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

[Nathan45]

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

... Augustine didn't take it literally and neither should you.

 

[jckstraw72]

... Augustine didn't take it literally and neither should you.

actually im reading City of God right now ... St. Augustine took it quite literally, except that he viewed the 6 days as an allegory for a single moment -- even less suited to evolution. and either way, St. Augustine is one man with well known theological errors anyways.

"In vain, then, do some babble with most empty presumption, saying that Egypt has understood the reckoning of the stars for more than a hundred thousand years. For in what books have they collected that number who learned letters from Isis their mistress, not much more than two thousand years ago? Varro, who has declared this, is no small authority in history, and it does not disagree with the truth of the divine books. For as it is not yet six thousand years since the first man, who is called Adam, are not those to be ridiculed rather than refuted who try to persuade us of anything regarding a space of time so different from, and contrary to, the ascertained truth?"
-- St. Augustine, City of God, Book XVIII.40

 

[Nathan45]

St. Augustine took it quite literally, except that he viewed the 6 days as an allegory

Whatever you want to call it

 

[Nathan45]

anyways, Genesis is a really cool book, but I don't get why anyone would take it literally?

Genesis 3:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God say, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?’

2The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” ’

4But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die;

5for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’

6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate.

7Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

8 They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

9But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’

10He said, ‘I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.’

11He said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?’

12The man said, ‘The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate.’

13Then the Lord God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’ The woman said, ‘The serpent tricked me, and I ate.’

14The Lord God said to the serpent,
‘Because you have done this,
cursed are you among all animals
and among all wild creatures;
upon your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.

15I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.’

16To the woman he said,
‘I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.’

17And to the man he said,
‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten of the tree
about which I commanded you,
“You shall not eat of it”,
cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

18thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.

19By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread
until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.’

20 The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all who live.

21And the Lord God made garments of skins for the man and for his wife, and clothed them.

22 Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’—

23therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

24He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.

Pure art. but, Literal? Talking Snakes? Fruit trees representing Good and Evil? No, not literal.

 

[E.C.]

OP

Genesis is both history and figurative.

With Noah, it can be argued quite well that there was a flood. The creation story of the ancient Sumer region even talked about Noah and a flood (as well as immortality, but that's another story).

It can be argued that the Garden of Eden was in the Middle East; after all it would explain why there is so much oil there.

With the days, we have to keep in mind that God's days are not like our days. One day in Genesis talking about how God created the world is not the same as our 24 hour day.

Its not a black or white, this or that sort of thing. Its more of a gray area in terms of literal or not.

 

[HighwayMan]

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.

Yeah. Not to attack anyone, but a lot of the times when people shout "it's just a THEORY" they seem to imply a bunch of philosophers gathered around a table and just brainstormed random ideas out of thin air. A scientific theory is something much more different than a plain guess or opinion.

But anyway, the verses you posted fit in quite interestingly with this topic.

I think that the one certain thing is that the Bible is unique, a book like no other. It is important, it has truth and contains God's message - but it's exact form - literal/symbolic/poetic/all/something else entirely is hard to determine. It can be both clear & powerful, yet deeply mysterious in nature.

 

[jckstraw72]

Pure art. but, Literal? Talking Snakes? Fruit trees representing Good and Evil? No, not literal.

youre making assumptions about a pre-fall world based on what you know of our fallen world. we cant even imagine what it was like then.

 

[Nathan45]

youre making assumptions about a pre-fall world based on what you know of our fallen world. we cant even imagine what it was like then.

If you really believe this, then why is your interpretation suddenly more valid than mine? You don't have a leg to stand on.

...

When Jesus said "Beware the yeast of the Pharisees" was he being literal or figurative?

 

[Nathan45]

anyway, to understand the fall, properly, you need to understand these passages:

Gen 3:11

11He said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?’

Romans 14:14

14I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

Now, adam and eve ( figuratively ) ate from the tree of knowledge, so they knew what was good and what was evil.

Mt 7:1-2

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.

Before the fall, they were innocent, like children, or like animals, they didn't know right from wrong. They couldn't judge anyone because they had no standard to judge, and there was no standard to judge them, either.
Like animals, they simply did what was natural, Good or Evil was not a concept.

But after the fall, they knew Good and Evil, so they were cursed to follow the Good, or be Evil.

Jn 15:22

22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

The tragedy, then, was that they knew of Good and Evil before they were able by their own will to reject the Evil and accept the Good,

Gen 4:6-7

6The Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? 7If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.’

So they are cursed in the flesh, to know Good, but to do Evil anyway:

Romans 7:14-24

For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin.

