Papa Zoom
CF Ambassador
Just helping a brother out.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
How to interpert Genesis
- Thread starter Not_Now.Soon
- Start date
Jim Parker
Member
OK, so you're not going to apply the same scrutiny and correction on anyone else.
Getting that speck out of my eye, are you?
Jim Parker
Member
That's all I'm trying to get across.
Silmarien
Member
Quite the opposite, really. Too much of a literal reading of the OT and you end up with a bit of an amplified Zeus character. (Which doesn't mean it always happens, but there is that danger.) I'm not sure how it's possible to view the OT as a sort of concealed revelation of God and the NT as the full revelation when you insist upon reading them in exactly the same way.
That said, you really ought to take Papa Zoom's advice yourself if you think that jumping into an ongoing discussion simply to spit venom at someone is a graceful and courteous way to conduct oneself.
Papa Zoom
CF Ambassador
I grew up in what I can fairly characterize as a legalistic - only one way of thinking - church experience. I'm at a place in my life where I'm willing to reexamine pretty much anything if it's not core and central to Christian belief. How God brought the world into existence is not a core essential. That He did is. Is Genesis literal or not? I suppose a bit of both. But I don't lay awake at night worrying about it. I know my knowing is limited. It has to be. I've more questions than answers. When it comes to discussion that aren't about the essentials of the Faith, I'm open to listening and examining most any view.
In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity
Jim Parker
Member
Meanwhile, back at "How to Interpret Genesis"; I would like to offer the following comments.
Noah’s Flood as Myth
Myth!????
What does that mean???
I am suggesting the word "Myth" as being the form of narrative by which a culture explains the meaning of a significant natural or cultural event. It is the story that gives meaning to a seemingly random and meaningless catastrophe.
Stories of a great flood are found in the records of many ancient cultures. So, it seems to me, it is not reasonable to assume that there was no flood. It is apparent from the ancient records of multiple cultures around the world** that a flood occurred.
But what should we make of it? Why did it occur? What knowledge should we take away from the event? What does it mean to us?
It strikes me as important to us that the answers to those questions differ significantly when comparing the Mesopotamian flood epics with the later Biblical, epic of Noah’s flood.
Mesopotamia, the Tigris-Euphrates valley, is considered to be the “Cradle of Civilization.” By that title, historians point to the fact that it was in that region that the first City-states arose. They arose because of the most technologically significant development in the history of mankind: the plough. The plough made “civilization” (the city) possible because by its use, people were able for the first time to produce more food than they could personally consume; they consistently produced an abundance. That abundance made it possible for some people to be engaged in work other than feeding themselves and the beginning of the trades. People could be potters, weavers, iron smiths, soldiers, stone masons, etc. The abundance of food made cities possible by making the crafts possible as one’s life work.
But with the city came restrictions. Since cities were centers of wealth, they became targets for plunder. So they built walls. Walls confine the population and create the problem of having enough room for all the people. And that was the issue for the Mesopotamian flood epics”: overpopulation.
The resolution of the population problem in the Mesopotamian epics was to lower the birth rate. After the flood (to get rid of the overpopulation) the gods arranged for there to be more still births, a higher infant mortality rate, more barren women who could not bear children and women who chose to remain childless. (perhaps dedicated virgins at the temples to the gods)
To the Mesopotamian city-state civilizations, children were a conditional blessing and population control was a necessity of survival. (Sound familiar?)
The reason for the flood in the Biblical account had nothing to do with overpopulation. In fact, the first command of the Lord to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the whole earth.
It is not possible to do that by gathering in an ancient city in Mesopotamia.
The reason for the flood, according to Scripture, is the endless increase of sin. Mankind was becoming more and more vile and wicked by the day so God called the one righteous man left on earth with his sons and their wives to, essentially, “reboot” the system. God would remove all sinners from His earth and start again with a righteous root.
Noah did not live in a city. He was a herdsman and his livelihood depended on the ability to move freely to where his flocks and herds could graze and children were to him always an unconditional blessing. They were God’s blessing to man.
So, the cities believed that too many children were a curse (It was expensive to feed and house them.) and the gods sent a flood to relieve the earth of its burden. Then they reduced the number of births to keep the population down.
