How should Genesis be interpreted?

[back2thebible]

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

As it is written.............although this story of earths reformation, has no bearing on what history the earth had before it was formed, it is only a record of how things transpired on the earth we now live on. We know in the future there will be another transformation (remaking of the planet earth and its heavens) when this alteration of matter occures, there very well may be evidence of a pre-existance of that new earth as well.

from the biblical story there is no historical record given of the rock other than it was void, we know from the record we have, God chose to wipe out mankind and start over with 4 families, Noah his wife and his three sons and their wives. who's to say that God had not created before us, Its obvious he had created the angels before us, could they possibly be the saved souls from a previous earth situation. only God knows

 

[golgotha61]

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

This is why one needs to investigate and understand the cognitive environment of the ANE(Ancient Near East). It is not necessary to consider the accounts given in Genesis as borrowed from the mythologies of the pagans and thus relegate these accounts to mythologies. ".... what God did (real history) in the garb of an ANE cosmogony, not in the garb of a scientific genre or the historical genre of the book of Kings with its constant appeal to the diaries of the kings of Israel and Judah." (An Old Testament Theology, by Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is why one needs to investigate and understand the cognitive environment of the ANE(Ancient Near East). It is not necessary to consider the accounts given in Genesis as borrowed from the mythologies of the pagans and thus relegate these accounts to mythologies. ".... what God did (real history) in the garb of an ANE cosmogony, not in the garb of a scientific genre or the historical genre of the book of Kings with its constant appeal to the diaries of the kings of Israel and Judah." (An Old Testament Theology, by Bruce K. Waltke and Charles Yu).

So, it's a Jewish myth. Nothing says a myth can't be based on truth, but one wonders just where the truth lies in Genesis:

Was the Earth created in its current form over six literal days?

Was there a global flood that covered the highest mountains, with modern
life descending from the two or seven of every nostril-breathing species that lived on a boat?

Were the Jews actually enslaved by the ancient Egyptians? Did they actually have a 40-year exodus?

Was Lot's wife transformed into a literal pillar of salt?

Back to the OP's question, then, how do you separate 'what God did' from the myth that grew up around it? You're described your method, but not your conclusions.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

All of the above.

Only those specific four? The 'day' in Genesis is both literal and allegorical, historical and metaphorical? It both does and does not refer to 24-hour periods?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As it is written.............although this story of earths reformation, has no bearing on what history the earth had before it was formed, it is only a record of how things transpired on the earth we now live on. We know in the future there will be another transformation (remaking of the planet earth and its heavens) when this alteration of matter occures, there very well may be evidence of a pre-existance of that new earth as well.

from the biblical story there is no historical record given of the rock other than it was void, we know from the record we have, God chose to wipe out mankind and start over with 4 families, Noah his wife and his three sons and their wives. who's to say that God had not created before us, Its obvious he had created the angels before us, could they possibly be the saved souls from a previous earth situation. only God knows

Going off on something of a tangent, it's my understanding that Christians believe that, through prayer, they can communicate with God. If so, have you asked him if he might elucidate on this? If so, what, if anything, was his response? If not, why not?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Only those specific four? The 'day' in Genesis is both literal and allegorical, historical and metaphorical? It both does and does not refer to 24-hour periods?

Those four devices cover a lot of ground. I think it's important to always keep the literal story formost as all other meanings spring directly from it. I think you run the risk of relegating even the deeper meanings to mythology if you abandon the literal story.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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 suppose where you and I depart here is I don't see rightly interpreting the Scriptures as being about avoiding damnation. I don't see where damnation is involved in this at all.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[razeontherock]

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

Again, it would place it in it's proper context. If after having done that you choose to label that a myth, that's fine by me. I think the text deserves to be seen for what it is.

Will I be able to understand the gist of the video in less than an hour? Yes.

No, you won't. It's an hour vid, in 6 parts.

Will I be able to read Genesis through the eyes of the ancient Hebrews? No, primarily because I don't read Hebrew.

DEAD WRONG. If that were not the case, I wouldn't have bothered posting it. I have studied this stuff longer than you have been alive!

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'.

You haven't watched the video. If you had, you would recognize that this is utter foolishness. You're just guessing. You may notice I'm not in the habit of giving a man a fish, but in teaching him how to fish ...

The video offers no reading

 

[razeontherock]

In my opinion, it is enigmatic about Jesus and salvation. At no point does it clearly lay out precisely what the problem is

"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: (Matthew 15:20) These are [the things] which defile a man"

Not clear enough for you? Too much poetic flourish?

and what the solution is

This is admittedly more complex:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, (Galatians 5:20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."

I don't expect you to fathom this, nor how it works, at this moment. Poster Harry8142 has a knack of applying this to any given situation; you might benefit from following his posts.

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

I suppose it could mean any of those things - but that's not what it means. Knowing that is reserved for those who follow Him, as He says. It's a personal introduction.

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.

False dilemma. There is no Salvation apart from following Christ to the point of Him introducing you to the Father.

 

[GrayAngel]

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

Like everything else, it should be read in context. What was the intention of the writer? Was it to provide a detailed opposition to the scientific belief in an old earth? Not likely.

