Posted By: Rick H
Understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal or non-literal, and sin. - 05/02/10 01:08 AM
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 (chapters 1-3) with some reaching into the topics discussed in chapters 4-11. It was very interesting, and it began with the following:
"..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. Any discussion on whether or not a non-literal approach affects doctrine is essentially dead in the water IF justification of a non-literal approach cannot textually demonstrated.
It is further argued that a non-literal approach, at least the non-literal approach suggested by PA, 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 had more light than Noah, Moses had more light than Abraham, David had more light Moses, Isaiah 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. ..'We will' examine how succeeding generations of those who were used by God has His human authors of Scripture, saw 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?
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. More to the point, He designed it so that all of the doctrines of Scripture are interlocked with each other. The same passage that is talking about the Holy Spirit may also shed light on other doctrines and so one cannot do violence to a single subject in a single passage without the effects of that act radiating into other areas of Scripture. That is one reason why our interpretive approach must always be consistent.
The Bible is always good at letting us know when figurative language is being used. It tells 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.... "Literal" 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.
...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. The Bible says that God magnifies His Word above His own Name (Ps. 138:2) and so He places a high premium on His Word and to devalue its authority is, by extension, to devalue the authority of God, Himself. This is no trivial, "take-it or-leave-it matter." God takes His Word very seriously, and so should we....
'Some state'.. that Genesis 1 is not an historical approach to how God created the world. This is false. It is historical and that is the only way to describe it in literary terms. A more accurate way of putting it would be that it is not a “scientific” approach..."
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 charm a woman.
"..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. Any discussion on whether or not a non-literal approach affects doctrine is essentially dead in the water IF justification of a non-literal approach cannot textually demonstrated.
It is further argued that a non-literal approach, at least the non-literal approach suggested by PA, 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 had more light than Noah, Moses had more light than Abraham, David had more light Moses, Isaiah 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. ..'We will' examine how succeeding generations of those who were used by God has His human authors of Scripture, saw 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?
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. More to the point, He designed it so that all of the doctrines of Scripture are interlocked with each other. The same passage that is talking about the Holy Spirit may also shed light on other doctrines and so one cannot do violence to a single subject in a single passage without the effects of that act radiating into other areas of Scripture. That is one reason why our interpretive approach must always be consistent.
The Bible is always good at letting us know when figurative language is being used. It tells 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.... "Literal" 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.
...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. The Bible says that God magnifies His Word above His own Name (Ps. 138:2) and so He places a high premium on His Word and to devalue its authority is, by extension, to devalue the authority of God, Himself. This is no trivial, "take-it or-leave-it matter." God takes His Word very seriously, and so should we....
'Some state'.. that Genesis 1 is not an historical approach to how God created the world. This is false. It is historical and that is the only way to describe it in literary terms. A more accurate way of putting it would be that it is not a “scientific” approach..."
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 charm a woman.