Should Genesis be taken literally?

[rjs330]

The Bible is indeed authoritative " for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." But other works contemporaneous to scripture must be consulted to increase our knowledge of language and literary practices as an aid to interpretation. Knowledge gained about the history of the ANE through non-biblical sources and archaeology is also valuable to our understanding of the Bible.

It might be valuable in some fashion but if it is used to contradict what Scripture plainly states then it has very little value in understanding the Bible. If ANE is used to try and say Genesis is not actual history then it's value is zero when it come to understanding the Bible.

 

[rjs330]

But I do believe the Genesis creation accounts. I believe that they are allegories. You are, of course, entitled to your own interpretation.

What biblical evidence do you have to prove they are allegories? What evidence do you have period that prove they are allegories? There is no real basis to believe so.

 

[Archivist]

Now they are not different and I can prove it to you. It has NOTHING to do with interpretation. It has everything to do with people wanting to make Genesis an allegory and using awful hermeneutic and exigetical standards to do so blatantly ignoring the details of the text in order to do so.

According to your interpretation and you are, of course, entitled to your interpretation

 

[Archivist]

Of course I don't, but honesty, don't you realise that the gulf between other life forms and humans is precisely because we have some of the spirit of God and that's why we can appreciate music, feel emotions like love, consider our destiny, gaze in wonder at the universe, be aware of our mortality, etc, etc. So no, I don't believe we have anything in common with ape-like creatures except a common designer/maker. To suggest that God had to start with some mythical lower creatures and then use the cruel and wasteful method of macro evolution to arrive at humans is in my opinion not to give God the credit he deserves, suggesting as it does that he couldn't get it right the first time. Actually, the whole idea of evolution is anti-God because it's supposed to be a totally random, misguided process, so that logically would mean that God wasn't even in control of the process that he was supposed to have initiated. The best definition of evolution is therefore "an anti-God religion of death" better known as "nonsense." But maybe it's just an allegory.

Since you are claiming that my belief that evolution occurred is nonsense, perhaps what you wrote here is the real nonsense.

 

[Archivist]

What biblical evidence do you have to prove they are allegories? What evidence do you have period that prove they are allegories? There is no real basis to believe so.

What evidence is there to prove that the parable of the Good Samaritan is a parable? Jesus never identified it as such.

Yes, there is a real basis for reading the two creation accounts in Genesis as allegories, the fact that they disagree with each other being the most obvious. You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation.

 

[Speedwell]

Now they are not different and I can prove it to you. It has NOTHING to do with interpretation. It has everything to do with people wanting to make Genesis an allegory and using awful hermeneutic and exigetical standards to do so blatantly ignoring the details of the text in order to do so.

They are written in very different styles, even if you allow the same author and believe that he was God. And assuming that the author was God, what's the big deal? That Gen 1 and Gen 2 are not one continuous narrative is not necessarily a problem for Christian theology given that they are both the authoritative word of God. What is it that you are really defending?

BTW, not all of us are trying to make "Genesis" into an "allegory." Genesis is a complex work representing a variety of literary genres. Off hand I can't think of a text that I would regard as pure "allegory" although many contain allegorical meaning. I find the book to be largely made up of historical narratives, although not in the restricted sense that you use the term.

 

[rjs330]

W

And actually I have never said that the whole of Genesis is an allegory. I limited that description to the creation accounts.

Why? What kind of logic is makes the creation accounts allegorical but the rest is not?

 

[rjs330]

They are written in very different styles, even if you allow the same author and believe that he was God. And assuming that the author was God, what's the big deal? That Gen 1 and Gen 2 are not one continuous narrative is not necessarily a problem for Christian theology given that they are both the authoritative word of God. What is it that you are really defending?

BTW, not all of us are trying to make "Genesis" into an "allegory." Genesis is a complex work representing a variety of literary genres. Off hand I can't think of a text that I would regard as pure "allegory" although many contain allegorical meaning. I find the book to be largely made up of historical narratives, although not in the restricted sense that you use the term.

As I have pointed out differing styles do not make it an allegory. You have to have other proof of that. In fact Exodus is proof positive that Genesis is NOT an allegory. Many books of the Bible contain various literary types. But it seems you are say that because it does therefore it is allegorical. But is not shown to be true. I'm defending God's word. The moment you can toss in the word allegory even though the evidence is to the contrary you can make the Bible say anything you want. The words "your interpretation" can mean anything. It's up to you to decide what is real and what isn't. Instead of the Bible telling you what's real and what isn't you decide. There is no ultimate truth. The truth is what you interpret it to be.

