Is Genesis 1-11 Literal

[pastorkevin73]

The first book of the Bible is one that is debated between Theists and evolutionists. It is even discussed between Creationists and theistic evolutionists. This topic at times has been very heated. So in this post I will answer the question: Is Genesis 1-11 Literal or Allegorical.
To properly answer this question we must look to the whole context of scripture. We have firm clues throughout scripture that shows that Genesis 1-11 are literal.
First, we have the evidence of genealogies. In Matthew 1 and Luke 3 we have two complete genealogies for Christ all the way back to Adam. Now some argue that these two genealogies are two separate genealogies so which is the correct one. The answer is both. One genealogy is through Mary and the other is through Joseph; both genealogies work from Christ back to Adam.
Second, we have reference of Adam (1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14: Jud 1:14) and Eve (1 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:13) being actual people throughout scripture.
Third, we have reference to Eden (Isa 51:3; Eze 28:13; 31:9-18; 36:35; Joel 2:3) being an actual place.
Fourth, we have reference to other people mentioned in Genesis 1-11 as being literal people. Some of these people include Enoch (Heb 11:5; Jude 1:14) and Noah (Matt 24:37-38; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5).
Fifth, there is continuity between Genesis 1 and 2. Some argue that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. This simply is not true because Genesis 2 is not a second creation account, rather it is an extension of details to Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is chronological whereas Genesis 2 is the added details to the creation account.
Sixth, other references to Genesis 1-11 refer to some of the teachings found in these 11 chapters. The creation account is mentioned in Ex 20:11 as an actual event. Jesus (Matt 19:5; Mk 10:7) and Paul (Eph 5:31) mentions the teaching of how a man will leave father and mother to cling to his wife quoting Gen 2:24.
In closing, Genesis 1-11 is literal and true because the whole of scripture speaks to this being true, including Jesus, Paul, Moses and other Biblical people and writers.

 

[Calminian]

The first book of the Bible is one that is debated between Theists and evolutionists. It is even discussed between Creationists and theistic evolutionists. This topic at times has been very heated. So in this post I will answer the question: Is Genesis 1-11 Literal or Allegorical.
To properly answer this question we must look to the whole context of scripture. We have firm clues throughout scripture that shows that Genesis 1-11 are literal.
First, we have the evidence of genealogies. In Matthew 1 and Luke 3 we have two complete genealogies for Christ all the way back to Adam. Now some argue that these two genealogies are two separate genealogies so which is the correct one. The answer is both. One genealogy is through Mary and the other is through Joseph; both genealogies work from Christ back to Adam.
Second, we have reference of Adam (1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14: Jud 1:14) and Eve (1 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:13) being actual people throughout scripture.
Third, we have reference to Eden (Isa 51:3; Eze 28:13; 31:9-18; 36:35; Joel 2:3) being an actual place.
Fourth, we have reference to other people mentioned in Genesis 1-11 as being literal people. Some of these people include Enoch (Heb 11:5; Jude 1:14) and Noah (Matt 24:37-38; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5).
Fifth, there is continuity between Genesis 1 and 2. Some argue that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. This simply is not true because Genesis 2 is not a second creation account, rather it is an extension of details to Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is chronological whereas Genesis 2 is the added details to the creation account.
Sixth, other references to Genesis 1-11 refer to some of the teachings found in these 11 chapters. The creation account is mentioned in Ex 20:11 as an actual event. Jesus (Matt 19:5; Mk 10:7) and Paul (Eph 5:31) mentions the teaching of how a man will leave father and mother to cling to his wife quoting Gen 2:24.
In closing, Genesis 1-11 is literal and true because the whole of scripture speaks to this being true, including Jesus, Paul, Moses and other Biblical people and writers.

Good points. I'm basically in agreement. My only caution is the choice of the word "literal." That's going to be mean different things to different people and possibly confuse the argument. Perhaps better to say Genesis 1-11 is intended as an historical narrative, to be read in a straightforward way, just as the Gospels or any other biblical narrative. Small point. Excellent post.

 

[Mikecpking]

The first chapter is a poem to remember the importance of Sabbath.

 

[Calminian]

The first chapter is a poem to remember the importance of Sabbath.

Are you trying to convince yourself of this? You didn't address the OP, just stated your opinion. It almost sounds like you're in conflict.

 

[juvenissun]

The first chapter is a poem to remember the importance of Sabbath.

How important is it?

