The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

[tryphena rose]

@public hermit is a brother. FYI

Oh my! So sorry about that LOL! How embarrassing.

@public hermit

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I know. But it's obvious when it's supposed to be figurative for the most part. And Genesis obviously isn't.

In Hebrew it clearly is figurative. And, I do read the English as having figurative parts.
There are parts of Genesis which are literal. Context matters.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I've never understood why God creating everything in six literal days has ever been an issue. To me it's like, what took Him so long? Rather than that's impossible.

How did Moses know what happened at Creation? Moses was not there.
My Opinion is each day was a revelation to Moses which he wrote in his own language.

Is there an Egyptian account of Creation?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I know. But it's obvious when it's supposed to be figurative for the most part. And Genesis obviously isn't.

The question of the thread was only about the creation account.

How did Moses know what happened?

 

[renniks]

The question of the thread was only about the creation account.

How did Moses know what happened?

The Bible is Holy Spirit inspired.

 

[Saint Steven]

is it literal? I don't think the text answers that but it certainly is figurative. the OP has a lot of interpretation in it that I don't think the account can support, even in a literal/figurative vacuum.

The New Testament seems to favor a literal view. And even the Old Testament. The Sabbath commandment in Exodus chapter 20 is a good example.

 

[Saint Steven]

Oh my! So sorry about that LOL! How embarrassing.

@public hermit

No worries, bro. - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

I should have included that humanity is created in the image of God, in that list ( I included it in the similar list a few posts above (#383). It is interesting that is revealed, but we aren't told in the text what that means, exactly. Still, I think it's another important revealed truth.

I was looking for your quote about saying these figurative truths were "sacramental". (not sure if I said that right) Could you explain the sacramental aspect? Thanks.

Other than the elements for Communion/Eucharist, I don't know of anything as sacramental. (off hand) So, your statement puzzles me a bit.

 

[Dkh587]

The question of the thread was only about the creation account.

How did Moses know what happened?

The Bible doesn’t explicitly say, however, God spoke to Moses face to face, unlike how he spoke to other prophets Numbers 12:6-8, so if we are going to speculate, it is possible and probable that God revealed it to him and instructed him to write it down at some point.

 

[public hermit]

I was looking for your quote about saying these figurative truths were "sacramental". (not sure if I said that right) Could you explain the sacramental aspect? Thanks.

Other than the elements for Communion/Eucharist, I don't know of anything as sacramental. (off hand) So, your statement puzzles me a bit.

We can draw a distinction between general sacramentality and the specific institutions of the church we call "sacraments." Something is sacramental in part because it communicates God and makes God present. In other words, the sacramental communicates spiritual realities that transcend the thing itself.

Christ specifically instituted baptism and Eucharist as sacraments. These are specific ways that we meet God (being washed/being fed), where we experience God's presence. The elements communicate spiritual realities and in that sense are sacramental. It's not just water, but sacramental water. Something spiritual is happening through it.

However, that doesn't mean they alone are sacramental in the wider sense of communicating God's presence and communicating spiritual realities.

Creation is sacramental, in that sense. When Jesus uses aspects of creation and human life in his parables he's drawing on the sacramental nature of these things. It's not just that they communicate spiritual realities, but when we see these realities we are drawn into the divine presence.

And certainly, the scriptures communicate God and God's presence. They communicate spiritual realities, and in grasping these we are drawn into the divine presence.

But just as sacramental water is more than just the water, the spiritual realities the scriptures communicate can transcend the "flesh" or history recounted in the text.

This is why the early church commentators showed little interest in the one true meaning of a given text. The scriptures are multivalent, communicating layers and layers of spiritual meaning. The Exodus is not just about the wandering Hebrews, but about Christ and human redemption. The Song of Solomon is not just a song about lovers, but about mystic desire for and union with God. Even Jesus takes a sacramental reading of Moses's serpent as a typology of his crucifixion.

This all seems second nature to us, but it began with the early commentators and the way they approached the scriptures as sacramental. This partly explains their penchant for an allegorical interpretation. God is communicating more than the face value of the text.

Another way to think about sacramentality. Why is it that when I read the bible when I was younger it just didn't do anything for me? But later, it came alive. What changed? We would say the change was the work of the Holy Spirit, with which I agree. But it was the same book, the same words.

The scriptures came alive for me because they began to say more than the words I was reading. Somehow, in some way, I was drawn to God. In the same way, I can see a sunset and it seem like any other sunset. But then one day I see a sunset and I am awash in the divine presence, understanding the goodness and beauty of the Creator in a special way. Sacramental happens when the divine shines through the mundane. Of course, this is God's world. The divine is always shining through, we just don't see it.

