The literal and figurative portions of Genesis?

Status
Not open for further replies.

LoG

Veteran
Supporter
May 14, 2005
1,363
118
✟70,204.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
gluadys said:
They are natural. But people still want to explain them. That is what this story does. It gives a meaning to pain, toil and death by providing a mythico-theological reason for them.

I have to disagree. Some of these "mythological writings" tell of the same thing:

References to the Age of Kronos in the ancient lore are very numerous.(1) Hesiod tells of
A golden race of mortal men who lived in the time of Kronos when he was reigning in heaven. And they lived like gods without sorrow of heart, remote and free from toil: miserable age rested not on them . . . The fruitful earth unforced bare them fruit abundantly and without stint. They dwelt in ease and peace upon their lands with many good things. . . .(2)
Similarly writes Ovid in the sixth book of his Metamorphoses:
In the beginning was the Golden Age, when men of their own accord, without threat of punishment, without laws, maintained good faith and did what was right. . . . The earth itself, without compulsion, untouched by the hoe, unfurrowed by any share, produced all things spontaneously. . . . It was a season of everlasting spring.(3)
Rabbinical sources recount that men lived under very favorable conditions before the Deluge, and that these contributed to their sinfulness: “They knew neither toil nor care and as a consequence of their extraordinary prosperity they grew insolent.” (4)

To automatically assume that because these "myths" are relaying something outside of our present day experience or ability to imagine, does not make them non-factual. It is significant when they line up so well with each other, even when the cultures are thousands of miles apart from each other.


r
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Willtor said:
Barth calls Genesis a "saga" which is basically what Lion of God has described. In my (albeit limited) understanding of genre, a saga is a type of myth that follows a person or family line of heroic proportions. Regardless of who wrote any particular portion (whether JEPD is dead on, or Moses wrote most of it, or Moses wrote the whole thing and prophesied his own death), as far as Genesis is concerned, it is a saga. Perhaps certain people existed, or perhaps they didn't. If they did, perhaps they did precisely what they are said to have done, or perhaps they didn't. At any rate, a Christian must view it as a true saga, for whatever it is that the saga is intended to communicate. But as with any mythology, it is not trying to offer us clues for science to uncover. As Gluadys has pointed out in the past, that would be anachronistic.

You are correct. The whole story is a saga. It starts with the beginning-the genesis-and follows the family, known as Israel, from Adam to Christ, and beyond. An unbroken chain of literal history.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
oldwiseguy said:
You are correct. The whole story is a saga. It starts with the beginning-the genesis-and follows the family, known as Israel, from Adam to Christ, and beyond. An unbroken chain of literal history.

Well, literal history is really what's being debated. Saga doesn't presuppose fact.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Willtor said:
Well, literal history is really what's being debated. Saga doesn't presuppose fact.

From Encarta:

noun Definitions: 1. series of events: a complicated series of events or personal experiences stretching over a considerable period of time, or a detailed account of such a series of events or experiences ( informal )
bullet.gif
</IMG>
trans.gif
Have you heard the saga of our coast-to-coast relocation? :D
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
From Mirriam Webster:

1 : a prose narrative recorded in Iceland in the 12th and 13th centuries of historic or legendary figures and events of the heroic age of Norway and Iceland
2 : a modern heroic narrative resembling the Icelandic saga
3 : a long detailed account <a saga of the Old South>

From my Macintosh Dictionary:

Saga
A long story of heroic achievement, esp. a medieval prose narrative in Old Norse or Old Icelandic
. a long, involved story, account, or series of incidents

---

We can play the dictionary game all day. The point was that Barth (who made the statement) didn't think that it was a literal historical account.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Lion of God said:
I have to disagree. Some of these "mythological writings" tell of the same thing:



To automatically assume that because these "myths" are relaying something outside of our present day experience or ability to imagine, does not make them non-factual. It is significant when they line up so well with each other, even when the cultures are thousands of miles apart from each other.


r

Sorry, I don't get the point of your post. These are the beginnings of non-biblical myths that also explained to people the human realities of pain, suffering, sorrow and death. Yes, one finds them all around the world, because pain, suffering, sorrow and death are universal human experiences.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Willtor said:
From Mirriam Webster:

1 : a prose narrative recorded in Iceland in the 12th and 13th centuries of historic or legendary figures and events of the heroic age of Norway and Iceland
2 : a modern heroic narrative resembling the Icelandic saga
3 : a long detailed account <a saga of the Old South>

From my Macintosh Dictionary:

Saga
A long story of heroic achievement, esp. a medieval prose narrative in Old Norse or Old Icelandic
. a long, involved story, account, or series of incidents

---

We can play the dictionary game all day. The point was that Barth (who made the statement) didn't think that it was a literal historical account.

