Is the Genesis account metaphorical?

[Corvus]

Is the Genesis account metaphorical?

We having a talking snake, a paradise lost through disobedience to divine law, a story about wrongful killing, an order to build an ark as a display of faith, a flood to punish transgressors...

It seems to me a way to educate through story, and not a historical account at all.

[CanadianBuddhist]

The genesis from the bible is a shortened form of the much older sumerian accounts. In the sumerian accounts it was extraterrestrials that created us from the older, more primative race that was here by cross breeding us with the "gods" as they are called.

[Alan]

I'm delighted to finally (hopefully) express some views in a Christian (and as a very knowledgeable if unrecognized scientist) within the context of reason. The Stokes trial (and the entire science vs religion) debate has allowed the devil to make monkeys of us all.

Of course, the Biblical account is an allegorical method of conveying much more important spiritual, not physically accurate, truths. To become enmeshed in the argument about there being a "literal" snake, tree, etc - these are all self defeating. There is indeed a literal Christ, but He also used parable (metaphor) to illustrate higher truths, perhaps the only way to convey such matters effectively. Given the subjective biases of each reader, too, it is perhaps impossible to make such distinctions - even the apostles had slightly different versions of events.

I am very earnestly hoping that my comments on this forum will be appreciated - I have what are often considered eccentric and even delusional experiences and views. To the contrary, I am very well educated, of sound mind, and God allowing, may find myself of good service. It is amazing to me, though, that the representatives of the faith would be so foolish as to emphasize the "literal" truth of so many things that are plainly literary devices required for effective illustration. No one knows if the "snake" was of an earthly species, but we all have referred to certain people we know as snakes, for good reason. Oh, where did the light come from when God said let it be? Quite possibly it did come about at the point of the Big Bang when God slung the universe into existence, and most likely it has taken billions of years for God to form man out of the "mud," whether by means of evolution or not (to God a thousand years is but a day, rough Bible quote). Where, indeed, did anything come from? Philosphers have argued for centuries as to what really exists and what does not.

Most of these speculations on origins, though of interest and merit, will never be entirely resolved. As an offhand comment, for example, I'm one of few who can say with absolute certainty owed to direct experience that those little Grey aliens exist. We were not, however, part of any alien breeding program. Such phenomenon raise weighty questions about what kind of universe we really live in and what lies beyond it, but the devil's purpose lies mostly in keeping us confused instead of focused on the more pressing issues of our world and our "evolutionary" growth towards the Kingdom of God - NOT a physical place yet far more real than the universe we often perceive as all there is. Hope I've said something that counts, my first attempt on Oliver's forum, a really great idea, thanks.

[adherent]

I think all that matters is that Adam and Eve existed and were the first human beings on this earth. What doesn't matter is if there was a real snake or tree of good and evil and a tree of life.
Are you kidding about the little grey alien thing?
Also, there might literarily have been a snake and a tree of life and tree of good and evil.

[Shild]

Not exactly my area of expertise, but I have a few observations.

But the fact remains that we lost an artifact as long as a village and as tall as... I don't know, something tall. The city of Troy, the battle of which was the source of myths, legends and the Illiad, is an actual city we've searched for assidiously and discovered. Considering the amount of people who would be interested in finding the ark, how could it allude all of them?

In the Biblical account, the ark came to rest "on the mountains [plural] of Ararat." So, it is on some mountain somewhere in modern-day Turkey. The less than specific location description plus the harsh climate and terrain of these mountains makes exploring in this region far more dangerous than the area where Troy has long been known to have existed.

Consider also that cities with stone buildings are more durable than wooden boats, and that the Biblical account does not say the ark remaind intact. Noah and his descendants could possibly have dismantled it for some reason.

The passage states that forming the animals was a direct result of Adam being "alone", so he formed them as "help meets".

I do not have a KJV Bible, but here is this Genesis 2:18-22 in my Nelson Study Bible (New KJV):

And the Lord God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; i will make him a helper comparable to him." Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man he made into a woman, and he brought her to the man.

In your KJV passage, "help meet" is not a noun. "help" is a noun and "meet" is an adjective describing the "help." The "help" is "meet for him" or "right for him," or in my version, "comparable to him."

Now, in both of our versions, God intends to make a helper, singular. The "helper" who is "meet for him" or "comparable to him" or "right for him" is the individual woman, Eve. This passage does not indicate that animals were made as "help meets," but that the woman Eve was made as the perfect partner to man Adam.

More importantly, the verb translated as "formed" is not really an exact past tense. It is a pluperfect, as in, "Out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field..." So the passage indicates that animals already existed at this time.

This passage is not an account of the creation of animals. It is an account of the creation of Eve.

Except Eden, which is treated as a real physical location in the book. 3:24
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Here's how the Bible describes the location of Eden (Gen 2:10-14):

Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads. The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there. The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush. The name of the third river is Hiddekel; it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

Also Gen 4:16:

Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.

I once saw an interesting Discovery Channel show entitled "In Search of Eden." I can not, of course, remember everything from the show, but it describes how modern day historians and archeologists have used clues in the Bible, mainly the lands and landmarks described in these two passages, to pinpoint what very well may be the Garden of Eden itself.

There is no flaming sword at the entrance, but there is a still active volcano.

Addendum

The genesis from the bible is a shortened form of the much older sumerian accounts.

