Should Genesis be taken literally?

[-57]

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.

Parts of the creation account were instant..parts took time. For instance God formed Adam from the dirt He had made earlier. He took the time to form Adam...later God gave Adam the time to name the animals....then when no helpmate was found God took the time to put Adam to sleep and fashion a women from Adams rib. The bible doesn't present that account as instant.

If God used descent with modification to form mankind...why didn't He say something like...."From the animals I made man"?
Why would God change up reality and then tell us He made Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams rib?

 

[Speedwell]

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.

But his conclusion only amounts to a "dismissal" only in terms of your frame of reference, not his.

Here's one for you: I look at the "Garden" story and what I see clearly is an etiology. It has all the earmarks of a "Just-So" story handed down for a long time in oral tradition: The right dramatic structure, puns and other wordplay, highly anthropomorphized non-human characters, magic trees, etc. It would be a great vehicle for professional story tellers. A few actors, a narrator, a couple of musicians and some simple props, a square of carpet rolled out in the market place; local references and bawdy asides added to jazz it up and at the end the angel of the lord chases Adam and Eve into the crowd with a sword, Tahdaah! I would certainly throw down a few coppers to see it. And what better way to transmit and preserve spiritual truths about our origins in a preliterate society? Now I know you won't agree with that, but it seems logical to me, and I do have a hard time interpreting it as a modern, historical-positivist narrative as you seem to want to do. More important, it does not mean I "dismiss" the story or regard it as not divinely inspired or a "lie."

 

[-57]

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?

To add to that, in Jude 1:14 we read "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of every ungodly act of wickedness and every harsh word spoken against Him by ungodly sinners.”"

If Adam was allegorical...what about Enoch who is presented literally and historically the 7th from Adam?

Is the judgement mentioned here also allegorical?

 

[Big Drew]

Parts of the creation account were instant..parts took time. For instance God formed Adam from the dirt He had made earlier. He took the time to form Adam...later God gave Adam the time to name the animals....then when no helpmate was found God took the time to put Adam to sleep and fashion a women from Adams rib. The bible doesn't present that account as instant.

If God used descent with modification to form mankind...why didn't He say something like...."From the animals I made man"?
Why would God change up reality and then tell us He made Adam from the dust then Eve from Adams rib?

If parts were instant and other parts took time, how do we decide that from a literal 24 hour day approach to Genesis 1? If we take the most literal approach then each of the six parts of creation took 24 hours...so it's contradictory to that to say some things were instant and some weren't...either they all took 24 hours, or they didn't...you can't have it both ways with a day being a day...but, if we agree that God exists outside of time, then the amount of time it took for Him to create the universe and everything in it doesn't really matter, because time is irrelevant to God.

 

[-57]

But his conclusion only amounts to a "dismissal" only in terms of your frame of reference, not his.

Here's one for you: I look at the "Garden" story and what I see clearly is an etiology. It has all the earmarks of a "Just-So" story handed down for a long time in oral tradition: The right dramatic structure, puns and other wordplay, highly anthropomorphized non-human characters, magic trees, etc. It would be a great vehicle for professional story tellers. A few actors, a narrator, a couple of musicians and some simple props, a square of carpet rolled out in the market place; local references and bawdy asides added to jazz it up and at the end the angel of the lord chases Adam and Eve into the crowd with a sword, Tahdaah! I would certainly throw down a few coppers to see it. And what better way to transmit and preserve spiritual truths about our origins in a preliterate society? Now I know you won't agree with that, but it seems logical to me, and I do have a hard time interpreting it as a modern, historical-positivist narrative as you seem to want to do. More important, it does not mean I "dismiss" the story or regard it as not divinely inspired or a "lie."

If Genesis wasn't literal....and evolutionism was the way God made humans....I believe the account would have reflected evolutionism. Probel is, it doesn't reflect evolutionism. Man was made first then woman was made from man....evolutionism disagrees with that biblical concept.
Paul would not have said in 1 Tim 2:3 "For Adam was formed first, then Eve;"

It becomes obvious that for what you say to be true then great biblical distortion must occur.

 

[-57]

If parts were instant and other parts took time, how do we decide that from a literal 24 hour day approach to Genesis 1? If we take the most literal approach then each of the six parts of creation took 24 hours...so it's contradictory to that to say some things were instant and some weren't...either they all took 24 hours, or they didn't...you can't have it both ways with a day being a day...but, if we agree that God exists outside of time, then the amount of time it took for Him to create the universe and everything in it doesn't really matter, because time is irrelevant to God.

All the days took 24 hours...It's what the bible tells us especially when the days are numbered and evening and morning are mentioned. Can you have evening and morning at the same time?

Exo 20:11 tells us it took six days.... 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

 

[Archivist]

Jesus is also presented as a gate. Perhaps we should believe He is fastened to a door post and can be pushed open.

So you are picking and choosing what you choose to believe from scripture?

 

[Big Drew]

All the days took 24 hours...It's what the bible tells us especially when the days are numbered and evening and morning are mentioned. Can you have evening and morning at the same time?

Exo 20:11 tells us it took six days.... 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day.

