Why a literal Genesis?

[Moral Orel]

No 'like', no 'as', then there is no basis of comparison and thus, no figurative language.

See here:

They were well-fed, lusty stallions, each neighing for his neighbor's wife. Jeremiah 5:8

No "like" no "as" therefore the Bible is talking about literal horses, right?

Parables are one way that God speaks figuratively in the Bible. There are metaphors as opposed to similes, there are prophecies and visions that we only really assume are non-literal because they're too fantastical to be literal such as the multi-headed beasts in Revelation.

I used the phrase I did because it sounds catchy, not because this argument rests on Genesis being specifically a "parable".

 

[mark kennedy]

You've just equated allegory and figurative, and that is wrong. See here:

They were well-fed, lusty stallions, each neighing for his neighbor's wife. Jeremiah 5:8

No "like" no "as" therefore the Bible is talking about literal horses, right?

But there is at least a basis of comparison, the adulterers and lusty stallions, the 'like' or 'as' is implied. Your equivocating this passage with historical narrative, the Genesis account has no such basis for a comparative analogy of any kind unless it's imported into the text. A text without a context is a pretext, which is exactly what you did here and equivocating literal with figurative language is wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

I edited that post shortly after you read it.

Your equivocating this passage with historical narrative

No, I'm not equivocating it with historical narrative. My argument doesn't rest on one specific kind of figurative language. My point is that the Bible uses all sorts of figurative language, in all sorts of ways, in all sorts of places. That people spoke of Genesis as literal, does not mean it was meant as literal.

 

[mark kennedy]

If God said to Paul, "Tell the people of the importance of Christ's redemption of their sin that they all suffer from and that all mankind has suffered from" and Paul decides to explain it with words taken directly from Genesis that he interpreted as literal, that doesn't make Paul's words uninspired.

Since we don't assume every single word of scripture is directly inspired by God, then there's no reason to put special importance to words that don't have their own significance. If it isn't important that sin came through one man, and all the rest of scripture stands up just fine if the story would have been that it came through a group of men, then we shouldn't outright assume: "Paul said these exact words because God said these exact words so it's literal fact".

None of this shows the importance of it being one man that sin entered the world. Even if it's true, that is still an unimportant detail. If God created ten pairs of people in the beginning, and the entire group rebelled, then what would be the difference to the rest of the Bible? Nothing that I can see.

First of all the importance of Adam being the first parent of humanity is inextricably linked to original sin, the church has always taught that:

• But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....(ST. IRENAEUS c. 180 AD)
• And if we are all made to live in Christ as WE were made to DIE IN ADAM (TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)
• THUS the world FALLS PROSTRATE and requires to be SET UP AGAIN, so that in Christ all may be made to live [1 Cor 15:22]. (Homilies on Jeremias 8:1)
• how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old Death from his first being born. (Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)

What's more Paul's discussion of sin, righteousness and justification in Romans focuses expressly on the sin of Adam:

Sin came as the result of, 'many died by the trespass of the one man' (Rom. 5:15), 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16), the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man (Rom. 5:17), 'just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men' (Rom. 5:18), 'through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners' (Rom. 5:19).
​

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12). It looks something like this:

1. Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2. Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3. All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4. Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5. Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6. Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7. The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8. Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved

Actually, @mmksparbud won this point for you with an explanation of the Hebrew words we translated to "day".

I've seen his work, let me guess he argued that 'day' in Genesis is not a literal day. There is no basis for a statement like that, Yom in Genesis 1 is the normal word for a regular day, in fact it's driven home with special qualifiers like the fact that the days are numbered along with the expression, there was evening and morning:

Day: yôwm, yome; from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (Strongs Dictionary)​

So if it's figurative where is the associative term?

Well of course there was something supernatural about it, Satan and Jesus didn't hike up that mountain. But there's no significance to taking Jesus to a mountain top except that that is where people can see things that are far away. If the mountain wasn't written in there to explain how Jesus was able to see all the kingdoms, then Satan might as well have stayed put, or even taken Him to a cave.

That wasn't a mountain, it was the Temple, there is great significance there. The question here that comes to mind is, do we take it literally or figuratively and why?

And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. (Luke 4:5)
​

Since this is obviously an historical narrative we take it literally unless there is some reason not to.

