This statement was made in one of the comments the other day here. There were a few other statements made about literal interpretations of Genesis. As far as creation is concerned, there are at least four different views about its historicity and probably more. Some view the creation account in Genesis as informing us about God’s literal six-twenty four hour day’s creation, a real Garden of Eden and a man and a woman named Adam and Eve. Another group of people see it as literal in the sense of the garden and Adam and Eve but that the days are not literal twenty four hour days and instead might be representing ages or eras. Another group does not believe much of any of this is literal at all and just points to God as creator and how He intended the relationship with His creation to be and that somewhere we failed. And finally, some view Genesis as well as a lot of the bible as myth and really has no bearing on anything much.In The Beginning
We were on our way to church last evening and the last few minutes of daylight were passing away. At one point I became entranced by the size of the full moon that was fully visible despite the daylight. This vision got me to thinking about the reality of things and the ways we interpret the bible. Figure that one out. The paths our thoughts sometimes make are amazing.
What I thought about was how most of us interpret the first ten chapters of Genesis. I, like most of you, look at these passages as literal as I can, especially the creation account and the fall. I tend to think of Adam and Eve as real people and of the Fall as a real event. But there are some that do not.
There are theologians that look at these first verses of scripture as allegory, or an attempt to metaphorically represent certain spiritual truths. This view is nothing new as most things theological are not new. There has been a division over this view of interpretation from the beginnings of Judaism. This approach can be consistent with an inerrant view of the bible but not from a fundamentalist style of literalism.
Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars.
If we take the moon itself as the lesser light, and we certainly do not have too, then we can see this as metaphorical and we know it cannot be literal. And there are other arguments that can be raised also.
I am not really concerned with the debate between theologians over this issue. What I am concerned with is the questions that are asked by non-believers over some of these same issues and our inability to give in on some things to reach out to them. There are so many people out there that won’t give Jesus a chance over some of our unbending views of creation, the flood, etc. and etc. Shouldn’t the love of Christ and Him giving Himself for us be the focus and isn’t that enough.
I am not against those ministries that put all their resources into some of these views about the bible but when they think that an argument concerning a young or old earth is going to bring lost souls into the kingdom, I have to wonder about that and them. These types of arguments should, in my opinion, be reserved for those that are mature in Christ, and not the lost.
As far as whether the first chapters of Genesis are literal or allegorical, I will not commit. It seems to me that both have their merit. But I do know that Jesus, who I know is God, primarily used parables to teach His truths.
Love you all
Tags: adam and eve, allegory, Beginning, Bible, Church, Creation, creation account, Ending, full moon, Interpretation, Kingdom, literalism, Love, Sin, Theological
