Evidence Genesis is just a fable

[crawfish]

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.

...
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”,

Interesting that you include a quote by Augustine, and then an entire section that invalidates a majority of his work by indicating that allegory should not be used.

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.”

Note that this is why it makes complete sense why Luther rejected Copernicus' theory that the earth revolves around the sun based on his "literal" reading of the account of Joshua stopping the sun in the sky.

 

[philadiddle]

I would like to see some evidence that shows that Genesis is nothing but a fable or myth. It's fine if that is someone's interpretation, but all we have to appeal to is godless science. Isn't it idolatry to take man's opinion (science) and place it above God's Word? Apparently not, to the Christian Darwinists.

However, the problem is, the rest of scripture can easily be dismissed as stories, myths and fables too. Why stop at Genesis? Why not do the same with the gospels too? Why not dismiss any phrase or expression in the Bible we do not like as a mere myth and "not to be taken literally?" A literal resurrection? Nah. A literal crucifixion? Nope, just a metaphor for us dying to self. A literal Jesus? No. Just a metaphor for the Christ within us all (sounds strikingly New Age to me). A literal God? Nope; just an impersonal energy force, or the Universe itself. Where does it end?

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?

Evolution says there is no need for any supernatural entity to have caused the Big Bang, so why believe in a god at all - let alone the God of Christianity? Is fear of hell that strong? (What if hell's a myth and a metaphor for walking in spiritual darkness?) The list goes on.

These are questions for the Christian Darwinists I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to. But then, science has never had the answers for me. I don't worship science. I worship the True God of heaven and earth. Amen.

I don't want to get into a detailed discussion about Revelations, but on a general note, do you think that Revelations is all 100% literally true or is some of it symbolic? And as a follow up question to whatever your answer is, why do you think that?

 

[Mallon]

Interesting that you include a quote by Augustine, and then an entire section that invalidates a majority of his work by indicating that allegory should not be used.



Note that this is why it makes complete sense why Luther rejected Copernicus' theory that the earth revolves around the sun based on his "literal" reading of the account of Joshua stopping the sun in the sky.

The Calvin quote was taken out of context, too. Calvin actually argued for an accommodationist hermeneutic. Thus, while he read the Bible quite literally, he did not advocate understanding it all as history. The Biologos blog has had a running series on Calvin's hermeneutical approach, written by Peter Enns.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

Assuming Moses did write this (hi Mallon ) which to me is much more likely when you are talking about the actual Mosaic Law and the ten commandments. Not sure talking face to face with God would put him in a better position to know if they were literal or not, unless God actually told him they were literal in one of their copnversations. But the big problem is even if Moses wrote these passages, and Moses spoke to God face to face, still doesn't say Moses took the days of Genesis literally. I actually addressed the question in:
(21) Exodus 20:11 uses the days of Genesis not to teach a literal six day creation, but as a lesson in Sabbath observance...
When Moses quotes the days of Genesis it is not as lesson in ancient history and the creation of the earth, it is to teach the Isrealites about the Sabbath. All we know about Moses view of the creation days from Exodus 20 is that he saw them as a very good lesson on Sabbath observance.

It is worth looking at the ten commandments in Deuteronomy where a different illustration is used for the Sabbath.
Deut 5:13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
Instead of using the creation days as a reason for the Sabbath, Moses uses the Israelites being set free from slavery in Egypt, however it isn't a literal description of the Exodus he uses but a metaphorical one where God anthromorphically brought them out with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. If Moses could use a metaphorical description of the Exodus to illustrate the Sabbath, couldn't he also use a metaphorical description of the creation?

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,

Actually this is something I dug up myself

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.

Indeed, you just have to read Genesis. Lets simplify this. When you quote this can you highlight in blue all of day three?

Gen 1:8 ESV And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars.
17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

What time of day does the third day end?

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.

You're not allowed repetition in a metaphor?

If you really want someone to get a point, you repeat it.

So in the parable of the labourers the repetition of
Matt 20:3-6 the third hour... the sixth hour... the ninth hour... the eleventh hour
is there to tell us Jesus want's to get across the point he is talking about a literal day? What about Jesus repeating that he was the bread of life and that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Was he emphasising it show they were to take it literally?

