An informal poll

[clbndlf]

I've been curious for a while about something, so I thought I'd take a poll. Please answer:

a. To what degree do you take the events of Genesis 1-3 (the creation, the "fall of man") literally? There is a spectrum from completely literal to completely allegorical: Let me know where you stand. Feel free to explain a little. Or if you take some parts literally and others allegorically, explain.
b. To what denomination (if any) do you belong?

 

[dallas1125]

A. I take most of the creation story in a metaphorical way. The only part I dont take metaphorically is that god created the earth.
B. LDS, leaning on agnostic.

 

[wordmagnifiedabovenames]

I'll copy and paste my post from the other thread where this question was posed:

I'm at both ends of the spectrum simultaneously. I believe it literally insofar as there really was a place called Eden, a man called Adam, a woman that was made from his rib etc. I also believe it allegorically, insofar as there were types and symbols set up there, which may be a bit controversial, but I'll list some anyway;
6000 years of creation+1000 years of rest > 6000 years for redemption+millennial reign
The woman looking at the fruit she wasn't supposed to eat and finding it "good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise" was an actual event, and lines up with 1 John 2:16 (lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life)
God cursing the ground was an actual event, and the thorns being part of that curse > Jesus being crowned with thorns, indicating He dealt with sin all the way back to Adam
God sacrificed an animal for the sin of Adam and the woman was an actual event > God sent Jesus for the sin of the world

Re "the fall of man," I'd say that man didn't fall; he jumped.

 

[Gaura Priya]

A) I take the Creation story of Genesis completely in a metaphorical way. I believe that all stories from the Scriptures should be taken metaphorically in the light of science and reason; I would hardly think that the whole purport of Jesus' teachings lie in his supremacy. After all, John's Gospel is the only weird one that gives Jesus as not only the Messiah, but as the very Son of God Himself.

In the other Gospel accounts, we see a Jesus who is committed towards a social Gospel, a Gospel of loving actions and of good works, to bring healing and the power of healing to people of all walks of life and of all faiths, whether Jew, Gentile or Samaritan.

The story of Genesis is to show that God has given agency to all his creatures, but Satan (representing the lower nature, forces, or the carnality of the human being, for I do not believe in a literal personified being of evil called Satan or the Devil) attempts to destroy that agency through ignorance and the natural forces. However, if it was not for the Fall, then there would be no understanding of good and evil, of morality and discrimination.

In the Book of Mormon, it is taught that there must be an opposition in all things to distinguish what is good and what is bad. In the Book of Moses, Eve, the wife of Adam, says thus:

"Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."

-- Moses 5:11

Thus, the story of Genesis regarding the Garden of Eden and the so-called 'Fall of Adam' is an allegory to describe that God's gift to mankind is agency, and through that gift of intellectual discrimination, we can know good from evil, and choose the good.

"And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy."

-- 2 Nephi 2:22-25

B) At this point in time, I am unsure... I guess my theological position would place me as part of Community of Christ (RLDS)... my religious affiliation is another complex thing altogether, lol.

 

[clbndlf]

Thanks, I posted it here in the hope that I would get more replies and a greater variety of replies.

 

[clbndlf]

I'll copy and paste my post from the other thread where this question was posed:

Thanks. I reposted here in hope that I would get more replies and a greater variety of replies. This forum seems fairly inactive.

 

[Jacksnyte]

I've been curious for a while about something, so I thought I'd take a poll. Please answer:

a. To what degree do you take the events of Genesis 1-3 (the creation, the "fall of man") literally? There is a spectrum from completely literal to completely allegorical: Let me know where you stand. Feel free to explain a little. Or if you take some parts literally and others allegorically, explain.
I think the whole thing is a creation myth put together by nomadic tribes to explain where this all came from. I take it less literally than the pulp fiction I occasionally indulge in.
b. To what denomination (if any) do you belong?
I am very non-christian/non-abrahamic

:bat::drums::jam:unk:<:meditate::magic::fork::jester5:

 

[kylixguru]

I view the creation account as recorded in the King James Version of the Bible as being explicitly literal. I don't consider it my place to attribute any metaphors to holy writ that are not actually laid out in holy writ itself. Few translations out there actually do justice to the source material because their translators are hung up on their own precepts. The NIV totally trashes the creation account.

Fortunately, when a decent translation is used, it very plainly tells us that the creation account itself is a metaphor. Thus, that which was originally written by Moses is simply literal while making use of a metaphor of its own definition, not one I am reading into things to facilitate my own desired interpretation.

I hope this distinction is clear. It is an important distinction to me. Holy writ is not open to private interpretation.

Knowing the correct metaphoric basis of the creation account makes all the difference when it comes to understanding the Bible's practical application in perfect clarity. There is not a single iota of conflict with truths plainly manifested in the secular world when you understand how Genesis was intended to be read. Sadly, this makes most all Christians their own worst enemies, willing to argue with painfully twisted and non-sensical reasoning, to defend something that was never intended by the Author.

I am an Israelite of the House of Joseph.