Why a literal Genesis?

[Moral Orel]

Once you get hung up on the "did it/didn't it happen?" question, you lose sight of the far more important question: "What's the lesson to be learned here?"

Weird, I was just writing about that...

If God chose to explain creation in an oversimplified manner it might have been so that people didn't have things to think about the details of the "how?", and could instead focus on the "why?". Neat.

 

[Moral Orel]

The following is a list taken from the bible...I've shortened it up and have only posted the names. The top of the list is believed to be historical and literal...the bottom of the list ends with characters taken from the book of Genesis which you seem to be claiming has it's beginning as a parable...perhaps you could instruct us as to where the list turns from fact to fiction.


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 Mary’s linage

Does it matter where the line is drawn? If so, why?

I think it's safe to say it goes back to at least David since I know of prophecies about Jesus being from that ancestry, and that still isn't back in Genesis yet.

I may be wrong, but doesn't "Adam" mean "man"? If so, isn't it sufficient that Jesus was a descendant of humans to say he was a descendant of Adam?

 

[Moral Orel]

Why wouldn't he?

Consider, for a moment, fairy tales: These stories were told not to entertain children, but as cautionary tales to frighten children into correct behavior.

"Little Red Riding Hood" teaches children the importance not to talk to strangers, where as "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" warns against entering strange houses when one is not invited... if you ever read the original versions of those stories, you'll find they do not end well for the protagonists.

Do those stories need literal big bad wolves or three bears in order to successfully teach their lessons?

That's the part I have trouble understanding though. If the reasoning is that there was one person who screwed up that we are all descended from it isn't simply a matter of telling a scary story to scare us straight. Now the reason for things being the way they are is different than the reason given. It makes a strong case for a literal interpretation if you have to change the reasoning of the Bible.

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm well aware that not all Christians ascribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis, but I'm curious why some feel it is important to retain the literal interpretation.

Basically, my thinking is that Jesus hid the truth in parables, so why wouldn't God? Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, so we have to make decisions on what is literal and what is allegorical. What harm results from taking an allegorical approach to Genesis? Or what evidence is there that it should be taken literally instead of allegorically? Basically, why pick the literal approach for Genesis as opposed to the allegorical approach?

This isn't a discussion on the merits of the Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory, or any other science discussion. It is strictly scriptural, and that's why I put it in the Apologetics section since it does not belong in the Physical Sciences sections of these boards.

ETA Also, people who take an allegorical approach to Genesis can feel free to share how they explain away potential problems with their interpretation.

Genesis is a big and complicated book. What do you mean when you say "allegorical approach to Genesis"? Do you mean an allegorical approach to Genesis 1-11? Genesis 1-3? The whole book?

I understand Genesis to be a work of historical narrative that has literary features. I don't believe that Genesis 1 is a poem for linguistic reasons. It reads more like Hebrew historical narrative. So I think that the author of Genesis intended the work to be understood as historical.

 

[Moral Orel]

You have no way of knowing if "it's been said" knows that.

No, of course not. I only pointed it out because there are various interpretations even amongst people who take Genesis literally. What they said makes sense, though, but the Bible doesn't say the animals couldn't eat from the tree of life either. It seems like an unknown to me.

Funny thought, what if an animal, say a chicken, ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

 

[Moral Orel]

It's funny how that concept can turn around and bite you. Yes, we learned tat the sun really doesn't rise in the morning. Science says so. ....But lets take it to the next level....Medical science says when you die on day three you stay dead. That's a medical fact. You're logic would tell us not only doesn't the sun rise in the morning neither did the Son rise in the morning of day 3.

....see how that works?

There's a difference between knowing that people don't rise from the dead and knowing that rule can be overridden by God.

 

[Moral Orel]

Does that saying freak you out?

No, because even as a heathen, I understand that He meant something spiritual. The Jews were freaked out because they took something literal that they shouldn't have.

 

[Moral Orel]

Genesis is a big and complicated book. What do you mean when you say "allegorical approach to Genesis"? Do you mean an allegorical approach to Genesis 1-11? Genesis 1-3? The whole book?

