How many of you take the Genesis story literally?

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone! How many of you take the Genesis story of creation literally? Please vote in my poll!

 

[Holly3278]

Well, I am a Catholic (and happy to be one) and I do not take the Genesis story of creation literally. I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve though.

 

[rpp]

Well, I am a Catholic (and happy to be one) and I do not take the Genesis story of creation literally. I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve though.

I echo this; Adam and Eve were real people.

The Bible is not a treatise on natural History, but inspired writings intended to lead us to union with God. As such, it relies on actual events, wise sayings, prophesy and parables to get the all important spiritual message across.

 

[Light_Seeker]

What part of the ‘Genesis Story’ ?

• God created everything
• God created everything in 7 24 hour increments
• A Garden of Eden
• Adam & Eve
• Eve from Adam’s rib
• Snake
• Tree of Knowledge
• Devil tempting Eve
• Expulsion from Eden
• etc etc etc
• The whole sheebang
  For example, I believe God created everything, but not in 24 hour increments. I believe in Adam/Eve, but not Eve from Adam’s rib.

 

[COPLAND_3]

I voted that I am a Catholic and take it literally, but the better answer for me is that I apply the different senses of Scripture to it, meaning that I start with the literal sense and then look for the hidden truths that are in it. As St. Gregory says, “Scripture transcends every science, in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact it reveals a mystery.”

 

[SFH]

What part of the ‘Genesis Story’ ?

• God created everything
• God created everything in 7 24 hour increments
• A Garden of Eden
• Adam & Eve
• Eve from Adam’s rib
• Snake
• Tree of Knowledge
• Devil tempting Eve
• Expulsion from Eden
• etc etc etc
• The whole sheebang
  For example, I believe God created everything, but not in 24 hour increments. I believe in Adam/Eve, but not Eve from Adam’s rib.

Technically, the Bible doesn’t say God created everything in 24 hour increments. Since the sun was not created until the Fourth Day, the “day” used as a measurement in Genesis clearly refers to some other time period (e.g., the days of the dinosours, the days of the horseless carriage, etc.).

 

[Luke65]

I am here, back in the arms of loving Mother Church, because I discovered that God meant what He said! You best obey My Church, son! :tsktsk: The Genesis stories are more literally true than even the most literal interpretations from the Church Fathers. One example: St. Augustine tried to defend the following verse against heathen attacks:

“And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.” (Genesis 1:9)

But today we know that God did in fact gather the waters in “one place” - the Earth was originally one super-continent and one super-ocean. :yup: How could Moses have known that? Perhaps Adam did.

One more example for Light Seeker: Do you know what the only bone(s) in the human body are that can regrow if they are removed? You guessed it, rib bones! No, men do not have one less rib bone! Adam’s regrew! (not that that would affect his offspring)

And think about this: doctors (and scientists) can retrieve stem cells from bone marrow, and now they can “reprogram” them into virtually any other kind of cell. So all they have to do is remove the patient’s rib bone, use their own stem cells, cure their disease, and their rib bone will grow back! How mighty is our God! :bowdown: (Spread the word!)

 

[Swan]

Genesis has a lot of similarities with the Epic of Gilgamesh, even down to the serpent - who is Tiamat in Gilgamesh and not evil - the serpent only becomes evil in the Hebrew version of the story when “God” comes into the act. You can probably guess that I don’t put any more stock in the Bible than I do any other holy book of any other revealed religion.

 

[Luke65]

Genesis has a lot of similarities with the Epic of Gilgamesh, even down to the serpent - who is Tiamat in Gilgamesh and not evil - the serpent only becomes evil in the Hebrew version of the story when “God” comes into the act. You can probably guess that I don’t put any more stock in the Bible than I do any other holy book of any other revealed religion.

Hello my fellow Angeleno! (?) But you see, the story in Genesis actually happened, but the Babylonians and the rest of the world have distorted versions of it. We have the Word of God - the only eyewitness to all of it. As some of the Church Fathers, including Augustine, liked to say: If God’s prophets could tell us accurately about the future, why couldn’t they tell us about the past accurately? They could, and they did. God tells us in the Bible the answers to the big 3 questions: Why are we here? How did we get here? And where are we going? God bless you, Swan

 

[Light_Seeker]

You best obey My Church, son! :tsktsk:

I may not obey your church, I have no idea what church that may be. But I do obey the Roman Catholic Church. And Catholicism does not have a solely literal interpretation of scripture. Ref CCC 109 thru 113. And also, I am not your son, thank you.

Luke65:

The Genesis stories are more literally true than even the most literal interpretations from the Church Fathers. One example: St. Augustine tried to defend the following verse against heathen attacks:

You may want to read more on the exegetical difficulties the great St. Augustine had with literal interpretations of Genesis, his ascribed plurality of meanings, literal vs. allegorical meanings, and his three stage hermetical process outlined in De Genesi ad Litteram. And his theology on instantaneous creation instead of the literal 6 days. Quite complex, and by no means a singular literal interpretation.

Luke65:

One more example for Light Seeker: Do you know what the only bone(s) in the human body are that can regrow if they are removed? You guessed it, rib bones! No, men do not have one less rib bone! Adam’s regrew! (not that that would affect his offspring)

While it is true that human ribs do have some regenerative properties, and scrapings may be used in bone graphs for a few centimeters, a human rib cannot regrow. Contrary to urban legends posted on the web (which I might add, are religious based websites). Wish it were true, as diseases such as osteoporosis would become obsolete.

