The literal and figurative portions of Genesis?

[Pats]

OK.... I was going to just post this in the Creationist forum, but I figured I'd post it down here. Why not? If I'm just repeating old arguements, forgive me, I'm new, and point me in the right direction.

I'm not intending to debate on this issue at this time, I'm looking for feedback, thoughts, and understanding.

I'm hoping Creationists will respons as well as anybody else. But I figured just posting it in the Creationist forum might disclude too many points of view that I might like to entertain, wether I find I agree with them or not.

I, as I've mentioned before, was raised YEC, but I certainly can't go with everything I was taught.

For instance, my Baptist "science" teacher taught that the sun is not a star. Why not? Because Genesis names it "The Sun" that's why.... I cannot accept that teaching, since it could easily be interprated from what we know about the sun and from Genesis that the sun is the star provided to us for light and warmth and it's name is sun.

Likewise, how long is a day in Genesis?

Genesis 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Genesis 5:4-5 (4Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.
(5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

It seems that since Adam fathered Seth after the fall, a day could take a long time in Genesis????

Now, I can forsee or recall that the arguement for the lieteral view of Genesis is that God wasn't refering to Adam's physical death but his spiritual death. In this case, I can see that point. But, if that's the case, when God said that Adam would die, He didn't specify what type of death, His meaning was allegorical. So then we're left with, what parts are allegorical and what parts are literal?

The other reason I question this is because there are other presedences in the Bible where time did not equal the exact amount expressed. I believe there is a prophecy in Daniel where each year is interprated to stand for 7 years.

So, why can those years be multiplied by 7? but the 6 days of creation must be exact?

Pats---just thinking too much probably

 

[Remus]

I, as I've mentioned before, was raised YEC, but I certainly can't go with everything I was taught.

For instance, my Baptist "science" teacher taught that the sun is not a star. Why not? Because Genesis names it "The Sun" that's why.... I cannot accept that teaching, since it could easily be interprated from what we know about the sun and from Genesis that the sun is the star provided to us for light and warmth and it's name is sun.

I've been where you are. It was then that I realized that I had to figure out everything for myself.

Likewise, how long is a day in Genesis?

Have you heard of Hank Hanegraaff? I believe he has a really good perspective on this issue:
http://www.equip.org/free/DA060.htm

There may be something wrong with his site. I seem to remember something more at the end.

Genesis 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Genesis 5:4-5 (4Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.
(5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

It seems that since Adam fathered Seth after the fall, a day could take a long time in Genesis????

Now, I can forsee or recall that the arguement for the lieteral view of Genesis is that God wasn't refering to Adam's physical death but his spiritual death. In this case, I can see that point. But, if that's the case, when God said that Adam would die, He didn't specify what type of death, His meaning was allegorical.

I have never bought into the idea that God was talking about Adam's spiritual death. The Bible says "in the day", which is not commonly used to mean "that day". I believe that God was referring to Adam's physical death only.

So then we're left with, what parts are allegorical and what parts are literal?

There are many aspects of the creation story that are not literal. As a creationist, I believe that Genesis is historical, but not necessarily 100% literal. For example, I don't believe that the two trees mentioned were literal trees. Likewise, I don't believe that God came down and performed some kind of CPR on Adam to give him the breath of life.

So, why can those years be multiplied by 7? but the 6 days of creation must be exact?

The perspective in that link may provide some insight. I would add that there are other references that suggest that the days were not long periods of time. One that comes easily to mind is Mark 10:6. Either way, I do believe that the age of the earth is a minor issue.

 

[KerrMetric]

Either way, I do believe that the age of the earth is a minor issue.

We might agree very little but on this we do. It's an important issue scientifically but not spiritually.

 

[The Lady Kate]

So then we're left with, what parts are allegorical and what parts are literal?

Well, that's for us to find out... with guidance from the Holy Spirit and a good helping of reason... God gave us both gifts... no sense letting one collect dust on the shelf.

I think many TEs will agree that since God also created the world, his actions must match up with His words.

