Literal or mythical interpretation of Genesis

[tansy]

People seem to keep saying things like Creationists can only reject evolution because they see the genesis account as being literal. Conversely, theistic evolutionists accept evolution, because they see Genesis as being mythical or non-literal.

But can't there be an inbetween position? (not that I myself can figure any of it out properly)

What if Genesis was literal in a broad sense, or in some specifics, but used analogies or metaphors in other ways?

For example (and I'm certainly not saying this is a correct interpretation...I can't be dogmatic about any of it)...it says that God place A an E in the Garden of Eden and they could eat from any of the trees, apart from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Well, what if all the trees were literal APART from the Tree of the Knoledge of G and E?
What about the Tree of Life? Was that literal?
Also, people say, well of course a snake can't talk...but then, neither can a donkey, and yet a donkey speaks later on in the Bible..to Balaam, if I remember correctly? Now, I believe that the incident with Balaam and the donkey was an actual literal happening....EXCEPT that I suspect that the donkey didn't actually use his vocal chords to speak...I suspect that God somehow spoke through him (aloud). So, I think t's entirely possible, that Satan could have used a serpent in the same way..not that the serpent actually started chatting away, withou t a muth designed to speak.

Not that any of this proves or disproves evolution...but I do wonder if we keep getting hung up on EITHER an absolute literal interpretatio n of Genesis, OR an entirely mythical or allegorical interpretation.

And really, I suspect the whole truth does not lie in either of those positions. I really think there's an awful lot more behind Genesis than meets the eye, which none of us has knowledge of...it only gives us a basic framework.

 

[Mallon]

I think you'll find many evolutionary creationists subscribe to the idea that some of the opening chapters of Genesis do, indeed, have a historical basis, even if they're written largely as myth or legend. The idea that a Near Eastern man once saved a boat-load of animals from a local flood isn't entirely unheard of. The Genesis creation account may be a little more difficult to account for scientifically, however.

 

[tansy]

It's just difficult (for me at any rate) to figure out which bits are literal history, and which bits are history couched in other terms.

Now, according to my understanding, havent they traced scientifically, all humans back to one woman...mitochondrial Eve? If so, would that be the literal Eve....also if so, what of Adam?
Also, what, if anything was before that mitochondrial Eve?

I'm sure my questions are simplistic, if not ill-informed, but I'd like to try and get an understanding

 

[Mallon]

It's just difficult (for me at any rate) to figure out which bits are literal history, and which bits are history couched in other terms.

I guess my question for you would be: does it really matter? Are the historical lessons from the creation account(s) really more important than the spiritual lessons? Is it more important to know whether Adam literally existed, or that humanity is a creation of a loving God and has fallen into sin?

Now, according to my understanding, havent they traced scientifically, all humans back to one woman...mitochondrial Eve? If so, would that be the literal Eve....also if so, what of Adam?
Also, what, if anything was before that mitochondrial Eve?

Mitochondrial Eve isn't the first woman. She is simply the last common female ancestor of all living humans. There are no doubt extinct lineages of humans that predated or were never descended from Mitochondrial Eve. More here:
Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm sure my questions are simplistic, if not ill-informed, but I'd like to try and get an understanding

No one here minds answering even the simplest sounding questions, so long as they asked in earnest. I wish everyone were as genuine as you!

 

[Assyrian]

Quite a lot of TEs believe in a literal Adam and Eve, I don't, not because of evolution but because of the biblical metaphors that seem to fill the story, God as a potter making people from clay, a serpent who is a beast of the field (albeit a talking one) in Genesis, but we are told in the book of Revelation actually is Satan. Basically you can take as much or little of the account literally as you feel comfortable and right with. I know Glenn Morton has a very literal take on the story, with God creating Adam from the dead body (eg 'dust') of an ape with a fatal fused chromosome Theory For Creationists

