Biblical literalism and the story of creation

[Jester4kicks]

This topic has been touched on a few times, but I don't think it has ever been fully-explored. I recently explored the topic in a PM convo with another member, but they really couldn't answer the question either.

So I'm opening the floor. AV, you probably know that you're on my ignore list, but since (to the best of my knowledge) you are one of the forum's bible literalists, I'm actually interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

What is the basis (or reasoning) behind interpretting the bible, especially the story of creation, in a literal fashion?

I don't want anyone to think I'm holding some major counterpoint or argument back, so I'm just going to lay it all out on the table.

1) I'm not aware of any scripture that specifically directs people to read the bible in a literal fashion, let alone the stoy of creation, itself.

2) Requiring a literal interpretation of the bible seems like it precludes the possibility that the story of creation utilizes metaphors or analogies. Given that the story of creation was supposed to be inspired by god, and god is supposed to be so great and powerful that man could spend lifetimes in study and still not fully understand god or how he works... it seems that a strictly-literalist interpretation either assumes a knowledge of god that man is incapable of, or it places limits on the scope of god's power by saying that god couldn't have been using metaphors or analogies in the story.

3) This is a lesser point, but I'm still interested in an answer... didn't the new covenant essentially dismiss everything from the Old Testament? Whenever I see discussions pertaining to some of the more extreme laws and punishments from the OT, I generally see christian members who argue that the new covenant did away with all of that and sort started the slate "clean" with the lessons and values that jesus taught.

So, if that is the case, why isn't the entire OT viewed more like "God's Lessons to Man, version 1.0"... written, remembered, but not as relevant in light of the new covenant?


Just some lingering questions that I've never been able to get a straight answer to. Take care, all.

 

[juvenissun]

This topic has been touched on a few times, but I don't think it has ever been fully-explored. I recently explored the topic in a PM convo with another member, but they really couldn't answer the question either.

So I'm opening the floor. AV, you probably know that you're on my ignore list, but since (to the best of my knowledge) you are one of the forum's bible literalists, I'm actually interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

What is the basis (or reasoning) behind interpretting the bible, especially the story of creation, in a literal fashion?

I don't want anyone to think I'm holding some major counterpoint or argument back, so I'm just going to lay it all out on the table.

1) I'm not aware of any scripture that specifically directs people to read the bible in a literal fashion, let alone the stoy of creation, itself.

2) Requiring a literal interpretation of the bible seems like it precludes the possibility that the story of creation utilizes metaphors or analogies. Given that the story of creation was supposed to be inspired by god, and god is supposed to be so great and powerful that man could spend lifetimes in study and still not fully understand god or how he works... it seems that a strictly-literalist interpretation either assumes a knowledge of god that man is incapable of, or it places limits on the scope of god's power by saying that god couldn't have been using metaphors or analogies in the story.

3) This is a lesser point, but I'm still interested in an answer... didn't the new covenant essentially dismiss everything from the Old Testament? Whenever I see discussions pertaining to some of the more extreme laws and punishments from the OT, I generally see christian members who argue that the new covenant did away with all of that and sort started the slate "clean" with the lessons and values that jesus taught.

So, if that is the case, why isn't the entire OT viewed more like "God's Lessons to Man, version 1.0"... written, remembered, but not as relevant in light of the new covenant?


Just some lingering questions that I've never been able to get a straight answer to. Take care, all.

"Literal" is not a term which could be defined clearly.
The basis of Bible interpretation is not a scientific one.

 

[Jester4kicks]

"Literal" is not a term which could be defined clearly.
The basis of Bible interpretation is not a scientific one.

Ok, so then what is the basis?

What I mean is that when bible-literalists look at Genesis and see that god created adam by blowing the breath of life into a pile of dust... and they think that, because that's how it is stated in scripture, that that's exactly how it happened... what is the basis for that?

Oh, and just to clarify, I am genuinely interested in an answer here. In regard to this aspect of my question(s), I'm not trying to be critical of those beliefs... I just want to understand where they come from.

 

[Hespera]

I didnt know that science had anything to do with interpreting what a document means. Bring in a lawyer for that. Or someone with a Urim or Thummim.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the basis (or reasoning) behind interpretting the bible, especially the story of creation, in a literal fashion?

