Should Genesis be taken literally?

[JackRT]

Hardly bland, it contains what were at the time some revolutionary theological ideas. The structure is not quite formal Hebrew poetry; the most reasonable theory I have seen is that it is hymnody, a hymn of praise to the creator. It is similar in some ways to other ANE creation myths, but the theological differences are striking, notably that creation is the act of a single uncreated God rather than a Manichean conflict between two gods or the mating of male and female gods which were then common theologies. It is a unique pronouncement of monotheism, which is why it is the first text in the book, though it is not the oldest. It celebrates facts already known, the uncompromising monotheism of the Hebrews for instance, and hallows the custom already established of a seventh day Sabbath. It is altogether a beautiful work of literature and, as I said before, regarding it as mere factual reporting would be a big step down, rather like comparing painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling to whitewashing a chicken coop.

Genesis 1 presents a very different POV than Genesis 2. Genesis 1 was written during the Babylonian Exile @ 560 BC and represents a time when monotheism was firmly established in Jewish belief. However Genesis 2 was written some 4 centuries earlier and represents a time when Hebrew belief was henotheistic. Throughout the 1000 year time period of the Old Testament we see a real evolution in the Hebrew/Jewish understanding of God.

 

[Jonathan Mathews]

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.

#1 Ask God for Wisdom. He freely gives an abundance to all who ask. This is the first step in discovering ALL Truth.
#2 Using your Bible and Google, answer these 4 Questions..
Q1) Where did Moses get the pattern/design/dimensions/etc of the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle with all it's instruments?
Q2) Where did the stone tablets of the Law come from?
Q3) If Q1 and Q2 are true, would it have been EASIER or HARDER for God to describe the Creation to Moses? Why?
Q4) Does Mt Sinai (aka Mt Horeb or Jabal Lawz) still exist today? If so, what would the top look like (HINT: the Bible says God came down in fire and smoke)? What would be at it's base (HINT: Moses and the rebelling Israelites BOTH built one of these at the base of the mountain)? Is there any modern evidence for all these things?

Then watch this....

Now, if you already believe the Word of God about Moses receiving the pattern of the Tabernacle and the entire Law from God on Mount Sinai, then believing also that God accurately described Creation to Moses is simple to understand.

But if you do NOT believe the Word of God about Moses and the Law/Tabernacle, then I could give you all kinds of astro/physical/scientific evidences for very rational explanations of a "young earth", but would they really help if you don't believe the Word of God about the Law and the Tabernacle????

Even so, here are some more evidences that show a 6-day creation and 6,000 year-old earth is very realistic and plausible..

Google..
1) Where does light come from?
2) What are Stars made of?
3) Was there a "Universal Ocean"?
4) What is "water-splitting"?
5) Can you split water with light? If so, what elements does it produce?
6) What is "sonal-luminescence"? What is the REVERSE process of "sonal-luminescence"
7) Has anyone (*cough* secular Canadian physicists *cough*) every modeled the Creation or "Big Bang" by "water-splitting" using light in a vacuum and discovered the Universe could have "come to be" in 6 literal 24-hour days? (HINT: Yes they have)

Just imagine... a Universal-wide ocean of water in darkness, with no shape.... and suddenly "LET THERE BE LIGHT" and "Bang" all the Energy in the ENTIRE Universe explodes over the Universal Ocean in the form of Light and Sound...... what would happen????? Our Universe.... THAT is what would happen

Peace in Jesus Name!
-Jon

 

[rjs330]

Yes, I have. If you don';t want to accept it that is your problem.



Again, we have four accounts of the life of Jesus written by four different authors that authenticate each other. We also have references to Jesus from contemporaneous authors outside of scripture. We have none of that in support of the Genesis creation account.

No you don't have any scriptural evidence. You still have to produce a single verse. And the whole idea that Genesis 1 is allegory because it's poetry is nonsense. Poetry is a literary form. It has nothing to do with history or allegory. There is such a thing as historical poetry you know.

