How to interpert Genesis

[Free]

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.

Please explain precisely how what we have said makes the command in Mark 16:15 incredibly or impossibly difficult to do.

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.

Of course, but that very much includes taking historical, cultural, and theological contexts into account.

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.[/QUOTE]
No one is suggesting anything of the sort. What is it that you have against taking the various contexts into account as a part of coming to a correct understanding of what the authors of the OT were saying?

I will trust God to lead me to the truth, not man.

And yet the way that God most often communicates to us and guides us to truth is through others.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Please explain precisely how what we have said makes the command in Mark 16:15 incredibly or impossibly difficult to do.

"You believe it according to your Modern English, western, 21st century, translation while applying your modern, western, 21st century worldview."
Because most missonaries use western, 21st century translations applying our modern, western, 21st century worldview. According to your POV that is the wrong way to approach scripture is it not? (though no one yet as stated how it should be approached assuming there is only one way.)

Of course, but that very much includes taking historical, cultural, and theological contexts into account.

Which historical, cultural, and theological contexts?

 

[civilwarbuff]

No one is suggesting anything of the sort. What is it that you have against taking the various contexts into account as a part of coming to a correct understanding of what the authors of the OT were saying?

What I am asking, just to make it clear, is who gets to determine what that correct understanding is?

 

[Jim Parker]

Where has any literalist said this?.....cuz I have not seen it.

Then perhaps you haven't been paying that much attention.

Nothing anti-Catholic about it at all;

Right. Just keep rep[eating that over and over and a lot of people will believe it.

Once more, where do you see that?.....because people disagree they are 'arrogant'?

I said I am not so arrogant to make that assumption. Apparently, many in this forum hear God perfectly and are lead inerrantly into all truth by the Holy Spirit.

I noticed you only replied to the 2nd half of my post.....how about the 1st half?

The first half didn't make any sense so I ignored it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Then perhaps you haven't been paying that much attention.

You did not answer the question JP: 'I would prefer that "literalists" would cease telling people the don't believe the Bible.'

Where has any literalist said this?.....cuz I have not seen it.

......You are not going to start dodging questions, are you?

Right. Just keep rep[eating that over and over and a lot of people will believe it.

There is nothing anti-catholic about my statement; if you disagree please point it out.

Apparently, many in this forum hear God perfectly and are lead inerrantly into all truth by the Holy Spirit.

You prefer to use the 'shotgun' approach as opposed to specifying particulars I assume?

The first half didn't make any sense so I ignored it.

I can rephrase it if that would help.

 

[Jim Parker]

You did not answer the question JP: 'I would prefer that "literalists" would cease telling people the don't believe the Bible.'

It's happened often enough. If you really want to see it then go look for it. I am not going to play your game.

......You are not going to start dodging questions, are you?

No, I am not going to play your game.

There is nothing anti-catholic about my statement; if you disagree please point it out.

"We tried that for about 1500 years......didn't work out too well."
And exactly what great events took place in the 1500s?
Obviously you are suggesting the Roman Catholic Church didn't work out too well.
Did you think you were being very clever?

You prefer to use the 'shotgun' approach as opposed to specifying particulars I assume?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could try to be a bit less cute and just said what you mean.

I can rephrase it if that would help.

It might.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It's happened often enough. If you really want to see it then go look for it. I am not going to play your game.

I am not playing a game; I asked a question. Can you please answer it?

"We tried that for about 1500 years......didn't work out too well."
And exactly what great events took place in the 1500s?
Obviously you are suggesting the Roman Catholic Church didn't work out too well.
Did you think you were being very clever?

I did not say in the 1500's.....I said for about 1500 years. We ended up with a fractured church even before Protestanism......please don't put words in my mouth.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could try to be a bit less cute and just said what you mean.

OK, you asked though I am sure it is against the rules...
"Apparently, many in this forum hear God perfectly and are lead inerrantly into all truth by the Holy Spirit."
Do you care to name names or just use the shotgun approach of accusation? Now if people have been saying this you should have no trouble at least listing the posts, agreed?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Jim Parker here is what I initially said:

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.

You asked me to repeat it so it would be easier for you to understand; I will do my best.
You stated
"You believe it according to your Modern English, western, 21st century, translation while applying your modern, western, 21st century worldview."
I, OTOH, beleive the word of God to be written in such a manner that any person, in any culture, in any society, in any era can understand it. Is that simple enough?

