Question about Genesis

[Poor Beggar]

If a person seems determined to find fault with Genesis not because there is fault, but simply because they have a criterion which is not appropriate to the book, how does one answer them? They may have a misunderstanding about what the Bible is.

If they say for instance Genesis gets it wrong because the modern Biology textbooks say otherwise, they are saying it must meet a scientific criterion. But if it was never written in the first place to be a biology textbook, should it? If it was meant to be this it would be in error, but its not. This is the difficulty some people have an expectation of what the Bible should present. They seem to saying all accounts whether primative or modern must be scientifically accurate. In fact they seem to be holding the biology book as a touchstone and but thats like saying Genesis is an early biological textbook, lets see how it holds up. But its not a biological textbook at all, and not supposed to be read as one it seems to me, or judged as one.

Or they're just wrong. Don't worry about offending the priests of Science.

 

[Eryk]

Some real people claim they do. Julius Caesar claimed the goddess Venus as an ancestor.
Until it was repudiated after WWII, the emperor of Japan claimed descent from the Sun God.

Caesar was speaking to people who believed that Venus was real. This wasn't an exercise in storytelling for him. He was buttressing his charisma and authority with the claim that Venus was his real ancestor and it could only work if people believed it.

We don't take Caesar seriously because he was deliberately lying about something he claimed to be literal, factual history. But we won't take the Bible seriously if we believe that the Biblical writers were making things up. We can either believe that the Bible is the very word of God or we can be patronising about the historical beliefs of its human writers.

 

[-57]

What happens is that so-called christians feel the need to filter the bible through mans fallible science.

Genesis becomes a fable because they may believe in evolutionism...which is the case recently presented here.

 

[-57]

If a person seems determined to find fault with Genesis not because there is fault, but simply because they have a criterion which is not appropriate to the book, how does one answer them? They may have a misunderstanding about what the Bible is.

If they say for instance Genesis gets it wrong because the modern Biology textbooks say otherwise (i am not sure if they do, but thats their argument - genesis got it wrong), they are saying it must meet a scientific criterion, or be read chronologically. But if it was never written in the first place to be a biology textbook, should it? If it was meant to be this it would be in error, but its not. This is the difficulty some people have an expectation of what the Bible should present. They seem to saying all accounts whether primative or modern must be scientifically accurate. In fact they seem to be holding the biology book as a touchstone and but thats like saying Genesis is an early biological textbook, lets see how it holds up. But its not a biological textbook at all, and not supposed to be read as one it seems to me, or judged as one.

Perhaps someone has said to them you need to ask if the Bible or Genesis is true, and they think how will I find that out - i'll check a biology textbook. This is not a good approach for several reasons. in asking the question "is it true?" they are asking with a particular concept of truth, that is valid for science, but not for scripture. So one has to begin with what Jesus has said about Truth.

I also find it interesting how Paul could be allowed to instruct the Cornith Church....and base it upon what Eve did if Eve was never a historical person sinning in a historical garden.

2 Cor 11:3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

1 Tim 2:14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

 

[-57]

029b10 said "The precept of the 1st Day is the beginning of visible light being emitted from the celestial body we call the Sun."

I don't think it was based upon three thoughts.
1)The Sun wasn't created until day 3.
2)The light could have been that mentioned in Rev 22:5 And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.
3)The light may have been the creation of angels.

 

[dms1972]

Or they're just wrong. Don't worry about offending the priests of Science.

Its a question of whether I have ever set someone off on the wrong foot myself, I probably have.

Some people want to know for sure the Bible or Christianity is true, or think they need to ask this, or prove this by science. But its not appropriate to approach the Bible this way it seems to me, at least it seems to lead to problems.

"If the Bible agreed with modern science, it would soon be out of date, because modern science is bound to change." Oswald Chambers

 

[dms1972]

Lets look at verse 3 - "And God said let there be light." What light is this?

 

[-57]

Did the LORD God tell the woman not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

6 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 2:16-17

"...In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Genesis 5:1

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

"Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." Genesis 5:2

"And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Genesis 2:23

Mark 10:6-8And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. Genesis 3:6

"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,..." Gen 3:17

Yet, the serpent did not deceive Eve since the "woman" was not given the name Eve until after the married male and female is written to have eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; Gen 3:20

You completely lost me on your logic. I tried to follow your thought but it made no sense.

 

[-57]

Lets look at verse 3 - "And God said let there be light." What sort of light is this?

see post 26 for some possible solutions.

 

[gluadys]

Then you're using a different operational definition of literal than most people, because of your background. That's fine. Most of us mean the events actually took place as described, not figuratively.

Which really means you believe the events described are actual historical events.
We have perfectly good words to say that with: actuality, historical, real (or actual) history.

It messes conversation up a lot to add in "literal". We end up with a term that has multiple and semi-conflicting meanings. Not to mention that people set up plenty of irrelevant criteria around what is "literal" such as "it must be a narrative" (no, not necessarily) or "it can't be poetry" (sure it can be) etc.