This claim has come under serious fire from historians, linguists, and social scientists. The structure of the Babylonian and Hebrew accounts are such that the current most widely accepted view is that both accounts are based on a common source.

As an aside, there is a considerable segment of the scholarly community which argues the opposite: that the Sumerian account is an excessively embellished and altered version of the Genesis account.

[pl55]

I think all that matters is that Adam and Eve existed and were the first human beings on this earth. What doesn't matter is if there was a real snake or tree of good and evil and a tree of life.
Also, there might literarily have been a snake and a tree of life and tree of good and evil.

Matters, yes. But that is not all that matters. Several biblical doctrines of theology, either directly or indirectly can be found in the first eleven chapters of Genesis.

• Man having dominion, Gen. 1:26

• marriage between man and woman, Gen. 2: 23-25

• sin, Gen. 3:1-6

• death, Gen. 3:14-19

• clothing, Gen. 3:21

• Jesus on the cross (the ark through out the flood, Heb. 11:7)

I should say this is enough to make the point.
Keeping with the thread " Is the Genesis account metaphorical?", let us take a look at Joe Christian. Joe is a man who believes in God, and His word, Jesus, and the cross, etc., except when it comes to one aspect of Gods' word, Joe just can't seem to accept the fact that an all powerful God could create every thing in six literal days, call it good, and then rest.
So Joe has decided that evolution is what God really meant when He said "one day". This is called-compromise. Joe is now, Joe the Compromising Christian.
Joe now says to himself, "if I now believe in an evolutionary account of the creation of the universe(millions of years), what do I do with Adam?" He must have evolved as well. Therefore, Adam is not a literal figure but a metaphor! " There was no first fully formed man " Joe tells himself "This line of reasoning works for me."
Joe may not know it at that moment, but he just hit a huge stumbling block. Joe no longer has a literal reference point for the entrance of sin into the world. Joe begins to wonder why Jesus had to die on the cross for his sins, or anyones sins for that matter. If the garden, the apple, the tree, etc. are all just a big fairy tail, then why?
And lastly, Joe the Compromising Christian, now has the opportunity to take it one more step. Since he decided to sit in judgement of Gods' word in one area, why not elsewhere? "Perhaps"Joe tells himself, "perhaps Jesus didn't really die on...a...cross..."
Joe, who was Joe the Christian, believing in God, Jesus, the cross, the resurrection, the truth of Gods' word, has left the truth behind, he has become-Joe the Apostate.


Obviously, Joe is a hypothetical situation, but it should give you a pretty clear picture of the state of many church going believers today. But not just them, how about elders, deacons, and yes even preachers and pastors.
Let me slide this in as well, we all know what a hot topic gay marriage is these days, not just in politics, but in the church as well. In Genesis it says God instituted marriage, but if you don't take the Genesis account literally-who cares? You get to marry whoever or whatever you want!
If you ever get a chance call up one of these churches, see where they stand on the Genesis account. I can all but guarantee you they think it is nothing but a myth.
Well, there you go. This here was just a bit of the theological aspect. But, if you are looking for something scientific. Go visit www.answersingenesis.org. Their motto is "upholding the bible from the very first verse" .
I encourage all to go visit: creationist and evolutionist alike.

BTW-Iam new, this is my fist post, so-Howdy!

[ENIGMA]

Answers in Genesis? Scientific... hah, hardly. They have no interest in determining the truth of the matter because, like many fundamentalist christians, are conceited into thinking that they already have it to be bothered with analyzing evidence. Given their Statement of Faith, they explicitly proclaim themselves to be unable to objectively look at the evidence and, if need be, conclude that their previous positions were in error.

The sad part is that they think this something to be proud of.

[pl55]

Did you at least look around and read something to see if there is any truth to the Genesis account?

Or are you un able to objectively look at the evidence and, if need to, conclude that your previous position was wrong?

[ENIGMA]

Did you at least look around and read something to see if there is any truth to the Genesis account?

Or are you un able to objectively look at the evidence and, if need to, conclude that your previous position was wrong?

Yes, I looked around on Answers in Genesis and found that I actually agreed with a few things:

Like for instance, at the bottom of this article:

It would make no sense to trust the Bible in matters concerning our eternal destiny, if we could not trust it when it gives us historical data relevant to biology, geology, and in fact any real-world issue.

I couldn't agree with that statement more. The rest of the article was of the level I have come to expect from such a site. If the evidence lended support to creationism in the same strength and manner as it does evolution then I would be more than happy to consider it as a viable possibility, since I have no "Statement of Faith" that I am honor-bound to protect from the evidence.

But it doesn't. I have weighed it, measured it, and have found it wanting.

But perhaps I am wrong, I am almost perpetually willing to hear something new on the matter, however I significantly doubt I will hear anything substantively new since the vast majority of the creationist arguments that I am aware of have been composed of similar fallacious reasoning.

So pleasantly surprise me, if you can.

[Angry McFurious]

Though there are also symbolisms behind the stories, I believe them literally.

A lot of Christians believe they are just symbolisms and don't interpret it literally. But, I find I have no problem (in most cases) reconciling a literal interpretation of Genesis with science.

And that's what this subforum is all about, to hopefully show that there are some logical reasons to believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I mean but earth wasn;t made in 6 days. I mean one of those days could have really been 1,000 years. Moses had to break it down when he was writing it in my opinion. I dunno, my belief.