Why a literal Genesis?

[Moral Orel]

Have you ever thought of God's ultimate plan for the creation, and when He restores all things, what that will look like?

Yes, I've pondered on that a lot. But I'm not a Christian, so my thoughts aren't likely to be in line with Christian beliefs. With what we were just talking about though, I never considered Him giving animals eternal life in the perfect world that's supposed to come later, though.

There are the parts in Isaiah that talk about carnivores eating straw and lying down with herbivores, but those carnivores also destroy cities, so I don't think that's about literal animals, but metaphors for something else.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, I've pondered on that a lot. But I'm not a Christian, so my thoughts aren't likely to be in line with Christian beliefs. With what we were just talking about though, I never considered Him giving animals eternal life in the perfect world that's supposed to come later, though.

There are the parts in Isaiah that talk about carnivores eating straw and lying down with herbivores, but those carnivores also destroy cities, so I don't think that's about literal animals, but metaphors for something else.

Yes, it's very difficult to sit down with just yourself and Scripture and try to figure it out. Ask ten people and you might get ten different interpretations.

I've never heard anyone suggest though that animals in a restored creation would be dying. Most take either the position that there won't be any animals (I can't see the justification for this, since they are mentioned in several places) or that they won't die.

Humans won't be sexually reproducing in the life of the age to come. Likely the same is true of animals, so no need to worry about them overrunning the earth.

I don't want to get too bogged down in this though. I've already stated what I believe is important in this matter (which boils down to God not being the author of death in His "very good" creation), and also that there are other things more important. Speculation on the life of the age to come isn't something we can take too far anyway.

I was just curious of your answer.

 

[~Anastasia~]

(Ah, I see I'm in apologetics, a forum designed for arguing. My apologies - I simply don't engage in arguing theology - I followed a link in another way. I hope I have not disrupted anything, and forgive me please for not adhering to the spirit of this forum. God be with you all. )

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I'm well aware that not all Christians ascribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis, but I'm curious why some feel it is important to retain the literal interpretation.

Basically, my thinking is that Jesus hid the truth in parables, so why wouldn't God? Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, so we have to make decisions on what is literal and what is allegorical. What harm results from taking an allegorical approach to Genesis? Or what evidence is there that it should be taken literally instead of allegorically? Basically, why pick the literal approach for Genesis as opposed to the allegorical approach?

This isn't a discussion on the merits of the Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory, or any other science discussion. It is strictly scriptural, and that's why I put it in the Apologetics section since it does not belong in the Physical Sciences sections of these boards.

ETA Also, people who take an allegorical approach to Genesis can feel free to share how they explain away potential problems with their interpretation.

Well for me, it has been a tough road being raised on a strict 6000 year old creationist diet, and then having to figure out why there's really old bones, why multiple disciplines of science reach very similar conclusions on the age of the universe etc. And then i started to notice things like carnivores (created to do what? Eat meat. So was there a worldwide physical change after the fall?), the flood (no evidence) etc. I'm just telling my story, not trying to start arguments by the way.

The position I'm in now. I agree 100% with science on the age of the universe, earth and evolution. I believe Lucifer (before he was Satan) was given a creative role in shaping the evolving life in the universe. When he fell (not sure at what point in the history), God still honoured Lucifers gift as God doesn't take back what He gives. This is why at the start of the creation story, darkness covered the face of the deep.

Eventually, God opened the garden of Eden over a part of the earth. A specific region. There He created Adam and Eve and set them apart as different to the rest of creation. He gave them dominion over the creation and told them to subdue it. Their job was to name the animals and bring heaven to earth. To cast the devil off of it. But rather than extending the borders of Eden, Adam and Eve fell. Humankind has the choice now to go either way, bring the kingdom of heaven into the earth, or leave the earth to fend for itself.

I'm pretty tired right now so I might have missed explaining some things that are important. But this is where I'm at, at the moment. But its a pretty fluid position.

 

[Moral Orel]

Bottom line, Jesus did not speak to His disciples in parables.

He kind of does though. His disciples are part of the audience when He speaks in parables, and then He explains the parables to them because they don't understand them. So He does speak to them in parables, they just get an extra explanation.

How about when He tells His disciples to eat His flesh and drink His blood? That's clearly not literal, but He's speaking to His disciples. He doesn't take them aside and explain it isn't literal either.

So the point is that Jesus and God explain things allegorically at times, and you need to discern what is allegory and what is not.

Even in the Garden when God says that they will die that day if they eat the fruit, He's speaking allegorically because they didn't die a literal physical death that day which a 100% literal interpretation would insist. When He says that the head of the snake will be crushed, He's speaking allegorically again about Satan. Allegory already exists there, why is the rest of it literal?

 

[mmksparbud]

There are those that take the blood and bread as literal but will take the creation as allegory---I am of the opposite point of view. When it is allegory, it pretty well says so.

