Is Genesis 1-11 Literal

[shernren]

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.

I personally tend to go for:

"This contradicts the rest of the Bible when read literally, so it must be figurative."

See my previous post for a painfully clear example.

 

[shernren]

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.

There's nothing wrong with watching the football game. But getting out of your couch to switch on the TV is doing work, which is why God gifted America with the remote control.

 

[Papias]

So what happened to pastorkevin? Has anyone seen him, even on a milk carton?

 

[solarwave]

shernren:

Wouldn't a much easier defence against the Ezek 28:12-13 passage be this:

Ezekiel 28: 6-7,
6“‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
“‘Because you think you are wise,
as wise as a god,
7 I am going to bring foreigners against you,
the most ruthless of nations;
they will draw their swords against your beauty and wisdom
and pierce your shining splendor."

To me this seems most obviously to be refering to an actual king and a prophecy of that king being overthrown and therefore making the reference to Eden metaphorical.

This doesn't necessarily prove the Creation story to be metaphorical too and this prophecy could be seen has having a second meaning in the form of the devil, but it does remove this a verse used by YEC.

 

[pastorkevin73]

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.

Jesus says in Luke 17:27:
"People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all."

Jesus believed the the flood happened and that it was literal. Why do you not believe the scriptures?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Jesus believed the the flood happened and that it was literal. Why do you not believe the scriptures?

And this is the big problem we get into with other things as well, like with baptism and the LORD's supper. Christians are still Christians even with different views regarding a literal interpretation versus a metaphorical interpretation. So just because I don't believe bread and wine magically turn into organic human flesh and blood when they are 'consecrated' doesn't mean I am in disbelief, I just interpret the passage as a metaphor.

I do believe Genesis 1-11 is mostly literal, though. I simply cannot fathom viewing the accurate and detailed genealogy of Christ as a metaphor.

 

[shernren]

shernren:

Wouldn't a much easier defence against the Ezek 28:12-13 passage be this:

Ezekiel 28: 6-7,
6“‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
“‘Because you think you are wise,
as wise as a god,
7 I am going to bring foreigners against you,
the most ruthless of nations;
they will draw their swords against your beauty and wisdom
and pierce your shining splendor."

To me this seems most obviously to be refering to an actual king and a prophecy of that king being overthrown and therefore making the reference to Eden metaphorical.

This doesn't necessarily prove the Creation story to be metaphorical too and this prophecy could be seen has having a second meaning in the form of the devil, but it does remove this a verse used by YEC.

In principle you are right, and if you referred to v17 in fact you would also be right in practice:

​​​​​​​​Your heart was proud because of your beauty;
you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
I exposed you before kings,
to feast their eyes on you.
(Ezek 28:17, ESV)
​

No literal kings could have seen the fall of Satan, other than Jesus (and even then He is only one King, not "kings").

But I made my argument they way I did for two reasons. Firstly, when creationists misquote verses, I like to reply with verses as closely in the vicinity of those verses as possible. This minimizes the possibility of context mistakes, since nearby verses are commonly in nearby contexts; furthermore, the "mountain of God" reference is in direct contradiction to the geographical comments in Genesis 2.

The second, particular reason is that vv2-10 is actually a different tirade from vv12-19. The former is addressed to the "prince" of Tyre, while the latter is to the "king" - two different words in the original, also. So it may be possible (although convoluted) to argue that the prince of Tyre is literally a human prince, so that one can interpret "foreigners" and "ruthless nations" literally, without at all affecting the interpretation of vv12-19.

Bible interpretation is a fine art!

 

[Papias]

pastorkevin wrote:

Why do you not believe the scriptures?

Pastorkevin, do you believe the geneology in 1 chr?

Papias

 

[solarwave]

Jesus says in Luke 17:27:
"People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all."

Jesus believed the the flood happened and that it was literal. Why do you not believe the scriptures?

1) Jesus could have been appealing to common knowlegde.

2) Jesus wasn't omniscient

3) Jesus didn't write the New Testament

 

[pastorkevin73]

And this is the big problem we get into with other things as well, like with baptism and the LORD's supper. Christians are still Christians even with different views regarding a literal interpretation versus a metaphorical interpretation. So just because I don't believe bread and wine magically turn into organic human flesh and blood when they are 'consecrated' doesn't mean I am in disbelief, I just interpret the passage as a metaphor.

I do believe Genesis 1-11 is mostly literal, though. I simply cannot fathom viewing the accurate and detailed genealogy of Christ as a metaphor.

The problem is is that if a person does not believe what the Bible says, then they are making a god of their own image. I'm not speaking of minor issues, I'm speaking about what God reveals about Himself, what He has done and about salvation. When we make a god in our own image we are breaking the first and second commandments.