 

[Luke65]

I may not obey your church, I have no idea what church that may be. But I do obey the Roman Catholic Church. And Catholicism does not have a solely literal interpretation of scripture. Ref CCC 109 thru 113. And also, I am not your son, thank you.

Whoa! I wasn’t talking to you! Are you being serious? Here’s what I said:

I am here, back in the arms of loving Mother Church, because I discovered that God meant what He said! You best obey My Church, son! :tsktsk:

That was God (Jesus Christ) telling me to obey His Church! And giving me the :tsktsk: for being a prodigal son. I didn’t even mention you until that last point about the rib, because you said you didn’t believe that part of the story. And btw, you’re wrong about ribs regrowing, I’ve heard of many doctors who say this is a fact, one of them is Dr. Carl Wieland, who personally had ribs removed that regrew. And here’s a rare scientific study:

European Spine Journal - Morphological study of rib regeneration…

“Abstract …The aim of the study is to compare rib regeneration… The resulting data, when analyzed showed that majority of ribs re-grew to normal morphology in 3–6 months in the trial group. In comparison the regeneration in the retrospective controls was slower and poorer in quality. Ribs treated by placement of gel foam scaffold in the bed regenerate to a near normal radiological profile within 6 months of costectomy compared to a slower regeneration in those without gel foam scaffold.”

Now, if you want to know why this isn’t widely known, and why people are suffering because of that, here’s why:

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness…” (Romans 1:18)

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Genesis story contains both literal historical elements and figurative elements.

Literal: God created heaven and earth (the universe)
Figurative: the days of creation are a figure for much longer periods of time

Literal: Adam and Eve existed as two individual human persons at the beginning of the human race
Figurative: talking snake as a figure of the devil; eating forbidden fruit as a symbol of disobedience

But it is not always clear in every case which elements are literal and which are figurative.

 

[rusty20]

I put that I believe in the literal, although I’m sorta in between on the whole issue.

With the relation to Gilgamesh: Correlation amongst different sources does not discount a theory, in fact it helps a theory. That being said, the Biblical account could have been told before it was written down, thus pre-dating the Gilgamesh account. The fact that so many creation stories involving a flood seems to lend credit to the stories.

The one thing I don’t like is when Catholics (cant really blame Atheists for this) just throw them off as fairy tales. There is nothing in the Church’s teaching stating they are NOT true. The Church only says that they have intended meanings behind their narrative meanings.

It seems like today you are labeled a fundamentalist and a buffoon if you believe the creation stories. This seems ridiculous to me. Why does this happen? Is it because of evolution and the enlightenment? Do we assume that the Bible cant be true because we know it didn’t happen that way. How arrogant!

I’m sympathetic to reading Genesis in a non-literal way. I understand why many people advise it. However, I have a problem when people try to wholly discount any type of literal reading as if it is just a bedtime story.

Another problem I see is that if the Genesis story is just a myth, then how far in the Bible can we go before we get to real history? Abraham? Egypt? David? Jesus? That can be very problematic…

 

[tobinatorstark]

I believe it literally because its God’s word. There is no way around his word

 

[buffalo]

I echo this; Adam and Eve were real people.

The Bible is not a treatise on natural History, but inspired writings intended to lead us to union with God. As such, it relies on actual events, wise sayings, prophesy and parables to get the all important spiritual message across.

Revelation of Moses

Account and life of Adam and Eve, the first-created, revealed by God to His servant Moses, when he received from the hand of the Lord the tables of the law of the covenant, instructed by the archangel Michael.
This is the account of Adam and Eve. After they went forth out of paradise, Adam took Eve his wife, and went up into the east. And he remained there eighteen years and two months; and Eve conceived and brought forth two sons, Diaphotus called Cain, and Amilabes called Abel.
And after this, Adam and Eve were with one another; and when they lay down, Eve said to Adam her lord: My lord, I have seen in a dream this night the blood of my son Amilabes, who is called Abel, thrown into the mouth of Cain his brother, and he drank it without pity. And he entreated him to grant him a little of it, but he did not listen to him, but drank it all up; and it did not remain in his belly, but came forth out of his mouth. AndAdam said to Eve: Let us arise, and go and see what has happened to them, lest perchance the enemy should be in any way warring against them.

more…

 

[buffalo]

Technically, the Bible doesn’t say God created everything in 24 hour increments. Since the sun was not created until the Fourth Day, the “day” used as a measurement in Genesis clearly refers to some other time period (e.g., the days of the dinosours, the days of the horseless carriage, etc.).

Only of you assume the light is the light of the sun.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Hi everyone! How many of you take the Genesis story of creation literally? Please vote in my poll!

**I am a Catholic and I take it literally as to the letters & words, but not as to the meaning they express: the creation of all things by the One God is being asserted - a creation in the span of 144 hours, followed by a 24-hour period of rest on completion of the work, is not asserted as part of the meaning, but as part of the narrative. Within the narrative of the source behind Gen.1, & only in the narrative, the days are days of 24 hours. **​

The choices are too limited.

 

[rwoehmke]

Seems to me that as Catholics we take our Bible as literal, wheras most non-Catholics take it literalistically. In other words what we read has to be read with some knowledge of the time, place, language and culture of the writer, whereas others place a modern contemporary meaning on the words and ideas.