The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

[BelieveItOarKnot]

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

Not a requirement. God's Days can fully well be much longer. He's not tied to an earth sun cycle 24 hour clock

- Was Adam the first human, a created being?

Debatable. God created man and could have later created Adam imho. I'm not set on that subject, but it's (remotely arguably) possible.

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

I'd classify it more as an allegorical likeness rather than material likeness

- Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative?

It is definitely BOTH and has to be both, easily proven

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

No, I believe it was a literal event with invisible players as well i.e. both the serpent and God

- 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.

Yes, Adam was/is God's son. Pretty much nailed it right there in black on white

 

[BelieveItOarKnot]

I say literal because I am in the Christian Universal Redemption camp and one of the main proof texts is as in Adam all die so in Christ all will be saved. If Adam was Not the first human created but just a type or figure then there could be a line of humanity that is fallen and some that are not and that changes all of scripture. Is Jesus just a type or figure or is he really the one who died for all a real human/God. Once you say it’s not literal then are there some people who came from a line that didn’t sin or did all humanity sin at the same time?

Funny. I'm in a similar belief vein and yet hold both figurative and literal views on those events.

There is no need to throw down the one or the other gauntlet on this subject when it comes to theology. It's not a requirement to be strictly literal or strictly figurative

 

[FredVB]

Before there was light called for on this world, it was unformed, and there is no indication at all how long it was unformed, it just did not have light on it, separation of day and night, or any life. It could have been any length of time, however long it might have been just an empty unformed world not distinct from any others, though others were not mentioned. When all the life was formed, six days after day and night were started in this world, everything was made perfectly, and God saw it as very good. There was no killing or suffering, it was the way it is all meant to be in God's good will.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Around 220 or so AD, Origen determined that the creation account of Genesis was not six literal days based on its internal wording, plants growing before the sun was created, etc. There are rabbinical stories among Jews of "other worlds", meaning "worlds before ours", or rather, "times before ours", where God created but was unhappy with creation and wiped it out and began again. Some say that is why God is called "The Ancient of Days", meaning "Of The Ancient Days".

Most of the people I've encountered who hold the strongest to a literal six day creation have barely read Genesis except for at a Sunday school level. We had someone pop up here in the forum all but ranting in his introduction that he believed in a six day creation and that Jonah was swallowed by a literal whale instead of a fish just like it says in the bible. But the bible says Jonah was swallowed by a fish.

I wouldn’t put too much faith in Origen’s writings, the fifth ecumenical council issued 19 anathemas against his writings.

Plants sprout from under the soil without any sunlight, most plants can survive 2-3 weeks with no sunlight, the plants in Genesis would’ve only had to survive two days without it, and Genesis 2 suggests that the plants didn’t grow instantly to full size the day they were created. Genesis 2 says that they didn’t sprout right away but even if they had there’s still the light that God created on the first day that could’ve nourished them until the sun was created. So there’s several plausible explanations for the plants being created before the sun in a YEC understanding but it’s from an OEC understanding where it would’ve presented more problems.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Before there was light called for on this world, it was unformed, and there is no indication at all how long it was unformed, it just did not have light on it, separation of day and night, or any life. It could have been any length of time, however long it might have been just an empty unformed world not distinct from any others, though others were not mentioned. When all the life was formed, six days after day and night were started in this world, everything was made perfectly, and God saw it as very good. There was no killing or suffering, it was the way it is all meant to be in God's good will.

Yeah this is a strong argument in favor of OEC but it just doesn’t seem to make any sense to give a time frame for the creation of everything He created and made that is not definitive. It’s like God would be telling a half truth implying one thing that is technically true but at the same time not completely honest, like giving a deceptive time frame. That’s the only problem I see with this idea. I can’t say it isn’t biblical or that it contradicts scripture, the only argument I can make against it is that it would seem to negate the purpose of giving any time frame at all for creation.

 

[Job 33:6]

Before there was light called for on this world, it was unformed, and there is no indication at all how long it was unformed, it just did not have light on it, separation of day and night, or any life. It could have been any length of time, however long it might have been just an empty unformed world not distinct from any others, though others were not mentioned. When all the life was formed, six days after day and night were started in this world, everything was made perfectly, and God saw it as very good. There was no killing or suffering, it was the way it is all meant to be in God's good will.

 

[FredVB]

Yeah this is a strong argument in favor of OEC but it just doesn’t seem to make any sense to give a time frame for the creation of everything He created and made that is not definitive. It’s like God would be telling a half truth implying one thing that is technically true but at the same time not completely honest, like giving a deceptive time frame. That’s the only problem I see with this idea. I can’t say it isn’t biblical or that it contradicts scripture, the only argument I can make against it is that it would seem to negate the purpose of giving any time frame at all for creation.

I never heard old earth creationists say that, they would not include me with them, I am sure, and in the past I only argued with them when discussing that subject. But I don't see any need to dismiss everything in science, to understand the cosmos better. There would be no deception. Our world was created in six days, and that was in the range of thousands of years ago, but not millions of years or more, there was no light and no life in it when it was formless and void, that might have been that way before for a long time, but I make no claim at all for how long.

