Is the creation story in Geneses a literal or figurative story?

[gluadys]

If you believe the authority and accuracy of scriptures, then you'll accept genesis as being a literal account.

Why? What makes "literal" the equivalent of "authority and accuracy"? This is just an accusation that those who do not accept a literal reading do not accept the authority and accuracy of scripture. I think most who lean to a non-literal reading are just as respectful of the authority and accuracy of scripture as those who accept a literal reading. They simply see that authority and accuracy expressed in a different way.

The linguistic style of Gen. 1 is written as a narrative and not poetic.

Well, we have been through this before. "Narrative" is not a synonym of literal. Plenty of narratives are fictional and figurative. There is even a type of poetry that is called "narrative poetry" because these poems tell a story. Whether or not Genesis 1 is poetry is not pertinent to whether or not it is figurative.

Even Jesus and the apostles validated its historicity.

We don't know that. They never made a point of it. Every NT reference to Genesis relates to some other point they wished to stress which has validity whether or not they considered the story to be history.

So, then you're faced w/...do I believe the bible or man's theories?

You are overlooking the fact that assuming the Genesis creation story is literal (or not) is a human theory. So it is human theory either way. And either way a the person accepting the theory is believing the bible.

 

[gluadys]

The first story is not a detailed account, but a brief overview of the creation story while the second elaborates key segments of the first. Remember; these were both supposedly written by the same person. I somehow doubt he/she was that dense as to just 'forget' about the first account when writing the second.

It would be good if people today learned the difference between attribution and authorship. The rabbis actually had no idea who wrote Genesis and no way of determining that. But because of the importance of Moses in bringing the Torah to Israel, they attributed it to Moses.

Beginning about 300 years ago, the science of textual and literary analysis was born, at first to help distinguish original texts from copies which may have contained glosses and errors introduced by manual copying.

The techniques have been refined over the years, especially with the use of computers which permit analysis even of how different authors use words such as "and" and "if".

The application of such studies to Genesis have led to some conclusions now accepted by most biblical scholars:
1. Moses wrote no part of the text as we have it today. He may have written, and probably taught orally, things which later authors incorporated into the text, but the text of Genesis as we have it today comes from a time much later than Moses' life. This does not mean the rabbis were totally wrong in attributing Genesis and the rest of the Torah to Moses. The Torah as we know it today certainly comes from a tradition that goes back to Moses, but it was not personally written by him.

2. Genesis is a complex text with more than one author and editor. It did not exist as a single book until about or shortly after the Babylonian exile. Prior to that time different parts of Genesis existed as separate books by different authors.

3. The second creation story is not a commentary on or elaboration of the first. It could not be because the person who wrote it was not aware of the first. The second story is actually the older story, written two or more centuries before the first.

4. On the other hand, the writer of the first story did know of the second one. Yet the first story is obviously not a commentary or elaboration on the second either. It differs in several significant ways from the second story, and apparently neither the writer of the first story, nor the editor who put them together had any concern about these differences.

 

[JuJube]

Well, an allegory is like a parable..fictional story but has a heavenly meaning. If Gen 1 is allegorical, then Adam really wasn't the first man like it says in 1 Cor. 15:45. If it's an allegory, then Jesus' geneology in Luke 3 is false. If God didn't really create man and woman in the creation week, then Mat. 19:4 and Mark 10:6 is false. If it's an allegory then Ex. 20:11 is a lie. see what I'm saying? I hope this makes sense, I can confuse myself sometimes lol.

Great post! I agree with Jacob....next question.

 

[elsbeth]

Well, an allegory is like a parable..fictional story but has a heavenly meaning. If Gen 1 is allegorical, then Adam really wasn't the first man like it says in 1 Cor. 15:45. If it's an allegory, then Jesus' geneology in Luke 3 is false. If God didn't really create man and woman in the creation week, then Mat. 19:4 and Mark 10:6 is false. If it's an allegory then Ex. 20:11 is a lie. see what I'm saying? I hope this makes sense, I can confuse myself sometimes lol.