15I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.

16Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.

17But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.

18For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it.

19For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.

20Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand.

22For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self,

23but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.

24Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.

 

[Vance]

Genesis 1 and 2 are, as mentioned in other posts, written in the literary style of the day when describing epic past events. That does not make it fable or in any way "untrue", it is simply a recognition of a particular literary genre. It is like seeing that Song of Solomon and Luke were written with different literary styles. At that time, they wrote about such events using typological, figurative and symbolic language, and poetic structure, and were not in the least attempting to provide an accurate scientific or historical account in the modern sense. And, if the ancient Israelites would not have read it as strict literal historical narrative, why should we?

And even the most ardent literalist actually recognizes this to some extent, but just doesn't follow it through to its logical conclusion.

Consider the term "God breathed" in relation to Adam. We know that God is not, and was not, a human being with lungs and "breath". God is spirit other than when He came down to earth as Jesus. So, we know that God did not use literal "breath", and did not literally "breathe". We know He did SOMETHING, and He chose to use the figurative expression of "breathing" to describe this process.

Why did He not just explain to us exactly what He did in its strictly historically and scientifically accurate detail? Why use a figurative description? Surely God could have found a way to describe it in a literal way we could all understand over all time, right? Is it "lying" to us to say He breathed when He did not breathe? No, of course not. And, sure, God is God and could have chosen to convey exactly what He did in a historically and scientifically accurate way. But He chose to tell it in a single, powerful, evocative figurative phrase. I happen to think it works pretty well. We don't need to know the details, we all get the important point. Good job, God.

But here is the odd thing for the strict literalists. There is no clue in the text that this is meant to be read figuratively. It just flows right along with all the other text which they insist must be read literally.

Is it possible that this entire section of Scripture should be read the way we all read Genesis 2:7? Could it be that God is providing us with powerful, evocative figurative language to convey the important things about what happened?

BTW, here is a good article on how to best read Genesis 1:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html

 

[thunderbyrd]

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.

Brother Nathan: i admit i am not very good at debate, so it is very possible that i do in fact, "look like a fool". i see that you have very strong feelings and that you are good at expressing yourself, so how about spelling out to me exactly what "theory" means in a scientific context.

 

[Molal]

Brother Nathan: i admit i am not very good at debate, so it is very possible that i do in fact, "look like a fool". i see that you have very strong feelings and that you are good at expressing yourself, so how about spelling out to me exactly what "theory" means in a scientific context.

Forgive me Nathan, but...

There is no such thing as proof in science. Proof (prove, proven) are specific terms used only in mathematics and liquor. They have specific definitions that are quite different to that used everyday.

A scientific theory is a model (or framework) that provides the best and most consistent explanation of all the data. The model also provides the ability to predict. The predictions can be empirically tested and analyzed to discover any error.

A theory is not fact, it is not 100%, a theory is the best approximation that explains ALL the data/observations, etc. The greater the amount of evidence for a theory the greater it's accuracy and the greater the reduction in error of predictions; however, the error will never go away because we can never know for certain anything.

Examples of theories are:
1. Germ Theory.
2. Theory of Relativity
3. Theory of Gravity
4. Atomic Theory

All theories contain universal constants and laws - theories are the ultimate in scientific models.

Evidency of accuracy can be observed in the usefulness of a theory. For instance - the theory of gravity allows us to measure the traction afforded to cars on the road by different tires, the rate of fall of a skydiver, the orbital eccentricity of spcae objects, flight paths to other planets, etc. The theory of evolution allows us to predict the mutation rates of viri, bacteria, the appearance of new species, artificial intelligence, gene mutation rates, gene expressions, etc. The theory of evolution could be called the most well evidenced theory known to science since it incorporates data from almost all sciences.

 

[jckstraw72]

If you really believe this, then why is your interpretation suddenly more valid than mine? You don't have a leg to stand on.

its not "suddenly" more vaild, im merely stating what the Church has always taught. who am i to think i know better?

 

[Bushido216]

I have trouble taking seriously someone in a plant suit with a travel gnome for a sidekick.

 

[jckstraw72]

I have trouble taking seriously someone in a plant suit with a travel gnome for a sidekick.

dont take me seriously. take the Church Fathers seriously.

and just so you know ... i dont really dress like that ...

 

[Vance]

dont take me seriously. take the Church Fathers seriously.

and just so you know ... i dont really dress like that ...

Aw, man, I like to think everyone really looks exactly like they do in their avatar! :0)

But I think you are right, the church fathers, for the most part, did not read the text as requiring strict literalness. I have always respected the apophatic approach of the EO church.

