To which extent You think Genesis 1-11 Is literal?
I don’t think that word has a definition in reference to Genesis 1.
It reminds me a lot of Tolkien’s story of the elves awaking in Cuivienen. In lore, the story is treated as hyper condensed retelling of the event but in a “nursery rhyme” style that is used to teach children how to count.
It’s a neat parallel - a hyper condensed retelling of the story in an ancient “nursery rhyme” style. “Literal” just doesn’t make any sense in that type of text. Is it true? Sure. But if you’re looking for a scientific documentary you aren’t going to find it.
100% this! It’s really reductionistic to think in terms of factual (/historical/literal) truth, as there are other kinds of emotional and psychological truth that we should count into the calculation. To oversimplify it: it’s a question of genre, not veracity.
Towards the end of Genesis 11 I think we start getting into actual history, albeit with a healthy dose of legend mixed in. Prior to that, it's myth.
Came here to say this! I’d also want to stress in terms of myth being a symbolic story: this doesn’t mean it isn’t profoundly true. I’ve noticed that a lot of folks on here focus exclusively on factual truth, but there are other kinds of emotional and psychological truth that we should count into the calculation.
Absolutely. Much of Genesis is myth, but it is divinely inspired myth, and the truths it teaches come from God.
Honestly I think its literally impossible to know for sure
Intended literally by authors or those passing it along? Often. Almost all readers believed this stuff until very recently (outside of a few outliers, this was in the 19th century).
Is any of it literal history? Not at all.
was raised christian, taught to believe, but now that i am older and have done some thinking of my own i don't put much faith in a narrative that includes; a man made from dirt, a woman made from a rib bone, a talking snake with specific information, 2 magical fruit trees, and so on.
Jesus cites Genesis as authoritative. I believe Genesis is true. I don't know exactly how it all happened and am not sure that Moses intended each phrase as "literal."
Could you send some references to your first sentence? I’d like to read up on it.
Matthew 19: 4-5 Mathew 22:21
Mark 10:6-7 Mark 12:17
Just for starters (about 8 references total)
Close to zero percent? I mean, this part of the Bible is a composite narrative that was sourced from several different oral traditions. These traditions were then edited together to provide an alternative history of the Isrealite people; the goal being the disclaiming of their Canaanite ancestry.
People like Abraham and Moses may be based on real historical figures, or they could be entirely fictional, there is almost no way to tell.
100%.
From Genesis 1:1-11:32 😐
There is such a thing as Science. A fable being the real and factually creation of the Universe is very unlikely.
Genesis 1-11
Account of creation, the fall, and the curse. The creation account makes it clear that God, through His omnipotent Word, made everything that exists from nothing, in six days, without error. This includes the heavens and the earth, the sun and the stars, the sea and the land, and every plant, animal, and human being.
Which extent You think Genesis 1-11 Is literal?
All of Genesis 1-11 is literal because the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Even the most secular, critical scholars will tell you that the Bible contains no historical falsehoods. Genesis is no exception.
Evidence?
There is plenty of evidence the Genesis creation account is true, such as the overwhelming body of evidence from various scientific fields supporting the existence of a Creator God, the historical account of the Flood found in Genesis 6-9 having numerous global archaeological and geological correlates, the reliability and historicity of the biblical text of Genesis, and the consistency of Genesis with the rest of the Bible.
Literal History?
Genesis has a lot of literal history. From its opening chapters describing the creation of the universe to human history from its very beginnings, it is filled with true events and figures. The Bible itself was originally written in ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, all of which are well-understood historical languages. Scholars have utilized these texts to accurately understand the people and events written about within Genesis.
There is no doubt that there is literal history in the book of Genesis. The evidence supporting the accuracy of the Genesis creation account and historical events are vast and convincing, and the historicity of the text is demonstrated through the languages of the Bible and the countless archaeological and geological findings throughout the centuries.
“Even the most secular, critical scholars will tell you that the Bible contains no historical falsehoods.” I’m sorry, but precisely what scholarship are you reading? The general and well-established consensuses in current critical scholarship are the exact opposites to the claims you are making here. Equating truthfulness and authority with historicity and lacking in errors or contradictions is extremely problematic and on a hidin’ to nothin’, as we say in this neck of the woods. Inerrancy is very much the minority position, both in terms of the tradition of faith (it is a modern claim in response to asking the wrong question about the texts) and critical scholarship.