See, I believe the Bible, from that, I see there was no suffering or death to start with, God's creation was very good. Death was certainly from the fall, with sin. Killing only came later than that. The first we know of that probably was the first case, when Cain killed his brother Abel. Prophecy has restoration to this shown, that for human people only includes the repentant who are redeemed in that.

 

[Job 33:6]

See, I believe the Bible, from that, I see there was no suffering or death to start with, God's creation was very good.

See, I believe the Bible, from that, there was death before the fall.

 

[FredVB]

See, I believe the Bible, from that, there was death before the fall.

I tried listening to your promoted video all that I could stand, and then stopped. It is full of assumptions that don't stand in my perspective. The early Genesis passage is not wrong, vegetation was provided for all needed food. I do not assume dinosaurs and human people were generally together, I in fact have a view of different worlds on earth then, with among those a world of dinosaurs with their environment, a world of dire wolves and sabretooths with their environment, and human people and animals with them were in their world. I do not argue against that there was change, that change continued, not just only at the fall, there was the wrong assumption about that in the video. But Genesis 1 is contrary to general evolution of all living coming from the same original ancestors. I saw the video far enough to when it came to dominion, which I believe in, but then at the interpretation of that I had to turn it off. Enough! That is all wrong! Wrong!! Dominion is what God has over us, and what Christ has over all of us who are believers. Dominion is not violent use of others for use of them. It is proper stewardship that God would have, trusted to people, who fail miserably. I know dominion there in Genesis 1 corresponds in that very context with not causing death, or even suffering, not even to animals, and food was still from vegetation, only good stewardship is meant by it, the context demands it, and it is the dominion God, who is love and is caring, would have, and still has over us. We want God's mercy, we should live practicing mercy without limiting it. Yes, God cares for animals, Proverbs 12:10. This world is under curse that is spreading with sin, and changes continue from that, nothing getting better from it. But there is promised deliverance, for the repentant of the redeemed of humanity but none of the others, who will not be repentant to be redeemed, animals will all be there in the promised deliverance too, without any more suffering or death again, scriptures show this. It is the perfection of God's design that God meant there to be. I would not choose harm or death to animals either, I see the abuse is wrong for us.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

How does it matter to you if it was figurative or literal?

Good questions.
If it is literal it mean that we really cannot trust what we have learned from earth sciences.

Why couldn't God create everything in a literal six days?

He could but why would he want to? He has all eternity.

When Adam was one day old did he look like a one day old baby?

Adam is most likely a mythological character. The creation accounts only give us a rough outline of primordial events. What he looked like on the day created is not in the narrative.

If God did create everything less then 10,000 years ago, why might He want it to look like it was 14 billion years old?

No good reason that I can see.

 

[David Lamb]

Adam is most likely a mythological character. The creation accounts only give us a rough outline of primordial events. What he looked like on the day created is not in the narrative.

If Adam was most likely a mythological character, then what of Jesus Christ, who is called "the last Adam", and whose human genealogy, given in Luke's gospel, goes back to Adam? You are correct that the bible does not give us a description of Adam's appearance on the day he was created, but he certainly wasn't a baby. God spoke to him and Eve, so they were of an age to understand:

“28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29 ¶ And God said, "See, I have given you every herb [that] yields seed which [is] on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for food"; and it was so.” (Ge 1:28-30 NKJV)

A new-born or newly-created baby would not be able to exercise dominion, or to eat herbs and fruit.

 

[Job 33:6]

If Adam was most likely a mythological character, then what of Jesus Christ, who is called "the last Adam", and whose human genealogy, given in Luke's gospel, goes back to Adam? You are correct that the bible does not give us a description of Adam's appearance on the day he was created, but he certainly wasn't a baby. God spoke to him and Eve, so they were of an age to understand:

“28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29 ¶ And God said, "See, I have given you every herb [that] yields seed which [is] on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 "Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for food"; and it was so.” (Ge 1:28-30 NKJV)

A new-born or newly-created baby would not be able to exercise dominion, or to eat herbs and fruit.

Just to note. Of course Adam and Eve are never actually mentioned in chapter 1 or Genesis.

Not to say that they aren't a part of mankind. But we also wouldn't want humanity beyond Adam and Eve to be excluded from also being created in God's image.

We today, also are to exercise dominion over animals and eat herbs and fruit.

 

[Job 33:6]

I tried listening to your promoted video all that I could stand, and then stopped. It is full of assumptions that don't stand in my perspective. The early Genesis passage is not wrong, vegetation was provided for all needed food. I do not assume dinosaurs and human people were generally together, I in fact have a view of different worlds on earth then, with among those a world of dinosaurs with their environment, a world of dire wolves and sabretooths with their environment, and human people and animals with them were in their world.

Ok, well when you're ready to read the Bible, rather than imagining a bunch of different imaginary worlds, you let me know.

And no, the Bible does not say that God is to subdue and rule creation and have dominion over mankind. Nobody knows how you managed to make that one up.