Science was not a concern back then. What was? Paganism. There was a lot of competition between each group's gods. What the author did in Genesis was give full credit of creation to a single deity. The sun and the moons do not have separate gods. All of creation was made and is sustained by the Hebrew God.

That's how I view it.

As for the story of Adam and Eve, I'm currently of the opinion that the story is not literal. For one thing, we have an antagonist called "the serpent," but we know from elsewhere that the serpent was not really a snake but Satan. And the "offspring" of his are the demons who follow him. If Satan wasn't a snake, and if his "offspring" aren't really his descendants, then how much else of it is allegorical?

 

[Stephen Kendall]

"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1

I enjoy your quote. It is hard being such and then having experienced many miracles first hand. There little ability to be so called unbiased scientist when your experiences are overwhelmingly lop sided. Have a good day.

 

[Harry3142]

Wiccan Child-

Many people believe the creation stories in Genesis to have been the original story of how the earth and the heavens were formed. But it is not. There is an egyptian creation epic which predates Genesis by centuries, and which would have been wellknown to the people who came out of Egypt. You can read that epic here:

www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml

Note that in this creation story the gods and goddesses are seen as having created other gods and goddesses prior to the creation of this planet, as well as on the first five days of creation, and it was these deities that formed the earth, atmosphere, sun, moon and stars. Mankind, as well as all the other animal species, weren't created until the last day, almost as an afterthought, and then 'dumped' on this planet to inhabit it.

The first Genesis creation story (Genesis 1:1-2:3) was a rebuttal, and a demythologization, of this epic that the Hebrews already knew. By the time they reached Genesis 2:3, the sun, moon and stars were seen merely as objects in the heavens which gave them light, and the atmosphere was merely air. As well, the various species of animals they saw around them were merely other species of animals, rather than their being the representation of gods and goddesses, of which there were over 40 in the egyptian pantheon of deities. The only being whom they could recognize as a deity was set apart from all that he had created, and so could never be portrayed as an idol or in a painting.

The second creation story (Genesis 2:4-25) was also a rebuttal of the egyptian epic. Instead of man's simply being another specie of animal, he was to be seen as seperate from all other species. Alone of all the species he could converse directly with God. God gave him authority over all the other species by having him name them, a symbol of power at that time. God placed him in the Garden of Eden, where he was to tend it. God even created a helpmate for him in an extraordinary fashion. All of these were to be seen by the people to whom they were written as examples of man's seperateness from all other species.

He also gave man the ability to disobey him, lose his innocence, and become knowledgeable of good and evil. He could lose the innocence he shared with all the other species, and instead recognize certain actions as being good, while certain other actions must be seen as evil.

The author of Genesis, whom I accept as being Moses himself, even used another egyptian myth to illustrate that at one time mankind was innocent, but at a certain point in time he lost that innocence. The story of Ra the sun god versus Sebau the serpent-fiend was taken from the egyptian Book of the Dead in order to tell this story. Originally it was Ra who had engaged Sebau in battle, defeated him, and both bound and crippled him so that Sebau was forced to crawl on the ground. This story the people to whom Genesis was originally written would have recognized instantly, since Ra was one of the major gods of Egypt, and his battle with Sebau was part of The Hymn to Ra.

But Moses adapted it to identify the point at which mankind ceased to be innocent, and instead became knowledgeable of good and evil. Before a certain time in prehistory he was as innocent as all other species are yet today. But after this point was reached, mankind was no longer innocent, but instead was able to distinguish between good and evil.

 

[tnhilliard]

You can not understand what you do not percieve. The bible is both literal and poety, its a language. So the Word is a written language of important meaning, language being a body of words and the system for their use common to a people of the same community or nation. If you do not understand Spanish you will not be able to read or hear what the Spanish community are saying and writing. If you are not of God’s community you will not understand the words of God (exp. The Bible). John 8:43 Jesus said during his convo with those who questioned his ways. He said; “Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye cannot hear my word” (hear is to perceive, and perceive is to recognize or understand). And he goes on to say in verse 47 “He that is of God heareth God’s words, ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God”, being that the word was with God and was God.
But Genesis 1:1 is as plain as it can get "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"The bible is not just an oral history but consist of the way of Life and God's power.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form and void; darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

So God saw that the earth was without form (the shape of a thing or person) and void (useless, without contents); darkness (without light) was upon the face ( the outward apperance, makeup) of the deep (far and wide). And the spirit (the principle of concious life, divine influence) of God (superior being) moved upon the face of the waters.

And the earth was out anything or anyone and useless without contents; and its apperance was without light far and wide. And God conciousness moved upon the face of the waters.

And said "Let their be Light: and their was Light" (verse 3)

I'm pretty sure that science can prove that the earth was in fact dark and without contents and suddenly Light appeared. Without the sun can we survive?

1st Thessalonians 5:5 Ye are all children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

God created Light before making us. I am trying to help you understand how I percieve the bible. Not give you a bible study lesson, not trying to run you off lol.

2nd Timothy 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowlege of the truth.
Singularity?

Romans 10:17 "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."