The Literal Meaning of Genesis

[Barbarian]

On the science forum, someone expressed interest in looking at the ancient Christian thinking on the creation story in Genesis.

I suggested a review of the thinking of the most influential ancient Christian theologian might be a good start. St. Augustine of Hippo is highly regarded in all three major branches of Christianity. His work, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, is the single most influential study of Genesis in the Christian Church.

Hopefully, we can respectfully talk about Augustine's ideas (which are not all considered settled viewpoints by most Christians) and how they affected our understanding of God and creation.

There are two major issues of concern for modern Christians:

• Augustine, after trying for years to interpret the Creation story in Genesis as a literal history, finally concluded that it was not a literal timetable or sequence, but rather that the Genesis week was a literary structure used by God to explain the meaning of creation.
• Augustine held that creation itself was authoritative, and that reason and experience would never contradict scripture. He had no use for people who denied reason and evidence in understanding scripture. And he cautioned his fellow Christians to be ready to change their opinions if new evidence showed the old ideas to be wrong.

I'll have some observations by the end of the week.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Though, the invite in the other thread is still open for you. If you want to explain things on your own terms that's fine. We'll see your observations at the time you write them.

 

[jasonc]

Do keep on mind augustine wasn't fluent in Hebrew,yeah jews laugh if I tell them an eye for eye is a literal command.they will say it's not even the word for eye but view.

 

[Barbarian]

Do keep on mind augustine wasn't fluent in Hebrew,yeah jews laugh if I tell them an eye for eye is a literal command.they will say it's not even the word for eye but view.

Apparently, his Greek wasn't so good, either.

The "eye for an eye" thing goes back to the Code of Hammurabi. It became a figure of speech in Mesopotamia for "justice will be served."

Didn't know about the "view", but obviously, the meaning remains, regardless. Sounds like someone was doing a play on words only a scholar would catch.

 

[Edward]

On the science forum, someone expressed interest in looking at the ancient Christian thinking on the creation story in Genesis.

I suggested a review of the thinking of the most influential ancient Christian theologian might be a good start. St. Augustine of Hippo is highly regarded in all three major branches of Christianity. His work, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, is the single most influential study of Genesis in the Christian Church.

Hopefully, we can respectfully talk about Augustine's ideas (which are not all considered settled viewpoints by most Christians) and how they affected our understanding of God and creation.

There are two major issues of concern for modern Christians:

• Augustine, after trying for years to interpret the Creation story in Genesis as a literal history, finally concluded that it was not a literal timetable or sequence, but rather that the Genesis week was a literary structure used by God to explain the meaning of creation.
• Augustine held that creation itself was authoritative, and that reason and experience would never contradict scripture. He had no use for people who denied reason and evidence in understanding scripture. And he cautioned his fellow Christians to be ready to change their opinions if new evidence showed the old ideas to be wrong.

I'll have some observations by the end of the week.

Are you of the position that science is something different than scripture, as in, not related to scripture, has nothing to do with it?

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Yes?

Well, since God created the universe and everything in it, science is about understanding God and His creation. See what I mean?

 

[Douglas Summers]

On the science forum, someone expressed interest in looking at the ancient Christian thinking on the creation story in Genesis.

I suggested a review of the thinking of the most influential ancient Christian theologian might be a good start. St. Augustine of Hippo is highly regarded in all three major branches of Christianity. His work, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, is the single most influential study of Genesis in the Christian Church.

Hopefully, we can respectfully talk about Augustine's ideas (which are not all considered settled viewpoints by most Christians) and how they affected our understanding of God and creation.

There are two major issues of concern for modern Christians:

• Augustine, after trying for years to interpret the Creation story in Genesis as a literal history, finally concluded that it was not a literal timetable or sequence, but rather that the Genesis week was a literary structure used by God to explain the meaning of creation.
• Augustine held that creation itself was authoritative, and that reason and experience would never contradict scripture. He had no use for people who denied reason and evidence in understanding scripture. And he cautioned his fellow Christians to be ready to change their opinions if new evidence showed the old ideas to be wrong.

I'll have some observations by the end of the week.

