What becomes of our faith if the Genesis account is NOT literal?

[BlessedPeace]

This point causes me a massive amount of cognitive dissonance. (something most won't admit)

The gospel and the New Testament narrative unravel when these things aren't literal.

- The geologies are meaningless. (or in serious error)
- Who wrote the Books of Moses? (and when)
- If Adam wasn't a literal human then he didn't literally sin.
- If Adam didn't literally sin, then there is no original sin.
- If there is no original sin then being born in Adam's race does not make you a sinner.
- If we are not redeemed from original sin by Christ's payment of the death penalty...
- Then the Atonement was of none effect.
- If the Atonement was of none effect, we are lost in our sin and awaiting judgment of our works.
- We all fall short of the perceived standard (the glory of God) and stand condemned.
- Faith in Christ can't help us, the Atonement is null and void. (as outlined above)
- Where does that leave us?

Alternatively:
- There is anecdotal evidence (and in some cases historical evidence) that faith in Christ can help us.
- And that a renewed relationship with the creator is possible. (assuming we were alienated prior)

But how can this be when church doctrine is a house of cards?
- Is a relationship with the creator of figment of our imagination? (wishful thinking?)
- Might we conjure up our own salvation to quell the fear of the unknown?

It's enough to drive one mad. (as my British friends might say)

I like what some atheists conclude.
Living your life as if there might be a God works better than living your life as if there isn't a God, (just in case?) - LOL

]

That atheist philosophy is known as Pascal's wager.

The Bible isn't literal.

Do we really think God,and all that means, needed to write a book so to let us know God is there?

We tiny specks in all of creation concern the immense imminent power of all creation? So God makes rules we must follow or he will be disappointed we otherwise behave precisely as He made us to be?

Why was the Bible created?
To insure control.Through fear.

Why the Bible Cannot and Should Not Be Taken Literally - Brewminate: A Bold Blend of News and Ideas

There are at least five reasons why the claim that the Bible is to be taken literally defies

brewminate.com

 

[Jack]

"What becomes of our faith if the Genesis account is NOT literal?"

Well I would say those who call Jesus a liar will burn in Hell "forever and ever" with the Devil.

Luke 17:26-27
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.

 

[Deborah_]

What about the biblical geologies? See verse 38 below.

What about them?

Whether there was an individual Adam or not, we are all descended from an original (very small) group of humans who were endowed by God with His image. If "Adam" was one member of that small group, we are still all descended from him. Last year we visited a remote village in Iceland where an escaped black slave ended up 250 years ago. The population of that area is about 1000 people - and all are descended from him!

Incidentally, we can't assume that Biblical genealogies are complete (in terms of including every generation). Jesus' genealogy in Matthew is missing three generations of the kings (you can check this with 2 Kings or 2 Chronicles). Exodus tells us that Israel spent 430 years in Egypt, yet Moses' genealogy in chapter 6 only has 2 generations in it, whose lifespans total about 200 years. It was an ancient convention to miss "unimportant" generations out without warning or explanation. Therefore, you can't use the genealogies in Genesis to determine the age of the Earth or the date of Adam's creation.

 

[Lambano]

- If Adam wasn't a literal human then he didn't literally sin.
- If Adam didn't literally sin, then there is no original sin.
- If there is no original sin then being born in Adam's race does not make you a sinner.

"The doctrine of Depravity is the one Christian dogma that is empirically verifiable." - G.K. Chesterton

The evidence is indisputable that the human race IS depraved, at best inclined to evil and self-centeredness with the capability of occasionally doing good and altruistic deeds. If there wasn't a literal "first sinner", we'd have to come up with another origin story to explain why we are what we are.

 

[Lambano]

The evidence is indisputable that the human race IS depraved, at best inclined to evil and self-centeredness with the capability of occasionally doing good and altruistic deeds. If there wasn't a literal "first sinner", we'd have to come up with another origin story to explain why we are what we are.

Regardless of how we got ourselves into this mess, what's the solution?

"How can these things come to be?" - Nicodemus

 

[St. SteVen]

That atheist philosophy is known as Pascal's wager.