What about
Judges 9:8 The trees once went out to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us.'
9 But the olive tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my abundance, by which gods and men are honored, and go hold sway over the trees?'
10 And the trees said to the fig tree, 'You come and reign over us.'
11 But the fig tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit and go hold sway over the trees?'
12 And the trees said to the vine, 'You come and reign over us.'
13 But the vine said to them, 'Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?'
14 Then all the trees said to the bramble, 'You come and reign over us.'
15 And the bramble said to the trees, 'If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade, but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.'
Is the repetition of the trees saying "reign over us" meant to emphasis that these were real talking trees?

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.

Just because it is repeated doesn't mean the reason for the repetition is to emphasise your interpretation. Like I showed you, there are plenty of reasons to interpret the creation accounts figuratively, repetition isn't a reason not to.

 

[JoeyArnold]

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.

Melethiel, what does the original text (the autograph, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, etc.) on the original scroll from the hands of Moses, say? What does it say? What does the original text say? Who was Moses writing? Was Moses really writing the first five books to the Bible (the Pentateuch or Torah) to the Egypt-fleeing, 40 years of desert-dwelling Israelites (Jews, or Palestinians)? What was the point of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy? How did they take the account of creation? How did they read or listen to it? How did they take it originally? Remember that the Bible wasn't written in English. It is tough to translate these things. It was not written yesterday in our culture, customs, settings, or anything like that. There's a cultural, geographical, time, & mindset gap. Science also plays a key role in these questions. Science must be tested. Science or experiments or theories must be observed live. When you go about observing things in the past, you take on an assumption that you can understand it. Variables are still unpredictable. That is why there are threads like these.

 

[Melethiel]

Was Moses really writing the first five books to the Bible

Parts of it, but definitely not all of it. It's pretty well accepted among scholars that the Pentateuch is an amalgamation of years of oral tradition and documents by many authors.

What was the point of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, & Deuteronomy?

To establish God's covenant with Israel.

How did they take the account of creation?

As an account showing that God created nature and is in charge of it, rather than all the nature gods of the surrounding nations.

How did they read or listen to it?

Orally, sung, as part of a liturgical service.

t was not written yesterday in our culture, customs, settings, or anything like that. There's a cultural, geographical, time, & mindset gap.

Funny, that's what we've been saying the whole time, and it's YECs who refuse to accept that.

Did you read GCC's post?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Parts of it, but definitely not all of it. It's pretty well accepted among scholars that the Pentateuch is an amalgamation of years of oral tradition and documents by many authors. To establish God's covenant with Israel. As an account showing that God created nature and is in charge of it, rather than all the nature gods of the surrounding nations. Orally, sung, as part of a liturgical service. Funny, that's what we've been saying the whole time, and it's YECs who refuse to accept that. Did you read GCC's post?

What? I do agree with what you are saying, Melethiel. I wasn't actually posting these questions for you. Your comments are still noted & approved. I didn't see YEC's comments, yet. Can you find me the links to his refusal? This topic, this thread, is about the evidence that Creation or Genesis is a fable. I would like to see the evidence. I am writing this to anybody who is considering the possibility that the exact creation account was a fable or not exact. To you people, I just want you to see better evidence. I see a mention about the stars, that light takes millions of years to travel here. That is on;y on the assumption that we understand the whole entire universe. We only know the limited space that we occupy in. I am not totally disproving the stars argument. I just would like to hear other arguments, too. At the end of the day, I am not even sure if arguments can do justice with facts, the past, with things we don't totally know or understand yet. There are other questions we must ask ourselves, too.

 

[Melethiel]

What? I do agree with what you are saying, Melethiel. I wasn't actually posting these questions for you. Your comments are still noted & approved. I didn't see YEC's comments, yet. Can you find me the links to his refusal? This topic, this thread, is about the evidence that Creation or Genesis is a fable. I would like to see the evidence. I am writing this to anybody who is considering the possibility that the exact creation account was a fable or not exact. To you people, I just want you to see better evidence. I see a mention about the stars, that light takes millions of years to travel here. That is on;y on the assumption that we understand the whole entire universe. We only know the limited space that we occupy in. I am not totally disproving the stars argument. I just would like to hear other arguments, too. At the end of the day, I am not even sure if arguments can do justice with facts, the past, with things we don't totally know or understand yet. There are other questions we must ask ourselves, too.

