The Creation Story: Literal, or Figurative?

[Saint Steven]

The point if the comments I’ve been making is that literal isn’t the right term. Jewish thinkers used the Bible as the basis for their thinking, but were also happy to reinterpret and even modify it, as you’ve noted yourself. In a sense the most accurate term is probably canonical. Part if what it meant to be Jewish is that you used the Torah. But I don’t think they were committed to one side or another in modern debates responding to very different ideas.

Thanks. I think there is something to that. But I can't think of even one NT text that suggests the creation account was viewed that way. Any come to mind for you? My example was from the Psalms. (Ephesians 4:8)

 

[Saint Steven]

@hedrick -- There was a question from @DamianWarS that you may be able to answer better than I. -- I think I was referencing something you had written. re: mythical/rational/scientific ages.

"I don't know what the mythical age is so you might have to unpack that some more."

 

[Saint Steven]

Several scriptures that challenge the figurative reading of Genesis.

Mark 10:6 NIV
“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’

Luke 11:50-51 NIV
Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

Luke 17:26-27 NIV
“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

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.

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.

Romans 5:12 NIV
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

Romans 8:19-22 NIV
For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

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.

2 Peter 3:5-6 NIV
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

Post #108 from page 6. Nine references to a literal view of the creation/flood accounts from Genesis.

 

[Saint Steven]

The point if the comments I’ve been making is that literal isn’t the right term. ... In a sense the most accurate term is probably canonical.

How are you defining canonical in this statement? Couldn't canonical have either a literal or figurative view. (but I agree, not exclusively --- and even perhaps synonymously?)

I pointed out this text earlier in the thread. It makes reference to a Hebrew myth concerning Exodus. (the wilderness wandering) What was "the spiritual rock that accompanied them"?

1 Corinthians 10:3-5
They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

 

[hedrick]

@hedrick -- There was a question from @DamianWarS that you may be able to answer better than I. -- I think I was referencing something you had written. re: mythical/rational/scientific ages.

"I don't know what the mythical age is so you might have to unpack that some more."

That doesn't sound like me. I wouldn't typically talk about a mythical age. I think there are a couple of difference between the ancient world and now in dealing with texts. The most important is that for ancient Jews, interpretation was creative. It used the text, but not necessarily in the way the original readers would have understood, and at times modified it. There are examples throughout the OT and NT of that.

When I do exegesis, I am trying to find the intent of the original author, and I wouldn't consider modifying the text. But once I've found the original meaning of the text, I would also look at the author's situation and what he was trying to do, and might well conclude that in our situation we should come to a different conclusion. Basically, the is the same kind of thing the ancients would have done by reinterpreting texts, but I'm more explicit about what I'm doing.

The second is the critical approach. You can see examples of this in the Renaissance, but it really took off later.

As an example, the 16th Cent equivalent to the YEC controversy was the new astronomy. The earth not the center, various facts about the heavens, e.g. that the moon reflects lights but wasn't itself a light. Calvin was surely the best exegete of the Reformation period. He accepted the results of astronomy. In his commentary on Genesis he maintained that because the author wasn't trying to teach astronomy, he had written according to how things appeared to people at the time. This is referred to as accommodation: that God had accommodated his descriptions to what people could understand. He treated Adam and Eve as historical, but he had no reason not to. Operating in the spirit of Calvin, however, I would say that now we do.

While I think Calvin was right it making this distinction, I don't think he knew enough about the way early Jewish writers handled texts to come up with a full explanation of how to handle the Bible

 

[Saint Steven]

As an example, the 16th Cent equivalent to the YEC controversy was the new astronomy. The earth not the center, various facts about the heavens, e.g. that the moon reflects lights but wasn't itself a light.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding about what a literal view of the creation account actually is. Literalists don't believe that the moon is a literal light, like a lamp in your home. Metaphorical descriptions are allowed in a literal view. - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

When I do exegesis, I am trying to find the intent of the original author, and I wouldn't consider modifying the text.

In that case, wouldn't you agree that the intent of the original author of the creation account was a literal view? A literal six day creation, plus one day of rest. (the afterglow - lol)

 

[public hermit]

In that case, wouldn't you agree that the intent of the original author of the creation account was a literal view? A literal six day creation, plus one day of rest. (the afterglow - lol)

I would definitely say the original authors of Genesis assumed what they were saying was true. The creation account is surely a tradition, or set of traditions, handed down orally before it was written down. The idea that God dictated to one person sounds good, but an internal investigation of the text greatly undermines such an idea. There are clear "fingerprints" all over to indicate Genesis as a whole is a compilation of traditions. Just read the Noah saga and ask yourself, "Who put this together?" Lol. It's so disjointed and incongruous. But, I don't think the compilers always cared about the things we do.

Yes, the authors probably believed what they were handing down happened as they repeated it. But that's not why they repeated it. They were not repeating history, nor were they repeating a scientific theory. They were repeating God's salvific activity. What mattered was not if the sun and moon existed on the 1st day. What mattered was the Creator is going to redeem creation, not the least of which included humanity.

