Literal Genesis - Why?

[Persimmon Hamster]

This seems like the right place for this topic but I might be wrong.  ??

I have a question that I welcome any input on, from atheists and theists alike.
 
I've been having discussions with a good friend of mine who I believe to be (more or less by his own admission) a "Young Earth creationist".  This puzzles me quite a bit since he, like me, has a very logical and scientific way of thinking.  He values rational thinking. We are the sort of friends that know what the other is thinking before they say it, and sometimes even think it.  I say that to emphasize how well we know each other, and how similar we are.  I am therefore left very confused how a mind similar in every way to my own can believe the Christian Deluge story from a literal, Young Earth, anti-evolution perspective.

The key thing about that which I don't understand is why those adhering to that belief felt compelled to take Genesis literally in the first place.  I suspect there is some way to pick and choose the right verses from the New Testament to form an argument for taking it literally, but, he was unable to articulate that argument or those verses for me.  I can't blame him for that, he's not a Biblical scholar with instant command of every argument...since he is overall a rational thinker I trust he must have heard a compelling (to him) argument somewhere.  I've tried searching for that argument online but I must be using the wrong terms, or nobody has really written about it here yet, because I haven't found much.

So, can someone here explain the argument that Genesis must absolutely be taken literally?

It seems like Christians are shifting more toward that opinion today than in recent history.  Just a decade or so ago I seem to recall my mom (a Christian) saying "a day for God isn't necessarily a day as we think of it".  But now she, too, is waxing literal/fundamentalist.  Why the shift?

I am currently re-reading Genesis, a bit at a time.  I made a pretty crude argument when talking to this friend...  I said, "God says the serpent will eat dirt forever...we know serpents don't eat dirt...so obviously God was speaking figuratively, right, not literally?"  He told me that is viewed to be Messianic prophecy.  If that is the case, I wondered where the guide is that states which verses in Genesis are to be taken literally, and which are to be taken figuratively as Messianic prophecy or some other prophecy, but our conversation did not go that route.  Can anyone explain this?

Any insight into these matters would be much appreciated!

[McQ]

Having a bit of background in churches that believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, I might have a little bit of information. The thing is, even christian churches disagree on what they mean by literal translation. And which translation to use. And which verses are to be translated which way, etc.
The overall appearance to people is that there is a general agreement amongst lots of churches on this. There is not. That is why there are so many friggin denominations out there.

Example: Baptist churches. Not one baptist church, or one baptist sect. Hundreds of baptist denominations exist. Maybe into the thousands. From Wiki, just the denominations listed in the US (numbers are references on the site):

United States
Alliance of Baptists [15]
American Baptist Association
American Baptist Churches [16]
Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America
Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists [17]
Baptist Bible Fellowship International
Baptist General Conference
Baptist Missionary Association of America [18]
Central Baptist Association
Christian Unity Baptist Association
Churches of God General Conference [19]
Conservative Baptist Association of America
Continental Baptist Churches
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship [20]
Enterprise Association of Regular Baptists [21]
Evangelical Free Baptist Church
Free Will Baptist
Full Gospel Baptist Church Fellowship
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Association
Fundamental Baptist Fellowship of America
General Association of Baptists
General Association of General Baptists
General Association of Regular Baptist Churches [22]
General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church, Inc.
General Six-Principle Baptists
Independent Baptist Church of America
Independent Baptist Fellowship International
Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America
Institutional Missionary Baptist Conference of America
Interstate & Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association
Landmark Baptists
Liberty Baptist Fellowship
Macedonia Baptist World Missions [23]
Mainstream Baptist Network [24]
National Association of Free Will Baptists
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. [25]
National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A.
New Testament Association of Independent Baptist Churches
North American Baptist Conference
Old Regular Baptist
Indian Bottom Association of Old Regular Baptists [26]
Old Time Missionary Baptist
Original Free Will Baptist Convention
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Reformed Baptist
Regular Baptist
Roger Williams Fellowship [27]
Separate Baptist
Separate Baptists in Christ
Seventh Day Baptist General Conference [28]
Southern Baptist Convention [29]
Southwide Baptist Fellowship
Sovereign Grace Baptists
Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists
United American Free Will Baptist Church
United American Free Will Baptist Conference
United Baptists
Unregistered Baptist Fellowship
World Baptist Fellowship
Worldwide Baptist New Testament Missions [30]


Ok, so IF there was agreement, then here is the general argument for literal translation. The bible was written by men, but inspired by god. god is perfect, therefore every word that comes from him is perfect, and even man can't screw up his inspired word. So every dotted letter i, every crossed t, every comma, period, and mark is EXACTLY as it is meant to be.

