The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

[Saint Steven]

How can there be problems with a figurative view, if it's figurative?

Those with a literal view have a problem with a figurative view.

 

[Job 33:6]

Those with a literal view have a problem with a figurative view.

I think that those with a literal view are cherry pickers. They're literal until they're figurative.

Show them a dozen verses on a solid firmament, flat Earth and stars in the firmament and somehow they translate firmament into empty space and windows or vaults of the firmament become wormholes for flood waters.

The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid but That’s Not the Point - Articles

 

[coffee4u]

Those with a literal view have a problem with a figurative view.

Just because something is literal does not exclude it from having a spiritual aspect as well.

The Israelite's (literally) put Lambs blood on the door lintels, this was a picture of Christ's saving blood. They also ate lamb, again a reference towards the Lords Supper. In fact much of the Old Testament events were a shadow of things to come.

Adam being tempted and failed is a type of shadow of Jesus being tempted and succeeding.
1 Corinthians 15 “So it is written: ‘The first man Adam became a living being;’ the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.
The lambs blood was no different, the natural came first and after the spiritual.

So no, I have no difficulty with a spiritual view. But figurative? No, nothing in scripture is purely and solely figurative. It could be figurative and spiritual though, such as a Psalm.

 

[coffee4u]

The word firmament can mean a variety of things. In English it can be the heavens, sky or dome and possibly outer space. Nothing new for a word to have subtle shades of meaning, the word love in the Bible has at least 3 meanings. Gods love, brotherly love, romantic love. Each share something but are still unique.

 

[Job 33:6]

The word firmament can mean a variety of things. In English it can be the heavens, sky or dome and possibly outer space. Nothing new for a word to have subtle shades of meaning, the word love in the Bible has at least 3 meanings. Gods love, brotherly love, romantic love. Each share something but are still unique.

The firmament is described by many verses to be a solid feature, and it is limited in it's thickness. That's why it's called the firmament, or "dome". Just as Israel's missile defense system is also called the "iron dome". This is the original meaning. Not space or sky.

The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid but That’s Not the Point - Articles

That's why it has flood gates (Genesis) which otherwise hold back waters of the heavens until opened. That's why birds fly across the flat face of it (Genesis). That's why God's throne can rest above it (Ezekiel). It might roll up like a scroll and is spread like a tent over us (Psalms), it's spread like metal (Job). It's how it separates waters from waters yet still contains stars in it (Genesis). Unless you think heavenly waters are millions of light years away.

True literalists take scripture at its word. What you're doing is cherry picking. The conservative YEC literalists have somehow become figurative progressive cherry pickers.

The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid but That’s Not the Point - Articles

https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/te...s/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf

What Does the Bible Say About Firmament?

Every other culture and society believed the same thing as the authors of Genesis, that the earth was flat with a dome over it, further supporting this Biblical and literal reading of scripture, and it aligns with science as we wouldn't expect people 3,000 years ago to know the planet was a sphere to begin with.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think that those with a literal view are cherry pickers. They're literal until they're figurative.

I suppose anyone can be accused of cherry-picking. (or out-of-context)
Translation: Doesn't match what I believe. Appears to be an unrelated collection of ideas.

A whole range of literal and figurative positions. As you noted, even those who claim a literal view, are bringing some figurative aspects. I suppose those with a figurative view do likewise. See some aspects as literal.

 

[Saint Steven]

Just because something is literal does not exclude it from having a spiritual aspect as well.

I think we (as a whole thread) may be getting off on a tangent here.

My reference to literal and figurative are intended to be generalized positions in reference to the Genesis account.

Those with a literal view of the Genesis account see a creation week of six literal days and God creating in the order that the text states that he did. The figurative view of creation takes into account what we know from current science and interprets the text from that perspective. (in opposition to the literal view)

Even a person with a literal view will bring in some figurative aspects. And those with a figurative view will bring in some literal aspects.

And then there is the spiritual aspect, which you mentioned. Which is aside from the literal and figurative views.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

My answer to this is fairly short: With everything that has gone into my current understanding of Genesis as an ancient literary work, I lean heavily toward interpreting it in a way similar to how Conrad Hyers [among others like him] has interpreted it--that is, I take the earliest chapters of Genesis to be neither literal nor figurative in the ways we would usually conceptualize these terms in our modern day.

Rather, I see Genesis as an ancient cosmogony (similar to 'cosmology,' but a little different). The author's (Moses?) purpose of which was to present an alternative account that sets itself over and against the already existing accounts of origins which were prevalent approximately 3,000 years ago, serving as a sacred corrective and attestation to an inverted idea--that there is only one God, Creator of the Cosmos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony

Conrad Hyers - The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science (1984)

 

[Job 33:6]

I think we (as a whole thread) may be getting off on a tangent here.