Besides it's not really Hebrew poetry. Hebrew poetry is primarily defined by parallelism in meaning. Like good and bad, wise and unwise etc. Hebrew poetry requires complimentary meanings. They usually come in pairs but sometimes triplets are used. The sentences in Genesis 1 read as Hebrew history as prose. Any idea that it is poetry does not fit the test. Supposed parallels are not really parallels typical in Hebrew poetry.

But like I said, even if it were it cannot be forced into allegory because poetry is not automatically allegory.

I don't suppose you read any of the verses I've given. It's rather interesting that genealogies can include all the real people. Unless of course you don't think they are a real people. I would like you to go through the genealogies and point out what people were real and which ones were not. Then I'd like to show some reasoning as why you chose the ones you did.

You fully accept Scripture validating Scripture, but only under you narrow set of rules. Who made you the rule maker? What kind of logic is there to say "I accept that Scripture verifies Scripture, but only under these narrow parameters"? Any other time it does not. So according to you anything spoken of in the OT is allegorical unless a contemporary a OT author verifies it. What Jesus and the apostles say about the person or the event is irrelevant to it's history and reality. So when Jesus talks about Abraham and when Abraham is mentioned in Hebrews it is all allegory because we can't verify his existence by contemporary authors in the OT. Why? Because you say so?

You still have not shown how Genesis is an allegory using scriptural evidence. I've given you plenty of scripture to peruse that shows otherwise. Including the words of God Himself.

 

[rjs330]

It was, after all, St. Augustine who argued that the first two chapters of Genesis were written to suit the understanding of the people at that time. He wrote that in order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion.

Who made Augustine the great decider? There were other church fathers who thought completely otherwise including Barnabas. Augustine also told us we had to believe what the Bible said despite our doubts.

 

[rjs330]

Again, this is not argument you want to make. I am quite confident that the majority of scholars / theologians believe the creation account is not literal. I suggest you may be limiting your definition of who is a "theologian / teacher" to American fundamentalists.

I disagree. The majority believe it is literal. It is the minority who do not. Of the early church fathers the majority of them believed in literal Genesis. Jesus and the apostles were the earliest church fathers and they obviously believed it was.

 

[rjs330]

I am not insinuating it, I am out and out saying it! Look - we know that Jesus was "flawed" in the sense that He took on human form and thereby our weaknesses. This is mainstream theology, so why are you opposed to it?


No. It challenges the non-Biblical view that Jesus was perfect in all senses - He clearly was not.


Not sure what you mean by "errors". We know that Jesus' knowledge was limited - He states that He does not the time at which He will return. And it is not at all clear that Jesus not knowing about evolution in any way constitutes an "error". Is it an "error" that I happen to not know the number of ducks presently alive in the world? Not according to most people.

At the end of the day, to say that my position on the creation account is effectively a declaration of "error" is liking a saying the author of Animal Farm (universally acknowledged to be a political allegory) committed an "error" in writing that book. In short, you are arbitrarily dismissing the possibility that the creation account was intended to be taken as non-literal.

But the bible also says he is the creator. That makes him the authority does it not? And your argument shows you are lacking in the understanding of God. Jesus said before Abraham was "I am." He was around as nothing was made except by him. So he does know and you are mistaken.

 

[rjs330]

No. My interpretation of what science is about is correct, and yours is mistaken.

From an Oregon State University Website:

Another word that is commonly misused (sadly, sometimes even by scientists, who should know better) is "proof".

What "proof" means in everyday speech:
In casual conversations, most people use the word "proof" when they mean that there is indisputable evidence that supports an idea.

Scientists should be wary of using the term "proof". Science does not "prove" things. Science can and does provide evidence in favor of, or against, a particular idea. In science, proofs are possible only in the highly abstract world of mathematics.

So science cannot prove there is such a thing as gravity or a water molecule? It's utter nonsense.

 

[Speedwell]

So science cannot prove there is such a thing as gravity or a water molecule? It's utter nonsense.

