Could Genesis be literal?

[Chesterton]

The earth was not created in 6 days a few thousand years ago.

You could be mistaken.

 

[Mallon]

You could be mistaken.

It's possible, but not likely.

 

[Assyrian]

You could be mistaken.

Maybe the earth is flat too, or has the sun in orbit around it.

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

It's possible, but not likely.

there is no 'possible' or 'improbable'. no 'very likely' or 'unlikely'.


it either was or wasn't.

 

[Mallon]

there is no 'possible' or 'improbable'. no 'very likely' or 'unlikely'.


it either was or wasn't.

Have it your way. Assyrian wasn't mistaken when he said the earth wasn't created in six days a few thousand years ago.

 

[itisdeliciouscake]

Have it your way. Assyrian wasn't mistaken when he said the earth wasn't created in six days a few thousand years ago.

I no dis b/cuz it r fact & it sed so on wikipedia.


BUT THEY HAD SOURCES!!!!!

.

 

[Mallon]

Was that an argument?

 

[Van]

The OP posits the idea that Genesis was intended to be taken literally, and so they thought the view of how God created the heavens and the earth expressed was literally true, but they were mistaken. Certainly the Bible contains the views held by the audience of the time scripture was authored, which might not be intended to reflect God's view.

If a person questions whether the creation days were intended to suggest they were 24 hour days, he is not questioning whether those scriptures are to be taken literally. But he is questioning whether the author intended to convey 24 hour days. To say that a "day" could refer to an indeterminate period of time, perhaps billions of years, is literally true.

Now we can say that if the Universe expanded at the speed of light, it appears to be between 7 and 20 billion years old, probably about 14 billion years old. If the inflation occurred under different rules at Warp 9, then the Universe might not be quite as old as some believe, but 7 billion years is hard to get around.

The whole "literal" debate is simply an effort to say disregard the specifics of Genesis, the accounts are simply stories made up to convey other truths and we are free to disregard the details. As Frost purportedly said concerning free verse, that is like playing tennis with the net down.

 

[gluadys]

The OP posits the idea that Genesis was intended to be taken literally, and so they thought the view of how God created the heavens and the earth expressed was literally true, but they were mistaken. Certainly the Bible contains the views held by the audience of the time scripture was authored, which might not be intended to reflect God's view.

If a person questions whether the creation days were intended to suggest they were 24 hour days, he is not questioning whether those scriptures are to be taken literally. But he is questioning whether the author intended to convey 24 hour days. To say that a "day" could refer to an indeterminate period of time, perhaps billions of years, is literally true.

Now we can say that if the Universe expanded at the speed of light, it appears to be between 7 and 20 billion years old, probably about 14 billion years old. If the inflation occurred under different rules at Warp 9, then the Universe might not be quite as old as some believe, but 7 billion years is hard to get around.

The whole "literal" debate is simply an effort to say disregard the specifics of Genesis, the accounts are simply stories made up to convey other truths and we are free to disregard the details. As Frost purportedly said concerning free verse, that is like playing tennis with the net down.

In a sense you are right. I think we have to distinguish first among various ways of understanding "literal".

The term "literal" is often given the connotation of "real" "true" or "historical". And when people ascribe these meanings to "literal" it is easy to see why they think it very important to hold that scripture is to be understood literally.

However, the basic meaning of "literal" is the simplest, common-sense (and usually sensory) meaning of the term--whether or not it is real or true or historical.

In this sense, every text has a literal meaning, including all fictional texts and all similes and figurative language. So, for example, in the last scene of Mary Poppins, the famous governess opens her umbrella and literally flies off into the sky--and that is exactly how it was portrayed in the movie. And that is the very reason we understand it to be fictional, because we know that in reality there are no magic umbrellas that lift people up into the stratosphere and travel somewhere else.

One question that can be asked of scripture is whether we should exempt it from such common understandings of reality. If so, on what conditions? The fire-breathing Leviathan of Job comes to mind. Do we allow an allegiance to a "literal" reading to make an exception to common sense here or do we allow common sense to tell us that this is a not a literal description of any actual animal, but rather something mythical and symbolic?