You get a lot of Old Earth Creationists who read Gen 1 as a day age description of the earth's 4.5 billions years, now while OECs traditionally reject evolution, there in nothing in the OEC day age interpretation that says God could not have used evolution. It is just an OEC tradition. The same goes with other variants like intermittent days, or analogical days. TEs tend to be more framework hypothesis or myth, but there is nothing about the theory of evolution that says you have to interpret Genesis that way

Incidentally the description of the flood in Genesis says nothing about it being global. You do need to realise that the word translated 'the earth' in the account ha'erets, is most commonly translated 'the land' in other parts of the bible, even the phrase 'the whole earth' is used in the description of the Exodus to refer to the whole land of (of Egypt) being covered with locusts. While we tend to read 'under the whole heaven' as 'spanning the whole globe, the phrase was used in the bible simply to mean from horizon to horizon. Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you. Does this mean the Maori, Incas and Aborigines would tremble in fear when they heard of Moses and the Israelites? Or did it mean the Edomites Moabites Amorites and Canaanites? Incidentally, nowhere in the Table of the Nations in Genesis 10, or anywhere else in the bible, does it suggest Maoris, Incas and Aborigines are descended from Noah.

 

[tansy]

I guess my question for you would be: does it really matter? Are the historical lessons from the creation account(s) really more important than the spiritual lessons? Is it more important to know whether Adam literally existed, or that humanity is a creation of a loving God and has fallen into sin?

I just wish that, if it was meant to be mainly allgorical, to put over something spiritual, that it didn't come over so much as historical. It's not that I can't necessarily tell the difference between poetry, or metaphor etc, normally speaking - but the way it's put over in Genesis, really does come over to me as fact....of course, they probably say that that is an ancient literary device or something.
I do think that the spiritual lessons are more important ultimately, but mymain difficulty is that Scripture talks of the First Adam and the Last Adam, which APPEARS to mean two individuals...though I can see that that is not necessarily so.

The other difficulty I have is that if evolution's true, then somewhere way back, the original "true human" had a parent or parents who were not truly human...that is to say - would the parents have been capable of communion with God - would they have a spirit? Also, way back before then, outr ancestors would presumably have been unrecognisably human in any way, and as I said in a thread in a different place, I'm not sure that I like the thought of having my greatgreatgreat etc grandparents being creatures that I could not relate to as humans

But quite possibly I'm viewing this in the wrong way, and not being objective.

Mitochondrial Eve isn't the first woman. She is simply the last common female ancestor of all living humans. There are no doubt extinct lineages of humans that predated or were never descended from Mitochondrial Eve. More here:
Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, right, I see - do you think then, that some people might say that Mitochondrial Eve could have been Noah's wife, if it is taken that all humanity was wiped off the face of the earth apart from them?

No one here minds answering even the simplest sounding questions, so long as they asked in earnest. I wish everyone were as genuine as you![

Thank you....I'm just trying to get my head round everything - not sure that I ever will, though.
Thing is, before I actually became a Christian, I didn't think evolution was right anyway..but never thought about it much.
Then, having become a Christian, it seemed to be an important issue, because of squaring or not squarin Genesis with the rest of the Bible.
In fact, I wonder if I might have had more difficulty in accepting Christ, had I actually believed that evolution were true.
Now, I honestly don't know what to think.
Fortunately, I came to know God, before these issues came up./quote].

 

[Mallon]

I just wish that, if it was meant to be mainly allgorical, to put over something spiritual, that it didn't come over so much as historical. It's not that I can't necessarily tell the difference between poetry, or metaphor etc, normally speaking - but the way it's put over in Genesis, really does come over to me as fact....of course, they probably say that that is an ancient literary device or something.

I think that, as Christians, we've been blinded by tradition and biased towards thinking Genesis 1 and 2 are historical accounts of the world's origin. But why? On the surface, the story is about a pair of people who were placed in a mystical garden with a talking snake and some trees with magical powers. Why are we so predisposed to thinking this is an historical account, whereas, say, Aesop's fables or Mother Goose's nursery rhymes are not? Are they really so different from one another on the surface? I don't think so. It's the lessons they contain that sets one apart from the others. The creation accounts are a polemic against the polytheism that was so rampant in the ancient Near East.

