Genesis Reconsidered

[theIdi0t]

Time Magazine once did a cover story on a two-month series called Genesis: A Living Conversation, with Bill Moyers as host, back in 1996. Poets, Believers, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, and even Buddhist participated in the dialogue. Moyers decided not to include Christian Fundamentalists: "I called some" he says, "and they said, 'That's great. We're going to talk about Creation and abortion?',

I found the article to be quite enlightening so I thought I would share.

GENESIS RECONSIDERED
​

 

[laptoppop]

At least he's wearing his bias against historic Christianity out in the open.

I have no problem at all with understanding the many many layers of deeper meaning that God has placed in the Scriptures, including the book of Genesis.

Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
Every word, every jot and tittle are there for a purpose and a reason. We can/will spend a lifetime plumbing the richness of Scripture.

On the other hand, there is no reason to dismiss the record of Scripture, to put yourself into the role of judge over it, and to declare the first part of Genesis as myth. To do so is a tragic mistake, both theologically and scientifically.

Theologically, it makes the revelation of an omniscient God into a story, robbing it of the additional richness of history fulfilled. The one true God has worked in history, and continues to work today. The Hebrew people were set apart, but time and time again God proved Himself faithful, even as they were faithless. But even so they retained their individuality because their culture and heritage preserved the real history, not just a story. They could point to the actual places - their festivals remembered actual events - and they taught their children the difference.

Scientifically, not accepting the revelation of God causes us to err, in that we adopt the wrong framework for understanding and interpreting the physical evidence. The record is true, God caused a global flood. This flood left world wide evidence -- strata miles thick -- deep canyons -- strata folded while still pliable so the folds happen without breaking -- strata reaching hundreds of miles -- strata "out of order" according to conventional geology -- huge beds of vegetation providing the mechanism for coal and oil -- on and on. He who has eyes to see, let him see the clear evidence for Noah's flood, standing as solid testimony to the historical accuracy of Scripture.

 

[archaeologist]

why would the fundamentalists want to talk about abortion when it wasn't the topic?

i read a little of the artivcle and here is where one problem arose:

When the conversation does lock onto a subject, there can be fireworks. In the series' best segment, "Apocalypse," about the Flood, British author (and former nun) Karen Armstrong conducts a blistering twin attack. God, she maintains, is "not some nice, cozy daddy in the sky." He is "behaving in an evil way," effectively introducing mankind to the idea of justifiable genocide. Noah, meanwhile, is a "damaged survivor" who says no word about those drowning around him, much less tries to help them. Drinking his troubles away after reaching shore, he is enraged at being seen naked by his son Ham and invokes a curse on Ham's son Canaan that Armstrong suggests presages the slaughter of the Canaanites later in the Bible. "You come out of the Ark...and what do you do?" Armstrong asks rhetorically. "You lay the seeds for a new holocaust."

every book i bought and read of hers, i have given away, she has no understanding, no insight except to try to make God out to whom she wants Him to be and not accept HIm for who He is.

this take of hers provides insight into her inability to discern that what isincluded in the Bible is what is germane to our lives, what isn't, isn't.

we know that noah preached for 120 years prior to the flood, thus we know the invitation was out there for all to accept, just like today. the invitation is out there and soon it will be too late, so those without Christ need to make a decision soon.

 

[Mallon]

Theologically, it makes the revelation of an omniscient God into a story, robbing it of the additional richness of history fulfilled

Out of curiosity, do you think the non-literal interpretation of Noah's flood story presented below is somehow 'less rich' if it is interpreted in the context of a chiasm rather than as literal history?
(from: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm)