 

[pastorkevin73]

1) Jesus could have been appealing to common knowlegde.

2) Jesus wasn't omniscient

3) Jesus didn't write the New Testament

This too, is a problem. When we do not want to accept what the scriptures say some people try to explain way or come up with their own ideas.
The passage I quoted was Jesus' own words. Why do you not accept Jesus' own words?

 

[crawfish]

The problem is is that if a person does not believe what the Bible says, then they are making a god of their own image. I'm not speaking of minor issues, I'm speaking about what God reveals about Himself, what He has done and about salvation. When we make a god in our own image we are breaking the first and second commandments.

Do you believe everything the bible says in every way it can be believed?

 

[solarwave]

This too, is a problem. When we do not want to accept what the scriptures say some people try to explain way or come up with their own ideas.
The passage I quoted was Jesus' own words. Why do you not accept Jesus' own words?

And when the Bible presents itself as a religion which as faults but develops do you try to explain that away? For example there are 4 different ways Jesus was first seen risen from the dead and two different ways Judas died.

It isn't simply because I don't like a certain passage that I reject it. For example I gave the explain I did before because science goes against what Jesus said and since God and science should agree there should be some reason for this difference. It seems to me more likely that science is right on this issue and that our interpretation is wrong.

It isn't God I question, its our interpretation of Him.

 

[shernren]

The problem is is that if a person does not believe what the Bible says, then they are making a god of their own image. I'm not speaking of minor issues, I'm speaking about what God reveals about Himself, what He has done and about salvation. When we make a god in our own image we are breaking the first and second commandments.

Do you believe that the Tigris and Euphrates watered the Garden of Eden? (Gen 2)

If not, you are making a god of your own image.

If yes, you certainly don't believe that the Garden of Eden was, in fact, the mountain of God (Eze 28), since the area watered by the Tigris and Euphrates is a floodplain.

In which case you are also making a god of your own image.

In which case you're in just as much trouble as us anyway.

I suggest you fix your own house before worrying about ours.

 

[pastorkevin73]

I have presented the truth in God's word. It is up to you if you will accept it or not. My opinion or interpreation has nothing to do with it. It is what God's word says. Choose this day who you will serve: serve the One and only True God as presented in the Bible or follow your made up god. The choice is yours.

 

[solarwave]

I have presented the truth in God's word. It is up to you if you will accept it or not. My opinion or interpreation has nothing to do with it. It is what God's word says. Choose this day who you will serve: serve the One and only True God as presented in the Bible or follow your made up god. The choice is yours.

Nice, saying I don't follow the true God.

I'm sure you don't follow the Bible how Jews back then would have understood it.

 

[shernren]

I have presented the truth in God's word. It is up to you if you will accept it or not. My opinion or interpreation has nothing to do with it. It is what God's word says. Choose this day who you will serve: serve the One and only True God as presented in the Bible or follow your made up god. The choice is yours.

But so did I! All I did was quote the Bible. For some reason, creationists get nervous when I do that. A bit odd for people who claim to defend it, I've always thought, but I'm used to it by now.

 

[philadiddle]

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.

I think that your butchery of theology has just convinced a lot of fence sitting lurkers that the bible isn't true. Reality itself contradicts the YEC view.

You talk about the creation account as though there is actually a debate going on, but among Christian scholars there is little debate. Things like comparing creation to ANE myths isn't even debated, it's just assumed amongst Christian scholars.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I have presented the truth in God's word. It is up to you if you will accept it or not. My opinion or interpreation has nothing to do with it. It is what God's word says. Choose this day who you will serve: serve the One and only True God as presented in the Bible or follow your made up god. The choice is yours.

Guy... buddy... brother... there is a difference between worshiping and knowing who the true God is and interpreting passages of the bible as literal or metaphor. Rest assured that I believe most of Genesis 1-11 to be literal and could not fathom reconciling it with evolutionist theology, but you have to have some respect to other people's views here. God doesn't want a bunch of little Einsteins calling on his name, he just wants love from us.

Theology is a great past time but there is no reason for the division you seem to place between yourself and your brothers...

 

[Assyrian]

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.

What is the point in presenting a series of arguments for interpreting Gen 1-11 literally, if you are not going to address people's replies to your arguments?

The problem is is that if a person does not believe what the Bible says, then they are making a god of their own image. I'm not speaking of minor issues, I'm speaking about what God reveals about Himself, what He has done and about salvation. When we make a god in our own image we are breaking the first and second commandments.

It seem to me the difference between you and the other posters here, creationists and TE, is that we realise God is much bigger then our understanding of scripture. You do not seem to. You think the way that you understand scripture is what God actually meant and to disagree with you is to disagree with God. Which of us is making a god in our own image?