Why a literal Genesis?

[-57]

There is one guide people often use to interpret whether a verse is to believed literally or not . . . . and that would be whether or not the verse is literally true.

Doe the sun literally rise, or does, rather, the earth rotate? Once people believed the sun literally rises and sets. Then they started to interpret such verses as merely describing appearance. Why? Because the concept of what happens to the sun changed.

The view of reality, having changed, changed the interpretation of the Bible.

That's what is happening with creation and evolution. It's just taking a little time to happen.

It's funny how that concept can turn around and bite you. Yes, we learned tat the sun really doesn't rise in the morning. Science says so. ....But lets take it to the next level....Medical science says when you die on day three you stay dead. That's a medical fact. You're logic would tell us not only doesn't the sun rise in the morning neither did the Son rise in the morning of day 3.

....see how that works?

 

[-57]

it's been said to me that when God told Adam and Eve that they would die, they wouldn't have any idea what death was unless they had seen animals die, so there's that.

You have no way of knowing if "it's been said" knows that.

 

[-57]

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.

There are many events in the bible that matter. The top of the list is the resurrection of Christ Jesus.

 

[-57]

What harm results from taking an allegorical approach to Genesis?

It destroys the reason for Jesus. Perhaps you not being a Christian would like that very much.

 

[-57]

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.

Two things..."why there's really old bones"...the flood buried them.

When he fell (not sure at what point in the history), The bible tells us Satan was in the Garden of Eden in an unfallen state.

 

[Moral Orel]

A is allegorical, therefore B is also

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that "A is allegorical, therefore B is allegorical". I'm merely stating that "A is allegorical, therefore B might be allegorical" because you seem to be stating "A is literal, therefore B is literal" when all you really have is "A is literal therefore B might be literal".

There's literal stuff in the bible and there's allegorical stuff in the Bible. You can't simply say the reason any given thing in the Bible is literal because there is something else in the Bible that is literal, they need to be directly connected. Aaron's brats failure to follow instructions isn't connected to Genesis being literal.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There are many events in the bible that matter. The top of the list is the resurrection of Christ Jesus.

And I don't see many Christians arguing that the resurrection is non-literal... even though they could. Do you see any?

Christianity teaches that God can conquer all fears and obstacles... even death. If Jesus has to rise up out of his own tomb in order to illustrate that, so be it.

 

[-57]

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that "A is allegorical, therefore B is allegorical". I'm merely stating that "A is allegorical, therefore B might be allegorical" because you seem to be stating "A is literal, therefore B is literal" when all you really have is "A is literal therefore B might be literal".

There's literal stuff in the bible and there's allegorical stuff in the Bible. You can't simply say the reason any given thing in the Bible is literal because there is something else in the Bible that is literal, they need to be directly connected. Aaron's brats failure to follow instructions isn't connected to Genesis being literal.

Why do the New Testament authors present Genesis as literal?

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

I'm talking about John 6 where He states "I am the bread of life" and it freaks the Jews out saying "how can this man give us His flesh to eat?". He wasn't presenting bread and wine and calling it the flesh and blood of life.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It destroys the reason for Jesus. Perhaps you not being a Christian would like that very much.

Now, now... address the post, not the poster.

 

[-57]

I'm talking about John 6 where He states "I am the bread of life" and it freaks the Jews out saying "how can this man give us His flesh to eat?". He wasn't presenting bread and wine and calling it the flesh and blood of life.

Does that saying freak you out?

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

What version are you using that says "from the beginning of creation"? I checked ESV, KJV, and NIV with my Biblegateway.com and couldn't find it phrased like that. I use ESV, personally, and it says, "He who created them from the beginning" which is still open to being interpreted as, "He who created them, from the beginning of their existence". I mean, Adam and Eve didn't really exist at the beginning of creation either, so we have to assume at least a little fluidity in the the word "beginning".

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.

Some other folk have been discussing with me the literal physical death vs the spiritual death concept of Genesis. So it would seem plausible to interpret that as a lesson about relying on ourselves as humans instead of relying on God or Jesus. But you do have a good point there that he uses the phrase, "by a man" which points to a singular human origin of death of even the spiritual kind. This is reinforced by the next part you said here:

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.

Another good point that Paul sees a singular human origin of sin. I don't know of any way to spin that one away without making interpretations uncomfortably loose. I don't know how theistic evolutionists explain it either.

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.

