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

[POI]

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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

Gen 1:20-31
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.
NIV

I believe Genesis is intended to be reliable and literal account specially on creation.
God made the heaven and earth and all that is written in literal six days.
If you apply the belief of some that it requires a span of time in every creation.
How would the fish on sea, birds of the air and everything that has breath of life created in the fifth day of creation know what their food is?
God only informed them what their food is on the sixth day of creation.

The evolutionary argument is that life - forms originally ingested nutrients as plants do;through light and water. As life began with the first complex molecule to replicate (the theory foes) then the first blob or cell to ingest another began the evolutionary arms race. Natural selection drove protection (in plants as well as animals) and protection drove evolution of more effective predation. Species evolved into environmental niches as the food became available for them. There were no land animals until there was plant life on land.

The role of DNA in encoding instinct provided the link in how critters (and indeed plants) know what their food is and how to get it. Instinct, like fear of the dark to flinching are encoded defence mechanisms. It can be modified. We make new acts instinct ("Second nature") as we cannot function without it.

You may reject this of course, but it answers your question. Knowing what food to eat is an evolved instinct. And a learned one. God didn't create edibler grains, only seeds for propagation. Human bred edible grains.

Cue The banana apologetic. Originally proposed as proof that God designed the banana to suit human needs, the truth is that humans bred a small green fruit into the banana we have today.

[Capbook]

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?

Gen 1:20-31
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.
NIV

I believe Genesis is intended to be reliable and literal account specially on creation.
God made the heaven and earth and all that is written in literal six days.
If you apply the belief of some that it requires a span of time in every creation.
How would the fish on sea, birds of the air and everything that has breath of life created in the fifth day of creation know what their food is?
God only informed them what their food is on the sixth day of creation.

The evolutionary argument is that life - forms originally ingested nutrients as plants do;through light and water. As life began with the first complex molecule to replicate (the theory foes) then the first blob or cell to ingest another began the evolutionary arms race. Natural selection drove protection (in plants as well as animals) and protection drove evolution of more effective predation. Species evolved into environmental niches as the food became available for them. There were no land animals until there was plant life on land.

The role of DNA in encoding instinct provided the link in how critters (and indeed plants) know what their food is and how to get it. Instinct, like fear of the dark to flinching are encoded defence mechanisms. It can be modified. We make new acts instinct ("Second nature") as we cannot function without it.

You may reject this of course, but it answers your question. Knowing what food to eat is an evolved instinct. And a learned one. God didn't create edibler grains, only seeds for propagation. Human bred edible grains.

Cue The banana apologetic. Originally proposed as proof that God designed the banana to suit human needs, the truth is that humans bred a small green fruit into the banana we have today.

Of course I will reject it and it does not answer my question basing on Genesis account.
Science might be there but no scientist exist during that time that the first plant grow to examine, observe, analyze and conclude basing on their study at that time.
And besides I believe no evidence exist from that first plants, herbs etc.
You may reasoned but I believe lack of evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

Gen 1:20-31
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.
NIV

I believe Genesis is intended to be reliable and literal account specially on creation.
God made the heaven and earth and all that is written in literal six days.
If you apply the belief of some that it requires a span of time in every creation.
How would the fish on sea, birds of the air and everything that has breath of life created in the fifth day of creation know what their food is?
God only informed them what their food is on the sixth day of creation.

The evolutionary argument is that life - forms originally ingested nutrients as plants do;through light and water. As life began with the first complex molecule to replicate (the theory foes) then the first blob or cell to ingest another began the evolutionary arms race. Natural selection drove protection (in plants as well as animals) and protection drove evolution of more effective predation. Species evolved into environmental niches as the food became available for them. There were no land animals until there was plant life on land.

The role of DNA in encoding instinct provided the link in how critters (and indeed plants) know what their food is and how to get it. Instinct, like fear of the dark to flinching are encoded defence mechanisms. It can be modified. We make new acts instinct ("Second nature") as we cannot function without it.

You may reject this of course, but it answers your question. Knowing what food to eat is an evolved instinct. And a learned one. God didn't create edibler grains, only seeds for propagation. Human bred edible grains.

Cue The banana apologetic. Originally proposed as proof that God designed the banana to suit human needs, the truth is that humans bred a small green fruit into the banana we have today.

