Should Genesis be taken literally?

[SeventyOne]

Satan is the obvious choice.

Satan, as depicted in the OT, in Genesis and in Job, for instance, is a Trickster--God's "left-hand man" similar in character to Loki, or to Coyote in Southwest Native American religious tradition. Nothing to do with evolution at all.

Interesting. All this time I'm told the creation and fall accounts are allegories of the evolutionary process, and when I ask about one part of it, I'm told it has nothing to do with evolution. Sorry, I just find that odd.

 

[Archivist]

Interesting. All this time I'm told the creation and fall accounts are allegories of the evolutionary process, and when I ask about one part of it, I'm told it has nothing to do with evolution. Sorry, I just find that odd.

I can't speak for others, but when exactly did I ever say that the creation and fall accounts are allegories of the evolutionary process?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Wow, I've just found out how evolution works - it's here in a series of videos that my daughter's school has started using. So any small trait adjustment is evolution then. And I foolishly thought that was just micro evolution. I didn't realise that because wolves can turn into the varieties of dogs we see today or turtles can have different body shapes in different parts of the world that this confirms evoltion is true. Hmm - what a load of old tosh! Creation scientists have long acknowledged that changes in characteristics can occur, but dogs will always be dogs, turtles will always be turtles and so on. I see now at first hand how the deception is being propogated to a gullible public. What made me laugh in the first video was the simulation of a turtle possibly floating across an ocean by clinging to some debris - I wonder if that could have been during Noah's flood?

 

[Speedwell]

Interesting. All this time I'm told the creation and fall accounts are allegories of the evolutionary process, and when I ask about one part of it, I'm told it has nothing to do with evolution. Sorry, I just find that odd.

Who told you that?

 

[Speedwell]

Wow, I've just found out how evolution works - it's here is a series of videos that my daughter's school has started using. So any small trait adjustment is evolution then. And I foolishly thought that was just micro evolution. I didn't realise that because wolfs can turn into the varieties of dogs we see today or turtles can have different body shapes in different parts of the world that this confirms evoltion is true. Hmm - what a load of old tosh! Creation scientists have long acknowledged that changes in characteristics can occur, but dogs will always be dogs, turtles will always be turtles and so on. I see now at first hand how the deception is being propogated to a gullible public. What made me laugh in the first video was the simulation of a turtle possibly floating across an ocean by clinging to some debris - I wonder if that could have been during Noah's flood.

Interesting, but off topic for this thread, which is about the literary character of the Genesis stories.

 

[SeventyOne]

I can't speak for others, but when exactly did I ever say that the creation and fall accounts are allegories of the evolutionary process?

Who told you that?

People on this ant other threads. I just found it interesting the first time I pushed back on it, suddenly evolution isn't in the picture.

 

[Speedwell]

People on this ant other threads. I just found it interesting the first time I pushed back on it, suddenly evolution isn't in the picture.

I can't answer for those "other people." Right now you are talking to me.

 

[SeventyOne]

I can't answer for those "other people." Right now you are talking to me.

Fair enough. But you still didn't make it clear. Just to say the snake is an allegory for Satan doesn't explain the allegorization of the entire situation.

 

[Archivist]

People on this ant other threads. I just found it interesting the first time I pushed back on it, suddenly evolution isn't in the picture.

Don't know why you would be "pushing back" on something that wasn't said here.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Interesting, but off topic for this thread, which is about the literary character of the Genesis stories.

Yes, sorry, I was in a rush so I just posted it here as I know the topic of evolution has appeared from time to time in this thread.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, sorry, I was in a rush so I just posted it here as I know the topic of evolution has appeared from time to time in this thread.

Might be good on the Creation & Evolution thread over in Physical Sciences. What grade level is it supposed to be for?

 

[JacksBratt]

Satan, the "Old Deceiver." The Bible explains it pretty clearly.

AH, so the symbol of the snake being the deceiver was already noted........ before the snake was the deceiver?

I always thought that the whole concept originated at this point in history.

Can you tell me what it was that initiated the concept of the snake being deceptive?

 

[expos4ever]

Except it's not that easy to see when we also have a literal talking donkey in Numbers and a continued literal curse on the snake into the new earth. What's hard to see is the symbolism forced upon the situation.

I politely suggest that almost anyone over the age of 8 would recognize a talking animal - whether a donkey or a serpent - as not intended to be taken literally. This is part of the problem with arguing with creationists: you guys are literally begging to be ridiculed, with your rejection of the findings of mainstream science and the necessary associated embrace of absurd conspiracy theories to make the whole schmozzle hang together (e.g. you have to believe that all these thousands of highly trained experts are either all mistaken or, worse, conspiring to hide truth).

You and others may think this is not playing fair, but I suggest a major distorting factor in this whole debate is that, in the interests of politesse, we are forced to walk on eggshells as we point out the glaring problems with a worldview that has entirely been discredited except, of course, in the niche of American fundamentalism.

Now about the serpent. So what that it is described as on its belly in Isaiah? One doesn't need to be a genius to realize that the author of Genesis could have concocted a myth whereby the snake functions as a symbol for evil. And what better way to underscore the subjugation of evil in the world to come than by representing the serpent as still consigned to its belly.

But I think there is a better counter-argument: Isaiah mistakenly believed the creation account to be literal! And who could blame him - unlike we in the 21st century, good old Isaiah certainly knew nothing about evolution. So, naturally enough, he writes his material about the serpent, intending to be taken literally. But, the worldview undergirding his intent has clearly been discredited.

 

[rjs330]

But you have quoted no Scripture to support your allegorical theory.

But you have provided no scriptural evidence to support you claim that the Story of the Good Samaritan is a parable.

