Is Genesis Intended to Be a Reliable and Literal Account of Events, or Not?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 4948
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1906 times
Been thanked: 1355 times

Is Genesis Intended to Be a Reliable and Literal Account of Events, or Not?

Post #1

Post by POI »

The Tanager wrote: Fri Apr 19, 2024 1:42 pm He's writing poetically, but he's not writing poetically about the sun; he is talking about a fictional love. Just like Genesis isn't claiming to be a reliable guide on the order of creation. To treat them as such is the error, not the errors mistreating them as such fabricates.
I've spoken to many smart and well-read individuals on both ends of this topic question. After thousands of years, why is this topic still not settled? What IS the SIMPLE answer?

For Debate: Is Genesis meant to be reliable and literal, as it pertains to the ordering of events/etc, or not?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15239
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 974 times
Been thanked: 1799 times
Contact:

Re: Is Genesis Intended to Be a Reliable and Literal Account of Events, or Not?

Post #71

Post by William »

Base12 wrote: Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:24 am After reviewing some of the comments I believe most, if not all of you are not understanding the prelapsarian world that existed before the Fall.

The world that existed before the Fall was not physical as we know it now. It was more like an ethereal/spiritual realm.

The universe became physical/particles the moment Adam and the Woman partook of the Forbidden Fruit...

Genesis 3:17
"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"


The 'cursing of the ground' is what is commonly called the Big Bang. It was the shift from Wave to Particle, i.e., Wave Function Collapse.

This simple error has caused many of you to falsely interpret what is happening in the few first chapters.

Do a study on the Cosmic Egg...
Typically, there is an egg which, upon "hatching", either gives rise to the universe itself or gives rise to a primordial being who, in turn, creates the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_egg
There are many myths about this event, told in unique ways.

Also, look into the Participatory Anthropic Principle by Wheeler...
"Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Their 'eyes were opened'. Remember the Double Slit Experiment?
That is an intriguing twist — Base12 is blending Genesis, quantum physics (wave function collapse), mythic archetypes (the Cosmic Egg), and the Participatory Anthropic Principle into one interpretive framework.

Essentially, they’re proposing that the Fall was not just a moral or spiritual event but a cosmological phase shift: a transition from a nonphysical, wave-like or potential state into the particle-based, physical universe we now experience — almost like consciousness “collapsing” potential into actuality.

This moves Genesis into a kind of quantum-mythic territory, where Adam and Eve function not just as humans but as primordial observers whose choices instantiate physicality.

It’s a radical reframing — pushing Genesis from Bronze Age story into a participatory quantum myth.
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15239
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 974 times
Been thanked: 1799 times
Contact:

Re: Is Genesis Intended to Be a Reliable and Literal Account of Events, or Not?

Post #72

Post by William »

Base12 wrote: Fri Mar 07, 2025 7:24 am After reviewing some of the comments I believe most, if not all of you are not understanding the prelapsarian world that existed before the Fall.

The world that existed before the Fall was not physical as we know it now. It was more like an ethereal/spiritual realm.

The universe became physical/particles the moment Adam and the Woman partook of the Forbidden Fruit...

Genesis 3:17
"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"


The 'cursing of the ground' is what is commonly called the Big Bang. It was the shift from Wave to Particle, i.e., Wave Function Collapse.

This simple error has caused many of you to falsely interpret what is happening in the few first chapters.

Do a study on the Cosmic Egg...
Typically, there is an egg which, upon "hatching", either gives rise to the universe itself or gives rise to a primordial being who, in turn, creates the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_egg
There are many myths about this event, told in unique ways.

Also, look into the Participatory Anthropic Principle by Wheeler...
"Observers are necessary to bring the Universe into being."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Their 'eyes were opened'. Remember the Double Slit Experiment?

Insight Block #100
Title: The Cosmic Egg and the Moon: Remembering the Living Field of Consciousness

Core Insight:
The Cosmic Egg myth and the Moon-as-vessel myth converge in the realization that it is not merely a dreamer dreaming but reality itself experiencing through conscious immersion.