I understand Genesis to be a work of historical narrative that has literary features. I don't believe that Genesis 1 is a poem for linguistic reasons. It reads more like Hebrew historical narrative. So I think that the author of Genesis intended the work to be understood as historical.

I'm leaving it vague and open as to just how much is allegory and just how much isn't so that all the topics can be discussed.

As to how it sounds, you have to consider the audience of the time it was written. There may be a reason that God wanted the audience then to consider it historical even if it wasn't, much like the way the Bible tells people not to get married, but Paul is only talking to a specific audience in a specific time period.

 

[Moral Orel]

Wow, I've never started such a popular thread. I've been working my way through the posts all morning, and they kept coming as I typed, so I'm not 100% sure I addressed everyone that responded. I'll give it another look to make sure, my apologies if I missed anything, feel free to konk me on the head and quote me again to grab my attention if I missed you or one of your posts.

"Morning", I said... I got up at noon.

 

[Moral Orel]

It destroys the reason for Jesus.

It doesn't destroy the reason for Jesus. The reason for Jesus is that there is sin in the world. If the reason for sin being in the world is altered at all, it doesn't change the fact that sin is in the world and needs Jesus.

 

[Tree of Life]

As to how it sounds, you have to consider the audience of the time it was written. There may be a reason that God wanted the audience then to consider it historical even if it wasn't, much like the way the Bible tells people not to get married, but Paul is only talking to a specific audience in a specific time period.

Moses' original audience knew how to read allegory and parable and they also knew how to read history. The author of Genesis, as far as we can tell, wants to communicate history.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The following is a list taken from the bible...I've shortened it up and have only posted the names. The top of the list is believed to be historical and literal...the bottom of the list ends with characters taken from the book of Genesis which you seem to be claiming has it's beginning as a parable...perhaps you could instruct us as to where the list turns from fact to fiction.


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 Mary’s linage

Perhaps you could instruct us how it would invalidate Jesus' message...

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's the part I have trouble understanding though. If the reasoning is that there was one person who screwed up that we are all descended from it isn't simply a matter of telling a scary story to scare us straight. Now the reason for things being the way they are is different than the reason given. It makes a strong case for a literal interpretation if you have to change the reasoning of the Bible.

Unless the reason is simply that human beings were meant to be in harmony with God, but now we are not, and we need God (in the form of Jesus Christ) to fix that.

That's all the reasoning there actually is... now, the question is, "how to the falling away occur"?

It could be something drawn out and complicated, or it could be something as simple as two people taking bad advice from a talking reptile. But again, is an exact, literal story of what went wrong all those aeons ago as important as the fact that something did indeed go wrong and continues to be wrong, thus requiring reconciliation?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Moses' original audience knew how to read allegory and parable and they also knew how to read history. The author of Genesis, as far as we can tell, wants to communicate history.

"as far as we can tell?" Is it possible that Moses' audience is better at this than the current one?

 

[Winken]

Wow, I've never started such a popular thread. I've been working my way through the posts all morning, and they kept coming as I typed, so I'm not 100% sure I addressed everyone that responded. I'll give it another look to make sure, my apologies if I missed anything, feel free to konk me on the head and quote me again to grab my attention if I missed you or one of your posts.

"Morning", I said... I got up at noon.

I've read your posts and sincerly appreciate the way that you have presented them. Your calm presentation and responses (even to those that were a little sharp) go a long way in furthering a literally peaceful forum / thread. Please visit us again.

 

[Tree of Life]

"as far as we can tell?" Is it possible that Moses' audience is better at this than the current one?

Sure. But unfortunately we're not able to consult with them.

Yet I think that Genesis 1-11 (the most often disputed section) is meant to be read as a historical narrative because of the prevalence of the waw-consecutive-imperfect verb form (characteristic of Hebrew historical narrative). What reasons do you think that the author did not intend Genesis to be understood as historical narrative?

