Should Genesis be taken literally?

[rjs330]

I'm still awaiting an answer. One account contemporary with Genesis that confirms Genesis as a factual account. Please, name it.



Again, the fact that later authors cited Genesis doesn't verify Genesis as a factual history.



Except that we have multiple accounts by different authors written shortly after the events that agree on all major points. We also have references to Jesus written by Jewish historian Josephus.

.
I don't regard all if the OT as allegory. Never made such a statement. Of course you are free to your interpretation.

You still haven't given any evidence of allegory. And you have no evidence where allegory ends and history begins. Id really like to see some please.

Again you have no real evidence that Jesus actually said what he said. The Bible is really the only authentic source of Jesus life and words and his death and resurrection. We believe it because it says it. The Bible authenticates itself. Yet when it comes to Genesis it suddenly doesn't authenticate itself. There is much inconsistency here.

 

[Speedwell]

You can still answer the question. I may not buy the answer but you can still answer it. Why avoid the answer?

Whenever historical narrative is written, there is a trade-off between the "facts" and the literary requirements of creating the narrative. Crudely put, the author has to decide how much he is going to let the "facts" stand in the way of a good story. This is true now, it was true then. How that decision is made varies with the literary purposes of the author and it has varied as well greatly over time. The study of how history is and has been written is called historiography and it is not blind guesswork. Among other things, great historians of the ancient past, Thucydides for example, not only wrote history, they wrote about how they wrote history and there are other investigatory tools as well. Consequently, when you ask me whether the story in the Bible about Abraham is history, I am inclined to say yes, because I believe it is. But if I say yes, you will hold me to your restricted definition of history in order to play some rhetorical "gotcha game" you've got going. So you can see why I am reluctant to answer. If you were not a creationist at battle stations over evolution I could say "yes" and we could calmly discuss what I meant by it. The short answer is that the story of Abraham in the Bible fits somewhere in the broad category of legendary history, a story about a real person (who lies in a tomb in Hebron--can't get realer than that) and the main events of his life of indeterminate factual accuracy according to the mode of writing such a history current at the time it was written, produced to satisfy the heroic image of the founder of his people. Because it is a divinely inspired and thus an authoritative account I am satisfied to take it at face value for its theological import without caring very much to assert that it is 100% factually accurate in all respects. It is, after all, the story that's important.

 

[Speedwell]

How about the fact that Jesus was actually the creator. Would that be enough?

Except He wasn't. The Word, through whom God created all, was not made flesh as Jesus of Nazareth until the Incarnation.

 

[JacksBratt]

I see no compelling Biblical argument to believe that Paul, Moses, Solomon, or even Jesus were not "mistaken" about some things.

This statement just blows my mind. If these people were "mistaken" about anything, how do we know what it was that they were correct about and what was mistaken...... Do we just take the things that sound odd or impossible and call them mistaken? Or, do we just throw out the ones that don't fit with the observations of man?
Ya, that's easy..... if it doesn't fit with the teaching of atheistic academia.....it must be mistaken.

 

[KWCrazy]

I have no idea what you are saying.
Clearly all of the above are possible - no is denying the possibility that God could have made the world just as described in the book of Genesis. [/quota]
In the physical world, none of them are possible.
According to science, which is the study of the physical world, none of them are possible.
The definition of a miracle means that there is no possible natural explanation.

I reject the literal truth of things for which there is compelling counter-evidence:

You don't believe there is compelling counter-evidence that ax heads do not float' that people do not walk on water; that dead people do not arise etc? None of these events are more or less impossible than the rest.

- a talking snake or donkey (having animals talk is, I believe, often used as a literary device. Plus the snake is a universal symbol of evil).

True, and water bursting from rocks happens all the time.

Because in the case of evolution, the debate is basically over.

Yes, it is. God made man in His image on the sixth day, and later made woman from Adam's rib. Sin and death came into the world from Adam's sin. Nothing evolved into anything beyond the normal speciation which happened after the Great Flood.

 

[Archivist]

Ive already answered the good Samaritan question.

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

I will even throw this in. We don't know for sure if Jesus was telling a parable or a true story. There are very valid reasons to believe it is one and they have been outlined for you. But in the end it was one story as we're all the stories Jesus told and none of them were validated in any way to be historical narrative. There is more evidence that it wasn't than it was. But I am not going to be dogmatic on that account because all we have is the original told by Christ and that is all we have.

So in other words it is a matter of interpretation.

Now as far as Genesis is concerned we have the following scriptures to support history not allegory.

Ex. 20:8-11
Gen 5
Gen 11:10-26
PS 33:6, 9
Ezk 31:8-9
I Chronicles 1
Luke 11:49-52
Matt 24:36-39
John 8-54-56
Matt 12:40-41
Romans 5
Rom 16:20
I Tim 2:13-14
Hebrews 4:4
Heb 4:10
I Peter 3:20
Heb 11:4

So, you see there is plenty of scripture to indicate the historical Genesis and not an allegorical one. For me the most compelling is God's words in Exodus and Jesus own statements. Since He is the creator I would think he knows for sure.

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 yet to hear from the allegory believers where in Scripture it is shown to possibly be allegory. While there is plenty of scripture to state it was not.

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.

 

[Archivist]

You still haven't given any evidence of allegory. And you have no evidence where allegory ends and history begins. Id really like to see some please.

