A literal outlook of the creation narrative(s) in Genesis

[wavy]

Wavy,

I know someone who can parallel your intellect and competence of Hebrew and answer alot of your questions. At the risk of sounding like I'm buttering you up ;) the man I speak of is one of the best Hebrew Layman scholars that I have met. I worked with him briefly at http://www.ancient-hebrew.org (which he created as his research center) and have helped him edit his lexicon and literal translation of Genesis. He is working on a literal translation of the Bible but is going book by book, and is the first person that I know of to ever attempt to translate each word the same in every instance (regardless of awkwardness), and not only that but also looking at the ancient Hebrew pictograms and other etymological elements such as relations between 2, 3, and 4 root words to determine the closest original concrete meaning of each Hebrew word (because Hebrew has no abstract words - love is literally "bowels, intestines, or heart", anger is literally "nose" (because it turns red and the nostrils flare when angry), and he even translates el & elohim literally as "power(s)" (meaning a strong authority - God)). Look at the thread I created herebased off of insights from his work on the literal meaning of "God/elohim" with actual pictures of original ancient Hebrew letters, if you would like to see some of the amazing things that he does research into. I say all this to recommend him as an able and exceptional scholar, though he is not one by profession.

With that said look at his in-depth look at the poetry, parallelism, and original meanings and syntax of the Hebrew narrative in Genesis 1, and tell me what you think. And that's only one of many links (which I can show you later perhaps) which he has dedicated to the Genesis creation account. I'd be glad to work through it with you.

God Bless,

~Josh

Thanx and I'll check out your links. :wink:

 

[unred typo]

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/index.html


Cyber, Thank you for the great link. I haven’t had a chance to read all of it but what I have read was outstanding. It confirmed some things that I had suspected but was unable to substantiate. Excellent reading. Thanks again.

 

[Veritas]

Hi wavy,

Interesting topic. I was talking to someone in another thread about something like this.

I believe Moses was inspired by God and wrote Genesis. But I can understand that he might not have been able to comprehend what was being revealed to him in a modern sense.

I tend to take the view of a literal interpretation of Genesis however. Mostly because I know that "science" is really no place to put my faith into. That's not the point of science as I understand it.

 

[stranger]

stranger wrote:
If we consider what we call the book of genesis - and remove the chapter and verse numbers - it is one book with a beginning and an end.

wavy wrote:
I believe the book of Genesis is a compilation of different writings/traditions.

OK. This question is rhetorical:

Did you believe this before you started your investigation?

stranger wrote:
Is not what you refer to as the 'first narrative' the 'first part' of the narrative of the book of genesis?

You replied: No.

This I admit was a little subtle, insofar as logically, I would expect a yes answer. Chapter and verse numbers are a convention that could be replaced with another system - say eg, by narrative 1 for chapter 1, and chapter 2 by narrative 2 etc. It doesn't matter where the chapters end for the sake of this argument. Eventually you will reach the end of the book of Genesis. Do you now see why I expected a yes answer?

blessings: stranger

 

[stranger]

poetry. . .

In scripture what is and what is not poetry? If it has been said 'that today even a blank piece of paper is in danger of being called a work of art' how much more can be said about what is and what is not poetry.

Now the inference that songs are poetic seems reasonable. Textual evidence in the first five books of the Bible may produce eg the song of Moses. This is what I would call a real sighting or tangible evidence. It arises from the text itself. So I would start by asking is there this 'self identification' in the text? Is there any evidence of song in Gen 1,2 ?

blessings: stranger

 

[wavy]

,Did you believe this before you started your investigation?

I was recently a fundmentalist. An honest consideration of the evidence has lead me to take the Genesis account of creation in a different way.

This I admit was a little subtle, insofar as logically, I would expect a yes answer. Chapter and verse numbers are a convention that could be replaced with another system - say eg, by narrative 1 for chapter 1, and chapter 2 by narrative 2 etc. It doesn't matter where the chapters end for the sake of this argument. Eventually you will reach the end of the book of Genesis. Do you now see why I expected a yes answer?

