Genesis Literal or Figurative

[coffeeelover]

This is an article written for Apologetics press. It is lenthy I know, but It gives a great insight as to why Genesis account of Creation is mythacal. We are already dealing with the Genesis account of the myth of the Ark in another thread.

Apologetics Press :: Scripturally Speaking

Genesis 1 thru 11—Mythical or Historical?
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/print/1986

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1986


...In referring to the creation account in Genesis, A.M. Ramsey, one-time Archbishop of Canterbury and a former president of the World Council of Churches, concluded: “It is the story of disobedience of Adam. There is no necessity for a Christian to believe it to be history; indeed, there are reasons why it cannot be literal history†(as quoted in Hedegard, 1964, pp. 190-191, emp. added). The authors of the popular Westminster Dictionary of the Bible asserted: “The recital of the facts of creation is obviously not a literal, historical record†(1944, p. 119).
Bernard Ramm, in his influential book, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, suggested that Genesis “is a purified ancient world myth. But through it shines the truth that God as Lord is God as Creator†(1954, p. 222). Well-known, neo-orthodox theologian Rudolf Bultmann spoke of the Israelites as a nation that, “like other nations, had its creation myths. God was depicted as the workman, forming the earth and all that is therein out of pre-existent matter. Such myths lie behind the creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2†(1969, p. 16).
Albert Wells, in The Christian Message in a Scientific Age, attacked the literal nature of the Genesis record when he wrote: “It is hardly necessary to regard the Genesis account of creation as literal truth in order to obtain its true meaning and relevance†(n.d., p. 113). In fact, Wells even went so far as to question the inspiration of the account by suggesting: “The fact of creation is thus not to be considered a direct revelation from God, unconditional by historical contingencies. It was, rather, an essential component of both the prophetic and the priestly mind†(n.d., p. 121). In his text, Adam and the Ape: A Christian Approach to the Theory of Evolution, R.J. Berry stated:

The creation of woman from Adam’s side need not be interpreted literally; the teaching of Genesis 2:21-22 is obviously about the complementarity of the sexes and the meaning of marriage rather than the evolution of sex or mechanisms of sexual differentiation (1975).
​

J. Frank Cassel, a member of the American Scientific Affiliation, wrote in that society’s professional journal:

The sequence can be explained as spiritual. Whether this is true or a dodge is of course an academic question, for is it not the spiritual message which God seeks to impart to us? Then why worry about what passages are to be interpreted literally and which figuratively? Look, rather, to God to reveal himself more fully and more directly to you from each passage according to your need (1960, 12:2).
​

 

[coffeeelover]

...
In speaking of Exodus 20:11, which records God’s creation of “the heavens, the earth, the seas, and all that in them is†in six days, John Clayton remarked that the acceptance of this verse by Christians as literal history is “a very shallow conclusion†that is “inconsistent with the Genesis record as well as other parts of the Bible†(1976, 3[10]:5). This is the case, he explained, because “Exodus 20:11 is a quote of Genesis 2 and Genesis 2 is not a historical account†(1979a, 7[4]:3, emp. added).
Two years before making that statement, in speaking of Genesis 2 Clayton had written: “This is, incidentally, why the order of life in Chapter II is different than in Chapter I—it has a different non-historical purpose†(1977, 49[6]:7, emp. added). When both the radical nature and the accuracy of that statement were challenged (see Jackson and Thompson, 1979), Clayton then went on the defensive in an attempt to “explain†what he “really€ meant...

 

[Mike]

CL, I understand that some "Christians" take certain accounts in Genesis to be figurative, but not many take it upon themselves to aggressively convince other Christians that it is mythical. Is there any reason you feel compelled to do this and begin a thread with the statement that "we've already dealt with the myth of the ark"?

I'm questioning the motives of a person who claims faith and feels it important to change the minds of others who accept scripture as it is written.

 

[jasoncran]

the world of churches is a unorthdox sect and denies the deity of christ.

please use something else.

 

[inhopeofglory]

All the "article" does is quote people's opinions.

The argument about Exodus 20:11 not being literal because it's quoting Genesis 2 is circular reasoning, by the way - Genesis 2 is assumed to be non-literal, and therefore it's argued that Exodus 20:11 is non-literal because it quotes Genesis 2!

Using that logic but reversing the argument, I could argue the following: "Exodus 20:11 must be referring to literal history because it's a quote of Genesis 2 and Genesis 2 is a historical account."

Change the assumptions/beliefs and the conclusion changes.

 

[Pard]

Thank you for the compilation of opinions. This was really a waste of two posts, I mean seriously, you just posted an article that quotes some "professionals" on their opinion about the Bible. They didn't even try to use exegesis. They forgot to even mention the Hebrew text and its complexity and how the Hebrew text literally says to be read as literal.

I had to come back tot his post because the first time I looked I thought this was a joke. I read the first line, saw the World of Churches and figured it was a practical joke.

 

[coffeeelover]

CL, I understand that some "Christians" take certain accounts in Genesis to be figurative, but not many take it upon themselves to aggressively convince other Christians that it is mythical. Is there any reason you feel compelled to do this and begin a thread with the statement that "we've already dealt with the myth of the ark"?