Genesis 1-11 features another poetic structure that is often found in ancient literature. Figure 3 reveals that Noah's Flood Account is framed on a chiasm (or palistrophe). This is a common literary device used by Ancient Near Eastern writers, including the inspired Biblical authors. The chiastic structure is made up of two parts. The first half is a mirror image of the second half, producing a reversed sequence of ideas or words. Especially noticeable in the Biblical Flood palistrophe are the matching days of 7s, 40s and 150s. Such a technique facilitated ancient peoples to memorize these accounts and stories. In addition, the chiasm is used to focus the reader to the middle of the structure and the central message of the passage, which in the Flood account is that "God remembered Noah" (Gen 8:1). In other words, the Divine theology revealed in this passage to believers throughout the ages is that the Lord remembers righteous men and women despite any flood of trouble that may inundate and submerge them.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the light of the poetic structures present in the Creation and Flood Accounts, evolutionary creationists doubt that Genesis 1-11 offers a historical record of actual events. As most Christians know, history simply does not unfold in parallel panels and chiasms. For example, does Israel's history as a nation develop in parallel panels? Is the historical record of the Church structured in a chiasm? Or better, does the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus emerge in these brilliantly crafted poetic structures? The answer to all these questions is 'no' because these examples are actual historical events. In contrast, poetic techniques in Genesis 1-11 are calling out to us not to read these passages literally. That is, the Bible itself is pointing away from the traditional literal interpretation. Suggesting that the opening chapters of the Bible are not historical might at first seem threatening to conservative Christians, but this does not in any way undermine God's Word. The Holy Spirit inspired these passages, and they are central to the Christian Faith. Of course, it challenges our traditional assumption and expectation that Genesis 1-11 provides a literal historical record. However, the Holy Spirit can reveal in any way He chooses, including the use of poetic license and non-historical literary techniques. The primary purpose of the early chapters of Scripture concerning human origins is to reveal that we were created in God's Image and that we have sinned against God. Genesis 1-11 looks forward to the restoration of our relationship with the Creator through Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross.[/FONT]

 

[theIdi0t]

Out of curiosity, do you think the non-literal interpretation of Noah's flood story presented below is somehow 'less rich' if it is interpreted in the context of a chiasm rather than as literal history?
(from: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm)

I had to bookmark that page. I wonder how one can see the account as not being poetic in light of this?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The Divine theology revealed in this passage to believers throughout the ages is that the Lord remembers righteous men and women despite any flood of trouble that may inundate and submerge them."[/FONT]

Ah, the same theme found in Luke 17.

 

[laptoppop]

It is cool to recognize the poetic and structural beauty of the Scriptures. But to deny the historicity of the global flood means you have major problems interpreting the Noah references in the Old and New Testaments -- and that you are in grave danger of falling into error in these things.

The God of Noah is the one true God, working in real history. Because of this we can trust him in our real lives, every day.

 

[theIdi0t]

It is cool to recognize the poetic and structural beauty of the Scriptures. But to deny the historicity of the global flood means you have major problems interpreting the Noah references in the Old and New Testaments.

So does history "unfolds in parallel panels and chiasms"?

Pop, I think you have a major problem interpreting Noah references in the Old and New Testament if the events were not historical, because I see no conflict.

There is as much problem in denying a historical Flood, as there is in denying a historical good Samaritan.

 

[archaeologist]

"The Divine theology revealed in this passage to believers throughout the ages is that the Lord remembers righteous men and women despite any flood of trouble that may inundate and submerge them."

i will have to read the article more thoroughly but what i see is intellectualism double talk trying to justify bringing that which is not Holy into that which is Holy.

 

[artybloke]

But to deny the historicity of the global flood means you have major problems interpreting the Noah references in the Old and New Testaments -- and that you are in grave danger of falling into error in these things.

Nonesense. a) How would anyone in the 1st century AD have any idea of whether the flood occured or not?
b) Does the idea that Rupert Everett is a modern-day Adonis mean that Adonis had to be a historical figure?

(In other words, if the OT writers wrote symbolically about ideas, why can't the NT writers?)

 

[artybloke]

i will have to read the article more thoroughly but what i see is intellectualism double talk trying to justify bringing that which is not Holy into that which is Holy.