YEC = young earth creationist

 

[Assyrian]

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.

Actually the Rabbis practice a range of different methods of interpretation.

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.

Paul tells us he was using allegory in Galatians, I think you need to find a more reliable souce to learn about the history of interpretation than Dwight Pentecost.

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.

The problem with allegorization is that in the middle ages people took it to ridiculous extremes the five colonades in the pool of Bethesda are the five books of the Torah, with the Reformation there was a reaction again this. Modern literalism takes the pendulum even further. But the bible itself commends allegorization, finding symbolic meanings in the passage very different from the meaning the author intended.

However allegorization of literal passages is not the issue here. What we need to look at, or try to understand, is what the writer meant in the passage. But if you are dealing with a culture that loved to communicate in metaphor parable and story, you will completely miss the point if you approach it by taking everything as literally as possible unless it is clearly labeled a parable, and assume the writer was thinking in terms of writing a modern history when those were completely foreign concepts. Why take it literally when there are so many indications that it was intended metaphorically and that other writers in the bible interpreted it metaphorically?

 

[Fencerguy]

Assuming Moses did write this (hi Mallon ) which to me is much more likely when you are talking about the actual Mosaic Law and the ten commandments. Not sure talking face to face with God would put him in a better position to know if they were literal or not, unless God actually told him they were literal in one of their copnversations. But the big problem is even if Moses wrote these passages, and Moses spoke to God face to face, still doesn't say Moses took the days of Genesis literally. I actually addressed the question in:
(21) Exodus 20:11 uses the days of Genesis not to teach a literal six day creation, but as a lesson in Sabbath observance...

So by teaching a lesson about the sabbath, it automatically means that Moses did not view the 6 days of creation literally?

When Moses quotes the days of Genesis it is not as lesson in ancient history and the creation of the earth, it is to teach the Isrealites about the Sabbath. All we know about Moses view of the creation days from Exodus 20 is that he saw them as a very good lesson on Sabbath observance.

All we know about this passage is that Moses used the 6 days of creation as a lesson for the Sabbath observance; there isn't any description of Moses's feelings about whether or not they were literal at all.....so for anyone to assume he did not see them literally is something that they have brought into their interpretation, not something they have derived from it...

It is worth looking at the ten commandments in Deuteronomy where a different illustration is used for the Sabbath.
Deut 5:13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.
15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.
Instead of using the creation days as a reason for the Sabbath, Moses uses the Israelites being set free from slavery in Egypt, however it isn't a literal description of the Exodus he uses but a metaphorical one where God anthromorphically brought them out with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. If Moses could use a metaphorical description of the Exodus to illustrate the Sabbath, couldn't he also use a metaphorical description of the creation?

Well, the Exodus wasn't metaphorical, God's actions in the Exodus were spoken of metaphorically......It would be the same as Moses saying "in 6 days God created the world by his strong outstretched arm, and then on the seventh He rested"....
I mean, do we think God actually rested on the seventh day? Or was God's rest metaphorical as well?

Indeed, you just have to read Genesis. Lets simplify this. When you quote this can you highlight in blue all of day three?

Gen 1:8 ESV And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.
16 And God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars.
17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

What time of day does the third day end?

I would assume at evening; like it says......

You're not allowed repetition in a metaphor?


So in the parable of the labourers the repetition of
Matt 20:3-6 the third hour... the sixth hour... the ninth hour... the eleventh hour
is there to tell us Jesus want's to get across the point he is talking about a literal day?

Sure why not? Is that a problem?

What about Jesus repeating that he was the bread of life and that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood? Was he emphasising it show they were to take it literally?

Yep, and there's about 2,000 years of church teachings that affirm that idea....

