The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

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
It can be grey which is a combination of both black and white.
How does that relate to the topic title question, from your perspective? Don't answer if that makes you too uncomfortable. Thanks.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
That's an interesting analysis. But again, it doesn't play out in the NT. Do you see any NT support for this idea? The figurative view seems to depend on ignoring the rest of the Bible. You are very knowledgeable about the whole book. Does this view hold up in the NT from your perspective?
Paul may have understood Adam as literal. If so, he was wrong. But it doesn't affect his point that Christ is the source of renewed humanity. The Adam / Christ comparison is, after all, an analogy. In Sunday School I sometimes use Harry Potter as an analogy. So he could certainly have made the analogy because it was a commonly-known story. But from what I know of 1st Cent. Judaism there's a high probability that he understood Adam as the actual first human being.
 
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
Paul seems to have understood Adam as literal. He was wrong. But it doesn't affect his point that Christ is the source of renewed humanity.
He probably wasn't alone in that thought. I would venture to say that, based on his background, that was a pretty universally accepted position to take. I wonder if the other Apostles agree? I'll have to do some research on that.

On what basis can you conclude that Paul was wrong? (seems a rather bold declaration) - lol

A quick search yielded this:

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

Jude 1:14 NIV
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones
 
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
He probably wasn't alone in that thought. I would venture to say that, based on his background, that was a pretty universally accepted position to take. I wonder if the other Apostles agree? I'll have to do some research on that.

On what basis can you conclude that Paul was wrong? (seems a rather bold declaration) - lol

A quick search yielded this:

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

Jude 1:14 NIV
Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones
Some OT support as well:

1 Chronicles 1:1-3 NIV
To Noah’s Sons
1 Adam, Seth, Enosh,
2 Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared,
3 Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah.

Hosea 6:7 NIV
As at Adam, they have broken the covenant; they were unfaithful to me there.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Our understanding of human origins.
Let me go further. There is simply no reason to consider Genesis historical. The Bible, looked at without conservative Protestant ideology, looks a lot like a human work, responding to God's work with Israel and the early followers of Jesus. As such it's a human witness. In some cases we're dealing with writers close to the events, e.g. Paul. In Genesis we are not. There's no reason to consider a story involving a talking snake and magic trees to be historical.

This kind of critical mind-set didn't exist in 1st Cent Judaism. That doesn't mean we shouldn't believe what they say about their encounters with Jesus (and the OT historical books written close to the events). But it does mean that we're not going to judge the Biblical writings the same way 1st Cent Jews did.
 
Upvote 0

Jamsie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 2, 2017
2,211
1,279
73
Vermont
✟324,912.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That is certainly possible, but not how the writers of the Bible understood it. Moses (the writer of Genesis) has this to say.

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.

COMPARE:

Genesis 2:1-3 NIV
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
 
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
Let me go further. There is simply no reason to consider Genesis historical. The Bible, looked at without conservative Protestant ideology, looks a lot like a human work, responding to God's work with Israel and the early followers of Jesus. As such it's a human witness. In some cases we're dealing with writers close to the events, e.g. Paul. In Genesis we are not. There's no reason to consider a story involving a talking snake and magic trees to be historical.

This kind of critical mind-set didn't exist in 1st Cent Judaism. That doesn't mean we shouldn't believe what they say about their encounters with Jesus (and the OT historical books written close to the events). But it does mean that we're not going to judge the Biblical writings the same way 1st Cent Jews did.
Thanks for that detailed explanation. I really appreciate it. I'm trying to understand the figurative side of the discussion.

Here's a question: (or two)

Genesis is a HUGE book covering an extensive period of time. Do you find no reason to take the book as historical in some of the accounts?

Perhaps your reference to "Genesis" in your quote only means the beginning chapters. What else is fiction? Noah, the world-wide flood, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, the Israelites?
 
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

trophy33

Well-Known Member
Nov 18, 2018
8,842
3,550
N/A
✟145,216.00
Country
Czech Republic
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Original sin is a standard doctrine.
http://gentlewisdom.org/augustines-mistake-about-sin/
AUGNET : 1311 Greek language

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.
Two possibilities:
a) There was a real Adam in the history, a priest selected by God to represent us
b) Adam is just a symbolic name for humanity as such

Paul was living in the philosophical age, trying to make his point from text originating in the mythological age and we are trying to read both in the scientific age :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
It's also worth noting that 1st Cent Jews (and later) dealt with Biblical stories freely and creatively. That includes Jesus. I don't think it's at all clear just how literally they took them. Indeed they way we ask about historical accuracy is itself a result of the modern critical mind-set. I don't mean that ancient people didn't understand the difference between history and story, but the boundary in dealing with Scripture seems grayer. The modern conservative treatment of Genesis 1 and 2 marries the ancient lack of critical mindset on facts with a modern historically-oriented exegetical style. I don't think the resulting combination is something first Cent Christians would appreciate.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Thanks for that detailed explanation. I really appreciate it. I'm trying to understand the figurative side of the discussion.

Here's a question: (or two)

Genesis is a HUGE book covering an extensive period of time. Do you find no reason to take the book as historical in some of the accounts?

Perhaps your reference to "Genesis" in your quote only means the beginning chapters. What else is fiction? Noah, the world-wide flood, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, the Israelites?
Noah and the flood certainly. Might Abraham have existed? I think there's a good chance he did. Obviously Israel existed. But I don't consider anything before Judges strongly historical, and before Kings I think it's a meld. (Even Kings is of course strongly influenced by the writers' editorial intent.)

Really, there are fine Catholic Biblical scholars you can consult on these questions.
 
