The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

Yarddog · Apr 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Wow. That's very interesting. However...
You have to sweep a lot of detail aside to distill it down to that. There must be more to it. Can you elaborate? I want to understand where you are coming from. Thanks.

The book of Genesis was written down after Moses came down from the mountain and it is a glorious book full of allegories and prophesy. It prophesies the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Gospel of John opens with those words, "In the beginning". He then tells us that this was about Jesus. In the beginning was the Word and the Word became man.

Gen. 2 "and the earth was without form or shape, with darkness over the abyss"
This is a world without God.

Gen 3. Then God said: Let there be light, and there was light.
Jesus says "I am the light".

4 God saw that the light was good. God then separated the light from the darkness.
5God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” Evening came, and morning followed—the first day.

The Hebrew day consisted of the night and then the day. The night is the time without Jesus Christ and the day is the time of Jesus Christ, the Light.
Matthew 4:16 THE PEOPLE WHO WERE SITTING IN DARKNESS SAW A GREAT LIGHT, AND THOSE WHO WERE SITTING IN THE LAND AND SHADOW OF DEATH, UPON THEM A LIGHT DAWNED.”

God created the two great lights to to illuminate the earth. The moon to shine in the darkness and the sun to rule the day but the Light is Jesus. The moon however, does not create light it only reflects what the sun provides. The moon is the Law and the sun is the Gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Gregory Thompson · Apr 24, 2021

Bobber said:
Indeed as if you've got some clear record to back up anything you're saying. Doesn't seem like you do. If you do show the actual scripture that supports this. If you're making this up on the fly at least admit that's what you're doing. So show scripture which shows God still sees the of the first day and what's that's supposed to mean. Sorry but until then Day 1 had a 24 hours cycle of morning and evening.

And again we don't have any absolute knowledge of what time does, or is in the higher realm. Pure speculation.

So tell us why YEC don't take the text "literally" I demonstrated that's exactly what I was doing so show me why I didn't. You on the other hand it seems just made things up as in the Day 1 Morning/Evening wasn't like all the others after the 4 day.

The 24 hour cycle didn't exist until day 4, using rhetoric doesn't make your argument more convincing.

All of the days in the creation were days that took ages to complete according to the text. The prayer of Moses who wrote the Genesis also said in Psalm 90 that 1000 years was like a day or watch in the night to the Lord.

The exact timeframe of a creation day is not revealed, and it's supposed to be a mystery.

Saint Steven · Apr 24, 2021

Michael Collum said:
... God still sees the created light of the first day. ...

Makes one wonder if he was in the dark prior to that. - lol

Oh wait, never mind.

1 Timothy 6:16 NIV
who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

Bruce Leiter · Apr 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
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.

Saint Steven · Apr 24, 2021

Yarddog said:
The book of Genesis was written down after Moses came down from the mountain and it is a glorious book full of allegories and prophesy. ...

Yes. Probably some time after that. If I was him I would have written down the Ten Commandments and the rest of the law first. (before I forgot what God told me to write down) - lol

Saint Steven · Apr 24, 2021

Michael Collum said:
The 24 hour cycle didn't exist until day 4, using rhetoric doesn't make your argument more convincing.

All of the days in the creation were days that took ages to complete according to the text. The prayer of Moses who wrote the Genesis also said in Psalm 90 that 1000 years was like a day or watch in the night to the Lord.

The exact timeframe of a creation day is not revealed, and it's supposed to be a mystery.

That's good.
What basis do you have to write that "All of the days in the creation were days that took ages to complete according to the text."? According to the text?

Two obvious problems to grapple with there. The measure of sunrise and sunset with each day of creation. And the reference by Moses to the creation week being six days. A week with the Sabbath day of rest. (the seventh day)

Exodus 20:11 NIV
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.