The other difficulty I have is that if evolution's true, then somewhere way back, the original "true human" had a parent or parents who were not truly human...that is to say - would the parents have been capable of communion with God - would they have a spirit? Also, way back before then, outr ancestors would presumably have been unrecognisably human in any way, and as I said in a thread in a different place, I'm not sure that I like the thought of having my greatgreatgreat etc grandparents being creatures that I could not relate to as humans

These are questions that science can't answer because science has no access to the spirit, and so it cannot say when the human spirit originated. It's a mystery. Is it any more of a mystery than, say, the origination of the spirit in a developing embryo? Does a human become infused with the spirit at zygote formation? Does the egg have 1/2 spirit, and the sperm the other 1/2? Are both gametes fully infused with the spirit? These questions are no less mysterious, and yet we've learned to live with them.
Ultimately, I would have to ask again: what does it matter? What matters is that we know that we are sinful, regardless of when the Fall might have occurred, and that we are in need of a saviour.

Ah, right, I see - do you think then, that some people might say that Mitochondrial Eve could have been Noah's wife, if it is taken that all humanity was wiped off the face of the earth apart from them?

I don't think I would go that far. For one, there is no evidence whatsoever that the human population was ever so bottlenecked by a global flood. For another, Noah's wife wasn't the only woman on the ark.

Thank you....I'm just trying to get my head round everything - not sure that I ever will, though.

Our relationship with God will always be an ongoing struggle. The important thing is that we rely on Him and on one another to help each other through it.

Thing is, before I actually became a Christian, I didn't think evolution was right anyway..but never thought about it much.

Most people don't.

Then, having become a Christian, it seemed to be an important issue, because of squaring or not squarin Genesis with the rest of the Bible.
In fact, I wonder if I might have had more difficulty in accepting Christ, had I actually believed that evolution were true.
Now, I honestly don't know what to think.
Fortunately, I came to know God, before these issues came up./quote].

Then praise Him that things have worked out the way they did!
If you're interested in learning more about evolution and Christian theology, you might try checking out some of the books recommended here:
An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution: Ten Books and what they mean for Evolutionary Creationism

 

[Mallon]

Tansy, this website just came out this week and I think you might find it interesting:
The BioLogos Foundation

 

[tansy]

Quite a lot of TEs believe in a literal Adam and Eve, I don't, not because of evolution but because of the biblical metaphors that seem to fill the story, God as a potter making people from clay, a serpent who is a beast of the field (albeit a talking one) in Genesis, but we are told in the book of Revelation actually is Satan. Basically you can take as much or little of the account literally as you feel comfortable and right with. I know Glenn Morton has a very literal take on the story, with God creating Adam from the dead body (eg 'dust') of an ape with a fatal fused chromosome Theory For Creationists

You get a lot of Old Earth Creationists who read Gen 1 as a day age description of the earth's 4.5 billions years, now while OECs traditionally reject evolution, there in nothing in the OEC day age interpretation that says God could not have used evolution. It is just an OEC tradition. The same goes with other variants like intermittent days, or analogical days. TEs tend to be more framework hypothesis or myth, but there is nothing about the theory of evolution that says you have to interpret Genesis that way

Incidentally the description of the flood in Genesis says nothing about it being global. You do need to realise that the word translated 'the earth' in the account ha'erets, is most commonly translated 'the land' in other parts of the bible, even the phrase 'the whole earth' is used in the description of the Exodus to refer to the whole land of (of Egypt) being covered with locusts. While we tend to read 'under the whole heaven' as 'spanning the whole globe, the phrase was used in the bible simply to mean from horizon to horizon. Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you. Does this mean the Maori, Incas and Aborigines would tremble in fear when they heard of Moses and the Israelites? Or did it mean the Edomites Moabites Amorites and Canaanites? Incidentally, nowhere in the Table of the Nations in Genesis 10, or anywhere else in the bible, does it suggest Maoris, Incas and Aborigines are descended from Noah.

