Literal or mythical interpretation of Genesis

Mallon · #21 30th April 2009, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Assyrian

Did you catch the program on BBC recently 'Did Darwin Kill God?' It gives a really good overview of the history of interpretation of Genesis in the church and the relationship between Christianity and science down through the ages. You can still catch it on YouTube

YouTube - Did Darwin Kill God? (1 of 6)

It is in six 10min clips.

I think it is worth pointing out that while you do get people who take Genesis literally, long before modern geology and evolution you have really important scripture scholars and theologians like Origen, Augustine Anslem and Aquinas who realised from the text of Genesis itself that the account was not meant to be taken literally. Even in the bible itself, the days of Genesis are not taken literally, look at Psalm 90 or Hebrew 3&4.

Great series of videos, Assyrian. Very informative. I can't help but roll my eyes when I hear YECs insist that the Genesis creation accounts were always interpreted literally in light of the history covered here. They would have us dismiss science; they would have us dismiss history. I can't help but feel that God never intended for us to use such big brains so little.

tansy · #22 30th April 2009, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Chesterton

I agree. Besides it kind of raises two questions:

1) Weren't the city planners expecting they'd get deliveries of cargo? Wouldn't the gates have been built large enough

Haha..fair point - mind you, even today city planners don't always get it right!

2) Isn't the meaning ultimately pretty much the same - if you have cargo and have to unload it, you'd have been better not having it to begin with. Travel light through this life.

Yes,,in the end, the points the same, whether Jesus meant needles or gates

.

tansy · #23 30th April 2009, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Assyrian

I think there are two factors at work here, there are our own human limitations, the fact that God's ways are far higher than ours, his thoughts higher than our thoughts, and until we meet him face to face, though we learn his way, until we meet him face to face we will always see through a glass darkly. On the other hand we have the Spirit of God, and his Word is living and active. I have heard too many sermons where the speaker messes up the the exegesis of the text or massacres the Greek, yet speaks the wisdom and grace of God right into my heart. God's word is bigger than our mistakes. I have heard creationists preaching form Genesis and as long as they are preaching scripture rather than creation science I have been blessed. God's word cuts deeper than our misunderstandings.

Yes, that's true.....it's probably best if one allows the Holy Spirit to interpret as He wishes and reach someone's heart.

Mallon · #24 30th April 2009, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by tansy

Yes, that's true.....it's probably best if one allows the Holy Spirit to interpret as He wishes and reach someone's heart.

I think it's equally important to remember that the Bible is just as open to interpretive error as the scientific evidence. Many fundamentalists don't like to admit the fallible human element in biblical interpretation.

tansy · #25 30th April 2009, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by Mallon

I think it's equally important to remember that the Bible is just as open to interpretive error as the scientific evidence. Many fundamentalists don't like to admit the fallible human element in biblical interpretation.

Yes, true....if even biblical scholars and theologians have differences of opinion, what chance does the ordinary bod in the street have?!

I mean the the overall message of the Bible is reasonably clear, but it's the individual bits which cause most difficulty. However, I think a lot of the small detail in the Bible is there for a reason, or helps with our understanding and interpretation.
For example, there's a bit in one of the Gospels (cant remember the details), where it says that they all sat down on the green grass. Well, that always puzzled me...why didnt they say simply that they sat down on the grass.? Then one day I read in a book that rhere was significance to the grass being green...maybe only that it pointed to a paerticular period when that would be so, but anyhow it meant that it made something else more clear....sorry, just dont remember now. But the point is that i don't think one can ignore details in Scripture - so Genesis I and 2 I have always found fascinating, and think that there is a lot more significance to all that;s in there than we may realise.

gluadys · #26 1st May 2009, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by tansy

Yes, true....if even biblical scholars and theologians have differences of opinion, what chance does the ordinary bod in the street have?!

I mean the the overall message of the Bible is reasonably clear, but it's the individual bits which cause most difficulty. However, I think a lot of the small detail in the Bible is there for a reason, or helps with our understanding and interpretation.
For example, there's a bit in one of the Gospels (cant remember the details), where it says that they all sat down on the green grass. Well, that always puzzled me...why didnt they say simply that they sat down on the grass.? Then one day I read in a book that rhere was significance to the grass being green...maybe only that it pointed to a paerticular period when that would be so, but anyhow it meant that it made something else more clear....sorry, just dont remember now. But the point is that i don't think one can ignore details in Scripture - so Genesis I and 2 I have always found fascinating, and think that there is a lot more significance to all that;s in there than we may realise.

What many of the ancient church fathers thought was that the significance of such details was in their allegorical meanings. Allegory was the principal way of interpreting scripture for about the first 1500 years of the Church's existence. However, they also didn't make the distinction moderns make about choosing whether the allegorical or literal meaning was true. They often accepted both as true. But they tended to think that whether or not the literal meaning was true, the allegorical meaning was more important.

tansy · #27 1st May 2009, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by gluadys

What many of the ancient church fathers thought was that the significance of such details was in their allegorical meanings. Allegory was the principal way of interpreting scripture for about the first 1500 years of the Church's existence. However, they also didn't make the distinction moderns make about choosing whether the allegorical or literal meaning was true. They often accepted both as true. But they tended to think that whether or not the literal meaning was true, the allegorical meaning was more important.

