How to interpert Genesis

[jasonc]

Hebrew isn't difficult to learn if you have the money.

The jews say that the history is a topical one ,key figures.we do the same with the history we learn but not in how we record it.we learn by survey of key markers.I could spend years just on ww2!

 

[Jim Parker]

I figure if I'm not God then I don't know how He did things,

But you said He wrote the scriptures. How can you know that unless you know something about how He did that?

ust that He did them 100% correct.

No one is questioning that.
However, our understanding of those scriptures has no guarantee of being any where near 100% correct.

If Jesus used literal interpretations, then I figure it was literal.

For example?

I'm not going to put my pea brain knowledge up against Gods and consider that He meant something other than what He said.

Ah! But you are ready and willing to declare that you know what He meant.
I see a bit of a conflict there.

There are no doubt some metaphoric language used, but there is some that is quoted as being literal in the NT.

And "literal" could easily be in the eye of the beholder but not in the hand of the inspired writer or on the lips of the speaker.

It still boils down to your personal opinion based on, as you said, your "pea brain knowledge."

iakov the fool

 

[Edward]

What do you mean by that?
Certainly God didn't take pen and paper, write them, and then hand them to men.

Of course.
But how did God write them?

What do you mean by "error"?
Are you applying a modern, western, concept of historical reporting to ancient, middle eastern literature? Yes, you are. That's like having Peter talk about airplanes.

You are again inserting you modern, western, understanding of the concept "literal" into a society which would have no idea what you are talking about.
And, aside from His parables, (which the scriptures specifically identify as parables) there is not a single shred of evidence as to what Jesus did or did not consider "literal" and it is ludicrous to imagine that He would have inserted a concept from 2000 years in the future from a culture and language that did not yet exist, into his teaching.

DO you mean that you don't believe that the scriptures were inspired by God? He may not have had pen and paper in his hand, but every single letter, punctuation, spacing and everything was literally dictated to the authors to write. I presume that His Holy Spirit came over the authors and guided their mind into the exact transcription that He wanted.

This was written and saved in the scrolls. That's why it is important for us to go back to the original language in our studies and to study things out. You can even go online and look at pics of the original scrolls themselves if you want, because I've done it.

Do you think that Abraham couldn't use a cell phone if you handed it to him? It sounds like you do not have much faith in God's Word.
That's a bad position, Brother. God's powerful enough to get a good copy in your hand, and then give you revelation as you read.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Considering where we left things off in the other thread, I think it's worth pointing out that there are any number of different approaches to reading Scripture. We've got various theories of inspiration, different levels of hostility or acceptance of higher criticism, and so forth and so on. There's also the fact that not everyone agrees with Sola Scriptura--I'm pretty via media, so it's Scripture, Tradition, Reason for me.

It would be difficult for me to specify precisely what I view as literal and what I view as allegorical in Genesis; the better distinction would probably be between historical, non-historical, and history mythologized. I can't say that I view any of it as historical in the modern sense because history didn't actually exist yet. That's a 5th century B.C. Greek invention, so doesn't really apply. For me, everything is by default history that has been mythologized to some degree or another. Some of that mythologization, like blaming natural disasters on God, I find indistinguishable from the pagan approach to the gods. Other bits, like pride and knowledge destroying the relationship between God and Man (and then leading to one gender subjugating the other), I think is spot on.

For me, the question isn't whether a story is literal or allegorical, but rather, what is the story actually saying? I don't read Genesis 1 literally, but I look at it and I see an ancient people making a pretty huge departure from other creation myths and coming up with something that looks surprisingly close to what modern science says actually happened. If I insisted on a literal reading, I wouldn't be noticing that. I recently broke ranks with the skeptics, though, so focusing on the literal level makes no sense for my situation--the Bible can say that it's inspired all it wants, but I'm interested in the situations where it actually shows it.

In Mark 10:15 we should learn;
New American Standard Bible
"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."

 

[th1b.taylor]

Maybe that's why people disagree about it so much. They each want to see either that it's literal, or a story which has meaning to it that we should learn. I think it's actually both. Scripture says that God declares the end from the beginning, and, Genesis was the beginning. So it is a history account, and absolutely accurate...but so it is that it does have meaning and an underlying lesson for us to learn also. God's just that good of an author.

