Is Genesis 1-11 Literal

[elopez]

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.

I believe it to be allegorical, which means that I likewise believe a literal interpretation of Genesis is taken out of context.

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.

I think it would be a mistake to add up genealogies and think we can arrive at a solid dates, since they often skip generations. It's simply an unreaiable process in which it really has nothing to do with the claim that there may be two separate genealogies.

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.

Why is there this underlying notion that TE's neglect the historical existence of Adam? This is not the case...

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

Again we do not reject the historical place of Eden, nor the first couple. This is nothing but a straw man against TE.

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).

And yet again as a TE I do not doubt the existence of such people. I must ask again from what is this assumed on?

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.

My argument here isn't so much that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict one another, rather it is against your claim that Genesis 1 is chronological.
If you notice the first and fourth days of creation, they seem to have correlations amongst them: the creation of light and darkness, and day and night.

Genesis 1:3 - 5 states that God "separated the light from the darkness" and "called the light day, and the darkness He called night," which we find is repeated in Genesis 1:14 - 19 which again states that God created the two lights in order "to separate the light from the darkness" and "to separate the day from the night." Similarities between the days indicate they are in topical order, not chronological order. It seems to suggest that there are two descriptions of one single event. The writer of Genesis is not trying to portray a scientific account of what happened, but is showing that God prepared the world for human habitation.

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.

And for the last time, TE's do not reject the historical existence of the first couple, of Eden, that the creation of the universe and earth and man took place. What is rejected is the idea that they existed some thousand years ago like yecs claim. So in closing, I would say the reasons you listed for concluding that Genesis is literal are mostly straw mans against TE and faulty at best.

 

[Assyrian]

Hi elopez, welcome to the forum

 

[Calminian]

And for the last time, TE's do not reject the historical existence of the first couple, of Eden, that the creation of the universe and earth and man took place. What is rejected is the idea that they existed some thousand years ago like yecs claim. So in closing, I would say the reasons you listed for concluding that Genesis is literal are mostly straw mans against TE and faulty at best.

It's just not true. You can speak for yourself, but the vast majority of TE's I've come across believe the entire story to be allegory. In fact they believe Gen. 1-11 to be all allegory. And I think they're actually more logically consistent for doing so (although I disagree with their premise). You, OTOH, are sort of willy nilly (for lack of a better word) deciding which parts are literal and which aren't. Best to just be consistent.

 

[pastorkevin73]

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.

I if that interesting, that scripture is clearly presented and because it doesn't fit your opinion, you flame me. Too bad that you cannot accept what scripture says. Oh, well, I guest there are many so called Christians that don't believe scripture. Very sad indeed.

Praying for you dude!

 

[elopez]

It's just not true. You can speak for yourself, but the vast majority of TE's I've come across believe the entire story to be allegory. In fact they believe Gen. 1-11 to be all allegory. And I think they're actually more logically consistent for doing so (although I disagree with their premise). You, OTOH, are sort of willy nilly (for lack of a better word) deciding which parts are literal and which aren't. Best to just be consistent.

You can sit there and say it's not true, but the fact remains that there are numerous TE's that accept the historical aspects of Genesis. Do you think that we reject the creation of the universe and man just because we think it allegory? No we accept the actual events happening, and what we reject is the willy nilly interpretation of scripture that yecs spew.

 

[shernren]

Or that you're not willing to respond to my actual post, which had nothing to do with astronomy nor early christian geocentrism.

But I just did.

You asked:

Second, is the geocentrism issue. Another questions: how do you define geocentrism? If you define it as objects orbiting the sun in space, due to gravity, inertia and centrifugal force, then the Bible is silent on that. But the Bible does employ points of references when describing movement.

I answered:

What you have done is to set up a strawman, revisionist definition of geocentrism (heliocentrism, actually, but you are implicitly defining the converse as well) and then going on to knock it down. What makes this doubly amusing is that, if you look carefully, many of your examples already assume a heliocentric model. If you began by assuming that the Earth does not move, on the other hand, then the command in Deuteronomy would literally be a command to not move boundary stones, and the policeman's instructions to stop could literally be obeyed.