St. Augustine was a mortal man. He is fallible like any other man that is self willed religious. The Bible is a Spiritual book. It is Christ that confirmed creation. If you do not believe Him, then it is the intrusion of mans will in the sphere of the will of God. Creation (Matt. 19:4) ;The flood (Luke 17:27) ; Destruction of Sodom (Luke 17:29)

 

[calvin]

St. Augustine was a mortal man. He fallible like any other man that is self willed religious. The Bible is a Spiritual book. It is Christ that confirmed creation. If you do not believe Him, then it is the intrusion of mans will in the sphere of the will of God. Creation (Matt. 19:4) ;The flood (Luke 17:27) ; Destruction of Sodom (Luke 17:29)

Hello calvin here,
That is one reason why when it comes to matters of faith, I am 'Bible Alone'
I can't have faith in a mere man's understanding no matter how many Phds he has.
John Shelby Spong... Ba, Master of divinity, 2 honorary doctorates,
Professor Barbara Thiering is another one that comes to mind. several degrees and doctorates, but definitely not to be listened to or guided by IMO

 

[jasonc]

Apparently, his Greek wasn't so good, either.

The "eye for an eye" thing goes back to the Code of Hammurabi. It became a figure of speech in Mesopotamia for "justice will be served."

Didn't know about the "view", but obviously, the meaning remains, regardless. Sounds like someone was doing a play on words only a scholar would catch.

The word for eye,isn't the word for what we see with.it can be translated as such.

However, the 613 laws didn't come by man but from God directly as He wrote them on a tablet.the eye for an eye I'd directly on that tablet.

Jews will tell you what they borrowed from christian, and aramaic.it's not like I don't go read up my heritage.

Btw the words concepts of hell ,sheol ,hades aren't new If we go there.etymology of sheol predates the bible .does that mean God showed the aramaic culture His nature?

 

[Mike]

Please keep in mind the unique rules specific to the Theology Forum found here. Since this was started and remains in it, this thread cannot be filled with opinions and no scriptural support.

Barbarian, if you read the rules, you'll see that you should have waited until you were prepared to give your position before posting the OP.

 

[Randy]

Apparently, his Greek wasn't so good, either.

The "eye for an eye" thing goes back to the Code of Hammurabi. It became a figure of speech in Mesopotamia for "justice will be served."

Didn't know about the "view", but obviously, the meaning remains, regardless. Sounds like someone was doing a play on words only a scholar would catch.

I thought God was before the world began.
The law he gave to Moses.
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

 

[Barbarian]

I thought God was before the world began.

He was. He just wrote to humans in language they'd find understandable. So He alluded to the code of Hammurabi when it was useful to make a point.

You will find numerous instances in the OT and NT where existing terms, figures of speech and so on are used by God to make a point. Remember, His intent was to be understood.

And if using common usage of words or alluding to specific things made that possible, then that's what He did. Remember, he wasn't writing the text Himself, He was inspiring humans to do it.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

He was. He just wrote to humans in language they'd find understandable. So He alluded to the code of Hammurabi when it was useful to make a point.

You will find numerous instances in the OT and NT where existing terms, figures of speech and so on are used by God to make a point. Remember, His intent was to be understood.

And if using common usage of words or alluding to specific things made that possible, then that's what He did. Remember, he wasn't writing the text Himself, He was inspiring humans to do it.

This almost makes the laws sound shallow Barbarian. As if the words were only there to make a point instead on being everlasting and timeless. Mathew 5:18 shows it as more.

 

[Barbarian]

This almost makes the laws sound shallow Barbarian.

As if His word is not profound if it's simple and understandable? Something I learned a long time ago is that if you can't explain something simply, you don't really understand it. God is certainly capable of explaining His will in an understandable way. If Jesus was found of using popular sayings and idiom to make His point, why would Genesis not show the same thing?

As if the words were only there to make a point instead on being everlasting and timeless. Mathew 5:18 shows it as more.

I have more respect for clarity than for obscurity. Remember, it's God talking. And He wants all of us to get it.

 

[markathome]

So are we now worshiping the book of Hammurabi?
Try to remember Paul in Romans 2:14-15 done explained all this stuff ~2000 years ago.