Saint Steven · Apr 24, 2021

Hey Bruce. Looks like your comments didn't make it to the page. Please try again. Thanks. @Bruce Leiter

Saint Steven said: ↑
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.

tryphena rose · Apr 24, 2021

myst33 said:
Not sure what the point is... that faith can be logically inconsistent?

That faith is much greater than our intellect. God seeks after the heart. He is not impressed with how much we know or don't know and no one will be able to argue their way out of hell or into Heaven.

The fact that an invalid can come to know God and enter into the Kingdom of Heaven by God's grace alone is more mercy and love then we can comprehend by the creator of everything. The Christian faith is not based on head-knowledge. The unbeliever will think what we believe is foolishness regardless of how many questions we can answer for them.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:18

My point in saying all of this to you is because I've read many of your posts here and your foundation seems to rest a lot upon how you can make sense of the Bible logically, even if the texts are meant to taken literally, which I think it's evident that they are. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's why I felt it important to point out that faith is much greater than logic in all of this.

Jipsah · Apr 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
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.

Unless Adam and Eve are archetypes. Not saying they are, but it doesn't seem too farfetched.

tryphena rose · Apr 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
I like what you are saying here.
I am quite uncomfortable with the idea that the inspired writers of the Bible lacked the forward-looking insight to unfold the story of our origins that was enough to account for everything it needed to. I want to understand the figurative view. But it has yet to speak to me in a meaningful way. There are problems with both views, but not enough for me to abandon a mostly literal view.

Thank you brother Steve.

Yes, and I agree. We must not forget that God is a supernatural God and we cannot understand the Bible from a purely materialistic or scientific perspective, try as we may. Many of the events that occurred throughout the Bible, takes great faith to believe in regardless if we have an answer for it or not. All of the Biblical authors received direct revelation from God to write down what they wrote in the first place, thus being inspired by God. How would we ever verify this? It's pretty impossible to do so unless you go in faith and believe what has been plainly written for us.

I've gone back many times and looked at a lot of the old testament prophecies foretelling Jesus as the coming Messiah and what you find is some of the most amazing dots that have ever been connected. It almost makes me tear up when I think about it. Now most of the Jews will deny many of the texts within their own Torah that point to Jesus. Rabbis going as far as to ignoring the entire chapter of Isaiah 53 all together and labelling it "forbidden" because when Jews read it they literally think it's from the new testament. But these rabbis, these religious leaders do the same things many of us Christians do in our own churches and Christian schools - which is handpick parts of the Bible that are easiest to digest in our modern understanding and culture and label the rest as just mere poetry. How foolish of us. As if we really think we'll win over a bunch of atheists and rescue a dying culture by abandoning the literal view of scripture and adopting a compromised scientific one.

I'll tell you, as a former atheist the problem with the unbeliever is always a heart problem. Not an intellectual one.

Saint Steven · Apr 24, 2021

Jipsah said:
Unless Adam and Eve are archetypes. Not saying they are, but it doesn't seem too farfetched.

I agree, however...
The entire Bible treats them as real people. Real people show up in genealogies.

Genesis 5:3-5 NIV
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

Saint Steven · Apr 24, 2021

tryphena rose said:
... I've gone back many times and looked at a lot of the old testament prophecies foretelling Jesus as the coming Messiah and what you find is some of the most amazing dots that have ever been connected. It almost makes me tear up when I think about it. Now most of the Jews will deny many of the texts within their own Torah that point to Jesus. Rabbis going as far as to ignoring the entire chapter of Isaiah 53 all together and labelling it "forbidden" because when Jews read it they literally think it's from the new testament. ...

So true. (see bold in quote above)

Our series I Met Messiah has reached millions in Israel and around the world with these testimonies of faith and eyes being opened to our Savior! If you've been blessed by these and would like to help proclaim the Gospel to Jewish seekers around the world, consider partnering with us to help us produce more of the powerful testimonies!

public hermit · Apr 24, 2021

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

I just saw this thread. Great thread. I haven't read everything, yet. So, apologies in advance.

