Question:
Do you believe the creation story is literal?
K
2013-06-14 11:09:10 UTC
Or is it just a metaphor? If you believe it is literal, maybe you could explain this: Stars create light and oxygen which is needed to make water. So how was there water before light in the Genesis rendition of the creation story?
Nineteen answers:
Artemis
2013-06-14 11:10:09 UTC
“The ancient allegories in Genesis 1 - 11 were never meant to be read as exact histories, and certainly never as science texts. This has been well documented by respected theologians such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The overwhelming majority of Christians (and Jews) know that the earliest books of Genesis were handed down from generation to generation by oral tradition, before the Hebrew people developed a system of Phoenician writing, around 1000 BCE.



The American fundamentalist movement, is a fairly recent development, and goes against all true Biblical scholarship. Those who profess to take the Old Testament "literally" without even bothering to research the Exegesis and Hermeneutics only publicly display their ignorance, and manage to make all Christians appear delusional in the process.” Mariel
2013-06-14 11:30:14 UTC
Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion. This is not as difficult as it may seem, as the Bible obviously contains:



Poetry—as in the Psalms, where the repetition or parallelism of ideas is in accordance with Hebrew ideas of poetry, without the rhyme (parallelism of sound) and metre (parallelism of time) that are important parts of traditional English poetry. This, by the way, is the reason why the Psalms can be translated into other languages and still retain most of their literary appeal and poetic piquancy, while the elements of rhyme and metre are usually lost when traditional Western poetry is translated into other languages.

Parables—as in many of the sayings of Jesus, such as the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3–23), which Jesus Himself clearly states to be a parable and about which He gives meanings for the various items, such as the seed and the soil.

Prophecy—as in the books of the last section of the Old Testament (Isaiah to Malachi).

Letters—as in the New Testament epistles written by Paul, Peter, John, and others.

Biography—as in the Gospels.

Autobiography/testimony—as in the book of Acts where the author, Luke, after narrating the Apostle Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus as a historical fact (Acts 9:1–19), then describes two further occasions when Paul included this conversion experience as part of his own personal testimony (Acts 22:1–21; 26:1–22).

Authentic historical facts—as in the books of 1 and 2 Kings, etc.

So the author’s intention with respect to any book of the Bible is usually quite clear from the style and the content. Who then was the author of Genesis, and what intention is revealed by his style and the content of what he wrote?



Returning to the question at hand all we need to ask ourselves is this:



Who did Cain, Able, and Seth marry? Their sisters? If others were created alongside Adam and Eve, wouldn't the others still be perfect and in the Garden?

To me, it seems like the story is more of a metaphor, and less of a historical recounting of events. Though I think the Bible is full of metaphorical stories, and not always to be read literally.
Liane
2016-05-20 05:55:36 UTC
What if god created THE UNIVERSE ONLY?! Then evolution happened and BAM! It's like the universe is clockwork man, and god is the clockmaker! He only steps in from time to time to check the time and wind up the universe! So yeah, I don't believe in traditional evolution theory either. And no I don't really believe the above, but it is something that it fun to think about! I do believe, however, that god is forgiving and really does not care all that much about the literal translations of the bible. If god was in a church on Sunday, I bet he would say, "I hate it when he tells this story" whenever it came to the fire and brimstone parts.
Dave D
2013-06-14 11:20:44 UTC
While I do not take the story literally in actuality you are pointing to one passage which can be seen to AGREE with the "Big Bang".



As both Genesis and the Big Bang theory state the universe had a "beginning". According to the theory our solar system was a nebulous cloud of gas, dust and moisture which slowly coalesced over a period of thousands of years. The Bible states that in the beginning the Earth was "a formless void" which can be seen to agree.



You point out that in the Bible light came before water.... not necessarily so, I had been puzzled how you could have light appear on "day" 1 (obviously not to be taken literally) but the sun, moon, and stars not until "day" 4. Yet that would exactly what would have happened according to the Big Bang. Had you been on the planet at that time looking up you would first see nothing because of darkness. As more dust/moisture settled you would begin to see light/darkness. It would not be until much later that you would be able to see the sun/moon.