I just wish there were more biblical scholars who had a better grounding in literature. Because, after all, whatever else it is, the Bible is also literature and conforms to literary patterns and norms.

 

[gluadys]

Caesar was speaking to people who believed that Venus was real. This wasn't an exercise in storytelling for him. He was buttressing his charisma and authority with the claim that Venus was his real ancestor and it could only work if people believed it.

We don't take Caesar seriously because he was deliberately lying about something he claimed to be literal, factual history.

He wasn't lying. He believed it himself; it was part of his family tradition that they were descendants of a child of Venus.

But we won't take the Bible seriously if we believe that the Biblical writers were making things up.

Or we can take it more seriously.

We can either believe that the Bible is the very word of God or we can be patronising about the historical beliefs of its human writers.

I don't think this is the dichotomy you assume it is. The historical beliefs of its human writers will have an impact on what is written and how it is understood in the original context. I have no doubt the Holy Spirit can work with that.

 

[-57]

Paul was trained in rabbinical interpretation. Until you understand how the rabbis of the time understood Adam, you don't understand Paul's presentation here. Check out in particular the concept of Adam Kadmon.

I don't pat to much attention to rabbinical interpretation. After all they missed Isaiah 53.
The Pharisees and Sadducees got it wrong and Jesus spent a lot of time correcting them.

Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Paul said sin and death entered by one man. I didn't write it. Paul did.

Acts 17:26 tells us....From one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand when they should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries.

That was from Luke. Luke endorsed the history.

 

[gluadys]

I don't pat to much attention to rabbinical interpretation.

That is irrelevant. Paul did. This was the foundation of his education.

 

[dms1972]

see post 26 for some possible solutions.

Thanks for those comments

if there is a hiatus (a cosmic revolt / battle) between verse one and two as some theologians say - then that would seem to rule out

3. the creation of angels

As they would already have been created including Lucifer (whose name means light-bearer).

What seems to be generally held is that the first three 'days' are days of forming (putting boundaries on the chaos mentioned in verse two). The last three days - days of filling.

So perhaps your second suggestion

2)The light could have been that mentioned in Rev 22:5 And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever.

 

[-57]

That is irrelevant. Paul did. This was the foundation of his education.

Pauls rabbinical interpretation taught Jesus wasn't God. Paul learned the rabbinical interpretation were wrong. Paul basically punted his rabbinical interpretation.

 

[-57]

Thanks for those comments

if there is a haitus (a cosmic revolt / battle) between verse one and two as some theologians say - then that would seem to rule out

3. the creation of angels

As they would already have been created including Lucifer (whose name means light-bearer). The light of verse three could be some primordial light, or perhaps the creation of electromagentic spectrum.

What seems to be generally held is that the first three 'days' are days of forming (putting boundaries on the chaos mentioned in verse two). The last three days - days of filling.

So perhaps your second suggestion

I never bought in to the angels as being the light. I have always though as God being the light.
There is another view based upon a book "Starlight and time"...now a video... where the earth became the light during the early process of it's formation.

 

[Poor Beggar]

Which really means you believe the events described are actual historical events.
We have perfectly good words to say that with: actuality, historical, real (or actual) history.

It messes conversation up a lot to add in "literal". We end up with a term that has multiple and semi-conflicting meanings. Not to mention that people set up plenty of irrelevant criteria around what is "literal" such as "it must be a narrative" (no, not necessarily) or "it can't be poetry" (sure it can be) etc.

I just wish there were more biblical scholars who had a better grounding in literature. Because, after all, whatever else it is, the Bible is also literature and conforms to literary patterns and norms.

I get what you're saying now.

 

[Hank77]

"Literal" implies nothing about the actuality or historicity of what is referred to. It just means that "snake" means "snake" and not "Satan" whether the story is history or myth. If you believe the snake in Genesis 3 was Satan, then you are not reading the term literally, again whether the story is history or myth.

I appreciate your ability to explain what I could not.
I do believe that the garden story is history but written in a rather mythical style, is that correctly stated?
In other words, I believe Eve was deceived but not by a 'literal' reptile called a snake. I do believe it was the deceiver and not even looking like a literal snake. Not anymore than the religious leaders looked like snakes/vipers when Jesus referred to them as such.

 

[Poor Beggar]

I appreciate your ability to explain what I could not.
I do believe that the garden story is history but written in a rather mythical style, is that correctly stated?
In other words, I believe Eve was deceived but not by a 'literal' reptile called a snake. I do believe it was the deceiver and not even looking like a literal snake. Not anymore than the religious leaders looked like snakes/vipers when Jesus referred to them as such.

See I believe it's literal and historical. Before gluadys explained himself I would've lumped both under "literal".

 

[Hank77]

See I believe it's literal and historical. Before gluadys explained himself I would've lumped both under "literal".

Me too at one time.
I think that's like when someone says they believe that Revelation is literal but they really don't because they believe scorpions are symbolic for armored vehicles or whatever.