Reading/Interpreting Scripture Literally?

[Bella Vita]

Not sure if this was in response to me or not?

Just for the record, I DO believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible. However, I will still not go so far as to say that it is ALL the Word of God. Inspired maybe, but the bible itself says Jesus is the word of God. There are even times that Paul says ''what I am about to share is my opinion''.

So he's saying this is my 'opinion'. But according to the bible is the infallible word of God people, that because this 'thought' is included in scripture, it is the word of God. Should we place Paul's opinion on the same level as Jesus' commands? Which would you follow?

Yes, let's be hot or cold. But the problem with the church world today is lukewarmness. Hot and Cold has nothing to do with believe the bible is the infallible word of God, but everything to do with OBEYING the word of God - Jesus.

Oz, I noted you didn't respond to the other thread. Again, and maybe others can answer this question too....if you had to a limited amount of words from the bible which words would they be and why?

So, how do people feel about obeying the TEACHINGS of Jesus literally?

Ok but even when Paul is speaking it is God speaking through him to give us the information he was suppose to give. Now one way we know this is because we can look at the books that didn't make the Bible they weren't chosen because they were men speaking not men being spoken through by God. Paul actually wrote 1 more letter to the Corinthians but it didn't make the Bible because it was probably just Paul speaking not God speaking through him so not important. This is how we know everything in the Bible is God breathed and the word of God because if it wasn't then all the books and letters would have made it in and they didn't. And if you believe that God does everything for a reason everything is in his plan then he formed the Bible if it wasn't put in it's because God didn't want it in. And just because the rest of the church world is lukewarm why don't we change that we don't have to follow suit if you know it's wrong change it. It has everything to do with belief in the Bible being the word of God. People are less likely to do what they are asked by God when they feel the very words asking them to do it aren't really the words of God.

I feel fine about following the teachings of Jesus literally he is the role model we should strive to be. After all the whole idea behind being a Christian is to strive to be "Christ-like" how can we do that if we don't follow his teachings?

 

[ciel_perdu]

Ok but even when Paul is speaking it is God speaking through him to give us the information he was suppose to give. Now one way we know this is because we can look at the books that didn't make the Bible they weren't chosen because they were men speaking not men being spoken through by God. Paul actually wrote 1 more letter to the Corinthians but it didn't make the Bible because it was probably just Paul speaking not God speaking through him so not important. This is how we know everything in the Bible is God breathed and the word of God because if it wasn't then all the books and letters would have made it in and they didn't. And if you believe that God does everything for a reason everything is in his plan then he formed the Bible if it wasn't put in it's because God didn't want it in. And just because the rest of the church world is lukewarm why don't we change that we don't have to follow suit if you know it's wrong change it. It has everything to do with belief in the Bible being the word of God. People are less likely to do what they are asked by God when they feel the very words asking them to do it aren't really the words of God.

I feel fine about following the teachings of Jesus literally he is the role model we should strive to be. After all the whole idea behind being a Christian is to strive to be "Christ-like" how can we do that if we don't follow his teachings?

Hi Bella Vita,

I'm trying to understand your position. It seems you think that because certain books are in the bible and certain books are not in the bible, that that means the former are God breathed and the latter not so. I can't find this position supported in scripture. The closest we get is ''all scripture is inspired and profitable for edifying''. But those other books...weren't they scripture too? And by scripture are we just talking Torah, NT, or even the Qu'ran and the Gita?

Is it possible that other writings are inspired by God that are not in the Bible?


Again, for the record, I believe scripture is inspired, but I believe that Jesus and his words are the perfect word of God. Other words are by fallible men who were inspired (inspired does not mean perfect) by God.

 

[dcyates]

dc,

You seem to be using some historical critical assumptions here. Could you please share with us what they are?