Essentially what you have said throughout this this tread is that we must believe those portions of scripture as factual if you have deemed them to be true while not accepting those portions as factual if you have deemed them to not be factual.[/QUOTE]

There is good reason to believe the Samaritan story is such I believe another poster gave them to you and you responded to him. So I don't need to do it again.

There is Scripture that supports a Genesis that is NOT allegory but factual historical account as to what happened. What God said is Exodus is one.

 

[rjs330]

What? You come up with an interpretive stance for the 6-day story, and whatever that is has to apply to the whole book of stories?
How do you tell the difference when reading something other than the Bible? Surely this is something we all covered in English lit. classes.

Yes speed it does. Like I said earlier that we will accept Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as real people and real historical stories, but suddenly state Genesis 1&2 are not. Why? What basis is there to do so, and then make the switch with Abraham?

 

[rjs330]

What? You come up with an interpretive stance for the 6-day story, and whatever that is has to apply to the whole book of stories?
How do you tell the difference when reading something other than the Bible? Surely this is something we all covered in English lit. classes.

Yes and those things do not appear in Genesis and the rest of the Bible when it comes to Genesis. We know that poetry is not always fiction or allegory or whatever. It is a form of writing that could be or not depending on the content and surrounding context and authors intent. There is no evidence that Genesis 1&2 is anything other than historical accurate description of creation. If you accept Genesis one as Hebrew poetry you still have to wrestle with the question of is it allegorical poetry or is it fiction or is it an accurate portrayal in poetry form? How we determine that is what's important here. While there is no evidence that it is allegory or a work of fiction there is evidence that it is not.

 

[Archivist]

There is good reason to believe the Samaritan story is such I believe another poster gave them to you and you responded to him. So I don't need to do it again.

There is Scripture that supports a Genesis that is NOT allegory but factual historical account as to what happened. What God said is Exodus is one.

So, once again, you are saying that if you have decided that something in scripture is not a factual account then rest of us are free to accept it as a parable, but if you have decided that it is factual then we must accept it as factual. Your view is the deciding factor.

Once again, the fact that later scripture cites Genesis does not validate Genesis as a factual historical account. Provide one source contemporary with Genesis that validates Genesis. You have failed to do that despite requests that you do so.

The gospel accounts validate each other. There is no such contemporary account they validates the conflicting Genesis creation allegories.

 

[rjs330]

I politely suggest that almost anyone over the age of 8 would recognize a talking animal - whether a donkey or a serpent - as not intended to be taken literally. This is part of the problem with arguing with creationists: you guys are literally begging to be ridiculed, with your rejection of the findings of mainstream science and the necessary associated embrace of absurd conspiracy theories to make the whole schmozzle hang together (e.g. you have to believe that all these thousands of highly trained experts are either all mistaken or, worse, conspiring to hide truth).

You and others may think this is not playing fair, but I suggest a major distorting factor in this whole debate is that, in the interests of politesse, we are forced to walk on eggshells as we point out the glaring problems with a worldview that has entirely been discredited except, of course, in the niche of American fundamentalism.

Now about the serpent. So what that it is described as on its belly in Isaiah? One doesn't need to be a genius to realize that the author of Genesis could have concocted a myth whereby the snake functions as a symbol for evil. And what better way to underscore the subjugation of evil in the world to come than by representing the serpent as still consigned to its belly.

But I think there is a better counter-argument: Isaiah mistakenly believed the creation account to be literal! And who could blame him - unlike we in the 21st century, good old Isaiah certainly knew nothing about evolution. So, naturally enough, he writes his material about the serpent, intending to be taken literally. But, the worldview undergirding his intent has clearly been discredited.

Actually that not true at all. You are removing the power of God here. Are you trying to say that all the miraculous things in the bible never happens? Who is God then and what is he actually capable of? He's not able to make a donkey talk or create a special tree? He is not able to cure an Incurrable disease? He is able to part the red Sea or have Elijah and Elisha part waters either? He is not able to send manna for the Israelites? At what point does God not become all powerful? He can create life on Earth but can't make a do key speak or allow a snake to talk under the power of Satan?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes speed it does. Like I said earlier that we will accept Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as real people and real historical stories, but suddenly state Genesis 1&2 are not. Why? What basis is there to do so, and then make the switch with Abraham?

It is not possible to answer such a question. Your notion that historical narrative is either 100% literal and accurate or "false" prevents it.

 

[KWCrazy]

I politely suggest that almost anyone over the age of 8 would recognize a talking animal - whether a donkey or a serpent - as not intended to be taken literally. This is part of the problem with arguing with creationists: you guys are literally begging to be ridiculed, with your rejection of the findings of mainstream science and the necessary associated embrace of absurd conspiracy theories to make the whole schmozzle hang together (e.g. you have to believe that all these thousands of highly trained experts are either all mistaken or, worse, conspiring to hide truth).

The axiom of equality holds that if a=b and b=c that a=c. In this case, if a is impossible and c is impossible than both a and c are impossible. Right? With me so far? There are no degrees of impossible. There are degrees of difficulty, but impossible equals only impossible.

So then the following things are all impossible:
A six day creation
Man from dirt
Woman from a rib
A tree of life
A tree of knowledge
A talking serpent
A curse based on an action
A global flood
The sun standing for a day
Manna from heaven
Water from rocks
A virgin birth
Resurrection after death
Blind men seeing
Lame men walking
Waking on water
Calming a storm...

The list could go on. There are 333 miracles described in the Bible, all of which are equally impossible.
Since this is a Christians Only forum, logically we must assume that you are a Christian and that you believe in a certain number of these impossible things. My question to you is twofold. How do you decide which impossible thing to accept and which to reject, and why would you you presume that anyone who believes MORE in Scripture than you do should be open to ridicule? Why should you be accepted for the impossibilities you believe and I be ridiculed for the impossibilities I believe?