Why do Some People Become So Emotional when Discussing Genesis?

[Archivist]

Last week I briefly got involved in a discussion regarding the accuracy of the Biblical creation accounts. After stating that I believed the accounts to be allegories, not literal descriptions of the creation, some in the discussion called me a liar and a false teacher, apparently because I was denying "the literal word of God." I noticed others who also denied a literal six-day creation were described in similar terms.

I have always viewed the Bible as being open to interpretation. I expect that others will interpret scripture in ways that differ from my interpretation. I don't call anyone a liar or a false teacher simply because they disagree with my interpretation.

I ask the following questions:

1) Is a belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis necessary for salvation?

2) If a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is required, is a literal reading of Mark 14, Matthew 26 and Luke 22 ("this is my body...") also required? Why or why not?

3) If the Genesis creation accounts are not open to interpretation, what areas of scripture are open to interpretation?

REMAIN POLITE and REMAIN ON TOPIC please.

 

[inquiring mind]

For a lot of people it's as simple as... Jesus didn't deny the accuracy of the scriptures, so neither should we.

 

[loNe]

Last week I briefly got involved in a discussion regarding the accuracy of the Biblical creation accounts. After stating that I believed the accounts to be allegories, not literal descriptions of the creation, some in the discussion called me a liar and a false teacher, apparently because I was denying "the literal word of God." I noticed others who also denied a literal six-day creation were described in similar terms.

I have always viewed the Bible as being open to interpretation. I expect that others will interpret scripture in ways that differ from my interpretation. I don't call anyone a liar or a false teacher simply because they disagree with my interpretation.

I ask the following questions:

1) Is a belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis necessary for salvation?

2) If a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is required, is a literal reading of Mark 14, Matthew 26 and Luke 22 ("this is my body...") also required? Why or why not?

3) If the Genesis creation accounts are not open to interpretation, what areas of scripture are open to interpretation?

REMAIN POLITE and REMAIN ON TOPIC please.

no Arch, 1] ofcourse not
...i think those people were just insecure... wanting to be sure they held onto what it says
and hence calling you a name

but then, you could be less strict with applying the concept of 'literal'... since there is an other type realm outthere ; and words wé read are, in reality, describing different type events [as that wé assume they mean],

f.e, 'seperating the seas' (in genesis) isnt about 'literal oceans upon this earth' but about "dimensions"
(the dimensions, which the pre-eden pantheon held)
so there is a danger in 'reading only literally, too strictly - according to our mind'

'the head' is often represented as 'the aspect of Rule',
'trumpet' as 'voice' , etc

 

[Ken Rank]

Last week I briefly got involved in a discussion regarding the accuracy of the Biblical creation accounts. After stating that I believed the accounts to be allegories, not literal descriptions of the creation, some in the discussion called me a liar and a false teacher, apparently because I was denying "the literal word of God." I noticed others who also denied a literal six-day creation were described in similar terms.

I have always viewed the Bible as being open to interpretation. I expect that others will interpret scripture in ways that differ from my interpretation. I don't call anyone a liar or a false teacher simply because they disagree with my interpretation.

I ask the following questions:

1) Is a belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis necessary for salvation?

2) If a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is required, is a literal reading of Mark 14, Matthew 26 and Luke 22 ("this is my body...") also required? Why or why not?

3) If the Genesis creation accounts are not open to interpretation, what areas of scripture are open to interpretation?

REMAIN POLITE and REMAIN ON TOPIC please.

I disagree with you, I think it is literal and I think science has always been catching up to God. In short (and hang with me, I have a related point to the OP), when God made the earth and man, the trees were already bearing fruit and Adam was not a baby but a man. In other words, there was what we would call, "an appearance of age" to the Creation. My point is, science can be correct when it says the earth is 4.5 billion years old BASED on what they are working with. But if what they are working with is not what they understand it to be, in other words... the tree that was 2 minutes old and already bearing fruit would have appeared to be many years old, then their results are not what they believe them to be.

Why did I just go through that? To show that I can hear your case, share mine, and not turn on YOU because we disagree. We disagree, so what? Why can't others have that same "so what" attitude on things that are not salvation issues? (I hate that phrase but it fits here) The answer is, insecurity. We are raised, Archivist, to learn facts. We don't learn methods, no procedure, no exegetical tools... we just learn facts. And when we are given facts we don't own them, we can't defend them because we didn't work through a process to find them. So... when somebody comes along who has a different set of beliefs, they become a threat because they stand opposed to what we believe and we are not able to defend ourselves because we were only handed the answers, we didn't work to find anything. What happens next(?)... we react... often demonically... and we end up with strife, division, and more denominations.

 

[section9+1]

1. no
2. I don't see why not. It seems believable enough.
3. I don't have a list. Many are though. Figure it out yourself.

The thing about these OT stories is they are not just hanging there in the air by themselves and are never referred to anywhere else. Jesus and Paul and the rest referenced them as though they actually happened. It seems obvious that they believed the stories actually occurred. If you think they were myths, then it's obvious that Jesus believed myths to be real events and that's difficult being who he was.

 

[Archivist]

For a lot of people it's as simple as... Jesus didn't deny the accuracy of the scriptures, so neither should we.

So why were those people calling those who disagreed with their interpretation liars and false teachers? Interesting given that they later denied the actual words of Jesus.

 

[Archivist]

I disagree with you, I think it is literal and I think science has always been catching up to God. In short (and hang with me, I have a related point to the OP), when God made the earth and man, the trees were already bearing fruit and Adam was not a baby but a man. In other words, there was what we would call, "an appearance of age" to the Creation. My point is, science can be correct when it says the earth is 4.5 billion years old BASED on what they are working with. But if what they are working with is not what they understand it to be, in other words... the tree that was 2 minutes old and already bearing fruit would have appeared to be many years old, then their results are not what they believe them to be.