Oz

Sure.
Assuming that our definition of historical-criticism is the same, many of the creation stories of ancient Near Eastern (ANE) mythology consist of a creating deity (or deities) battling against a god (but more usually a goddess) of chaos, which frequently takes the form of a body of water. In ANE studies this has come to be referred to as the chaoskampf motif, and is one which we also find in Scripture. It is alluded to in Genesis 1.1-2, where we are informed that, "At the beginning," when God was creating the cosmos, "the earth was tohu va-vohu," or "formless and empty." The term "formless" is meant to communicate the lack of order, or chaos. This compound phrase appears again in Jeremiah's prophetic vision of the return of the primal chaos, found in Jeremiah 4.23-27, where we should note also the reference to there being "no light," or otherwise, darkness, thus leaving little doubt that the phrase designates the initial chaotic state of the earth.
The chaoskampf motif is then further developed as we are told that there was also a "darkness over the deep." Darkness throughout the Bible is often a symbol of evil, misfortune, death, and oblivion. Here it seems not to be simply an absence of light but a distinct entity (cf. Isaiah 45.7). As well, tehom, "the deep" is the cosmic abyssal water that enveloped the earth. It is instructive that tehom is treated as a Hebrew proper name. Although not feminine in grammatical form, it is often employed with a feminine verb or adjective, and is at times personified. For example, in Genesis 49.25 and Deuteronomy 33.13, it "couches below," and in Habakkuk 3.10, "Loud roars the deep" in panic at the wrathful approach of God. Lastly, tehom appears in Isaiah 51.9-10 in a mythic context. All this suggests that tehom may once have been the name of a mythical being much like the Mesopotamian 'Tiamat', the female dragonesque personification of the primordial salt-water ocean, representing the aggressive forces of primitive chaos that contended against Marduk, the Babylonian god of creativity. (Although it should be noted that here in Genesis, tehom is thoroughly demythologized and likely deliberately so, for the creation account of Genesis is not really meant to supply us with a historical – much less scientific – account of what happened, but rather, to my way of thinking, to combat the prevalent pagan beliefs of the time.) Additionally, we are told that "the mighty wind/Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters," as the Hebrew word for 'spirit', ruach, also means 'wind' or 'breath'.
Some may see the ostensible connection between the Mesopotamian creation myth and that of Genesis as tenuous at best. But allow me to turn our attention toward, and thus to examine, the creation myths of that other empire, within which Israel spent four centuries in exile.
It will be noticed that in Isaiah 51.9-10 the watery chaos-monster God battles and defeats is referred to as Rahab and that there are distinct allusions to the exodus from Egypt. In other texts such as Isaiah 30.7, along with Psalm 89.9-10 and Job 26.12-13, we again find references to God's mastery over the waters in connection with his defeat of Egypt (Egypt also being, in some regard, synonymous with 'Rahab', which means 'prideful' or 'haughty one').
Unlike the Mesopotamians who believed in numerous creator gods, the Egyptians held only one deity responsible for the universe, which is interestingly referred to as "heaven and earth." The act of creation, on the stela of Ptah and Sekhmet, is accomplished via lordly speech where Ptah's tongue commands what his mind thinks – “One says in his mind (lit. 'heart') 'Behold, may they come into being'" – with no mention of any pre-existent material being used (cf. Ps. 33.6). Ptah not only creates everything, but he also constitutes the primeval waters that begat the lesser god Atum. This idea of creation by decree is also found in a Coffin text, where life is created "according to the word of Nun in Nu..." and Atum creates animal life through his command. One notes that Genesis 1 is thoroughly permeated with the idea of YHWH speaking creation into being.
In Egyptian myths creation emerges from the deep, the darkness, the formlessness and emptiness, and the wind. The Coffin texts mention the Hermopolitan Ogdoad (also known as the Octead) who are eight primordial beings – four cosmic forces and their consorts with the four males being toads and the four females being snakes – who inhabited the primeval slime from which the rest of creation proceeds. Nun is the formless deep, Keku is darkness, Amun is breath (wind), and Hehu is some kind of illimitable chaos. These arise from Ptah, and out of them emerges the sun. Interestingly, the biblical record begins with God and then speaks of a formlessness and emptiness, a deep, a darkness, and a hovering wind.
In terms of the order of creation, the god Re first creates light out of darkness, and only after this is created the sun-god. This resembles Genesis 1 where God creates light prior to his creation of the sun. Separation is also a key element with Ptah separating earth and sky, and Atum separating Geb (earth-god) from Nut (sky-goddess). In the Hermopolitan story the primordial hills – later symbolized by the pyramids – become the firmament which divides the upper from the lower waters. Given that the biblical idea of the "firmament" has connotations of beaten metal, it is noteworthy that another Egyptian tradition describes the resurrected king as taking possession of the sky and then splitting or separating its metal.
Suffice to say, there are many more parallels and I could go on and on. In each of the biblical texts cited above we not only find God battling a watery chaos-monster, but this is mentioned while at the same time recalling Israel's exodus experience as well. Why? Because Israel had witnessed YHWH uncreate Egypt, reverting the greatest, most orderly empire at the time to a state of chaos via the ten plagues, and thus effectively overturning the rule of Pharaoh, who was supposed to be the son of Amon-Re. And then at the Reed Sea (Exod 14.19-31) they had witnessed YHWH cause light to shine in the darkness and a divine wind to drive back the deep of the Yam-Suph (a sea that the Egyptians also regarded as being at the end of the world and which also constituted the abode of Apophis the chaos serpent), so that the waters are separated so as to reveal dry land.
My overall point is that I think it is primarily to Egyptian – and then only to a lesser extent, to other ANE – creation myths, as well as to themes surrounding the exodus event, that we need to look to in order to most accurately understand both the content and the purpose of the biblical creation account found in Genesis.

