Evidence Genesis is just a fable

[JoeyArnold]

Genesis isn't "nothing but a fable or myth", it's Israel's prologue. As such it puts together numerous stories, some of those are mythological (mythology isn't bad, it's one of the many ways which human beings communicate and is an equally valid form in which God's inspired word can take), those early narratives serve a narrative purpose that brings us to Abraham.

That's what Genesis does, it begins with the big picture and increasingly narrows in scope until Israel's children are in Egypt, which is where Exodus picks up at. Adam -> Seth -> Noah -> Shem -> Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob -> the twelve Patriarchs -> Moses and the Exodus.

No one is placing science above God's word. What evolutionary creationists are doing is taking both God's word seriously along with taking the simple facts of creation seriously. Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that the sky is a dome of water and that the sun, moon and stars orbit Earth.

We also take seriously Augustine's warning against maintaining interpretations of Scripture that ultimately do nothing but make Scripture and Christianity look ignorant for ignorant's sake.



You know very well that hermeneutics don't involve a flat all-or-nothing approach. Unless you want to argue that God is literally a rock or a strong tower or has an arm. Hermeneutics requires taking the Bible seriously, and that means approaching the biblical texts seriously and critically in order to best apprehend what the author is saying.

Your argument here is self-defeating and absurd since virtually nobody takes everything in the Bible literally or allegorical or figurative. Everyone takes into account the complexities and nuances of biblical language and textual context.



The foundation of the Bible is Jesus Christ.

Also, no one is throwing out creation, the fall, or anything else. This is a matter of hermeneutical interpretation and exegetical application, not believing/disbelieving Scripture. Your argument is moot.



Astrophysics doesn't say anything about a supernatural entity either, neither does chemistry, or marine biology, or Einstein's theory of general relativity. One can just as easily say that the theory of gravity says nothing about a super natural entity to be causing the moon to move around the earth's mass, so why believe in a god at all?

The big bang isn't part of evolution. Evolution deals with the adaptive processes of living organisms, the big bang is a theory dealing with the cosmological origins of the universe.



I don't worship science either. I "worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence." (Athanasian Creed). I believe in one God, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen.

-CryptoLutheran

If some parts of the Bible are fable then what other parts are also fable? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross a fable, too? This is a question about statistics or odds. If one thing is not true then another thing might not be true either. If one part can't be trusted then another part might not be trustable either.

 

[Hupomone10]

1. It is only Evangelical Christians (and even not all of them) who believe in in a literal 6 day creation. That leaves the majority of Christians who believe in at least a theistic evolution. (Appeal to majority, I realize)
2. The distance of the stars cannot be disputed. Can you explain how it takes millions of years for the light of the stars to reach Earth if the universe is only 6000 years old?

I think you have asked a very good question. I haven't studied this in many years, but I'll look for what I can find.

But first of all, the majority of Jehovah God's saints have believed in the literal creation story all down the centuries, for at least 4500 years, and that includes Catholics. If I'm not mistaken, it was a Catholic who first proposed the idea of 6,000 or 7,000 years; and he did so by the geneologies of the Bible. The Old testament saints believed the creation account, and the New Testament saints believed it down to the last ~ hundred years. So there is actually a great company of those following the God of the Bible who took it literally when you look at the overall picture rather than just in our day. It doesn't make the position right, but at least historically and possibly numerically it shows that it doesn't really mean anything that people living in a culture that places such value on the wisdom of men would believe secular scientists rather than the pure Word of God.

Those who accept the historical position of Biblical saints in this matter are in good company and are accepting the majority position historically. It is actually those saints today that are the ones who are different.