Obviously the writers took Genesis literally so that they could track the geneologies. Understanding of passages can change considerably in the length of time since those were written. That doesn't make what they wrote a LIE, just not literal truth.
I'm firmly convinced that God created us, just not that He did it exactly as Genesis says He did. He couldn't explain detailed science to people who were infants scientifically.

 

[laptoppop]

It would be good if people today learned the difference between attribution and authorship. The rabbis actually had no idea who wrote Genesis and no way of determining that. But because of the importance of Moses in bringing the Torah to Israel, they attributed it to Moses.

Beginning about 300 years ago, the science of textual and literary analysis was born, at first to help distinguish original texts from copies which may have contained glosses and errors introduced by manual copying.

The techniques have been refined over the years, especially with the use of computers which permit analysis even of how different authors use words such as "and" and "if".

The application of such studies to Genesis have led to some conclusions now accepted by most biblical scholars:
1. Moses wrote no part of the text as we have it today. He may have written, and probably taught orally, things which later authors incorporated into the text, but the text of Genesis as we have it today comes from a time much later than Moses' life. This does not mean the rabbis were totally wrong in attributing Genesis and the rest of the Torah to Moses. The Torah as we know it today certainly comes from a tradition that goes back to Moses, but it was not personally written by him.

2. Genesis is a complex text with more than one author and editor. It did not exist as a single book until about or shortly after the Babylonian exile. Prior to that time different parts of Genesis existed as separate books by different authors.

3. The second creation story is not a commentary on or elaboration of the first. It could not be because the person who wrote it was not aware of the first. The second story is actually the older story, written two or more centuries before the first.

4. On the other hand, the writer of the first story did know of the second one. Yet the first story is obviously not a commentary or elaboration on the second either. It differs in several significant ways from the second story, and apparently neither the writer of the first story, nor the editor who put them together had any concern about these differences.

This is the standard liberal "higher criticism" way to look at Gen 1 & 2. Interestingly, when the same higher criticism techniques were applied to people who wrote books and articles about higher criticism, it was found that there were a variety of authors involved in each work. In other words, the system is very subjective, full of room for interpretation and error. It also sets the person up as a judge of Scripture -- never a smart move. Jesus refers to parts of the Pentatuch as coming from Moses. That's good enough for me. Yes, its possible that Moses edited and combined some earlier accounts - but if so, he did so under divine inspiration.

The differences between Gen 1 and 2 are easily explained. Specifically, 1 refers to the entire creation, and 2 refers to the "land" -- what we would call the farm. 2 also gives us greater detail than one on particular elements.

 

[gluadys]

This is the standard liberal "higher criticism" way to look at Gen 1 & 2. Interestingly, when the same higher criticism techniques were applied to people who wrote books and articles about higher criticism, it was found that there were a variety of authors involved in each work. In other words, the system is very subjective, full of room for interpretation and error. It also sets the person up as a judge of Scripture -- never a smart move. Jesus refers to parts of the Pentatuch as coming from Moses. That's good enough for me. Yes, its possible that Moses edited and combined some earlier accounts - but if so, he did so under divine inspiration.

"higher criticism" is a very outdated term. It simply means an analysis above the level of the text itself. "lower criticism" is now called "textual criticism" and that is the reconstruction, as far as possible, of the original text.

When the attention turns to matters such as the form of literature being written, the themes addressed, the influence of one book on another, the authorship, dating, audience addressed, purpose of composition, evidences of subsequent editing, etc. this was once all called "higher criticism" and now, each specialty tends to have its own name and techniques and specialists. The cutting edge of study now is to try and discern what sources, both written and oral, the current text draws on. This is, naturally enough, called "source criticism".

Of course, as in any type of academic study, there is plenty of controversy and individual subjectivity. But also as in any academic study, there is peer review and the need to justify one's hypotheses to one's colleagues. The conclusions I named have been well established for many years now, and are not especially controversial any more. They are standard first-year fare in most religious studies programs focusing on the bible, and in theological schools at all major universities.

The differences between Gen 1 and 2 are easily explained. Specifically, 1 refers to the entire creation, and 2 refers to the "land" -- what we would call the farm. 2 also gives us greater detail than one on particular elements.

