The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

[trophy33]

Doesn't that research debunk previous theories about the surface of Mars? Thus changing the view of science.

Saint Steven said: ↑
I don't see any reason to make the current scientific view absolute.

Thats the beauty of science against dogmatism - it can accomodate to new truths without people going hysterical.

 

[Saint Steven]

Today's cars also look significantly different from the first cars, but they still have wheels. We know for sure that the world is not thousands of years old, its much older.

That is rather assumptive.
If Adam was created as a mature human, the universe could have been the same. Created in a mature state. But, you don't believe Adam was a real man, so that argument probably makes no sense to you. Never mind.

Saint Steven said: ↑
How many billions of years have been added to the age of the universe over the past five decades? We may even be in the trillions by now. It seems that they need to add billions of years every time they need a higher probability factor.

 

[trophy33]

I said "ancient cosmology" not "Ancient theology".
Are you inferring that theology has changed? (from mythical to ???)

Saint Steven said: ↑
Aren't BOTH "ancient cosmology" and our current view (which could change) of the universe theoretical?

Ah sorry, ancient cosmology was mythical.

Well, theology changes quite often, but regarding cosmology, theology stayed the same. Form changed, from mythological (waters, leviathan....) to philosophical (Logos) during the writing of the Bible. And because we live in a third era, we should accomodate our form and vocabulary to our cultural vocabulary, too. Or else nobody will understand our message.

 

[Saint Steven]

Thats the beauty of science against dogmatism - it can accomodate to new truths without people going hysterical.

Have you thrown your Bible away yet?

 

[trophy33]

That is rather assumptive.
If Adam was created as a mature human, the universe could have been the same. Created in a mature state.

It would not be just mature, but with a false history - like Adam having scars from battles that never happened.

But, you don't believe Adam was a real man, so that argument probably makes no sense to you. Never mind.

I have no strong belief regarding Adam. Both symbolic and literal existence of Adam as individual is possible.

 

[trophy33]

Have you thrown your Bible away yet?

No. But I read it very carefully, knowing that I read a very ancient text that is not preserved very well and is quite ambiguous.

 

[Saint Steven]

Ah sorry, ancient cosmology was mythical.

Like the sun and moon orbiting the earth (appearing to) and the stars being beyond counting? Has that changed?

 

[Saint Steven]

I have no strong belief regarding Adam. Both symbolic and literal existence of Adam as individual is possible.

The Bible as a whole presents Adam as the actual first human. Created by God. He even shows up on genealogies. A mythical/figurative being?

 

[trophy33]

Like the sun and moon orbiting the earth (appearing to) and the stars being beyond counting? Has that changed?

Like sky being solid with water holes in it and sun and moon being just lights in the firmanent. Like heaven being above the firmanent and hell being under the earth.

Like dragon hidden/sleeping in sea, bringing chaos to the world. But God will kill the dragon with his sword. Etc.

 

[trophy33]

The Bible as a whole presents Adam as the actual first human. Created by God. He even shows up on genealogies. A mythical/figurative being?

Ancient genealogies are always based on mythical figures. Thats their style.

 

[Saint Steven]

Christianity is a trust in God and in Christ. Not a trust in the literal reading of Genesis or in every word in the Bible. Bible is not even mentioned in any old Christian creed.

Probably because the oldest creeds predated the canon of scripture. (4th century?)

 

[Saint Steven]

Ancient genealogies are always based on mythical figures. Thats their style.

I'm having trouble accepting that view. It seems that genealogies affirm that a figure is NOT mythical. Except in fictional story books, that is.

It seems that you are reducing the Bible to a fictional story book.

Saint Steven said: ↑
The Bible as a whole presents Adam as the actual first human. Created by God. He even shows up on genealogies. A mythical/figurative being?

 

[trophy33]

Probably because the oldest creeds predated the canon of scripture. (4th century?)

Yes, the first church even did not agree on what writings are inspired and authentic. Not to say on their intepretations.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes, the first church even did not agree on what writings are inspired and authentic. Not to say on their intepretations.

As I understand it, they agreed that the Hebrew scriptures were inspired and authentic.

But interestingly, the Apostle Paul includes a Hebrew myth in his writing. Can you identify it?

1 Corinthians 10:3-5 NIV
They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

 

[Saint Steven]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]
I agree that there can be genealogies in fictional writing. But I struggle to classify that Bible as fiction. (I understand you are not calling the whole Bible fiction) Does our hope rest in a book of fiction? Yikes! (Houston, we have a problem)

The biggest hurdle for me is that the Bible as a whole seems to accept the creation account as literal. Your argument (and that of others) seems to be that the biblical writers didn't know any better. Even though the writings were inspired by God, who would know better, assuming there was in fact a BETTER to know. What am I missing here? (anyone)

 

[mmksparbud]

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.