Thank you for your reply. Now that is interesting about the translations of words....if ONLY one could read and understand the Bible in the original languages..it might help clear up a lot of misunderstandings. Even then, of course, I know it wouldnt be foolproof, as one also has to understand the culture etc etc. Look at the bit about camels going through the eye of a needle...I always thought that was a bit of a strange thing for Jesus to say - I had mental visions of someone trying to force a camel through that little tiny hole..boggled the mind. Then of course, I heard about the narrow gateways through the city walls, being termed eyes of needles, and it was apparently tricky to get laden camels through them. Suddenly it made perfect sense.

The trouble is, if ever I'm in a discussion with a non-believer about Christianity, and it ends up getting onto Genesis, I find myself floundering, saying well, soem Christians say this, and some say that...and finding I haven't got any solid basis on which to proceed. I really need to think of a way of approaching it, which does justice to the whole thing.
Th e thing is, I really think that Genesis is integral to the whole bible, and in particular, to the gospel. I need to know how to give cogent biblical answers (or pointers) at least, to agnostics who believe in evolution, and those who haven't really thought about it - but all without losing the integrity of Scripture, or maybe my own integrity.

I can't solemnly state that one or the other position is correct, if I am not sure myself....but then I find myself getting bogged down with difficulties in either camp, as it were.

 

[vossler]

The trouble is, if ever I'm in a discussion with a non-believer about Christianity, and it ends up getting onto Genesis, I find myself floundering, saying well, soem Christians say this, and some say that...and finding I haven't got any solid basis on which to proceed. I really need to think of a way of approaching it, which does justice to the whole thing.

This is very good!

The thing is, I really think that Genesis is integral to the whole bible, and in particular, to the gospel. I need to know how to give cogent biblical answers (or pointers) at least, to agnostics who believe in evolution, and those who haven't really thought about it - but all without losing the integrity of Scripture, or maybe my own integrity.

There's a lot of hope for you, I believe the Holy Spirit still has a chance to show you the truth. Trust Him and no one else to reveal the truth to you. You're post is very encouraging to read. Thanks!

 

[tansy]

This is very good!
There's a lot of hope for you, I believe the Holy Spirit still has a chance to show you the truth. Trust Him and no one else to reveal the truth to you. You're post is very encouraging to read. Thanks!

Thank you - well, I do keep asking God to show me the truth of it all, and how to approach it.

 

[gluadys]

Even then, of course, I know it wouldnt be foolproof, as one also has to understand the culture etc etc. Look at the bit about camels going through the eye of a needle...I always thought that was a bit of a strange thing for Jesus to say - I had mental visions of someone trying to force a camel through that little tiny hole..boggled the mind. Then of course, I heard about the narrow gateways through the city walls, being termed eyes of needles, and it was apparently tricky to get laden camels through them. Suddenly it made perfect sense.

Going a little off-topic (not really if we are talking of literal vs. non-literal interpretation), but I had to chuckle over this. Maybe it is because I was an English teacher, but I never had a problem with Jesus saying this. I think he meant for you to have mental visions of someone trying to force a camel through the eye of a sewing needle---and to find it very funny!

In literature class we call this type of saying "hyperbole"--a deliberate use of gross exaggeration for (usually humorous) effect. Jesus was a master of hyperbole. After all, he also spoke about logs getting stuck in your eye.

To me, it makes Jesus statement pointless if it is about narrow gates in walls. I've heard that story before, but I have never found anyone who could verify that city gates were actually given that name. To me it sounds too artificial, like a story made up centuries later by a sourpuss with no poetry in their soul.

I could be wrong of course. My real question is why people have such different reactions to these possibilities. You say you thought it was a strange thing for Jesus to say even before you heard about gates--and the gates made sense to you. But to me, it wasn't strange at all; it's a good, witty line and makes perfect sense as it reads. And because it always made sense to me as written, not only did I not look for another meaning, I found the gate meaning unattractive.