Because of this belief by some sects, then things like the six-day creation in Genesis are taken as six literal, 24hr days. Exactly. That goes for every other thing found in the bible. If someone wants to be part of a church that believes this, then they have to, by definition, believe every word literally. Even if those words disagree with what they think is true to the contrary, like knowing the Earth is billions of years old, not 6000 years old (which they come to by means of the book of Numbers and others). You have to dump what you know in favor of what they tell you to believe by faith for it to work.

This requires much more information than I have time for, but maybe this is a starting point to answer your question, I hope.

[The Magic Pudding]

It seems like Christians are shifting more toward that opinion today than in recent history.  Just a decade or so ago I seem to recall my mom (a Christian) saying "a day for God isn't necessarily a day as we think of it".  But now she, too, is waxing literal/fundamentalist.  Why the shift?

I thought it was a strategic issue, the thoughtful faithful retreated, conceding some ground as indefensible.
But the wilfully ignorant see conceding anything as weakness which leads to defeat.

[Persimmon Hamster]

Having a bit of background in churches that believe in a literal interpretation of the bible, I might have a little bit of information. The thing is, even christian churches disagree on what they mean by literal translation. And which translation to use. And which verses are to be translated which way, etc.
The overall appearance to people is that there is a general agreement amongst lots of churches on this. There is not. That is why there are so many friggin denominations out there.

First, thanks for answering.  I do know what you are saying here.  I, myself, was raised in the church and have been to services at many different denominations of churches for various reasons throughout my life.  I do think I know what my friend would say to this, and that is that for the most part, they agree on the important parts, and that is what matters.  Easy answer to a hard question, but I can understand it well enough since one could say the same thing about atheists, eh?

Ok, so IF there was agreement, then here is the general argument for literal translation. The bible was written by men, but inspired by god. god is perfect, therefore every word that comes from him is perfect, and even man can't screw up his inspired word. So every dotted letter i, every crossed t, every comma, period, and mark is EXACTLY as it is meant to be.

Yes, he has said this.  We had a discussion about it.  The discussion didn't last as long as I wanted it to.  What is the source of the argument that "divine inspiration" = immune to corruption?  Is that coming from the text somewhere, or was it introduced by apologists, or what?

I did start to ask him, how do they "officially" account for periods in their own history when they themselves thought the message was so corrupted by man that something had to be done about it?  Like with the birth of Protestantism?  Seems to me that if any period of time elapsed during which God's message was not getting through properly to men, that would prove to them that man can screw it up.  So how would they know it's not still currently screwed up?  The fact that denominations exist should prove perfect conveyance of the message is not possible.  But he gave me puzzled looks, either pretending not to understand my question, or possibly legitimately not understanding, and we ran out of time to continue that day.

Because of this belief by some sects, then things like the six-day creation in Genesis are taken as six literal, 24hr days. Exactly. That goes for every other thing found in the bible. If someone wants to be part of a church that believes this, then they have to, by definition, believe every word literally. Even if those words disagree with what they think is true to the contrary, like knowing the Earth is billions of years old, not 6000 years old (which they come to by means of the book of Numbers and others). You have to dump what you know in favor of what they tell you to believe by faith for it to work.

That's the thing, though.  Per my remarks about Messianic prophecy, they seem to still pick and choose a little as far as what is literal in Genesis.  But yes, you are right, that's what they do.  Where did all the flood water go?  It came from above the firmament, through the windows of heaven and the fountains of the deep, reshaped earth, and is all still here.  Never mind scientific evidence to the contrary.  The Bible is scientific evidence, too, from eyewitness accounts of history.  So goes the argument.

This requires much more information than I have time for, but maybe this is a starting point to answer your question, I hope.

It is a starting point.  My primary interest here, I think, so far, at first, is to understand whether a rigorous argument for literal interpretation can be made solely from within the text.  If not, I don't yet understand why they would feel compelled to form such an argument.  He says he doesn't understand why I would feel compelled not to form such an argument.  Go figure.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, can someone here explain the argument that Genesis must absolutely be taken literally?

