If Genesis isn't "literal", then what is?

[HighwayMan]

This is a question I've been struggling with, and can't quite come up with a good answer.

Before the theory of evolution gained world-wide acceptance, no devote Christian would have questioned the Origins story. But evolution and cosmic theory disproved all that (in terms of science). Now there seems to be two ways to go with this - either we disregard everything human science teaches - or there's some "other" explanation that is not literal and somehow fits both creation and evolution (that most seem to believe in).

The problem with the latter is that - if the Origins story can't be taken literal - what can? Why are Jesus' miracles literal? Why is God's promise of "eternity" and "heaven" literal?

An unbeliever might claim that Christians take literal everything that can't be analyzed by science (such as what happens to the soul or what type of beverage Jesus had at a party millenniums ago). But whenever scientific facts make a literal interpretation impossible - such as Genesis - it suddenly becomes "with other meanings".

So I'm having deep trouble picking either side. An entirely literal approach to the Bible, (no offense to anyone) would be absurd. Not that it's impossible for science to be dead wrong about everything - but highly unlikely.

But the 2nd option seems even more suspicious. However way you look at it - it seems many are just picking and choosing what's literal and what isn't to fit in with their own values. I am guilty of this too - but am realizing that maybe this isn't right.

I hate to say it - but this awful doubt I can't get rid of is that the more science finds out - the more threatened the Bible becomes. And if we can't trust the Bible, how can we trust God or anything to do with religion/spirituality?

 

[jiminpa]

If Genesis is false, or even purely figurative, you can't trust any of it. You win the small no-prize.

I don't know where you hear that evolution is any more established than it was a hundred years ago. There is no more evidence for it now. It can't be observed. It can't be reproduced. It has been disproved--but by disproving evolution a scientist is labeled unreliable, shunned and marginalized. It is not possible to observe our origin. Origins study is philosophy. The Bible is not at odds with pure science. It is at odds with bad human philosophy.

Now for the large prize: I guess you will have to decide who you want to trust, finite humans who declare themselves superior intellects, and approach science with the agenda to prove God's non-existence, or the infinite God who gave them the tiny little intelligence they think is so great.

 

[Catholic Christian]

If Genesis is false, or even purely figurative, you can't trust any of it. You win the small no-prize.

I don't know where you hear that evolution is any more established than it was a hundred years ago. There is no more evidence for it now. It can't be observed. It can't be reproduced. It has been disproved--but by disproving evolution a scientist is labeled unreliable, shunned and marginalized. It is not possible to observe our origin. Origins study is philosophy. The Bible is not at odds with pure science. It is at odds with bad human philosophy.

Now for the large prize: I guess you will have to decide who you want to trust, finite humans who declare themselves superior intellects, and approach science with the agenda to prove God's non-existence, or the infinite God who gave them the tiny little intelligence they think is so great.

Genesis is true history, but written in the ancient Semitic style, not in the modern precise factual way

 

[HighwayMan]

If Genesis is false, or even purely figurative, you can't trust any of it. You win the small no-prize.

I don't know where you hear that evolution is any more established than it was a hundred years ago. There is no more evidence for it now. It can't be observed. It can't be reproduced. It has been disproved--but by disproving evolution a scientist is labeled unreliable, shunned and marginalized. It is not possible to observe our origin. Origins study is philosophy. The Bible is not at odds with pure science. It is at odds with bad human philosophy.

Now for the large prize: I guess you will have to decide who you want to trust, finite humans who declare themselves superior intellects, and approach science with the agenda to prove God's non-existence, or the infinite God who gave them the tiny little intelligence they think is so great.

So the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old, there is no such thing as continental drift and plate tectonics that reform our land and oceans; there was no Big Bang, the universe did not take cosmic ages to form and cool; all the fossils of ancient man gradually evolving into man are fake, same for the animals; rock samples, sediment samples, inner Earth samples are studied wrong...chemists, geologists, astronomers....everyone is dead wrong?

Does the Sun revolve around the Earth too?

 

[Nathan45]

If Genesis is false, or even purely figurative, you can't trust any of it. You win the small no-prize.

Careful there, you're one step away from being an atheist.

anyway, thread hijack incoming:

i posted this thread about 5 hours ago and not a single reply, any takers?

http://christianforums.com/t6859208-mark-105-and-the-immutability-of-the-law.html

Mt 19:7-8

7They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’

8He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so.

