Should Genesis be taken literally?

[rjs330]

I love your double standard. When you want to read something in scripture as a parable rather than a literal statement, even though it is not identified as such, you are free to do so based on certain factors that you named earlier in the thread. However when I choose to read something as an allegory I cannot do so without providing scripture stating that it is an allegory. I have listed the various factors common to allegories that are in Genesis 1 & 2. Based on those factors my interpretation is that it is an allegory. Once again, you are free to your own interpretation.

I still find it interesting that we have people posting in this thread who say that the Genesis creation accounts must be read literally yet deny the plain meaning of the words of Jesus when He said this is my body and this is my blood.

There is no double standard here. Not at all. I gave examples of scriptural evidence why the good Samaritan could be a parable. It fits within the SCRIPTURAL content of a parable. I've also stated that it could be a true story. But there is evidence within Scripture itself why it is most likely a parable. You have ZERO evidence for believing Genesis is not literal. Hence it is a belief gained outside of scripture that disregards scripture and claims it is allegory. You disregard scripture that claims it is not allegory. You wholeheartedly believe in the literalness of Jesus body and blood because he said it. But when he speaks concerning Genesis you don't believe in the literalness then.

Those that do not believe it a literal Genesis 1&2 still have no answer to the rest of the book and it's historical nature. Was Abraham real and were the life and times of Abraham real? Did the events described of Abraham's life really occur? How do you know they did or didn't?

 

[-57]

Those that do not believe it a literal Genesis 1&2 still have no answer to the rest of the book and it's historical nature. Was Abraham real and were the life and times of Abraham real? Did the events described of Abraham's life really occur? How do you know they did or didn't?

I also noticed they also deny the flood or make it a local flood.

 

[shakewell]

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.

Yes, Genesis should be taken literally. The Bible isn't subject to the fallacies of man's oral tradition and it isn't a dime novel. God preserves His word. Jesus said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled", Matthew 5:18.
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven, Psalm 119:89
Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever, Psalm 119:152
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever, Isaiah 40:8
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you, 1 Peter 1:25
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail, Luke 16:17
All of the Old & New Testiment writers who wrote after the time of Moses and refered to accounts in Genesis, treated the accounts as historically accurate.

 

[Speedwell]

. You have ZERO evidence for believing Genesis is not literal. Hence it is a belief gained outside of scripture that disregards scripture and claims it is allegory. You disregard scripture that claims it is not allegory. You wholeheartedly believe in the literalness of Jesus body and blood because he said it. But when he speaks concerning Genesis you don't believe in the literalness then.

You hurt your own case by overstating it. There is no explicit claim made in scripture that Genesis is 100% accurate literal history. That is something which you infer by the way the Genesis stories are used by subsequent authors. It is a weak inference at best. On the other hand, Jesus explicitly stated, "This is my body..."

Those that do not believe it a literal Genesis 1&2 still have no answer to the rest of the book and it's historical nature. Was Abraham real and were the life and times of Abraham real? Did the events described of Abraham's life really occur? How do you know they did or didn't?

Abraham has a tomb. Does Adam? Oh, wait--Abraham's tomb is outside the Bible, and we're not supposed to use anything outside the Bible to confirm that Abraham was a real person.

 

[rjs330]

You hurt your own case by overstating it. There is no explicit claim made in scripture that Genesis is 100% accurate literal history. That is something which you infer by the way the Genesis stories are used by subsequent authors. It is a weak inference at best. On the other hand, Jesus explicitly stated, "This is my body..."

Abraham has a tomb. Does Adam? Oh, wait--Abraham's tomb is outside the Bible, and we're not supposed to use anything outside the Bible to confirm that Abraham was a real person.

You really wouldn't expect there to be a tomb of anyone before Noah would you? It would be long gone in the flood. Even the tomb of Abraham is tradition and not necessarily proven by archeology. And even if it was it still says nothing about Abraham of the scriptures and if the history of the Bible is correct and factual. We take that by belief that the Bible is accurate history because it is the inspired scriptures and the fact that Christ and the apostles believed it as stated in the NT scriptures.

 

[rjs330]

You hurt your own case by overstating it. There is no explicit claim made in scripture that Genesis is 100% accurate literal history. That is something which you infer by the way the Genesis stories are used by subsequent authors. It is a weak inference at best. On the other hand, Jesus explicitly stated, "This is my body..."

Abraham has a tomb. Does Adam? Oh, wait--Abraham's tomb is outside the Bible, and we're not supposed to use anything outside the Bible to confirm that Abraham was a real person.

