Genesis (Literal or Not)?

[POI]

Taken from post 359 of here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2#p1139292)

Apparently, 'scholarly' debate still exists as to whether or not Genesis, (especially chapters 1-11), are meant to be a literal account of events or not?

For debate:

1) Is Genesis meant to be a literal account of events, as written, or not? The reason I do not specify is because I have even debated theists who claim the resurrection was not a literal event. Hence, we will first need to see where each theist thinks the Genesis account is literal, versus not? Please also provide scholarly evidence to support your answer where applicable.
2) Should God be pleased with his lack in clear communication here? Many have fallen away from the Bible, because such claims do not comport with their reality. If God's intent for Genesis was not to be literal, why do so many Bible scholars think God's message was literal? Further, if God's intent is to bring people to him, why give an unclear message which instead causes many to fall away, due to not aligning with their reality?

[TRANSPONDER]

1) Is Genesis meant to be a literal account of events, as written, or not?

There is no Biblical reason to think is something else than literal, that is why I think it was meant to be taken literally.

2) Should God be pleased with his lack in clear communication here?

I think there is nothing unclear in the Bible about this. Bible doesn't say it was a metaphor, or something that is not literally true.

I agree, mostly. Simile is understood as simile - plowshares into swords for instance. Job is arguable.I think it is a metaphorical tale; others may think it was a literal event. But generally it was supposed to be taken as literally true. Many do. Most certainly, many do. For those who say it is NOT to be taken literally I say there is nothing to discuss. We might as well debate the reliability of Harry Potter. For those who take it (generally) intended to relate literal events, I am here to query whether they are.

[William]

1) Is Genesis meant to be a literal account of events, as written, or not?

There is no Biblical reason to think is something else than literal, that is why I think it was meant to be taken literally.

2) Should God be pleased with his lack in clear communication here?

I think there is nothing unclear in the Bible about this. Bible doesn't say it was a metaphor, or something that is not literally true.

I agree, mostly. Simile is understood as simile - plowshares into swords for instance. Job is arguable.I think it is a metaphorical tale; others may think it was a literal event. But generally it was supposed to be taken as literally true. Many do. Most certainly, many do. For those who say it is NOT to be taken literally I say there is nothing to discuss. We might as well debate the reliability of Harry Potter. For those who take it (generally) intended to relate literal events, I am here to query whether they are.

When the positions to adopt which are limited to (should/should not) and no room is allowed (from those positions) for more nuanced Agnostic examination the results are familiar in their circular fashion and no forward progress is evidence in the overall history of the age old debate between supernaturalists and materialists.

[POI]

1) Is Genesis meant to be a literal account of events, as written, or not?

There is no Biblical reason to think is something else than literal, that is why I think it was meant to be taken literally.

2) Should God be pleased with his lack in clear communication here?

I think there is nothing unclear in the Bible about this. Bible doesn't say it was a metaphor, or something that is not literally true.

This would explain your pushback towards some science, in favor of pseudo-science.

[POI]

When the positions to adopt which are limited to (should/should not) and no room is allowed (from those positions) for more nuanced Agnostic examination the results are familiar in their circular fashion and no forward progress is evidence in the overall history of the age old debate between supernaturalists and materialists.

Pick a claim from Genesis then. It either literally happened, or it did not.

[William]

When the positions to adopt which are limited to (should/should not) and no room is allowed (from those positions) for more nuanced Agnostic examination the results are familiar in their circular fashion and no forward progress is evidence in the overall history of the age old debate between supernaturalists and materialists.

Pick a claim from Genesis then. It either literally happened, or it did not.

You pick one and then explain why it either did or did not literally happen.

[POI]

When the positions to adopt which are limited to (should/should not) and no room is allowed (from those positions) for more nuanced Agnostic examination the results are familiar in their circular fashion and no forward progress is evidence in the overall history of the age old debate between supernaturalists and materialists.

Pick a claim from Genesis then. It either literally happened, or it did not.

You pick one and then explain why it either did or did not literally happen.

Sorry buddy. Please observe debate topic 1:

1) Is Genesis meant to be a literal account of events, as written, or not? The reason I do not specify is because I have even debated theists who claim the resurrection was not a literal event. Hence, we will first need to see where each theist thinks the Genesis account is literal, versus not? Please also provide scholarly evidence to support your answer where applicable.

You pick one and tell me if it is literal or not. I apparently have no clue.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #36]

I apparently have no clue.

I doubt anyone does, which is why I have already answered the question in earlier post in this thread - and my answer is along the lines of " it appears to be open to personal opinion."

[historia]

Why do you think the purpose of the Bible is to "draw one closer"?

Because the Bible is where the claim for truth is located.

I don't know what that's suppose to mean. What is "the claim for truth"?