 

[David Lamb]

Just to note. Of course Adam and Eve are never actually mentioned in chapter 1 or Genesis.

Not to say that they aren't a part of mankind. But we also wouldn't want humanity beyond Adam and Eve to be excluded from also being created in God's image.

We today, also are to exercise dominion over animals and eat herbs and fruit.

They are not mentioned by name in Genesis 1, but Adam is in Genesis 2 and both in Genesis 3. I do wonder if your phrase, "in chapter 1 or Genesis" should have been "in chapter 1 of Genesis."

 

[Job 33:6]

They are not mentioned by name in Genesis 1, but Adam is in Genesis 2 and both in Genesis 3. I do wonder if your phrase, "in chapter 1 or Genesis" should have been "in chapter 1 of Genesis."

The text is ambiguous if Adam and Eve are the only people being referred to, is what I mean. Of course you and I are created in the image of God. Not just Adam and Eve. But also, the text is ambiguous with regard to things like people outside of Eden, such as Cain's wife, or who Cain feared would kill him or who he built a city with.

All of humankind or mankind is to assume Dominion over the animals and to eat vegetation. To be image bearers.

 

[Job 33:6]

They are not mentioned by name in Genesis 1, but Adam is in Genesis 2 and both in Genesis 3. I do wonder if your phrase, "in chapter 1 or Genesis" should have been "in chapter 1 of Genesis."

Oh yes. Apologies. I meant to say chapter 1 of Genesis.

It's this new talk to text option I'm using. Sorry about that.

 

[David Lamb]

Oh yes. Apologies. I meant to say chapter 1 of Genesis.

It's this new talk to text option I'm using. Sorry about that.

Don't worry - I'm always doing things like that!

 

[bling]

Good questions.
If it is literal it mean that we really cannot trust what we have learned from earth sciences.

He could but why would he want to? He has all eternity.

Adam is most likely a mythological character. The creation accounts only give us a rough outline of primordial events. What he looked like on the day created is not in the narrative.

No good reason that I can see.

Hopefully you are not trusting any secular institution for Spiritual reality.

I need to address your questions together since build on each other:
First off:
There is an extremely important reason why: "God does not make Himself scientifically verifiable." If you could have scientific evidence of God, you would have knowledge of God's existence and not need faith in God's existence.
Knowledge tends to puff a person up, encourage the person to pursue knowledge, with spending the time to grow their faith and not be humble.
Humility is something we must have enough of to, humbly accept pure undeserving charity.
People who do not like God and His type of Love would not be happy to know He exists, so it is good for them to have an alternative.
It is amazing how God has kept Himself hidden from science providing another possible, yet very hard to accept alternative to His existence, just a little faith is needed.
Adam is spoken of as a real individual by the inspired writers of the New Testament, so can we trust them?
Time for God is irrelevant, so I do not know what a "day" for God is.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If Adam was most likely a mythological character, then what of Jesus Christ, who is called "the last Adam", and whose human genealogy, given in Luke's gospel, goes back to Adam? You are correct that the bible does not give us a description of Adam's appearance on the day he was created, but he certainly wasn't a baby. God spoke to him and Eve, so they were of an age to understand:

Jesus can certainly still be referred to as "Last Adam" just as any of us can be referred to as any library character. I agree that Paul and the early church quite possibly may have had a iteral interpretation.

Perhaps Luke's genealogy is to make a theological connection and validation rather than a genetic link. It would truly take divine revelation to give the author knowledge from Adam (if he were a historical person) to Jesus.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Hopefully you are not trusting any secular institution for Spiritual reality.

Actually, I find that science, a secular institution gives me great inspiration and fills me with wonder over what we have learned and still question and learn about God's creation.

I need to address your questions together since build on each other:
First off:
There is an extremely important reason why: "God does not make Himself scientifically verifiable." If you could have scientific evidence of God, you would have knowledge of God's existence and not need faith in God's existence.
Knowledge tends to puff a person up, encourage the person to pursue knowledge, with spending the time to grow their faith and not be humble.
Humility is something we must have enough of to, humbly accept pure undeserving charity.

Yes, we sure need more humility. All of us. Especially those who think they have all the answers.
God is both fully disclosed and deeply hidden. That is because God is not just another object to be known and studied.

People who do not like God and His type of Love would not be happy to know He exists, so it is good for them to have an alternative.
It is amazing how God has kept Himself hidden from science providing another possible, yet very hard to accept alternative to His existence, just a little faith is needed.

God is a living personal mystery who discloses himself to us through grace. We can try to prepare ourselves and be ready but it is only through grace that we come to know anything about God.

Adam is spoken of as a real individual by the inspired writers of the New Testament, so can we trust them?
Time for God is irrelevant, so I do not know what a "day" for God is.

The inspired writers of the New Testament lived in a different time and place with a completely different world view and understanding than we do. We can trust their theology but not their science and related literal interpretation of Genesis.

But I must add that we all often speak of literary characters as "real individuals". We don't need to be Sherlock Holmes or Perry Mason to see that.