To the Hebrew (those reciting the story of the flood) children were always a blessing. The curse was not overpopulation but, rather, the result of refusal to follow the commandments of God. The idea of overpopulation being a problem would be an absurdity to the ancient Hebrew.
So, the “flood myth” is the narrative used to communicate those truths about the flood.
**(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths)
iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)
DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
Noah’s Flood as Myth
Myth!????
What does that mean???
I am suggesting the word "Myth" as being the form of narrative by which a culture explains the meaning of a significant natural or cultural event. It is the story that gives meaning to a seemingly random and meaningless catastrophe.
Stories of a great flood are found in the records of many ancient cultures. So, it seems to me, it is not reasonable to assume that there was no flood. It is apparent from the ancient records of multiple cultures around the world** that a flood occurred.
But what should we make of it? Why did it occur? What knowledge should we take away from the event? What does it mean to us?
It strikes me as important to us that the answers to those questions differ significantly when comparing the Mesopotamian flood epics with the later Biblical, epic of Noah’s flood.
Mesopotamia, the Tigris-Euphrates valley, is considered to be the “Cradle of Civilization.” By that title, historians point to the fact that it was in that region that the first City-states arose. They arose because of the most technologically significant development in the history of mankind: the plough. The plough made “civilization” (the city) possible because by its use, people were able for the first time to produce more food than they could personally consume; they consistently produced an abundance. That abundance made it possible for some people to be engaged in work other than feeding themselves and the beginning of the trades. People could be potters, weavers, iron smiths, soldiers, stone masons, etc. The abundance of food made cities possible by making the crafts possible as one’s life work.
But with the city came restrictions. Since cities were centers of wealth, they became targets for plunder. So they built walls. Walls confine the population and create the problem of having enough room for all the people. And that was the issue for the Mesopotamian flood epics”: overpopulation.
The resolution of the population problem in the Mesopotamian epics was to lower the birth rate. After the flood (to get rid of the overpopulation) the gods arranged for there to be more still births, a higher infant mortality rate, more barren women who could not bear children and women who chose to remain childless. (perhaps dedicated virgins at the temples to the gods)
To the Mesopotamian city-state civilizations, children were a conditional blessing and population control was a necessity of survival. (Sound familiar?)
The reason for the flood in the Biblical account had nothing to do with overpopulation. In fact, the first command of the Lord to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the whole earth.
It is not possible to do that by gathering in an ancient city in Mesopotamia.
The reason for the flood, according to Scripture, is the endless increase of sin. Mankind was becoming more and more vile and wicked by the day so God called the one righteous man left on earth with his sons and their wives to, essentially, “reboot” the system. God would remove all sinners from His earth and start again with a righteous root.
Noah did not live in a city. He was a herdsman and his livelihood depended on the ability to move freely to where his flocks and herds could graze and children were to him always an unconditional blessing. They were God’s blessing to man.
So, the cities believed that too many children were a curse (It was expensive to feed and house them.) and the gods sent a flood to relieve the earth of its burden. Then they reduced the number of births to keep the population down.
To the Hebrew (those reciting the story of the flood) children were always a blessing. The curse was not overpopulation but, rather, the result of refusal to follow the commandments of God. The idea of overpopulation being a problem would be an absurdity to the ancient Hebrew.
So, the “flood myth” is the narrative used to communicate those truths about the flood.
**(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths)
iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)
DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.
Last edited:
th1b.taylor
Member
But the Word is of a myth.
Jim Parker
Member
Not_Now.Soon
Member
Jim, in response to saying I believe what the bible says, you replied by telling me what I think.
So yes, I said stop. It was not valid, nor was it agreed on as valid. Yet this is a repeated line of logic you used in this thread as if it is fact. Should I have commented on how well you know how I read the bible? Sarcastically remarked how well you know me. Honestly I think my short response was a better more restrained reply.
For why believing the bible as it says it is not a modern concept, re-read post #59. If you want to say more then give support to what you say. Otherwise can you blame me for not wanting to know? It was both rude and not based on the facts. You criticize me of not having facts, so do better then I have, and show some facts that we can understand. (I can't make heads or tails of post #2). Otherwise if it is not understood what good is it. It can neither be confirmed or refuted. Nor can it be useful to the people hearing it.
So yes, I said stop. It was not valid, nor was it agreed on as valid. Yet this is a repeated line of logic you used in this thread as if it is fact. Should I have commented on how well you know how I read the bible? Sarcastically remarked how well you know me. Honestly I think my short response was a better more restrained reply.
