The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

[Saint Steven]

Thanks, I'll check it out. Looks like he has a YouTube channel too. (with an insulting title)

Season One Playlist:

Peter Enns, How the Bible Actually Works

 

[hedrick]

Season One Playlist:

Peter Enns, How the Bible Actually Works

It looks like a good supplement, but I think seeing the more systematic presentation in his book is important. Otherwise it’s going to be too easy to dismiss people like Bell as not really believing in the Bible. Public hermits recommendation looks useful as well. Enns looks more at how the various Biblical authors conceptualize things, but it’s also useful to see how the Church treated the Bible.

 

[public hermit]

Sir, I perceive you know not whereof you speak. Dost thou do well to co-opt Augustine who would have rightly considered the entirety of 'modern cosmology' nothing short of satanic insanity?

If you can find me any actual Biblical or physical proof of earth's supposed motion in space, pray tell. Cause I've been looking for near 15 years and en route found naught but the one true God. The devil deceiveth the whole world. See, when you deny Gen 1 everything else is reduced to trivia.

And at the risk of embarrassing you, I'm more than happy to tell ppl I'm Christian, redemptionist and a Biblical flat earther. Just pray they don't ask me about the finer points of WWII history lol.

Yes, please refrain from explicating the finer points of WWII history. If fringe positions are your thing, I bet it's way outside.

It's simply not true that denying Gen1 reduces everything else to trivia. I would say if one denies the following, everything else in the scriptures becomes vacuous/meaningless:

God exists
God is the Creator
Creation is not God
Creation is good
Humanity is created in the divine image
God created humanity to live in a particular way, which is consonant with life
Humanity sins, which is to live contrary to God's will
Sin is death dealing
Redemption is promised

Those great truths (or one's very much like them) are the spiritual import of the opening chapters of Genesis. If those truths are rejected, the rest of the scriptures become meaningless.

1. Those great truths are revealed truths (i.e. not discoverable through our usual methods of coming to know something, including how we know history).
2. The veracity of those truths does not depend on the historicity of Genesis (i.e. those truths can be true even if the opening chapters of Gen. are not history but myth intended to communicate revealed truth).

To deny what I'm saying would be like denying the kingdom of heaven exists, because the mustard seed is in fact not the smallest of all seeds (Matt. 13:32). To make such a claim is to simply miss the point.

I'm not saying you shouldn't believe the historicity of Gen, I'm saying your claim about scripture being a delicate house of cards that rests on the historicity of Gen is fallacious.

 

[hedrick]

Shrewd Manager’s posts are useful, because they show what really insisting on the Biblical picture of the universe means. Typically people choose a couple of issues like evolution whose consequences bother them, but ignore lots of other things that are pretty obviously wrong.

I don't think we should ignore Genesis. We need to wrestle with Scripture. But we should be clear about what we're doing and why. It may be that as a result of this we'll conclude that it contributes to our vision of sin and the nature of humanity, even if Gen 2 isn't historical. But if we do, we should look at how it's treated by other writers such as Paul. I don't think it's so obvious that the understanding of later Western Christianity (the Eastern tradition takes somewhat different things away from it) is quite what God would have us conclude.

The Noah story is also important. It's one early view of how God deals with human evil. But it needs to be looked at as part of a conversation that encompasses much of the OT, and where Jesus has his own contribution to make.

 

[Servus]

What does the Bible say about our flesh when we enter the afterlife? From corruptible to incorruptible. Not from corruptible to vapor. - lol

That says MORE solid to me. (not LESS solid) Will we be solid, but God will be a vapor?

It's been said after the resurrection that Jesus could apparently walk through walls, the way he would suddenly appear in a room occupied by his apostles.

 

[hedrick]

What does the Bible say about our flesh when we enter the afterlife? From corruptible to incorruptible. Not from corruptible to vapor. - lol

That says MORE solid to me. (not LESS solid) Will we be solid, but God will be a vapor?

Not vapor. Spirit. Paul has this interesting concept of a spiritual body.

 

[Saint Steven]

It's been said after the resurrection that Jesus could apparently walk through walls, the way he would suddenly appear in a room occupied by his apostles.

The obvious question is what that mean for us in the afterlife.

It seems to me that we are shielded from the spiritual realm in our current state. Jesus seemed to move between the two easily after his resurrection.

Even angelic messengers come and go. And not only in the OT. This scripture below tells me that they appear to be just like us.

Hebrews 13:2 NIV
Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.

 

[Saint Steven]

Not vapor. Spirit. Paul has this interesting concept of a spiritual body.

Yes, of course. But what do we project onto that word spiritual? That's what I am questioning.

To me "supernatural" means superior to the natural. Not subject to decay or, natural laws. More substantial, not less substantial.