You said you believe the accounts of Abraham's life that the Bible states. Unless I am hearing you wrong you believe in the account of Abraham and Sarah being visited and told of his baby. You believe that then turn around and don't believe in the creation account. Unless you are saying the Abraham story is not truly accurate either based on your historical interpretation. What is it? Is the Abraham story true and accurate or not. And if not what is it? If it is then why is it accurate, but creation account isn't?

 

[Speedwell]

As I have pointed out differing styles do not make it an allegory.

You're not paying attention. What we were discussing was whether Gen 1 and Gen 2 were one continuous narrative or two. And you didn't answer my question.

You have to have other proof of that.

Did you read my whole post? I specifically stated that I did not believe that the creation stories were allegories.

But it seems you are say that because it does therefore it is allegorical. But is not shown to be true. I'm defending God's word. The moment you can toss in the word allegory even though the evidence is to the contrary you can make the Bible say anything you want. The words "your interpretation" can mean anything. It's up to you to decide what is real and what isn't. Instead of the Bible telling you what's real and what isn't you decide. There is no ultimate truth. The truth is what you interpret it to be.

Quit pushing that "allegory" business off on me. It's becoming offensive.

Is the Abraham story true and accurate or not.

I believe it is true, and that it's "accuracy" is indeterminate and not important. And, no, at this point I don't expect you to agree with me or even understand what I am talking about. Your notion of what constitutes historical narrative as a genre is too limited and too strongly held.

Please answer my question in #1186--I am truly interested in your answer.

 

[Archivist]

W

Why? What kind of logic is makes the creation accounts allegorical but the rest is not?

I've answered this already. However you did not answer my question. What evidence is there to prove that the parable of the Good Samaritan is a parable? Jesus never identified it as such.

And, once again, you are entitled to your interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts. I view Genesis overall as a mix. It contains allegory, poetry, history, prophecy.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Since you are claiming that my belief that evolution occurred is nonsense, perhaps what you wrote here is the real nonsense.

If that's your interpretation of what I wrote then so be it. That's your choice.

 

[rjs330]

According to your interpretation and you are, of course, entitled to your interpretation

You and speed of course are entitled to yours as well. It just happens though that yours has no biblical standing. I can look at Christ's resurrection and believe it didn't happen or that the Virgin birth didn't happen because that would be my interpretation. But biblically my interpretation would have no standing. So yes you are entitled. But being entitled does not mean the bible supports your interpretation. And that's been my point all along.

 

[rjs330]

You're not paying attention. What we were discussing was whether Gen 1 and Gen 2 were one continuous narrative or two. And you didn't answer my question. Did you read my whole post? I specifically stated that I did not believe that the creation stories were allegories. Quit pushing that "allegory" business off on me. It's becoming offensive.

I believe it is true, and that it's "accuracy" is indeterminate and not important. And, no, at this point I don't expect you to agree with me or even understand what I am talking about. Your notion of what constitutes historical narrative as a genre is too limited and too strongly held.

Please answer my question in #1186--I am truly interested in your answer.

I apologize. I could have sworn you have said that it was an allegory in other conversations. Maybe it's I've talked to too many people about this and have lost track of who's who. So sorry speed that I said you said something you didn't ever say. It was not intentional.

As far as what I am defending is the narrative of Genesis. I'm defending the facts of creation. I'm defending true hermeneutics and exigetical understanding. There are just too many scriptures that speak to the accuracy of Genesis to say it's not just as it says. Especially in the light of what God said in Exodus.

My understanding is not limited. Yours is not supported by Scripture. In fact you haven't actually shared what you actually think Genesis creation account is saying and how that relates to the rest of the book and the history of Abraham. If you believe the Abraham story as accurate why not the story of Creation?

 

[rjs330]

I've answered this already. However you did not answer my question. What evidence is there to prove that the parable of the Good Samaritan is a parable? Jesus never identified it as such.



And, once again, you are entitled to your interpretation of the Genesis creation accounts. I view Genesis overall as a mix. It contains allegory, poetry, history, prophecy.

The context of what was going on is evidence that it is a parable. Jesus was asked a question and I context of Jesus' ministry he often told stories to support his point or make a point. It's a didactic story. He said a man did this and such and a priest and Samaritan came etc. Never using actual names involved. He used the same thing when he talked about the prodigal son and the man and the vineyard and most all of his stories. You have to look not just at a single story but at the context of what was happening and the rest of Jesus ministry and how he talked and taught. It's not that difficult really and fits with what I have been saying.