Jiminpa: can we really trust anything Moses wrote in the Torah?

or, anyone else care to reply to this?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Genesis is true history, but written in the ancient Semitic style, not in the modern precise factual way

Agreed


It is written poetically as well.

We also do not know how all of it is to be explained. Such as Adam. Adam means 'man' or 'mankind'. Some have theology that aserts that 'adam' was all men of God. And we can go further in to what exactly "men of God" implies. Consider all the stories of humanity in the OT where the children of God were different from other humans and why???

Or maybe Adam was but one man and Eve but one woman. Sure why not?

Or maybe in a symbolic and literal and poetic way they are both accurate.

The question is really as to what the author was trying to tell and in what fashion. But a literalist way is incorrect and would contradict itself with God's creation.

 

[HighwayMan]

Agreed


It is written poetically as well.

We also do not know how all of it is to be explained. Such as Adam. Adam means 'man' or 'mankind'. Some have theology that aserts that 'adam' was all men of God. And we can go further in to what exactly "men of God" implies. Consider all the stories of humanity in the OT where the children of God were different from other humans and why???

Or maybe Adam was but one man and Eve but one woman. Sure why not?

Or maybe in a symbolic and literal and poetic way they are both accurate.

The question is really as to what the author was trying to tell and in what fashion. But a literalist way is incorrect and would contradict itself with God's creation.

Yes - but then my question asks where does the symbolic end and the literal interpretation start?

With the same line of reasoning, what if all of Jesus' miracles were figurative? What if by "healing" the blind and the crippled, all he did was tell them a very inspirational story in which they found fulfillment in?

What if he didn't "walk on water", but could withstand the storm remarkably well? And by turning "water into wine" he simply lifted everyone's spirits?

And why do we not look for figurative interpretations of the promises of eternal life and heaven? Because we very much want those to be fully literal.

All I'm saying with this is that it's easy to find symbolic interpretations in pretty much everything.

 

[Nathan45]

Yes - but then my question asks where does the symbolic end and the literal interpretation start?

With the same line of reasoning, what if all of Jesus' miracles were figurative? What if by "healing" the blind and the crippled, all he did was tell them a very inspirational story in which they found fulfillment in?

What if he didn't "walk on water", but could withstand the storm remarkably well? And by turning "water into wine" he simply lifted everyone's spirits?

And why do we not look for figurative interpretations of the promises of eternal life and heaven? Because we very much want those to be fully literal.

All I'm saying with this is that it's easy to find symbolic interpretations in pretty much everything.

... and what's wrong with symbolic interpretations, anyway?

From Matthew 16

When the disciples reached the other side, they had forgotten to bring any bread. 6Jesus said to them, ‘Watch out, and beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’

7They said to one another, ‘It is because we have brought no bread.’

8And becoming aware of it, Jesus said, ‘You of little faith, why are you talking about having no bread?

9Do you still not perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?

10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered?

11How could you fail to perceive that I was not speaking about bread? Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees!’

12Then they understood that he had not told them to beware of the yeast of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

From Mark 8

14 Now the disciples had forgotten to bring any bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat.

15And he cautioned them, saying, ‘Watch out—beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.’ 16They said to one another, ‘It is because we have no bread.’

17And becoming aware of it, Jesus said to them, ‘Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened?

18Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? And do you not remember? 19When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?’ They said to him, ‘Twelve.’

20‘And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?’ And they said to him, ‘Seven.’

21Then he said to them, ‘Do you not yet understand?’

 

[praying]

Genesis is not history.

 

[Nathan45]

another interesting passage:

From John 6:

54Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day;

55for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.

56Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them.

57Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.

58This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’

Literal or figurative?

I think figurative:

63It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

 

[thunderbyrd]

EVOLUTION is a THEORY. EVOLUTION has not been proven as a FACT.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

another interesting passage:

From John 6:


Literal or figurative?

I think figurative:

Jesus says more then twice that this IS his flesh. Not figurative. For 'is' is 'is' and 'is' isn't 'isn't.


But you are going off topic. Maybe you should read what was written around the times of the Apsotles by those taught by the Apsotles oe the students of these men taught by the Apostles. The Apostles said John 6 is literal and not symbolic. Or do you choose a man from more than 1500 years later like Calvin?