1. Yes. The 24 hour period is from the rotation of the earth. However, God wants the days to be counted Sunset to sunset. From midnight to midnight is a manmade thing and not very convenient without a watch. It can not be eons ---yom, when used with a number is always literal 24 days. Besides, the word yom in Gen 1 is different from the yom used in in Gen 2:17

17 and~from~TREE (וּמֵעֵץ / u'mey'eyts) the~DISCERNMENT (הַדַּעַת / ha'da'at) FUNCTIONAL (טוֹב / tov) and~DYSFUNCTIONAL (וָרָע / wa'ra) NOT (לֹא / lo) you(ms)~will~EAT(V) (תֹאכַל / to'khal) FROM~him (מִמֶּנּוּ / mi'me'nu) GIVEN.THAT (כִּי / ki) in~DAY (בְּיוֹם / bê'yom) you(ms)~~Identifies the verb form as infinitive.">>~EAT(V) (אֲכָלְךָ / a'khal'kha) FROM~him (מִמֶּנּוּ / mi'me'nu) ~Identifies the verb form as infinitive.">>~DIE(V) (מוֹת / mot) you(ms)~will~DIE(V) (תָּמוּת / ta'mut)

RMT: but from the tree of discernment of function and dysfunction you will not eat from him, given that in the day you eat from him you will surely die,


"beyom" means an eon. And or would make no sense at all for creation to be 1000s of years between each creation. Trees and herbs and such were created on the 3rd day, the sun was not till the 4th day. If it had taken eons before the sun and stars came in, everything on the 3rd eon would have all died. Also no sense to say that God stopped creating on the 7th day if it was eons, He stopped creating and rested for eons, but wants us to honor the 7th day in memory of the end of creation? FYI in the original language the word is not rested it is "ceased from all His business."

3 and~he~will~much~KNEEL(V) (וַיְבָרֶךְ / wai'va'rekh) Elohiym (אֱלֹהִים / e'lo'him) AT (אֶת / et) DAY (יוֹם / yom) the~SEVENTH (הַשְּׁבִיעִי / hash'vi'i) and~he~will~much~SET.APART(V) (וַיְקַדֵּשׁ / wai'qa'deysh) AT~him (אֹתוֹ / o'to) GIVEN.THAT (כִּי / ki) in~~him (בוֹ / vo) he~did~CEASE(V) (שָׁבַת / sha'vat) from~ALL (מִכָּל / mi'kol) BUSINESS~him (מְלַאכְתּוֹ / mê'lakh'to) WHICH (אֲשֶׁר / a'sher) he~did~SHAPE(V) (בָּרָא / ba'ra) Elohiym (אֱלֹהִים / e'lo'him) to~~Identifies the verb form as infinitive.">>~DO(V) (לַעֲשׂוֹת / la'a'sot)

RMT: and Elohiym exalted the seventh day and he set him apart, given that in him he ceased from all of his business which Elohiym shaped to make.

also if eons---it makes no sense then to say that there were eons before the humans were created and sinned---death is the result of sin. There were then eons of creatures, and plants, living and dyeing before a soul was finally given to the final birth of some man and woman. And then they sinned --And then salvation was provided? Makes no sense at all. God created Adam and Eve on the 6 literal day. Death came to the world when Adam and Eve sinned and the Lord had to kill the 1st animals to provide skins for Adam and Eve. The lamb killed because of their sin was the 1st depiction of Jesus intervening on man's behave by dying for man's sin, setting up the ceremonial blood sacrifice which would later be symbolized by the animal sacrifices in the sanctuary and temple. The word Adam means human. Eve was not named until after the fall. And yes, they were created in the image of God.

27 and~he~will~SHAPE(V) (וַיִּבְרָא / wai'yiv'ra) Elohiym (אֱלֹהִים / e'lo'him) AT (אֶת / et) the~HUMAN (הָאָדָם / ha'a'dam) in~IMAGE~him (בְּצַלְמוֹ / bê'tsal'mo) in~IMAGE (בְּצֶלֶם / bê'tse'lem) Elohiym (אֱלֹהִים / e'lo'him) he~did~SHAPE(V) (בָּרָא / ba'ra) AT~him (אֹתוֹ / o'to) MALE (זָכָר / za'khar) and~FEMALE (וּנְקֵבָה / un'qey'vah) he~did~SHAPE(V) (בָּרָא / ba'ra) AT~them(m) (אֹתָם / o'tam)

RMT: and Elohiym shaped the human in his image, in the image of Elohiym he shaped him, male and female he shaped them,

We are created in His image, however, Barbie and corn cobb dolls, and we have very human appearing robots now----all created in our image. They are as far from the original, as are humans from God.

