Problems with Literal Readings of Genesis 2:4-3:24
(stub)
Note: "problems" in the sense of challenges to readers, not a euphemism for errors!
The Serpent
Bro Alan Fowler writes:
Was the Serpent a Literal Creature?
We are told that "God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good". The idea that God created a separate whose malign purpose was to question His divine authority is difficult to accept, especially in view of the fact that Jesus made it clear that evil comes from within the human heart:
". . . What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these things come from within, and they defile a man."
— Mark 7:20-23
The answer to this problem may lie in the fact that we need to interpret Genesis 2 and 3. Just as we interpret Genesis 1 as a drama of Creation rather than a literal account, so may we interpret Genesis 2 and 3 as a drama of the source of sin. Thus the serpent, Satan and the devil are personifications of human rebellion against the authority of God's Word. There are three passages in Genesis 2 and 3 which support the view that the account is non-literal:
(i) We are told that after naming the animals Adam was unable to find a suitable animal as a helper and particularly as a wife (Genesis 2:18-20). The very idea that this could have been a literal possibility would be physically grotesque and morally equivalent to bestiality.
(ii) When the serpent was cursed it was said to be condemned to a diet of 'dust' (Genesis 3:14). No animal lives on dust, nor can it possibly survive on purely inorganic matter in the soil. Even earthworms which appear to eat soil are in fact eating the products of organic breakdown. So this must again be interpreted as purely symbolic language.
(iii) Finally, we have the amazing prophecy of Genesis 3:15 where we are told that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpent's head, referring of course to Christ's conquest of sin. Clearly this passage is highly symbolic and in no way can it be understood literally.
We therefore have powerful reasons for believing that Genesis 2 and 3 provide no support for the common assumption that these chapters are a literal account.— Fowler, A, Twenty Essays in a Search for Truth
Geography
Naming the Animals
What does "animal" mean? According to Wikipedia (July 2024) 1.5 million animals have been described and over 7 million are thought to exist. Clearly that is not what Genesis 2:18-20 refers to when it records that
- God made all the animals and birds;
- God brought them to Adam to be given names; and
- Adam gave them names.
One flesh
Gen 2:24 — not literally true