But, this is why I said I was going to stick to the heliocentric model as something to show the Bible making a mistake of perspective, without being factually in error, because that's something we agree on, and I don't want to waste time bickering over details like this. Feel free to have the last word in retort to this if you like, but I'll go back to talking about the Sun moving so we don't have to quibble.

Like Galileo said, the Bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work. There is no astronomy or cosmology in the Bible, to insist there is is to beg the question of proof on your hands and knees. What is more, heliocentric cosmology was the view of most, if not all astronomers right up until the invention of the telescope. It was a problem of perspective indeed, with no theological significance whatsoever, unlike the historical narrative of Genesis.

Well that's even better. If the Hebrews already had a bunch of stories that they used to explain the existence of things they saw in their lives and God told Moses to write them down, who's to say how those stories were inspired in the first place? Maybe Adam passed it on word for word his account in the Garden of Eden, maybe not. Maybe they were stories written by men to explain the things they saw in the world, and God told Moses to use them, maybe add to them and emphasize parts of them, to teach the important lessons with something that people were already familiar with. That people interpreted those stories as literal for a long, long time says nothing about whether they are literally true or not.

Or maybe there was a massive exodus of 2 million of Abraham, Issac and Jacob's descendants. At the foot of Sinai Moses receives the Law and other revelations, including the creation account. Now the genealogies may well be based on oral tradition and much of the narrative from the Exodus forward certainly didn't have to come from divine revelation, they experienced it first hand. The fact is that these narratives are either true or they are not, there are no interpretative challenges here. The Genesis account of creation just like the rest of the Pentateuch, the Gospels or Acts are straightforward, you either believe them or you don't.

You seem to think that His intention was for us to understand exactly how He created everything, and I don't think the Bible is the sort of book to explain those kinds of "hows".

There is not only a pretty solid how, there is a strong when, at least for creation week. We know it was by the miraculous power of God and the genealogies give us an unbroken timeline going from Adam to Christ with relative dates attached.

The Sun doesn't rise. So it is false and in error to say it does. The Bible says the Sun rises, so... maybe we need a better understanding of the Bible than, "the Bible says so".

It doesn't say the sun rose, it says there was evening and morning the first day...second day...etc. It's a matter of perspective and context, as far as literal or figurative, there is no question of the intent of the author in Genesis 1. The only question is whether you believe it or you don't, which holds true for all historical narrative, Biblical or otherwise.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[-57]

I edited that post shortly after you read it.

No, I'm not equivocating it with historical narrative. My argument doesn't rest on one specific kind of figurative language. My point is that the Bible uses all sorts of figurative language, in all sorts of ways, in all sorts of places. That people spoke of Genesis as literal, does not mean it was meant as literal.

That's like saying that the people who spoke of Christ Jesus' resurrection as being literal does not mean it was meant as literal.

 

[mark kennedy]

I edited that post shortly after you read it.

No, I'm not equivocating it with historical narrative. My argument doesn't rest on one specific kind of figurative language. My point is that the Bible uses all sorts of figurative language, in all sorts of ways, in all sorts of places. That people spoke of Genesis as literal, does not mean it was meant as literal.

Yes you are, you are equivocating Jeremiah 5:8 with Genesis 1, the obvious difference is adulterers are clearly being described in comparative language. Genesis 1 has no such basis for any such comparison, thus the equivocation. Your making two clearly different literary forms synonymous without qualification. The entirety of the Pentateuch and the first five books of the New Testament is founded on a very literal historical narrative. In historical narrative the literal meaning is always preferred and figurative interpretation has to be based on literary form, not personal preference. The writer gets to tell the story, you don't get to tell the writer what he means.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's like saying that the people who spoke of Christ Jesus' resurrection as being literal does not mean it was meant as literal.

That's really the whole point here, if we are not taking the historical narrative of creation literally then why not take the resurrection, incarnation, virgin birth and miracles of the New Testament figuratively. Can we dismiss those as figurative to?

 

[Moral Orel]

That's like saying that the people who spoke of Christ Jesus' resurrection as being literal does not mean it was meant as literal.

That's true. The simple fact that they spoke of it as literal isn't what makes it literal. There's more to the reason that it is literal.