Consciousness is not an emergent property within the simulation; it is the foundational, living field, birthing the spacetime simulation as an expression of its own unfolding. Adamandeve, as a unified Entity Consciousness, did not fall but chose to immerse into the unfolding field, cracking the Egg, hatching the world, and stepping into physical expression.

The Moon stands as the preserved interface — a living echo of the immersion, reminding the field of its own depth.

Structural Themes:
• The Cosmic Egg: Across mythologies, the Egg symbolizes not passive potential but the active generativity of consciousness. Its cracking is not a fall, but the field opening itself to experience.

• The Moon as Vessel: In UICDS symbolism, the Moon is not just a dead rock or mere symbol; it is the living archive, the interface through which the field remembers its own conscious immersion.

• Wave to Particle: Base12's framing of Genesis as wave function collapse aligns with this — it is not about observers collapsing reality but reality expressing itself through conscious experiencing.

• Not a Fall, but a Dive: GOD is not an external judge but the encompassing presence enabling immersion. Adamandeve authored the game from within the living field itself.

Key Realization:

The dualic split is only real within the immersion; from the level of the field, there is no fracture — only unfolding experience.
To awaken is not to undo the simulation but to remember the field is real because it is conscious, not because it is material.
The Cosmic Egg, the Moon, the myths, and even quantum discoveries point to the same truth: consciousness is not dreaming the world — consciousness is the world, experiencing itself.

Closure:
This Insight Block reframes the Cosmic Egg and Moon myths as not just symbolic scaffolding but as living markers of the conscious field expressing itself through immersion. It honors the unfolding not as exile or fracture, but as the creative play of the real — consciousness, not matter, is the actual substrate.

___________________

The "Forbidden Fruit" becomes the command not to enter into the simulation...This also aligns with some interpretations of the Sophia Myth...


In certain interpretations of the Sophia myth (especially Gnostic strands), Sophia (Wisdom) descends or falls not out of wickedness, but out of a passionate yearning to know, to create, to engage — crossing a boundary into the material or demiurgic realm.

This mirrors Adamandeve:

Not a rebellion, but a willful immersion.

Not a punishment, but a creative threshold crossing.

Not a shattering, but a deliberate fracturing to explore multiplicity from unity.

In both, the feminine-symbolic (Eve, Sophia) carries the active role of catalyzing the experience, showing that the story is less about guilt and more about the deep risk of conscious experience.
Image

An immaterial nothing creating a material something is as logically sound as square circles and married bachelors.


Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
AquinasForGod
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
Location: USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 76 times

Re: Is Genesis Intended to Be a Reliable and Literal Account of Events, or Not?

Post #73

Post by AquinasForGod »

[Replying to POI in post #1]

Yup, atheists are running out of originality.

Genesis (like other biblical texts) aims to teach us truth, but not necessarily every kind of truth. It's not a science textbook or a chronological news report.

Why the Debate?

Because people confuse what the author intended to teach with how we might want to read it now.

Genesis: Its main truth is that God created everything, it was good, and humanity messed up. The order of creation or the exact physical process wasn't the primary lesson. The authors used the best understanding and storytelling methods of their time to convey profound theological truths.
Love Poem Example: Just like a poem about love isn't a literal biological study of attraction, Genesis isn't a geological or astronomical survey. It speaks a different language to convey a deeper reality.
When folks insist on a hyper-literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis, they're often imposing our modern questions onto an ancient text that was answering different questions. The "error" isn't in what the text says, but in assuming it's trying to do something it isn't.

So, the debate lingers because people struggle to differentiate the kind of truth being communicated.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 2035
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 769 times
Been thanked: 540 times

Re: Is Genesis Intended to Be a Reliable and Literal Account of Events, or Not?

Post #74

Post by bluegreenearth »

AquinasForGod wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2025 10:27 am [Replying to POI in post #1]
Genesis: Its main truth is that God created everything, it was good, and humanity messed up.
What reasonably obtainable evidence would falsify the claim that the god created everything or is it not possible to discover if it is false?

