Should Genesis be taken literally?

[SeventyOne]

Do you know what it means to beg the question, since you certainly are doing so. You cannot simply assume that the snake is literal - that is what we are debating. Where have you provided any kind of actual argument that the snake cannot be a metaphor?


How can you possibly know my inner motives? I politely suggest you are not "playing by the rules" with respect to debating.

I can assume it's literal with the same confidence you are assuming it's not.

I don't need to know some "inner" motives. You plainly told me you had issues with the creation account and young earth. Those are outside thoughts imposed on the biblical text.

 

[expos4ever]

Then the problem here in our disagreement is that you've simply chosen to believe something different than the biblical accounts.

No. You appear to not understand the concept that you need to defend your position by making an actual argument. Let me try to explain:

1. Clearly it is possible that the snake is a metaphor - to deny this would be silly for any of a number of reasons including the well-established fact that people from the culture from which the Bible sprang have a proven track record of using metaphor and other literary device.

2. Clearly it is also possible that the snake is to be taken literally - snakes exist and it would be foolish to deny the possibility that, despite common experience, snake can indeed talk.

You are asking us to simply accept option 2 without providing either an argument to support option 2, or an argument against option 1.

You are basically simply asserting a position.

 

[SeventyOne]

No. You appear to not understand the concept that you need to defend your position by making an actual argument. Let me try to explain:

1. Clearly it is possible that the snake is a metaphor - to deny this would be silly for any of a number of reasons including the well-established fact that people from the culture from which the Bible sprang have a proven track record of using metaphor and other literary device.

2. Clearly it is also possible that the snake is to be taken literally - snakes exist and it would be foolish to deny the possibility that, despite common experience, snake can indeed talk.

You are asking us to simply accept option 2 without providing either an argument to support option 2, or an argument against option 1.

You are basically simply asserting a position.

Yes, I am. Option 2, because the existence and continuing curse on the physical serpent demands it. It's not the existence of snakes that makes my point. But rather the existence on the curse on the physical snake. That's my argument you must have missed even though I've said it several times.

I don't have to compromise on that point simply because you don't like it.

 

[expos4ever]

I can assume it's literal with the same confidence you are assuming it's not.

Again no. While I concede I have not provided a complete argument, I have at least made a case of some sort (you, on the other hand, have provided no case). To wit:

1. I have claimed that the snake is frequently used in other writings as a symbol. Granted, I have not provided evidence that this is so, but I strongly suspect that you know that I could.

2. I have pointed out the broader account in which the snake appears, if taken literally, leads to a conclusion that the earth is only a few thousand years old. And we know this is not true.

3. I have pointed that Paul understands that, at the cross, the thing that Jesus "bruises" is not a literal snake, but instead the very thing that a symbolic snake general stands for - the powers of evil.

So I am certainly not in the same position you are in - I am at least making a bit of a case.

I don't need to know some "inner" motives. You plainly told me you had issues with the creation account and young earth. Those are outside thoughts imposed on the biblical text.

Please do not misrepresent me. The "issue" I have with a young earth is the mountains of scientific against it!

This is hardly an "issue" in the sense I am sure you are implying.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes, I am. Option 2, because the existence and continuing curse on the physical serpent demands it. It's not the existence of snakes that makes my point. But rather the existence on the curse on the physical snake. That's my argument you must have missed even though I've said it several times.

I don't have to compromise on that point simply because you don't like it.

Clearly there is no point in continuing this discussion. No hard feelings.

 

[JackRT]

1. You cannot a priori discount the possibility that the writer of Genesis was writing myth;
2. If he was writing myth, and wanted us to know this, there is every reason to believe he would give us a clue that he was not intending to be taken literally.
3. And a talking snake is about as obvious a clue as one could ask for.

The ancient Hebrews did leave clues in their scriptures that the story was not to be taken literally. The usual clue was gross exaggeration. In Genesis the talking serpent is just such a clue as are a tree that can confer moral wisdom and another tree that can confer eternal life. In another story it is living three days in the belly of a great fish or a tree that grows overnight. There are a number more scattered about in the form of talking donkeys and the like.

 

[SeventyOne]

Clearly there is no point in continuing this discussion. No hard feelings.

So be it. I'm sorry you wouldn't recognize my argument and address it. It seems you just kept ignoring it instead.

 

[grasping the after wind]

For some reason I cannot literally believe that by eating two fruits Adam could have become like God.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Any question about how literal Genesis is should be put to rest by:

Genesis 30:37 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

I have an in-depth study of the book of Genesis by the late Dr Henry Morris. I'll try to find it in the next day or so and see what he had to say about this particular verse.

 

[-57]

Mods, if this isn't in the right section please move, I wasn't sure where the best place for this discussion would be, as this has more to do with the entire book and not only creation.

Genesis is the history of Israel's roots...most believe Moses to be the author of the book, and if we go by the chronology from Genesis to Exodus, he wouldn't have been born until a couple thousand years after the account of Adam. Prior to this, these stories would have been handed down through oral tradition.

When stories are told from one generation to the next things change. Some things may be added, others taken away...things become embellished...that's just how it is. It doesn't mean that anyone is lying, necessarily, just that what we hear as a child and what we teach to our children about a subject may change slightly based on our recollection. And then there are those that like to add their own spin to make things more interesting, and it sticks...

