Evidence Genesis is just a fable

[Fencerguy]

I take literally the parts of scripture that do not give obvious indications they are figurative.


I think He will be fine with that, even if it is a framework perspective or even the highly unlikely allegorical or metaphorical view. God has never faulted someone for believing His Word, with common sense employed of course.

Blessings,
H.

This is the best approach to interpreting Genesis that I have seen on here......Because the whole hog, completely one way or the other approach to interpretation is flawed. Genesis is not entirely literal, nor is it entirely metaphorical/allegorical. The devil lives in the extremes.....
I like this passage from a research article about Bible interpretation:
"An "infallibilist" might argue that the account of

the Creation in Genesis 1-2 was not written from a scientific perspective, and therefore the
truths which such passages relate are religious, rather than scientific. By contrast, a proponent
of the "inerrancy" position would likely insist that there do not exist different types of
"truths," and that, while the truth contained in Genesis 1-2 may be stated in poetic form, the
account of the Creation process is descriptively accurate, and that the Genesis account and
scientific analyses can, in principle, be reconciled. Finally, a literalist would likely assert that
the account of the six day creation in Genesis means exactly, what the text says, or it means​

nothing at all (Smidt, 1986:8)."
Taken from this URL: Biblical Literalism and Inerrancy: Does the Difference Make a Difference?

 

[JoeyArnold]

You tell me. You're the one who made a big deal about parts of Genesis being fable.

Mallon, describe the differences between the days of creations & all the other days?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Well, I would like to add one thing...Adam may or may not be a metaphor for mankind...We also have a geneology of Adam to Abraham in Genesis. So... (Or is it only to Noah?) Lisa

LexiLou,
Why does a creation metaphor have a genealogy from Adam to Christ to us?

 

[Mallon]

Mallon, describe the differences between the days of creations & all the other days?

Not sure what you're asking. What does this have to do with your earlier statement that if parts of Genesis are allegorical, then other parts of the Bible cannot be trusted, which is what I responded to?

 

[Fencerguy]

LexiLou,
Why does a creation metaphor have a genealogy from Adam to Christ to us?

LexiLou is referring to the geneology from Adam to Noah in Genesis chapter 5.......

It would seem to indicate that Adam was more than a metaphor...
Genesis 5

" 1 This is the written account of Adam’s family line.

When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”[a] when they were created.
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.
6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father[b] of Enosh. 7 After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died.
9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 After he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died.
12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 After he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived a total of 910 years, and then he died.
15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 After he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived a total of 895 years, and then he died.
18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 After he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived a total of 962 years, and then he died.
21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. 24 Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 After he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived a total of 969 years, and then he died.
28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah[c] and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed.” 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived a total of 777 years, and then he died. 32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth."

 

[Hupomone10]

Check out John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One, Denis Lamoureux's Evolutionary Creation, Peter Enns' Inspiration and Incarnation, and Paul Seeley's Inerrant Wisdom.

Thanks.

H.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Not sure what you're asking. What does this have to do with your earlier statement that if parts of Genesis are allegorical, then other parts of the Bible cannot be trusted, which is what I responded to?

The writer to Genesis writes about the days of Genesis (creation, the beginnings) & the days of genealogies.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Why is creation a fable?

 

[miamited]

Hey you guys are on a roll! Great!!

I'll repeat my two cents worth. The God I know can create all that has ever existed in merely the time it takes him to speak, think, wave his hand across the empty space of the universe, however each one would like to consider God creates. The issue here is time.

If He can do it in mere moments, or as the Genesis account describes, days, why wouldn't He? I mean seriously let's all just sit back and consider what reasons God would have for not doing it as a literal interpretation would insist?

I happen to be of the school of thought that from the smallest micro molecular structure in or on the earth, to the most vast star in the furthest expanse of space, all that is seen and unseen in this realm was created as a place for man to live. A special creature created by God, much like the angels only lower. This special creature, just like the angels, was created to be in a relationship with a loving Creator. That relationship, just like the angels, was to be one of reciprocal love and full trust and dependence upon the Creator.