As for on the day you eat you will die----
bê'yom
בְּיוֹם
yom
יוֹם

Those are 2 different words for day in the original Hebrew. Yom is evening day designation, as used to describe the creation days, beyom is period of time. And that is what is used for when they will die.

For Satan, it is prophetic language. The only allegory in the Gen. account is the serpent is Satan. Which is never spelled out. It is always referred to as a serpent. It is clarified in other books of the bible.
So yes, one has to be careful to choose what is and isn't allegory. That is why I prefer the Mechanical translation for Gen. I feel it is more accurate.

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I would also add that it is my opinion that Moses received the creation account in a vision/dream. God showed Moses one thing, then the vision would go black, then another thing, then the vision would go black etc. Moses called these "days' but really God was showing him the evolutionary process at significant points in time. I think God's aim was to reveal to Moses how significant humankind is, our purpose on the earth, and how we are very important to Him.

 

[Moral Orel]

There are those that take the blood and bread as literal

Out of pure curiosity, how do you mean this? I've heard that some Christians believe communion literally becomes flesh and blood in their mouth, but to take that passage literally would mean that the disciples were to cut Jesus and eat parts of Him... No one really thinks that, do they?

 

[mmksparbud]

Out of pure curiosity, how do you mean this? I've heard that some Christians believe communion literally becomes flesh and blood in their mouth, but to take that passage literally would mean that the disciples were to cut Jesus and eat parts of Him... No one really thinks that, do they?

By literal, Jesus said, take this is my body, drink, this is my blood. He did not say to cut Him up, but that the wine and bread are his blood and body. I do not believe that it literally turns into blood and His body.

 

[AV1611VET]

The disciples were right to not take Jesus' command to eat Him and drink His blood literally, like we discussed in the other thread though, so I don't see why those two guys, or any other instances of literality in the Bible, are evidence that Genesis should be taken literally.

Then you're making the same mistake scientists make.

Don't be like them and assume literality where literality is not meant.

In so doing, you create a mental block where you can't understand things because they are spiritually discerned.

Scientists are worse than you though.

In my example I like to use in talking about scientists to others, geocentrism, scientists even came up with their own theory (general relativity) that explains why geocentric passages in the Bible do not need to be interpreted literally; but they won't apply GR to those passages because they are convinced that the Jews were ignorant, bronze age, desert dwelling, goat herding, nomads who knew no better.

If you keep up your attitude that A is allegorical, therefore B is also, you'll incur the support of science, but you'll end up the ignorant one and pay for it with your soul.

On the other hand, if you're proud that you're a seeker ...

 

[AV1611VET]

No one really thinks that, do they?

I'm sure scientists do.

They even want us to explain to them where Jesus got His Y-chromosome.

 

[AvgJoe]

I'm well aware that not all Christians ascribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis, but I'm curious why some feel it is important to retain the literal interpretation.

Basically, my thinking is that Jesus hid the truth in parables, so why wouldn't God? Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, so we have to make decisions on what is literal and what is allegorical. What harm results from taking an allegorical approach to Genesis? Or what evidence is there that it should be taken literally instead of allegorically? Basically, why pick the literal approach for Genesis as opposed to the allegorical approach?

This isn't a discussion on the merits of the Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory, or any other science discussion. It is strictly scriptural, and that's why I put it in the Apologetics section since it does not belong in the Physical Sciences sections of these boards.

ETA Also, people who take an allegorical approach to Genesis can feel free to share how they explain away potential problems with their interpretation.

Much of Christian theology is based on the historical accuracy of the Genesis account. The concept of marriage comes right out of the creation account (Genesis 2:24) and is referenced by Jesus in all three Synoptic Gospels. Our Lord Himself acknowledges that man was created male and female “from the beginning of creation” (Matthew 19:4). These statements, to be comprehensible, rely on the historical accuracy of the Genesis creation account. Most importantly, the doctrine of salvation depends on the existence of a literal person named Adam. Twice in the Pauline Epistles (Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15), Paul links our salvation in Christ with our identification in Adam. In 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, we read, “For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” The entire human race is in a fallen state by virtue of being “in Adam” through natural birth. In similar manner, those whom God has chosen for salvation are saved by virtue of being “in Christ” through spiritual birth. The in Adam/in Christ distinction is crucial to a proper understanding of Christian soteriology, and this distinction makes no sense if there were no literal Adam from whom all humanity descended.

Paul argues in a similar vein in Romans 5:12–21. But what makes this passage unique is that it explicitly says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). This verse is the linchpin in the argument for total depravity, and, like the 1 Corinthians passage, it depends on a literal Adam for it to make any kind of sense. Without a literal Adam, there is no literal sin and no need for a literal Savior.

It does matter, particularly because how we approach the Bible with respect to origins speaks to how we will approach it everywhere else. If we cannot trust the Bible when it speaks on the matter of creation, why should we trust it to speak on salvation? Logically, what we believe regarding creation is important to the rest of our theology.

