The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

Saint Steven said:

I was mostly kidding. (making a joke) But wasn't the predominant thought at the time of Galileo and Columbus determined by the Catholic Church? Isn't that what was being challenged? Or was flat earth the secular view which was overturned by another secular view?

I don't know that there is a spherical earth model (globe) presented in the Bible.

Saint Steven said: ↑
If the flat earth is a myth, why aren't you fine folks with a figurative view of the creation account onboard with it? - lol

Click to expand...

Spherical earth was believed by many, and probably most Catholics. They didn’t take a modern evangelical approach to the Bible.

Saint Steven said:

Careful... those gospels contain a genealogy that includes Adam.

Click to expand...

Mark’s teacher, Peter, was there for Jesus life snd teaching. It’s unlikely that he was there throughout the genealogies.

Saint Steven said:

The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?

Click to expand...

Probably not. The text (Genesis 1) was written in a format that people, thousands of years ago could understand. The creation event occurred over six days in the text. We know from science that the creation event was over billions of years.

We know from multiple lines of evidence that the earth is ancient.

Was Adam the first human, a created being?

Click to expand...

According to the text that is correct.

- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)

Click to expand...

God is Spirit and has no image. The Word is visible and we were created in the image of the Word.

- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?

Click to expand...

The Genesis account is absolutely true but is a summarized account of creation over a very long period of time. Genesis is not a history book or even a scientific explanation. Genesis is a highly abbreviated account of creation.

- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)

Click to expand...

No one knows the answer to that question.

- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)

Click to expand...

Beyond any question. We are all derived from our ancient ancestors.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not a literal tree.

Saint Steven said:

Is the other tree, the Tree of Life, a literal tree?

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, my answer would be that both are literal trees that have literal fruit. But they are literal items in a story that isn't history. It's a traditional story passed down from generation to generation, and used by Jews as a basis for talking about their place in creation, and their relationship with God.

Saint Steven said:

Is the other tree, the Tree of Life, a literal tree?

Click to expand...

Of course not.

You honestly don't believe, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a real tree?

I hope your not serious.

hedrick said:

For what it's worth, my answer would be that both are literal trees that have literal fruit. But they are literal items in a story that isn't history. It's a traditional story passed down from generation to generation, and used by Jews as a basis for talking about their place in creation, and their relationship with God.

Click to expand...

One problem with the fall account is it presents Adam in a state that does not need Christ and it's only after the fall Adam needs a saviour.

Like the creation account the fall account has a specific goal and the details support that goal. The goal of the fall account shows we are sinful and in need of a saviour (foreshadowing Christ) and time spent before the fall is effectually non-existent as the account is introduced long after it occured, covered by a flood and so it is lost forever and impossible to return. We are left with a longing to return but with no path, this exposes again our need for someone to make the path for us (again foreshadowing Christ)

We need to remember who this is revealed to and what it communicated to them. It is revealed to post-exodus Hebrews, predisposed to pagan practices and their only knowledge of God is from their oral traditions since Abraham. Both the creation account and fall account establishes foundational elements of Hebrew faith used as building blocks to form their law, worship and way of life.

Saint Steven said:

I meant to the CF culture. Those who read and post on this topic. We have seen passionate responses on both sides of the question. (literal and figurative views)

Click to expand...

CF doesn't have to be a platform to propagate polarized dichotomous views. Doing so can appear like a strawman for your own position since the opposing polarised end is more easily refuted. Our faith is not determined by a demand to choose between a literal or non-literal view of the creation account but it is determine by light being spoken into a dark formless void. So I choose to read what's important in the creation account despite the discomfort of the polarised ends.

hedrick said:

Myth of the flat Earth - Wikipedia

Christians did not generally teach a flat earth. The idea that they did is a fairly recent myth.

Click to expand...

With due respect, Wikipedia is probably not the font of all truth on this matter.

It can I think be safely inferred from the odious prestige daubed on Columbus that there was enough controversy in 1492 to merit such a historical landmark 'discovery' and 'proof' of terrestrial rotundity.

Witness William Tyndale in his 1537 Bible at 2 Samuel 11:11 reference “THE FLATT ERTHE.” And that's from the mouth of Uriah, a man without guile (but a pretty wife). So apparently Tyndale remained a dissident, and I'm guessing he wasn't the only one.

