Using the Bible....

[Ark Guy]

Using the Bible, can someone show why Genesis should not be taken as literal?

 

[Vance]

Using the Bible, can someone show why Genesis should not be taken as literal?

Why in the world would you limit your interpretation of the text to just that which is also in the text? That is ridiculous. If you read the text without any reference to the extra-biblical evidence also provided by God, you would still believe in Geocentrism. BTW, do you believe in Geocentrism?

As for within the text itself, there are indeed some reasons not to take certain portions of Genesis literal. For one, you can perceive a variety of different writing styles in Genesis, and that is for a reason. The first creation account bears all the hallmarks from literature of the time of a symbolic presentation of God's creative process. The style of the second account bears a number of hallmarks of a slightly different type of non-literal presentation, using allegory and metaphor. This does not mean it did not happen, just that the message is more important than the factual presentation which could contain symbols, metaphors and allegorical images.

Then, when you get to Abraham, the style changes again to that which is used to tell literal history by these ancient cultures.

The underlying truths of God's Word are, indeed, very clear, but the method of presenting that message varies throughout the Bible. To assert that a single style, factual literalness, was the only possible method used is simply unteneble.

What do you think of Song of Solomon? Literal celebration of erotic love or allegory of Christ and His bride the Church?

 

[lucaspa]

Using the Bible, can someone show why Genesis should not be taken as literal?

We are talking about the creation stories in Genesis 1-3 here, right? No one is arguing that nothing in Genesis should be taken literally.

I just posted this in another thread, but I can do it again here.

1. There are two (well, really 3) separate creation stories that contradict. One is Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a. The second is Genesis 2:4b - Genesis 5. The third is Genesis 5:1 thru Genesis 8. The contradictions are a clear indication that they are not met to be read literally, because to do so conflicts with Rules 5 and 7 of how to interpret. Call the stories A, B, and C.

Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).
3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.
4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.
5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day) but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit. C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention such offspring.

Names:
"Adam" and "Eve" are not words that are used only as names like "Tom" or "Sally" for us. Instead, "adam" in Hebrew means "dirt" or "earth" and "eve" means "hearth". When the names of characters in stories are those of general characteristics, such as "Pride" or "Death" or "Sower" or "Samaritan", we know we are dealing with allegory and symbolism, not history. We have a story of Dirt and Hearth.

Numerology:
The 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are organized into 2 three day divisions with each day having 2 major creation events. This fits with the numerology of the time (historical context) where the numbers 2, 3, 6, and especially 7 were thought to have mystical significance. As history, just how likely is it that there were 2 and only 2 major creation events on each day? This is creation story is structured around the numbers, and history does not do that. History is much messier. Of course, creation is structured to culminate in day 7, which is the Sabbath. Since Genesis 1 was written after Israel was a worshipping community, Genesis 1 is not history but artificially devised to give justification for observing the Sabbath.

Singing:
Although written in English as prose, all of the Torah (the original language being Hebrew) is structured to be sung and is still sung by Cantors in Jewish synagogues every Sabbath. Some of the phrases, such as "morning and evening" in Genesis 1, repeat because they are there to give the correct meter to the song.

In Hebrew, Genesis 2:1 - 2:4a is a very tight poem. We all know that poems are not to be read literally.

 

[wblastyn]

Scripture supports the fact that we are animals: Ecclesiastes 3:18-21

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Ask a Catholic priest, 80% will tell you that Adam and Eve are not ment to be interpreted as real people (according to religioustolerance.org). They have all studied the bible, theology, science, and philosophy in a formal setting (and are generally very knowledgable as compared to many of the fundamentalist "lay preachers").

 

[Ark Guy]

lucaspa:We are talking about the creation stories in Genesis 1-3 here, right? No one is arguing that nothing in Genesis should be taken literally.

You are.

I just posted this in another thread, but I can do it again here.

1. There are two (well, really 3) separate creation stories that contradict. One is Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a. The second is Genesis 2:4b - Genesis 5. The third is Genesis 5:1 thru Genesis 8. The contradictions are a clear indication that they are not met to be read literally, because to do so conflicts with Rules 5 and 7 of how to interpret. Call the stories A, B, and C.