Also, and this is my take on the whole thing, remember that The Bible is not simply God's word, but God's word as it was understood and recorded by human authors.Inspired authors, but still human, trying to express the most profound, important, and beautiful thoughts they've ever had into language everyone else can understand.

Ask any writer... that's not easy.

Haven't you ever had an idea that you just couldn't put into words? No matter how hard you try, words just couldn't do it justice? I can only imagine what it would take to reduce a divine idea into human speech... particularly human speech of 5,000 years ago.

Accepting that, and knowing that we are still fallible, in our understanding of God's words as well as His actions, we do the best we can, using those tools God offered us: Reason and Divine Guidance.

The worst that can happen? We take something literal as allegorical, or something allegorical as literal.

What do we do then? Admit we've made a mistake, and apologize to the One who has already forgiven us for every mistake we've ever made.

Pats---just thinking too much probably

No such thing as thinking too much... We learn from asking questions... even if we never find the answers.

 

[Willtor]

Barth viewed Genesis as a saga (not a myth, as precise terminology would have it). As such, particular numbers may have had cultural relevance. When we talk about the Creation week, in which God rests on the seventh day, this is almost certainly a foreshadow of the work week and the Sabbath. That the sun and moon are created on the third day probably has something to do with the worship of these heavenly bodies by neighboring societies. Putting them in the middle of the work week leaves no space for arguments that they are coeternal with God (first day), nor the pinnacle of His creation (sixth day).

In short, individual numbers often have meaning beyond their local contexts.

 

[gluadys]

That the sun and moon are created on the third day probably has something to do with the worship of these heavenly bodies by neighboring societies. Putting them in the middle of the work week leaves no space for arguments that they are coeternal with God (first day), nor the pinnacle of His creation (sixth day).

Some scholars who have studied the parallels between the biblical and the Sumerian flood stories see a relationship between the order of creation in Genesis and the introduction of the gods in Enuma Elish. In the polythiestic pantheons of the pagans, the gods were related to each other by family ties and by orders of precedence. In Babylon, Marduk, the sun god, and principal god of the pantheon has a higher rank than his younger sister, the moon goddess, for example. Marduk was also the god of vegetation and fertility.

So, Marduk, god of vegetation and fertility, is introduced earlier than the goddess of the moon. (As sun god, he is also mentioned first.)

From this perspective, Genesis 1 can be viewed as a rejection of the pagan gods. Each day of Genesis focuses on one or two gods/goddesses and basically says: it was not you that did this, it was the one and only God who created all things. On day 2 for example, the firmament is made by God out of nothing. It is not made out of the body of Tiamat by her son and murderer, Marduk. And on day 4 the sun, moon and stars are not presented as divine children of an older god, but as merely lights crafted by God.

The order in which the creation occurs is more or less the same as in the pagan story, but at every step the works, even the existence, of the pagan gods are denied and God is lifted up as Creator of all.

 

[Willtor]

Some scholars who have studied the parallels between the biblical and the Sumerian flood stories see a relationship between the order of creation in Genesis and the introduction of the gods in Enuma Elish. In the polythiestic pantheons of the pagans, the gods were related to each other by family ties and by orders of precedence. In Babylon, Marduk, the sun god, and principal god of the pantheon has a higher rank than his younger sister, the moon goddess, for example. Marduk was also the god of vegetation and fertility.

So, Marduk, god of vegetation and fertility, is introduced earlier than the goddess of the moon. (As sun god, he is also mentioned first.)

From this perspective, Genesis 1 can be viewed as a rejection of the pagan gods. Each day of Genesis focuses on one or two gods/goddesses and basically says: it was not you that did this, it was the one and only God who created all things. On day 2 for example, the firmament is made by God out of nothing. It is not made out of the body of Tiamat by her son and murderer, Marduk. And on day 4 the sun, moon and stars are not presented as divine children of an older god, but as merely lights crafted by God.

The order in which the creation occurs is more or less the same as in the pagan story, but at every step the works, even the existence, of the pagan gods are denied and God is lifted up as Creator of all.

