How do you know Genesis was meant to be understood from a modern POV?

[flaja]

Hang on mate. I never said that the Bible was meant only for the Israelites.

You began this thread by asking, “Is there something wrong with the idea that Genesis was written to be understood primarily by the ancient Israelites, in that specific context?”

Genesis isn’t translated along with the rest of the Bible? If this book was meant primarily for the Israelites, why has it been propagated for the rest of the world?

 

[flaja]

The question is, should every culture in the history of man read the bible as if it was written for their culture personally?

Are you saying that it should have been?

 

[Mallon]

Genesis isn’t translated along with the rest of the Bible? If this book was meant primarily for the Israelites, why has it been propagated for the rest of the world?

If it wasn't meant primiarily for that particular culture, then why does the 10th Commandment say we shall not covet our neighbour's donkeys, oxes, or slaves? Surely, if the Bible were written for 21st century Americans, it would have included cars, televisions, and golf clubs... right?

 

[Nooj]

You began this thread by asking, “Is there something wrong with the idea that Genesis was written to be understood primarily by the ancient Israelites, in that specific context?”

Primarily =/= only.

Genesis isn’t translated along with the rest of the Bible? If this book was meant primarily for the Israelites, why has it been propagated for the rest of the world?

I never said the this book was primarily for the Israelites. I said that Genesis was written to be understood primarily for the ancient Israelites in the Middle Eastern context.

I guess God thought it more important that the ancient Israelites understand Genesis, so he wrote it in their 'flavour'. He did not write it in 18th century flavour, or 16th, or the 25th century flavour. He wrote it in the ancient Israelite flavour.

 

[flaja]

If it wasn't meant primiarily for that particular culture, then why does the 10th Commandment say we shall not covet our neighbour's donkeys, oxes, or slaves? Surely, if the Bible were written for 21st century Americans, it would have included cars, televisions, and golf clubs... right?

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Any thing that is thy neighbor's doesn’t include cars, televisions, golf clubs…?

 

[flaja]

I never said the this book was primarily for the Israelites. I said that Genesis was written to be understood primarily for the ancient Israelites in the Middle Eastern context.

What would be the difference? Why would God give a book to everyone if He didn’t intend for everyone to understand it?

 

[Mallon]

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Any thing that is thy neighbor's doesn’t include cars, televisions, golf clubs…?

I think you missed my point, which was simply this: Clearly the Bible was written to be understood by its primary audience, the Israelites. This is the same point Nooj is trying to make. Hence the references to slaves, donkeys, oxen and other outdated modes of life.
Do you disagree?

 

[flaja]

I think you missed my point, which was simply this: Clearly the Bible was written to be understood by its primary audience, the Israelites. This is the same point Nooj is trying to make. Hence the references to slaves, donkeys, oxen and other outdated modes of life.
Do you disagree?

You miss the purpose of Exodus. God did not need to give a laundry list of items we cannot covet so the Ten Commandments will be applicable to all cultures in all times. This verse uses language that makes it universally applicable for all time. The first chapter of Genesis is written the same way. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to accept. You must accept all of it or none of it.

 

[Mallon]

I think we're just talking past each other now, flaja. Your final statement did pique my interest, though:

You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to accept. You must accept all of it or none of it.

Do you feel women should cover their heads when they pray to God (1 Cor 11:5-6)? I ask because my pastor once told me that this custom applied only Paul's immediate audience. I wonder how you feel about that, given your reluctance to acknowledge that the Scriptures even had an immediate audience?

 

[crawfish]

Are you saying that it should have been?

I'm saying quite the opposite. It was written FOR the culture for whom it was first written, using terms, literary techniques and information relevant to them. A true understanding of scripture must include trying to discern what message the original listeners would have heard from the given text.

This is not to say that God did not put things in the bible that are not relevant today. I believe there are things in the bible that take on a more full meaning today with our increased knowledge of the creation around us. However, any valid meaning cannot conflict with the original meaning, it should only enhance it.

 

[crawfish]

You miss the purpose of Exodus. God did not need to give a laundry list of items we cannot covet so the Ten Commandments will be applicable to all cultures in all times. This verse uses language that makes it universally applicable for all time. The first chapter of Genesis is written the same way. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to accept. You must accept all of it or none of it.

A question: what is "acceptance"? Is it taking the text for exactly what it says, or is it to derive some base purpose behind bits of scripture that guide us on how to deal with more modern issues?

If the latter, how do you draw the line behind what scripture we should take absolutely literally, and what scripture should not be taken absolutely literally but in the spirit of why it was written?

The head coverings scripture above is a great example, as are the verses concerning food sacrificed to idols. As well as 3/4 of Deuteronomy.

 

[flaja]

I think we're just talking past each other now, flaja. Your final statement did pique my interest, though:

Do you feel women should cover their heads when they pray to God (1 Cor 11:5-6)? I ask because my pastor once told me that this custom applied only Paul's immediate audience. I wonder how you feel about that, given your reluctance to acknowledge that the Scriptures even had an immediate audience?

When have I ever said that Scripture didn’t have an immediate audience when it was written?

What I have said is that Scripture is meant for all people in all time. It was not meant solely for its immediate audience.

As for women praying bare-headed: If the Bible says women are to cover their head, what authority do you have to say otherwise?

 

[flaja]

I'm saying quite the opposite. It was written FOR the culture for whom it was first written, using terms, literary techniques and information relevant to them. A true understanding of scripture must include trying to discern what message the original listeners would have heard from the given text.

