Should Genesis be taken literally?

[rjs330]

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.

But we also have differing authors and people in the bible supporting Genesis as fact not allegorical. So if that is your standard then Genesis has it. In fact it is supported by Paul and I would consider him pretty authoritative. And if you're not convinced by him I would have thought God's own words would be convincing also in Exodus. But apparently even that's not good enough yet you apply that standard to Christ, but not Genesis. Interesting.

 

[rjs330]

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.


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.

You know I am not a YEC even though I sound like one. I do believe the earth is young from the time God began the life process described in Genesis. I believe God created in six days and that the rest is history so to speak. What happened before that the Bible doesn't really say. Even in Genesis 1 God created the heavens and earth and the earth was void. Who knows how long this rock hung around before his creation of life began? I'm just offering speculation here of course because the Bible is utterly silent on this matter. I guess I'm kinda YEC if YEC is only about the earth from the beginning of the creation of life.

 

[rjs330]

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.


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.

It's obviously not a continuous historical narrative in a chronological sense. Because the 7 days were outlined with non specific terms in chapter 1. Then chapter 2 gets pretty specific with the creation of man and how God made man. But i know you know this already. A little more specific history really starts there. Adam and so forth is really the beginning of history cause the Bible is all about man and his relationship with God. It's not about the animals and their relationship with God because they were not created in his image. We were.

 

[rjs330]

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.

I'm certainly willing to offer others the same if their interpretation is supported by Scripture. But unfortunately allegorical Genesis is not.

 

[Speedwell]

It's obviously not a continuous historical narrative in a chronological sense. Because the 7 days were outlined with non specific terms in chapter 1. Then chapter 2 gets pretty specific with the creation of man and how God made man. But i know you know this already. A little more specific history really starts there. Adam and so forth is really the beginning of history cause the Bible is all about man and his relationship with God. It's not about the animals and their relationship with God because they were not created in his image. We were.

But I still don't get why you think it has to be one story. Obviously the Bible is a compilation of texts by different inspired authors. What is the problem of regarding Gen 1 and Gen 2 as two different stories covering different aspects of the creation written by two different inspired authors, or the same author at different times, then redacted together? The heat with which this theory is usually rejected by creationists suggests that something they hold dear is put at risk by it. What?

 

[Archivist]

But we also have differing authors and people in the bible supporting Genesis as fact not allegorical. So if that is your standard then Genesis has it. In fact it is supported by Paul and I would consider him pretty authoritative. And if you're not convinced by him I would have thought God's own words would be convincing also in Exodus. But apparently even that's not good enough yet you apply that standard to Christ, but not Genesis. Interesting.

Nice try but logical fallacy. References to Genesis in the gospels are based on Genesis. There is no other supporting evidence. Paul was not present to witness the creation, nor was Moses. References to Christ in the gospels, on the other hand, are based on personal observations and/or observations of those who were present.

 

[Archivist]

I'm certainly willing to offer others the same if their interpretation is supported by Scripture. But unfortunately allegorical Genesis is not.

Sure it is. You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation.

 

[JacksBratt]

1/ Could God create the universe and everything in it, as it is stated in Genesis 1?
2/ Was or is it within God's capability?
3/ Why would His word tell us, in the first words He has given us, that He did something, how He did it and how long it took Him, if it were not true?
4/ On who's authority, knowledge or teaching, do you base your reasons for not accepting it the way it is written?
5/ If Genesis 1 cannot be taken as true, how do you determine what other concepts the Bible teaches are true or not true?

 

[rjs330]

Sure it is. You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation.

Where in Scripture does it state that Genesis is allegorical?

 

[rjs330]

Nice try but logical fallacy. References to Genesis in the gospels are based on Genesis. There is no other supporting evidence. Paul was not present to witness the creation, nor was Moses. References to Christ in the gospels, on the other hand, are based on personal observations and/or observations of those who were present.

You can toss out that term if you like, but it holds no water here. Paul and Christ had a better understanding of Scripture than anyone who disagrees with them do. Like I said I used your own logic against you and you dismissed it. These men you refer to were inspired by God. Jesus was God and was the creator. I think that makes him pretty reliable. Moses quoted God himself. I think that's pretty reliable too. Much more reliable than anyone who claims Genesis is allegory. Its interesting that those that claim allegory would take the word of some men over the Words of Christ and God and the apostles. Far more authority there.

 

[Speedwell]

You can toss out that term if you like, but it holds no water here. Paul and Christ had a better understanding of Scripture than anyone who disagrees with them do. Like I said I used your own logic against you and you dismissed it. These men you refer to were inspired by God. Jesus was God and was the creator. I think that makes him pretty reliable. Moses quoted God himself. I think that's pretty reliable too. Much more reliable than anyone who claims Genesis is allegory. Its interesting that those that claim allegory would take the word of some men over the Words of Christ and God and the apostles. Far more authority there.

But I still don't get why you think it has to be one story. Obviously the Bible is a compilation of texts by different inspired authors. What is the problem of regarding Gen 1 and Gen 2 as two different stories covering different aspects of the creation written by two different inspired authors, or the same author at different times, then redacted together? The heat with which this theory is usually rejected by creationists suggests that something they hold dear is put at risk by it. What?

