The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
28,362
7,742
Canada
✟721,286.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
That's good.
What basis do you have to write that "All of the days in the creation were days that took ages to complete according to the text."? According to the text?

Two obvious problems to grapple with there. The measure of sunrise and sunset with each day of creation. And the reference by Moses to the creation week being six days. A week with the Sabbath day of rest. (the seventh day)

Exodus 20:11 NIV
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
I don't see an issue, since we're not supposed to be able to measure it.

The text (according to) was the connection between the Genesis account, and Psalm 90 by the writer of Genesis.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,623.00
Faith
Non-Denom
@Michael Collum made a good point that the sun wasn't created until day four. Isn't that the sort chapter and verse you are demanding? The question is, what created the light in the previous days.
Yeah I understand that. The LIGHTS weren't created until Day 4. So what was the LIGHT prior. I'd say God himself and we see the similar things spoken of in Rev 21:23 where it states.

The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. Rev 21:23

Also there was a pillar of fire that led Israel in the wilderness Ex 13:21 so whatever degree of energy system God had to make LIGHT real from Day 1 to Day 3 I see no problem with God.

The larger point here though is that Day 1 through Day 3 it keeps saying morning and evening, morning and evening, which would have to mean the Earth was rotating for when evening and morning take place there's progressive stages to it. If morning and evening then, as it says there was there's nothing to indicate the measure of time wasn't the basic 24 hours of today. I think to suggest it wasn't is merely IMO to force such into the text that it in no way warrants. Day and morning mean day and morning....period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So what was the LIGHT prior

Didn't God "notice" the light was good and separate it from the darkness? It sounds like a metaphor to me. God is separating good from evil, i.e. they are not the same. Or, as some might conjecture: it's the separation of good and evil angels. Whatever, still a metaphor.
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The truths communicated to us in the opening chapters of Genesis are crucial to understanding the rest of scripture. There are salient truths given:
God is Creator
All that is not God is creation
Creation is good
There is order to creation
There is a way God intended for humans to live
Sin throws a huge wrench (is a problem) in the whole creation.
Sin is death dealing
Humanity needs help
A savior is coming
That's a good explanation of the figurative view, thanks.

Are any of these truths not evident in a literal reading? It's not clear to me that a figurative reading is somehow superior.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Are any of these truths not evident in a literal reading? It's not clear to me that a figurative reading is somehow superior.

A literal reading adds nothing of import to it. As I said above, one can believe it's historically literal, but if they don't grasp the salient truths revealed therein, their belief that it's fact doesn't help them.

It's the transcendent truth that matters. Creation is good. That is a transcendent truth that can only be revealed. If I believe God created in a 24 hour period but neglect to live as if creation is ultimately good, what benefit did my historical belief give me?

If I believe knowledge of good and evil once grew on trees, but still participated in evil myself, what good did my belief in history do me?

The same can be said of Christ. If I truly believed he died and rose again, but did not live as if he were Lord, what good is that?

I understand people's need for Genesis to be literal. Their faith depends on it. I have no interest in disturbing that. But for those who believe and yet can't swallow every story, it's good to point out that mere belief in the historicity of the scriptures cannot save you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
... I don't expect the scriptures to be perfect or without any error. I expect them to communicate the ineffable, the transcendent, the divine and to do so from a place of finite, flawed humanity. This they do. ...
More good input. Thanks.
This raises the issue of where our scriptures actually came from. That has an obvious bearing on what we make of them.

If the Gospel of Mark was actually based on the writing of an unknown author know only as Q, then what else might be wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If the Gospel of Mark was actually based on the writing of an unknown author know only as Q, then what else might be wrong?

Just compare the empty tomb accounts. Or the crucifixion accounts. I believe in both the crucifixion and the resurrection, but trying to harmonize the inconsistencies is a fool's errand.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Didn't God "notice" the light was good and separate it from the darkness? It sounds like a metaphor to me. God is separating good from evil, i.e. they are not the same. Or, as some might conjecture: it's the separation of good and evil angels. Whatever, still a metaphor.
But doesn't the first sentence set the direction for the chapter? Why go off on a figurative tangent?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If the Gospel of Mark was actually based on the writing of an unknown author know only as Q, then what else might be wrong

Q is a scholarly conjecture, which is what happens when you treat the scriptures as history instead of revelation. ;)

I urge folks to resist the temptation to treat the scriptures like a house of cards, whose substance depends entirely on internal structural integrity. Revelation gives us what we need, but doesn't give everything we wish we knew. It is a one way street from God to us, given in clay jars. Treat the scriptures as a witness, instead of a logical deduction or unassailable proof, and the problems disappear..