I notice you do not mention the dating. The story which begins in Genesis 2 is the earlier written story. This is something that can be determined from linguistic study which includes study of how languages change over time. The dating confirms the two stories are written by different authors. Neither was Moses, though if anything written by Moses survived to the time Genesis was written, one or both of these authors could have used them as a source. Both, of course, would also have access to an oral tradition stemming from Moses.

Question: why do the differences between Genesis 1 and 2 require explaining at all? Why not simply let them stand?

 

[laptoppop]

No, it is not something that can be "determined" -- it is something that can be postulated, can be inferred, etc. There is nothing determinant about it.

In the Hebrew, they do stand. Explaining is needed for the English version.

 

[gluadys]

No, it is not something that can be "determined" -- it is something that can be postulated, can be inferred, etc. There is nothing determinant about it.

On the contrary, within limits, the time at which a document was written can be determined by the form of the language used. Expressions come into and fall out of use. Words change pronunciation and spelling. The oldest form of the name "jerusalem" for example is "uru-salem". So we know that where that spelling is used it is older than a text in which the name is spelled "yeru-salem" or "yeru-shalaayim". New words are coined and sometimes replace older words. On occasion, a text can be tied to the reign of a particular king, or the existence of a particular town or kingdom, or the occurrence of a particular event.

It is most definitely not postulation. Linguistic analysis is a science. Not as exact as physics, or even biology, but not at all mere speculation either.

In the Hebrew, they do stand. Explaining is needed for the English version.

That doesn't make sense. English translators have not changed the order in which creation occurred in the two stories, to mention the most obvious difference. People, including Hebrew scholars studying the text in Hebrew, have noted discrepancies like this long before there was an English language.

My question stands. What is the point of trying to "explain" these differences? Why is an explanation necessary?

 

[artybloke]

I believe that The Creation Story was neither literal nor figurative; it was a demythologization. This is because of whom it was written for.

The Hebrews of Moses time had spent decades in a country which worshipped an entire pantheon of gods and goddesses. There were no weekends, so the only times they did not have to work were the times when festivals for these gods or goddesses were celebrated. By the time that Moses took the Hebrews out of Egypt many of them had been thoroughly indoctrinated in the religion of the Egyptians, and were therefore Hebrew by ancestry but polytheistic in their belief. The golden calf was an example of this holdover from that time.

Now take a look at Genesis 1&2, remembering what the egyption gods and goddesses looked like. Moses systematically stripped every star, planet, the moon, aquatic animals and land animals of the divinity which their representation on these gods and goddesses had given them. The sun and moon were nothing more than objects, as were the stars which lit the night sky. The animals which they saw around them were merely other animals which shared this planet with them. Nothing which they saw around or over them had any divinity in it; the only divine person was a being who could never be seen, and in whom there was an absolute knowledge as to what he saw as good and what he saw as evil.

Although I don't think Moses had anything to do with the writing, I think I largely agree that certainly the author of Genesis 1 was doing this. I see it as a kind of "anti-epic": and very avant garde for its time. Gen 2 is more like a fable, is probably earlier; but again, it's stripping away the mythic shenanigans to get at the simple truth: that God created the universe and everything in it; the world isn't sacred in and of itself, it's only sacred because God made it, etc etc...

I doubt very much that anyone had the time cared a fig for historical accuracy.

 

[Assyrian]

Well, an allegory is like a parable..fictional story but has a heavenly meaning. If Gen 1 is allegorical, then Adam really wasn't the first man like it says in 1 Cor. 15:45.

If Adam was the first man, who do you think was the second? Was it Cain, or was it Christ as Paul tell us in 1 Cor. 15:47? Could it be that Paul the Rabbi was writing allegorically here and that Adam and Christ sum up the whole human race because we are all either 'in Adam' or 'in Christ' 1 Cor. 15:22.

If it's an allegory, then Jesus' geneology in Luke 3 is false.

Do you think Adam was the literal biological son of God? Because the genealogy make no distinction between the relationship of Seth-Adam and Adam-God. But the biggest problem with a literal interpreation of the genealogy is that Luke tells us it was only what people 'supposed' was Jesus' genealogy.