Second, there are some Christians who believe in Design who accept an old universe model as well. Hugh Ross is one of the foremost of these. He has no problem with God taking billions of years to do it; he just rejects the unsupported and illogical idea that it happened by matter/energy shaped by pure chance. These believers would have no problem with the question you ask, and would probably say it has no bearing on whether there is a creator, that man is a sinner in need of a Savior, and that Holy God cannot fellowship with sin, sin that messed up this creation, and if that person turns to the Savior through faith in Him (Jesus) instead of living his own way, faith in himself, his sins are forgiven and the relationship with the Creator is restored.

But I'll look for what I can find on it.

Blessings,
H.

 

[Hupomone10]

I wanted to cite my source but I am a noob so it will not let me. Please google Ancient Hebrew Research Center.

will do. That's a good start. If my view is right, I have no fear of reading an alternate view. If it is wrong, I desire truth and the best thing for me is to pursue truth, not comfortable beliefs.

 

[Hupomone10]

miamited wrote:



Right! That's why we shouldn't question the obviously Biblical literal fact that we live on a flat earth
miamited, do you believe we live on a flat earth, etc? If not, then how can you throw out parts of the Bible?

Papias

I'm sorry, please show me those scriptures that argue for a flat earth. I'm not familiar with them.

Here are some from saints walking with God prior to Columbus, however, who understood:

Job 26:10
"He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness."

Proverbs 8:27 (a passage personifying wisdom)
"When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep."
(and in the latter one, you can see that even though the passage is a metaphor, giving personal attributes to Wisdom, it still describes the earth as a circle rather than flat)

The Christians in the Catholic church who taught it was heresy to believe the earth was round were doing what people today are doing by accepting macro-evolution: following the popular wisdom of men rather than what the Scriptures say. The problem was that they didn't know their scriptures.

H.

 

[Markus6]

If we're going to throw out the foundation of the Bible (Creation, sin, the Fall, the devil as a temptor), where do we stop? Why even bother stopping?

Have another read. Literally the snake is the temptor. What you have done to see the devil in that position is read the passage metaphorically.

I'm sorry, please show me those scriptures that argue for a flat earth. I'm not familiar with them.

Here are some from saints walking with God prior to Columbus, however, who understood:

Job 26:10
"He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness."

Proverbs 8:27 (a passage personifying wisdom)
"When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep."
(and in the latter one, you can see that even though the passage is a metaphor, giving personal attributes to Wisdom, it still describes the earth as a circle rather than flat)

The Christians in the Catholic church who taught it was heresy to believe the earth was round were doing what people today are doing by accepting macro-evolution: following the popular wisdom of men rather than what the Scriptures say. The problem was that they didn't know their scriptures.

H.

The geometry teacher sayeth: "Circles are flat".

 

[Dark_Lite]

If some parts of the Bible are fable then what other parts are also fable? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross a fable, too? This is a question about statistics or odds. If one thing is not true then another thing might not be true either. If one part can't be trusted then another part might not be trustable either.

Slippery slope fallacy. It is not that the creation account just happens to be symbolic. It's that every single piece of evidence we have tells us it must symbolic.

I'm sorry, please show me those scriptures that argue for a flat earth. I'm not familiar with them.

Here are some from saints walking with God prior to Columbus, however, who understood:

Job 26:10
"He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness."

Proverbs 8:27 (a passage personifying wisdom)
"When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep."
(and in the latter one, you can see that even though the passage is a metaphor, giving personal attributes to Wisdom, it still describes the earth as a circle rather than flat)

Circles are two dimensional objects. The earth is a sphere, not a circle.

The Christians in the Catholic church who taught it was heresy to believe the earth was round were doing what people today are doing by accepting macro-evolution: following the popular wisdom of men rather than what the Scriptures say. The problem was that they didn't know their scriptures.

Not even close. The Church did exactly the same thing creationists do today, except they had the power to force their ideology on people. Eventually they were forced to accept heliocentrism. Note that this has nothing to do with a flat earth. See Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[theFijian]

I don't mean to be rude but you seem to make a lot of posts which basically reflect atheist arguments, despite claiming to be a Christian. The frequency and argumentative nature of your threads, despite the fact you're a new user, is making me suspect you're poe. Sorry.

