Why A Non-Literal Persumption?

[CPman2004]

I wonder why people would inturpret the first part of Geneisis as non-historiacal account. What reasons are there to take it from an non-historical point of view? Are you basing your inturprutation of it based on your own personal views or are you basing it on what the orginal aurthor wanted to say? Why in order to ahere to TE would I need to follow an different inturpretation of Geneisis? What thing, theologically, sent you to the belief of TE?

I do not ahere to the YEC camp of creationism, but I do consider Geneisis to be an historical account, so no, "YOU TAKE THINGS TOO LITERALLY!!" stuff.

 

[Singing Bush]

For me personally, I take it as non-historical because reality would appear to declare such. For a long list of reasons which I'm sure you've already heard it would seem that the Earth is not only a few thousand years old, that all life was not created in a period of 7 days, and so on and so forth. Thus, while I originally held it to be literal, when I realized a literal interpretation was not in sync with the evidence we have of the real world I had no choice but to abandon that particular interpretation. It was also made easier by the fact that the real "meat" of early Genesis is not the factual history of it, but the spiritual truths it reveals which are still true whether the story is 100% literal or not.

Oh and by the way, as an edit; in reference to your original question posted in the title, I myself did not have any presumption that Genesis must be literal. In fact, as I alluded to, I originally presumed it was in fact literal. I would imagine most people do not presume it to be nonliteral, but simply understand it to be that because it just makes more sense that way. 'Course I cannot speak for others so...

 

[Vance]

I wonder why people would inturpret the first part of Geneisis as non-historiacal account. What reasons are there to take it from an non-historical point of view? Are you basing your inturprutation of it based on your own personal views or are you basing it on what the orginal aurthor wanted to say? Why in order to ahere to TE would I need to follow an different inturpretation of Geneisis? What thing, theologically, sent you to the belief of TE?

Well, the basic question here is answered in the OP of the thread "Why a presumption of literalism". There it goes through the historical, literary and cultural reasons for reading the text as a figurative account, and not as an attempt to give a literal historical narrative (and, deeper in the thread, more detailed evidence is given). This is, indeed, based on what the original author wanted to say, which is something that those who read it literally refuse to do. Instead, they want to read it in the way that it SEEMS to them. And, I agree, why would you choose to read it in a way different than what the original author would have intended?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I wonder why people would inturpret the first part of Geneisis as non-historiacal account. What reasons are there to take it from an non-historical point of view? Are you basing your inturprutation of it based on your own personal views or are you basing it on what the orginal aurthor wanted to say? Why in order to ahere to TE would I need to follow an different inturpretation of Geneisis? What thing, theologically, sent you to the belief of TE?

I do not ahere to the YEC camp of creationism, but I do consider Geneisis to be an historical account, so no, "YOU TAKE THINGS TOO LITERALLY!!" stuff.

i think historical why Gen 1 is often looked at differently then Gen 2 is the hymn like character. Stanzas, refrains, repeated motifs, the 2 triads plus the capping 7 day and its analogy to the Sabbath week demonstrates that some much more important than simply didactic history is going on. That is why i appreciate Kline's phrase, the hymn of the Treaty of the Great King.

....