Is Genesis all literal, all allegory, or somewhere between?

If it is "ignorant fundamentalism" to believe the Bible, I gladly stand guilty as charged. Man's understanding of science often changes over time, but the word of God stands forever.

If only everyone would be a Bible fundamentalist, instead of departing from the fundamentals of the faith.

 

For two millennia the church has understood and believed that God made all living creatures. The Bible says so, and the church has always understood it to mean that God spoke them into existence (not that God waited for the "natural" course of "evolution" to take place).

Man has observed for centuries that the number of extant species grows ever less, that various forms of plants and animals die out over time. The fossils which show plants and animals unknown to us today fully supports this. Yet some "scientists" came along and said that, long ago, the trend was reversed: new plants and new animals developed all by themselves through "natural selection." (Where has this process been in the last 2,000 years?) And silly people run after these "scientists" in abandonment of what has always been known: that species die out over time as the earth as all things on the earth decay, and that God created the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind, and that nothing was made without God the Son making it.

If this 'new religion' can believe that new life forms came forth by "natural" means (even though we know it to be unnatural!), then the 'new religion' can also believe that man evolved from dumb animals. Is Jesus the great-great-great grandson of an orangutan? Such is this new "faith."

 

My first problem with this post, is that it is a straw-man argument to suggest that the alternatives are biblical literalism and outright apostacy. There are many Christians who believe the Bible without being a biblical literalist.

Must western Christians do not believe that the earth is a lump of dirt upheld from the depths that surround it by seven pillars, with the sky set out as a dome over it, and orbited by the Sun on a daily basis.

​

If you believe that the Earth is round and moves around the Sun, then in part you have made some concessions.

As with most people since Galileo I accept Heliocentricity as a reasonable conclusion. It may well be that the People of the Early Church did not, nd indeed it is probable that they did not. We still talk about sunrise, as the ancient custom, however most of us believe that the earth is spinning, and what we call the rising of the sun, is simply the result of the earth turning.

The philosophical idea of Pragmatism is not unreasonable. This is the acceptance of the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence available to us at the time. At some stage we may need to re-assess an earlier position based on fresh evidence. This is essentially the position that Paul takes in writing to the Corinthians now we see in a glass darkly, then face to face.

Faith calls us to step out beyond knowledge, not simply to refuse it.

 

As it applies to the statements in Genesis 1 and John 1 which I recently quoted, one either believes that God created (made) all of the different types of living things, as the church has always believed and as the Bible unequivocally states, or one is treading into heresy (at the least).

Previously, you stated your idea that the many species developed over time by the power and design of God (I guess, apparently because He preferred to do things an incredibly slow, gradual, and random-appearing way? Even though He is powerful enough to have all the species come into existence at the moment He conceived of it and spoke it into existence? "And God said...and it was so" (Genesis). I presume you adopted the idea because you have been persuaded by the prevailing scientific theories to reconcile those unproven, unprovable theories with your faith).

Immediately following your statement, @Invictus commented about your idea: "None of this makes very much sense on the assumption that these species were created independently and perfectly adapted to their environment by an all-wise and omnipotent Creator with a perfect plan." His logic was quite sound. Why would He have well-developed land mammals transition into sea-going whales, while having other sea-going species transition into land-dwellers? Thus, Invictus essentially rejected the idea that the many species evolved and developed by God's power and design. The remaining alternative is that the many species developed over time by random happenstance, not as a perfect plan put into place by the Creator. This is not a matter of reinterpreting the Bible but of rejecting its plain and obvious message, namely, that all things were created by God.

So, yes, between the two choices of believing what Gen. 1 and John 1 state or believing otherwise, I would choose the former and gladly suffer being called a Bible fundamentalist (whether I really am one or not) for my insistence upon believing the written word of God even when modern, popular scientific theories say otherwise.

