Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Weird, I was just writing about that...Once you get hung up on the "did it/didn't it happen?" question, you lose sight of the far more important question: "What's the lesson to be learned here?"
Does it matter where the line is drawn? If so, why?The following is a list taken from the bible...I've shortened it up and have only posted the names. The top of the list is believed to be historical and literal...the bottom of the list ends with characters taken from the book of Genesis which you seem to be claiming has it's beginning as a parable...perhaps you could instruct us as to where the list turns from fact to fiction.
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
That's the part I have trouble understanding though. If the reasoning is that there was one person who screwed up that we are all descended from it isn't simply a matter of telling a scary story to scare us straight. Now the reason for things being the way they are is different than the reason given. It makes a strong case for a literal interpretation if you have to change the reasoning of the Bible.Why wouldn't he?
Consider, for a moment, fairy tales: These stories were told not to entertain children, but as cautionary tales to frighten children into correct behavior.
"Little Red Riding Hood" teaches children the importance not to talk to strangers, where as "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" warns against entering strange houses when one is not invited... if you ever read the original versions of those stories, you'll find they do not end well for the protagonists.
Do those stories need literal big bad wolves or three bears in order to successfully teach their lessons?
I'm well aware that not all Christians ascribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis, but I'm curious why some feel it is important to retain the literal interpretation.
Basically, my thinking is that Jesus hid the truth in parables, so why wouldn't God? Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, so we have to make decisions on what is literal and what is allegorical. What harm results from taking an allegorical approach to Genesis? Or what evidence is there that it should be taken literally instead of allegorically? Basically, why pick the literal approach for Genesis as opposed to the allegorical approach?
This isn't a discussion on the merits of the Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory, or any other science discussion. It is strictly scriptural, and that's why I put it in the Apologetics section since it does not belong in the Physical Sciences sections of these boards.
ETA Also, people who take an allegorical approach to Genesis can feel free to share how they explain away potential problems with their interpretation.
No, of course not. I only pointed it out because there are various interpretations even amongst people who take Genesis literally. What they said makes sense, though, but the Bible doesn't say the animals couldn't eat from the tree of life either. It seems like an unknown to me.You have no way of knowing if "it's been said" knows that.
There's a difference between knowing that people don't rise from the dead and knowing that rule can be overridden by God.It's funny how that concept can turn around and bite you. Yes, we learned tat the sun really doesn't rise in the morning. Science says so. ....But lets take it to the next level....Medical science says when you die on day three you stay dead. That's a medical fact. You're logic would tell us not only doesn't the sun rise in the morning neither did the Son rise in the morning of day 3.
....see how that works?
No, because even as a heathen, I understand that He meant something spiritual. The Jews were freaked out because they took something literal that they shouldn't have.Does that saying freak you out?
I'm leaving it vague and open as to just how much is allegory and just how much isn't so that all the topics can be discussed.Genesis is a big and complicated book. What do you mean when you say "allegorical approach to Genesis"? Do you mean an allegorical approach to Genesis 1-11? Genesis 1-3? The whole book?
I understand Genesis to be a work of historical narrative that has literary features. I don't believe that Genesis 1 is a poem for linguistic reasons. It reads more like Hebrew historical narrative. So I think that the author of Genesis intended the work to be understood as historical.
It doesn't destroy the reason for Jesus. The reason for Jesus is that there is sin in the world. If the reason for sin being in the world is altered at all, it doesn't change the fact that sin is in the world and needs Jesus.It destroys the reason for Jesus.
As to how it sounds, you have to consider the audience of the time it was written. There may be a reason that God wanted the audience then to consider it historical even if it wasn't, much like the way the Bible tells people not to get married, but Paul is only talking to a specific audience in a specific time period.
The following is a list taken from the bible...I've shortened it up and have only posted the names. The top of the list is believed to be historical and literal...the bottom of the list ends with characters taken from the book of Genesis which you seem to be claiming has it's beginning as a parable...perhaps you could instruct us as to where the list turns from fact to fiction.
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
That's the part I have trouble understanding though. If the reasoning is that there was one person who screwed up that we are all descended from it isn't simply a matter of telling a scary story to scare us straight. Now the reason for things being the way they are is different than the reason given. It makes a strong case for a literal interpretation if you have to change the reasoning of the Bible.
Moses' original audience knew how to read allegory and parable and they also knew how to read history. The author of Genesis, as far as we can tell, wants to communicate history.
Wow, I've never started such a popular thread. I've been working my way through the posts all morning, and they kept coming as I typed, so I'm not 100% sure I addressed everyone that responded. I'll give it another look to make sure, my apologies if I missed anything, feel free to konk me on the head and quote me again to grab my attention if I missed you or one of your posts.
"Morning", I said... I got up at noon.
"as far as we can tell?" Is it possible that Moses' audience is better at this than the current one?
