The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

[Saint Steven]

... The truth of the geneology is correct.

Can you elaborate on this?

Saint Steven said: ↑
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 have a theory about the motivations of literalists. I won't say it's true, but I'll throw it out there for anyone to consider. I believe that like me, literalists want to please the living, risen Christ. But I also believe literalists are afraid. I get it. If my faith depended in part on the opening chapters of Genesis being literal, I might be willing to defend every jot and tittle, in spite of any seeming absurdities.

Yes. That may explain the venom in some of the responses from the literalist side. Fear.

The more invested one is in the book, the harder it is to wrench it out of their hands. Accepting the claims of a figurative view seems like watching your Bible burn. The whole thing goes up in smoke. Probably a fearful thought for many.

 

[Saint Steven]

Literalism gives two options: literalism or no faith. And when literalists begin to lose faith, they have no recourse, no hand hold, because their faith was rooted in the book in a way that should be reserved for the Person. No wonder they fear science and philosophy.

If tomorrow they proved that the creation is older than six thousand years, that evolution is true, and never has a snake spoken I will go forward with no fear because Jesus Christ lives. Such a position is not only possible, it's desirable, and literalists should at least try to understand how and why.

Well said.

I can only speak for myself. This topic is an attempt on my part to better understand the figurative position. (as I have stated previously) I can only discuss it from the literalist position. That's all I know.

And I can see problems on both sides. Currently for me, the truth seems to be in the middle somewhere. The Bible is both literal and figurative. Discerning how and where to apply this is the tricky part. (it seems that) One needs to draw a line somewhere. And that line could move over time.

 

[Saint Steven]

You've shown a lot of humility here sister, and that's always very admirable.

@public hermit is a brother. FYI

 

[Saint Steven]

He did not make all the nations in Genesis 1

Where did the genetic material for all the nations originate?

This NT scripture supports a literal reading of Genesis.

Acts 17:24-27 NIV
“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

 

[hedrick]

We we created in the image of God, that part is stated in the text. Exactly what that image is, if it is physical or spiritual is not stated. But fact remains that God is not a man.

It would seem really odd to think of humans as in the physical image of God. I thought he was generally not considered to have a physical body. The OT certainly refers to his right arm, but that’s usually considered to be poetic.

 

[Saint Steven]

Again the text is not saying Genesis 1 has to be literal language.

It says there was a literal creation.

Romans 1:18-20 NIV
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

[Saint Steven]

This relates to the Fall. It does not say the text is not saying Genesis 1 has to be literal language.

Sure it does.
For the Fall to be effective, there has to be a literal man who literally sinned. (in Genesis)

1 Corinthians 15:21-22 NIV
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

 

[hedrick]

Where did the genetic material for all the nations originate?

This NT scripture supports a literal reading of Genesis.

Acts 17:24-27 NIV
“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

Actually 17:26 says just “from one.” One what? One understanding is from one nation. Translators generally supply some noun, according to their understanding. Some Greek manuscripts insert blood, I.e. from one stock. Though that’s very unlikely to be the original it shows one early understanding. Given the end of vs 25, it could even refer to God. Note however that I’m not denying that the author believed in a literal Adam. It’s just not so clear that he showed it here.

 

[Saint Steven]

What happens to the literalist who at some point becomes convinced that those chapters aren't literal? It happens all the time. Will they lose their faith? That too happens all the time. I submit that such loss of faith is the result of a misapplied emphasis on the literalism of the scriptures, instead of the reality of Jesus Christ, which happily transcends every jot and tittle. In other words, such loss of faith is not necessary.

I suppose this will be like Universalism was for me. I didn't get anywhere by debating with the other side. It only started to make sense when I read some Christian authors that could lay it out in simple understandable terms.

There may have been a few links on earlier pages. Or if someone could point me in the right direction...

 

[hedrick]

It says there was a literal creation.

Romans 1:18-20 NIV
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

That’s pushing it. It just shows that God is creator, Not how it was done.

 

[hedrick]

I suppose this will be like Universalism was for me. I didn't get anywhere by debating with the other side. It only started to make sense when I read some Christian authors that could lay it out in simple understandable terms.