 

[-57]

I'm well aware that not all Christians ascribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis, but I'm curious why some feel it is important to retain the literal interpretation.

Basically, my thinking is that Jesus hid the truth in parables, so why wouldn't God? Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, so we have to make decisions on what is literal and what is allegorical. What harm results from taking an allegorical approach to Genesis? Or what evidence is there that it should be taken literally instead of allegorically? Basically, why pick the literal approach for Genesis as opposed to the allegorical approach?

This isn't a discussion on the merits of the Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory, or any other science discussion. It is strictly scriptural, and that's why I put it in the Apologetics section since it does not belong in the Physical Sciences sections of these boards.

ETA Also, people who take an allegorical approach to Genesis can feel free to share how they explain away potential problems with their interpretation.

One of the reasons is...Paul took Genesis as literal.

Think about this...Paul in a letter to Timothy said this to the women there...

1st Tim 2:11 A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.

The question is, just what did Paul base that instruction to women on? The answer follows....

13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.

Would Paul instruct women how to act in church and base his reasoning on an event that never happened?

You asked "why pick the literal approach for Genesis as opposed to the allegorical approach?" The answer is simple...Paul chose the literal approach.

 

[-57]

How do you know Jesus spoke in parables?

Because the Bible says so, doesn't It?

Can you show me where the Bible says Genesis is a parable?

The thing about parables is this....they are all based upon real life or life events that could actually happen. The claim of the Theo-Evo sect is that Genesis wasn't real and could not happen.

 

[-57]

Can you explain that in a little more detail for me? Is it physical, earthly death that you think shouldn't have ever been a natural state? Did animals die in the garden before the Fall?

When God told Adam and Eve that they would die the day they ate from the tree, that had to be at least partially allegorical because they didn't die that day. Maybe God didn't mean physical death when He said it.

Perhaps Adam and Eve would have died that day....but we read in Genes

Genesis 3:6 they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Skip ahead...

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

Adam and Eve tried to cover their own nakedness...God had every right to take their lives...but instead an animal was taken in their place and God provided a covering for them. On that day they did die spiritually and began to die physically.

 

[-57]

Well if something like evolution were true, I don't know how God would explain it to people way back then to explain His process to them.

Why didn't God say...from the animals I made man?

If we can force feed the concept of evolutionism to ourgrade school children..and they can believe it, why couldn't God have presented the basics to the "people way back"?
You said in your OP... my thinking is that Jesus hid the truth in parables...why would the truth of evolutionism be hidden...only to be discovered later on...and shown to contradict scripture?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'm well aware that not all Christians ascribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis, but I'm curious why some feel it is important to retain the literal interpretation.

Basically, my thinking is that Jesus hid the truth in parables, so why wouldn't God?

This is especially true when one remembers that according to Christian theology, Jesus is God.

Like Father like Son, right?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Would Paul instruct women how to act in church and base his reasoning on an event that never happened?

Why wouldn't he?

Consider, for a moment, fairy tales: These stories were told not to entertain children, but as cautionary tales to frighten children into correct behavior.

"Little Red Riding Hood" teaches children the importance not to talk to strangers, where as "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" warns against entering strange houses when one is not invited... if you ever read the original versions of those stories, you'll find they do not end well for the protagonists.

Do those stories need literal big bad wolves or three bears in order to successfully teach their lessons?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The thing about parables is this....they are all based upon real life or life events that could actually happen. The claim of the Theo-Evo sect is that Genesis wasn't real and could not happen.

Then I submit that they're missing the point just as much as the literalists are.

Once you get hung up on the "did it/didn't it happen?" question, you lose sight of the far more important question: "What's the lesson to be learned here?"

I tend to call many Biblical stories "myths" not to belittle them or imply untruth, but because I use a definition of "myth" as "a story traditionally told which transcends historical accuracy to express a timeless message." Did it happen? Does it matter?

As a Christian, it shouldn't matter to you whether or not an event God wants you to learn from actually happened, or whether it, like one of Jesus' parables (of which he told many) is simply a vehicle to express what He wants you to learn... what should matter is that you learn the lesson.

 

[-57]

And there are lots and lots of interpretations of all sorts of parts of the Bible. And lots of those people claim their interpretations are the obvious and only correct way to interpret scripture. "Literally" isn't always the answer, so why is it the answer in this case?

The following is a list taken from the bible...I've shortened it up and have only posted the names. The top of the list is believed to be historical and literal...the bottom of the list ends with characters taken from the book of Genesis which you seem to be claiming has it's beginning as a parable...perhaps you could instruct us as to where the list turns from fact to fiction.


Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

Heli,Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph,Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai,Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda,Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri,Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er,Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi,Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim,Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon,Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah,Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor,Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah,Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech,Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan,Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Luke 3:23 Mary’s linage