Do you believe in the literal word-for-word Genesis account of creation?

[HammerStone]

The parting of the Red Sea and Noah's Flood are irrelevant to this discussion because they are actual events. We're talking about the Garden of Eden, so let's get back on topic.Answer me this(since you avoid everything else), was it a talking snake that was in the Garden of Eden that convinced Eve to take an apple?

 

[jamesrage]

(Denver;10989)
The parting of the Red Sea and Noah's Flood are irrelevant to this discussion because they are actual events. We're talking about the Garden of Eden, so let's get back on topic.
If you disbelieve creation then why on earth believe that a man parted the Red Sea and man built a boat big enough to house mating pairs of every land animal on earth and to have enough space to store enough supplies and a global flood?I have never seen those things,have you?
Answer me this(since you avoid everything else), was it a talking snake that was in the Garden of Eden that convinced Eve to take an apple?
Yes it was the serpent that convinced Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.It is just believable as a man who parted the Red Sea and a man who built a boat large enough to hold mating pairs of all the land animals on earth in order to save them a from a global flood.

 

[HammerStone]

So am I to understand that when you say serpent, the term is used to mean a literal snake? (Nice try of avoiding by the way, it's the closest thing I've had to a real answer from you yet!)

 

[Jordan]

a....ya, talk about some spiritual torture...I have not yet seen a tree that can heal...a snake can not talk at all. A snake can not twist the Word. That serpent was Lucifer. That Devil is the one that twist the Word to deceive Eve. There are many title for Christ.John 1:4 - In him was life; and the life was the light of men.John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.Don't you think that Him was also the tree of life?Genesis 3:22 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:I think so.Lovest ye in Christ Jesus (Yahshua) our Lord and Saviour.

 

[jamesrage]

(Denver;11008)
So am I to understand that when you say serpent, the term is used to mean a literal snake? (Nice try of avoiding by the way, it's the closest thing I've had to a real answer from you yet!)
Of course.

 

[Jordan]

Okay...I had this thought to illistrate what Denver, Kriss, Betchevy, and others knows yesterday. I'm glad that Father showed me this. (On what the Bible says) Which this person I'm going to use is me.(what if)Let's just say that I saw someone doing something "evil" and saw that it was "good". Am I therefore touching this fruit? And then I started doing this "evil" sin and others and "love" it. Am I therefore eating this fruit?(end what if)So in short the Garden of Eden first sin...should not be taken phyically literally, but spiritually and figureatively...So eating an apple and a snake is not the case.

Lovest thou in Christ Jesus (Yahushua) our Lord and Saviour.

 

[HammerStone]

Of course.
So do you just skip the parts you don't agree with or what? Revelation 12:9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Ezekiel 28:12-13Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

 

[kiwimac]

Genesis 1 & 2 are parables not science texts. They are about why the universe exists not how.

 

[Nomad]

Genesis 1 & 2 are parables not science texts. They are about why the universe exists not how.

I hope that I simply misunderstand what you're saying. If that's not the case, I invite you to click on the last link in my signature to see how the idea that Genesis 1 & 2 are parables destroys all of Christianity. I eagerly await your response.

 

[aspen]

Do you believe in the literal word-for-word Genesis account of creation? I believe that is how it happened. I am sure at one point in time you have heard from believers of evolution that the biblical account is not literal because God could not explain evolution to people who didn't even know what a light bulb is or that God's passage of time is different than man's passage of time.If God is almighty,all knowing and the creator of everything wouldn't God have the ability to explain evolution to people back then in a way that they could understand it and still be understandable to future generations regardless of technological advancement?If God used one life form to spawn many wouldn't God say this?After all God told Many people to do things and they have done it,so shouldn't that be a testament to the faith that these people had and if people had such faith wouldn't evolution be just as believable as the literal biblical account of creation?

It is not supposed to be interpreted literally. I believe it was a revelation from God to Moses, which took 7 days to reveal. It is an important insite into the nature of humans, our relationship with ourselves, eaach other, and God.

 

[Comm.Arnold]

I do believe that God created the earth by speaking it "ex nihilo" and no one on an internet forum is going to change that view. The idea that it was 6 days by our standards I have heard question. I have heard the idea that the word day back in Genesis meant a thousand years or possibly even longer that the earth sat around may have for 600 billion years or whatever science suggests and then we were created for this small blip in time. I would rather blindly believe that Genesis is all true word for word than debate about how our God started our existence.

 

[veteran]

Do you believe in the literal word-for-word Genesis account of creation? I believe that is how it happened. I am sure at one point in time you have heard from believers of evolution that the biblical account is not literal because God could not explain evolution to people who didn't even know what a light bulb is or that God's passage of time is different than man's passage of time.If God is almighty,all knowing and the creator of everything wouldn't God have the ability to explain evolution to people back then in a way that they could understand it and still be understandable to future generations regardless of technological advancement?If God used one life form to spawn many wouldn't God say this?After all God told Many people to do things and they have done it,so shouldn't that be a testament to the faith that these people had and if people had such faith wouldn't evolution be just as believable as the literal biblical account of creation?