What the modern geocentrist would say to you is exactly what you would say to the theistic evolutionist: you have begun by assuming that heliocentrism is true, and so it is no surprise that to you Scripture is consistent with heliocentrism. The geocentrists, on the other hand, have a perfectly workable definition of geocentrism, or "geocentricity" as Geraldus Bouw calls it, which conflicts with modern science:

[FONT=&quot]In geocentricity, the earth is static, but not necessarily at the center if the universe. In geocentricity the earth is actually offset from the geometric center of the universe. The earth is immobile as seen from outside the universe, that is, as seen from the third heaven, the location of the throne of God. (Note: a footstool is not a footstool if it is moving – Isa. 66:1.) And why heliocentrism instead of a-centricity or acentrism? Because the modern acentric model still divides the universe into unrelated sections; and because it was founded on the worship of the sun.[/FONT]​

taken from this good defense of the Scripturality of geocentrism.

You asked for a definition of geocentrism by which the Bible can be seen to be geocentric and not heliocentric. I gave you one.

It is interesting to note this line in your post:

But the Bible does employ points of references when describing movement.​

Can you actually give me a Biblical defense of this statement, or are you just importing modern ideas into the text? And even if the Bible does employ different reference frames, can you give me any Biblical justification for choosing the Earth frame of reference?

 

[shernren]

It's just not true. You can speak for yourself, but the vast majority of TE's I've come across believe the entire story to be allegory. In fact they believe Gen. 1-11 to be all allegory. And I think they're actually more logically consistent for doing so (although I disagree with their premise). You, OTOH, are sort of willy nilly (for lack of a better word) deciding which parts are literal and which aren't. Best to just be consistent.

You'll find a spectrum of beliefs represented here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7410448/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7512063/

as well as in modern theological thought. John Stott thinks man could have evolved from pre-hominids, in his commentary on Romans:

Adam, then, was a special creation of God, whether God formed him literally ‘from the dust of the ground’ and then ‘breathed into his nostrils the breath of life’,http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn1 or whether this is the biblical way of saying that he was created out of an already existing hominid. The vital truth we cannot surrender is that, though our bodies are related to the primates, we ourselves in our fundamental identity are related to God.http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn2
http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref2(Stott, J. R. W. (2001], c1994). The message of Romans : God's good news for the world. The Bible speaks today (164). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.)

Meanwhile, most IDs I know of adopt some kind of old-earth thinking even though they are quite opposed to evolution. So there is no clean line between allegorical and literal, as you yourself should know.

 

[Assyrian]

I if that interesting, that scripture is clearly presented and because it doesn't fit your opinion, you flame me. Too bad that you cannot accept what scripture says. Oh, well, I guest there are many so called Christians that don't believe scripture. Very sad indeed.

Praying for you dude!

A wonderful example of responding with grace when being reviled for the sake of Christ, "blessing who curse you and pray for those who abuse you." If only you hadn't spent so many of your previous posts abusing people who dared disagreed with you.

"Why do you not believe the scriptures?"

"they are making a god of their own image. "

"Why do you not accept Jesus' own words?"

"or follow your made up god. The choice is yours."

Oh and of course, your comments in this post
"you cannot accept what scripture says."
and "so called Christians that don't believe scripture".

 

[theFijian]

It's just not true. You can speak for yourself, but the vast majority of TE's I've come across believe the entire story to be allegory. In fact they believe Gen. 1-11 to be all allegory. And I think they're actually more logically consistent for doing so (although I disagree with their premise). You, OTOH, are sort of willy nilly (for lack of a better word) deciding which parts are literal and which aren't. Best to just be consistent.

It might be, however you don't take it entrirely literally either. In fact the vast majority of Creationists willy-nilly-ly decide which parts they take literally and which parts they take non-literally.

 

[theFijian]

Oh, well, I guest there are many so called Christians that don't believe scripture.

oh I believe scripture and accept what it says alright, I just don't believe you or accept what you say.