Because once interpretation enters the picture, YECs must admit that interpretation is a human overlay on their god's word.  (Not that the many translations, copies, and butcherings aren't, but they're perfectly happy to gloss that over).

The very fact that the Bible requires translation, btw, is clear evidence of their god's imperfection (assuming he exists, of course).  A perfect god would be able to communicate with no need for translation.

[Persimmon Hamster]

Because once interpretation enters the picture, YECs must admit that interpretation is a human overlay on their god's word.  (Not that the many translations, copies, and butcherings aren't, but they're perfectly happy to gloss that over).

I brought all of that up and he acted like he didn't understand the concept of "lost in translation".  I explained how it could become difficult or even impossible for a future generation to correctly interpret a 21st century English sentence with absolute comprehension, for a variety of reasons.  I know he is smart enough to understand this, but for some reason he doesn't let that affect his view.  Apologists and Biblical "scholars" spend their lives coming up with justifications for any argument a Christian could want to make.

The very fact that the Bible requires translation, btw, is clear evidence of their god's imperfection (assuming he exists, of course).  A perfect god would be able to communicate with no need for translation.

He would probably say that language barriers are our own limitation, as imperfect beings.  And that God wants us to seek him, that's why he doesn't reveal himself clearly to each of us though it would be within his power.  A well-versed Christian really often does seem to have a response for everything, even when those responses logically contradict one another.

Here are some other crude arguments I presented, that occurred to me, after I read some of Genesis:

1) God's Test for Abraham
I argued that the only way to prove to Abraham, and to future audiences of the story, that Abraham had absolute trust/faith/etc in God would have been to let him go through with killing Isaac and then to have resurrected Isaac.  This would prove Abraham's commitment beyond the shadow of a doubt, IMO, but anything less would leave ample room for doubt.  Until the knife had slit the throat, there would always be an opportunity for a sudden change of heart.  So if God wasn't proving anything to Abraham or us, what was the point of the exercise?  To prove it to himself?  Then he is not omniscient.

2) Tower of Babel
Apparently God didn't foresee that in a matter of a mere 6,000 or so years, English would be so predominant among such a large number of people and Earth would be so overpopulated that humanity would far surpass anything those guys could have been building as far as "now I am become death" goes.  Or, he didn't care.  So why did he care then?

I never got a good response.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Indeed, all good points, particularly about ole Abe.

But this:

He would probably say that language barriers are our own limitation, as imperfect beings.

... jumped out at me.  A Perfect Carpenter doesn't build a crooked cabinet.  By definition, a Perfect Carpenter builds a Perfect Cabinet.

[Being_Brave]

If Genesis (or any of the Bible) is to be taken literally I'd think it would be important for that denomination to study the Bible in it's original language, since (someone mentioned it already) ideas and words are lost in translation. The word that was translated to "day" was originally "yom", which also means "a long period of time"...so even if one is to read it literally it still doesn't necessarily mean 6 24-hour days.

[McQ]

Quick addition. Yes all of the sources for the inerrency of the bible come from within the bible itself, from both the old and new testament. Circular reasoning, if there ever was. A link to a Christian site which explains and gives reference passages:

http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com ... tself.html

[Persimmon Hamster]

... jumped out at me.  A Perfect Carpenter doesn't build a crooked cabinet.  By definition, a Perfect Carpenter builds a Perfect Cabinet.

He would say that the cabinet was perfect, before the fall.

If Genesis (or any of the Bible) is to be taken literally I'd think it would be important for that denomination to study the Bible in it's original language, since (someone mentioned it already) ideas and words are lost in translation. The word that was translated to "day" was originally "yom", which also means "a long period of time"...so even if one is to read it literally it still doesn't necessarily mean 6 24-hour days.