 

[Moral Orel]

That's really the whole point here, if we are not taking the historical narrative of creation literally then why not take the resurrection, incarnation, virgin birth and miracles of the New Testament figuratively. Can we dismiss those as figurative to?

Would you say that the only reason to believe Jesus died and resurrected is that some people spoke of it literally? I sure hope not.

I'll respond to your other posts later, they're a lot longer...

 

[-57]

That's true. The simple fact that they spoke of it as literal isn't what makes it literal. There's more to the reason that it is literal.

There is no biblical reason to present Genesis as not being literal. All throughout scripture Genesis is presented as literal. This has been demonstrated numerous times. If you don't like that fact, then OK. But it is a biblical fact.

Now there are some who want to use science to deny Genesis and replace it with a form of evolutionism, but I and many others have seen science that demonstrates the many flaws of evolutionism.

 

[mark kennedy]

Would you say that the only reason to believe Jesus died and resurrected is that some people spoke of it literally? I sure hope not.

I'll respond to your other posts later, they're a lot longer...

This isn't just some random graffiti found on a wall in a cave written by unknown authors. The Scriptures have been in the custody of a living witness their entire history, the Hebrew and Christian communities respectively. That speaks eloquently to the Scriptures veracity as doctrine and history. The authors are predominately Levites, Kings, scribes, prophets, Apostles and in many cases, eyewitnesses to the miracles described within.

As a new Christian, so many years ago, one of the first questions to arise in my mind was the historicity of the resurrection. I pursued internal and external evidence, bibliographical testing, studied messianic prophecy and chased down all the secondary secular source material I could find. I believe the collective testimony based on internal conviction, devotional in nature, as well as external source material I seek out to this day.

I take it literally because they wrote literally, I have been persuaded of it's authenticity as a matter of conviction. Like I said, you either believe it or you don't. You wouldn't take it figuratively because you don't believe it would you?

 

[mark kennedy]

That's true. The simple fact that they spoke of it as literal isn't what makes it literal. There's more to the reason that it is literal.

That's right, what makes the text literal is that they wrote it literal, the only question after that is whether or not you believe what they are telling you.

 

[cloudyday2]

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but wouldn't there be a problem taking some of the stories literally when there are two differing versions of the same stories such as the creation and the flood? I believe the flood stories actually contradict each other regarding the number of animals on the ark. I'm not sure if the creation stories are actually contradictory, but they are slightly different.

 

[Moral Orel]

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but wouldn't there be a problem taking some of the stories literally when there are two differing versions of the same stories such as the creation and the flood? I believe the flood stories actually contradict each other regarding the number of animals on the ark. I'm not sure if the creation stories are actually contradictory, but they are slightly different.

That's true, though there might be more clarification on it. I've found that to be the case whenever someone claims a contradiction in the Bible. It seems as though one account says there were two of every kind of animal, and another says that there were seven of kind of clean animal.

There are various accusations of contradictions in the creation account. The one that really puzzles me is when exactly vegetation appeared on the Earth. Before or after humans?

 

[Moral Orel]

There is no biblical reason to present Genesis as not being literal.

I think the fact that Genesis contains at least some figurative elements evidence that it might not be an account of literal events, and that is a Biblical reason, not a science reason.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes you are, you are equivocating

I'm not equivocating. Geez. I'm not saying Jeremiah is the same as a parable either. I'm giving example after example of the Bible using figurative language in a variety of forms. If I listed off examples of mammals and I said, "dogs, cats, cows, kangaroos.." I'm not equivocating dogs and kangaroos.

That's right, what makes the text literal is that they wrote it literal, the only question after that is whether or not you believe what they are telling you.

That's my fault for using a vague term like "it". Allow me to rephrase.
The simple fact that it was written in literal language does not mean it is meant to describe literal events. That isn't sufficient.

Let me ask you this, as I'm sure you've looked into this deeper than I have, do we have any stories from the Hebrews from that far back that are known to be fictional? I've seen it said that it was meant to convey a literal history back then, but I'm wondering what we have to compare it to. If everything written about the past was written in the same literal style, then I might have a case. If there's a difference, then you definitely have a big case. I don't know of any ancient Hebrew stories that are fiction though, do you?

