The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

[fhansen]

Yes, I think a mostly literal reading is essential to our beliefs. I'm struggling to understand the figurative view.

It's not at all particularly easy to determine the author's intended meanings, or what kinds of literary devices, if any, may've been employed. But, for example, were the trees literal, or were they and the eating of their fruit symbolic for human actions that would either oppose or be aligned with God's will? The main message in any case is that our original parents had a choice, to heed and obey God, or to disobey and thwart His desires. The fall, IOW is literal.

 

[Jamsie]

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.

Opinions on the creation account in Genesis has brought various interpretations, and it seems that opposing views too often become contentious. "In the beginning God created"... and it seems obvious that detailed specifics were not given, whether due to the time or necessity.

Was the universe created in six literal days? Yes, based on the fiat(s)/ commands.
Was Adam the first human, a created being? Yes
Was Adam created in the image of God, after his likeness? Yes, ... physically no.
Is the Genesis account literal, or figurative? Literal in the general sense, but lacking the details that would satisfy "modern" peoples.

 

[trophy33]

Are you saying that reality is an illusion?

No, just saying that our universe exists in God. Which is what the verse also says.

 

[fhansen]

Paul quite likely though Adam was a historical person. But it's easy to recast his insight in a modern way. Humanity as it naturally evolved was based on survival of the fittest. Jesus founded a new humanity, based on love of God and neighbor.

The fundamental point behind Paul's theology is really new people as part of a new humanity, not so much restoration of a pre-Fall situation. Indeed Paul's comparisons between Adam and Christ don't mention a pre-Fall perfection, nor its restoration. They see Christ as a founder of a second humanity, in contrast to Adam, the founder of the first humanity.

I think both are true. Certainly there would've been a concept of a pre-fall innocence, at least, which was severely disrupted by their act which propelled them into a whole new life/world with a whole new and less desirable state of being. And yet God's ultimate plan was presumably grander than simply restoring them to that innocence, but to use the fall as a launching pad, so to speak, for producing something even greater and of higher worth at the end of the day. Perhaps they weren't yet ready to make the choice to eat of the Tree of Life in Eden, and God's been patiently preparing man for that very act ever since.

 

[Kilk1]

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.

I think the verse you end with in your first post is important. The genealogy given in Luke 3:23-38 starts with Jesus, the supposed son of Joseph (not biologically so, of course), who's "the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, [...] the son of Shem, the son of Noah, [...] the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God" (NKJV, emphasis mine). The genealogy goes all the way back to Adam, so to make him a myth is to destroy the genealogy of Christ. And if we can't even take Luke's genealogy at face value, then all of Scripture might as well be figurative/mythological. Therefore, I take the literal view.

 

[bling]

No idea. Maybe it tracks with Adam being full grown? He needed a full grown universe to live in. - lol

If you could scientifically proof the world had to be created less then 10,000 years ago, then you would have “knowledge” of the existence of the God of the Bible.

You would not need “faith” in God, since you would have knowledge of God, but would that help or hinder your fulfilling your earthly objective?

Knowledge can puff up a person’s ego, while having faith in God is something the lowliest mature adult on earth can do, meaning it is a humbling experience.

Do we need humility to accept God’s undeserved charity as charity?

Accepting pure undeserved charity as charity takes humility and some people will do, think and say almost anything to avoid having to humble themselves to the point of accepting pure sacrificial charity.

 

[trophy33]

If Genesis is a myth (whether that is good or bad) then the theology built on it is also a myth.

Thats where I do not agree.
Myth is just a form. The right theology should be based on the meaning, not on the form. Reading Genesis literally is basing the theology on the form instead of on the meaning. And it leads to many internal and external conflicts.

Are we held accountable to things that happened in a myth?

I do not understand this question. We are accountable for what we personally do.

These things are quite important in the New Testament scriptures. What do these scriptures mean if there was no real Adam?

1 Corinthians 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

The same thing as "if we live according to our flesh, we will die, if we will live according to the spirit, we will live", just said differently.
Adam represents humanity in its natural, sinful state.The word "Adam" means "from the earth" (well, technically "reddish" but its derived from the color of the earth).

