Should genesis be taken liberally or not?

[super animator]

Dose anyone notice when I fix the title of this thread it doesn't match the name in your browser window? (Look at the very top of your computer screen.)

 

[Assyrian]

It only seems fixed in the opening post. The top of the browser still has the original as you point out, as has the top of the web page:

Christian + Forums
​

Christian Forums > Theology (Christians Only) > Theology > General Theology > Origins Theology
Should genesis be taken liberally or not?

The Origins Theology page has has the old version too.

Your best bet would be to send a message to one of the Moderators, you can find a list on the top of the Origins Theology page. They are the one with the power to change the fabric of the universe here.

But I don't think the title is a problem, and if you do get it changed, all the posts in the thread talking about it won't make sense any more

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Thanks for the clarification re: the creation of birds in Genesis 1 and 2, ToxicReboMan. Still, I think the discrepancies between the two chapters suggest that the stories are not historical, or even written by the same authors. Why the different narrative styles? Why are animals created before man in Genesis 1, while they are created after man in Genesis 2? I think these questions merit honest answers, but I can't say as I've seen any yet that convincingly synthesize the first two chapters of Genesis.

Yup, I've studied this alleged discrepancy before and others as well. The different narrative styles do not pose a problem for me. To me it's clear why they look different. Chapter 1 is obviously explaining that the world was created in 6 days. It would not make sense for Ch. 2 to continue with the same format, because Ch. 2 is explaining more in depth the creation of man and his story. Instead of being contradictory, these two chapters are complimentary.

Now on to your question about who was created first according to Genesis...Was it man or animal? The answer is that animals were created before mankind. Genesis Ch. 2 does not actually say that man was created before the animals. Gen 2:19 from the ESV reads, "Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name."

I believe the Hebrew word 'yatsar' which was translated 'formed' in many translations should be translated to 'had formed' as it is done in the ESV. I say this because when translators translate the Hebrew and Greek into English, they must constantly refer to the surrounding context of the Bible to make sure they are accurately translating the supposed meaning of the text. So, basically, I agree with how the ESV translators approached this particular passage. Definitely, the ESV translation addresses this alleged discrepancy with ease. However, that is not to say that you did not bring up a good question. It is a great question.

There are many sources on the internet that explain why the phrase "had formed" is a much more accurate way to translate the actual intent behind the Hebrew in Gen 2:19.

The following articles go into greater detail concerning this issue. Now I don't know what else these websites may or may not advocate, but these particular articles which I found bring up many good points which I think you should consider. The 2nd link provided titled "Genesis Contradictions?" also gives more biblical arguments for understanding Genesis in an historical sense.

Apologetics Press - Did God Create Animals or Man First?

(From Apologetics Press by Eric Lyons) <snippet>


Some Bible students resolve this alleged contradiction simply by explaining that the Hebrew verb translated &#8220;formed&#8221; could easily have been translated &#8220;had formed.&#8221; In his Exposition of Genesis, H.C. Leupold stated:

Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But the reminder that God had &#8220;molded&#8221; them makes obvious His power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance: &#8220;He had molded.&#8221; The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible (1942, p. 130, emp. added).
​

---------------------------------------------------


Genesis contradictions?

Have you read Denis Lamoureux's book Evolutionary Creation? He delves into the theological meanings of these stories in some depth. The genealogies, for example, illustrate "the unity of all humans and the unicity of Israel." The story of the Tower of Babel reminds us that God judges sin. Check out that book, it's a great read.

No, I haven't read it. Perhaps, I'll check it out one day. Next time I find myself in a library I'll try to remember about the book you have recommended. I'm curious to see explanations about the message and meaning of the accounts described in Genesis. I still think many of the accounts don't seem to have any good meaning or purpose if they are not understood as historical accounts. For example...What is the meaning/intent behind the following verse in Genesis?

"His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe." (Gen 4:21 NASB)


If it is not meant to be understood as history, then what is the point of this passage?

 

[Mallon]

Yup, I've studied this alleged discrepancy before and others as well. The different narrative styles do not pose a problem for me. To me it's clear why they look different. Chapter 1 is obviously explaining that the world was created in 6 days. It would not make sense for Ch. 2 to continue with the same format, because Ch. 2 is explaining more in depth the creation of man and his story. Instead of being contradictory, these two chapters are complimentary.

I agree with you that they're complimentary, but not in the sense that you're implying. The theology contained in the two chapters is certainly complimentary, but the narrative itself is discontinuous, as I'll explain...

Now on to your question about who was created first according to Genesis...Was it man or animal? The answer is that animals were created before mankind. Genesis Ch. 2 does not actually say that man was created before the animals. Gen 2:19 from the ESV reads, "Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name."

