Genesis/Literal Interpretation

[buffalo]

Revelation of Moses

Account and life of Adam and Eve, the first-created, revealed by God to His servant Moses, when he received from the hand of the Lord the tables of the law of the covenant, instructed by the archangel Michael.
This is the account of Adam and Eve. After they went forth out of paradise, Adam took Eve his wife, and went up into the east. And he remained there eighteen years and two months; and Eve conceived and brought forth two sons, Diaphotus called Cain, and Amilabes called Abel.

 

[Orogeny]

And he remained there eighteen years and two months; and Eve conceived and brought forth two sons, Diaphotus called Cain, and Amilabes called Abel.

Not scriptural and therefore not a literal interpretation.

Peace

Tim

 

[buffalo]

That’s like saying “all the software publishers but Borland and Microsoft.”

Pretty much destroys the idea that the Church endorsed a literal Genesis week.

Because a literalist reading produces logical inconsistencies, a literal six-day creation week has never been Church doctrine.

But we have to reckon with this: Jesus’ words in Mark. Was Jesus wrong?

"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.

 

[rossum]

But we have to reckon with this: Jesus’ words in Mark. Was Jesus wrong?

"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.

Jesus Himself was not taking Genesis literally, He referenced a non-literal version.

At Mark [10:6] Jesus said: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”

On a literal interpretation of Genesis this is wrong twice over, firstly because Adam (and presumably Eve) were made some time during day six, not at “the beginning”, but between 132 and 144 hours after the beginning. Secondly with Eve being made after Adam, there was a time when there was male and not female - the time when Adam was naming the animals and looking for a companion. Both of these points show that Jesus was not interpreting Genesis literally.

If Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally then it is surely allowed for others not to interpret it literally.

rossum

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Jesus Himself was not taking Genesis literally, He referenced a non-literal version.

At Mark [10:6] Jesus said: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.”

On a literal interpretation of Genesis this is wrong twice over, firstly because Adam (and presumably Eve) were made some time during day six, not at “the beginning”, but between 132 and 144 hours after the beginning. Secondly with Eve being made after Adam, there was a time when there was male and not female - the time when Adam was naming the animals and looking for a companion. Both of these points show that Jesus was not interpreting Genesis literally.

If Jesus did not interpret Genesis literally then it is surely allowed for others not to interpret it literally.

rossum

This is almost as irreverent as Freud when he psychoanalyzed God in Moses and Monotheism. Where we would be without people like Mr. Rossum to correct Jesus?

Mr. Buffalo is abosultely correct. Jesus is speaking about marriage here. He is speaking of the sacramental union and the one flesh established by God when he wedded Eve to her husband Adam. Which occurred in the beginning…

…of what? Matrimony. And Jesus bases His entire Messianic claim upon MOSES:

“If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:46-47)

Oh, and that little statement about not one jot or tittle of the Law (Old Covenant Writings) failing until all is fulfilled in the Reign of God?

Uh huh.

And in another passage in St. Luke the “non-literal” Sadduccees attempt to catch Jesus is a [supposed] error again, on the subject of matrimony. And how does our Lord answer them? “You do err in that you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God.” Luke 20:27-40

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
That’s like saying “all the software publishers but Borland and Microsoft.”

Pretty much destroys the idea that the Church endorsed a literal Genesis week.

Because a literalist reading produces logical inconsistencies, a literal six-day creation week has never been Church doctrine.

But we have to reckon with this: Jesus’ words in Mark. Was Jesus wrong?

"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.

If you take it literally, yes. Because God makes it clear what was there at the beginning of Creation, and male and female were not:

**1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. 3 And God said: Be light made. And light was made. 4 And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. 5 And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day. **

If you take them literally, one has to be wrong. Which do you think? This is one of many reasons why a literal creation week is not the Church’s teaching.

 

[Deconi]

It is ‘easier’ to accept the literal.

Logic defies ‘developing’ creation…

…unless you disregard what The Church has been protecting for millenias. (Scriptures)

 

[Orogeny]

It is ‘easier’ to accept the literal.

Logic defies ‘developing’ creation…

…unless you disregard what The Church has been protecting for millenias. (Scriptures)

It will be irrelevant once you prove God’s existence using science. And we are waiting.

Peace

Tim

 

[Deconi]

It will be irrelevant once you prove God’s existence using science. And we are waiting.

Peace

Tim

You need a scientific explanation to prove to you a Jewish guy named Jesus, The Christ, existed, before you will believe it?

Do you also need scientific explanation about how my words appear before you before you acknowledge the likelyhood I exist and can type?

 

[Orogeny]

You need a scientific explanation to prove to you a Jewish guy named Jesus, The Christ, existed, before you will believe it?

No. Now, go ahead and prove God scientifically.

Do you also need scientific explanation about how my words appear before you before you acknowledge the likelyhood I exist and can type?

Nope. Just the scientific proof that God exists that you have claimed. No need to try deflecting the question. Just provide your proof and change the world!!!

Peace

Tim

 

[Deconi]

No. Now, go ahead and prove God scientifically.Nope. Just the scientific proof that God exists that you have claimed. No need to try deflecting the question. Just provide your proof and change the world!!!

Peace

Tim

I’m not sure that I ever made that claim!..Plus I don’t need to understand chemical compounds or lightspeed to do it !!

I simply use analytical examination of the evidence available to prove Christ lived, killed and rose again to satisfy me that God exists!! You do know He IS God!?

I suppose I can reduce the data to a ‘scientific format’ to make you happy, if I wanted to, or thought it would help…but I don’t!