But again, as I said, I have nothing against Adam to be a real person, chosen by God to be our representative, the first priest.
A myth can contain real persons, places. A myth is not intended as a lie or as something based on a false principles.

Romans 5:15-16
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

I see two possibilities:
a) Adam did exist as a real specific person, representing us (its allowed, in a myth, to use real persons or real places)
b) Adam did not exist as a real specific person, but Paul is taking Adam as being literal, because its the tradition he grew up in, and uses it to illustrate his point. Like when he used stoicism, Greek poets or (wrong) Greek medical knowledge of those times (long hair).

Romans 5:18-19
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

The same as with the previous text. Paul likes illustrations and making connections with what the readers read before.
We can either take it "word for word" or extract the content - what Paul wanted the readers to do/change in their life.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Do you understand that there are literal consequences for the Fall of humanity? (original sin)

I do not believe in the original sin. I believe in examplary, representative sin.
I do not believe that the whole humanity is somehow punished because one person did something, if this is what you ask.

Similarly, I do not believe that the text says that Christ saved all individual people. Both sides of Paul's example apply only to those who follow the path of either Adam or Christ.

Why would the consequences be literal if the Fall was only figurative? Would God punish us for the implications of a fabricated myth?

We pay for our own sins, if not in Christ. As we are all sinful, we find our representation in Adam, who fell. Because we all fell.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Actually, I think theological concepts would be a real problem. Adam, and what he literally did, is the basis for the Fall of humankind. Jesus came to literally undo, what the literal Adam, literally did. - lol

If you base your theology upon the form of biblical stories, then you will have many problems, yes. Not just with science, history or cosmology, but also in theology.
It leads to cognitive disonance, biblical fundamentalists must shut the door of the outside information and believe in some world-wide conspiracy everywhere, while just the book in their hands is true.

Unless you think Jesus came to figuratively undo, what the figurative Adam, figuratively did? Where does that leave us?

When we sin in our life, live according to the flesh, Adam represents us.
When we believe in Christ and live by the spirit, Christ represents us and his righteousness is imputed in us.

 

[trophy33]

 

[hedrick]

Well if it was only symbolic, then why would I believe that all literally die because of Adam's sin?

Paul says we all die because of our own sin. "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—" Adam, as the first human, was the first to sin, so sin came into the world with him. But we don't die because of his sin.

Incidentally, this isn't just a modernist position. Calvin seems to have denied that we are guilty of Adam's sin. Rather, Calvin believed that as a result of sin, human nature was corrupted, and that corrupted nature involves alienation from God. In Reformed theology, Adam is seen as our federal head, our representative, though that requires inferences that I'm not sure I agree with. But he's our representative because put in a perfect garden we would sin, too.

The Bible, particularly the prophets, talk about restoration, giving images like the lion and lamb lying down together as supposedly they did in Eden. It's great to think of a world returning to perfection. But that can't be the primary outcome for humans. Putting us back in the Garden (symbolically) is great, but putting us back to what Adam was in Eden wouldn't help, because Adam didn't have the will to avoid sin. We need to be new people, reborn through Christ's death and resurrection.

 

[lsume]

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.

According to “The Science of God”, a book written by a physics professor, the first day was like 3 billion years. The second day was like 2 billion years. I don’t recall the precise numbers as I read that book about 20 years ago. We now know that time is extremely relative to its immediate surroundings. For example, a clock on super massive black hole would move very slow. Shortly after the Big Bang, there were possibly vast chunks of matter moving at velocities near the speed of light. At the speed of light, time stops or very nearly stops. I’m not positive that this explanation is correct but it makes sense. God’s honesty per the aforementioned would be beyond us. The simple equation that the professor wrote fit the entire creation story.

 

[hedrick]

The catechism states it this way.
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

So the concept that all living humans stem from a single set of parents is still taught. This is considered to derive from revelation as the doctrine of original sin and its transmission is bound to the concept that all humanity fell with those first parents. In this case a scientific fact impacts a doctrine that concerns faith or morals and the salvation of man- the only areas where infallibility is said to be involved.