Several reasons come to mind:

1. Judgment --- we are going to receive rewards according to how we conducted our lives here, based on God's Word.
2. God is not the author of confusion, and wouldn't start His Word out with allegory, then switch to literalism.
3. In almost every case, the Bible alerts the reader to a passage that is not literal.
4. God places a high emphasis on knowing His creation. As [the late] Henry Morris points out in his Defender's Study Bible, if you study the questions He asked Job, every question has to deal with His creation. Most people think God was chiding Job for not understanding why God was allowing him to suffer; but that's not the case. God was chiding Job for not understanding that He was instrumental in creating everything.
5. There is no reason to assume Genesis 1 was written non-literally. The only ones who have trouble with a literal interpretation are the ones who hold science up higher than God.
6. A figurative Genesis 1 allows for all sorts of heresies; from aliens seeding the earth, to abiogenesis kick-starting plant and animal life.
7. As J Dwight Pentecost points out, interpreting Genesis 1 figuratively allows the mind of the reader to become the authority for what happened back then; whereas a literal Genesis 1 forces those even hostile to the Bible to confess that It is against evolution, panspermia, and other heresies.
8. God used Genesis 1 as a template for modeling the workweek prescribed in the Ten Commandments.
9. Occam's Razor
10. The Holy Spirit bears witness in me that Genesis 1 is literal.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Thanks for responding, AV. I'd like to examine some of these responses a little further.

Judgment --- we are going to receive rewards according to how we conducted our lives here, based on God's Word.

I think I know what you're referring to, but I'm a tad confused. I was under the impression that the "rewards" of heaven were based on the rules and guidelines that god (or jesus) specifically laid out. (i.e. the ten commandments and the values that jesus taught)

How does the interpretation of the story of creation have anything to do with these rules and guidelines?

God is not the author of confusion, and wouldn't start His Word out with allegory, then switch to literalism.

Fair enough... but where did he "switch" at all? If anything, it seems like the further you get into the bible, the more that allegories, metaphors, and analogies become prominent. (such as many of jesus' teachings about being "the vine" and "the bread of life")

In almost every case, the Bible alerts the reader to a passage that is not literal.

Could you provide some examples? I'm not sure I've ever read a verse that said "ok, what I'm about to say is just an analogy".

God places a high emphasis on knowing His creation. As [the late] Henry Morris points out in his Defender's Study Bible, if you study the questions He asked Job, every question has to deal with His creation. Most people think God was chiding Job for not understanding why God was allowing him to suffer; but that's not the case. God was chiding Job for not understanding that He was instrumental in creating everything.

I assume you're referring to Job 38-40(ish)? I'm familiar with it, but I've never taken it as a prolonged way of god saying "go back and study Genesis line-by-line". Every time I studied it, it always seemed like god was basically telling Job, "you don't know me, and you can't possibly begin to grasp the enormity of what I've done and how I work". From this perspective, this particular part of the bible actually emphasizes the second question I presented in the OP.

Or did I misunderstand your intentions in citing Job?

There is no reason to assume Genesis 1 was written non-literally. The only ones who have trouble with a literal interpretation are the ones who hold science up higher than God.

Hang on, AV... let's not shoot for the neck. I'm trying to understand your position, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't digress into comments like that.

Now, regarding the rest of what you said there, I'm not saying that there is necessarily a reason to think it was written non-literally... what I'm asking is why there is any reason to assume it was written literally.

A figurative Genesis 1 allows for all sorts of heresies; from aliens seeding the earth, to abiogenesis kick-starting plant and animal life.

Without entertaining the slippery-slope element of that position... what's wrong with it?

As J Dwight Pentecost points out, interpreting Genesis 1 figuratively allows the mind of the reader to become the authority for what happened back then; whereas a literal Genesis 1 forces those even hostile to the Bible to confess that It is against evolution, panspermia, and other heresies.

I'm lost... the reason to read the bible literally is BECAUSE it contradicts science? Regardless, I don't see anything in this response to the question that contradicts the idea that god could have written it as an analogy. Could you please clarify?

God used Genesis 1 as a template for modeling the workweek prescribed in the Ten Commandments.

Ok.... and? The Freemasons use the 24" guage as an allegory for how you should divide the time in your day... but I doubt they would recommend that anyone actually try to live and reside on top of a measurement device.

Occam's Razor

Explanation of how it applies?

The Holy Spirit bears witness in me that Genesis 1 is literal.

Great, and if that works for you, I wish you all the best. However, you didn't cite a single place where the bible directs the story of creation to be interpretted in a literal fashion.

Furthermore, the final point you just mentioned goes directly toward the second question in my OP. By personally assuming to understand god's intentions, aren't you implying a level of understanding that men (such as Job) are clearly not capable of? By stating that Genesis 1 could not be an analogy or metaphor, aren't you placing a restriction on god's power?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Several reasons come to mind:

1. Judgment --- we are going to receive rewards according to how we conducted our lives here, based on God's Word.

According to..?

God is not the author of confusion, and wouldn't start His Word out with allegory, then switch to literalism.

But He would have dozens of different human agents, covering an entire spectrum of historical eras, social classes, and literary styles, write his Word out over the course of 1500 years, rather than simply get one guy to pen it all in one shot after everything worth writing about had already happened?

In almost every case, the Bible alerts the reader to a passage that is not literal.

Utterly false.