After all, it is equally valid to theorize that the fossil record simply reflects the vast diversity of God's initial creation, and that the large bulk (perhaps 90%+) of that diversity has ceased to exist by now due to the flood of Noah's day as well as gradual extinctions from predation, inability to adapt to environmental changes, widespread diseases, and so on. We have seen (even in the space of a single century) and can bear record to the circumstances of many extinctions, yet we have not seen and can bear no record of a macroevolutionary change to any species during the history of mankind. Why do the scientists ignore the obvious and theorize that macroevolutionary advances (which we have never observed taking place even one time) have occurred literally hundreds of thousands or millions of times? Quite simply, they do so because they are searching for a way to justify existence apart from a Creator.

The Bible-believing Christian has no need for 'evolutionary theory,' because the Christian has the faith of his forefathers, faith in the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth and of all that is on the earth. This theory has not been, and indeed it can never be, established as fact in the way that the earth's revolution around the sun can be established.... by observation. Thus it is a false argument to compare evolutionary theory to any fact established by science as an absolute. Belief in macroevolution of all life forms from a single-celled organism, which in turn came alive by application of some energy source to a combination of chemicals in the primordial soup, can only be taken on faith. Belief in macroevolutionary theory is a matter of faith, and it is a faith contrary to Christianity because it is contrary to the church's belief based on the word of God that He personally created all living creatures in all of their types and variations.

"And God said...and it was so" (Genesis). When God said, 'let it be so,' immediately it was. Not eventually, after 30 million years of gradual change!

 

I wasn’t even going to raise the issue of the Bible’s endorsement of Babylonian cosmography but that’s a great point.

@Rexlion, it’s one thing for people to hold opinions that differ from the mainstream. Although in this case, given the state of evidence, it seems to me that to deny that evolution has occurred is about on the same level as denying the existence of gravity, let’s nevertheless abstract from the particulars for a moment and grant the underlying principle: The whole history of science is the story of people who were willing to buck the prevailing conventional wisdom of their time, sometimes at great personal cost. It would be hypocritical in the extreme to condemn those who honestly believe that we are in need of a better theory than the one that currently prevails. They may very well be right. What’s intolerable, at least to me, is when people actively work to convince others not to read or even consider arguments put forth by the opposing side. Each side in a debate should get a fair and impartial hearing, ideally. That being said, I regret the snarkiness of some of my earlier comments and have no wish to prolong a fruitless debate.

 

I think this is a fair statement of the difference between the two approaches. While we may disagree as to which approach is better, I appreciate your recognition of their incompatibility, and admire your zeal to uphold the Faith. I also regret my earlier frustration, as it was manifested in some of my comments, and ask your forgiveness.

 

Firstly, let me say, that I believe much of science does rest of fundamental propositions that cannot be ultimately proven. Do atom's actually exist, or is it a thesis that has been tested, and ultimately is the only way to make sense of things. Are all atoms the same? Are protons, neutrons and electrons a viable way to explain physical matter? On the basis of the evidence we have to date, it would seem so.

If the universe started with a Big Bang, how did that happen, what caused it, and a trillion other questions that this proposition raises.

Science and Theology are siblings in the pursuit of truth. Followed honesty Anselm argued they would arrive at the same conclusion. I think that is true. Many scientists are ultimately people of faith, sometimes harassed by a God Fearing Church, but in the end truth will out.

My belief in God as Creator, something I hold quite dearly, is dynamic, not static. It seems clear to me that God made the world a living moving creation where change is the only constant. I do not have it all sown up, not even close. If you have a house, you may need some renovations from time to time, you may need to re-purpose some of it from time to time, so whether you bought it or built it, it is not static. I can see no good reason why evolution could not be one of the things that God created as part of the infrastructure of this place.

On my last trip to the UK, I was interested to observe that I bumped my head quite a bit. Lots of the older places we visited were built when people where shorter. Numbers of things have changed in the way of diet. When I was growing up 6 foot was considered quite tall, yet these days there is an endless array of young people who are clearly taller. Diet and lifestyle may both be contributing factors to that. When Australia introduced the pension for people at the age of 65, the average expectancy of a man was 58. These days, most men live into their seventies. Diet, improved health systems, workplace health and safety all have contributed to that.