 

[lovernotafighter]

The first book of the Bible is one that is debated between Theists and evolutionists. It is even discussed between Creationists and theistic evolutionists. This topic at times has been very heated. So in this post I will answer the question: Is Genesis 1-11 Literal or Allegorical.
To properly answer this question we must look to the whole context of scripture. We have firm clues throughout scripture that shows that Genesis 1-11 are literal.
First, we have the evidence of genealogies. In Matthew 1 and Luke 3 we have two complete genealogies for Christ all the way back to Adam. Now some argue that these two genealogies are two separate genealogies so which is the correct one. The answer is both. One genealogy is through Mary and the other is through Joseph; both genealogies work from Christ back to Adam.
Second, we have reference of Adam (1 Chr 1:1; Hos 6:7; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14: Jud 1:14) and Eve (1 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:13) being actual people throughout scripture.
Third, we have reference to Eden (Isa 51:3; Eze 28:13; 31:9-18; 36:35; Joel 2:3) being an actual place.
Fourth, we have reference to other people mentioned in Genesis 1-11 as being literal people. Some of these people include Enoch (Heb 11:5; Jude 1:14) and Noah (Matt 24:37-38; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5).
Fifth, there is continuity between Genesis 1 and 2. Some argue that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. This simply is not true because Genesis 2 is not a second creation account, rather it is an extension of details to Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is chronological whereas Genesis 2 is the added details to the creation account.
Sixth, other references to Genesis 1-11 refer to some of the teachings found in these 11 chapters. The creation account is mentioned in Ex 20:11 as an actual event. Jesus (Matt 19:5; Mk 10:7) and Paul (Eph 5:31) mentions the teaching of how a man will leave father and mother to cling to his wife quoting Gen 2:24.
In closing, Genesis 1-11 is literal and true because the whole of scripture speaks to this being true, including Jesus, Paul, Moses and other Biblical people and writers.

 

[Mikecpking]

How important is it?

Very, because God blessed it and made it holy

 

[Assyrian]

Is Genesis 1-11 Literal or Allegorical.

Why would such a large amount of text all be one literary form? If you look in the rest of the bible literary form can change within a single chapter, or from verse to verse. Genesis even describes itself as made up of a series of different documents. There is no reason they all have to be uniformly literal or allegorical.

 

[Papias]

Pastorkevin wrote:

First, we have the evidence of genealogies. In Matthew 1 and Luke 3 we have two complete genealogies for Christ all the way back to Adam. Now some argue that these two genealogies are two separate genealogies so which is the correct one. The answer is both. One genealogy is through Mary and the other is through Joseph; both genealogies work from Christ back to Adam.

We've just been through this. You stated that one is through Mary. Which one does your Bible say is through Mary? Secondly, both of them contradict 1 Chr. Is 1 Chr. wrong, or are these metaphorical, not literal, geneologies?

We can look at your other points after this one, I suppose.

Papias

 

[theFijian]

Why would such a large amount of text all be one literary form? If you look in the rest of the bible literary form can change within a single chapter, or from verse to verse. Genesis even describes itself as made up of a series of different documents. There is no reason they all have to be uniformly literal or allegorical.

Absolutely. The real question is to what extent is literal/metaphorical. TEs keep getting asked how we decide what parts are literal and what parts are metaphoric, the answer is - the exact same way that Creationists decide what parts are literal and what parts are metaphoric!

 

[juvenissun]

Very, because God blessed it and made it holy

If it is very important, why don't most Christians feel so today? Church worship on Sunday is not a "very important" event, even to a faithful Christian.

 

[theFijian]

If it is very important, why don't most Christians feel so today? Church worship on Sunday is not a "very important" event, even to a faithful Christian.

On the contrary, it is important and ought to be important. What gets me about the discussions in here is that TEs keep getting told that we're not 'orthodox' and then I read Creationists coming out with this kind of statement. Unless of course your statement is simply a description and not an endorsement.

 

[solarwave]

My view is that a lot of is it metaphorical but some could be what has been passed down from history.

So I would say the Creation stories and Fall are metaphorical, the world wide Flood didn't happen and nor did the Tower of Babel.

The fact that other parts of the Bible speak about these first few chapters doesn't mean that those parts are correct. The writers could have easily been wrong about their understanding of Genesis, unless they are infallible. Also I tend to refer to Genesis and when I do it might sound like I think it is literally true, but that is generally either because talking about it literally expresses the meaning behind the story more easily and/or the people I am talking to think it is literally true. Both those two things could be applied to the Bible writers.

In my understanding the best way to interpret the Bible is trying to interpret it to the best of your ability. If this is true then doesn't it mean interpreting it using everything you know and can find out? Everything you know including morality, arguments and science and how much weight you give to these factors should depends on how reliable they are. So evidence from many disciplines proves the and Old Earth and Evolution, and so have a high reliability. Logical arguments have a good reliability but of course can be wrong. Morality can play a part in interpretation too, for example love tells us slavery is wrong even though this isn't explicity said in the Bible, in fact it seems to allow it.

So in the case of events very out of the normal in Genesis and which have alot of evidence against them being literally true we should understand them in a metaphorical way and then understand what the Bible says about these events in light of that.

I see how it can be easy to say "The Bible says X therefore Y" but all reading requires interpretation and it is YEC interpretation which I am against, I am not against the Bible.

Thoughts?

 

[juvenissun]

On the contrary, it is important and ought to be important. What gets me about the discussions in here is that TEs keep getting told that we're not 'orthodox' and then I read Creationists coming out with this kind of statement. Unless of course your statement is simply a description and not an endorsement.