What about
Judges 9:8 The trees once went out to anoint a king over them, and they said to the olive tree, 'Reign over us.'
9 But the olive tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my abundance, by which gods and men are honored, and go hold sway over the trees?'
10 And the trees said to the fig tree, 'You come and reign over us.'
11 But the fig tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my sweetness and my good fruit and go hold sway over the trees?'
12 And the trees said to the vine, 'You come and reign over us.'
13 But the vine said to them, 'Shall I leave my wine that cheers God and men and go hold sway over the trees?'
14 Then all the trees said to the bramble, 'You come and reign over us.'
15 And the bramble said to the trees, 'If in good faith you are anointing me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade, but if not, let fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.'
Is the repetition of the trees saying "reign over us" meant to emphasis that these were real talking trees?

So comparing talking trees to "evening and morning" is your way of saying that the 6 days of creation weren't literal?

Just because it is repeated doesn't mean the reason for the repetition is to emphasise your interpretation. Like I showed you, there are plenty of reasons to interpret the creation accounts figuratively, repetition isn't a reason not to.

Repetition is a way to stress something's importance.......it follows that God felt it important enough to say that they actually were days.....If it were not important, why would it say that "there was evening and there was morning"?
What are some of your reasons that the creation accounts figuratively?

 

[Fencerguy]

Actually the Rabbis practice a range of different methods of interpretation.

Paul tells us he was using allegory in Galatians, I think you need to find a more reliable souce to learn about the history of interpretation than Dwight Pentecost.


The problem with allegorization is that in the middle ages people took it to ridiculous extremes the five colonades in the pool of Bethesda are the five books of the Torah, with the Reformation there was a reaction again this. Modern literalism takes the pendulum even further. But the bible itself commends allegorization, finding symbolic meanings in the passage very different from the meaning the author intended.

However allegorization of literal passages is not the issue here. What we need to look at, or try to understand, is what the writer meant in the passage. But if you are dealing with a culture that loved to communicate in metaphor parable and story, you will completely miss the point if you approach it by taking everything as literally as possible unless it is clearly labeled a parable, and assume the writer was thinking in terms of writing a modern history when those were completely foreign concepts. Why take it literally when there are so many indications that it was intended metaphorically and that other writers in the bible interpreted it metaphorically?

Here is a discussion on hermeneutics that I have found quite helpful; its from catholicapologetics.org
"
Literal Sense


The first sense then for understanding the Bible is the literal sense.
Definition: the literal sense of Scripture is the meaning which the human author directly intended and the author's words convey.
Criteria to understand the literal sense:

• • The literary form that the author used is the first aid in determining what the author meant. If the author wrote poetry instead of history, then the literary form of poetry assists in determining the meaning intended by the author. Some other literary forms of the Bible include history, law, songs, love stories, stories (parables), etc.
  • The literary history of the biblical book or of the section of the Bible that contains the book also aids in determining the meaning intended by the author. Literary history of a book includes what is known about the author, his background, his historical period of Israel's history, etc.

An example of the Church using the literal sense of a scripture passage in order to understand what meaning we should get from it is the 6th chapter of the Gospel according to John. Literary Form of John 6:25-69:


Most scripture scholars today affirm that John's gospel is historical in nature. Hence we believe that John strove to preserve both the words and actions of Jesus. Unlike the Synoptics, John wrote through the eyes of the faith of the late Apostolic Church in light of the way that faith translated into practice and worship.
Where John is clearly biographical, the literal meaning is emphasized by linguistic psychology: multiple repetition of the message in different words. Where literalness is intended, intended meaning is reinforced by recording the reaction to literal meaning by the hearers without the speaker's correction. Literary History of John 6:25-69:


The apostle John was an eyewitness to the life and teachings of Jesus. He was one of the Twelve. He was also the last of the Apostles to write and to die. He refers to himself as the "disciple whom Jesus loved." Interpretation of John 6:25-69:


