The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

Saint Steven said:

I posted these earlier.

Click to expand...

It appears that I wasn’t as clear as I should have been.

I wasn’t arguing that no one in the NT cited OT stories. My point was that the whole problem of modern science and archaeology hadn’t arisen, so they didn’t have to be explicit about how they thought of the stories.

I believe the freeness with which both OT and NT authors treat stories, not to mention other Jewish sources, doesn’t indicate that they had the same concern about literal historical accuracy as current conservative Christians.

The point isn’t that they treated the stories as figurative. I don’t think they did. It’s not that elements in the story are symbols for something else. Consider fiction. In most of it the stories aren't figurative. It’s just that their value isn’t their historical accuracy. I’m not claiming that the OT is fiction. Much of it is based on history. Other parts are based on traditional stories. But I think in the NT they aren’t told for their historical interest, but rather that Jewish theology tended to be narrative. Where Greek thought (at least the parts we will read) used metaphysics, Jews used narratives to think through and talk about their ideas.

Saint Steven said:

In the creation week with everything else.

Click to expand...

OK, it just isn't stated in Genesis as the earth and heavens being created on a particular day...

tryphena rose said:

When the Bible says the earth is a circle it is using the Hebrew word chug, meaning to draw out a circle like a compass, like you would do with paper. God could of easily have called the earth a spherical circle with the use of the Hebrew word dur, meaning ball in Hebrew.

Click to expand...

Thank you, yes anyone who raises Isa 40:22 in defence of the globe deserves to be rolled into a ball and thrown into a far country as per Isa 22:18. Just joking, but the veils do need to be removed, and for many, maybe only tribulation can achieve that.

Saint Steven said:

On a humorous note, The Message Bible translation/Paraphrase has this to say. (boo)

Psalm 17:10-14 The Message
Their hearts are hard as nails, their mouths blast hot air. They are after me, nipping my heels, determined to bring me down, Lions ready to rip me apart, young lions poised to pounce. Up, God: beard them! break them! By your sword, free me from their clutches; Barehanded, God, break these mortals, these flat-earth people who can’t think beyond today. I’d like to see their bellies swollen with famine food, The weeds they’ve sown harvested and baked into famine bread, With second helpings for their children and crusts for their babies to chew on.

Click to expand...

I guess Eugene Peterson wasn't a flat-earther

Saint Steven said:

What do you make of the crescent moon?
The shadow on it indicates a spherical form, unless I am missing something here.

Click to expand...

Ever seen a shadow or silhouette that's actually smaller than the object projected? You'll notice that the assumed relative positions of the sun, earth and moon don't fit with the theory of earth's shadow moon phases.

Saint Steven said:

I agree in a general sense. But whether the account is CONSIDERED literal, or figurative is VERY important in THIS culture, in which we are having the discussion.

However, I really appreciate your point of view. Thanks. (even though I blasted you for it. - lol)

Click to expand...

Paul tells us in 1 Cor 9:22 "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some." this statement Paul makes is about negotiable cultural blindnesses or things that don't ultimately matter to the gospel (like language, dress, food, etc...) and as those who carry the message we contextualize it so that our mission may see rather than challenge this blindness. I believe this has as much to do with post-exodus Hebrews wandering in the desert to which this account was given as it does today.

But in doing so we identify the literal component as the weakness or the cultural blindness that doesn't matter and surrender to it so that the gospel may be heard among those who demand it to be literal. To play this card we must identify our mission first as having this demand. To start our mission needs to be those who do not know Christ (obviously) and would be offended by the idea of a non-literal creation account (or at the very least more drawn to the idea of a literal creation account). I'm not so sure we can establish this as the umbrella culture and where some may gravitate to the literal just as easily some will gravitate away.

Paul gives us his motivation in verse 23 saying "I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings." so it is all for the sake of the gospel and if by subscribing to these weaknesses we compromise the gospel then we have become counter-gospel which is the opposite Paul is talking about. I'm living in a community where all my neighbours are Muslim so I would say for me this actually might be the demand in my community as they may feel more connected to a literal account than a non-literal one (but it's not a question that's come up). If I lived in a community full of atheists then perhaps a non-literal account would be more beneficial. I can't say what you mean by "THIS culture" but your context is your context and something you will have to make the call regarding how you carry the gospel to that context.