If God didn't really create man and woman in the creation week, then Mat. 19:4 and Mark 10:6 is false.

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' If you take Gen 1 literally God didn't created Adam and Eve at the beginning of creation, it was at the very end of the creation. Nor does Jesus say it was the beginning of the creation of the world. The passage works just as well if Jesus was talking about the beginning of the creation of mankind, in fact it works better because mankind is the context of the talk not the creation of the world.

If it's an allegory then Ex. 20:11 is a lie. see what I'm saying?

Why couldn't Ex 20:11 be a metaphorical illustration of the Sabbath command? Does God really have arms and hands as we are told when the same command is repeated in Deuteronomy? Deut 5:15 You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.

We find the Sabbath command repeated in Exodus 31. Exodus 31:15 Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD... 17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed. Was God really refreshed after he rested on the seventh day (verse17)? Does God get tired?

No Exodus 20:11 is not a lie if the Gen days are allegorical, because the bible is quite capable of using metaphors there too. Exodus 20:2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. What? They were all in one house?

I hope this makes sense, I can confuse myself sometimes lol.

We are used to taking things literally, and relegate allegory to children's stories and the fiction shelves. Somehow literal truth seem more appropriate to something as serious and holy as scripture. I do understand what you were saying, but the mistake you are making is the the biblical writers were really much more at home with allegory than we are.

 

[jds1977]

Thanks for your response Assyrian

Was it Cain, or was it Christ as Paul tell us in 1 Cor. 15:47?

If you read the whole context you'll see that Paul is talking about Adam being the first natural man and Jesus as the heavenly Adam (last Adam). One is a natural body and one is a spiritual body. There is no contradiction here. In Adam we do all die...because we have natural physical bodies...however, those who are of the spiritual Adam (Christ) will be in the resurrection.

Do you think Adam was the literal biological son of God?

The literal reading is Adam, which was of God...is it absolutely necessary to make a distinction? Seth is from Adam and Adam was formed from the dust by God. Luke didn't have a problem w/ it and obviously he took for granted Theophilus would understand it. It seems like the only ones questioning it are the ones who would rather interpret the bible through outside philosophies rather than the bible itself.

Luke tells us it was only what people 'supposed' was Jesus' genealogy.

Please read Luke 3:23 again..."Jesus...being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph," not that His whole geneology was "supposed"...just that He was the "supposed" son of Joseph. If you read it, you'll see that Luke actually went through Mary's lineage...Joseph's father-in-law's lineage. It was important for Luke to trace back to Adam to present Jesus as "the son of man".

Mar 10:6But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' If you take Gen 1 literally God didn't created Adam and Eve at the beginning of creation, it was at the very end of the creation. Nor does Jesus say it was the beginning of the creation of the world. The passage works just as well if Jesus was talking about the beginning of the creation of mankind, in fact it works better because mankind is the context of the talk not the creation of the world.

You could look at it that way...but, this is against evolutionism, in the fact that Jesus said at the beginning, He "made" male and female. In other words, he created them on the same day to be together, to be married, to be a helpmeet, to reproduce, etc... I would categorize (me speaking, not doctrinally speaking) the whole creation week as "the beginning".

Why couldn't Ex 20:11 be a metaphorical illustration of the Sabbath command? Does God really have arms and hands as we are told when the same command is repeated in Deuteronomy? Deut 5:15

I don't think so...He's giving 2 seperate historical events. There's no doubt that the captivity in Egypt is literal, why should we doubt by this passage that the creation week is literal. The "arms and hands of God" doesn't make the event metaphorical. That is very literal history.
I'll have to answer the rest later, I have to get to work.

 

[laptoppop]

One point.

There are two geneaologies for Jesus. One is through Joseph (i.e. legal), the other through Mary (i.e. physical). In both cases, it is shown that Jesus satisfies the requirements for being the Messiah.

 

[elsbeth]

We are used to taking things literally, and relegate allegory to children's stories and the fiction shelves. Somehow literal truth seem more appropriate to something as serious and holy as scripture. I do understand what you were saying, but the mistake you are making is the the biblical writers were really much more at home with allegory than we are.