John 5:46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
Moses wrote Genesis. Jesus told us that we need to believe what Moses recorded. There are no known Hebrew scholars who claim that Genesis was not meant to be understood as written. There is absolutely no way to construe the Genesis account as allegory. Concepts such as the fall of man, original sin and the corruption of the earth are foundational. The false claims that Genesis is not true are only a desperate attempt to give credence to the lie of evolution.
Sure. But unfortunately we're not able to consult with them.
Yet I think that Genesis 1-11 (the most often disputed section) is meant to be read as a historical narrative because of the prevalence of the waw-consecutive-imperfect verb form (characteristic of Hebrew historical narrative). What reasons do you think that the author did not intend Genesis to be understood as historical narrative?
1. Genesis 1: the repetition of "and the evening and the morning were the _____ day," is a more lyrical than historical style.
2. the utter change in the portrayal of God's character between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3. He's far more anthropomorphized and, if you don't mind me saying so, limited in His power and perceptions. This indicates two different authors... telling two different stories.
3. The similarities between the Genesis creation accounts and the stories of neighboring civilizations -- particularly, the deliberate inversion of many of the details of the Babylonian myth. Remember, during the Babylonian captivity, the Hebrews' greatest fear was in losing their identity and being assimilated into the Babylonians... deliberately writing their creation story to be the opposite of the Babylonian Enuma Elish would help the Hebrews remember who they were -- as would the practices of the Saturday Sabbath, Kosher dietary restrictions, and circumcision, all of which also came to prominence during the captivity.
4. Genesis 5 serves no historical purpose whatsoever -- the men listed here have no information given except for their outlandishly long lifespans... one could omit this chapter entirely and lose nothing of historical significance except the passage of a great deal of time... which is the sole purpose of the chapter: to show the passage of a great deal of time.
5. As with Genesis 1/2-3, the flood narrative shows signs of two separate authors, however, the editing isn't nearly as neat and tidy as the previous example. This is a compilation, and a poor job of one, at that. Historians are more careful regarding accuracy; storytellers, not so much.
An assertion without evidence like this can be dismissed without rebuttal.
The story of the flood consists of two separate traditions chopped into pieces and then spun together, with inconsistent passages intact. In one version God is referred to as Elohim, which is usually translated God in the Bible, but is actually plural, and means gods. In the other version God is referred to as Yahweh, which is usually translated YAHWEH. These two different names of God each correspond to the different details in the two conflicting versions of the flood story. Separate the names of God, and you will separate the two flood stories, each emerging with its separate details intact, making the story of Noah's ark and the flood one of the most famous examples of the practice of source criticism and redaction criticism in the Bible. In one version, the one we are all familiar with, it rained for ‘forty days and nights." But another version is also present, but is ignored.
"The flood lasted forty days on the earth." (Genesis Chapter 7 verse 17)
"When the water had increased over the earth for a hundred and fifty days, God took thought for Noah and the beasts and cattle with him in the ark, and he caused a wind to blow over the earth, so that the water began to subside. The springs of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped up, the downpour from the skies was checked." (Genesis Chapter 7 verse 24)
Similar conflicts are found in the story of the animals going onto the ark. In one version we are specifically told that all animals, ‘clean' and ‘unclean' went onto the ark two by two, and in the variant (priestly) version of the story the ‘clean' animals go on seven by seven. The reason for the variant is that Noah must be portrayed as offering up animal sacrifices upon leaving the ark in the priestly version, thus suggesting that priestly sacrificial doctrine had an illustrious history. Similarly in the priestly version the flood is said to last ‘forty days and nights' since it appears that ‘forty' was considered an illustrious number. (The Sinai mountain top expedition of Moses lasted ‘forty days and nights'. In the gospel account Joshua fasted for ‘forty days and nights,' and ‘afterward he was hungry,' which is another story altogether.)
Many exegetes believe that the Genesis narrative is a composite of two different stories that were combined into the final canonical form of Genesis 6–9.[2]:22;[24][25]:19 Some scholars call these the Jahwist (JHWH) source and the Priestly (Elohim) source. Some notable difficulties between the two sources include: two different reasons are given for why the flood happens, Noah is given two different instructions about what animals and birds to take on board the ark, there are two different time frames given for how long the flood lasts, there are different explanations of the "nature of the flood waters", different circumstances by which Noah and the animals leave the ark, and two different "divine names" (elohim and Yahweh) are used.[24]
Other scholars, while noting the differences in characteristic style and vocabulary, argue that overall they are not contradictory.[6] Where apparent contradictions do exist, they are not typically viewed as mistakes by Jewish scholars, but rather as allusions to deeper meanings. Even later interpreters have sought to discover the basic harmony that underlies the narrative, whether written by different authors, at different times, or within different cultures.[26]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?