The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

[Saint Steven]

I can see why this would trouble a certain approach to the scriptures, e.g. an approach that assumes the scriptures must meet a very Western idea of coherence and consistency. I'm not saying the biblical writers were illogical, but I don't think they worried as much about such things. Keep in mind, most (all?) f the biblical writers did not assume they were writing what would become scripture. They were writing letters, gospels based on oral accounts or traditions, poetry, etc.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit guided the change in this instance? Perhaps both receiving and giving are true? Perhaps, and this option won't be popular with a literalist, the writer of Ephesians thought the passage fit, all except that part, and so changed it to fit.

I think this would make an interesting topic. There are more than this one example in Ephesians. I haven't collected them yet. So, not sure how wide spread this is. The topic would have to be carefully framed. Otherwise...

We tend to put the Apostles on a pedestal, but they were ordinary people like us. Chosen by God for a specific task, like us; and operating for the most part, like us; led by the Spirit. When the Apostle was writing, this OT scripture probably popped into his mind, and he misquoted it from memory. (John 16:13) Even thinking he had quoted it properly. He wrote: "This is why it says..."

Saint Steven said: ↑
This may explain something I have noticed in the Bible. I wanted to do a topic on it, but seemed like dangerous territory. (even for me - lol)

In the New Testament there are references made to OT texts that are either misquoted or misused based on their obvious meanings. Being from a more literalist background, this was rather troubling. I concluded something near to what you are saying. They were finding other spiritual meanings. Or, the original meaning was not what we thought. Except, sometimes it was the opposite. Quite puzzling. Here's an example.

All sorts of problems here. Gave gifts, or received gifts? (for starters) "This is why it says..." No it doesn't! - lol

Ephesians 4:7-8 NIV
But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”

Psalm 68:18 NIV
When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you received gifts from people,
even from the rebellious—
that you, Lord God, might dwell there.

 

[Saint Steven]

So why do we get stuck on the literal when It's the figurative that has far greater meaning?

I have no idea what it means from a figurative reading. Do those with a figurative reading even agree? Seems like abstract art. What does it say to you? (no regard for the writer's intent)

I say there are problems in both a figurative and literal readings. Will you admit the same?

Some on the figurative reading side even claim that it was written in the mythical age, so the writers didn't know any better. We can see it now since we have passed through the rational and scientific ages. So much for a figurative reading.

 

[DamianWarS]

I have no idea what it means from a figurative reading. Do those with a figurative reading even agree? Seems like abstract art. What does it say to you? (no regard for the writer's intent)

I say there are problems in both a figurative and literal readings. Will you admit the same?

Some on the figurative reading side even claim that it was written in the mythical age, so the writers didn't know any better. We can see it now since we have passed through the rational and scientific ages. So much for a figurative reading.

I don't know what the mythical age is so you might have to unpack that some more. The account is built in a chiastic structue with the pattern of a, b, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, a, b It opens with "In the begining the heavens and earth were created..." And closes with "thus the heavens and earth were created...". These are bookends to the account that clearly marks the beginning and end. This shows us the account is isolated and has a specific goal that each detail builds and supports. The details are not litteral driven they are goal driven. We see this as it seems in Gen 2 a second creation account starts ("This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created..." different account different goal) These are not the same accounts and should be regarded as separate blocks next to each other which is consistent in hebaric logic.

Day 1 is paralled with day 4, day 2 with day 5 and day 3 with 6. The first 3 days God doesn't create he speaks, he separates and organizes the chaos (that which is already there). The next 3 days he fills what he just organised. Create is not a concept from nothing and in Hebrew it is more consistent with forming, filling and even fattening. We see this played out when God forms Adam from dirt. Exnilo is a western abstract that we assume on the account but ancient Hebrews were extermly concrete and would not approach creation as something from nothing but rather materials that build something, again the example of dirt used to form man.

The primordial chaos (day 0?) is paired with the rest and completion of day 7. 7 is the number of completion, perfection and rest and 0 is its opposite in this account, it is empty, incomplete and imperfect. It is not rest it is chaos.

Day 1 has the most significant foreshadowing, light is spoken into a dark void and chaos. This foreshadows salvation from a sinful state, it foreshadows the coming of Christ in a dark world, it foreshadows the resurrection for old into new and the old heaven and earth with new heaven and earth and even old and new testament. Light and darkness parallel good and evil, they are separated and light is called good but the darkness is not. This is why light is first and the sun takes a backseat. Because in the account light is the most fundamental, the luminaries are subordinates and they fill the space of light but do not preexist it. And just like in our own salvation process light is first, then we are filled with gifts to manifest that light, but the light is always first. This is just day 1.