I don't think that's fair though. We don't read Daniel's prophetic visions as being literal, so we don't approach them the same way we approach the rest of the Bible. You can approach different parts of the Bible in different manners and it's still appropriate to do so. You made some good points as to why we should approach Genesis from a literal viewpoint, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss a less than literal interpretation as not trusting God.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

You make a good point. I don't think it would matter if it were simply that Paul thought Genesis was literal, as he had no reason to think it might not be at the time. However, basing his reasoning for a command on something that could only be reasoned by assuming an original female is good evidence for a literal Genesis.

It destroys the reason for Jesus. Perhaps you not being a Christian would like that very much.

Take it easy... I said I don't know much about this subject, and my questions are honest inquiries. I can't say I don't already have a leaning in mind, obviously, and I may counter some points people make simply because I want a really good answer, but that doesn't mean I have an agenda. Not every reason people give is going to be a good one even if they have the right answer.

 

[Moral Orel]

I would also add that it is my opinion that Moses received the creation account in a vision/dream.

That's another good point. How the writings were inspired in the first place. Unless we think God uses people as pens to write down word for word His thoughts, even the authors of the Bible have to go through an interpretation process of how they receive the information.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Does that saying freak you out?

A lot less than how some of the Jesus' other sayings freaked people out:

John 2:19-21 showed people freaking out when Jesus talked about tearing down "the temple" (of his body, but they didn't get it).
John 3:4 shows Nicodemus freaking out when he thought being "born again" meant crawling back into his mother's womb.
John 4:11 has a Samaritan woman freaking out when Jesus offers her "living water" without a bucket.
And John 4:33 freaked out when Jesus said he had enough to eat, but none of them could remember who fed him.

Seems like early in John's Gospel, he has a lot of people completely missing Jesus' message precisely because they were taking him literally.

Maybe John was trying to tell us something?

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Now that is inaccurate. Theistic evolutionists don't claim that God is incapable of creating in the way Genesis describes, they claim He didn't create in the way Genesis describes, which are vastly different things.

The reason I brought up parables is that Jesus liked to teach lessons by telling stories about things that didn't really happen, and have us discern the spiritual meaning. Don't focus too much on the "parable" word and instead think of all the figurative, metaphorical, allegorical, etc., parts of the Bible. It doesn't matter one jot if the stories Jesus told were true or not for us to discern the important message they were trying to convey.

That doesn't prove Genesis is allegory, but it does show that it might be allegory and thinking it might be doesn't mean you don't trust God.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

But a mechanical interpretation of Genesis doesn't allow for "they began to die" so we already have to take the figurative approach at least slightly by seeing a spiritual death instead of a figurative one.

If they were going to die, but then God changed it by killing animals instead, then that means God contradicted Himself or changed His mind.

 

[Moral Orel]

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

Like Father like Son, right?

That's my thinking to. It's about what God likes to do. It feels like God likes to doll out lessons indirectly more often than directly when you consider all of the prophecies and dreams and parables and the like.

The problem arises when the reasoning for things only makes sense with a literal interpretation, which in some cases I see a strong argument for. For instance, if it makes God bad were He to create physical death as a natural thing, then the blame needs to be shifted to Adam for creating sin which created death. But that kind of falls apart when you look at Job questioning why God allowed bad things to happen to him, and when people in the NT question why God at least sometimes affects people's will. God's sovereignty already overrides this problem.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's my thinking to. It's about what God likes to do. It feels like God likes to doll out lessons indirectly more often than directly when you consider all of the prophecies and dreams and parables and the like.

The problem arises when the reasoning for things only makes sense with a literal interpretation, which in some cases I see a strong argument for. For instance, if it makes God bad were He to create physical death as a natural thing, then the blame needs to be shifted to Adam for creating sin which created death. But that kind of falls apart when you look at Job questioning why God allowed bad things to happen to him, and when people in the NT question why God at least sometimes affects people's will. God's sovereignty already overrides this problem.

It's worth repeating that just because God can do something a certain way doesn't mean He did it that way.

God, being omnipotent, can literally do things an infinite number of ways... but He only chooses one.

 

[Moral Orel]

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?

Maybe there are good reasons we don't know that God does know, and had He inspired Genesis in a way that fell more in line with evolution it would have created bigger problems for people back then. That's such a wishy washy answer though...

Maybe an extremely simplified version of the process was necessary to keep people from focusing on the details that didn't matter to their lives. If God created a lifeform in an instant, there's no room to question how life changes from one form to the next for people to build their own notions on that idea. What kind of weird and strange religions could have arose from people thinking about being related to animals?

It's hard to think about why God does things the way He does and often the most direct and obvious answer isn't the right one.