Is Genesis Literal?

[Godzman]

Yes Genesis is literal, I mean if it wasn't it wouldn't be written down, duh it would be told orally

 

[Vance]

The scripture is clear..it's the Theo=Evo sect that clouds things up.

Take YOM for example...Vance asked if a 24-hour period is the only way it is used in the Bible.

The answer is no..BUT..when you bracket it with the terms evening and morning, you make it into a literal day.

Except that this ignores what "evening and morning" mean, as I have explained elsewhere.

It also has multiple meanings, but the *least* likely is the one that means when the sun comes up and when the sun goes down. The first time it is used was before there was a sun or a moon or a cycle of day and night. So, it is highly improbable that it is the "within a 24-hour day" meaning.

 

[Ark Guy]

Jesus said let there be light...and that light shined on the earth.

later on the sun replaced that light.

There is no reason to conclude that a day is longer than 24 hours..ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT IT IS BRACKETED BY THE TERMS EVENING AND MORNING.

 

[Outspoken]

Well, again, I believe in a literal Adam, but this argument will not hold up. There is absolutely nothing wrong with comparing a living person with a allegorical "type" if the meaning behind the point is clear.

And, yes, I would agree that it is very often difficult to know what is allegorical and what is not. What is symbolic and what is literal. If it were easy to do this with Scripture, then we would not have hundreds of denominations out there teaching different doctrine. My view is to assume a non-literal reading until the evidence is sufficient to consider that it might be allegorical. There is definitely not always something in the text which makes it clear.

In fact, those elements which *would* lead one to consider a possible allegory (poetic language, broad concepts, stylistic elements, etc) all exist in the first account of the Creation.

But here is one to consider for those who insist on non-allegorical readings: what is your thought (or that of your church) of Song of Solomon? There is absolutely nothing in the text which would indicate that this is some type of allegory of Christ and his Bride the Church. Nothing at all to tip off the reader that this should NOT be read literally. And the irony is that I have found that those who pound the desk loudest for a non-allegorical reading of Genesis almost always read Song of Solomon as an allegory. Very inconsistent application of this concept.

"My view is to assume a non-literal reading until the evidence is sufficient to consider that it might be allegorical. "

That is kind of silly. The primary reason for communicating with someone is to get a message across. thus you should go with it is literal, until context says otherwise. As for a comparison of a literal person to a nonliteral one, that is also an invalid though, for Adam is also included in heratages throughout the bible and linked to very literal people, again proving he was a literal person.

"non-allegorical reading of Genesis almost always read Song of Solomon as an allegory. "

Not studied that book yet. This is off the subject though, for we are dealing with genesis being literal, not song of solomon.

 

[Outspoken]

Except that this ignores what "evening and morning" mean, as I have explained elsewhere.

It also has multiple meanings, but the *least* likely is the one that means when the sun comes up and when the sun goes down. The first time it is used was before there was a sun or a moon or a cycle of day and night. So, it is highly improbable that it is the "within a 24-hour day" meaning.

and in the book of genesis you will be very very very hard pressed to find it not being used as a 24 hour period. Thus you can safely assume, and all the evidience would lead you to believe that when it is used in genesis it means a 24 hour period of time.

"The first time it is used was before there was a sun or a moon or a cycle of day and night. "

Huh? time is not measured by the rising of the sun or the moon. I see no logic in this at all. God knew the time table, and thus told moses how long it was.

 

[joelbarrutia]

(this is the start of a paper I am writing... it is by no means, done... take it or leave it..)




Why even bother debating or learning about creation verses evolution?

Christian perspective


Here are the hard facts; evolution (if true) defeats Christianity. The two schools of thought are mutually exclusive and in no way can they be fit together. With out a literal meaning of the creation account we take all credibility away from the Bible, evolution CANNOT be reconciled with Christianity, you must choose one or the other.

Reason 1: If you take away the literal six day creation, you also take away the initial penalty of sin. Before Adam and Eve sinned the world had no animal or human death (Genesis 3). Evolution requires that millions of years of “survival of the fittest” had taken place prior to the garden of Eden the Bible describes, also it requires populations of humans to have evolved, making it impossible for there to have been a first definable human (where does Adam fit in?), evolution needs a progressive chain of animals leading from early invertebrates to the modern human. Evolution takes away the penalty of sin, takes away the need for Jesus to die on the cross, defeating Christianity.