More fundamentalist arrogance, I see. How dare you say what is and is not holy? Who'd you think you are? God?

 

[archaeologist]

More fundamentalist arrogance, I see. How dare you say what is and is not holy? Who'd you think you are? God?

God says what is or isn't Holy, take it up with Him as i have never read where that which comes from evil is holy.

 

[Mallon]

It is cool to recognize the poetic and structural beauty of the Scriptures. But to deny the historicity of the global flood means you have major problems interpreting the Noah references in the Old and New Testaments -- and that you are in grave danger of falling into error in these things.

Well, it's one thing so say that, pop, but it's another thing to show it. Hundreds of thousands of devout Christians throughout the world have no problem viewing Noah's story allegorically, as the meaning lies not in the historical accuracy of the story, but in its structure, as demonstrated above. This chiastic understanding of the account puts the emphasis where it ought to be -- on the fact that God remembered Noah -- not on the number of "kinds" that were on the ark, as so many like to quibble about. If you are still having a hard time understanding how someone like Jesus could refer to these quasi-historic Old Testament stories as history, I would encourage you to read the rest of the article. Specifically...

Recognizing that the Bible features an ancient science is troubling to most conservative Christians because they assume that statements in Scripture about the physical world are inerrant and infallible. That is, they believe the Holy Spirit revealed scientific facts thousands of years before their discovery by modern science. In other words, the majority of these Christians accept 'concordism' (or better 'scientific concordism'). They believe there is an accord between the Bible and science. In contrast, evolutionary creationists make no apologies for the obvious ancient science in the Bible. Instead they attempt to understand God's revelatory process in the light of this feature. In the same way that the powerful Message of Faith penetrates our heart and remodels our mind (Heb 4:12, Rom 12:2), evolutionary creationists contend that the Scripture's incidental ancient science should also penetrate and remodel our understanding of Biblical inerrancy and infallibility.
Evolutionary creationists are not disturbed by the fact that the Scriptures feature an ancient science. For that matter, they expected it. These Christian evolutionists draw a parallel to God's greatest Act of Revelation-the Incarnation. The Creator came down from heaven and took on human flesh in the person of Jesus in order to reveal His unending love for us. The Lord spoke Aramaic, the common person's language in 1st century Palestine, and He preached using parables, indicating that He employed the ordinary ideas and concepts of the people at that time. For example, Jesus often used the agricultural knowledge of His listeners in the parables of the good sower (Mk 4:1-9), the seed growing secretly (Mk 4: 26-29), the weeds (Matt 13:24-30) and the mustard seed (Matt 13:31-32). Of particular interest is the last parable. The Lord utilized the 'botany of the day' in stating that the mustard seed is "the smallest of all seeds" when in fact many seeds, like orchids, are much smaller. In other words, Jesus accommodated or descended to the knowledge level of His ancient audience.
Evolutionary creationists claim that the ancient science in the creation accounts is an accommodation to the conceptual level of the ancient Hebrews, similar to that used by Jesus in His teaching ministry. This position underlines that before the Holy Spirit reveals to humanity that the world is His creation, men and women must have some sort of understanding about the nature. That is, a science is needed before anyone can grasp the theological notion of creation. In the case of the ancient Hebrews, the science of their day was an Ancient Near Eastern conception of the structure, operation and origin of the universe and life. Evolutionary creationists emphasize that it is inconsequential to the Message of Faith whether this understanding of the world is scientifically accurate and actually represents physical reality. The powerful Divine Message concerning the creation transcends the incidental vessel of the science that transports it. For example, the ancient Hebrews believed the blue of the sky was a body of water overhead. Today, modern science has determined that this is a visual effect due to the scattering of short wave light in the upper atmosphere. Despite these radically different views, the theological principle remains steadfast-the blue waters/effect above is a creation of the Creator. By employing the ancient science of the Hebrews in Genesis 1, the Holy Spirit descended to their knowledge level in order to communicate as effectively as possible that God was the Creator of the extensive blue structure that was before their eyes. Stated another way, the Biblical creation accounts are accommodated to an ancient audience in the same way that Jesus accommodated to us by taking on human flesh.