Hammurabi is known for the Code of Hammurabi, one of the earliest surviving codes of law in recorded history.
From 1792 BC to 1750 BC.
The Code of Hammurabi is the most well-known of the cuneiform laws, but there were a number of precursor laws.
Timeline

• c. 2350 BC - Reforms of Urukagina of Lagash - not extant, but referenced in other sources.
• c. 2060 BC - Code of Ur-Nammu (or Shulgi?) of Ur - Neo-Sumerian (Ur-III). Earliest code of which fragments have been discovered. The code speaks of witchcraft and the flight of slaves.
• c. 1934-1924 BC - Code of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin - With a typical epilogue and prologue, the law deals with penalties, the rights of man, right of kings, marriages, and more.
• c. 1800 BC - Laws of the city of Eshnunna (sometimes ascribed to king Bilalama)
• c. 1758 BC - Code of Hammurabi - The most famous, and also the most preserved of the ancient laws. Discovered in December 1901, it contains over 282 paragraphs of text, not including the prologue and epilogue.
• c. 1500-1300 BC - Assyrian law
• c. 1500-1400 BC - Hittite laws[2]

 

[calvin]

He was. He just wrote to humans in language they'd find understandable. So He alluded to the code of Hammurabi when it was useful to make a point.

You will find numerous instances in the OT and NT where existing terms, figures of speech and so on are used by God to make a point. Remember, His intent was to be understood.

And if using common usage of words or alluding to specific things made that possible, then that's what He did. Remember, he wasn't writing the text Himself, He was inspiring humans to do it.

Hello, calvin here
Barbarian, reading your 'words' leaves me thinking that you are implying the Lord was not the originator or wisdom, of laws and of moral codes.
The reality though is that even if there were laws and moral codes and words of wisdom that predated Moses, these were also inspired by God.
I'm sure you don't mean to imply that God thought "hey that's not bad, I think I'll use that one". That is the way you are coming across at times though.(to me at least)

 

[markathome]

Well the step after this is to get all the songs, chants, tweets & local redneck sayings together and write a new holy book called the hamuran and satan can be the hamburglar? If need be create a new non-sāmek non-inspired language where our god starts with the 1st letter since we are Number 1. Oops, that has been done already.

 

[Barbarian]

ello, calvin here
Barbarian, reading your 'words' leaves me thinking that you are implying the Lord was not the originator or wisdom, of laws and of moral codes.

To be precise, God inspired men who wrote what He inspired them to write. Did they use their own words? Not when God had a specific lesson to impart to us, as He always did.

The reality though is that even if there were laws and moral codes and words of wisdom that predated Moses, these were also inspired by God.

That's what St. Paul is telling you in Romans 1:20.

I'm sure you don't mean to imply that God thought "hey that's not bad, I think I'll use that one". That is the way you are coming across at times though.(to me at least)

Maybe you and I mean different things by "the Bible is the word of God."

I think it means He inspired men who wrote what He inspired them to write.

 

[Douglas Summers]

As if His word is not profound if it's simple and understandable? Something I learned a long time ago is that if you can't explain something simply, you don't really understand it. God is certainly capable of explaining His will in an understandable way. If Jesus was found of using popular sayings and idiom to make His point, why would Genesis not show the same thing?



I have more respect for clarity than for obscurity. Remember, it's God talking. And He wants all of us to get it.

The Mosaic law is Spiritual (Rom. 7:14). Holy , righteous and good (Rom. 7:12). The Hammurabi was a carnal law. The Hammurabi law was written to make one self righteous in the sight of men. The Mosaic law was to condemn sin in sinful man and send them to the Lord and they became righteous before God.

 

[Randy]

He was. He just wrote to humans in language they'd find understandable. So He alluded to the code of Hammurabi when it was useful to make a point.

You will find numerous instances in the OT and NT where existing terms, figures of speech and so on are used by God to make a point. Remember, His intent was to be understood.

And if using common usage of words or alluding to specific things made that possible, then that's what He did. Remember, he wasn't writing the text Himself, He was inspiring humans to do it.

So God heard of those specific punishments (as that is what they were) and thought thats a good idea Hammi I use them as they couldn't understand otherwise?? Ahhh No

And there is a difference between governmental authority (judicial system) vs personal revenge. Otherwise no laws could be enforced and a state of lawlessness would exist. If someone wrongs you Gods perfection as shown through Jesus states forgive them and do not seek revenge. However the governing authorities would arrest a lawbreaker and take them before a judge. If found guilty the punishment would be inline with what is written in the law.


Randy

 

[Barbarian]

So God heard of those specific punishments (as that is what they were) and thought thats a good idea Hammi

I think you have it backwards. Perhaps you aren't familiar with Romans 1:20:
Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

You should understand that Hammurabi already knew, as all men do, natural law given by God, and acted on that. You're thinking that God copied from Hammurabi, when it was the other way around.

Read St. Paul's letter to the Romans and see if you don't change your mind.