Reason 2: Evolution makes humans nothing more then glorified animals, however the Bible says we were created in God’s image. The Bible makes it clear that man is to have dominion over the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:26,29,30). The Bible also states killing a human is sin, where as killing an animal is not. (Exodus 20:13).

Reason 3: God describes his creation as “good” or perfect, however evolution tells us that we (and all of nature) are still changing, and going from our present state to a better body, both mentally and physically. In Genesis chapter 1, God calls his creation good 7 times. According to evolutionary theory humans, and animals are still evolving, we are still trying to reach a higher evolutionary plateau, but God’s word tells us that at the creation of the earth, animals and humans were already perfect, and that all genetic variations from now on are going to be harmful and detracting from the perfect genetic code the Bible implies we had.

Reason 4: The book of Genesis was written as a literal account, no clues are given to the contrary, if the story is fallacious then so is the bible. Many people have claimed that the first two chapters of the bible have been written using figurative language, and that the book can also provide enough time for evolution. Many theories have arisen each trying to match the Biblical account of creation, to the evolutionary account. However before we explore each of these options, the motives for reinterpreting the Bible must be examined.
Unfortunately many people assume that Darwin’s theory of evolution has already been proven, and that it is a scientific fact. In most cases I see the belief arise from people being lead by others, they choose to follow blindly what the television, high school or collage teacher says without comparing it to God’s word or to the scrutinizes of scientific evaluation. However ignorance is no excuse for a faith in trouble. The misleading of others condemn themselves, however you are still responsible for your beliefs.
A prevalent belief is that the Bible can be a guide in spiritual matters, however the Bible does not need to be in accord with modern science and any scientific errors are a non-issue. However the Bible is written with divine authority in all cases, and if a lie were found, all of the scriptures lose their creditability as God’s word (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21). Many times the Bible talks about a scientific principal (the hydrologic cycle, gravity, necessity of blood) and in each case, the book is found to be sound in its teaching. People only find error when they are misinformed about science and try to adjust the Bible to fit their beliefs.
It is sad that in desire to believe in God, people choose to change the Bible instead of learning the truth about evolution.

One of methods people try to use when fitting evolution with in the Genesis time line is called the “day age theory”. In this theory each genesis day is supposed to mean a geological age (Some where in the range of hundreds of millions of years). However this assertion raises even more problems in the fields of science.
To claim each of the 6 days in the creation story are representative of hundreds of millions of years makes the creation account look even less in favor of the modern scientific thinking. (see page 3 for out line of events)
A. The Bible claims: the Earth was created before the stars – Modern science says: stars were made long before the earth.
B. The Bible claims: Earth before Sun - Modern science says: Sun was made first
C. The Bible claims: Birds before land animals - Modern science says: birds evolved from land animals (namely reptiles and dinosaurs)
D. The Bible claims: Moon was made after Earth - Modern science says: Moon and Earth were made at the same time, or shortly after.
E. The Bible claims: Plants before the Sun - Modern science says: Sun, Earth, Billions of years, then plants.
F. The Bible claims: Man before Woman - Modern science says: both would have evolved at the same time.


The word used in Genesis chapter 1 which has been translated into “day” is the Hebrew word yowm or yome, the words definition is as follows:
Yowm
yome
from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb):--age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.
(King James Bible, Strong's Hebrew Dictionary #3117)


...the writer would have used the actual words in Genesis 1. If he wished to convey the idea of long geological ages, however, he could surely have done it far more clearly and effectively in other words than in those which he selected. It was clearly his intent to teach creation in six literal days.
Therefore, the only proper way to interpret Genesis 1 is not to “interpret” it at all. That is, we accept the fact that it was meant to say exactly what it says. The “days” are literal days and the events described happened in just the way described (1976, p. 54).
Morris, Henry M. (1976), The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

 

[Vance]

"My view is to assume a non-literal reading until the evidence is sufficient to consider that it might be allegorical. "

That is kind of silly. The primary reason for communicating with someone is to get a message across. thus you should go with it is literal, until context says otherwise. As for a comparison of a literal person to a nonliteral one, that is also an invalid though, for Adam is also included in heratages throughout the bible and linked to very literal people, again proving he was a literal person.

Yes, of course, that was mis-written, I meant that I assume a literal reading unless there is a very good reason to read it as allegorical or symbolic.