For why believing the bible as it says it is not a modern concept, re-read post #59. If you want to say more then give support to what you say. Otherwise can you blame me for not wanting to know? It was both rude and not based on the facts. You criticize me of not having facts, so do better then I have, and show some facts that we can understand. (I can't make heads or tails of post #2). Otherwise if it is not understood what good is it. It can neither be confirmed or refuted. Nor can it be useful to the people hearing it.
Not_Now.Soon
Member
I thought that I did address it in the rest of that post. The point as I understand it is to not take Genesis literally because of cultural bias to take it literally is a new and modern idea. Honestly I can't see that as true.
Not_Now.Soon
Member
Thankyou. That's something more to consider. I still think God can correct a misconception without wavering away from what actually happened. But this is some food for thought.
Last edited:
Jim Parker
Member
Ok
You completely misunderstood what I said.
I cannot know what you think beyond what you post.
Jim Parker
Member
And, just to clarify, I believe that the scriptural account of the flood is God's meaning given to the event.
iakov the fool
The whole point is that we read it through 21st century, Western mindset, that carries with it all manner of preconceived ideas. To read Genesis literally is to understand what the author intended, as seen through extremely different historical, social, and theological contexts.
The problem is that several here claim to just read the Bible as it is and that is how we are to understand it. But that begs the question--one presumes that their understanding has taken everything into consideration or is simply not biased, but that is very much not the case.
civilwarbuff
Member
Mar 16:15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.
That would be incredibly, if not impossibly, difficult to do based on the perspective of
"You believe it according to your Modern English, western, 21st century, translation while applying your modern, western, 21st century worldview." POV implying that only that perspective will lead man to what God really is telling us.
I believe the word of God was written in a manner for all people for all time; the Master of time, history, culture, society does not need help from man to make sure the meaning of His word is communicated through time.
Free & Jim Parker; from your posts it appears you would prefer that a small group of people alone determine what God has written, that small group would determine what it means and that same group would communicate it to the masses. We tried that for about 1500 years......didn't work out too well.
I will trust God to lead me to the truth, not man.
That would be incredibly, if not impossibly, difficult to do based on the perspective of
"You believe it according to your Modern English, western, 21st century, translation while applying your modern, western, 21st century worldview." POV implying that only that perspective will lead man to what God really is telling us.
I believe the word of God was written in a manner for all people for all time; the Master of time, history, culture, society does not need help from man to make sure the meaning of His word is communicated through time.
Free & Jim Parker; from your posts it appears you would prefer that a small group of people alone determine what God has written, that small group would determine what it means and that same group would communicate it to the masses. We tried that for about 1500 years......didn't work out too well.
I will trust God to lead me to the truth, not man.
Jim Parker
Member
Not at all. I would prefer that "literalists" would cease telling people the don't believe the Bible.
I am merely providing information. I'm not requesting anyone's endorsement.
You are reciting anti-Catholic propaganda of the reformers. The invention of "holy hatred for anything KATH-lick" does not have a scriptural base and is, in fact, contrary to the teachings of the LORD.
So willI. But I am not so arrogant as to assume that I have perfect hearing while anyone who disagrees with me does not.
civilwarbuff
Member
Where has any literalist said this?.....cuz I have not seen it.
Nothing anti-Catholic about it at all; the Church has been fractured since the 5th century though where the 'fault' lies depends on the denomination one belongs to......
Once more, where do you see that?.....because people disagree they are 'arrogant'?
I noticed you only replied to the 2nd half of my post.....how about the 1st half?
jasonc
Member
While i don't agree with the other argument about Genesis because of my usual Jewish views,I would be remiss in assuming that their culture and world view didn't via a revalation from God give us the tanach.Genesis had a first audience and culture.surely Abram didn't call God,YHVH, but AdonaI or El Shaddai.it's mentioned in Exodus.Moses coined Genesis via an Exodus experience, how would Noah know to call an animal unclean or clean since that list is in Leviticus?
civilwarbuff
Member
That is an excellent question......any idea how Jewish belief responds to that?
jasonc
Member
I know,they teach since Noah was a gentile and all up to Abram were not under the mosaic law and include just prior to Moses himself until he was told.
Noahide laws usually is what they say