I do have a question though: if we cannot understand scripture due to "You believe it according to your Modern English, western, 21st century, translation while applying your modern, western, 21st century worldview." what method/mode/translation would, in your opinion, suffice to assure our understanding? You seem to believe YOU understand, at least through the tenor of your posts where you appear to denigrate those who believe in scripture literally; surely you can give a straight forward answer to this, yes?

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

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.

This is something we can not excape even if we do know the culture of the writings in Genesis or in any other book. Consider Proverbs 3:5-6.

5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.

Or 1 Corinthians 2:1-6

2 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

Or consider Isaiah 55:6-11. But expecially verses 8-11.

6 Seek the Lord while he may be found;
call on him while he is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake their ways
and the unrighteous their thoughts.
Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them,
and to our God, for he will freely pardon.

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

I honestly do not think we live with the understanding to know what the original culture was like that Genesis was written to. In today's' studies we might say one thing that five or ten years down the road we will correct and say another thing because of historical evidance found. But even if we do have that knowledge what difference does it do us? God's thoughts are greater then our own. Any culture, modern or in ancient times, will be of less value then the actual words recorded in the scriptures.

Although I do see the benifit of studying the bible from the languages and customs of the ages it was written, I do not see that God's word would be hindered by these obstacles. His word will go out and not return without achieving the purpose He sent it for. As for cultures long gone before we have any sence of their culture, who are we to say how they read it or even if that is correct?

Therefore it's better to take the words literally even with our biases of our days, and let our understanding be corrected by what the bible actually says. Our understanding will come through the study of the bible as a whole.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Ok
You completely misunderstood what I said.
I cannot know what you think beyond what you post.

Please apply this wisdom from here on out. You do not know what I think beyond what I say. This same wisdom is true in reverse. I do not know what you think outside of what you say either. I don't see it as a misunderstanding, but what I've observed from this conversation.

I'm glad to see tempers seem to have cooled. I thought this thread was going to close because of the continued debate intensifying.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

To
jim-parker, free, and silmarien

So far the most streight forward answers that I've seen as to how Genesis is a metaphor, anology, or a parable, is that it's none of those things but that it is myth. Is this more accurate of where you guys stand on the book of Genesis or at least the first several chapters of it? Is it not to be taken literal because it's a myth?

These chapters are not where our salvation lies, but they are an area of burden for many believers. A place of issue between faith and modern reason and modern science. Why would we trust that Noah's account of the flood occured? Should we put that same lack of trust to how Jesus fed the crowds twice with just a few loaves of bread and fish? Should we think the genologies are of kingdoms instead of indivuals, but not put the same skeptism to Jesus's promise of an eternal life? Reword His teachings to fit our understanding?

Do you see the issues I'm conveying?

 

[th1b.taylor]

I honestly do not think we live with the understanding to know what the original culture was like that Genesis was written to. In today's' studies we might say one thing that five or ten years down the road we will correct and say another thing because of historical evidance found. But even if we do have that knowledge what difference does it do us? God's thoughts are greater then our own. Any culture, modern or in ancient times, will be of less value then the actual words recorded in the scriptures.

I might be all wet but I agree with your discourse here. And like I said, being an Eighth Grade GED recipient, there is a lot, because of life circumstances, I did not learn but the reason I agree is that I believe God does keep His Bible Pure, just as He promises in Duet 2:4 and the very last verse in my copy, of Rev 22.

There is that text given to us three times and I do not recall the other address but when God says anything, it is to be listened to! But God, when the scriptures He did not have a Highlighter and highlighted a point by stressing it/having it written more than once. and when we, especially in our read-throughs discover a direction written more than once, we really need to pay attention because God is insisting on the point.

The funny thing is there is a command, I'm taught but never researched that in one sentence form or another where God tells us not to worry! And then when the Son became man to pay off our debt He taught that we are to believe as a small child. I hated my Birth Father but that would be because he would get off from work he would purchase a four dollar pint of Old Crow, guzzle it down and come and back my mom down the short hallway to the end and beat the snot out of her before he carried her to the bedroom. My Dad was a Maser Sergeant on the Flight Line, in charge of Maintenance, Howard J. .Bennett

But after that I believed the little man, five foot three and a half inch Giant of a man. And though not a Christian, he lived to serve other and I not only loved him as sat building every Airplane that had ever seen service in the U. S. Air Force I believed every word that came out of his mouth because he was My Dad. Jesus taught us to live, just that way, believing without question.

Is a person not saved if they have not this Pure Faith, I know not, but I worry over them as I pray for them. In the lesson Jesus taught He said except you nelieve as (like) a small child you will not go to Heaven and thee are only two destinations in Eternity.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[Free]

This is something we can not excape even if we do know the culture of the writings in Genesis or in any other book. Consider Proverbs 3:5-6.