If we look at the account as a salvation process it starts with chaos and ends in complete restoration. If we look at it as a prophetic one the world is created and goes through a process of rebirth and building again ending in rest, possibly foreshadowing the millennial reign, which then the cycle starts over again with a new heaven and new earth (day 1/8)

baptism and the flood can even be seen. If we see this as a 7 day cycle at the start is water, light is spoken, the waters are separated and out of it emerges newness

I believe the creation account is one of the most meaningful and prophetic accounts in the bible but we can't get past the literal discussion. The literalness of the account is the least important and least interesting part of the account and we waste out time arguing over if it's literal or not.

 

[DamianWarS]

All that to say, the historicity of those passages takes a backseat to the spiritual truths being communicated, for me. Personally, I'm not concerned with whether or not each account is historically accurate. I tend to think these were long winding oral traditions that were finally written down, traditions that have a root in historical realities. But, what matters most to me are the spiritual truths, which all point to Christ. Sacramental.

I completely agree. we put in all this energy to debate if it's literal and to me, it's not the question we should be asking. the literalness is unverifiable since it is pre-history for the Hebrews so let's leave it at that and focus on the spiritual truths in the account that impact our lives today.

 

[misput]

I don't know what the mythical age is so you might have to unpack that some more. The account is built in a chiastic structue with the pattern of a, b, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, a, b It opens with "In the begining the heavens and earth were created..." And closes with "thus the heavens and earth were created...". These are bookends to the account that clearly marks the beginning and end. This shows us the account is isolated and has a specific goal that each detail builds and supports. The details are not litteral driven they are goal driven. We see this as it seems in Gen 2 a second creation account starts ("This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created..." different account different goal) These are not the same accounts and should be regarded as separate blocks next to each other which is consistent in hebaric logic.

Day 1 is paralled with day 4, day 2 with day 5 and day 3 with 6. The first 3 days God doesn't create he speaks, he separates and organizes the chaos (that which is already there). The next 3 days he fills what he just organised. Create is not a concept from nothing and in Hebrew it is more consistent with forming, filling and even fattening. We see this played out when God forms Adam from dirt. Exnilo is a western abstract that we assume on the account but ancient Hebrews were extermly concrete and would not approach creation as something from nothing but rather materials that build something, again the example of dirt used to form man.

The primordial chaos (day 0?) is paired with the rest and completion of day 7. 7 is the number of completion, perfection and rest and 0 is its opposite in this account, it is empty, incomplete and imperfect. It is not rest it is chaos.

Day 1 has the most significant foreshadowing, light is spoken into a dark void and chaos. This foreshadows salvation from a sinful state, it foreshadows the coming of Christ in a dark world, it foreshadows the resurrection for old into new and the old heaven and earth with new heaven and earth and even old and new testament. Light and darkness parallel good and evil, they are separated and light is called good but the darkness is not. This is why light is first and the sun takes a backseat. Because in the account light is the most fundamental, the luminaries are subordinates and they fill the space of light but do not preexist it. And just like in our own salvation process light is first, then we are filled with gifts to manifest that light, but the light is always first. This is just day 1.

If we look at the account as a salvation process it starts with chaos and ends in complete restoration. If we look at it as a prophetic one the world is created and goes through a process of rebirth and building again ending in rest, possibly foreshadowing the millennial reign, which then the cycle starts over again with a new heaven and new earth (day 1/8)

baptism and the flood can even be seen. If we see this as a 7 day cycle at the start is water, light is spoken, the waters are separated and out of it emerges newness

I believe the creation account is one of the most meaningful and prophetic accounts in the bible but we can't get past the literal discussion. The literalness of the account is the least important and least interesting part of the account and we waste out time arguing over if it's literal or not.

This agrees with the name of the book, Genesis means beginnings and according to a Hebrew professor I knew, "in the beginning" should have been interpreted "in a beginning". In my opinion trying to force an all literal or an all figurative interpretation on scripture promotes confusion.

 

[misput]

But hay, if they want to be confused, let them be confused.

 

[DamianWarS]

In my opinion trying to force an all literal or an all figurative interpretation on scripture promotes confusion.

this is why I actually would rather not commit to a literal or non-literal perspective but rather deemphasize the literal discussion in favour of a spiritual discussion. I am perfectly content accepting there are those who believe in a literal or non-literal view. now let's get past this and focus on what really matters.

