poetry is hard to interpret.
Mod
Mod
Oh, I don't read it that way.
Mod
Just to clarify- so you believe that the world was literally made in 7 days- 168 hours?
(My bad I meant 6 days XD)Give me a sec, I'm reading about it:)
(Haha thanks:))This is what I read: "Most young earth creationists believe that God created the earth and the universe with the appearance of age, much like Adam and Eve were created as adults. If a doctor had examined Adam and Eve on the second day of their existence, the doctor would have said they were decades old even though they were only created the previous day. Similarly, God created the universe and earth so that it could sustain life from the moment He created it. Therefore, it gives the appearance of having aged billions of years even though it is only thousands of years old. So, all the cosmology, geology, and other sciences that uncover evidence for billions of years are in fact pointing to the appearance of age that resulted from God creating a mature and stable universe capable of harboring life."
(https://www.gotquestions.org/young-ea...)
Huh. I guess it's kind of hard to argue or disagree with that, since we have no proof XD
Mod
So... this is turning into a second debate thread is it? (and that's my first thought)
Mod
We really don't. One is debatable enough as is.
Mod
Why is the beginning of Genesis a different genre then the rest? And yes, I know that there are different genres in the Bible
message 324:
by
✨ tazannah - not accepting friend requests ✨, ⭒spiritual leader⭒
(new)
Mod
This is what I read: "Most young earth creationists believe that God created the earth and the universe with the appearance of age, much like Adam and Eve were created as adults. I..."
Right. That’s a tough one.
So my fam friend said that Genesis 1 was not in our earthly time. Adam and Eve were living in a spiritual realm with God, and time was irrelevant because sin hadnt entered. They walked with God, and Eden itself, though a garden, was indeed a spiritual realm, so she believes it wasn’t 7 literally days. She gave me some proof a few weeks ago and cross examined it with some notes her Bible offered, showing time passed between gen 1:1 and gen 1:2.
I’ll have to ask her about it again, but I always assumed it was literal. Though now that I think about it, it could be more than 7 days… though God def could’ve done it in 7
It’s confusing 😭😭
Mod
Mod
Mod
**I reply in a point-by-point style to avoid confusion.
*Everything I say below is said in sincerity and kindness. Please keep that in mind when reading.
First Comment:
I’m not sure where you're getting the claim that “almost all Hebraists agree that Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative.” I'm sure some do, but almost all seems like an exaggeration.
E.g. the Jewish scholar Steve Katz says the following:
“In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so.”
Source:
[web link]
Second Comment:
That just reminds me of those Holocaust deniers tbh. They say the Allies made it appear as if the Nazis had been killing millions of Jews by forging the ‘evidence’ it's a denial of the actual evidence.
I just don't understand why you guys want to cling so tenaciously to that interpretation of the Genesis account. The issue here isn't over whether or not Genesis is true (of course it is), but over what kind of truth it is communicating. It's not meant to be read as if it's science. It's not. It's theology.
Response :
I’m not sure where you're getting the claim that “almost all Hebraists agree that Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative.”
I apologize for not providing a link. This claim is general knowledge and can be found in many books and documentaries on the subject of Genesis. My claim comes from a documentary which I can't remember the name of at the moment (forgive my low mental aquity but I'm suffering from a severe cough at the moment; but that shouldn't be an excuse 😊).
I'm sure some do, but almost all seems like an exaggeration.
Just because something seems like an exaggeration doesn't mean it is one.
E.g. the Jewish scholar Steve Katz says the following: “In Jewish religious thought Genesis is not regarded as meant for a literal reading, and Jewish tradition has not usually read it so.”
Appealing to the belief system of a false religion to support your point doesn't make for a convincing argument. It is interesting to note that Katz says “Jewish tradition has not usually read it so” (emphasis mine). When and why did this switch take place? This transition certainly didn't happen during the Old Testament (OT) period because again and again we can read in many OT verses that the patriarchs and the prophets believed in a literal reading of Genesis. Consider Moses declaring to the Israelites, “For in six days….” We find this phrasing many times in the OT. These men of God certainly took Genesis 1 to be literal. Why would Moses appeal to a myth when he writes about working for six days and resting for the seventh? This would be counterintuitive; a myth would hold no such authority.
2nd Comment Response
That just reminds me of those Holocaust deniers tbh. They say the Allies made it appear as if the Nazis had been killing millions of Jews by forging the ‘evidence’ it's a denial of the actual evidence.
No one is denying evidence here! God did create things so that they were mature and ready to sustain life. But He did not create the universe so that it would have the apparent age of billions of years. In fact many scientific findings show just the opposite — that the earth is about ~6,000 years old! I could list a multitude of evidence for a young earth (even secularists are stumped by these). Here's one: Carbon-14 dating yields dates only in the thousands of years, not millions of years like secularists expected. This is just one piece of evidence.
It is sad to note, however, that Hitler and Stalin used the evolutionary myth as an excuse for their acts of mass genocide.
I just don't understand why you guys want to cling so tenaciously to that interpretation of the Genesis account.