Following the details of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes--biographical, Jesus walking on the sea--biographical, Jesus reacts to the crowds' need for signs. Jesus takes them from manna, bread from heaven, to "true bread from heaven (v. 32)" ... "I am the bread (v. 35)." "I am the bread that came down from heaven (v. 41)." This is God saying this: "I am the bread that came down from heaven." If He was not really the bread that came down from heaven, His omnipotent and creative Word would then have made it so.
Five times in different verbal expressions, Jesus confirmed the reality of the meaning he intended. Jn 6:51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. Jn 6:53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." Jn 6:54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. Jn 6:55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Jn 6:56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
The best way a person can make a clear literal point is repetition of the same message in different ways. Jesus did this. Those around him clearly understood what he was saying--cannibalism and the drinking of blood--both forbidden by Mosaic Law. Jn 6:60,66 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" ... As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
Had these disciples mistaken the meaning of Jesus' words, Jesus, knowing their thoughts and their error, would surely have known and corrected them. He didn't. They had clearly understood his meaning--Jesus' flesh was to be really eaten; his blood to be really drunk. Fuller Sense


But the Bible has God, a divine author, besides the human author. The Church teaches that there exists a more-than-literal meaning for understanding the Bible: a fuller sense.
Definition: The fuller sense is the deeper meaning intended by God as divine author. The fuller sense of Scripture, since it is the meaning intended by God, may not have been clearly known and intended by the human author.
Criteria to establish the fuller sense:

• • Because the Catholic Church holds that there are two revealing authorities of Divine Revelation, the Bible and the Holy Spirit, the fuller sense of the Bible can be found in the authoritative interpretation of those revealing authorities. Some of these authorities are the New Testament itself, the Fathers of the Church, the Church in Council (cf. Acts 15 model), the "faithful people" faithful to what was handed down to them, etc. The Spirit of Truth is entrusted to faithful people as an authority in the Church.
  • The fuller sense of any Scripture text has to be in agreement with the literal sense of the words. This fuller sense must be a consequential development of what the human author of the text intended to say.

An example of the fuller sense in the interpretation of Scripture is found by looking at the New Testament.
In the Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 1, verse 23, Matthew says that the conception of Jesus by Mary was a virginal conception and took place so that the words of the prophet Isaiah (7:14) might be fulfilled.
Isaiah gives no evidence that the prophet had Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary in mind. Isaiah does not speak of a virgin in the strict sense--merely an unmarried woman. Isaiah is not clear that he is even speaking to a distant future conception. The whole meaning of Isaiah's chapter appears to imply that the birth he prophesies will take place about 735 B.C. during the reign of King Ahaz the father of the future King Hezekiah. The words of Isaiah may have literally meant the conception of the future King Hezekiah. At the time of Isaiah's words in chapter 7, the mother of the future King Hezekiah would have been unmarried.
Matthew, on the other hand, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, creates an interpretation of Isaiah which is definitely not literal. Matthew clearly interprets Isaiah in a fuller sense: the unmarried woman is the virgin Mary, and God-with-us is Jesus. Typical Sense


Following the lead of Paul himself (cf. Rom 5:14) there is another way for creating meaning in the Bible: the typical sense.
Definition: The typical sense of Bible texts is the deeper meaning that some elements (persons, places, things and events) of the Bible have because God, the divine author of the Bible, intended that these elements foreshadow/shadow further things.
Criteria to understanding the typical sense:

• • The typical sense of the Bible is created by continuing revelation or growth in the understanding the Word of God. Extra-biblical growth in understanding the Word of God is evidenced in the growth and development of the understanding of the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc. Types--the typical sense--are discovered in the New Testament, or in the agreement among "faithful people" faithful to what was handed down to them--the Fathers of the Church, in worship-- the liturgy--and its development through the ages, in the documents of the Church, etc. The Catholic Church believes that the Holy Spirit is a revealing authority in the Church and reveals Himself to "faithful people" in all ages.
  • The other criterion for discovering the typical meaning of Scripture is understanding that any type found in the text of the Bible has to be related to the anti-type (e.g., Christ to Adam). This confirms that God planned the relationship of the type to the anti-type.