 

[dcyates]

Thanks for all the responses. I only have time to respond to a few things at the moment.

"I have a question for you - why are you reading the Bible?"
I'm reading the Bible to become stronger in my faith and become closer with God.

I suppose I expected the Bible to be completely truthful in its "historical" claims, and the fact that I don't think they are is disturbing me I guess. What prevents us from viewing the Bible as simply a collection of myths with good lessons behind them?

Even when it comes to the Gospels, there are a number of contradictions between them. If we were to take them literally, we realize they cannot each have been completely accurate.

May I ask what you mean by "contradictions"? With all due respect, I've been studying the Bible on virtually a daily basis for my entire adult life (yikes! working that out means that that amounts to nearly 30 years now!), and I don't know of any out-and-out contradictions in the Gospels. I know of many discrepancies, but these are not at all the same as contradictions. A contradiction, as I understand the term, would be where one Gospel would quote Jesus as saying, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," whereas another Gospel would testify, "Jesus never, ever, said at anytime or anywhere, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life'." Or where one Gospel would tell us that Jesus healed the sick and cast out demons, but another Gospel told us that Jesus never, ever healed the sick or cast out demons. Those are contradictions.
But, for example, on the morning of Jesus' resurrection, when the women go his tomb, and one Gospel tells us that they saw two angels at the tomb, and another mentions only one, that constitutes a discrepancy, not a contradiction. There is a huge difference.
For instance, I may be walking down the street and run into two friends and we each stop and talk with each other for a while. Later, I'm talking with someone who knows both of those friends with whom I talked, and so I share my impromptu encounter with him, mentioning both of them. However, I later talk with a friend who knows only one of them, and so with this friend I mention only one of them, not bothering to mention the other, since she doesn't know that person anyway.
I've thus told two different stories of that single event, with the discrepancy being that in one of them I mention both friends with whom I met, and in the other I mention only one. This is a legitimate discrepancy, but it doesn't nullify the historical accuracy of either version of the story, whereas a contradiction would.

Realistically, the Gospels are a collection of Jesus' actions, sayings, and teachings that were either from a written source used by the authors, or transmitted through oral means. The problem is that through oral tradition and the authors' own theological views/composition, they may or may not be the whole truth. Thus, if even these more recent writings in the Bible are not completely free of errors, how can I assume the rest of the Bible, far more ancient and sometimes unknown in origin, is "historical?" My conclusion is that the writings aren't necessarily historical, although that leaves me confused on how to interpret seemingly historical narratives.

I hope I've sufficiently addressed these concerns above. If not, please let me know with, perhaps, a specific example of the issue to which you're referring? If it does constitute an actual contradiction, I honestly want to know about it.

 

[OzSpen]

dcyates,

I asked for your assumptions (presuppositions) and not for a detailed explanation. Your presupposition is that God's Word of Scripture in the creation account of Genesis 1-2 is parallel to pagan mythologies of Egypt and/or of the ancient Near East.

So, is your presupposition that the biblical account of creation is not God-breathed Scripture but a human document similar to Egyptian and ancient near-eastern mythical stories?