Of course I will reject it and it does not answer my question basing on Genesis account.
Science might be there but no scientist exist during that time that the first plant grow to examine, observe, analyze and conclude basing on their study at that time.
And besides I believe no evidence exist from that first plants, herbs etc.
You may reasoned but I believe lack of evidence.

Sure, there is incomplete evidence, but there is evidence of evolution in the fossil record from simple sea forms (mere blobs in the pre - Cambrian rocks) to the sea critters of the Cambrian through the time plants got onto land (Silurian and Devonian) before animals and insects followed plants onto land permanently in the Carboniferous. The evidence for the order of evolution is there in the fossil record, and it debunks the (wrong) order of creation in Genesis.

So which theory should we believe, or at least give credit? The one supported by what evidence we have,vor an old book that is wrong, according to the evidence?

Cue Denial. That would validate nothing. An evidence -based case would have at leas a reasonable hypothesis..

[Capbook]

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?

Gen 1:20-31
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.
NIV

I believe Genesis is intended to be reliable and literal account specially on creation.
God made the heaven and earth and all that is written in literal six days.
If you apply the belief of some that it requires a span of time in every creation.
How would the fish on sea, birds of the air and everything that has breath of life created in the fifth day of creation know what their food is?
God only informed them what their food is on the sixth day of creation.

The evolutionary argument is that life - forms originally ingested nutrients as plants do;through light and water. As life began with the first complex molecule to replicate (the theory foes) then the first blob or cell to ingest another began the evolutionary arms race. Natural selection drove protection (in plants as well as animals) and protection drove evolution of more effective predation. Species evolved into environmental niches as the food became available for them. There were no land animals until there was plant life on land.

The role of DNA in encoding instinct provided the link in how critters (and indeed plants) know what their food is and how to get it. Instinct, like fear of the dark to flinching are encoded defence mechanisms. It can be modified. We make new acts instinct ("Second nature") as we cannot function without it.

You may reject this of course, but it answers your question. Knowing what food to eat is an evolved instinct. And a learned one. God didn't create edibler grains, only seeds for propagation. Human bred edible grains.

Cue The banana apologetic. Originally proposed as proof that God designed the banana to suit human needs, the truth is that humans bred a small green fruit into the banana we have today.

Of course I will reject it and it does not answer my question basing on Genesis account.
Science might be there but no scientist exist during that time that the first plant grow to examine, observe, analyze and conclude basing on their study at that time.
And besides I believe no evidence exist from that first plants, herbs etc.
You may reasoned but I believe lack of evidence.

Sure, there is incomplete evidence, but there is evidence of evolution in the fossil record from simple sea forms (mere blobs in the pre - Cambrian rocks) to the sea critters of the Cambrian through the time plants got onto land (Silurian and Devonian) before animals and insects followed plants onto land permanently in the Carboniferous. The evidence for the order of evolution is there in the fossil record, and it debunks the (wrong) order of creation in Genesis.

So which theory should we believe, or at least give credit? The one supported by what evidence we have,vor an old book that is wrong, according to the evidence?

Cue Denial. That would validate nothing. An evidence -based case would have at leas a reasonable hypothesis..

So incomplete evidence as you say, is the result of evident-based case?

[POI]

I believe Genesis is intended to be reliable and literal account specially on creation.
God made the heaven and earth and all that is written in literal six days.
If you apply the belief of some that it requires a span of time in every creation.
How would the fish on sea, birds of the air and everything that has breath of life created in the fifth day of creation know what their food is?
God only informed them what their food is on the sixth day of creation.

Does this mean you are obligated to reject some of the physical sciences?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

Gen 1:20-31
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning — the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground — everything that has the breath of life in it — I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.
NIV

I believe Genesis is intended to be reliable and literal account specially on creation.
God made the heaven and earth and all that is written in literal six days.
If you apply the belief of some that it requires a span of time in every creation.
How would the fish on sea, birds of the air and everything that has breath of life created in the fifth day of creation know what their food is?
God only informed them what their food is on the sixth day of creation.