But that doesn't answer the question...because you said some things were instant and others were not...how can you decide from what is written in scripture what is what?

 

[Archivist]

Interesting thought process....you disagree with what Paul wrote.

I have yet to be in a church where women are required to remain silent, so obviously many people disagree with what Paul wrote in that passage.

My post was to showed a rule Paul made up..and the topic isn't the rule....but rather what Paul based his rule upon. That rule was based upon a literal historical point of deception as described in the book of Genesis. In other writings of Paul...and I wonder if you dsagree with them also...Paul said "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" That one man Paul talked about is Adam. I understand you must disagree, so who is the one man?

I already addressed this. Paul believed in a literal reading of Genesis, so obviously his reference was to Adam. I do not believe in a literal reading of Genesis, so I don't see any "one man" being responsible for sin entering the world.

Paul in Galations 1:1 tells us "Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead".....considering Paul according to the evolutionist got the previous two verses wrong, did Paul also get the verse from Galations wrong? We all understand that science says you don't come back to life on day 3.

I don't think so because I don't regard Galations as being an allegory.

 

[Archivist]

For one thing, when Jesus said "This is my body," it clearly was not because his body was intact. When He held up the wine and said "This cup is the new covenant in my blood," it also clearly was not because he was uninjured. It was known to be a metaphor then as it is now, though it is a very serious metaphor. It is not to be taken lightly. The communion commemorates the sacrifice of his body and his blood. The Bible has parables, metaphors, poetry and history. It's usually not hard to distinguish one from the other. Because it has symbolism, that doesn't mean that the clear historical teachings as symbolic.

So an all-powerful who can create the heavens and the Earth in six days cannot turn bread into his body, wine into his blood.

What other parts of scripture have you chosen to ignore?

Why do you apparently have such a problem with my personal belief that the Genesis creation stories are allegories while you pick and choose what parts of scripture you believe to be true?

 

[-57]

So you are picking and choosing what you choose to believe from scripture?

I don't that post indicated that...why do you say I pick and choose?

 

[-57]

But that doesn't answer the question...because you said some things were instant and others were not...how can you decide from what is written in scripture what is what?

I thought I made that obvious to you in my preeceding post?
Still....I'm failing to see your point.

 

[-57]

I have yet to be in a church where women are required to remain silent, so obviously many people disagree with what Paul wrote in that passage.



I already addressed this. Paul believed in a literal reading of Genesis, so obviously his reference was to Adam. I do not believe in a literal reading of Genesis, so I don't see any "one man" being responsible for sin entering the world.


I don't think so because I don't regard Galations as being an allegory.

If you don't see any "one man" or Adam as that one man then I suppose you ought to get a black magic marker and crossout Romans 5:14.

 

[Archivist]

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

No, it is not "splitting hairs." It is a factual statement. And man did not split from monkeys in evolutionary development. Monkeys and apes split. Man and modern apes share a common ancestor.

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.

It is an answer for a simple reason--it is my belief, my interpretation. As I have numerous times in this thread, you are entitled to you own interpretation.

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?

Because it is an allegory.

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

Is the story of the Good Samaritan not true? The story of the poor widow who four her lost coin? Of course an allegory can be true.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Then why do you seem to think that I am not entitled to my interpretation?

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.

And if you read the parable of the Good Samaritan, you know that Jesus doe snot preface it with "let me tell you a story." It is presented as if it were a factual account.

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.

Because I am entitled to my interpretation of scripture, just as you are entitled to your interpretation. Further, I have not dismissed anything. I regard Genesis as an allegory.

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.

But we aren't talking about rabbits or fish are we. We are talking about beliefs.

 

[Archivist]

If you don't see any "one man" or Adam as that one man then I suppose you ought to get a black magic marker and crossout Romans 5:14.

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. Paul referenced Adam because he believed in a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.
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?

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

I find your answers very confusing. I find the "Goldilocks" to be a strawman.

"One way or another" such that it doesn't cause conflict with the TOE?

 

[-57]

Is the story of the Good Samaritan not true? The story of the poor widow who four her lost coin? Of course an allegory can be true.

Arguments such as this fail. Here's why.....parables in the bible are based upon things that could actually happen. They reflect reality.
According to the The-Evo camp Genesis is an allegorical account. The problem is, if iGenesis is an allegorical account the account according to the Theo-Evo sect can't happen. The Genesis account would not be based upon reality if evolutionism happened.

 

[-57]

Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. Paul referenced Adam because he believed in a literal reading of Genesis.

If I read you correctly...you're telling me the inspired Paul wrote something false into the bible? When Paul wrote about a literal Genesis...he was wrong?

 

[-57]

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?

So when God said He made Adam from the dust...THEN...Eve from Adams rib.....God really meant to say He used descent with modification?????

 

[Archivist]

Arguments such as this fail. Here's why.....parables in the bible are based upon things that could actually happen. They reflect reality. According to the The-Evo camp Genesis is an allegorical account. The problem is, if iGenesis is an allegorical account the account according to the Theo-Evo sect can't happen. The Genesis account would not be based upon reality if evolutionism happened.

And that argument can be flipped the other way.