Why a literal Genesis?

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

But death of human beings would be different than death of everything else. Even if the lesser animals died, the death of the first ensouled human would be a different kind of death.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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?

There is one guide people often use to interpret whether a verse is to believed literally or not . . . . and that would be whether or not the verse is literally true.

Doe the sun literally rise, or does, rather, the earth rotate? Once people believed the sun literally rises and sets. Then they started to interpret such verses as merely describing appearance. Why? Because the concept of what happens to the sun changed.

The view of reality, having changed, changed the interpretation of the Bible.

That's what is happening with creation and evolution. It's just taking a little time to happen.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

Why don't you study what happened to those in the Bible who didn't take It literally and see for yourself?

You can start with Nadab & Abihu.

 

[AV1611VET]

It all seems a little too complicated for me to think He would bother trying to explain it to people back then.

Don't buy into the lies of science and think that "them" were just ignorant, bronze age, desert dwelling, goat herding, nomads who knew nothing.

"Them" could run rings around scientists today.

By way of a good example, my pastor believes Samson was probably a person who weighed all of around 150 pounds wet; yet he had the strength of about 20 men.

Scientists today would scratch holes in their heads trying to figure out where he got his strength from.

And I'd love to see forensic detectives try to go out and find Enoch.

Can you imagine his footprints just disappearing into thin air?

That kinda makes the Amelia Earhart disappearance look like a game of hide-and-seek.

And you're buying right into their lies that we are mutant, copy errors, made in the image & likeness of God; and that an ape died on the Cross to redeem us of our sins, and not a sin nature.

And speaking of a sin nature, my pastor puts it this way:

We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we're sinners.

 

[mmksparbud]

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.

Jesus spoke in parables only to the general public--never to the disciples. The bible is not written to the general public but to God's disciples.
at 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

 

[Moral Orel]

Why don't you study what happened to those in the Bible who didn't take It literally and see for yourself?

You can start with Nadab & Abihu.

For starters, I wouldn't say "failing to follow instructions" = "not taking the Bible literally". But even if I did, that's just an example of one part of the Bible needing to be literal.

The disciples were right to not take Jesus' command to eat Him and drink His blood literally, like we discussed in the other thread though, so I don't see why those two guys, or any other instances of literality in the Bible, are evidence that Genesis should be taken literally.

 

[Moral Orel]

Jesus spoke in parables only to the general public--never to the disciples. The bible is not written to the general public but to God's disciples.

But the Bible is used to spread the Gospel to unbelievers, isn't it? So isn't the intended audience "everyone" and it is just used in different ways for different people?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

But the Bible is used to spread the Gospel to unbelievers, isn't it? So isn't the intended audience "everyone" and it is just used in different ways for different people?

Indeed, the Bible is used to spread the Gospel to unbelievers. So trying to get the Bible to require one to stop his understanding of the age of earth and the evolutionary history of earth is to place an unnecessary barrier to their salvation. Seems to me that would be . . . . wrong.

 

[mmksparbud]

But the Bible is used to spread the Gospel to unbelievers, isn't it? So isn't the intended audience "everyone" and it is just used in different ways for different people?

Bottom line, Jesus did not speak to His disciples in parables.

 

[Moral Orel]

Don't buy into the lies of science and think that "them" were just ignorant, bronze age, desert dwelling, goat herding, nomads who knew nothing.

"Them" could run rings around scientists today.

By way of a good example, my pastor believes Samson was probably a person who weighed all of around 150 pounds wet; yet he had the strength of about 20 men.

Scientists today would scratch holes in their heads trying to figure out where he got his strength from.

And I'd love to see forensic detectives try to go out and find Enoch.

Can you imagine his footprints just disappearing into thin air?

That kinda makes the Amelia Earhart disappearance look like a game of hide-and-seek.

And you're buying right into their lies that we are mutant, copy errors, made in the image & likeness of God; and that an ape died on the Cross to redeem us of our sins, and not a sin nature.

And speaking of a sin nature, my pastor puts it this way:

We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we're sinners.

I'm not sure how this post fits into the thread. It isn't about whether science can prove miraculous claims or not. And it isn't about whether the ToE is correct or not. It's about whether there is good reason to deny any good evidence that would prove a literal interpretation of Genesis wrong. Whether that evidence exists or not is irrelevant.

You once said, "I don't know how old the Earth is, but it's only existed for 6000 years". So it seems no matter what evidence says, the creation story is literal. That's why scientific evidence isn't a relevant part of this discussion. You don't seem to believe any scientific evidence, no matter how good or trustworthy it is, would make Genesis non-literal. And that's fine. It's always a possibility, no matter how slim I or anyone thinks the chances are, that you're right.

But there has to be a reason to deny good evidence, if it exists or will exist in the future, and that's what I'm looking for.

This part bugs me though so I'm going to go a little off topic for a second to address it:

that an ape died on the Cross

Why would that make Jesus lesser if humans are apes? We could also describe Jesus as a carbon based bag of water, and that would be completely accurate if we ignore what makes Him special and what makes us special in comparison to other carbon based bags of water.

 

[~Anastasia~]

But death of human beings would be different than death of everything else. Even if the lesser animals died, the death of the first ensouled human would be a different kind of death.

I suppose that's one way to answer it. God created death, just not for mankind? It gets a little sticky still, when one considers that God proclaimed that a curse fell on all of creation as a result of man's sin. Does that mean there were no thorns and thistles before as well, but there was death?