 

[rjs330]

But I still don't get why you think it has to be one story. Obviously the Bible is a compilation of texts by different inspired authors. What is the problem of regarding Gen 1 and Gen 2 as two different stories covering different aspects of the creation written by two different inspired authors, or the same author at different times, then redacted together? The heat with which this theory is usually rejected by creationists suggests that something they hold dear is put at risk by it. What?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not sure why we need find the need to want to separate the stories. From what I've read most of the time folks want to separate the stories it is always followed by something along the lines of "therefore Genesis is not an accurate representation of what really happened and can't be relied upon as an accurate account of creation". Maybe that's why the theory is argued against. Because they try and make the accounts so different that they both cannot be true. Then that begs the question is either one of them true. All of comes down to the place that Scripture is unreliable where creation is concerned. That it didn't really happen the way the Bible says it did. Now you may not fall into that category, but a ton of folks do and athiests and others similar to them grab into that argument with vehement enthusiasm. Evolutionists do the same. All of this puts God's own words in Exodus in question as well as the rest of the Bible that makes statement supporting the historical record of Genesis 1&2.

Why is Scripture so unreliable in Genesis 1&2 but reliable everywhere else? We don't see the same fighting over Abraham or David or Solomon or Elijah do we? At least I haven't seen it. But for some reason Genesis is disregarded by many who would not disregard other parts of the Bible I mentioned. I don't really understand why.

 

[expos4ever]

Where in Scripture does it state that Genesis is allegorical?

Writers who use allegory, myth, and other literary devices do not, obviously, announce that they are doing so.

 

[Speedwell]

Why is Scripture so unreliable in Genesis 1&2 but reliable everywhere else? We don't see the same fighting over Abraham or David or Solomon or Elijah do we? At least I haven't seen it. But for some reason Genesis is disregarded by many who would not disregard other parts of the Bible I mentioned. I don't really understand why.

That is a really good question which I would like to devote some thought to. Don't lose track of it.

 

[rjs330]

Writers who use allegory, myth, and other literary devices do not, obviously, announce that they are doing so.

The problem with that when it comes to Scripture is that no one at the time of the writing specifically of the NT thought any of the OT was allegory. Abraham Isaac and Jacob were the father's of Israel not allegorical people. Jesus and other spoke of the events in the OT as historical events not allegories. Moses was real as was the law handed down by God. That too was spoken of as history not allegory or myth. Scripturally there is NO EVIDENCE that they spoke of the OT in allegorical terms. I would consider the inspired writers as the real authorities on this matter.

 

[KWCrazy]

Because the 7 days were outlined with non specific terms in chapter 1. .

The days were numbered and described as an evening and morning. How much more specific can you get?

 

[Speedwell]

The problem with that when it comes to Scripture is that no one at the time of the writing specifically of the NT thought any of the OT was allegory. Abraham Isaac and Jacob were the father's of Israel not allegorical people. Jesus and other spoke of the events in the OT as historical events not allegories. Moses was real as was the law handed down by God. That too was spoken of as history not allegory or myth. Scripturally there is NO EVIDENCE that they spoke of the OT in allegorical terms. I would consider the inspired writers as the real authorities on this matter.

Although I do not agree entirely with Archivist's genre determination, strictly speaking there is nothing in the definition of allegory which precludes the characters and their actions being based on real people and historical events. And having determined to his satisfaction that the early Genesis stories are allegories, Archivist would be under no obligation to extend that determination willy-nilly to the stories of Abraham and his descendants.

 

[Archivist]

Where in Scripture does it state that Genesis is allegorical?

That's my interpretation. You are, of course, entitled to your interpretation.

 

[JacksBratt]

Writers who use allegory, myth, and other literary devices do not, obviously, announce that they are doing so.

Again, you are picking the scriptures and deciding which you will take to be true and which you will take to be allegorical.
The bible talks of "the lamb", "the shepherd", the "bread of life" and the list goes on.

We can easily see the symbolism. Yet Genesis is the very first writings from God to His creation and you belief it to be a riddle? A metaphor? An allegory?

Right off the hop, God is confusing His creation. The creation whom He wants to have understand Him more than anything?

You believe the virgin birth, the dove at the baptism, including a voice from God shouting "This is my son, in whom I am well pleased", you believe in the last supper, the crucifixion, the rising from the dead, the miracles, right from turning water into wine to walking on water to healing lepers, deaf, and blind...

You believe words from a book that will save your soul. You place the fate of your eternal soul in the words from a book. Yet, words from this same book, that contradict the beliefs, observations, assumptions and teaching of mere men (most of which are atheists) must be allegorical.

They cannot be as true as other words from this same book, that also contradict and betray scientific plausibility, the observations of men and the teaching of mere men....

Well, you do not get to cherry pick the scripture.

You do not get to say which is truth and which is allegory. Just because one story saves your soul and the other........ well your soul is not dependent on them.

I truly believe that this is what Christ meant when He talked about "lukewarm" Christians.

 

[Archivist]

Where in Scripture does it state that Genesis is allegorical?

Where in scripture does it state that Luke 10:30-37 is a parable?