It is not possible to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally.

[public hermit]

if you don't take every word of God as reliable

I am not so sure that not taking it literally entails I am not taking it as reliable.

 

[ajcarey]

I am not setting myself up as judge. I am simply making a distinction between the scriptures and God, the words and the Word.

But who gave you the right to make that distinction, especially considering the truths in Psalm 138:2, Matthew 4:4, and a multitude of other Scriptures which directly teach and militate against us making such a distinction?

 

[Halbhh]

The title is a bit overstated. A more tempered, and personal, version would be, "I find it very difficult to believe those who say they take all of the creation account in Genesis literally."

Why do I say that? There are metaphors in the account that cannot be taken literally. And, if they are taken literally, the interpreter runs the risk of missing the true intent of the metaphor. I'll give a couple examples.

1) In Genesis 1, God separates light from darkness. God calls one Day and the other Night. This is the 1st day. And yet, the luminaries of the sky (Sun, moon, and stars) have yet to be created. Now, I ask, "What is a literal day?" A literal day is, at the very least, a twenty four hour period in which the earth rotates on its axis-the sun being that which determines light or dark. One cannot form a literal concept of a day in regards to the first day of creation. In other words, a metaphor has creeped in somewhere. Someone might attempt to explain the separation of light from darkness by saying, "On the first day, God separated right from wrong, good from evil, good angels from fallen angels." Fine. Whatever. I have no problem someone interpreting the metaphor. That's what we are supposed to do with metaphors. But, let's at least be honest and admit it's a metaphor.

2) In Genesis 2:17 we are told of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." I ask myself, "What kind of tree is that? How do I form a literal conception of that kind of tree?" I challenge anyone reading my words to try, at this moment, to form a literal conception in their minds of such a tree. I contend, without having to try really hard to do so, one cannot form such a conception. Why? Because it is a metaphor. What does that fruit look like in your mind?

Here is the important part. Even if someone were able to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally, it would do them no good. What matters is not affirming its historical reliability. What matters is grasping the spiritual truths being communicated in the account, e.g. God exists, God is Creator, creation is not God, creation is good, humanity is created in the divine image, sin is a killer, humanity is in need of redemption, a promise of redemption has been made, etc.

Believing that something is historically true does not change anything. I believe Billie Holiday is the greatest jazz singer of all time, that doesn't somehow change my life. Arguments over taking the creation account in Genesis literally miss the point (including the argument I am now making). The point is the truths being communicated via the account. And, happily for those of us who accept the account, science can't communicate those truths to us, only the account in Genesis can do that.

Does what I am saying make sense?

Hi friend. I think ultimately this doesn't matter the most. What does matter the most, and I think you already probably agree, is just that we can listen to the wonderful Genesis chapter 1 in faith, and be wonderfully blessed by this listening.

About the far less important question of what to take literally, which is so much less important than faith and listening, it is possible to believe this way or that, and be humble and in a good attitude.

I feel that when we experience that amazing thing that happens when we really listen -- just pure listening with an open heart -- then something good happens to us, even subtle, and that we don't know all about.

And after that, suddenly all the ideas like young/old earth and all the rest don't matter too much. I sincerely do not care that my sister or brother thinks the earth is young or old, or thinks differently than me. I rejoice that she/he believes. This is for real -- I know someone in my church that has a very different view than me (I was surprised at first) and I feel so happy about it, because I can tell she really believes, just like me.

Get that: her viewpoint totally contradicts mine, except that we both truly believe God created all that is -- and it's delightful, and I smile spontaneously when I see her.

(It's almost trivial what I believe, but I'm able to explain to those that know Earth looks very old how that fits easily with Genesis chapter 1 and also 1-3).

 

[public hermit]

It wouldn't do you good- and many who say they believe the Genesis account for this reason fail to translate their belief to real life faith in action.

Yes, that is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[Tolworth John]

Maybe it helps to remember that I didn't say all of Genesis was a metaphor. I said, one cannot take all of Genesis literally. Those two statements are not the same.

I believe humanity has rebelled against God, and I believe that in large part because of Genesis (also because I can simply observe human evil). Likewise, I believe the consequences are real. In this we do not disagree.

The bible says that it was Adam eating the fruit from the tree he had been told not to eat from.