 

[keith99]

John 5:46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Moses wrote Genesis. Jesus told us that we need to believe what Moses recorded. There are no known Hebrew scholars who claim that Genesis was not meant to be understood as written. There is absolutely no way to construe the Genesis account as allegory. Concepts such as the fall of man, original sin and the corruption of the earth are foundational. The false claims that Genesis is not true are only a desperate attempt to give credence to the lie of evolution.

Anyone can find several Hebrew Scholars that deny a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account. Here is one. Note it is reprinted with permission of a conservative Jewish publication.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/genesis-as-allegory/

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sure. But unfortunately we're not able to consult with them.

Nevertheless, it's possible that the nuances of the text would've registered to the original, intended audience as "non-literal," while those same nuances would have been lost on an audience who was not raised in that time or culture.

Yet I think that Genesis 1-11 (the most often disputed section) is meant to be read as a historical narrative because of the prevalence of the waw-consecutive-imperfect verb form (characteristic of Hebrew historical narrative). What reasons do you think that the author did not intend Genesis to be understood as historical narrative?

Well, a few things -- As I do not want to be accused of initiating a Gish Gallop, I'll only mention a couple.

1. Genesis 1: the repetition of "and the evening and the morning were the _____ day," is a more lyrical than historical style.

2. the utter change in the portrayal of God's character between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3. He's far more anthropomorphized and, if you don't mind me saying so, limited in His power and perceptions. This indicates two different authors... telling two different stories.

3. The similarities between the Genesis creation accounts and the stories of neighboring civilizations -- particularly, the deliberate inversion of many of the details of the Babylonian myth. Remember, during the Babylonian captivity, the Hebrews' greatest fear was in losing their identity and being assimilated into the Babylonians... deliberately writing their creation story to be the opposite of the Babylonian Enuma Elish would help the Hebrews remember who they were -- as would the practices of the Saturday Sabbath, Kosher dietary restrictions, and circumcision, all of which also came to prominence during the captivity.

4. Genesis 5 serves no historical purpose whatsoever -- the men listed here have no information given except for their outlandishly long lifespans... one could omit this chapter entirely and lose nothing of historical significance except the passage of a great deal of time... which is the sole purpose of the chapter: to show the passage of a great deal of time.

5. As with Genesis 1/2-3, the flood narrative shows signs of two separate authors, however, the editing isn't nearly as neat and tidy as the previous example. This is a compilation, and a poor job of one, at that. Historians are more careful regarding accuracy; storytellers, not so much.

Well, I did promise only a couple; apologies if I rambled.

 

[Tree of Life]

1. Genesis 1: the repetition of "and the evening and the morning were the _____ day," is a more lyrical than historical style.

I agree that this sounds like a refrain. Yet refrain was not uncommon in Hebrew narrative. The toledot formula is a refrain that occurs throughout the rest of the book of Genesis and the refrain: "In those days there was no king, everyone did what was right in his own eyes" is a refrain found in the book of Judges.

Furthermore if you study Hebrew poetry you'll notice that the WCI verb form never occurs in Hebrew poetry. It only occurs in narrative. Genesis 1 is full of the WCI verb form - a strong indication that it is not poetry.

2. the utter change in the portrayal of God's character between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3. He's far more anthropomorphized and, if you don't mind me saying so, limited in His power and perceptions. This indicates two different authors... telling two different stories.

I don't think that we need to make this conclusion. We could just as easily say that these two stories are emphasizing two aspects of God that the author wanted to emphasize. Genesis 1 emphasizes the transcendence of God and Genesis 2 emphasizes the immanence of God.

3. The similarities between the Genesis creation accounts and the stories of neighboring civilizations -- particularly, the deliberate inversion of many of the details of the Babylonian myth. Remember, during the Babylonian captivity, the Hebrews' greatest fear was in losing their identity and being assimilated into the Babylonians... deliberately writing their creation story to be the opposite of the Babylonian Enuma Elish would help the Hebrews remember who they were -- as would the practices of the Saturday Sabbath, Kosher dietary restrictions, and circumcision, all of which also came to prominence during the captivity.

