Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Big Drew]

Mods, if this isn't in the right section please move, I wasn't sure where the best place for this discussion would be, as this has more to do with the entire book and not only creation.

Genesis is the history of Israel's roots...most believe Moses to be the author of the book, and if we go by the chronology from Genesis to Exodus, he wouldn't have been born until a couple thousand years after the account of Adam. Prior to this, these stories would have been handed down through oral tradition.

When stories are told from one generation to the next things change. Some things may be added, others taken away...things become embellished...that's just how it is. It doesn't mean that anyone is lying, necessarily, just that what we hear as a child and what we teach to our children about a subject may change slightly based on our recollection. And then there are those that like to add their own spin to make things more interesting, and it sticks...

A good, more modern example of this would be the story of Jesse James...many accounts made him out to be a Robin Hood of his day, only stealing from the rich and helping the poor...after the Civil War there was a lot of distrust in this country, and people wanted a hero they found him in this notorious outlaw...the truth of the matter was he was your typical run of the mill thief...albeit a very good one...but stories were made up about him in newspapers, books and songs...and now, 140 years later, there are those that think he was, as the "The Ballad of Jesse James" said, "a friend to the poor that would never have a brother suffer pain." In this instance, of course, we can look back at actual accounts from the day and easily put these claims to rest.

So, is it possible that this is what happened with Genesis? That after years of oral tradition some of the "facts" changed? I'm not saying this as a dig at creationism, or anything like that. Nor am I saying that there is no truth to be found in Genesis...I believe it paints a beautiful picture of creation, of God's desire to have a relationship with His people, of man's biggest obstacle to overcome being his sinful nature, and how the foundation was being laid for the Christ.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Prior to this, these stories would have been handed down through oral tradition.

Before Moses the stories were on clay tablets. Only there are different versions of the story and Moses handed down the authorized version. There is an oral tradition known as the Kabbalah today. Einstein says: If you can't explain something simply then you to not understand it well enough. Moses gave us Genesis chapter one in 32 sentences. There are hundreds of thousands of books that attempt to explain what Moses gives us in those 32 sentences. Gerold Schroeder talks about this.

most believe Moses to be the author of the book

They have computer software now so they can determine who wrote what. The software confirms what the theologians have been saying all along.

Computer program to reveal who wrote the Bible | Daily Mail Online

 

[Greg J.]

Usually this question is asked specifically about the story of Adam and Eve, so I've just addressed that. (It is asked by people who want to believe in evolution, even though God creating Adam and Eve does not contradict observations of natural selection). You can always ask more questions.

1. Jesus was descended from Adam (through Mary): Luke 3:23, 38.
2. There was a real passage of time between Adam and Moses: Romans 5:14.
3. Our sin-taintedness (bringing death) was inherited from Adam: 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.
4. Enoch, a real person (Hebrews 11:5), was descended from Adam: Jude 14

5. Adam was a living being:
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:44-45, 1984 NIV)

 

[SeventyOne]

It really just kind of boils down to this. Jesus states if one doesn't believe what Moses wrote, they wouldn't believe Him either.

John 5:46-7 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”​

There is nothing unbelievable about the Genesis creation account.

 

[Big Drew]

Before Moses the stories were on clay tablets. Only there are different versions of the story and Moses handed down the authorized version. There is an oral tradition known as the Kabbalah today. Einstein says: If you can't explain something simply then you to not understand it well enough. Moses gave us Genesis chapter one in 32 sentences. There are hundreds of thousands of books that attempt to explain what Moses gives us in those 32 sentences. Gerold Schroeder talks about this.

They have computer software now so they can determine who wrote what. The software confirms what the theologians have been saying all along.

Computer program to reveal who wrote the Bible | Daily Mail Online

Thanks for the article...I'll look into this more, it seems very interesting.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It really just kind of boils down to this. Jesus states if one doesn't believe what Moses wrote, they wouldn't believe Him either.

John 5:46-7 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”​

There is nothing unbelievable about the Genesis creation account.

Except a talking serpent....

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I think Genesis should be taken literally. However, I think the concept of 'literally' should be taken literally as well.

Words - both ink stains on paper and the concept behind them - mean something. Which is not always the superficial and obvious.

 

[Big Drew]

Usually this question is asked specifically about the story of Adam and Eve, so I've just addressed that. (It is asked by people who want to believe in evolution, even though God creating Adam and Eve does not contradict observations of natural selection). You can always as more questions.