Be careful, Edward, men that were trying to speak logically were shot for it yesterday.

 

[Edward]

In Mark 10:15 we should learn;
New American Standard Bible
"Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all."

Good point, Brother. We always try to intellectualize scripture, even though it plainly tells us not to. That it is to be spiritually discerned. Lean not upon your own understanding...for the carnal mind is enmity against God. So now what? Oh. Become as a little child and receive it. What's that mean?

That means to approach it as one would approach their daddy when they need help and asks for his help. Here's where faith comes in. I don't understand it, but I know daddy does, so I'll trust Him to teach me. Now that goes directly against mans reason and logic and intellect.
Some are too prideful to set down their worldly knowledge.

 

[th1b.taylor]

sigh
The type of documentation which we mean when we say "history" today did not exist some 3500 years ago when the Pentateuch was being written. The modern, western, standards of accuracy in recording historical events were completely foreign to the ancient middle eastern writer.
Trying to apply the concept of absolute accuracy to the ancient middle eastern literature, of which the Bible is an example, would be like handing Abraham a cell phone.

iakov the fool

The sigh was rude! God requires perfection in His Children and can cause it to be any time He chooses because of His character and three time in scripture God has promised to keep the scriptures true. I can recall Duet 4:2 and Rev 20, the last statement.

When God says anything, we should pay attention because it matters but if He says it more than once, He is using that to highlight what He is telling us and we should take a post-it note and place it on our forehead and look in the mirror a lot!

 

[Nathan]

But you said He wrote the scriptures. How can you know that unless you know something about how He did that?

No one is questioning that.
However, our understanding of those scriptures has no guarantee of being any where near 100% correct.

For example?

Ah! But you are ready and willing to declare that you know what He meant.
I see a bit of a conflict there.

And "literal" could easily be in the eye of the beholder but not in the hand of the inspired writer or on the lips of the speaker.

It still boils down to your personal opinion based on, as you said, your "pea brain knowledge."

iakov the fool

1Pe 3:18-20
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

2Pe 2:5
if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Mat 24:37-39
For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

It is actually prophesied that some will discount the 'actual' event of the flood and what it did - in their discounting of the 'word'(Scriptures). I have never read a 'rendition' of the flood event, from another culture/time, that stated the whole world was destroyed - and only Noah and 7 others were spared. Therefore, if Jesus speaks of it this way, and Peter speaks of it, and Peter warns of those who speak against it - there seems to be something to be 'listened' to here.

2Pe 3:1-7
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

Peter wanted them to really take note of this. He felt there was something serious about it. I do not think his warning is in vain.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Considering where we left things off in the other thread, I think it's worth pointing out that there are any number of different approaches to reading Scripture. We've got various theories of inspiration, different levels of hostility or acceptance of higher criticism, and so forth and so on. There's also the fact that not everyone agrees with Sola Scriptura--I'm pretty via media, so it's Scripture, Tradition, Reason for me.

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.

It would be difficult for me to specify precisely what I view as literal and what I view as allegorical in Genesis; the better distinction would probably be between historical, non-historical, and history mythologized. I can't say that I view any of it as historical in the modern sense because history didn't actually exist yet. That's a 5th century B.C. Greek invention, so doesn't really apply. For me, everything is by default history that has been mythologized to some degree or another. Some of that mythologization, like blaming natural disasters on God, I find indistinguishable from the pagan approach to the gods. Other bits, like pride and knowledge destroying the relationship between God and Man (and then leading to one gender subjugating the other), I think is spot on.

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.

For me, the question isn't whether a story is literal or allegorical, but rather, what is the story actually saying? I don't read Genesis 1 literally, but I look at it and I see an ancient people making a pretty huge departure from other creation myths and coming up with something that looks surprisingly close to what modern science says actually happened. If I insisted on a literal reading, I wouldn't be noticing that. I recently broke ranks with the skeptics, though, so focusing on the literal level makes no sense for my situation--the Bible can say that it's inspired all it wants, but I'm interested in the situations where it actually shows it.

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.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

sigh
The type of documentation which we mean when we say "history" today did not exist some 3500 years ago when the Pentateuch was being written. The modern, western, standards of accuracy in recording historical events were completely foreign to the ancient middle eastern writer.
Trying to apply the concept of absolute accuracy to the ancient middle eastern literature, of which the Bible is an example, would be like handing Abraham a cell phone.

iakov the fool

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.