It is literal. However, some of it must be taken back to the original language to get the full picture. For example, the KJV phrase "without form, and void" (Hebrew tohuw va bohuw) is not the meaning in the Hebrew. In Isaiah 45:18 God said He did not create the earth 'tohuw'. The phrase "in vain" in Isa.45:18 is the Hebrew word 'tohuw', the same word translated as "without form" in Gen.1:2 and Jer.4:23.

A comparison of how tohuw is used as "without form" in Jeremiah 4 weighs into properly understanding the usage of 'tohuw' at Gen.1:2.

Also, even in the KJV reading of Gen.1, there is no statement of creating land like the earth past Gen.1:1. So even many are misreading the Gen.1 account by assuming the earth did not already exist at Gen.1:2.

 

[justaname]

Hammerstone,
Let me try to understand what it is you are saying.
Adam and Eve were of mankind, but all of mankind was not of Adam and Eve.

Not to discard what your intend to convey, but I have the understanding that Genesis 1 through onto Genesis 2:3 is the creation account. From Genesis 2:4 forward is the details of the account given in Genesis 1
It is known of the literary style of near eastern cultures to give an initial account of the story, a big picture if you may, then go on to give details throughout the remainder of the writing. The book of Daniel is a fine example of that.

Back to your idea you present, can you please expound on that. I understand it is because of the Hebrew, but please explain more.

In Genesis 1:26 they are hunters and gatherers which signifies somewhat of a higher degree of intelligence on its own and a distinct separation from Genesis 1:26. This is why we need to know the Hebrew.

In this I tend to disagree as hunter gatherers are more nomadic. I do not see them at a higher degree of intelligence. Even the contemporary scientists place hunter gatherers before farmers in their timeline.
Please understand I am not trying to argue you, I simply want to understand your point of view as I am not yet a Hebrew scholar and would like to gain some insight from your perspective.

Finally I would like to post a great website I think all could benefit from www.creationworldview.org
This site is the work of a contemporary scientist turned creation scientist. I have heard him on many subjects and honestly he debunks many things taught in big universities from carbon 14 dating, to dinosaurs living on the planet only 150 years ago (Marco Polo), gene pool theory, and more.
BTW I do believe in a Christian world view.

• 
• 0

• Quote
• MultiQuote

 

[justaname]

It is literal. However, some of it must be taken back to the original language to get the full picture. For example, the KJV phrase "without form, and void" (Hebrew tohuw va bohuw) is not the meaning in the Hebrew. In Isaiah 45:18 God said He did not create the earth 'tohuw'. The phrase "in vain" in Isa.45:18 is the Hebrew word 'tohuw', the same word translated as "without form" in Gen.1:2 and Jer.4:23. A comparison of how tohuw is used as "without form" in Jeremiah 4 weighs into properly understanding the usage of 'tohuw' at Gen.1:2. Also, even in the KJV reading of Gen.1, there is no statement of creating land like the earth past Gen.1:1. So even many are misreading the Gen.1 account by assuming the earth did not already exist at Gen.1:2.

I understand what it is you are saying, but I would add you must keep in context the authorship of the text used.
example Moses is thought to be the author in Genesis and he may use the text "tohuw" differently then the author of Jeremiah or Isaiah.
Note all texts are written with the inspiration of the HolySpirit, but authors vary and their use of words may also vary.

 

[Buzzfruit]

Do you believe in the literal word-for-word Genesis account of creation? I believe that is how it happened. I am sure at one point in time you have heard from believers of evolution that the biblical account is not literal because God could not explain evolution to people who didn't even know what a light bulb is or that God's passage of time is different than man's passage of time.If God is almighty,all knowing and the creator of everything wouldn't God have the ability to explain evolution to people back then in a way that they could understand it and still be understandable to future generations regardless of technological advancement?If God used one life form to spawn many wouldn't God say this?After all God told Many people to do things and they have done it,so shouldn't that be a testament to the faith that these people had and if people had such faith wouldn't evolution be just as believable as the literal biblical account of creation?

What?? Is there a doubt that Adam and Eve were literal human beings? Is there doubt that the animals were literal animals? What specifically would one be talking about?

 

[veteran]

I understand what it is you are saying, but I would add you must keep in context the authorship of the text used.
example Moses is thought to be the author in Genesis and he may use the text "tohuw" differently then the author of Jeremiah or Isaiah.
Note all texts are written with the inspiration of the HolySpirit, but authors vary and their use of words may also vary.

If you do a further study on that usage of Hebrew 'tohuw' per the OT, you'll find it was often used concerning something going in a waste condition, becoming worthless. So it's general idea for tohuw is something good... going tohuw (waste or worthless state).

And since Gen.1:2 declares the 'earth' in that verse involving the face of waters upon it, those same waters later moved to reveal the dry land, that's definitely 'tohuw' used in the sense of the earth previously being in a good state, and then going into a waste state. And that is... the context of those Gen.1:2-9 verses.