Question about Genesis

[Poor Beggar]

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.

There's symbolic language in Revelation because God tells us there is in the beginning at 1:1. I don't have any reason to signify Genesis. I find it less miraculous than God raising all the dead in history with His voice and then judging us and then destroying the world and either restoring all the heavens and earth or making them anew so we can live in them forever in incorruptible bodies like Adam is described as originally having.
Run on sentence done!

 

[gluadys]

I do believe that the garden story is history but written in a rather mythical style, is that correctly stated?

Yes, that would be correctly stated.
Again, in literature, "myth" is just a genre, a way of telling a story. It is not a comment on the truth or falsity of the story. Of course, I am well aware the popular meaning is quite different. So I try to avoid the term unless I can explain what I mean, because otherwise it gives the wrong impression.

You have an interesting approach to the account of the Fall.

 

[dms1972]

It is kinda hard to proceed to the precept of the 1st day being visible light without the obtaining the procepts given in Genesis 1:2...

Thanks for your thought provoking comments

I can't say I am sure what Revelation means by the "seven spirits of God". There are other chapters for instance Isaiah 11 that need to be considered, to follow the principle of scripture interpreting scripture rather than science interpreting scripture.

Here's a couple of links I found which might be of interest, and more or less answer the question of what the author's purpose is in Genesis first chapters.

http://www.directionjournal.org/issues/gen/art_1031_.html

"When we examine the Genesis account of origins in its own terms and its own historical context, it becomes more apparent that we have something that is considerably different from that of the natural sciences. It has a theological agenda, aimed at affirming a monotheistic reading of the cosmos and rejecting the prevailing polytheistic reading. None of its phrasing or organization or use of numbers corresponds to the methods and materials of the natural sciences. This does not imply that Genesis is to be seen as unscientific or antiscientific or even prescientific, as if superseded by better methods of understanding the world. The materials of Genesis 1 are nonscientific; they offer a different kind of map of the universe and our place within it."

 

[miamited]

Hi, Although I have christian background, I have some questions about Genesis, partly because others raise these questions and objections at times too. If its possible to answer them I like some answers. In all honesty I suppress some of my questions at times.

What is Genesis the first three chapters - I am inclined to call it mythopoetic (not in the sense of never having happened, or being untrue) but in its language, its not scientific. For myself I no longer demand it should be, and this maybe came gradually.

But others still raise some questions. For instance, the creation of plant life before the creation of the sun. If its not chronological in sequence how should it be understood. Whats back of this requirement that Genesis read as a scientific textbook?

Hi dms,

Well, if we do take the account of Genesis as an historically accurate timeline as it is described in the Scriptures, plants being created some 24 hours or less before the sun is really not a problem at all. Healthy living plants can survive a day without sunlight. However, when we take the days as some undefined age or extended length of time, then the issue of plants created before the sun becomes a problem.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Papias]

Even Luke, a historian presented Genesis as historical when he presented Jesus linage clear back to Adam....
Now Jesus was.... He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, son of Heli, .....Luke 3:23

I have no reason to believe Genesis isn't historical and literal.

Except that the verse you cited gives Joseph's lineage, not that of Jesus (Joseph is not Jesus' father, as we all know, right?). You even quoted it.

More importantly, other genealogies are a hint that the genealogies should not be taken literally nor historically.

Look at the genealogies in Mt and Chron.

Mt Gen# .................Gospel of Matthew has............... 1st Chron. Has:

1..............................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, ...Solomon's son was

2 .............................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,...... Rehoboam,

3 .............................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son,

4..............................Asa ..................................................Asa his son,

5 .............................Jehoshaphat .....................................Jehoshaphat his son,

6............................. Jehoram ...........................................Jehoram his son

................................Skipped.......................................... Ahaziah his son,


................................Skipped .........................................Joash his son,

................................Skipped .........................................Amaziah his son,

7......................Uzziah the father of Jotham, .................Azariah his son,

8............................ Jotham ............................................Jotham his son,

9 ............................Ahaz ...............................................Ahaz his son,

10...........................Hezekiah ........................................Hezekiah his son,

11.......................... Manasseh .......................................Manasseh his son,

12 ..........................Amon .............................................Amon his son,

13.......................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ….....Josiah his son.



Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that the Holy Spirit is telling us not to interpret these literally nor historically.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[-57]

Except that the verse you cited gives Joseph's lineage, not that of Jesus (Joseph is not Jesus' father, as we all know, right?). You even quoted it.

More importantly, other genealogies are a hint that the genealogies should not be taken literally nor historically.

Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that the Holy Spirit is telling us not to interpret these literally nor historically.

In Christ-

Papias

Papias, thanks for the response, but you are in error. The genealogy I presented was of Jesus' Mother, Mary.

Because generations might have been skipped in no way changes it from a historical record to some sort of figurative record.
Here's the question you have to answer....Just where did the list of generations change from historical to figurative?
Why would the bible start out with a historical record...then change it to a figurative record? That makes no sense to me and causes me to not accept your logic and reasoning.

 

[High Fidelity]

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.

This is what I fell to for most of my Christian walk. I tried for years to make Genesis work with Theistic Evolution. I'd written to faith leaders asking whether it was at all possible for things coming after their kind to be a hint at evolution, because I knew to doubt any is to doubt all, so I was really grasping at straws.
I was applying my world view to the Word and not the Word to my world view.

There were a few things that caused me to consider I may be wrong and that Genesis, the literal account(Creation -- There are multiple positions -- Personally I'm Young Earth) may be right.

I think what's important to remember is that there are simply things we don't, can't and never will understand. That's where faith comes in and no, I don't think it has to be blind.

 

[dms1972]

Well, if we do take the account of Genesis as an historically accurate timeline as it is described in the Scriptures, plants being created some 24 hours or less before the sun is really not a problem at all. Healthy living plants can survive a day without sunlight. However, when we take the days as some undefined age or extended length of time, then the issue of plants created before the sun becomes a problem.

Yes, this is what I was thinking. But I still think its approaching Genesis wrong, or asking the wrong question, whether day-age, or 24 hour day, its not really the main point.

 

[joshua 1 9]

For instance, the creation of plant life before the creation of the sun.

The Bible says: "lights in the firmament" God is not talking about the "creation of the sun", He is talking about the firmament and the way our atmosphere handles light from the sun. This is explained with the physics of light. They call this the green house effect. The atmosphere is very finely tuned for the different kinds of life here on earth. For example the larger mammals could not develop at the same time as the dinosaurs because they required a different atmosphere. Even at the end of the last ice age there was a rather big extinction take place. This could be the result of changes in the atmosphere and the world temperature. At one time we did not have any oxygen based life, because the plants had not created enough oxygen yet. This was before the great oxygenation event that actually resulted in mass extinction before there was a radiation or a population explosion with a different sort of eco system then what was here before the event.

You need a clear understanding of how evolution works to understand Genesis. Or at least a basic understanding of the different geological and biological ages the earth has gone though.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes, this is what I was thinking. But I still think its approaching Genesis wrong, or asking the wrong question, whether day-age, or 24 hour day, its not really the main point.

Gerald Schroeder does a fairly good job of explaining how both can be true depending on how you look at time. If you go to the end and look back or go to the beginning of time and look forward.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I believe the Holy Spirit is capable of inspiring symbolic and imaginative presentations of truth, much as Jesus did in his stories.

Do you have enough faith to believe that God is able to use real people as an example for us to learn from? When Jesus uses the name of a person then we know He is talking about a real person. When we get to heaven this is a person we can talk to.

Regardless who we personally feel the Patriarchs may be—historic figures,
mythical metaphors for certain archetypes of consciousness, embodiments of
divine spiritual energy, or just fictional characters—they all do one thing and
that is mark specific moments on a Biblical time‐line and set them indelibly.

 

[Papias]

Papias, thanks for the response, but you are in error. The genealogy I presented was of Jesus' Mother, Mary.

Simply false. The Luke 3 is quite clear. Here is what Luke says:

Now Jesus was.... He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, son of Heli, .....Luke 3:23

What part of "Joseph, son of Heli" is not clear to you?

The idea that Luke gives Mary's genealogy is an idea made up by humans long after the scripture was given. As shown above, it's simply unscriptural.

Because generations might have been skipped in no way changes it from a historical record to some sort of figurative record.

Yes, it does exactly that. That's exactly what skipped generations show. The text in Mt literally says that Uzziah was Jehoram's son. But we know from the other record that this is false - that Uzziah was actually Jehoram's great great grandson. If you insist that these are historical records, then you are saying that one is wrong (take your pick which). On the other hand, as figurative records, both can be right.