My inference is based upon a strong case made by Jesus and the apostles as well as OT references. It's a far greater case than those who claim it's not, because they have exactly zero evidence for that.

 

[Speedwell]

My inference is based upon a strong case made by Jesus and the apostles as well as OT references. It's a far greater case than those who claim it's not, because they have exactly zero evidence for that.

I'm not saying it's not--not in this discussion, anyway. What I'm saying is that you don't get as much mileage out of that "Jesus quotes Genesis" line of argument as you claim for it. It's the argument itself we're talking about, not the genres of the Genesis stories, whatever they may be. The most you can expect to show by it is that Jesus and Paul thought that the stories were in some sense historical. The rest of the distance from there to "100 % accurate literal history" is made up of pure supposition on your part.

 

[rjs330]

I'm not saying it's not--not in this discussion, anyway. What I'm saying is that you don't get as much mileage out of that "Jesus quotes Genesis" line of argument as you claim for it. It's the argument itself we're talking about, not the genres of the Genesis stories, whatever they may be. The most you can expect to show by it is that Jesus and Paul thought that the stories were in some sense historical. The rest of the distance from there to "100 % accurate literal history" is made up of pure supposition on your part.

Supported by Scripture itself. I would think people like the apostles and Jesus would know. Whereas to the other side has zilch.

 

[Speedwell]

Supported by Scripture itself. I would think people like the apostles and Jesus would know. Whereas to the other side has zilch.

What would they know? What would they know about a genre of historical narration which was foreign to them but which you think the Genesis stories must be?

 

[Archivist]

Supported by Scripture itself. I would think people like the apostles and Jesus would know. Whereas to the other side has zilch.

The is no contemporaneous scripture that suppprts Genesis. Later references to it by individuals who were taught that it is a factual account don't confirm Genesis.

I have said multiple times that I view Genesis as an allegory. It contains all the components of an allegory. That doesn't mean it isn't true, that just means that it isn't historically accurrate.

As I have said multiple times, you are entitled to you interpretation of scripture. The difference between you and I is that you apparently believe that your interpretation is the only possible interoretation and that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is wrong. The fact is that there are many parts of scripture upon which believers disagree and this is one of them.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I also noticed they also deny the flood or make it a local flood.

Noah's flood is what we call a shadow and a type of the flood that destroyed Pangea around 200 million years ago. When we read in Genesis 7:11 "all the fountains of the great deep broken up" This is a reference to plate tectonics.

 

[rjs330]

The is no contemporaneous scripture that suppprts Genesis. Later references to it by individuals who were taught that it is a factual account don't confirm Genesis.

I have said multiple times that I view Genesis as an allegory. It contains all the components of an allegory. That doesn't mean it isn't true, that just means that it isn't historically accurrate.

As I have said multiple times, you are entitled to you interpretation of scripture. The difference between you and I is that you apparently believe that your interpretation is the only possible interoretation and that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is wrong. The fact is that there are many parts of scripture upon which believers disagree and this is one of them.

I certainly would think that God was contemporaneous to Genesis. And since Jesus was there as well I would consider him in the same vein. Like I said, that to me is the most powerful evidence.

And since Paul said this.
but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - 1 Corinthians 2:7-16 Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 2:7-16 - Common English Bible

I also think that is very strong evidence as well that what he shares and states is directly from the mind of Christ and the Spririt of God. Your interpretation has no scriptural backing. Whereas the creationists has the backing if God himself and Jesus Christ who were actually there when it happened. You can't get more contemporaneous than that. Those that don't believe in Genesis creation have nothing but human supposition. Those that believe it have the words if God and of Jesus and the apostles who received the truth directly from the spirit and have the mind of Christ.

 

[KWCrazy]

... Whereas the creationists have the backing if God himself and Jesus Christ who were actually there when it happened. You can't get more contemporaneous than that. Those that don't believe in Genesis creation have nothing but human supposition. Those that believe it have the words if God and of Jesus and the apostles who received the truth directly from the spirit and have the mind of Christ.

Exactly right.
The only reason they so adamantly contend that the flood didn't happen is because it disproves evolution. Evolution is their way to downplay the authority of God so that they can live as they want to without any consequence.

 

[Archivist]

I certainly would think that God was contemporaneous to Genesis. And since Jesus was there as well I would consider him in the same vein. Like I said, that to me is the most powerful evidence.

What writing is contemporaneous to Genesis? None covers the same period.

And since Paul said this.
but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - 1 Corinthians 2:7-16 Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 2:7-16 - Common English Bible

None of which says that the differing creation stories in Genesis are anything other than allegory.