How do other people feel? What is it that makes people comfortable or uncomfortable with a hyperbolic image? Is it that we were raised differently--or are people's brains really wired differently?

 

[tansy]

Going a little off-topic (not really if we are talking of literal vs. non-literal interpretation), but I had to chuckle over this. Maybe it is because I was an English teacher, but I never had a problem with Jesus saying this. I think he meant for you to have mental visions of someone trying to force a camel through the eye of a sewing needle---and to find it very funny!

In literature class we call this type of saying "hyperbole"--a deliberate use of gross exaggeration for (usually humorous) effect. Jesus was a master of hyperbole. After all, he also spoke about logs getting stuck in your eye.

To me, it makes Jesus statement pointless if it is about narrow gates in walls. I've heard that story before, but I have never found anyone who could verify that city gates were actually given that name. To me it sounds too artificial, like a story made up centuries later by a sourpuss with no poetry in their soul.

I could be wrong of course. My real question is why people have such different reactions to these possibilities. You say you thought it was a strange thing for Jesus to say even before you heard about gates--and the gates made sense to you. But to me, it wasn't strange at all; it's a good, witty line and makes perfect sense as it reads. And because it always made sense to me as written, not only did I not look for another meaning, I found the gate meaning unattractive.

How do other people feel? What is it that makes people comfortable or uncomfortable with a hyperbolic image? Is it that we were raised differently--or are people's brains really wired differently?

Thats very interestibg what you've said there - I think it's just that people have diffeent seneses of humour...what one person finds funny, leaves another person cold.
Other people have said to me that they find stuff like the plank in the eye funny...but I've never seen it that way...I've just seen things like that as a clever and pointed statement that clearly conveys what Jesus meant.

That's not to say that I haven't found things in the Bible hilarious...it's often just not the same things that other people find funny. Maybe it's just the way different people's minds work. I've even nearly not been able to stop myself from laughing aloud at certain things in the Anglican liturgy, because something might conjure up certain pictures in my mind. The vicar eventually caught on to my sense of humour

 

[gluadys]

Thats very interestibg what you've said there - I think it's just that people have diffeent seneses of humour...what one person finds funny, leaves another person cold.
Other people have said to me that they find stuff like the plank in the eye funny...but I've never seen it that way...I've just seen things like that as a clever and pointed statement that clearly conveys what Jesus meant.

Yet you didn't find the camel through the needle's eye a clever and pointed statement that clearly conveys what Jesus meant. To me that is very curious.

Maybe it's just the way different people's minds work.

Yes, that is what I am interested in. Especially when it's not just a sense of humour, but something that has serious consequences.

 

[Assyrian]

Thank you for your reply. Now that is interesting about the translations of words....if ONLY one could read and understand the Bible in the original languages..it might help clear up a lot of misunderstandings.

If you are running windows 95 or higher then e-sword is a really useful resource, e-Sword - the Sword of the LORD with an electronic edge You can look up the Hebrew or Greek word uses in a verse with Strong's numbers and search for other occurrences of the word elsewhere in the bible. It comes with Hebrew and Greek dictionaries too. But as you say there is more to it than just the words used, there is grammar and as you point out, culture too. And words can have different meanings in different contexts. But it does help.

Even then, of course, I know it wouldnt be foolproof, as one also has to understand the culture etc etc. Look at the bit about camels going through the eye of a needle...I always thought that was a bit of a strange thing for Jesus to say - I had mental visions of someone trying to force a camel through that little tiny hole..boggled the mind. Then of course, I heard about the narrow gateways through the city walls, being termed eyes of needles, and it was apparently tricky to get laden camels through them. Suddenly it made perfect sense.