It would be like reading the gospels, comparing them, and then concluding that they're terrible biographies because they contradict each other and they don't tell us anything about Jesus growing up. It's an incomplete picture.

Well, yeah, they are terrible biographies because that's not what they are. They're gospels, whose sole purpose reduces to God's salvific activity in the world.

In short, the scriptures are sui generis because their sacramental function is to reveal the Living God, of which there is only one. This is partly why a literal/figurative distinction becomes less helpful than might appear.

 

[DamianWarS]

Most troubling, I suppose, is that none of the New Testament writers share that view. They take the creation account as literal, as far as I can tell. Do you see something different there?

they pull spiritual truth out of it, I don't see why it matters if it was literal or not, the point they make still holds. God ordains the accounts (implicitly) so the truths in them warrant our studies and repeated by others. But I think you're trying to paint me in a non-literalist corner. I'm not trying to write away the bible but I do recognize that the pre-Abrahamic account's literalness may be reasonably questioned.

Tradition puts the writing them down part at Moses so either these accounts existed as oral tradition prior to Moses or these were new revelations from God. I suspect however it was a bit of both. When we read Genesis it takes a large shift as soon as Abraham comes up. All of a sudden we have a wealth of details and information but before Abraham, the accounts are very different with a very myth-like shape to them. But this makes sense, Abraham and his descendants only have meaning to the Hebrews so no other surrounding cultures would have competing accounts. However accounts like babel, the flood, the Nephilim in creation would probably have a lot of overlap in surrounding cultures most notably the Egyptians which we know had a strong influence upon the Hebrews. As soon as they step into the desert the first thing they do it make an idol and it was the high priest's idea (and he's the guys that made it).

Those sorts of conclusions are not just invented on the stop, they are suggestive of a culture strongly pre-disposed to pagan ideas. (Aaron even has a skill set of making idols). I suspect their oral accounts were also influenced by similar values. The task of Moses is less about telling them what really happened because it's been 2500 years and that part really doesn't matter. The more crucial step would be to de-paganize these accounts and have them point to God. I suspect what really happen would be far too abstract for anyone to really grasp and if Moses came down with that account he would be stoned and they would go back to their golden calf.

 

[DamianWarS]

In that case, wouldn't you agree that the intent of the original author of the creation account was a literal view? A literal six day creation, plus one day of rest. (the afterglow - lol)

If we say Moses (or another man) wrote down this account I don't think he wrote them based on his own knowledge because obviously, he wasn't there. So either the specific details are from very carefully kept oral accounts passed down or the account is structured the way it is through direct divine inspiration. How a guy like Moses understood the account to be literal or not is beside the point since he would have no authority to speak on that matter (and I doubt he would be so bold to ask God "did it really happen that way?")

the intent of the account to its original audience I think is about establishing foundations of monotheism and expunging any form of polytheism as well as setting up systems that establish the rule and authority of God. It doesn't appear anyone in Genesis was aware of the Sabbath and this begs the question was this a value established upon the 4th commandment cited back to the 7th day? (how early was the creation account known) So what is the purpose of the 7th day? to show us the earth was finished in the 6 days prior or is it about showing us rest? which one do you believe takes a higher focus?

 

[Bobber]

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.

Have a read of the link below. I think it answers the question.

Why does Ephesians 4:8 miss-quote Psalm 68:18? (mainsailministries.org)

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I have no idea what it means from a figurative reading. Do those with a figurative reading even agree? Seems like abstract art. What does it say to you? (no regard for the writer's intent)

I say there are problems in both a figurative and literal readings. Will you admit the same?

Some on the figurative reading side even claim that it was written in the mythical age, so the writers didn't know any better. We can see it now since we have passed through the rational and scientific ages. So much for a figurative reading.

figurative language can convey truth.

 

[Saint Steven]

It doesn't appear anyone in Genesis was aware of the Sabbath and this begs the question was this a value established upon the 4th commandment cited back to the 7th day? (how early was the creation account known) So what is the purpose of the 7th day? to show us the earth was finished in the 6 days prior or is it about showing us rest? which one do you believe takes a higher focus?

The Sabbath commandment in Exodus chapter 20 points back to the literal creation week. However, the Sabbath was established in Exodus chapter 16 having to do with manna collection. Based on what happened in that chapter, it is obvious that the Israelites have never observed the Sabbath rest day before. The Genesis creation account, it seems, was written after the law in Exodus. Since it mentions the day of rest being set aside. (made holy)

 

[Saint Steven]

Have a read of the link below. I think it answers the question.

Why does Ephesians 4:8 miss-quote Psalm 68:18? (mainsailministries.org)

If the translators know it is wrong, why wasn't it fixed?
The article seems like a failed attempt to rescue the Bible.

Saint Steven said: ↑
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]

figurative language can convey truth.

