Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Archivist]

You can toss out that term if you like, but it holds no water here.

So now you have appointed yourself as the judge of what does and does not hold water.

Paul and Christ had a better understanding of Scripture than anyone who disagrees with them do.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with either.

Like I said I used your own logic against you and you dismissed it.

No, I addressed what you said. Here are my exact words: "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."

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.

And I'm not disagreeing with any of them. I've never said that it is untrue, I have said that I read it as an allegory.

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.

What men's words am I taking "over the Words of Christ and God and the apostles?" Now you are making stuff up as I have never quoted anything other than scripture in this thread.[/QUOTE]

 

[Archivist]

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.

Just out of curiosity, is the bread of Holy Communion the actual body of Christ?

 

[JacksBratt]

Just out of curiosity, is the bread of Holy Communion the actual body of Christ?

Seeing that you are Lutheran, I am going to guess that you believe that it is.

As I am Protestant. Well, raised that way and have attended associated gospel, baptist, Pentecostal and christian reform churches during my life as a church goer....I would say no, it is not actually Christ's body.

The reason for my belief is simply the fact that Christ was holding the bread and the wine was in a cup when He made the statement. I have a hard time believing that the bread He was holding, suddenly became His actual body. Or that the wine in the cup suddenly became His blood.

The emblems simple "represent" His body and His blood and we do it to "remember" Him not to consume His physical flesh and blood.

 

[JacksBratt]

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

It doesn't say, in scripture, that it is a parable. However, what are the characteristics of a parable?
1/ brief and use as little detail and words as necessary
2/ has simplicity
3/ focus on normal humans of typical life events.
4/ fictional characters, no names are used.
5/ they are engaging stories and captivate the listener
6/the point or crucial matter is at the end
7/they show a single point of Christ's ministry.
8/They seek to change the behavior of the listener
9/frequently allude to OT scripture
10/ can be told as many in succession.

But studying parables and their characteristics, anyone can recognize this story as a parable, even though it is not stated as such.

 

[Archivist]

Seeing that you are Lutheran, I am going to guess that you believe that it is. As I am Protestant. Well, raised that way and have attended associated gospel, baptist, Pentecostal and christian reform churches during my life as a church goer....I would say no, it is not actually Christ's body.

And Lutherans are also Protestants. Remember the Reformation? That was Luther's doing...

The reason for my belief is simply the fact that Christ was holding the bread and the wine was in a cup when He made the statement. I have a hard time believing that the bread He was holding, suddenly became His actual body. Or that the wine in the cup suddenly became His blood. The emblems simple "represent" His body and His blood and we do it to "remember" Him not to consume His physical flesh and blood.

And this is interpretation. Jesus said "this is my body." He didn't say "this represents my body," although if that was what He meant he certainly could have done so. Likewise, the parable of the Good Samaritan--Jesus told that as if it was a factual account. He didn't begin the account with the words "A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away."

Essentially you are saying that we all have to believe your interpretation of scripture when you insist that the exact words must apply, but are free to ignore the plain meaning of the words when you think otherwise.

I keep saying that we are all entitled to our own interpretation of scripture. I believe that the bread and wine of Holy Communion are the body and blood of Jesus because He said they are. I believe that the Good Samaritan was a parable because Jesus taught using parables. And, yes, I believe that the creation accounts in Genesis are allegories because they are differing accounts of creation that use symbolic figures to illustrate a truth, that being that God created everything.

 

[rjs330]

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

I meant that it's not specific in details of the creative process. For example the Bible doesn't list every tree individually nor does it say specifically that the earth revolves around the sun etc.

I'm actually kinda surprised KW that you would even mention this to me as you should know that I believe in the 7 day creation and have been a staunch defender of Genesis 1&2. Perhaps you thought I've weakened my position? I assure you I haven't. God bless you.

 

[Archivist]

It doesn't say, in scripture, that it is a parable. However, what are the characteristics of a parable?
1/ brief and use as little detail and words as necessary
2/ has simplicity
3/ focus on normal humans of typical life events.
4/ fictional characters, no names are used.
5/ they are engaging stories and captivate the listener
6/the point or crucial matter is at the end
7/they show a single point of Christ's ministry.
8/They seek to change the behavior of the listener
9/frequently allude to OT scripture
10/ can be told as many in succession.

But studying parables and their characteristics, anyone can recognize this story as a parable, even though it is not stated as such.

And I also recognize the story as a parable. But I also recognize the Genesis creation accounts as allegories that describe humankind's relationship to creation and the creator, rather than describing an actual historical event or six literal days of creation.

Again, you are free to have your own interpretation.

 

[rjs330]

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.

Why not? It's entirely inconsistent not to. Especially when there is no evidence to do so. In the NT in one sentence Abraham can be spoken of and it is accepted as historical. Then in the next Adam or Cain is spoken of and it's allegorical. Yet there is no identifying factors that would deliniate between the two and how we could possibly know the difference.

 

[rjs330]

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

Where is your scriptural evidence?

 

[rjs330]

So now you have appointed yourself as the judge of what does and does not hold water.



