Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Speedwell]

To make matters even worse for you the bible tells us we sin now because of what happened in the garden. Adam and Eve disobeyed. Because of this act of disobedience sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. That man was Adam. This is the reason Jesus came.

When you make Genesis into a myth...you make the reason why Jesus came based upon a myth.
This give you two strikes now.
1) Pauls rule was based upon a myth.
2)The reason Jesus came was based upon a myth.
......do you fully comprehend just what you are doing to the basement tenants of Christianity?

Logical fallacy. The formal name for it is denying the antecedent. Jesus came because we are sinners in need of redemption. How we got that way makes no difference.

 

[-57]

Logical fallacy. The formal name for it is denying the antecedent. Jesus came because we are sinners in need of redemption. How we got that way makes no difference.

It makes no difference? So the bible lies when it explicitly tells us how we got our sin nature? You can't be serious? Not only does Genesis tell us but Paul also informs us....and you deny their biblical explanation and exchange it with what? With what?

 

[Speedwell]

It makes no difference? So the bible lies when it explicitly tells us how we got our sin nature? You can't be serious? Not only does Genesis tell us but Paul also informs us....and you deny their biblical explanation and exchange it with what? With what?

No, the Bible doesn't lie, it just doesn't necessarily tell us the story framed as 100% accurate literal history. But if you can't know that you are a sinner in need of redemption without a 100% accurate literal Garden story, then you had better stick to your interpretation.

 

[rjs330]

Logical fallacy. The formal name for it is denying the antecedent. Jesus came because we are sinners in need of redemption. How we got that way makes no difference.

If it makes no difference then why does the bible tell us about it? It tells us so that we understand why we are sinners and in need of redemption.

 

[rjs330]

You have been shown over and over again that science does not claim to prove anything. It certainly appears you are either not reading the posts or, worse, deliberately misrepresenting what science is all about.




No! You have been shown over and over again that science is not in the proving business. The evidence is mounting - you are deliberately distorting the truth.

That is plain hogwash and you know it. Science can prove water boils at a certain temperature. Science can prove there is a water molecule. Science can split the atom proof that it can be done. That argument that science doesn't prove anything is a cop out particularly of evolutionists.

 

[rjs330]

Actually I have produced scriptural evidence, you have just chosen to ignore it. The evidence is Genesis 1 & 2 itself. The accounts differ in the order of creation. They use differing language. They include allegorical figures such as a talking snake and forbidden fruit from a tree of life. Chapter one is written as a poem. None of that bothers me because I don't read them as history, I read them together as an allegory. Of course, as I keep saying, you are free to your own interpretation.



Of course it is poetry. The following is from the Ancient Hebrew Research Center:

"When we read Genesis chapter one we usually see only one story there, but there are actually many stories. Why don't we see these multiple stories? Because we read the Hebrew Bible from a Modern Western thinkers point of view and not from an Ancient Eastern thinkers view like the Hebrews who wrote it. The Hebrews style of writing is prolific with a style of poetry unfamiliar to most readers of the Bible. This poetry is nothing like the poetry we are used to reading today and therefore it is invisible to us."

The full article can be found here: Poetry in the Hebrew Bible.



I never said that poetry was automatically allegory. But it is often an indication that a writing is not intended to be historically accurate.



No I'm certainly not going to do that. Remember, you are the one claiming that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation, that the Genesis creation accounts must be accepted literally. I'm not making that claim. In fact I have said over and over and over that you are entitled to your interpretat6ion.



When did I ever claim to be the "rule maker"? I'm not the one claiming that anyone else has to accept my interpretation, you are the one making that claim. And when did I ever say that "anything spoken of in the OT is allegorical unless a contemporary a OT author verifies it." Those are not my words.



Again, I have done so. You are just ignoring what I have said.

Where did you show Scripture supporting Genesis as allegory? Just give me the post number, I don't remember seeing it.

 

[Speedwell]

If it makes no difference then why does the bible tell us about it? It tells us so that we understand why we are sinners and in need of redemption.