Jesus recognised Adam as literal, Paul refers to a literal Adam, identifing Jesus as the second Adam.

Take Adam out and you cut most of the bible out.

 

[public hermit]

But who gave you the right to make that distinction, especially considering the truths in Psalm 138:2, Matthew 4:4, and a multitude of other Scriptures which directly teach and militate against us making such a distinction?

Do you believe God, the Father, has a mouth? Pace you rendering of Matthew 4:4, you seem to think so if you take that passage literally.

 

[public hermit]

The bible says that it was Adam eating the fruit from the tree he had been told not to eat from.

Jesus recognised Adam as literal, Paul refers to a literal Adam, identifing Jesus as the second Adam.

Take Adam out and you cut most of the bible out.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree.

 

[bèlla]

This is an interesting approach that I will have to take time to consider. My argument does hinge on the idea that taking something as literal entails being able to form some kind of conception of it. If not, then what does "literal" mean? But, maybe that is a blind spot with me.

Consider your question from a child’s vantage point. When a father says I love you. Does the child grasp the gravity of that statement and its implication or how it differs from other forms of love?

No. Something compels their acceptance and belief. And while they don’t understand his love they know its true and feel the same.

Belief is powerful. We don’t operate in that space as adults. But then again, children aren’t natively full of doubt and the other impediments we have to God. Their openness and receptivity is the difference. ;-)

 

[ajcarey]

I am not so sure that not taking it literally entails I am not taking it as reliable.

Do you take these Biblical statement as reliable?

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160)

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6)

If yes, then you must take as literal the passages which are related to us as a literal narrative, like the Genesis account (which the above Scriptures are directly referring to). Otherwise you are indeed saying the Scriptures are unreliable.

 

[public hermit]

And after that, suddenly all the ideas like young/old earth and all the rest don't matter too much. I sincerely do not care that my sister or brother thinks the earth is young or old, or thinks differently than me. I rejoice that she/he believes. This is for real -- I know someone in my church that has a very different view than me (I was surprised at first) and I feel so happy about it, because I can tell she really believes, just like me.

I hear you. I hope my post doesn't come across as condemnatory. In hindsight, maybe I could have put my opinion forth in a more humble way. I embrace people and not their beliefs. Good words, my friend.

 

[public hermit]

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160)

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6)

I do take these as wholly reliable. I just don't take "word" as necessarily implying every word of scripture. I take it to mean God's creative Word, the Word by which God communicates God's will to humanity, and most importantly I take God's Word as Jesus Christ. Yes, creation and God's will and Jesus Christ are all communicated through the scriptures. But, the scriptures are a means to knowing God's Word. The scriptures are a means to an end and not the end in themselves. When we use "word" to refer to both the scriptures and to Jesus CHrist we are equivocating and making a distinction that we too often don't make explicit.

 

[Christ is Lord]

As others have probably stated it doesn’t really matter if you take the account of Genesis as literal or not. What matters is if you ultimately believe that God is creator. For example, if a child asks their parents “how did you make me?” If the parents response is that God made them, is that really literal? It’s not. But we know that all life ultimately comes from God so it can be said that God made the child without getting into too much detail.

 

[ajcarey]

Do you believe God, the Father, has a mouth? Pace you rendering of Matthew 4:4, you seem to think so if you take that passage literally.

How was Jesus living by every word of God when He was tempted by the devil? It was obviously by His subjection to, and confidence in, the Scriptures (which at the time were what we know as the Old Testament). He even recognized when Satan quoted from Psalm 91 incompletely and out of context; He recognized there was a higher principle to follow of not tempting God when He quoted from Deuteronomy to thwart Satan's enticement to Him to jump off the pinnacle of the Temple in hopes the angels would bear Him up in their hands. He was living in consideration of every Word of God and taking it as axiomatic that God had spoke (obviously He was the Word made flesh) and inspired His Word through the holy men who wrote the Scriptures, as 2 Peter 1:21 speaks of.

"19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:19-21)

 

[public hermit]

Consider your question from a child’s vantage point. When a father says I love you. Does the child grasp the gravity of that statement and its implication or how it differs from other forms of love?

So true. I like that analogy. I am trying to be open and receptive.

 

[Halbhh]

I hear you. I hope my post doesn't come across as condemnatory. In hindsight, maybe I could have put my opinion forth in a more humble way. I embrace people and not their beliefs. Good words, my friend.