Yes, I suppose that might be possible on rare occasion. - lol
An example might be helpful.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The Sabbath commandment in Exodus chapter 20 points back to the literal creation week. However, the Sabbath was established in Exodus chapter 16 having to do with manna collection. Based on what happened in that chapter, it is obvious that the Israelites have never observed the Sabbath rest day before. The Genesis creation account, it seems, was written after the law in Exodus. Since it mentions the day of rest being set aside. (made holy)

Exodus 20
Common English Bible
The Ten Commandments
20 Then God spoke all these words:

2 I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

3 You must have no other gods before[a] me.

4 Do not make an idol for yourself—no form whatsoever—of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. 5 Do not bow down to them or worship them, because I, the Lord your God, am a passionate God. I punish children for their parents’ sins even to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me. 6 But I am loyal and gracious to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 Do not use the Lord your God’s name as if it were of no significance; the Lord won’t forgive anyone who uses his name that way.

8 Remember the Sabbath day and treat it as holy. 9 Six days you may work and do all your tasks, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. Do not do any work on it—not you, your sons or daughters, your male or female servants, your animals, or the immigrant who is living with you. 11 Because the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them in six days, but rested on the seventh day. That is why the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

12 Honor your father and your mother so that your life will be long on the fertile land that the Lord your God is giving you.

13 Do not kill.[c]

14 Do not commit adultery.

15 Do not steal.

16 Do not testify falsely against your neighbor.

17 Do not desire and try to take your neighbor’s house. Do not desire and try to take your neighbor’s wife, male or female servant, ox, donkey, or anything else that belongs to your neighbor.

Exodus 20 does give a summary of creation, but it does not say the language in Genesis 1 is completely literal language. Figurative Language does no mean something is false. It does raise the question, why would an all powerful being God needs to rest?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

If the translators know it is wrong, why wasn't it fixed?
The article seems like a failed attempt to rescue the Bible.

Saint Steven said: ↑
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 am guessing Paul simply quoted the OT text from memory adopting it for his purpose. In both texts the He and You is God.

 

[DamianWarS]

The Sabbath commandment in Exodus chapter 20 points back to the literal creation week. However, the Sabbath was established in Exodus chapter 16 having to do with manna collection. Based on what happened in that chapter, it is obvious that the Israelites have never observed the Sabbath rest day before. The Genesis creation account, it seems, was written after the law in Exodus. Since it mentions the day of rest being set aside. (made holy)

yes, I agree but that just reinforces the point that the Israelites as well as those prior to them were ignorant to the Sabbath. This allows an opportunity to introduce an account that never existed before for the purposes of ordaining the system of the law, the account is right not because it's literal or not (which is beside the point) but because God gives it.

It sounds like cheating in a western mindset but this is a common practice in eastern logic (even today). A story is good not because all the facts are right, but because it proclaims the goal the best way possible. In the First Council of Nicaea, the official number of bishops in attendance was 318 but actually, there was probably something closer to 250 so why 318? 318 is the number of servants Abraham took to get Lot and 318 is also known as a number of Christ. The number is used not because it is the factual number but because it is the best number, the number that ordains the council and gives God the most glory. This is how eastern logic works. the best version of the story is always better provided the goal is worthy of it.

I thing in spirit of this thread I would protest the language "points back to the literal creation week". It points to the creation account. If it's literal or not is the question we are trying to answer (not assume) but I still think it's the wrong question.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

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.

It is definitely a literal account. 7 is the number of the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit consists of seven members hence the 7 days of creation to honor them (The Seven Spirits of God used to explain the Trinity).

As for the other option is evolution true, no way. I challenge anyone who believes in evolution to find me all the transitional species, and fossils, between pond scum and man. They don't exist.

 

[DamianWarS]

It is definitely a literal account. 7 is the number of the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit consists of seven members hence the 7 days of creation to honor them (The Seven Spirits of God used to explain the Trinity).

As for the other option is evolution true, no way. I challenge anyone who believes in evolution to find me all the transitional species, and fossils, between pond scum and man. They don't exist.

it's not a binary option of literal is true or evolution is true. One can say the account is a non-literal account without accepting evolution. We don't have to know exactly what happened for this account to be meaningful.

the account uses the number 7 which biblical speaking means rest, perfection, and completeness and also I might add salvation and more specifically not rest but restoration but it mostly means this because of the 7th-day creation however it being literal or not doesn't make this point stronger. the 7th day in the creation account can be contrasted with the day prior to day 1 (we will call day 0) that the bible describes as "formless and empty [and] darkness was over the surface of the deep" if the 7th day is restoration, salvation, perfection, completeness, etc... day 0 is its antithesis of chaos, nothingness, incomplete, imperfect, etc.... Yet "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters" and then God spoke light into this chaos and an unformed void and called it good. this is a powerful metaphor for salvation in our own lives and it also foreshadows the coming of Christ, the resurrection, and the restoration of all things. These details far outweigh the literalness of the account so much so that to me it really doesn't matter.

The account is used to establish these sorts of systems and it is important because God says it is important not because it is literal (the former trumps the latter). there are plenty of things that are literal that have no truth in them and are not worthy of being repeated so literalness itself has no inherent ingredients to communicate truth. Both literal and non-literal accounts can very effectively communicate truth so this really shouldn't be a problem either way.