Contradictions? I don't think so.

Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.

Why would that matter? God has many names....some places God is called the savior.

2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).

A single day? Valley Forge was cold in the day of George Washington...same thing. It is expressing the six literal days of creation as an event in history.
Onr dictionary defines one of the meaning of day as follows:

6.a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime.
b. A period of opportunity.

So, does it really say the six day creation period was a single 24 hour long event? I suppose if you need it to you can twist that meaning into the term.

3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.

That's because each account is presenting the creation for a specific purpose. In one account a general overview is presented and in the other account more specific details are mwntioned. I thought yoou would have know that.

4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.

I checked and you appear to be incorrect in the last statement. The spoken into existance doesn't appear to be the method for the creation of earthly beings. In those cases God made them from pre-existing material that he had already spoken iinto existance.

5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it.

What???? that is to simple and to obvious to reply on..go read the bible.

B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day)


Does it? Physical or spiritual death..or both? Instant spiritual death and the beginning of physical death?

but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit.


Once again, what kind of death? Physical, spiritual? or both?

You just seem to apply these verses at a whim with out really expressing their meanings.

C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention such offspring.

You lost me??? You need to explain this better showing why it matters. It sounds like you ran out of material.

Names:
"Adam" and "Eve" are not words that are used only as names like "Tom" or "Sally" for us. Instead, "adam" in Hebrew means "dirt" or "earth" and "eve" means "hearth". When the names of characters in stories are those of general characteristics, such as "Pride" or "Death" or "Sower" or "Samaritan", we know we are dealing with allegory and symbolism, not history. We have a story of Dirt and Hearth.

most the names in the Old Testament have meaning..why shoud Adam and Eve not have a meaning that reflects their name?
Even the name Jesus Christ means the Annoited Savior.

Numerology:
The 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are organized into 2 three day divisions with each day having 2 major creation events. This fits with the numerology of the time (historical context) where the numbers 2, 3, 6, and especially 7 were thought to have mystical significance. As history, just how likely is it that there were 2 and only 2 major creation events on each day? This is creation story is structured around the numbers, and history does not do that. History is much messier. Of course, creation is structured to culminate in day 7, which is the Sabbath. Since Genesis 1 was written after Israel was a worshipping community, Genesis 1 is not history but artificially devised to give justification for observing the Sabbath.

Your beginnign to grasp at straws

Singing:
Although written in English as prose, all of the Torah (the original language being Hebrew) is structured to be sung and is still sung by Cantors in Jewish synagogues every Sabbath. Some of the phrases, such as "morning and evening" in Genesis 1, repeat because they are there to give the correct meter to the song.

Or the correct meaning to the word day.

In Hebrew, Genesis 2:1 - 2:4a is a very tight poem. We all know that poems are not to be read literally.

I know of many poems that should be taken as literal.

 

[Ark Guy]

Ask a Catholic priest, 80% will tell you that Adam and Eve are not ment to be interpreted as real people (according to religioustolerance.org). They have all studied the bible, theology, science, and philosophy in a formal setting (and are generally very knowledgable as compared to many of the fundamentalist "lay preachers").

And all of them will tell you that salvation is based upon works.

..your point?

 

[Ark Guy]

Once more I ask the same question in post 1

The bible over and over presents Genesis, Adam, Noah etc as literal historical people.....If they are simple allegorical non historical people..where does the bible present this?

 

[Plan 9]

Using the Bible, can someone show why Genesis should not be taken as literal?

Ark Guy, you don't appear to be willing to answer my simple question about terminology you used in another thread. Why should I knock myself out answering one of yours?

 

[Philip]

A single day? Valley Forge was cold in the day of George Washington...same thing. It is expressing the six literal days of creation as an event in history.
Onr dictionary defines one of the meaning of day as follows:

6.a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime.
b. A period of opportunity.

Which dictionary are you using? Does it diffentiate between yom and beyom?

That's because each account is presenting the creation for a specific purpose. In one account a general overview is presented and in the other account more specific details are mwntioned. I thought yoou would have know that.