Given the strong likelihood that some part of the tradition was already extant in the Gilgamesh Epic, that is hardly surprising. In fact it argues well for the Abrahamic Migration from Ur of the Chaldees.

 

Indeed it does!

 

Excellent points Rexlion. I would only add that not only did God make all living creatures, He made them each according to their kinds (Genesis 1:24-25).

 

I agree with you that "At some stage we may need to re-assess an earlier position", because now "we see in a glass darkly, then face to face", yes, we see darkly because we only know in part, and we preach the Word of GOD in part, course; but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away, then we will see "face to face".

"UPHELD FROM THE DEPHS BY SEVEN PILLARS"(???)

That said, based in your allegory saying "Must western Christians do not believe that the earth is a lump of dirt upheld from the depths that surround it by seven pillars", what we know certainly is that from the abyss it rises up gigantic mountains, which were named as Europe, and Asia, and Africa, and Oceania(Australia), and North America, Central America, and South America, or seven Continents.

On the other hand, we know that after the rebellion of the sons of GOD in Eden, darkness was upon the face of the deep, but the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, that is upon the generations post Eden. Speeking of the darkness post Eden, remember that it was revealed that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually(Genesis 6:1-8), there was only deep darkness upon the face of the earth, but the Spirit of GOD moved upon them, so GOD said: Let there be light, and there was light, and then He finished His works of the first day, i.e. a GOD's Day. GOD, i.e. the Word, is light, in Him there is no darkness at all.

"SKY SET OUT AS A DOME OVER THE EARTH"
If we say "sky set out as a dome over the earth", this conception has nothing to do with the Word of GOD, the Word is GOD.

As you have above said, "At some stage we may need to re-assess an earlier position based on fresh evidence". You are right, for to say that "SKY SET OUT AS A DOME OVER THE EARTH", this conception or interpretation has nothing to do with the Word of GOD-the Word is GOD-and even He revealed that the heavens are PLANTED among us. Isaiah 51:16ASV- And I have put my words in thy mouth, and have covered thee in the shadow of my hand, that I may PLANT the HEAVENS, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people. And Paul Apostle said: Ephesians 1:3ASV -Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. Until the current time were planted two heavens, the 1st and 2nd heavens. The next heaven to be planted here on the earth is the 3rd heaven -the Kingdom of GOD-Revelation 11:15-18.

As you said: "Faith calls us to step out beyond knowledge,not simply to refuse it"

"ORBITED BY THE SUN ON A DAILY BASIS"
Malachi 4:1-3
2 But unto you that fear my name shall the SUN of righteousness arise with healing in its wings; and ye shall go forth, and gambol as calves of the stall.
3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I make, saith the Lord of hosts.
1 For, behold, the day comes, it burns as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that comes shall burn them up, saith the Lord f hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

Malachi 3:18
Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

Surely, "At some stage we may need to re-assess an earlier position" , because now "we see in a glass darkly, then face to face". JESUS said: For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not, even that which he has shall be taken away.

 

Is there a point you’re trying to make, amidst all the quotations? If so, can you state what that is, in plain language (and without continuous yet unrelated quotations)?

The use by the author of Genesis 1 of Babylonian cosmology is well established, as is the fact that the creation/flood accounts in the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh predate those of Genesis by at least a millennium if not more.

 

My point was to transform the myth exposed by the post I replied, into the true reality of the creation, in other words, to exchange the theoretical fantasy invented by the common man about the creation, for/by the true description that GOD Himself really revealed to Moses many centuries later according Genesis.
There was only darkness in the earth post Eden-Genesis 6:1-8 - which continues until today. Then GOD the Almight said: Let there be light, and there was light.
And the life was the light of men, and the light shined in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. So, the punishment was inevitable as is written in Genesis 6:7.

Will be? I am thinking your assertions very evasive, could you better clarify the date of your myths?