 

[Vance]

and in the book of genesis you will be very very very hard pressed to find it not being used as a 24 hour period. Thus you can safely assume, and all the evidience would lead you to believe that when it is used in genesis it means a 24 hour period of time.

"The first time it is used was before there was a sun or a moon or a cycle of day and night. "

Huh? time is not measured by the rising of the sun or the moon. I see no logic in this at all. God knew the time table, and thus told moses how long it was.

How often it is used in a particular book is not relevant since it was all written by God. The only fact is that there are a number of definitions for YOM and a variety of uses in God's Word. So, it simply can't be said that the only possible reading of Genesis one is a 24 hour day. In the flood story, God uses the term "kol erets" which is usually translated into English as the "whole earth", which is, indeed, one of its meanings. But it is one of the *least common* meanings for that term in the Bible. It is used to mean a local or regional "land" about 5 or 6 times more often than it is used to mean the "whole earth". Based on your standard, you must accept the local definition for the flood story.

The point with morning and evening is that read with strict literalness, there is only morning when there is a sun. I agree that strict literalness is silly. The important point is that this phrase is also one that has multiple meanings, only one of which is limited to a 24 hour day.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

(this is the start of a paper I am writing... it is by no means, done... take it or leave it..)




Why even bother debating or learning about creation verses evolution?

Because despite the scientific debate being over for over 100 years (evolution won, by the way), there are those who keep denying it.

Christian perspective

More correctly - your Christian perspective.

Here are the hard facts; evolution (if true) defeats Christianity. The two schools of thought are mutually exclusive and in no way can they be fit together. With out a literal meaning of the creation account we take all credibility away from the Bible, evolution CANNOT be reconciled with Christianity, you must choose one or the other.

Reason 1: If you take away the literal six day creation, you also take away the initial penalty of sin. Before Adam and Eve sinned the world had no animal or human death (Genesis 3). Evolution requires that millions of years of “survival of the fittest” had taken place prior to the garden of Eden the Bible describes, also it requires populations of humans to have evolved, making it impossible for there to have been a first definable human (where does Adam fit in?), evolution needs a progressive chain of animals leading from early invertebrates to the modern human. Evolution takes away the penalty of sin, takes away the need for Jesus to die on the cross, defeating Christianity.

The penalty of sin is spiritual death. Adam did not die physically the day he ate the fruit. But he was expelled from the presence of God. God had said that he would die that day. It follows that the expulsion from the presence of God (Eden) is the spiritual death which is the penalty for sin.

Reason 2: Evolution makes humans nothing more then glorified animals, however the Bible says we were created in God’s image. The Bible makes it clear that man is to have dominion over the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:26,29,30). The Bible also states killing a human is sin, where as killing an animal is not. (Exodus 20:13).

Evolution merely tells you how our biological form came about. It says nothing about our spiritual nature, nor about morality or our relative worth compared to animals.

Reason 3: God describes his creation as “good” or perfect, however evolution tells us that we (and all of nature) are still changing, and going from our present state to a better body, both mentally and physically. In Genesis chapter 1, God calls his creation good 7 times. According to evolutionary theory humans, and animals are still evolving, we are still trying to reach a higher evolutionary plateau, but God’s word tells us that at the creation of the earth, animals and humans were already perfect, and that all genetic variations from now on are going to be harmful and detracting from the perfect genetic code the Bible implies we had.

It doesn't even mention genetic variation, so it can't say anything about that. Why do you equate "good" with perfect, and perfect with "unchanging"? What if God's intention was to create a dynamic universe that was changing and evolving? If He did so intend, then He succeeded and His creation is indeed good - exactly what He intended.

Reason 4: The book of Genesis was written as a literal account, no clues are given to the contrary,

What about the two contradictory accounts, and the presence of symbolic elements? Two people called "man" and "mother of all"? A talking snake? Trees bearing spiritually significant fruit? Sounds like mythology to me.

if the story is fallacious then so is the bible.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong, but thanks for playing. First you must defend your equation of "figurative" with "fallacious", and then explain why the rest of the Bible must be as fallacious or accurate as Genesis 1-3.

Many people have claimed that the first two chapters of the bible have been written using figurative language, and that the book can also provide enough time for evolution. Many theories have arisen each trying to match the Biblical account of creation, to the evolutionary account. However before we explore each of these options, the motives for reinterpreting the Bible must be examined.
...
A prevalent belief is that the Bible can be a guide in spiritual matters, however the Bible does not need to be in accord with modern science and any scientific errors are a non-issue. However the Bible is written with divine authority in all cases, and if a lie were found, all of the scriptures lose their creditability as God’s word (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21).

No they don't. What does Paul say Scripture is useful for? Scientific knowledge? No. Very specific purposes. In that it achieves its aim.

Many times the Bible talks about a scientific principal (the hydrologic cycle, gravity, necessity of blood) and in each case, the book is found to be sound in its teaching.

Except it isn't. Most organisms do not have blood, and yet they are alive. Where is their life? Scripture says the life is in the blood.

People only find error when they are misinformed about science and try to adjust the Bible to fit their beliefs.

Grasshoppers do not have four legs. Bats are not birds. Hares do not chew the cud. The earth is not set on pillars. Rain does not come through holes in the firmament.

It is sad that in desire to believe in God, people choose to change the Bible instead of learning the truth about evolution.

No-one is changing the Bible, except some evangelical translators who insert things, like the pluperfect tense in Genesis 2 regarding God's creation of the animals, and the word "Roman" in Luke to correct the apparent (and false) statement that the whole world was to be taxed. They do this to support inerrancy. The Bible left alone is clearly not inerrant.

One of methods people try to use when fitting evolution with in the Genesis time line is called the “day age theory”. In this theory each genesis day is supposed to mean a geological age (Some where in the range of hundreds of millions of years).
...

Actually, I'd agree with you there. That's why I don't hold with the day age theory. But nor do any other theistic evolutionists - 'day age' is an old earth Creationist position.

The word used in Genesis chapter 1 which has been translated into “day” is the Hebrew word yowm or yome,
...

...the writer would have used the actual words in Genesis 1. If he wished to convey the idea of long geological ages, however, he could surely have done it far more clearly and effectively in other words than in those which he selected. It was clearly his intent to teach creation in six literal days.
Therefore, the only proper way to interpret Genesis 1 is not to “interpret” it at all. That is, we accept the fact that it was meant to say exactly what it says. The “days” are literal days and the events described happened in just the way described (1976, p. 54).
Morris, Henry M. (1976), The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

To an extent I agree. The elements of the story are true within the framework of a figurative narrative. I address this in some detail in an essay I wrote - http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/genesis.htm

 

[Outspoken]

How often it is used in a particular book is not relevant since it was all written by God. The only fact is that there are a number of definitions for YOM and a variety of uses in God's Word. So, it simply can't be said that the only possible reading of Genesis one is a 24 hour day. In the flood story, God uses the term "kol erets" which is usually translated into English as the "whole earth", which is, indeed, one of its meanings. But it is one of the *least common* meanings for that term in the Bible. It is used to mean a local or regional "land" about 5 or 6 times more often than it is used to mean the "whole earth". Based on your standard, you must accept the local definition for the flood story.

The point with morning and evening is that read with strict literalness, there is only morning when there is a sun. I agree that strict literalness is silly. The important point is that this phrase is also one that has multiple meanings, only one of which is limited to a 24 hour day.

"How often it is used in a particular book is not relevant since it was all written by God."

Its very relevant when looking at a passage where the word becomes in question. That is what translation is all about and why they didn't translate it as on the first period of time. they translate it as "day".

"The only fact is that there are a number of definitions for YOM and a variety of uses in God's Word"

I challege you to find 15 times it is used as not a literal day/night other then the passages in question. Hint: You'll never do it.

"Based on your standard, you must accept the local definition for the flood story."

No, not at all, since you can see by other evidience that it was a world event. No where in the bible will you see a passage talking about genesis and refer or show it to be nonliteral.

"there is only morning when there is a sun."

I disagree. There is only morning when there is light This is why people refered to space as eternal night

"I agree that strict literalness is silly"

I disagree. In the reading of genesis strict literalness is how it is written, and I have seen nothing to prove to me otherwise. what i have seen is multiple passages proving it is literal by reference.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa:
Strawman start. That all of Genesis is an allegory is not the claim. The claim is that Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 are allegorical. That is, they stand as representatives of each and every one of us.

..ah, show me where this is taught in scripture...you see I showed you where scriptures teaches they were literal people created from the dust and Adams side.....so, it's your turn, either put up or shut up...it's that simple.