Why couldn't the account of the fall in Genesis be in reference to reality, while also not being in a one-for-one correspondence with historical happenings? Myths aren't just stories. They're sacramental in the sense that they communicate a reality that transcends our work-a-day world.

Paul's reference doesn't stand or fall on there being a historical Adam. It stands or falls on whether sin is ubiquitous throughout the human species. If that obtains, then Paul's assertion stands. Humanity started somewhere, regardless. Either sin is a human (Hebrew word-->adam) problem or it's not. If it is, we need saving.

As an aside, I don't need Paul to come to the conclusion that something seems inherently off about humanity. We're a mess and always have been.

Saint Steven · Apr 24, 2021

public hermit said:
I just saw this thread. Great thread. I haven't read everything, yet. So, apologies in advance.

Thanks. I'm glad that you are weighing in on this.

Saint Steven · Apr 24, 2021

public hermit said:
... Paul's reference doesn't stand or fall on there being a historical Adam. ...

I agree, but the Bible as a whole seems to treat Adam as a historical person. What do you make of this?

Genesis 5:3-5 NIV
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

tryphena rose · Apr 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
So true. (see bold in quote above)

Our series I Met Messiah has reached millions in Israel and around the world with these testimonies of faith and eyes being opened to our Savior! If you've been blessed by these and would like to help proclaim the Gospel to Jewish seekers around the world, consider partnering with us to help us produce more of the powerful testimonies!

Yes!!! I love the One for Israel testimonies! So powerful what God is doing through our Jewish brothers and sisters in the faith.

Jamsie · Apr 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
The figurative view is very locked into the Genesis account and parsing words.

It is obvious that elsewhere in the Bible the literal view is upheld. Unless I am overlooking something. Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.

I'm not quite sure what I have said that is figurative? I'm not sure what has been parsed, this is a plain reading of the text...does it not state " ... Let the land produce...". The literal view is that the "And God said, ..." is the sole agency therefore beyond the command would be parenthetical. Yes, elsewhere it is confirmed - Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5.

public hermit · Apr 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
If Genesis is a myth (whether that is good or bad) then the theology built on it is also a myth

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.

public hermit · Apr 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
I agree, but the Bible as a whole seems to treat Adam as a historical person. What do you make of this?

Genesis 5:3-5 NIV
When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

Perhaps it's all historically accurate. Perhaps not. I don't take the approach that if one thing is not historically accurate none of it can be trusted. The bible is a collection of sacramental writings (i.e. communicating the divine), written by many authors from varied contexts, over a long stretch of time.

I don't expect the scriptures to be perfect or without any error. I expect them to communicate the ineffable, the transcendent, the divine and to do so from a place of finite, flawed humanity. This they do. Why do I need to know some Hebrew carved up his concubine into twelves pieces, each piece of her for the twelve tribes of Israel? I don't. I could have lived my whole life trusting Christ and never knew that, and would be better for it.

At any rate, I don't expect error-free perfection from our holy writings. They serve their purpose.

What they end up communicating is the living, risen Christ. A person, not a collection of inspired writings. Once I know that, the scriptures take a back seat. They have a purpose, but they are not the purpose.They are a means to an end, but they are not that end.

Gregory Thompson · Apr 24, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Makes one wonder if he was in the dark prior to that. - lol

Oh wait, never mind.

1 Timothy 6:16 NIV
who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.

Curious indeed.

He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him-- the dark rain clouds of the sky. Psalm 18:11

God dwells in a place of unapproachable light who hides himself in dark clouds.

The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

Senior Contributor

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

You can call me Steve

A sinner saved by God's astounding grace and love

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Daughter of the Most High

Blood Drinker

Daughter of the Most High

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

social troglodyte

You can call me Steve

You can call me Steve

Daughter of the Most High

Well-Known Member

social troglodyte

social troglodyte

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Similar threads