Why did I just go through that? To show that I can hear your case, share mine, and not turn on YOU because we disagree. We disagree, so what? Why can't others have that same "so what" attitude on things that are not salvation issues? (I hate that phrase but it fits here) The answer is, insecurity. We are raised, Archivist, to learn facts. We don't learn methods, no procedure, no exegetical tools... we just learn facts. And when we are given facts we don't own them, we can't defend them because we didn't work through a process to find them. So... when somebody comes along who has a different set of beliefs, they become a threat because they stand opposed to what we believe and we are not able to defend ourselves because we were only handed the answers, we didn't work to find anything. What happens next(?)... we react... often demonically... and we end up with strife, division, and more denominations.

Thank you for being polite. I think it is a point upon which we can and do disagree, and we should be able to respect other interpretations.

 

[Archivist]

1. no
2. I don't see why not. It seems believable enough.
3. I don't have a list. Many are though. Figure it out yourself.

The thing about these OT stories is they are not just hanging there in the air by themselves and are never referred to anywhere else. Jesus and Paul and the rest referenced them as though they actually happened. It seems obvious that they believed the stories actually occurred. If you think they were myths, then it's obvious that Jesus believed myths to be real events and that's difficult being who he was.

Except that I don't believe that they were myths. Please reread the OP.

 

[inquiring mind]

So why were those people calling those who disagreed with their interpretation liars and false teachers? Interesting given that they later denied the actual words of Jesus.

I can't really speak specifics for other people.

 

[Ken Rank]

Thank you for being polite. I think it is a point upon which we can and do disagree, and we should be able to respect other interpretations.

It just shouldn't be an issue. If you were saying, "God didn't do anything" then we have an issue. But we are differing on a starting time and thus a process to a point... otherwise, we still believe God is the power behind it. So, it is a "detail" that we differ on.

 

[section9+1]

Archivist I was just saying "you" rhetorically. I guess I didn't make that very clear.

 

[FireDragon76]

Religion is one of those things that's risky to discuss. People get offended easily for relatively trivial things, and they aren't always entirely rationally consistent about the reasons. It's deeply personal stuff. To you and me, mainstream Lutherans, it's not a big deal , but to other people its like treading on sacred ground. For them the center of God's holiness in the world is in a book being inerrant and scientifically and historically accurate. For us, maybe it's our experience at church in our community. Two different things.

 

[Ken Rank]

1) Is a belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis necessary for salvation?

No, submission by the heart to God is.

2) If a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 is required, is a literal reading of Mark 14, Matthew 26 and Luke 22 ("this is my body...") also required? Why or why not?

Great point, you show the need to be able to recognize the use of the abstract, metaphors, in Scripture. "God is Rock," does that mean I can go outside and find God laying on the ground and pick Him up? No... so clearly there are times when God is being abstract. I don't agree with your interpretation of Genesis, but your view (if wrong) isn't evil, it would just be wrong. But, perhaps it is correct... I don't think so but you can make a case for it. I just personally think there is more weight elsewhere.

3) If the Genesis creation accounts are not open to interpretation, what areas of scripture are open to interpretation?

Some will say none... but then we can easily challenge that. Does John 3:16 speak of a passive of active belief? Does that belief require action and call for obedience or is it simply being convinced in your mind? Just that forces the need for interpretation.

Good post!

 

[Archivist]

Archivist I was just saying "you" rhetorically. I guess I didn't make that very clear.

Understood. Thank you.

 

[expos4ever]

For a lot of people it's as simple as... Jesus didn't deny the accuracy of the scriptures, so neither should we.

On the other hand, it is very plausible that Jesus was mistaken in taking the accounts literally. Remember, in taking on human form, Jesus shared in our weaknesses. And that almost certainly included limited knowledge.

 

[expos4ever]

Followers of Jesus should seek truth. And there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is billions of years old. So how can believing in true things endanger salvation?

 

[expos4ever]

We should be polite, but we should also recognize that fundamentalist thinking is actually quite dangerous, especially for our children. Believing the earth is 6000 years old is perhaps not dangerous in itself, but the distrust of science that goes with it is very dangerous indeed. I can almost guarantee that fundamentalists are over-represented in the population that denies global warming. And that thinking puts Donald Trump in the White House with a mandate to roll back measures to protect the environment.

And there is also the anti-vaccine crowd to worry about.

So this is not really an inconsequential issue even though we may want to smooth over the disagreements.

 

[inquiring mind]

On the other hand, it is very plausible that Jesus was mistaken in taking the accounts literally. Remember, in taking on human form, Jesus shared in our weaknesses. And that almost certainly included limited knowledge.

No sir, I can't agree with you there.

 

[inquiring mind]

Followers of Jesus should seek truth. And there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is billions of years old. So how can believing in true things endanger salvation?

I agree with you on the evidence of the age of the earth.

 

[inquiring mind]

We should be polite, but we should also recognize that fundamentalist thinking is actually quite dangerous, especially for our children. Believing the earth is 6000 years old is perhaps not dangerous in itself, but the distrust of science that goes with it is very dangerous indeed. I can almost guarantee that fundamentalists are over-represented in the population that denies global warming. And that thinking puts Donald Trump in the White House with a mandate to roll back measures to protect the environment.

And there is also the anti-vaccine crowd to worry about.

So this is not really an inconsequential issue even though we may want to smooth over the disagreements.

Where does the Bible say specifically that the earth is 6,000 years old?