The Bible isn't literal.

Do we really think God,and all that means, needed to write a book so to let us know God is there?

We tiny specks in all of creation concern the immense imminent power of all creation? So God makes rules we must follow or he will be disappointed we otherwise behave precisely as He made us to be?

Why was the Bible created?
To insure control.Through fear.

Can we really claim that the Bible in its entirety is not literal?
It seems that some parts are figurative and other parts are literal.
If that is correct, the task becomes determining which are or aren't.

I agree that Christianity has misused the Bible as a tool to control by fear.
Believer > heaven
Unbeliever > hell

I have questioned WHY the Bible, or canon of scripture was created.
It has become an idol to some and stood in the way of hearing directly from God.

Bibliolatry: Worship/knowledge of the book MORE than the author

I have encountered some that I thought had fallen into this trap. I asked them, "What would become of your faith if you put your whole library out on the curb on trash day?" The guilty are left mostly speechless. Or, alternatively VERY angry. How come? To be clear, I love the Bible and use...

www.christianityboard.com

]

 

[Lambano]

If there wasn't a literal "first sinner", we'd have to come up with another origin story to explain why we are what we are.

I guess our current alternative "origin story" is that that being evil and self-centered is a survival trait.

How in the world did we ever come up with the concept of "good"?

 

[St. SteVen]

Jesus' genealogy in Matthew is missing three generations of the kings (you can check this with 2 Kings or 2 Chronicles).

You have made some good points in your post, Thanks.

However, Jesus' genealogy in Matthew goes back to Adam. So, there seems to be some point being made. Why didn't the genealogy in Matthew end at David? Why go any further back?

/

 

[St. SteVen]

"The doctrine of Depravity is the one Christian dogma that is empirically verifiable." - G.K. Chesterton

The evidence is indisputable that the human race IS depraved, at best inclined to evil and self-centeredness with the capability of occasionally doing good and altruistic deeds. If there wasn't a literal "first sinner", we'd have to come up with another origin story to explain why we are what we are.

Regardless of how we got ourselves into this mess, what's the solution?

"How can these things come to be?" - Nicodemus

I guess our current alternative "origin story" is that that being evil and self-centered is a survival trait.

How in the world did we ever come up with the concept of "good"?

Agree.
I'm trying to figure out if these things (the OP) have derailed the whole train. And if so, how to get back on track.

Interesting that some Christians are willing to wave them aside as if they are of none effect and others insist on a literal reading.

As I stated/questioned in the OP, it seems that a lot of doctrine depends on a literal reading.
If we claim the Bible is not literally true, what becomes of those doctrines? Which is where you seem to come in with your posts.

Whether Adam was the first man or not, we are a needy race in need of salvation, from ourselves if nothing else.

]

 

[Lambano]

As I stated/questioned in the OP, it seems that a lot of doctrine depends on a literal reading.

I was demonstrating that it is quite possible to believe in the doctrine of human depravity without necessarily believing in the Fall as a literal historical event. It's still Truth. Truth conveyed through stories. Or Parables.

I have my own set of non-negotiables. Which doctrines are sine qua non to you? "Without this, there is nothing"? And what fundamental assumptions and definitions are necessary to underpin them?

Or, to quit beating around the bush, why do you keep coming back to Jesus?

 

[Lambano]

But I still believe in talking snakes.

 

[St. SteVen]

Or, to quit beating around the bush, why do you keep coming back to Jesus?

LOL
Yes, let's get to the point. In Christianity, salvation is through Jesus Christ,
Everything else seems to be up for debate.

- I used to believe that the origins story in Genesis had to be literal. Not everyone agrees.
- I used to believe in the Tr....ty. (against the rules do discuss here) Not everyone agrees.
- I used to believe in hell. Not any more. - Not everyone agrees.
- I still believe in the operation of spiritual gifts. Not everyone agrees.

