Does a literal interpretation of Genesis matter?

Jesus was asked about His view of divorce and remarriage.

Jesus said that divorce was allowed due to the hardness of one's heart.

Jesus then said that it was not so from the beginning. For God made them male and female.

So, according to Jesus, in the beginning, God created male and female. Jesus believed in the literal creation account. If you don't like that conclusion, take it up with Christ. So much for using Jesus as the criterion in which Scripture is to be interpreted.

 

Warm Christian greetings!

As the old saying goes: "the blind lead the blind and they all fall in the pit".

The reason that many who profess to be "christians" do not accept Genesis is because "scholarly" leaders have taught them so, these false teachers will have to answer to God for doing the Devil's work for him.

Kind regards

Robert J Hutton

 

Yes!

Jesus definitely believed the creation account, but it does not necessarily mean that He believed in a “literal” creation account. By anyone’s basic understanding, Genesis 1 and 2 teach that God created man and woman for each other. Jesus simply appeals to that clear statement. He does not say anything in regard to how “literal” it is.

So you’re certain your conclusions are the same as Christ’s?

In any case, I have. I’ve prayed much while studying the scriptures.

Yes, I *am* using Christ as the criterion by which scripture is to be interpreted…

Do you have an eye problem?

 

As far as I’m concerned there’s nothing to forgive. You expressed your opinion, I gave mine.

Oh no, I understand. It is not compromising to be fair and nice with whom you disagree. (I wish more people recognized that!)

Believe it or not, that’s my interpretive method.

Yes, I know the type… Thanks for your kind response!

[ July 30, 2002, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

Maybe you need to explain it to me slowly how you believe an allegorical/analogical Genesis 1 & 2 yet believe a literal Jesus/resurrection.
Jesus and Paul spoke quite clearly of Adam and Noe as literal, true figures of history.
So what were Jesus and Paul talking about if they were referring to allegorical/analogical persons?

Refs:
Matt 24:37-38
Luke 17:26-27
Heb 11:7
I Peter 3:20
Rom 5:14
I Cor 15:22
I Cor 15:45
I Tit 2:13-14

Anyone that holds this position is welcome to answer.

 

My understanding is that different genres are interpreted differently. If all of the Bible happens to be of the same genre than yes interpret it all the same.

If the writer of Genesis intends to write a Historical document which I would say is possible than you would interpret it very literally. If the writer wrote with the intention of speaking to others in a way that would cut to the quick of man's heart like say Jesus was prone to do with parables then you might interpret it for the moral it teaches instead of reading it like a history book. I would say both are possible. I would also say that I believe every Biblical writer would challenge the idea that a literal interpretation of Genesis is necessary for salvation. Including Jesus himself.

 

This should be the post of the year! Very seldom do I see on this board people with the ability to say I was wrong. And I am sorry. Thank you for exhibiting true Christian love.

 

Okay, I'll type it slowly.

From my careful study of Genesis 1 and 2, I believe the text itself points to something other than a "literal" interpretation. Specifically, I understand the "first" creation account as an evangelistic method that draws in the pagan reader by using the forms of ancient cosmogenies and then illuminates the pagan with the identification of the God of Israel as being the Creator of all and true God of all in the "second" creation account. In the end, I really don't have any textual problems believing that the creation story in Genesis 2 is the "literal" story with Genesis 1 as an introduction. That view neatly resolves the issues with the creative sequence without doing mental gymnastics and adding extra creative events to the text.

The stories of the resurrection of Jesus do not easily lend themselves to anything other than the fact that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to many.

I'm guessing you mean Noah... I think the text of Genesis suggests that Noah was a real person and the flood happened. (I've never suggested anything other than that if you actually read my post.)

No issues with Noah... You weren't paying attention to what I actually wrote.

In this context, Adam is either the literal name of the first man (if you notice, I never said anything against Adam and Eve being real people) or the representative name of the first people created by God. ("Adam" literally means "man".)

Either the literal name of the first man or the representative name of humankind's legacy.

Either the literal name of the first man or simply a reference to the text of Genesis 2:7. If you notice, the name "Adam" is used metaphorically here to draw a comparison to Christ.

My Bible only has the book of Titus -- how many do you have?

I'm guessing this is the reference to 1 *Timothy* 2;13-14:

It is either the literal name of the first man or simply a reference to an allegorical text. (A text does not have to be literally true to have teaching value -- Jesus used parables to teach spiritual truth. This may be a similar instance.)

Any questions?

[ July 31, 2002, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Baptist Believer ]

 

Hi BB,
I meant to put Gen 1 & 2 & Noah's (Noe) flood.
My brother holds almost the same exact view as you, so I'm quite familiar with it. I was actually trying to draw someone else out of the woodwork that I know lurks here quite a bit. It wasn't really directed at you per se. Thanks for replying, though.
I'm going to be gone for a week or so, but there is one point I'd like to take up with you when I get back.