I must spread some reputation around before giving it to Gluadys, again.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Barth viewed Genesis as a saga (not a myth, as precise terminology would have it). As such, particular numbers may have had cultural relevance. When we talk about the Creation week, in which God rests on the seventh day, this is almost certainly a foreshadow of the work week and the Sabbath. That the sun and moon are created on the third day probably has something to do with the worship of these heavenly bodies by neighboring societies. Putting them in the middle of the work week leaves no space for arguments that they are coeternal with God (first day), nor the pinnacle of His creation (sixth day).

In short, individual numbers often have meaning beyond their local contexts.

I did this a while ago... It is a comparison between egyptian, babylonian, and biblical creation stories.

Egyptian Creation
The Book of the Dead, dating to the Second Intermediate Period, describes how the world was created by Atum, the god of Heliopolis, the centre of the sun-god cult in Lower Egypt. In the beginning, the world appeared as an infinite expanse of dark and directionless waters, named Nun. Nun was personified as four pairs of male and female deities. Each couple represented one of four principles that characterized Nun: hiddenness or invisibility, infinite water, straying or lack of direction, and darkness or lack of light.
According to the Pyramid Texts, written on the walls of pyramids, the creator god emerged from the chaotic darkness of Nun as a mythical Bennu bird (similar to a heron or phoenix).
At a time the Egyptians called Zep Tepi (the First Time), Atum created two offspring. His son, Shu, represented dry air, and his daughter, Tefnut, represented corrosive moist air. The twins symbolize two universal principles of human existence: life and right (justice).

Babylonian Creation
When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined--

Genesis Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Me
Notice how all three start with a watery void. God flies over the water just as Atum does. Waters are separated, sweet and bitter in both Genesis and the Babylonian myth (Apsu and Tiamat representing sweet and bitter waters.)


Egyptian Creation
The twins separated the sky from the waters. They produced children named Geb, the dry land, and Nut, the sky. When the primeval waters receded, a mound of earth (Geb) appeared, providing the first solid dry land for the sun god, Re, to rest. During the dynastic period, Atum was also known as Re, meaning the sun at its first rising.

Babylonian Creation
He split her like a shellfish into two parts:
Half of her he set up as a covering for heaven,
Pulled down the bar and posted guards.
He bade them to allow not her waters to escape.

Genesis Creation
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Me
Creation of sky and land is very similar in all three. Also note that the primordial waters are trapped below the land in both Babylonian and Hebrew mythologies.

Egyptian Creation
In a third variation, a lotus flower emerged from the waters and opened to reveal a child-god [Ra, sun god].

Babylonian Creation
In her belly he established the zenith.
The Moon he caused to shine, entrusting the night to him.
He appointed him a creature of the night to signify the days,
And marked off every month, without cease, by means of his crown.
At the month's very start, rising over the land,
You shall have luminous horns to signify six days,
On the seventh day reaching a half-crown.

Genesis Creation
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Me
All three have plants before sun.

Man is also created last in all three and is to serve God/gods.

Sources:
http://www.civilization.ca/civil/egypt/egcr09e.html

http://www.cresourcei.org/enumaelish.html

http://www.biblegateway.com/

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Likewise, how long is a day in Genesis?

Genesis 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

I am told that the Hebrew/Greek indicates that in that day your death shall start.

So then we're left with, what parts are allegorical and what parts are literal?

I defer to the Lady Kate's answer on this
with the slight addendum that we think about the relative importance of the issue.

Is this central to salvation?

Does this change how we go about loving God and our neighbor as ourselves?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Well, that's for us to find out... with guidance from the Holy Spirit and a good helping of reason... God gave us both gifts... no sense letting one collect dust on the shelf.
[]
Inspired authors, but still human, trying to express the most profound, important, and beautiful thoughts they've ever had into language everyone else can understand.
[]
The worst that can happen? We take something literal as allegorical, or something allegorical as literal.

What do we do then? Admit we've made a mistake, and apologize to the One who has already forgiven us for every mistake we've ever made.

"You must spread reputation around before giving it to Lady Kate again"​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OK.... I was going to just post this in the Creationist forum, but I figured I'd post it down here. Why not? If I'm just repeating old arguements, forgive me, I'm new, and point me in the right direction.