Sorry. I might be getting us off-topic.

 

[hedrick]

Yes, of course. But what do we project onto that word spiritual? That's what I am questioning.

To me "supernatural" means superior to the natural. Not subject to decay or, natural laws. More substantial, not less substantial.

Yes, I think that was Paul's point.

 

[Saint Steven]

In order to get back on topic, maybe we should look at some key points in Genesis chapter one from the figurative view. I think @public hermit listed some earlier, But I wasn't able to locate them with a quick scan.

 

[Saint Steven]

I understand why you say this, but it assumes there is no possible truth referenced by myth.

If I say, "God took his right hand and with crushing blows destroyed all evil" do you assume it's not true if God doesn't have a right hand, has no sexual identity, and actually struck no blows? If that statement were in reference to the cross of Christ, would it be less true that it wasn't in one-for-one correspondence with, literally speaking, God striking destructive blows to some amorphous evil?

The truths communicated to us in the opening chapters of Genesis are crucial to understanding the rest of scripture. There are salient truths given:
God is Creator
All that is not God is creation
Creation is good
There is order to creation
There is a way God intended for humans to live
Sin throws a huge wrench (is a problem) in the whole creation.
Sin is death dealing
Humanity needs help
A savior is coming

None of that rests on a literal reading (in other words, those salient truths could all be true even if Adam and Eve weren't literal). I believe every one of those and don't read it literally. None of that can be found by our usual scientific methods of discovery. All of it is revelation. And, it makes sense theologically and experientially.

More importantly, if one were to believe Genesis literally, but didn't grasp the salient truths given above in such a way it made a difference, their belief in the historical does them little to no good. It's just a fact they happen to think is true.

Found it. Here's the list for discussion. What is gained, what is lost?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The truths communicated to us in the opening chapters of Genesis are crucial to understanding the rest of scripture. There are salient truths given:
God is Creator
All that is not God is creation
Creation is good
There is order to creation
There is a way God intended for humans to live
Sin throws a huge wrench (is a problem) in the whole creation.
Sin is death dealing
Humanity needs help
A savior is coming

 

[hedrick]

Found it. Here's the list for discussion. What is gained, what is lost?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The truths communicated to us in the opening chapters of Genesis are crucial to understanding the rest of scripture. There are salient truths given:
God is Creator
All that is not God is creation
Creation is good
There is order to creation
There is a way God intended for humans to live
Sin throws a huge wrench (is a problem) in the whole creation.
Sin is death dealing
Humanity needs help
A savior is coming

I agree. But I think you want to look at how Paul uses it. He seems to see Gen 2 as showing that sin is built in to human nature, and it needs a second Adam to start a new, redeemed nature.

Jesus uses Gen 2 (probably the creation of Eve) to say that men and women are meant to be permanently united. (Obviously this raises other questions. Is marriage compulsory? Can there be exceptions of various types? But the point here is to look at the implications of the creation story, not solve all problem of sexual ethics.)

 

[public hermit]

Found it. Here's the list for discussion. What is gained, what is lost?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The truths communicated to us in the opening chapters of Genesis are crucial to understanding the rest of scripture. There are salient truths given:
God is Creator
All that is not God is creation
Creation is good
There is order to creation
There is a way God intended for humans to live
Sin throws a huge wrench (is a problem) in the whole creation.
Sin is death dealing
Humanity needs help
A savior is coming

I should have included that humanity is created in the image of God, in that list ( I included it in the similar list a few posts above (#383). It is interesting that is revealed, but we aren't told in the text what that means, exactly. Still, I think it's another important revealed truth.

 

[Chi.C]

Can you elaborate on this?

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

Yom י֔וֹם is for day (the light day) while י֥וֹם the ordinated day (the first day) It has a squiggle at the bottom . The difference in meaning with the squiggle is "the period of daylight and darkness is called with squiggle" (just one reference).
The Original 360 Day Calendar of the Torah, New Moons, and the True Appointed Times of Festivals

The phraseology also is very specific. "There was evening and there was morning, day <something>". In fact, this occurs on 6 times only in the bible (only with the creation verses). From my perspective if a phrase is used with specificity, it is special. The meaning of yom squiggle to me is like when I write a email explaining something corrective I would write in point form and end it with the phrase "period".
eg. Genesis 1:3-5 paraphrased
"It is necessary to make the diurnal cycle. Point #1. Period! No discussion! Ipso Facto! QED. Quid Pro Quo. Habeas Corpus! Ordo seclorum!" You know - latin stuff.

Thus, "And the evening and the morning were the first day (squiggled)." God has decreed that this is one period. Epoch as day period.

- Was Adam the first human, a created being?