My reference to literal and figurative are intended to be generalized positions in reference to the Genesis account.

Those with a literal view of the Genesis account see a creation week of six literal days and God creating in the order that the text states that he did. The figurative view of creation takes into account what we know from current science and interprets the text from that perspective. (in opposition to the literal view)

Even a person with a literal view will bring in some figurative aspects. And those with a figurative view will bring in some literal aspects.

And then there is the spiritual aspect, which you mentioned. Which is aside from the literal and figurative views.

What's interesting is that historically there were Christians that understood Genesis figuratively. Augustine for example lived in 400 CE, and Origen in 250 CE. Long long before current science. Just to add this in there as examples of non-literalists who viewed Genesis in a figurative way.

I tend to view creation similar to WLC and Dr. Ortlund, expressed here:

 

[coffee4u]

I think we (as a whole thread) may be getting off on a tangent here.

My reference to literal and figurative are intended to be generalized positions in reference to the Genesis account.

Those with a literal view of the Genesis account see a creation week of six literal days and God creating in the order that the text states that he did. The figurative view of creation takes into account what we know from current science and interprets the text from that perspective. (in opposition to the literal view)

Even a person with a literal view will bring in some figurative aspects. And those with a figurative view will bring in some literal aspects.

And then there is the spiritual aspect, which you mentioned. Which is aside from the literal and figurative views.

But the one point you are missing is, it's not just because of Genesis. If Genesis were by itself with no more verses referring back to it, then the figurative reading would make sense, but there are dozens of verses outside of the Genesis account that make no sense if Genesis 1-3 is a myth or parable. It is the verses outside of of the story of creation that point to it being literal.

I am too unwell right now to go diving but one to start with would be later in Genesis where we are told Adam lived 930 years and then he died and later in Luke become part of the genealogy of Jesus?

 

[Bruce Leiter]

The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?
-Probably not.
Was Adam the first human, a created being?
Yes, according to the Apostle Paul, as the head of humanity.
- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)
I don't know exactly what Adam looked like, and God is spirit, according to Jesus (John 4).
- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?
It is literal as compressed history.
- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)
Moses wrote the Pentateuch during the 40 years in the desert, probably using oral tradition according to God's inspiration.
- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)
Before Adam fell into rebellion against God with Eve, he could be called a son of God. Then, he became a sinner. Therefore, Luke was right.

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

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.

 

[Job 33:6]

But the one point you are missing is, it's not just because of Genesis. If Genesis were by itself with no more verses referring back to it, then the figurative reading would make sense, but there are dozens of verses outside of the Genesis account that make no sense if Genesis 1-3 is a myth or parable. It is the verses outside of of the story of creation that point to it being literal.

I am too unwell right now to go diving but one to start with would be later in Genesis where we are told Adam lived 930 years and then he died and later in Luke become part of the genealogy of Jesus?

I dont see why Adam cannot be a real person, while simultaneously be literarily enhanced or glorified in historical narrative. So for example, George Washington was a real person, but if we watched a Hollywood movie of him, people might say really grand things about him that may not have literally been true.

Ancient heroes of China are another good example, such as Guan Yu or Lu Bu, where heroes could defeat a thousand men in battle and road horses that could jump hundreds of feet and run faster than cars could drive. Such as described in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. But just because a horse was once said to jump 50 feet across a river, or just because I man was said to win a fight against 1000 men in combat, even if the story isn't literally true, this doesn't mean that the person therefore didn't exist.

 

[FredVB]

Except scripture included all of it, including the heavens and earth from Genesis 1 into the 6 days.

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

That would likely be relative to the earth, as nothing of the creation of the bodies in the heavens (the universe beyond this earth) were made to be in view of any until the fourth day of creation, there was only the light to be in view from the first day on, yet leaving surface of earth in shadow through times for night.

The significance of the creation account being right is that God made the world in perfection, and there was no killing and constant death in cycles to get to that. God made this world perfectly and there was no fault or shortcoming in it. The troubles in the world came from curses on it, when there was rebellion and falling to sin, with sins continuing, from humanity.

Have a good Sabbath.

 

[FredVB]

There was fall of humanity with sinning which is rebellion to being in God's will, and with this curse in the world, which is still spreading, with more and more of the rebellious sin, and this was change from the start from perfection of God's design. This is the reason Jesus Christ came, that there would be atonement and there would be restoration of people to God, who is not willing that any would perish, while they need to come to repentance with which there is essential faith. With the restoration there is to be the appearance of the redemption that all that are creation groan for with hope, that God will answer accordingly, with a new earth and no more suffering or sin, which will be without just the unrepentant, who are still without essential faith.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

I say literal because I am in the Christian Universal Redemption camp and one of the main proof texts is as in Adam all die so in Christ all will be saved. If Adam was Not the first human created but just a type or figure then there could be a line of humanity that is fallen and some that are not and that changes all of scripture. Is Jesus just a type or figure or is he really the one who died for all a real human/God. Once you say it’s not literal then are there some people who came from a line that didn’t sin or did all humanity sin at the same time?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If Adam was Not the first human created but just a type or figure then there could be a line of humanity that is fallen
and some that are not and that changes all of scripture.

