God said and it was so: literal or figurative?

[public hermit]

I just spent more than an hour replying to you - hit back arrow by mistake - and lost the lot....

Oh no! That's so frustrating.

 

[Hawkins]

The Genesis should be taken literally basically for 2 practical reasons,

1) humans don't actually know what time is
Einstein once put, time is not a stable physics unit but speed/velocity is. We take it for granted whenever we apply our concept of time which however is something we humans don't really know.

2) human concept of creation
When we say the word "creation" we apply the human concept of creation, again we take for granted to apply so. When something was not present at a point of time but present now, humans refer to this as a creation (or a natural formation). This world didn't exist at some point (of time) but it is here now, thus we humans conclude that either God created this world or it is formed by itself naturally.

Again, this only works on the presumption that time itself doesn't need "creation". The Bible doesn't use this human concept. The world is instead is "spoken into existence", including time itself. This means we actually don't have a concept of creation is when the creation of time itself is taken into consideration.

To sum up, when we humans say "creation" we subconsciously applied our concept to time by excluding the creation of time itself from the scope. The Bible account of creation doesn't apply the same concept. It is actually more realistic and more scientific with the correct presumption that humans can't possibly know what a creation is if they don't apply their concept of time, because when humans apply their concept of time they already exclude time from the process of creation. The Bible account however applies to even the creation of time itself (we humans don't know how though).

Because Genesis is something humans don't know what it is, it describes something human concepts may not apply. Thus we need to take it literally or it may be distorted once we apply our human concepts (which cannot be correct) onto it.

 

[public hermit]

The Genesis should be taken literally basically for 2 practical reasons,

1) humans don't actually know what time is
Einstein once put, time is not a stable physics unit but speed/velocity is. We take it for granted whenever we apply our concept of time which however is something we humans don't really know.

2) human concept of creation
When we say the word "creation" we apply the human concept of creation, again we take for granted to apply so. When something was not present at a point of time but present now, humans refer to this as a creation (or a natural formation). This world didn't exist at some point (of time) but it is here now, thus we humans conclude that either God created this world or it is formed by itself naturally.

Again, this only works on the presumption that time itself doesn't need "creation". The Bible doesn't use this human concept. The world is instead is "spoken into existence", including time itself. This means we actually don't have a concept of creation is when the creation of time itself is taken into consideration.

To sum up, when we humans say "creation" we subconsciously applied our concept to time by excluding the creation of time itself from the scope. The Bible account of creation doesn't apply the same concept. It is actually more realistic and more scientific with the correct presumption that humans can't possibly know what a creation is if they don't apply their concept of time, because when humans apply their concept of time they already exclude time from the process of creation. The Bible account however applies to even the creation of time itself (we humans don't know how though).

Because Genesis is something humans don't know what it is, it describes something human concepts may not apply. Thus we need to take it literally or it may be distorted once we apply our human concepts (which cannot be correct) onto it.

Interesting thoughts. I was recently reading St. Augustine's Confessions where talks about the creation of time and how we really have no idea what time is. It's kind of similar to what you're saying, I think. Thanks.

 

[fwGod]

But, if not all of Genesis 1 should be taken literally, why should other parts like "day" be taken as a literal 24 hour period?

There is no reason to take "day" as a literal 24 hour period, for to the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day (2 Peter 3:8).

Your liberty with using figurative thinking is taking it out of context to make the verse say whatever suits your fancy.

In context it says, to the Lord a day is like a thousand years. And a thousand years is like a day.

The words "like a" does not say "is a". A day is still 24hrs in length. Therefore it takes 365,000 24hr days to add up to a thousand years.

Using the old testament reference, Ps.90:4, For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday [24hr day] when it is past, And like a watch in the night.

Both passages are saying.. To God who is eternal a thousand years goes by as quickly for Him as a 24hr day does for us or as a watch in the night goes for the guard on watch.

It's not saying that any day you pick is actually a thousand years. But that is basically what you want it to say. That is called eisegesis.

So, should "God said" be taken literally or figuratively?

When the Bible says that "God said", then that is the truth (Jn.17:17) .. we who believe the Bible should take it for what it says and not independently decide that "God said" means something else.

God did not bother to explain in detail how He can speak. Because to Him that is not important, but what He says is important. Perhaps how it is that He can speak is at this time beyond our capability to grasp any explanation. (Job 36:26; Eph.3:20)

Our response to God's word is to believe that what is written is truth as it is, not as we would want to change it to be. Even as we are to believe that He created all things by speaking. (Heb.11:3)
And even so, the days as they are now or from the very beginning are 24hrs, because God never changes. (Mal.3:6; Jms.1:17)

 

[Pathfinder627]

"This has already been stated by other authors, and is well known. A proof for this, namely that the phrase "God said" in the first chapter of Genesis, must be taken in the figurative sense "He willed," and not in its literal meaning, is found in the circumstance that a command can only be given to a being which exists and is capable of receiving the command.

Without God's direct connection to the world or it's creation, then there is no Immanuel - no God With Us. Yet that is who Jesus is. Not just in his Incarnation, but his Pre-Incarnation as well. He's always been "God With Us". In the pre-New Testament world, he was the אמר/Memra. The Word. Or in Greek, the Logos. This isn't merely the Will, but in Aramaic, Memra is specifically "word" in the sense of a type of discourse. Not thought. He would also intervene in the affairs of humans as the Angel of the Lord. Another direct connection for God to not merely be remote or abstract, but to be "God With Us".

 

[Hazelelponi]

"This has already been stated by other authors, and is well known. A proof for this, namely that the phrase "God said" in the first chapter of Genesis, must be taken in the figurative sense "He willed," and not in its literal meaning, is found in the circumstance that a command can only be given to a being which exists and is capable of receiving the command. Compare, "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth" (Psalm 33:6). "His mouth," and "the breath of his mouth," are undoubtedly figurative expressions...The meaning of the verse is therefore that they exist through his will and desire." (Moses Maimonides The Guide for the Perplexed Chapter LXV)

As I have argued elsewhere, the opening chapters of Genesis cannot be wholly taken in a literal sense without embracing absurdity.
It is not possible to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally.

Let's assume that God literally spoke and creation came into being. Does God have a mouth? Who heard what was said? Does God have ears? In other words, does God have parts? It cannot be that God has parts, for God is One. If God has parts, then God is a composite being, composed by that which is smaller than the whole, which is absurd. So, if God does not have a literal mouth, then God did not speak literal words, and so not all of the opening chapter of Genesis 1 should be taken literally.

But, if not all of Genesis 1 should be taken literally, why should other parts like "day" be taken as a literal 24 hour period? There is no reason to take "day" as a literal 24 hour period, for to the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day (2 Peter 3:8).

So, should "God said" be taken literally or figuratively? Why?

I think God's act of creation being by the spoken word is likely a simplistic way of understanding, since even yet today we don't know what all went into the act of creating something out of the nothing which existed prior to creation.

We do know that creation occured, and that God caused all the parts and components of its occurrence, but we weren't given details of the how, just that God authored it from the most minute.

Is it possible God literally spoke non-being into being.. something of that nature must have had to initially transpire... at least according to my level of knowledge anyway, so it could very well have some type of literal aspect too, but it also might just be an simplistic way to understand what actually did transpire...

It's good enough to know we are creations of the Creator of all things. Its good enough for me.