Should you take the book of Genesis literally?

Question

I say no because reading it you can easily see it as a combination of two different sources.

Once source is vague and summary like and the other is detailed. They are intermingled.

It was written a lot of years after the fact (like thousands) and came from oral tradition.

Can you imagine how much can get mingled in with stories passed generation to generation?

Was meant to be a basic summary or a literal blow by blow of God making stuff?

Does it make a difference if God didn't do everything in 1 week and the earth isn't 6000 years old? Does it really change anything? To me it just creates a healthy view of the book when you look at it for what it is,

A book by people, for people, about their perceptions of God.

Here is a good source for background info on Genesis:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=137&letter=G

What do you think? Am I just mad?

Answer 1

Thanks for that link, I think your analysis is quite apt. The book of Genesis was never meant to be taken literally, it's accounts are of the oral traditions. It is one cultures ideas or suppositions about mankind's origins, all early cultures had them. You are not mad, in fact your perception of Genesis is the proper one to have.

Genesis has profound insights to human nature. It's not so when read literally. When read literally it has the depth of a Saturday morning cartoon.

Pantheist

Answer 2

Good question. I take it literally. I believe that creation happened over an actual week, you know, 7 literal days. Look at the order in which God created things...He made plants before He made the sun. He created light on the first day....but plants can't survive with just any kind of light. They need sunlight! So while it is reasonable to expect that they could survive for a few days with no sunlight, much longer than that and we would have a bunch of dead vegetation on our hands.

I think it is a literal blow-by-blow of creation. Sure it was written way after the fact, but don't forget that God inspired the writers. He told them what to say and what not to say. The detailed accounts are the ones that God wanted us to have in detail, and the not so detailed ones are also just the way God wanted us to have them.

Sure, error could creep into these stories after so long. But since God promised to preserve His word, I think that also means that He preserved the integrity of the stories He inspired the men to write in the first place (as in, inspired them to be written error-free).

It isn't so much about people's perception of God as it is about His presentation of Himself. He is describing Himself to us through the Bible in a way that our puny minds can understand Him.

I don't think you're mad (most of the time)....you ask a lot of good questions. But then you ask some really bizarre ones so....?? LOL

Answer 3

If you take it literally, how do you interpret "us" and "our" in the following: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:..." Things like this open up a whole can of worms for which there is no explanation. If God is inerrant, then either this is an error or there is more than one God or man has mistranslated God's story.

I believe that Genesis is basically true although I think the earth is created in a much different time frame than what we know. In other words, I don't think one God day equals one earth day.

Answer 4

No, you are not mad. It has an impact on your very future whether Genesis is factual or full of myths.

There are many reasons why I believe in the stories recorded in the book of Genesis, but I'll just give you one example.

Jesus himself referred to the accounts recorded in Genesis as facts, and Jesus should have known, right? So if the writer of Genesis was a liar, then..........

* The Flood- Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17:26, 27
* Creation account- Matthew 19:4,5

Many other Bible writers also referred to accounts in Genesis, but I won't give you the list- how are you going to learn to do research? :-)

Answer 5

It's all "allegory" in both "covenants": Galatians 4,
and should not be taken as literal nor as historical.

It's written "aforetime" for our "learning": Romans 15.
So then, the primary objective of the shew is learning.

"In the beginning God..." ?
As if an eternal God has any begin or end? NOT!
As if an eternal God both creates & destroys? NOT!
As if an eternal God is pluralized & divided? NOT!
Even God can't be one by division, but is one by unity.

Three NOTS: Colossians 2: 20-22 concerning laws:
- Touch NOT laws
- Taste NOT laws
- Handle NOT laws
Reason: by the using of laws all perish = extinction

Converted Peter: Converted from law to grace:
Willful ignorance, about laws, is what caused
the first of the two (allegoric) worlds to perish.

The GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.

Answer 6

No religious e book it actually actual. the training are meant to be interpreted in a manner that is lost in maximum present day theory. present day cases have distorted the 'actual' meaning in the back of the literature and delivered it word for word. study between the lines and learn the subculture or a minimum of the background if the time and you will have a greater suitable awareness once you study any religious literature. all of them have complication-unfastened regulations and truths interior of them, that is in uncomplicated terms a remember of no longer taking it actually.

Answer 7

Genesis wrote book? I thought only music records.

Answer 8

some people value the written letter more than anything resembling true spirituality.