I'm questioning the motives of a person who claims faith and feels it important to change the minds of others who accept scripture as it is written.

Well I think it has to do with the fact that those who take it literal like to say those who don't aren't Christian.

I mean really. We all know science has advanced the world, and scientists and universities are not out to deceive us in some conspiracy.

I have seen a fossil, but never a talking snake.

 

[smaller]

Well I think it has to do with the fact that those who take it literal like to say those who don't aren't Christian.

It has to be a literal account. Adam was both Gods son and in the physical lineage of Jesus Christ. Was Christ literal? Then so was Adam.

I mean really. We all know science has advanced the world, and scientists and universities are not out to deceive us in some conspiracy.

When scientists put eternal life in a can or can box the workings of the anti-Christ spirits they can have a seat at the theology discussions.

I have seen a fossil, but never a talking snake.

The account is both literal and figurative. One can not 'see' anti-Christ spirits, which are often depicted as serpents in text. The Tree of LIFE in the Garden also has to have figurative connections as only God can give ETERNAL LIFE, not a LITERAL TREE.

All of the accounts in the O.T. are literal, but contain even greater allegorical or figurative understandings. The writers you quote don't know the first thing about those matters or even how to approach the subject matter as the text itself defines how to sort through these matters.

That being said I disagree with most literalists. Your quote is attempting to dispute with that particular 'camp' or 'sect' in their 6 literal day measure. Such things are not that important when allegory and figures step into the picture, but being literal is also important to understand. The tough part is where to draw the lines.

6 Days to God can be a very long time. We also know for a fact from other texts that His view of time is not 'like' ours. So I say the 6 literal day spiel is nonsense and the adherents of those types of views I tend to stay away from as they are closed minded and tight knit. One is OK as long as one TOWs THE LINE with their sole structures, which are geared for the simple minded and the gullible to be manipulated thereby.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[Mike]

Well I think it has to do with the fact that those who take it literal like to say those who don't aren't Christian.

I mean really. We all know science has advanced the world, and scientists and universities are not out to deceive us in some conspiracy.

I have seen a fossil, but never a talking snake.

For the record, my quotes around Christians was NOT to imply that those who don't take a literal view of Genesis are not Christians. The way my post reads, that's what someone might infer, but my main point stands. So, it interrupts your life so deeply, that you feel the need to convince Christians that what they read in the Bible isn't literal and shouldn't be taken as true. You can't have your view without trying to persuade someone that the accounts in Genesis were myths? In answering my question, you didn't answer my question. :gah

I'm not going to address the issue of this thread, because I don't believe it was created with an honest ambition to discuss it. Starting off with the "myth/ark" statement set the tone for anything else that followed.

 

[watchman F]

Well I think it has to do with the fact that those who take it literal like to say those who don't aren't Christian.

I dont think they are why would they believe the acconts of Christ's life if they do not believe the very first book of the Bible. If Genesis is not true then the rest of the bible needs to be thrown out.

 

[Mike]

I dont think they are why would they believe the acconts of Christ's life if they do not believe the very first book of the Bible. If Genesis is not true then the rest of the bible needs to be thrown out.

Watchman, to this I would say that not taking certain things in Genesis literally is not the same as saying they are not true. Someone who says that the account of Creation is not literally 6 24 hour periods might be accused of this, but they could be considering 2 Peter 3:8. They might be right or wrong in making this connection without stating that they don't believe Genesis to be true.

Using the word "myth" to describe anything in the Bible sends up red flags for me. A myth is something imaginary or invented. Nothing in the Bible is either of those. I will listen to someone say they believe the story of the flood is an allegory. But I have no time for someone who says that it is impossible and that anyone who believes it to be true is being foolish. If I did believe this account was an allegory (which I don't) I certainly wouldn't impede someone's faith by insisting that they accept that it was. As I said, calling it a "myth" is taking it to another level, IMO.

 

[coffeeelover]

I dont think they are why would they believe the acconts of Christ's life if they do not believe the very first book of the Bible. If Genesis is not true then the rest of the bible needs to be thrown out.

The bible doesn't need to be thrown out just because it isn't literal. We are modern humans who understand a lot more about how the world works than the the writers of Genesis. They were pretty much still living in the stone age. No light before the sun? Also, what did the earth orbit around, unless of course you are the type of literalist who thinks the sun revolves around the earth.

I think that we should be able to discuss things rationally, but the literalists are always blah blah your not a christian you can't post here or your going to hell, or that isn't Christian. If they don't like my opinions fine, but they don't own Christianity.

 

[coffeeelover]

Watchman, to this I would say that not taking certain things in Genesis literally is not the same as saying they are not true. Someone who says that the account of Creation is not literally 6 24 hour periods might be accused of this, but they could be considering 2 Peter 3:8. They might be right or wrong in making this connection without stating that they don't believe Genesis to be true.

