Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Archivist]

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?

No, he believed it to be true. Paul was entitled to his interpretation of scripture just as you and I are entitled to our interpretation.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

What was that ancestor?
The one we both "split" from?

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.

So, you believe it...........because you believe it?

Because it is an allegory.

Can you give your turn turn turn turn turn turn............... table a kick? It's skipping.....

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.

But, the Genesis cannot be true.......and the TOE true............so, which is it?

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

I'm not saying that your not entitled to your interpretation. I'm asking you how you arrived at the conclusion. Show your work. You know, when you got that long math problem, you can't just write that the answer is "9" you have to show your work. The answer is only 1 point and the question is worth 15 marks... You do remember that don't you?

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, I'm not going to go into it, but there are characteristics of a parable so that they are easily recognized as such.
Do some research and you will soon understand. It's not difficult.

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 give up.

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

 

[Big Drew]

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

In your previous post you were talking about Genesis 2...which goes into more detail on the creation of man. Which makes sense, right? The Bible in the strictest sense is about God's relationship with us, and ours with Him...so there's not a need to elaborate on the rest of creation, because what is important to the theme of the Bible this relationship. So we can't say that the other 5 parts were instantaneous, because we don't know...there's not enough detail one way or the other to come to that conclusion.

And yes, you are failing to see my point because you're failing to see that God exists outside of time, but as men we understand time, so this is how the story of creation is told to us.

 

[JacksBratt]

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?

well, I've never created such a source of energy before and then had to separate it from the darkness, so I don't know what all is evolved.

Guess I'll ask Him when I see Him... I'm not going to challenge Him on why it took Him all day though.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

Actually.........I'm asking you, or anyone else.......what do you see in the Genesis scripture that signals to you that it is to be taken any way but literally?

All I said was that literary experts have keys, guides, characteristics, patterns and other methods to determine certain styles and methods of presenting language in print.

What is it that you see that deems Genesis to be Allegorical. Other than "it can't be fact cause it messes up my TOE"

 

[Big Drew]

well, I've never created such a source of energy before and then had to separate it from the darkness, so I don't know what all is evolved.

Guess I'll ask Him when I see Him... I'm not going to challenge Him on why it took Him all day though.

I'm not challenging Him...as I've said, I'm looking for deeper understanding. Some things in scripture are obvious, there's no need to figure it out because it's right there in front of you...others, not so much. Just like the debate between Calvinists and Arminians, if soteriology was crystal clear, there'd be no need to form two different views...but because both views can be backed with scripture there becomes debate on which is correct, and maybe they both are to some extent...but that's a matter for another thread.

In this regard, scripture can lead us to believe that creation was instantaneous, but it could have been 6 24 hour days, or it could be that the days are just representative of the time it took God to do it...we don't know, so we try to understand as best we can.

 

[JacksBratt]

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?

Well Stated.... If you get an answer, I'll be pleasantly shocked. That is due to the fact that there is no answer.

They must hold the gospel to be true or they are lost.
They must hole Genesis to be allegory or their precious TOE is dead.
In order to keep them both breathing.... they have to have selective diversification of what is truth and not.
In between the allegory of Genesis and the solid truth of truth of Christ's life, death and resurrection is a quagmire of muck and muddy water.

 

[JacksBratt]

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."

Nice word salad... who are you trying to impress.

You still have not explained why it cannot be fact or indicates that it is allegory.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

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.

Of course they can't find the Garden of Eden, it was washed away in the global flood. And whoever said it was an apple that tempted Eve? When people say these sort of things, then it's clear they don't know their Bibles very well.

 

[Archivist]

What was that ancestor?
The one we both "split" from?

You should be able to find that on Google.

So, you believe it...........because you believe it?

I believe it because it in my interpretation, just as you believe your interpretation.

But, the Genesis cannot be true.......and the TOE true............so, which is it?

For me the answer is evolution guided by God. Your answer may be different.

I'm not saying that your not entitled to your interpretation. I'm asking you how you arrived at the conclusion.

I've explained that elsewhere in the thread. I can believe a book that offers two conflicting creation stories or I can view it as a allegory. I choose the latter.