My bet is on poe. He bleats on about how genesis must be literal then claims that the account of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is just Jewish legend.

 

[theFijian]

Okay.

So where does Genesis become anything resembling actual history then, instead of being a fable or myth? What do you think?

You tell us, you're the one who claims that God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is just a Jewish legend.

 

[theFijian]

If some parts of the Bible are fable then what other parts are also fable? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross a fable, too? This is a question about statistics or odds. If one thing is not true then another thing might not be true either. If one part can't be trusted then another part might not be trustable either.

Absolutely zero to do with statistics and odds. It's to do with a consistent hermeneutic which lets the text speak for itself and which doesn't force a modern epistemology onto it.

 

[Melethiel]

If some parts of the Bible are fable then what other parts are also fable? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross a fable, too? This is a question about statistics or odds. If one thing is not true then another thing might not be true either. If one part can't be trusted then another part might not be trustable either.

Only if you insist that the Bible is a homogeneous book instead of a collection of documents in multiple literary styles.

In other words, that's a strawman argument.

 

[Mallon]

If some parts of the Bible are fable then what other parts are also fable? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross a fable, too? This is a question about statistics or odds. If one thing is not true then another thing might not be true either. If one part can't be trusted then another part might not be trustable either.

If some parts of the Bible are poetic then what other parts are also poetic? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross a poem, too?

If some parts of the Bible are parable then what other parts are also parable? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross a parable, too?

If some parts of the Bible are hyperbole then what other parts are also hyperbole? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross an hyperbole, too?

Does it sound silly now?

 

[LexiLou]

I think you have asked a very good question. I haven't studied this in many years, but I'll look for what I can find.

But first of all, the majority of Jehovah God's saints have believed in the literal creation story all down the centuries, for at least 4500 years, and that includes Catholics. If I'm not mistaken, it was a Catholic who first proposed the idea of 6,000 or 7,000 years; and he did so by the geneologies of the Bible. The Old testament saints believed the creation account, and the New Testament saints believed it down to the last ~ hundred years. So there is actually a great company of those following the God of the Bible who took it literally when you look at the overall picture rather than just in our day. It doesn't make the position right, but at least historically and possibly numerically it shows that it doesn't really mean anything that people living in a culture that places such value on the wisdom of men would believe secular scientists rather than the pure Word of God.

Those who accept the historical position of Biblical saints in this matter are in good company and are accepting the majority position historically. It is actually those saints today that are the ones who are different.

Second, there are some Christians who believe in Design who accept an old universe model as well. Hugh Ross is one of the foremost of these. He has no problem with God taking billions of years to do it; he just rejects the unsupported and illogical idea that it happened by matter/energy shaped by pure chance. These believers would have no problem with the question you ask, and would probably say it has no bearing on whether there is a creator, that man is a sinner in need of a Savior, and that Holy God cannot fellowship with sin, sin that messed up this creation, and if that person turns to the Savior through faith in Him (Jesus) instead of living his own way, faith in himself, his sins are forgiven and the relationship with the Creator is restored.

But I'll look for what I can find on it.

Blessings,
H.

Oh I am definitely in the theistic evolution or old universe creation crowd myself. I strongly believe in macro evolution. I await better evidence of micro. Not saying its so, not saying it a'int.

I just have this concept of a God who is far more powerful than the interpretation of the Genesis account makes Him. I love the idea that my God understands chemistry and nuclear physics and stuff that we haven't even begun to figure out yet.

I despise the mindset that God is some magical being who just whips everything up with hardly a thought.

I think it went more like this:

God: I am a little bored. Wonder what would happen if I exapanded the atmosphere (using some kind of uber cool atmosphere expansion module)? KEWEL! How about some light yo! That was freaking AWESOME! (Cuz you know I am THE awesomest!)