God places a high emphasis on knowing His creation. As [the late] Henry Morris points out in his Defender's Study Bible, if you study the questions He asked Job, every question has to deal with His creation.

Great, that's Job for you -- one story, one author, one point to make. Only 65 more to go, AV.

Most people think God was chiding Job for not understanding why God was allowing him to suffer; but that's not the case. God was chiding Job for not understanding that He was instrumental in creating everything.

Including suffering?

There is no reason to assume Genesis 1 was written non-literally.
The only ones who have trouble with a literal interpretation are the ones who hold science up higher than God.

And how about Genesis 2? Magic gardens, talking snakes, forbidden fruit -- all literal too, AV?

Remember: "God is not the author of confusion, and wouldn't start His Word out with allegory, then switch to literalism" would also apply in reverse.

A figurative Genesis 1 allows for all sorts of heresies; from aliens seeding the earth, to abiogenesis kick-starting plant and animal life.

A figurative anything opens the door for heresies -- if only God gave people brains to figure these sort of things out -- oh wait, He did, didn't He?

As J Dwight Pentecost points out, interpreting Genesis 1 figuratively allows the mind of the reader to become the authority for what happened back then; whereas a literal Genesis 1 forces those even hostile to the Bible to confess that It is against evolution, panspermia, and other heresies.

Good for Mr. Pentecost -- nice job shoehorning a theme in after the fact.

God used Genesis 1 as a template for modeling the workweek prescribed in the Ten Commandments.

Except that the 10C and the workweek were spelled out in Exodus, which predates Genesis (historically speaking; ask any Bible scholar). So the workweek itself existed before the template?

Occam's Razor

... says the whole thing is mythology like every other religion's creation myth.

The Holy Spirit bears witness in me that Genesis 1 is literal.

So, a random voice in your head is supposed to convince us? Nice...

 

[Gracchus]

"Literal" is not a term which could be defined clearly.

So the word "literal" is not to be taken literally?

The basis of Bible interpretation is not a scientific one.

So the Bible is whatever you want it to be? That would explain a lot.

 

[juvenissun]

So the word "literal" is not to be taken literally?

This has been pretty well debated in the Origin forum. Basically, if you give me any word, I could give you "a few" "literal" meanings of it. That is how literal a word could be.

So the Bible is whatever you want it to be? That would explain a lot.

Exactly. Even two persons reached to an exactly same explanation on a single verse, it may still give a different meaning to each person. The problem is not on the interpretation, but is on the acceptance. Do you accept your own version of interpretation?

For example, if you think a Bible verse says a wrong idea, so you do not accept it. Exactly the same verse may make good sense to another person. So he accepted it. As a result, the difference becomes significant.

 

[Skaloop]

This has been pretty well debated in the Origin forum. Basically, if you give me any word, I could give you "a few" "literal" meanings of it. That is how literal a word could be.

Actually, no, you could give several metaphorical meanings of a word. Very very very few words in English are literal. In fact, outside of onomatopoeia (and even those are iffy), no words are technically and fully literal since they're, you know, symbols.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually, no, you could give several metaphorical meanings of a word. Very very very few words in English are literal. In fact, outside of onomatopoeia (and even those are iffy), no words are technically and fully literal since they're, you know, symbols.

Basically, agree.

My definition of literal is: the prime plus logic derivatives.

For example: water --> fluid, gas, soup, etc.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Basically, agree.

My definition of literal is: the prime plus logic derivatives.

For example: water --> fluid, gas, soup, etc.

A is A. A is never B. Once A becomes B, it ceases to be A.

 

[Assyrian]

Several reasons come to mind:
1 Judgment --- we are going to receive rewards according to how we conducted our lives here, based on God's Word.

I seem to remember a number of parables used to teach people how they should live their lives, from Nathan's story of the rich man nabbing and cooking a poor man's pet lamb, to the parable of Good Samaritan.

2 God is not the author of confusion, and wouldn't start His Word out with allegory, then switch to literalism.

This always strikes me as an argument that hasn't been thought through, given the way God finishes his Word with the Book of Revelation.

3 In almost every case, the Bible alerts the reader to a passage that is not literal.

A circular argument. You only think the the bible alerts the reader almost every time passages are not literal, because you insist on taking everything else literally if the bible does not say it is figurative.

Anyway your 'almost every case' shows the argument does not work. The bible does speak figuratively without telling us, as your statement admits, and you have no way of knowing how often it does it, or knowing how often you have missed a figurative meaning that you take literally. The biggest problem I find many creationists have is that they read an unlabelled figurative passage, they understand the figurative meaning, but they think they are interpreting it literally.

4 God places a high emphasis on knowing His creation. As [the late] Henry Morris points out in his Defender's Study Bible, if you study the questions He asked Job, every question has to deal with His creation. Most people think God was chiding Job for not understanding why God was allowing him to suffer; but that's not the case. God was chiding Job for not understanding that He was instrumental in creating everything.