 

[mmksparbud]

The whole bible is a thing of beauty -- both in the literal application and, certainly, the spiritual. Jesus often applied much spiritual meaning to OT that the Pharisees and Rabbis had only applied them as literal. Throughout the bible, there are little snippets of prophetic meanings as well. A passage can be all---literal, spiritual and prophetic. I never believed that Genesis was written by Moses---made no sense to me that he did, even as a child. It always says---Moses did this, Moses did that, never I did this or I did that. It is written as though someone else wrote it about him. And it makes not one bit of difference to me whether it was him or not. It is all God breathed. That is why it is so compelling, and like no other book, esp. among other such books---Mormon, JW Hindu, and such.
It grows as you do---a child gets what a child can grasp, as we age we see more and more. Yet, even a child can see things at times with such clarity that it can startle an adult. It most certainly should be seen through the eyes of the Israelites. It was, after all, written by them and for them so that they would see when the time of their visitation would come---they didn't, but it was what Jesus read to learn who He actual was, which is why He so often said things about it being the time for this or that. He applied the scriptures to Himself and He knew, He saw, all the prophetic snippets that applied to Him. They pointed to Him. We can do the same, though not as He could for it was all about Him and can be applied spiritually to us where it applied literally to Him. However, it is also universal. There are things in it that tribes from the farthest regions can relate to. Such as when Christ spat into a little earth and applied it to the eyes of the blind man. A strange thing, however, there is a tribe (and I can't for the life of me, remember their name and location---sorry)where spitting like that is a part of their culture---they instantly associated with it and was instrumental in bring the gospel to them. It's like another tribe where, in order to prevent war, a child from each tribe was taken to the other tribe. As long as the child lived---war could not take place, and to kill the peace child was the lowest thing anyone could do. It was a light bulb moment when the tribes saw Jesus as the peace child, and Satan and Judas as His killer.
As I age, and learn about other cultures, It all becomes more amazing how universal it actually is. Yet, it's core is Jewish.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not a fan of literal vs figurative. Most of the Biblical stories aren't figurative. Now maybe Gen 2 is. I'm not sure the author actually believed in magic trees and a talking snake. But everything after that in Genesis is mostly not figurative. It's just that much of it didn't happen, or not quite as described.

In my view, the Biblical authors took stories from their tradition and used them to understand what God was doing, making adjustments to the stories when necessary. They were certainly trying to make points beyond just teaching us events and chronologies. But that doesn't turn the stories into allegory or metaphor. By Kings and maybe 2 Samuel the traditional stories were based on history, though not in quite the sense a modern historian wold work. Earlier traditions weren't, for the obvious reason that no Israelite storyteller was around at creation.

You run into this discussion with Jesus' parables. There's been a tendency for interpreters to see them as allegories. But mostly they weren't. A woman was just a woman, and not a symbol for something else. But still, the point of the story wasn't to tell us about some actual person or event. The way the people in the story acted was intended by Jesus to show us something. Just what it was he often left somewhat open. But still, even though the parables probably didn't happen as exact historical events (though things like them did), the narratives are still literal rather than figurative.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The Bible is Holy Spirit inspired.

And, He used Human Authors who knew how to use figurative language.

I only gave my opinion to the thread question. If you disagree, God Bless.

 

[Chi.C]

This may explain something I have noticed in the Bible. I wanted to do a topic on it, but seemed like dangerous territory. (even for me - lol)

In the New Testament there are references made to OT texts that are either misquoted or misused based on their obvious meanings. Being from a more literalist background, this was rather troubling. I concluded something near to what you are saying. They were finding other spiritual meanings. Or, the original meaning was not what we thought. Except, sometimes it was the opposite. Quite puzzling. Here's an example.

All sorts of problems here. Gave gifts, or received gifts? (for starters) "This is why it says..." No it doesn't! - lol

Ephesians 4:7-8 NIV
But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”

Psalm 68:18 NIV
When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you received gifts from people,
even from the rebellious—
that you, Lord God, might dwell there.

I believe that Paul was using a literary perspective shift (my words - writing is not my day job). In Ephesians, Paul speaks to the clean from unclean. From the hostage perspective, freedom in Christ is a gift. In Psalms, the poet speaks from the perspective of David, the anointed from chosen. From the anointed perspective, the hostages are given to God. Same event different perspective.
For a literalist the meaning is peripheral and focuses only on the words. Words without the meaning or the spirit are "soulless". It does not resonate. Just a random signal.

 

[Saint Steven]

We can draw a distinction between general sacramentality and the specific institutions of the church we call "sacraments." Something is sacramental in part because it communicates God and makes God present. In other words, the sacramental communicates spiritual realities that transcend the thing itself.