And for what it's worth, there's another cool Bible chiam in Ecclesiastes 11:1-12:8

The God of Noah is the one true God, working in real history. Because of this we can trust him in our real lives, every day.

Nobody here is denying the fact that God works in real history. But denying the historical accuracy of Noah's flood is no more a sin than denying the historicity of God stopping the earth's pillars from shaking, especially given the poetic structure of Genesis 6-9. (Again, does history typically follow a chiasm?)

 

[SNPete]

My take on this Hebrew document:

I view the first part of the book of Genesis as basically saying that God created everything. It should be noted that Genesis was written for the Hebrew mindset. We (westerners) are of the Greek mindset. By Greek I mean we follow the Greek way of thinking and looking at the world. We want precise answers, facts, figures order of occurrence and dates.

The Hebrew mindset is primarily interested in concepts, with facts and figures being secondary. What mattered to the Hebrews is that God created the Universe. The order and time of the events were not important to the Hebrew mind.

As I see it you run into problems applying Greek thinking to a Hebrew document. That is why the creation story does not make sense to the scientific mind. Of course we always must bear in mind that God is not limited to obey the laws of nature. So, if God wanted to create the universe in six, 24 hour days He could.

In otherwords God gave this account to the jews. I have no problem with a literal flood or the universe being created in 6 days, but I see problems viewing the first part of Genesis from a greek/scientific mindset. God was speaking to the Jews in a way they could understand and accept.

I also disagree that a literal view of Genesis is foundational to my faith. My foundation is in Christ. If I am in sin for not seeing Genesis 1 as literal then I know my sin is covered by the blood of Christ.

 

[laptoppop]

Well, it's one thing so say that, pop, but it's another thing to show it. Hundreds of thousands of devout Christians throughout the world have no problem viewing Noah's story allegorically, as the meaning lies not in the historical accuracy of the story, but in its structure, as demonstrated above.

Argumentum ad hominem. Millions of people throughout history have believed in a literal global flood. So?

I would absolutely disagree that the historical accuracy of the story does not supply "meaning". I reject absolutely the attempt to spiritualize inconvenient Scriptural history. I draw meaning from the fact that the global flood is not just a parable or story - it actually happened. Our God works in real history, not just mythology. Our God is real, unlike mythical Greek and Roman gods.

Please remember the roots of "higher criticism" method of biblical interpretation lie in people who were specifically rejecting God acting supernaturally, so they sought to find the "real" history behind the "stories". What hubris! They put themselves in the place of judging Scripture and deciding what is true and what is not. From this school comes the practice of reading Genesis as myth.

This chiastic understanding of the account puts the emphasis where it ought to be -- on the fact that God remembered Noah -- not on the number of "kinds" that were on the ark, as so many like to quibble about.

I actually agree. The primary lessons are not that the record is historical -- but the value of those lessons depend on the implied historicity -- it is true. Truth is not a modern concept, but is integral to Scripture (Do a word study through Scripture on the word truth -- it is amazing how much it is referenced.) And, of course, we have Jesus saying truly, truly (amen amen) to emphasize certain teachings. It is told as history. It blends seamlessly into other history. The New Testament refers to it as history. It is historical.

If you are still having a hard time understanding how someone like Jesus could refer to these quasi-historic Old Testament stories as history, I would encourage you to read the rest of the article. Specifically...

Someone like Jesus? There has never been someone like Jesus. He is God incarnate. Reducing Him to the status of a common first century person reduces His moral authority as well and I completely reject it.

Yes, I read the article. Most of it I consider self-aggrandizing hubristic spiritualization at the cost of the authority of Scripture.

