If the beginnings of Genesis aren't literally true, then what way are they true?

[Neogaia777]

Could we get back to the original question, which was (and I'm going to rephrase it) In what ways, other than literal interpretation, could Genesis and the account of Adam and Eve up to the flood, could it be "true"...?

I'm searching for a "higher" truth, other than literal, that Adam and Eve could be true? Things like; symbolically, metaphorically, subjectively, figuratively, allegorically... It's a simple question really, and it only requires just a few words to answer... In what other ways can Genesis, particularly Adam and Eve, be true? Which avenue or interpretation leads to this "higher truth"?

God Bless!

 

[Goonie]

There is no logical explanation for why a "discrepancy" would exist.
Two views or versions of the facts add credibility to the events.

If you ask any two people about something that happened, if the versions
are TOO SIMILAR then you know that were coached as to what to say
and how to say it.

Slightly differing versions of the same events add credibility. It is consistent
with independent observers and trains of thought.

Yes, people count generations differently. The FACT that generations
are counted differently is well documented, as are historical reasons.

But tell me on what day was Jesus crucified?

 

[Anguspure]

But tell me on what day was Jesus crucified?

On the eve of the Passover Sabbath, the day that the Passover Lamb was sacrificed?

 

[Goonie]

On the eve of the Passover Sabbath, the day that the Passover Lamb was sacrificed?

According to John, but the synoptic gospels imply he was crucifed on the day after passover.

 

[Anguspure]

According to John, but the synoptic gospels imply he was crucifed on the day after passover.

Not really. Read Exodus 12 and you will see that Jesus was celebrating as He had instructed Israel to celebrate in accordance with what he represented.

 

[Doveaman]

No evidence they are talking about the same flood.

That's correct, they may very well be talking about another flood.

 

[Doveaman]

Could we get back to the original question, which was (and I'm going to rephrase it) In what ways, other than literal interpretation, could Genesis and the account of Adam and Eve up to the flood, could it be "true"...?

I'm searching for a "higher" truth, other than literal, that Adam and Eve could be true? Things like; symbolically, metaphorically, subjectively, figuratively, allegorically... It's a simple question really, and it only requires just a few words to answer... In what other ways can Genesis, particularly Adam and Eve, be true? Which avenue or interpretation leads to this "higher truth"?

If no one is suggesting another way for it to be true, you can simply accept it as literally true. It's easier to understand that way.

 

[HitchSlap]

So if you don't believe the Bible, WHAT are you doing participating on a CHRISTIAN forum? Are you only here to stir up trouble? If so I WILL be blocking you. Goodbye.

I'm sorry you equate raising hard questions with stirring up trouble, but I understand if you bow out.

 

[SkyWriting]

But tell me on what day was Jesus crucified?

I don't know the date, time, month, weather, ......there are millions of things I don't know about past events.
I have to have faith in the teller of any story to believe anything even happened at all.
Maybe, in reality, everybody stayed in bed that day.
Past events are a matter of faith.

 

[Goonie]

Not really. Read Exodus 12 and you will see that Jesus was celebrating as He had instructed Israel to celebrate in accordance with what he represented.

One more retrospective reading of Jesus into the Old Testament. Another explanation is that whoever wrote John felt free enough to shift the crucifixion to suit his idea that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb. The last lamb that needs sacrificing.

 

[SkyWriting]

So what's the tipping point? How many discrepancies does it take to stop adding credibility and start subtracting credibility?

There are no discrepancies. Nine out of Ten biblical "discrepancies" can
easily be explained. Occasionally there is one that baffles scholars over
the years. The last time I asked for one, i was challenged with "How
did Judas die?"

I didn't even research anyone else's answers and I came up with the
extremely simple solution that I've since then found written elsewhere.

There were two tales of the event by different people at different times.

One person knows Judas hanged himself.

Another person came along a few weeks later
and saw that his body had fallen and his guts
burst out. The SECOND eye-witness added his
unique account. There was no reason to repeat
that Judas had hanged himself. He had been
hanging there for a month. "Duhh"

Both accounts are perfectly fine.

