Should Genesis be taken literally?

[dqhall]

That is why the Bible is so amazing. We real literal stories about real people that has an allegory value for all of us.

The written word began close to 5,000 years ago/3,000 BC. Some of the first letters were scratch marks on storage jars to indicate what contents were in the clay pots.

The oldest book of Genesis yet in existence may have been found with the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back approximately to the first century BC - first century AD. There were older papyrus documents found in Egyptian tombs. There were older writings on clay tablets found in the ruined cities of Mesopotamia. None of them contained a record of the first days of creation. Early humans did not even know how to read and write. They did know how to build stone walls and make hunting tools out of flint.

People cannot find the Garden of Eden, the tree of knowledge of good and evil, nor the tree of life. These are not literal trees that could produce offspring that bear such fruits. An apple is good and sold in the market, not an object of temptation to cause the fall of mankind.

Stories get told and people write them down if they want them remembered. I believe God created and continues to create. I do not think the Bible is the inerrant word of God, even though some passages helped me learn about God.

 

[Speedwell]

There are numerous places where Jesus and the apostles talk of the times of creation and the time of Noah and the flood. Not once are these things referred to as being a story or allegorical account. They are referenced as fact.

They are referenced as authoritative literature. Jesus sad, "Have you not read..." His use of the texts no more supports your genre determination than it does mine.

So, the questions remain, how can you take the gospel as truth yet the creation as myth? How do you pick and choose which you wish to take as fact and which to take as allegory? Do you place your trust in what men say over what God says?

I thought we had been over that. I will only add that I regard "myth" as a form of truth when it carries divine authority. If God came down from heaven and told you the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears would you discard it as useless because you know for a fact that bears don't live in houses and eat porridge for breakfast? Or would you try to figure out what He meant by it?

Do we just take the scripture that is our life line and toss the rest in a pool of "it doesn't matter if it's true or not because I don't need it to live eternal"?

LOL! I regard it as all true, one way or another

 

[Big Drew]

So here's a thought that just occurred to me in regards to the creation discussion...Genesis 1 says, "God said let there be light, and there was......this was the first day..." and goes on like that through the creation story...if these were literal 24 hour days and things happened instantaneously, as God spoke them into existence...then He sure had a lot of free time on His hands...because I can read each verse in just a matter of seconds, and if He spoke it and it was, then it happened much quicker than I was able to read about it. Kind of like how my wife was in a car accident a few months ago, it happened in the blink of an eye...but for her to explain it to me when she called took much longer than the actual event itself...

 

[JacksBratt]

Similar, perhaps. But the post to which I was responding said that evolution claimed that man is descended from monkeys. That is incorrect according to the current theory of evolution.

That is splitting hairs. What was the ancestor that man and monkey came from?

Because I believe the creation stories in Genesis to be an allegory.

That's not an answer nor a reason.

If I said "why did the shark jump on the back of the boat in Jaws"? The answer cannot be.. because that's just a story.

That is deflection and side stepping.

Why did God say, specifically, that He formed Adam, with His hands, then breathed into His nostrils and he became a living soul...................IF Adam was a random product of biological mutation?

Why did God say that He put Adam in a state of sleep, took his rib, made Eve from the rib and then closed up the space in Adam's side.............IF Eve was just the female product of some ancestor that also produced monkeys?

Not sure how that applies. I'm not saying that what the Bible says isn't true, I'm saying that it is an allegory. If you want to believe that Genesis is an accurate account you are free to do so. Unlike some in this thread I don't call people liars or false teachers simply because they don't agree with my interpretation.

With all due respect, something cannot be true.......and an allegory, by definition.

a story in which the characters and events are symbols that stand for ideas about human life or for a political or historical situation

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion.

No, it is an allegory. Was Jesus being deceptive when he told the story of the Good Samaritan, since there was probably no such person? No, he told the story to prove a point.

You should not confuse parables with fact. Jesus used parables all the time to teach a concept. Genesis gives no indication that it is anything but a factual account. None of the features of a parable, poetry or psalm are present.

If you want to take the time, you can study the indicating features and methods of story telling that are determinants of a parable. This might help you understand how people determine factual events from stories that are meant to teach but are fictional people.

Because I view it as an allegory.

Again, that is not an answer. That is your conclusion and with this conclusion you dismiss the content of the book.

You have not given a reason as to why you believe the book is anything but a factual account.

I can say that a creature has gills, scales, fins, and moves about under water while it dies if it's out of water. Therefore I believe it's a fish.

You cannot look at a rabbit and say it's a fish and then, when people ask you why, you say "because I believe it's a fish" with nothing to substantiate your conclusion.

 

[JacksBratt]

So here's a thought that just occurred to me in regards to the creation discussion...Genesis 1 says, "God said let there be light, and there was......this was the first day..." and goes on like that through the creation story...if these were literal 24 hour days and things happened instantaneously, as God spoke them into existence...then He sure had a lot of free time on His hands...because I can read each verse in just a matter of seconds, and if He spoke it and it was, then it happened much quicker than I was able to read about it. Kind of like how my wife was in a car accident a few months ago, it happened in the blink of an eye...but for her to explain it to me when she called took much longer than the actual event itself...