And for what it's worth, there's another cool Bible chiam in Ecclesiastes 11:1-12:8

That is great - thanks.

Nobody here is denying the fact that God works in real history. But denying the historical accuracy of Noah's flood is no more a sin than denying the historicity of God stopping the earth's pillars from shaking, especially given the poetic structure of Genesis 6-9. (Again, does history typically follow a chiasm?)

You are denying that God worked in real history the way that His revelation claims He did. The chiasm format is cool -- but is totally removed from the question of historicity. Yes, the first part of Genesis is particularly grand and sweeping and poetic in its descriptions. So? It has no bearing on its historicity.

 

[laptoppop]

My take on this Hebrew document:

I view the first part of the book of Genesis as basically saying that God created everything. It should be noted that Genesis was written for the Hebrew mindset. We (westerners) are of the Greek mindset. By Greek I mean we follow the Greek way of thinking and looking at the world. We want precise answers, facts, figures order of occurrence and dates.

The Hebrew mindset is primarily interested in concepts, with facts and figures being secondary. What mattered to the Hebrews is that God created the Universe. The order and time of the events were not important to the Hebrew mind.

As I see it you run into problems applying Greek thinking to a Hebrew document. That is why the creation story does not make sense to the scientific mind. Of course we always must bear in mind that God is not limited to obey the laws of nature. So, if God wanted to create the universe in six, 24 hour days He could.

In otherwords God gave this account to the jews. I have no problem with a literal flood or the universe being created in 6 days, but I see problems viewing the first part of Genesis from a greek/scientific mindset. God was speaking to the Jews in a way they could understand and accept.

I also disagree that a literal view of Genesis is foundational to my faith. My foundation is in Christ. If I am in sin for not seeing Genesis 1 as literal then I know my sin is covered by the blood of Christ.

Actually, the problem is in assuming the Hebrew culture was the same as other ANE cultures. They were called out - distinct. They had real history based on real events as opposed to mythology. They had various ways of specifically remembering those events in memorials, wells, festivals, etc. -- instituted by the one true God. They had one true God, not a pantheon of mythological constructs. Anytime they moved from that calling they got into trouble.

Yes, they did not use aristolean logic. Instead they are much more likely to point to a conclusion from various angles. This has no bearing on the historicity of God's revelation or their concept of history.

 

[Nooj]

They had real history based on real events as opposed to mythology.

1) Real history is not based on real events. Real history is real events, no alteration or 'basing' needed.

2) Mythology, legends, symbolic stories may also be based on real events.

3) Even the Israelites had their parables (From the Jewish Encyclopedia):

The Old Testament contains only five parables,corresponding to the definition here given, aside from a few symbolic stories, such as Ezek. iii. 24-26, iv. 1-4, and xxiv. 3-5. These parables are as follows: (1) Of the poor man who had raised a single lamb which a wealthy neighbor took to set before a guest (II Sam. xii. 1-4); intended to illustrate the sin which David had committed with Bathsheba, Uriah's wife. (2) Of the wise woman of Tekoah, who induced David to make peace with his son Absalom (ib. xiv. 6-8). (3) Of the prophet's disciple, showing Ahab the wrong course which he had adopted toward Ben-hadad (I Kings xx. 39-40). (4) Of the vineyard which does not thrive despite the care bestowed upon it (Isa. v. 1-6), illustrating Israel's degeneracy. (5) Of the farmer who does not plow continually, but prepares the field and sows his seed, arranging all his work in due order (Isa. xxviii. 24-28); intended to show the methodical activity of God. All these parables were based on conditions familiar at the time; and even the event described in II Sam. xiv. 6-8 was probably no rare occurrence, in view of the custom which then prevailed of avenging bloodshed.

If you consider parables to be 'real history', then you're doing a severe disservice to what history is all about.

 

[theIdi0t]

Argumentum ad hominem. Millions of people throughout history have believed in a literal global flood. So?

