How to interpert Genesis

[Nathan]

It won't matter in the end.
We won't be judged by what we (think we) know but by what we do.

I agree.

I suppose I just use it for a 'check' list of sorts. The ones who I find deliberately overlooking how the earth was created and destroyed go on the "should not believe/follow" list.

That's just one of the check boxes of course.

 

[Jeremyj]

where it says "darkness was upon the face of the earth" I take to mean the ash from the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs.

 

[Jim Parker]

The ones who I find deliberately overlooking how the earth was created and destroyed go on the "should not believe/follow" list.

Right along with those who have no idea what the word, "literature" means.

 

[Nathan]

Right along with those who have no idea what the word, "literature" means.

Eh, I am not too concerned with literature. Doesn't matter to me if someone knows what it is or isn't.

 

[Jim Parker]

Eh, I am not too concerned with literature. Doesn't matter to me if someone knows what it is or isn't.

Then you won't know what the Scriptures are or are not.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Then you won't know what the Scriptures are or are not.

Any written word, and today probably any spoken word, can be considered literature. Could you explain your focus on the 'literature' side of scripture as that seems very important to you. Understand, you are speaking to the fact that most people view scripture in a strictly scriptural perspective.

 

[Nathan]

Then you won't know what the Scriptures are or are not.

Sure I will.

1 John 2:27 (ESV)
But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie--just as it has taught you, abide in him.

The Spirit says those who deliberately overlook how the earth was formed and destroyed are liars.

 

[Nathan]

Any written word, and today probably any spoken word, can be considered literature. Could you explain your focus on the 'literature' side of scripture as that seems very important to you. Understand, you are speaking to the fact that most people view scripture in a strictly scriptural perspective.

Scripture is indeed literary in Biblical form(collection and organization), but the nice thing is it's still Scripture.

 

[JohnDB]

...there was evening and there was morning the third day.

Ok. So evening and morning frame the night...not the day time.

And the night is only half of a 24 hour period...not a full day.

And how can you have a day when the sun wasn't created till the 4th day?

 

[Jim Parker]

Any written word, and today probably any spoken word, can be considered literature.

In a broad sense, yes.

Could you explain your focus on the 'literature' side of scripture as that seems very important to you.

It's not a "side." It is a description of the medium of communication.
As literature, scripture contains all the literary devices which we see in the literature of all cultures. It is important to be able to determine what is to be taken literally ("Do no work on the Sabbath."), what is to be taken as metaphor, ("I am the bread of life.") what is parable (Scripture tends to identify them in so many words.) and what is a genealogy and what is myth.
To decide to take everything as strictly literal is to decide to distort scripture.

Understand, you are speaking to the fact that most people view scripture in a strictly scriptural perspective.

That is a tautology.
It states absolutely nothing yet there are many who would emphatically give their "Amen" to it.
You have defined scripture as scripture.
If someone asked, "What is a coin?" and you answered, "A coin is a coin." They could reasonably assume that you were either mocking them or, possibly, that you were "a mite touched in the head." (Bless your heart.)
Defining scripture as scripture reveals a lack of a clear concept of what scripture might be.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

The Spirit says those who deliberately overlook how the earth was formed and destroyed are liars.

So, you calling me a liar?

 

[th1b.taylor]

I don't think the bible in any suggests a lesser value to holding onto the truth. Laws of having a second witness in testimony, and laws and teachings against false witnesses give an account to the importance God gives to an accurate account. I see no reason to apply this idea of modern thinking is different then ancient thinking. Literal might not have been in their vocabulary but truth and accuracy are the same meaning as literal in too many ways. God's written wird would not start out on lies based around other cultures.

And the Mighty, Unstoppable Hand of God was on them and He will not bw resisted. And therein is the issue! How big is this god you worship? With my God, there are no parameters that contain Him. Why He Wrote the Book of Life before He created the first planet of the first Universe because He is not constrained by the Time/Space Continuum He created for our use while He sat on His Throne in the Spiritual Realm. God knew the very moment Bill Taylor would cave in and submit to His Rule because, some six thousand years ago God had already seen that Bill would submit to Him, on stage at Porkie's Bar about 10 minutes before 1990 was officially in, yeah God knew how Bar
Time worked.