Show your work. You know, when you got that long math problem, you can't just write that the answer is "9" you have to show your work. The answer is only 1 point and the question is worth 15 marks... You do remember that don't you?

Excuse me? I don't have to "show my work." My beliefs aree my beliefs. Are you always so rude?

Again, I'm not going to go into it, but there are characteristics of a parable so that they are easily recognized as such.
Do some research and you will soon understand. It's not difficult.

So if you have decided something is a parable then it is, if not it isn't. You decision apparently rules. That's where we differ.

BTW, you never answered my earlier question, but I find it interesting that some on your side deny the plain language of our Lord and Savior--this in my body--while insisting that we all must believe the Genesis creation accounts.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I never claimed the entire bible should be taken in its most literal form. When the bible speaks of something as literal and historical...such as the resurrection of Christ or the six day creation, it should be taken as literal and historical.

This is something I hear quite a lot - some folks seem to think that if you take passages like Genesis 1 & 2 literally, that means you take the whole Bible literally. It's obvious that some parts of the Bible are not meant to be understood literally, but when it says things like Jesus turned water into wine or walked on the water, it's clearly meant to be read as factual. Some passages are perhaps less clear, but I don't think the writer could have made it any clearer that the creation account given in Genesis 1 & 2 was meant to be understood as being historical narrative. Any claims to the contrary are without foundation and wholly unjustified in my opinion.

You know, I would find the lack of belief in such important parts of the Bible quite depressing if I couldn't renew my spirit with more faith-strengthening material such as the following short quote which I'm reading on my Kindle as I write this...

""God had begun his creative work. The curtains had been pulled back. As all the angelic host watched, heaven and earth were placed on the stage. With a word, the Sovereign God turned on the floodlights. Act One was completed; Day One was finished. Now five more acts of God's great drama were to follow in the next five days of creation." The Stranger on the Road to Emmaus by John R. Cross.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

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...

We weren't there of course and it doesn't tell us how long it took for him to complete each section - it could have been instantaneous or it could have taken anything up to 24 hours. Maybe he was enjoying making his creation, so he took his time or maybe he did it like that to set the pattern for the 24 hour day that would follow when the creation of the planet earth was complete. In any case, God has plenty of time on his hands, after all, he created it.

 

[Big Drew]

We weren't there of course and it doesn't tell us how long it took for him to complete each section - it could have been instantaneous or it could have taken anything up to 24 hours. Maybe he was enjoying making his creation, so he took his time or maybe he did it like that to set the pattern for the 24 hour day that would follow when the creation of the planet earth was complete. In any case, God has plenty of time on his hands, after all, he created it.

I think your posts and mine both prove the point that none of us really know how long it took...it's all just speculation.

 

[JacksBratt]

You should be able to find that on Google.

But, I'm asking you... if not a monkey or other ape, what is it? You are saying we didn't come from monkeys but that monkeys and man came from a common ancestor... so, what do you call this ancestor that we came from?

I believe it because it in my interpretation, just as you believe your interpretation.

Yes, my interpretation is derived from the fact that it is written as a detailed sequence of events with no indication of being anything but factual details.

What is the "REASONING" behind your interpretation?

For me the answer is evolution guided by God. Your answer may be different.

Wouldn't that mean millions of years of creatures living and dying?

I've explained that elsewhere in the thread. I can believe a book that offers two conflicting creation stories or I can view it as a allegory. I choose the latter.

But, you cannot say why you believe this way. You just do.

Excuse me? I don't have to "show my work." My beliefs aree my beliefs. Are you always so rude?

I asked you what, to you, indicates that it is allegorical. You have given absolutely no reasoning for your concept of Genesis being allegorical other than "I believe it is".

So, I guess you cannot tell me one reason. Your interpretation is based on nothing?

Can you tell me one reason why you would believe that it cannot be factual and literal?

So if you have decided something is a parable then it is, if not it isn't. You decision apparently rules. That's where we differ.

You are not listening. I have stated several times that there are accepted criteria that determine a story to be a parable..... It's not my rules.