The second question, and the one alluded to here, is the intent of the author. Does the intent of the author that his description be understood as literal in the sense of "real, accurate" mean the modern reader with a different understanding of cosmology is denying the authority and accuracy of scripture if s/he reads the same description without ascribing reality to it as it stands?

The clear paradigm here is the three-story cosmology of the biblical writers vs modern galactic cosmology. All textual and cultural contexts convey the sense that the biblical authors understood such concepts as the immovable earth set on foundations and the circling sun in the firmament with the waters above to be literal in the sense of real, physical descriptions of the cosmos. But virtually no one---even the most convinced YECist, reads it that way today. Flat-earthers are rare indeed, even among the rare geocentrists.

So clearly, most of us understand that the author's intention to describe his/her world in a literal common-sense fashion does not impose on us the obligation to stand by an outmoded understanding of how to physically describe the world.

It is important to note too, that for the most part we have not entered into tortuous discussions of how to save the text through any kind of symbolism. For example, in respect to "the foundations of the earth" there is no equivalent to current discussions on the possible symbolic meanings of "yom". We generally don't bother trying to connect these ancient descriptions of the cosmos to modern descriptions via symbolic re-interpretations. So a pertinent question is whether we need a symbolic or figurative interpretation of "yom" at all, even when we accept the reality of the deep time origin of the cosmos and the earth? If we can accept interstellar distances unknown to biblical writers, why not deep time equally unknown to them? I don't think we need to say that a "day" in the creation week refers to an indeterminate period of time. It is no more necessary than asserting that the biblical writers could have been alluding to the forces of gravity when they spoke of the foundations of the earth.

I will end with one quibble and one affirmation. The quibble is the use of the word "mistaken" in reference to the POV of the biblical writers. Obviously, we can only call their view "mistaken" in hindsight. We should be cautious about suggesting that they made a mistake. They did not. Given the information at their disposal, they described their world as accurately as we could have with the same limited information. (Along the same line, it is often suggested that the medieval church "mis-interpreted" the biblical cosmology. But it did not. The medieval understanding of the cosmos, though not identical to that of the bible, had more in common with it than ours does.)

And finally I affirm the insight that the views held by the audience of the time scripture was authored might not be intended to reflect God's view. Along this line we should always remember that God is also the author of creation and that creation has its own story to tell about itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could it be possible that the writer(s) of Genesis fully meant for Genesis to be taken literally?

Yes, indeed.

Adam would have written Genesis 1, and since he wasn't there until Day Six, it doesn't take an Einstein to realize that he got his information directly from God, whom he talked with on a regular basis.

When God speaks throughout Scripture of His mighty power, and He choses to use an example, it's almost always an act of creation that He alludes to.

Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, indeed.

Adam would have written Genesis 1, and since he wasn't there until Day Six, it doesn't take an Einstein to realize that he got his information directly from God, whom he talked with on a regular basis.

When God speaks throughout Scripture of His mighty power, and He choses to use an example, it's almost always an act of creation that He alludes to.

Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Ok, so God talks about his acts of creation.
No problem there.
But why do you think this means he is being literal?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Ok, so God talks about his acts of creation.
No problem there.
But why do you think this means he is being literal?

Indeed I do think He is being literal here.

 

[Assyrian]

There you go. That'll be the problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

There you go. That'll be the problem.

Have you seen this post?

 

[Assyrian]

Your point?

 

[theFijian]

Your point?

I think his point is Genesis = Science, Science = Truth. Scientism in action.

 

[Assyrian]

No, I think here his point is that God said it, 'He' with a capital H, therefore it must be literal. God cannot or would not use metaphor. Clearly Jesus must have been nothing like his Father.

 

[juvenissun]

No, I think here his point is that God said it, 'He' with a capital H, therefore it must be literal. God cannot or would not use metaphor. Clearly Jesus must have been nothing like his Father.