It should be the other way around. Allegory is an adult concept. Seeing things as black-or-white, literal-or -lies is a simplistic, child's view. Grownups understand that there are shadings. The Bible contains metaphor, allegory, parable, a LOT of people's personal experiences, history which was passed down for many generations orally as well as people's accounts of things they actually witnessed.

 

[Assyrian]

Thanks for your response Assyrian If you read the whole context you'll see that Paul is talking about Adam being the first natural man and Jesus as the heavenly Adam (last Adam). One is a natural body and one is a spiritual body. There is no contradiction here. In Adam we do all die...because we have natural physical bodies...however, those who are of the spiritual Adam (Christ) will be in the resurrection.

You haven't explained how Christ is the 'second' man. I agree with most of what you are saying here. But you need to realise Paul wasn't sticking to a literal discussion. People do not die 'in Adam' because if Adam was an individual he died thousands of years ago and his body decomposed and returned to the ground. We are not 'in Adam' unless Adam is being used to sum up the whole human race God created. Just like in Roman 5 Paul is comparing Adam and Christ on a figurative, allegorical level. Rom 5:14 Adam was a figure of the one who was to come.

If Paul isn't sticking to the literal in 1Cor 15:45, then it doesn't contradict an allegorical interpretation of Genesis.

The literal reading is Adam, which was of God...is it absolutely necessary to make a distinction? Seth is from Adam and Adam was formed from the dust by God. Luke didn't have a problem w/ it and obviously he took for granted Theophilus would understand it.

Luke uses the one verbal phrase 'being the son' at the very beginning of the genealogy. Now either you understand it as applying equally to all the relationship in the genealogy, or you allow for other relationships rather than the simple 'biological son of'. It could also mean great[sup]n[/sup] grandson. Cainan could be a whole nation who descended from the nation of Enos, just as I could be described as 'of Irish, of Celt'. Adam can mean the human race that God created and everybody is descended from them. Once you realise 'the son of' in the genealogy is actually a simple 'of' then the genealogy open up to a range of possible relationship and we are not tied to Adam having to be an individual person made from dust and Cain his biological son.

It seems like the only ones questioning it are the ones who would rather interpret the bible through outside philosophies rather than the bible itself.

We can look at what the bible says and see if our human traditions are actually supported by scripture, or we can question the motivation of people we disagree with.

Please read Luke 3:23 again..."Jesus...being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph," not that His whole geneology was "supposed"...just that He was the "supposed" son of Joseph. If you read it, you'll see that Luke actually went through Mary's lineage...Joseph's father-in-law's lineage. It was important for Luke to trace back to Adam to present Jesus as "the son of man".

There is only one verb in the whole genealogy and the supposed is attached to that verb. Luke never restarted with genuine genealogy, "but Heli really was the son of Matthat of Levi..." Luke tells us what people supposed was Jesus genealogy, how do you think Theophilus would have taken it?

You could look at it that way...but, this is against evolutionism, in the fact that Jesus said at the beginning, He "made" male and female. In other words, he created them on the same day to be together, to be married, to be a helpmeet, to reproduce, etc...

No you are reading you literal interpretation of Genesis into what Jesus actually said. He is say that when God made the human race, with no reference to it being done in a single day, God made them male and female, again with no reference to God only creating a single pair.

I would categorize (me speaking, not doctrinally speaking) the whole creation week as "the beginning".

You can look at the whole creation week as the beginning, but the beginning of creation would have been day one and two wouldn't it? We are told that on the seventh day God finished all his work of creation, so day six would really be the end of the creation.

However there is no need to read this verse as referring to anything other than God's creation of mankind. It doesn't say the beginning of the world.

Basically there are four possible ways I can see to interpret this.

1. Male and female have been around since beginning of God's six day creation. (Clearly wrong)
2. Male and female have been around since the beginning of the universe.
3. When God created mankind, he made us male and female. (This one fits the context best)
4. 'The beginning of creation' is simply an idiom and there is no need to insist on an absolutely literal interpretation than the Queen of Sheba coming from 'the ends of the earth' proves a flat earth.

