The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

public hermit said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's not scripture that's a delicate house of cards. It's a simple question of faith. Easy to trust God when it jives with the world's teachings. But God's truth diverges from worldly wisdom from the beginning, choose the path of life or death. It's a small thing for God to ask of us really, to accept the world is flat, motionless and enclosed, as it's borne out in our daily experience. Quite the opposite teach some contrivance that I'm tumbling towards the sun in the morning and falling away from it in the evening. Only a mountain of careful indoctrination can do that.

So it's all well and good to distill a number of platitudinous articles of faith, but they're devoid of any real meaning without a knowledge of God's truth over, above and contra the world. That's what lifting the veils is all about, and the great spiritual war that we're supposed to be fighting.

Personally I don't see any reason not to take it as literal.

Not that I have a problem with it being seen by others as figurative.

Saint Steven said:

To what end?
If there is a conspiracy, what is the goal? What benefit, and for whom?

Click to expand...

To steal your soul Steve.

Because when he lies he speaks his native language. And he deceiveth the whole world. Add it up.

Modern cosmology is so anti-Christ, totally Babylonian sorceries. All the wandering star planets named after false gods, 'spaceships' named after the devil. The serpent continues to 'Nasa' the ppl: Strong's Hebrew: 5377. נָשָׁא (nasha) -- to lend on interest, be a creditor

The reality is if you're going to be honest, that the Biblical worldview is fundamentally irreconcilable with modern cosmology.

An effective way to win a war is to deceive the opponent as to his whereabouts, set him adrift in a sea of nothingness.

Enough there?

Saint Steven said:

I don't think conceding to evolutionary science steals anyone's soul. A person can believe in Jesus and believe in Darwin. I won't claim they have lost their soul on that account. Same with the form of the planet. I won't declare the person with a globe map of the earth to be lost in their sins.

Does that seem reasonable?

Click to expand...

Nope, because it's a question of faith, our measure and where we choose to place it. Do you think eating from the table of angels and demons is ok? If you can't swallow the food from the first 'Do you trust me' of scripture, where do you think you're headed?

Saint Steven said:

Thanks for your reply.

I will have to put this in the same category as a figurative view of the creation account.

I don't think conceding to evolutionary science steals anyone's soul. A person can believe in Jesus and believe in Darwin. I won't claim they have lost their soul on that account. Same with the form of the planet. I won't declare the person with a globe map of the earth to be lost in their sins.

Does that seem reasonable?

Click to expand...

Yes, very reasonable! As noted previous the Genesis account is general in nature simply stating that God spoke all into existence. Obviously the specifics were not of critical import however, it seems clear that God also spoke to processes, as I previously stated. An ossified view of Genesis serves little purpose or truth...

Shrewd Manager said:

It's not scripture that's a delicate house of cards. It's a simple question of faith. Easy to trust God when it jives with the world's teachings. But God's truth diverges from worldly wisdom from the beginning, choose the path of life or death. It's a small thing for God to ask of us really, to accept the world is flat, motionless and enclosed, as it's borne out in our daily experience. Quite the opposite teach some contrivance that I'm tumbling towards the sun in the morning and falling away from it in the evening. Only a mountain of careful indoctrination can do that.

So it's all well and good to distill a number of platitudinous articles of faith, but they're devoid of any real meaning without a knowledge of God's truth over, above and contra the world. That's what lifting the veils is all about, and the great spiritual war that we're supposed to be fighting.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting view that I haven't come across before as being a part of Christianity. Where is it found in scripture?

Saint Steven said:

But didn't all the biblical writers referring to the account take it as literal? The framework of creation? Modern humanity might take another view, as we have seen on this topic, but the biblical writers seem unified on the literal view.

I have yet to see anyone on this topic present a confirmation of the figurative view of the creation account from the New Testament. Will you be the first?

Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting a "figurative" view of Genesis 1, rather a literal view understood and read with sufficient delicacy. (GKC) We had discussed this previous but perhaps I wasn't clear.

“And God said, ...” clearly this establishes that all of creation was actualized by God’s spoken command or fiat. Each day begins with those very words, so that God’s command was the source of all creation, the sole and only operative agent. (Psalm 33:6 – Heb. 11:3 – 2 Peter 3:5) One will also note that His commands were all sufficient, certainly requiring no further action on God’s part.

Gen. 1:3 “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” It would be difficult not to notice that plainly the command is immediately fulfilled. However all of the other commands do not state an immediate fulfillment. For example, “And God said, Let the land produce/bring forth...” clearly the command is not directed to immediate completion but through agency – mediate creation. God commands separation, God commands the land and the water to bring forth/produce living vegetation, fish, whales, birds, livestock, etc. No where does it say “And God said, Let there be vegetation, seed bearing trees, etc. ...” nowhere does it say “And God said, Let there be living creatures...” obviously this is avoided but rather the command/fiat is to an intermediary source. This in no way negates His creative power but rather suggests how he choose to create.

As the spoken command is the sole operative of creation what follows the command must be explanatory or parenthetical. Further only Gen. 1:3 states immediacy what follows, as noted above, does not state immediacy such that "And God said, Let there be living creatures, and there were living creatures". The oft "And it was so." clearly states that what God commands will come to fruition. Again, what then follows where stated "God made" can be interpreted by the question "how" and answered by his command through mediate creation.

The structure of the creation account follows a distinct pattern; The command, the fulfillment (And it was so), the explanatory note/post fulfillment, and the day. The six days are rooted in commands/fiats not confined to consecutive days or time frames...

Saint Steven said:

So, the end justifies the means? Wow.

Maybe you need to apply your own logic to the OP. On this thread it (if it's literal, or not) is the right question, it is the MAIN question. Nearly 25 pages of the question. Seems to be something to it.

If there is a better question, I encourage you to start a thread. Hopefully I would be as welcome there as you are on this thread.

Click to expand...

eastern value systems are honor-driven where western values systems are factually driven. your offense to this is from a western perspective but is not an issue in other systems. western systems put fact in the highest order. a prime example is the story of young Washington who cut down a cherry tree. His father discovered the fallen tree and Washington exclaims the famous line to which the father praises Washington for his dedication to honesty and we all applaud this as the pinnacle of our value system but did we all just forget that he cut down a tree and is now being patted on the back? This is a confusing account for easterners and they can't understand why this is the story behind a nation.

Ironically the account of Washington cutting down a tree is made up and it never happened. The account is set up to establish how Washington even as a boy was very honest and as a father to America through inheritance honesty becomes a driving value in the country. Easterners see Americans as dishonorable and Americans see easterners as dishonest, so your reaction to such an idea is a very common western reaction.

Saint Steven said:

How can we qualify this idea?
How is it (where is it) that God "says" the figurative reading is important? (if that is what you are saying)

Click to expand...

the meaning of the text is important. are you suggesting there is nothing more to it than the surface words? I'm saying that deeper meaning is more important.

Saint Steven said:

Two problems yet exist:
1) No consensus among those with a figurative view as to what the creation account means.
2) No support from other biblical authors, or the rest of Moses writing for that matter. (the Sabbath commandment being a prime example)

Click to expand...

consesus is not needed to study a text deeper. without or without the literal view the deeper meanings are still there. these meanings have greater benifit and are more productive to examine.

citation from other biblical authors demands the account to be ordained by God but it does not demand the account to be litteral.

Saint Steven said:

- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?

Click to expand...

ImCo:
It is a true story of what happened told with some metaphor. It is also confused by a lot of ancient mis-interpretations of what it means...

Trying to make the meaning of light in Gen 1 fit what we know about physical light is a doomed endeavour - it makes light to be meaningless. GOD is light might be a better place to start.