Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Speedwell]

It is not possible to answer such a question. Your notion that historical narrative is either 100% literal and accurate or "false" prevents it.

But that part of the Bible is just not important to me in the same way as it is to you. I accept the Jewish assumption that the real business of the OT begins with Abraham. As a Christian, all I need to take away from the creation accounts is that God created the universe and man and that man disobeyed God and fell into sin. A chapter of hymnody and a chapter of etiology serve that purpose just as well as straight factual reporting, and in a higher form of literature. Calling Gen 1 & 2 straight factual reporting is a big step down, like saying that painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling is the same as whitewashing a chicken coop.

 

[rjs330]

How do you know it was a literal talking donkey in Numbers?

Because there is no other reason to believe otherwise. There is no literary indication otherwise and in fact it is supported in the NT by Peter. Once again you have to be able to distinguish between fact or fiction and have method for doing so. If you can't apply the same standard to all you have to have the ability to parse it out. Just saying so doesn't make it so. I am consistent on this. I don't say this story is real and this story isn't based upon just cause. It is either all the stories are not history or they are history. You can't have it both ways without evidence of such.

 

[rjs330]

I never said the statement "this is my body," the words of Jesus, was a parable. Don't put words in my mouth. I believe that the bread of Holy Communion is the body of Christ.



True. My view is that the story of the Good Samaritan is a parable.



Nobody who participated in the Last Supper thought that the bread and wine were the body and blood of Christ? You know that how????



OK. No argument.



According to your interpretation.

Why do you believe that because Jesus said so, but you don't believe Genesis 1 when God said so?

 

[rjs330]

I politely suggest that almost anyone over the age of 8 would recognize a talking animal - whether a donkey or a serpent - as not intended to be taken literally. This is part of the problem with arguing with creationists: you guys are literally begging to be ridiculed, with your rejection of the findings of mainstream science and the necessary associated embrace of absurd conspiracy theories to make the whole schmozzle hang together (e.g. you have to believe that all these thousands of highly trained experts are either all mistaken or, worse, conspiring to hide truth).

You and others may think this is not playing fair, but I suggest a major distorting factor in this whole debate is that, in the interests of politesse, we are forced to walk on eggshells as we point out the glaring problems with a worldview that has entirely been discredited except, of course, in the niche of American fundamentalism.

Now about the serpent. So what that it is described as on its belly in Isaiah? One doesn't need to be a genius to realize that the author of Genesis could have concocted a myth whereby the snake functions as a symbol for evil. And what better way to underscore the subjugation of evil in the world to come than by representing the serpent as still consigned to its belly.

But I think there is a better counter-argument: Isaiah mistakenly believed the creation account to be literal! And who could blame him - unlike we in the 21st century, good old Isaiah certainly knew nothing about evolution. So, naturally enough, he writes his material about the serpent, intending to be taken literally. But, the worldview undergirding his intent has clearly been discredited.

And here comes the evolution argument. Please let's not go there on this thread. I know the prophets and apostles and Jesus were a bunch of guys in the old days who are not as enlightened as we are these days, but they were inspir d by God and did write the books in the bible and had all this understanding from God, but somehow had no clue about what God did.

Please stick with some other method of deciding what is factual in the bible and what isn't besides the theory or evolution.

 

[expos4ever]

The axiom of equality holds that if a=b and b=c that a=c. In this case, if a is impossible and c is impossible than both a and c are impossible. Right? With me so far? There are no degrees of impossible. There are degrees of difficulty, but impossible equals only impossible.

So then the following things are all impossible:
A six day creation
Man from dirt
Woman from a rib
A tree of life
A tree of knowledge
A talking serpent
A curse based on an action
A global flood
The sun standing for a day
Manna from heaven
Water from rocks
A virgin birth
Resurrection after death
Blind men seeing
Lame men walking
Waking on water
Calming a storm...

I have no idea what you are saying.

Clearly all of the above are possible - no is denying the possibility that God could have made the world just as described in the book of Genesis.

The list could go on. There are 333 miracles described in the Bible, all of which are equally impossible.

No miracles are impossible - I do not follow your reasoning.

Since this is a Christians Only forum, logically we must assume that you are a Christian and that you believe in a certain number of these impossible things.

Indeed I do believe some of the things in your list are "literally" true.

How do you decide which impossible thing to accept and which to reject,...

I can't answer that in the general case - each item has to be considered separately. But generally speaking, I reject the literal truth of things for which there is compelling counter-evidence:

- a 6000 or 10000 year old earth
- a worldwide flood.

