Genesis - Lets Hear It.

[gluadys]

Heyas,

I don't frequent this forum often, but I am now all ears. I would like to hear from all those who believe Genesis is a figurative/poetic/story/mythical telling of Creation, and what in Genesis makes you believe that.?

So, one more time, what (in Genesis) leads you to believe that it is a figurative story?

All the best,
Digit

Edit: I should have said this initially, but if you can quote scripture along with what you are referring to, that would also be of immense help, and I would appreciate it. Thanks kindly in advance for any such efforts.

Let's start with the first creation account in Gen 1:1-2:4a (It ends with the phrase "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were created" The rest of the verse is the beginning of the second creation account. This is often obscured in translations which run the whole verse together into one sentence.)

1. This first account is a song. It was written to be sung in worship. Some word choices appear to have been made to meet metrical requirements.

(Some will object that it is not typical Hebrew poetry which is characterized by parallelism and chiasmus. That is true, but an atypical composition does not mean it is not poetry. It can simply mean the author is trying out a new form of the art.)

2. It is crafted around a seven-day week highlighting the Sabbath which was important in the theology of the writer. Later in the Torah, the same writer refers back to this story to justify the command to observe the sabbath.

3. The creation is organized thematically into two groups of creative events. Each group corresponds to the two characteristics of the primitive earth as stated in Gen. 1:2 "formless" "empty"

The first group (Days 1-3) produce form: time (Day/Night), separation of heaven and earth (Firmament), separation of earth and water. The second group (Days 4-6) fill each of these realms: lights for the day and night (4, 1) , sea creatures for the water and birds that fly in the firmament of heaven (5, 2) and lastly terrestrial animals including humanity (6, 3)

This imposes a tight literary structure on the account of creation that is not seen in any study of creation itself.

4. It is a response to similar creation accounts told in the pagan cosmologies familiar to the Hebrews. It retells these familiar cosmologies in a monotheistic framework that asserts God's sovereignty over all creation, rather than deifying parts of creation itself. It even follows the same order of creation as that of the pagan myths--beginning with primeval chaos, then the structure of order, then the particulars of specific creations.

Now for the second creation account: this is even more obviously literary. It has all the characteristics of the literary form we call "myth". (Please note, that "myth" used to designate a type of literature does not imply "false". That is a different use of the word.)

The whole is filled with symbols: the symbolic trees, the figure of the tempter as a talking snake, the reference to a man who is never named in the story but simply called Man (Adam) and to a woman whom he calls by an equally symbolic name.

In ancient cultures myth filled some of the role we now assign to science, in that it offered "explanations" of various observations.

Just so, this story answers such questions as:

Why do snakes have no legs?
Why is farming such hard work?
Why do women experience labour pains?
Why are there two sexes?
Why do we marry?
Why do we die?

A full study of all the mythological elements and how they formed the world-view of ancient Israel is beyond the scope of a forum posting.

 

[metherion]

Why I don't think it's literal, only counting what is in Genesis itself?
Well, Mallon listed several reasons, but there are more.

1. Imminent versus Transcendant God. An Imminent God is like the Greek gods. He has human qualities, interacts with people, has a personality. A Transcendant God sits off in the aether, interfering with the grand scale. Many of the stories alternately portray God as an imminent or transendant god exclusively. That is a literary device. God has both qualities (or so we believe), so there should have been stories about His having both sets of qualities.

2. Doubles of everything in the story of Noah (e.g. 6:9-22 and 7:1-5). Also, the conflicting details of just how long the Flood was (one Hebrew year and ten days, 150 days +40 rain, just 40 rain, et cetera).

3. Exaggerated ages that don't have a constant trend. If people's lifetimes really did shorten a a result of the Fall, it does NOT make sense that Adam was not the longest lived male. Jared and Methusaleh, who are several generations down the line both live longer than Adam did. Furthermore, ages should have been given for Cain and his male descedants. After all, Cain was in Adam's line. And why are all the other sons and daughters left out of the geneology?

4. This one was extra-Genesis, so I have removed it in an edit.

5. God never created undersea vegetation. He created vegetation on the land on the 3rd day (1:11-13) and He created creatures in the sea on the 5th day (1:20-23) but He never created plants under the waters.

These are some. More require extra-Genesis stuff.

Metherion

 

[Digit]

Thank you all for the replys. It has helped me understand your beliefs better.

Cheers!
Digit

 

[Scotishfury09]

Sure.