Thus, the skipped generations show that these are to be interpreted figuratively - at least for anyone who doesn't want to conclude that parts of their Bible are factually incorrect.

Here's the question you have to answer....Just where did the list of generations change from historical to figurative?

That's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"

It was figurative from the start. The Holy Spirit isn't just making this up as he goes along you know. That's why you question makes no sense.

Why would the bible start out with a historical record...then change it to a figurative record? That makes no sense to me and causes me to not accept your logic and reasoning.

We both agree that the Bibles have some parts that are figurative and some that are historical, right? We both agree that Genesis has figurative parts, right (because claiming it is all literal rejects the Christian doctrine of original sin, etc.). Since we both agree on that, then of course any Bible will switch at times from one to the other - are you rejecting that your Bible has both historical and figurative parts?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[gluadys]

Do you have enough faith to believe that God is able to use real people as an example for us to learn from?

Of course

When Jesus uses the name of a person then we know He is talking about a real person. When we get to heaven this is a person we can talk to.

No we don't. I know of no reason Jesus cannot speak of fictional people.

Regardless who we personally feel the Patriarchs may be—historic figures,
mythical metaphors for certain archetypes of consciousness, embodiments of
divine spiritual energy, or just fictional characters—they all do one thing and
that is mark specific moments on a Biblical time‐line and set them indelibly.

I don't know that marking a time-line is of particular importance. I would agree they all mark significant interactions between God and the people of Israel which are examples to us all.

 

[-57]

Simply false. The Luke 3 is quite clear. Here is what Luke says:

Now Jesus was.... He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, son of Heli, .....Luke 3:23

What part of "Joseph, son of Heli" is not clear to you?

The idea that Luke gives Mary's genealogy is an idea made up by humans long after the scripture was given. As shown above, it's simply unscriptural.



Yes, it does exactly that. That's exactly what skipped generations show. The text in Mt literally says that Uzziah was Jehoram's son. But we know from the other record that this is false - that Uzziah was actually Jehoram's great great grandson. If you insist that these are historical records, then you are saying that one is wrong (take your pick which). On the other hand, as figurative records, both can be right.

Thus, the skipped generations show that these are to be interpreted figuratively - at least for anyone who doesn't want to conclude that parts of their Bible are factually incorrect.



That's like asking "when did you stop beating your wife?"

It was figurative from the start. The Holy Spirit isn't just making this up as he goes along you know. That's why you question makes no sense.



We both agree that the Bibles have some parts that are figurative and some that are historical, right? We both agree that Genesis has figurative parts, right (because claiming it is all literal rejects the Christian doctrine of original sin, etc.). Since we both agree on that, then of course any Bible will switch at times from one to the other - are you rejecting that your Bible has both historical and figurative parts?

In Christ-

Papias

I like the way you claimed the linage was of Joseph when it really is Mary's....acting as if they are literal historical people then later on this is what you say the linage "It was figurative from the start." Apparently you were mistaken when you presented your contradiction. Either Joseph was literal and historical or Joseph was figurative...which one.

But back to the list...here it is once again....I hi-lited David. Was he just figurative and not in the linage of Jesus?

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
Heli,Matthat, Levi, Melki, Jannai, Joseph,Mattathias, Amos, Nahum, Esli, Naggai,Maath, Mattathias, Semein, Josech, Joda,Joanan, Rhesa, Zerubbabel, Shealtiel, Neri,Melki, Addi, Cosam, Elmadam, Er,Joshua, Eliezer, Jorim, Matthat, Levi,Simeon, Judah, Joseph, Jonam, Eliakim,Melea, Menna, Mattatha, Nathan, David, Jesse, Obed, Boaz, Salmon, Nahshon,Amminadab, Ram, Hezron, Perez, Judah,Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, Terah, Nahor,Serug, Reu, Peleg, Eber, Shelah,Cainan, Arphaxad, Shem, Noah, Lamech,Methuselah, Enoch, Jared, Mahalalel, Kenan,Enosh, Seth, Adam, God.

Luke 3:23 Mary’s linage

 

[-57]

Just for the record..
Joseph was Jacobs son by birth. Eli was Josephs father in law. When you
read the rest of the genealogy that becomes apparent very quickly.
The reason for the dual linage was to show that thru either linage Jesus
was the heir to the throne of David.

