Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So are you arguing that it isn't literal because it would make a good theater play?Evidence internal to the texts, for the most part. Most of it is historical narrative in one form or another, but any time historical narrative is attempted (even now) there is tension between the "facts" and the narrative structure. Basically, the degree to which facts are allowed to stand in the way of a good story has varied considerably over time and place and the literary agenda of the author. Of course, you will say that God could not have inspired such a narrative, it must be 100% accurate literal history for you to allow it divine inspiration. But nobody wrote history like that then and nobody expected it and they thought it was "true" anyway.
Most of the discussions we get into about Genesis are really just about the Garden story, which is clearly a form of historical narrative known as an etiology. All cultures produce them, because all peoples desire to know the answers to the same basic questions: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Why are things always so screwed up when we know they could be better?
You can believe if you like that of all the hundreds of such stories the Garden story is the one and only which is also "100% accurate factual history," but it doesn't matter, really. For centuries people believed that the story was more or less true in the absence of information to the contrary, but that's not why the story was important to them, that's not why God told us the story to begin with.
Evidently versions of it survived as oral tradition before it was finally written down. The elements desired by a professional story teller are all there; puns and other wordplay, the anthropomorphization of non-human characters, etc. It would make a good panto. You would need a story-teller, some musicians, and three or four actors with masks and simple props all on a square of carpet rolled out in the souk. Add some topical references, bawdy asides and other horseplay and at the end the angel chases Adam and Eve into the crowd with a sword, Ta Daa. I would sure throw down a coin to see it.
Evidence internal to the texts, for the most part. Most of it is historical narrative in one form or another, but any time historical narrative is attempted (even now) there is tension between the "facts" and the narrative structure. Basically, the degree to which facts are allowed to stand in the way of a good story has varied considerably over time and place and the literary agenda of the author. Of course, you will say that God could not have inspired such a narrative, it must be 100% accurate literal history for you to allow it divine inspiration. But nobody wrote history like that then and nobody expected it and they thought it was "true" anyway.
Most of the discussions we get into about Genesis are really just about the Garden story, which is clearly a form of historical narrative known as an etiology. All cultures produce them, because all peoples desire to know the answers to the same basic questions: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Why are things always so screwed up when we know they could be better?
You can believe if you like that of all the hundreds of such stories the Garden story is the one and only which is also "100% accurate factual history," but it doesn't matter, really. For centuries people believed that the story was more or less true in the absence of information to the contrary, but that's not why the story was important to them, that's not why God told us the story to begin with.
Evidently versions of it survived as oral tradition before it was finally written down. The elements desired by a professional story teller are all there; puns and other wordplay, the anthropomorphization of non-human characters, etc. It would make a good panto. You would need a story-teller, some musicians, and three or four actors with masks and simple props all on a square of carpet rolled out in the souk. Add some topical references, bawdy asides and other horseplay and at the end the angel chases Adam and Eve into the crowd with a sword, Ta Daa. I would sure throw down a coin to see it.
Obviously you're not paying a whole lot of attention to what I write, but sure. What I am saying is that the author would rather have it be a good "theater play" than be 100% factually accurate, and that furthermore, most of his intended audience would have expected it agreed with him about it. That's how stories survive in preliterate cultures. And--to save you the trouble of making a snotty accusation--nobody would have thought Jesus was a liar for quoting it.So are you arguing that it isn't literal because it would make a good theater play?
First of all, what makes you think that historical narrative is something new? I believe the Garden story is historical narrative because it involves God and His word. You are essentially siding with the serpent by saying "did God really say?" Did He or not? Was the Garden story made up or did it actually happen? If it was made up then we might as well question the rest of the Torah, as Genesis 1-3 is its foundation.Obviously you're not paying a whole lot of attention to what I write, but sure. What I am saying is that the author would rather have it be a good "theater play" than be 100% factually accurate, and that furthermore, most of his intended audience would have expected it agreed with him about it. That's how stories survive in preliterate cultures. And--to save you the trouble of making a snotty accusation--nobody would have thought Jesus was a liar for quoting it.
So, your turn: what makes you think that the Garden story was written in a form of historical narrative not attempted by humans until the last couple of centuries?
Which one? One of the two we have?
I didn't say so. As a genre, historical narrative is very old. The Garden story is a form of historical narrative. You really don't pay much attention to what I write. It looks like you'r cooking up a flase dichotomy as well: If it's not 100% accurate factual history it must be nothing but a made-up story."First of all, what makes you think that historical narrative is something new? I believe the Garden story is historical narrative because it involves God and His word. You are essentially siding with the serpent by saying "did God really say?" Did He or not? Was the Garden story made up or did it actually happen? If it was made up then we might as well question the rest of the Torah, as Genesis 1-3 is its foundation.
No, I don't buy that. The argument that one genealogy was Joseph's the other Mary's is the lamest explanation that has ever been advanced to resolve the discrepancies between the two.Joseph become and was regarded a legal son of Mary's mother and father at their marriage , one , the other was of his own mother and fathers lineage , two .. So both ..
No, but if the very first story in the Bible is fabricated then the rest of the Bible might as well be.If I put Tom Sawyer on the shelf next to the World Almanac will that make the facts in the Almanac become unreliable?
I didn't say so. As a genre, historical narrative is very old. The Garden story is a form of historical narrative. You really don't pay much attention to what I write.
And you're avoiding my question as well. Saying "The text must be thus-and-so or I can't believe anything else in the Bible." is not an answer.
If I put Tom Sawyer on the shelf next to the World Almanac will that make the facts in the Almanac become unreliable?
And the fact that the story is divinely inspired means nothing to you? "I don't care if God wrote it. If it's not 100% accurate factual history, it's trash!"No, but if the very first story in the Bible is fabricated then the rest of the Bible might as well be.
God inspires lies?And the fact that the story is divinely inspired means nothing to you? "I don't care if God wrote it. If it's not 100% accurate factual history, it's trash!"
LOL! Now were back to that again.God inspires lies?
One of my favorites questions .. If evolution is so great then why didn't it evolve mitochondria and telomeres to prevent death and aging instead of mating and survival of the fittest ?
..
Did Genesis 1-3 happen or not? Did God create the heavens, the earth, and all that are in them in six days or not?LOL! Now were back to that again.
If it's not 100% accurate factual history it's a LIE--a proposition you present as self-evident but will not defend or discuss.
I don't think you can, all you can do is shout it out and be nasty about it.
No, God doesn't lie, He tells stories. He can do that, despite your attempts to deny Him that power.
It did, it is called "cancer". Cancer cells does not age and if it is possible to sustain it indefinitely, it could live forever.
I have no reason to suppose so, but I don't see it as an important question. But weren't we talking about the Garden story? Gen 1 is something different altogether, not quite poetry by Hebrew standards, but with with a poetic quality which suggests to many scholars that it might have been words to a hymn.Did Genesis 1-3 happen or not? Did God create the heavens, the earth, and all that are in them in six days or not?
I can read the Psalms and understand that they were written as prayers, praises, and poetry. Yet when I read Genesis there is no indication that everything before Genesis 4 is simply a nice story that God made up. How do you justify your interpretation? Since that is what we are discussing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?