The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

[Saint Steven]

Both.

Could you unpack that a bit? (Adam as a concept)

Saint Steven said: ↑
What about Adam? Real man, or concept, or ???

 

[atpollard]

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.

Genesis 1 is a Polemic against all other religions extant at the time.

 

[Saint Steven]

@hedrick --- I was just reading this scripture in a post I was working on, and it suddenly dawned on me that I was reading something that was carefully constructed. Not a matter of simple reporting of the event. Which is how I have always viewed it in the past.

For some reason I felt that I needed to alert you of this immediately. - lol
Thanks for all your input on this topic.

John 11:23-27 NIV
Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”
24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;
26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
27 “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

 

[martymonster]

Could you unpack that a bit? (Adam as a concept)

Saint Steven said: ↑
What about Adam? Real man, or concept, or ???

Sure thing.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

 

[Saint Steven]

Sure thing.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Thanks. That's spot on.
I did a quick search to see who created this conceptual Adam. It seems to be the Apostle Paul. No mention in the gospels, or by any other NT writer that I can find.

1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

 

[Saint Steven]

Thanks. That's spot on.
I did a quick search to see who created this conceptual Adam. It seems to be the Apostle Paul. No mention in the gospels, or by any other NT writer that I can find.

1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

Oh my. I just realized that I need to add this to my list of OT misquotes in the NT. cc: @martymonster

1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

Genesis 2:7 NIV
Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 

[hedrick]

Oh my. I just realized that I need to add this to my list of OT misquotes in the NT. cc: @martymonster

1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

Genesis 2:7 NIV
Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

It's certainly close. I don't read Hebrew, but my interlinear says that the word translated "a man" is actually adam. The word means man, so it depends upon context whether to translated it Adam or the man. Indeed you've got to wonder whether originally it was a name at all, but certainly by Paul's time it was understood to be one. So by translating "the first man Adam" Paul is giving a Greek reader an implication that someone who knew Hebrew would see.


In Hebrew Adam means the man. So you could argue that Paul is making clear an implication that someone knowing the Hebrew would see but a literal translation would miss.

 

[martymonster]

Thanks. That's spot on.
I did a quick search to see who created this conceptual Adam. It seems to be the Apostle Paul. No mention in the gospels, or by any other NT writer that I can find.

1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

You never really have to wonder whether something is figurative or not, everything has deep spiritual implications.... for those who have eyes to see.

The creation story is very profound, if understood spiritually.
If read literally, not so much.

 

[hedrick]

@hedrick --- I was just reading this scripture in a post I was working on, and it suddenly dawned on me that I was reading something that was carefully constructed. Not a matter of simple reporting of the event. Which is how I have always viewed it in the past.

For some reason I felt that I needed to alert you of this immediately. - lol
Thanks for all your input on this topic.

John 11:23-27 NIV
Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”
24 Martha answered, “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”
25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die;
26 and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”
27 “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”

Yes. John is a very sophisticated piece of theology. Many of its episodes start with a brief exchange of the kind you might find in the Synoptics, but then we see a long reflection. My assumption has been that the events mostly happened as described, but that the author supplemented the bare events with his understanding of what it meant. This is part of the final narrative, so it doesn't follow that structure, but certainly the wording reflects the theological implications, and probably isn't precisely what Jesus said. I think that applies to verse 25 as well. But it would show the author's understanding of the full implications of what Jesus said, even though those were only understood later.

But my understanding is that writers at the time commonly did that. Without tape recorders, no one would expect word for word accuracy. Indeed quotation marks didn't exist, so it's often not clear how much is intended to be quote. The kind of literal accuracy we expect from quotations didn't apply in the 1st Cent. The same would be true of the sermons in Acts. It's not plausible that any of them were actually that short. Obviously the author is summarizing. But it's striking how well Acts 2:14 ff reflects the earliest Christian theology, rather than what Luke himself would have believed, even though it's unlikely to be a literal recording.

At times, as here, that understanding is reflected in the wording of the event.

 

[Saint Steven]

It's certainly close. I don't read Hebrew, but my interlinear says that the word translated "a man" is actually adam. The word means man, so it depends upon context whether to translated it Adam or the man. Indeed you've got to wonder whether originally it was a name at all, but certainly by Paul's time it was understood to be one. So by translating "the first man Adam" Paul is giving a Greek reader an implication that someone who knew Hebrew would see.


In Hebrew Adam means the man. So you could argue that Paul is making clear an implication that someone knowing the Hebrew would see but a literal translation would miss.

Thanks.
I wondered what the English translators might have added to the NT Greek to make this understandable in English. It is actually in the Greek. For "first man Adam" the Greek says prōtos anthrōpos Adam. Interesting.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Oh my. I just realized that I need to add this to my list of OT misquotes in the NT. cc: @martymonster

1 Corinthians 15:45 NIV
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

Genesis 2:7 NIV
Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes. John is a very sophisticated piece of theology. Many of its episodes start with a brief exchange of the kind you might find in the Synoptics, but then we see a long reflection. My assumption has been that the events mostly happened as described, but that the author supplemented the bare events with his understanding of what it meant. This is part of the final narrative, so it doesn't follow that structure, but certainly the wording reflects the theological implications, and probably isn't precisely what Jesus said. I think that applies to verse 25 as well. But it would show the author's understanding of the full implications of what Jesus said, even though those were only understood later.

But my understanding is that writers at the time commonly did that. Without tape recorders, no one would expect word for word accuracy. Indeed quotation marks didn't exist, so it's often not clear how much is intended to be quote. The kind of literal accuracy we expect from quotations didn't apply in the 1st Cent. The same would be true of the sermons in Acts. It's not plausible that any of them were actually that short. Obviously the author is summarizing. But it's striking how well Acts 2:14 ff reflects the earliest Christian theology, rather than what Luke himself would have believed, even though it's unlikely to be a literal recording.

At times, as here, that understanding is reflected in the wording of the event.

Thanks. That's a good explanation of what is going on there.

Makes me wonder about the inspiration aspect. The writings as prophetic and Spirit-inspired. The memory of the writer tapped into the event, but led by the Spirit in relating what was happening. (editorializing as need be, for clarity)

Some years ago I had a PM conversation with someone that had experience in the spiritual gift of the interpretation of tongues. He revealed something to me that was very interesting. I was surprised by what he said, but realized that it made total sense (to me anyway).

I had always thought that the manifestation of the interpretation of tongues was (supposed to be) an exact translation of the tongues language into English. So, I was asking him how this worked for him. Did he hear it in English and repeated what he heard, or what? How did it work?

He said it worked the same as the gift of prophecy. If God is nudging you to speak, you open your mouth and his words come out. The obedience aspect is to open your mouth and begin speaking. (Mark 13:11)

The interpretation of tongues worked the same way, he said. Someone delivers a message in tongues and you sense God nudging you to "interpret". In obedience, you open your mouth and a tongues-inspired prophecy comes forth.

All that to say that these different prophetic aspects all work together and rather similarly. Whether writing, or speaking. (1 Corinthians 2:13)

 

[Shrewd Manager]

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.

Not quite correct. Eratosthenes' experiment made certain assumptions, such as sun rays coming down at the same angle. But sun rays fan out, they're crepuscular. So with 2 sticks/ wells, even Neil deGrasse Tyson admits the result is inconclusive (at best). Plus the historicity of Eratosthenes is highly questionable (even the name is suspect). Most likely the whole thing emerged from a Jesuit 'fraud factory' in the 16th century, to support the globular/ heliocentric myth.

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.

All this is just the mythology imho, a prime example of history as a lie agreed upon. Columbus was hired for the 'grand opening' of the Americas, the existence of which was well known at that time, and was probably only retrospectively co-opted by the globalists.

Columbus was regarded as a monster by his own contemporaries who regarded him as one of the worst sorts of scum possible.

Hence aka Cristobal Colon. Not a trustworthy guy, neither were any of his associates, funders or biographers.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Most likely the whole thing emerged from a Jesuit 'fraud factory' in the 16th century, to support the globular/ heliocentric myth..

Oh okay. Right, Jesuits, and I'm sure they are in league with the lizard people and the five Jewish bankers.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just for the sake of having this here:

"Nam ut Eratosthenes geometrica ratione collegit maximum terrae circuitum esse stadiorum ducentum quinquaginta duum milium," Censorinus, De Die Natali, ch.XIII (258 AD)

"Eratosthenes found, by geometrical calculations, that the greatest circumference of the Earth is 252,000 stadia;" - English Translation of the same

Going back earlier, Strabo in the first century BC mentions Eratosthenes several times in his Geographica, for example telling us that he had been a pupil (or acquaintance) of Zeno (Geographica i.2.2)

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FredVB]

I think of the revelation showing what God did on the formless earth. It does not reveal how long the formless earth was here. I think of the revelation showing the heavens appeared to the earth, but it not showing when God made the universe, it could have been made a lot earlier, revelation is not showing it wasn't, but God made it.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think of the revelation showing what God did on the formless earth. It does not reveal how long the formless earth was here. I think of the revelation showing the heavens appeared to the earth, but it not showing when God made the universe, it could have been made a lot earlier, revelation is not showing it wasn't, but God made it.

What do you mean when you write "the revelation", or "revelation"?
Could you flesh out the order of events you are describing here?
You seem to be saying that the earth came before the universe. ???

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think of the revelation showing what God did on the formless earth. It does not reveal how long the formless earth was here. I think of the revelation showing the heavens appeared to the earth, but it not showing when God made the universe, it could have been made a lot earlier, revelation is not showing it wasn't, but God made it.

The earth wasn't always 'formless' (literally a chaotic wasteland). It became (was) so later. Many present the rebellion, and casting down, of Lucifer as the cause of the destruction of earth's surface described in Genesis 1:2.

 

[FredVB]

What do you mean when you write "the revelation", or "revelation"?
Could you flesh out the order of events you are describing here?
You seem to be saying that the earth came before the universe. ???

Yes, I can. I trust the Bible for revelation from God for us. What in what I posted shows, or seems to show, that I meant the earth came before the universe? I don't know that is the case. The Bible has nothing showing that to me. The earth could have come later, and nothing of the universe was perceivable from it, and it could have remained formless a very long time. But I see the creation week happening in, well, a week. God could do that, God is not limited, and that account shows it.

The earth wasn't always 'formless' (literally a chaotic wasteland). It became (was) so later. Many present the rebellion, and casting down, of Lucifer as the cause of the destruction of earth's surface described in Genesis 1:2.

I was posting my answer to the question posed with this thread, and the original poster, about what I believe about the creation story. I am not coming to this to debate other viewpoints. I am aware of that different position. But why address me? I would need to see passages that determine that must be the case, to draw that conclusion. You can still address the thread topic, or the OP, to speak of that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I was posting my answer to the question posed with this thread, and the original poster, about what I believe about the creation story. I am not coming to this to debate other viewpoints. I am aware of that different position. But why address me? I would need to see passages that determine that must be the case, to draw that conclusion. You can still address the thread topic, or the OP, to speak of that.

Sorry for stepping on your post.

I wasn't seeking to debate the question, just adding another dimension. The OP asks whether the creation story is "literal or figurative". I'm simply presenting an alternate but legitimately literal interpretation of it that strongly suggests an ancient creation.