 

[Papias]

Pastor Kevin seems to have ignored both my post from the first page as well as that on the third page of this thread.

Pastor Kevin, it's a very simple question. I asked if you thought the geneology in 1 Cr was correct. Is that geneology literally true?

-Papias

 

[jonathan180iq]

Neither Luke nor Matthew ever make it clear which one is which, and if that was their intent at all. They say "this is the geneaology of Jesus." Since Joseph wasn't his biological father, does a geneaology of Joseph even matter? I think it does, but only if you are trying to make a certain point about claim to heir of the Kingdom, which Matthew did, or if you are trying to make a point about how all humanity is interconnected through their original ancestor, Adam, which Luke was obviously trying to do.

Either way, the differences cause problems regardless of how you look at it. I think that's why in Titus Paul instructs him to avoid foolish controversies that go no-where and things like debates about genaologies. (Wow. Isn't that good advice for CF?) I mean, do these endless arguments over how to read a 2-3 chapter book make people better Christians? Or should more time be focused on actually practising what we preach and how to act and respond to everyone with love, kindness and respect, because these things are pleasing to the Lord?

I choose the latter.

 

[Calminian]

It is interesting to note this line in your post:

But the Bible does employ points of references when describing movement.​

Can you actually give me a Biblical defense of this statement, or are you just importing modern ideas into the text? And even if the Bible does employ different reference frames, can you give me any Biblical justification for choosing the Earth frame of reference?

In my post I gave a couple of biblical examples, as well as modern examples. Everyone from the beginning of time has described movement using points of reference. There's virtually no other way to do it.

Shren, if you were not willing to respond to the original post, then you won't be if I post them again. You'll ignore it and move on. It's just what you do. You're simply not willing to consider or even understand any other view but your own.

 

[Calminian]

Neither Luke nor Matthew ever make it clear which one is which, and if that was their intent at all. They say "this is the geneaology of Jesus." Since Joseph wasn't his biological father, does a geneaology of Joseph even matter? I think it does, but only if you are trying to make a certain point about claim to heir of the Kingdom, which Matthew did, or if you are trying to make a point about how all humanity is interconnected through their original ancestor, Adam, which Luke was obviously trying to do.

Either way, the differences cause problems regardless of how you look at it. I think that's why in Titus Paul instructs him to avoid foolish controversies that go no-where and things like debates about genaologies. (Wow. Isn't that good advice for CF?) I mean, do these endless arguments over how to read a 2-3 chapter book make people better Christians? Or should more time be focused on actually practising what we preach and how to act and respond to everyone with love, kindness and respect, because these things are pleasing to the Lord?

I choose the latter.

Wow! So you actually believe Paul was rebuking Matthew and Luke!!??

I've now heard it all (or maybe not). Virtually anything goes in old earth hermeneutics.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Wow!

So you actually believe Paul was rebuking Matthew and Luke!!??

That would be whoever wrote Titus. Scholars have agreed for a long time that Titus does not appear to be writen by Paul, but by someone claiming to be Paul so as to be listened to.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

Wow! So you actually believe Paul was rebuking Matthew and Luke!!??

Matthew and Luke only mentioned their genealogies once, they didn't keep going on about them.

 

[Calminian]

Matthew and Luke only mentioned their genealogies once, they didn't keep going on about them.

Actually they did. They wrote them down in their gospels, made copies and proceeded to pass them around the entire continent. Then, their books actually became best sellers. Boy they must have made Paul mad!

 

[Assyrian]

So it was alright if someone else copied them?

 

[shernren]

Everyone from the beginning of time has described movement using points of reference. There's virtually no other way to do it.

Have you got evidence for that assertion, or are you just making things up as you go along?

 

[theFijian]

Actually they did. They wrote them down in their gospels, made copies and proceeded to pass them around the entire continent. Then, their books actually became best sellers. Boy they must have made Paul mad!

Ah ok, so Matthew and Luke themselves made all the copies and disseminated them around the entire continent? Mark and Luke did it did they? Really? slaps head indeed