No. I don't get what you're saying. I believe Genesis is only a "book" because throughout history different writings were interlinked to make one scroll. There is no complete "narrative" called "Genesis". There are only stories put together and called "Genesis".

As far as what is and is not poetry, study Hebrew parallelism.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[unred typo]

Read this account in it‘s entirety in Exodus, written as a song. Is it any less factual because it is sung and not written in deposition form?

Exodus 15
1Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.... etc.

Does having the account in Genesis put together out of many accounts make it less factual? Isn’t the job of the reader much like the investigator taking many descriptions of an incident and compiling the most logical truth from them?

8-)

 

[wavy]

No. Being "song" or "poetry" or "prose" has absolutely no connection to what is factual. How we determine what is factual and what is not is by empirical and critical means.

I have provided evidence that shows that the Genesis account of creation is not factual. You are ignoring it (known as the designated logical fallacy entitled "ignoring the counter-evidence") by bringing up an irrlevant point (that being poetry/song doesn't mean it isn't true). This is red herring argumentative fallacy known as a "straw man", since you are using it to try to refute my argument.

However, the nature of my argument is not that poetry = falsehood. The nature of my argument is the evidence I have disclosed to you demonstrating that this particular Hebraic use of poetry is not true.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[unred typo]

However, the nature of my argument is not that poetry = falsehood.

That’s fine. Why didn’t you say so? I thought you were implying that since it was just poetry, it was not factual.

The nature of my argument is the evidence I have disclosed to you demonstrating that this particular Hebraic use of poetry is not true.

Discrepancies with modern science:
A prime example is day 4 of creation understood from the scope of day 2. In day 2 God creates the firmament. We have the super-waters and the sub-waters, interpolated by this firmament/dome. In day 4 God places the luminaries he created (sun/moon/stars) in this firmament, the consequent implication being that there are waters above the sun/moon/stars. That's absurdity to the extreme from a scientific position.
Inconsistencies between the narratives:
In the first account, there are six days of creation. In the second, there is only one. This is only one example.

I’m not a student fresh out of Logic class but isn’t that an ‘argument from incredulity?’

Your modern science doesn’t have enough answers to spit at God. Your ideas of the universe will probably be considered “absurdity to the extreme from a scientific position†in the not too distant future if God doesn’t slam the book on science before then.

 

[stranger]

Hi Wavy,

I will get around to the content of your argument soon enough but for now bear with me. . .

Firstly,What is or what is not poetry is relevant since it is you who offer the poetic structure in Genesis 1 in the first instance. How important is the recognition of poetic structure in Genesis 1 to your argument?

The most qualified people to say what is or what is not poetry are the Jews themselves whose native tongue is modern day hebrew. With all due respect you and I are both thousands of years and twice removed from the culture and language of ancient Hebrew.

Poetry can be factual or non factual in that poetic genre is merely a literary representation of that which has been observed, it is not the thing in itself - be that a historical event or non-event.

Secondly, self identification in the text of 'song'eg song of Moses is more tangible evidence than an appeal to Hebrew parallelism. Which raises the question: Does Hebrew parallelism exist in non poetic narrative? If it does what does this do to your suggested framework?

Thirdly, Expressing something in poetic form does not negate it from being 'historical' or 'non-historical'. Do you agree or disagree with this proposition?


blessings: stranger

 

[stranger]

Hi Wavy,

No. I don't get what you're saying. I believe Genesis is only a "book" because throughout history different writings were interlinked to make one scroll. There is no complete "narrative" called "Genesis". There are only stories put together and called "Genesis".

Is it no you don't get the drift or no you disagree? If there is no complete narrative called 'genesis' which part is missing?

When you cite your title 'A literal outlook of the creation narrative(s) in Genesis' to what does the words 'in Genesis' refer if not the whole the book of Genesis?


blessings: stranger

 

[cyberjosh]

Wavy,

Did you get to look at that Hebrew link that I supplied you with on Genesis 1 yet?

