It is sometimes depicted that the basic argument to read “the creation story” (Genesis 1) as a non literal story are modern science and the evolution theory. But I believe that the biggest problem with a literal view is in the text itself. More specific in the differences between the “creation stories” in Genesis 1 and 2.
Order of Gen 1
Vegetation created:
God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds
according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it
according to their kinds.” It was so. The land produced vegetation –
plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing
fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was
good. (1:11)
Human created:
Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our
likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of
the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the
creatures that move on the earth.” (1:26)
Order of Gen 2
No vegetation:
Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of
the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain
on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. (2:5)
Human created:
The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living
being. (2:7)
Vegetation created:
The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he
placed the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees
grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good
for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil were in the middle of the orchard.) (2:8-9)
All quotes are from the NET Bible.
Question
Is there a way to make a strong argument that both those stories are to be read literally (as if it was written by a modern historian)? How could those different accounts be merged?
Varnel Watson
here we go Philip Williams Tim Dalton have at it
Philip Williams
Are liberals also creeping into the Pentecostal schools?
Robert Spurlock
It is amazing to look at the differences of the Original 1611 edition of the King James Version (King iames) and the modern King James Version we have today. Most people do not realize that The KJV has gone through many updates or ”corrections” over the last 400 years. Especially since the letter ”J” did not even exist in the English language until the early 1600’s and was not used in the original translation. It is also interesting the the KJV was not popularly accepted for over 100 years after its release, much like modern translations today. The Bible the pilgrims brought with them was actually the Geneva Bible. It was the older established version that the puritans used. The conformists preferred The Bishops Bible. The king James Did not become popular until the early to mid 1700s
Varnel Watson
this is quite hard to do since I know only 2 people who have a real 1611 original print KJV
Robert Spurlock
Troy Day can you even get a KJV Bible that is printed in the original wording and spelling?
Varnel Watson
Yes, there are a few out there Not as rare as Guttenberg but still pricey I know 2 people who own original KJV
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams you think KJV is not liberal translation?
Philip Williams
Troy Day the KJV is the KJV. I doubt many can easily read the original.
Varnel Watson
KJV today is NOT the KJV original #justsayin
Rick Warner
Troy Day and i assume you have found the original KJV and reading it today
Varnel Watson
Sorry, brother, I am not in the habit of posting during church hours I know 2 ppl who own original 1611 KJV – you can also find it online if you’d like to consult
Rick Warner
Troy Day i dont need it my Living Word bible works great for me
Varnel Watson
as it is obvious to all of us here – yes indeed
Rick Warner
Troy Day Jesus has uses the living scriptures mightly in my life…even Living Bible Translation
Rick Warner
KJV is NOT the original word of GOD…just a Man’s translation like all the other translations
Philip Williams
Rick Warner who doesn’t know that?
Rick Warner
Philip Williams HMMMMMMMM many do not know that……go to FB group KJV believes…and say that…LOLOL or go to a small town Baptist Church and say that…You know its man translated, I know its man translated. but MANY believe its truely GOD inspired translation and all other translation is not the true Word of God…
Philip Williams
Rick Warner a matter of education. Don’t condemn them. Educate.
Rick Warner
Philip Williams LOL when you believe in something so strong and the teaching is generational…..sorta hard to break down that wall
Robert Spurlock
Have you ever seem a Wycliffe Bible? Older than KJV very difficult to read
Varnel Watson
I saw a partial one in Dublin ones The original 1611 KJV is hard to read too and has plenty of errors
Philip Williams
Robert Spurlock my close friend has a Wycliffe manuscript, a Tyndall Bible, a leaf from the first Gutenberg Bible, and one of the first 200 King James Bibles printed. He has brought all of them to my house for me to see.
Robert Spurlock
Philip Williams oooo I would be so giddy!
Philip Williams
Robert Spurlock invite him to your church.
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/05/29/on-the-road-a-traveling-gutenberg-press/
Varnel Watson
Philip Williams I am pretty sure I know your friend. What are these priced for now?
Philip Williams
Troy Day ??
Varnel Watson
was wondering if they were properly insured
Philip Williams
Excellent question
Varnel Watson
ask them what are they worth today ?
Philip Williams
Troy Day I am not a merchant.
Varnel Watson
None is – but collectors know their treasures
Philip Williams
Troy Day Rusty isn’t a collector. He has a ministry, The Enduring Word.
Varnel Watson
these did not come free i presume
Varnel Watson
Robert Spurlock have you seen Mk 16 in the Wycliffe bible?