All of the angels who have not rebelled understand that their life, their very existence comes from the power of God. It is He who creates and gives life. They love their Creator because they know that it is only by His hand that they continue to live. They know, just like us, that a time is coming when that loving Creator is going to clean up all the rebellion and sin in His Creation and the faithful angels and the faithful creatures upon the earth will live with Him forever enjoying His power, love and provision of life. As the Revelation says, in the end all of those who's names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be given authority to eat from the tree of life and live forever.

So, if we believe in that kind of a God and a God with that purpose for creating this realm and the angelic realm and He has the power to do it in six days. Why wouldn't He?

Are we to believe that for a billion and another billion and a few more billion years He just looked out His great picture window before His throne and said to the angels, "Oh boy, look at all that beauty that I created. Oh look what that animal has become, why I would never have envisioned that creature."

Or as I believe in nearly the time it takes to think all the various parts of the earth and the universe into existence He did it and then created man to live in it and saw that man sinned and then went to work on a plan to restore that relationship that He first designed man to enjoy with Him? That yes, scientists don't understand how God did it and will never be able to understand or explain how He did it, but are certainly able to make wild guesses based on a lot of human knowledge that we have honed for several hundred years and most certainly in that last few decades. That there are strata in the crust of the earth is there because a wise God knows that that's how the earth needs to be made in order to work properly. I mean, come on, you expect that 'proof' that God created the earth 6,000 years ago would be that it's a solid marble ball or something other than how it has actually been made?

The creation was a miracle of a loving God. By definition a miracle cannot be explained by man. It means that no matter how God made the earth; how God made the light; how the earth got to be formed and designed like it is and how the light got to all the places where it is will not be understood or explainable by man. That is the definition of a miracle. Sure, we're going to have people give of their life's work to give us explanations and understandings, but they're all going to be wrong. Oh yea, we will have compiled tests and data that verify such findings as what we, Oh foolish man, have come up with, but it's going to be wrong. Sure, wise learned men are going to believe it. But it's going to be wrong. No, no, no, we are not ever going to get any to admit that the data and the findings are wrong, but it's still going to be wrong.

Back to step one. A loving God who created all the angels and the realm in which they live so that He could enjoy them and they Him also created this realm of existence for man, made lower than the angels. Jesus said that in the eternal life we would be much like the angels. I believe he intended that we will live eternally just like the angels, giving glory and honor and praise to Him, just like the angels.

But that He created all of this realm in mere days. Sure, He is that powerful; that wise; that great; and that loving. That man continues to chase his tail for the duration of our existence before the day of judgment to provide some natural explanation for all we see, sure, mankind, as a whole group, wants nothing more than to be able to explain away God. Remember narrow is the way and few there be that find it. The majority of men want to explain away God and the argument of evolution is the key to doing just that. Now be reasonable in your thinking. Wise men are not going to believe the deception if it's easy to contradict.

Yes, sadly, there are those who claim to know God who have fallen for the deception and we should all pray that God will continue to have mercy on them and open their eyes to such deception, but it is also a test of faith. God has written exactly what He intended in His word and, just like Abraham, are we willing by faith in God to raise the sword over our own son and slay him or will we rather fall back and argue whether or not that's really what He meant? Would Abraham have been found faithful if he had spoken to God and said, "Hey, wait a minute. I thought I just heard you say that I was to take my only son Isaac and slay him, but I know that's not what you meant, right?

The God I serve has the power to create entire realms of existence in mere moments. By the word of His mouth He can fill the vastness of all the empty universe with heavenly bodies from one end to the other in a mere instant. By the sweep of His hand He can part a deep sea. By His command He can cause the sun to stand still in the sky for a day, or even a week if He so commands. By the nature of His love He can sacrifice His one and only Son for my sin. He is a great and all powerful God and I am one who firmly believes that He created all of this realm as a home for mankind and because of that purpose, His wasting time allowing billions of years for the making of that home is pointless. He is a loving God who creates out of His love and He creates in moments marvels that no man will ever understand or explain. That's the God I serve.

Yes friends, that is the God that I serve.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Mallon]

The writer to Genesis writes about the days of Genesis (creation, the beginnings) & the days of genealogies.

