The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

[Saint Steven]

The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?
- Was Adam the first human, a created being?
- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)
- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?
- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)
- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)

Luke 3:38 NIV
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The Genesis account seems reasonable.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

On most things in the Bible I'm more literal, but I'm an old Earth Creationist so that puts me on the more figurative side of things. There's a lot of reasons for this. Probably the biggest is God has given us the ability to figure things out. We can measure various things and count things like speed and distance and that is why we have things like radar, and other instruments that measure, distance, speed etc. So it would be weird for God to make something that would radically throw this off, when in general those things are usually reliable (barring things like radioactive isotopes or whatever, I'm talking about overall statically reliability. Without it those kinds of devices would be useless).

But this is important because one of the definitions of truth in the Bible is Alethia which is Truth in the objective and factual sense. Not to mention the general mandate of Genesis of God wanting Adam to "take Dominion" so the ability to figure out actual laws of nature, and accurate chronology could fit into that. And yes those Yoms could be ages of Creation.


Besides this there is the aspect of the Genesis narrative fitting into other narratives of the Near East, both because the Israelites were of that general culture but also as a polemic against some of those religions especially against the Anunaki. Michael Heiser has a lot to say about that and it quite educational.

And there are other reasons to. Historically speaking the Jews and Early Christians are literalists but there is no reason in terms of official Dogma etc. that would mandate that a person has to be a strict six day literal creationist, other than certain interpretations of Sola Scriptura seem to encourage it. But I think this is more a function of the ideology of the person than something that is inherent in the text or necessitated by the Faith. I mean the term, Adam was originally understood as being a word for "the man" rather than a person's first name, so that should tell you something.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I am an OEC as well, but we are not allowed to speculate beyond the Genesis account.

 

[trophy33]

The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?
- Was Adam the first human, a created being?
- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)
- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?
- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)
- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)

Luke 3:38 NIV
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Genesis contains two accounts of creation, the one in chapter 2 is older, the one in chapter 1 is probably from the time in Babylon. The redactors of the Bible put them together.

Of course its not scientific, people did not think in scientific way back then. It was written in the era of mythological dramas, symbolic stories, psychological metaphors.

Its point is not to teach how it was technically done, its point is to show us our place in the world, our archetypal struggles with evil/chaos and to teach us monotheism.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?
- Was Adam the first human, a created being?
- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)
- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?
- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)
- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)

Luke 3:38 NIV
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

It is safe to say that all of us take some things literal and some things figurative in scripture. What is important is how we apply these interpretations so we do not question the character of God.
A few of your questions pertain to His character. The creation of Adam as the first human ,whether he was made in God's image and Christ's genealogy. If these are not taken literally, His character begins to fall apart. Your other question , days of creation can certainty be taken symbolically with no consequence.
Be blessed.

 

[trophy33]

The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?

Most probably not.

- Was Adam the first human, a created being?

Most probably not. But he could be the first "priest" taken from the group of humans, by God, to represent them before God.

- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)

No, it has nothing to do with God's shape.

- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?

Most probably figurative, but it may represent/reflect some realities from the far past.

- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)

Most probably yes.

- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)

Theologically/regarding the priest line - yes, correct.
Technically/biologically - most probably no.

 

[HTacianas]

The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?
- Was Adam the first human, a created being?
- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)
- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?
- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)
- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)

Luke 3:38 NIV
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Around 220 or so AD, Origen determined that the creation account of Genesis was not six literal days based on its internal wording, plants growing before the sun was created, etc. There are rabbinical stories among Jews of "other worlds", meaning "worlds before ours", or rather, "times before ours", where God created but was unhappy with creation and wiped it out and began again. Some say that is why God is called "The Ancient of Days", meaning "Of The Ancient Days".

Most of the people I've encountered who hold the strongest to a literal six day creation have barely read Genesis except for at a Sunday school level. We had someone pop up here in the forum all but ranting in his introduction that he believed in a six day creation and that Jonah was swallowed by a literal whale instead of a fish just like it says in the bible. But the bible says Jonah was swallowed by a fish.

