The accuracy of the Biblical creation account?

[jpbg33]

Why do people say the genesis account of creation is incorrect but still call them self Christians.

I have been told that it was poetic writing.

Why do people think it is poetic writing and if it is why does that make it inaccurate.

[Kurieuo]

Why do people say the genesis account of creation is incorrect but still call them self Christians.

I have been told that it was poetic writing.

Why do people think it is poetic writing and if it is why does that make it inaccurate.

Maybe you should go to a place where many people believe Genesis is incorrect. Christ said that He was the way, the truth and the life, that noone comes to the Father except through Him. So then, what makes one a Christian isn't their response to a particular creation account, nor our works, but rather faith in Christ Himself.

[PaulSacramento]

Kurieuo is 100% correct about what makes on a Christian.
I think that people forget that being a Christian is about putting faith in Christ and not any writings.
What did Paul say?
Salvation is based on what?
In reality, Christianity is based on ONE singular event and that is the resurrection of Christ.
As Paul said:
1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.

[jpbg33]

Well the Bible says that by Jesus all things were made and in genesis God talls us how He created everything. So if you do not believe genesis then you do not believe 100% in Him because you are denying that part of Him. Less then believing all is the same as believing nothing.

But my question is not really on where people who don't believe in the Biblical creation are Christians or not, but on why is genesis being taken as poetic and even if it is poetic why does that make it inaccurate in any way.

Just trying to see were y'all are coming from.

[B. W.]

Well the Bible says that by Jesus all things were made and in genesis God talls us how He created everything. So if you do not believe genesis then you do not believe 100% in Him because you are denying that part of Him. Less then believing all is the same as believing nothing.

But my question is not really on where people who don't believe in the Biblical creation are Christians or not, but on why is genesis being taken as poetic and even if it is poetic why does that make it inaccurate in any way.

Just trying to see were y'all are coming from.

There is no debate here.

Do you have comprehension of the doctrine of the Divine Trinity as true?
-
-
-

[jpbg33]

I definitely believe in the Trinity

[jpbg33]

I just do not see genesis as poetic writing at all.

[PaulSacramento]

Some scholars view genesis as polemic writing, establishing YHWH as creator of all, bringing forth something from nothings, as opposed to the other ANE deities.
Some view it as a creation myth, which doesn't mean it is NOT true since myths, from the historical perspective, are stories that teach a lesson and they can be OR NOT be true.

[Stu]

I just do not see genesis as poetic writing at all.

There's nothing poetic about it. Genesis is the account of the beginning of man's life here on earth. Simple as that.

[RickD]

I just do not see genesis as poetic writing at all.

There's nothing poetic about it. Genesis is the account of the beginning of man's life here on earth. Simple as that.

Or the story of the lineage of Christ.

[jpbg33]

If it were just a story of the lineage of Christ then wouldn't that mean that some would not need to be saved because they were not from the lineage of Adam.

The Bible say that Adam was the first man not just the first of a lineage.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

One more thing that biblically proves we all came from Adam.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

When Adam sinned he changed form immortal to mortal and since we all come from Adam we are all mortal.

For those who say genesis was written in poetic writing they are wrong. There is no bases for that it is just an excuse to say evolution is real when it is not.

[RickD]

jpbg wrote:
Why do people think it is poetic writing and if it is why does that make it inaccurate.

jpbg wrote:
For those who say genesis was written in poetic writing they are wrong. There is no bases for that it is just an excuse to say evolution is real when it is not.

So, you answered your own question.

[jpbg33]

I was wonting someone to tall me why it was written poetic and shouldn't be taken literally.

No one has answered that question yet.

[Kurieuo]

It is written in Hebraic poetic form. Literary scholars can tell for example that the prose 2:4+ is very different from what is previous due to this. The stylistic form used for Genesis 1 is different, that is, the writer likely intended it to be sung as a hymnic chant (great for passing on orally, given printing press wasn't then had and most people couldn't read, such would lend itself well to an important oral tradition). Notice how waw (and) starts each verse? Days end with "evening n morning" refrain and "x day".

That said, one can and ought to still take it as literal history. BUT, pay attention to the literary structure, the way in which the author structured the writing. Many writers orchestrate their writings into "frames" or in a certain way to serve their desired purposes, and given the form of writing used in Genesis 1 we can identify the central message up until Genesis 2:3 is about establishing Israel's God as the one true God of all creation. That's the objective Moses wants to achieve in whatever literary framework, style and form he adopts.

For this message, it has been noted use of "parallelism" is employed. For example, between Day 1 where God separates the light from darkness, and Day 4 which contains this too as well as more information on how God separated the light from darkness, the Sun in the sky, stars for seasons etc. If true, then Genesis likely shouldn't be read simply from top to bottom, the the parallel days cross into/are related to each other. If parallelism is indeed a true structure adopted, then we ought to see this trend continue for the following days. So lets look at Day 2 and Day 5, notice anything in common?

• Day 2: 6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 God called the expanse heaven.
  Day 5: Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”
  
  Next, look at Day 3 and Day 6:
  
  Day 3: Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”... Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
  Day 6: Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”

The parallelism here is impossible to miss once pointed out. The question one might then perhaps ask is whether the passage is literal? I see no reason to say just because some sort of Hebraic poetic form is being used, that such means there is nothing literally true or there is no historical truth. Rather, one should simply pay attention to the literary styles being use to convey the truths.

And, it is true that God created the heaven and the Earth (not "Ra" or some pagan gods). He created all the kingdoms and everything within them. Chronologically, it seems in the order of heavens, sea/sky and land.

Then on Day 7 we have God resting and blessing the seventh day (the Sabbath which Israel were to keep). Keeping the Sabbath symbolised Israel's God as Lord of all creation, and so keeping it was a way for Israel to remember and honour their God as the One true God of all creation.

Furthermore, Scripture details further symbolism of the seventh day of rest, which isn't closed. In Hebrews 4 we are encouraged to enter into "that rest" (God's), the Sabbath day of rest. So, a 7-day framework is very important theologically to Israel (and us today as Christians who enter into God's rest via Christ), and so structure was most effective to adopt by Moses and God (given we accept divine authorship also). It's like the finishing touch, polish, divine seal of the whole creation story as that of Israel's God over all creation.

Now I expect in response to all this, that I will basically get a "no its not you're wrong." I don't really care, because the above is in plain sight for all to see and read even if one continues believing in the Emperor's New Clothes. I understand everyone seems to have their own interpretation they're comfortable with on the Genesis Creation, and like I said earlier, such doesn't make one Christian. Christ is what matters, and yes, Christ created everything which we find out in John 1 (not in Genesis).

[jpbg33]

I'm not going to sey you are all wrong. I have been told that it was poetic writing so it shouldn't be taken literally. You are right I do believe it is to be taken literally.

If it is only poetic then why did he write on the first to chapters in poetic writing.

I will say this though I believe God created light before he created the son moon and stars.

I believe when He made the sun He basically setup the system of light coming from the sun.

I think that is what He was referring to when He said He made the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light the night.

Basically I believe the light was already there He just made the sun and the stars and the moon to control it.

And I believe he used the term evening and morning to ensure that we would know that it was 6 literally days of creation.

Not trying to change anyone's mind on it just letting yall know where my stand on it.

Back to my question why is only the first 2 chapters considered poetic if Moses wrote the whole book