I still have no idea what you're asking or how it relates to our discussion.

 

[Mallon]

Why is creation a fable?

That question was already answered here in detail by GratiasCorpusChristi and Assyrian.

 

[miamited]

So, God wrote to us that He created this realm of existence for us in six days and then, because He knows how willfully wicked we are, He told us that on the last day He made the first man Adam and then He carefully layed out the physical human generations of mankind from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to David, and finally David to Jesus.

Now, let's be sensible what else could God have said that would make you believe?

Would it be that He said, "Look, in six days I made all of this realm of creation. Listen to me!! Wake up!! Pay attention!! In six days I made the creation. Hey!!! Do you hear me? In six days I made the creation."

Well, actually He did. He tells us in Genesis that He made the creation in six days and then He repeats it twice in the law given through Moses. "For in six days I made the heavens and the earth..."

Hey!! Wake up!!! Listen!!! I did it in six days and just so you don't fall by the deception I'm going to repeat it for you a couple more times. Oh, yea, and just so you know that I know what a day is to you guys let me throw in, and there was evening and there was morning, just like how you guys describe a 24 hour day.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Mallon]

So, God wrote to us that He created this realm of existence for us in six days and then, because He knows how willfully wicked we are, He told us that on the last day He made the first man Adam and then He carefully layed out the physical human generations of mankind from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to David, and finally David to Jesus.

Now, let's be sensible what else could God have said that would make you believe?

Would it be that He said, "Look, in six days I made all of this realm of creation. Listen to me!! Wake up!! Pay attention!! In six days I made the creation. Hey!!! Do you hear me? In six days I made the creation."

Well, actually He did. He tells us in Genesis that He made the creation in six days and then He repeats it twice in the law given through Moses. "For in six days I made the heavens and the earth..."

Hey!! Wake up!!! Listen!!! I did it in six days and just so you don't fall by the deception I'm going to repeat it for you a couple more times. Oh, yea, and just so you know that I know what a day is to you guys let me throw in, and there was evening and there was morning, just like how you guys describe a 24 hour day.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Do you believe that the planet is immobile and rests on pillars, Ted?

 

[Fencerguy]

That question was already answered here in detail by GratiasCorpusChristi and Assyrian.

not in a satisfactory manner.....

All we know for sure is that God probably wasn't speaking literally when He said that the seed of the Woman would crush the head of the Serpent

 

[Fencerguy]

Do you believe that the planet is immobile and rests on pillars, Ted?

Do you not think that the phrasing and tone of such statements is indicative of their metaphorical nature?
Say that there was evening and there was morning during the description of the creation process is in no way as explicitly metaphorical as saying that the earth rests on pillars and is immobile.......

If the Gospels read like "There was evening and there was morning, the first day after the crucifixion....There was evening and there was morning, the second day after the crucifixion...There was evening and there was morning, and on the third day after the crucifixion, God raised Christ from the dead;" Would you assume that they were three actual days, or would they be interpreted in a more metaphorical sense?

 

[Hupomone10]

LexiLou,
Why does a creation metaphor have a genealogy from Adam to Christ to us?

Because 20th century scientists weren't around back then to tell liberals what to believe so they could help Luke the beloved physician interpret those O.T. scriptures.
Luke 3:38
"the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam"

I now understand that "Adam" means "mankind", and that it only means that, it can't possibly be the first man's name. Or, as I've been told here, it means "Everyman." Everyman alive back then was the father of Seth. Talk about a s_ _ _ _ donor nightmare!

When I was six years old, our next-door neighbor had a dog named - you're gonna love this - "Dog." True story. They actually named their dog "Dog."

But if I were to write that down in my journal, bury the journal, and the journal was discovered some day by liberals, they would conclude that my next-door neighbor story was a metaphor describing all Americans who owned dogs.

Hope that helps,
H.

 

[Assyrian]

I take literally the parts of scripture that do not give obvious indications they are figurative.


I think He will be fine with that, even if it is a framework perspective or even the highly unlikely allegorical or metaphorical view. God has never faulted someone for believing His Word, with common sense employed of course.