Also, because: James 4:8, Psalm 145:18, Psalm 73:28, Hebrews 10:22, John 12:32, Colossians 3:16,Psalm 34:18, Psalm 91:4, Ephesians 6:12, Romans 8:28, 2 Corinthians 5:16-21, Ephesians 4:29, Isaiah 41:10, Isaiah 40:11, Matthew 6:10-11, 1 Corinthians 13:3, Joshua 1:5-6, Revelation 3:20, Matthew 15:1-39, John 6:44, Hebrews 11:6, John 5:7 ESV, Malachi 3:7 ESV, Hebrews 10:19-22, Zechariah 1:3 ESV, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, Zephaniah 3:2, Psalm 23:1-6, Hebrews 7:19, Psalm 65:4 ESV, Zephaniah 3:17, Song of Solomon 1:4, Numbers 16:5, James 4:1-17,James 1:8 ESV, Amos 1:1-15, Jeremiah 4:14 ESV, Proverbs 31:1-31, Psalm 119:113, 1 Chronicles 28:9, Revelation 1:1-20, Acts 17:10-11,Isaiah 1:16, Psalm 24:4.

None of those passages say the purpose of the Bible is to "draw one closer."

Consider, too, that Genesis was written over 1,500 years ago. Until just fairly recently, average people like you and me didn't have direct access to the text to read and decide for ourselves what it meant.

Instead, most people encountered Genesis as it was read aloud as part of the regular worship services of their Jewish or Christian community, where its meaning would have also been explained and expounded upon by the clergy.

The idea, then, that the purpose of the text is to draw individuals closer to God is untenable, I think. It may achieve that as a secondary effect through private devotional reading of the Bible in the modern world. But the primary purpose of Genesis, like all Scripture, is to serve the theological and liturgical needs of the community.

Genesis is a book that includes stories from many sources. The early stories are Hebrew mythology. The latter stories are legends, some of which may be based on actual people and events.

None of Genesis appears to be a simple, straight-forward scientific or historical account. Nor have Jews and Christians historically seen it as such. So, it would seem the answer to your question is broadly 'no'.

Okay, that is your claim. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

So, this is an historical judgement regarding the literary nature of the text. Therefore the justification to support that claim will necessarily entail citing the judgements of experts on Near Eastern history and specifically those who have carefully and critically analyzed Genesis, namely biblical scholars.

Difflugia has already cited several above (see post #11) who, to various degrees, already substantiate this claim. I'll add John Marks' commentary on Genesis in the Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (1950), the first historical-critical commentary I ever read (pg. 7):

The values to be derived from reading Genesis are not scientific or primarily historical; they are religious.

The stories of creation do not contain scientific materials of use to geology, biology, or zoology; and the primeval history as a whole (ch. 1-11) contains no historical records of primitive man. . . .

The patriarchal stories combine historical fact, tradition, poetry, and symbolism, according to what today is recognized as unscientific historical method. Their value lies not so much in the bits of historical information they provide as in the religious insights they disclose.

Based on similar comments in a wide array of other critical, Catholic, and even Evangelical commentaries on Genesis over the past 100 years, I think we can safely say that the composite nature of the text and the mytho-poetic and legendary nature of the stories in Genesis is the consensus of modern scholarship.

If God sees that so many turn away from God, due to science not comporting with their reality, why did God not do a BETTER job in telling folks what you believe above, about Genesis and beyond?

Questions like this always strike me as odd. They seem to operate under the assumption that God gave humanity the Bible and then just left everyone to puzzle out for themselves what this collection of texts might mean. That's not what either Jews or Christians have historically believed about the Bible, so it's not clear to me why atheists regularly take up this framing.

Look, Jesus didn't write a book. Instead, he left behind a community of disciples who passed on his teachings, both in writing and orally. And that community has always been here to interpret the Bible for anyone who is uncertain about what it means.

And that community has made it abundantly clear that many of the stories of Genesis, as well as the ancient cosmologies underlying those stories, are not to be taken literally. See: The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.

If God didn't just give us a text but also an authoritative Tradition and Church to interpret that text, then I'm not sure how much clearer God needs to be.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #36]

I apparently have no clue.

I doubt anyone does, which is why I have already answered the question in earlier post in this thread - and my answer is along the lines of " it appears to be open to personal opinion."

Yes, and I answered you. You claim to have direct access to the one, or ones, who could simply give you the answer. So why don't you?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #36]

I apparently have no clue.

I doubt anyone does, which is why I have already answered the question in earlier post in this thread - and my answer is along the lines of " it appears to be open to personal opinion."

Yes, and I answered you. You claim to have direct access to the one, or ones, who could simply give you the answer. So why don't you?

I do, and continue to have such interaction which provides interesting answers and other data to think about. I even posted one of those interactions here, in this thread although it is easily overlooked.