This is probably more readable on substack, but I'll include the text here for those who want to stay on NOSTR. If you want to make sure you get parts 2 & 3 subscribe on substack.

https://trustjesus.substack.com/p/why-is-a-literal-interpretation-of

Why is a literal interpretation of Genesis Important? Part 1Science, Archaeology, and the Inerrancy of Genesis

There are so many people that say Genesis, especially the first 11 chapters, is myth or analogy or poetry and we shouldn’t take it literally. Sadly it isn’t just atheists saying this. Many Christian leaders say this, but they are mistaken. God means what He says and says what He means. The creator of the universe is fully knowledgeable of everything that happened in the past and is fully capable of communicating that to us. In fact a proper view of Genesis is critical for fully understanding the rest of the Bible, especially the Gospel.

Is a proper view of Genesis required for salvation? No. Does the Gospel message have a lot of holes in it and is it hard to defend if you are missing Genesis as the foundation? Very much, yes.

When I was a new Christian (almost 40 years ago), I thought it odd that with each day of creation, the Bible says “and there was evening and there was morning the xth day.” I thought this because it was so clear God was describing a normal 24 hour day that included day and night. Today there are people that believe Chapter 1, describing creation, is a myth borrowed from other cultures, like the Sumerians (they never seem to consider that the Sumerians and other ancient civilizations got their myths from real history and from God). Others think each day corresponds to vast ages (which doesn’t work at all.) Many people think that “science” has disproven the early chapters of Genesis. All of this is completely wrong. The atheists understand that destroying belief in Genesis destroys the foundation of the Bible, but most Christians don’t seem to understand how destructive this is.God did not allow for interpreting the days of creation as vast ages. The day/age proponents will say that the word yom can mean a 24 hour day or a longer length such as “the days of Moses”. Although this is generally true, the word yom always means a normal 24 hour day when used with a number (like first day, second day, etc.) and also when used with one or both of the words evening and morning. Another problem is that God created the plants and trees on day 3, but created the sun on day 4. How could plants and trees survive for vast ages without the sun? If it wasn’t for people trying to force million and billions of years into Genesis to allow for man’s anti-god theory of evolution, nobody would interpret the clear meaning of Genesis chapter 1 in this way. Will you put man’s theories above the truth of God?We need to consider the motivations of the so-called experts that claim to have proven millions or billions of years. Why do we supposedly need to add great ages to the true age of the Earth (around 6,000 years) that was clearly and intentionally declared in the Bible? People, who did not want to believe in a god, have worked very hard to try to disprove the Bible and creation. They have started with the axioms, “there is no god” and “the only allowable explanation is natural processes.” From these unproven axioms, they use a bunch of logic and science to supposedly prove there is no god, but it is just circular reasoning. It is a form of the “begging the question” logical fallacy where “the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. It is an attempt to prove something is true while simultaneously taking that same thing for granted. This line of reasoning is fallacious because the assumption is not justified by any evidence.” 