Literal or mythical interpretation of Genesis

Mallon · #31 3rd May 2009, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by mindlight

Again his theory of creation was influenced by pagan philosophies

How can you tell?

tansy · #32 4th May 2009, 01:51 PM

Thanks everybody for your responses...I can see that there's always been srgument about Genesis...right from way back, not just in the last two or three hundred years.

Well, maybe no-one has ALL the answers...just have to let the Holy Spirit work in people whatever ours or their preconceptions or misundestandings - He seems to find ways...and seeing there are believers in both camps, maybe, after all it's not too important.

MattLangley · #33 4th May 2009, 07:43 PM

Genesis was a written text by man, there is no need to elevate it beyond it's reality (it was in fact written by the hand of man and as a text long ago). You can hold it to be sacred in "status" but there is no need to hold it to be sacred in "source." It is the writtings of the Ancient Israelites and it is a creation myth. It is not unlike (and in fact quite like) many other myths of ancient times, even up to and including the story of Noah. It may be a myth but there are a lot of truths in it, we do not need to learn science from those who lived thousands of years ago, but we can learn other non-factual truths, such as are relationship with God, the imagery used, just like in other creation myths.

tansy · #34 4th May 2009, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by MattLangley

Genesis was a written text by man, there is no need to elevate it beyond it's reality (it was in fact written by the hand of man and as a text long ago). You can hold it to be sacred in "status" but there is no need to hold it to be sacred in "source." It is the writtings of the Ancient Israelites and it is a creation myth. It is not unlike (and in fact quite like) many other myths of ancient times, even up to and including the story of Noah. It may be a myth but there are a lot of truths in it, we do not need to learn science from those who lived thousands of years ago, but we can learn other non-factual truths, such as are relationship with God, the imagery used, just like in other creation myths.

I have to say that I'm beginning to wish it wasnt included in Scripture, as it seems to be so difficult to figure out which bits are true in it....I'm pretty certain I wouldnt understand it at all, if others hadnt pointed out the "truths" in it....but how do i know which version of truth is correct...I've only got theologians word for it (whether creationist or evolutionist). It's hard to approach it without all the preconceived stuff.
It seems to be basic or set the framework for the rest of the Bible, but then, if it's merely allegorical, or myth... how do we know that God really
DID create....why did the writers go into all the detail of creation....why couldnt they have just said "God created everything....mankind disobeyed Him, thta's why we're now in dire straits" - it makes no sense to me that they go in to such detail about everything, in that way. Or maybe I just cant get into that mindset.
If i was trying to explain things to my kids, and was using a story to help explain, I would say that something was like, or it was as if, or imagine this...and i would ensure that they knew it was just an illustration of something real.
As it is, I can't figure out what's real, and what's not real in the Creation story. Maybe it'ds not true at all that man disobeyed God etc...maybe that's just a story too. And so on, I think I'm actually getting quite confused.

Ok.....so which bits of Gen 1 (and maybe 2), do you consider NOT myth? And how do we know that the Biblical creation story is the one we should go by, and not the creation stories of other cultures?

metherion · #35 4th May 2009, 10:28 PM

One thing I think a lot of people need to wrap their heads around is thinking that if it's not literal it's not 'true'.

Eg

as it seems to be so difficult to figure out which bits are true in it.

If it's not literally true, it doesn't mean it isn't true.

I think once people get their heads around that it'll become a lot easier.

Metherion

gluadys · #36 5th May 2009, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by tansy

but then, if it's merely allegorical, or myth... how do we know that God really
DID create....why did the writers go into all the detail of creation....why couldnt they have just said "God created everything....mankind disobeyed Him, thta's why we're now in dire straits" - it makes no sense to me that they go in to such detail about everything, in that way. Or maybe I just cant get into that mindset.

As metherion said, the first thing needed to get into the mindset is to jettison the idea that something is only true if it is literal. Putting the word "merely" in front of "allegory or myth" suggests that allegory and myth are not to be taken seriously. That idea would have astonished most ancient and medieval theologians.

When the biblical writers chose their insights in the form of allegory or myth, they didn't intend to be writing children's stories, or something of little importance. They understood that allegory and mythical meanings were just as important as literal meanings, and just as true.

The details don't lose importance or true meaning just because they are not literal.

One of the popular non-literal ways to understand Genesis 1 that still gives a great deal of importance to the details is the Framework Interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framewo...ation_(Genesis)

Interestingly, some people consider the Framework Interpretation to be literal and some consider it non-literal. It actually has elements of both.

radlad72 · #37 5th May 2009, 05:05 AM

God told Moses what to write and Moses wrote it. Why would God want to cause confusion. Do you think He would have used the word for 'day' (as in 24 hour period) to describe it if is wan't true? Is it entirely impossible for God to have done what is said in Genesis? If so then we are putting limitations on God.