When there are a number of very different ways we can read the phrase, you cannot say a non literal Genesis would mean Matt. 19:4 and Mark 10:6 are false, especially when it is not even the best interpretation of the phrase.

Basically you are taking a phrase out of context here. Jesus is talking about God's plan for marriage, not where the creation of man fits in the history of the universe or how long God took. Isolated, out of context phrases don't give us the sort of meaning YECs sometimes try to wring out of them. As an isolated phrase, it can have a wide range of meanings not just the one you think proves your interpretation of Genesis.

I don't think so...He's giving 2 seperate historical events. There's no doubt that the captivity in Egypt is literal, why should we doubt by this passage that the creation week is literal. The "arms and hands of God" doesn't make the event metaphorical. That is very literal history.

It makes Moses description of the Exodus metaphorical.

Don't get me wrong. Both the Creation and the Exodus are real events. That doesn't mean the descriptions of these events have to be literal. Moses used a metaphorical description of the Exodus, God's arm and hand, to illustrate the Sabbath command in Deuteronomy. There is no reason to think he had to use a literal description of the Creation as an illustration in Exodus 20, especially in the middle of another metaphor describing God as a tired workman being refreshed after a days rest.

I'll have to answer the rest later, I have to get to work.

I'll look forward to it, cheers.

 

[jds1977]

Sorry for the delay in response...

You haven't explained how Christ is the 'second' man

The phrase "the second man is the Lord from heaven" is pointing back to verses 44-46. He is the second man in his illustration, not that he's the second man in all humanity. The first is natural or earthy, the second is spiritual. It's just a reference to order in his illustration.

 

[jds1977]

Sorry for the delay in response...

You haven't explained how Christ is the 'second' man

The phrase "the second man is the Lord from heaven" is pointing back to verses 44-46. He is the second man in his illustration, not that he's the second man in all humanity. The first is natural or earthy, the second is spiritual. It's just a reference to order in his illustration.
The phrase, "in Adam", is just a way that Paul used to show the contrast of Adam and Christ. Those in Adam will die for Adam was made a living soul and is the sum of all w/ a natural body. However, Christ is a quickening spirit...He makes life, He gives life to those in Christ.

Just like in Roman 5 Paul is comparing Adam and Christ on a figurative, allegorical level

Where is the allegory of the characters here? These are clearly literal people: Adam, Moses, Christ. Just because it says Adam is a figure of him that was to come does not make him non-literal. He is a figure of Christ just like Melchisedec. There are several "figures" of Christ in the old testament.

As far as the geneology comment...if you categorize the names to mean nationalities, then is there seperate nationalities of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob? The Abrahamites begat the Isaacites who begat the Jacobites, etc...that's just not biblical or historical.

Luke tells us what people supposed was Jesus genealogy, how do you think Theophilus would have taken it?

The word "supposed" is nomizo which means custom. It wasn't that Luke was questioning His lineage, but showing Theophilus that it was the custom or the received usage of Jesus' earthly lineage all the way back to Adam. Luke's intent was to introduce Theophilus to Jesus the "son of man", a title necessary to redeem mankind as the goel or kinsman redeemer.

1. When God created mankind, he made us male and female. (This one fits the context best)

I totally agree. But, I believe he created male and female to begin with...not that one human like creature who was asexual eventually formed reproductive organs, then became male and female. The point I'm making is that from the beginning, God made them male and female ready to marry and reproduce.

Don't get me wrong. Both the Creation and the Exodus are real events. That doesn't mean the descriptions of these events have to be literal. Moses used a metaphorical description of the Exodus, God's arm and hand, to illustrate the Sabbath command in Deuteronomy. There is no reason to think he had to use a literal description of the Creation as an illustration in Exodus 20, especially in the middle of another metaphor describing God as a tired workman being refreshed after a days rest.

Basically, what you're saying is that since He used a metaphor in one instance, then all instances of describing the method is metaphorical. That's bad hermeneutics. Using this method, then you would have to agree that the creation week is literal, but God didn't actually speak everything into existence...Him saying, "Let there be" is just metaphor?

especially in the middle of another metaphor describing God as a tired workman being refreshed after a days rest.

