The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

[Psalm 27]

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.

 

[Saint Steven]

I already answered that on my post. "God is not a man"
Numbers 23:19
God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

He shows himself as a man to us so that we can commune and have understanding. But he isn't a man sitting on a throne unless that is how he wishes to appear.

God is a spirit.
John 4:24

24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

As such he made Adam in his image, but as I said this was not in Adam's physical appearance but in his spirit.

I think you are making some assumptions about the spiritual realm that may be false. Just because we are prevented from seeing it doesn't make it invisible in reality.

 

[Saint Steven]

Humans were re-made into the image of God, who is Spirit. "Adam" means Mankind.

What do you make of this?

Genesis 1:26-27 NIV
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

 

[public hermit]

The early church adopted Ptolemaic geocentric cosmology. I suspect that was flat earth. The ancient conception of the world was flat 'across the board'. Only the insane arrogance of 'modern world' could ever accept something so patently ridiculous as heliocentrism. On the other hand, it's more likely an old Babylonian black magic trick.

Augustine was right, this kind of thing makes us all look like imbeciles. An above poster is reported for questioning an archaic cosmology, but this kind of tommyrot is acceptable fare? There's not enough coffee in the world to wake us from our dogmatic slumber, or to awaken a spirit enamored with a little box that holds a tiny god of one's liking.

Thanks, but no thanks. Geocentrism went the way of bloodletting as a cure all. I'm shocked you didn't reply with a homing pigeon.

 

[Saint Steven]

Sorry for chiming in kind of late into the discussion here. I too believe the Bible's cosmology, which is consistently described as a flat, stationary earth as Shrewd Manager perfectly presented in his post.

To answer some of your questions, since I see Shrewd Manager hasn't returned:

Thanks for your post.
Since you are new here, I'll show you how to alert someone with their username. Type the @ sign and then begin typing their username. A pop-up menu will appear. Select their user name and they will get an alert. @Shrewd Manager See post #317

 

[ColoRaydo]

Biblical scholars smarter than me have debated this topic for centuries and atheists love to point out the “scientific” impossibly of OT stories.

Getting wrapped up in the literal/figurative debate over OT stories without consideration that it’s the meaning, not the account, is what’s important is counterproductive to the message we are to be sharing, which is God’s love and salvation through Christ. There is no prerequisite to salvation on whether one believes in a six day or six time period creation. The important thing is that God spoke creation into existence.

My stance is, I don’t care how God did it, just that he did.

 

[Saint Steven]

Thanks for your post.
Since you are new here, I'll show you how to alert someone with their username. Type the @ sign and then begin typing their username. A pop-up menu will appear. Select their user name and they will get an alert. @Shrewd Manager

See post #317

Here's how the alerts work @tryphena rose

 

[Saint Steven]

If its a blasphemy or contempt to say that Bible contains some myths, I am not willing to participate in this thread anymore and I will not answer any more of your questions, because this forum does not allow to answer them freely and sincerely.

Sorry to hear about that. Thanks for your participation. I appreciate it. Feel free to PM me if you want to talk offline.

My sincere apologies to anyone who was reprimanded for their honest participation on this thread. And a rebuke to those that caused such.

 

[Saint Steven]

Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Jesus had trouble with people who thought as most people on this thread do!

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.
1Co_15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co_15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
Nothing vague or mythical about Adam, they believed him to be real.

Those are some good references, thanks.
Moses is on par with the Prophets. Death reigned from Adam to Moses, real people. And Adam as the first man.

The NT supports a literal reading of the OT. No one has been able to present a NT reference to support a figurative reading of the creation account. The best they can do is claim the biblical writers didn't know any better. A view that undermines the Bible in my estimation.

On the other hand, there are some valid concerns about a literal reading of the whole Bible. Did you see the list made by @public hermit ?

1. God hates people (Esau I hated, but Jacob I loved)
2. Or worse, God tortures those God loves forever.
3. Defense of slavery
4. Women are to be submissive and shut up in church (and really anywhere else).
5. God commanded Israel to kill every living thing.
6. If God commands evil it's not evil (see 5)
7. If you just had enough faith you wouldn't need evil secular medicine/counseling
8. You can't be saved if you don't take Genesis literally.

 

[SkyWriting]

What do you make of this?

Genesis 1:26-27 NIV
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

(to press or squeeze)

Both passages were not composed in English. Both "Make" and "Create" include the definition "Re-Make" and all the meanings refer to a long process. Nothing is the definitions even suggest a short process. But don't take my word for it:

“Let Us make
נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה (na·‘ă·śeh)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect Cohortative if contextual - first person common plural
Strong's Hebrew 6213: 1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to do, work, make, produce 1a1a) to do 1a1b) to work 1a1c) to deal (with) 1a1d) to act, act with effect, effect 1a2) to make 1a2a) to make 1a2b) to produce 1a2c) to prepare 1a2d) to make (an offering) 1a2e) to attend to, put in order 1a2f) to observe, celebrate 1a2g) to acquire (property) 1a2h) to appoint, ordain, institute 1a2i) to bring about 1a2j) to use 1a2k) to spend, pass 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be done 1b2) to be made 1b3) to be produced 1b4) to be offered 1b5) to be observed 1b6) to be used 1c) (Pual) to be made 2) (Piel) to press, squeeze