And God sits back for a few billion years watching the cause and effect of this and that and coming up with new and bigger ideas. He watches solar systems come and go. He watches stars collide.

Then He is bored again. And He throws together some primordal soup to see what will happen. At some point, he sees a creature who amuses Him. For a few hundred million years, God watches this creature struggle to survive and when no one else is looking (like those pesky know it all angels), God helps the creatures out just a bit, maybe killing off some of the worst predators to give man a fighting chance.

Then one day, man stands up. He does this because the wife has just chewed his azz off again (which is why he lost his tail). God is so amused that He speaks to the man. The man is like WTh???? and falls down dead.

But his wife was hiding behind a bush and she goes and tells the rest of the tribe what happened. And of course she exaggerates. But the story is handed down generation after generation after generation. Everytime something good happens, they blame it on God (I mean give God the glory). Everytime something bad happens, they blame it on...well, they have to think about this part, but eventually they come up with Satan.

Okay, yeah, I got carried away. See how that happens? You start off answering a simple question like how did the world begin, and pretty soon, you get alot of made up crap like this. What was the question again?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

If some parts of the Bible are poetic then what other parts are also poetic? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross a poem, too?

If some parts of the Bible are parable then what other parts are also parable? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross a parable, too?

If some parts of the Bible are hyperbole then what other parts are also hyperbole? Is the sacrifice of Jesus dying on the cross an hyperbole, too?

Does it sound silly now?

It's as though we are incapable of differentiating between literary styles that reveal themselves within texts, so we assign them at random.

Of course, the fact that no one has actually responded to my post, which demonstrates why Genesis 1 is poetic in structure, shows that even when so demonstrated, creationists would prefer to believe that it is a literal account of a six-day creation that took place six thousand years ago.

Which begs the question: Why? Why, when the actual textual evidence is that the biblical account coheres with what we know from science, would you actually prefer to go with a textually less credible interpretation that also contradicts what we know of the natural world?

 

[Mallon]

I'm sorry, please show me those scriptures that argue for a flat earth. I'm not familiar with them.

There are many passages in the Bible that only make sense from the perspective that the earth is flat. Job 38:13-14 tells us that the earth is shaped like a flat piece of clay. Matt 4:8 and Dan 4:10-11 tell us that the entire surface of the earth can be seen from a tall mountain or tree -- something that is only possible if the earth is flat. Even the verses you provided describe the earth as a floor, and the firmament above it as a tent. And, as the others have stated, circles are indeed flat. The Hebrews had a word for sphere ('duwr'), but they never used it to describe the shape of the earth. Thus, biblically, the earth is flat.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

You're mischaracterizing your opponents, and that's hardly living under God's Word, either.

Christians who adhere to theistic evolution take cues from science on how to interpret the Scriptures. However, one should never read the Scriptures in light of science of one's interpretation does violence to the text. That, however, is simply not the case with the biblical passages on human origins.

The modern evolutionary synthesis (the name of the scientific theory, not "Darwinism") demands an old universe as confirmed by astronomy and geology. It therefore suggests that the Scriptures would not present a contrary view if the Scriptures are indeed the revelation of the creator-God. As it so happens, the Scriptures demand neither a young universe (six-to-ten thousand years old) nor a literal six-day creation.

Genesis 1 presents itself as a poetic, literary framework (though not a poem per se). The six days correspond to three dual realities. Days one, two, and three deal with the creation of realms that are inhabited by the creator-rulers of days four, five, and six.

Day one portrays the creation of light and dark, which are ruled over by the sun and the moon of day four.

Day two portrays the creation of sky and sea, which are ruled over by the birds and fish of day five.

Day three portrays the creation of land, which is ruled over by animals and man of day six.

Day seven, finally, is a capstone where all creation comes together in the Sabbath rest.

The Priestly account in Genesis ch. 1 thus emphasizes themes important to ancient Israel.

