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

The Genesis Account

The Genesis Academy

Creation Answers Book

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

Genesis: Myth or History?

Is Genesis poetry / figurative, a theological argument (polemic) and thus not history?

Does God have body parts?

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?

Serpentine subtlety

Josephus says, ‘Genesis means what it says!’

Interpreting Genesis

Did God do what He said He did?

The good news

Taking the Bible seriously?

Genesis is history!

Creation—how did God do it?

Morning has broken … but when?

Don’t answer—do answer!

Biblical text transmitted accurately over millennia

Just what we need

Genesis as ancient historical narrative

Aesop’s fables, anyone?

Starting from Genesis or geology?

Genesis as history: a discredited interpretation?

Follow us (if you want) ► Facebook
► Twitter
► Instagram