Your point?

 

[-57]

How do you go about deciding what is and what isn't literal?

Reason.
For instance i presented what Paul wrote to women about how to act in church...I showed where Paul based that ruling upon what happened in the Garden of Eden. I asked, why would Paul make such a rule and base it upon an allegory?

Now, let me ask you this...here is a list of Jesus genealogy taken from Luke 3. I would think that if Adam was an allegorical individual.....then somewhere the list of names changes from fact to fiction. Where might that be?


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.

 

[Speedwell]

Again, that is not an answer. That is your conclusion and with this conclusion you dismiss the content of the book.

Archie draws that conclusion, but your accusation that he thus "dismisses the content of the book" is unfounded.

 

[Big Drew]

Your point?

The point is that so many say it was a literal 24 hour day...but if we have the whole story, and there's nothing else to it, then it didn't take God 24 hours...it was instantaneous, so was God working on other projects in the meantime? Or was there more going on that we aren't told about in scripture, in regards to creation that took a full actual day? Or are the days symbolic?

 

[JacksBratt]

How do you go about deciding what is and what isn't literal?

People that study scripture know of the characteristics of say, a parable, poem, psalm and, in revelations, there are complex metaphors.

If you want to take the time you can also learn the components of such literary styles and methods.

Please tell me how Genesis indicates in any way, shape or form of literary style, that it is any less factual than the birth, life, death and resurrection account of our savior. Then, tell me why one is such a solid truth that you base the salvation of your soul on it while the other is such a minuscule event that you can say it's not necessary for your salvation.

 

[JacksBratt]

Archie draws that conclusion, but your accusation that he thus "dismisses the content of the book" is unfounded.

Archie's conclusion is just that "a conclusion" I requested a basis for the conclusion. The content of the book should indicate the reasons for such a conclusion. Not just the whims and feelings of the reader.

 

[-57]

So here's a thought that just occurred to me in regards to the creation discussion...Genesis 1 says, "God said let there be light, and there was......this was the first day..." and goes on like that through the creation story...if these were literal 24 hour days and things happened instantaneously, as God spoke them into existence...then He sure had a lot of free time on His hands...because I can read each verse in just a matter of seconds, and if He spoke it and it was, then it happened much quicker than I was able to read about it. Kind of like how my wife was in a car accident a few months ago, it happened in the blink of an eye...but for her to explain it to me when she called took much longer than the actual event itself...

So, that's the logic why the days must be longer than 24 hours?

 

[Speedwell]

People that study scripture know of the characteristics of say, a parable, poem, psalm and, in revelations, there are complex metaphors.

If you want to take the time you can also learn the components of such literary styles and methods.

Please tell me how Genesis indicates in any way, shape or form of literary style, that it is any less factual than the birth, life, death and resurrection account of our savior. Then, tell me why one is such a solid truth that you base the salvation of your soul on it while the other is such a minuscule event that you can say it's not necessary for your salvation.

You keep reading your assumption into our replies and so you misunderstand them. For example, you seem to assume plenary verbal inspiration as the only possible vehicle for God's creative control over the Bible. Who knows? You may be right--but not everybody thinks about it that way.

 

[rjs330]

That is splitting hairs. What was the ancestor that man and monkey came from?




That's not an answer nor a reason.

If I said "why did the shark jump on the back of the boat in Jaws"? The answer cannot be.. because that's just a story.

That is deflection and side stepping.

Why did God say, specifically, that He formed Adam, with His hands, then breathed into His nostrils and he became a living soul...................IF Adam was a random product of biological mutation?

Why did God say that He put Adam in a state of sleep, took his rib, made Eve from the rib and then closed up the space in Adam's side.............IF Eve was just the female product of some ancestor that also produced monkeys?




With all due respect, something cannot be true.......and an allegory, by definition.

a story in which the characters and events are symbols that stand for ideas about human life or for a political or historical situation

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion.




You should not confuse parables with fact. Jesus used parables all the time to teach a concept. Genesis gives no indication that it is anything but a factual account. None of the features of a parable, poetry or psalm are present.

If you want to take the time, you can study the indicating features and methods of story telling that are determinants of a parable. This might help you understand how people determine factual events from stories that are meant to teach but are fictional people.



Again, that is not an answer. That is your conclusion and with this conclusion you dismiss the content of the book.

You have not given a reason as to why you believe the book is anything but a factual account.

I can say that a creature has gills, scales, fins, and moves about under water while it dies if it's out of water. Therefore I believe it's a fish.

You cannot look at a rabbit and say it's a fish and then, when people ask you why, you say "because I believe it's a fish" with nothing to substantiate your conclusion.

This is SO WELL said my friend. The answer to your question will always be because science says otherwise. This is always breaks down to evolution vs creation. ALWAYS. They have to believe the Genesis account is allegory because they believe in evolution. Evolution has so much scientific evidence that it forces Genesis to be false. The only way a believer can get around that is to claim that Genesis is not false but an allegory. Even though there is zero biblical evidence that it is and there is much biblical evidence that it is not an allegory.

