I came across a discussion on whether understanding the Biblical Creation account as literal or non-literal, affects our knowledge of the nature of sin? The focus was on Creation (chapters 1-3) with some reaching into the topics discussed in chapters 4-11. It was very interesting, and it began with the following:

"..One must first demonstrate from the given text that the author did not intend for anyone to read his words as a literal historical account. Any assertion that states that a non-literal reading is the most appropriate reading must provide evidence of specific figurative indicators in the text such as metaphors, similes allegories, hyperbole, symbolism and such. Any discussion on whether or not a non-literal approach affects doctrine is essentially dead in the water IF justification of a non-literal approach cannot textually demonstrated.

It is further argued that a non-literal approach, at least the non-literal approach suggested by PA, is a significant issue doctrinally, as the entire book Genesis is the seedbed for all of the theology that follows. The Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is a system of progressive revelation that builds upon itself. Meaning that Abraham had more light than Noah, Moses had more light than Abraham, David had more light Moses, Isaiah had more light than David, and the apostles had more than the prophets of the Old Testament. Thus, what was said in earlier parts of the Bible forms the foundation upon which more light was revealed to later generations. ..'We will' examine how succeeding generations of those who were used by God has His human authors of Scripture, saw the creation account. Did Moses, Jesus, David, or any of the prophets or apostles view the Creation account in Genesis as a non-literal account?

The Bible is set up in such a manner that there is no single verse, passage, chapter or book that contains all of the truth on a given matter. In this way, God designed the Bible to be studied and searched out. More to the point, He designed it so that all of the doctrines of Scripture are interlocked with each other. The same passage that is talking about the Holy Spirit may also shed light on other doctrines and so one cannot do violence to a single subject in a single passage without the effects of that act radiating into other areas of Scripture. That is one reason why our interpretive approach must always be consistent.

The Bible is always good at letting us know when figurative language is being used. It tells when something is a vision, allegory or parable, symbol or metaphor. It does not leave it up to us to guess. Absent those textual indicators, the default understanding of any given text in Scripture is literal.... "Literal" means that a text is understood within the framework the author intends. It means to read the text with the object that the author has in view and not to assign any values to the text on our own. A non-literal approach makes the text subject to the whims of the reader and erodes the authority of the author.

...a non-literal approach to Genesis 1-11 devalues the authority of Word of God as final arbiter on all matters of Christian faith and practice. The Bible says that God magnifies His Word above His own Name (Ps. 138:2) and so He places a high premium on His Word and to devalue its authority is, by extension, to devalue the authority of God, Himself. This is no trivial, "take-it or-leave-it matter." God takes His Word very seriously, and so should we....

'Some state'.. that Genesis 1 is not an historical approach to how God created the world. This is false. It is historical and that is the only way to describe it in literary terms. A more accurate way of putting it would be that it is not a “scientific” approach..."

As you can see, if Genesis is not literal then the Creator is diminished, the Sabbath is more Moses imprint than Gods, and sin was about a snake that charm a woman.

The literal account of Biblical creation IS the first angel's message. It makes perfect sense that Satan would violently attack this through the statements of so called experts.

On this point I disagree. As Jesus said, "He that hath an ear, let him hear." The Bible may not always give us ready clues.

Creation is actually both literal and figurative. It is rich with symbolism.

Look at the story of the Good Samaritan: Was it literal or figurative? An honest response is to recognize that the story was both of the above. It was not an either/or. So it is with Creation. It literally took place, but it was rich with symbols.

Abraham literally went through the motions to kill his son Isaac. But the story was not merely literal, nor was it merely a figure of speech. It was both. The story is rich with symbols and types.

If we try to put the Bible in a box and say that "only the clearly prophetic books should be interpreted as symbolic" (referring to Daniel and Revelation), or say that the Bible will always be clear, we are only fooling ourselves. There are no such boxes that can properly contain the Word of God. True, the Bible is of no "private interpretation." However, "spiritual things are spiritually discerned," which puts some of the interpretation back into the court of the one doing the interpreting. If one is led of God's Spirit, the Bible can be better understood. Even then, truth is not always clear. It has taken this planet centuries of scholars to begin to understand the last book in the Bible--and yet it is a book which claims to be a "revelation" and not a "secret."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I have faith in Ellen White's statements that the Genesis account is literal. I'm unwilling to sell out because of the worldly "experts".

I am a bit curious what part of the Genesis account is thought to not be literal? The time period, sequence of events, the act of creation, or the events themselves?

I do agree that scripture is often dualistic, being literal and containing symbolic meaning.

If you are referring to my comments (as it appears), you seem unsure of the fact that I affirmed that Creation is literal. It just happens to also be prophetic and symbolic.

Being literal and being symbolic, or prophetic, or figurative are not mutually exclusive. Joseph just so happens to have been the literal savior of Egypt and of his family through his wise governance before and during the famine. Nevertheless, his role in this literal drama was a type for Christ, the Savior of the world. Thus we have both literal and figurative nicely melded together. Far from being mutually exclusive, they are mutually complementary.

Regarding my understanding of the prophetic side to Creation Week, if you have access to the New Light forum, then you may find it there. Look for the thread titled "The Longest Time Prophecy in Scripture."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

O.K. We're on the same page now. After being on the Spectrum forum for some time, I've become very cautious of others view points.