The creator-God, Yahweh, created our world on purpose. Other ancient Near Eastern creation-myths depicted creation rising out of the chopped up remains of gods killed in primordial battle or from the biological refuse ([bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]) of gods. Such a creation is accidental. In Genesis 1, the God of Israel, the creator-God, Yahweh, creates on purpose.

In a similar vein, creation is orderly. There is a specific parallelism between rulers (sun and moon, fish and birds, animals and humans) and realms (day and night, sky and sea, and dry land with the plants upon it). The nations surrounding Israel believed that creation was an accident, which happened in a disorderly fashion after a prehistorical war (or mating) of the gods. Genesis 1 emphasizes that creation is orderly (and thus leads into Genesis 2 and 3, where we, not Yahweh, are at fault for screwing it up).

Furthermore, Genesis 1 stresses that Yahweh alone is a god, the only God. It does this by stressing that the creature-rulers are created by Yahweh with their own purposes rather than divine beings. We should all know that the ancient polytheists worshiped the sun (Egyptian Ra), the moon (Arabian Allah), bird-gods (Egyptian Horus), fish-gods (Moabite Chemosh), lion-gods (Ishtar), or bull-gods (Marduk). The first chapter of Genesis is, perhaps more than anything else, a beautiful poetic polemic against that most-offensive of sins, polytheism.

Last, the triple parallel of the days of realms and creature-rulers is capped off by the non-parallel day of the Sabbath, where all creation finds its consummation and rest. Obviously, the Sabbath was central to ancient Israelite (and modern Jewish) identity.

And, of course, it even has a refrain: "And God say that it was good. And it was evening, and it was morning. The Xth day." I'm sorry but it is has a refrain, its poetic, and you should never, ever take the order of stanzas literally in a poem.

So there you have it. Genesis 1 is not about our modern cosmological/scientific concerns, but about the concerns of the ancient Israelite community in which it was written. By taking it literally, you actually do damage to the text. You take away from the great themes of ancient Israel by using it in your own private war against science- a concern that has a lot more to do with finding counter-identity in a postmodern world than with affirming the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And speaking of the gospel of Jesus Christ...

This is why your argument, an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, fails miserably. Theistic evolutionists do not simply take Genesis 1 non-literally in order to accommodate science; they do so because the text itself prompts them to find its far more important themes in its poetic, Psalm-like structure specifically by taking it non-literally.

The same cannot be said to be true for the gospels. The gospels definitely have message in their structure, and the evangelists have certainly ordered episodes in order to emphasize their four distinct themes (the three desert temptation narratives, for instance, occur in different orders in Matthew and Luke). However, all of them promote a single message that compels belief in a historical narrative wherein the problem of the exile and human sinfulness and God's covenant faithfulness are summed up in the historical crucifixion and historical resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The trouble with both your view and the view of someone who would make metaphors out of both is that instead of letting each individual text speak for itself and reveal itself in unique ways, you and the allegorist would rather have the text smashed into a single format. That simply doesn't do justice to the diverse forms and beauty contained within the literary heritage of Israel and the first Christians.

Boo ya.

I think I'll quote this again, because the debate actually does hinge on the interpretation of Genesis 1, and no one has actually bothered to repute the view that a non-literal interpretation is preferable given the literary signals in the text and the theological themes that are obscured by a literal view.

 

[crawfish]

Weak argument.

Where is it said Genesis is a parable? What is your support for this, from the Bible? You have none.

You are using your science to interpret your Bible.

Where is it said that the story of the Good Samaritan is a parable?

You are making an assumption.

 

[Hupomone10]

Here are a couple of indications the Genesis creation accounts should be understood as a metaphor.
...
Now while some of these points show the problems with a literal interpretation, others simply show how Genesis fits better if it is interpreted metaphorically, they are evidence it is a metaphor rather than evidence that it isn't literal.

Don't be.

