Genesis Allegorically

[GodSaves]

Can you explain why you read Genesis allegorically? Is it because of science, or is it because of the text. Please follow your answer with an explanation why you believe it to be so.

Example:

I read Genesis allegorically because I believe in evolution. Genesis fits the framework of allegorical because of the.....

I am not sure if there has been a discussion on what one believes of the actual text to be or not and how they came to that conclusion. If not I believe this might be helpful in understanding each of the sides. I really would like to see how theistic evolutionists believe Genesis allegorically by referencing its wording of the text. Same with creationists as well.

Please try to limit the links. I don't care if some are used, but I would like to see more of each persons one conclusions rather then a person's conclusions who does not frequent this forum.

Lets try not discuss who is right or wrong, but rather why we feel Genesis is suppose to be read this way.

Take Care and God Bless

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Can you explain why you read Genesis allegorically? Is it because of science, or is it because of the text. Please follow your answer with an explanation why you believe it to be so.

Example:

I read Genesis allegorically because I believe in evolution. Genesis fits the framework of allegorical because of the.....

I am not sure if there has been a discussion on what one believes of the actual text to be or not and how they came to that conclusion. If not I believe this might be helpful in understanding each of the sides. I really would like to see how theistic evolutionists believe Genesis allegorically by referencing its wording of the text. Same with creationists as well.

Please try to limit the links. I don't care if some are used, but I would like to see more of each persons one conclusions rather then a person's conclusions who does not frequent this forum.

Lets try not discuss who is right or wrong, but rather why we feel Genesis is suppose to be read this way.

Take Care and God Bless

your basic idea is a fallacy, for all the church read Genesis allegorically for 1500 years and the Hebrews read it that way for a 1000 years earlier. The preference for the literal over the allegorical only dates from the Reformation.

references:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2003/004/18.26.html

Medieval interpreters sought a fourfold meaning (the quadriga), literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical, for every text. The plain, literal meaning was considered the lowest and least important level of meaning and received little attention. Disregard for the literal meaning led many of these theologians into sometimes wild speculations and vastly different allegorical or mystical interpretations for the same text.

Luther and the other Reformers, rejecting multiple meanings for biblical passages, sought the single sense. This Luther described as "the very simplest, the literal, ordinary, natural sense." Literalism in this sense remains as the central focus of conservative Protestant interpretation theory.

from: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/literali.htm

for these reasons, especially since i am conscious of being reformed, i prefer the literal over the allegorical and in fact interpret Gen 1-5 as literally as does any YECist. This i think is a defining mark of a Biblical conservative. but i am aware that this has been a minority stream in the history of the Church and is today a minority viewpoint as well.

Even with this said, i don't believe that the issue is literal versus allegorical, for in fact, both can easily co-exist as levels of hermeneutical interpretation on the same verses. But as the OP points out, in a way, the issue is one of authoritativeness and where that originates.

i suppose what bothers me most about this reasoning is that it is a continuation of the radical polarization: either one way or another. That really ignores both church history and good hermeneutical principles. For reading Gen 1-5 in any case must be a mixture of allegorical and literal, if these are even the right words to describe the process. Now the discuss could involve which endpoint on the spectrum to lead towards, akin to K.Armstrong's logos/mythos distinction. Or look at in in terms of primarily symbolic or historical in nature. But even then the granularity of looking at all of Genesis is bothersome. Even looking a just Gen2-3, is the snake literal? or historical? or symbolic? or a mixture? how about the tree of life?

maybe we can look at all these issues, but simply lining up noses pointed towards either direction-literal or allegorical seems unsatisfactory.

.....

 

[versastyle]

I read most of Genesis as a story rooted in historical truth. One main reason is because reading it as a myth/allegory/literal story doesn't really make a difference to me. I acknowledge that this story could be false historically or could be exactly historical, because our God can do that, but no matter how it is read, I'm still believing in the cross, because sin entered this world, and Jesus sacrificed himself for it.

Think of it this way:

God made the earth. God created people who live on it. God gave these people a conscience. These people disobeyed their conscience. Sin entered the world because of it.

Now why do you think it is important to add all that "history" from Genesis into the generally meaning of what happened?

 

[Vance]

Personally, I began to wonder about the literal reading of Genesis back in high school. I had been raised in an environment that did not even consider any other viewpoint, so this was based purely on the text itself. First, I was seriously into ancient history (went on to get a BA degree in ancient history) and became familiar with how literature was written back then, what people believed about the past and how they wrote about the past. I do not recall the specific things that clinched it for me (since it was a wide variety of little clues, both historical and literary), but before I was a senior, I was almost certain that Genesis could not have been meant to be read literally.

This had nothing at all to do with science or evolution in particular, since at that time, I still held YEC beliefs. It was only after reaching this conclusion, that I began to wonder whether the YEC beliefs may be wrong as well. I didn't think so, since I had been told that YEC beliefs were not based solely on a literal reading of Genesis, but were supported by the evidence as well. I found out this was just wrong, and that YEC'ism was based almost exclusively on a literal reading of the text.