Compromise is very bad theology as the Bible bits used in TE beliefs and progressive creationists tend to be put on the back-burner.

You only have to go forward to Moses at Sinai when he received the 10 commandments. The 4th one tells us that in 6 days the world was created and everything in it. Do we doubt the hand of God Himself? This is a little dangerous ground.

gluadys · #38 5th May 2009, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by radlad72

God told Moses what to write and Moses wrote it. Why would God want to cause confusion. Do you think He would have used the word for 'day' (as in 24 hour period) to describe it if is wan't true? Is it entirely impossible for God to have done what is said in Genesis? If so then we are putting limitations on God.

Compromise is very bad theology as the Bible bits used in TE beliefs and progressive creationists tend to be put on the back-burner.

You only have to go forward to Moses at Sinai when he received the 10 commandments. The 4th one tells us that in 6 days the world was created and everything in it. Do we doubt the hand of God Himself? This is a little dangerous ground.

Actually, I think it says one has a very low opinion of human capacities to think people are too stupid to understand non-literal language. Even children delight in word-play and imaginative stories and use them to learn.

I remember one day when my husband came home in a grumpy mood and my daughter,not yet two, who could barely string two words together yet, gave her comment. "Daddy--Oscar" (as in Sesame Street). If a two-year-old can understand and create a metaphor, I hardly think they need be confusing to adults.

crawfish · #39 5th May 2009, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by radlad72

Why would God want to cause confusion.

If God didn't want to cause confusion, we'd have the Holy Pamphlet rather than the Holy Bible. It is a long, deep, complex book and to try and make it simple is to discredit it.

MattLangley · #40 5th May 2009, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by tansy

I have to say that I'm beginning to wish it wasnt included in Scripture, as it seems to be so difficult to figure out which bits are true in it....I'm pretty certain I wouldnt understand it at all, if others hadnt pointed out the "truths" in it....but how do i know which version of truth is correct...I've only got theologians word for it (whether creationist or evolutionist). It's hard to approach it without all the preconceived stuff.
It seems to be basic or set the framework for the rest of the Bible, but then, if it's merely allegorical, or myth... how do we know that God really
DID create....why did the writers go into all the detail of creation....why couldnt they have just said "God created everything....mankind disobeyed Him, thta's why we're now in dire straits" - it makes no sense to me that they go in to such detail about everything, in that way. Or maybe I just cant get into that mindset.
If i was trying to explain things to my kids, and was using a story to help explain, I would say that something was like, or it was as if, or imagine this...and i would ensure that they knew it was just an illustration of something real.
As it is, I can't figure out what's real, and what's not real in the Creation story. Maybe it'ds not true at all that man disobeyed God etc...maybe that's just a story too. And so on, I think I'm actually getting quite confused.

Ok.....so which bits of Gen 1 (and maybe 2), do you consider NOT myth? And how do we know that the Biblical creation story is the one we should go by, and not the creation stories of other cultures?

I can completely relate

I think everyone who starts to question and establish their own set of beliefs and not just a set of acceptances runs into this. At least those of us who are raised to believe something must be "factual" to be "true". Metherion hits on a good point.

I would highly recommend the book "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time" by Marcus Borg. I think you would really enjoy it.

He gives a very strong argument for things being true even if not factual. He also points out the distinction between what people traditionally believed vs. what people believe now. People used to believe this was how we were created, but "believing" didn't mean disregarding the massive amount of evidence that points towards this not being the case. They had no reason to not believe it as "literal"... basically they didn't have to disregard common sense to believe something. That's what christians in the modern day must do to believe it as literal. Disregard everything else in God's creation... that doesn't make any sense, people didn't use to have to do this.

It's also important to realize that the Bible is a compilation of texts written by many different authors (most we don't know for sure) over a long period of time, though it was compiled at a much later point than the originals were written. There are two different creation accounts in Genesis, both with a different order, with a different purpose, and with a very different style. Scholars are almost certain they were written by different people at different points in time.

Facing the reality of these things doesn't diminish the truth it can hold. The best example is Jesus. He taught primarily in parables. These were non-factual examples that still held truth. Such is much of the Bible and we should take it as such. What do these stories mean in context... so what does Genesis mean to the Ancient Israelites, what are they trying to explain in these stories? They aren't trying to explain anything about science, they are trying to share a truth about their relationship with God and how important it is to them. They are explaining it in a Creation story that represents how powerful and important they thought God was.