Questions about literal truth in the scriptures

[Jim]

NOTE: The original title if this thread was “If you believe in one creation story as history and not the other...”

In one creation story God creates Adam after the animals, and in another He creates Adam before the animals. If you think that one of those stories is what actually, physically happened less than 10,000 years ago, but not the other story, what do you think about the other story? For example, do you think it’s an allegory?

If you don’t think that way yourself, but you’ve seen or heard an answer to that question from someone who does, I would be glad for you to post it.

 

[metis]

I tend to accept them as being more allegorical than real history, so the difference between them does not change that with me.

 

[nPeace]

In one creation story God creates Adam after the animals, and in another He creates Adam before the animals. If you think that one of those stories is what actually, physically happened less than 10,000 years ago, but not the other story, what do you think about the other story? For example, do you think it’s an allegory?

If you don’t think that way yourself, but you’ve seen or heard an answer to that question from someone who does, I would be glad for you to post it.

There is only one account.
God formed animals before Adam, and after Adam, but before Eve. Please see here.

 

[pearl]

In one creation story God creates Adam after the animals, and in another He creates Adam before the animals. If you think that one of those stories is what actually, physically happened less than 10,000 years ago, but not the other story, what do you think about the other story? For example, do you think it’s an allegory?

We have both stories included because of the final editing of the Pentateuch, and the wisdom to keep both traditions that were handed down.

 

[shmogie]

In one creation story God creates Adam after the animals, and in another He creates Adam before the animals. If you think that one of those stories is what actually, physically happened less than 10,000 years ago, but not the other story, what do you think about the other story? For example, do you think it’s an allegory?

If you don’t think that way yourself, but you’ve seen or heard an answer to that question from someone who does, I would be glad for you to post it.

I think the difference is because of perspective, and means nothing.

 

[sun rise]

All peoples have a creation story or more than one in a few cases. Broadening the OP beyond the couple of examples, I take them as myth, legend and allegory.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

In one creation story God creates Adam after the animals, and in another He creates Adam before the animals. If you think that one of those stories is what actually, physically happened less than 10,000 years ago, but not the other story, what do you think about the other story? For example, do you think it’s an allegory?

If you don’t think that way yourself, but you’ve seen or heard an answer to that question from someone who does, I would be glad for you to post it.

Both 'accounts' are true. Both are real and literal.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Jim]

There is only one account.
God formed animals before Adam, and after Adam, but before Eve.

We have both stories included because of the final editing of the Pentateuch, and the wisdom to keep both traditions that were handed down.

I think the difference is because of perspective, and means nothing.

All peoples have a creation story or more than one in a few cases. Broadening the OP beyond the couple of examples, I take them as myth, legend and allegory.

Both 'accounts' are true. Both are real and literal.

I’m posting this to notify you that I changed the title of this thread.

 

[Jim]

This question is for people who believe in the literal truth of some Bible stories. How do you decide when God is speaking in parables, and when He is not?

Another question: Why can’t the whole Bible be a parable?

 

[sun rise]

This question is for people who believe in the literal truth of some Bible stories. How do you decide when God is speaking in parables, and when He is not?

Another question: Why can’t the whole Bible be a parable?

You could expand that and ask Hindus if they believe the Kurukshetra War really did happen.

 

[Jim]

You could expand that and ask Hindus if they believe the Kurukshetra War really did happen.

Originally I only meant to ask about the Bible. I should have said “Bible” in the title instead of “scriptures,” but I think I’ll leave it alone now. I’m still hoping to get more answers from people who believe in the literal truth of some Bible stories.

 

[nPeace]

I’m posting this to notify you that I changed the title of this thread.

Thanks.
Every verse, and every expression in the Bible is not literal, but the Genesis account is a literal history, as is confirmed by the repeated use of, "This is a history, or account of, or these are the generation of..."

For example, the trees in the garden are literal, and so is the fruit, but they symbolize, or represent something, by the names given them (i.e. tree of knowledge of good and evil; tree of life).

 

[nPeace]

This question is for people who believe in the literal truth of some Bible stories. How do you decide when God is speaking in parables, and when He is not?

Another question: Why can’t the whole Bible be a parable?

Good questions.
1. The context.
2. Other supporting scriptures.
3. If the supporting scriptures contain confirmation of it being historical.
4. Coherency - is there a unified theme, or story that is continuous, and fits into God's overall message and purpose. For example... the purpose for the earth and humans; sin, and a need for a redeemer, or savior; the need for restoration of pure worship, and paradise; the need for an answer to God's chief enemy, and one to provide an answer; the cause and finish of God's wrath.

If one removes portions of the Bible, alluding to them as allegory, or myth, they create gaps that cannot be filled, so the entire Bible would be myth and allegory - including Jesus's birth, ministry, death, and resurrection.
Yet, we know that Jesus started a ministry on earth, which continues today, and his people know that he still directs that work by spirit.
They know he lives.

Jewish practice today is evidence of continued tradition.
Christian practice today is also traditional, of historical events.