Its one thing to say that people in the past believed something to be literal, it's another thing to say that they believed it was vital that it be read as literal. When Augustine wrote that God creating in six days is not literal but symbolic, did anyone make a fuss? The Bible writers through out scripture use the tree of life as allegorical, did anyone make a fuss? When I was a kid my parents told me that all babies came out of the stomach. I literally believed that that was how all babies were birthed, do you think when I grew up and discovered that this was not how it worked did i make a fuss?

Like Mallon pointed out those in ancient history assumed the blue sky was a body of water overhead, scripture supports this notion (even Genesis) and the people took this to be literal. Did they place such a value on these things being literal. Of course not. Do you read of them trying to figure out what animals squeezed into the ark, or how the ark was setup, etc...? Do you read about anything even resembling the fascination of those that visit the creation museum?

Do read of them having conversations that even remotely resemble what you all discuss in the creationist subforum? Do you read of anyone speaking of science in the bible as if it was a second love?

You need to tell me what the meaning of the flood being historical is. Are you saying the lesson is diminished if you deny the history? Aren't you really saying that science in the bible is meaningful? That somehow science in the bible fills some spiritual void?

Truth is not a modern concept, but is integral to Scripture (Do a word study through Scripture on the word truth -- it is amazing how much it is referenced.) And, of course, we have Jesus saying truly, truly (amen amen) to emphasize certain teachings. It is told as history. It blends seamlessly into other history. The New Testament refers to it as history. It is historical.

Pops you need to use the correct terms. I believe in the truth of all scripture. I believe in the truth of the Good Samaritan story, the story of the Prodigal son, i don't believe they were "literal" people. Don't assume that literalism is just another word for "truth". The obsession with literalism is a modern concept. Where in the past did believers try to figure out how Noah did it?

 

[laptoppop]

1) Real history is not based on real events. Real history is real events, no alteration or 'basing' needed.

Worded that way for emphasis.

2) Mythology, legends, symbolic stories may also be based on real events.

Yes, but they include a degree of implied inaccuracy regarding the events versus the message. For Scripture, to take a part that is presented as history and interpret it as myth is to put yourself up as judge over Scripture.

3) Even the Israelites had their parables (From the Jewish Encyclopedia):

So? Your quote supports my point, not yours. When it is a parable it is clearly told as a story, not as a historical record.

If you consider parables to be 'real history', then you're doing a severe disservice to what history is all about.

No, I consider historical accounts to be historical, and I expect Scripture to be correct. I appreciate that there are parables in Scripture. I appreciate that Jesus often taught in parable form. This has no bearing on the topic.

 

[Mallon]

Argumentum ad hominem. Millions of people throughout history have believed in a literal global flood. So?

Ad hom? Do you know what that means?
You made the statement that "to deny the historicity of the global flood means you have major problems interpreting the Noah references in the Old and New Testaments". I simply showed that this very likely cannot be the case if a majority of Christians in the world have no problem accounting for the New and Old Testament references to Noah's flood in an allegorical sense. To know how this can be so, I would again encourage you to read through Denis Lamoureux's article.

I would absolutely disagree that the historical accuracy of the story does not supply "meaning". I reject absolutely the attempt to spiritualize inconvenient Scriptural history. I draw meaning from the fact that the global flood is not just a parable or story - it actually happened. Our God works in real history, not just mythology. Our God is real, unlike mythical Greek and Roman gods.

You're beating a strawman, pop. Nobody here is arguing that God is not real. No one is saying that the allegorical nature of Genesis somehow makes God into a fantasy.

From this school comes the practice of reading Genesis as myth.

Reading Genesis as non-literal came long before modern "higher criticism" methods, pop. You know that.

I actually agree. The primary lessons are not that the record is historical -- but the value of those lessons depend on the implied historicity -- it is true.