Thanks for being upfront about your lack of understanding in this issue. I do recommend gaining some knowledge on the subject before you brush away the history of Genesis without being informed on the subject. (I'll recommend some resources below.)
The issue here isn't over whether or not Genesis is true (of course it is),
Then why assign it to the genre of myth? No one today believes Ancient Near East myths to be true. Your statement is self-refuting.
but over what kind of truth it is communicating.
Jesus, Moses, and the apostles had no problem figuring out what kind of truth Genesis was communicating. They affirmed the literal meaning of Genesis many times and confirmed its historical truths.
It's not meant to be read as if it's science. It's not.
This is partially correct; because rather Genesis is meant to be read as a historical narrative but Genesis 1 does contain some fascinating science. The science of Genesis can be used in many fields. Did you know that Dr. Russell Humphreys accurately predicted the densities of some of the outer planets’ atmospheres before the Voyager expeditions? How did he do this? By applying to his calculations the ~6,000 year timeline that the Bible gives starting in Genesis. The universe does reflect a young creation. Your claim ignores scientific observations that confirm a young universe.
It's theology.
Absolutely! Genesis contains a lot of theological aspects. But that’s no reason to disregard it's history. The New Testament features lots of theology; but no one doubts the history of that. Think of all of the theological questions that Genesis 1-11 answers:
What is sin?
Why do we sin?
Why do we wear clothes?
Where did death come from?
Why is Jesus called the Last Adam?
I could list many more. Pretty much every doctrine in the Bible is founded within the first 11 chapters of Genesis. By delegating Genesis to a mythical genre, you now place your trust in mythological theology. Once you mix Genesis with a millions-of-years paradigm, you undermine the gospel. Even atheists understand this:
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” (G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” American Atheist [September 20, 1979]: p. 30)
Genesis is indeed historical narrative. Genesis 1 contains a Hebrew verb form (wayyiqtol) which is a standard marker of historical narratives, such as Genesis 12-50 and Exodus. Hebraist Dr. Stephen Boyd points out that Genesis 1:1-2:3 “should be read as other Hebrew narratives are intended to be read — as a concise report of factual events in time-space history.”¹ And “narrative genre in the Old Testament… does not communicate myth.”² This is the natural exegesis of the text. Scientific findings agree with ~6,000 year timeline of the Bible (talked about in the resources below).
I hope my response was succinct and helpful.
———————————
Notes
¹Dr. Stephen Boyd, “The Genre of Genesis 1:1-2:3: What Means This Text?” 191.
²Abner Chou, “Genesis — The Original Myth Buster,” April 1, 2013, http://answersingenesis.org/creationi....
———————————
Recommended Resources
•Books:
Understanding Genesis: How to Analyze, Interpret, and Defend Scripture by Dr. Jason Lisle
Searching for Adam: Genesis & the Truth About Man’s Origin by Terry Mortenson, Ph.D, editor
A Flood of Evidence: 40 Reasons Noah and the Ark Still Matter by Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge
Glass House: Shattering the Myth of Evolution by Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge, general editors
The Lie: Evolution/Millions of Years, Revised and Expanded by Ken Ham
Coming to Grips with Genesis: Biblical Authority and the Age of the Earth by Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury, editors
The Young Earth: The Real History of the Earth: Past, Present, and Future by John D. Morris
•Websites:
www.answersingenesis.org
www.icr.org
www.genesisapolegetics.org
•DVDs:
Genesis: Paradise Lost (I highly recommend this multiple award-winning movie/documentary!)
Mod
You guys are crazy!! In the best of ways. You hurt my brain 🤯🤪 Will read your comments later when my brain is feeling more up to it. Thanks y'all!(Étienne wrote: "That’s the problem here :) I am taking Genesis literally, but I’m not following victim to literalism. Have you heard that the Bible issue a library? Like every good library, there’s a variety of di..."
Yeah, this is what I've heard and always believed. Genesis 1 is in a different writing style than Genesis 2.
✨ tazannah ✨ wrote: "Catherine wrote: "(Haha thanks:))
This is what I read: "Most young earth creationists believe that God created the earth and the universe with the appearance of age, much like Adam and Eve were cr..."
Huh, that's really interesting. Yeah, it would be great if you could share with us your friend's proof if you get the time:)
Definitely, it's really confusing! XD)
Mod
Debate thread? I feel like it's kinda clogging up this thread and I don't want to be guilty of doing that. :-)
Let me know. I hope no one's mad at me...
Mod
Please don't make it a habit. That could get messy lol
Mod
Messy, as in my almost 3 year old sister playing with glitter.
If you were dead, you wouldn't be on GR...
Mod
Yes, I never would have guessed that!
That's a HUGE explosion, as my brain happens to be very large.
(@ Creed it means that the FTs here can legally be larger, like a paragraph or sentence, rather than a word or phrase)
If educated persons are discussing [anything], isn't that already an educated discussion?
Mod
By, someone else, are you meaning yourself??
Of course not! *puts hand to chest and sort of jumps back, shocked*
Actually, Creed's referring to my cousin.
Mod
(Yes, I know, I answered it, too, but thanks for asking if we needed another active MOD rn)
It would be difficult for anyone to understand...
Mod