So, it is to be read literally only when it fits your interpretation?

What???? that is to simple and to obvious to reply on..go read the bible.

I read it. I don't see any mention of how death entered the world in the first (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3) account. Could you point me to the specific verse?

Your beginnign to grasp at straws [in reference to numerology]

Are you familiar with Hebrew culture and the importance certain numbers play in it?

 

[Philip]

The bible over and over presents Genesis, Adam, Noah etc as literal historical people.....If they are simple allegorical non historical people..where does the bible present this?

The style of the beginning of Genesis clearly does present it as allegorical.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

And all of them will tell you that salvation is based upon works.

..your point?

Really? Better tell my Catholic friends that; they all think it's based on grace.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa:We are talking about the creation stories in Genesis 1-3 here, right? No one is arguing that nothing in Genesis should be taken literally.

You are.

When have I ever argued against the attempted sacrifice of Isaac, or Abraham being a literal person, or even Abraham giving his wife to the Egyptian pharoah as wife so that Abraham could get benefits? So, all you have ever heard me argue about is Gensis 1-8.

Contradictions:

1. The name of God is different between A and B. "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.

Why would that matter? God has many names....some places God is called the savior.

But why change names in the middle of a single story? And this isn't "calling" God by a job description like savior. It is using a different word for God. It would be like me saying Buke created the world in 6 days and then God made Adam from dust. See?

2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom).

A single day? Valley Forge was cold in the day of George Washington...same thing. It is expressing the six literal days of creation as an event in history.
Onr dictionary defines one of the meaning of day as follows:

6.a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime.
b. A period of opportunity.

So, does it really say the six day creation period was a single 24 hour long event? I suppose if you need it to you can twist that meaning into the term.

Yes. "beyom" is a modification of the word "yom" with the prefix "be". I've looked this up in several Hebrew-English dictionaries. Beyom means literally "in the day" Notice the the. It always denotes a period less than a day, usually pretty short and is often used where English would use "instantly" or "in the instant". See Genesis 2:18. Same word for when Adam would die: "in the day that you eat of the fruit". Now, would that signify a 6-day period?

3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female. In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.

That's because each account is presenting the creation for a specific purpose. In one account a general overview is presented and in the other account more specific details are mwntioned. I thought yoou would have know that.

But it's the specific details that are different. In both accounts the specific details are mentioned. They contradict.

4. The mechanism of creation is different. In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male.

I checked and you appear to be incorrect in the last statement. The spoken into existance doesn't appear to be the method for the creation of earthly beings. In those cases God made them from pre-existing material that he had already spoken iinto existance.

They are still spoken into existence. Genesis 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven"

See? Spoken into existence.

Genesis 1:24 " And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."

Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, ... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Where's the forming from dust?

5. Entrance of death for humans. A doesn't mention it.

What???? that is to simple and to obvious to reply on..go read the bible.

I did. If it is so simple, then go ahead and reply. You haven't shown any reluctance so far to try to show me foolish, why back away now when you think I'm such a good target? Give me the simple and obvious.

B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death (within the day)

Does it? Physical or spiritual death..or both? Instant spiritual death and the beginning of physical death?

but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit.


Once again, what kind of death? Physical, spiritual? or both?

You just seem to apply these verses at a whim with out really expressing their meanings.

Now, that is ironic since that is my view of a literal interpretation. However, where does it say "spiritual" death? It seems you are using your own symbolic interpretation for Genesis 2:17.

C is different. Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years. No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings". A and B do not mention such offspring.

You lost me??? You need to explain this better showing why it matters.

We have "heavenly beings" that exist but there is no mention of their creation. They are material enough to get it on with human females and produce sperm to fertilize the women. Where is their creation in either Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? If Genesis 1 and 2 are a complete account of creation, where is the creation of these beings? Why weren't they tried as companion to Adam?

You get contradictions not only between what is mentioned in both stories -- such as the sequence of creation of plants and animals -- but contradiction between stories when one mentions some key creatures and the others don't.

