It was Genesis, my friend. God told Eve that he would send her a savior. For which Eve misconstrued that to be Cain, her first born. Eve knew of a coming savior. She just had a fuzzy picture of it.
I have much experience doing that, with children, teenagers, and groups of adults. And I can tell you that they came up with a surprising variety of âliteral interpretations.â Dr. Hugh Ross illustrates this with his own experience in how he understood Genesis 1 the first time he read it. Some might say that his possibly atypical understanding of the chapter as a child was due to his Aspergerâs Syndrome, but my own experience has been that children only recite the same âtraditionalâ âliteral interpretationâ when they have shared a similar Bible Belt Sunday School background.
Yet, even if a controlled, large-scale study of preadolescent hermeneutics were to find a single pervasive âliteral interpretationâ of Genesis 1, is it possible that you are putting too much into this? (I ask that as a genuine question, not an accusation. I may not have a good grasp of your viewpoint.)
In any case, my main point is that the âchild testâ seems to come up often when dealing with the interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis.
âthe child testâ comes up a lot, because a child has, zero influence, zero bias, zero presupposition when reading Genesis1, my friend 
Your response regarding NT Wright is nonsense.
My friend, I only was speaking of Genesis 1, for which none of the things you cataloged are there
okâŚI am sorry if I offended you, but that is my opinion of him. I do not go to him for a biblically sound theological understanding of the character and nature of God, my friend . AgainâŚsorry 
Nope!! I am still here my friend. I was just on vacation. At the beach . Now back at a desk in a cold AC office I thank God for this cold desk
1 Like
Glad to see that you are still conversing. I hope this thread will draw many more participants to an interesting topic.
We are talking about hermeneutics, a discipline that applies to texts, not just Scripture.
1 Like
I too was perplexed by Wookinâs complaint that âwe are not talking about the Constitutionâ. Could Wookin explain why children should be consulted on understanding Genesis 1 but not the Constitution? I realize that Wookin claims he wasnât invoking the traditional "child testâ but was simply making a point (a debatable one) about how children would interpret Genesis 1. But I donât understand why âthere is so much wrong with this argument.â
2 Likes
I guess Iâm curious how you know which literal interpretation is correct and which literal interpretaion is false. If you read the links I sent you, you would know that Bob Jones was arguing that ending segregation threatened the authority of the Bible. No one in the literalist camps stood up to him. And, to be fair, his interpretation was literal. How could have known that his literal interpretation was wrong, and the neo-literalist interpretation that isnâtâ racist (which only sprung up in the 1990s), is actually the correct one?
I would submit that literalism does absolutely nothing to ensure we have the correct view of the Bible.
1 Like
Name one verse from Genesis that mentions Jesus. Jesus didnât come because some literal woman ate some literal magic fruit, He came because all humans will and have sinned. Itâs human nature. We will all sin, so Jesus had to come to be our savior. I doesnât matter if Genesis is literally true or not. That doesnât change the fact that all humans have and will sin.
I say this often, and Iâm going to say it again here. My #1 problem with YEC theology is the fact that (most) of them hold Genesis higher than Jesus. They seem to think that if Genesis isnât literally true, than Jesus canât be true either. Jesus is bigger than a book of poetry, even if that book of poetry is inspired by God.
You mean it canât be married to your interpretation of the book of Genesis? We here at Biologos are doing just that: accepting Genesis as Godâs word, and accepting the wildly irrefutable theory of evolution. To do this we read Genesis like you would Job or Revelation or Psalms. This interpretation supports good theology, good science, and good history. Not only that, I believe that the book of Genesis was supposed to be taken as a poem. It shows clear literary signs of poetry. (More on that later.) You also make it seem as if us âevolutionistsâ have to throw out the book entirely, which isnât the case. We pull a much deeper message than just a history or science out of Genesis. We can learn something about the nature of God through Genesis. The interpretation I think was intended all along.
YES. Now you have it! The bible is not a science book! So then why are you making it out to be that way? You claim that Genesis should be taken literally, yet if Genesis was literal, (which it is not) all that we understand about science would have to go through the window! All that we understand about the nature of God would have to go through the window! Obviously we shouldnât do that. You understand that not all books in the bible are meant to be taken literally. So why donât you think that of Genesis? Genesis 1 shows all the classic literary signs of being a six stanza poem. It is structured exactly like a poem. Genesis 2 is clearly a parable, as is the flood account. The talking snake and tree of life are never made out to be miracles, and the bible never says the snake was possessed by Satan. (That little bit of theology is extra-biblical.) Let me ask you this: how many history books have you read that use talking animals and magic fruit as main plot points?
Now, it could be said that the talking snake was a miracle of God, but this is never stated or inferred from the original text. Just as Jesus spoke in parables, the book of Genesis speaks in parables. How wonderful is it that our loving God would give us a look at his character through the beautiful forms of poetry and allegory? You know as well as I do that the intent of the bible is not to teach science or history, but to teach about God. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Why are you limiting Godâs word to one genre? Is God incapable of communicating to his people through poetry as Jesus did?
2 Likes
Iâve always liked my professorâs speculation that if Genesis 1 were tucked into the Psalms or the book of Job, most Christians would likely understand it much like similar genres found in those texts. Textbooks would speak of the beauty and structures of Genesis 1 with little thought to it being a scientific, historical account. The six stanzas with repeating chorus would be obvious to all.
I donât consider traditional literal interpretations of Genesis 1 to honor that text. I believe they reduce a hymnic tribute of great grandeur to something easily mocked by non-Christians and easily dismissed by thinking people. I wonât call it scorning the scriptures but it encourages that result.
I affirm the Theory of Evolution and billions of years of earth history because Godâs creation is filled with evidence of that amazing history. That in no way conflicts with or reduces my respect for Godâs purposes in giving us the Genesis text.
1 Like
Amen, brother. Thatâs exactly what a literal interpretation does, and thatâs exactly what I see in the natural world.
I think you donât see how contrary you are being in your own post.
By your own description, you should be able to say: I donât trust Genesis to comment on science because Genesis is NOT a science book!
But ⌠no⌠you say the Bible is NOT a science book ⌠but GENESIS⌠well thatâs SCIENCE FROM GOD.
Follow me?
My friend, your entire argument is a bait and switch. Jesus[quote=âSocratic.Fanatic, post:21, topic:5268â]
Does the fact that Jesus is not really a door destroy the invitation from God which is the Gospel message? Does a pastor cease being a shepherd of the flock once we acknowledge that people arenât really sheep and goats?
[/quote]
My friend, perhaps you are stumped, because your entire argument is a bait and switch. It is one thing to see allegories in certain parts of passages. It is an ENTIRELY different specie when you dismiss an entire book as allegorical 
No offense, my friend, but you are being condescending. âmagic fruitââŚreally? I do not believe it productive that we continue this debate
Identifying a genre as allegory or myth or embellished history is not the same thing at all as âdismissing an entire book.â Plenty of people who identify parts of Genesis as mythologized still see the stories/narratives as authoritative Scripture that teach ultimate truth about God and humanity. That is not dismissing anything, it is reading in context.
1 Like
I believe in solas scriptura. Scripture along interprets scripture. Jesus, âThe Christâ constantly reiterated Genesis and thought Genesis to be true, therefore who am I to say differently
InterestingâŚthen who decides what parts are allegorical and what parts arenât? I see no instruction in scripture.