Saint Steven said:

Wasn't it credited to Galileo for "discovering" the earth was "round"? Was flat earth the standard view before that? (seems so) Along with fears of sailing ships off the edge. - lol

Click to expand...

It was Cristobal Colon aka Christopher Columbus who's credited today with proving the sphericity of the earth, even though it works just as well on a flat map. Aristotle conjectured the earth was round based on the apparent disappearance of boats hull first over the horizon.

But yes, good question. I've come to believe that the Ptolemaic model was actually premised on a flat earth, but haven't been able to verify that either way. The Catholics seem pretty certain that it was a ball earth, admittedly I haven't spent enough time on this issue. Ppl equate FE with medieval thinking. It'd be interesting to see if this was so.

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

Christians did not generally teach a flat earth. The idea that they did is a fairly recent myth.

Saint Steven said:

If the flat earth is a myth, why aren't you fine folks with a figurative view of the creation account onboard with it? - lol

Click to expand...

No. The myth is that Christians taught it.

Saint Steven said:

So, what about Galileo and Columbus? (or the rest of Ohio for that matter - lol)

Click to expand...

Galileo's issue was that the earth was no longer at the center. That was the objection, not the shape of the earth.

The objection to Columbus was about the size of the earth. See Voyages of Christopher Columbus - Wikipedia). Columbus skeptics didn't think he'd fall off the earth but he would run out of supplies before he reached China. And he would have if America hadn't been there.

Saint Steven said:

Doesn't this create a real problem for our faith? That these supposed God-breathed scriptures that are useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, are nothing more than mythical stories? (2 Timothy 3:16) Mythical stories that are "debunked" by modern science and archaeology. ???

Click to expand...

It’s only a problem for faith if you try to use the Bible as an ancient science book. If you think the stories are told as a way to think through larger questions, then the historical accuracy of the creation story isn’t a problem.

Remember that the final editing of these books was probably during or right after the Exile. The big question for Israel was how to understand their apparent abandonment by God. Normally when a people were exiled like that their religion died. The big theme of the historical books is God’s call, people’s disobedience, God’s punishment, but his grace.

That’s precisely what we see in Gen 2 - 3. I doubt that the story was originally written to show that. It was probably a traditional story that was old when it was put into its place in the OT. But in its current context, it shows that God worked that way from the beginning. There are also some interesting details. Why would the tree of knowledge be prohibited? Using an approach from Eastern Christianity, Adam and Eve were immature. God would eventually have brought them to understand. But they wanted a quick and easy way to avoid developing maturity.

You could come up with ways to talk about the various issues in the story abstractly, but that’s not the way Jews worked, and it’s not the way Jesus worked in his teaching. Besides, there’s not just one “moral” from the story. Like any good story, there are lots of interesting things to think about and talk about.

2 Tim doesn't say Scripture is useful to learn about ancient history or science. They aren't a textbook that you go to and get answers from directly. Because the world is too complex for that. We don't need answers. We need wisdom, to understand what's happening in our lives and around us and see what we need to do. You don't get wisdom from facts alone, though facts inform decision-making. You get it from experience, but a good way to start is from stories about your people's past, and taking part in ongoing discussions about how to understand it. You're suggesting exactly the mistake that Eve made in the Garden: replacing the process of developing wisdom with getting immediate answers.

I said before that in my opinion Jews used those stories not because they were historically true but because they were canonical. If you're going to have a community reflecting on history and tradition, you need a common base for them to use. The Bible is that base we've been given. It's the set of stories that are canonical, on which we base our common discussions. For the NT and parts of the OT they are also historical, but there's plenty of things in the OT that aren't. The Psalms aren't history. Ecclesiastes isn't history. In my opinion, Jonah is a satire and Job is a set of reflections based on a traditional story that is probably not historical.

It matters that the Gospels are reasonably accurate historically, because we're followers of Jesus, and his teachings and resurrection are essential to Christianity. The accuracy of OT history doesn't matter to us unless we foolishly base on confidence on it. (Of course the OT doesn't make sense unless there's an actual nation of Israel, chosen by God, and at the very least the events leading up to the Exile take place.)