Personally I have to say I prefer the mind boggling version. Jesus had a wonderful way with words, bizarre at times, just think of trying to take a speck out of your brother's eye with a log sticking out of your own, or the Pharisees straining at gnats and swallowing a camel. (I see glaudys got there ahead of me )

The trouble is, if ever I'm in a discussion with a non-believer about Christianity, and it ends up getting onto Genesis, I find myself floundering, saying well, soem Christians say this, and some say that...and finding I haven't got any solid basis on which to proceed. I really need to think of a way of approaching it, which does justice to the whole thing.

Did you catch the program on BBC recently 'Did Darwin Kill God?' It gives a really good overview of the history of interpretation of Genesis in the church and the relationship between Christianity and science down through the ages. You can still catch it on YouTube YouTube - Did Darwin Kill God? (1 of 6) It is in six 10min clips.

I think it is worth pointing out that while you do get people who take Genesis literally, long before modern geology and evolution you have really important scripture scholars and theologians like Origen, Augustine Anslem and Aquinas who realised from the text of Genesis itself that the account was not meant to be taken literally. Even in the bible itself, the days of Genesis are not taken literally, look at Psalm 90 or Hebrew 3&4.

Th e thing is, I really think that Genesis is integral to the whole bible, and in particular, to the gospel. I need to know how to give cogent biblical answers (or pointers) at least, to agnostics who believe in evolution, and those who haven't really thought about it - but all without losing the integrity of Scripture, or maybe my own integrity.

This is more a question of Gen 2&3 rather than Gen 1 and as I have said a lot of TEs believe in a historical Adam, and nothing in the account of the fall in Gen 3 depends on the description of Adam's creation in Gen 2 being literal. Adam does not even have to be the first human being or have all human race descended from him. A lot of people see Adam as 'federal head' of the human race, and that this was why his fall affected us all. That and the fact we all sinned too. The relationship does not have to be biological.

But personally, I don't think the issue is with the biblical descriptions of the gospel, but rather traditional attempts to construct a systematic theology dating back to Augustine, which explained the gospel in terms of redemption from an 'Original Sin' passed down through the human race from Adam. But the bible never talks of Original Sin, it says Jesus redeemed us from our own sins, not Adam's. Nor does the bible blame our sinful natures on the fall of Adam. It is all theological speculation. But that is me. Like I said, there are plenty of TEs who have not problem with a literal historical Adam and Eve who committed the first ever sin and messed things up for the whole human race.

I can't solemnly state that one or the other position is correct, if I am not sure myself....but then I find myself getting bogged down with difficulties in either camp, as it were.

Who ever said following Jesus was easy Well Jesus I suppose, the bit about come to me all who are weary and heavily laden ((Amen Lord) Sorry a bit of a digression there, I needed that.) But it isn't easy being a disciple, scripture is not easy to understand and we only see through a glass darkly. But whatever the theological difficulties being a YEC or a TE, the fact is the earth is billions of years old and life on earth has evolved. There is no point in hanging on to an interpretation of scripture that is simply wrong. We learned that centuries ago when science showed us the earth went round the sun and the traditional geocentric interpretations, however simpler exegetically, were wrong. If the interpretation is wrong, the only thing you can do is find a better one.

 

[tansy]

Yet you didn't find the camel through the needle's eye a clever and pointed statement that clearly conveys what Jesus meant. To me that is very curious.

No, I didn't mean that....I just meant I didn't see any humour in it.



Yes, that is what I am interested in. Especially when it's not just a sense of humour, but something that has serious consequences

Yes, of course...if something has serious consequences, then it does matter how people understand or per ceive things


.

.

 

[tansy]

If you are running windows 95 or higher then e-sword is a really useful resource, e-Sword - the Sword of the LORD with an electronic edge You can look up the Hebrew or Greek word uses in a verse with Strong's numbers and search for other occurrences of the word elsewhere in the bible. It comes with Hebrew and Greek dictionaries too. But as you say there is more to it than just the words used, there is grammar and as you point out, culture too. And words can have different meanings in different contexts. But it does help.

