Is Genesis 1-11 Literal

[rcorlew]

I believe that an absolute literal reading and interpretation is best, in other words, read only the words that are written, do not add anything to them at all. Be especially weary of using other people's exegesis in your work, namely, the use of the generations to date the beginning.

There are at least 7 different interpretations of Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 by Jewish scholars and I could go further on that topic but at lest not in this part. Genesis marks the beginning of the story of God's people when we see in Genesis chapter 2 the ensoulment of Adam which begins what we would call a modern human. It is this soul of ours that most anthropologists undoubtedly acknowledge when they "discover" that we are profoundly fond of worship, in fact it seems that religion in the rawest sense is what we are best at and turn to most often.

Is Genesis 1-11 literal, yes, it is the literal story of the beginnings of God's people and His movement through "human" history. If you are trying to use Genesis 1-11 to discount Evolution though you must come to terms with this single verse in a honest manner.

Since You are banishing me today from the soil, and I must hide myself from Your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, whoever finds me will kill me.

If there were no other humanoids alive, who was Cain afraid of that would kill him?

 

[jonathan180iq]

If there were no other humanoids alive, who was Cain afraid of that would kill him?

Well, the literalists are going to say that it was Cain's brothers and sisters, or cousins or something, who were living out there somewhere... But the Bible doesn't say that. It's not literally written down. And using your own example of only taken what is written, that would make the story make no sense.

You have to leave room for interpretation and reading between the lines. Besides, even if you don't realize it, you're doing it anyway. You can't avoid it. It's part of how we read and interpret the world around us, books included.

 

[rcorlew]

Well, the literalists are going to say that it was Cain's brothers and sisters, or cousins or something, who were living out there somewhere... But the Bible doesn't say that. It's not literally written down. And using your own example of only taken what is written, that would make the story make no sense.

You have to leave room for interpretation and reading between the lines. Besides, even if you don't realize it, you're doing it anyway. You can't avoid it. It's part of how we read and interpret the world around us, books included.

You seem to not have interpreted my meaning correctly (pun intended). I am not saying do not interpret the Bible at all, trying to do so would make it a useless collection of words. I am instead championing an interpretation based on what the words actually say, the words are extremely important. Take Genesis 2 for instance, some say that Genesis 2 is in contradiction to Genesis 1, however Genesis 2 lacks any ordinal designations, without words designating the order in which the events in Genesis 2 occur which would include: then, after, and first etc. what we are left with is a summary without importance being placed on the ordering of events which is consistent with Hebrew writing across all genres.

When you read the ordering of events in Genesis 2 as the chronological order of events they contradict Genesis 1, however if you read Genesis 2 looking for the necessity of the ordering of events absent Genesis 1 you are left without contradiction, namely there is no chronological order given in Genesis 2.As in all texts where there are multiple possible interpretations with one leading to contradiction and another leading to harmony one must choose the interpretation that presents harmony.

You must also ask many other questions when reading the Bible in regards of how to handle Genesis, the primary ones would focus on whether or not there was life on Earth in Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Some of the leading Jewish scholars interpret Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 to mean that there was life on Earth but that this life did not fulfill its ultimate purpose and was thus void, the life was also lacking any kind of order and was chaotic and was thus without form. These two problems were corrected by God later in Genesis when He gave it its ultimate purpose which is for His glory thus making it not void, and by giving man dominion over creation in which he would establish order giving it form. To put it another way, God did not create the earth for beetles and bacteria.

 

[Assyrian]

The use of the waw consecutive in Genesis 2 tells us the order of events, the waw consecutive can be translated 'and...' 'then...' 'so...' but wherever it is used it tells you the verbs are in consecutive order. You also have order in Genesis 2 because it is a narrative, it isn't simply a summary of important events, but a story in its own right, a story that has a story line. The story of Genesis 2, the creation of Adam and the quest to find a suitable partner for him, also tells you the order of event.

You are right that there should not be a contradiction between the two chapters, and that we need to find an interpretion that avoids these contradictions, but works with a framework interpretation of Genesis 1 or interpreting Genesis 2 as a parable.

 

[rcorlew]

The use of the waw consecutive in Genesis 2 tells us the order of events, the waw consecutive can be translated 'and...' 'then...' 'so...' but wherever it is used it tells you the verbs are in consecutive order. You also have order in Genesis 2 because it is a narrative, it isn't simply a summary of important events, but a story in its own right, a story that has a story line. The story of Genesis 2, the creation of Adam and the quest to find a suitable partner for him, also tells you the order of event.

You are right that there should not be a contradiction between the two chapters, and that we need to find an interpretion that avoids these contradictions, but works with a framework interpretation of Genesis 1 or interpreting Genesis 2 as a parable.

OK, did some research and confirmed what I had previously thought as well as what I have studied in college.

Greatly over-simplified, we can say that Classical Hebrew has two inflected verb tenses, the perfect for past actions and the imperfect for actions continuing into the present or future. However the waw-consecutive perfect has future reference, and the waw-consecutive imperfect is a narrative past tense. Thus the construction has the general effect of reversing the polarity of the tenses. For this reason, early scholars referred to it as the waw-conversive, or in Hebrew waw hahipuch, literally "the waw of reversal". However, linguists do not believe that the conjunction itself can have a reversing effect. Rather, it is believed that Hebrew preserves remnants of two different early Semitic tense systems.