There were three primary reasons why I concluded that Scripture was most likely not meant to be read literally:

1. The literary clues: language is very poetic and symbolic, using a framework that rises above a straightforward reading. The idea that God was giving us a symbolic and typological presentation of the truth, rather than a historical narrative, seems very clear to me.

2. A knowledge of the cultural setting, in both mindset and literature, taught me that a non-literal presentation would not have been viewed as any less "true" or correct than a literal historical record. So, reading it non-literally did not cause me any concerns over "not believing the Bible" or "not trusting God".

3. There were just too many consistency problems with the literal reading. Sure, the literalists since the middle ages have developed "work-arounds" for these problems, but that is just what they are: "work-arounds". The two creation stories which disagree regarding the order of creation, the day on which the sun and moon are created, the problem of Cain, the fact that Adam and Eve did not physically die on the day they ate the fruit, the fact that there was a tree of life, when supposedly they were already immortal, etc, etc. These made it clear to me that some, at least, of the text could not be read in its most straightforward manner. If it were not for the first two reasons, I may have stuck with a literal reading and just accepted these work-arounds. But all added up, the choice was pretty clear for me.

The scientific verification of the age of the earth came next, which was a slam dunk. The facts of evolutionary development were equally obvious once I reviewed the evidence (now without any bias in favor of a literal reading of Genesis, but still not with any predeliction to accept evolution, since I still had OEC sources telling me the earth could be old and the development of species over time could be explained without evolution). The theory of evolution as the explanation for those facts of evolutionary development came last, which I accept as the best theory going to explain those facts, and which fits the known evidence as well as any theory in science.

Here is a very interesting article describing why Genesis 1 should be read non-literally.

What makes it interesting is that it is written by someone that obviously is opposed to Darwinism.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bibl...f%20Genesis%201


Here are two more interesting discussions of the literal/nonliteral issue:

http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/OT/sixday.htm


http://www.wcg.org/lit/booklets/science/genesis_1.htm

I will add that, as a person with a historical background, and one who follows the archealogical and historical fields pretty closely, I believe that starting with Abraham, we are pretty solidly in historical narrative. This does not mean that some of the stories may not be overlaid with legendary additions (as God chose to present His message to us), but the persons and overall events I think are historical.

http://www.wcg.org/lit/booklets/science/genesis_1.htm

 

[herev]

your basic idea is a fallacy, for all the church read Genesis allegorically for 1500 years and the Hebrews read it that way for a 1000 years earlier. The preference for the literal over the allegorical only dates from the Reformation.

references:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2003/004/18.26.html


from: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/literali.htm

for these reasons, especially since i am conscious of being reformed, i prefer the literal over the allegorical and in fact interpret Gen 1-5 as literally as does any YECist. This i think is a defining mark of a Biblical conservative. but i am aware that this has been a minority stream in the history of the Church and is today a minority viewpoint as well.

Even with this said, i don't believe that the issue is literal versus allegorical, for in fact, both can easily co-exist as levels of hermeneutical interpretation on the same verses. But as the OP points out, in a way, the issue is one of authoritativeness and where that originates.

i suppose what bothers me most about this reasoning is that it is a continuation of the radical polarization: either one way or another. That really ignores both church history and good hermeneutical principles. For reading Gen 1-5 in any case must be a mixture of allegorical and literal, if these are even the right words to describe the process. Now the discuss could involve which endpoint on the spectrum to lead towards, akin to K.Armstrong's logos/mythos distinction. Or look at in in terms of primarily symbolic or historical in nature. But even then the granularity of looking at all of Genesis is bothersome. Even looking a just Gen2-3, is the snake literal? or historical? or symbolic? or a mixture? how about the tree of life?

maybe we can look at all these issues, but simply lining up noses pointed towards either direction-literal or allegorical seems unsatisfactory.

.....

Hello fellow Christian!!!
thanks for an impressive post from the "other side of the fence"

 

[GodSaves]

your basic idea is a fallacy, for all the church read Genesis allegorically for 1500 years and the Hebrews read it that way for a 1000 years earlier. The preference for the literal over the allegorical only dates from the Reformation.

references:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2003/004/18.26.html


from: http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/literali.htm

for these reasons, especially since i am conscious of being reformed, i prefer the literal over the allegorical and in fact interpret Gen 1-5 as literally as does any YECist. This i think is a defining mark of a Biblical conservative. but i am aware that this has been a minority stream in the history of the Church and is today a minority viewpoint as well.