1 The fact is, what happened in the past can NOT be proven or disproven by science. Science requires repeatable experiments. We cannot do experiments in the past. The best we can do is experiments today to see if it is possible that the remaining evidence suggests that a particular thing happened in the past. It cannot be proven. A theory that accurate predicts we will find certain evidence, and then, after the prediction has been made correctly predicts evidence is a good theory. A theory that makes predictions that do not come to pass or that contradicts new evidence is a bad theory.There are two kinds of science: experimental science and historical/forensic science. When people say “science proves” they are talking about experimental science which looks at a situation, hypothesizes how it works or what it will do next, designs an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis, and then adjusts the hypothesis based on the results of the experiment. It normally takes many people doing many experiments over an extended period of time for something to even be considered a scientific theory. There are only a few scientific laws that are so well proven true that they are considered laws, ie. the laws of thermodynamics or the law of gravity. Historical or forensic science looks at evidence and tries to predict what happened in the past. It is a much less sure form of science. Without a trustworthy witness, what happened in the past can never be proven. All that can be shown is likelihood and even that can be strongly influenced by assumptions or world views.Atheists assume that all processes in effect today were always the same and therefore the large layers of sediment are due to billions of years of dust. This was predicted in 1 Peter 3:3-7:“Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”It is amazing, but not surprising, how God predicted the exact arguments being made by atheist scientists today.People who trust the Bible assume those same layers of sediment are due to the global flood described in Genesis 7-8. Which matches better? Many of these layers are 100s of feet thick and stretch across continents or even over multiple continents. Millions of years of dust wouldn’t do this, but a global flood would. Within these sediments are both land and sea creatures mixed together. This makes sense if everything was effected by a catastrophic global flood which washed sea creatures up onto land and buried the sea creatures with the land animals. It makes no sense in the slow processes we see today. In fact, fossils in general only form in catastrophes. An animal that dies on the dry land, is eaten by scavengers and broken down by bacteria and fungi and disappears completely in weeks or months or maybe a few years in a very dry or very cold climate. They don’t fossilize unless they are quickly buried, like in a flood or maybe a landslide, but even the landslide burial would require mineralized water to fossilize the bones.There are also lots of other evidences that the Earth is young. In the past it was assumed fossils were millions to hundreds of millions of years old, so they were not checked for soft tissues. Experiments have proven it is impossible for there to be any soft tissue after approximately a million years and unlikely after ~100,000 years even under perfect conditions. The length of time is dependent on the temperature of the tissue and exposure or lack of exposure to chemicals and water. Starting with Dr. Mary Schweitzer’s T-rex leg bone, over 100 fossils have been found recently that are supposed to be many millions of years old, but contain soft tissue including obvious collagen, blood cells and blood vessels that are stretchy and look like living tissue. Although there are numerous theories on how this could be possible. if the bones were really millions of years old, none of these theories are believable. On the other hand, if the majority of these fossils were created by the global flood ~4,500 years ago, it is definitely possible and believable to find soft tissue in some of the buried bones.In addition to Biological evidence supporting the Bible and a young Earth, there are lots of astronomical evidences of a young universe. One of the best is the existence of comets. Comets normally orbit the Sun in a very elliptical (stretched circle) manner. The comets change little while they are far out in space beyond the planets where it is very cold and there is little influence from the sun, but when the comets enter the inner solar system, the heat and solar wind melt and blow off some of the water and other material shrinking the comet. This is what causes the tail(s). Eventually the comets break apart and cease to exist, sometimes with a dramatic explosion. We know how much mass comets usually lose as they approach the sun and can show that comets should not exist in the solar system after about 100,000 years, but our solar system is supposed to be billions of years old. Why are there still comets?