Thanks, Oz

 

[dcyates]

dcyates,

I asked for your assumptions (presuppositions) and not for a detailed explanation.

Sorry. I was merely anticipating the follow-up questions.

Your presupposition is that God's Word of Scripture in the creation account of Genesis 1-2 is parallel to pagan mythologies of Egypt and/or of the ancient Near East.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, no, not parallel, but simply consistent with ANE cosmology. For example, the people of the ancient world reasoned that since a presumably limitless supply of water fell from the sky, there must be a huge reservoir of water up there, hence the separation of the waters above from the waters below. But since this water doesn't fall all the time, there must be something solid keeping it up there, hence the "firmament." Since the sky looks like a dome, they reasoned that this firmament separating the waters above from the waters below to be a large concave, solid dome. But since water falls down in the various forms of rain, snow, and sleet, there were likely three "storehouses" of each up there, with "sluices" that the gods (or in the case of Israel, God) opened and closed at their discretion. We find all of this in the Bible, as well.

So, is your presupposition that the biblical account of creation is not God-breathed Scripture but a human document similar to Egyptian and ancient near-eastern mythical stories?

Thanks, Oz

I very much believe the Bible, including the creation account of Genesis 1&2, to be God's inspired revelation. But it must be noted and appreciated that God spoke to a particular people, using their own particular language, who lived at a particular time, within a particular culture, with its own particular worldview. In other words -- as I've heard other people put it -- while God's word may have been written for us, it wasn't written to us. Therefore, in order to properly and most accurately understand any given text within Scripture, we first have to do all we can to understand it as it would have been most readily understood by those to whom it was written.
Re: Genesis 1&2, near as we can tell, the creation myths of the ANE were not strictly speaking what we regard as stories dealing with material origins, but rather were predominantly dealing with function. For instance, the Babylonian Enuma Elish (that I mention in my previous post concerning Marduk and Tiamat, etc.) wasn't a 'creation story' per se, but instead what is called an aetiological myth meant to establish why the Babylonians were to worship Marduk over and above all other gods. We find all the other ANE 'creation' myths are much the same: i.e. not intended to explain material origins, but rather to justify existing social structures and worship practices.
For example, why are we as a society to work six days and to rest on the seventh? Because that's what God did when creating the cosmos.
Or, are we to worship the sun and the moon as deities, as the Egyptians so prominantly did (in the forms of the sun gods, Re, Horus, or Aten, and the moon goddess, Mut, or moon gods, Thoth, Khonshu, or Yah)? No, when he created the sun and moon, God didn't even see fit to give them names; he simply called the sun 'the greater light' and the moon 'the lesser light'.
And so on and so forth.

 

[OzSpen]

dc,

For example, why are we as a society to work six days and to rest on the seventh? Because that's what God did when creating the cosmos.

But didn't you say that you do not take the Genesis 1-2 account of creation literally?

In Luke 13:14 we have an example of Jesus healing a person on the Sabbath and the ruler of the synagogue, knowing the law of Moses, said that there are 6 days to work and one to rest (the Sabbath). These were literal days.

This was based on the teaching of the 10 commandments in Exodus 20: 8-10. Here in Ex. 20, the 6 literal days of work are based on the parallel with the 6 literal days of creation.

But you don't accept that view. Is that correct? Why not?

Sincerely, Oz

 

[dcyates]

dc,

But didn't you say that you do not take the Genesis 1-2 account of creation literally?

In Luke 13:14 we have an example of Jesus healing a person on the Sabbath and the ruler of the synagogue, knowing the law of Moses, said that there are 6 days to work and one to rest (the Sabbath). These were literal days.

This was based on the teaching of the 10 commandments in Exodus 20: 8-10. Here in Ex. 20, the 6 literal days of work are based on the parallel with the 6 literal days of creation.

But you don't accept that view. Is that correct? Why not?

Sincerely, Oz

I do accept that the days as outlined in Genesis 1 are to be understood as 'literal' 24-hour days. Otherwise, it's kind of hard to get around the repetition of the "there was evening, there was morning, one day," "... second day," "... third day," etc. (How anyone can derive some so-called "day-age" theory without taking that into account, I have no idea!)
But are we to then understand that God created the universe in six , 24-hour days?
No, I don't believe so. As I say in my previous post, this is intended as an aetiological story, meant to teach us -- and thereby give credence to -- the uniquely Hebrew social convention of working six days and resting on the seventh.