Using the word "myth" to describe anything in the Bible sends up red flags for me. A myth is something imaginary or invented. Nothing in the Bible is either of those. I will listen to someone say they believe the story of the flood is an allegory. But I have no time for someone who says that it is impossible and that anyone who believes it to be true is being foolish. If I did believe this account was an allegory (which I don't) I certainly wouldn't impede someone's faith by insisting that they accept that it was. As I said, calling it a "myth" is taking it to another level, IMO.

Why does the word myth get people so upset.

Why is Allegory any better to you?

• fable: a short moral story (often with animal characters)
• emblem: a visible symbol representing an abstract idea
• an expressive style that uses fictional characters and events to describe some subject by suggestive resemblances; an extended metaphor
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Myth

• a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  

 

[Theofilus]

I mean really. We all know science has advanced the world, and scientists and universities are not out to deceive us in some conspiracy.

Yeah. Science has made our lives so much better. Where would we be without scientific advances such as nuclear bombs, guided missles, C4 and other wonderful scientific and technological advances. And let's not forget the marvelous new ways to use money, such as spending billions of dollars on trying to find one planet somewhere out there that might have life, while there's a planet right here with billions of starving people on it. Using our resourses to help them would be a total waste, since it wouldn't involve scientific discovery.

Of course, we know that scientists can't be wrong. Science is infallable. After all, it wasn't a scientist that claimed the Sun was the center of the entire Universe. It was that religious nut Galileo. And no scientist would ever propose something as preposterous as "gemmules" as an explination of how aquired traites are inherited. It was that nut job Darwin that had that idea. No... Scientists are never wrong about anything, not about scientific matters and definitely not about spiritual things. You can always trust what a scientist says. It's much better and wiser to listen to scientists and do and believe what they say rather than listening to God and believing what He says and doing His will.

 

[Strangelove]

I mean really. We all know science has advanced the world, and scientists and universities are not out to deceive us in some conspiracy.

Whats your interpretation of this verse in Timmy?

6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.​

TIMMY!!! Lolz

As to whether Genesis is literal or figurative I say:::

BOTH! Just like the rest of the Bible it doesnt have to be either or.

Discernment.​

 

[Pard]

We are modern humans who understand a lot more about how the world works than the the writers of Genesis.

So... we know more than... God?

 

[coffeeelover]

Yeah. Science has made our lives so much better. Where would we be without scientific advances such as nuclear bombs, guided missles, C4 and other wonderful scientific and technological advances. And let's not forget the marvelous new ways to use money, such as spending billions of dollars on trying to find one planet somewhere out there that might have life, while there's a planet right here with billions of starving people on it. Using our resourses to help them would be a total waste, since it wouldn't involve scientific discovery.

Of course, we know that scientists can't be wrong. Science is infallable. After all, it wasn't a scientist that claimed the Sun was the center of the entire Universe. It was that religious nut Galileo. And no scientist would ever propose something as preposterous as "gemmules" as an explination of how aquired traites are inherited. It was that nut job Darwin that had that idea. No... Scientists are never wrong about anything, not about scientific matters and definitely not about spiritual things. You can always trust what a scientist says. It's much better and wiser to listen to scientists and do and believe what they say rather than listening to God and believing what He says and doing His will.

Where would we be indeed. Lets see. We wouldn't we able to clean water. We would have no penicillin or any other antibiotics. Polio would still be crippling people. Never been to the moon. No computer. Finally no cars and no oil. Geologists are the ones who find the oil. Geology isn't some new scientific theory. It has been around for a long time now and has accomplishments. I have seen an oil rig, but I have never seen a guy wrestle an angle, or a talking snake.

 

[Pard]

We wouldn't we able to clean water.

You mean not as conveniently. All you need to clean water is fire. If you wanna step it up a little ash, dirt, rocks, and fire.

We would have no penicillin or any other antibiotics.

Shoot, that'd be OK by me. Most antibiotics make me sick. Penicillin would kill me. Thank you science for inventing a drug that will KILL ME! Keep up the good work

Never been to the moon.

Wow, we would have never spent millions and billions on pointless journeys? Dang...

Finally no cars and no oil. Geologists are the ones who find the oil.

Wrong. Liquid gold (assuming that is the oil you mean...) was found by people digging for water... The people who found oil did not mean to find it and they were not geologists, they were cowboys.

but I have never seen a guy wrestle an angle

Go into an architecture firm. They wrestle with angles all the time! When I was in high school I went to architecture competitions, well only two. I wrestled plenty of angles, as did the other competitors. My wrestling was the best, though. I beat those angles into submission and made them cry for their mommies.

Science did good things, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't give it a pass for everything else it spews out.

 

[Strangelove]

Go into an architecture firm. They wrestle with angles all the time! When I was in high school I went to architecture competitions, well only two. I wrestled plenty of angles, as did the other competitors. My wrestling was the best, though. I beat those angles into submission and made them cry for their mommies.

Science did good things, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't give it a pass for everything else it spews out.

Lolz!! Your funny Pard-ner.

And I agree with the last line. Especially theoretical science.

 

[coffeeelover]

Lolz!! Your funny Pard-ner.

And I agree with the last line. Especially theoretical science.

Pard is funny I agree. Funny how he started a thread about nit picking the bible then nit picks the bible.