I believe the Hebrew word 'yatsar' which was translated 'formed' in many translations should be translated to 'had formed' as it is done in the ESV. I say this because when translators translate the Hebrew and Greek into English, they must constantly refer to the surrounding context of the Bible to make sure they are accurately translating the supposed meaning of the text. So, basically, I agree with how the ESV translators approached this particular passage. Definitely, the ESV translation addresses this alleged discrepancy with ease. However, that is not to say that you did not bring up a good question. It is a great question.

Thanks for the thorough reply, but I'm left a little confused. Doesn't your translation of the word "yatsar" as "had formed" presume your conclusion that Genesis 2 is a continuation of Genesis 1? Your approach strikes me as circular. Perhaps you could elaborate on that for me.
Also, my understanding is that Genesis 2:19 begins with a waw consecutive, which typically denotes sequence in Hebrew. That is, when Genesis 2:19 says "And [waw] out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air..." it means, "Then out of the ground God formed..." This implies that in Genesis 2, God made the beasts and birds after man. What do you make of that?

For example...What is the meaning/intent behind the following verse in Genesis?

"His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe." (Gen 4:21 NASB)


If it is not meant to be understood as history, then what is the point of this passage?

I don't know that the meaning can be obtained from reading a single verse in isolation. That verse is part of a much greater story surrounding the death of Abel. Likewise, the meanings of Jesus' parables are not understood unless we take the parables as a whole.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

I agree with you that they're complimentary, but not in the sense that you're implying. The theology contained in the two chapters is certainly complimentary, but the narrative itself is discontinuous, as I'll explain...

Thanks for the thorough reply, but I'm left a little confused. Doesn't your translation of the word "yatsar" as "had formed" presume your conclusion that Genesis 2 is a continuation of Genesis 1? Your approach strikes me as circular. Perhaps you could elaborate on that for me.
Also, my understanding is that Genesis 2:19 begins with a waw consecutive, which typically denotes sequence in Hebrew. That is, when Genesis 2:19 says "And [waw] out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air..." it means, "Then out of the ground God formed..." This implies that in Genesis 2, God made the beasts and birds after man. What do you make of that?

I do believe them to be a continuation. That is true. I do not view them as totally separate accounts which are just pieced together from different authors. But that is another issue. Let me know if you are still confused about something I said.

The 'waw-consecutive' can actually be translated many different ways into English. The word 'then' is not the only possible translation. I suggest you look at all the various English translations (especially the modern, literal translations) as a reference. Most of the English translations, instead of using the word "then" start off the verse with "And" or "Now" or even "So". And some others omit these words all together.

Thus, I disagree that we are forced to translate a contradiction into the text. That is not the case at all.

I don't know that the meaning can be obtained from reading a single verse in isolation. That verse is part of a much greater story surrounding the death of Abel. Likewise, the meanings of Jesus' parables are not understood unless we take the parables as a whole.

Do you want me to quote the entire passage? Because I need help understanding the meaning behind that verse if it is not meant to be understood as historical.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is the question that we should be focusing.

I vote that Genesis 1 was meant to be taken literally.

If it wasn't, then Genesis 1 can be used to support almost any heresy.

When taking Genesis 1 non-literally, it allows the mind of the reader to be the sole authority for interpretation; but when taken literally, it forces even those hostile to the Bible to admit what took place, and in what order it was done in, and by Whom.

I usually use Genesis 1 --- and Genesis 1 alone --- to refute evolution.

 

[Mallon]

I vote that Genesis 1 was meant to be taken literally.

If it wasn't, then Genesis 1 can be used to support almost any heresy.

Do you hold the same to be true of the Bible throughout? Is it all meant literally for the same reason?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you hold the same to be true of the Bible throughout? Is it all meant literally for the same reason?

Yes --- and no.

All of the Bible isn't literal, of course.

As one guy put it: The Bible isn't allegory, It contains allegory.

 

[Mallon]

Yes --- and no.

All of the Bible isn't literal, of course.

As one guy put it: The Bible isn't allegory, It contains allegory.

But if the Bible contains allegory, doesn't that allow people to "use it to support almost any heresy"?

I'm confused about your position. Why is it okay for some parts of the Bible to contain allegory, but not others?

 

[AV1611VET]

But if the Bible contains allegory, doesn't that allow people to "use it to support almost any heresy"?

If they do, they would be wrong, wouldn't they?

That's why we need to learn the Bible, so we can spot them.

And the Bible doesn't hide them, either.

The Bible will usually alert the reader that allegory is coming up.

Where It doesn't alert the reader to allegory --- it doesn't matter.

I'm confused about your position. Why is it okay for some parts of the Bible to contain allegory, but not others?

Allegory helps to reinforce points already made, or helps to understand a passage better, or even to avoid excessive verbage --- such as when It talks about the sun rising, or the moon shining, or something like that.

It's a very useful tool, but a dangerous one, nevertheless.