 

[OzSpen]

I do accept that the days as outlined in Genesis 1 are to be understood as 'literal' 24-hour days. Otherwise, it's kind of hard to get around the repetition of the "there was evening, there was morning, one day," "... second day," "... third day," etc. (How anyone can derive some so-called "day-age" theory without taking that into account, I have no idea!)
But are we to then understand that God created the universe in six , 24-hour days?
No, I don't believe so. As I say in my previous post, this is intended as an aetiological story, meant to teach us -- and thereby give credence to -- the uniquely Hebrew social convention of working six days and resting on the seventh.

I hope that I get you. You seem to be saying that God created literal 24-hour days in Gen 1 & 2, but that when God himself did it, he did not take a day to create day one, a day to create day 2, etc. Is that what you are saying?

What I find confusing in your approach is what you have stated above and what you said in an earlier post:

Nor should you take the creation account as rehearsed in Genesis 1&2 as literal. The genre simply doesn't allow it. While, strictly speaking, it is not classical Hebrew poetry, it is definitely poetical in its language. (As I've told my students, Genesis 1&2 may not read like the Psalms, but it certainly doesn't read like 1&2 Samuel, either.)

So, are Gen 1 & 2 historical? Did these events actually happen in historical time and space?

Oz

 

[heterodoxical]

Capybara,

Don't join either camp, literal or not literal. Be yourself. Find what makes the most sense and don't vie for approval from anyone.

I don't know if God did create the world in 6 days or not. Furthermore it really doesn't matter. I don't care if there was a global flood or not, it really doesn't matter.

They both could be allegory, or literal. I really don't care.

What is important is that I've offended God in my life.
That I must know that and acknowledge it.
That I must then apologize for that.
That I must then begin to struggle with living better.
That I must learn to surrender the ME ME ME aspect of my nature to HIM and His nature of servant to others. Agapao/love.

The message of the Bible in that respect is unchanging.

Let me show you something of these two sides of the argument.

Those that say take the bible literally, will steadfastly claim they are filled with the indwelling spirit, and will never be perfect because they have a sinful nature.
Romans 8:9 literally concludes if you are filled by the Spirit you are no longer in the flesh.

Matthew 5:48 says be perfect like the father is perfect.
They would argue that it means to STRIVE, a word not there in Hebrew, Aramaic, Context, nor suggestion. It's delivered as a direct command. I call it the "Holy Red Herring" because the people that conveniently change it to suit themselves, instead of changing self to suit scripture make it a command, "impossible to achieve" from God. Thus the Holy Red Herring.

If you show a bible literalist, 1 john 3:6 they get angry after a bit. It literally says, if you still sin, you don't know Him and haven't seen Him. YET they claim he's their Father and they are adopted into His house.

1 john 3:9 literally says if you are born of God, then you will not continue to sin, in fact you can not sin. It is a HARD and DEFINITE negative to sinning.
They will claim no one is perfect like Jesus was.

And Ephesians 4:10-17 says that through application of His Word, you will grow up to be as literally mature as Jesus was.

Literalists are as all over the map on verses as the Liberals are.

See if you can't find a way to reconcile what you read with what we know.

For example "NEW EARTH" believers. God could have created the world with Age already in it. In other words, create it with fossils of dinosaurs in it. He's God, right? He could have. Who knows.

For me, I find that God could create the cosmos, the timing in the OT is non scientific/precise but in a general sense, but giving the steps or the order of the creation...

Consider this, the author of the OT would measure a day from sunset to sunset. The "passing" of the sun would have affected things. How about in Genesis, where the sun wasn't created til the 4th day, or 3rd day, whatever.... How long were those "days".

See, there are legitimate questions for both ways. If you'd like to discuss things, shoot me a note.

 

[heterodoxical]

I hope that I get you. You seem to be saying that God created literal 24-hour days in Gen 1 & 2, but that when God himself did it, he did not take a day to create day one, a day to create day 2, etc. Is that what you are saying?