Folks get Predestination all mixed up because they Cherry Pick the scriptures instead of reading the book, just the way God had it assembled.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That is a tautology.
It states absolutely nothing yet there are many who would emphatically give their "Amen" to it.
You have defined scripture as scripture.
If someone asked, "What is a coin?" and you answered, "A coin is a coin." They could reasonably assume that you were either mocking them or, possibly, that you were "a mite touched in the head." (Bless your heart.)
Defining scripture as scripture reveals a lack of a clear concept of what scripture might be.

No, it states that is is scripture, the word of God. Your comment almost sound as if you are denigrating any view of scripture outside of a literary perspective as ........not worthy of consideration. And yes, a coin is a coin......scripture is scripture.......it is what it is no matter how man may try to re-inpterpret it.....

 

[Silmarien]

Reason is good, but it's only as good as our scope of knowledge. Tradition is likewise good, and God used traditions to pass down history in the holidays and rituals of the Old Testiment. So traditions are also good because they can be from wisdom passed down that a person can take the benifit from without fully understanding it. But I would still say that scripture is more important still. I would count scripture as a higher degree of authority capable of correcting the other too. My reasoning comes from two verses. In Mathew 5:17-20 Jesus tells that has not come to abolish the law and that no aspect written in the law will disappear until all is acomplished. Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 explains that all scripture is God breathed, or inspired by God (depending on the wording of the translation).

For context of of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 I would also like to consider the chapter as a whole. Verses one through nine speak about what kind of people will be in the last days. Verse 5 says to have nothing to do with them, and verse 9 explains that that they won't get very far I their wickedness because everyone can see through their folly. Take note of verse 5 though and it's last discription of the people of that time. To have a form of godliness but denying it's power. Moving on to the second half of 2 Timothy 3. Verses 10-17 are Paul's encouragements to Timothy to encourage him in what he already knows. That the scripture is God breathed and good for teaching, rebuking, and training in rightousness.

With these in mind I would lean on scriptures more then I would tradition or on our own reasoning. Though I don't mean to cast those aside, but put them in their place comparatively.

This all still begs the question of how does one rely on Scripture. Both passages really just seem to be pointing to the authority of Scripture, not to its historicity or the insistence upon a literal reading. If someone goes fullblown Pelagian, there's probably a problem with their hermeneutics, but I think those passages make claims about the spiritual truth and binding nature of Scripture, not necessarily its scientific and historical contents. And the problem that I'm trying to point out is that on this specific issue, you can't rely upon Scripture itself to tell you how to read it. It's actually an appeal to tradition and reason to say that certain passages ought to be read literally--Evangelical Protestant traditions and positivist reasoning. And there's nothing wrong with that, except when dealing with people who reject those particular traditions and philosophical understandings. Then you end up in an interpretative free-for-all where nobody can even agree upon the rules.

This makes more sense to me calling parts of scripture non historic or myth, instead of calling it allegorical. I disagree with that line of logic because of the reasons I give above from Mathew 5 and 2 Timothy 2, but it makes more sence because it accounts for the details of the stories. Names, geography, specific details that make no sense to include if it was an allegory. Still I think God had a say in what was written, and I don't think God allows any lies in those words. So literal is the basis for the book of Genesis.

Yeah, the only one I would really consider allegory would be Genesis 2-3. The rest doesn't really follow allegorical patterns, though I would still say that reading it as history in the modern sense is anachronistic.

Of course, being allegorical doesn't mean that something is untrue. Allegory is often better at conveying truth than something based in fact, especially when it comes to religion.

For me the bible has shown it's inspired out of studying it. A few occasions while reading it, expecially when I was first reading the bible, it felt like the bible was being read with me, not just by me. As if God or one of His angels, or the Holy Spirit sat down with me and read the words with me, teaching me and encouraging me in it's readings. I can't think of the bible as a work of men any more after that. God's involved and I attribute Him to be it's author and protector of it's words. That said I get what you mean that whether it's literal or not doesn't make as much sence if there's nothing more to gather from what it says. What do the stories and verses actually say from their stories? That's a good approach, and in my opinion the more you know from other verses of the bible, the more light is shined on each part you read. There's more understanding out of each verse with more study of the bible as a whole. That's my opinion.