I also think that is very strong evidence as well that what he shares and states is directly from the mind of Christ and the Spririt of God. Your interpretation has no scriptural backing. Whereas the creationists has the backing if God himself and Jesus Christ who were actually there when it happened. You can't get more contemporaneous than that. Those that don't believe in Genesis creation have nothing but human supposition. Those that believe it have the words if God and of Jesus and the apostles who received the truth directly from the spirit and have the mind of Christ.

Actually I don't know of anyone in this thread who has said that they don't believe the Genesis accounts. I believe them, I simply believe them to be allegories not factual history.

Interesting that we have people in this thread who say that one must believe in a literal Genesis creation while denying the plain meaning of the actual words that Jesus spoke at the Last Supper--"this is my body" and "this cup is the new testament in my blood."

 

[Speedwell]

Exactly right.
The only reason they so adamantly contend that the flood didn't happen is because it disproves evolution. Evolution is their way to downplay the authority of God so that they can live as they want to without any consequence.

Who are the "they" you are slandering?

 

[KWCrazy]

Who are the "they" you are slandering?

It wouldn't be slander it would be libel, since it's written not spoken. Since what I said is true, it wouldn't be libel either. It applies to whom it applies. You know the ones. They can't stop at attacking Genesis one because Genesis 5 gives a genealogy they can't accept and Genesis 6-9 details a universal flood that eliminates the great ages required for evolution to occur. Most of these consider themselves Theistic Evolutionists because they believe in God, they just remake Him and His word into their image.

 

[KWCrazy]

[QUOTE="Archivist, post: 71194716, member: 28206"None of which says that the differing creation stories in Genesis are anything other than allegory. [/QUOTE]
There are no differing creation accounts in Genesis. There is one creation account, one account of man's formation and one account of man's fall from grace.

I believe them, I simply believe them to be allegories not factual history.

Allegories for what?
If God didn't destroy the world by flood, how do we know He will destroy it after Christ returns?
If sin didn't come into the world by one man, how could the sins of man be forgiven through one man?
If Noah wasn't the savior of life, how then is Jesus the savior of our spiritual lives?
It only makes sense if it happened.
Compare this with the fact that there isn't a single passage in the Bible which says the events n Genesis were allegories, an you get the simple answer; rejection of the Genesis account comes not from a better meaning of the Scriptures, but from the rejection of the Scriptures.

Interesting that we have people in this thread who say that one must believe in a literal Genesis creation while denying the plain meaning of the actual words that Jesus spoke at the Last Supper--"this is my body" and "this cup is the new testament in my blood."

That was an obvious metaphor. There wasn't a mark on his body and he had shed no blood.
It was symbolic of sharing in His sacrifice. Only the Catholics believe their crackers and juice actually turns into flesh and blood.
But then, they also believe in praying to intercessors and Purgatory; two major beliefs which are not in the King James Bible.

Jesus said to take up your cross and follow Him. I don't see you dragging a cross.

 

[Speedwell]

It wouldn't be slander it would be libel, since it's written not spoken. Since what I said is true, it wouldn't be libel either. It applies to whom it applies. You know the ones. They can't stop at attacking Genesis one because Genesis 5 gives a genealogy they can't accept and Genesis 6-9 details a universal flood that eliminates the great ages required for evolution to occur. Most of these consider themselves Theistic Evolutionists because they believe in God, they just remake Him and His word into their image.

So if they believe in God and their salvation through the atoning sacrifice of Christ and all of that, how is it that disbelieving in a literal Genesis is "downplaying the authority of God so that they can live as they want to without any consequence."

Clearly, what you wrote is not true.

 

[Speedwell]

But then, they also believe in praying to intercessors and Purgatory; two major beliefs which are not in the King James Bible.

I didn't know you were a 1611er!

Jesus said to take up your cross and follow Him. I don't see you dragging a cross.

We put up with creationists, don't we?

 

[KWCrazy]

So if they believe in God and their salvation through the atoning sacrifice of Christ and all of that, how is it that disbelieving in a literal Genesis is "downplaying the authority of God so that they can live as they want to without any consequence."

There are two kinds of people who reject Genesis; Christians who have been seduced by the lies of non-believers into thinking that all living things evolved over time and were NOT created by God, so therefore Genesis must be an allegory, and non-Christians who don't believe in the Bible whatever. With the latter group, the non existence of God and the non existence of any divine authority gives them the freedom to live as wicked a life as they choose without consequence. With the former group, there is absolutely no Scripture to support what they believe so they usually get belligerent and derisive when challenged to support their claims with Scripture. They feel free to believe as they want to believe, not as the Lord tells them.

Salient fact: Those who believe in evolution and the Bible have a solid understanding of neither.