Names:
"Adam" and "Eve" are not words that are used only as names like "Tom" or "Sally" for us. Instead, "adam" in Hebrew means "dirt" or "earth" and "eve" means "hearth". When the names of characters in stories are those of general characteristics, such as "Pride" or "Death" or "Sower" or "Samaritan", we know we are dealing with allegory and symbolism, not history. We have a story of Dirt and Hearth.

most the names in the Old Testament have meaning..why shoud Adam and Eve not have a meaning that reflects their name?
Even the name Jesus Christ means the Annoited Savior.

But Jesus was not born Jesus Christ. That is a title given to him after the Resurrection by his followers. He was born Yeshu ben Joseph. And Yeshu does not have the meaning of "Annointed Savior". If so, there were lots of "annointed saviors" running around first century palestine because there were lots of Yeshu's or Yehoshua's (in Aramaic). One of the testimonies to the existence of Yeshu outside the Bible is in Josephus' histories. James the brother of Yeshu is condemned to death by a high priest also named Yeshu.

Numerology:
The 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are organized into 2 three day divisions with each day having 2 major creation events. This fits with the numerology of the time (historical context) where the numbers 2, 3, 6, and especially 7 were thought to have mystical significance. As history, just how likely is it that there were 2 and only 2 major creation events on each day? This is creation story is structured around the numbers, and history does not do that. History is much messier. Of course, creation is structured to culminate in day 7, which is the Sabbath. Since Genesis 1 was written after Israel was a worshipping community, Genesis 1 is not history but artificially devised to give justification for observing the Sabbath.

Your beginnign to grasp at straws

That's not an answer. That's a desperate denial. C'mon, is history ordered enough that you have exactly two, and only two, major creation events per day? One of the rules of interpretation is to put the document into historical context. Literalists ignore that rule. And Genesis was not written until the end of or shortly after the Babylonian Captivity. After Exodus.

Singing:
Although written in English as prose, all of the Torah (the original language being Hebrew) is structured to be sung and is still sung by Cantors in Jewish synagogues every Sabbath. Some of the phrases, such as "morning and evening" in Genesis 1, repeat because they are there to give the correct meter to the song.

Or the correct meaning to the word day.

Possibly that, too, but then they don't have to be repeated each stanza.

In Hebrew, Genesis 2:1 - 2:4a is a very tight poem. We all know that poems are not to be read literally.

I know of many poems that should be taken as literal.

Which ones? Are any of them written as straightforward history? And that Genesis is written as straightforward prose history is the claim of Biblical literalists, isn't it? That Genesis is not poetry.

 

[lucaspa]

Once more I ask the same question in post 1

The bible over and over presents Genesis, Adam, Noah etc as literal historical people.....If they are simple allegorical non historical people..where does the bible present this?

All examples I know about of later use of Genesis 1 or 2 by later scriptural authors use the theological messages of the creation stories, not a dependence on them as literal. The theological truths are not dependent on the characters or events being literal.

 

[lucaspa]

Which dictionary are you using? Does it diffentiate between yom and beyom?

I read it. I don't see any mention of how death entered the world in the first (Genesis 1:1 - 2:3) account. Could you point me to the specific verse?


Are you familiar with Hebrew culture and the importance certain numbers play in it?

Thank you. Particularly that bit about death entering (or not entering) in the Genesis 1 account. I don't see it either.

Let's see if Ark Guy can find the verse.

 

[Plan 9]

I know of many poems that should be taken as literal.

May I have a list of those, please? I'd like to read them.

 

[Plan 9]

The theological truths are not dependent on the characters or events being literal.

Amen to that!

 

[Mϋzikdϋde]

.

 

[Sinai]

Why in the world would you limit your interpretation of the text to just that which is also in the text? That is ridiculous. If you read the text without any reference to the extra-biblical evidence also provided by God, you would still believe in Geocentrism.

Not necessarily, Vance. Ancient Jewish theologians used a very literal interpretation of the Bible.....and rejected geocentrism. They also arrived at conclusions very compatible with modern mainstream science even though they were writing centuries before Coernicus, Kepler and Newton were born--and were basing their writings squarely upon the Hebrew text of Genesis....