The assumptions you bring to it probably play a role too. I can't look at things like the inconsistencies between the Gospel accounts and not see it as a human document, but that's only a problem if you don't understand how eyewitness accounts work. The Pauline and Johannine epistles, though... there's stuff there that does scream "inspiration" at me. I've seen skeptics try to compare the Apostles to religious leaders like Joseph Smith, but I really don't see a pattern of personal gain or waging war à la Muhammed. By their fruits you shall know them, I suppose. I think I'm still in the process of evaluating everyone as witnesses and not terribly concerned with the degree to which God may or may not have been guiding their hand. But the NT at least was written in a relatively short period of time; the OT is obviously a lot trickier.

 

[Jim Parker]

No, it states that is is scripture, the word of God. Your comment almost sound as if you are denigrating any view of scripture outside of a literary perspective as ........not worthy of consideration. And yes, a coin is a coin......scripture is scripture.......it is what it is no matter how man may try to re-inpterpret it.....

Please. Look up "Tautology"
You defined "scripture" as "scripture."
When you define scripture by saying it's "scripture" you have said absolutely nothing.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

You are attempting to force a Modern English linguistic concept from a 21st century, western, scientific, information age culture into an ancient, pre-scientific, eastern, iron age culture. That is the epitome of trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

The bible says it happened the way it says it. I believe it the way it says it.

Jim I get what your saying and I just don't agree with it. I assume uou're in the same boat except instead of just understanding what I'm saying you are talking to multiple people and disagreeing, trying to reason with us all. You've evrn shown experation (or disrespect) with writting a sigh.

I assume this conversation isn't going to be fixed by heavier arguing, and you've made your point on literal being a modern concept. I disagree with that on a simple reason that can be applied throughout history before modern english. "The bible says so and I believe the bible as it says it."

Before you come back to reply. Please understand. You disagree and are talking to multiple people. Take a break. A day or two at least. Then if you wish. Come back after feeling refreshed.

 

[Jim Parker]

I believe it the way it says it.

You believe it according to your Modern English, western, 21st century, translation while applying your modern, western, 21st century worldview.
But not how it was originally communicated.

I disagree with that on a simple reason that can be applied throughout history before modern english. "The bible says so and I believe the bible as it says it."

The problem is what the Bible was actually meant to say.
It wasn't written to teach science or history.
So you are basically saying that you don't care and you're going to force science and history INTO the Bible where it doesn't belong and where it wasn't anywhere to be found in the original texts.
Suit yourself.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

This all still begs the question of how does one rely on Scripture. Both passages really just seem to be pointing to the authority of Scripture, not to its historicity or the insistence upon a literal reading.

One issue I have with this topic is considering scripture authorutive but not an authority in history. It doesn't make sense to me, and feels like logic pressed too hard trying to make it fit. It's either an authority or it isn't. I don't think that's over simplifying the matter. But it is how I see it.

If someone goes fullblown Pelagian, there's probably a problem with their hermeneutics, but I think those passages make claims about the spiritual truth and binding nature of Scripture, not necessarily its scientific and historical contents. And the problem that I'm trying to point out is that on this specific issue, you can't rely upon Scripture itself to tell you how to read it. It's actually an appeal to tradition and reason to say that certain passages ought to be read literally--Evangelical Protestant traditions and positivist reasoning. And there's nothing wrong with that, except when dealing with people who reject those particular traditions and philosophical understandings. Then you end up in an interpretative free-for-all where nobody can even agree upon the rules.