I'm certainly not disagreeing with either.



No, I addressed what you said. Here are my exact words: "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."



And I'm not disagreeing with any of them. I've never said that it is untrue, I have said that I read it as an allegory.



What men's words am I taking "over the Words of Christ and God and the apostles?" Now you are making stuff up as I have never quoted anything other than scripture in this thread.

[/QUOTE]
But you have quoted no Scripture to support your allegorical theory.

 

[JacksBratt]

Again, you are free to have your own interpretation.

Why thank you... and you are also... for both your posts that quote me.

 

[rjs330]

So now you have appointed yourself as the judge of what does and does not hold water.



I'm certainly not disagreeing with either.



No, I addressed what you said. Here are my exact words: "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."



And I'm not disagreeing with any of them. I've never said that it is untrue, I have said that I read it as an allegory.



What men's words am I taking "over the Words of Christ and God and the apostles?" Now you are making stuff up as I have never quoted anything other than scripture in this thread.

[/QUOTE]
You said you know about Jesus because of the other books in the bible that support the reality of his life, death and resurrection. I pointed out that it is illogical to take that stance then turn around and dismiss that very stance when it come to Genesis and o ly Genesis 1&2. Why because other books and other authors support what is written there. So your stance is double minded. One one hand you accept written words by various authors is support of your belief, and on the other hand you reject the words written by various authors who don't support your belief.

I accepted your premise. I accept your premise on both accounts. I believe that the various authors and Scripture supporting Jesus because they are numerous and written at different times but different people. I also use the same standard to validate Genesis.

You my brother are inconsistent here I think.

 

[DarthNeo]

If Genesis isn't literal, why should we believe any of the Bible is literal...?

Of COURSE Genesis is LITERAL...

 

[Archivist]

Where is your scriptural evidence?

But you have quoted no Scripture to support your allegorical theory.[/QUOTE]

But you have provided no scriptural evidence to support you claim that the Story of the Good Samaritan is a parable.

Essentially what you have said throughout this this tread is that we must believe those portions of scripture as factual if you have deemed them to be true while not accepting those portions as factual if you have deemed them to not be factual.

 

[Archivist]

You said you know about Jesus because of the other books in the bible that support the reality of his life, death and resurrection. I pointed out that it is illogical to take that stance then turn around and dismiss that very stance when it come to Genesis and o ly Genesis 1&2. Why because other books and other authors support what is written there. So your stance is double minded. One one hand you accept written words by various authors is support of your belief, and on the other hand you reject the words written by various authors who don't support your belief.

I accepted your premise. I accept your premise on both accounts. I believe that the various authors and Scripture supporting Jesus because they are numerous and written at different times but different people. I also use the same standard to validate Genesis.

You my brother are inconsistent here I think.

Again, what books validate Genesis without relying on Genesis? Name them please.

I am not the one being inconsistent.

 

[Speedwell]

Why not? It's entirely inconsistent not to.

What? You come up with an interpretive stance for the 6-day story, and whatever that is has to apply to the whole book of stories?

Especially when there is no evidence to do so. In the NT in one sentence Abraham can be spoken of and it is accepted as historical. Then in the next Adam or Cain is spoken of and it's allegorical. Yet there is no identifying factors that would delineate between the two and how we could possibly know the difference.

How do you tell the difference when reading something other than the Bible? Surely this is something we all covered in English lit. classes.

 

[expos4ever]

Again, you are picking the scriptures and deciding which you will take to be true and which you will take to be allegorical.

Of course I am!

When you read Goldilocks and the Three Bears, you "decide" to take it is a fable (and not literally).

This "deciding" you appear to demean is called being educated and literate.

 

[expos4ever]

The bible talks of "the lamb", "the shepherd", the "bread of life" and the list goes on.

This is not an argument you want to make. Consider the talking snake from the creation account.

Yes, a talking snake. Somewhere deep down, I suspect you know that a snake that opens it fangs and speaks in human language is not to be taken literally.

Talk about symbolism that is easy to see.

And then there is the tree with the fruit. I politely suggest the author could not have hit you over the head harder with his intention to pen myth, not literal history.

 

[SeventyOne]

This is not an argument you want to make. Consider the talking snake from the creation account.

Yes, a talking snake. Somewhere deep down, I suspect you know that a snake that opens it fangs and speaks in human language is not to be taken literally.

Talk about symbolism that is easy to see.

And then there is the tree with the fruit. I politely suggest the author could not have hit you over the head harder with his intention to pen myth, not literal history.

Except it's not that easy to see when we also have a literal talking donkey in Numbers and a continued literal curse on the snake into the new earth. What's hard to see is the symbolism forced upon the situation.

 

[JacksBratt]

This is not an argument you want to make. Consider the talking snake from the creation account.

Yes, a talking snake. Somewhere deep down, I suspect you know that a snake that opens it fangs and speaks in human language is not to be taken literally.

Talk about symbolism that is easy to see.

And then there is the tree with the fruit. I politely suggest the author could not have hit you over the head harder with his intention to pen myth, not literal history.

What does the symbol of a talking snake "symbolize"?