I'm not intending to debate on this issue at this time, I'm looking for feedback, thoughts, and understanding.

I'm hoping Creationists will respons as well as anybody else. But I figured just posting it in the Creationist forum might disclude too many points of view that I might like to entertain, wether I find I agree with them or not.

I, as I've mentioned before, was raised YEC, but I certainly can't go with everything I was taught.

For instance, my Baptist "science" teacher taught that the sun is not a star. Why not? Because Genesis names it "The Sun" that's why.... I cannot accept that teaching, since it could easily be interprated from what we know about the sun and from Genesis that the sun is the star provided to us for light and warmth and it's name is sun.

Likewise, how long is a day in Genesis?

Genesis 2:17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

Genesis 5:4-5 (4Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters.
(5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.

It seems that since Adam fathered Seth after the fall, a day could take a long time in Genesis????

Now, I can forsee or recall that the arguement for the lieteral view of Genesis is that God wasn't refering to Adam's physical death but his spiritual death. In this case, I can see that point. But, if that's the case, when God said that Adam would die, He didn't specify what type of death, His meaning was allegorical. So then we're left with, what parts are allegorical and what parts are literal?

The other reason I question this is because there are other presedences in the Bible where time did not equal the exact amount expressed. I believe there is a prophecy in Daniel where each year is interprated to stand for 7 years.

So, why can those years be multiplied by 7? but the 6 days of creation must be exact?

Pats---just thinking too much probably

Why not change your focus to who Adam and Eve were, figuratively. That'll getcha studyin' .

 

[LoG]

Now, I can forsee or recall that the arguement for the lieteral view of Genesis is that God wasn't refering to Adam's physical death but his spiritual death. In this case, I can see that point. But, if that's the case, when God said that Adam would die, He didn't specify what type of death, His meaning was allegorical. So then we're left with, what parts are allegorical and what parts are literal?

Imo, Adam would have known he was susceptable to physical death because Eden had the Tree of Life. There would have been no purpose for that tree if he was to live forever anyway. This was why God had to evict them from the Garden.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I am told that the Hebrew/Greek indicates that in that day your death shall start.

I defer to the Lady Kate's answer on this
with the slight addendum that we think about the relative importance of the issue.

Is this central to salvation?

Does this change how we go about loving God and our neighbor as ourselves?

We are told to live by 'every word of God', not just the bread. Also, if we want to become kings in the kingdom we should 'search out these (hidden) matters'.

Focusing on our own salvation only is like reading the happy ending but ignoring the rest of the story. Or, it's like eating dessert and ignoring the meat and potatoes. We need to come to the fullness of knowledge of Christ.

 

[gluadys]

Now, I can forsee or recall that the arguement for the lieteral view of Genesis is that God wasn't refering to Adam's physical death but his spiritual death. In this case, I can see that point. But, if that's the case, when God said that Adam would die, He didn't specify what type of death, His meaning was allegorical. So then we're left with, what parts are allegorical and what parts are literal?

Imo, Adam would have known he was susceptable to physical death because Eden had the Tree of Life. There would have been no purpose for that tree if he was to live forever anyway. This was why God had to evict them from the Garden.

Taken together, this shows why one cannot separate a story into literal and allegorical parts. What one really has is a story that is literally true for the characters in the story but not literally true for a person outside the story.

In the story Adam is a literal person. The Tree of Life is a literal tree. The death is spiritual-cum-physical death i.e. no distinction is made between them.

For Adam, the whole story is literal fact.

But from outside the story, none of it is literal. It is a mythological story about the relationship of humanity to the Creator--both the ideal expressed in creation, and the frustrations, pain, toil and death that are the reality due to our sinfulness and alienation from God.

There is a whole encyclopedia of theology packed into this story in a simple and memorable pictorial form.

 

[shernren]

Imo, Adam would have known he was susceptable to physical death because Eden had the Tree of Life. There would have been no purpose for that tree if he was to live forever anyway. This was why God had to evict them from the Garden.