From the OP:

Alternatively:
- There is anecdotal evidence (and in some cases historical evidence) that faith in Christ can help us.
- And that a renewed relationship with the creator is possible. (assuming we were alienated prior)

But how can this be when church doctrine is a house of cards?
- Is a relationship with the creator of figment of our imagination? (wishful thinking?)
- Might we conjure up our own salvation to quell the fear of the unknown?


It's enough to drive one mad. (as my British friends might say)


I like what some atheists conclude.
Living your life as if there might be a God works better than living your life as if there isn't a God, (just in case?) - LOL


]

 

[St. SteVen]

But I still believe in talking snakes.

LOL
You mean serpents, right? (with legs)
I guess snakes are still called serpents?

Seems that snakes haven't spoken since. Too busy eating dust as the go on their belly.

--- PARODY ---

Hiker: Hey snake, was that you in the Garden?
Snake: Sss...
Hiker: Did you temp Eve?
Snake: Ssss...
Hiker: And now you go on your belly and eat dust?
Snake: Sssshut...Upp...

]

 

[Wick Stick]

Archeologists say there is no evidence of the Israelites being in Egypt, the Exodus, wanderings or conquest of Canaan.

Yes, this one is troubling. If a couple million people died in the Sinai desert, there should be some bones and pottery there to dig up. I think the traditional location of the Exodus wanderings is wrong, and the number of people exaggerated or misinterpreted.

The borders of Egypt around the time of the Exodus looked like the map below. If that's true, then the Israelites perhaps left a part of 'Egypt' that isn't within the modern borders of Egypt.

I remain convinced that Moses was a historical person. There exists to this day a valley called the Wadi Musha (Valley of Moses) in precisely the location that Deuteronomy purports to have been written. Located on the map about where the 'e' in Jericho is. And it turns out there are plenty of bones and pottery south-southeast of that area, which archeologists label as 'Midianite.' You may re-call in the Bible that Moses lived in Midian for 40 years just prior to the Exodus, and that the Israelites during the Exodus did battle with the Midianites and conquered them.

And there are other historically verifiable things - the conquest of the Amorites (located at about the 'S' in PALESTINE on the map) and their subsequent invasion of Egyptian territory as documented in The Amarna Letters. The burned layer excavated at Tel Hazor matching Joshua's conquest of the city in Scripture. The still-extant walls of Jericho (they don't seem to have collapsed, oops). The inscription dug up at Deir Alla (Biblical Succoth) that name-checks both Balaam and Jacob.

It seems to me that some well-intentioned people may have 'corrected' the original text at a later date to give updated names to places in Genesis. Places change names over time, so that's a natural thing to do. But they may have gotten some things wrong, causing us to look in the wrong spots.

 

[GTW27]

LOL
You mean serpents, right? (with legs)
I guess snakes are still called serpents?

Seems that snakes haven't spoken since. Too busy eating dust as the go on their belly.

--- PARODY ---

Hiker: Hey snake, was that you in the Garden.
Snake: Sss...
Hiker: Did you temp Eve?
Snake: Ssss...
Hiker: And now you go on your belly and eat dust?
Snake: Sssshut...Upp...

]

"Hiker: And now you go on your belly and eat dust?" You and I are dust.(on whom he may devour) I choose to stand upon The Rock. The world can say no, but I say yes and amen to The Word of God, all of it.(From In to Amen). The enemy comes to kill, steal and destroy. What did he steal from you St Steven and how did he do it. Faith is a gift and found in The Holy Spirit. Two can not walk together unless they agree. That is why Jesus prayed we would all be One.(John 17). When we are One with Him and He with us that is how we believe Genesis to Revelation. That is how we stand upon The Rock when the world says otherwise. We are dust and to the dust we will return. Sorry big guy, your soul is important to me and important to Him who sends me into the world. Blessings!

 

[BlessedPeace]

Can we really claim that the Bible in its entirety is not literal?
It seems that some parts are figurative and other parts are literal.
If that is correct, the task becomes determining which are or aren't.

I agree that Christianity has misused the Bible as a tool to control by fear.
Believer > heaven
Unbeliever > hell

I have questioned WHY the Bible, or canon of scripture was created.
It has become an idol to some and stood in the way of hearing directly from God.