You seem to be arguing that in order for something to be true, it must be historical. This hearkens back to the point that SNPete made earlier. You have a very modern take on the Bible. Jesus didn't think your way when he delivered his parables (not all of which he introduced as such).

It is told as history. It blends seamlessly into other history. The New Testament refers to it as history. It is historical.

So, despite the very poetic nature of the Genesis creation account (see the article) and of Noah's flood account, you continue to insist that it must necessarily be real history. That's your perogative, I guess. But when I read something that bears ANE panel or chiasm structure, my default understanding is that it was not meant literally (like the poems found in Psalms). Who can blame me?

Someone like Jesus? There has never been someone like Jesus. He is God incarnate. Reducing Him to the status of a common first century person reduces His moral authority as well and I completely reject it.

But he was a common first century person. He had to be for the sake of our salvation. I am not arguing that there was not more to Jesus than this. I am arguing that Jesus spoke to his first century audience in ways they might understand, using language and imagery they were familiar with. This includes the occassional reference to Genesis.

Yes, I read the article. Most of it I consider self-aggrandizing hubristic spiritualization at the cost of the authority of Scripture.

I thought it was brilliant. Certainly, it goes against years of church tradition, but I'm not Catholic and that doesn't make it wrong. Feel free to elaborate on why you think it is "self-aggrandizing hubristic spiritualization at the cost of the authority of Scripture." Again, it's one thing to say it...

You are denying that God worked in real history the way that His revelation claims He did.

Again, you are railing on a strawman of your own making. In Job 38, God himself is quoted as saying that He formed the earth as clay to the seal. Am I somehow denying God's action in history if I doubt that He somehow flattened the earth with a giant stamp?

The chiasm format is cool -- but is totally removed from the question of historicity. Yes, the first part of Genesis is particularly grand and sweeping and poetic in its descriptions. So? It has no bearing on its historicity.

So I'll ask you again: does history typically follow the format of a chiasm? Is the default reading of a passage with poetic structure necessarily a literal one?

 

[Nooj]

Worded that way for emphasis.

Your wording was confusing.

Consider that parables could be based on real events. Does that make parables real history?

Yes, but they include a degree of implied inaccuracy regarding the events versus the message.

This 'degree of implied inaccuracy' also apply to the Israelite parables. The parables included a degree of implied inaccuracy, not to convince people that these events actually happened, but to consider the message nestled within.

How is the Judaic style of writing so different from say, Aboriginal or Maori or non Judeo-Christian 'mythologies'? So much so that you consider the latter to be mythological and the former to be almost entirely historical records? Maybe the Aboriginals actually believed their Dreaming stories or 'mythologies' to be factually correct without any implied inaccuracies. It's not just the Hebrews who believed in writing in historical record format.

Look, I just don't see how the Israelites and everyone else differs. The Israelites write literally sometimes. So does everyone else. The Israelites write in metaphors sometimes. So does everyone else. The Hebrews may have had a special connection to God, but that doesn't automatically translate to a special way of writing.

For Scripture, to take a part that is presented as history and interpret it as myth is to put yourself up as judge over Scripture.

Perhaps the author intended readers to interpret it as myth, and reading it literally is putting yourself up as a judge over Scripture.

How do you know what the author intended?

When it is a parable it is clearly told as a story, not as a historical record.

Obviously because the intention of the author was to tell a story. Would you expect an author to tell a parable through the literary technique of a historical recount?

Please show that Genesis is clearly intended to be a factually accurate historical record. Even if you do, please show that Genesis cannot be a historical record that combines mythical stories. Perhaps the author intended a mix of both.

No, I consider historical accounts to be historical, and I expect Scripture to be correct. I appreciate that there are parables in Scripture. I appreciate that Jesus often taught in parable form. This has no bearing on the topic.

Basically, the Israelites weren't always literal: "They had real history based on real events as opposed to mythology." They didn't intend for everything to be real history based on real events. Sometimes, the Israelites just liked to tell yarns with a message. See the examples of parables.