Understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal versus non-literal.

[Hobie]

I came across a discussion on whether understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal or non-literal, affects our knowledge of the nature of sin. The focus was on Creation in Genesis 1-3 with some reaching into the topics discussed in chapters 4-11. When you read the Bible or any book for that matter, you must look to see if the author intend it to be fiction or actual events. One must first demonstrate from the given text that the author did not intend for anyone to read his words as a literal historical account. Any assertion that states that a non-literal reading is the most appropriate reading must provide evidence of specific figurative indicators in the text such as metaphors, similes allegories, hyperbole, symbolism and such. A non-literal approach, is a significant issue doctrinally, as the entire book Genesis is the seedbed for all of the theology that follows. The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is a system of progressive revelation that builds upon itself. Meaning that Abraham built upon the revelation given to Noah and thus had more light than Noah, Moses built upon the revelation given to Abraham and thus had more light than Abraham, David built on or had more light Moses, Isaiah built on or had more light than David, and the apostles had more than the prophets of the Old Testament. Thus, what was said in earlier parts of the Bible forms the foundation upon which more light was revealed to later generations.

So how did the succeeding generations of those who were used by God has His human authors of Scripture, see the creation account. Did Moses, Jesus, David, or any of the prophets or apostles view the Creation account in Genesis as a non-literal account, it was seen by the them as literal as we see.

The Bible is set up in such a manner that there is no single verse, passage, chapter or book that contains all of the truth on a given matter. In this way, God designed the Bible to be studied and searched out and designed it so that all of the doctrines of Scripture are interlocked with each other, we especially see this in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. The Bible tells us if figurative language is being used or when something is a vision, allegory or parable, symbol or metaphor. It does not leave it up to us to guess. Absent those textual indicators, the default understanding of any given text in Scripture is literal which means that a text is understood within the framework the author intends. It means to read the text with the object that the author has in view and not to assign any values to the text on our own. A non-literal approach makes the text subject to the whims of the reader and erodes the authority of the author.

So a non-literal approach to Genesis 1-11 devalues the authority of Word of God as final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practice and opens the door for spurious theories, such as evolution. Many of the new Bible versions interject mans theories or ideas over Gods truth or worse distort the meaning with the changes to the Word. God takes His Word very seriously, and so should man, who is His creation. As you can see, if Genesis is not literal then the Creator is diminished, the Sabbath is more Moses imprint than Gods, and sin was about a snake that charmed a woman rather than the fall of mankind. Its important..

 

[David]

I came across a discussion on whether understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal or non-literal, affects our knowledge of the nature of sin. The focus was on Creation in Genesis 1-3 with some reaching into the topics discussed in chapters 4-11. When you read the Bible or any book for that matter, you must look to see if the author intend it to be fiction or actual events. One must first demonstrate from the given text that the author did not intend for anyone to read his words as a literal historical account. Any assertion that states that a non-literal reading is the most appropriate reading must provide evidence of specific figurative indicators in the text such as metaphors, similes allegories, hyperbole, symbolism and such. A non-literal approach, is a significant issue doctrinally, as the entire book Genesis is the seedbed for all of the theology that follows. The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is a system of progressive revelation that builds upon itself. Meaning that Abraham built upon the revelation given to Noah and thus had more light than Noah, Moses built upon the revelation given to Abraham and thus had more light than Abraham, David built on or had more light Moses, Isaiah built on or had more light than David, and the apostles had more than the prophets of the Old Testament. Thus, what was said in earlier parts of the Bible forms the foundation upon which more light was revealed to later generations.

So how did the succeeding generations of those who were used by God has His human authors of Scripture, see the creation account. Did Moses, Jesus, David, or any of the prophets or apostles view the Creation account in Genesis as a non-literal account, it was seen by the them as literal as we see.

The Bible is set up in such a manner that there is no single verse, passage, chapter or book that contains all of the truth on a given matter. In this way, God designed the Bible to be studied and searched out and designed it so that all of the doctrines of Scripture are interlocked with each other, we especially see this in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. The Bible tells us if figurative language is being used or when something is a vision, allegory or parable, symbol or metaphor. It does not leave it up to us to guess. Absent those textual indicators, the default understanding of any given text in Scripture is literal which means that a text is understood within the framework the author intends. It means to read the text with the object that the author has in view and not to assign any values to the text on our own. A non-literal approach makes the text subject to the whims of the reader and erodes the authority of the author.