How not fallen? It is a fall to be born.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

How not fallen? It is a fall to be born.

No it’s not a fall to be born that’s a Augustine error. We are responsible for our own sin not the sin of others . Adam fell and because of his fall death came to humanity and now we live in a fallen state and we have no choice but to sin it’s our default setting. My point was that if Adam was not the first man that was created and he sinned before any children were born and all of humanity has followed but if Adam is just a “type” then there could be some humans that are not of Adam and not sinners.

 

[rturner76]

I think that the outline of creation is literal. However, I'm not sure that is is literal in the sense that these large movements of the Sun, Earth, Moon, stars, water land, and life than human life. I do believe every one of those steps was recorded in the correct order and I believe that science would agree.

The part where science and lore collide is on the concept of the 24 hour day. "In the beginning." Who knows how many hours there were in a day and how many years there were in an age? Especially if we consider modern vernacular like "In this day and age."

Another opinion I have heard is that in ancient times, people were considered wise by how long they were living. So being 900+ years old MAY NOT (I didn't say is not) be a specific number of rotations around the sun but it could have been a measure of wisdom. As we had only the rotation of the Sun and the cycles of the Moon and not a calendar with days, weeks, and months measured by 34 hour increments that were all named and numbered, on could possibly say that due to his complete mental and physical superiority and the likely short lifespan of the impoverished, A man who lived through the times of many generations one may equate one's age into hundreds of years.

None of my little thories and suggestions would I swear were real to God. It's just a few ways I can explain why my common sense goes toward the correct sequence of events. I just have a hard time with everything we can prove, the Sun could be created one day and a man, five days later. Just considering even how long it takes for lava to cool etc.

The big Church has accepted evolution as another their but not a fact.

I've been told that some things in the Bible are instructions, some are history, some are philosophy, and some are legends.

Just keeping an open mind either way. It is an emotional response to say that what is written is proven fact when it is in fact theory. Neither science nor the religious communities are working from pure fact but a hypothesis.

 

[Job 33:6]

I dont see why Adam cannot be a real person, while simultaneously be literarily enhanced or glorified in historical narrative. So for example, George Washington was a real person, but if we watched a Hollywood movie of him, people might say really grand things about him that may not have literally been true.

Ancient heroes of China are another good example, such as Guan Yu or Lu Bu, where heroes could defeat a thousand men in battle and road horses that could jump hundreds of feet and run faster than cars could drive. Such as described in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. But just because a horse was once said to jump 50 feet across a river, or just because I man was said to win a fight against 1000 men in combat, even if the story isn't literally true, this doesn't mean that the person therefore didn't exist.

On this note, this is actually how the heroes of David are described in the book of Chronicles. Or David's mighty warriors:
1 Chronicles 11:
20 Abishai the brother of Joab was chief of the Three. He raised his spear against three hundred men, whom he killed, and so he became as famous as the Three. 21 He was doubly honored above the Three and became their commander, even though he was not included among them.

22 Benaiah son of Jehoiada, a valiant fighter from Kabzeel, performed great exploits. He struck down Moab’s two mightiest warriors. He also went down into a pit on a snowy day and killed a lion. 23 And he struck down an Egyptian who was five cubits[c] tall. Although the Egyptian had a spear like a weaver’s rod in his hand, Benaiah went against him with a club. He snatched the spear from the Egyptian’s hand and killed him with his own spear.

This is normal of ancient texts. They have very glorified narratives of heroes in combat. China has many similar stories of heroes battling hundreds of men at once and defeating tigers and things of this nature.

 

[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.

regardless if it's literal or not the creation account definitely employs the figurative by the use of light being spoken into darkness which is probably the most significant symbol used in the bible and also explicitly confirmed in 2 Cor 4:6.

IMO the study of the figurative aspects are more important than the study of the literal. if the events happened in the exact way mentioned or not does not change the figurative meaning of God speaking light into darkness, triggering a process that when complete ends in rest. That is a salvation message as I was once was that dark formless void that light was spoken into. I think the study of the literal is distracting from the figurative message which is more impactful and because of that should the literal study should be our least concern.

so is it literal? I don't care.
is it figurative? regardless if Adam is a real person or not the account is very clearly figurative and this is far more impactful of a message