The evolutionary argument is that life - forms originally ingested nutrients as plants do;through light and water. As life began with the first complex molecule to replicate (the theory foes) then the first blob or cell to ingest another began the evolutionary arms race. Natural selection drove protection (in plants as well as animals) and protection drove evolution of more effective predation. Species evolved into environmental niches as the food became available for them. There were no land animals until there was plant life on land.

The role of DNA in encoding instinct provided the link in how critters (and indeed plants) know what their food is and how to get it. Instinct, like fear of the dark to flinching are encoded defence mechanisms. It can be modified. We make new acts instinct ("Second nature") as we cannot function without it.

You may reject this of course, but it answers your question. Knowing what food to eat is an evolved instinct. And a learned one. God didn't create edibler grains, only seeds for propagation. Human bred edible grains.

Cue The banana apologetic. Originally proposed as proof that God designed the banana to suit human needs, the truth is that humans bred a small green fruit into the banana we have today.

Of course I will reject it and it does not answer my question basing on Genesis account.
Science might be there but no scientist exist during that time that the first plant grow to examine, observe, analyze and conclude basing on their study at that time.
And besides I believe no evidence exist from that first plants, herbs etc.
You may reasoned but I believe lack of evidence.

Sure, there is incomplete evidence, but there is evidence of evolution in the fossil record from simple sea forms (mere blobs in the pre - Cambrian rocks) to the sea critters of the Cambrian through the time plants got onto land (Silurian and Devonian) before animals and insects followed plants onto land permanently in the Carboniferous. The evidence for the order of evolution is there in the fossil record, and it debunks the (wrong) order of creation in Genesis.

So which theory should we believe, or at least give credit? The one supported by what evidence we have,vor an old book that is wrong, according to the evidence?

Cue Denial. That would validate nothing. An evidence -based case would have at leas a reasonable hypothesis..

So incomplete evidence as you say, is the result of evident-based case?

Incomplete evidence is the basis of an evidence -based case. We never know All the evidence, just see how thr age of the universe has come under question or on the other hand, the Gabriel stone has suggested that the messiah raised after three days was a thing known before Jesus' crucifixion.

No, we have to go with the best evidence at the time and be prepared to amend it when new evidence pops up.

What we should not do is insist that the Old debunked evidence is correct and reject the new evidence, if it conflicts with Dogma, which is what Religious Dogma habitually does.

[Capbook]

I believe Genesis is intended to be reliable and literal account specially on creation.
God made the heaven and earth and all that is written in literal six days.
If you apply the belief of some that it requires a span of time in every creation.
How would the fish on sea, birds of the air and everything that has breath of life created in the fifth day of creation know what their food is?
God only informed them what their food is on the sixth day of creation.

Does this mean you are obligated to reject some of the physical sciences?

Yes, because God finished the work He had been doing on the literal seventh day of creation (Gen 2:3) and not of the long span of time belief of some and of science.

[POI]

Yes, because God finished the work He had been doing on the literal seventh day of creation (Gen 2:3) and not of the long span of time belief of some and of science.

Have you truly studied the physical sciences for which you are required to reject? Further, do you feel you would still reject these concepts, if the publication of Genesis did not exist?

[TRANSPONDER]

I believe Genesis is intended to be reliable and literal account specially on creation.
God made the heaven and earth and all that is written in literal six days.
If you apply the belief of some that it requires a span of time in every creation.
How would the fish on sea, birds of the air and everything that has breath of life created in the fifth day of creation know what their food is?
God only informed them what their food is on the sixth day of creation.

Does this mean you are obligated to reject some of the physical sciences?

Yes, because God finished the work He had been doing on the literal seventh day of creation (Gen 2:3) and not of the long span of time belief of some and of science.

Just how far are you prepared to do in rejection of science? Do you suppose the sun was made after the earth as the Bible says? Or will you put that down to 'that was just how it looked to....' Moses, I suppose. Do you reject a round earth and say it is flat with a dome over it and the sun, moon, planets and stars trundling around the inside of the dome? Or do you reject that and go with what science claims about the universe? Why cherry - pick what is ok science and what of science you reject, other than you follow creationist Dogma? Come on now; if Creationism (name your own source) swore the world was flat you'd be denying a round earth, would you not? It is based on Faithbased Dogma isn't it, not on he evidence?

[cleopas]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

May I suggest you read the thread "Bible Riddle"