You, on the other hand have given no basis for Genesis being allegorical.

BTW, you never answered my earlier question, but I find it interesting that some on your side deny the plain language of our Lord and Savior--this in my body--while insisting that we all must believe the Genesis creation accounts.

So, you are going to bring in to account the last supper, when Christ holds up the bread and says "this is my body"? You are going to put that on the table as a contradiction if I don't say that it is literal?

OK, Your avatar doesn't indicate whether your are male of female. But I bet, dollars to donuts, at some point in your life you played with other kids and you played a game where you where on a team and going against another team. The scenario goes like this:

Fred, you're this bottle cap, you run to the tree, we'll mark it with this pebble.
Tom, you're this twist tie, you stay at the bottom of the hill marked by this ant hill.
Bessy, you're this acorn top, you go to the ditch by the Jenkersons and hide.

So, was Fred really the bottle cap, Bessy and acorn top?

Seriously, Jesus holds up some bread and say's "this is my body" and now you are going to argue that against "in the beginning God....."?

Face it, you seriously play the shell game with what is indicated as truth and metaphor and claim that your are ignorant to what millions of people understand without argument.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

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.

This is so true my friend and I find it all quite sad. I believe all this confusion just waters down the Gospel message and implies that God is less than honest because (if we believe these distortions) he has allowed his sacred texts to be used to deceive people into thinking that they came from a fictitious Adam & Eve just a few thousand years earlier when in reality, he knew they actually originated from pond scum. In addition, the cruel and wasteful method of evolution was how God planned it all from the beginning. Would you want to worship such a god who did all that and then came to earth in the form of a man but still kept up the deceit? Jesus wasn't afraid to stand up to those who were against him, so he certainly would not have been afraid to tell the Jews that their revered scriptures were full of myths and falsehoods if that really were the case. The fact that he did the opposite, is strong circumstantial evidence that he believed the accounts in the books of Moses to be true and since he is God and knows all, I choose to believe him in place of man's foolish ideas.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I think your posts and mine both prove the point that none of us really know how long it took...it's all just speculation.

All we know is that it took anything from instantaneous up to a full day.

 

[Big Drew]

All we know is that it took anything from instantaneous up to a full day.

Or that a full creation day was longer than an actual day as we know it...because, again, God works outside of time...and we can't forget that Peter taught us a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day to the the Lord...which is basically telling us that time is irrelevant as far as He is concerned.

 

[JacksBratt]

Or that a full creation day was longer than an actual day as we know it...because, again, God works outside of time...and we can't forget that Peter taught us a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day to the the Lord...which is basically telling us that time is irrelevant as far as He is concerned.

You know what..........I believe that God did everything He said He did on day one, in one earth day. I believe that He did everything He said He did on day two, in one earth day.... and so on.

God can do anything.........and He did. Just like He said He did.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Or that a full creation day was longer than an actual day as we know it...because, again, God works outside of time...and we can't forget that Peter taught us a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day to the the Lord...which is basically telling us that time is irrelevant as far as He is concerned.

Of course, that wouldn't make much sense in view of...
Gen 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
There is so much reference to the six days and the Sabbath throughout the Bible, so are we to conclude that we should work for six thousand years and then rest for a thousand years? Also, even if the days were a thousand years long, it's a long stretch to get from there to billions of years that the secular world requires and it would also be very difficult to stretch the geneologies of Adam to Jesus to cover thousands of years. You see, when you reject the obvious meaning of key parts of the Bible, you end up in all sorts of difficulties.

 

[-57]

In your previous post you were talking about Genesis 2...which goes into more detail on the creation of man. Which makes sense, right? The Bible in the strictest sense is about God's relationship with us, and ours with Him...so there's not a need to elaborate on the rest of creation, because what is important to the theme of the Bible this relationship. So we can't say that the other 5 parts were instantaneous, because we don't know...there's not enough detail one way or the other to come to that conclusion.

And yes, you are failing to see my point because you're failing to see that God exists outside of time, but as men we understand time, so this is how the story of creation is told to us.

I understand clearly God exist outside of time...I fact there was a "time" before time began.