I might agree, and you might agree, but how do you convince him?  He would ask you how you know an ambiguous term meaning "long period of time" couldn't mean 24 hours to the original audience.  He would ask why you want to believe it was not 6 24-hour days.  After all, an omnipotent God allegedly could, in theory, still do that all in 6 24-hour days, then alter the laws of nature.  All original plant life could have grown in 24 hours, you know, because the soil was much more fertile before the fall (similar to the vapor canopy creating the hyperbaric chamber that made 900-year life possible).   They are working out all the miraculous explanations in order to first "harmonize" with, and later usurp, science.  All explanations nobody has any true way of verifying, but they don't care.  They say science is flawed, too.  They cite the problem of induction.  They claim there really is no way to know the past, or the future, or anything with absolute certainty.  Technically, and philosophically, I would have to say they are correct about the last part.  They are all becoming amateur philosophers, circular in their selection of truth, because they won't extend uncertainty to include the evolution of their scripture.  To them, it is unchanging and divinely inspired.  And if we point out the improbability of it all, they say it's just outside of our understanding and we should accept it, scripture tells us everything we *need* to know.  An omnipotent God *could* orchestrate this.  I don't know how to argue with someone like that, who superficially accepts the philosophical argument that there is no absolute truth but uses it to circularly argue truth in the Bible.  To make matters worse, when they don't know how to argue with someone like me they usually just end with asking if I want to end up in "Hell".  

[Thumpalumpacus]

... jumped out at me.  A Perfect Carpenter doesn't build a crooked cabinet.  By definition, a Perfect Carpenter builds a Perfect Cabinet.

He would say that the cabinet was perfect, before the fall.

Irrelevant.  A perfect cabinet would not go crooked.  It would have a doweled fingerjoint corners that hold everything true.

In case you're still not getting what I'm saying: an agent is defined by the works he does.  Is GM a perfect car-maker?  No.  Why?  Because their cars break down.  Now, it is possible that they might make cars that never break down, and yet they could still be imperfect for some other reason -- say, clumsy administration.  But it is not possible that they could make cars that break down and still be reasonably held to be "perfect."

[Persimmon Hamster]

Irrelevant.  A perfect cabinet would not go crooked.  It would have a doweled fingerjoint corners that hold everything true.

In case you're still not getting what I'm saying: an agent is defined by the works he does.  Is GM a perfect car-maker?  No.  Why?  Because their cars break down.  Now, it is possible that they might make cars that never break down, and yet they could still be imperfect for some other reason -- say, clumsy administration.  But it is not possible that they could make cars that break down and still be reasonably held to be "perfect."

He would find these analogies flawed.  And please don't take this the wrong way, for personally I find almost every analogy to be flawed including those which I put forward, but I do as well.  Here are two reasons why:

1) A cabinet is a utility, lacking any sort of consciousness or any capacity that remotely resembles the concept of free will.  A human being seems much more complex than that. This would be more his objection than mine, because personally, I tend to be very deterministic -- perhaps to a fault.  I do tend to think of man as nothing more than a complex machine, yet a machine capable of developing ethics and putting them to relevant use by his own standards -- which is more than a cabinet can do.
2) Wouldn't GM only be imperfect if it was not within their ability to make cars that do not break down?  Can one prove it is not, when GM = a god?  What if GM intentionally makes cars that break down, while still possessing the ability to do otherwise?  Maybe they design cars to break down as part of a larger plan, shortly after the warranty expires, so you must return to the maker for support with your wallet open.

Quick addition. Yes all of the sources for the inerrency of the bible come from within the bible itself, from both the old and new testament. Circular reasoning, if there ever was. A link to a Christian site which explains and gives reference passages:

http://lifestrategies.thingseternal.com ... tself.html

Thanks for the lead, I will check it out.

[Being_Brave]

If Genesis (or any of the Bible) is to be taken literally I'd think it would be important for that denomination to study the Bible in it's original language, since (someone mentioned it already) ideas and words are lost in translation. The word that was translated to "day" was originally "yom", which also means "a long period of time"...so even if one is to read it literally it still doesn't necessarily mean 6 24-hour days.

I might agree, and you might agree, but how do you convince him?  He would ask you how you know an ambiguous term meaning "long period of time" couldn't mean 24 hours to the original audience.  He would ask why you want to believe it was not 6 24-hour days.  After all, an omnipotent God allegedly could, in theory, still do that all in 6 24-hour days, then alter the laws of nature.  All original plant life could have grown in 24 hours, you know, because the soil was much more fertile before the fall (similar to the vapor canopy creating the hyperbaric chamber that made 900-year life possible).   They are working out all the miraculous explanations in order to first "harmonize" with, and later usurp, science.  All explanations nobody has any true way of verifying, but they don't care.  They say science is flawed, too.  They cite the problem of induction.  They claim there really is no way to know the past, or the future, or anything with absolute certainty.  Technically, and philosophically, I would have to say they are correct about the last part.  They are all becoming amateur philosophers, circular in their selection of truth, because they won't extend uncertainty to include the evolution of their scripture.  To them, it is unchanging and divinely inspired.  And if we point out the improbability of it all, they say it's just outside of our understanding and we should accept it, scripture tells us everything we *need* to know.  An omnipotent God *could* orchestrate this.  I don't know how to argue with someone like that, who superficially accepts the philosophical argument that there is no absolute truth but uses it to circularly argue truth in the Bible.  To make matters worse, when they don't know how to argue with someone like me they usually just end with asking if I want to end up in "Hell".  