And yet Job say says nothing about six day creation or making animals out of dust. It is however full of metaphorical descriptions of creation "when I laid the foundation of the earth" "who stretched the line upon it?" "who laid its cornerstone" "when the morning stars sang together" "who shut in the sea with doors when it burst out from the womb" "I made clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band" "here shall your proud waves be stayed" "take hold of the skirts of the earth". It is actually quote a good example of the bible using metaphor without alerting us to the fact.

5 There is no reason to assume Genesis 1 was written non-literally. The only ones who have trouble with a literal interpretation are the ones who hold science up higher than God.

Including Church Fathers and medieval scripture scholars who took Genesis days figuratively?

6 A figurative Genesis 1 allows for all sorts of heresies; from aliens seeding the earth, to abiogenesis kick-starting plant and animal life.

Two problem with this, there has been no shortage of heresies throughout the history of the church that have taken Genesis literally, and plenty of highly orthodox Church Fathers like Basil were literal six day creationists and believed Genesis taught abiogenesis or spontaneous generation. Gen 1:24 And God said let the earth produce living creatures.

7 As J Dwight Pentecost points out, interpreting Genesis 1 figuratively allows the mind of the reader to become the authority for what happened back then; whereas a literal Genesis 1 forces those even hostile to the Bible to confess that It is against evolution, panspermia, and other heresies.

And deciding in advance to take everything literally does not make the reader the authority over scripture?

However the biggest problem with this has been wonderfully illustrated by juvenissun: "Basically, if you give me any word, I could give you "a few" "literal" meanings of it. That is how literal a word could be." Literalists can be very imaginative in their analysis of what the 'literal' meaning is supposed to be, especially when it come to making their literal interpretation scripture fit the science they do accept like heliocentrism, or in Juv's case finding almost any modern scientific development hidden in the literal meaning.

8 God used Genesis 1 as a template for modeling the workweek prescribed in the Ten Commandments.

And Jesus taught in parables.

9 Occam's Razor

Given the lengths Creationists have to go to try to reconcile completely different creation accounts in Genesis 1&2 I am not sure Occam is such a good argument.

The Holy Spirit bears witness in me that Genesis 1 is literal.

1Cor 14:29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.
1John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Oh, and I'm still waiting to see some kind of basis for interpretting the bible in a literal fashion.

 

[juvenissun]

A is A. A is never B. Once A becomes B, it ceases to be A.

Is a clear soup water or not water? For example, sugar water.
Is water vapor water or not water?

If I say: the spirit is like water. Then what does the water mean? Does it have only one ONE meaning?

 

[juvenissun]

Oh, and I'm still waiting to see some kind of basis for interpretting the bible in a literal fashion.

I guess you want to hear "a reason" that the Bible can be understood in a literal way.

To a believer, the Bible is "God's word". That is a good enough reason. Even some of His words "should" be understood metaphorically, it does not negate the said reason.

 

[Bombila]

Unfortunately, when read literally, the Bible's words often conflict with reality.

No matter how literalists try to spin it and make up imaginary justifications (embedded age, different state) for why reality looks the way it does, they end up having to, at some point, just stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the clear evidence that they can't possibly be right.

I have some sympathy for creationists. Having stubbornly decided that the safest course, the one which most likely take them all the way to the Promised land, is the most constricted - the narrow road - they are stuck with a disconnect with the modern world. Thus they are constantly led to conflict in their dealings with concrete facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unfortunately, when read literally, the Bible's words often conflict with reality.

No matter how literalists try to spin it and make up imaginary justifications (embedded age, different state)...

Or walking on water?

Why is it that non-literalists are always asking for explanations for such things as Embedded Age and creatio ex nihilo, and not the obvious walking on water?

It's easier to accuse someone of making up terms than it is to accuse them of having faith in something that goes against nature, isn't it?

 

[Skaloop]

Or walking on water?

Why is it that non-literalists are always asking for explanations for such things as Embedded Age and creatio ex nihilo, and not the obvious walking on water?

It's easier to accuse someone of making up terms than it is to accuse them of having faith in something that goes against nature, isn't it?

Because embedded age and ex nihilo creation are more nebulous. Walking on water is pretty straightforward to understand conceptually.

Also, the walking on water part is clearly right there in the Bible; embedded age and ex nihilo creation are not (or, at least, are subject to a lot more interpretation).

 

[AV1611VET]

Because embedded age and ex nihilo creation are a more nebulous. Walking on water is pretty straightforward to understand conceptually.

Also, the walking on water part is clearly right there in the Bible; embedded age and ex nihilo creation are not (or, at least, are subject to a lot more interpretation).

IOW, Occam's Razor?