BTW, I can't believe your Bible only has one book of Titus.

[ August 01, 2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Optional ]

 

Addressing the issue of the "intent" of the author of Gen 1-11; my opinion is as follows:

- They were written by 2-3 schools of authors during (Yahwist) and following (Priestly) the Babylonian exile using written sources that the final writers interpreted as historical accounts.

- The genre of the now-lost earlier accounts was much clearer than that of the present on (and those genres were poetic and symbolic). Notice how when you read the Eden account there are numerous instances of poetic parallelism that are occasionally interrupted by a line or two of inserted prose? That's the kind of effect that happens when a later author quotes from a poetic source but disregards its structure because he believes it is a prosaic account.

- Historical? Definitely not. IMHO, the scientific model and comparative mythology intersect to show that these accounts are symbolic of timeless truths and are not historical records of factual events.

- Does it matter? If one is committed to the idea that the Bible consists of 1) one single genre 2) that is directly and verbally inspired by God in its present form, and 3) harmonized in message with the rest of the Bible, then the opinion of the writer(s) of Gen 1-11 is necessarily the opinion of God, and since the writer clearly believed he was writing of factual events, then the events must be factual.

I myself am committed to the idea that Gen 1-11 is a product of a specific historical context, written under the complete control of men who had experienced God and subject to the limitations of their sources (symbolic), understanding (finite) and historical conventions (classical historiography).

- What does a symbolic view affect later on in the Bible? It undermines a few things, like 1) literal original sin that assumes that dead babies go to hell, 2) some negative Pauline ideas about women that are founded upon a literal Eve, 3) the absolute nature of the command for no work on the Sabbath (because the Lord created the world in six days).

While Gen 12-on falls in the "don't know" category of historicity, Gen 1-11 in my mind is clearly symbolic.

Comments?

 

Amazing

 

Since Gen. 1-11 prophecies the coming Messiah as the product of a virgin birth, since it explains the advent of sin and the need for a Messiah, since it expresses God's anger at sin in the Flood, since it tracks (and quite accurately) the origin of the ethnic groups around the world -- wow! -- then all that is left is that Christ as the Creator is symbolic, that He did not know symbol from reality during His years on earth, and that the crucifixion and resurrection were probably only symbolic, too!

Maybe Smith's salvation is only symbolic as well? I mean, after all, if you can't trust God to get it right in His Word, how can you trust Him with your whole life and eternity?

 

Jesus Himself may or may not have known whether it was historically symbolic while He was on earth(since he was both fully divine and fully HUMAN, a part of the equation that is often neglected by conservatives). We have no way of knowing however, because Jesus didn't write anything. The NT writers almost certainly believed in a literal Gen 1-11 (and they were incorrect in that belief). At the same time, there is nothing attributed to Jesus (in their words) that unambiguously indicates Jesus's opinion on the issue either way.

The historicity of Jesus is independent of the historicity of Gen 1-11. By this logic, was George Washington a symbolic figure? Perhaps there never was a historic Dwight D. Eisenhower?

In which case, it would still be true...

We aren't talking about God's Word, but the text of the Bible.

As usual, Helen assumes that God has given her everything she needs to know about everything in terms that she can understand in one leatherbound, red-letter volume. All issues that matter are therefore black-and-white, cut-and-dry. Knowing God is equivalent to reading Genesis-Revelation. Therefore, if something "ain't necessarily so" in the Bible, then God has failed to "get it right" for her and we might as well leave Christianity...

I hate to say it, but someday you are going to encounter an issue that will rock this worldview. When that happens, I hope and pray (honestly, not being facetious) that you don't follow through with your own logic and turn to agnosticism.

 

Is that what this is all about for you BWSmith? You confronted an issue that you felt you could not answer from scripture so you began to question its reliability? So, essentially you discovered that, even with scripture you could not comprehend all of God or his ways, thus you have decided to reject his revelation. Why don't you, and I say this sincerely, why don't you bring up the real issue for discussion and perhaps someone can assist you with it.

 

There are many issues that scripture does not answer. There are also many issues that scripture does answer but answers incorrectly when taken at face value. I've always had the understanding that the Bible is not a science book, but only recently have I understood some of the details that make that very clear.

It's not possible to comprehend all of God or His ways with or without scripture. All we can comprehend is what He has revealed and how that leads us in our walk with Him.

I don't reject His revelation, which became flesh and walked among us. I reject the use of the scriptures to answer questions they weren't written to address. The Pharisees rejected God's revelation by sticking fast to the scriptures, and I won't follow in their footsteps.

The real issues have been beaten like dead horses for years (human evolution, for example, is a biggie for me).