Understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal or non-literal

[Matthitjah]

Welcome to the Soapbox.

This thread will be a debate between Shiloh357 and ParanoidAndroid.

I will let them flesh out the topic in depth. They will explore through debate a literal or non literal understanding of the Biblical Creation acccount in Genesis and it's affect on our understanding of the nature of sin and our Salvation.

Here are the rules;

Guidelines for the discussion!

1) This will be a "polite" discussion. This means that neither party will engage in namecalling, ad-hominem attacks, or resort to any manner of character assassination at any point in time.

2) Time to reply will not be a consideration. However, please be considerate enough to at least try to reply in a timely manner, or otherwise concede the discussion.

3) This is not a "win/lose" discussion. The nature of a debate is to argue your points clearly and to the best of your ability. Nobody is right or wrong. Even though you may use the words "right" and "wrong" in the process of disputing a point, the purpose of debate is to get your point across, and support that point with evidence. It is up to the reader to decide who's argument is more weighty.

4) Books and online articles may be used as source material. However, those articles may be referenced in accordance with the Terms of Service. Links to inappropriate material will be removed. Material that is plagiarized will not be considered at all. At all times participants will cite their source material completely.

5) Wherever possible, please try to avoid leading the course of discussion "off track," or "off topic." In order to have a clear and concise debate it is necessary to stick to the topic until such time as the issues involved have been completely discussed and all points have been exhausted. When such a point in the discussion has been reached then other issues can be brought into the discussion and debated.

God Bless and may God increase all of our Understanding as we Pray for Gods Truth to be revealed.

Peace,

Dave

[ParanoidAndroid]

Thank you Matthitjah for setting up this debate, and also to Shiloh for accepting this discussion. I am looking forward to this debate and hope to set aside some of the preconceptions and beliefs on this matter.

My primary stance in this debate is focusing on the merits of Genesis 1-11 as a depiction of history as it actually happened. The focus will be largely on Creation (chapters 1-3) though the debate may cause a slight aside into the topics discussed in chapters 4-11. I am arguing that a non-literal depiction of these events does not affect our understandings on the Doctrines of God.

It has been argued that this view casts doubt on other doctrinal issues - the origins of Death, the nature of "Original Sin", and indirectly then, the question of Biblical Infallibility. These are all genuine and legitimate concerns to address. If the Bible is not infallible, then our salvation in Christ cannot be assured. If sin has always existed in humanity then how can we speak of a "Fallen nature"? These are the questions I will be primarily addressing in this debate. It is not a complete list, and as I discuss with Shiloh further this will undoubtedly expand to other areas. It is, however, a good starting point.

In order to achieve this, I will be strongly referencing the Bible to convey how the understanding of the very first chapters of the Bible do not affect the doctrines espoused as the Bible progresses. I shall be doing this in far more detail than I have to date on these forums. As this debate thread is a place to lay all cards on the table without fear of derailing threads, I will be taking my views one line at a time and dissecting them in the context of other biblical concepts, including justifications for all my views (I will never say, "this is my belief and if the Bible says otherwise it is wrong/mistaken").

While this is the primary argument of this debate, it is not the only factor. The secondary issue to be addressed in this debate is the question of whether holding a non-literal understanding of creation affects our salvation. Does it change our understanding of who God is, or how we should relate to Him as our Creator? It is my stance that even if I am wrong, or if Shiloh is wrong, or if we are both wrong, then our understanding of God does not change. He is still the same God regardless of whether one of us is right, and our salvation through Jesus' sacrifice is still assured regardless. So while I do believe that the stance I have arrived at is theologically consistent, I am not worried if I am wrong. The issue does not affect my relationship with God so therefore it is not essential to be right.

Before I pass it over to Shiloh to start his Introduction, I would like to first point out some of the things I am NOT debating in this topic:

* I am not debating the merits of evolution. Though I am questioning a literal account of Creation as depicted in Genesis, I am not addressing the question, "So if this is not the way then what is the alternative"? While I have an opinion on the topic, the focus of this debate is primarily on the theological implications of this. This topic will likely come up later in the debate, and until it does I have no idea how far I will be responding to it. Suffice it to say I shall only be addressing it insofar as it impacts the theological doctrines (eg, random/orderly creation). I am not a staunch evolutionist so my views do not heavily reflect one view or the other on the matter (though as I said, I have my opinions).

* I am not debating that the creation story is "fantasy". As we move ahead in this discussion, it can be easy for Shiloh or the other readers to wonder if I don't take this seriously how can I then take the rest of the Bible seriously. This is a fair enough question and to avoid any confusion later on down the track I will note now that I see this section as very serious indeed. It is not my argument that Creation is a made up story, nor is it that the events and characters depicted in this early section never existed. As the debate progresses, this will become more apparent as I discuss the justifications for my belief of a non-literal creation and how this relates to the accounts provided in Genesis.

I would now like to pass the microphone over to Shiloh, and wish him good luck in this debate. I hope this can be a bridge to a better understanding between the two of us, and a place for other readers to see well-reasoned responses from both sides in this debate.

~ Paranoid Android

[Guest shiloh357]

As Paranoid Android (PA) has stated, this debate will focus on the merits of Genesis 1-11 with particular focus on chapters 1-3 as actual history.

PA has stated that his position is that a non-literal depiction of the events of these first 3 chapters (not to mention the remaining chapters) does not affect our understanding of the Doctrines of God.

My position is as follows:

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.

What we will do is 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.

For the purpose of this debate, I think it necessary to define what I mean when I use the term "literal." Often, "literal" gets confused with "face value." "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.

It will be my contention that 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.

As can be seen, I take a much more grave view of this debate, as I see a great deal riding upon the claims being made. It will be up to those of you who read this debate to decide which of us makes the stronger position.

I now hand it back to PA to make his case for a non-literal approach to Genesis 1-11.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Just a quick note for people's benefit. I am on holiday this week and will be back on April 7. Apologies for the delay with my post. I had tried to post my response before I left, but the server was temporarily down when I came online last night. So unfortunately until next week, I'm stuck without my information and only limited internet time.

Apologies to those who are reading this debate, and particularly apologies to Shiloh for any discomfort this might cause. I will send my reply as soon as I have quality time back on the internet.

Thank you,

~ PA

[Guest shiloh357]

Have a good holiday and come back safe and sound and fully refreshed.

[ParanoidAndroid]

My apologies for the delay in this post. Holidays and Easter have combined to strip me of time on the internet. It was a great week, and I

[Guest shiloh357]

It appears Shiloh and I are walking into the debate with different understandings of the term,

[ParanoidAndroid]

Thank you for your rebuttal, Shiloh. I am reminded of Proverbs 18:17, in seeing that, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him". Of course, the first to state his rebuttal also seems right until the refutations follow. My post here will be split between arguing your refutations, and providing information on the next aspect of my beliefs - examining how other people have viewed creation, starting with other Bible figures and moving to Church beliefs through history.

Not to belabor the point too much, but some clarification evidently needs to be made. To read the Bible

[Guest shiloh357]

By this reasoning, the figurative and poetic Song of Solomon, is also a "literal" reading of the text.

Wrong. The reasoning I provide requires that we examine the figurative imagery of the Song of Solomon in the light of the applicable historical-cultural context in order to determine the literal truths behind the text. Furthermore, you cannot compare the imagery-rich text of the Song of Solomon with text of Genesis 1-11. There is simply no similarity between the texts. Again,

[Guest shiloh357]

Paul points out that