 

[Servus]

How did Moses know what happened at Creation? Moses was not there.
My Opinion is each day was a revelation to Moses which he wrote in his own language.

Is there an Egyptian account of Creation?

I'd say Moses knew what happened at creation because he spent 40 days in the presence of God on Mt. Sinai. My guess is by the time he came back down (with his face literally shining) he had learned quite a lot of things from God.

 

[DamianWarS]

The New Testament seems to favor a literal view. And even the Old Testament. The Sabbath commandment in Exodus chapter 20 is a good example.

if we say Moses wrote it then he does so 2500 years after the event. I'm not so certain the pressing question of post-exodus Hebrews was regarding what the literal details 2500 years ago was and I'm not so sure the account answers that too. I think they were more in need of an ordained account that unified them and didn't vary from a thousand tents (but perhaps that's too level-headed of me).

the literal discussion I think looks at the account backwards, first, it approaches it as literal then tries to fit the words in a literal vacuum which I think causes us to miss the point. The account is there for a purpose and in order to understand if it's literal or not, I think we need to understand the purpose of the account first and then see how a literal view is compatible with that purpose rather than forcing the account to be literal just because our western mindsets demand it. The account is there to fill a void we just need to figure out what that void is.

 

[Saint Steven]

We can draw a distinction between general sacramentality and the specific institutions of the church we call "sacraments." Something is sacramental in part because it communicates God and makes God present. In other words, the sacramental communicates spiritual realities that transcend the thing itself.

Christ specifically instituted baptism and Eucharist as sacraments. These are specific ways that we meet God (being washed/being fed), where we experience God's presence. The elements communicate spiritual realities and in that sense are sacramental. It's not just water, but sacramental water. Something spiritual is happening through it.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. That helps a lot.

Funny how I go through my day at work and suddenly something I read in a post raises a question in my mind. When I get home I will send an inquiry to the poster. I love learning from all the diversity of backgrounds on the forum.

I was raised Protestant Evangelical, but have spent the last 30+ years in an AG denomination church. (the largest Pentecostal denomination) So, our view of the presence of God is quite different, yet the same in some respects. I can physically feel God's presence when I enter the building. (usually before many have arrived) And it builds as more worshipers begin to arrive. This presence is stronger in the sanctuary and increases as you approach the front near the platform.

I have been in services at other places where it was so thick you could seemingly cut it with a knife. Even like a barely visible mist, or a fog. I remember walking down into the sanctuary and it felt like entering water. Ankle deep, knee deep, waist deep, chest deep, neck deep, over my head deep. A rare and memorable experience.

And we will see/experience manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Like speaking in tongues and prophecy. Some are so overwhelmed they fall down (collapse) and stay down for some time. We actually have people that are "catchers" to assist people in this to prevent injuries.

All this is mostly in the past now. I don't see much of it anymore. A new attender actually had to ask me, "So... do you guys speak in tongues around here?" - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

And certainly, the scriptures communicate God and God's presence. They communicate spiritual realities, and in grasping these we are drawn into the divine presence.

But just as sacramental water is more than just the water, the spiritual realities the scriptures communicate can transcend the "flesh" or history recounted in the text.

This is why the early church commentators showed little interest in the one true meaning of a given text. The scriptures are multivalent, communicating layers and layers of spiritual meaning. The Exodus is not just about the wandering Hebrews, but about Christ and human redemption. The Song of Solomon is not just a song about lovers, but about mystic desire for and union with God. Even Jesus takes a sacramental reading of Moses's serpent as a typology of his crucifixion.

This all seems second nature to us, but it began with the early commentators and the way they approached the scriptures as sacramental. This partly explains their penchant for an allegorical interpretation. God is communicating more than the face value of the text.

This may explain something I have noticed in the Bible. I wanted to do a topic on it, but seemed like dangerous territory. (even for me - lol)

In the New Testament there are references made to OT texts that are either misquoted or misused based on their obvious meanings. Being from a more literalist background, this was rather troubling. I concluded something near to what you are saying. They were finding other spiritual meanings. Or, the original meaning was not what we thought. Except, sometimes it was the opposite. Quite puzzling. Here's an example.

All sorts of problems here. Gave gifts, or received gifts? (for starters) "This is why it says..." No it doesn't! - lol

Ephesians 4:7-8 NIV
But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”

Psalm 68:18 NIV
When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you received gifts from people,
even from the rebellious—
that you, Lord God, might dwell there.

 

[Saint Steven]

This is why the early church commentators showed little interest in the one true meaning of a given text. The scriptures are multivalent, communicating layers and layers of spiritual meaning. The Exodus is not just about the wandering Hebrews, but about Christ and human redemption. The Song of Solomon is not just a song about lovers, but about mystic desire for and union with God. Even Jesus takes a sacramental reading of Moses's serpent as a typology of his crucifixion.