Bibliolatry: Worship/knowledge of the book MORE than the author

I have encountered some that I thought had fallen into this trap. I asked them, "What would become of your faith if you put your whole library out on the curb on trash day?" The guilty are left mostly speechless. Or, alternatively VERY angry. How come? To be clear, I love the Bible and use...

www.christianityboard.com

]

For me the thing is mans involvement in compiling the canon. That is where we get what men call the Apocrypha.

There are many texts,scrolls,parchments,fragments,that councils convened over the years had to consider for inclusion,or exclusion,into what we call the Bible today.

When we are told the Bible is God's word,how do men act as editors?
And then determine other words are forbidden to be known.

They were inspired by God.

Is the answer some afford. Yet,that same defense arose when church fathers would preside over people being burned alive.

God speaks in and through all his creation. And he speaks to those He indwells.

I agree. The Bible can become an idol to some.

 

[Wick Stick]

There is evidence, but Egypt particularly, was not averse to leaving out of their history, anything that hinted of a defeat. They proudly boasted of their victories but did not apparently record their defeats. The biblical account of Pharaoh’s ignominious death along with his entire army, would be reason enough to remain silent.

The Egyptians recorded their defeats as victories. One historian said, "the Pharoah always wins, but sometimes his victories get closer and closer to his capital."

 

[BarneyFife]

This point causes me a massive amount of cognitive dissonance. (something most won't admit)

The gospel and the New Testament narrative unravel when these things aren't literal.

- The geologies are meaningless. (or in serious error)
- Who wrote the Books of Moses? (and when)
- If Adam wasn't a literal human then he didn't literally sin.
- If Adam didn't literally sin, then there is no original sin.
- If there is no original sin then being born in Adam's race does not make you a sinner.
- If we are not redeemed from original sin by Christ's payment of the death penalty...
- Then the Atonement was of none effect.
- If the Atonement was of none effect, we are lost in our sin and awaiting judgment of our works.
- We all fall short of the perceived standard (the glory of God) and stand condemned.
- Faith in Christ can't help us, the Atonement is null and void. (as outlined above)
- Where does that leave us?

Alternatively:
- There is anecdotal evidence (and in some cases historical evidence) that faith in Christ can help us.
- And that a renewed relationship with the creator is possible. (assuming we were alienated prior)

But how can this be when church doctrine is a house of cards?
- Is a relationship with the creator of figment of our imagination? (wishful thinking?)
- Might we conjure up our own salvation to quell the fear of the unknown?

It's enough to drive one mad. (as my British friends might say)

I like what some atheists conclude.
Living your life as if there might be a God works better than living your life as if there isn't a God, (just in case?) - LOL

]

If the Genesis account isn't literal, and human beings evolved in a gradual, slow process from lower life forms, then there's is no human (or even Angelic, in the case of Lucifer) culpability for the existence of sin, which effectively makes God the deliberate author of sin—a deal-breaker in my little mind.

I don't think we usually care to strain the limits of our God-given imaginations enough to consider the ramifications of, or to work out some of the problems with our surface-reading and broad speculative tendencies based on our narrow, dogma-driven limitations we impose on our own contemplative powers.

The usual, lazy way of dealing with this stuff is censorship and cancellation. So, by blind faith we become more and more intellectually (and emotionally/spiritually, as a sad side-effect) dwarfed.

We've got to give people room to make some wrong conclusions if we ever expect to get to what's right.

Great minds like Bell and Edison often quipped that they wished their success had been measured by all of the failures they experienced along their way to their comparatively few positive outcomes.

.

 

[BarneyFife]

As I stated/questioned in the OP, it seems that a lot of doctrine depends on a literal reading.

To be fair, from where else would you expect the durable/essential (assuming one acknowledges the existence of such a thing) ones to come? :)

.

 

[Lambano]

But how can this be when church doctrine is a house of cards?
- Is a relationship with the creator of figment of our imagination? (wishful thinking?)
- Might we conjure up our own salvation to quell the fear of the unknown?

So, what do you have that you can hold on to?