Since we don’t have a complete understanding of the culture for any of the Bible’s original audiences, you are essentially saying that we cannot ever have a complete understanding of the Bible. So what good is the Bible? Why bother to read, let alone obey, something that we cannot fully understand?

You are looking for any excuse for rejecting the Bible because you have no intention of accepting it.

 

[shernren]

When have I ever said that Scripture didn’t have an immediate audience when it was written?

What I have said is that Scripture is meant for all people in all time. It was not meant solely for its immediate audience.

As for women praying bare-headed: If the Bible says women are to cover their head, what authority do you have to say otherwise?

I take it that in your church women cover their heads and do not speak, then.

 

[Mallon]

When have I ever said that Scripture didn’t have an immediate audience when it was written?

What I have said is that Scripture is meant for all people in all time. It was not meant solely for its immediate audience.

That's what everyone here has been saying. So I don't know why you're being so argumentative.
We agree, then, that Genesis did have a primary audience, as per Nooj's original post.

As for women praying bare-headed: If the Bible says women are to cover their head, what authority do you have to say otherwise?

When did I ever suggest otherwise? I was simply asking if you followed your own advice by asking that women cover their heads when they pray (and, reciprocally, that you ensure your head remain uncovered).

 

[flaja]

A question: what is "acceptance"? Is it taking the text for exactly what it says, or is it to derive some base purpose behind bits of scripture that guide us on how to deal with more modern issues?

If the Bible cannot deal with modern issues, what good is it?

If the latter, how do you draw the line behind what scripture we should take absolutely literally, and what scripture should not be taken absolutely literally but in the spirit of why it was written?

From what I gather Hebrew and English are both lyrical languages so the meaning of the Hebrew OT easily flows into English. (The Jewish novelist Herman Wouk commented in his book, This is My God that the Authorized King James translation is an excellent rendering of the original Hebrew poetry of the Psalms). What we take as figurative language in the AKJ is likely figurative language in the original.

It also helps to identify the AKJ’s figurative language if you know something about early modern English literature- the modern English language rests on the pillars of the AKJ and Shakespeare. If you read enough, understanding figurative language gets to be fairly easy.

You should note that when prophecy is concerned, what may seem to be figurative language at one time may be literal language later. I once believed that the number of the beast in Revelation was figurative. I assumed that the Beast would not be a worldwide dictator; I couldn’t imagine that any tyranny could ever be this powerful- even Auschwitz had a black market. But with the advent of supercomputers and RFID technology and embedded microchips, John’s prophecy could literally be fulfilled.

Furthermore, your interpretation of the Bible must be doctrinally sound. This isn’t possible without having a personal relationship with God because only He can give you the power of discernment that is needed to determine what sound doctrine is.

 

[flaja]

I take it that in your church women cover their heads and do not speak, then.

I am not a member of any church and have never been a church-goer because I have yet to find a church that 1. has sound doctrine and 2. isn’t self-centered and self-serving.

But any church that I would ever go to would obey the Bible- meaning women would be silent and covered in church.

 

[shernren]

I am not a member of any church and have never been a church-goer because I have yet to find a church that 1. has sound doctrine and 2. isn’t self-centered and self-serving.

But any church that I would ever go to would obey the Bible- meaning women would be silent and covered in church.

So essentially you've worked out your entire Christian edifice solo. And you think churches don't have sound doctrine and aren't self-centered? I think that besides your understanding of grace and redemption you also have a very defective ecclesiology.

Good luck finding the perfect church - the moment you join it, it won't be perfect any more.

 

[Nooj]

Exodus 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Any thing that is thy neighbor's doesn’t include cars, televisions, golf clubs…?

flaja, this commandment has relevance to people now and for all time, as long as envy exists. But people in the Western world haven't had manservants, maidservants, slaves, oxes or donkeys for quite a while now. Whilst the spirit of the message is relevant for everyone, the details aren't. Do you know why? Because the commandments were meant to be primarily understood by the ancient Israelites whom it was first written for!

Genesis and the rest of the Bible make much more sense if you understand it is a Middle Eastern document and it was written for a Middle Eastern audience primarily. The New Testament is a little different in that it also caters for the Greeks and Romans.

 

[gluadys]

[F New]If the Bible cannot deal with modern issues, what good is it?[/FONT]

Of course the bible can and does deal with modern issues. The point is HOW does it deal with modern issues.

Not by burying in its text subtle references to modern science, but through the story of Israel's covenantal relationship with Yahweh and the the story of God's faithfulness to that covenant in the gospel.

This story and its various elements are recounted, as Paul says, to be examples to us---not to be followed in blind slavish obedience to the social mores of the time, but to guide us in our own covenantal relationship with our Creator and Redeemer.

The crucial issues of our time are precisely those of covenant. How do we relate to each other, to ourselves, to the world around us and to God? A more complete knowledge of nature does not change the fundamental question of whether we are to relate to non-human nature as master and exploiter or as steward and caretaker. Fancier weapons do not change the fundamental question of whether we are to relate to others through war or through peace, through legalized oppression or through justice. Psychological insights do not change the fundamental question of whether we are to exalt an autonomous ego or accept the covenantal relationship of a created being to its Creator.

Arguing over whether a future invader of Israel will arrive on horses or tanks (or even whether such an invasion will literally take place at all) is to allow oneself to be distracted by a minor side-show and miss the crucial lessons the bible has to teach us.