An example of the typical meaning in the Bible is in Paul's writings. Paul appears to delight in establishing types between the New Testament and the Old Testament. In 1 Cor 10:6 Paul typifies those events which occurred to the Israelites in the desert of Sinai throughout the Exodus to those things that happen to Christians. Another example of a type--the typical meaning in the Bible--is the bronze serpent raised by Moses in the desert. The evangelist John presents raising the bronze serpent as a type of Christ crucified (3:14).

 

[miamited]

Hi truewinner,

This conversation is really moving along. If I might draw your attention back to your post #29 you asked a very important question: With that why would God inspire a false creation story? Let me encourage you to seek the answer to that question.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Mallon]

If I might draw your attention back to your post #29 you asked a very important question: With that why would God inspire a false creation story?

Don't forget the corollary: Why would Jesus speak false parables?

 

[Fencerguy]

Hi truewinner,

This conversation is really moving along. If I might draw your attention back to your post #29 you asked a very important question: With that why would God inspire a false creation story? Let me encourage you to seek the answer to that question.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Are we differentiating "false" creation stories/parables from "metaphorical" creation stories/parables?

 

[Mallon]

Are we differentiating "false" creation stories/parables from "metaphorical" creation stories/parables?

Unfortunately, for many YECs here, metaphor = false. This is why you'll often hear them say "If we can't interpret Genesis literally, then the entire Bible must be rejected as false."

 

[Fencerguy]

Unfortunately, for many YECs here, metaphor = false. This is why you'll often hear them say "If we can't interpret Genesis literally, then the entire Bible must be rejected as false."

Well, I'm not sure I would disagree with that tho; if we discount Genesis 1-12 as all figurative and nothing literal or historically accurate, then we really have nothing to go off of theologically to explain the origins of life and then what basis do we really have that other scripture passages (like the resurrection for instance) are to be interpreted literally?.......Genesis is ambiguous enough that earth could be young, or even hundreds of thousands of years old......and its also ambiguous enough to allow for much of the theory of evolution, just not things like the "single common ancestor"

 

[Mallon]

Well, I'm not sure I would disagree with that tho; if we discount Genesis 1-12 as all figurative and nothing literal or historically accurate, then we really have nothing to go off of theologically to explain the origins of life and then what basis do we really have that other scripture passages (like the resurrection for instance) are to be interpreted literally?

So... you're saying that God could not have made valid and true theological points unless He restricted Himself to using literal language? How does this bode for the teachings of Jesus' parables?

 

[Fencerguy]

Well, I'm not sure I would disagree with that tho; if we discount Genesis 1-12 as all figurative and nothing literal or historically accurate, then we really have nothing to go off of theologically to explain the origins of life and then what basis do we really have that other scripture passages (like the resurrection for instance) are to be interpreted literally?.......Genesis is ambiguous enough that earth could be young, or even hundreds of thousands of years old......and its also ambiguous enough to allow for much of the theory of evolution, just not things like the "single common ancestor"

So... you're saying that God could not have made valid and true theological points unless He restricted Himself to using literal language? How does this bode for the teachings of Jesus' parables?

Noooooo, what I am saying is that God most likely did not intend for the entire Bible to be interpreted figuratively/metaphorically, because if something such as Genesis--which details Creation, a historical event--is to be interpreted completely figuratively, then who is to say that other passages of Scripture are to be interpreted literally at all?

 

[Melethiel]

Noooooo, what I am saying is that God most likely did not intend for the entire Bible to be interpreted figuratively/metaphorically, because if something such as Genesis--which details Creation, a historical event--is to be interpreted completely figuratively, then who is to say that other passages of Scripture are to be interpreted literally at all?

Well, good, we agree, because nobody is arguing that the "entire Bible is to be interpreted figuratively/metaphorically."

 

[Mallon]

Noooooo, what I am saying is that God most likely did not intend for the entire Bible to be interpreted figuratively/metaphorically, because if something such as Genesis--which details Creation, a historical event--is to be interpreted completely figuratively, then who is to say that other passages of Scripture are to be interpreted literally at all?

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the entirety of Genesis be interpreted completely figuratively. I doubt if it can be easily deconstructed into a single genre. But even if the entirety of Genesis was figurative, how does it follow that the rest of the Bible is also figurative? This strikes me as a non-sequitur.