~Josh

 

[stranger]

Hi Wavy,

Your initial OP is comprised of three sections:

1. Poetry:
2. Discrepancies with modern science:
3. Inconsistencies between the narratives:

I have been addressing point 1. No attempt has been made to refute points 2 and 3. Perhaps this removes your concerns about red herrings and straw men.

You wrote:

No. Being "song" or "poetry" or "prose" has absolutely no connection to what is factual. How we determine what is factual and what is not is by empirical and critical means.

As a poet myself you may as well be saying 'language' has no bearing on anything factual. Poetry is possibly the highest literary genre within language easily capable of accommodating the empirical, critical or factual.

blessings: stranger

 

[wavy]

I’m not a student fresh out of Logic class but isn’t that an ‘argument from incredulity?’

No. It's called evidence to the contrary. If some one tells me the sky is red and I look up and see that it is blue, then I have a valid argument.

Genesis says there is water above the sun, moon, and stars. Humanity has invented telescopes. With these creations, we can observe other stars and even galaxies many light years away from the sun, moon and stars that we can see with the naked eye...yet there's no water.

Your modern science doesn’t have enough answers to spit at God. Your ideas of the universe will probably be considered “absurdity to the extreme from a scientific position†in the not too distant future if God doesn’t slam the book on science before then.

So there's water above the sun/moon/stars and two different versions of creation occured. Okay.

All these red herrings, but no counter-evidence. That's really telling... :-?

 

[wavy]

Firstly,What is or what is not poetry is relevant since it is you who offer the poetic structure in Genesis 1 in the first instance. How important is the recognition of poetic structure in Genesis 1 to your argument?

The relevance of poetry deals with how I understand the narrative. Not whether it is right or wrong.

The most qualified people to say what is or what is not poetry are the Jews themselves whose native tongue is modern day hebrew. With all due respect you and I are both thousands of years and twice removed from the culture and language of ancient Hebrew.

Although you are a bit askew in your assessment, even if it was not poetry, that still doesn't tackle the evidence against the account's authenticity.

Poetry can be factual or non factual in that poetic genre is merely a literary representation of that which has been observed, it is not the thing in itself - be that a historical event or non-event.

Agreed. Anything else now that we are beyond this point? I already made it clear in my recent posts that poetry does not dispense with true history.

Secondly, self identification in the text of 'song'eg song of Moses is more tangible evidence than an appeal to Hebrew parallelism.

Firstly, this is a non-point. The song of Moses has nothing to do with Genesis. You're speculating on this "song" idea because you think the premise of my argument is that poetry = falsehood. Now you are appealing to the use of "song" in a completely different book to mark poetry to demonstrate that if it (the creation narrative) was poetry, then "song" is likely to be used.

The problem is, however, it's clear you don't know exactly what you're talking about and are building up a straw man with an irrelevant point. Your conjecture does zero to my argument.

Which raises the question: Does Hebrew parallelism exist in non poetic narrative? If it does what does this do to your suggested framework?

Yes, it does. Example:

Jeremiah 31:31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

The bold is a parallel. It means the same thing.

What does it do to my [scholarly, noted, prevalent] "suggested framework"? Nothing. The clear emphasis of Hebrew poetry in the creation account is protruded. It's also evident that the author believed what he wrote was historical. Maybe not chronologically, as the link to Benner cybershark provided proposes, but elements of what the culture believed was literally and historically true is contained therein (like there being a solid dome above the earth). Benner's "block logic", I believe, is credible because there are other examples of parallels besides repetition.

Consider these parallels:

• Day 1: Light (dark,light/day,night divided) = Day 4: Celestials (sun guides the day, moon guides night).

• Day 2: Firmament (places the heavens above the primordial waters) = Day 5: Sea creatures/birds (corresponds to water and heavens/sky)

• Day 3: Sub-waters conglomerated/land appearing/vegetation = Day 6: Animals/man (both land mammals who eat the vegetation).