I think you are probably ok in tone there, but you still might have some people that have energy about it from past discussions with others that became heated show up and try to take it up with you in a heated way, at times with accusatory wording even.

This isn't nearly as important in the big picture, but:

And yet, the luminaries of the sky (Sun, moon, and stars) have yet to be created.

Just to note in case you rely on certain common assumptions in that, there are reasons to examine those assumptions more in light of all the scripture. Such as how do visions come, and what are they like (1rst Samuel chapter 3 verse 1 can help some: visions are the normal way things are communicated) -- for instance by reviewing the vision to Peter in Acts chapter 10, and noticing how the narration from God was so brief, and only just-enough was said to only allow a later understanding of the true meaning, which definitely was not to grab a bow and go hunting for physical food for supper. Here in Genesis chapter 1 the vision being given also has very few words of actual narration, usually in quotation marks in most translations, just like the Acts chapter 10 vision has very few words of narration, and is not clear at first to the recipient. Moses would have no idea of what he was seeing, and would have to just write down best he could what it seemed to be, but there are words spoken by the Lord, and those words are about the real meaning, which also we can see repeated 7 times in the chapter: that this Earth was made a "very good" home for us, so that even the stars in the sky are for our benefit just for the quality of our home! When they were made? -- whole different question, but that answer is during the time in verse 1, before the time in verse 2. But in the vision they are not revealed (are not visible yet) until the 4th day.

 

[public hermit]

How was Jesus living by every word of God when He was tempted by the devil? It was obviously by His subjection to, and confidence in, the Scriptures (which at the time were what we know as the Old Testament).

I don't really disagree with what you're saying, for the most part. But, we equivocate over the word "word." God's creative "word" was not the scriptures. Jesus Christ is the Word, but not the scriptures. The fact that Christ quoted the scriptures is important, but it doesn't mean every word of the scriptures is to be taken literally. How to you take Song of Songs literally?

 

[ajcarey]

I do take these as wholly reliable. I just don't take "word" as necessarily implying every word of scripture. I take it to mean God's creative Word, the Word by which God communicates God's will to humanity, and most importantly I take God's Word as Jesus Christ. Yes, creation and God's will and Jesus Christ are all communicated through the scriptures. But, the scriptures are a means to knowing God's Word. The scriptures are a means to an end and not the end in themselves. When we use "word" to refer to both the scriptures and to Jesus CHrist we are equivocating and making a distinction that we too often don't make explicit.

But when you don't receive all the words of Scripture you are manipulating your concept of God and not knowing Him as He intended to be known. And as I've said, you've opened a Pandora's Box to question anything and everything in the Bible; and this is the very same principle by which Satan got Eve to transgress and caused her to die.

 

[Christ is Lord]

How to you take Song of Songs literally?

I take it as primarily love poetry (and even erotic) between a man and a woman. A lot of Christians try to make it symbolic and say it’s about Christ love for the church.

 

[public hermit]

Just to note in case you rely on certain common assumptions in that, there are reasons to examine those assumptions more in light of all the scripture. Such as how do visions come, and what are they like (1rst Samuel chapter 3 verse 1 can help some: visions are the normal way things are communicated) -- for instance by reviewing the vision to Peter in Acts chapter 10, and noticing how the narration from God was so brief, and only just-enough was said to only allow a later understanding of the true meaning, which definitely was not to grab a bow and go hunting for physical food for supper. Here in Genesis chapter 1 the vision being given also has very few words of actual narration, usually in quotation marks in most translations, just like the Acts chapter 10 vision has very few words of narration, and is not clear at first to the recipient. Moses would have no idea of what he was seeing, and would have to just write down best he could what it seemed to be, but there are words spoken by the Lord, and those words are about the real meaning, which also we can see repeated 7 times in the chapter: that this Earth was made a "very good" home for us, so that even the stars in the sky are for our benefit just for the quality of our home! When they were made? -- whole different question, but that answer is during the time in verse 1, before the time in verse 2. But in the vision they are not revealed (are not visible yet) until the 4th day.

I really like this. This is helpful. Thank you.

 

[public hermit]

But when you don't receive all the words of Scripture

I do receive all the words of scripture. I am not a big fan of comparing what I am doing with Satan. But, I believe your heart is in the right place.