I think you're reading more into the text than what's there. The first mention of "rested' is the word shabath in Gen. 2:2 which simply means to cease, desist. The other word for rested is nuwach which means to settle down...like in Gen. 8:4 when Noah's ark "settled" or rested on the mountains of Ararat. As far as God being refreshed...that just means naphash: niphal: to take breath (when wearied [or, to rest, cease from working]).
Thanks Assyrian, for your patience. I've been extremely busy and haven't had much time around the computer.

 

[Assyrian]

The phrase "the second man is the Lord from heaven" is pointing back to verses 44-46. He is the second man in his illustration, not that he's the second man in all humanity. The first is natural or earthy, the second is spiritual. It's just a reference to order in his illustration.
The phrase, "in Adam", is just a way that Paul used to show the contrast of Adam and Christ. Those in Adam will die for Adam was made a living soul and is the sum of all w/ a natural body. However, Christ is a quickening spirit...He makes life, He gives life to those in Christ.

I agree Paul is talking of Adam as the sum of all the natural human race, the way we talk of 'the bride' when we are referring to the church. In this case he refers to the church as 'in Christ' and as natural men we are 'in Adam'.

But the point is, if first and second are simply referring to the order of Paul's illustration, though the natural did come first, Paul is not saying Adam was the first man historically. This passage is not contradicted by an allegorical view of Genesis. In fact the two fit quite well together.

 

[jds1977]

So Paul is not saying Adam was the first man historically?

In verse 45 Paul is quoting Gen 2:7. So, yes, Adam was the first man. Same as w/ 1 Tim. 2:13: Adam was first formed...then in Jude 14, Enoch was the 7th from Adam. Adam is the first in the biblical geneologies such as 1 Chron. 1:1.

 

[Assyrian]

Where is the allegory of the characters here? These are clearly literal people: Adam, Moses, Christ. Just because it says Adam is a figure of him that was to come does not make him non-literal. He is a figure of Christ just like Melchisedec. There are several "figures" of Christ in the old testament.

I think Paul's use of Adam as a figure does a couple of things. It open up the possibility that Adam is a metaphor. Some allegories are historical figures that have been allegorized like Hagar and Sarah. Others are simply figurative. It certainly means we have to be careful before we take Paul's reference to Adam as proof he was a historical figure.

The other important thing Paul's reference to Adam as a type does for us is that it opens up for us how Paul was looking at Adam, and how he was explaining Adam's meaning for us. From our 21st century perspective it is very easy to miss Paul's rabbinical insights, especially the more allegorical ones.

As far as the geneology comment...if you categorize the names to mean nationalities, then is there seperate nationalities of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob? The Abrahamites begat the Isaacites who begat the Jacobites, etc...that's just not biblical or historical.

Did Semites beget the nation of Israel?

The word "supposed" is nomizo which means custom. It wasn't that Luke was questioning His lineage, but showing Theophilus that it was the custom or the received usage of Jesus' earthly lineage all the way back to Adam. Luke's intent was to introduce Theophilus to Jesus the "son of man", a title necessary to redeem mankind as the goel or kinsman redeemer.

The word has a range of meanings from its original custom, to the more general deem, regard, suppose, think. Acts 14:19 But Jews came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. Acts 7:25 Moses thought the rest of his people would realize that God was going to use him to set them free. But they didn't understand.

Whatever its precise meaning here, Luke is telling us this is what people believed and that it wasn't necessarily so.

I totally agree. But, I believe he created male and female to begin with...not that one human like creature who was asexual eventually formed reproductive organs, then became male and female. The point I'm making is that from the beginning, God made them male and female ready to marry and reproduce.

Then the only issue between us is how God made them.

Basically, what you're saying is that since He used a metaphor in one instance, then all instances of describing the method is metaphorical. That's bad hermeneutics. Using this method, then you would have to agree that the creation week is literal, but God didn't actually speak everything into existence...Him saying, "Let there be" is just metaphor?

God 'speaking' is certainly a metaphor, as is God 'breathing' into Adams lips.

I am not saying that if one description is metaphorical then they all have to be. I was answering you claim that if Genesis an allegory then Ex. 20:11 is a lie. What the Sabbath command in Deut shows is that these descriptions can easily be metaphorical. They do not have to be interpreted literally as you seem to assume.