This is what is clear to me.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

NOTE: The original title if this thread was “If you believe in one creation story as history and not the other...”

In one creation story God creates Adam after the animals, and in another He creates Adam before the animals. If you think that one of those stories is what actually, physically happened less than 10,000 years ago, but not the other story, what do you think about the other story? For example, do you think it’s an allegory?

If you don’t think that way yourself, but you’ve seen or heard an answer to that question from someone who does, I would be glad for you to post it.

One thing to note is that the Bible is all literal Truth. Even when allegory, or symbols, or metaphors, etc., are used, they are used to depict a 'literal Truth'. And the use of the allegory does not mean the allegory itself was not historical and literal.

For example: Abraham and his two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. (Gal.4:22-26) They spoke allegorically to something else, yet they were real people. God controls the history and history itself becomes a method of revelation. (1 Cor. 10:1-10)

The Six Day Creation account is given in (Gen. 1:3-2:3). That is the order of the account. (Gen. 2:4-25) is not a different account of that creation. It is additional information given showing the relationships between man, woman, animals and creation. (2:4) begins, "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth...." The order is not important here. How one is related to the other is.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Jim]

Good questions.
1. The context.
2. Other supporting scriptures.
3. If the supporting scriptures contain confirmation of it being historical.
4. Coherency - is there a unified theme, or story that is continuous, and fits into God's overall message and purpose. For example... the purpose for the earth and humans; sin, and a need for a redeemer, or savior; the need for restoration of pure worship, and paradise; the need for an answer to God's chief enemy, and one to provide an answer; the cause and finish of God's wrath.

If one removes portions of the Bible, alluding to them as allegory, or myth, they create gaps that cannot be filled, so the entire Bible would be myth and allegory - including Jesus's birth, ministry, death, and resurrection.
Yet, we know that Jesus started a ministry on earth, which continues today, and his people know that he still directs that work by spirit.
They know he lives.

Jewish practice today is evidence of continued tradition.
Christian practice today is also traditional, of historical events.

This is what is clear to me.

A true story can be used in the same way as a parable or allegory, for all the same purposes, and for those purposes no one needs to know if it ever actually happened or not. That’s how I’m thinking of the Bible now. For God’s purposes, people don’t always need to know how much of it actually happened. They can read the whole Bible as an allegory, and still receive the gift of faith and become followers of Jesus, in every way that anyone else can.

 

[Jim]

... the use of the allegory does not mean the allegory itself was not historical and literal.

Exactly what I’ve been thinking. A story can be a true story, and an allegory at the same time. I’m not convinced that all the stories in the Bible actually happened in the way that they’re told, but for God’s purposes I don’t think that everyone needs to believe that. I think that sometimes people can read the whole Bible as an allegory, and still receive the gift of faith, and become followers of Jesus in every way that anyone else can.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Exactly what I’ve been thinking. A story can be a true story, and an allegory at the same time. I’m not convinced that all the stories in the Bible actually happened in the way that they’re told, but for God’s purposes I don’t think that everyone needs to believe that. I think that sometimes people can read the whole Bible as an allegory, and still receive the gift of faith, and become followers of Jesus in every way that anyone else can.

If it didn't happen the way it is told, then what good is the allegory? In the Bible the allegory only has value if what it is based upon is true. To say Abraham's sons didn't really need to have two separate mothers, but it makes for a more meaningful point to say he did, is pointless. The fact that the account of Ishmael and Isaac is true gives weight to the allegory itself. Gives weight to the truthfulness of what the allegory is representing.

I will always say, that one becomes a Christian, becomes born-again, by faith in Jesus Christ. We believe Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and Saviour. And we accept Him as such. That is all that is required,....but that is required.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[pearl]

This question is for people who believe in the literal truth of some Bible stories. How do you decide when God is speaking in parables, and when He is not?

I don't believe that you can leave out the human element when seeking the literal truth that requires understanding what is the literal truth from what is the narrative which is the vehicle used by the human inspired author to convey that 'truth' which he has received from God. The literal truth is what the author intended to convey and what is necessary to believe. To read the Bible as a literalist is to accept the details as truth.

 

[metis]

A true story can be used in the same way as a parable or allegory, for all the same purposes, and for those purposes no one needs to know if it ever actually happened or not. That’s how I’m thinking of the Bible now. For God’s purposes, people don’t always need to know how much of it actually happened. They can read the whole Bible as an allegory, and still receive the gift of faith and become followers of Jesus, in every way that anyone else can.

For better or worse, this is my approach as well.

 

[syo]

NOTE: The original title if this thread was “If you believe in one creation story as history and not the other...”

In one creation story God creates Adam after the animals, and in another He creates Adam before the animals. If you think that one of those stories is what actually, physically happened less than 10,000 years ago, but not the other story, what do you think about the other story? For example, do you think it’s an allegory?

If you don’t think that way yourself, but you’ve seen or heard an answer to that question from someone who does, I would be glad for you to post it.

Humans were created first (one story). But they made their appearance after the animals (the other story). So, both stories are literal.