No, science does not "prove" things in the same way that propositions of axiomatic formal systems like math or logic are proven. Science is inductive; its conclusions are based on evidence.

 

[rjs330]

Hardly bland, it contains what were at the time some revolutionary theological ideas. The structure is not quite formal Hebrew poetry; the most reasonable theory I have seen is that it is hymnody, a hymn of praise to the creator. It is similar in some ways to other ANE creation myths, but the theological differences are striking, notably that creation is the act of a single uncreated God rather than a Manichean conflict between two gods or the mating of male and female gods which were then common theologies. It is a unique pronouncement of monotheism, which is why it is the first text in the book, though it is not the oldest. It celebrates facts already known, the uncompromising monotheism of the Hebrews for instance, and hallows the custom already established of a seventh day Sabbath. It is altogether a beautiful work of literature, fundamental to the theology of the Abrahamic faiths and, as I said before, regarding it as mere factual reporting would be a big step down, rather like comparing painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling to whitewashing a chicken coop.

Well when I say bland I mean it's not super descriptive. It just simply says God did this and God did that. I.mean he creates the whole world and all of life in six days. Incredible power. But it's stated so.matter of fact like. In just a few verses everything happens. Pretty bland account of the Almighty creating all of this!

God does so much in the bible matter of fact like. We are often left to consider the details of the experience. For example the plagues. A couple were more graphic in description but most were not when it comes to the details and how they were personally effected. How long did each last? Lots of things left out. Often the Bible is written in the old Dragnet Style of just the facts ma'am. But like you said it is still a beautiful work and it seems to me the matter of fact way the facts are presented does nothing to remove its beauty. It's not mere history. It is factual history that God ordained and guides by his might and power. His intimacy with his people is astounding. And by taking it all as factual history does nothing to diminish it's power. In fact it adds legitimacy to God's truth as the ONLY truth.

 

[rjs330]

Sobs

No, science does not "prove" things in the same way that propositions of axiomatic formal systems like math or logic are proven. Science is inductive; its conclusions are based on evidence.

So science can't prove gravity or the water molecule. Seems a bit silly to me. And quite frankly a really good cop out for when they are wrong.

 

[expos4ever]

I disagree. The majority believe it is literal. It is the minority who do not. Of the early church fathers the majority of them believed in literal Genesis. Jesus and the apostles were the earliest church fathers and they obviously believed it was.

From Wikipedia:

Some religious historians consider that Biblical literalism came about with the rise of Protestantism; before the Reformation, the Bible was not usually interpreted in a completely literal way. Fr. Stanley Jaki, a Benedictine priest and theologian who is also a distinguished physicist, states in his Bible and Science:

Insofar as the study of the original languages of the Bible was severed from authoritative ecclesiastical preaching as its matrix, it fueled literalism... Biblical literalism taken for a source of scientific information is making the rounds even nowadays among creationists who would merit Julian Huxley's description of 'bibliolaters.' They merely bring discredit to the Bible as they pile grist upon grist on the mills of latter-day Huxleys, such as Hoyle, Sagan, Gould, and others. The fallacies of creationism go deeper than fallacious reasonings about scientific data. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological faultline: the biblicism constructed by the [Protestant] Reformers.[5]

 

[JackRT]

Sobs

So science can't prove gravity or the water molecule. Seems a bit silly to me. And quite frankly a really good cop out for when they are wrong.

At least scientists can admit to being wrong.

 

[expos4ever]

I disagree. The majority believe it is literal. It is the minority who do not. Of the early church fathers the majority of them believed in literal Genesis. Jesus and the apostles were the earliest church fathers and they obviously believed it was.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Creationists present themselves as the true bearers and present-day representatives of authentic, traditional Christianity, but historically speaking this is simply not true (Ruse 1988, 2001, 2003, 2005; Numbers 1992; McMullin 1985). The Bible has a major place in the life of any Christian, but it is not the case that the Bible taken literally has always had a major place in the lives or theology of Christians. For most, indeed, it has not (Turner 2002).