Point 3 is pretty obvious. Disparate fields of science all reach the same conclusion independently (read: multiple attestation): That a literal interpretation of Genesis is not consistent with the facts we see in God's creation. This includes the fields of biology, geology, palaeontology, astronomy, etc.

Point 6 refers to the two creation accounts given in Genesis 1-2:2 and 2:4 onward. Read 'em, and pay particular attention to the order in which God creates everything. For added fun, ask yourself just what the heck the Tree of Life was for!

Hmm.. Have you ever thought about writing Sunday School curriculum?? . "For added fun" haha.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Roses are red,
violets are blue......"

According to almost all opinions on the topic of literalism, because the above is in the form of poetry there are no such thing as roses, or violets, and, if they did happen to exist they certainly wouldn't be (respectively) red, or violet.

That's the same as believing that because the "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" was a song that the event described didn't actually happen. ( I guess Moses and Gordon had a lot in common.)

Gimmeabreak!

 

[shernren]

"Roses are red,
violets are blue......"

According to almost all opinions on the topic of literalism, because the above is in the form of poetry there are no such thing as roses, or violets, and, if they did happen to exist they certainly wouldn't be (respectively) red, or violet.

Well, what does that tell you about the warehouses of snow or the foundations of the earth then?

 

[Dannager]

"Roses are red,
violets are blue......"

According to almost all opinions on the topic of literalism, because the above is in the form of poetry there are no such thing as roses, or violets, and, if they did happen to exist they certainly wouldn't be (respectively) red, or violet.

Of course, you ignore the fact that, if your analogy were complete, it would note that we have found roses that are red, violets are a shade of blue, and that they actually do exist - much in the same way that we have discovered, by looking at the world around us, that the Genesis account cannot be literal because reality contradicts it. Reality is literal. Genesis is not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But in Gen 2 you see a change where Adam is recreated as a : 7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Excellent point. The material is a 'manifestation' of the spiritual. And as Adam was a real person (we're here, aren't we?) so the events of Genesis were physical representations of spiritual events.

Most physical events in life rise to the spiritual level, but without the physical part there is no spiritual aspect. Consider what is currently happening to me:

A long-time acquantence, an older man who is selling his house and moving to a retirement facility, offered to give me some rather expensive sawblades that he would no longer need. A week later he asked me when I was going to come to his house and pick up the saw blades. His tone was almost demanding, which puzzled me at the time. Later the same day he approached me again but this time offered me a side job of doing some painting on his house ( a 'two hour job', he assured me). Here's what I finally determined:

This man is a professional, highly regarded in his field. He is used to those beneath him 'stepping and fetching' whatever he wants. He views me as one of those. But because of our longtime relationship he knows that he must 'lure' me into a situation that he can then control, thus the 'come out to my house and pick out the sawblades' scheme, which, he thinks, would place me in a vulnerable position (beware of gifts that blind.....)

Additionally, he is selling his house and needs much 'detailing' done to prepare it for sale. He knows that I am good at such work as he has witnessed my work for many years. He thinks that if he can get me to his house for this small painting job that he can then get me to do most or all of the other tasks needed to prepare the house for sale.

This is a necessity for the sale, but it is also a game with this person, to establish his social/professional position over lesser folks, like me. He also intends to determine what he will pay me. (One of the reasons he wants me to do the work is that he places me in a low economic scale and feels that he is actually doing me a favor by giving me 'extra work' as well as getting quality work done for much less than hiring a professional.)

My point is that this story makes no spiritual sense (lessons learned, truth perceived, principles applied) if there were no sawblades, house that needs work, real characters, etc. The bible story is the same.

Consider the creation of Eve from the rib of Adam. This is a physical representation of one of the greatest spiritual events in history, but because it is impossible or implausible to many, the real spiritual event, and it's importance, cannot be realized, or understood.

There's a proverb among comedians: "If they'll buy the premise, they'll buy the bit." If you cannot accept the physical event, how can you fully understand what it really means?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, what does that tell you about the warehouses of snow or the foundations of the earth then?

These are metaphors. A little thinking will tell you that the 'treasuries' or 'storehouse' of the snow is the moisture resources and meteorological conditions that can arise to produce snow. The terms simply mean 'the place where snow 'resides' when it isn't falling', or, the hidden reserves of stuff and conditions needed to produce snow. God's question to Job was really, "Can you explain where all this (my) snow comes from?"