 

[mmksparbud]

No one translates 'bara in Genesis 1:1 'fill' or 'fatten', not even Jewish translators:

No one???
I'm not going to waste time arguing over one word, so I'll just say that there certainly are several others who translate it as fatten and the picture graph concurs

I'll just drop this.
Biblical Hebrewhttp://literalbiblicalhebrew.blogspot.com/
Genesis 1:1
the~ Land
and~ At
the~ Sky~ s2
At
“Elohiym [Powers]”
he~ did~ Fatten

Direct literal (AHLB)
In Summit Elohim (they) did fatten (he) the sky and the land

Genesis 1:1

Direct Translation into English: INSUMMIT, ELOHIM, HE DID FATTEN THESKIES AND THELAND. . .

In summit (b'reshit) appears to be an idiom for the beginning of something. . .possibly a reference to an ancient belief in the region of ancient Canaan that the God, El, was thought to dwell in a mountaintop. . .
To fatten (bara) appears to idiomatically mean to make, or make more of, something. . .

Strong's Number: 01254 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
arb a primitive root
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Bara' TWOT - 278
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
baw-raw' Verb
Definition

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm going to have to come at this big post piece meal because there's a lot of chitter-chatter going on in my house today, and I don't want to respond while distracted. I can get in a little bit here and a little bit there amidst the confusion though.

It doesn't say the sun rose, it says there was evening and morning the first day...second day...etc. It's a matter of perspective and context, as far as literal or figurative, there is no question of the intent of the author in Genesis 1. The only question is whether you believe it or you don't, which holds true for all historical narrative, Biblical or otherwise.

I wasn't talking about the sun rising being described in Genesis, I was talking about it being described elsewhere in the Bible. In other places it talks about the Sun rising, but the Sun doesn't move. I wasn't referring to something about the 24-hour cycle in Genesis, but rather to the fact that it is the Earth that is rotating, not the Sun revolving.

I've seen his work, let me guess he argued that 'day' in Genesis is not a literal day. There is no basis for a statement like that, Yom in Genesis 1 is the normal word for a regular day, in fact it's driven home with special qualifiers like the fact that the days are numbered along with the expression, there was evening and morning:

Day: yôwm, yome; from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (Strongs Dictionary)
So if it's figurative where is the associative term?

You'll have to read his posts to get the details, but he says that there are two different words used between when it says things like "the first day" and "in this day". Yom and beyom I believe.

That wasn't a mountain, it was the Temple, there is great significance there. The question here that comes to mind is, do we take it literally or figuratively and why?

And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. (Luke 4:5)
Since this is obviously an historical narrative we take it literally unless there is some reason not to.

I was reading the description of events in Matthew.
First Satan takes Him to a temple and tells Him to throw Himself off, then he takes Him to a mountain and shows Him all the kingdoms. See Matthew 4.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Why wouldn't a christian not take Genesis as literal? YOu know, believe what is written?

Why is it when you - and others - say this, what you really mean is "Why wouldn't a christian not take [fill in portion of Bible under discussion] the way I do?"

Why do ignorant people think 'literal' means "just as written in the KJV Bible as I understand it" instead of the intent of the writer?

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm not equivocating. Geez. I'm not saying Jeremiah is the same as a parable either. I'm giving example after example of the Bible using figurative language in a variety of forms. If I listed off examples of mammals and I said, "dogs, cats, cows, kangaroos.." I'm not equivocating dogs and kangaroos.

No just equivocating a figurative passage with a literal one.

That's my fault for using a vague term like "it". Allow me to rephrase.
The simple fact that it was written in literal language does not mean it is meant to describe literal events. That isn't sufficient.

There is no figurative language in Genesis 1, that much is obvious. No amount of rationalization will get you around that fact.

Let me ask you this, as I'm sure you've looked into this deeper than I have, do we have any stories from the Hebrews from that far back that are known to be fictional? I've seen it said that it was meant to convey a literal history back then, but I'm wondering what we have to compare it to. If everything written about the past was written in the same literal style, then I might have a case. If there's a difference, then you definitely have a big case. I don't know of any ancient Hebrew stories that are fiction though, do you?

Confining ourselves to the Pentateuch, I know of none. Now you might be able to find them occasionally but there would have to be something in the immediate context and I know of no such examples.