What I find confusing in your approach is what you have stated above and what you said in an earlier post:

So, are Gen 1 & 2 historical? Did these events actually happen in historical time and space?

Oz

Does it matter? We have to speak of GOD in anthropomorphisms anyway. So when people take the anthropomorphisms literally, can't you see an issue from that?

The parable of the two men eating meat, the one with the more faith, was the one violating the law and eating meat. His faith gave him more liberty. :0

The one with lesser faith was the one keeping to the law.

Whichever camp you fall into, they were not to razz each other over it.

This conversation, past resolution to the question for the OP is against scripture, creates divisions and factions, and thus is of the flesh, not spirit gal 5:19-21

 

[wayseer]

Thanks for all the responses. I only have time to respond to a few things at the moment.

"I have a question for you - why are you reading the Bible?"
I'm reading the Bible to become stronger in my faith and become closer with God.

I suppose I expected the Bible to be completely truthful in its "historical" claims, and the fact that I don't think they are is disturbing me I guess. What prevents us from viewing the Bible as simply a collection of myths with good lessons behind them?

I guess the answer to that question lies in your 'expectation' of what the Bible should be.

Even when it comes to the Gospels, there are a number of contradictions between them. If we were to take them literally, we realize they cannot each have been completely accurate. Realistically, the Gospels are a collection of Jesus' actions, sayings, and teachings that were either from a written source used by the authors, or transmitted through oral means. The problem is that through oral tradition and the authors' own theological views/composition, they may or may not be the whole truth. Thus, if even these more recent writings in the Bible are not completely free of errors, how can I assume the rest of the Bible, far more ancient and sometimes unknown in origin, is "historical?" My conclusion is that the writings aren't necessarily historical, although that leaves me confused on how to interpret seemingly historical narratives.

Again, you are placing on the biblical texts your own expectations of what those texts should be.

So let me try for some sort of explanation.

The Bible is a collection of texts, a library really, written by different people at different times, addressing different questions for different audiences. Consequently, you cannot use the Bible as a seamless text.

The salient point is that despite all those 'differences' there is one golden thread linking all the texts - God's revelation to humanity. In this respect, the Bible is a finger point at God - which is somewhat audacious but humanity has given it a try. In other words, imperfect as we are, we have elected to make some sense of our relationship to something, God, who is all but unknowable to begin with with.

So be kind on yourself and be kind on the Bible. Do not place unrealistic expectations on something that is scrambling at best to articulate the Cloud of Unknowing.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

II suggest you look up NT Wright on youtube...he has a lot of insight on how to read ancient texts.

 

[heterodoxical]

The Bible is not a step by step directions document. Expecting of to be is ssilly. I have answered all the objections with atheist friends, and frankly they never tried to reconcile them, so its a waste of time.

If you follow your own logic here, and apply of to another scenario, it gets enterfaing.
4 men set on 4 different street corners. A lawyer a doctor, a musician, and a pastor. They all wiwitness the same collision iin the middle of the iintersection. They give their statements. Each one is different. So therefore there was no wreck. ;-)

 

[dcyates]

For me, I find that God could create the cosmos, the timing in the OT is non scientific/precise but in a general sense, but giving the steps or the order of the creation...

Hmm, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, heterodoxical, but nevertheless, it allows me the chance to again point out how important it is to do all we can to first identify and understand the literary genre in which a text -- any text -- is written, in order to properly interpret it.
In the ancient world, an author would most often -- even if sometimes sort of artfully -- introduce the main themes, or reasons for, their writing of... whatever it was they were writing... in the first few sentences of their work. (Examples of this are readily discerned in Paul's epistles. Or rather SHOULD be discerned within Paul's letters.)
Their purpose for this should be just as easy to understand. They were, after all, dealing with scrolls, not books, and scrolls could be terribly unwieldy. (Books as we understand them were actually a Christian invention.) Thus, they would introduce their purpose for their writing in the first few sentences in order to act as a sort of prototypical 'Table of Contents', so their intended readers would then know what to expect in the main body of the writing.
Given all that, notice what is said in the very first sentence of Genesis: "In the beginning of God's creating of the heaven and the earth, the earth was formless and empty." How is this then soon followed? We're told that God spent the first three days bringing order to the heaven and the earth, and then the second three days filling the heaven and the earth. And each day's activity in the first three days corresponds to the activity of the second three days.
So on the first day, God creates light and separates the light from the darkness. On the fourth day he creates the sun, moon, and stars. On the second day, God separates the waters above from the waters below, thus creating the sky and the seas. On the fifth day, he creates bird fowl and sea creatures. And on the third day, God separates the waters below and establishes their boundaries so that dry land appears. (And then he also brought forth plant life, which is, to the ancient Hebrew mind, the lowest form of life.) On the sixth day, God then creates land animals and humanity (which is the highest form of life).
But are we to interpret all this as a historical, chronological record of the order of creation? No, not at all. It's meant to introduce us to the one, true creator God who brings order and life, and all things necessary to sustain life. (It also tells us many other things, of course, but naturally I'm not writing a full-fledged, exegetical commentary here.) As I said in an earlier post, this isn't dealing with material origins, but rather with function.

