Genesis query

[krobbyzw]

Howdy folks, I wanted to ask whether any of the members here believe that Genesis was written as a literal history of God's creation of the world? I know that Jesus Christ Himself quoted from it eg in Matthew 19, so I wanted to check what your opinions are on His referring to it.

[Pablo Rafael]

I do not think that the book of Genesis was never intended to be a literal account of creation and the patriarchs. Those who interpret Genesis literally have a terribly hard time trying to explain everything and must ignore science to do it. The creation story is much more meaningful to me if it is taken figuratively.

The ancient Hebrews themselves didn't use the literal, linear thinking that we use today. They used stories that didn't necessarily have to be factual.

Jesus did quote the Old Testament, but I think he was trying to convey ideas rather than give historical facts. Some of the most meaningful teachings of Jesus are contained in His parables. They were never meant to be taken literally, but that doesn't lessen their value.

[keltic63]

there is a problem with the question as one has to decide which creation story to believe: the first in Genesis Chapter One, or the second in Genesis Chapter Two. They contradict each other. So which one do we choose as being the literal and true account?

I'd rather think of Genesis as allegory.

[Alecto]

I always found it fascinating that we have Jesus, God's son, using parables in his teachings left and right but people think the Word of God as written through humans has to be 100% literal.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Alecto

I always found it fascinating that we have Jesus, God's son, using parables in his teachings left and right but people think the Word of God as written through humans has to be 100% literal.

And even parables are confusing and prone to misinterpretation.

Rick

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Alecto

I always found it fascinating that we have Jesus, God's son, using parables in his teachings left and right but people think the Word of God as written through humans has to be 100% literal.

And even parables are confusing and prone to misinterpretation.

Ezekiel 17:2 "Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;"

But, why not make his message easy to understand especially when eternal hell is in the balance?

Rick

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by Rick336

And even parables are confusing and prone to misinterpretation.

Ezekiel 17:2 "Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;"

But, why not make his message easy to understand especially when eternal hell is in the balance?

Rick

I think that sometimes it is much more valuable to search for meaning than to have it delivered. There is value in the search itself. Since I think that the workings of God are past human understanding, maybe the looking is more worthwhile than is a doctrine.

[Lenny]

Greetings!

We cannot conveniently cast aside the creation epic as mere parable. When we begin to decide what is and what isn't parable, we become revelation, and not the Word. We become Judge. Who then is to say that the resurrection, or the existence of Jesus himself, is not one grand parable in which we may use to infer esoteric knowledge?

With this, we bring forward a protestant principle: Scripture interprets scripture. Do we find individuals in scripture reading the account in Genesis as purely a parable?

No. The New Testament writers accepted a literal historicity of Adam and Eve. Take for example Romans 5, detailing the entrance of sin into the world via one man. It continues with saying "By one man's disobedience many were made sinners..." and it is through the second adam, or another man (Jesus), that the correction takes place. To place Adam and Eve as merely parable, or fictitious, is to necessitate the same for Jesus. In this verse the historical entrance of sin through one man is placed along the same plane as the historical person of Jesus. You can't knock one off without putting in question the other.

Other NT works suggest the same:

• "For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (1 Tim 2:13-14, containing another reading of Gen 2-3 as literal history).
  
• Also notice how Luke 3:38 contains a literal genealogy which includes ultimately Adam. Adam is placed as historical along that genealogy with Seth, Enos, and Jesus (and a host of others).

In addition, let me say something else about the idea of taking Genesis as parable. Within the New Testament, we find formulas for the usage of Parables (parabolic element). When Jesus uses them, you'll find some beginning with "The kingdom of God is like..." It then contains a parable to explain some ethical or spiritual truth.You'll also find later admissions of some being a parable, complete with an explanation. No such structure is found in Genesis. Rather, it simply explains itself in the beginning of the human race. You find a view of it being historical from the OT throughout the NT.