As far as viewing any aspects of the story as figurative while meaning to convey some deeper meaning, that's been understood at least since Augustine said as much. Even at that many commentators held to the common wisdom of their day such as geocentrism, or, to a lesser extent, a six day creation model even though these don't involve subject matter having any need or reason to be dogmatically declared.

The CCC doesn't define doctrine, even though it's supposed to be a reliable summary of it. Not everyone agrees that your quotation represents the last word. This article, e.g., Adam and Eve and Evolution, looked at the actual debates behind it, and concluded that the language from Vatican 2 was intentionally ambiguous, and specifically avoided rejecting polygenism, while noting that it raised questions. My feeling is that Catholic authorities have learned from the Galileo episode, and are wary of making definitive pronouncements that may well be shown to be false. I believe by now it's pretty clear that a single Adam and Eve is false.

 

[PaulCyp1]

You mean, was the creation of the entire universe based on the period of revolution of one little planet in one solar system in one galaxy among millions? You do realize that the word "day" doesn't equal 24 hours anywhere in the universe but the planet Earth, right?
Yes, the Genesis account is largely figurative, as are many other scriptures, like the parables Jesus so frequently used - fictitious stories designed to reveal specific truths.
Yes, humans are created in the image of God, which obviously doesn't refer to physical appearance, since God is pure Spirit, with no physical appearance. "In His image" means having a spiritual nature and an immortal soul.

 

[renniks]

Paul says we all die because of our own sin. "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—" Adam, as the first human, was the first to sin, so sin came into the world with him. But we don't die because of his sin.

Actually we do. Death came into the world because of his sin, then spread to all so we all die. I'm sure it would have still happened regardless of who the first man was. But if he wasn't even a man, which is what evolution teaches, that doesn't work.

 

[trophy33]

Actually we do. Death came into the world because of his sin, then spread to all so we all die. I'm sure it would have still happened regardless of who the first man was. But if he wasn't even a man, which is what evolution teaches, that doesn't work.

Evolution does not teach that the biblical Adam was not a man.

The theory of evolution does not care about religious texts.

Its like saying the the theory of gravity teaches that Jesus did not ascend to heaven.

 

[hedrick]

Evolution does not teach that the biblical Adam was not a man.

I would agree. However evolution does make it impossible that Adam was the only man. Since the rest of the story is obviously legendary I don’t get involved with trying to reconcile it with a literal reading of Genesis. But in theological terms, the implication seems to be that even when put in a perfect situation, humans sin. Whether there was a single Adam or humans developed as a population without a clear biological line between human and presuming, the point seems the same.

 

[trophy33]

I would agree. However evolution does make it impossible that Adam was the only man. Since the rest of the story is obviously legendary I don’t get involved with trying to reconcile it with a literal reading of Genesis. But in theological terms, the implication seems to be that even when put in a perfect situation, humans sin. Whether there was a single Adam or humans developed as a population without a clear biological line between human and presuming, the point seems the same.

Well, even the Gen 1 does not say that there were just two people.
And even though Gen 2 talks only about Adam and Eve, in the next chapters its obvious there were other people around - Cain found a wife, for example.

 

[renniks]

Evolution does not teach that the biblical Adam was not a man.

The theory of evolution does not care about religious texts.

Its like saying the the theory of gravity teaches that Jesus did not ascend to heaven.

Evolution theory is that we descended from a primate, who was the first of our family tree.

Christianity isn't a religion. It's reality. Religion is rituals and rules.

 

[trophy33]

Evolution theory is that we descended from a primate, who was the first of our family tree.

Christianity isn't a religion. It's reality. Religion is rituals and rules.

But the theory of evolution does not say that Adam was a primate.

Christianity is not a religion, but the literal reading of the Bible is. Because its a rule you postulate.

 

[hedrick]

Well, even the Gen 1 does not say that there were just two people.
And even though Gen 2 talks only about Adam and Eve, in the next chapters its obvious there were other people around - Cain found a wife, for example.

Sure. That’s a reasonable reading if you want to take it as historical.

 

[Saint Steven]

Oh yeah - I hadn't thought about it that way. The Genesis account would serve to bring a view of God which is closer to the truth than the Babylonian stories.

Wow. Is that what the Bible should be known as? "... closer to the truth..." Nearly dependable? At least half right? More right than wrong? - lol