Astronomers know of this problem, so they have come up with a rescuing device — the Oort Cloud. This is a supposed repository of comets so far out in space that we can’t detect it. Somehow new comets periodically get knocked into orbit nearer the sun. What physical evidence exists for the Oort Cloud? None! It is assumed. If life is supposed to have evolved instead of being spoken into existence by God, we must have millions or billions of years for this to even sound plausible. If life has been in existence for 100s of millions or even billions of years, then the solar system and the universe have to be even older — much older if the Big Bang Theory is to be believed. If the Solar System is supposed to be billions of years old then there has to be some way to get new comets orbiting the sun and entering the inner solar system. Instead of using the existence of comets to correct their false assumptions, they have made up a rescuing device based solely on the fact there has to be some source if the solar system is billions of years old. No evidence is asked for or found, but they talk about the Oort Cloud as if it was a proven fact in the same manner as the Sun, Moon, and planets. It must be understood that belief in an old universe, the Big Bang, and Darwinian Evolution is based solely on faith. It is a religion and heretics will be silenced and punished.Another evidence for a young solar system is the existence of magnetic fields in most of the planets in our solar system. If the planets are truly billions of years old, they should no longer have a magnetic field. I will talk about Earth in particular, but similar processes effect the other planets. Earth’s magnetic field has been measured and is decaying at a rate causing the magnetic field to reduce by half every ~1400 years. Using math and understanding of electricity and magnetism, this can be run backwards and shown that the magnetic field and heat generated would be too large for life to exist about 10,000 years ago. This allows for the Bible’s ~6,000 year age, but isn’t even close to allowing for Evolution or the Big Bang.Another interesting point regarding magnetic fields or planets is Dr. Russel Humphrey’s prediction of the magnetic field of Uranus and Neptune (based on the Bibles statement from 2 Peter 3:5 “the earth was formed out of water and by water”) before they were known. His predictions were proven when Voyager 2 measured the actual magnetic fields. Big Bang proponent’s predictions were off by many orders of magnitude.“In 1983, on the basis of Scriptures implying the original created material of the earth was water, I proposed that God created the water with the spins of its hydrogen nuclei initially aligned in one direction (Humphreys, 1983). That would produce a strong magnetic field. After 6,000 years of decay, including energy losses from magnetic reversals during the Genesis Flood, (Humphreys, 1986a, 1990c) the strength of the earth's magnetic field would be what we observe today. In 1984 I extended the theory to the other planets of the solar system, the Sun, and the Moon (Humphreys, 1984). The theory explained the observed magnetic field strengths of those bodies very well. It also correctly predicted the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune measured by the Voyager 2 spacecraft several years later, (Humphreys, 1986b, 1990a, b) as well as magnetizations of surface rocks on Mars (Humphreys, 1999).2A theory of the universe that correctly predicts what science will find today is a much more trustworthy theory than one that fails to predict correctly what is not known when the theory is proposed. Science, based on the Bible, is a much better predictor of what we discover as we learn more about the universe.In addition to science, archaeology also supports the truth of the Bible. There are many ancient civilizations that the Bible describes that were believed by the “experts” to be man-made myths and to have never existed, such as the Hittites and King David, but archaeology keeps proving the Bible true. As time has gone one and archaeology has matured, most of the people and people groups that the Bible describes, but experts said didn’t exist, have been proven to have existed. I am sure more evidence will continue being discovered.When we have a proper view of the Bible, and especially the first 11 chapters of Genesis, not only is our theology better, but so is our science.I do not have time to go into anywhere near all of the evidence supporting the inerrancy of the Bible, but I will end with a list of some books from which I learned a lot. Some are more general and good for a broader audience. Some are deep dives into the science and may not be for everyone. Most can be found at icr.org or aig.org along with many free articles and videos on these subjects. I hope you will consider checking some of them out.The two best general creation support books I have found are:“Creation Basics & Beyond: An In-Depth Look at Science, Origins, and Evolution” by icr.org”The Global Flood: Unlocking the Earth’s Geologic History” by John D. MorrisThese are two good geology books:“Carved in Stone” by Timothy Clarey (has wonderful pictures and diagrams and is based on global borehole research of sedimentary layers and describes the sedimentary layers and fossils as being created as the flood progressively covered more and more of the globe.)“Earth’s Catastrophic Past” by Andrew A. Snelling (A two volume set that goes deep into geology and may be too technical for those without some background or unwilling to struggle through it, but it is well worth the effort. It will also be easier to understand after reading “Carved in Stone”)These are some good Astronomy books:“Earth’s Mysterious Magnetism: and that of other celestial orbs” by D. R. Humphreys, PhD and M.J. De Spain“The Created Cosmos” by Danny Faulkner“The Expanse of Heaven” by Danny FaulknerStarlight, Time and the New Physics: Dr. John Hartnett (This book is very good explanation of how we can see stars that are thousands and millions of lightyears away even though the universe is only 6,000 years old as measured on Earth. The first 2/3rds is technical but readable. The last 1/3rd is the technical math that proves his theory and is only understandable to those who have a strong math background and some understanding of relativistic physics)This is a great book on archaeological finds supporting the Bible:“Archaeology and the Bible: 50 Fascinating Finds That Bring the Bible to Life” by Tom MeyerThese books look at the spread of people after the flood and the Tower of Babel and describe where the races come from:“Tower of Babel: The Cultural History of Our Ancestors” by Bodie Hodge (Mostly follows people groups based on the Bible and historical writings)“Traced: Human DNA’s Big Surprise” by Nathaniel T. Jeanson (Uses variation/mutation in the Y chromosome, which is passed down from father to son, to trace people groups from Noah’s son’s to their current locations)I hope these books and the previous evidence will strengthen your faith in the Bible and its inerrancy and encourage you to read Genesis and see how it applies to the rest of the Bible. Make sure to check out Part 2 and Part 3 of this series.Trust Jesus.