I start to wonder what would be the limitation of understanding a literal description as a metaphor. Is a metaphor same as a parable? Or does a parable have more restrictions than a metaphor? If so, is there no bound for an understanding being a metaphor?

For example, if I say snow, you may somehow understand it as the sun, if you like to.

 

[gluadys]

I start to wonder what would be the limitation of understanding a literal description as a metaphor. Is a metaphor same as a parable? Or does a parable have more restrictions than a metaphor? If so, is there no bound for an understanding being a metaphor?

Not quite, though both are comparisons. A parable is usually an allegory i.e. a story in which the various elements are symbolic of a spiritual reality e.g. in the parable of the sower, the sower is Christ (or a preacher), the field is the world, the seed is the gospel, the various soils are the variety of responses to the gospel.

A metaphor is usually a short statement that compares A with B by saying "A is B". So Jesus says "I am the vine" Understanding the relationship of vine and branches is a pictorial way of understanding the relationship of Jesus to the believer. So it is similar to the allegory, but it does not have the story element that the parable does.

For example, if I say snow, you may somehow understand it as the sun, if you like to.

That would be an improper reading in most cases. A poet might be able to draw some sort of comparison between the snow and sun, but it would take some doing and would likely be rather strained and artificial.

An effective parable or metaphor is one in which the symbolic element is easily related to the reality it depicts. It should not be farfetched and need a lot of explanation to work out the connection.

The notion that allegorical interpretation is a free-for-all of personal subjectivism is untrue. It betrays a lack of knowledge and experience in working with symbols. Symbols have to have a living relationship with what they symbolize in order to communicate what they are intended to communicate. Sometimes a symbol lives and communicates effectively because it is deeply rooted in a culture. Sometimes because it touches on daily common experience. IOW effective symbols have a public life in the community.

When symbols are given personal idiosyncratic meanings, they are no longer a vehicle of communication. They have private meanings, not public meanings. At best they become secret passwords for a small social group like a secret handshake.

 

[juvenissun]

Not quite, though both are comparisons. A parable is usually an allegory i.e. a story in which the various elements are symbolic of a spiritual reality e.g. in the parable of the sower, the sower is Christ (or a preacher), the field is the world, the seed is the gospel, the various soils are the variety of responses to the gospel.

A metaphor is usually a short statement that compares A with B by saying "A is B". So Jesus says "I am the vine" Understanding the relationship of vine and branches is a pictorial way of understanding the relationship of Jesus to the believer. So it is similar to the allegory, but it does not have the story element that the parable does.

That would be an improper reading in most cases. A poet might be able to draw some sort of comparison between the snow and sun, but it would take some doing and would likely be rather strained and artificial.

An effective parable or metaphor is one in which the symbolic element is easily related to the reality it depicts. It should not be farfetched and need a lot of explanation to work out the connection.

The notion that allegorical interpretation is a free-for-all of personal subjectivism is untrue. It betrays a lack of knowledge and experience in working with symbols. Symbols have to have a living relationship with what they symbolize in order to communicate what they are intended to communicate. Sometimes a symbol lives and communicates effectively because it is deeply rooted in a culture. Sometimes because it touches on daily common experience. IOW effective symbols have a public life in the community.

When symbols are given personal idiosyncratic meanings, they are no longer a vehicle of communication. They have private meanings, not public meanings. At best they become secret passwords for a small social group like a secret handshake.

Incredibly confusing.

If you give me two random words, I am trying to tie them together one way or another. I would have no way to be sure whether the relationship between them is parable, allegory or metaphor. For the worse, the relationship between these two exact words may change depends on how do you link them together. For example, snow and sun:

1. both are bright
2. both are "pure"
3. both come down from sky
4. both are necessities for life (snow means water in polar area)
5. snow melt --> sun down
6. vapor condensed into snow --> space dust condensed into star
7. ...

In order to separate them apart, these three terms must be defined logically. So is for the term "literal".