Although he was agnostic here is what NASA scientist Robert Jastrow had to say:

"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."



"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."



"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy."
2013-06-14 11:17:16 UTC
Many people claim that science disproves the Bible’s account of creation. But the real contradiction is between science and, not the Bible, but the opinions of so-called Christian Fundamentalists. Some of these groups falsely assert that according to the Bible, all physical creation was produced in six 24-hour days some 10,000 years ago.

The Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion. If it did, then many scientific discoveries over the past hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible. A careful study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with established scientific facts. For that reason, Jehovah’s Witnesses disagree with “Christian” Fundamentalists and many creationists. The following shows what the Bible really teaches.

The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Bible scholars agree that this verse describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible’s opening statement, the universe, including our planet Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.

Geologists estimate that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings—or their potential future refinements—contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of “the heavens and the earth.” Science does not disprove the Biblical text.

What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses—the writer of Genesis—later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?

No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

How long, then, were the creative days? The wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.

Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts, combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or “days,” help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so?

A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.*

On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.

The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth “day,” God was still in the process of “forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.”—Genesis 2:19.

Clearly, the Bible’s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.”
Uncle Thesis
2013-06-14 11:15:50 UTC
Genesis chapters 1 through 3 are a thumbnail sketch of what happened.

It is literal although many details are not included.

Stars create oxygen?

Stars don't 'create' anything.
Kissthepilot
2013-06-14 11:13:11 UTC
God can make anything out of nothing, he doesn't need natural processes. You have been indoctrinated into thinking every time science explains something, it explains god away. Nothing could be further from the truth.



If you really want to know what the rational arguments are for creation, look up creation.com. If you just want to remain ignorant and mock us, go to any atheist run website.
Max Marie, OFS
2013-06-14 11:14:08 UTC
Do I believe the world was created in 6 days? Yes and no. God's days are not 24 hour periods. Like ours are. The bible tells us, a day for God is an eon for us.
anon
2013-06-14 11:10:32 UTC
can't find any metaphor in it

how?

creation was supernatural, not natural, that's why science has come up with so many theories to explain it naturally, and to no avail

God created the earth covered in water and brought forth light the same day
UP and COMING
2013-06-14 11:14:13 UTC
It's literal to a degree (with heavy misinterpretation by the writers), but the God/gods were humanoids from other planets. The people they bred here were too simple-minded at the time to understand them as anything other than gods.
?
2013-06-14 11:13:38 UTC
It's in the Bible which is said to be the word of God and until not that long ago The church said it is all absolutely true and took it so serious that any amount of Popes and Christian leaders ordered people killed for simply questioning anything in the Bible.
Willow Raven
2013-06-14 11:12:59 UTC
Which creation story... ?



Yes. I believe it's meant to be interpreted as a metaphor; most if not all of them.



I think it's silly for people to believe in them as literal events that actually took place...
pdiddy
2013-06-14 11:13:17 UTC
I believe its literal. God created everything. I don't think he would need science to do so. Creating means making out of nothing.
Dei bellator
2013-06-14 13:47:37 UTC
literal? how in the world could it be a metaphor? that would require an awful lot of twisting!
Mutations Killed Darwin Fish
2013-06-14 11:10:50 UTC
Yes, I do. I don't know how one could take "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" metaphorically.
Jim
2013-06-14 11:14:07 UTC
99% of the Bible is literal, and the creation story, is as good as it gets. God bless.
Agnostic Polytheist
2013-06-14 11:11:33 UTC
"Now she eases gently from her Austin to her Bentley" is more literal than the Genesis account.



<---- +2
2013-06-14 11:09:40 UTC
God said it, it happened



literal
Amarante
2013-06-14 11:10:11 UTC
I don't even believe it at all :D


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...