So a non-literal approach to Genesis 1-11 devalues the authority of Word of God as final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practice and opens the door for spurious theories, such as evolution. Many of the new Bible versions interject mans theories or ideas over Gods truth or worse distort the meaning with the changes to the Word. God takes His Word very seriously, and so should man, who is His creation. As you can see, if Genesis is not literal then the Creator is diminished, the Sabbath is more Moses imprint than Gods, and sin was about a snake that charmed a woman rather than the fall of mankind. Its important..

That's a fair and well organized post. You are correct that Jesus and the apostles read the early chapters of Genesis as history, not as myth or allegory. Allow me a question of my own so that we can dig a little deeper into the issue: given that Romans 5:12–19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 ground the universality of sin and the atonement in an actual, historical Adam, how would a non-literal reading of Genesis 1–3 impact one's understanding of the gospel itself?

 

[Hobie]

That's a fair and well organized post. You are correct that Jesus and the apostles read the early chapters of Genesis as history, not as myth or allegory. Allow me a question of my own so that we can dig a little deeper into the issue: given that Romans 5:12–19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 ground the universality of sin and the atonement in an actual, historical Adam, how would a non-literal reading of Genesis 1–3 impact one's understanding of the gospel itself?

If you say it wasn't 7 literal days, then it could be stretched to 7 million years and evolution shoe horned into the picture....

 

[bobinfaith]

Hello Hobie and David;

The literal and nonliteral in my experience as a student of the Bible is relevant for both to understanding God's Word.

First, much our English language has two or multiple definitions including the interpretations, but in general give the Bible writers both a literal plain meaning as well as a nonliteral to give a deeper meaning through parables, metaphors, allegories, symbolism, etc...

My problem with attempting to read the Bible solely on a non-literal approach, for example, Genesis and Revelation, is this; we must be careful not to allow our personal interpretation of "minor notes" in the verses mislead the disciple and ourselves.

What can constitute a minor note as misleading? For example, the world being created in 7 days, or 7000 days or millions of years, how does that align into the message and how we arrive at life's lessons and application of what God is teaching each of us?

My other problem when attempting to read the Bible solely as a literal approach can develop a shallow understanding of what God is saying to us and putting limitations on God's teaching.

The study of the Bible should not be a leisure study, what verse has a "feel good" romantic and poetic read. That is not the purpose. God's Ways are so much higher that we will never fathom Him, therefore, the Bible is the easiest way for us to know and understand God that only He makes available for us.

If it's a just matter of conversation over a cup of coffee, then that's fine.

God bless you both.

bobinfaith

 

[David]

The study of the Bible should not be a leisure study, what verse has a "feel good" romantic and poetic read. That is not the purpose. God's Ways are so much higher that we will never fathom Him, therefore, the Bible is the easiest way for us to know and understand God that only He makes available for us.

Some good points made there. I agree with you that the Bible has both literal and figurative language in it. God does at times speak through parables, metaphors, similies, and symbols. He also at times gives us clear historical truth. The important thing is to know when the Scripture itself indicates the distinction.

I agree that the Word of God should never be read casually or treated as some sort of “feel-good” book. It is the revelation of the heart and truth of God to us. You are right that either extreme can cause one to err--reading all literal and none figurative, or all figurative and none literal.

The foundation has to remain clear, though. The Bible means what God intended it to mean, not what we want it to mean. We don't determine what is symbolic and what is not; the Scripture itself by its context tells us that. For example, when Genesis says, "In six days the LORD made heaven and earth" ~Exodus 20: 11, that is presented as history, not poetry. But when Jesus says, "I am the vine" ~John 15: 5, we recognize it is a metaphor teaching spiritual truth.

Yes, we can enjoy the beauty and depth of Scripture, but we must always let the Word interpret itself. "Rightly dividing the word of truth" ~2 Timothy 2: 15 is what keeps us grounded and growing.