The point was that how the Bible tells us about it makes no difference to our salvation in Christ. Some of our colleagues would have us believe that unless the Garden story is 100% accurate literal history there is no salvation in Christ.

 

[Speedwell]

That is plain hogwash and you know it. Science can prove water boils at a certain temperature. Science can prove there is a water molecule. Science can split the atom proof that it can be done. That argument that science doesn't prove anything is a cop out particularly of evolutionists.

Do you not know the difference between deductive logic and inductive logic?

 

[MrMoe]

Indeed - I doubt that the donkey account was intended to be taken literally.

This begs a few questions:

1. Do you believe God or the enemy can make an animal to talk?

2. What about all the other "unrealistic senarios" in Genesis or the other books? Like two angels striking men with blindness. A woman turning into a pillar of salt. Jacob wrestling with a heavenly being. Jesus walking on water. Jesus rising from the dead. Are these all allegories too?

I never said there was evidence that Jesus spoke from a position of ignorance. I simply showed it was possible.

I never said that's what you said.

You said it was possible, and I was was simply pointing out that even if it is possible, there is no evidence of Him doing it the bible.

It's important to follow the details of the back and forth. This whole thing started when people made the following argument:

1. Jesus refers to the creation account as if it were literal;
2. Therefore, the creation account must be literal.

That seems like a logical conclusion.

I have shown this argument has no power - since we know that there are some things Jesus does not know,

So far you've only shown one thing Jesus doesn't know. That's not "some things".

and since we know that the embodied Jesus shared in our weaknesses, it is impossible to discount the possibility that one of those weaknesses is "speaking from ignorance" as you say.

Actually it is possible to discount the possibility, using Scripture.

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. John 12:49

And that would certainly not be "sin".

How do you know it's certainly not a sin?

If Jesus spoke presumptuously then that would definitely have been a sin, since it would break the commandment He spoke of in John 12:49

Lying - as you see in this forum all the time - is sin,

You're accusing others here in this forum of lying but you've just told me "there are some things Jesus does not know" when you've only shown one example. Show me the other things Jesus doesn't know.

speaking from ignorance is not.

How do you know?

Of course, but my point was simply that human beings arose by the process of evolution.

So what does evolution have to do with whether Genesis is literal or not?

What is the hole? Please be specific.

1. You claimed the incarnated Jesus took on human weakness and that would include limited knowledge. (post #1355)

2. You used Jesus not knowing the time of his return as evidence. (post #1355)

The problem with this argument is that it implies that Jesus not knowing the time of His return is a result of the incarnated Jesus taking on human weakness, which would imply that He could have know the time of His return before the incarnation. See the problem?

 

[Archivist]

Where did you show Scripture supporting Genesis as allegory? Just give me the post number, I don't remember seeing it.

This is what people do when they have run out of arguments to support their claims. They ignore most of what gets said in a post, because they have no reply. Why don't you try reading what I wrote. "The evidence is Genesis 1 & 2 itself. The accounts differ in the order of creation. They use differing language. They include allegorical figures such as a talking snake and forbidden fruit from a tree of life. Chapter one is written as a poem. None of that bothers me because I don't read them as history, I read them together as an allegory... Of course, as I keep saying, you are free to your own interpretation."

Once again, Remember, you are the one claiming that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation, that the Genesis creation accounts must be accepted literally. I'm not making that claim. In fact I have said over and over and over that you are entitled to your interpretation.

 

[rjs330]

This is what people do when they have run out of arguments to support their claims. They ignore most of what gets said in a post, because they have no reply. Why don't you try reading what I wrote. "The evidence is Genesis 1 & 2 itself. The accounts differ in the order of creation. They use differing language. They include allegorical figures such as a talking snake and forbidden fruit from a tree of life. Chapter one is written as a poem. None of that bothers me because I don't read them as history, I read them together as an allegory... Of course, as I keep saying, you are free to your own interpretation."

Once again, Remember, you are the one claiming that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation, that the Genesis creation accounts must be accepted literally. I'm not making that claim. In fact I have said over and over and over that you are entitled to your interpretation.