I also tend to disbelieve in the "literality" of things where there is a clear cultural / literary / historical tradition that strongly suggests a non-literal interpretation:

- a talking snake or donkey (having animals talk is, I believe, often used as a literary device. Plus the snake is a universal symbol of evil).

On the other hand, I take the resurrection literally since, without an actual resurrection, there really is no "real" solution to the problem of death, which otherwise certainly appears to be one of the main narrative threads of the entire Bible.

and why would you you presume that anyone who believes MORE in Scripture than you do should be open to ridicule?

Because in the case of evolution, the debate is basically over. You (and even I) might not like it, but it is what it is. Burying one's head in the sand does not change reality.

 

[Archivist]

Why do you believe that because Jesus said so, but you don't believe Genesis 1 when God said so?

You keep ignoring my question, and I'm tired of responding to you when you ignore my questions. Answer mine, I'll answer yours.

 

[rjs330]

So, once again, you are saying that if you have decided that something in scripture is not a factual account then rest of us are free to accept it as a parable, but if you have decided that it is factual then we must accept it as factual. Your view is the deciding factor.

Once again, the fact that later scripture cites Genesis does not validate Genesis as a factual historical account. Provide one source contemporary with Genesis that validates Genesis. You have failed to do that despite requests that you do so.

The gospel accounts validate each other. There is no such contemporary account they validates the conflicting Genesis creation allegories.

Not even if God said so? That doesn't count either? So the apostles and Jesus have no understanding or standing here?

I can quote a lot of scriptures to you about Genesis and the events spoken of taken as history.

You do realize that some of the gospels were written quite a while after Christs death and resurrection. How do we know those events took place? Maybe they made them up?

What about the rest of the OT. Is that all allegory too? Not a lot of those books are contemporaries either.

 

[Speedwell]

Why do you believe that because Jesus said so, but you don't believe Genesis 1 when God said so?

God said so?
Presumes the theory of Plenary Verbal Inspiration at least, perhaps Dictation theory.

 

[Speedwell]

I can quote a lot of scriptures to you about Genesis and the events spoken of taken as history.

What kind of history? Oh, right. You only admit to the existence of one kind.

 

[expos4ever]

And here comes the evolution argument. Please let's not go there on this thread. I know the prophets and apostles and Jesus were a bunch of guys in the old days who are not as enlightened as we are these days, but they were inspir d by God and did write the books in the bible and had all this understanding from God, but somehow had no clue about what God did.

I suggest you are basically subscribing to one particular interpretation of what it means to view the Scriptures as inspired. I see no compelling Biblical argument to believe that Paul, Moses, Solomon, or even Jesus were not "mistaken" about some things.

Yes, all scripture is "inspired" by God. But God could inspire a writer to communicate an important fundamental truth through the means of allegory or other literary device. Even if, repeat even if, the writer was not aware that they were using such literary device.

Consider Revelation. I pretty much guarantee you that > 90 % of scholars believe that book is riddled with literary device.

I suggest your "I know the prophets and apostles and Jesus were a bunch of guys in the old days who are not as enlightened as we are these days.." statement does not help your case - it is you who appear to believe that these "guys" did not have the wit to know a good metaphor when they saw one.

 

[expos4ever]

I can quote a lot of scriptures to you about Genesis and the events spoken of taken as history.

I am sure you can. But I see no reason to reject the possibility that, with respect to the creation account at least, the author (or the speaker in the case of Jesus) may have believed in the literal truth of what they were saying, but were mistaken.

I expect this will produce the usual, pious-sounding objections that I am somehow attacking the integrity of Scripture. Well, those complaints appear to be just air. But please prove me wrong. I have proven repeatedly what should be obvious - there are certain things Jesus does not know! There is no debate about this!

So why could one of the things He does not know is that the creation account is a "myth"?

 

[SeventyOne]

I politely suggest that almost anyone over the age of 8 would recognize a talking animal - whether a donkey or a serpent - as not intended to be taken literally.

Perhaps an 8-year old whose been brainwashed in school into evolution like most other 8-year olds today. But not one who has been raised to see the scripture for the truth that it is.

 

[expos4ever]

Perhaps an 8-year old whose been brainwashed in school into evolution like most other 8-year olds today. But not one who has been raised to see the scripture for the truth that it is.

The "brainwash" card is really your only play. You are free to believe whatever you like; however, it looks exceedingly suspicious when your response to an overwhelming scientific consensus is to cry "brainwash!"

