The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
8,845
3,551
N/A
✟145,229.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Do you understand that there are literal consequences for the Fall of humanity? (original sin)

Why would the consequences be literal if the Fall was only figurative? Would God punish us for the implications of a fabricated myth?

Saint Steven said:
Actually, I think theological concepts would be a real problem. Adam, and what he literally did, is the basis for the Fall of humankind. Jesus came to literally undo, what the literal Adam, literally did. - lol

Unless you think Jesus came to figuratively undo, what the figurative Adam, figuratively did? Where does that leave us?
You give many questions, but I do not see basis for these questions.

What literal consequences do you mean, what do you mean by the original sin etc. Are these real or just theological concepts?

What do you mean by "fabricated myth"? Is myth something bad for you? Mythology was just a way people communicated back then, its not bad or good. Myth is not a fabrication, myth is a story that communicates some message about reality with the usage of symbolism, metaphors.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul quite likely though Adam was a historical person. But it's easy to recast his insight in a modern way. Humanity as it naturally evolved was based on survival of the fittest. Jesus founded a new humanity, based on love of God and neighbor.

The fundamental point behind Paul's theology is really new people as part of a new humanity, not so much restoration of a pre-Fall situation. Indeed Paul's comparisons between Adam and Christ don't mention a pre-Fall perfection, nor its restoration. They see Christ as a founder of a second humanity, in contrast to Adam, the founder of the first humanity.
It sounds like you are attempting to conform the Bible to modern thought. What do you make of these texts? (in reference to the restoration of all things)

Matt 19:28
Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Acts 3:21
Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

Rom 8:20-21
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tryphena rose
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
As I have said all along, I think there are problems with both views. This is one of them.

However, the tree of life comes up again in Revelation. What do you make of that? Literal or figurative?
That is the problem, both books, Genesis and Revelation use metaphors at times.

A metaphor is a comparison made between two or more things using figurative or descriptive language. Metaphors turn difficult ideas into simple concepts.

The tree of life is always Jesus. We have been grafted into the root of that cultivated olive tree according to Romans. Also Jesus is the branch in Zechariah 3:8, 6:12.

As for the knowledge of good and evil, that tree would represent the knowledge of God and sin at the same time.

To deny symbols and metaphors in both texts would be incorrect. Yet, a full literal understanding is also impossible.
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You give many questions, but I do not see basis for these questions.

What literal consequences do you mean, what do you mean by the original sin etc. Are these real or just theological concepts?

What do you mean by "fabricated myth"? Is myth something bad for you? Mythology was just a way people communicated back then, its not bad or good. Myth is not a fabrication, myth is a story that communicates some message about reality with the usage of symbolism, metaphors.
I'm trying figure out where you are coming from so that we have a starting point for discussing further. (that's why the questions) But I don't want to get too far off topic.

If Genesis is a myth (whether that is good or bad) then the theology built on it is also a myth. Are we held accountable to things that happened in a myth? These things are quite important in the New Testament scriptures. What do these scriptures mean if there was no real Adam?

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

Romans 5:15-16
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Saint Steven said:
Do you understand that there are literal consequences for the Fall of humanity? (original sin)

Why would the consequences be literal if the Fall was only figurative? Would God punish us for the implications of a fabricated myth?

Saint Steven said:
Actually, I think theological concepts would be a real problem. Adam, and what he literally did, is the basis for the Fall of humankind. Jesus came to literally undo, what the literal Adam, literally did. - lol

Unless you think Jesus came to figuratively undo, what the figurative Adam, figuratively did? Where does that leave us?
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That is the problem, both books, Genesis and Revelation use metaphors at times.

A metaphor is a comparison made between two or more things using figurative or descriptive language. Metaphors turn difficult ideas into simple concepts.

The tree of life is always Jesus. We have been grafted into the root of that cultivated olive tree according to Romans. Also Jesus is the branch in Zechariah 3:8, 6:12.

As for the knowledge of good and evil, that tree would represent the knowledge of God and sin at the same time.

To deny symbols and metaphors in both texts would be incorrect. Yet, a full literal understanding is also impossible.
Yes, but where do you draw the line? Is the healing of the nations a metaphor for something, or literal? Is a tree that yields 12 monthly crops per year figurative? Is the description of the New Jerusalem an imaginary city?

Revelation 22:2 NIV
down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Hebrew word for 'day'* used in the Genesis creation account. Does anyone here know (1) what that word is and (2) if that same word is used elsewhere in the OT and (3) how many times it is used in the OT and (4) is it used in the OT for anything other than a literal 24 hour day?

Thanks ...

*Day meaning a 24 hour "there was evening and there was morning" time period used in the Genesis account.
This is an important point. And I don't think we can redefine the word "day" to mean something other than the measure given. A sunrise and sunset happen in a single day. Whatever the measure of that day.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Yes, but where do you draw the line? Is the healing of the nations a metaphor for something, or literal? Is a tree that yields 12 monthly crops per year figurative? Is the description of the New Jerusalem an imaginary city?

Revelation 22:2 NIV
down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.
I do not hold a strict view on either Genesis or Revelation. I actually believe that the first and last books of the Bible, are by far, the most difficult to understand. A measure of faith may be necessary for both.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
It sounds like you are attempting to conform the Bible to modern thought. What do you make of these texts? (in reference to the restoration of all things)

Matt 19:28
Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Acts 3:21
Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.

Rom 8:20-21
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
No, I'm trying to conform it to Paul. The renewal of all things is renewal, not restoration of a pre-fall situation. Rom 8:20 speaks of the consequences of Adam's sin, and humanity's, but still doesn't suggest a restoration of what was there before the fall. Act 3:21 is probably closest to what you're envisioning, but I think Paul has a deeper insight here.