1. Jesus was descended from Adam (through Mary): Luke 3:23, 38.
2. There was a real passage of time between Adam and Moses: Romans 5:14.
3. Our sin-taintedness (bringing death) was inherited from Adam: 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.
4. Enoch, a real person (Hebrews 11:5), was descended from Adam: Jude 14

5. Adam was a living being:
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. (1 Corinthians 15:44-45, 1984 NIV)

I would say this does stem from my belief in evolution and other archaeological studies that show the world to be much older than 10,000 years...which is not something I want to debate personally, I have my beliefs and respect those who have theirs on this matter...I don't see it as being detrimental to anyones salvation...so, I choose not to get involved in those types of debates, though I know given the subject matter of the OP, this could easily turn into that...which is cool, but I won't be engaging.

As I said, I believe there is truth there...genealogy, for example, which shows how the Israelites came to be, and ultimately leads to the Christ.

 

[SeventyOne]

Except a talking serpent....

It's only unbelievable if one chooses not to believe it, but its curse to crawl on its belly and eat dust will remain even in the new world and is confirmed in passages like Isaiah 65:25.

Isa 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain,” says the LORD.​

That's a confirmation of the serpent's role in the fall.

 

[expos4ever]

It really just kind of boils down to this. Jesus states if one doesn't believe what Moses wrote, they wouldn't believe Him either.

John 5:46-7 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”​

There is nothing unbelievable about the Genesis creation account.

I understand the appeal of this line of reasoning, but I think it is highly vulnerable. The fact that Jesus agrees that Moses spoke of Him tells us, at best, that Jesus believes that, in some sense, the book of Genesis has prophetic material about Him (Jesus); it certainly does not follow that Jesus believed the entire Genesis was literally true in all respects.

And there is certainly a mountain of evidence to not take the creation account literally in the "young earth" sense.

 

[JackRT]

Any question about how literal Genesis is should be put to rest by:

Genesis 30:37 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

 

[expos4ever]

It's only unbelievable if one chooses not to believe it,....

I will invoke the "Oh come on! (with attendant rolling of the eyes)" argument here. Here is the problem you face:

1. You cannot a priori discount the possibility that the writer of Genesis was writing myth;
2. If he was writing myth, and wanted us to know this, there is every reason to believe he would give us a clue that he was not intending to be taken literally.
3. And a talking snake is about as obvious a clue as one could ask for.

Please - a little common sense: we have to recognize that even though the author of Moses lived without the benefits of modernity, he certainly knew metaphor / literary device when he saw it.

Can I prove the snake is a literary device, not to be taken literally? Of course not. But here I plead to naked common sense and to what I am sure the historians of culture will tell us is a long, long tradition of the use of the snake as a symbol of sinister forces. And I will wager a flagon of ale that the snake has this special role in many other cultures as well - it is effectively a universal symbol.

A talking snake? Please.

 

[Big Drew]

I will invoke the "Oh come on! (with attendant rolling of the eyes)" argument here. Here is the problem you face:

1. You cannot a priori discount the possibility that the writer of Genesis was writing myth;
2. If he was writing myth, and wanted us to know this, there is every reason to believe he would give us a clue that he was not intending to be taken literally.
3. And a talking snake is about as obvious a clue as one could ask for.

Please - a little common sense: we have to recognize that even though the author of Moses lived without the benefits of modernity, he certainly knew metaphor / literary device when he saw it.

Can I prove the snake is a literary device, not to be taken literally? Of course not. But here I plead to naked common sense and to what I am sure the historians of culture will tell us is a long, long tradition of the use of the snake as a symbol of sinister forces. And I will wager a flagon of ale that the snake has this special role in many other cultures as well - it is effectively a universal symbol.

A talking snake? Please.

Good point. I know if I was out in my yard and a snake came up to me and started talking I wouldn't be as nonchalant about it as Eve seemed to be...my first reaction would probably be to soil myself and run the other way...

 

[SeventyOne]

I will invoke the "Oh come on! (with attendant rolling of the eyes)" argument here. Here is the problem you face:

1. You cannot a priori discount the possibility that the writer of Genesis was writing myth;
2. If he was writing myth, and wanted us to know this, there is every reason to believe he would give us a clue that he was not intending to be taken literally.
3. And a talking snake is about as obvious a clue as one could ask for.