 

[Jim Parker]

DO you mean that you don't believe that the scriptures were inspired by God?

Did I suggest that I did not believe scripture to be inspired by God?
Of course I do.
I asked; "What do you mean by that?
Certainly God didn't take pen and paper, write them, and then hand them to men."
The inspiration of the scriptures is an entirely different subject.
Can you answer the question you were asked?

He may not have had pen and paper in his hand, but every single letter, punctuation, spacing and everything was literally dictated to the authors to write. I presume that His Holy Spirit came over the authors and guided their mind into the exact transcription that He wanted.

OK. THAT is an answer.
It also reveals that you did not know that there is no punctuation or spacing in the Greek.
So, if I understand you correctly, you see the writing of scripture as the Holy Spirit taking control of the writer's mind to write exactly what God wants written.
Do you have any scripture to support that view?
And are you aware that, unless you are fluent in the original languages and are reading the scriptures in those languages, you are using a translation into English. There is no such thing as an exact translation from one language to another. The farther the two languages are separated by time and culture, the more difficult it is to transfer the original content.
So, consider that your favorite English translation reflect the language of a culture that is 2000 to 3500 years removed from the original language and based on the usage in a culture that is also removed by time and space from the origin.
So, what we have in our Modern English translation (or Late Middle English KJV) is very far removed from the original scriptures in which "every single letter, punctuation, spacing and everything was literally dictated to the authors to write" in languages that are no longer spoken on this planet.

This was written and saved in the scrolls. That's why it is important for us to go back to the original language in our studies and to study things out. You can even go online and look at pics of the original scrolls themselves if you want, because I've done it.

Cool!
And are you fluent in the ancient Hebrew, Chaldean and Koine Greek of those ancient scrolls and do you also have expert knowledge of the culture in which they were written? If not, then they are just a curiosity but cannot significantly enhance your understanding. (It's a door that most of us cannot open.)

Do you think that Abraham couldn't use a cell phone if you handed it to him? It sounds like you do not have much faith in God's Word.

That doesn't eve make sense.
And your judgment of my faith in God's word is based on abject ignorance of me personally and an exaggerated opinion of your ability to judge the faith of others.

That's a bad position, Brother. God's powerful enough to get a good copy in your hand, and then give you revelation as you read.

If either of us were to have an exact perfect copy of the original texts in the original languages, neither of us would be able to read them.
We do not have "copies."
We have "translations" of copies of copies of copies of copies.........

So the idea that what we have in our hands today is the exact copy of what the Holy Spirit dictated to men some 2000 to 3500 years ago in Ancient Hebrew, Chaldean, and Koine Greek is patently absurd.

We have translations that are somewhere between very good and excellent but, they are still translations.

And what we do have is IMHO the inspired word of God which is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

iakov the fool

 

[civilwarbuff]

Did I suggest that I did not believe scripture to be inspired by God?
Of course I do.
I asked; "What do you mean by that?
Certainly God didn't take pen and paper, write them, and then hand them to men."
The inspiration of the scriptures is an entirely different subject.
Can you answer the question you were asked?

OK. THAT is an answer.
It also reveals that you did not know that there is no punctuation or spacing in the Greek.
So, if I understand you correctly, you see the writing of scripture as the Holy Spirit taking control of the writer's mind to write exactly what God wants written.
Do you have any scripture to support that view?
And are you aware that, unless you are fluent in the original languages and are reading the scriptures in those languages, you are using a translation into English. There is no such thing as an exact translation from one language to another. The farther the two languages are separated by time and culture, the more difficult it is to transfer the original content.
So, consider that your favorite English translation reflect the language of a culture that is 2000 to 3500 years removed from the original language and based on the usage in a culture that is also removed by time and space from the origin.
So, what we have in our Modern English translation (or Late Middle English KJV) is very far removed from the original scriptures in which "every single letter, punctuation, spacing and everything was literally dictated to the authors to write" in languages that are no longer spoken on this planet.

Cool!
And are you fluent in the ancient Hebrew, Chaldean and Koine Greek of those ancient scrolls and do you also have expert knowledge of the culture in which they were written? If not, then they are just a curiosity but cannot significantly enhance your understanding. (It's a door that most of us cannot open.)

