Examining Genesis...

[ToxicReboMan]

TEs argue that not all of Genesis is meant to be taken literally. How does one know which parts of Genesis to take literally and which parts to take figuratively? Where in Genesis does the metaphorical passages end and the literal passages begin?

 

[gluadys]

TEs argue that not all of Genesis is meant to be taken literally. How does one know which parts of Genesis to take literally and which parts to take figuratively? Where in Genesis does the metaphorical passages end and the literal passages begin?

Everywhere.

 

[An Arch Angel]

TEs argue that not all of Genesis is meant to be taken literally. How does one know which parts of Genesis to take literally and which parts to take figuratively? Where in Genesis does the metaphorical passages end and the literal passages begin?

Well,

If you believe god created the universe you can take it all literal. God created the universe. Today we know how, back then, they did not.

God created man. The Church Fathers made the creation story short to try and help later generations see that the bible is not the book for studying creation, but rather a book to be studied for the improvement of one’s treatment of their fellow man. The RC never intended for Luther to come along and change the bible to the sole source of God’s word. How could they anticipate that event, never in anybody’s right mind, could they think that god does not speak to us in many ways.

Noah’s flood happened, it just did not cover the surface of planet Earth. Like the Mississippi flood in the USA, to a smaller population living along the river it would have seemed that the whole world flooded. Add that to the practices of passing stories down through word of mouth one can easily see why the story is what it is.

The similarities in the stories around the world can be understood best when you understand that people’s of that time lived by rivers. Water ways were the primary transportation mechanism for many people of that time. Many rivers flood, many people lived through various flood, all the rivers have big floods at one point or another.

Sodom and Gomorrah were cities that were around for a long time, and then one day, or through a series of events, were destroyed. You may believe in these events to be from god or not. The fact remains they were destroyed.

The Bible purpose really picks up at Cane&Able. It shows us how we can treat each other if we lose focus on God. It tries and teaches us how to be more “Human”.

Jesus said, give the Roman’s what is Roman, well give science what is science. Science tells us how god did it. The main purpose of the bible is not science, math, or even cooking.

The purpose of the bible answer’s those age old questions “who am I” “what are we”. From loving compassionate people to daughters that rape their father, we are it all. Also it teaches us how to treat each other. Weather you believe or not, the main question after the reading of the bible is ‘what does it mean to you?” and then “How can we help each other to be better people”.

 

[Mallon]

TEs argue that not all of Genesis is meant to be taken literally. How does one know which parts of Genesis to take literally and which parts to take figuratively? Where in Genesis does the metaphorical passages end and the literal passages begin?

Neocreationists don't take all of Genesis literally, either, so you had might as well ask them the same thing.

 

[shernren]

Origen knew how.

And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?
- Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Everywhere.

Care to elaborate?

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Well,

If you believe god created the universe you can take it all literal. God created the universe. Today we know how, back then, they did not.

God created man. The Church Fathers made the creation story short to try and help later generations see that the bible is not the book for studying creation, but rather a book to be studied for the improvement of one’s treatment of their fellow man. The RC never intended for Luther to come along and change the bible to the sole source of God’s word. How could they anticipate that event, never in anybody’s right mind, could they think that god does not speak to us in many ways.

Noah’s flood happened, it just did not cover the surface of planet Earth. Like the Mississippi flood in the USA, to a smaller population living along the river it would have seemed that the whole world flooded. Add that to the practices of passing stories down through word of mouth one can easily see why the story is what it is.

The similarities in the stories around the world can be understood best when you understand that people’s of that time lived by rivers. Water ways were the primary transportation mechanism for many people of that time. Many rivers flood, many people lived through various flood, all the rivers have big floods at one point or another.

Sodom and Gomorrah were cities that were around for a long time, and then one day, or through a series of events, were destroyed. You may believe in these events to be from god or not. The fact remains they were destroyed.

The Bible purpose really picks up at Cane&Able. It shows us how we can treat each other if we lose focus on God. It tries and teaches us how to be more “Human”.

Jesus said, give the Roman’s what is Roman, well give science what is science. Science tells us how god did it. The main purpose of the bible is not science, math, or even cooking.

The purpose of the bible answer’s those age old questions “who am I” “what are we”. From loving compassionate people to daughters that rape their father, we are it all. Also it teaches us how to treat each other. Weather you believe or not, the main question after the reading of the bible is ‘what does it mean to you?” and then “How can we help each other to be better people”.

That's great and all, but you didn't even answer the question. You just gave your viewpoint which didn't answer the question whatsoever.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Neocreationists don't take all of Genesis literally, either, so you had might as well ask them the same thing.

If you don't want to answer the question, then why even respond? I mean, was there something wrong with my question or how I asked it?

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Origen knew how.

And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?
- Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]

This is an answer to some other question. Not mine. A lot of dodging going on around here.

 

[Mallon]

If you don't want to answer the question, then why even respond? I mean, was there something wrong with my question or how I asked it?

Yes. Your question supposes that evolutionary creationists are the only ones who don't read Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account. We aren't. NO Christian reads Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account. So your question should be directed, not at evolutionary creationists specifically, but at Christians as a whole (including yourself!).
Where do you draw the line between scientific concordism and accommodationism in Genesis, ToxicReboMan? Many evolutionary creationists I know would argue that Genesis 1-11 should be understood in the context of an accommodationist framework, with history phased in throughout.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

"For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water." 2 Peter 3:5-6 nasb


Is Scripture wrong here?

 

[Mallon]

"For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water." 2 Peter 3:5-6 nasb


Is Scripture wrong here?

In what sense? In the scientific sense? Certainly. But then again, the Bible wasn't written to address science. It was written to address our relationship with God and with one another. Thus, the message is true regardless of whether the ancient Hebrew cosmology in which it was delivered stands up to science or not.