What you showed is where later scripture refers to the story, not that the speakers thought them literal. Look in the Pauline letters and you find passages where Adam stands as the one Jesus saves by his sacrifice. You also find in the Pauline letters that Jesus' sacrifice saves every one of us.

Also, go look at the "names" in Hebrew. Altho we translate "Adam" as "Man" or "mankind", the literal meaning of the word is "Dirt". "Eve" is hearth. These are not names for real people. Instead, they are symbolic names, symbolizing their role in the story.

 

[lucaspa]

"Strawman start. That all of Genesis is an allegory is not the claim. The claim is that Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 are allegorical. That is, they stand as representatives of each and every one of us."

lucaspa, this is an easy claim to falisy and to show that genesis 2 is not alagorical at all. Simply look at the NT. Paul several times specifically refers to adam in relation to Christ. Christ is a literal person, thus adam is as well since it is a direct comparsion. This is just one of many reasons.

The logic is non-sequitor. That Jesus is a real person does not mean that Adam has to be a literal person. We today compare people using the phrases "Jovian temper" and "Herculean physique". Since the people we are directly comparing Jove and Hercules to are literal, does that make Zeus and Hercules literal?

 

[lucaspa]

To accept it as what it is as what God says, or to make our own conclusions, modifications and assumptions as what it might and could mean. No need to complicate it and use our intelligence over God's. If one choses not to accept it for what it is in one part, that could very well mean that the same could be applied to other parts of the Bible and God's Word. That I do not accept. I choose God's wisdom over mine.

What do you do with Luke 2:1. The text clearly says the whole world was enrolled. Do you believe that? Were Japanese, Sioux, and Zulus enrolled? If not, why not? You said you could not accept using our own conclusions in one part and not another. Yet isn't that what you are doing?

If it did not mean the whole earth, God would not have said it. It would also mean partial judgement.

Then God would not have said Ceasar Augustus ordered the whole world enrolled if He did not mean it, right?

I chose to take God's Word for what it is. Some others may want a different explanation and interpretation.

I submit that you choose to take your literal interpretation over God's Word. God's other word: His Creaton. If God really created, isn't the Creation just as much, or more, God's Word than the Bible? Why take your literal interpretation of the Bible over God?

 

[lucaspa]

I take the Bibke literaly. I just can't understand why God would give us a book that contains all of the knowledge of him that we have and make it allegory. Why would He give us something that we could misinterpret? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Are you sure that the Bible contains all the knowledge of God we have? What about the Holy Spirit and communication with individuals? What about God's Creation? Doesn't that tell us some knowledge about Him?

Jesus taught in allegory in the form of parables. You certainly don't take the parables literally, do you? As Vance has pointed out, do you read allegory into the Song of Solomon? Or do you take it literally as a paean to erotic (and non-marital) love?

If you take the Bible literally, why was God so stupid as to take one gift from one grandchild -- Abel -- and reject the gift of another grandchild -- Cain? Any human grandparent knows you hang both pictures on the fridge. Why was God so stupid as to make humans such that they would disobey Him? Why did God pick a people for His Chosen people that were so flighty that immediately after all the miracles of the Exodus they made a graven image to worship?

If you read the Bible literally, you have lots of examples of lapses of judgement on God's part. Why do you have a problem of one more?

 

[ten-k]

what can be said of a master of self-deciet?
his feet run to mischief
he knows not why

 

[Plan 9]

what can be said of a master of self-deciet?
his feet run to mischief
he knows not why

Ten-k, is this post addressed to anyone in particular, or is this our Thought for the Day?

 

[lucaspa]

what can be said of a master of self-deciet?
his feet run to mischief
he knows not why

Let me echo Plan9's question: is this supposed to refer to the personality or content of any particular poster or post? Or, like Plan9 said, is it a general thought for the day?

 

[Alessandro]

Lucaspa you dont get it.

Good luck.

 

[Vance]

Why is it that the rudest, most childish, and most insulting posters on this group are all YEC's?

Why is it that those who post the most conclusory, dogmatic, and unsubstantiated posts are all YEC's?

Why is it that the only posters who regularly tell their fellow Bible-believing, Spirit-filled Christians that they can not be true Christians are all YEC's?

In short, why is it that the least Christ-like of all the posters on this group are the ones who claim to be the only true Christians: the YEC's?

While not all YEC's fit this description, it is definitely true that all who fit this description are YEC's.

These timeless questions should really be a new thread . . .

 

[thekawasakikid]

What is a YEC?