Consider this, the author of the OT would measure a day from sunset to sunset. The "passing" of the sun would have affected things. How about in Genesis, where the sun wasn't created til the 4th day, or 3rd day, whatever.... How long were those "days".

They were meant to be understood as six 24 hr. days.

 

[Elder 111]

Hi everyone. It's my first post here.

My first question here is concerning how to read the Bible. I understand there are a wide range of beliefs, but personally, I do not believe in a young Earth. In other words, I don't take Genesis as a literal creation account. The problem I've encountered with this kind of stance is that I no longer know what to take "literally" or "historically" anymore from the Bible. The reason that I don't believe in Genesis' creation as literal is due to the fact that it simply doesn't make sense in terms of modern science and understanding of the world. Likewise, the same could be applied to many stories of the Bible which feature less than believable content in terms of "everyday happenings," although I feel like denying their historicity is in some ways doubting God. Simply put, how does one determine where a myth ends and actual history is happening, or is it not important to distinguish the two and simply to understand the message God has put into these texts?

As another note, I've been reading a Study Bible (Harper Collins if it makes any difference) and it has certainly been helpful in putting things into perspective, and one particular line stood out to me is in its commentary on Exodus. The introduction essay to Exodus states that, "Comparison of Exodus with folklore and myth suggests the story is already the stuff of legend. Historical reconstruction is accordingly obstructed by a centuries-long process of literary formation that can hardly be retraced." This statement is one that I feel I agree with, since I've always wondered if we could actually be confident in the authorship and complete accuracy of these texts which are so incredibly ancient and which historical origins cannot be traced. In other words, while I don't deny there is truth to the story, is it wrong that I don't feel that things necessarily happened as stated in the text?

Thanks for reading this post and any advice.

God is God. It is interesting to me that God did not make an attempt to prove this and that. There are just statements of fact. You have a choice to believe or not to. You can not pick and choose with the word of God, that is for sure. If you have a problem with accepting the word of God as it is, then you need to forget it. You will never come to a full knowledge of the truth.
2 Tim. 3: 14But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Yarddog]

Hi everyone. It's my first post here.

Welcome to the site.

My first question here is concerning how to read the Bible. I understand there are a wide range of beliefs, but personally, I do not believe in a young Earth.

I don't either but God can do anything.

In other words, I don't take Genesis as a literal creation account.

Do you believe that God created everything? I do, but not that he did it in six rotations of the earth.

The problem I've encountered with this kind of stance is that I no longer know what to take "literally" or "historically" anymore from the Bible.

IMHO, scripture is a mixture of revelation and historical truth. The Bible is the most remarkable book that has ever been put together.

The reason that I don't believe in Genesis' creation as literal is due to the fact that it simply doesn't make sense in terms of modern science and understanding of the world. Likewise, the same could be applied to many stories of the Bible which feature less than believable content in terms of "everyday happenings," although I feel like denying their historicity is in some ways doubting God. Simply put, how does one determine where a myth ends and actual history is happening, or is it not important to distinguish the two and simply to understand the message God has put into these texts?

I don't like the idea of relating scripture with myths because there is a direct purpose to each writing, which relates to us.

Thanks for reading this post and any advice.

If I may. To keep from derailing the thread, I'd like to PM you some things about Genesis which may open your eyes about its meanings.

God Bless,
Yarddog