I was looking more for commentaries defending Genesis from this perspective, but I thank you for your response. It does include perhaps many of the points they would make anyway.

I don't have time to deal with all of these and offer my initial thoughts about them, but I'll address a couple of them that stand out, and then go on to what I think is most important in approaching any passage of scripture, and that is rules of interpretation.

(18) Nowhere in the bible are the days of Genesis interpreted as literal days.

Exodus 20:11
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day"

Exodus 31:17
"It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth"

Moses is the accepted author of Exodus, and it is said of Moses that he was the most humble man on the face of the earth (Numbers 12:3) and that God spoke to Moses "face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend." (Exodus 33:11). If there were ever someone in a place to know creation was in six literal days, it was a man who talked with God face to face. There is no other reasonable interpretation that can be taken from these passages than that Moses meant the days as literal days, not from a linguistic standpoint.

(23) Days in the OT Law began in the evening Lev 23:32 from evening to evening shall you keep your Sabbath. Yet the sabbath, if it is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, was because God set this particular day of the week aside as holy because it is the day he rested during the creation week. The problem is, the days in Genesis, if you take it as seven literal days, all begin in the morning. And there was morning and there was evening the third day

Genesis 1:5
And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:8
And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Genesis 1:13
And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Genesis 1:19
And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Genesis 1:23
And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

Genesis 1:31
And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

This makes it appear that you are relating things you have read rather than doing your own Bible study, for this is standard knowledge that the days in Genesis were exactly like the Jewish day, started with evening and went to morning, and it is easy to find.

Aside from that, since the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures, they were inspired not only to describe creation as literal days, but to confirm it six different times. If you really want someone to get a point, you repeat it. He has repeated it so that regardless of the problems we have with it in view of what man's wisdom is telling us today, they were to be interpreted as literal days, and we could either rely on God and on His Word or put our trust in man and man's wisdom.

Thanks for the response,
H.

 

[Mallon]

Moses is the accepted author of Exodus

Not according to most Bible scholars, who subscribe to the documentary hypothesis. It would have been pretty hard for Moses to write about his own death.

 

[Hupomone10]

Here are a couple of indications the Genesis creation accounts should be understood as a metaphor.

Since all interpretation rises or falls based on whether we are following good rules of interpretation, I wanted to include some of them, and some quotes by great men of the faith through the years. You will notice that they are not taken from a context of discussing Genesis or creation/evolution. It was a book concerning eschatology, but the principles are the same.

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

“All interpretation began with the literal interpretation of Ezra. This literal method became the basic method of Rabbinism. It was the accepted method used by the New Testament in the interpretation of the Old and was so employed by the Lord and His apostles.

This literal method was the method of the Church Fathers until the time of Origen when the allegorical method, which had been devised to harmonize Platonic philosophy and scripture, was adopted. Augustine’s influence brought this allegorizing method into the established church and brought an end to all true exegesis. This system continued until the Reformation. At the Reformation the literal method of interpretation was solidly established and, in spite of the attempts of the church to bring all interpretation into conformity to an adopted creed, literal interpretation continued and became the basis on which all true exegesis rests.

It would be concluded, then, from the study of the history of interpretation that the original and accepted method of interpretation was the literal method, which was used by the Lord, the greatest interpreter, and any other method was introduced to promote heterodoxy. Therefore, the literal method must be accepted as the basic method for right interpretation in any field of doctrine today.”
- Dwight Pentecost, “Things to Come”,

“Well, here's a basic principle of understanding the Bible. If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense. Always go for the literal meaning first. For example, in John 15:5 when Jesus said, "I am the vine, you are the branches" what did He really mean? Is Jesus a vine? Yes or no. No, but even though it's a figure, the truth is still literal. Even though Jesus is not a vine and I'm not a branch, He is still like a vine—the main source of life. And since I get my life from Him, I'm just a branch. So, a figure, but still the truth is literal. – James MacDonald, “The Weekly Walk”, 6/14/10

Augustine:
“Augustine, according to Farrar, was one of the first to make Scripture conform to the interpretation of the church.”
- Dwight Pentecost, “Things to Come”,

QUOTES ON LITERAL INTERPRETATION

Tyndale: “Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the Scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way. Neverthelater, the Scripture useth proverbs, similitudes, riddles, or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle, or allegory signifieth, is over the literal sense, which thou must seek out diligently...”

