Should Genesis be Taken Literally?
If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened.
Written by Russell Grigg
Originally published December, 1993
Helpful resources
Support CMI
Our audio and video content are freely available but not free to produce. To support the ministry go to visit our site or simply text a donation to 84321. And thank you!
Links and show notes
Original article: Should Genesis be Taken Literally?
Vintage Journal: Literary theory and Genesis 1: Part 2
Vintage Journal: Literary theory and Genesis 1: Part 1
Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?
Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian?
Why do you take the Bible literally?
How could the days of Genesis 1 be literal if the sun wasn’t created until the fourth day?
Josephus says, ‘Genesis means what it says!’
Did God do what He said He did?
Morning has broken … but when?
Biblical text transmitted accurately over millennia
Genesis as ancient historical narrative
Starting from Genesis or geology?
Apple Podcasts 
Overcast 
PocketCasts 
Spotify 
Google Play Music 
RSS 
YouTube Helpful Resources
Creation.com Article Podcast