My point is that it's difficult to take the fall and the curse and those things as being literal while allegorizing everything else. But I'm not trying to talk anyone out of whatever interpretation they use to make peace with and sense out of what they are faced with. There are other issues I'd see as more important.

I have other reasons for my own beliefs as well, btw, so I'm not really interested in debating, but only offered an answer to the OP's question.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

I believe that in the day Adam and Eve sinned, they died a spiritual death.

However, I think they were created such that they could have lived forever without physical death, if the fall had never happened. I do not believe that God's intention was for a creation in which death reigned, no. I do believe that death is an unnatural state in that sense. And no, I actually don't believe animals died in the garden of Eden prior to the sin of our first parents. I think the fact that God clothed them with the skins of animals was then very significant to them.

I'm not anti-science btw. I really, REALLY don't want to get into a huge debate as these things often become. I was trained the biological sciences, and fully bought into evolution as taught. I will only say it represents the best explanation that has so far been put forth for what is observed, but there are actually problems with it, and it is not necessary to make every other thought subservient to it. (Unless of course you are an academic and want to keep your reputation intact. )

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I suppose that's one way to answer it. God created death, just not for mankind? It gets a little sticky still, when one considers that God proclaimed that a curse fell on all of creation as a result of man's sin. Does that mean there were no thorns and thistles before as well, but there was death?

Not necessarily. Maybe the thorns and thistles were banished from the Garden of Eden, though.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I believe that in the day Adam and Eve sinned, they died a spiritual death.

However, I think they were created such that they could have lived forever without physical death, if the fall had never happened.

The biblical narrative indicates they were not yet immortal, physically, and would have had to eat of the tree of life in order to become immortal, and they hadn't done that yet.

Gen 3:22-23 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" --
therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
NASU

I'm not anti-science btw. I really, REALLY don't want to get into a huge debate as these things often become. I was trained the biological sciences, and fully bought into evolution as taught. I will only say it represents the best explanation that has so far been put forth for what is observed, but there are actually problems with it, and it is not necessary to make every other thought subservient to it. (Unless of course you are an academic and want to keep your reputation intact. )

There aren't any scientific problems with evolution theory. There are all kinds of scientific problems for those who deny evolution.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The biblical narrative indicates they were not yet immortal, physically, and would have had to eat of the tree of life in order to become immortal, and they hadn't done that yet.

Gen 3:22-23 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" --
therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
NASU



There aren't any scientific problems with evolution theory. There are all kinds of scientific problems for those who deny evolution.

As you wish. As I said, I'm not interested in debate.

God be with you.

 

[Moral Orel]

However, I think they were created such that they could have lived forever without physical death, if the fall had never happened. I do not believe that God's intention was for a creation in which death reigned, no. I do believe that death is an unnatural state in that sense. And no, I actually don't believe animals died in the garden of Eden prior to the sin of our first parents. I think the fact that God clothed them with the skins of animals was then very significant to them.

Just think of the practical implications if nothing ever died had Adam and Eve not sinned, though. The world would overflow. On the other hand, having a special rule for humans not dying would work out okay. We can build skyscrapers, we can build underground or in the ocean, we can even eventually move to other planets. We can think of ways to fight overpopulation for humans, but all the animals too? Also, it's been said to me that when God told Adam and Eve that they would die, they wouldn't have any idea what death was unless they had seen animals die, so there's that.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Just think of the practical implications if nothing ever died had Adam and Eve not sinned, though. The world would overflow. On the other hand, having a special rule for humans not dying would work out okay. We can build skyscrapers, we can build underground or in the ocean, we can even eventually move to other planets. We can think of ways to fight overpopulation for humans, but all the animals too? Also, it's been said to me that when God told Adam and Eve that they would die, they wouldn't have any idea what death was unless they had seen animals die, so there's that.

Ok.

Like I said, I'm not wishing to debate. Just answering your question.

Have you ever thought of God's ultimate plan for the creation, and when He restores all things, what that will look like?

 

[Moral Orel]

The biblical narrative indicates they were not yet immortal, physically, and would have had to eat of the tree of life in order to become immortal, and they hadn't done that yet.

Gen 3:22-23 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" --
therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
NASU

That is quite good. I hadn't thought about that actually. That tree would serve no purpose if death wasn't already a natural part of their world.

There aren't any scientific problems with evolution theory. There are all kinds of scientific problems for those who deny evolution.

Careful there though, I don't want this to be a debate about the validity of evolution. I want to stick to scripture to see if there's good reason to deny evidence.

 

[ScottA]

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.

If "all things come in parables"...and they do - then who is kidding who? It's all allegory Mark 4:10-12.

"But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parable. 11 And He said to them, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that

‘Seeing they may see and not perceive,
And hearing they may hear and not understand;
Lest they should turn,
And their sins be forgiven them.’”

Thus, understanding the scriptures to be historical or allegorical is not even the right question. But, rather, we should consider "what the Spirit says to the churches." Revelation

 

[mmksparbud]

Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

There was no death before the fall, and will be no more death on the new earth. There is no marriage in heaven, no sex, therefore no new babies. Just those that have died after conception/birth.
The animals were instructed to be fruitful and multiply. How frequently, it doesn't say. Would there have come a time when reproduction would end, maybe. Details are not given. Doesn't say animals did not have access to the tree of life, they certainly had access to the water of life.