Waw-consecutive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Genesis 2 you notice in verse 4 the use of the word "generations" which denotes a change in the function/object of the text. Genesis 1 focused on the creation event itself which ends in Genesis 2:3, the transition in Genesis 2:4 changes the object of the text to man. The waw-consecutive would then be the reverse order of events. Namely, man was the beginning of the object and ending with the creation of the animals. The primary focus of the rest of the text until the word "generations" is the role of Adam until Genesis 5:1 with the introduction of Noah which ends in Genesis 9:12.

 

[Assyrian]

OK, did some research and confirmed what I had previously thought as well as what I have studied in college.

In Genesis 2 you notice in verse 4 the use of the word "generations" which denotes a change in the function/object of the text. Genesis 1 focused on the creation event itself which ends in Genesis 2:3, the transition in Genesis 2:4 changes the object of the text to man. The waw-consecutive would then be the reverse order of events. Namely, man was the beginning of the object and ending with the creation of the animals. The primary focus of the rest of the text until the word "generations" is the role of Adam until Genesis 5:1 with the introduction of Noah which ends in Genesis 9:12.

If that were the case the fall happened before Eve was formed from Adam's rib and Eve was formed from Adam's rib before God formed Adam... But that isn't what is meant in your quote by reversing the order. It isn't about changing the order of events but which verb is used for the past and which is used for the future.

In Hebrew the perfect is used for the past and the imperfect is used for continuous present or future tenses. However when these verb forms are used with the waw consecutive, the tenses get reversed. The waw consecutive perfect is a future tense rather than a past tense, and the waw consecutive imperfect becomes a past tense rather than present or future. The tenses used in Genesis 2&3 are the perfect and the waw consecutive imperfect, both of what which function as past tense.

 

[mark kennedy]

If that were the case the fall happened before Eve was formed from Adam's rib and Eve was formed from Adam's rib before God formed Adam... But that isn't what is meant in your quote by reversing the order. It isn't about changing the order of events but which verb is used for the past and which is used for the future.

In Hebrew the perfect is used for the past and the imperfect is used for continuous present or future tenses. However when these verb forms are used with the waw consecutive, the tenses get reversed. The waw consecutive perfect is a future tense rather than a past tense, and the waw consecutive imperfect becomes a past tense rather than present or future. The tenses used in Genesis 2&3 are the perfect and the waw consecutive imperfect, both of what which function as past tense.

As usual I'm not sure what point you are trying to make or even if you are but I found this:

This is very important as it relates to the events of Genesis 1. Francis Andersen observes: "A string of WP (waw-consecutive) clauses in narrative prose (historical) stages events as occurring in a time sequence one after another. It is implied that one is finished before the next begins, so it is possible to speak of the verbs as 'perfective' in aspect." (Ref. 8) So the events of Genesis 1:14-19 have an opening waw-consecutive "And God said," and a closing pattern of waw-consecutives "and it was evening, and it was morning" separating the 4th day from the previous and subsequent commands God issued. The point for the interpreter is that each day in Genesis 1 must be a completed event! So God began His creation of the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4 and finished them on that same day. This also rules out the concept that the days may overlap in some manner. The Institute for Creation Research: Impact Article #251, May 1994​

 

[shernren]

Today you said:

The point for the interpreter is that each day in Genesis 1 must be a completed event! So God began His creation of the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4 and finished them on that same day.

Two months ago you said:

It doesn't say that the sun and moon were created later [than the first day], the perspective is always from the earth. The light is introduced on the first day, there can be no 'day' while the earth is shrouded in darkness.

mark, do you actually know what you believe?

 

[marktheblake]

Well, the literalists are going to say that it was Cain's brothers and sisters, or cousins or something, who were living out there somewhere... But the Bible doesn't say that.

The logical conclusion is that it is Cains family that would want to kill him, as the implication of the text is that the only people that presently exist (or within his lifetime) are his family.

It does not make sense that complete strangers to the Adams Family would want to kill him.

 

[Assyrian]

As usual I'm not sure what point you are trying to make or even if you are

Just trying to clear up a misunderstanding of what the wiki article said about the waw consecutive, rcorlew though it meant the sequence of events was reversed, but what the article meant was that the choice of verbs used for past or future is switched. Normally an imperfect would be translated as present tense or future, in a waw consecutive narrative its meaning is past tense, which is how it is translated in Genesis. This is a separate issue from the order of events which we also get from the waw consecutive.

but I found this:

This is very important as it relates to the events of Genesis 1. Francis Andersen observes: "A string of WP (waw-consecutive) clauses in narrative prose (historical) stages events as occurring in a time sequence one after another. It is implied that one is finished before the next begins, so it is possible to speak of the verbs as 'perfective' in aspect." (Ref. 8) So the events of Genesis 1:14-19 have an opening waw-consecutive "And God said," and a closing pattern of waw-consecutives "and it was evening, and it was morning" separating the 4th day from the previous and subsequent commands God issued. The point for the interpreter is that each day in Genesis 1 must be a completed event! So God began His creation of the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4 and finished them on that same day. This also rules out the concept that the days may overlap in some manner. The Institute for Creation Research: Impact Article #251, May 1994​

That is talking about the waw consecutive in Genesis 1 showing a consecutive order of events. I was talking to rcorlew about the waw consecutive in Genesis 2, and how it is used in Genesis 2 to give an order to the events. He has already said if Genesis 2 was in chronological order that it would contradict Genesis 1, I showed that the use of the waw consecutive gave us that chronological order. Of course Genesis 1 & 2 do not have to contradict. This is only a problem if you take them literally, but parables can use the waw consecutive too, they have a narrative and a sequence of consecutive event, but it isn't a literal chronology.