 

[SeventyOne]

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Creationists present themselves as the true bearers and present-day representatives of authentic, traditional Christianity, but historically speaking this is simply not true (Ruse 1988, 2001, 2003, 2005; Numbers 1992; McMullin 1985). The Bible has a major place in the life of any Christian, but it is not the case that the Bible taken literally has always had a major place in the lives or theology of Christians. For most, indeed, it has not (Turner 2002).

It was called the Dark Ages for a reason.

 

[expos4ever]

But the bible also says he is the creator.

Of course, but you appear to be deliberately ignoring the facts of the Incarnation. The Scriptures are clear:

1. The incarnated Jesus took on our weaknesses. While limited knowledge is not explicitly identified, it is eminently reasonable to assume that Jesus shares our weakness of limited knowledge;

2. We are explicitly told - and I mean explicitly no doubt told - that, yes, there is something that Jesus does not, repeat does not, know: the time that He will return

So all these other vague, handwaving arguments are not enough: we have definitive scriptural proof (item 2) that Jesus' knowledge was limited. So you can appeal all you like to His "divinity", his "oneness with the Father", and His role as creator. However, the hard, inescapable fact remains: as the incarnated Jesus, He did not everything. It therefore follows that He might not have known that humans arose by evolution.

What is so frustrating about this is that you must know I am right, yet you persist in pushing a position - that Jesus knew everything - that is clearly repudiated by the same scriptures whose authority you claim to respect!

 

[expos4ever]

Sobs

So science can't prove gravity or the water molecule. Seems a bit silly to me. And quite frankly a really good cop out for when they are wrong.

This thread is a veritable clinic in errors of argument. It is most certainly not a cop out to truthfully expound the fact that science does not deal in matters of proof. This has been pointed out again and again. Plus, you should have been taught this in grade 9.

The fact that science does not "prove" things in no way diminishes its power to do what it always claimed it could do - provide "explanations" that are consistent with the evidence.

It seems like you are foisting your own, mistaken, conception about what science should be about, and then criticizing science for its inability to live up to that mistaken conception.

 

[rjs330]

I know, but that isn't the question you are refusing to answer.



So in other words it is a matter of interpretation.



But none of what you have listed supports the "historical Genesis" as you claim. Referencing the Genesis creation accounts and supporting the Genesis creation accounts are two different things.

The Life of Christ is told by different authors in different accounts written at different times. They support each other so we can rely on them. We also have references to Jesus outside of scripture.

I keep asking you to provide a single contemporaneous source outside of Genesis that supports the Genesis creation account. You have yet to provide any because--unlike the gospels-- there are none.



I have answered this numerous times. We have two differing accounts taht do not agree on details. One of the two is poetic. They use different terminology. Reading them as an allegory is perfectly consistent with reading other parts of scripture that are not to be read literally, such as the parables. Further, viewing them as an allegory is consistent with what science tellsus about the creation.

What question am I not answering?

 

[rjs330]

From Wikipedia:

Some religious historians consider that Biblical literalism came about with the rise of Protestantism; before the Reformation, the Bible was not usually interpreted in a completely literal way. Fr. Stanley Jaki, a Benedictine priest and theologian who is also a distinguished physicist, states in his Bible and Science:

Insofar as the study of the original languages of the Bible was severed from authoritative ecclesiastical preaching as its matrix, it fueled literalism... Biblical literalism taken for a source of scientific information is making the rounds even nowadays among creationists who would merit Julian Huxley's description of 'bibliolaters.' They merely bring discredit to the Bible as they pile grist upon grist on the mills of latter-day Huxleys, such as Hoyle, Sagan, Gould, and others. The fallacies of creationism go deeper than fallacious reasonings about scientific data. Where creationism is fundamentally at fault is its resting its case on a theological faultline: the biblicism constructed by the [Protestant] Reformers.[5]

That's what happens when you depend on Wiki. You get biased information. Often this happens with liberal scholars who want to make claims that the history of the church does not really support. You might take a look at this.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...fgDYE8mW03l2sGC_Q&sig2=suOnddoNIGwtfbnwglvkwA

It's simply not true what you claim. I have yet to find someone who can counter thebfact that Christ and the apostles were the earliest fathers and THEY believed in literal Genesis. The idea that it might not be didn't come until later. And even that was not a majority as you can see.