It took more work via the likes of Canon Coppernink and Galileo, Kepler and Newton to get the spinning ball theory across the terminator line of marginal plausibility. Between the Catholics, the Deists and the devil they finally got the boulder over the mountain...or did they?

Saint Steven said:

The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?
- Was Adam the first human, a created being?
- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)
- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?
- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)
- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)

Luke 3:38 NIV
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Click to expand...

Literal and figurative.

Saint Steven said:

The creation story: (Genesis)
- Was the universe created in six literal days?

Click to expand...

No. The earth was restored in 6 literal days.

- Was Adam the first human, a created being?

Click to expand...

Yes, he was the first human, but not the first created being. Angels were created first, but we don't know who the first one was, or whether all were created at once.

- Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? (appearance)

Click to expand...

No. Adam was created in the image of US, the Godhead. So Adam was created trichotomous, with a body, soul, and human spirit.

- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?

Click to expand...

Literal.

- Was the Genesis account based on an oral tradition? (origins myth)

Click to expand...

No. It was inspired by the Holy Spirit to Moses, who wrote it.

- In reference to Adam, is the conclusion of the genealogy of Jesus correct? (see below)

Luke 3:38 NIV
the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Saint Steven said:

I was mostly kidding. (making a joke) But wasn't the predominant thought at the time of Galileo and Columbus determined by the Catholic Church? Isn't that what was being challenged? Or was flat earth the secular view which was overturned by another secular view?

I don't know that there is a spherical earth model (globe) presented in the Bible.

Saint Steven said: ↑
If the flat earth is a myth, why aren't you fine folks with a figurative view of the creation account onboard with it? - lol

Click to expand...

At the time of Christopher Columbus it had been known that the earth was spherical for almost two thousand years. The Greek mathematician Eratosthenes actually demonstrated that the earth was spherical around 300 BC. In fact his calculations for the circumference of the earth was remarkably close to being accurate, off by only a couple hundred miles IIRC. Eratosthenes didn't originate the idea, Greek philosophers and thinkers had been talking about a spherical earth for centuries by then, but it was Eratosthenes that demonstrated it mathematically and scientifically.

As such, in Antiquity and throughout the Middle Ages anyone with a basic education would have known that the earth was spherical. Chances are that if you were an illiterate peasant who never traveled more than 10 miles from the place they were born, the question of the shape of the thing they are standing on probably didn't matter much.

So at the time of Galileo everyone already knew the earth was round. Galileo knew it, the Pope knew it, everyone knew it and agreed that it was round.

Columbus didn't set out to prove the earth was round, Columbus set out to make money by trying to find a trade route to India by sailing west across the Atlantic Ocean. Ever since the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453, the Western European powers were cut off from the spice routes to the East. As such the Portuguese decided to find a route to India by going around Africa--and they did it. But it was a perilous journey. Columbus was convinced that the earth was a lot smaller than everyone else thought it was, so he was convinced that the trip west across the ocean to India would be quicker and easier than everyone else thought it would be.

Here's the thing, Columbus was wrong, everyone else was correct--the earth really is as big as they thought it was (remember, Eratosthenes had calculated the earth's circumference pretty near accurately millennia before this).

Columbus went to the various wealth monarchs and rulers of Europe, trying to get someone to finance a mission west to India. They kept turning him down, because they though he was stupid (he was). After pestering them many times, the monarchs of Castille finally relented and gave Columbus three of their smallest, cheapest, worst boats. Worst case scenario being that Columbus would die out in sea and they would finally be rid of him.

And had there not just happened to be a massive landmass--the Americas--between Europe and Asia, Columbus' mission would have failed. Even still, it almost did, his crew were pretty ready and set on committing mutiny, throwing Columbus overboard, and returning back to Spain. Then finally land showed up on the horizon, it was the Indies! Except not, it was the island the native Taino people called Guanahani, Columbus decided it was instead San Salvador.

And then he returned to Spain, was given way more ships, and then became a tyrant, happily murdering, raping, enslaving, and all sorts of things. To put it another way, Columbus wasn't just horrible by today's standards, Columbus was regarded as a monster by his own contemporaries who regarded him as one of the worst sorts of scum possible.

Happy Columbus Day everyone.

-CryptoLutheran

Saint Steven said:

What about Adam? Real man, or concept, or ???

Click to expand...

Both.