 

[jckstraw72]

But I think you are right, the church fathers, for the most part, did not read the text as requiring strict literalness. I have always respected the apophatic approach of the EO church.

what i am syaing is that for the most part the Fathers DID read it litereally, while not ignoring the deeper spiritual truths.

 

[Vance]

what i am syaing is that for the most part the Fathers DID read it litereally, while not ignoring the deeper spiritual truths.

Well, Augustine, for one, didn't, but I am not sure how much weight he holds for the eastern church. Here is a bit from the Orthodox Church, and is mostly what I know about their position (these are quotes I gathered over the years):

Greek Orthodox:

The Church web page includes an article by Rev. George Mastrantonis. Rev. Mastrantonis states, "The theory of evolution does not contradict the existence of a Supreme Intelligent Being. It does not dismiss the existence of God with a Design and Purpose for the Creation. The Judaic-Christian concept of God accepts any truth from any aspect of life without fear of losing its faith in God as a Supreme Intelligent Being" Rev. Mastrantonis does express some concern regarding any concept of evolution which excludes a creator.

Orthodox Church in America:

In answer to a question, Fr. John Matusiak states, "Orthodoxy is not literalist in its understanding of the accounts of creation in Genesis, and I have encountered writings by Orthodox Christians which attempt to balance the creation accounts with a certain ongoing -- evolutionary, if you will -- process which, on the one hand, affirms that while humans may have evolved physically under the direction and guidance and plan of the Creator, their souls could not have evolved any more than the powers of reasoning, speaking, or the ability to act creatively could have simply evolved. In such a scenario the Creator intervened by breathing His Spirit into man and giving him life, as stated in Genesis...Orthodoxy has no problem with evolution as a scientific theory, only with evolution -- as some people may view it -- eliminating the need for God as Creator of All."

We had an orthodox poster here a few years ago, and he was seeking out what the position of the eastern Church Fathers were on the subject of literalness, etc. He got a lot of conflicting information, both from those Fathers directly and from current Orthodox commentators about those Fathers.

I never came away with an absolute idea of what the Orthodox position was, but my feeling is that it is a bit mixed.

 

[shernren]

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?

Well, firstly, "literal" is a very slippery word. As Vance has pointed out, for example, people who take "God breathed ... " "literally" still don't believe that God has lungs and a trachea. I replace it with "historical" and "scientifically verifiable".

A "historical" event is something that actually happened in the physical world we all inhabit, which would have been impartially observed by all present. Note that events that are not "historical" can still be very real, because they produce profound effects on us that dictate our thinking and behavior. For example, it's around Chinese New Year time right now, and we have a story about The Year coming as a beast and terrorizing a neighborhood, only to be scared off by loud firecrackers - which explains why we light firecrackers during CNY time. The story is obviously not historical, but still very much "real" to the Chinese collective cultural consciousness.

A "scientifically verifiable" event is just that - some event whose happening or not happening we can verify. And whether or not an event is scientifically verifiable is really a matter of how big a splash, physically speaking, the event made. If I asked you to scientifically verify, for example, that Socrates was a male instead of a female, it would be pretty hard for you to do. Socrates' gender hasn't left much of a physical impact on the world. If, on the other hand, a huge meteorite struck the Earth around when Socrates lived, any of us still alive today would have no problem scientifically verifying that.

So, is the Resurrection historical and scientifically verifiable? The Resurrection is obviously not scientifically verifiable. That is not anything to be ashamed of; you couldn't prove scientifically that Plato killed himself, either. Is it historical? The record of the Gospels is impeccable on this count. The four Gospels do have a few coherence issues, like the beggar at Jericho, but hey - if all four authors got together and decided to tell a tall tale about a dude rising from the dead, you'd expect at least some whopping errors on the same scale. Instead, we get detailed reports that are consistent with what we know of the historical and political climate of the time.

What about creation, YEC-style? That is definitely scientifically verifiable. If the YECs are right, every single darn thing in creation is about 6,000 years old, certainly not millions of years old or more as claimed by those darndest evilutionists. That's scientifically verifiable in spades, and easily shown wrong.

So yes, there is picking and choosing. However, it's rational picking and choosing, with well-given reasons.

 

[jckstraw72]

Vance -- just about the only thing Augustine didnt see as literal in Genesis was the 6 days -- he saw them as an allegory for one single moment. other than that, at least in City of God, he reads it quite literally. and i have seen the comments from those pages, but unfortunately they are not grounded in Patristics.

youll want to check out this site: http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english.html

Fr. Seraphim Rose's book is an excellent, indepth study of the Patristic understanding of Genesis.