Genesis 1:26 Parallel: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

[Saint Steven]

(to press or squeeze)

Both passages were not composed in English. Both "Make" and "Create" include the definition "Re-Make" and all the meanings refer to a long process. Nothing is the definitions even suggest a short process. But don't take my word for it:

“Let Us make
נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה (na·‘ă·śeh)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect Cohortative if contextual - first person common plural
Strong's Hebrew 6213: 1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to do, work, make, produce 1a1a) to do 1a1b) to work 1a1c) to deal (with) 1a1d) to act, act with effect, effect 1a2) to make 1a2a) to make 1a2b) to produce 1a2c) to prepare 1a2d) to make (an offering) 1a2e) to attend to, put in order 1a2f) to observe, celebrate 1a2g) to acquire (property) 1a2h) to appoint, ordain, institute 1a2i) to bring about 1a2j) to use 1a2k) to spend, pass 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to be done 1b2) to be made 1b3) to be produced 1b4) to be offered 1b5) to be observed 1b6) to be used 1c) (Pual) to be made 2) (Piel) to press, squeeze

Genesis 1:26 Parallel: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

They (God) had all day. (sunset to sunrise) So, take all the time you need. - lol

 

[SkyWriting]

They (God) had all day. (sunset to sunrise) So, take all the time you need. - lol

So this was a day after the sun was even visible? I don't recall.

 

[Saint Steven]

Well nothing suggests one day either.

Nothing?

Saint Steven said: ↑
They (God) had all day. (sunset to sunrise) So, take all the time you need. - lol

 

[SkyWriting]

Nothing?

Saint Steven said: ↑
They (God) had all day. (sunset to sunrise) So, take all the time you need. - lol

Was the sun visible on this day of "the week"?

 

[renniks]

Those who take the figurative view will be glad to tell you that the Bible isn't real history. At least the genesis account of origins. That doesn't bother them in the least. They are unaffected by that charge.

But you are right. If Adam wasn't a real person then would would Jesus be real. "Maybe he was just symbolic of something? Born of a virgin? Yeah, right. Did miracles? Fairy tales. Who would buy such garbage? Just a myth." (I don't agree, oh course)

And I've had a bunch of internet Christians who have said one doesn't have to believe in a literal resurrection. That's where this line of thinking leads us. The NT writers are often pointing back to the OT saints to show us how God worked out the plan of salvation. That's Paul in Romans: "God is faithful and we know that because he came through for his chosen people, therefore we know he will come through for us."
If the "legends" of what he did for his chosen people are just tales, why would we believe he will be faithful to us?

 

[Chi.C]

Delete

 

[Chi.C]

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.

The universe was created in 6 yoms with poetic dimensions.

Adam is the first creature that can reflect the Image of God. Adam and Eden were made concurrently. Adam was pure enough to withstand the scrutiny of God.

Image of God is the Kinship between Deity and Creation. As Adam said to Eve Genesis 2:22 "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." We find sympatico with our common traits.

Genesis is in part exalted poetry, historical prose.

The Scriptures were written/transmitted by men and women with the Holy Spirit.

The truth of the geneology is correct.

 

[Dkh587]

I got this message from some admin:

------
Blasphemy and Contempt of Christianity
It is considered blasphemy to insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father (God), Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Honest debate about the nature of God and Christian Theology is allowed, but derogatory remarks are not. Contemptuous remarks regarding Christianity or Christian practices are not allowed.

Saying the bible contains some myths is contempt of Christian and it's beliefs.
------

If its a blasphemy or contempt to say that Bible contains some myths, I am not willing to participate in this thread anymore and I will not answer any more of your questions, because this forum does not allow to answer them freely and sincerely.

Not sure why you are wasting your time on a Christian message board if you think the Bible is a myth.

 

[tryphena rose]

Augustine was right, this kind of thing makes us all look like imbeciles.

Believing in a man who claimed to be God in the flesh, whose followers say He rose from the dead, healed the sick and casted demons out of people will also undoubtedly make us look like imbeciles to the world.

I think if a Christian were to truly abandon everything for Christ, they would even look crazy to the majority of the Church because we give so much priority to doctrines of men rather than the truth of God. It's interesting that Jesus talked so highly of John the Baptist yet John lived like a wild man eating locusts and honey, spending his days proclaiming the coming of the Lord. Many within the Church acknowledges John, but would hardly think it sane to live like him.

 

[tryphena rose]

My stance is, I don’t care how God did it, just that he did.

And if God tells us how He did it, which He does in the creation account in Genesis, shouldn't we place our upmost trust and belief in what He says opposed to what any person says?

This right here is the main problem we find behind the literal vs. figurative argument. Where are we placing our trust? In God's Holy Word? If not that, then the only other option is in man's understanding.