Sorry. I shouldn't have posted an opinion there.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
gluadys said:
Sorry, I don't get the point of your post. These are the beginnings of non-biblical myths that also explained to people the human realities of pain, suffering, sorrow and death. Yes, one finds them all around the world, because pain, suffering, sorrow and death are universal human experiences.

I believe mythology adds insights to the central truths of the bible. The problem is that everything becomes a myth, including the bible stories. Not good.
 
Upvote 0

Willtor

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
Apr 23, 2005
9,713
1,429
43
Cambridge
Visit site
✟32,287.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
oldwiseguy said:
I believe mythology adds insights to the central truths of the bible. The problem is that everything becomes a myth, including the bible stories. Not good.

Unless God intended them as such, in which case, we would be hard pressed to find a reason to read them any other way.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
oldwiseguy said:
I believe mythology adds insights to the central truths of the bible. The problem is that everything becomes a myth, including the bible stories. Not good.

Two questions:

1. Why would some of the biblical stories being myth make all of them myth? That doesn't make sense.

2. What's not good about a story being myth?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
gluadys said:
Two questions:

Why would some of the biblical stories being myth make all of them myth? That doesn't make sense.

Consider the world that 'is' being separated by the world that 'was' by a/the flood, spoken of by Peter. Most believe this flood to be that of Noah. If that flood is a myth, and you still believe Peter, you must fall back to an earlier flood. That being unacceptable to TE's as well as YEC's it too much be mythologised. And so on. This is done with genealogies as well. If a person, such as Nimrod, or Tammuz, is relegated to myth, it breaks any chain of decendancy coming from them. A historical event mythologised, leaves a gaping hole in history.

What's not good about a story being myth

Mythology is important as I have posted to you before. I believe that the mythology of Zeus/Jupiter (King of the Gods) gives insight into the intrigues surrounding the rebellion, as well as God's anger.

Also, instead of taking any opportunity to relegate scripture to myth, why not try to validate it's historisity, even if the evidence is scanty. Science does this all the time. In fact they are quite good at it.
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
Lion of God said:
If a factual history is interpreted as a myth, it loses its power to affect the present and future.

If one uses the word "myth" in a dismissive sense... as in "oh, it's just a myth anyway."

But the only people I've ever seen use "myth" like that are YECs and militant Atheists... most people are acutely aware of mythology's ability to have very profound effects on our present and future.
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
51
Bloomington, Illinois
✟11,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Lion of God said:
If a factual history is interpreted as a myth, it loses its power to affect the present and future.

Why do you feel this way? The evidence seems to show the exact opposite.

All religions in the world are based on mythic tales, they seem to hold quite a sway.

Real history books do not sell well and are often quickly eliminated from all but the specialists libraries, semi-fictional accounts of history sell far better and stay in circulation for far longer, thus influencing far more people.

Your personal prejudice against myths and fiction do not make it any less powerful.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
LewisWildermuth said:
Lion of God said:
If a factual history is interpreted as a myth, it loses its power to affect the present and future.
Why do you feel this way? The evidence seems to show the exact opposite.


I agree. It is very much the reverse. Historical events as events are just data. Historical events invested with mythological significance are what bring them to life and give them influence.

It is not the historical Joan of Arc we remember, but the legendary one enshrined in books and plays and films. More of us think of Julius Caesar in terms of Shakepeare's play than in terms of the historical figure.

The Long March of the Red Army in China was a historical event, but as an event it was just a humiliating defeat. Mao Ze-Dong turned it into an inspiring myth and eventual victory.

If even factual history is more powerful when mythologized, there is no reason to think of non-historical myth as inferior to history.

oldwiseguy said:
Consider the world that 'is' being separated by the world that 'was' by a/the flood, spoken of by Peter. Most believe this flood to be that of Noah. If that flood is a myth, and you still believe Peter, you must fall back to an earlier flood. That being unacceptable to TE's as well as YEC's it too much be mythologised. And so on.