That doesn't eve make sense.
And your judgment of my faith in God's word is based on abject ignorance of me personally and an exaggerated opinion of your ability to judge the faith of others.

If either of us were to have an exact perfect copy of the original texts in the original languages, neither of us would be able to read them.
We do not have "copies."
We have "translations" of copies of copies of copies of copies.........

So the idea that what we have in our hands today is the exact copy of what the Holy Spirit dictated to men some 2000 to 3500 years ago in Ancient Hebrew, Chaldean, and Koine Greek is patently absurd.

We have translations that are somewhere between very good and excellent but, they are still translations.

And what we do have is IMHO the inspired word of God which is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)

iakov the fool

Yes Jim, all of us have heard this or similar argument before.......but you have to admit the God that could create the universe could surely keep the meaning of His message to us intact over a few brief (to Him) millennia.......

 

[Jim Parker]

The sigh was rude!

Really? It was an expression of exasperation. Sorry if you were offended.

God requires perfection in His Children and can cause it to be any time He chooses because of His character and three time in scripture God has promised to keep the scriptures true.

The scriptures ARE true. No argument from me on that point.
But they are not what we call "history" by our modern, western understanding.

When God says anything, we should pay attention because it matters but if He says it more than once, He is using that to highlight what He is telling us and we should take a post-it note and place it on our forehead and look in the mirror a lot!

True.
And a different subject.

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

It is actually prophesied that some will discount the 'actual' event of the flood and what it did - in their discounting of the 'word'(Scriptures).

Cite it

I have never read a 'rendition' of the flood event, from another culture/time, that stated the whole world was destroyed - and only Noah and 7 others were spared. Therefore, if Jesus speaks of it this way, and Peter speaks of it, and Peter warns of those who speak against it - there seems to be something to be 'listened' to here.

OF course there is.
I never said differently.

Peter wanted them to really take note of this. He felt there was something serious about it. I do not think his warning is in vain.

I agree.

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't think the bible in any suggests a lesser value to holding onto the truth.

Neither do I.

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.

What you do or do not see is irrelevant to the actual facts.

Literal might not have been in their vocabulary but truth and accuracy are the same meaning as literal in too many ways.

The are in Modern English.
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.

God's written wird would not start out on lies based around other cultures.

No one suggested that it did.

 

[Jim Parker]

Yes Jim, all of us have heard this or similar argument before.......but you have to admit the God that could create the universe could surely keep the meaning of His message to us intact over a few brief (to Him) millennia.......

Of course he has done so.
He has kept "THE MEANING OF HIS MESSAGE TO US INTACT."
I have not suggested otherwise.

 

[Nathan]

Cite it

2Pe 3:1-7
This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

Scoffers discount(deliberately overlook) the fact that the world(entire world) was formed out of water and through water - and it(the entire world) was deluged - all by the word of God. And, by the same word(of God - The Scriptures) the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire.

Zep 3:8
“Therefore wait for me,” declares the LORD,
“for the day when I rise up to seize the prey.
For my decision is to gather nations,
to assemble kingdoms,
to pour out upon them my indignation,
all my burning anger;
for in the fire of my jealousy
all the earth shall be consumed.

 

[civilwarbuff]

And tradition holds that Moses penned the 1st 5 books of the bible, correct?

 

[Jim Parker]

Scoffers discount(deliberately overlook) the fact that the world(entire world) was formed out of water and through water -

That depends on the translation you use.
KJV: For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
NKJV: For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
NLT: They deliberately forget that God made the heavens by the word of his command, and he brought the earth out from the water and surrounded it with water.

If you want to force a western, Modern English meaning into the ancient, eastern text, enjoy yourself.
It won't matter in the end.
We won't be judged by what we (think we) know but by what we do.
(Mat 25:31-46; John 3:36; 5:28-29; 8:51; Ro 6:2-10; 8:12-14; 2Cor 5:10; 1 Pet 1:17; 1 John 2:17)

 

[civilwarbuff]

If you want to force a western, Modern English meaning into the ancient, eastern text, enjoy yourself.

Thank you JP, that answers a lot of questions. I believe I understand where you are coming from now.....