Plus it is irrelevant as there is still NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE that Genesis 1&2 is allegory.

 

[rjs330]

Of course, but you appear to be deliberately ignoring the facts of the Incarnation. The Scriptures are clear:

1. The incarnated Jesus took on our weaknesses. While limited knowledge is not explicitly identified, it is eminently reasonable to assume that Jesus shares our weakness of limited knowledge;

2. We are explicitly told - and I mean explicitly no doubt told - that, yes, there is something that Jesus does not, repeat does not, know: the time that He will return

So all these other vague, handwaving arguments are not enough: we have definitive scriptural proof (item 2) that Jesus' knowledge was limited. So you can appeal all you like to His "divinity", his "oneness with the Father", and His role as creator. However, the hard, inescapable fact remains: as the incarnated Jesus, He did not everything. It therefore follows that He might not have known that humans arose by evolution.

What is so frustrating about this is that you must know I am right, yet you persist in pushing a position - that Jesus knew everything - that is clearly repudiated by the same scriptures whose authority you claim to respect!

What scriptural evidence to you have that Christ didn't know about creation as the creator? Assumption is always a faulty argument. You see your argument is based on a biased thought process and thus you assume one thing because it fits your belief rather than fitting your belief to what the Bible says. The word is clear that Christ was the creator. There is no scriptural evidence that he didn't know that.

 

[rjs330]

Of course, but you appear to be deliberately ignoring the facts of the Incarnation. The Scriptures are clear:

1. The incarnated Jesus took on our weaknesses. While limited knowledge is not explicitly identified, it is eminently reasonable to assume that Jesus shares our weakness of limited knowledge;

2. We are explicitly told - and I mean explicitly no doubt told - that, yes, there is something that Jesus does not, repeat does not, know: the time that He will return

So all these other vague, handwaving arguments are not enough: we have definitive scriptural proof (item 2) that Jesus' knowledge was limited. So you can appeal all you like to His "divinity", his "oneness with the Father", and His role as creator. However, the hard, inescapable fact remains: as the incarnated Jesus, He did not everything. It therefore follows that He might not have known that humans arose by evolution.

What is so frustrating about this is that you must know I am right, yet you persist in pushing a position - that Jesus knew everything - that is clearly repudiated by the same scriptures whose authority you claim to respect!

What scriptural evidence to you have that Christ didn't know about creation as the creator? Assumption is always a faulty argument. You see your argument is based on a biased thought process and thus you assume one thing because it fits your belief rather than fitting your belief to what the Bible says. The word is clear that Christ was the creator. There is no scriptural evidence that he didn't know that.

This thread is a veritable clinic in errors of argument. It is most certainly not a cop out to truthfully expound the fact that science does not deal in matters of proof. This has been pointed out again and again. Plus, you should have been taught this in grade 9.

The fact that science does not "prove" things in no way diminishes its power to do what it always claimed it could do - provide "explanations" that are consistent with the evidence.

It seems like you are foisting your own, mistaken, conception about what science should be about, and then criticizing science for its inability to live up to that mistaken conception.

This thread when it comes to science is another one showing just how faulty it is. It's only the argument of the weak who can't say they don't prove anything and can't. Can science prove that water boils at a certain temperature? Can science prove the existence of a water molecule? Of course it can. Other things science speculates on based upon evidence they have. Other things they can't prove. But the things they can't prove are speculation and speculation only. Yet they take such pride in proclaiming facts when they really have nothing but speculation. The we don't have to prove anything argument is a copy out. Plain and simple.