The foundations of the earth are real, but described metaphorically. Those foundations are the physical and spiritual principles that cause the earth to do what God wants it to do, whether move or remain in it's place. Kinda like the snow thing in that the 'pillars' are the unseen principles holding the earth in its place. And they are real, but unseen, thus the metaphorical description.

 

[Rut]

I think Genesis (first chapters) can be literal.Why?
I don`t know figurative/poetic/story/mythical telling can tell us nearly exacly where the Garden of Eden where

Chapter 2

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

I don`t know about snakes that talk but we know from the Bible that the Devil talk to us or temptetion us Matthew 4:1 - 10, 2 Corinthians 11:14
So the Devil ( the snake) could have talked to Eve as a ventriloquist.Rev 12:9

Without this (I think) nearly literal story about creation, we would have be left with the fanciful stories or allegorical explaniations of man`s beginning found in the creation accounts of pagan nations

The Science have seen that the creation in the bible are the most correct then other stories

 

[Dannager]

The Science have seen that the creation in the bible are the most correct then other stories

No, not at all.

 

[Rut]

No, not at all.

What other story is more correct?

 

[Dannager]

What other story is more correct?

None. They are all equally unsupported by evidence.

 

[Rut]

None. They are all equally unsupported by evidence.

So you saying that the Bible don`t saying the truth about creation? That maybe the animals come before the plants? I have only seen that the science have said that the plants come before the animals etc

 

[Ben12]

Excellent point. The material is a 'manifestation' of the spiritual. And as Adam was a real person (we're here, aren't we?) so the events of Genesis were physical representations of spiritual events.

Most physical events in life rise to the spiritual level, but without the physical part there is no spiritual aspect. Consider what is currently happening to me:

A long-time acquantence, an older man who is selling his house and moving to a retirement facility, offered to give me some rather expensive sawblades that he would no longer need. A week later he asked me when I was going to come to his house and pick up the saw blades. His tone was almost demanding, which puzzled me at the time. Later the same day he approached me again but this time offered me a side job of doing some painting on his house ( a 'two hour job', he assured me). Here's what I finally determined:

This man is a professional, highly regarded in his field. He is used to those beneath him 'stepping and fetching' whatever he wants. He views me as one of those. But because of our longtime relationship he knows that he must 'lure' me into a situation that he can then control, thus the 'come out to my house and pick out the sawblades' scheme, which, he thinks, would place me in a vulnerable position (beware of gifts that blind.....)

Additionally, he is selling his house and needs much 'detailing' done to prepare it for sale. He knows that I am good at such work as he has witnessed my work for many years. He thinks that if he can get me to his house for this small painting job that he can then get me to do most or all of the other tasks needed to prepare the house for sale.

This is a necessity for the sale, but it is also a game with this person, to establish his social/professional position over lesser folks, like me. He also intends to determine what he will pay me. (One of the reasons he wants me to do the work is that he places me in a low economic scale and feels that he is actually doing me a favor by giving me 'extra work' as well as getting quality work done for much less than hiring a professional.)

My point is that this story makes no spiritual sense (lessons learned, truth perceived, principles applied) if there were no sawblades, house that needs work, real characters, etc. The bible story is the same.

Consider the creation of Eve from the rib of Adam. This is a physical representation of one of the greatest spiritual events in history, but because it is impossible or implausible to many, the real spiritual event, and it's importance, cannot be realized, or understood.

There's a proverb among comedians: "If they'll buy the premise, they'll buy the bit." If you cannot accept the physical event, how can you fully understand what it really means?

I agree with you; so many of God's people only see the physical side of things; the outer shell. I so often find that deeper message right there and men will never see the depths because their understanding is carnal or worst yet religious.

When Adam fell from God’s grace in The Garden of Eden; He fell from a place of grace and became as a beast or flesh (same as the Beast or it’s mark in Book of Revelations). Adam was a son of God; just like Jesus who is the second Adam. Religion looks for answers everywhere they can find them, be it the natural world, human history or tradition. The answer to the Bible is the Bible; just got to let the Spirit of Truth open the mystery; then it is no longer a mystery.

I might add, the word breath or cool; same word as in Genesis 3:8 according to Strong’s
OT:7307: ruwach (roo'-akh); from OT:7306; wind; by resemblance breath, i.e. a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively, life, anger, unsubstantiality; by extension, a region of the sky; by resemblance spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and functions):

Genesis 3: 8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool (or spirit of the day) of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

Genesis is the foundation for the whole Bible; if I cannot usually find it then it is not probably true. What was the first religious act in Genesis?

 

[Deamiter]

So you saying that the Bible don`t saying the truth about creation? That maybe the animals come before the plants? I have only seen that the science have said that the plants come before the animals etc

Absolutely not. In fact, because the creation account is not limited to a factual account it conveys more and more complex truths than could be conveyed in a factual account.

Never confuse truth with fact (they're not the same) and don't fall into the trap of assuming that facts are somehow more important than truth -- especially when the ancient near eastern cultures valued the opposite -- truth over facts. As another example, throughout Egyptian, Assyrian and even early Hebrew culture, ages at death were not recorded factually. The numbers used were not the actual age at death but were symbolic of the person's life and said something more meaningful than simply giving a factual number.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, what does that tell you about the warehouses of snow or the foundations of the earth then?

The warehouse of snow is the polar areas. The foundations of the earth are the continents.

You do not find the same things in other planets of the solar system.

 

[gluadys]

"Roses are red,
violets are blue......"

According to almost all opinions on the topic of literalism, because the above is in the form of poetry there are no such thing as roses, or violets, and, if they did happen to exist they certainly wouldn't be (respectively) red, or violet.

That's the same as believing that because the "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" was a song that the event described didn't actually happen. ( I guess Moses and Gordon had a lot in common.)

Gimmeabreak!

Good point. The form of the text does not conclusively tell you whether any particular statement in the text is intended literally or not. While we expect poetry to rely more on figurative language than prose does, there are literal statements in poetry and figurative statements and symbols in prose.

Of course, this cuts both ways. For example, it means the geocentric passages cannot be dismissed as figurative just because they mostly occur in poetic settings.

Part of the root of the interpretive dilemma is that all figurative language is based on literal perceptions. The whole point of symbolism and metaphor in religious literature is to say "Spiritual reality X is something like observable, physical reality Y"

One consequence of this is that every writer will choose those figures which he believes are literally true of physical reality to point to the similar spiritual reality.

One of the problems comes when we discover that the writer's perspective on physical reality was limited, inadequate or just plain mistaken.

Does it follow that his perspective on spiritual reality was also mistaken?

Perhaps we need to treat the literal side of many figures as scaffolding. It supported the spiritual reality it was used to point to just as scaffolding supports an unfinished arch. When the arch is finished, it can support itself and the scaffolding can be removed. When we understand the spiritual reality to which a figure points, the literal meaning can also be removed without damage to the spiritual reality it pointed to.

In cases where the writer's view of physical reality conflicts with later discoveries about the earth or the cosmos, this is a necessary step. In fact, as we see with the geocentric passages again, the meaning is so strongly identified with its figurative sense, the actual literal meaning is forgotten, and people who have not studied the controversy over their interpretation take for granted that they are describing the world as we see it, not as the ancients saw it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Good point. The form of the text does not conclusively tell you whether any particular statement in the text is intended literally or not. While we expect poetry to rely more on figurative language than prose does, there are literal statements in poetry and figurative statements and symbols in prose.

Of course, this cuts both ways. For example, it means the geocentric passages cannot be dismissed as figurative just because they mostly occur in poetic settings.

Part of the root of the interpretive dilemma is that all figurative language is based on literal perceptions. The whole point of symbolism and metaphor in religious literature is to say "Spiritual reality X is something like observable, physical reality Y"

One consequence of this is that every writer will choose those figures which he believes are literally true of physical reality to point to the similar spiritual reality.

One of the problems comes when we discover that the writer's perspective on physical reality was limited, inadequate or just plain mistaken.

Does it follow that his perspective on spiritual reality was also mistaken?

Perhaps we need to treat the literal side of many figures as scaffolding. It supported the spiritual reality it was used to point to just as scaffolding supports an unfinished arch. When the arch is finished, it can support itself and the scaffolding can be removed. When we understand the spiritual reality to which a figure points, the literal meaning can also be removed without damage to the spiritual reality it pointed to.

In cases where the writer's view of physical reality conflicts with later discoveries about the earth or the cosmos, this is a necessary step. In fact, as we see with the geocentric passages again, the meaning is so strongly identified with its figurative sense, the actual literal meaning is forgotten, and people who have not studied the controversy over their interpretation take for granted that they are describing the world as we see it, not as the ancients saw it.

I like your analogy using the arch.

 

[Digit]

Ok, first up I asked those who do not hold to figurative Genesis not to post here. Secondly, there is another thread, with zero replies () currently where I did ask those who hold to literal Genesis to post.

Sort it out please.

Thanks,
Digit