The best answer I can think of is that the Bible wasn't written to be a science textbook; the point of the Bible for Christians is salvation, not biology or agriculture, etc... Obviously some processes were not mentioned (like meiosis, for example??), and I'd think he has to see that. If he can accept that he should be able to accept that just because something isn't written in the Bible doesn't mean it's not true.

(...this coming from a creationist, but not a YEC...)

[Thumpalumpacus]

He would find these analogies flawed.  And please don't take this the wrong way, for personally I find almost every analogy to be flawed including those which I put forward, but I do as well.  Here are two reasons why:

1) A cabinet is a utility, lacking any sort of consciousness or any capacity that remotely resembles the concept of free will.  A human being seems much more complex than that. This would be more his objection than mine, because personally, I tend to be very deterministic -- perhaps to a fault.  I do tend to think of man as nothing more than a complex machine, yet a machine capable of developing ethics and putting them to relevant use by his own standards -- which is more than a cabinet can do.

The appropriate reply is, "How can a mere human change an omnipotent god's plan?  Free will and Omnipotence are contradictory."  And this would be where I go on to say exactly that, fruitlessly, because reason and faith don't play well together.

2) Wouldn't GM only be imperfect if it was not within their ability to make cars that do not break down?  Can one prove it is not, when GM = a god?

This objection from a Christian would be a Pyrrhic victory: It would show that no matter what, their god is imperfect in one respect.  Either he cannot make good product, or he cannot make the full panoply of people.  I'd easily grant this objection under these circumstances.

What if GM intentionally makes cars that break down, while still possessing the ability to do otherwise?

In that case, the imperfection is in GM's intent.

Maybe they design cars to break down as part of a larger plan, shortly after the warranty expires, so you must return to the maker for support with your wallet open.

In which case their benevolence is open to question.  These too are objections I'd not only grant; I'd probably bring them up myself, as a matter of debate strategy.

[Persimmon Hamster]

The appropriate reply is, "How can a mere human change an omnipotent god's plan?  Free will and Omnipotence are contradictory."  And this would be where I go on to say exactly that, fruitlessly, because reason and faith don't play well together.

First, you assume they would make the claim that "free will" or "omnipotence" exist within their theology in the same absolute terms with which you might define them.  They can easily just play around with definitions of "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnibenevolent" and "free will", to wiggle out of contradictions.

Just yesterday I was reading this, which I have not yet had time to fully digest/analyze for myself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantinga% ... ll_defense
Apparently this logical defense "has received wide acceptance among contemporary philosophers".

2) Wouldn't GM only be imperfect if it was not within their ability to make cars that do not break down?  Can one prove it is not, when GM = a god?

This objection from a Christian would be a Pyrrhic victory: It would show that no matter what, their god is imperfect in one respect.  Either he cannot make good product, or he cannot make the full panoply of people.  I'd easily grant this objection under these circumstances.

What if GM intentionally makes cars that break down, while still possessing the ability to do otherwise?

In that case, the imperfection is in GM's intent.

That he does not make people perfect does not show that he cannot.  That imperfection exists in the world does not show that the creator of said world is imperfect.  Of course, this, too, depends on your definition of perfection.  What is your definition?  I suppose I should have asked this from the beginning.

Maybe they design cars to break down as part of a larger plan, shortly after the warranty expires, so you must return to the maker for support with your wallet open.

In which case their benevolence is open to question.  These too are objections I'd not only grant; I'd probably bring them up myself, as a matter of debate strategy.

Again, see the link I posted above.  Maybe you can help me accept or reject it?

Note that I am not supporting these arguments, merely trying to explore all the directions my debates with this friend might take.  This all seems much less straightforward to debate using pure philosophy & logic than it might appear on the surface.