Here's a kicker ... if that's what the Tree of Life was for in the Garden of Eden, what is the Tree of Life doing in Heaven in Revelation 22? Are people going to die physically in heaven?? The tree is given "for the healing of the nations", but that clearly can't be its purpose in Genesis 2-3.

Which causes me to lean more towards thinking that the tree is metaphorical than anything literal, at least in Genesis 2.

 

[LoG]

But from outside the story, none of it is literal. It is a mythological story about the relationship of humanity to the Creator--both the ideal expressed in creation, and the frustrations, pain, toil and death that are the reality due to our sinfulness and alienation from God.

I could perhaps see your point of it being mythological if it was like the book of Job. No location, time, or connection to any other figures of history. This isn't the case for the Creation account. Through the geneologies there is a distinct physical connection as well as reference to an approximate time and location in history. The results of the account are evident around us.

In comparison to other stories from surrounding cultures, the account in content and style is conservative and restrained. It is the obvious foundation upon which the rest of this creation's future is built. If this is mythological why don't you tell us what really happened to cause pain, toil, death etc. since they aren't natural.
Shouldn't we have evolved past these troubles by now?

 

[Dannager]

If this is mythological why don't you tell us what really happened to cause pain, toil, death etc. since they aren't natural.
Shouldn't we have evolved past these troubles by now?

I'm sorry, what?

 

[gluadys]

I could perhaps see your point of it being mythological if it was like the book of Job. No location, time, or connection to any other figures of history. This isn't the case for the Creation account. Through the geneologies there is a distinct physical connection as well as reference to an approximate time and location in history. The results of the account are evident around us.

I don't see any location, time or connection to other figures of history here either. Yes, Eden is mentioned, but other myths name places too. And the genealogies are not part of the story. They were added later by another hand.

In comparison to other stories from surrounding cultures, the account in content and style is conservative and restrained.

Yes, but still of the same sort of story.

If this is mythological why don't you tell us what really happened to cause pain, toil, death etc. since they aren't natural.

They are natural. But people still want to explain them. That is what this story does. It gives a meaning to pain, toil and death by providing a mythico-theological reason for them.

Shouldn't we have evolved past these troubles by now?

That is not the function of evolution.

 

[Willtor]

Barth calls Genesis a "saga" which is basically what Lion of God has described. In my (albeit limited) understanding of genre, a saga is a type of myth that follows a person or family line of heroic proportions. Regardless of who wrote any particular portion (whether JEPD is dead on, or Moses wrote most of it, or Moses wrote the whole thing and prophesied his own death), as far as Genesis is concerned, it is a saga. Perhaps certain people existed, or perhaps they didn't. If they did, perhaps they did precisely what they are said to have done, or perhaps they didn't. At any rate, a Christian must view it as a true saga, for whatever it is that the saga is intended to communicate. But as with any mythology, it is not trying to offer us clues for science to uncover. As Gluadys has pointed out in the past, that would be anachronistic.

 

[Pats]

Some scholars who have studied the parallels between the biblical and the Sumerian flood stories see a relationship between the order of creation in Genesis and the introduction of the gods in Enuma Elish. In the polythiestic pantheons of the pagans, the gods were related to each other by family ties and by orders of precedence. In Babylon, Marduk, the sun god, and principal god of the pantheon has a higher rank than his younger sister, the moon goddess, for example. Marduk was also the god of vegetation and fertility.

So, Marduk, god of vegetation and fertility, is introduced earlier than the goddess of the moon. (As sun god, he is also mentioned first.)

From this perspective, Genesis 1 can be viewed as a rejection of the pagan gods. Each day of Genesis focuses on one or two gods/goddesses and basically says: it was not you that did this, it was the one and only God who created all things. On day 2 for example, the firmament is made by God out of nothing. It is not made out of the body of Tiamat by her son and murderer, Marduk. And on day 4 the sun, moon and stars are not presented as divine children of an older god, but as merely lights crafted by God.

The order in which the creation occurs is more or less the same as in the pagan story, but at every step the works, even the existence, of the pagan gods are denied and God is lifted up as Creator of all.

Thank you for this examination, Glaudys.

Thank you all for your comments. I want to go over this thread a little more closely before making any further comment.