In any genealogy Cain will not be mentioned. He was Adam's first born male, but when he killed Abel, he lost his place as inheritor and kicked out of the family (2nd in line would have been Abel)--Seth, was then the next inheritor---Enos was the first male son of Seth.
Jesus and the disciples all believed in the literal interpretation of the Genesis account. They never refer to it as a myth or in any way figurative.

 

[Saint Steven]

Oh my, where does one begin?

1. God hates people (Esau I hated, but Jacob I loved)
2. Or worse, God tortures those God loves forever.
3. Defense of slavery
4. Women are to be submissive and shut up in church (and really anywhere else).
5. God commanded Israel to kill every living thing.
6. If God commands evil it's not evil (see 5)
7. If you just had enough faith you wouldn't need evil secular medicine/counseling
8. You can't be saved if you don't take Genesis literally.

Top 8, I guess, lol.

Thanks, I "literally" agree with the whole list as problems. Unless you intended a figurative reading? - lol

My plan of action going forward will be to listen for literal readings that make questionable claims about our God and Savior. I am already doing this to some extent. But I need to double down on this a bit. Thanks for your helpful posts.

 

[Cis.jd]

That's an interesting post. Thanks.
The last sentence really caught my eye.
"It can't be literal because being literal does face so many educated scrutiny."

Except for the eating of the forbidden fruit, we really aren't told what Adam and Eve ate. It seems assumed that they ate only from the trees in the garden and the trees were fruit trees. But I guess we don't really know. We have canine teeth, which means we are carnivores. However, the idea that there was no death before the Fall of humankind brings meat eating into question. There should have been eggs for protein. Who knows?

My understanding is that God created the universe knowing how things would go and where we would end up. A vapor canopy covered/protected the whole planet before the flood, which broke the canopy. Thus the planet's temperature dropped rapidly. Which is why they found "woolly" mammoths quick-frozen in the northern glaciers with undigested tropical plant vegetation in their stomachs.

Genesis 2:5-7 NIV
Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Not just eating meat but eating in general. All life needs to eat something, the thing is what is the purpose? I think our physical bodies where spiritual, not the flesh we have now.. whatever was actually the 1st sin that, probably rebooted the whole universe to be the physical one we live in now..

our bodies had to be different. Right now, when you are outside during a hot day, you sweat because your sweat glands are helping your body keep it's cool. If you are outside on colder day, you get goosebumps on your skin.

Then you have animals and various plant life that have their own defensive features. What would be the purpose of all of this before the fall? These things had to develop after when we all became physical beings that are subjected to the laws of nature.

My view is, I think people to rethink the term "inspired by God" when they talk about the Bible. Many Christians (mostly protestants) have made the mistake of believe God really wrote the Bible therefore any info (even if it is scientifically wrong) is just correct, and because of that they believe the bible to be literal. God inspired his prophets to write, and he inspired them to write about His Revelation.. he did not inspire his prophets to write a science book. Therefore, the bible can not be seen as a book of the natural revelation..because God wanted this book to be about his revelation, which is Jesus Christ.

 

[Dkh587]

I'm having trouble accepting that view. It seems that genealogies affirm that a figure is NOT mythical. Except in fictional story books, that is.

It seems that you are reducing the Bible to a fictional story book.

Saint Steven said: ↑
The Bible as a whole presents Adam as the actual first human. Created by God. He even shows up on genealogies. A mythical/figurative being?

They just don’t believe the Scriptures, which is why they view it as mythology, which is ironic, because people like that tend to claim to “believe in Jesus”, yet don’t believe the books that he taught from.

 

[Saint Steven]

What signs of a myth does the exodus from Egypt have? 40 years in the desert is suspicious (40 is a symbolic number of completeness), but the rest does not seem to have some mythological themes, at least I do not recall any from the top of my head.

But then the mighty deeds that we praise God for, never actually happened. The appearance of numerologically significant elements does NOT in my view make something a myth.

Aren't you also dismissing all the heroes of our faith found in both Hebrews chapter eleven and Genesis? Again, basing our faith on a myth? Yikes!