Joe and his Dad.
Ref verses.
Matt 1:16 and to Jacob was born Joseph the husband of Mary,
Luke 3:23... being supposedly the son of Joseph the son of Eli.
The bible seems quite clear that The Matthew verse tells us that Jacob as
the father of Joseph. The term *born* in the verse seems to indicate that
this is the case. Jacob was Josephs biological father.
Luke 3:23 may appear to be in contradiction or error saying that Joseph
was the son of Eli. Further research clearly indicates that Joseph was
the son-in-law of Eli and that the term and meaning of the word in the
ancient greek language and legal understanding of the title *son* in this
case meant *son-in-law*.

Some reasons why.

1)The Son-in-law belief is held by several early Christian writers.
a, Origen
b, Irenaeus
c, Tertullian,
d, Athanasius
e, Justin Martyr

2)It is indirectly confirmed by Jewish tradition. The Talmudic writers
wrote of Mary as the daughter of Eli.

3) This verse shows us in what way Christ was the Son of David. If Mary
was the daughter of Eli, then Jesus was strictly a descendent of David,
not only *legally*, through his reputed father, but *actually*, by direct
personal descent, through his mother.

4) This point affords a simple explanation of the whole matter.
Mary, since she had no brothers, was an heiress; therefor her husband,
according to Jewish law, was reckoned among her fathers family , as his
*son*. This would make Joseph the *actual* son of Jacob, and the *legal* son of Eli.
The book of Matthew sets forth Jesus' right to the theocratic crown, where
Luke sets forth his natural pedigree. The latter employs Joseph1s name,
instead of Mary's, in *accordance with the Israelite law*
that * genealogies must be reckoned by fathers, not mothers.*

 

[BobRyan]

Hi, Although I have christian background, I have some questions about Genesis, partly because others raise these questions and objections at times too. If its possible to answer them I like some answers. In all honesty I suppress some of my questions at times.

What is Genesis the first three chapters - I am inclined to call it mythopoetic (not in the sense of never having happened, or being untrue) but in its language, its not scientific. For myself I no longer demand it should be, and this maybe came gradually.

But others still raise some questions. For instance, the creation of plant life before the creation of the sun. If its not chronological in sequence how should it be understood. Whats back of this requirement that Genesis read as a scientific textbook?

It is the Word of God - and it means exactly what it says -- no mythology, no allegory, no metaphors there.

As for "plants" well... that is a problem for theistic evolutionist christians - but not for Christians that accept the Bible as it is written. For us God created "light" on day 1 and "there was evening and morning" for 2 days prior to plants. So then on day 4 with the creation of the sun - the only question is not "about plants" that would have survived one whole day before the Sun - but rather the question is about the zillion-and-1 options that God has for a "source of light" other than the Sun. Which of them did He use?

What is odd about this - is that even among the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities - this seems to be the present understanding. That the bible writer in Gen 1:1-2:1-3 meant exactly what he said - literally. (Whether you accept the historicity of the Bible or not - and certainly they don't)

============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

 

[BobRyan]

Why not take Genesis as literal? The other authors of the bible as well a Jesus did.

And as James Barr points out - that is exactly how the author intended it to be taken.

 

[-57]

And as James Barr points out - that is exactly how the author intended it to be taken.

Exo 20:11 confirms the day length. God even set it up a a model for us.
"For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

 

[BobRyan]

yes it is the same term for "day" in Ex 20:8-11 all the way through both for the "day" that the Jews work - in six days and the "day" that they rest on the Sabbath. So also in Ex 20:11 - the days that God worked and the day He rested and blessed -- all of them the same -- same author, same subject, same context, same definition for "day".

Exegesis.

And in that case - also -- legal code. No mythology in the legal code of Exodus 20.

 

[-57]

yes it is the same term for "day" in Ex 20:8-11 all the way through both for the "day" that the Jews work - in six days and the "day" that they rest on the Sabbath. So also in Ex 20:11 - the days that God worked and the day He rested and blessed -- all of them the same -- same author, same subject, same context, same definition for "day".

Exegesis.

And in that case - also -- legal code. No mythology in the legal code of Exodus 20.

Much of the bible becomes a problem when the Theo-Evos try to filter their bible through the T.O.E.
...all of a sudden there is no fall of man. No Garden. No Adam to fall. No need for Jesus.