Christ specifically instituted baptism and Eucharist as sacraments. These are specific ways that we meet God (being washed/being fed), where we experience God's presence. The elements communicate spiritual realities and in that sense are sacramental. It's not just water, but sacramental water. Something spiritual is happening through it.

Something curious occurred to me today.

It seems that those who take a figurative view of the Bible take a literal view of the sacraments. (Eucharist/Baptism) And those who take a literal view of the Bible take a figurative view of the sacraments. (Communion/Baptism)

Those who typically take a figurative view of the Bible see the bread and wine as Christ's literal flesh and blood. Whereas those who typically take a literal view of the Bible see the cup and bread and symbols. (not literal blood and flesh)

 

[public hermit]

Something curious occurred to me today.

It seems that those who take a figurative view of the Bible take a literal view of the sacraments. (Eucharist/Baptism) And those who take a literal view of the Bible take a figurative view of the sacraments. (Communion/Baptism)

Those who typically take a figurative view of the Bible see the bread and wine as Christ's literal flesh and blood. Whereas those who typically take a literal view of the Bible see the cup and bread and symbols. (not literal blood and flesh)

Lol, that is hilarious and brilliant, all at the same time.

That's a very interesting insight, though the generalization only goes so far. I'm pretty picky about what strikes me a figurative and what is literal. I'm not against taking some (a good bit) scripture literal. My preferences are mine, from years of study. I'm kind of like @DamianWarS in that the distinction between literal and not literal is not really helpful. Happily, we all pretty much agree on many spiritual readings. That's our base to go forward together, perhaps?

 

[public hermit]

seems that those who take a figurative view of the Bible take a literal view of the sacraments. (Eucharist/Baptism) And those who take a literal view of the Bible take a figurative view of the sacraments. (Communion/Baptism

Maybe the difference is in the traditions: one holds the sacraments as sacred, and the other the bible? That's a great observation. It probably says a lot, but I can't quite put my finger on why.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm not a fan of literal vs figurative.

Right. No one takes the whole Bible as one or the other. Literalists take quite a bit as figurative and those with a figurative view of the creation account in Genesis take quite a bit of the Bible literally.

 

[Saint Steven]

Maybe the difference is in the traditions: one holds the sacraments as sacred, and the other the bible? That's a great observation. It probably says a lot, but I can't quite put my finger on why.

This comes up in the discussion about transubstantiation. The Catholics (and other Traditional churches) take Jesus words literally when he says "This is my body... this is my blood..." whereas nontraditional folks see Jesus as saying they were symbolic of his body and blood.

Saint Steven said: ↑
seems that those who take a figurative view of the Bible take a literal view of the sacraments. (Eucharist/Baptism) And those who take a literal view of the Bible take a figurative view of the sacraments. (Communion/Baptism)

 

[Saint Steven]

Same is true of the waters of baptism. In the non-traditional church it is just water. Water that is used in a significant ceremony.

A ceremony, from my perspective, is an outward symbol of an inward reality. It is the spiritual inward reality that gives it significance. Believer's baptism. Peter said, "Repent and be baptized..." - Acts 2:38

@public hermit said: ↑
... The elements communicate spiritual realities and in that sense are sacramental. It's not just water, but sacramental water. Something spiritual is happening through it.

 

[Saint Steven]

I believe the creation account is one of the most meaningful and prophetic accounts in the bible but we can't get past the literal discussion. The literalness of the account is the least important and least interesting part of the account and we waste out time arguing over if it's literal or not.

Most troubling, I suppose, is that none of the New Testament writers share that view. They take the creation account as literal, as far as I can tell. Do you see something different there?

 

[hedrick]

Most troubling, I suppose, is that none of the New Testament writers share that view. They take the creation account as literal, as far as I can tell. Do you see something different there?

The point if the comments I’ve been making is that literal isn’t the right term. Jewish thinkers used the Bible as the basis for their thinking, but were also happy to reinterpret and even modify it, as you’ve noted yourself. In a sense the most accurate term is probably canonical. Part if what it meant to be Jewish is that you used the Torah. But I don’t think they were committed to one side or another in modern debates responding to very different ideas.

 

[Saint Steven]

... I never believed that Genesis was written by Moses---made no sense to me that he did, even as a child. It always says---Moses did this, Moses did that, never I did this or I did that. It is written as though someone else wrote it about him. And it makes not one bit of difference to me whether it was him or not. ...

That's an interesting view.

There are many questions about the origins of the Bible.