Even literalists recognize this.

It seems to me that those with a figurative view don't apply it to everything in the Bible. And those with a literal view don't apply it to everything in the Bible.

Perhaps the biggest battle ground, if you will, on this subject is the Genesis account. Perhaps the whole book of Genesis.

Those with a figurative view seem to be split on how much of Genesis is to be taken figuratively. Some concede that Abraham was (may have been) a real person, for instance. Or Jacob and the Israelites. But then deny the Exodus account. Say what?

 

[Saint Steven]

if we say Moses wrote it then he does so 2500 years after the event. I'm not so certain the pressing question of post-exodus Hebrews was regarding what the literal details 2500 years ago was and I'm not so sure the account answers that too. I think they were more in need of an ordained account that unified them and didn't vary from a thousand tents (but perhaps that's too level-headed of me).

the literal discussion I think looks at the account backwards, first, it approaches it as literal then tries to fit the words in a literal vacuum which I think causes us to miss the point. The account is there for a purpose and in order to understand if it literal or not, I think we need to understand the purpose of the account first and then see how a literal view is compatible with that purpose rather than forcing the account to be literal just because our western mindsets demand its. The account is there to fill a void we just need to figure out what that void is.

Moses descended from the mountain with the TCs written in stone. And even if he did write about it later, he communicates his understanding of the relationship to the creation account. The Sabbath was to be observed because it came from the creation week. (6 days of work, followed by 1 day of rest)

Saint Steven said: ↑
The New Testament seems to favor a literal view. And even the Old Testament. The Sabbath commandment in Exodus chapter 20 is a good example.

 

[public hermit]

This may explain something I have noticed in the Bible. I wanted to do a topic on it, but seemed like dangerous territory. (even for me - lol)

In the New Testament there are references made to OT texts that are either misquoted or misused based on their obvious meanings. Being from a more literalist background, this was rather troubling. I concluded something near to what you are saying. They were finding other spiritual meanings. Or, the original meaning was not what we thought. Except, sometimes it was the opposite. Quite puzzling. Here's an example.

All sorts of problems here. Gave gifts, or received gifts? (for starters) "This is why it says..." No it doesn't! - lol

Ephesians 4:7-8 NIV
But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”

Psalm 68:18 NIV
When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you received gifts from people,
even from the rebellious—
that you, Lord God, might dwell there.

I can see why this would trouble a certain approach to the scriptures, e.g. an approach that assumes the scriptures must meet a very Western idea of coherence and consistency. I'm not saying the biblical writers were illogical, but I don't think they worried as much about such things. Keep in mind, most (all?) of the biblical writers did not assume they were writing what would become scripture. They were writing letters, gospels based on oral accounts or traditions, poetry, etc.

Perhaps the Holy Spirit guided the change in this instance? Perhaps both receiving and giving are true? Perhaps, and this option won't be popular with a literalist, the writer of Ephesians thought the passage fit, all except that part, and so changed it to fit.

 

[DamianWarS]

Moses descended from the mountain with the TCs written in stone. And even if he did write about it later, he communicates his understanding of the relationship to the creation account. The Sabbath was to be observed because it came from the creation week. (6 days of work, followed by 1 day of rest)

Saint Steven said: ↑
The New Testament seems to favor a literal view. And even the Old Testament. The Sabbath commandment in Exodus chapter 20 is a good example.

God sets the conditions and we follow them not because they are literal but because God tells us too. God's followers repeat these things not because they are literal but because God said them. The account has some litteral problems such as light being created before a source of light, and it its also written in a chiastic struture, a form of Hebrew poetry. This focus moves away from the literal and more into figurative language. The op asks if it's literal or figurative. As for the former that seems less evident, but the later is most certainly true. So why do we get stuck on the literal when It's the figurative that has far greater meaning?

 

[hedrick]

This may explain something I have noticed in the Bible. I wanted to do a topic on it, but seemed like dangerous territory. (even for me - lol)

In the New Testament there are references made to OT texts that are either misquoted or misused based on their obvious meanings. Being from a more literalist background, this was rather troubling. I concluded something near to what you are saying. They were finding other spiritual meanings. Or, the original meaning was not what we thought. Except, sometimes it was the opposite. Quite puzzling. Here's an example.

All sorts of problems here. Gave gifts, or received gifts? (for starters) "This is why it says..." No it doesn't! - lol

Ephesians 4:7-8 NIV
But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8 This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”

Psalm 68:18 NIV
When you ascended on high,
you took many captives;
you received gifts from people,
even from the rebellious—
that you, Lord God, might dwell there.