Wycliff: “the whole error in the knowledge of Scripture, and the source of its debasement and falsification by incompetent persons, was the ignorance of grammar and logic.”
“We may borrow similitudes or allegories from the Scriptures and apply them to our purposes, which allegories are not sense of the Scriptures, but free things besides the Scriptures altogether in the liberty of the Spirit. Such allegory proveth nothing, it is a mere simile. God is a Spirit and all His words are spiritual, and His literal sense is spiritual.”

Luther: “every word should be allowed to stand in its natural meaning and that should not be abandoned unless faith forces us to it... It is the attribute of Holy Scripture that it interprets itself by passages and places with belong together, and can only be understood by the rule of faith.”
“The literal sense of Scripture alone is the whole essence of faith and of Christian theology... I have observed this, that all heresies and errors have originated, not from the simple words of Scripture, as is so universally asserted, but from neglecting the simple words of Scripture, and from the affectation of purely subjective ... tropes and inferences.”
“In the shools of theologians it is a well-known rule that Scripture is to be understood in four ways: literal, allegoric, moral, and anagogic. But if we wish to handle Scripture aright, our one effort will be to obtain unum, simplicem, germanium, et certum sensum literalem. Each passage has one clear, definite, and true sense of its own. All others are but doubtful and uncertain opinions.” - Farrar

Calvin: “Let us know then, that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning, and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely. “It is the first business of an interpreter to let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say.” preface to Romans.

Horatius Bonar’s summary of the principle of exegesis, that came to be the foundation of all real Scriptural interpretation: ... I feel a greater certainty as to the literal interpretation of that whole Word of God – historical, doctrinal, prophetical. “Literal, if possible,” is, I believe, the only maxim that will carry you right through the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation.
- Dwight Pentecost, “Things to Come”,

I have to go. I'm building a foundation, and will have to finish it later this afternoon.

 

[Melethiel]

I was looking more for commentaries defending Genesis from this perspective, but I thank you for your response. It does include perhaps many of the points they would make anyway.

I don't have time to deal with all of these and offer my initial thoughts about them, but I'll address a couple of them that stand out, and then go on to what I think is most important in approaching any passage of scripture, and that is rules of interpretation.


Exodus 20:11
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day"

Exodus 31:17
"It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth"

Moses is the accepted author of Exodus, and it is said of Moses that he was the most humble man on the face of the earth (Numbers 12:3) and that God spoke to Moses "face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend." (Exodus 33:11). If there were ever someone in a place to know creation was in six literal days, it was a man who talked with God face to face. There is no other reasonable interpretation that can be taken from these passages than that Moses meant the days as literal days, not from a linguistic standpoint.




Genesis 1:5
And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:8
And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Genesis 1:13
And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Genesis 1:19
And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

Genesis 1:23
And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

Genesis 1:31
And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

This makes it appear that you are relating things you have read rather than doing your own Bible study, for this is standard knowledge that the days in Genesis were exactly like the Jewish day, started with evening and went to morning, and it is easy to find.

Aside from that, since the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures, they were inspired not only to describe creation as literal days, but to confirm it six different times. If you really want someone to get a point, you repeat it. He has repeated it so that regardless of the problems we have with it in view of what man's wisdom is telling us today, they were to be interpreted as literal days, and we could either rely on God and on His Word or put our trust in man and man's wisdom.

Thanks for the response,
H.

Are you going to address GratiaCorpusChristi's post? I'd be interested in seeing your response.