Or 1 Corinthians 2:1-6


Or consider Isaiah 55:6-11. But expecially verses 8-11.

Those verses have nothing to do with the issue.

I honestly do not think we live with the understanding to know what the original culture was like that Genesis was written to. In today's' studies we might say one thing that five or ten years down the road we will correct and say another thing because of historical evidance found. But even if we do have that knowledge what difference does it do us? God's thoughts are greater then our own. Any culture, modern or in ancient times, will be of less value then the actual words recorded in the scriptures.

I still don't think you are completely understanding the importance of what we're saying. The words of Scripture, while written for all generations, were nonetheless written at specific periods of time, in certain historical, cultural, and theological contexts. The people at those times, to whom the books were originally written, obviously would have understood what was being said because they lived in those contexts. Since we are long removed from those contexts, we need to do our best to learn and take into account those contexts in order to best understand what Scripture is saying, to understand what the authors intended to say. And this is what various types of study, such as historical and anthropological, help us understand.

Although I do see the benifit of studying the bible from the languages and customs of the ages it was written, I do not see that God's word would be hindered by these obstacles. His word will go out and not return without achieving the purpose He sent it for. As for cultures long gone before we have any sence of their culture, who are we to say how they read it or even if that is correct?

Of course we can't say for sure how they understood it all but understanding their culture and their beliefs, and those of groups they interacted with, will get us closer to the right understanding than not taking those things into consideration.

Therefore it's better to take the words literally even with our biases of our days, and let our understanding be corrected by what the bible actually says. Our understanding will come through the study of the bible as a whole.

If our biases keep us from understanding things properly, the Bible will never correct that since we always use bias. There are things that we simply cannot fully understand apart from knowing the cultural and social contexts.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I still don't think you are completely understanding the importance of what we're saying. The words of Scripture, while written for all generations, were nonetheless written at specific periods of time, in certain historical, cultural, and theological contexts. The people at those times, to whom the books were originally written, obviously would have understood what was being said because they lived in those contexts. Since we are long removed from those contexts, we need to do our best to learn and take into account those contexts in order to best understand what Scripture is saying, to understand what the authors intended to say. And this is what various types of study, such as historical and anthropological, help us understand.

Attempting to intellectualize the scriptures is not the answer to understanding scripture. As children believe what they are told so should we, the children of God, receive the scripture.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Free]

Attempting to intellectualize the scriptures is not the answer to understanding scripture. As children believe what they are told so should we, the children of God, receive the scripture.
Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "intellectualizing the Scriptures," and Matt.19:14 has nothing to do with receiving or understanding the Scriptures.

The Bible is written in human language for a reason.

 

[civilwarbuff]

and Matt.19:14 has nothing to do with receiving or understanding the Scriptures.

Not explicitly with scripture but how we should approach the Kingdom of God.......of course the word of God does help in that also.....

The Bible is written in human language for a reason.

Very true; if it were written in say Ancient Klingon we would probably have some issues understanding it......

It has absolutely nothing to do with "intellectualizing the Scriptures,"

Of course it does; once you start trying to understand God's word in the context of of history, culture, society, etc (which is all about man not God) you have moved to the realm of intellectualizing rather than simply accepting.

 

[Jim Parker]

I, OTOH, beleive the word of God to be written in such a manner that any person, in any culture, in any society, in any era can understand it. Is that simple enough?

I didn't say otherwise.

I do have a question though: if we cannot understand scripture due to "

I didn't say you didn't understand it.
BUt, we all have to be careful not to impose our 21st century, western, modern English, scientific, information age, worldview into that 1st century, pre-scientific, literature of a Semitic culture.

I don't understand why you would have a problem keeping that in mind when interpreting scripture.

 

[Jim Parker]

I am not playing a game; I asked a question. Can you please answer it?

I'm not going to waste the rime to find quotes for you.

I did not say in the 1500's.....I said for about 1500 years.

Yeah. That would put us in the 1500s. You're splitting hairs

We ended up with a fractured church even before Protestanism.....

Yeah. We had and East-West split and before that the split off of the Coptic and Syrian church over the wording of Chalcedon but nothing like the tens of thousands of denominations, sects, independents, etc. that we see today in the Protestant church.
Now you're painting with a very broad brush.

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't see it as a misunderstanding,

I do.
But I'll live.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I don't understand why you would have a problem keeping that in mind when interpreting scripture.

It is called the Holy Spirit.......He keeps it in mind for me I believe.....not gonna depend on myself that's for sure......