Inerrancy really is a modern reaction to the thin ontology of modernity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
But doesn't the first sentence set the direction for the chapter? Why go off on a figurative tangent?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's a good point. But what does that sentence really tell us? Nothing, except this is all here because of God. It doesn't tell us how or why. There's no historical import to that sentence. We don't even know the context. What was happening before? What caused God to created at that moment? It's historically vacuous. It's pure revelation, and encompasses we-know-not-what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
... I understand people's need for Genesis to be literal. Their faith depends on it. I have no interest in disturbing that. But for those who believe and yet can't swallow every story, it's good to point out that mete belief in the historicity of the scriptures cannot save you.
Yes, I agree with that.
And I don't doubt the faith of those who choose a figurative view over a literal view. Though there may be numerous reasons for that. Some of which seem more questionable to me than others. (believing Darwin over Paul, for instance)

And yes, there is no reason to get tied up in the details of the creation account and miss the deeper truths presented there. Although, I would say that most that hold a literal view of creation have not overlooked such. I don't recall seeing anything on your list of creation truths that seemed foreign to literalists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Q is a scholarly conjecture, which is what happens when you treat the scriptures as history instead of revelation.
That's a good point. What I was trying to communicate is that a literal reading assumes some things that aren't necessarily true. Like the author we attribute to the writing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Inerrancy really is a modern reaction to the thin ontology of modernity.
I imagine literalists might object to being considered existential? - lol
 
  • Haha
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I urge folks to resist the temptation to treat the scriptures like a house of cards, whose substance depends entirely on internal structural integrity. Revelation gives us what we need, but doesn't give everything we wish we knew. It is a one way street from God to us, given in clay jars. Treat the scriptures as a witness, instead of a logical deduction or unassailable proof, and the problems disappear..
Imagine how few arguments there would be on the forum if folks took that to heart. What would argue about, the weather? - lol
 
  • Haha
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I don't recall seeing anything on your list of creation truths that seemed foreign to literalists

No, they're not, which begs the question. Why do they insist one must be a literalist in order to believe? Obviously, that's not true.

If there is no extra benefit to being a literalist, what is the harm? Here the problems become legion. How many times do people defend the lamest things because of literalism, things that obviously are contrary to everything we know in Christ? Ever seen a Christian defend slavery because it's in the bible? I've seen Christians defend eternal torment, just because they read it in the bible. ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's a good point. But what does that sentence really tell us? Nothing, except this is all here because of God. It doesn't tell us how or why. There's no historical import to that sentence. We don't even know the context. What was happening before? What caused God to created at that moment? It's historically vacuous. It's pure revelation, and encompasses we-know-not-what.
That's a great response, thanks.
One thing most who have indicted a figurative reading of the creation account seem to miss in the first sentence is the phrase "God created". (attributing "creation" to other means)

Saint Steven said:
But doesn't the first sentence set the direction for the chapter? Why go off on a figurative tangent?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's a great response, thanks.
One thing most who have indicted a figurative reading of the creation account seem to miss in the first sentence is the phrase "God created". (attributing "creation" to other means)

Saint Steven said:
But doesn't the first sentence set the direction for the chapter? Why go off on a figurative tangent?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

That's fair. But what does "creation" necessarily entail and preclude? We don't know just from that sentence. Not even ex nihilo is necessarily entail just by the statement of "created." I believe in ex nihilo, but not by that statement alone.
 
Upvote 0

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, they're not, which begs the question. Why do they insist one must be a literalist in order to believe? Obviously, that's not true.
That's a great point.
Literalists come after those who hold a figurative view, with guns-a-blazing. Literalism leaves no room for another opinion.

This puts me in an awkward spot. I lean hard toward literalism, but am very open to others having their own opinion. (obviously) This topic is partially intended to help myself find a place in all this. I appreciate your input.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Saint Steven

You can call me Steve
Supporter
Jul 2, 2018
18,580
11,385
Minneapolis, MN
✟930,116.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's fair. But what does "creation" necessarily entail and preclude? We don't know just from that sentence. Not even ex nihilo is necessarily entail just by the statement of "created." I believe in ex nihilo, but not by that statement alone.
Yes, but how much explanatory weight can we put on an introductory sentence? - lol
 
  • Haha
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0