Well, of course it is Noah's flood. Remember the TE position is not necessarily that there was no flood, but that, given the scientific evidence it could not have been a global flood. The biblical story is then seen as a mythologized version of a real event. And yes, I do believe Peter. There is no reason not to.

This is done with genealogies as well. If a person, such as Nimrod, or Tammuz, is relegated to myth, it breaks any chain of decendancy coming from them.

Genealogies can be mythical too. Many ancient genealogies include deities, for example. Even today the official genealogy of the Emperor of Japan goes back to the Sun God.

In ancient times, genealogies had larger purposes than simply recounting who one's ancestors were. Purposes that invited mythologizing elements.

A historical event mythologised, leaves a gaping hole in history.

A historical event that is not rememberd leaves a hole in history. Myth is often the vehicle of remembrance that prevents the loss of history.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Remus said:
I've been where you are. It was then that I realized that I had to figure out everything for myself.

I wonder what made you choose your current position?

Remus said:
Have you heard of Hank Hanegraaff? I believe he has a really good perspective on this issue:
http://www.equip.org/free/DA060.htm

No, I hadn't read his work before, but thanks for the link. I can see how at least the first 3 days of creation could have been longer than we catagorize days now, since the earth was not yet in orbit around the sun here. Although, this article probably raised more questions for me than it answered, lol.

Remus said:
There are many aspects of the creation story that are not literal. As a creationist, I believe that Genesis is historical, but not necessarily 100% literal. For example, I don't believe that the two trees mentioned were literal trees. Likewise, I don't believe that God came down and performed some kind of CPR on Adam to give him the breath of life.

Agreed.

Remus said:
The perspective in that link may provide some insight. I would add that there are other references that suggest that the days were not long periods of time. One that comes easily to mind is Mark 10:6. Either way, I do believe that the age of the earth is a minor issue.

By the same token, II Peter 3:8 says that with the Lord one day is as one thousand years, and one thousand years as one day. Perhaps that clears up a lot on both sides of the Crevo arguement, there are simply things we don't/won't understand at this time. :)

There's a lot more on this thread I missed and haven't had the chance to really go through, but I'm at work so it'll have to wait.

Thanks to all for your thoughts on the subject. :wave:
 
Upvote 0
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
Pats said:
By the same token, II Peter 3:8 says that with the Lord one day is as one thousand years, and one thousand years as one day. Perhaps that clears up a lot on both sides of the Crevo arguement, there are simply things we don't/won't understand at this time. :)

I've seen this verse used by both sides, interpreted differently... Literalists stick with the 1 day = 1,000 years measure as evidence in favor of a 6,000 year old Earth, while TEs such as me see it as a figure of speech showing that God is not constrained by the same time schedule as we are.

It goes a long way in refuting the "If evolution is true, why did God wait billions of years to create us?" argument.
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Lady Kate said:
TEs such as me see it as a figure of speech showing that God is not constrained by the same time schedule as we are.

Without commenting on how it may or may not pertain to the story of creation at this time, I agree that it is a demonstration that God is not contrained to our time schedule. I've always understood that about God, wether he created us in 6 24 hour days or evolved us over a million years, neither theology changes this fact about God.

Pats---going back to finish reading the thread ;)
 
Upvote 0

Pats

I'll take that comment with a grain of salt
Oct 8, 2004
5,552
308
49
Arizona, in the Valley of the sun
Visit site
✟14,756.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Glaudys, I fully understand your comparison of Genesis to mythology in post #6, and I would agree. However, it doesn't tell me that special creation didn't take place. There are many places in the Bible where the allegorical is also a picture of the literal. Right down to Salvation, Christ died (physical) so we don't have to (spiritual.)

The Bible seems to be full of places where allegorical representations were also literal. King Nebekanezzer's dreams... there are multiple examples. So, while your insight was fascinating, I don't see how it clears anything up.

LewisWildermuth, I read your comparisons in post #8, but I didn't understand its relevance to the issue of the allegory vs. historical interpretation of Genesis. Maybe I'm just really slow...

It seems to me that Satan can copy and pervert anything he wants. So, how's this relevant?
Robert the Pilegrim said:
Is this central to salvation?

Does this change how we go about loving God and our neighbor as ourselves?

I do ask that question, yes. I'm open to hearing the answers from all sides of origin theology on this. How does a literal vs. an allegorical Adam effect the message of Salvation?

gluadys said:
I don't see any location, time or connection to other figures of history here either. Yes, Eden is mentioned, but other myths name places too. And the genealogies are not part of the story. They were added later by another hand.