Please - a little common sense: we have to recognize that even though the author of Moses lived without the benefits of modernity, he certainly knew metaphor / literary device when he saw it.

Can I prove the snake is a literary device, not to be taken literally? Of course not. But here I plead to naked common sense and to what I am sure the historians of culture will tell us is a long, long tradition of the use of the snake as a symbol of sinister forces. And I will wager a flagon of ale that the snake has this special role in many other cultures as well - it is effectively a universal symbol.

A talking snake? Please.

Except the curse of the serpent stands to this day and we are told it will continue in the new earth. If there were no serpent involved, there would be no continuing curse.

It's only unbelievable to you because you have chosen to believe something else instead, not because it's actually unbelievable on its own merits.

 

[SeventyOne]

I understand the appeal of this line of reasoning, but I think it is highly vulnerable. The fact that Jesus agrees that Moses spoke of Him tells us, at best, that Jesus believes that, in some sense, the book of Genesis has prophetic material about Him (Jesus); it certainly does not follow that Jesus believed the entire Genesis was literally true in all respects.

And there is certainly a mountain of evidence to not take the creation account literally in the "young earth" sense.

The first place Moses spoke about Jesus was at the time of the fall when the serpent was being cursed. I mean, He is directly referenced in the words spoken to the serpent.

Gen 3:14-15 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”​

The two can't be separated.

 

[expos4ever]

The first place Moses spoke about Jesus was at the time of the fall when the serpent was being cursed. I mean, He is directly referenced in the words spoken to the serpent.

Gen 3:14-15 The LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”​

The two can't be separated.

How is this an argument for taking the reference to the snake literally? Obviously, this could be a way for Moses to express enmity between Jesus (as prophetically implied) and the dark powers that are represented by the snake. And, in fact, this seems to be the very likely intention since it is clear from Paul that, at the cross, the "powers and principalities" were defeated.
Snakes, of course, were not defeated at the cross.

 

[SeventyOne]

How is this an argument for taking the reference to the snake literally? Obviously, this could be a way for Moses to express enmity between Jesus (as prophetically implied) and the dark powers that are represented by the snake. And, in fact, this seems to be the very likely intention since it is clear from Paul that, at the cross, the "powers and principalities" were defeated.
Snakes, of course, were not defeated at the cross.

Because it was actually both. The powers were destroyed and the physical animal still has a curse.

Has it ever occurred to you that the 'powers' were using the serpent to speak? I'm curious, what exactly do you do with Balaam's donkey?

 

[expos4ever]

Because it was actually both. The powers were destroyed and the physical animal still has a curse.

You are clearly begging the question! - assuming that which you need to make a case for (namely that the snake was intended to be taken literally).

Has it ever occurred to you that the 'powers' were using the serpent to speak?

Possible, of course. But the fact that the snake has been used universally as a symbol for evil is far more compelling, and supports the non-literal position.

I'm curious, what exactly do you do with Balaam's donkey?

I would bet it's not literal either, but the situations are different. The snake stuff is embedded in a broader creation account which we have good reasons to believe is not literal (e.g. the fact that the earth is billions of years old).

 

[expos4ever]

Except the curse of the serpent stands to this day and we are told it will continue in the new earth. If there were no serpent involved, there would be no continuing curse.

Do you know what it means to beg the question, since you certainly are doing so. You cannot simply assume that the snake is literal - that is what we are debating. Where have you provided any kind of actual argument that the snake cannot be a metaphor?

It's only unbelievable to you because you have chosen to believe something else instead, not because it's actually unbelievable on its own merits.

How can you possibly know my inner motives? I politely suggest you are not "playing by the rules" with respect to debating.

 

[SeventyOne]

You are clearly begging the question! - assuming that which you need to make a case for (namely that the snake was intended to be taken literally).


Possible, of course. But the fact that the snake has been used universally as a symbol for evil is far more compelling, and supports the non-literal position.


I would bet it's not literal either, but the situations are different. The snake stuff is embedded in a broader creation account which we have good reasons to believe is not literal (e.g. the fact that the earth is billions of years old).

Then the problem here in our disagreement is that you've simply chosen to believe something different than the biblical accounts., assigning meaning you've derived from other sources. As a result, there's no way you and I could have common ground in the matter.