Genesis 1:26-31 describes creation of man with Image of God and was fruitful and multiplied.
But in Genesis 2:7 man was created from the dust of the ground.
and Genesis 2:18-20 says Adam was to chose a helper amongst the animals, but he was not satisfied. Then woman was created from his "rib". Eve was not initially intended.

In Genesis 1, the water vaults of the sky (clouds) were created on day 2 and the vegetation on day 3. But it says there was no rain nor vegetation.
But in Genesis 2:5-6 states "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

I contend Genesis 2 is the spiritual (software, peripherals, Bios etc) installation/upgrade while Genesis 1 was the carnal (computer, Turing machine...) creation. The rib is very peculiar as the rib bone cells are not stem cells and do not seem to be the preferred choice for genetic engineering. I contend that "rib" is like the "keel" of a ship. In software, the term backbone is used. The same basic "installation" was used on Eve

Conflict of Genesis 1 (be fruitful) to Genesis 2 (Eve as second choice to animal helper) is solved as such - the intended destiny of Adam was an immortal Image of God (virgin and singular as per Genesis 2) while the fruitful couple was the necessary path to said goal via Christ (Genesis 1) after the inevitable fall of Adam. The Transtemporal Entity tweaking the time space continuum . God has generated and optimal solution as an optimum one is impossible.

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

The Image of an Omnibenevolent Spiritual Entity is the capacity to love (1 John 4:8). Not just pheromonal, hormonal, or imprinting as per animals but something more spiritual. Jesus points the way
Matt 22:37-40 Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”

- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?

The phrase "there was evening and there was morning, day such and such" can be
1) exalted poetry - figurative as day = epoch
2) Divine slang - literal as day = epoch ("Period. No discusion")
3) Divine explanatory bulleting - literal as day = epoch
The literal day = day generates problems with the Law and the definition of faith. Faith - events unseen but is believed to be true.
YEC - event seen but is not to be believed.

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

Holy spirit. The Holy Spirit finds those with the Image. Tradition (oral or written) are not intrinsically a good instrument of God to convey his Guidance. As per Joshua 24:2 >And Joshua said to all the people, “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Long ago your fathers, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates and worshiped other gods.<

- 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.

Genealogy of Jesus is correct with the nuance that a great great ... grandfather can beget a great great .. grandson.
The reason for the nuance
1) is there might be proof of a asteroid impact around 12000 BC which may explain the Noahide flood. But we will wait and see.
2) Also mitochondrial genomics indicate an Eve at around 200 kya (guessing) and a Y-chromosonal Adam of 2 mya (guessing) - (search keyword Ann Gauger/Ola Hössjer and Dennis Venema (a Christian that says there was no Adam with a smile)). However, I believe that the mathematics are not biblical (long lived human producing many offsprings) but rather evolutionary (statistical populations of short lived humans), so the calculation precludes biblical history and mathematical modelling won't capture the biblical perspective.

 

[Saint Steven]

I agree. But I think you want to look at how Paul uses it. He seems to see Gen 2 as showing that sin is built in to human nature, and it needs a second Adam to start a new, redeemed nature.

Jesus uses Gen 2 (probably the creation of Eve) to say that men and women are meant to be permanently united. (Obviously this raises other questions. Is marriage compulsory? Can there be exceptions of various types? But the point here is to look at the implications of the creation story, not solve all problem of sexual ethics.)

But how is that a figurative rather than literal reading?

 

[Saint Steven]

Thus, "And the evening and the morning were the first day (squiggled)." God has decreed that this is one period. Epoch as day period.

I suppose that could go in several directions.
1) A very long day at work. (epoch)
2) Worked the night shift. (evening and the morning were the first day)
3) A 24 hour period. (evening and the morning were the first day)

 

[Saint Steven]

(evening and the morning) And now I get to go to work. Good day everyone!

 

[Servus]

I agree. But I think you want to look at how Paul uses it. He seems to see Gen 2 as showing that sin is built in to human nature, and it needs a second Adam to start a new, redeemed nature.

Jesus uses Gen 2 (probably the creation of Eve) to say that men and women are meant to be permanently united. (Obviously this raises other questions. Is marriage compulsory? Can there be exceptions of various types? But the point here is to look at the implications of the creation story, not solve all problem of sexual ethics.)

Jesus never married. No second Eve for the second Adam. Paul never married and even advised against it.

 

[Servus]

I've never understood why God creating everything in six literal days has ever been an issue. To me it's like, what took Him so long? Rather than that's impossible.

 

[DamianWarS]

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.

is it literal? I don't think the text answers that but it certainly is figurative. the OP has a lot of interpretation in it that I don't think the account can support, even in a literal/figurative vacuum.