You can thank that first person who challenged me with Judas's death.
Had they attempted to answer the question themselves, they might
not have "warmed me up." Now my answer is always the same.

The accounts of the events are different on purpose. Somebody
recounting their view of an event would know the stories that others
told.

They wouldn't be telling the same story as the version that everybody
had already heard. They would tell a different version on purpose.
The goal was to inform the readers of the events. The goal was not
to repeat what everyone had already heard.

The odds of a real discrepancy are 1000 times lower than the odds of
two conflicting accounts actually making it into print in what editors
have considered to be sacred text.

 

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting said: ↑
There is no logical explanation for why a "discrepancy" would exist.
Two views or versions of the facts add credibility to the events.

So what's the tipping point? How many discrepancies does it take to stop adding credibility and start subtracting credibility?

I just said, first of all, before anything else,
there would need to be a logical reason that
editors would leave any discrepancies in.

No editors? Rushed editors? Dumb editors?

 

[SkyWriting]

Gospel Contradictions:

There is no logical scenario where the stories would end up different. If they were
exactly the same, it would just be the same words, written 4 times.

If stories are being told, you don't even try to repeat what everybody
already has said. You leave those parts out unless they add to the
point you are trying to make.

Does that ever happen in this forum, for example?

 

[Goonie]

SkyWriting said: ↑
There is no logical explanation for why a "discrepancy" would exist.
Two views or versions of the facts add credibility to the events.



I just said, first of all, before anything else,
there would need to be a logical reason that
editors would leave any discrepancies in.

No editors? Rushed editors? Dumb editors?

Since these were considered by many to be sacred text, there is an understandable reluctance to edit, so inevitable discrepancies remain, though many as has been demonstrated on this forum are ironed out by interpretation by the reader.

 

[SkyWriting]

Since these were considered by many to be sacred text, there is an understandable reluctance to edit, so inevitable discrepancies remain, though many as has been demonstrated on this forum are ironed out by interpretation by the reader.

They saw no need for editing, and they were sharper than I am on such matters.

 

[Goonie]

They saw no need for editing, and they were sharper than I am on such matters.

And how many errors crept in as the bibles were copied is something always debated amongst bible scholars, and whilst reluctant to edit there are points where changes are argued to have been made, for example 1 John 5:7-8. A support for the trinity that many biblical scholars believe is not original to the gospel, see link for an article about this.
http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tool...-reference-to-the-trinity-added-in-1-john-5-7

 

[TLK Valentine]

SkyWriting said: ↑
There is no logical explanation for why a "discrepancy" would exist.
Two views or versions of the facts add credibility to the events.



I just said, first of all, before anything else,
there would need to be a logical reason that
editors would leave any discrepancies in.

No editors? Rushed editors? Dumb editors?

Non-literal intent?

 

[TLK Valentine]

There is no logical scenario where the stories would end up different. If they were
exactly the same, it would just be the same words, written 4 times.

If stories are being told, you don't even try to repeat what everybody
already has said. You leave those parts out unless they add to the
point you are trying to make.

Does that ever happen in this forum, for example?

So, when Matthew copied nearly 90% of Mark's Gospel in his own --verbatim or nearly so -- He shouldn't even have tried?

 

[SkyWriting]

So, when Matthew copied nearly 90% of Mark's Gospel in his own --verbatim or nearly so -- He shouldn't even have tried?

It would depend entirely on his intended audience.
If his writings were intended for a "new market" then
simply rewriting the current writings and adding his
personal recollections is an option for a non-fiction
work of writing. But if he was writing to an established
group of followers, then he may or may not choose
to include what Mark had already written.

Sometimes I include what you have written into my
posts verbatim. Or I may paraphrase it.

 

[SkyWriting]

And how many errors crept in as the bibles were copied is something always debated amongst bible scholars....

What percentage would that be for all the "suspects?"

There are 23,145 verses in the Old Testament and 7,957 verses
in the New Testament. This gives a total of 31,102 verses,
which is an average of a little more than 26 verses per chapter.
Words: 783,137
Letters: 3,566,480.