We may be inclined to see it as myth, given a talking snake, but Rev 20:2 ("that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan",) and Balaam's donkey (Num 22:28) are used for communication by Satan and Jehovah. Obviously we don't find examples of snakes talking, but is it far-fetched that Satan would use such a device to communicate through? To ignore Jehovah's ability to communicate through a donkey is to deny the supernatural, and that quickly leads to a rejection of a physical bodily resurrection of Jesus, thus undermining the entire Christian faith.

In short, Scripture reads Genesis as historical. For that reason, given it is revelation and we are not, it should be seen as such.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Lenny

...Balaam's donkey (Num 22:28) are used for communication by Satan and Jehovah.

To ignore Jehovah's ability to communicate through a donkey is to deny the supernatural.....

David Berkowitz who was a serial killer of several young women in New York in the late seventies said that his dog told him to kill the girls. So why didn't the cops arrest the dog and interrogate him?

The answer; people who believe animals can talk are considered to be out of touch with reality. Therefore, there was no reason to arrest the dog.

Rick

[Lenny]

Rick, there is a difference between insanity and the supernatural. The man could have claimed it was God telling him to kill people through the dog, it still would not prove God really did it.

You're completely ignoring the point. Does man sit in judgment to determine what is and isn't real in scripture? You would then make the presumption that the supernatural is impossible, and we must then remove every perceivable supernatural occurrence within the bible (scripture and Jesus are opposite, giving them make the presumption Supernatural IS real, and necessary). This would include the resurrection of Jesus, the entire premise of the Christian faith. If Jesus was wrong in believing in the supernatural, then his teachings are all meaningless. This would also extend to the very existence of God.

(1) To remove the supernatural from scripture is to undermine the possibility of bodily resurrection,
(2) To remove the bodily resurrection, is to remove the Good News of the Gospel, and make Jesus and the Scriptures a Lie.

" 12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. " (1 Cor 15:12-14)

Understandably, if you reject the existence of an all powerful Creator, you would reject the premise of supernatural occurrence (such as talking snakes and donkeys). Clearly they do not talk by their nature (such as your example). However, within the hands of a Supernatural God, and within the revelation of scripture, the possibility is there.

Again, this question asked by the individual was whether we should take the Genesis creation account as literal. Our answer: Scripture both OT and NT take it as literal as the person of Jesus, and as such, being Scripture is our standard (1 Tim 3:16), we should follow it's lead, and not make ourselves the Lords of relative interpretation.

If you deny supernatural, it is difficult even to take part in this discussion. The point is moot.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Lenny

Rick, there is a difference between insanity and the supernatural. The man could have claimed it was God telling him to kill people through the dog, it still would not prove God really did it.

You're completely ignoring the point. Does man sit in judgment to determine what is and isn't real in scripture? You would then make the presumption that the supernatural is impossible, and we must then remove every perceivable supernatural occurrence within the bible (scripture and Jesus are opposite, giving them make the presumption Supernatural IS real, and necessary). This would include the resurrection of Jesus, the entire premise of the Christian faith. If Jesus was wrong in believing in the supernatural, then his teachings are all meaningless. This would also extend to the very existence of God.

(1) To remove the supernatural from scripture is to undermine the possibility of bodily resurrection,
(2) To remove the bodily resurrection, is to remove the Good News of the Gospel, and make Jesus and the Scriptures a Lie.

" 12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. " (1 Cor 15:12-14)

Understandably, if you reject the existence of an all powerful Creator, you would reject the premise of supernatural occurrence (such as talking snakes and donkeys). Clearly they do not talk by their nature (such as your example). However, within the hands of a Supernatural God, and within the revelation of scripture, the possibility is there.

Again, this question asked by the individual was whether we should take the Genesis creation account as literal. Our answer: Scripture both OT and NT take it as literal as the person of Jesus, and as such, being Scripture is our standard (1 Tim 3:16), we should follow it's lead, and not make ourselves the Lords of relative interpretation.

If you deny supernatural, it is difficult even to take part in this discussion. The point is moot.

I am saying that there is no reliable evidence that animals have ever spoken a human language. Whether is be a god's voice or the animal's voice, the bottom line here is that animals can not talk. The belief that they can goes against reason and rational thinking.