But I have also shown how the description in Exodus is another anthropomorphic metaphor where God describes himself as a weary labourer. The six days of creation are no only parallel to a metaphor in Deuteronomy, they occur inside a metaphor in Exodus.

In verse 45 Paul is quoting Gen 2:7. So, yes, Adam was the first man.

But Paul is talking about Adam as summing up all of mankind. According to that, Paul is reading Gen 2:7 as though it referred to God creating mankind.

Same as w/ 1 Tim. 2:13: Adam was first formed...

Is Paul interpreting the story literally or allegorically? What does a literal order of creation of the first man and the first woman have to do with couples today, many of whom consist of an older woman and younger man? Or is Paul seeing in the order of the story an illustration of God's intended order for all marriages?

And if Paul is writing literally, what ever does he mean in verse 15 with that stuff about women being 'saved through childbearing'?

then in Jude 14, Enoch was the 7th from Adam.

Seventh person born? Seventh generation? Seventh in the genealogy? Seventh named? Seventh in the list? Seventh in the book? There are a lot of possible meanings and Jude simply doesn't give us any interpretation other than meaning we get from the context that Enoch's position gives his prophecy a lot of importance.

Adam is the first in the biblical geneologies such as 1 Chron. 1:1.

Interesting that the writer of chronicles doesn't attempt to give any interpretation either. He simply lists Adam Seth Enosh Kenan... It is only when we get past the flood that that we get genealogical interpretations A begat B, C and D. the sons of E were F and G.

 

[crawfish]

I believe that The Creation Story was neither literal nor figurative; it was a demythologization. This is because of whom it was written for.

The Hebrews of Moses time had spent decades in a country which worshipped an entire pantheon of gods and goddesses. There were no weekends, so the only times they did not have to work were the times when festivals for these gods or goddesses were celebrated. By the time that Moses took the Hebrews out of Egypt many of them had been thoroughly indoctrinated in the religion of the Egyptians, and were therefore Hebrew by ancestry but polytheistic in their belief. The golden calf was an example of this holdover from that time.

Now take a look at Genesis 1&2, remembering what the egyption gods and goddesses looked like. Moses systematically stripped every star, planet, the moon, aquatic animals and land animals of the divinity which their representation on these gods and goddesses had given them. The sun and moon were nothing more than objects, as were the stars which lit the night sky. The animals which they saw around them were merely other animals which shared this planet with them. Nothing which they saw around or over them had any divinity in it; the only divine person was a being who could never be seen, and in whom there was an absolute knowledge as to what he saw as good and what he saw as evil.

Agree completely with this. I believe that Genesis was written primarily to it's initial audience - the Hebrews under Babylonian captivity. The creation account exists for two reasons: 1) to place God in the order above ALL of creation, including the Babylonian/Egyptian gods, and 2) to place mankind under God but over all the rest of creation.

For example, in Genesis 2, God is described as "hovering over the waters". This is a DIRECT allusion to the Enuma Elish (the Babylonian story of creation), where the god Marduk hovered over Tiamat (the god of Chaos, or the seas) before a great battle in which he overthrew Tiamat. Note that there is no battle; God simply creates the land. A nice little smack to the beliefs of their captors.

As an example, imagine if I said, "God is the 'bang' in the Big Bang". You'd know what I mean - God is the instigator of all matter and creation. If in the future if data show that the universe started in a way that disproves the big bang, you'll still know what I meant, and the general sense of what I was saying will still be true.

In reality, the first of Genesis is NOT a "creation story" in that it's not there to describe how things are created. It exists to say "God created EVERYTHING". Until recently - the past few hundred years - there has been little need to differentiate between the two different types of stories. Holding to a literal view is a battle that we will eventually lose - because it's not the message God was imparting.

I have a little trouble with allegorical views because they can be used to justify so many different and disparate interpretation. It's nearly impossible to determine the rightness or wrongness of any particular
interpretation. When interpreting, you MUST look at how the original audience would have understood it, and the meaning cannot be any different than what they would have understood.