I am not saying it is not important. I am saying that we do not feel it is important today. Otherwise, we will want to have the spirit of Pharisees on every Sunday (or on whichever day taken as the Sabbath day). So the real question should be: Does Jesus make the Sabbath day less significant? Am I doing something wrong if I watched a football game on Sunday afternoon?

I do understand this discussion is a little off the topic of OP. But you may also take this discussion as a special issue which is related to the literal (?) meaning of Gen 2:3.

 

[Calminian]

Absolutely. The real question is to what extent is literal/metaphorical. TEs keep getting asked how we decide what parts are literal and what parts are metaphoric, the answer is - the exact same way that Creationists decide what parts are literal and what parts are metaphoric!

The only explanation I ever hear from them when pressed, is basically, "this contradicts my scientific theory, therefore it must be figurative." They never can actually produce a logical argument from the text as to why it's not literal.

 

[crawfish]

The only explanation I ever hear from them when pressed, is basically, "this contradicts my scientific theory, therefore it must be figurative." They never can actually produce a logical argument from the text as to why it's not literal.

For clarification purposes, who is "they"? TE's? Creationists? Both?

 

[gluadys]

The only explanation I ever hear from them when pressed, is basically, "this contradicts my scientific theory, therefore it must be figurative." They never can actually produce a logical argument from the text as to why it's not literal.

For clarification purposes, who is "they"? TE's? Creationists? Both?

Good question. After all this is exactly the same response creationists give when pressed on the literal meaning of biblical geocentrism/flat earth. They never can actually produce a logical argument from the text as to why these descriptions are not literal.

Everyone abandons the literal meaning of the biblical text when they are convinced that it is contradicted by science. So deploring that someone else does it is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[juvenissun]

Good question. After all this is exactly the same response creationists give when pressed on the literal meaning of biblical geocentrism/flat earth. They never can actually produce a logical argument from the text as to why these descriptions are not literal.

Everyone abandons the literal meaning of the biblical text when they are convinced that it is contradicted by science. So deploring that someone else does it is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.

Unfortunately, this statement applies to people of all ages and all professions. So we know how true this statement could be.

 

[solarwave]

The only explanation I ever hear from them when pressed, is basically, "this contradicts my scientific theory, therefore it must be figurative." They never can actually produce a logical argument from the text as to why it's not literal.

An argument from the text could be made but the evidence alone justifies a TE in what they believe. Read my post above to see why I think this.

 

[shernren]

Well, these are all passages we've seen before, and they could all be discussed in detail. But one in particular was really interesting, and demonstrates the deficiencies in this kind of approach, in part because its established interpretation should be widely known among conservatives.

Third, we have reference to Eden (Isa 51:3; Eze 28:13; 31:9-18; 36:35; Joel 2:3) being an actual place.

(emphasis added)

Ezekiel 28:13 is part of the well-known prophetic tirade against the king of Tyre:

“Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God:

“You were the signet of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
​​​​​​​​You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone was your covering,
sardius, topaz, and diamond, beryl, onyx,
and jasper, sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;
and crafted in gold were your settings and your engravings.
On the day that you were created they were prepared."
(Ezek 28:12-13, ESV)
​

Now let's assume that "Eden, the garden of God" can be taken as a historical reference to an actual place. In that case, who is Ezekiel talking about? It can't possibly any of the historical, actual kings of Tyre. None of them could possibly have been in Eden!

Therefore, either the reference to Eden is metaphorical, or the reference to the king of Tyre is metaphorical. The traditional theological / mystical understanding of this text has been the latter: this passage in fact represents Lucifer in his beauty as a guardian cherub before his fall; this interpretation is also the one inherited by conservative Christians. In that case, then, we are confronted with the famous creationist slippery slope: where in a passage does metaphor stop? If the king of Tyre isn't really the king of Tyre, then how do we know that the garden of Eden is really the garden of Eden?

For we are later told something quite different about this garden:

​​​​​​​​You were an anointed guardian cherub.
I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
(Ezek 28:14, ESV)
​

That isn't the garden of Eden! Recall that the garden is watered by four rivers, two of which are the Euphrates and Tigris - both rivers that run through extensive, flat flood plains. And even if the Garden of Eden was on a mountain, there is no mention of any "stones of fire" in Genesis 2-3. Nor, indeed, is there any mention of Lucifer as an angel in those same passages. When the devil shows up, he is already a serpent, with none of that "cherub decked out in bling" business.

(And if you thought that was bad, try the next Ezekiel passage cited: in Ezekiel 31, "the trees of Eden" are jealous of the nation Assyria. Which is a cedar of Lebanon (v3). Go figure.)

Isn't it funny how creationists often quote passages that end up saying exactly the opposite of what their argument is? Here, the passage quoted as support for an actual, historical Eden in fact makes zero sense if the actual, historical Eden is used in interpreting it. There's a strange, sad hubris in trying to prove the Bible true by distorting what the Bible says.