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

 

That’s about as clear as mud. You can look up the dating of Gilgamesh yourself. That it predates Genesis isn’t (just) my opinion.

 

You continues being evasive. My point is Genesis, the Word of GOD - the Word is GOD - understand? But you invoked your myths to belittle, to discredit Genesis, it's you who must defend the myths you believe and show the millenar dates that you say they were invented even before Genesis. Show it. Prove it.

 

I am neither being "evasive" nor am I seeking to "belittle" or "discredit" Genesis. But, one does not have to be an Assyriologist to know that the date of the Epic of Gilgamesh is roughly 2100 BCE, and it's a little silly to demand "proof" of that now, as this was established almost 200 years ago. If you'd like to read more about it, I suggest the following pages (though a simple Google search will return plenty of reputable sources that can be consulted):
https://webpages.uidaho.edu/engl257/Ancient/epic_of_gilgamesh.htm
http://www.bio-orthodoxy.com/2018/01/the-earliest-manuscripts-of-book-of.html

 

My problem is that if the opening chapters of Genesis are not at least in part myth and legend, then what are they?! They most certainly are not contemporaneous with the origin of the universe. That there is a strong correlation with the Epic of Gilgamesh, does not devalue the accounts in Genesis, indeed quite the reverse, for this provides evidence to support the account of the Journey of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees.

Your opening question in this post is syntactically difficult, and I am not sure what you are meaning to say. It feels like an allusion to the opening verse of the Fourth Gospel.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.​

This, of course, is some of the finest Christology ever written. The writer of the Fourth Gospel has deliberately alluded to the opening of the Book of Genesis, however, he is not suggesting that the Book of Genesis was to become the incarnate God.

 

The problem I see here is the assumption that the account of Genesis cannot be accurate in a historical "it-really-happened-this-way" sense simply because Moses wasn't there to witness it. This discounts the power of the supernatural -- the power of our Almighty God (who was there) to convey knowledge and wisdom to someone in a totally different time period and inspire them therewith to write an accurate, non-mythical, non-allegorical account. Honestly, I get rather impatient with Christians who discount the power of God. I wonder if they really believe that Jesus rose from the dead. I mean, upon what basis do they pick and choose which examples of miraculous, wonder-working power of the omnipotent God they will believe?

That said, I fully agree that the Bible is not God! The word of God (the Bible) and the Word who is God (Jesus) are fully separate and non-comparable.

 

It is not a matter of "picking and choosing." As a standalone book, Genesis makes no claim to divine authorship or to any esoteric source of knowledge. It is, prima facie, one collection of Ancient Near Eastern stories among many. Were it not part of a canon of sacred texts already, we would not know from the book alone that its author(s) ever intended for it to be part of one. Strictly speaking, "supernatural" is not a biblical concept, nor is it conceptually coherent within the framework of theism generally, or the Doctrine of Conservation in particular. Interpreting Genesis - or at least, some parts of it - ahistorically, is not an assumption, or evidence of bias, but rather a consequence of the reception of facts discovered via other disciplines (archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, geology, biology, history, etc.). We cannot interpret all of Genesis as literal history because we have strong evidence that at least some of it is not literally historical, but rather etiological and didactic.

 

Which comments raised in me the thought that ALL the other scientific disciplines are seeking after the truth of matters. God has created the universe in ways that we can deduce will lead us to discovery of the truth of matters if we search for it. Truth of matters is NOT ONLY to be found in the scriptures. It can be found in the creation itself through all the other disciplines you mentioned. These truths may actually conflict with a literalist's interpretation of the truth contained in Genestis chapters 1 to 5, but will not conflict with the actual truths contained in the scriptures in Genesis chapters 1 to 5. It is only a possibly - fundamentally - faulty literal historical interpretation of what is written there that may be contradicted by the truths discovered by scientific investigation.

The TRUTH is out there, and God does not mind us searching for it. When we finally FIND it, we will have found GOD.
.