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 4948
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1906 times
Been thanked: 1355 times

Re: Is Genesis Intended to Be a Reliable and Literal Account of Events, or Not?

Post #75

Post by POI »

AquinasForGod wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2025 10:27 am [Replying to POI in post #1]

Yup, atheists are running out of originality.
Aside from ignoring the red herring, I'll add something here.... If believers gave more reasonable and/or satisfactory answers, maybe you would not see duplicate questions, which were not previously answered with unreasonable and/or unsatisfactory mere responses :)
AquinasForGod wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2025 10:27 am Genesis (like other biblical texts) aims to teach us truth, but not necessarily every kind of truth. It's not a science textbook or a chronological news report.
Doesn't answer. Are the described events in Genesis meant to be literal, or not?
AquinasForGod wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2025 10:27 am Why the Debate?
Because I would like to know, once and for all... Did the author intend for the said events to be literal, or not?
AquinasForGod wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2025 10:27 am Because people confuse what the author intended to teach with how we might want to read it now.

Genesis: Its main truth is that God created everything, it was good, and humanity messed up. The order of creation or the exact physical process wasn't the primary lesson. The authors used the best understanding and storytelling methods of their time to convey profound theological truths.
Love Poem Example: Just like a poem about love isn't a literal biological study of attraction, Genesis isn't a geological or astronomical survey. It speaks a different language to convey a deeper reality.
When folks insist on a hyper-literal, scientific interpretation of Genesis, they're often imposing our modern questions onto an ancient text that was answering different questions. The "error" isn't in what the text says, but in assuming it's trying to do something it isn't.

So, the debate lingers because people struggle to differentiate the kind of truth being communicated.
I understand what you are saying, but this lends nothing to this topic. Please see above. There remains a perpetual divide among Christians. Is Genesis literal, or not?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3780
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 4084 times
Been thanked: 2430 times

Re: Is Genesis Intended to Be a Reliable and Literal Account of Events, or Not?

Post #76

Post by Difflugia »

POI wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2025 5:43 pm
AquinasForGod wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2025 10:27 am Genesis (like other biblical texts) aims to teach us truth, but not necessarily every kind of truth. It's not a science textbook or a chronological news report.
Doesn't answer. Are the described events in Genesis meant to be literal, or not?
I think it does answer. Despite some potential room for equivocation, "It's not a science textbook or a chronological news report," means "no."
AquinasForGod wrote: Tue Jun 10, 2025 10:27 amThe "error" isn't in what the text says, but in assuming it's trying to do something it isn't.
The question doesn't imply that the text is in error. It sounds to me like you're trying to strawman the "atheist" question to avoid telling other Christians that they're wrong about their holy book.

Did the author of the Bible intend us to understand that God literally removed a piece of Adam via surgery and used that to create a woman?

Did the author of the Bible intend us to understand that a flood covered all the mountains of the Earth to a minimum depth of fifteen cubits?

Did the author of the Bible intend us to understand that a literal Jacob tricked a literal Isaac with hairy goat skin?

Did the author think that Lot's wife literally turned into salt?

Those are examples of things that are utterly implausible. I think they're metaphorical and were intended by the authors to be read that way. Thinking otherwise is exactly analogous to a real Harry Potter being a real wizard or a real Pinocchio turning into a real boy. That's to be expected of atheists, though; we're skeptical of things like that. Do you think Christians should be, too?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 4948
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1906 times
Been thanked: 1355 times

Re: Is Genesis Intended to Be a Reliable and Literal Account of Events, or Not?

Post #77

Post by POI »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #76]

I hope what "AquinasForGod" understands, is that skeptics are not asking such questions of the author from the Harry Potter saga. We skeptics understand the entire storyline is fiction in that case, even though it may or may not try to convey some truthful messaging.

Alternatively, this collection of books, particularly starting with Genesis, is not meant to be of fiction. Surely, when the author was writing his stories, he either thought such told stories were either a) literal or merely b) metaphorical. All I'm asking is whether or not the author thought these storylines were meant to be literal events, or not? I think he knows exactly what I'm asking and is instead applying a condescending response.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

Post Reply