Don't just look at a single event but at context as well. Context meaning not just the immediate words but in the chapters surrounding and the rest of scripture. When you do that it makes perfect harmony.

 

[Speedwell]

My understanding is not limited.

What I meant by that is your notion that historical narrative is either 100% accurate and literal or "false." No human-written historical narrative is ever subject to this dichotomy and you haven't been very clear about why the historical narratives of the Bible should be. It's as if you believed that 100% literal accuracy is the only way an historical narrative could be counted as true. It's as I said before, like arguing with somebody about color who is convinced that there are only two colors, black and white, and that the alleged existence of other colors is some kind of a humanist conspiracy.

Yours is not supported by Scripture. In fact you haven't actually shared what you actually think Genesis creation account is saying and how that relates to the rest of the book and the history of Abraham. If you believe the Abraham story as accurate why not the story of Creation?

I said that I believe the Abraham story is true, but that its accuracy is indeterminate. And it is obviously not the same genre of historical narrative as the creation stories. As far as creation goes, you and I have discussed this several times, and I have explained it most recently in this thread that I believe the Garden story to be an etiology--a form of historical narrative, BTW--and why I think so, based on the internal structures of the story itself.* For my trouble I got only a snarky remark from one of your creationist colleagues, and I'm not interested in going through it again.

But I'm still interested to know why the notion that Gen 1 and the Garden story have to be one continuous narrative is so important to you. I can't think of any point of Christian doctrine that turns on it; perhaps some doctrine unique to YECism?



*Mind you, I'm not claiming it as my idea--it's fairly widespread outside of YEC circles.

 

[CodyFaith]

I think the most important reason for Genesis to be true is the Sabbath.

God says in Genesis and Exodus that the Sabbath day is holy and sanctified because it's the day God rested on, and he's hallowed it for that reason.

If you don't believe Genesis is true, you really have no need to believe that the Sabbath is any special day either.

 

[Speedwell]

I think the most important reason for Genesis to be true is the Sabbath.

God says in Genesis and Exodus that the Sabbath day is holy and sanctified because it's the day God rested on, and he's hallowed it for that reason.

If you don't believe Genesis is true, you really have no need to believe that the Sabbath is any special day either.

So it's not enough for you that the Sabbath is told of in a book inspired by God? The book has to be the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration as well as being divinely authored or you are going to blow it off?

 

[CodyFaith]

So it's not enough for you that the Sabbath is told of in a book inspired by God? The book has to be the literal, inerrant, perspicuous and self-interpreting product of plenary verbal inspiration as well as being divinely authored or you are going to blow it off?

What I'm saying is that the Sabbath is a blessed day because God rested on the 7th day. That's the whole reason it's a blessed day.

It doesn't really make sense for there to be a Sabbath unless the creation account in Genesis is literal.

 

[Archivist]

You and speed of course are entitled to yours as well. It just happens though that yours has no biblical standing. I can look at Christ's resurrection and believe it didn't happen or that the Virgin birth didn't happen because that would be my interpretation. But biblically my interpretation would have no standing. So yes you are entitled. But being entitled does not mean the bible supports your interpretation. And that's been my point all along.

But the birth of Christ and the resurrection are documented by differing authors in letters written at different times. We know the authors of those letters and those letters largely agree on what happened. In Genesis we have two differing creation stories. The order of creation differs, the wording differs. And yes, my view is supported by the Bible.

 

[Archivist]

The context of what was going on is evidence that it is a parable. Jesus was asked a question and I context of Jesus' ministry he often told stories to support his point or make a point. It's a didactic story. He said a man did this and such and a priest and Samaritan came etc. Never using actual names involved. He used the same thing when he talked about the prodigal son and the man and the vineyard and most all of his stories. You have to look not just at a single story but at the context of what was happening and the rest of Jesus ministry and how he talked and taught. It's not that difficult really and fits with what I have been saying. Don't just look at a single event but at context as well. Context meaning not just the immediate words but in the chapters surrounding and the rest of scripture. When you do that it makes perfect harmony.

But this is interpretation. In the case of the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells us "In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers." Note that He did not begin by saying "A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." He began the story as if it was a factual. Saying that it is a parable is a matter of interpretation (one that I happen to agree with). In Genesis we are presented with two differing stories. The order of creation does not agree. The words used do not agree. I read it as an allegory that shows us that God created everything. If you want to read it as a factual account you are, of course, entitled to your interpretation.

I think this is where we disagree. I am willing to concede that you interpretation can certainly be supported by scripture, although I disagree with your interpretation. You are unwilling to offer others that same concession.