Question about Genesis

[dms1972]

Hi, Although I have christian background, I have some questions about Genesis, partly because others raise these questions and objections at times too. If its possible to answer them I like some answers. In all honesty I suppress some of my questions at times.

What is Genesis the first three chapters - I am inclined to call it mythopoetic (not in the sense of never having happened, or being untrue) but in its language, its not scientific. For myself I no longer demand it should be, and this maybe came gradually.

But others still raise some questions. For instance, the creation of plant life before the creation of the sun. If its not chronological in sequence how should it be understood. Whats back of this requirement that Genesis read as a scientific textbook?

 

[gluadys]

You might find it very helpful to check out this series by Denis Lamoureux.
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/wlhs.html

In particular look at the third set of slides in the first series: Beyond the "Evolution" vs. "Creation" debate. It is the one on his personal story. The key sections begin at slide 19, but it is probably good to begin at the beginning to understand the context.

 

[dms1972]

OK, that looks like it could be quite helpful. Thankyou very much for the link.

 

[-57]

Why not take Genesis as literal? The other authors of the bible as well a Jesus did.

 

[gluadys]

Why not take Genesis as literal? The other authors of the bible as well a Jesus did.

There is no problem taking Genesis as literal. The problem is taking Genesis as history. All too many people think "literal" and "history" are synonyms. They are not. A great many non-historical writings, including poetry, are literal.

 

[-57]

There is no problem taking Genesis as literal. The problem is taking Genesis as history. All too many people think "literal" and "history" are synonyms. They are not. A great many non-historical writings, including poetry, are literal.

Judging from your profile that pops up you seem to have a belief in the bible. Jude in Jude 1:14 presented Adam as historical when he wrote "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,"

Even Luke, a historian presented Genesis as historical when he presented Jesus linage clear back to Adam....

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Heli,Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph,Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai,Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda,Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri,Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er,Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi,Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim,Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon,Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah,Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor,Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah,Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech,Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan,Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Luke 3:23

I have no reason to believe Genesis isn't historical and literal.

 

[dms1972]

.

 

[dms1972]

There is no problem taking Genesis as literal. The problem is taking Genesis as history. All too many people think "literal" and "history" are synonyms. They are not. A great many non-historical writings, including poetry, are literal.

Thanks for this clarification

 

[dms1972]

What then does 'literal' properly mean?

 

[gluadys]

What do you mean by literal?

Are you speaking to me?

My background is language and literature.

In that context "literal" refers to a non-symbolic use of a word or phrase, irrespective of the genre of literature in which it is found. So when the nursery rhyme says "Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water" terms like "hill" and "water" are literal even though they don't exist outside the rhyme, because they don't mean anything else than "hill" and "water".

"Literal" implies nothing about the actuality or historicity of what is referred to. It just means that "snake" means "snake" and not "Satan" whether the story is history or myth. If you believe the snake in Genesis 3 was Satan, then you are not reading the term literally, again whether the story is history or myth.

 

[gluadys]

Judging from your profile that pops up you seem to have a belief in the bible. Jude in Jude 1:14 presented Adam as historical when he wrote "It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones,"

Even Luke, a historian presented Genesis as historical when he presented Jesus linage clear back to Adam....

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Heli,Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph,Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai,Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda,Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri,Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er,Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi,Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim,Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon,Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah,Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor,Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah,Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech,Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan,Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Luke 3:23

I have no reason to believe Genesis isn't historical and literal.

If the story, and the characters in it, are not historical in the first place, references to the story by later writers do not confer historical reality on it.

 

[-57]

If the story, and the characters in it, are not historical in the first place, references to the story by later writers do not confer historical reality on it.

Am I to assume you don't believe the bible was inspired?

 

[gluadys]

Am I to assume you don't believe the bible was inspired?

Not at all. I fully believe the bible was inspired.
I just don't put the limits on inspiration that you apparently do.
I believe the Holy Spirit is capable of inspiring symbolic and imaginative presentations of truth, much as Jesus did in his stories.
Note the second item in my signature.

 

[-57]

Not at all. I fully believe the bible was inspired.
I just don't put the limits on inspiration that you apparently do.
I believe the Holy Spirit is capable of inspiring symbolic and imaginative presentations of truth, much as Jesus did in his stories.
Note the second item in my signature.

Why would God inspire a writer to fib about how God created man?
Why would God inspire Paul to tell us sin and death entered because of one man...Adam...if it didn't happen that way?

Will you also argue that the resurrection of Jesus was also symbolic and imaginative presentations of truth?

 

[Eryk]

If the story, and the characters in it, are not historical in the first place, references to the story by later writers do not confer historical reality on it.

But if these names are in a genealogy list with the names of historical people, then those are also the names of historical people. No real person has a literary character for an ancestor.

 

[gluadys]

But if these names are in a genealogy list with the names of historical people, then those are also the names of historical people. No real person has a literary character for an ancestor.

Some real people claim they do. Julius Caesar claimed the goddess Venus as an ancestor.
Until it was repudiated after WWII, the emperor of Japan claimed descent from the Sun God.
Besides, we don't know that ancient people wrote or understood genealogies as we do.
It is not uncommon in ancient literature to invent an eponymous ancestor.
So, for example, when the people of Rome wanted an answer to the question of their origins, they told a story of Romulus and Remus, claiming Romulus as their ancestor. That Romulus was legendary doesn't make the Romans less real.

 

[gluadys]

Why would God inspire a writer to fib about how God created man?

I didn't say God did. And I see no reason to call a symbolic story a fib. Just because the truth is presented in a symbolic story does not make it less true.

Why would God inspire Paul to tell us sin and death entered because of one man...Adam...if it didn't happen that way?

Paul was trained in rabbinical interpretation. Until you understand how the rabbis of the time understood Adam, you don't understand Paul's presentation here. Check out in particular the concept of Adam Kadmon.

Will you also argue that the resurrection of Jesus was also symbolic and imaginative presentations of truth?

I don't doubt the reality of the resurrection. As I said, even if the truth is presented imaginatively, it is still true. I haven't really looked at the resurrection accounts in detail, but I do know not one gospel writer agrees with another on what happened that morning, except for the fact of the resurrection itself. So, I am firmly committed to the belief that Christ truly died and truly rose from the dead. And not from scripture alone, but from a personal relationship to the living Christ.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Are you speaking to me?

My background is language and literature.

In that context "literal" refers to a non-symbolic use of a word or phrase, irrespective of the genre of literature in which it is found. So when the nursery rhyme says "Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water" terms like "hill" and "water" are literal even though they don't exist outside the rhyme, because they don't mean anything else than "hill" and "water".

"Literal" implies nothing about the actuality or historicity of what is referred to. It just means that "snake" means "snake" and not "Satan" whether the story is history or myth. If you believe the snake in Genesis 3 was Satan, then you are not reading the term literally, again whether the story is history or myth.

Then you're using a different operational definition of literal than most people, because of your background. That's fine. Most of us mean the events actually took place as described, not figuratively.

 

[dms1972]

If a person seems determined to find fault with Genesis not because there is fault, but simply because they have a criterion which is not appropriate to the book, how does one answer them? They may have a misunderstanding about what the Bible is.

If they say for instance Genesis gets it wrong because the modern Biology textbooks say otherwise (i am not sure if they do, but thats their argument - genesis got it wrong), they are saying it must meet a scientific criterion, or be read chronologically. But if it was never written in the first place to be a biology textbook, should it? If it was meant to be this it would be in error, but its not. This is the difficulty some people have an expectation of what the Bible should present. They seem to saying all accounts whether primative or modern must be scientifically accurate. In fact they seem to be holding the biology book as a touchstone - but thats like saying Genesis is an early biological textbook, lets see how it holds up. But its not a biological textbook at all, and not supposed to be read as one it seems to me, or judged as one.

 

[whois]

Hi, Although I have christian background, I have some questions about Genesis, partly because others raise these questions and objections at times too. If its possible to answer them I like some answers. In all honesty I suppress some of my questions at times.

What is Genesis the first three chapters - I am inclined to call it mythopoetic (not in the sense of never having happened, or being untrue) but in its language, its not scientific. For myself I no longer demand it should be, and this maybe came gradually.

But others still raise some questions. For instance, the creation of plant life before the creation of the sun. If its not chronological in sequence how should it be understood. Whats back of this requirement that Genesis read as a scientific textbook?

this upload is a partial review of the book:
The Genesis Enigma: Why The Bible Is Scientifically Accurate by Dr Andrew Parker, published by Doubleday on July 20. To order a copy at £18 (p&p free), call 0845 155 0720.