Emphasis added by me. Would you mind expanding on that, please?

gluadys said:
They are natural. But people still want to explain them. That is what this story does. It gives a meaning to pain, toil and death by providing a mythico-theological reason for them.

So, do you believe that God intended to create through evolutionary means a creation containing pain, toil, and death. He initiated the evolution of our world with the idea that sin would naturally occur and He would have to send His son to His death?

I believe in God's omniscence, and that He knew at creation He would have to send His son to save us. But, he didn't create us that way. I don't understand how it can be viewed otherwise. Doesn't that alter the Biblical picture of God Himself?

oldwiseguy said:
I believe mythology adds insights to the central truths of the bible. The problem is that everything becomes a myth, including the bible stories. Not good.

This is part of my concern. After a while, Jesus wasn't God's literal, only begotten Son.... and then, where are we?

I'm not saying God's Word doesn't contain allegories, I just need to take great care in examining it before I call part of it an allegory, especially when it contains similar language to the literal portion. I'd rather make an error on the side of caution.

LewisWildermuth said:
All religions in the world are based on mythic tales, they seem to hold quite a sway.

So, is Christianity reduced to another "religion" among the pile?

gluadys said:
Well, of course it is Noah's flood. Remember the TE position is not necessarily that there was no flood, but that, given the scientific evidence it could not have been a global flood. The biblical story is then seen as a mythologized version of a real event. And yes, I do believe Peter. There is no reason not to.


Is it possible that the flood was neither global nor mythologized? It would seem there was a time when you could have told a Roman something occured all over the world, and they would have took it to mean all over Rome.

Is it possible God was telling the Isrealites that He had taken out all of Israel, except Noah and family? Does that change it into a myth and make it any less literal? (These are just questions, I'm not proposing to know the answers.)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
Pats said:
Glaudys, I fully understand your comparison of Genesis to mythology in post #6, and I would agree. However, it doesn't tell me that special creation didn't take place. There are many places in the Bible where the allegorical is also a picture of the literal. Right down to Salvation, Christ died (physical) so we don't have to (spiritual.)

I've often noted to myself that many of Christ's actions do have allegorical meanings... He also healed and fed people physically as well as spiritually.

Even his ascension to heave was a physical act representing an allegorical one... Unless someone really thinks heaven's up there somewhere.


So, do you believe that God intended to create through evolutionary means a creation containing pain, toil, and death. He initiated the evolution of our world with the idea that sin would naturally occur and He would have to send His son to His death?

I believe in God's omniscence, and that He knew at creation He would have to send His son to save us. But, he didn't create us that way. I don't understand how it can be viewed otherwise. Doesn't that alter the Biblical picture of God Himself?

Well, that brings up a sticky theological point of God's omniscience... if God did'nt create us this way, then the Fall was unplanned (though not unexpected). Why then did God allow the Fall to happen?

Neither view makes 100% theological sense in light of omniscience... Either a perfect God designed something imperfect, or He designed something perfect, and did nothing to prevent the monkeywrench that He knew was going to be tossed into the works.

For the most part, I'll let the profesisonal theologians wrangle over that one.


This is part of my concern. After a while, Jesus wasn't God's literal, only begotten Son.... and then, where are we?

Nobody is suggesting that the Bible is entirely a collection of myths... but nor is it entirely (and the key word in both cases is entirely) a straight-up historical transcript of events.

As a collection of works spanning thousands of years, it's a little of this, a little of that.... faith and reason help us discern which is which.

I'm not saying God's Word doesn't contain allegories, I just need to take great care in examining it before I call part of it an allegory, especially when it contains similar language to the literal portion. I'd rather make an error on the side of caution.

Caution? :scratch:



So, is Christianity reduced to another "religion" among the pile?

Yes... the one we happen to believe is true. What more did you think it was?

Is it possible that the flood was neither global nor mythologized? It would seem there was a time when you could have told a Roman something occured all over the world, and they would have took it to mean all over Rome.
Is it possible God was telling the Isrealites that He had taken out all of Israel, except Noah and family? Does that change it into a myth and make it any less literal? (These are just questions, I'm not proposing to know the answers.)

Well, it's not literal by our standards... "the world" means the world. Of course, to the Romans, "the world" would mean the Roman Empire, just as to a little child, "the world" might be the neighborhood they live in.

It's not mythological, it's cultural.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.