Sorry, this computer's playing up...having difficulty in doing the quote thingy, therefore am replying in colour.
Thanks for that link, looks like it would be really useful.
It's interesting, brcuse sometimes I 've perceived a certin meaning from a bit of scripture which a lot of people have understood differently, and then I've read somewhere, that actually it can be translated a bit differently..and the alternative translation has matched up with what I have perceived as the spirit of the scripture. (Mind you, someitmes it works the other way...it's me who has not understood it)



Personally I have to say I prefer the mind boggling version. Jesus had a wonderful way with words, bizarre at times, just think of trying to take a speck out of your brother's eye with a log sticking out of your own, or the Pharisees straining at gnats and swallowing a camel. (I see glaudys got there ahead of me )

I agree with you as regards Jesus's way with words...howver, I'm afraid I've never seen any humour in them, like other people do, but maybeif one had ben there, when He delivered those words, then his manner of delivery woulod have conveyed humour. He always comes over as very dead-pan to me when his words are recorded...but that's of course, because scripture doesnt say (usually) that he said something cheekily, or laughingly or whatever, as a novel might.

Did you catch the program on BBC recently 'Did Darwin Kill God?' It gives a really good overview of the history of interpretation of Genesis in the church and the relationship between Christianity and science down through the ages. You can still catch it on YouTube YouTube - Did Darwin Kill God? (1 of 6) It is in six 10min clips.

No, I didnt see that - thanks for the link...I'll have to watch it

I think it is worth pointing out that while you do get people who take Genesis literally, long before modern geology and evolution you have really important scripture scholars and theologians like Origen, Augustine Anslem and Aquinas who realised from the text of Genesis itself that the account was not meant to be taken literally. Even in the bible itself, the days of Genesis are not taken literally, look at Psalm 90 or Hebrew 3&4.

That's interesting, I didnt know that..but then I havent studied those people....I really ought to read some of their stuff.

This is more a question of Gen 2&3 rather than Gen 1 and as I have said a lot of TEs believe in a historical Adam, and nothing in the account of the fall in Gen 3 depends on the description of Adam's creation in Gen 2 being literal. Adam does not even have to be the first human being or have all human race descended from him. A lot of people see Adam as 'federal head' of the human race, and that this was why his fall affected us all. That and the fact we all sinned too. The relationship does not have to be biological.

I see what you're saying, but (and i cant remember the scripture exactly), doesnt it say somewhere, that as in one man (Adam) all have sinned, in one man (the last Adam), so all have been redeemed? Which SEEMS to imply that sin started off with one man, and we have inherited that tendency....but I'm sure that's open to interpretation.

But personally, I don't think the issue is with the biblical descriptions of the gospel, but rather traditional attempts to construct a systematic theology dating back to Augustine, which explained the gospel in terms of redemption from an 'Original Sin' passed down through the human race from Adam. But the bible never talks of Original Sin, it says Jesus redeemed us from our own sins, not Adam's. Nor does the bible blame our sinful natures on the fall of Adam. It is all theological speculation. But that is me. Like I said, there are plenty of TEs who have not problem with a literal historical Adam and Eve who committed the first ever sin and messed things up for the whole human race.

Oops, my above comment was meant to relate to this bit

Who ever said following Jesus was easy Well Jesus I suppose, the bit about come to me all who are weary and heavily laden ((Amen Lord) Sorry a bit of a digression there, I needed that.) But it isn't easy being a disciple, scripture is not easy to understand and we only see through a glass darkly. But whatever the theological difficulties being a YEC or a TE, the fact is the earth is billions of years old and life on earth has evolved. There is no point in hanging on to an interpretation of scripture that is simply wrong. We learned that centuries ago when science showed us the earth went round the sun and the traditional geocentric interpretations, however simpler exegetically, were wrong. If the interpretation is wrong, the only thing you can do is find a better one.