There may have been a few links on earlier pages. Or if someone could point me in the right direction...

The best starting point is Peter Enns, How the Bible Actually Works. It looks at how it was understood and used historically.

 

[Servus]

Where did the genetic material for all the nations originate?

This NT scripture supports a literal reading of Genesis.

Acts 17:24-27 NIV
“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3:29

No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. Genesis 17:5

That's not literal in a biological sense.

 

[hedrick]

Enns' thesis, by the way, is that the purpose of the Bible is to help us develop wisdom. Obviously it has information, but its primary purpose isn't to give us information. Trying to get answers to every possible question is attractive, but it faces barriers:

* The world the Bible was written in is very different from the Roman world it moved out into, and that is different from the medieval and modern worlds. That doesn't mean that the nature of God changed, but it does mean that we often come to the Bible with different questions than the authors were trying to answer. Trying to develop a book that answers questions that would come up for the whole future makes less sense than trying to develop people who understand Christ well enough to develop answers.

* If you look at the world, with questions like suffering, it's hard to avoid the feeling that God was interested in developing people of a certain kind, even if the process wasn't entirely pleasant. Why else put us in a world where even his existence is hard to be sure of?

* While NT writers certainly considered the Bible authoritative, they didn't use it the way modern conservatives want to. This is where you really need to read Enns book. 1st Cent Jewish ways of dealing with the Bible tended to be creative.

 

[public hermit]

I suppose this will be like Universalism was for me. I didn't get anywhere by debating with the other side. It only started to make sense when I read some Christian authors that could lay it out in simple understandable terms.

There may have been a few links on earlier pages. Or if someone could point me in the right direction...

One possibility is Hans Boersma's Scripture as Real Presence. It's a fascinating study on how the early church interpreted scripture, and why they had the approach they took. As you know, it was often allegorical and they sometimes considered a strict historical reading as either lacking or simply problematic.

As Augustine said (roughly) if its first-face reading doesn't fall in line with the law of love, make it do so, lol. They often had a very different way of treating the scriptures.

But, they felt the scriptures were sacramental, meaning Christ was revealed in ways not always accessible to a simple historical approach. There was a spiritual reading, and that's what mattered most. It's a good read.

 

[coffee4u]

It would seem really odd to think of humans as in the physical image of God. I thought he was generally not considered to have a physical body. The OT certainly refers to his right arm, but that’s usually considered to be poetic.

Certainly God interacts with us as a human (Jesus came as a man)and uses words that indicate that he is such as a hand writing on a wall or an arm, but I see this is more God making himself appear like a human because this is what he knows we will understand.
One time he appeared to Mosses as a burning bush and then as a pillar of fire leading the Israelite's. God can look however he chooses to look. So I don't believe the image has anything to do with our physical appearance but rather our spirit.

 

[Servus]

I don't see why a spirit being couldn't have a human form. As opposed to being shapeless. The difference being of course that if God has appendages, they're not made of flesh.

 

[Saint Steven]

The best starting point is Peter Enns, How the Bible Actually Works. It looks at how it was understood and used historically.

Thanks, I'll check it out. Looks like he has a YouTube channel too. (with an insulting title)

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't see why a spirit being couldn't have a human form. As opposed to being shapeless. The difference being of course that if God has appendages, they're not made of flesh.

What does the Bible say about our flesh when we enter the afterlife? From corruptible to incorruptible. Not from corruptible to vapor. - lol

That says MORE solid to me. (not LESS solid) Will we be solid, but God will be a vapor?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

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.

Sir, I perceive you know not whereof you speak. Dost thou do well to co-opt Augustine who would have rightly considered the entirety of 'modern cosmology' nothing short of satanic insanity?

If you can find me any actual Biblical or physical proof of earth's supposed motion in space, pray tell. Cause I've been looking for near 15 years and en route found naught but the one true God. The devil deceiveth the whole world. See, when you deny Gen 1 everything else is reduced to trivia.

And at the risk of embarrassing you, I'm more than happy to tell ppl I'm Christian, redemptionist and a Biblical flat earther. Just pray they don't ask me about the finer points of WWII history lol.