For Paul the primary factor is Christ's crucifixion. We are renewed because of fellowship with Christ and his crucifixion. But before the fall there could be no cross. Adam walked with God directly, and didn't need a mediator or a cross. But the second humanity that results from the second Adam isn't that way. We aren't restored to a pre-fall situation. We are new people because of our communion with Christ and his death.

This is only modern in the sense that I'm willing to look at what the texts meant, and not necessarily accept traditional exegesis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, the universe exists in God (in God's mind, lets say). The physical world is just an emergent world.

When we examine it from our point of view, we get Big Bang, quantum mechanics etc.
Are you saying that reality is an illusion?
 
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I like where you are going with this, but it's a bit weak. It doesn't use the name Adam.

However this does. How can the Fall of humankind be a real consequence for us if Adam is only figurative? Was the original sin a figurative act? Only symbolic? Maybe so.???

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Well if it was only symbolic, then why would I believe that all literally die because of Adam's sin?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not really. There is no mention of Adam or a single pair. Simply the assertion that from the beginning God intended people to have permanent marriages.
No, it specifically says he created them male and female. It confirms the creation story. Beside you have the whole "first Adam and last Adam" verses which make no sense if Adam didn't exist.
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well if it was only symbolic, then why would I believe that all literally die because of Adam's sin?
I agree with you. I am just saying that the scripture you quoted doesn't make a strong case. Let's do better at defending the point. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

Lion IRC

Newbie
Sep 10, 2012
509
198
✟19,082.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You may have a point there. A simple, condensed, portrait of creation, starring Adam and Eve. Simple enough for ancient people to understand and skipping over eons of time. Truth and simplicity.

I think tons of Jesus' parables are literally true accounts of actual people.
Prodigal son. Man beaten and robbed on the road to Jericho. Rich fool. Faithful servant.

But they are also simultaneously wider, universal, allegorical truths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There seems to be a lot of support for a figurative view of Genesis, but I don't understand how people came to such a conclusion without abandoning a literal reading of the scriptures for a scientific or philosophical view. Seems like a dangerous move. What was gained; what was lost?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: tryphena rose
Upvote 0

Confused-by-christianity

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2020
1,254
384
48
No location
✟116,331.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Maybe. Another reasonable idea is that it was actually polemic, directed against contemporary pagan views. The framework is very close to creation accounts from Babylon, etc, but those accounts see creation as a byproduct of ungodly behavior and conflicts among the gods. Genesis recasts the story as the act of the single God, making man in his image.
Oh yeah - I hadn't thought about it that way. The Genesis account would serve to bring a view of God which is closer to the truth than the Babylonian stories.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Confused-by-christianity

Well-Known Member
May 6, 2020
1,254
384
48
No location
✟116,331.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It seems to me that so much in the rest of the Bible builds on a literal reading of Genesis.

Someone mentioned earlier that the Sabbath commandment was based on a literal six day creation week. See Exodus 20:11
Yeah that makes sense to me. I suppose I would believe in a literal reading of Genesis if I were in those times.
One thing I love about Genesis is...
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
That sentence / expression is one of the most beautiful lines in all the literature I've read.

I know there is a little bit of chat about that line. People discussing whether or not those first lines in Genesis refer to creation out of nothing or modifying something that already exists.
I also heard about the first line being changed a little to be more coherent withl John 1.

I don't mind not knowing what the ancients meant - The verse is still beautiful. I also don't mind if it turned out to be true, that later people had reworded verses and cut/changed things over time.

For some reason - that doesn't seem to rock my faith??? Oddly. You'd think that if I consider the Bible sacred and the truth - my faith would collapse if it turned out that it had been changed or messed with. That isn't the case though. I don't mind.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,887
3,525
✟320,716.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Catholic Answers isn’t so clear that this issue is settled for Catholics. Human Origins: Which is it? Science or Theology? In general the Catholic Church ends up accepting generally held scientific conclusions, though at times after a bit of delay.
The catechism states it this way.
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

So the concept that all living humans stem from a single set of parents is still taught. This is considered to derive from revelation as the doctrine of original sin and its transmission is bound to the concept that all humanity fell with those first parents. In this case a scientific fact impacts a doctrine that concerns faith or morals and the salvation of man- the only areas where infallibility is said to be involved.

As far as viewing any aspects of the story as figurative while meaning to convey some deeper meaning, that's been understood at least since Augustine said as much. Even at that many commentators held to the common wisdom of their day such as geocentrism, or, to a lesser extent, a six day creation model even though these don't involve subject matter having any need or reason to be dogmatically declared.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

renniks

Well-Known Member
Jun 2, 2008
10,682
3,445
✟149,430.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree with you. I am just saying that the scripture you quoted doesn't make a strong case. Let's do better at defending the point. Thanks.
If I refer to a book as a reference for my point, am I not confirming the data in the book? Jesus referring to the creation account to make a point would be pretty lame if he didn't believe that the account was accurate.
And then we have the remainder of the book of Genesis, I always wondered if the people that take the creation count as symbolic think everybody else in the book is symbolic also even though specific names and genealogies are given? Doesn't make any sense.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,662.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
He certainly could have, but there seems no empirical evidencxe that He did.
I rather expect so, Scripture doesn't say, does it?
Practical joke?
Where is the empirical evidence for life spring forth from just chemicals?
Are you saying Adam could have started out as a one day old baby?
 
Upvote 0