A good, more modern example of this would be the story of Jesse James...many accounts made him out to be a Robin Hood of his day, only stealing from the rich and helping the poor...after the Civil War there was a lot of distrust in this country, and people wanted a hero they found him in this notorious outlaw...the truth of the matter was he was your typical run of the mill thief...albeit a very good one...but stories were made up about him in newspapers, books and songs...and now, 140 years later, there are those that think he was, as the "The Ballad of Jesse James" said, "a friend to the poor that would never have a brother suffer pain." In this instance, of course, we can look back at actual accounts from the day and easily put these claims to rest.

So, is it possible that this is what happened with Genesis? That after years of oral tradition some of the "facts" changed? I'm not saying this as a dig at creationism, or anything like that. Nor am I saying that there is no truth to be found in Genesis...I believe it paints a beautiful picture of creation, of God's desire to have a relationship with His people, of man's biggest obstacle to overcome being his sinful nature, and how the foundation was being laid for the Christ.

I consider those that remove Gemnesis from the literal and distort it into mythical meanings are doing the bible serious harm.
Greg J in post 3 presents only a handful of verses that need to be re-written when Genesis is changed from literal historic to myth.

Typically I find christians have been fooled by the religion of evolutionism....religion because it attempts to explains mans fall or sin nature...The explanation ALWAYS incures heretical theological concepts.

 

[-57]

No. You appear to not understand the concept that you need to defend your position by making an actual argument. Let me try to explain:

1. Clearly it is possible that the snake is a metaphor - to deny this would be silly for any of a number of reasons including the well-established fact that people from the culture from which the Bible sprang have a proven track record of using metaphor and other literary device.

2. Clearly it is also possible that the snake is to be taken literally - snakes exist and it would be foolish to deny the possibility that, despite common experience, snake can indeed talk.

You are asking us to simply accept option 2 without providing either an argument to support option 2, or an argument against option 1.

You are basically simply asserting a position.

Why do Genesis myth christians always feel the need to pick and choose certain supernatural events or miracles that disagree with their opinion.

 

[KWCrazy]

it certainly does not follow that Jesus believed the entire Genesis was literally true in all respects.

Perhaps you would like to be the first in over 20 years of asking to demonstrate where Jesus said the events in Genesis did not happen.

 

[-57]

The ancient Hebrews did leave clues in their scriptures that the story was not to be taken literally. The usual clue was gross exaggeration. In Genesis the talking serpent is just such a clue as are a tree that can confer moral wisdom and another tree that can confer eternal life. In another story it is living tree days in the belly of a great fish or a tree that grows overnight. There are a number more scattered about in the form of talking donkeys and the like.

Scattered about such as this.......One of the best mythical stories is that of a dead man who died on a cross and had the ability to come back to life on day 3. Heck, He was even born from a virgin!!! Can you imagine that? Talking donkeys are easy compared to that.

 

[KWCrazy]

Any question about how literal Genesis is should be put to rest by...

How does that change anything?

 

[-57]

For some reason I cannot literally believe that by eating two fruits Adam could have become like God.

Like God in which ways? Omni everything?

 

[expos4ever]

Why do Genesis myth christians always feel the need to pick and choose certain supernatural events or miracles that disagree with their opinion.

Because we go where the evidence and reason leads us. Some supernatural events - like a young earth - are simply not compatible with what we know from the works of tens of thousands of highly-trained experts. Others, like the resurrection, while admittedly difficult to take as literal are at least not ruled out by other things we know.

To turn the question around: why do you "pick and choose" which scientific findings you accept? Presumably, if you get an infection, you will do what the experts say and take an antibiotic. Yet, you refuse to believe what other experts have to say about the history of the earth. Please explain.

 

[expos4ever]

Perhaps you would like to be the first in over 20 years of asking to demonstrate where Jesus said the events in Genesis did not happen.

Clearly not a valid request - I was responding to another person's argument: they claimed that a certain text implied that Jesus believed the entire Genesis account was literal. I simply pointed out the error in that argument. I, like you, have no idea what Jesus did or did not believe about Genesis, except in some very limited cases.

 

[-57]

Because we go where the evidence and reason leads us. Some supernatural events - like a young earth - are simply not compatible with what we know from the works of tens of thousands of highly-trained experts. Others, like the resurrection, while admittedly difficult to take as literal are at least not ruled out by other things we know.

To turn the question around: why do you "pick and choose" which scientific findings you accept? Presumably, if you get an infection, you will do what the experts say and take an antibiotic. Yet, you refuse to believe what other experts have to say about the history of the earth. Please explain.

Ahhhhhh, I go where the science takes me. A young earth.

When one of you iblical distortionist can explain our sin nature....I'll start listening. Until then in my personal opinion...so don't go crying to a moderator...heretical. Post 3 presents some verses that the mythical genesis sect need to distort.

 

[KWCrazy]

The first place Moses spoke about Jesus was at the time of the fall when the serpent was being cursed.

Close. It was Genesis 3: 8-9. When the cool evening breezes were blowing, the man and his wife heard the lord God walking about in the garden. So they hid from the lord God among the trees. Then the lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
No man has ever seen the face of God. Exodus 33:20 "But," he said, "You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." John 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. It was Jesus who walked and spoke with Adam and Eve. The could not have seen the face of the Father and lived; especially after the fall. Jesus had no reason to doubt Genesis because He was there from the beginning. Jesus was and is Lord.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Like God in which ways? Omni everything?

Read it for yourself and come to your own conclusions on that.

Genesis 3:22-24
…22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever "-- 23therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.…

As we know where Eden is located according to earlier passages, we surely could find it and if we could avoid that cherubim and h its sword and eat of the fruit of the tree of life would we live forever and God be unable to do anything about it? Seems by the passage above that God was somewhat concerned that this might happen. What of we came at it from the west where the cherubim with the flaming sword was not stationed?