Oh right..I see.

shernren · #28 1st May 2009, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by mindlight

Regarding Genesis those closest to the original languages and time quite definitely interpreted it as a literal account. The only reason we really question is that the rise of modern scientific theories relating to the age of the Earth and the processes by which life developed into its present state.

And in the blue corner we have Origen!

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil masticating what was taken from the tree?

And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

De Principiis 4.1.16

Assyrian · #29 1st May 2009, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by mindlight

Or one could reject macroevolution as being an unprovable hypothesis about things that only God can know about. The evidence is degraded, incomplete and misread. Highly gifted professional scientists apply advanced techniques in a guessing game which carries no more than the authority of speculation.

Science doesn't work by proving hypotheses but by testing them and rejecting the ones that don't measure up, not by rejecting the ones you don't like and claiming they are 'unprovable'. I'm sure you could reject all science on that basis and go and live in a straw hut.

Regarding Genesis those closest to the original languages and time quite definitely interpreted it as a literal account. The only reason we really question is that the rise of modern scientific theories relating to the age of the Earth and the processes by which life developed into its present state.

Who exactly are these people closest to the original languages who definitely interpreted it literally? It is odd how you go from claiming evolution is an unprovable hypothesis to making wild and unsubstantiatable claims about how people closes to original languages interpreted it.

The nearest we get to knowing how people closest to the original language interpreted it, is to look at how these passages in Genesis were interpreted by people the early parts of the bible. But generally they ignored these passages. The only passages I can think of are Psalm 90 where Moses discusses the creation and tells us God's days are not the same as our. The Psalm seems to be an allegorical reading of the early chapters of Genesis, returning man to the dust, sweeping them away in a flood.

There is an interesting allegorical reading of the creation of Adam in Gen 6 describing the reason for the flood. It draws on the language of the creation of Adam, saying God was sorry he created 'the man' (ha'adm the same term used in Gen 2) on the earth and would blot out the man from the face of the land. Gen 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." Of course if you read Genesis literally, Adam was already dead when the flood came. But this passages reads the creation of Adam as an allegorical picture of God creating the human race, so that when flood came God was wiping Adam out from the land.

Psalm 104 is interesting too, it follows the order of Genesis 1 days, but reads them as if they were a framework to describe creation rather than a chonological timetable, so when God separates the waters from the land, he provides springs in the valleys for the wild beasts and donkeys, vs 10&11. God causes grass to grow for the livestock and birds build their nests in the trees 14-17. God creates the sun and moon and when the sun sets the beasts of the forest come out to creep around 19-23.

There is an interesting comment by Eliphaz in Job 15:7 Are you the first man (Adam) who was born? Or were you brought forth before the hills? Even though he is talking about the first man, Eliphaz still seems to think Adam was born. Of course Eliphaz isn't giving us an inspired interpretation of the Genesis creation account, unlike Genesis 6 or Psalm 90, but we are looking her at how people close to the original language interpreted Genesis.

The flood account described a global flood which wiped all but Noah and his family and the subsequent table of the nations refers to these ancestors as the progenitors of the nations that spread across the world.

Given that not one knew the earth was a globe, or that anything existed more than a couple of countries ways, let alone the existence of the Americas or Australia, how could the writers be describing a global flood and why would the people closest to the language interpret it that way?

Also there is a level of dishonesty in many TEs in their reading of the Genesis 1 to 10 chapters. They will accept a literal truth like God created everything , that he created out of nothing but not that he did it in 6 days or that there was an historical Adam and Eve from whom all mankind are descended.

It think you are getting mixed up over the word literal. 'Literal' tells us about the way things are described, whether the description is plainly factual or figurative and metaphorical. When you talk of "a literal truth like God created everything", it means the statement "God created everything" is both literal and true. But that has nothing to do with the description in of the creation Genesis being literal. There is nothing inconsistent or dishonest with seeing Genesis as a figurative description of something that really is true. That is how figurative descriptions work.

Having said all the above there is poetry interwoven with facts in this account. I find the straight forward interpretation of something is usually the safest however. If on judgment day God turns round and says hey I was only joking in Genesis then I am going to need to rethink my entire sense of humour methinks.

Has anyone here suggested Genesis is a joke? Jesus might ask if you every heard of a thing called a parable...

mindlight · #30 3rd May 2009, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Mallon

Great series of videos, Assyrian. Very informative. I can't help but roll my eyes when I hear YECs insist that the Genesis creation accounts were always interpreted literally in light of the history covered here. They would have us dismiss science; they would have us dismiss history. I can't help but feel that God never intended for us to use such big brains so little.

The list of historical evidences presented in this documentary were quite weak actually and the socalled Christian experts referred came to some very controversial conclusions of dubious authority.

Philo- Had Platos view about creation not a Christian one. Allegorised in the conclusions of Stoic and Greek philosophy into the scriptures.

Augustine did not understand the Hebrew which is why he could impose his framework theory onto the text and why he could postulate a theory of instant creation which does not square with the rest of scripture e.g. Exodus 20s Sabbath commandments endorsement of 6 day creation. Meanwhile the church and the Jews were using calendars that dated creation at several thousand years past.

Origen was in the Alexandria school and hiis views were rejected by the school of Antioch. Also he had 15 anathemas pronounced against him by the fifth ecumenical council. Again his theory of creation was influenced by pagan philosophies

Combining the Stoic doctrine of a universe without beginning with the Biblical doctrine of the beginning and the end of the world, he conceived of the visible world as the stages of an eternal cosmic process

Origen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia