How should Genesis be interpreted?

[Wiccan_Child]

How should Genesis be interpreted? Literally? Allegorically? As a falsehood through-and-through? And what makes you believe this - Bible verses, empirical evidence, pure logic, etc?

I'm only interested in opinions that fall one way or the other - "It doesn't matter, you just have to believe in Jesus" isn't an interesting response, at least with regards to the question

 

[ViaCrucis]

How should Genesis be interpreted? Literally? Allegorically? As a falsehood through-and-through? And what makes you believe this - Bible verses, empirical evidence, pure logic, etc?

I'm only interested in opinions that fall one way or the other - "It doesn't matter, you just have to believe in Jesus" isn't an interesting response, at least with regards to the question

I believe Genesis should be read contextually.

I say that for a couple reasons other than perhaps the obvious that all texts should be read contextually:

1) Genesis isn't a monolithic work, it's more of a tapestry that is held together by the theme of beginning-ness. As such asking how the whole text should be taken doesn't necessarily work. For example, if I read Genesis 1 non-literally, that doesn't mean I don't believe Abraham is an historic person.

2) Genesis is part of the Torah or Pentateuch. As such it is in the same broad literary category as Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. For example, in rabbinic writings/stories in Jewish history a discussion arose over what is the most fundamental principle. Famously Rabbi Hillel said that "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18) is the greatest commandment (which Jesus also claimed was the greatest commandment along with love of God); another rabbi (whose name I forget) said that the greatest is that man has been created in the image of God, thus "Let us create man in our own image" is the greatest, for we are all Adam's offspring, and bear the Divine Image.

So we ought to read Genesis contextually. We ought to read it within the context of being part of the Torah, and also as forming a broad, cosmic narrative that narrows in focus until we get to Moses and the Exodus. Think, therefore, of Genesis as a massive prologue that is leading up to the critical moment in Israel's history, the handing of the Torah to the Jewish people from Mt. Sinai and the establishing of God's Covenant with them, so that they would be His people and He would be their God.

Following this, we can then start to pick apart Genesis in its constituent parts.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Genesis, or 'beginnings' sets the stage for the story that follows, and must be understood in that greater context. For example, thousands of years after the garden of Eden Paul reveals that 'Adam was not deceived', and, 'the woman was in the transgression'. This requires that we revisit that incident to gain greater understanding. God adds 'a little here, a little there' to some stories. This requires us to understand as much of the whole bible as possible to rightly discern meanings as vital keys might be revealed much later.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

How should Genesis be interpreted? Literally? Allegorically? As a falsehood through-and-through? And what makes you believe this - Bible verses, empirical evidence, pure logic, etc?

...

1. Because there IS historical evidence thru Archeology that prove many of the events listed in Genesis, actually occured . Have you done a simple google on this ?

2. Because Jesus referred to the book of Genesis on more than one occasion, as being historical fact. Can you find any deciet, fraud, poor character, false teachings, sin, associated with Jesus Christ ?

3. Because the scientific evidences we have today especially in the field of Cosmology and Biology, place the creation account of Genesis as very credible . Have you done a simple google on how modern science is confirming the Bible (Genesis) to be true ? A famous agnostic NASA scientist by the name of Prof. Robert Jastrow even wrote a book on this very topic called 'God and the Astronomers' where he shows and concludes that ALL the modern sciences culminate at the Genesis creation account. Would you be willing to read such unbiased books for the real truth ?

4. Have you personally got any philsophical biases that prevent you from considering Genesis as a compelling historical narrative ? How would Genesis being really true , personally impact your life as far as ramifications are concerned ?

Thank you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Genesis, or 'beginnings' sets the stage for the story that follows, and must be understood in that greater context. For example, thousands of years after the garden of Eden Paul reveals that 'Adam was not deceived', and, 'the woman was in the transgression'. This requires that we revisit that incident to gain greater understanding. God adds 'a little here, a little there' to some stories. This requires us to understand as much of the whole bible as possible to rightly discern meanings as vital keys might be revealed much later.

But, doesn't that increase the risk that people will misinterpret the Bible? If the point isn't laid out crisp and clear, people may misinterpret it, and the harder you make it to find out the point, the more people that will misinterpret it.

It's a good method for when one's weaving a story - the ebb and flow of narrative and literary techniques greatly flesh out a story - but if the mortal and immortals fates of all humanity is decided by the book, you'd think God would make it a bit more easy to read

 

[Wiccan_Child]

1. Because there IS historical evidence thru Archeology that prove many of the events listed in Genesis, actually occured . Have you done a simple google on this ?

Yes, and I've debated it for many years. My question was to simply garner a sample of responses, to see just what people believe on the subject. I'm not calling my particular belief into question; there's no need to get so defensive.

2. Because Jesus referred to the book of Genesis on more than one occasion, as being historical fact.

Can you cite an example verse, please?

Can you find any deciet, fraud, poor character, false teachings, sin, associated with Jesus Christ ?

The cursing of the fig tree strikes me as being in poor character.

3. Because the scientific evidences we have today especially in the field of Cosmology and Biology, place the creation account of Genesis as very credible . Have you done a simple google on how modern science is confirming the Bible (Genesis) to be true ? A famous agnostic NASA scientist by the name of Prof. Robert Jastrow even wrote a book on this very topic called 'God and the Astronomers' where he shows and concludes that ALL the modern sciences culminate at the Genesis creation account. Would you be willing to read such unbiased books for the real truth ?

Sure, though I'm sceptical just how unbiased such a book can be. However, though I haven't read Jastrow's book, it seems God and the Astronomers is a book that fully accepts mainstream cosmology - 13.5 billion year history, the Big Bang theory, stellar accretion, etc (source). From other sources, it seems that Jastrow's views are that the Big Bang implies a supernatural creator; his view doesn't seem to be that Genesis is a literally account that occurred 6000 years ago.

As a minor note, Jastrow was a doctor, not a professor.

4. Have you personally got any philsophical biases that prevent you from considering Genesis as a compelling historical narrative ?

A reliance on the scientific method, and on empirical inquiry.

How would Genesis being really true , personally impact your life as far as ramifications are concerned ?

Ramifications? None. But the debate has a massive impact, indirectly through science education, on society at large.

 

[ViaCrucis]

But, doesn't that increase the risk that people will misinterpret the Bible? If the point isn't laid out crisp and clear, people may misinterpret it, and the harder you make it to find out the point, the more people that will misinterpret it.

It's a good method for when one's weaving a story - the ebb and flow of narrative and literary techniques greatly flesh out a story - but if the mortal and immortals fates of all humanity is decided by the book, you'd think God would make it a bit more easy to read

A common mistake is in thinking that the Bible is primarily a sort of "rule book" to be followed in order to make it to heavenly bliss.

The Bible is a vibrant, colorful, library of texts which presents a discourse between God and man. The Bible is drama, Theodrama. A vast narrative unfolding which, from the Christian perspective, finds its climax with Jesus. And that's crucial to the Christian view of the Bible, Jesus is the Object of all Scripture. St. Augustine of Hippo wrote that all of Scripture contains one Utterance: Christ.

The Bible therefore functions not like a magic 8 ball, or like a driver's manual; but as a locus of contemplation and reflection where we engage with God, to be challenged, to be transformed, to grow, learn, and mature. The Bible, in my opinion, shouldn't be easy, it should consistently keep us on our toes. As we seek Christ, to sit at His feet as learners--disciples--and followers.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A common mistake is in thinking that the Bible is primarily a sort of "rule book" to be followed in order to make it to heavenly bliss.

The Bible is a vibrant, colorful, library of texts which presents a discourse between God and man. The Bible is drama, Theodrama. A vast narrative unfolding which, from the Christian perspective, finds its climax with Jesus. And that's crucial to the Christian view of the Bible, Jesus is the Object of all Scripture. St. Augustine of Hippo wrote that all of Scripture contains one Utterance: Christ.

The Bible therefore functions not like a magic 8 ball, or like a driver's manual; but as a locus of contemplation and reflection where we engage with God, to be challenged, to be transformed, to grow, learn, and mature. The Bible, in my opinion, shouldn't be easy, it should consistently keep us on our toes. As we seek Christ, to sit at His feet as learners--disciples--and followers.

-CryptoLutheran

As I said, that works fine if that's all the Bible is intended to be - an oral history, stories of how God has interacted with man, etc. But, according to Christianity, it's still has a major role to play in how one knows about the fact that we're eternally damned to Hell - and given the stakes, wouldn't it be more prudent to forgo the lovely storytelling and get down to brass tacks? Doesn't making it difficult to read just make more people go to Hell? The Bible's intention may be something else entirely, but if it still has that effect, I think that outweighs whatever else the Bible does - if obfuscating the meaning of the Bible makes it more enigmatic, but damns people to Hell, surely the latter outweighs the former?

Surely damning people to Hell is worse than making the Bible a good or educational read?

(Besides the literal meaning of 'damning to Hell', I also include the idea that something prevents us from ever wanting to accept salvation, thus indirectly damning us, or rather, ensuring we stay damned)

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Yes, and I've debated it for many years. My question was to simply garner a sample of responses, to see just what people believe on the subject. I'm not calling my particular belief into question; there's no need to get so defensive.


Can you cite an example verse, please?


The cursing of the fig tree strikes me as being in poor character.


Sure, though I'm sceptical just how unbiased such a book can be. However, though I haven't read Jastrow's book, it seems God and the Astronomers is a book that fully accepts mainstream cosmology - 13.5 billion year history, the Big Bang theory, stellar accretion, etc (source). From other sources, it seems that Jastrow's views are that the Big Bang implies a supernatural creator; his view doesn't seem to be that Genesis is a literally account that occurred 6000 years ago.

As a minor note, Jastrow was a doctor, not a professor.


A reliance on the scientific method, and on empirical inquiry.


Ramifications? None. But the debate has a massive impact, indirectly through science education, on society at large.

1. I wasnt getting defensive...i was simply stating that there is in fact archeological evidence to defend Genesis book as historical.

2. Jesus treated the book of Genesis historically when he referred to the actual events of Adam and Eve at the beginning of Creation, Noahs worldwide flood, Abraham, Moses , Sodom and Gomorrah .

3. You dont see any personal ramifications to your life if Adam and Eve were real people and Gods plan of redemption was set in motion by Jesus coming to die for your sins, and mine ?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But, doesn't that increase the risk that people will misinterpret the Bible? If the point isn't laid out crisp and clear, people may misinterpret it, and the harder you make it to find out the point, the more people that will misinterpret it.

It's a good method for when one's weaving a story - the ebb and flow of narrative and literary techniques greatly flesh out a story - but if the mortal and immortals fates of all humanity is decided by the book, you'd think God would make it a bit more easy to read

The bible has already been 'interpreted' by the translation of scholars. Fortunately we have the original language to fall back on. That the bible is 'of no private interpretation' means that no one person, or church, can claim absolute authority over scripture. This means that you or I can find legitimate meanings that others may not.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The bible has already been 'interpreted' by the translation of scholars. Fortunately we have the original language to fall back on. That the bible is 'of no private interpretation' means that no one person, or church, can claim absolute authority over scripture. This means that you or I can find legitimate meanings that others may not.

But it also means there are innumerable interpretations, and more are being developed as time goes by. Since they're usually contradictory (old vs. young Earth, etc), they can't all be true. Hence my question: how do you believe it should be interpreted? Literal, metaphorical, allegorical, historical?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

1. I wasnt getting defensive...i was simply stating that there is in fact archeological evidence to defend Genesis book as historical.

Allegedly. Personally, I find the radiometric evidence more convincing.

2. Jesus treated the book of Genesis historically when he referred to the actual events of Adam and Eve at the beginning of Creation, Noahs worldwide flood, Abraham, Moses , Sodom and Gomorrah .

Can you cite an example? Chapter and verse?

3. You dont see any personal ramifications to your life if Adam and Eve were real people and Gods plan of redemption was set in motion by Jesus coming to die for your sins, and mine ?

No. I live my life as best I can, help improve the world as best I can, alleviate suffering as best I can, and improve my body and mind as best I can. Why would that change? What ramifications do you think there should be?

 

[razeontherock]

How should Genesis be interpreted?

Like this:

Genesis as Ancient Cosmology - Dr John Walton P1 0f 6 - YouTube

This is a 10 minute, part 1 of a series that takes about an hour in full. You can find related videos that are the reader's digest version, but ultimately they are only frustrating because they are sound bites taken from the full spiel, which is excellent.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Like this:

Genesis as Ancient Cosmology - Dr John Walton P1 0f 6 - YouTube

This is a 10 minute, part 1 of a series that takes about an hour in full. You can find related videos that are the reader's digest version, but ultimately they are only frustrating because they are sound bites taken from the full spiel, which is excellent.