 

[bling]

How does it matter to you if it was figurative or literal?
Why couldn't God create everything in a literal six days?
When Adam was one day old did he look like a one day old baby?
If God did create everything less then 10,000 years ago, why might He want it to look like it was 14 billion years old?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?
- Was Adam the first human, a created being?
- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)
- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?
- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)
- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)

Luke 3:38 NIV
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

The solar day didn't begin until day 4.

A lot of good figurative applications as well.

 

[Jipsah]

The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?

Nah. High poetry.

- Was Adam the first human, a created being?

One way or another, yeah. I don't presume to claim to know how God went about creating him.

- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)

Appearance? No. Poetry again.

- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?

Poetic, meant to be memorized and recited.

- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)

Of course.

- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)

I'll say yes, but if I find it was more poetry, fair play; I'be been wrong before.[/quote]

 

[Dkh587]

The Bible teaches that it was a literal 6 days, despite many not accepting that it is presented as literal, even by God himself.

This is God speaking:

Exodus 20:8-11

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of Yahweh thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates, for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Yahweh blessed the sabbath day, and made it holy

 

[Jipsah]

Why couldn't God create everything in a literal six days?

He certainly could have, but there seems no empirical evidencxe that He did.

When Adam was one day old did he look like a one day old baby?

I rather expect so, Scripture doesn't say, does it?

If God did create everything less then 10,000 years ago, why might He want it to look like it was 14 billion years old?

Practical joke?

 

[Saint Steven]

The Bible teaches that it was a literal 6 days, despite many not accepting that it is presented as literal, even by God himself.

This is God speaking:

Exodus 20:8-11
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of Yahweh thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates, for in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Yahweh blessed the sabbath day, and made it holy

That is a good point. Thanks for weighing in on this.
I was also thinking of the creation account itself in Genesis tells us the measure of a day as sunset and sunrise. Seemingly a 24 hour period. However, the sun isn't created until later in the week. Not sure how that works.

I was raised Evangelical. So a literal view is what I grew up with. However, some folks that I have a lot of respect for take a figurative view. So, I want to consider how they arrived at such a view.

Responses have been pretty one-sided so far. Perhaps I will argue from the literal side and see where this goes. Please post any other evidence you can think of. Thanks.

 

[Saint Steven]

... I mean the term, Adam was originally understood as being a word for "the man" rather than a person's first name, so that should tell you something. ...

Thanks for your comments. Question on this bit...

Christ is referred to as the second Adam. Does that lose something if the first Adam was figurative? If so, why isn't the second Adam figurative as well?

 

[Saint Steven]

Genesis contains two accounts of creation, the one in chapter 2 is older, the one in chapter 1 is probably from the time in Babylon. The redactors of the Bible put them together.

Of course its not scientific, people did not think in scientific way back then. It was written in the era of mythological dramas, symbolic stories, psychological metaphors.

Its point is not to teach how it was technically done, its point is to show us our place in the world, our archetypal struggles with evil/chaos and to teach us monotheism.

What about Adam? Real man, or concept, or ???

 

[renniks]

Literal for the most part. The thing is, it doesn't tell us everything. The earth can literally be created in six days and billions of years old at the same time.

 

[Saint Steven]

It is safe to say that all of us take some things literal and some things figurative in scripture. What is important is how we apply these interpretations so we do not question the character of God.
A few of your questions pertain to His character. The creation of Adam as the first human ,whether he was made in God's image and Christ's genealogy. If these are not taken literally, His character begins to fall apart. Your other question , days of creation can certainty be taken symbolically with no consequence.
Be blessed.

That's an interesting view regarding God's character. A figurative text isn't really even true in a factual sense. It becomes a fable or myth.

 

[Saint Steven]

Most probably not.


Most probably not. But he could be the first "priest" taken from the group of humans, by God, to represent them before God.


No, it has nothing to do with God's shape.


Most probably figurative, but it may represent/reflect some realities from the far past.


Most probably yes.

Theologically/regarding the priest line - yes, correct.
Technically/biologically - most probably no.

How did you arrive at these views?

 

[renniks]

What about Adam? Real man, or concept, or ???

Jesus referring to Adam as a real person:
Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
(Matthew 19:3-6 NASB;