I am saying that there is no reliable evidence that the supernatural is real. None. There is not a single piece of scientific evidence that the supernatural exists. If there ever is a scientific discovery that the supernatural exists, it would be the biggest news story in the history of mankind.

Is there the possibility that I am wrong and that the supernatural exists? Yes. There is always the possibility that our opinions are wrong.

It also sounds as if you are saying that because I hold an opposing view in this discussion that I should not be contributing to this thread and that my opinions are not valid. If my opinions are not valid in this discussion then do you also say that the opinions of Buddhists, Pagans, Muslims, Jews, and Jehovah Witness are also not valid here?

Am I misinterpreting your post?


Rick

[Lenny]

"I am saying that there is no reliable evidence that animals have ever spoken a human language."

Again, you're making a assumption that is incompatible with the inner discussion. This assumption is that Scripture is not a reliable source of evidence.

You're also making the assumption that something doesn't exist if it cannot be proved by science. That in itself is a statement that cannot be scientifically proven. You're making a philosophical statement about the absolute nature of empiricism (all that exists is that which can be proved empirically through science). You cannot scientifically prove that statement (if you can, please point me to the empirical proof of that statement, otherwise you're proposing a faith/belief amongst others).

This is in addition to two other fallacies: (1) believing something does not exist because science has not proved it to exist (think atoms and germs before their discoveries. It didn't warrant their nonexistence), and (2) That something supernatural (hence the name) is subject to natural explanation. It's like trying to explain Goodness with an experiment of soil composition. Case in point being the creation of the universe and it's interpretation within a text that is revealed divine knowledge.

As to the last point, yes, I am. The discussion is not whether or not the supernatural exists. On that ground any of those individuals can participate, and to a considerable degree. The discussion, however, was whether Genesis is to be taken as a literal historical creation account within this specific tradition (hence the reference to Jesus as possibly authoritative in an interpretation).

If you remain outside of the community in which this is discussed (the monotheistic three), the height of your contribution is "I do not believe in the bible, hence I have no say in whether we take Genesis as a historical occurrence, or myth fabrication." Sure, that's somewhat of a contribution, but it does little to even address the question besides speak of a grander objection. It's like a man posing the question "Should I wear a red or blue shirt," and you responding with "I don't believe in wearing clothes". Sure, your response would be some type of contribution, but it would do little to answer whether your friend should wear red or blue.

The Buddhist and others are as equipped to contribute to the inner-discussion of the historicity of Genesis as the president of Iran is equipped to discuss proper interpretation of the US Constitution. Of course this doesn't mean the president of Iran can't comment on how to interpret the Constitution, but just that it can have little worth in addressing the centrality of the question (thus your attempts to divert the discussion to snakes and an objection to the supernatural).

[kara speltz]

Hey Lenny: The forums are a place for discussion and I agree with Rick that you came on like you hold the decisions on what the boundaries of the discussion are.

I am a practicing Catholic and feel absolutely clear that the bible is filled with contradictions, some of which have been pointed out to you, such as the two versions of the Creation story.

While at the same time, I am also a mystic, that knows that God's power is amazing and that I can place my life in God's hands and know that all will be well.

I hope you'll let go of your dogma, long enough to listen to other people's opinions. For it is clear to me that just about every spiritual path has much to teach us, if we have the ears and hearts to listen.

So just, "chill" and enjoy the ride. Kara

[bnmoore]

Why was the Genesis 19 discussion moved to the Foyer and this one not? It seems to have gotten slightly disrespectful to other Faiths.

[Lenny]

Kara, my apologies if anyone found offense. Perhaps I should summarize myself. The individual who generated the discussion can correct me if they wish.

In a discussion regarding whether Genesis is a literal creation epic, two groups really exist. (1) Those people of the Book who believe Scripture reveals some form of a Creation story. (2) Those outside of this tradition who disregard the validity of Scriptural claims.

Group number two can have another discussion, in regards to why scripture is not authoritative to begin with (or why the supernatural does or does not exist, as made evident by the earlier individual). This group rejects the book.

The first group has an inner faith discussion, meaning the they accept the book, and now discuss the details. This specific example being they accept this Narrative in Scripture, and now wish to discuss whether this narrative is literal, allegorical, or a bit of both.