This is actually the norm. The Biblical authors weren’t history professors. They were trying to make points about God and our relationship to him. They used history and tradition, but shaped it to make their points. In the OT, Kings, Deut, and Chronicles cover much of the same ground, but each tells the story in a different way, as appropriate to the challenges faced by Israel when they were writing. Even Matthew, Mark and Luke are trying to make specific points, and use the common traditions about Jesus differently. Sometimes specific historical points are also adapted.

An example used by Enns: In Kings, Manasseh is a bad guy. The whole Gen - Kings cycle was probably put together in the Exile, though certainly using real historical material. The big issue was why Israel was conquered. The author believed that it was because of Israel’s sins. That’s not a surprise. The Prophets made the same point. But in Kings, the sins focus on the kings. Chronicles, however, broadens the focus to include the sins of the people. In Kings, Manasseh is wholly bad. In Chronicles, he is carried into exile, repents, and returns as a good king. (See 2 Kings 21:17-18 and 2 Chron 33:18-20, or read the whole story, which appears right before these summaries.) It’s the people who are at fault. You can see the same kinds of differences in the Gospels. Evangelicals see these differences as problems, and try to cover them up, but doing so prevents us from understanding the specific points each author is trying to make.

Of course the overall perspectives don’t contradict each other. Both the actions of leaders and the people are important. But it did shape how they told the stories.

This is the way early Jews used their tradition. They didn’t make things up out of whole cloth, but they reinterpreted things, sometimes significantly.

As to the point of this thread, I think that’s what they were doing in Genesis 1 and 2: adapting common mid-eastern (or Egyptian) traditions to talk about Israel’s concept of God.

 

[public hermit]

Even literalists recognize this.

It seems to me that those with a figurative view don't apply it to everything in the Bible. And those with a literal view don't apply it to everything in the Bible.

Perhaps the biggest battle ground, if you will, on this subject is the Genesis account. Perhaps the whole book of Genesis.

Those with a figurative view seem to be split on how much of Genesis is to be taken figuratively. Some concede that Abraham was (may have been) a real person, for instance. Or Jacob and the Israelites. But then deny the Exodus account. Say what?

Forgive this long post, lol. There is definitely a break in the text between the primordial history and the Abraham saga. I trace the break through a pattern we see throughout Genesis.

God creates, setting up the conditions for flourishing life. God communicates the conditions for flourishing life to humanity, they go against the conditions given for life (sin), the bad consequences follow, God steps in and redeems the situation, sets things right and in order to the divine intention for life.

We see this with Adam and Eve. God communicates the conditions for life, they do the contrary, the consequences follow that they now see their vulnerability and are afraid of God, God steps in and covers their nakedness, promising a Redeemer. God redeems the situation. That's the pattern.

We see this pattern with Cain. "Cain, don't let these thoughts about your brother rule you." Cain ignores that bit of guidance, kills his brother, and faces the consequences of now being seen as a threat. He has no place. God steps in and redeems the situation with an identifying mark.

Humanity spirals out of control, embracing evil and living contrary to the conditions for life. The death dealing consequences of sin arrive with the great reset (flood). But God redeems the situation with Noah and a new covenant and promise. Now, Noah, go forward and flourish.

This brings us to the Tower of Babel. God tells humanity the conditions for life are found in spreading out and multiplying throughout the earth. Spread out, y'all. The people are like, "No, we're not going to do that. We're all going to stay here, together, and build a tower making a name for ourselves. We will find immortality (life) in a great name."

The bad consequences come as God confuses their language, forcing confusion and the inability to function as one. So, where is the redemptive act we saw in early instances in the pattern?

The next thing that happens is the call of Abram. We find this to be God's redeeming response to the evil we see at Babel, and before. The connection is the desire of the people to make a great name for themselves. They don't get a great name. But when God calls Abram, God tells him he will make his name great.

In the primordial history up to Abram, we see the pattern established: God creates the conditions for flourishing life, humanity rebels, God responds with mercy, redeeming the situation and bringing things back to the divine intention for flourishing life.

But the break between Babel and Abraham is significant. With Abraham we see the beginning of God's plan of redemption that culminates in Jesus Christ. We never trace our salvation history back to Noah or Adam, but always to Abraham. And in him we see this principle that through one person God will bless all the families of earth.

All that to say, the historicity of those passages takes a backseat to the spiritual truths being communicated, for me. Personally, I'm not concerned with whether or not each account is historically accurate. I tend to think these were long winding oral traditions that were finally written down, traditions that have a root in historical realities. But, what matters most to me are the spiritual truths, which all point to Christ. Sacramental.