Genesis is Literal

  • Thread starter Thread starter whichwaytogo47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
whichwaytogo47 said:
The Bible is to be taken literally but that doesn’t mean that a story has to be literally taken with the understanding that we have, such as a 24 hour day.
Click to expand...
This is truely one of the most self-contradictory things I have ever read. If you say literally, then day=day. If you say day might not equal day, then you’re not being literal. It’s really that simple.
 
chessnerd321 said:
This is truely one of the most self-contradictory things I have ever read. If you say literally, then day=day. If you say day might not equal day, then you’re not being literal. It’s really that simple.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. If day is defined as a Jewish day (it can’t be in Genesis 1 because the sun doesn’t exist until day 4), then that is sunset to sunset of the following day. This would mean days having variable length.
 
Why is it so easy to accept all the implausible biblical myths about the creation of man and reject the possible truth that we were genetically modified from the primitive sub-humans by some advanced, million year evolved race of beings, perhaps as an experiment? This doesn’t deny Gods creation, it just moves it back in time and begs the question, who created the advanced civilization that is responsible for us in our present form?
 
It is literal, of course once you start thinking it isn’t it will go the same way with the Gospels. See this Catholic priest…
Monsignor Peter Fleetwood, a Catholic hospital chaplain in Liverpool, says families will ask him to pray for a miracle to bring someone back from the brink of death.

He believes in those cases a miracle would be a terrible thing because it would be prolonging a life that is already at its natural end.

He also thinks you can be a Christian and interpret the miracles of Jesus in a different light.

He uses the miracle of the feeding of the 5,000 - where Jesus fed a crowd with five loaves and two fish, as an example of how spontaneous generosity can cause a sense of wonder.

“One explanation may be that he inspired people to share what they had with them in their baskets,” he explains.

“So rather than magically producing food, it’s making food appear in another way. There are all sorts of ways it can be seen and still be wonderful.”
Click to expand...
 
Nelka said:
It is literal, of course once you start thinking it isn’t it will go the same way with the Gospels. See this Catholic priest…
Click to expand...
That’s a slippery slope fallacy. The Gospels and Genesis 1–11 are completely different types of literature. Just because we acknowledge that Genesis 1—11 uses figurative language in describing primeval events (as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states) doesn’t mean we will therefore discount everything in the Bible as merely figurative. Anyone that does that is not factoring in the type of writing they are looking at. The Bible includes many different types of writing that we must distinguish between. We don’t read Song of Songs the same as Luke or either of those the same as Revelation.
 
It’s not a fallacy, how do you think a Catholic priest ends up not believing literally that Jesus performed a miracle?
 
The slippery slope fallacy is assuming that if you accept X, it will inevitably lead to accepting Y. There is no evidence to suggest that is the case. Indeed, I accept that Genesis uses figurative language (as does the Catechism itself), but I also unhesitatingly affirm the historicity of the Gospels (as does the Catechism). If your argument were true, then everyone who thought Genesis uses figurative language would always also think that Jesus’ miracle stories are also just figurative. That is not the case.

How do you explain that the Catechism states that Genesis uses figurative language? Is the Catechism wrong here?
 
mVitus said:
These two two quotes suggest to me that this discussion mostly hinges on the definition of literal. You’re willing to accept the Big Bang so I can know you’re not a YEC, but please give me clarification is any of my assumptions are wrong.

Would this be your definition of the literal in terms of Scripture: The literal is what the author intended to get across.

So for example, if I say “It’s raining cats and dogs” and used the definition of “literal” above, the literal meaning would be that it’s raining hard
By comparison in everyday speech the literal meaning would be that cats and dogs were falling out of the sky. I will use “literalistic” for that everyday meaning of “literal.”
Click to expand...
+1 This is my understanding of literal. In your example, using figurative speech that it’s raining cats and dogs doesn’t change that it literally means that it’s raining hard.
chessnerd321 said:
This is truely one of the most self-contradictory things I have ever read. If you say literally, then day=day. If you say day might not equal day, then you’re not being literal. It’s really that simple.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s not. You’re assuming that just because human scales and God scales are not identical, that it’s not literal. That’s not a requirement. The Bible is literal because it’s the infallible work of God, not because it necessarily has the historical accuracy from a human understanding. It is required that you view the Bible as a whole as literal even if the stories within it are metaphoric or figurative.
 
Last edited:
ChristMyLife said:
Among the ancient Israelites there was no conception of the globe.

The worldwide flood to them was the Mediterranean world.
Click to expand...
That could be one explanation. But why would there be a need for an arc if it was a localized (rather than global) flood?
 
Nelka said:
It’s not a fallacy, how do you think a Catholic priest ends up not believing literally that Jesus performed a miracle?
Click to expand...
He didn’t say Jesus didn’t literally perform a miracle. He said “One explanation may be . . .”
You’re putting words in his mouth.
 
To insure the safety of Noah and his family and the lives of animals in the region.

It was a massive worldwide (ancient Mediterranean world or a large chunk of it) flood that killed thousands or hundreds of thousands.
 
I’ll also add this: the miracles recounted in the NT, and even in the Prophets of the OT are to be taken much more literally than anything recounted in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

The Prophets and NT stories of miracles are written in a more literal, historical fashion and not in the same epic, prehistorical, poetic allegorical genre of Genesis 1-11.

That’s why personally I believe in a literal talking donkey miracle as recounted in Numbers, but I don’t believe a literal snake literally talked as recounted in Genesis. Not because I have a hard time believing God could make a snake talk, but rather because of the genre Genesis is and the way that story is told, I do not believe it’s literal.
 
Last edited:
I’m sorry, I thought a miracle was the only explanation, saying there may be another means disbelief in the miracle.
 
Just so I understand what the collective here believe, Genesis is figurative. Noah’s flood wasn’t the whole earth. Jonah really wasn’t in the belly of a big fish for 3 days.

Did Moses really climb the mountain and did the finger of God really write the 10 commandments on stone tablets?

Are the miracles of Jesus “real”? Or was the blind man’s eyes only opened to truth not sight? Was the deaf/mute man hearing not restored for audible sound but to understanding and the ability to speak of “truths”?

Where is the Church of Faith? All I seem to find is a church that wants to explain away the Faith.

And what of the genealogy? Is this literal or figurative. Can this be trusted? I mean how do we know who really begat who?

How can we know the Catholic Church is the true Church that holds the Deposit of Faith? By Tradition? A story that has come down to us by popular tradition. A story like creation, the flood, the story of Jonah, the miracles of Jesus, etc.

I really do seek the true Church, but I do fear it has been blurred and lost through the sands of time.
 
PJH_74 said:
The Vatican has an observatory within its walls if that says anything…that’s certainly a long way from Galileo’s day. Anyway there are a number of relatively famous Priest Scientists out there.
Click to expand...
One of the most well-regarded observatories in the world, no less.

From Wikipedia:
“On July 2, 2014, [Observatory Director, Brother Guy J. Consolmagno, SJ ] was awarded the Carl Sagan Medal for outstanding communication by an active planetary scientist to the general public by the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Society.”
 
Some years ago I was sitting alone and thinking random thoughts and the ‘revelation’ that Genesis is an allegorical description of the human soul.
…made sense at the time…:roll_eyes:
 
Last edited:
Who holds true power and truth? Is it the Pope, a man or is it Jesus the son of God?

Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”

Jesus said " Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,"

Jesus said with his own lips that God made Adam and Eve. The Catholic church says otherwise to please mankind.

Who will you follow?
 
I have no problem believing that Genesis, particularly the first 3 chapters, are literal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top