- Aug 20, 2019
- 12,398
- 13,225
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
I am not so sure that not taking it literally entails I am not taking it as reliable.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
if you don't take every word of God as reliable
I am not setting myself up as judge. I am simply making a distinction between the scriptures and God, the words and the Word.
Hi friend. I think ultimately this doesn't matter the most. What does matter the most, and I think you already probably agree, is just that we can listen to the wonderful Genesis chapter 1 in faith, and be wonderfully blessed by this listening.The title is a bit overstated. A more tempered, and personal, version would be, "I find it very difficult to believe those who say they take all of the creation account in Genesis literally."
Why do I say that? There are metaphors in the account that cannot be taken literally. And, if they are taken literally, the interpreter runs the risk of missing the true intent of the metaphor. I'll give a couple examples.
1) In Genesis 1, God separates light from darkness. God calls one Day and the other Night. This is the 1st day. And yet, the luminaries of the sky (Sun, moon, and stars) have yet to be created. Now, I ask, "What is a literal day?" A literal day is, at the very least, a twenty four hour period in which the earth rotates on its axis-the sun being that which determines light or dark. One cannot form a literal concept of a day in regards to the first day of creation. In other words, a metaphor has creeped in somewhere. Someone might attempt to explain the separation of light from darkness by saying, "On the first day, God separated right from wrong, good from evil, good angels from fallen angels." Fine. Whatever. I have no problem someone interpreting the metaphor. That's what we are supposed to do with metaphors. But, let's at least be honest and admit it's a metaphor.
2) In Genesis 2:17 we are told of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." I ask myself, "What kind of tree is that? How do I form a literal conception of that kind of tree?" I challenge anyone reading my words to try, at this moment, to form a literal conception in their minds of such a tree. I contend, without having to try really hard to do so, one cannot form such a conception. Why? Because it is a metaphor. What does that fruit look like in your mind?
Here is the important part. Even if someone were able to take all of the creation account in Genesis literally, it would do them no good. What matters is not affirming its historical reliability. What matters is grasping the spiritual truths being communicated in the account, e.g. God exists, God is Creator, creation is not God, creation is good, humanity is created in the divine image, sin is a killer, humanity is in need of redemption, a promise of redemption has been made, etc.
Believing that something is historically true does not change anything. I believe Billie Holiday is the greatest jazz singer of all time, that doesn't somehow change my life. Arguments over taking the creation account in Genesis literally miss the point (including the argument I am now making). The point is the truths being communicated via the account. And, happily for those of us who accept the account, science can't communicate those truths to us, only the account in Genesis can do that.
Does what I am saying make sense?
It wouldn't do you good- and many who say they believe the Genesis account for this reason fail to translate their belief to real life faith in action.
The bible says that it was Adam eating the fruit from the tree he had been told not to eat from.Maybe it helps to remember that I didn't say all of Genesis was a metaphor. I said, one cannot take all of Genesis literally. Those two statements are not the same.
I believe humanity has rebelled against God, and I believe that in large part because of Genesis (also because I can simply observe human evil). Likewise, I believe the consequences are real. In this we do not disagree.
Do you believe God, the Father, has a mouth? Pace you rendering of Matthew 4:4, you seem to think so if you take that passage literally.But who gave you the right to make that distinction, especially considering the truths in Psalm 138:2, Matthew 4:4, and a multitude of other Scriptures which directly teach and militate against us making such a distinction?
The bible says that it was Adam eating the fruit from the tree he had been told not to eat from.
Jesus recognised Adam as literal, Paul refers to a literal Adam, identifing Jesus as the second Adam.
Take Adam out and you cut most of the bible out.
This is an interesting approach that I will have to take time to consider. My argument does hinge on the idea that taking something as literal entails being able to form some kind of conception of it. If not, then what does "literal" mean? But, maybe that is a blind spot with me.
I am not so sure that not taking it literally entails I am not taking it as reliable.
And after that, suddenly all the ideas like young/old earth and all the rest don't matter too much. I sincerely do not care that my sister or brother thinks the earth is young or old, or thinks differently than me. I rejoice that she/he believes. This is for real -- I know someone in my church that has a very different view than me (I was surprised at first) and I feel so happy about it, because I can tell she really believes, just like me.