This second group is hinted by a reference to Jesus' interpretation. Sure, a buddhist can offer his input on this, but it would really be a reference more to the first' groups objections, then an inner study of why we should take it as a literal creation story.

I really don't see how this can be considered insulting to other faith groups. I provided a response why a believer of the Book should take Genesis' creation story as literal. If you can see anything insulting you may be reading that into my response.

As for two creation accounts, I would reject that argument, but that's a whole different discussion. This was why we should or should not take Genesis as literal history, and I provided a response that focused on inner-biblical evidence to do such. The conversation then merely got sidetracked.

[Lenny]

I would also ask for some direct reference to how other religions were insulted. For context purposes, I was a B.A. student in religious studies at a secular college, and I don't see how in any way stating that a discussion of Genesis' creation account according to scriptural passages is one to be done within the reason of those who accept such authority. It's really no stretch. I'm also not stating that even those who are not within such a framework should be purged from responding. Honestly, one must remove some negative presuppositions and analyze the points I made in my previous post.

My initial response answers the individuals' question, namely being why we should accept Genesis as literal history on the basis of inner biblical evidence. If you reject the bible as a starting point, well it's nothing insulting to say that would be the totality if potential contribution.

[bnmoore]

Originally Posted by Lenny

I would also ask for some direct reference to how other religions were insulted.

I only said it was disrespectful, not insulting.

given it is revelation and we are not

There is no other reason to be nor is there anything else to be. Several religions or belief systems propose that God is all there is. (by any name) The adherents of these belief systems find their own texts or books sacred.

As for me if you're alive I don't see any way to avoid being the Word. It's just not an option.

[tdogg]

Originally Posted by krobbyzw

Howdy folks, I wanted to ask whether any of the members here believe that Genesis was written as a literal history of God's creation of the world? I know that Jesus Christ Himself quoted from it eg in Matthew 19, so I wanted to check what your opinions are on His referring to it.

Asked of other forum members. So any other forum member has a right to state an opinion. Especially since the inquirer asked them to. Sheesh.

So which creation story do you believe Lenny? Did you answer that one and I missed it?

[Matt Algren]

Originally Posted by tdogg

Asked of other forum members. So any other forum member has a right to state an opinion. Especially since the inquirer asked them to. Sheesh.

So which creation story do you believe Lenny? Did you answer that one and I missed it?

What was it Richard Holloway said in For The Bible Tells Me So? "Biblical literalists are people who 'know' the truth absolutely. So they’re not able to engage in a conversation—they’re only able to engage in a pronouncement."

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by krobbyzw

As to the last point, yes, I am. The discussion is not whether or not the supernatural exists. On that ground any of those individuals can participate, and to a considerable degree. The discussion, however, was whether Genesis is to be taken as a literal historical creation account within this specific tradition (hence the reference to Jesus as possibly authoritative in an interpretation).

If you remain outside of the community in which this is discussed (the monotheistic three), the height of your contribution is "I do not believe in the bible, hence I have no say in whether we take Genesis as a historical occurrence, or myth fabrication." Sure, that's somewhat of a contribution, but it does little to even address the question besides speak of a grander objection. It's like a man posing the question "Should I wear a red or blue shirt," and you responding with "I don't believe in wearing clothes". Sure, your response would be some type of contribution, but it would do little to answer whether your friend should wear red or blue.

I'm an atheist now but I was a Christian for most of my life which I think makes my viewpoint valid here. Also, I've read most of the Old Testament which also makes my contribution to this discussion valid.

Your question was whether any of the members here believe that Genesis was written as a literal history of God's creation of the world. I am a member of this group. My opinion is that since I don't see any evidence that the supernatural exists, I don't believe the Old Testament is literal history.

You also said that you believed that Balaam's donkey talked. My opinion was that no matter what the Bible says, the belief that animals can talk is irrational and doesn't meet with reality.

You asked a question, I gave you my answer. But because you were disturbed by my answer, you said my viewpoint didn't fit this discussion.

Rick