Could you summarise the gist of the videos?

 

[golgotha61]

How should Genesis be interpreted? Literally? Allegorically? As a falsehood through-and-through? And what makes you believe this - Bible verses, empirical evidence, pure logic, etc?

I'm only interested in opinions that fall one way or the other - "It doesn't matter, you just have to believe in Jesus" isn't an interesting response, at least with regards to the question

I interpret Genesis through several lenses. One is the context of the culture, government, religion, etc. Also I try to identify the different literary genres and interpret literally according to the literature but not divorced from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Also I consider the cognitive environment of the Ancient Near East (Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, by John H. Walton).

 

[razeontherock]

Could you summarise the gist of the videos?

Yes. Read it the way it was intended to be read, by those who first heard it, in the place, time and culture they lived. You seriously think you'll be able to accomplish that in less than an hour?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

As I said, that works fine if that's all the Bible is intended to be - an oral history, stories of how God has interacted with man, etc. But, according to Christianity, it's still has a major role to play in how one knows about the fact that we're eternally damned to Hell - and given the stakes, wouldn't it be more prudent to forgo the lovely storytelling and get down to brass tacks? Doesn't making it difficult to read just make more people go to Hell? The Bible's intention may be something else entirely, but if it still has that effect, I think that outweighs whatever else the Bible does - if obfuscating the meaning of the Bible makes it more enigmatic, but damns people to Hell, surely the latter outweighs the former?

Surely damning people to Hell is worse than making the Bible a good or educational read?

(Besides the literal meaning of 'damning to Hell', I also include the idea that something prevents us from ever wanting to accept salvation, thus indirectly damning us, or rather, ensuring we stay damned)

I think the Bible is pretty clear on what gives salvation and that's not really debated. The Bible wasn't enigmatic about Jesus being the Christ. It didn't beat around the bush. Its pretty blatant actually.

But this thread is about creationism and I don't think creationism has any thing to do with damnation. The worst creationism can do is make scientifically illiterate children but the Bible unfortunately has precious little to say about the scientific literacy of children. I personally think its a big problem to have a scientifically illiterate society.

Your above post makes it seem as if the Bible is enigmatic about Jesus and salvation...which it isn't. It is enigmatic and poetic on many other things though...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes. Read it the way it was intended to be read, by those who first heard it, in the place, time and culture they lived.

OK. Wouldn't that reduce it to just a Jewish myth, though?

You seriously think you'll be able to accomplish that in less than an hour?

Will I be able to understand the gist of the video in less than an hour? Yes. Will I be able to read Genesis through the eyes of the ancient Hebrews? No, primarily because I don't read Hebrew. If you're saying the video offers that reading, instead of espousing it, then I'd be dubious that the video wasn't just espousing its own theology under the guise of a 'true reading'.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think the Bible is pretty clear on what gives salvation and that's not really debated. The Bible wasn't enigmatic about Jesus being the Christ. It didn't beat around the bush. Its pretty blatant actually.

But this thread is about creationism and I don't think creationism has any thing to do with damnation. The worst creationism can do is make scientifically illiterate children but the Bible unfortunately has precious little to say about the scientific literacy of children. I personally think its a big problem to have a scientifically illiterate society.

Your above post makes it seem as if the Bible is enigmatic about Jesus and salvation...which it isn't. It is enigmatic and poetic on many other things though...

In my opinion, it is enigmatic about Jesus and salvation. At no point does it clearly lay out precisely what the problem is, and what the solution is, without becoming obfuscated in poetic flourish.

Take, for instance, the famous line, "None shall come to the father except through me". How can that mean anything, without filtering it through interpretation to divine its meaning? "Through me"? Assuming he's not being literal, it could mean following his teachings, his examples, it could mean simply believing he exists, or believing he's God, or believing he died, or believing he resurrected, or believing he resurrected for our sins (an odd thing to say as he hadn't died or resurrected yet), etc. Without already knowing how common denominations variously interpret it, its meaning is obfuscated.

While that may well be because the author(s) wanted us to read more of the Bible to be able to glean its meaning, you'd think a more urgent task would be the salvation of as many souls as possible.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But it also means there are innumerable interpretations, and more are being developed as time goes by. Since they're usually contradictory (old vs. young Earth, etc), they can't all be true. Hence my question: how do you believe it should be interpreted? Literal, metaphorical, allegorical, historical?

All of the above.