I do take these as wholly reliable. I just don't take "word" as necessarily implying every word of scripture. I take it to mean God's creative Word, the Word by which God communicates God's will to humanity, and most importantly I take God's Word as Jesus Christ. Yes, creation and God's will and Jesus Christ are all communicated through the scriptures. But, the scriptures are a means to knowing God's Word. The scriptures are a means to an end and not the end in themselves. When we use "word" to refer to both the scriptures and to Jesus CHrist we are equivocating and making a distinction that we too often don't make explicit."Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." (Psalm 119:160)
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6)
Do you believe God, the Father, has a mouth? Pace you rendering of Matthew 4:4, you seem to think so if you take that passage literally.
Consider your question from a child’s vantage point. When a father says I love you. Does the child grasp the gravity of that statement and its implication or how it differs from other forms of love?
I hear you. I hope my post doesn't come across as condemnatory. In hindsight, maybe I could have put my opinion forth in a more humble way. I embrace people and not their beliefs. Good words, my friend.
Just to note in case you rely on certain common assumptions in that, there are reasons to examine those assumptions more in light of all the scripture. Such as how do visions come, and what are they like (1rst Samuel chapter 3 verse 1 can help some: visions are the normal way things are communicated) -- for instance by reviewing the vision to Peter in Acts chapter 10, and noticing how the narration from God was so brief, and only just-enough was said to only allow a later understanding of the true meaning, which definitely was not to grab a bow and go hunting for physical food for supper. Here in Genesis chapter 1 the vision being given also has very few words of actual narration, usually in quotation marks in most translations, just like the Acts chapter 10 vision has very few words of narration, and is not clear at first to the recipient. Moses would have no idea of what he was seeing, and would have to just write down best he could what it seemed to be, but there are words spoken by the Lord, and those words are about the real meaning, which also we can see repeated 7 times in the chapter: that this Earth was made a "very good" home for us, so that even the stars in the sky are for our benefit just for the quality of our home! When they were made? -- whole different question, but that answer is during the time in verse 1, before the time in verse 2. But in the vision they are not revealed (are not visible yet) until the 4th day.And yet, the luminaries of the sky (Sun, moon, and stars) have yet to be created.
How was Jesus living by every word of God when He was tempted by the devil? It was obviously by His subjection to, and confidence in, the Scriptures (which at the time were what we know as the Old Testament).
I do take these as wholly reliable. I just don't take "word" as necessarily implying every word of scripture. I take it to mean God's creative Word, the Word by which God communicates God's will to humanity, and most importantly I take God's Word as Jesus Christ. Yes, creation and God's will and Jesus Christ are all communicated through the scriptures. But, the scriptures are a means to knowing God's Word. The scriptures are a means to an end and not the end in themselves. When we use "word" to refer to both the scriptures and to Jesus CHrist we are equivocating and making a distinction that we too often don't make explicit.
How to you take Song of Songs literally?
Just to note in case you rely on certain common assumptions in that, there are reasons to examine those assumptions more in light of all the scripture. Such as how do visions come, and what are they like (1rst Samuel chapter 3 verse 1 can help some: visions are the normal way things are communicated) -- for instance by reviewing the vision to Peter in Acts chapter 10, and noticing how the narration from God was so brief, and only just-enough was said to only allow a later understanding of the true meaning, which definitely was not to grab a bow and go hunting for physical food for supper. Here in Genesis chapter 1 the vision being given also has very few words of actual narration, usually in quotation marks in most translations, just like the Acts chapter 10 vision has very few words of narration, and is not clear at first to the recipient. Moses would have no idea of what he was seeing, and would have to just write down best he could what it seemed to be, but there are words spoken by the Lord, and those words are about the real meaning, which also we can see repeated 7 times in the chapter: that this Earth was made a "very good" home for us, so that even the stars in the sky are for our benefit just for the quality of our home! When they were made? -- whole different question, but that answer is during the time in verse 1, before the time in verse 2. But in the vision they are not revealed (are not visible yet) until the 4th day.
But when you don't receive all the words of Scripture
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?