Upvote 0

Jamsie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 2, 2017
2,211
1,279
73
Vermont
✟324,912.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That is certainly possible, but not how the writers of the Bible understood it. Moses (the writer of Genesis) has this to say.

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.

COMPARE:

Genesis 2:1-3 NIV
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

However, when the basis of his completion/"work" was God's commands, then they were complete as to his fiat. Further, it does not say six consecutive days, or have the following day stated as such or as the next day...the days are independently declared and relate to his command. So the six days stand based on fiat(s) but not necessarily on our conceived time frame. Only Gen. 1:3 speaks to immediacy all subsequent commands are directed at created matter...are they not. Genesis could very well read - "And God said, Let the land produce/bring forth living creatures, and there were living creatures" but what is clearly stated is "And God said, Let the land produce/bring forth living creatures...", no immediacy but rather agency/mediate. What was so? That God commanded the Land to produce...and it "was so" because his efficacious will is all sufficient.

Be that as it may, perhaps much more interesting to follow the thread relative to Theological implications as opposed to some "creation/evolution" conundrum...
 
  • Like
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
Augustine's mistake about original sin - Gentle Wisdom
AUGNET : 1311 Greek language


Two possibilities:
a) There was a real Adam in the history, a priest selected by God to represent us
b) Adam is just a symbolic name for humanity as such

Paul was living in the philosophical age, trying to make his point from text originating in the mythological age and we are trying to read both in the scientific age :)
Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it.

Tell me more about your Adam as priest idea. That's a new concept to me. And seems to assume Adam was one of many people alive at that time. How does that work?

I am familiar with Melchizedek being a priest of God and Jethro the father-in-law of Moses being the priest of Midian in Ur of the Chaldees. But those were downstream a considerable distance from Adam.
 
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
The modern conservative treatment of Genesis 1 and 2 marries the ancient lack of critical mindset on facts with a modern historically-oriented exegetical style. I don't think the resulting combination is something first Cent Christians would appreciate.
Sure, but the first century Christians seemed to indicate a literal view, which you labeled as wrong. (based on what we have learned about origins from Darwin) So, an appeal to the early church doesn't help your case. IMHO
 
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
Really, there are fine Catholic Biblical scholars you can consult on these questions.
I wanted to know where you draw the line. Thanks.

I'll need to figure out where I will draw that line. This discussion is helpful. Thanks.
 
  • 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
However, when the basis of his completion/"work" was God's commands, then they were complete as to his fiat. Further, it does not say six consecutive days, or have the following day stated as such or as the next day...the days are independently declared and relate to his command. So the six days stand based on fiat(s) but not necessarily on our conceived time frame. Only Gen. 1:3 speaks to immediacy all subsequent commands are directed at created matter...are they not. Genesis could very well read - "And God said, Let the land produce/bring forth living creatures, and there were living creatures" but what is clearly stated is "And God said, Let the land produce/bring forth living creatures...", no immediacy but rather agency/mediate. What was so? That God commanded the Land to produce...and it "was so" because his efficacious will is all sufficient.

Be that as it may, perhaps much more interesting to follow the thread relative to Theological implications as opposed to some "creation/evolution" conundrum...
With such immediacy, I wonder why it took all day. Wasn't it done as soon as he said it? "God said... and it was so."
 
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
... There's no reason to consider a story involving a talking snake and magic trees to be historical. ...
This looks like a good place for me to apply a figurative reading of the text. - lol

Eve didn't turn to the serpent and say, "So you're talking now?" I guess I still take that as literal.

The names of the trees were perhaps descriptive of the affects. The Tree of Life appears again in Revelations. And again, I don't think there was anything in the fruit to cause the affects. They had a symbolic, even ceremonial significance in my view.

I define a ceremony as an outward sign of an inward reality. The act of eating the fruit was a transgression with consequences. After the Fall, the way was barred to the Tree of Life.
 
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

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I wanted to know where you draw the line. Thanks.

I'll need to figure out where I will draw that line. This discussion is helpful. Thanks.
It’s not where I draw a line but what the evidence seems to show.

Again, there are better sources, within your own Church. I'm more knowledgable about the Gospels and Paul. But I'll summarize the little I know.

As I understand it, current archaeologists (except those committed to Biblical inerrancy) mostly think Israel started in the highlands of Israel. The takeover of the cities was slow and mostly peaceful. There might certainly have been escaped Egyptians among then, who remembered Moses as a leader. But the Cecill B Demille Exodus didn’t happen. Similarly, there could certainly have been an Abraham. But that doesn’t make either Genesis or Exodus primarily historical.

Some descriptions contrast Israel with the lowland people, saying that Israel was more democratic, while the lowlands had kings. But democratic is probably misleading. They were probably mostly tribal, with war leaders and charismatic leaders. Think Afghanistan or other tribal cultures. The book of Judges gives a sense of that culture, though the editor of Judges didn’t approve. For him anything that went wrong was because there was no king in Israel. But for Israel to have a king was an innovation, and one that many thought was a mistake, including the prophet. We can see that in 1 Samuel in the story of the choice of Saul as the first king.

Was Israel chosen? Sure. In fact during that time period every group was chosen. All people had their own god who protected and supported them. What made Israel unusual wasn’t that they were chosen by a god, but the vision of that god as it was developed by the prophets. Their idea of God was one God who is responsible for the whole universe, and his people as having the goal of bringing that God to the whole world. That vision wasn't shared by all of Israel. That's clear from all of the books, including the prophets. The king usually supported Yahweh, but not always exclusively, and there were lots of places that worshipped other gods. Israel became truly monotheistic during the exile. Their God was a key to retaining a separate identity during exile. Presumably many people were absorbed into their conqueror's culture, but those who returned to Israel after the Exile were committed monotheists.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Saint Steven
Upvote 0