Even with this said, i don't believe that the issue is literal versus allegorical, for in fact, both can easily co-exist as levels of hermeneutical interpretation on the same verses. But as the OP points out, in a way, the issue is one of authoritativeness and where that originates.

i suppose what bothers me most about this reasoning is that it is a continuation of the radical polarization: either one way or another. That really ignores both church history and good hermeneutical principles. For reading Gen 1-5 in any case must be a mixture of allegorical and literal, if these are even the right words to describe the process. Now the discuss could involve which endpoint on the spectrum to lead towards, akin to K.Armstrong's logos/mythos distinction. Or look at in in terms of primarily symbolic or historical in nature. But even then the granularity of looking at all of Genesis is bothersome. Even looking a just Gen2-3, is the snake literal? or historical? or symbolic? or a mixture? how about the tree of life?

maybe we can look at all these issues, but simply lining up noses pointed towards either direction-literal or allegorical seems unsatisfactory.

.....

LOL, I love it you call my question a fallacy. No offense, I just thought that was funny.

If I understand you correctly I think I would tend to agree. That there is more to Genesis then just being historically true and true facts therein. I think there is some symbolic message in it as well. I believe that Genesis is historically true, factually true and symbolically true.

The discussion on this forum has been whether it is one or the other. Your view also needs to be considered; whether Genesis is both literally true and allegorically true. I would say yes to both. The events therein Genesis actually happened, its history is true, and the allegorical thought that adam also represents all mankind - yet Adam was an actual individual as in reading Genesis literally - is also true.

This is has always been my view, that Genesis is true in every account, not just in one or a few.

Thank you for correcting me in adding that we can also look at it as both.

 

[Vance]

I would completely agree that we need to be accepting of a wide variety of spectrums of belief on this issue.

The main point of so many literalists seems to be "if you don't accept X, then how can you accept Y?" With X not being a salvation issue in itself, but Y definitely being a salvation issue. But isn't the point that we DO accept Y? Isn't this what really matters? The fact that some YEC's can't see HOW we believe it without believing X is really besides the point, as long as we honestly do believe Y.

So far, every argument for a literal reading I have seen ultimately comes down to this slippery slope of linking chains of belief down to salvation issues. It is always and if/then analysis, rather than an argument that, theologically, it is the X that is important.

I say let's figure out what the Y's are, make sure that everyone understands this and accepts them, and then let everyone believe what they honestly believe about the X's! There would not then be any need for Creationists ministries out there preaching YEC'ism or TE's or OEC's arguing against them.

 

[gluadys]

One of the most important influences on my thinking about Genesis allegorically was C.S. Lewis. He was very cognizant of the many parallels between biblical stories and mythologies of other origins.

His position was that what appeared in other cultures as mythology appeared in the history of Israel and especially in Jesus for real.

The other big impact came from studying literature, language and linguistics. Literature, of course, includes myths, sagas, legends, stories of all sorts and much of the bible just stands up so well as good story, it hardly needs any other reason for being.

But it was language and linguistics that really got to me. I have always been fascinated by the formation of the English language, its evolution from Anglo-Saxon to modern English. I have studied Shakespeare, Chaucer and his contemporaries and even a bit of Beowulf as much for the language as for the stories.

All languages change over time. Word use changes, word forms change, grammar changes, pronunciation and spelling change. Hebrew is no exception. I was fascinated to learn that this kind of study of Hebrew led to the discovery of the plural authorship of several books of the bible, notably Isaiah.

The differences are not attributable to the differences one might see in a single individual due to change of mood or subject matter. They are datable differences in the language itself. Just as an English text in which words like "doublet", "forsooth" and "God buy ye." mark it as Shakespearian, while words like "nuke", "surf (the web)" and "9-11" mark it as 21st century, so key words and forms of words can mark a Hebrew text as being of a certain date.

I also learned recently that in Hebrew the name "Jerusalem" has three different spellings (alluding to three different pronunciations) depending on the time in which the author was writing. In the oldest writings, a good transliteration would be Wu ru shalim. Later this becomes Yeru-shalim as the initial back semi-consonant "w" moves forward and becomes "y". Finally, the last vowel is lengthened to give the modern Hebrew form "Yershalayim". This all gets obscured in translation where all forms are rendered in English as Jerusalem.

Then there are personal peculiarities in the use of language. Authors tend to use similar images and phrases and themes through all of their writing, no matter what the subject. This, too, is true of biblical authors.

And later authors sometimes borrow ideas and concepts from earlier ones, so that you can set them in order.

In fact the whole process of working out who wrote what in the bible when is amazing. And then you ask, well why was it written at this time, and for whom? What was the original author trying to say to the original readers/hearers of his/her work? And that often turns out to be the real key to the interpretation.

Genesis 1 makes a lot of sense viewed as a polemic against the pagan gods of Babylon when you know the date of writing is a time of Babylonian ascendance. And it means the days of Genesis don't have to be thought of as calendar days at all.

So when I later turned my attention to evolution, I wasn't phased by the fact it didn't jibe with a literal Genesis, because by then I wasn't really interpreting Genesis literally anyway. And I suppose that is why accepting evolution as the way God created never invoked a crisis of faith for me. In fact, when the evolution light clicked on in my brain for the first time, my first instinct was to praise God! I just thought how marvellous it was to create in this way.