Why a literal Genesis?

[Moral Orel]

I'm well aware that not all Christians ascribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis, but I'm curious why some feel it is important to retain the literal interpretation.

Basically, my thinking is that Jesus hid the truth in parables, so why wouldn't God? Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, so we have to make decisions on what is literal and what is allegorical. What harm results from taking an allegorical approach to Genesis? Or what evidence is there that it should be taken literally instead of allegorically? Basically, why pick the literal approach for Genesis as opposed to the allegorical approach?

This isn't a discussion on the merits of the Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory, or any other science discussion. It is strictly scriptural, and that's why I put it in the Apologetics section since it does not belong in the Physical Sciences sections of these boards.

ETA Also, people who take an allegorical approach to Genesis can feel free to share how they explain away potential problems with their interpretation.

 

[~Anastasia~]

An allegory of how God created isn't a problem, in my opinion.

But it gets difficult to explain how death is the result of sin, and that's important because Christ conquered death as part of His work on the Cross.

If you had millions of years' of death prior to that, then death is a natural state God created.

Rather we view death as an enemy, an unnatural state, and believe the curse of death began as a result of sin.

There is the difficulty of reconciliation for some of us.

But how God created animals really shouldn't matter one way or another, aside from this.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm well aware that not all Christians ascribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis, but I'm curious why some feel it is important to retain the literal interpretation.

The number one reason for me is that Jesus took Genesis literally.

 

[Chesterton]

The number one reason for me is that Jesus took Genesis literally.

You know the mind of Jesus do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

You know the mind of Jesus do you?

Do you?

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

 

[AV1611VET]

Basically, my thinking is that Jesus hid the truth in parables,

How do you know Jesus spoke in parables?

Because the Bible says so, doesn't It?

Can you show me where the Bible says Genesis is a parable?

 

[Chesterton]

Do you?

Philippians 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

I don't claim to, but you seem to imply that you do. And you know the Philippians cite has nothing to do with what I'm asking about.

 

[KWCrazy]

John 5:46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Moses wrote Genesis. Jesus told us that we need to believe what Moses recorded. There are no known Hebrew scholars who claim that Genesis was not meant to be understood as written. There is absolutely no way to construe the Genesis account as allegory. Concepts such as the fall of man, original sin and the corruption of the earth are foundational. The false claims that Genesis is not true are only a desperate attempt to give credence to the lie of evolution.

 

[Moral Orel]

An allegory of how God created isn't a problem, in my opinion.

But it gets difficult to explain how death is the result of sin, and that's important because Christ conquered death as part of His work on the Cross.

If you had millions of years' of death prior to that, then death is a natural state God created.

Rather we view death as an enemy, an unnatural state, and believe the curse of death began as a result of sin.

There is the difficulty of reconciliation for some of us.

But how God created animals really shouldn't matter one way or another, aside from this.

Can you explain that in a little more detail for me? Is it physical, earthly death that you think shouldn't have ever been a natural state? Did animals die in the garden before the Fall?

When God told Adam and Eve that they would die the day they ate from the tree, that had to be at least partially allegorical because they didn't die that day. Maybe God didn't mean physical death when He said it.

 

[Chesterton]

John 5:46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

What is Jesus saying Moses wrote about him? And is it written in the creation story which is the topic of this thread?

 

[Moral Orel]

Moses wrote Genesis. Jesus told us that we need to believe what Moses recorded.

I honestly don't know the answer to this question but, did Moses ever write anything that was a metaphor or allegory? Did he ever write anything that was prophetic or symbolic or non literal? If he did, then Jesus might have simply meant to trust the lessons Moses passed down. If he didn't then that is a pretty strong case for your side. Right now it seems plausible to me to take it as allegory, but I don't know enough about the subject to make a judgement call.

There are no known Hebrew scholars who claim that Genesis was not meant to be understood as written.

Well if something like evolution were true, I don't know how God would explain it to people way back then to explain His process to them. I still think it would be acceptable that his audience at the time interpreted it as literal because that's the best understanding that they could muster, at the time. There are lots of places in the Bible that are meant a certain way for people at that time and not meant for people in the future in the same way.

There is absolutely no way to construe the Genesis account as allegory. Concepts such as the fall of man, original sin and the corruption of the earth are foundational. The false claims that Genesis is not true are only a desperate attempt to give credence to the lie of evolution.

And those are the types of issues I want to discuss in this thread. Like I said, I don't know enough about how the issue is handled by those who don't take Genesis literally. I could make up some stuff that might fit, but that wouldn't be appropriate.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nicolas, for the second time:

How do you know Jesus spoke in parables?

Is it because the Bible says so?

If so, the Bible does not say Genesis 1 is a parable.

Why is that?

 

[Moral Orel]

How do you know Jesus spoke in parables?

Because the Bible says so, doesn't It?

Can you show me where the Bible says Genesis is a parable?

True, but did Jesus state, "this is a parable" before He told one? I don't think God needs to do that if He wants to speak in parable form either.

I didn't posit that as evidence that Genesis is a parable, just that it isn't precluded from being a parable. Maybe a little evidence for it though, I guess. I mean, if that's how Jesus liked to tell lessons to people, and Jesus is God, it would stand to reason that God would enjoy telling lessons in the same manner.

 

[Moral Orel]

Nicolas, for the second time:

Easy, easy, there's a lot of responses already, I'm working my way through them.

 

[Moral Orel]

The number one reason for me is that Jesus took Genesis literally.

I think the distinction Chesterton is trying to make is whether Jesus understood Genesis to be a literal account, or whether he talked about it without calling it a parable, or allegory, or metaphor... What's the right word here? Theistic evolutionists, help me out.

 

[Moral Orel]

If so, the Bible does not say Genesis 1 is a parable.

Imagine for a moment that evolution and deep time and all the other things that can take a hike are true, would God attempt to explain those concepts to people back then? If so, how? Would that be important to them?

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't posit that as evidence that Genesis is a parable, just that it isn't precluded from being a parable.

For the record, I'll preclude it.

Plato, who popularized the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures, established the mind of the reader as the sole authority for interpreting the Bible.

With 7 billion people on the earth, that means there could be 7 billion interpretations.

And the Bible, in many cases, interprets Itself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Imagine for a moment that evolution and deep time and all the other things that can take a hike are true, would God attempt to explain those concepts to people back then? If so, how? Would that be important to them?

I don't know, but it certainly wouldn't be by claiming angiosperms were on the earth before the sun.

That's not even a good allegory.

 

[Moral Orel]

For the record, I'll preclude it.

Plato, who popularized the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures, established the mind of the reader as the sole authority for interpreting the Bible.

With 7 billion people on the earth, that means there could be 7 billion interpretations.

And the Bible, in many cases, interprets Itself.

And there are lots and lots of interpretations of all sorts of parts of the Bible. And lots of those people claim their interpretations are the obvious and only correct way to interpret scripture. "Literally" isn't always the answer, so why is it the answer in this case?

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't know, but it certainly wouldn't be by claiming angiosperms were on the earth before the sun.

That's not even a good allegory.

So you do think if it were all true, that God would try to explain it to them? You answered the "if so, how" question but not the other ones, so I'm assuming a "yes" to the first question.

It all seems a little too complicated for me to think He would bother trying to explain it to people back then. And I can imagine the ramifications of them thinking about being related to animals right off the top of my head...