I've studied the Enuma Elish and I don't think that the parallels are all that striking. Besides, Genesis is more of a polemic against Egyptian mythology than Babylonian mythology as it was written by Moses to the people of Israel who were coming out of Egypt. The idea that Genesis is a polemic against Babylonian mythology rests on the assumption that Genesis was written by some Jewish person living in Babylon during the exile.

4. Genesis 5 serves no historical purpose whatsoever -- the men listed here have no information given except for their outlandishly long lifespans... one could omit this chapter entirely and lose nothing of historical significance except the passage of a great deal of time... which is the sole purpose of the chapter: to show the passage of a great deal of time.

Another great purpose of this chapter is to show the pervasive effects of the fall. Another refrain occurs here (a refrain in Hebrew narrative!) which is: "and he died". This expression occurs over and over again because death is the emphasis of the author. Death is a result of the exile from the garden and Genesis 5 shows its pervasive effects. We also see decreasing lifespans.

5. As with Genesis 1/2-3, the flood narrative shows signs of two separate authors, however, the editing isn't nearly as neat and tidy as the previous example. This is a compilation, and a poor job of one, at that. Historians are more careful regarding accuracy; storytellers, not so much.

An assertion without evidence like this can be dismissed without rebuttal.

 

[TLK Valentine]

An assertion without evidence like this can be dismissed without rebuttal.

Then by all means, allow me to present a little evidence:

http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/flood.html

The story of the flood consists of two separate traditions chopped into pieces and then spun together, with inconsistent passages intact. In one version God is referred to as Elohim, which is usually translated God in the Bible, but is actually plural, and means gods. In the other version God is referred to as Yahweh, which is usually translated YAHWEH. These two different names of God each correspond to the different details in the two conflicting versions of the flood story. Separate the names of God, and you will separate the two flood stories, each emerging with its separate details intact, making the story of Noah's ark and the flood one of the most famous examples of the practice of source criticism and redaction criticism in the Bible. In one version, the one we are all familiar with, it rained for ‘forty days and nights." But another version is also present, but is ignored.

"The flood lasted forty days on the earth." (Genesis Chapter 7 verse 17)

"When the water had increased over the earth for a hundred and fifty days, God took thought for Noah and the beasts and cattle with him in the ark, and he caused a wind to blow over the earth, so that the water began to subside. The springs of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped up, the downpour from the skies was checked." (Genesis Chapter 7 verse 24)

Similar conflicts are found in the story of the animals going onto the ark. In one version we are specifically told that all animals, ‘clean' and ‘unclean' went onto the ark two by two, and in the variant (priestly) version of the story the ‘clean' animals go on seven by seven. The reason for the variant is that Noah must be portrayed as offering up animal sacrifices upon leaving the ark in the priestly version, thus suggesting that priestly sacrificial doctrine had an illustrious history. Similarly in the priestly version the flood is said to last ‘forty days and nights' since it appears that ‘forty' was considered an illustrious number. (The Sinai mountain top expedition of Moses lasted ‘forty days and nights'. In the gospel account Joshua fasted for ‘forty days and nights,' and ‘afterward he was hungry,' which is another story altogether.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative

Many exegetes believe that the Genesis narrative is a composite of two different stories that were combined into the final canonical form of Genesis 6–9.[2]:22;[24][25]:19 Some scholars call these the Jahwist (JHWH) source and the Priestly (Elohim) source. Some notable difficulties between the two sources include: two different reasons are given for why the flood happens, Noah is given two different instructions about what animals and birds to take on board the ark, there are two different time frames given for how long the flood lasts, there are different explanations of the "nature of the flood waters", different circumstances by which Noah and the animals leave the ark, and two different "divine names" (elohim and Yahweh) are used.[24]

Other scholars, while noting the differences in characteristic style and vocabulary, argue that overall they are not contradictory.[6] Where apparent contradictions do exist, they are not typically viewed as mistakes by Jewish scholars, but rather as allusions to deeper meanings. Even later interpreters have sought to discover the basic harmony that underlies the narrative, whether written by different authors, at different times, or within different cultures.[26]