Think about it --- without allegory, the Bible would be pretty dry reading.

 

[Mallon]

And the Bible doesn't hide them, either.

The Bible will usually alert the reader that allegory is coming up.

Will it?
What about Luke 16:19-31? Or Judges 9:8-15? Or Luke 15:11-32? Are these allegories or parables? They are not introduced as such.

Where It doesn't alert the reader to allegory --- it doesn't matter.

Why doesn't it matter? You just finished that saying that allegories allow people to "support almost any heresy". If you believe this, shouldn't it matter to you that the Bible clearly and consistently identifies allegory when it uses it?

Think about it --- without allegory, the Bible would be pretty dry reading.

Couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Assyrian]

I do believe them to be a continuation. That is true. I do not view them as totally separate accounts which are just pieced together from different authors. But that is another issue. Let me know if you are still confused about something I said.

The 'waw-consecutive' can actually be translated many different ways into English. The word 'then' is not the only possible translation. I suggest you look at all the various English translations (especially the modern, literal translations) as a reference. Most of the English translations, instead of using the word "then" start off the verse with "And" or "Now" or even "So". And some others omit these words all together.

Just because the waw consecutive is translated with different words, "And", "Then", "Now", "So", it doesn't mean it has loads of different meanings, these are simply different ways in English of trying expressing the same grammatical form used in Hebrew narratives to describes a consecutive sequence of event. Is the word sometimes left out? Yes because in a narrative sequence it can come across as very stilted in English to begin loads of sentences and phrases with "And..." But the meaning is still there in the Hebrew whether a translator decides to leave out the waw consecutive or not.

Thus, I disagree that we are forced to translate a contradiction into the text. That is not the case at all.

It is not a contradiction unless you think the texts are meant as literal history, but that is an interpretation, as is the assumption chapter 2 is meant as a continuation of chapter 1. But if you take chapter 2 at face value, the plain meaning of the text has the animals created after Adam. Now if you take that literally, it does contradict a literal interpretation of Chapter 1. But why try to avoid the apparent contradiction, maybe it is telling you the account are not meant to be taken literally?

 

[Mick116]

Perhaps.
Can you elaborate on the 'open book of nature' and how revelation comes to you from observation?

Sorry for the delayed response, I don't check this site every day. By the "book of nature", I mean that reality is ordered and consistent (i.e. the laws of nature are not in constant chaotic flux), and that God has gifted us with the ability and motivation to unlock its secrets; to "read" its story, so to speak... that truth about the universe and how it works can be discovered by science, and that such knowledge should inform our worldview, because it is God's creation and is worth investigating.

If there seems to be conflict between truth discovered by science and truth revealed through prophet or apostle, one or both of our interpretations of science or scripture is necessarily incorrect. Because scientific theories and the facts on which they are built can be vigorously tested and re-tested, such discrepancies often come down to our misunderstanding of the meaning or genre of scripture (something which is notoriously difficult - but not impossible - to test objectively). Science is a fantastic way of confirming our theology, and/or highlighting the areas which require adjustment.

 

[johnflinst]

Yes --- and no.

All of the Bible isn't literal, of course.

As one guy put it: The Bible isn't allegory, It contains allegory.

bible scholar 1 reads a verse, prays about it, claims it as allegory

bible scholar 2 reads the same verse, prays about it, claims it as literal

perhaps it would have been better if all of the scripture would have been labeled literal vs allegory for us?

How many churches/denominations have split time after time after time out of differences in interpretation of the scripture?

You say Genesis has to be literal, I say it can't be, to each of us the opposing view seems to degrade our individual faiths...

The question then comes down to, if I say I am right, and you say you are right, how can we come to terms with that, if we both believe in what we say?

 

[Mick116]

bible scholar 1 reads a verse, prays about it, claims it as allegory

bible scholar 2 reads the same verse, prays about it, claims it as literal

perhaps it would have been better if all of the scripture would have been labeled literal vs allegory for us?

How many churches/denominations have split time after time after time out of differences in interpretation of the scripture?

You say Genesis has to be literal, I say it can't be, to each of us the opposing view seems to degrade our individual faiths...

The question then comes down to, if I say I am right, and you say you are right, how can we come to terms with that, if we both believe in what we say?

When we recognise that our personal beliefs on origins don't really matter in the grand scheme of things, and that creation happened exactly how it happened whether we believe it or not, we might start channelling our energies into something more productive, like developing a Christlike character, or sharing the gospel of grace and love to those who need to hear it. It is this gospel which unites all Christians, young-earther, old-earther, theistic evolutionist, evolutionary creationist or ID-subscriber.

That said, natural history is a fascinating subject, and it should probably be taught accurately and according to the truth. And there is plenty of evidence out there for Christians to make informed decisions of their own on this subject, if they are genuinely seeking answers.