 

[joshua 1 9]

These are not literal trees that could produce offspring that bear such fruits.

There are experts at the universities of Jerusalem that have studied the evolution of plants and animals in the middle east. All the evidence that science has points to the Bible being accurate true. I have studied science and history for 50 years and I have studied the Bible for 35 years and there is no contradictions between the Bible and Science.

 

[joshua 1 9]

God's creative control over the Bible.

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; 11So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it." Isaiah 55 10,11

 

[-57]

One thing I have learned is to not give much credence to the distortionist. The distortionist come in basically two flavors.....Atheist and their subgroups and secondly misguided bible users and their subgroups.

Both groups tend to claim that as science has modernized in the last several centuries the bible has failed to meet the latest scientific findings.

As the view of Old Earth Evolutionism has increased the accounts of the Genesis creation as well of the flood of Noah have been pushed from the rank of literal and historical. This new interpretation severely distorts the Word of God when it speaks to us concerning the things of creation and the flood. Those events become simply mythical, or some sort of parable.

In doing so the six day creation is distorted to mean six long ages. Adam wasn't made from the dirt then Eve formed from his rib but rather Adam and Eve evolved from lesser primates which evolved from lesser species. When a distortionist is asked to show a biblical line of theology to demonstrate that their Theistic-Evolitionism faith is truly biblical they tend to reach for extra biblical material. After removing what the bible actually says they insert their new found belief into where the old verse and chapter use to reside.

But this is just the beginning of what the Theo-Evo distortionist do. The garden of Eden becomes a fictitious place. They say "its just a story about mankind being bad"...or some other version of that. The fall in the garden due to disobedience never happened...but, instead the distortionist reach out for an extra-biblical concept that God somewhere during our evolution placed some sort of breath of life into each person that contained a sin nature. In doing so once again the bible is distorted.

Paul in Romans 5:12 tells us...."sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned". The one man mentioned by Paul is Adam....and the Theo-Evo distortionist find themselves once again scrambling to redefine the term "one man" to force it to agree with their modern scientific beliefs.

Genesis tells us there was a world wide flood. The flood covered the mountains of that time to fifteen cubits. Theo-Evo distortionist in an attempt to fit the flood into their theology change the world wide flood into a local flood. Denying that the flood laid down the strata and buried the fossils. 2nd Peter 2:5 speaks of the flood and the destruction and how God protected Noah. Later in 2nd Peter 3:6 we are informed the world of that time perished in the flood. Peter also speaks of the ark and only eight people being saved in 1 Peter 3:20. Jesus even speaks of the days of Noah.

All of what Peter says must be distorted to somehow reflect a local flood..or no flood at all theology. This distortion is based upon old earth evolutionary views "backed up" by the beliefs of what has come to be know as modern science.

The irony of all this is that the misquided bible users mentioned above somehow find the ability to believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ on day 3...despite...the fact that modern medical science says if you die you stay dead on day 3.

 

[-57]

There are experts at the universities of Jerusalem that have studied the evolution of plants and animals in the middle east. All the evidence that science has points to the Bible being accurate true. I have studied science and history for 50 years and I have studied the Bible for 35 years and there is no contradictions between the Bible and Science.

See my post above.

 

[W2L]

This is SO WELL said my friend. The answer to your question will always be because science says otherwise. This is always breaks down to evolution vs creation. ALWAYS. They have to believe the Genesis account is allegory because they believe in evolution. Evolution has so much scientific evidence that it forces Genesis to be false. The only way a believer can get around that is to claim that Genesis is not false but an allegory. Even though there is zero biblical evidence that it is and there is much biblical evidence that it is not an allegory.

I'll take the bible over science any day. One doesn't need to believe ToE. . At the end of the day, i pray to the Lord, not to Darwin. I get my instruction from thee bible not science journals. At the end of it all, Jesus is my Lord and savior.

 

[Big Drew]

So, that's the logic why the days must be longer than 24 hours?

No...if we use this logic we have to assume that it was instantaneous...which would mean that a literal 24 hour day is incorrect. God exists outside of time, but He speaks to us in ways that we understand...we understand time.

 

[rjs330]

You keep reading your assumption into our replies and so you misunderstand them. For example, you seem to assume plenary verbal inspiration as the only possible vehicle for God's creative control over the Bible. Who knows? You may be right--but not everybody thinks about it that way.

He makes the same point I make all the time. Which is there is no evidence in Scripture to indicate Genesis is an allegorical account. Just like there is no scriptural evidence that Christ's life death and resurrection is an allegorical account. There is much evidence to the contrary. You take Christ's life death and resurrection literally yet take Genesis as not. Do you also take David literally or Solomon or Saul or Joshua or any of the other people and the live they lived and the deeds they did as literal or is all the OT allegory? If it is not and some is and some is not how do you know the difference?

That also being said how do you know that Peter is not an allegorical person or Stephen or Annanias or any people mentioned in the NT? How do you know the stories in Acts are not all allegories? Did any of them actually take place? What criteria do you use to determine what is actual fact and what is not?