Now let me try one on you:
" The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (1 Chron 16:30).

Do you believe that passage is true?

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Yes. Your question supposes that evolutionary creationists are the only ones who don't read Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account. We aren't. NO Christian reads Genesis as an entirely literal, historical account. So your question should be directed, not at evolutionary creationists specifically, but at Christians as a whole (including yourself!).
Where do you draw the line between scientific concordism and accommodationism in Genesis, ToxicReboMan? Many evolutionary creationists I know would argue that Genesis 1-11 should be understood in the context of an accommodationist framework, with history phased in throughout.

How does my question suppose that? My question is not only directed at TEs. It is an open question. I merely stated who are the prominent Christian proponents of such views, that being TEs. I'm not typing code.

 

[Mallon]

How does my question suppose that? My question is not only directed at TEs. It is an open question. I merely stated who are the prominent Christian proponents of such views, that being TEs. I'm not typing code.

My apologies for misunderstanding you. Your OP sounds like it's directed at evolutionary creationists.
Just so you know, it isn't true that all evolutionary creationists allegorize Genesis. Most of us take it quite literally (perhaps more-so than YECs). We simply do not subscribe to the concordist approach. More here:

Untitled Document

 

[ToxicReboMan]

In what sense? In the scientific sense? Certainly. But then again, the Bible wasn't written to address science. It was written to address our relationship with God and with one another. Thus, the message is true regardless of whether the ancient Hebrew cosmology in which it was delivered stands up to science or not.

Now let me try one on you:
" The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." (1 Chron 16:30).

Do you believe that passage is true?

Well, you choose not to trust Scripture when it clearly says that the earth was created out of water and by water. There is so much water in space. Remember water was separated to create the expansion of the universe. Is space unlimited? Who knows (hard to fathom), but according to the Bible at the "edges" of the universe you will hit water. How do scientist know that the universe isn't an expansion amidst great waters?

The Bible goes beyond genres. The Bible has a little something of the historical genre, poetical genre and even the scientific genre.

On that passage it is clear that no human can move earth. If earth is to be moved by someone, it would be done by God alone who established it. That is the message of that little text.

 

[Mallon]

Well, you choose not to trust Scripture when it clearly says that the earth was created out of water and by water. There is so much water in space. Remember water was separated to create the expansion of the universe. Is space unlimited? Who knows (hard to fathom), but according to the Bible at the "edges" of the universe you will hit water. How do scientist know that the universe isn't an expansion amidst great waters?

The Bible goes beyond genres. The Bible has a little something of the historical genre, poetical genre and even the scientific genre.

On that passage it is clear that no human can move earth. If earth is to be moved by someone, it would be done by God alone who established it. That is the message of that little text.

Ahhh... now I see your tact. You want to give evolutionary creationists a hard time because we don't accept scientific concordism. We just went through the same thing with vossler and peace4ever. Check out our exchange in this thread and let me know if you can address the one point I made and repeated that vossler refused to engage:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7374858/

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Ahhh... now I see your tact. You want to give evolutionary creationists a hard time because we don't accept scientific concordism. We just went through the same thing with vossler and peace4ever. Check out our exchange in this thread and let me know if you can address the one point I made and repeated that vossler refused to engage:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7374858/

A hard time? Wrong. I was just trying to pose a fair question which nobody has even taken the time to answer directly with any effort.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

My apologies for misunderstanding you. Your OP sounds like it's directed at evolutionary creationists.
Just so you know, it isn't true that all evolutionary creationists allegorize Genesis. Most of us take it quite literally (perhaps more-so than YECs). We simply do not subscribe to the concordist approach. More here:

Untitled Document

No biggie.

As for as your link. I'll take a look at it. But I can't promise you anything.


With everything that has as been said. I do believe all of this is only for curiosity's sake. I do not believe that anyone's perspective on the origin of earth and mankind has any significance on salvation. But I do think it is important not to peck away credibility from the Bible.

 

[gluadys]

Care to elaborate?

First, I think what you mean by "literal" is really "historical" i.e. actual events which have particular space-time coordinates in our universe.

(One should separate the meaning of "literal" from "historical". There is a literal meaning to everything said or written, but not necessarily a reference to history. Most prose fiction, for example, can be read literally i.e. the common sense meaning of the text is the intended meaning--there is no intention that the story be an allegory. But there is no intention that it be history either.)

But one cannot divide scripture up in such a way that you can say: everything up to here is not history and everything after here is history. Non-history intrudes into history in the bible from Genesis to Revelation---all the way through.

And there are huge gray areas where it could be (at least in part) history, probably is (in part) history, but not verified by evidence as history.

Consider even such an important figure as Moses, for example. It is pretty hard to imagine the history of Israel without him. And I, for one, don't doubt that Moses existed. But we have no evidence apart from the biblical stories that there ever was such a person, and a fair bit of evidence that suggests the stories are not entirely historical. Probably we are on firm ground in holding that Moses was probably an actual historical person, but also on firm ground holding that most of the stories about him are in part or in whole legendary.

 

[Mallon]

A hard time? Wrong. I was just trying to pose a fair question which nobody has even taken the time to answer directly with any effort.

Maybe there's no direct answer to your question. As gluadys and I have pointed out, you mischaracterized evolutionary creationism from the outset, so it's difficult to address your question in any meaningful way. It's like asking, "Have you stopped beating you wife?" Regardless, I took a good crack at it.
Now how about you? Where do you draw the line between interpreting Genesis literally and allegorically? Do you subscribe to a literal firmament with literal floodgates? Was Day 7 a literal day? Was the snake a literal snake? Did God literally create birds from water as it says in Genesis 1, or did He literally create them from dirt as it says in Genesis 2? Perhaps you could help shed some light on these issues and set us all straight.