Although this may seem to dispel any notions of contradiction between the first and seconds accounts, it still presents a problem for fundamentalists, because then a literal six day ordered creation is impossible anyway (if it's not intended to be chronological).

Thirdly, Expressing something in poetic form does not negate it from being 'historical' or 'non-historical'.

You have already made this point above, and I have already acknowledged it. However, you're no further disproving my claims.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[wavy]

If there is no complete narrative called 'genesis' which part is missing?

I don't think you get my point. "Narrative" implies consistent authorship. Nothing is missing, but the entire entire book of Genesis isn't a unified "narrative" written by a single author. It is a compilation (put together, in all likelihood, by a single person).

When you cite your title 'A literal outlook of the creation narrative(s) in Genesis' to what does the words 'in Genesis' refer if not the whole the book of Genesis?

I was speaking of specifically Genesis 1:1-31 through Genesis 2:1-3.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[wavy]

Perhaps this removes your concerns about red herrings and straw men.

No, only confirms it.

As a poet myself you may as well be saying 'language' has no bearing on anything factual. Poetry is possibly the highest literary genre within language easily capable of accommodating the empirical, critical or factual.

You missed the point. What I was saying was that whether or not something is poetry/prose has nothing to do with facts. You don't determine facts by specifically poetry/prose. You don't undermine what is considered to be factual by poetry/prose. You've mistaken what I said to mean we don't communicate facts through poetry/prose.

My point, considering unred typo's concern, was that my argument is NOT that poetry makes the creation account untrue. What makes it, imo, untrue is what we know and perceive through empirical science.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[stranger]

Wavy wrote:

You missed the point. What I was saying was that whether or not something is poetry/prose has nothing to do with facts. You don't determine facts by specifically poetry/prose. You don't undermine what is considered to be factual by poetry/prose. You've mistaken what I said to mean we don't communicate facts through poetry/prose.

If we communicate facts through prose/poetry: How is it possible that prose/poetry has nothing to do with facts?

If prose/poetry has nothing to do with facts THEN we don't communicate facts through poetry. We are talking about fiction.

If we communicate facts through prose/poetry then prose/poetry has relation to facts. We are talking about non-fiction.

It is presumably understood that:
Prose/poetry are not the facts but offer an interpretation of facts unless the prose/poetry is fiction.

Am I still missing the point?

Blessings: stranger

 

[stranger]

Wavy,

It is not enough that a text displays parallelism for it to be counted as poetic since non poetic literature also displays parallelism. Wavy you have to identify something that is distinctive about poetry other than 'parallelism' if you want to provide evidence for your structure in Genesis 1 cited in the opening OP. I cited the song of Moses as an example only of the type of evidence that would convince me. Your hermenuetic suffers as a result.

blessings: stranger

 

[unred typo]

No. It's called evidence to the contrary. If some one tells me the sky is red and I look up and see that it is blue, then I have a valid argument.

Genesis says there is water above the sun, moon, and stars. Humanity has invented telescopes. With these creations, we can observe other stars and even galaxies many light years away from the sun, moon and stars that we can see with the naked eye...yet there's no water.

Genesis said there was water somewhere out there. It doesn’t really give us a galactic latitude/longitude. It really doesn’t put it beyond the sun, moon and stars, but above the expanse of heaven surrounding our earth. The light of the sun, moon, stars was set to appear in our heavens, not actually the bodies themselves. If the water there was used to flood the earth, then perhaps sucked off as a comet and/or frozen at the poles, it wouldn’t be there any more, would it? Where do those comets come from?

The whole account is quite vague and unprovable, but that is not to say it is wrong. I like it. You don’t. Get yourself your own creation account. I don’t believe you have enough scientific facts to piece together the real truth without using the Genesis story, but that is just my opinion. You are entitled to yours. I have seen enough scientific bias to know you have to take what they say with more than a grain of salt… you’ll need a shaker and a good strong margarita. :smt104