I guess I did read your post then. I thought you said you had scriptural evidence of Genesis being an allegory. I thought you had scriptures that showed evidence of Genesis as allegory and I didn't see the post.

Apparently I DID NOT IGNORE your post but read it accurately. You do not have scriptural evidence that Genesis is allegory, but mere supposition based upon a theory that has no biblical basis. I've given scriptural evidence that it is not allegory and you admitted you did not read them. I wonder why? Perhaps you do not have an real answer to counter the scriptures themselves.

The evidence is there and you have chosen to ignore it. I find it very interesting that someone would believe that God would be powerful enough to create the earth, have virgin give birth, cause people to walk on water, turn bread into flesh and wine into blood, raise the dead,. BUT for goodness sake he can't allow a snake to talk or have a tree with special fruit.

I'm glad it doesn't bother you that you don't take it as history. But it does beg the question of how do you interpret the rest of Genesis. Where does history actually begin? And how do you know? Do you believe Abraham was real or is his life an allegory too?

 

[rjs330]

The point was that how the Bible tells us about it makes no difference to our salvation in Christ. Some of our colleagues would have us believe that unless the Garden story is 100% accurate literal history there is no salvation in Christ.

Well I'm not sure how you have to believe the Garden story fits into the salvation aspect, but I do understand that the Garden story is an explanation as to why we need salvation. Why is mankind a fallen race in need of a savior. How did that all happen? God provided that explanation as to why and how it occurred. Paul says it very well. We all came into the world as sinful beings because of Adam. We can all be made righteous because of Jesus. You know this. God was good enough to explain it to us even though he did not have to.

That should be important should it not? Remember what Paul says in Corinthians about the deep things being revealed? Those deep things are revealed to us. We should take them seriously even if we don't completely understand them.

The Bible says we are born sinners and that begs the question coming from our curious searching minds as to why? Why am I born into sin? God explains why. And the writers of God's word understood why. That then begs the question of if Paul who was one of the apostles and Jesus who is the Christ believed it because he was there and the apostles received the understanding of the mysteries of God believed it why don't we? What makes us way more enlightened than the Christ and the apostles who received the understanding from God himself?

That's what I struggle with. It's not a matter of salvation. But a lack of grasping the depth of the truths revealed. To me the claim of greater enlightenment than Christ or the apostles shows a lack of humility and a very superficial understanding of Scripture. If the bible says something and claims something it behooves us to to say it's important.

However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written:“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,Nor have entered into the heart of manThe things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ. - 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 - Common English Bible

 

[Speedwell]

Well I'm not sure how you have to believe the Garden story fits into the salvation aspect, but I do understand that the Garden story is an explanation as to why we need salvation. Why is mankind a fallen race in need of a savior. How did that all happen? God provided that explanation as to why and how it occurred. Paul says it very well. We all came into the world as sinful beings because of Adam. We can all be made righteous because of Jesus. You know this. God was good enough to explain it to us even though he did not have to.

That should be important should it not? Remember what Paul says in Corinthians about the deep things being revealed? Those deep things are revealed to us. We should take them seriously even if we don't completely understand them.

The Bible says we are born sinners and that begs the question coming from our curious searching minds as to why? Why am I born into sin? God explains why. And the writers of God's word understood why. That then begs the question of if Paul who was one of the apostles and Jesus who is the Christ believed it because he was there and the apostles received the understanding of the mysteries of God believed it why don't we? What makes us way more enlightened than the Christ and the apostles who received the understanding from God himself?

That's what I struggle with. It's not a matter of salvation. But a lack of grasping the depth of the truths revealed. To me the claim of greater enlightenment than Christ or the apostles shows a lack of humility and a very superficial understanding of Scripture. If the bible says something and claims something it behooves us to to say it's important.