your sister in Christ,

#grownostr #christian #jesus #bible #genesis #science #faith #truth

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I tend to find the old earth, old universe model more convincing, but @LibertyGal's piece does an excellent job of summarizing some arguments for a young earth, young universe model. It is quite thought-provoking.

Worth a read if you're interested in the debate from a scientific perspective.

nostr:note1a75d7zugj36j6dyxg6ry22y0gp20yzt9uj6pcuzd4lah75wa6rnqzkp4yx

It is likely that Part 1 of this series will incite the most debate among believers, simply because the first chapters of Genesis are often framed (erroneously) as necessarily in conflict with the project of scientific understanding.

You did an excellent job laying out some points of scientific evidence which may support the young earth hypothesis. I was fascinated in reading them, and they will give me much food for thought. As I'm am not familiar enough with the scientific evidences for and against the young earth hypothesis, I won't enter into that aspect of the discussion any further here.

What I do wish to do, however, is present an exegetical framework that allows the six days of creation to be taken symbolically, rather than literally, without prejudice to the truths of salvation contained in the text or to the scientific evidence pointing one way or another.

First, we must note that Scriptures are not handed down from Heaven whole and entire, nor are they dictated directly by God to a human author. Rather, God works in and through human authors without overriding their freedom. Thus, different parts of Scripture are of different literary forms, such as history, poetry, letters, prophecy, and so on, according to the intentions and style in which the human authors chose to write. Nevertheless, the Holy Spirit surely directed the hands of each human author to ensure that what they wrote corresponded to what God wishes us to understand about His creation and our salvation.

With this in mind, we can consider the literary form of Genesis 1. Many authors have pointed out that the six days of creation fall into two groups of three: three days of creation and distinction, and three days of adornment. In the first three days, God creates light, the heavens, and the earth, and separates light from darkness, the firmament from the lower waters, and the sea from the dry land. In days four, five, and six, He revisits each domain in turn to populate it. On the fourth day, He adorns the heavens with sun, moon, and stars. On the fifth day He fills the skies and the seas with birds and fish. On the sixth day He populates the land with all of the animals. Finally, as the crows of creation, He creates man, both male and female. Then God rests.

Even the ancients knew that light comes from the sun, but the sun is not created until the fourth day, well after the light and darkness are distinguished, so it is apparent that the procession of six days is symbolic. The primary task of the text is to ensure us that God is the one responsible for creating and adorning the world. The world did not arise on its own, for before God's action, "the earth was without form and void" (Genesis 1:2, RSVCE); and it did not arise from astrological influences, for the heavenly bodies were not created until the fourth day; and it certainly was not the work of man or any other creature, for the beasts of the earth, and finally man, are not created until the sixth day. Again, the six days of work and the seventh of rest tells us both that we must rest from our work on the seventh day, and that creation itself tends towards a state of completion and perfection, for when His work was finished, "God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31 RSVCE).

All of this being said, Scripture does not strictly require us to believe either in a literal six days of creation, or in a much longer process, as described by modern scientists. The creation narrative takes on a distinct, almost poetic literary structure that shows God creating and adorning the world. It's primary purpose is to show us (mankind) our place in relationship to God and to His created order. As we see in Genesis 1 and 2, we are to both "fill the earth and subdue it" and "till it and keep it" as stewards of God's creation. These are the essential truths of the Genesis narrative. The timeline and processes of creation are left to the debate of scientists, exegetes, and other learned men and women.

(As an added note, the Church Fathers held a variety of opinions on the interpretation of Genesis. Many held to a literal six, 24-hour days. Others argued for seven thousand years of creation, holding that a "day" of Genesis was a thousand years. Others still held to a more figurative interpretation. For a sampling of the views of the early Church, see: https://www.catholic.com/tract/creation-and-genesis.)

So do snakes eat dust?

Do they eat dust to stay alive? No. Do they crawl on their bellies, sticking out their tongue to "smell" things and bring dust into their mouths? Yes, so in this respect they do eat dust.

If you look at the Bible, the prophecy is written in a poetic way, even if the rest of the narrative is written as historic narrative. It seems pretty clear what it really means.

Seems like the dividing line between what's poetic and what's literal is your opinion and that of the religious community to whom you belong.

Hey, nostr:nprofile1qyg8wumn8ghj7um0d3hkxmewdekz7qgcwaehxw309ahx7um5wghxvmt59emkj73wvf5h5tcpz4mhxue69uhkgetnvd5x7mmvd9hxwtn4wvhsqgydxj7jgv3yp3trw9628kcerput4gwpxwhvwwdkfgnyyk05zjlr9vajh9wk ,

I just discovered your series on Genesis today. Thanks for writing it up, and providing some good references for us to dig into.