Here I think is the bulk of the issue. Not how do we intepret, but how do we believe. You mentioned science and history. But I'll focus on the science element. Sience is about explaining things. Observe, experiment, hypotheize in order to predict and explain, check results. The bible isn't like that. Take Job for example. In the end of the book God answers Job for all the questions he gave and about the suffering he had. God's answer was blunt but true to tge bible's form. God is God. He is the authority, the great majer of the universe, and the ultimate answer to it all. He is not accountable to us, and therefore His explainations for why and how are not nessassary. We should accept what God says because He is God. The same logic is applied in some of the laws. I don't remember which books he said this. Exodus, Levitigus, or Deuteromony. After in some of the laws given the phrase "I am the LORD" follows. They don't require an explaination gor why they are to obeyed because God said to do it. In this way the bible is not a science book. I see no reason to not count it as a historical authority though. It seems to me that modern arceology confirms more about the bible but says very litle to nothing at all to give counter evidance of what was written in the bible. Because of tgis yes I count even Genesus and it's first chapters as historical. It is accurate because it cones ftom God. That's all I need and hopefully is all abyone else needs too.

Yeah, the only one I would really consider allegory would be Genesis 2-3. The rest doesn't really follow allegorical patterns, though I would still say that reading it as history in the modern sense is anachronistic.

Of course, being allegorical doesn't mean that something is untrue. Allegory is often better at conveying truth than something based in fact, especially when it comes to religion.



The assumptions you bring to it probably play a role too. I can't look at things like the inconsistencies between the Gospel accounts and not see it as a human document, but that's only a problem if you don't understand how eyewitness accounts work. The Pauline and Johannine epistles, though... there's stuff there that does scream "inspiration" at me. I've seen skeptics try to compare the Apostles to religious leaders like Joseph Smith, but I really don't see a pattern of personal gain or waging war à la Muhammed. By their fruits you shall know them, I suppose. I think I'm still in the process of evaluating everyone as witnesses and not terribly concerned with the degree to which God may or may not have been guiding their hand. But the NT at least was written in a relatively short period of time; the OT is obviously a lot trickier.

If you can, just read the bible as it is. In whatever transkation you have readily available in hand. (Not digital, just easier and better to flip through in my opinon) and from there you will see so many philosophies and traditions challenged that are competing christian understandings. Catholic tradition calls some of their ministers and priests "Father," though Jesus says yo only Call God Father. The same verse Jesus give a simular reasoning of saying we have only one teacher and to not call eachother "teacher" (rabi) yet protastents probabably make the same error with titles of pastor. The ideas of the trinity are confirmed and challenged both several times. Our ideas, philosophies. And tradations are challenged more often then not. Read it through and through and gave either all the traditions you know on the table or none of them on the table. And just read.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

You believe it according to your Modern English, western, 21st century, translation while applying your modern, western, 21st century worldview.
But not how it was originally communicated.

STOP. You've made this point, and it was not agreed on as valid. Repeating it will not valudate it. It will not strengthen it. It will bot help. As I saud before. Take a break from this thread. Calm a bit down and chew the fat that has been handed to you per counter points or bluntly not listening to your repeated point. If you don't take a break and deside to keep repeating yourself you will only try tge patience of those you are talking to. Take a break and cone back refreshed. With more thoughts. Or not at all. Sorry if that is too blunt for you, but brother I don't want to see you get as frustratedcas you appear to be getting. Or more frustrated from there.

The problem is what the Bible was actually meant to say.
It wasn't written to teach science or history.
So you are basically saying that you don't care and you're going to force science and history INTO the Bible where it doesn't belong and where it wasn't anywhere to be found in the original texts.
Suit yourself.

History and science are not the same thing. Science is used to discover history, regardless what is written about it in texts or tomes or cave walls. The bible is not science based and I do not force it that way. God says so ething in the bible I believe it the way it says,it. I need no explaination from there. I'll believe it before I find an explaination. If I ever do find one. The history on the bible IS HISTORY.

Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samual, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester, Job, And much of Deuteronomy. All of it is history. But not just is it history it's also in the bible. Thus I see it as relible and accurate. Not a hard concept. Defeninately not a new and modern concept. So I see no reason to see this reasoning of reliable and accurate as not being there throughout the ages. It is not modern.

There, it's been said. It does not need to be re-said. Do not take it as rude if you repete your point and I instead point to this post.

Instead. Take. A. Break.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Good advice Not_Now.Soon . We get it Jim Parker . You've stated your position and it's worth exploring and considering. But others see it differently including experts in the field of biblical studies. There will always be differences in our understanding. In the meantime, let's have fun and share our thoughts with grace as we are called to do.