"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity" - St Augustine of Hippo.

 

[MattLangley]

Personally I value understanding how God's universe actually works (the true book from God) through evolution and his other mechanisms of order much higher than shoving "Pray to Jesus or go to Hell" down peoples throat and regurgitating salvation by syllables.

So in the end I think people putting effort into finding the truth in what we know is physical and here vs. claiming the truth of a book by making it a God, and not just the book written by men that it is, is a much better use of energy, that's just me.

 

[AV1611VET]

You say Genesis has to be literal, I say it can't be, to each of us the opposing view seems to degrade our individual faiths...

You have a good point, but then let me ask you this:

1. Do you take your birth certificate literally?
2. Do you take the phone book literally?
3. Do you take the newspaper literally?
4. Do you take the Periodic Table of the Elements literally?

What keeps you from interpreting any one of the above allegorically?

Or are you a literalist?

I'm a literalist, myself --- and before I take any passage allegorically, it had better be a good reason --- and I mean a good one --- and it had better be a convincing reason as well --- or I'm going with 'literal.'

If you were walking across the country and came to a sign that said MINE FIELD, would you proceed, or would you go around?

What if 9 in 10 of the people who were with you said that, in their opinion, it was just a joke?

I take it you (and others) would automatically be apprehensive to proceed.

Yet, when it comes to the Bible, some would automatically plod forward without giving it a second thought.

 

[Assyrian]

If you were walking across the country and came to a sign that said MINE FIELD, would you proceed, or would you go around?
What if 9 in 10 of the people who were with you said that, in their opinion, it was just a joke?

If I came across the sign on a kid's bedroom I would take it as a joke. But then again signs on children's bedrooms are often meant as a joke. I probably wouldn go in but that is because it is a teenage boy's bedroom. It is interesting though, Jesus often spoke in metaphor and parable, and yet literalists can't help equating scripture being non literal with 'being a joke'. How is that?

Yet, when it comes to the Bible, some would automatically plod forward without giving it a second thought.

Oddly, that seems a pretty good description of literalists who blindly assume everything in the bible is literal unless each metaphor and parable has a really big label saying they are parables or metaphors, even then the more committed literalist can take even parables and insist they really happened. We should learn from Jesus who used metaphors and parables all the time, usually without any warning, and simply expected his disciples to keep up. We have it a bit easier, as the gospel writers sometimes tell us when a parable is being used, but not all the time either. As followers of Jesus we should get used to parables and metaphors throughout the bible and learn to recognise them and understand them even when they are labelled not blindly stumble through the bible taking everything literally.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I came across the sign on a kid's bedroom I would take it as a joke.

I didn't say a kid's bedroom though, did I?

See what you did?

You had to change the setting (from walking across the country to standing in front of a kid's bedroom) in order to make your point.

And that's exactly what allegorists do --- they take minefields and change them into kid's bedrooms.

As followers of Jesus we should get used to parables and metaphors throughout the bible and learn to recognise them and understand them even when they are labelled not blindly stumble through the bible taking everything literally.

I'm sure Nadab and Abihu thought that way as well:

• Nadab: Don't you think we'd better use the right ingredients in this offering?
• Abihu: It's the thought that counts.

 

[Assyrian]

I didn't say a kid's bedroom though, did I?

See what you did?

You had to change the setting (from walking across the country to standing in front of a kid's bedroom) in order to make your point.

And that's exactly what allegorists do --- they take minefields and change them into kid's bedrooms.

Given that most minefield warning signs you come across in the countryside are literal while the bible is full of metaphor, parable, symbol and allegory as well as literal, your analogy is flawed. Kids bedroom is a much better analogy, the sign could be literal, some signs on kid's doors are. Also you have to look at other evidence, is the door in an abandoned house in Kosovo, does the teenage boy keep assault rifles and dissected road kill in the basement?

I'm sure Nadab and Abihu thought that way as well:

• Nadab: Don't you think we'd better use the right ingredients in this offering?
• Abihu: It's the thought that counts.

If God speaks to us in parables, metaphor, symbolism, simile, poetry and allegory how is literalism bringing 'the right ingredients' into your bible study?

I find it fascinating the way creationists try to use fear to keep people from understanding the bible, when it is as much a mistake to interpret literal passages metaphorically as it is to interpret metaphorical passages literally. Reminds me of the parable of the talents where one servant buries the money in the ground out of fear. We should be growing in our knowledge and understanding of God's word, which is rich in metaphor and parable, yet from fear people insist on taking everything literally, as if that will keep them from making mistakes. Whoever told them that this is how God want's us to read the bible? It is just a man made rule wrapped up in man made fear. I suppose literalists have to keep reinforcing these fears otherwise believers would begin to understand the way God love to speak to us in the richest of metaphor and poetry. Give up the fear and people start to grow out of their literalism.