 

[Nathan45]

Jesus says more then twice that this IS his flesh. Not figurative. For 'is' is 'is' and 'is' isn't 'isn't.

then why didn't the apostles cut him up and eat him?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

EVOLUTION is a THEORY. EVOLUTION has not been proven as a FACT.

Macro evolution has not been proven but micro evolution is fact.

Macro evolution has nothing to support it but theory. Infact animals like crocodiles speak against the macro evolution theory because they have been basically unchanged for millions of years.

 

[Nathan45]

EVOLUTION is a THEORY. EVOLUTION has not been proven as a FACT.

Hi. not trying to be rude, but please learn what the word THEORY means in a scientific context, before opening your mouth, or you make yourself look like a fool. It is difficult to have an argument with creationists if they do not even know what the word THEORY means, how can they be expected to know anything at all about science?

And evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt as a fact. Although this debate is probably for another forum.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

then why didn't the apostles cut him up and eat him?

They were waiting for understanding or to be commanded to eat hs flesh.

The Last Supper Jesus did just that. "This is my body"

 

[Nathan45]

Infact animals like crocodiles speak against the macro evolution theory because they have been basically unchanged for millions of years.

Why would something necessarily change that much, if it's already well adapted for what it does? After a certain point, any likely changes would be detrimental.

Evolution usually happens in bursts when you move an animal from one niche to another.
( edit: note that from a geological perspective a "Burst" can be 100,000 years, and 50,000 generations... that's a long time from our perspective but nothing compared to geological timespans of millions of years. )

...

For example, if a type of bird usually subsists on eating frogs, but suddenly there are few frogs and a surplus of fish, it will have to eat fish or die.

Now, this is where macro-evolution takes place, as the animal evolves to be better fishers, and the morphology changes to make them better swimmers, divers, etc. Meanwhile, the fish evolve also to be less likely to be caught by this new predator. Note that the old species doesn't die off: They're still around, wherever there are plentiful frogs. But a new species is branching off of the old one, which will have different morphology built to catch fish. After a certain point, the two species will be different enough that they won't interbreed. At that point they go their separate ways, following totally separate winds, and 10 million years later they're completely different birds.

...

anyway, some very strong and recent evidence of macro evolution: Duplicate retroviral gene insertions in the same places in various genomes.

It's documented that retro-viruses can often insert themselves into various dormant parts of DNA. The insertions don't necessarily do anything, they just leave a mark.

It's like detecting plagiarism:

if you see a mistake somewhere in a writing, a spelling error, etc... and someone later comes and plagiarizes that work, they often retain the same spelling errors!!

Now, you know it's plagiarized, because it has that exact same error in the exact same place!!

The same is true of maps... map makers will often intentionally put very minor errors in their maps, so that they can catch and sue anyone who plagiarizes them by copying their map and selling it, without paying benefit to the person who actually does the cartography.

Now it's the same with macro evolution and gene insertion:

There are thousands of places in the genome where you will see the same retroviral insertion in both Human and Chimp DNA. These genes don't do anything, they're clearly remains of retroviruses, but you'll see them in the same place, in the same pattern.

anyways, if you're looking for evidence of macroevolution, there's plenty...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

and if you accept "micro-evolution", where do you draw the arbitrary line between micro and macro? What mechanism do you propose that would prevent a proto-primate, given 10 million years, from evolving to a human? The DNA is so similar, and DNA has been shown experimentally to mutate, and selective pressures obviously occur... is there any particular reason you can't get from A to B other than religious dogma?

 

[DArceri]

MT 19:4-6
4He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."


Is Jesus giving us His answer here????

 

[Nathan45]

They were waiting for understanding or to be commanded to eat hs flesh.

The Last Supper Jesus did just that. "This is my body"

They didn't cut him up and eat him at the last supper either, they ate Bread instead.

Eitherway, I seem to be hijacking this thread in several different directions.

( and i think we'll just have to agree to disagree ),

63It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

If you need to eat Jesus, literally, to get into heaven, why does jesus say this?

In my opinion: It's not the bread or the drink that counts, it's who you share it with.

 

[jckstraw72]

The Church has understood Genesis literally from day one. dont let atheistic science crush your faith -- it has nothing on God.