 

[Speedwell]

Perhaps an 8-year old whose been brainwashed in school into evolution like most other 8-year olds today. But not one who has been raised to see the scripture for the truth that it is.

Typically, an 8 year old is in third grade. I doubt that much "brainwashing" of that kind goes on in the third grade.

 

[Archivist]

Not even if God said so? That doesn't count either? So the apostles and Jesus have no understanding or standing here?

I'm still awaiting an answer. One account contemporary with Genesis that confirms Genesis as a factual account. Please, name it.

I can quote a lot of scriptures to you about Genesis and the events spoken of taken as history.

Again, the fact that later authors cited Genesis doesn't verify Genesis as a factual history.

You do realize that some of the gospels were written quite a while after Christs death and resurrection. How do we know those events took place? Maybe they made them up?

Except that we have multiple accounts by different authors written shortly after the events that agree on all major points. We also have references to Jesus written by Jewish historian Josephus.

What about the rest of the OT. Is that all allegory too? Not a lot of those books are contemporaries either.

.
I don't regard all if the OT as allegory. Never made such a statement. Of course you are free to your interpretation.

 

[rjs330]

It is not possible to answer such a question. Your notion that historical narrative is either 100% literal and accurate or "false" prevents it.

You can still answer the question. I may not buy the answer but you can still answer it. Why avoid the answer?

 

[rjs330]

You keep ignoring my question, and I'm tired of responding to you when you ignore my questions. Answer mine, I'll answer yours.

Ive already answered the good Samaritan question. I will even throw this in. We don't know for sure if Jesus was telling a parable or a true story. There are very valid reasons to believe it is one and they have been outlined for you. But in the end it was one story as we're all the stories Jesus told and none of them were validated in any way to be historical narrative. There is more evidence that it wasn't than it was. But I am not going to be dogmatic on that account because all we have is the original told by Christ and that is all we have.

Now as far as Genesis is concerned we have the following scriptures to support history not allegory.

Ex. 20:8-11
Gen 5
Gen 11:10-26
PS 33:6, 9
Ezk 31:8-9
I Chronicles 1

Luke 11:49-52
Matt 24:36-39
John 8-54-56
Matt 12:40-41
Romans 5
Rom 16:20
I Tim 2:13-14
Hebrews 4:4
Heb 4:10
I Peter 3:20
Heb 11:4

So, you see there is plenty of scripture to indicate the historical Genesis and not an allegorical one. For me the most compelling is God's words in Exodus and Jesus own statements. Since He is the creator I would think he knows for sure.

I have yet to hear from the allegory believers where in Scripture it is shown to possibly be allegory. While there is plenty of scripture to state it was not.

 

[rjs330]

God said so?
Presumes the theory of Plenary Verbal Inspiration at least, perhaps Dictation theory.

Presumes that the writer of Exodus quoted God just like it says. "And God spake all these words saying". Kind of hard to miss out on that part.

 

[rjs330]

I suggest you are basically subscribing to one particular interpretation of what it means to view the Scriptures as inspired. I see no compelling Biblical argument to believe that Paul, Moses, Solomon, or even Jesus were not "mistaken" about some things.

Yes, all scripture is "inspired" by God. But God could inspire a writer to communicate an important fundamental truth through the means of allegory or other literary device. Even if, repeat even if, the writer was not aware that they were using such literary device.

Consider Revelation. I pretty much guarantee you that > 90 % of scholars believe that book is riddled with literary device.

I suggest your "I know the prophets and apostles and Jesus were a bunch of guys in the old days who are not as enlightened as we are these days.." statement does not help your case - it is you who appear to believe that these "guys" did not have the wit to know a good metaphor when they saw one.

Jesus was mistaken? Wow what a low opinion of the one who actually was there. And he also was the creator. Man where do figure that?

And Revelation was a vision. And as far as visions go it is typical of such as seen in other visions in the bible.

Where do you find any scriptural evidence that it was allegory or metephor or whatever you want to call it. I have yet to see evidence of it.

 

[rjs330]

I am sure you can. But I see no reason to reject the possibility that, with respect to the creation account at least, the author (or the speaker in the case of Jesus) may have believed in the literal truth of what they were saying, but were mistaken.

I expect this will produce the usual, pious-sounding objections that I am somehow attacking the integrity of Scripture. Well, those complaints appear to be just air. But please prove me wrong. I have proven repeatedly what should be obvious - there are certain things Jesus does not know! There is no debate about this!

So why could one of the things He does not know is that the creation account is a "myth"?

How about the fact that Jesus was actually the creator. Would that be enough?