And this is the difficulty of course...to find a true interpretation (not necessarily word for word, and coves all bases, but one that doesn't take away from God's message or truth)

 

[Chesterton]

To me, it makes Jesus statement pointless if it is about narrow gates in walls. I've heard that story before, but I have never found anyone who could verify that city gates were actually given that name. To me it sounds too artificial, like a story made up centuries later by a sourpuss with no poetry in their soul.

I agree. Besides it kind of raises two questions:

1) Weren't the city planners expecting they'd get deliveries of cargo? Wouldn't the gates have been built large enough?

2) Isn't the meaning ultimately pretty much the same - if you have cargo and have to unload it, you'd have been better not having it to begin with. Travel light through this life.

 

[Assyrian]

And this is the difficulty of course...to find a true interpretation (not necessarily word for word, and coves all bases, but one that doesn't take away from God's message or truth)

I think there are two factors at work here, there are our own human limitations, the fact that God's ways are far higher than ours, his thoughts higher than our thoughts, and until we meet him face to face, though we learn his way, until we meet him face to face we will always see through a glass darkly. On the other hand we have the Spirit of God, and his Word is living and active. I have heard too many sermons where the speaker messes up the the exegesis of the text or massacres the Greek, yet speaks the wisdom and grace of God right into my heart. God's word is bigger than our mistakes. I have heard creationists preaching form Genesis and as long as they are preaching scripture rather than creation science I have been blessed. God's word cuts deeper than our misunderstandings.

 

[mindlight]

People seem to keep saying things like Creationists can only reject evolution because they see the genesis account as being literal. Conversely, theistic evolutionists accept evolution, because they see Genesis as being mythical or non-literal.

But can't there be an inbetween position? (not that I myself can figure any of it out properly)

What if Genesis was literal in a broad sense, or in some specifics, but used analogies or metaphors in other ways?

For example (and I'm certainly not saying this is a correct interpretation...I can't be dogmatic about any of it)...it says that God place A an E in the Garden of Eden and they could eat from any of the trees, apart from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Well, what if all the trees were literal APART from the Tree of the Knoledge of G and E?
What about the Tree of Life? Was that literal?
Also, people say, well of course a snake can't talk...but then, neither can a donkey, and yet a donkey speaks later on in the Bible..to Balaam, if I remember correctly? Now, I believe that the incident with Balaam and the donkey was an actual literal happening....EXCEPT that I suspect that the donkey didn't actually use his vocal chords to speak...I suspect that God somehow spoke through him (aloud). So, I think t's entirely possible, that Satan could have used a serpent in the same way..not that the serpent actually started chatting away, withou t a muth designed to speak.

Not that any of this proves or disproves evolution...but I do wonder if we keep getting hung up on EITHER an absolute literal interpretatio n of Genesis, OR an entirely mythical or allegorical interpretation.

And really, I suspect the whole truth does not lie in either of those positions. I really think there's an awful lot more behind Genesis than meets the eye, which none of us has knowledge of...it only gives us a basic framework.

Or one could reject macroevolution as being an unprovable hypothesis about things that only God can know about. The evidence is degraded, incomplete and misread. Highly gifted professional scientists apply advanced techniques in a guessing game which carries no more than the authority of speculation.

Regarding Genesis those closest to the original languages and time quite definitely interpreted it as a literal account. The only reason we really question is that the rise of modern scientific theories relating to the age of the Earth and the processes by which life developed into its present state.

The flood account described a global flood which wiped all but Noah and his family and the subsequent table of the nations refers to these ancestors as the progenitors of the nations that spread across the world.

Also there is a level of dishonesty in many TEs in their reading of the Genesis 1 to 10 chapters. They will accept a literal truth like God created everything , that he created out of nothing but not that he did it in 6 days or that there was an historical Adam and Eve from whom all mankind are descended.

Having said all the above there is poetry interwoven with facts in this account. I find the straight forward interpretation of something is usually the safest however. If on judgment day God turns round and says hey I was only joking in Genesis then I am going to need to rethink my entire sense of humour methinks.