Yes, indeed, as you pointed out, the majority of secular and critical scholarship does not hold to the belief that the Bible is inerrant or that it contains no historical falsehoods. While this may be the opinion of the majority, it is important to know scholarship is not monolithic, and many respected scholars from various fields like history, archaeology, and philosophy still argue in favor of the Bible's inerrancy and historic. Research before you reply, dude.
You’ve revised your claim in the above. I’m a professional theologian — a systematics lecturer who regularly interacts with my colleagues in biblical studies (in fact, we co-teach a module on the theological interpretation of Scripture) — so it is hilarious to be told to do my research LOL. I could have said precisely that in response to your first post.
Ah, I understand! I apologize if my comment seemed at all condescending. My goal in participating in this discourse is to engage in a genuine exchange of ideas. I respect your expertise and experience as a theologian, and I'm interested in hearing your perspective.
Literal in the sense of history? To nearly no extent. You can see some snippets here and there which are most likely based on historic events, like the plagues and the exodus. So most likely the plagues trace back to a volcanic eruption and the events happening due to it. But this doesn't mean that the story happened as described.
Instead such snippets are the core legends and myths started to form around. And it came down to the account we read today in the bible.
This doesn't mean these stories are wrong or unimportant. They still conceive morals which are a cornerstone of our faith. Most importantly they teach how the one god created our world and created an order of things. This of course also must be seen in the historic context. The monotheistic beliefs started forming as these myths were written and it colours the development of the monotheistic faith out of its polytheistic surroundings. Digging into them is really interesting!
Literal.
100%
As I wrote in another comment elsewhere:
The ancient Near Eastern Bronze Age nomads who first told the Creation story around the campfires thousands of years ago (even another one to two thousand years before Jesus) weren't interested in Original Sin or the literal, scientific origins of the universe. Those questions were completely outside their worldview and purview. If you look at it from more of an ancient point of view, the creation account is a fascinating argument for what a god is and what they're for.
If you look at other creation stories of the time, gods are basically just super powered human beings who are still kind of giant jerks. The world is created out of divine warfare or strife or sexual intercourse, and the gods are simply powerful over certain domains - the sky, the sea, etc. Moreover, they're subject as well to what Kaufman calls the "metadivine realm" - that which the gods arose out of or came from, and predates them. It can oppose or overcome their will.
Conversely, Yahweh is all-powerful over all creation, because He created it in an ordered fashion by the power of His word. God is an architect, not subject to outside forces; His Spirit hovers over the face of the waters (He predates and is above that example of a metadivine realm). Moreover, He is not simply a superpowered human, He is a moral being, and the embodiment of the highest conception of morality that humans (of the ancient Near East) could come up with. The humans He creates are not slaves (as in other narratives), they are good creatures made in His own image, breathing the breath He gave them. They are stewards - responsible caretakers - of His creation. They do not exist as slaves, they exist to be in relationship with Him.
One other unique thing about the creation/fall story is that while many creation stories have a "tree of life" analogue, only the Genesis account features a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Fall is an etiological story (like a just-so story) about how humans went from being morally innocent to morally responsible creatures. To the ancient Israelites who first told this story, it's not about how Adam did a Bad Thing and now we're all screwed for it, it's about how we are all responsible for our choices, and how we can make good or bad ones.
If you want to hear more on this, I highly recommend Dr. Christine Hayes' Yale lectures on Intro to the Old Testament with transcripts.
Biologos is another good resource, as well as the work of John Walton, like The Lost World of Genesis One. You can also check out Loren Haarsma's discussion on Four Approaches to Original Sin.
And if you get later into the Old Testament, you start realizing that the stories aren't just historical narrative, that they match up with later events in curious ways, and then you realize that the OT stories are actually kind of like MASH or The Crucible.
Ultimately, when you take into consideration the historical, cultural, religious, and literary contexts of the books of the Bible, and understand that interpretation, reinterpretation and rereinterpretation is a fundamental part of the tradition, it stops being a boring book of rules and starts being a challenging look at life and morality throughout the ages.
Edit: I would also add, if you read the text carefully, you'll see that Adam was created outside the Garden and then placed into it, and he lived there until he and Eve sinned against God, whereupon they were cast out and their relationship with God broken. So the question you should ask is, to what degree is Genesis 1-3 about the literal, scientific origins of humans as a species, the exile of Israel and Judah, or the propensity of humans' sin to break their relationship with God?