I'm responding now for a few reasons; I also noticed a post of yours in which you express an interest and willingness to dialog, discuss, and debate viewpoints. I appreciate that, because there are things I've been learning from Scripture that seem to fall outside of "conventional orthodox doctrine" that I believe are of considerable importance to the ongoing health of the church, and I hope (over time) to bring some of them to your attention for possible discussion.😀

But I wanted you to know that I, too, am a "young earth creationist." You seem to already be aware of Russell Humphreys ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Humphreys ) and his work in this area?

I also wish to share a link to a fictional story in a series I've been writing, set in the antediluvian world. I am persuaded that pre-flood man very likely had developed advanced technologies that were utterly destroyed in the flood.

If you find an occasion to read my story, I would love to hear your response:

https://peakd.com/story/@creatr/good-morning-by-duncan-cary-palmer

Sounds interesting. Hopefully I can find time to take a look this weekend. I've also wondered about possible advanced technology in the antediluvian world. Of course their advances may have gone in a completely different direction than our own.

I do like Russel Humphrey's work. His prediction of the magnetic field of Uranus was epic. He has an interesting theory on starlight, but although I liked it when I first heard it, I think Dr. Harnett's theory is more likely the right answer.

I'm always open to considering new ideas, but the Bible is always my firm foundation.

YES!

Scripture is my sourcebook; I will always believe it preferentially rather than my lying eyes...😁💯

I finally got around to reading your story. I like it very much. I'll be interested in reading the whole thing when it is finished. The GitCitadel group is working on a library app/relay/thing that will allow easy publishing of books on NOSTR. You could post when they finish it. I believe it will be called GC-Alexandria.

Hi, nostr:npub1356t6fpjysx9vdchfg7mryv83w4pcye6a3eeke9zvsje7s2tuv4s4k805u!

Thank you for reading...🙏🏻 I'm glad you liked my story.😆 And I'm excited to hear about future book publishing opportunities.🚀 Do you have any links to that group and their work?🤔

Here's one more story in the antediluvian series that I think of as "the other bookend" because it takes place shortly before the universal flood:

https://peakd.com/fiction/@creatr/too-much-of-a-good-thing-by-duncan-cary-palmer

nostr:nprofile1qydhwumn8ghj7argv4nx7un9wd6zumn0wd68yvfwvdhk6tcprpmhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qguwaehxw309a2xse2xdae8yetnwshxummnw3erztnrdakj7qpqm4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsraneys could tell you more about the plans for Alexandria. She might have an idea how long till it is finished, but all of the people working on it also have other jobs and they are perfectionists that won't release it till it is ready.;

Sure. It's done by #[4], but it's not the first product we're planning on releasing, so it'll take a half a year, or so, until a beta version is out.

Thank you, nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl, for the link to your working group; and though it took a minute, the significance of "Alexandria" has finally registered in my at times discouragingly slow brain.🤣

Your project looks uber-cool.🚀🫂😁

Thanks...🙏🏻 I'd welcome any news nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl might care to share.😆👍

I'm in no rush, though...😃

I do have a series on surfing that is close to book length, and another set in the New Heavens and New Earth...😜

Also, nostr:npub1356t6fpjysx9vdchfg7mryv83w4pcye6a3eeke9zvsje7s2tuv4s4k805u, your Genesis series has me mulling over the possibility of doing a series on what I've been learning as I read through the New Testament in Greek. Thank you for the inspiration.🙏🏻😁

I'm persuaded that what I have come to regard as "universally deficient English translations" of the Bible have seriously confused the Western world, and derailed the church from its true mission.😢

Preach sista🌅

What a wonderful post…people may question ur science and fight u on ur faith but no one should question your sincerity and authenticity.

Discussing/defending matters of faith in the realm of “evidence based” science are difficult at best but uv clearly and concisely laid out some incredible arguments. I think a lot of us would love if u made parts 2 and 3 available on nostr.

Ps. note to any one using the term “evidence based” science/medicine…I’m old and prolly misinformed (I didn’t get the benefit of the core curriculum 🤷🏽‍♂️) but I was taught all science was based on evidence and therefore evidence based science is a redundant term that implies a defensive posture over undecided science. Just one idiot’s prolly uninformed opinion.