Blessings,
H

This is the best approach to interpreting Genesis that I have seen on here......Because the whole hog, completely one way or the other approach to interpretation is flawed. Genesis is not entirely literal, nor is it entirely metaphorical/allegorical. The devil lives in the extremes.....

Actually the only people arguing for either of these extremes are creationists. You get creationists (though not here in this thread) who even take the parables literally. While the people arguing for an entirely allegorical interpretation of the bible are Creationists too, who try to present it as the only alternative to literalism.

The real discussion here is between two groups of people who realise the bible contains metaphors and parables, but one group claim you should only interpret a passage figuratively if is clearly labeled in the text as figurative. But is this how the bible uses metaphors and parables? Does it always warns you if it is going to step beyond the safe confines of literalism? On the contrary, the writers in the bible, and God who inspired them, love to speak in metaphor parable symbols and allegory, they would launch into a parable and expect everybody to keep up. Look at the parables Jesus spoke, some have no indication in the gospel they are parables, the Good Shepherd, the Bread of Life, with others it is the gospel writer who tells us it is a parable, but when Jesus spoke the parable, he simply started straight into the story with no indication it is a story. Jesus expected his disciples to learn to recognise and understand these stories, and criticised them for lack of faith when they didn't.

Look at the parables and allegories in the beginning of the bible. When Jacob blessed his sons he went from speaking literal and launched straight into allegory without as much as a by your leave. Gen 49:8 "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father's sons shall bow down before you.
9 Judah is a lion's cub; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down; he crouched as a lion and as a lioness; who dares rouse him? But people back then understood this, they were very comfortable with the idea of truth being told in story form and didn't share our modern rationalist idea that stories are only entertaining fiction, and real truth is told literally.

The parables of the talking trees in Judges 9 wasn't introduced as a parable. Jotham just started speaking about talking trees. Read the story of Jeshurun in Deuteronomy 32, where are we told Jeshurun isn't a read child God raised? Of course it contains the simile Deut 32:11 Like an eagle that stirs up its nest... but that is a figurative description within the story to describe God's care for the child he found in the wilderness.

Or look at the description of hw the Israelites left Egypt in Exodus 19:4 You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Where is there any indication in this description that that the Israelites weren't literally rescued from Egypt like Sam and Frodo flown from Mordor on the backs of giant eagles?

Is it obvious you can't have talking trees? Only as obvious as a talking snake, and if you are going to appeal to miracles that God could give a snake the ability to talk, he could also give trees the ability to talk. Couldn't God give Judah the ability to transform into a lion? All the legends of werewolves around the world confirm the truth of Gen 49:27 Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil. If you don't think Benjamin could transform into a wolf, are you doubting God?

Does the contradiction between the description of the Israelites walking through the Red Sea and being carried by eagles mean we shouldn't take them being flown out by eagles literally? Sure, but then you should also take the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 as evidence they cannot both be literal either. But the rule you use to take Genesis 1&2 literally, that there has to be a clear indication they are speaking figuratively, would tell you to take all these parables and metaphors literally because there is nothing in the text to say they are parables.

But the biggest problem with the rule of interpretation is that it is simply not how the bible speaks.

 

[Assyrian]

Now, let's be sensible what else could God have said that would make you believe?

"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; don't listen to him when he speaks in parables, because I the Lord your God only speak literally."

 

[Mallon]

Do you not think that the phrasing and tone of such statements is indicative of their metaphorical nature?

Of course not. After all, the Bible repeatedly says that the earth is immobile (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, 96:10, 104:5) and that it sits on pillars (Job 9:6, 38:4, Psalm 75:3). And now we all know that when exercising sound biblical hermeneutics, repetition is always a sign that God means it literally. Right? That's what you guys have been arguing with respect to the six days of creation, after all.

 

[shernren]

"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; don't listen to him when he speaks in parables, because I the Lord your God only speak literally."

And Jesus said, “There was a man who had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them."
But the crowd did reply, "Nay, Jesus, never have we heard of such an ungrateful son, or such a wanton father!"
And Jesus explained, "O ye of little faith, this is but a parable."
"Ah, so you lie!" the crowd shouted back, and they would not be consoled.