However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written:“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,Nor have entered into the heart of manThe things which God has prepared for those who love Him.” But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ. - 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 - Common English Bible

I am astonished and humbled. I don't know why you did it--to tease me, perhaps? You, a devout believer in literal inerrancy, can make a more lucid and articulate argument against it than I ever could. but I will be stealing your material, you bet!

 

[rjs330]

Another point to those that speak of Genesis as allegory Peter warns us about this.

knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. - 2 Peter 3:3-7 Bible Gateway passage: 2 Peter 3:3-7 - Common English Bible

He also says this.

For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, - 2 Peter 2:4-9 Bible Gateway passage: 2 Peter 2:4-9 - Common English Bible

Now Peter as he states walked with Christ and he also states the word was given to the prophets of old by God himself, we should be asking ourselves why did men like Peter believe and understand, but I don't?

What is it that causes me to reject what he believed and received as true?

This is rhetorical and I am not asking for a response. I am also not claiming anyone is not saved for not believing this. That is between you and God. Personally I don't think it has anything to do with salvation. I am just asking the question as to where we stand. Are we as believers closer to what the scoffers are saying or closer to what the apostles are saying. Like I said, this is rhetorical. Just think about it.

And may the Lord bless you richly.

 

[rjs330]

Noon

I am astonished and humbled. I don't know why you did it--to tease me, perhaps? You, a devout believer in literal inerrancy, can make a more lucid and articulate argument against it than I ever could. but I will be stealing your material, you bet!

Well I'm not sure you understood what I said. But your welcome?

 

[Speedwell]

Noon

Well I'm not sure you understood what I said. But your welcome?

"To me the claim of greater enlightenment than Christ or the apostles shows a lack of humility and a very superficial understanding of Scripture."

That you can say something like that about your own beliefs shows an uncommon depth of understanding.

 

[rjs330]

"To me the claim of greater enlightenment than Christ or the apostles shows a lack of humility and a very superficial understanding of Scripture."

That you can say something like that about your own beliefs shows an uncommon depth of understanding.

It wasn't about my beliefs it was about those that state Jesus and Paul were wrong in what they believed if they believed Genesis to be true history. Then they go on to say we are much more enlightened these days and so know better than Jesus or the apostles. They were wrong we are right is the bottom line of that belief system. And I am saying those that do so lack humility because they are putting their "enlightened" understanding higher than the apostles and Christ. The superficial understanding of scripture comes from recognizing what the apostles stated about the scriptures themselves and their authority in knowing the truth.

 

[Speedwell]

It wasn't about my beliefs it was about those that state Jesus and Paul were wrong in what they believed if they believed Genesis to be true history. Then they go on to say we are much more enlightened these days and so know better than Jesus or the apostles. They were wrong we are right is the bottom line of that belief system. And I am saying those that do so lack humility because they are putting their "enlightened" understanding higher than the apostles and Christ. The superficial understanding of scripture comes from recognizing what the apostles stated about the scriptures themselves and their authority in knowing the truth.

I was thinking more about those who impose their idea of what constitutes "true history" on Jesus and Paul.

 

[Archivist]

Where did you show Scripture supporting Genesis as allegory? Just give me the post number, I don't remember seeing it.

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.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The concept of Genesis being an allegory can easily be refuted when one looks at Pauls letter written to Timothy.
In 1 Tim 2:11-12 Paul instructs women on how they should act in church.

Would one expect Paul to base his rule on a myth or allegorical story? One would think not. Paul would base his rule on reality.
Paul based his rule upon 1 Tim 2:13....For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

I've yet to find anything in the Bible that even hints that Genesis is an allegory, but there is much supporting evidence within the Bible and within creation itself to indicate that it is anything but. This is just a cop out to try to make the Bible fit in with man's ideas; to fit in with foolish notions that the universe just created itself out of nothing billions of years ago and then God had to allow the cruel and wasteful process of so-called evolution to take over and develop his plan because he couldn't think of anything better. The god that that describes doesn't seem worthy of worship to me and is a far cry from the Almighty God, the One who spoke everything into existence, the One who formed man from the dust of the ground and the woman from the man's side, just a few thousand years ago.