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

Again you have no real evidence that Jesus actually said what he said. The Bible is really the only authentic source of Jesus life and words and his death and resurrection. We believe it because it says it. The Bible authenticates itself. Yet when it comes to Genesis it suddenly doesn't authenticate itself. There is much inconsistency here.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

The Holy Bible: high level reading comprehension and critical thinking skills required.

 

[expos4ever]

This statement just blows my mind. If these people were "mistaken" about anything, how do we know what it was that they were correct about and what was mistaken......

Well, life is complicated, what do you expect? There is simply no Biblical basis to assume that Paul and the other writers of Scripture, or even Jesus, had perfect knowledge. More specifically, this new Testament statement:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

....clearly does not equal this:

All Scripture is inspired by God, and is to be taken literally, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

There is, obviously, no reason why God cannot use myth and other literary device to communicate essential truth - writers have been doing this for thousands of years.

While it is commonly held in American Christian culture the Scriptures are easy to understand and are to be taken literally, there is simply no case for this, either Biblically or otherwise.

Again, Jesus took on human form and its weaknesses. So it is entirely conceivable that Jesus mistakenly believed the earth to the only 6000 (or 10000) years old.

 

[expos4ever]

In the physical world, none of them are possible.
According to science, which is the study of the physical world, none of them are possible

False. Simply not correct. You misrepresent science - no properly educated scientist will say that any of this stuff is impossible. Science is not in the business of making absolute statements like "such and such is impossible".

 

[Archivist]

There is, obviously, no reason why God cannot use myth and other literary device to communicate essential truth - writers have been doing this for thousands of years.

And in fact we know that Jesus did use literary devices in the form of parables to teach when He was on this Earth.

 

[expos4ever]

You don't believe there is compelling counter-evidence that ax heads do not float' that people do not walk on water; that dead people do not arise etc? None of these events are more or less impossible than the rest.

None of these things are impossible and science never said otherwise.

 

[SeventyOne]

None of these things are impossible and science never said otherwise.

Does this apply to a talking snake as well?

 

[JacksBratt]

Well, life is complicated, what do you expect? There is simply no Biblical basis to assume that Paul and the other writers of Scripture, or even Jesus, had perfect knowledge. More specifically, this new Testament statement:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Seriously, I am surprised that someone claiming to be a Christian, could state such a thing.

As you have quoted the scripture, exactly what textbook or source of knowledge that was not perfect, would you allow for teaching, reproof, correction and training in, of all things, righteousness? Righteousness being the state of moral perfection, would be impossible to reach if the knowledge supplied was flawed. Also, righteousness could not be reached if it was the product of flawed teaching or correction.....

I don't need to have "to be taken literally" added. In fact this would be impossible, would it not? As this verse you have quoted indicates "ALL Scripture" and we know that "ALL" scripture is not literal.

If it is that difficult for you to understand which scripture is literal and which is not...... we have religious theologians and teachers to help you with it.

It still brings me back to my main belief with this controversy...... Many people find it hard to line the Biblical scriptures up with the teachings of atheistic man. So, as a compromise, the take the miraculous events that are foundational for their salvation and toss the rest out as errors in translations, allegorical stories, parables or whatever they can comfortably devise and still sleep at night knowing that all is good because their soul is destined for eternity and the wisdom of the atheistic minds of this earth are, for the most part, not upset.

 

[expos4ever]

True, and water bursting from rocks happens all the time

Your reasoning is not correct. I explained that the reason I believe the talking snake was not literal is (1) there is a history of the use of talking animals as a literary device; (2) there is a history of the use of the snake as a symbol of evil.

There is, to my knowledge, no such history relative to water springing from rocks.

 

[expos4ever]

Does this apply to a talking snake as well?

Of course! No one has ever said a talking snake is impossible!

 

[JacksBratt]

None of these things are impossible and science never said otherwise.

Are you saying that it is scientifically possible for a steel axe head to float on water, a man to walk on water, from shore out to the middle of a sea, and people who have been dead for several days to come back to life with no ill affects?

 

[expos4ever]

Seriously, I am surprised that someone claiming to be a Christian, could state such a thing.

And I am surprised that educated Christians seem to reject the possibility of literary device and to believe in something that has clearly been discredited by careful, responsible, robust scientific inquiry.

Are you an American? Are you a "fundamentalist". I would bet the overwhelming majority of mainstream (non-fundamentalist) Christians outside the USA would agree with my claim.

 

[JacksBratt]

And I am surprised that educated Christians seem to reject the possibility of literary device and to believe in something that has clearly been discredited by careful, responsible, robust scientific inquiry.

Are you an American? Are you a "fundamentalist". I would bet the overwhelming majority of mainstream (non-fundamentalist) Christians outside the USA would agree with my claim.

So, scientific inquiry, that discredits the word of God, is held, by you, as more valid than the word of the Living God?

Scientific inquiry that I have heard on so many occasions to be said "proves nothing"

Have you not heard that? That "science proves nothing"?


Sorry, but I will go with the Bible being: inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

long before I trust science which "proves nothing".

 

[Archivist]

And I am surprised that educated Christians seem to reject the possibility of literary device and to believe in something that has clearly been discredited by careful, responsible, robust scientific inquiry.

Are you an American? Are you a "fundamentalist". I would bet the overwhelming majority of mainstream (non-fundamentalist) Christians outside the USA would agree with my claim.

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.