How to interpert Genesis

[civilwarbuff]

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

So it did not happen; I am good with that.....

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

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.

No; the Christian church has been split since early in its history....long before the reformation.....it has been our 'lot in life' so to speak. There has always been disagreement within the church....enough to permanently divide it.

 

[Free]

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.

If I understand your use of "intellectualizing the Scriptures" to mean the use of reason, then "intellectualizing the Scriptures" is precisely one of the things we are, in fact, supposed to do. "Simply accepting" the Bible is far too much of a simplification of how things actually work when you read something. When you read, whatever it is, it gets filtered through all your preconceived ideas--everything you have ever learned and believed prior. You cannot help it, it's automatic. You cannot not "intellectualize"; you either realize you do it or you don't, but you still do it.

That framework through which we interpret and understand the Bible gives us our context, which includes all manner of things. So when we get back to the ancient contexts, there is going to automatically be misunderstanding and error because the contexts are not the same. And there are many other things to consider on top of the contexts which I have given--idioms, hyperbole, figures of speech, etc.--which are not understood in modern language.

We need to heed Paul's words to Timothy: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" (ESV). Or as the KJV puts it, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God...".

As I said, there is a reason the Bible was written in human languages--because we are beings created in the image of a rational God, which means we, too, are rational and able to use our reason--are meant to use our reason--to understand much of what Scripture says.

 

[civilwarbuff]

If I understand your use of "intellectualizing the Scriptures" to mean the use of reason, then "intellectualizing the Scriptures" is precisely one of the things we are, in fact, supposed to do. "Simply accepting" the Bible is far too much of a simplification of how things actually work when you read something. When you read, whatever it is, it gets filtered through all your preconceived ideas--everything you have ever learned and believed prior. You cannot help it, it's automatic. You cannot not "intellectualize"; you either realize you do it or you don't, but you still do it.

That framework through which we interpret and understand the Bible gives us our context, which includes all manner of things. So when we get back to the ancient contexts, there is going to automatically be misunderstanding and error because the contexts are not the same. And there are many other things to consider on top of the contexts which I have given--idioms, hyperbole, figures of speech, etc.--which are not understood in modern language.

We need to heed Paul's words to Timothy: "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth" (ESV). Or as the KJV puts it, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God...".

As I said, there is a reason the Bible was written in human languages--because we are beings created in the image of a rational God, which means we, too, are rational and able to use our reason--are meant to use our reason--to understand much of what Scripture says.

Please explain to me how anyone of today can understand the history, society, culture and beliefs of a civilization that no longer exists. Anthropologists today constantly fight and argue and disagree over these very things yet somehow we are supposed to apply to scripture those things upon which no one can agree and then come up with the 'correct' understanding of scripture. As God tells us in scripture:
Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not depend on your own understanding.
Pro 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.
Pro 3:7 Do not be wise in your own opinion. Fear the LORD and turn away from evil.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Fifteen hundred years from 2100 equals 600, that put it in the seventh century. Just saying.

 

[Jim Parker]

So it did not happen; I am good with that.....

So you're good with calling me a liar so you can be "one up."
Somehow, I don't think that's all that good.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Those verses have nothing to do with the issue.

Then let me try to explain my reasoning.

Proverbs 3:5. Do not rely on our own understanding but instead trust God with all our heart. There are many wonderful insights we have to understand the bible better as well as to understand the world as a whole. But our insights and collected wisdom is not always true. Relying on them too much are not going to be good results, so instead trusting God is the foundation I see as the key element. Prayer, the Holy Spirit, and the bible are the sources I am aware of to truth God by. Taking the bible as it is written (unless given more understanding by the Holy Spirit) is in my opinion the start of a solid foundation. Our understanding beyond that adds to that foundation. Not the other way around.

1 Corinthians 2:1-6. Paul explains his testimony was not out of being wise or eloquent, but by the demonstration of God's power. I include these verses because it is not because our wisdom that we are understanding correctly, but by God's spirit.

Isaiah 55:6-11. The two main points I'd focus on for this conversation is that God's thoughts are not our thoughts. And that God's word will not come back empty. It will not fail. It will accomplish what God sent it out to do. The reason to take God's words as we see them written is because we trust Him and His thoughts more then we trust our own. The reason we can trust them still today is in my opinion because God has protected His words so that they can be understood and still fufill their purpose.

To me these verses convay much of the point I am trying to address. I hope this helps, but I think they are very much have to do with the issues we are talking about. If you disagree then I'll let it go.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

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.


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.


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.

A few things.

Some historical context help and add to our understanding. The meaning behind the phrase "the eye of the needle" comes to mind. Knowing the meaning behind that phrase adds to a better understanding of what Jesus was teaching. Yet even without that part explained the meaning is still clear that he was saying it is impossible or almost impossible for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. After a desciple asks if any of us can have hope, Jesus explains further that humanity speaking it is impossible but to God all things are possible. Though this is just one example of learning the cultural background, it is an example that understanding that background doesn't change our understanding but instead makes that understanding more fully understood. I think there is benifit in studying cultures, but the bible is still the foundation to go off of from. The studies are second to the text itself. I'd even argue that if the studies go against what is written in the bible text then to be very cautious and skeptible.

Second thing is that I've seen my biases change. My understanding and perspectives change through reading the bible. And even when that change didn't lead to a solid conclusion, they challenged my perspectives and held biases.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Free can I ask you. Do you see Genesis as a collection of myths? Both Jim Parker and Silmarien have conveyed that at least part of Genesis is conveying myths to teach us. If this is your view too, then I'd like to turn this conversation to the gritty details of which events in Genesis are myth and which ones are historic. I've heard explainations on several parts of Genesis to explain what it really means. From the creation in 6 days, the seperate story of man being created, the fall, the genologies listing the large lifetimes, and the Tower of Babel.

Some explainations look to other scripture to shed answers to it. Others postulate the culture angle that the genologies are actually referring to dynasies or kingdoms instead of indivuals. Others go outright to deny a story as valid at all. Such as the Tower of Babel to be only myth, entirely to teach a lesson but not to be a true account.

If you and the other two hold to the idea that parts of Genesis is myth, then let's move on from acknowledging that we disagree with eachother on this point, and move to the details of what is myth, what is cultural stories (still not accurate), and what is accurate. We can seperate the book of Genesis to the different events in it.

Creation of Earth and Heaven, creation of Man, fall of man, murder of Able and the following story till Adam's lineage meets Noah. Noah's tales from the flood to cursing and blessing His children. More lineage from Noah to Abram. Abram's story. Isaac's story. Jacob's story. And finally Jacob's children selling Their brother and the story of that brother. These are the seperation of events as I understand the book of Genesis. If you are willing I'd like to know which ones (if any) you would consider to be myth or purely a cultural story and not accurate or literal; as well as which ones (if any) you would consider to be accurate or literal.

These details matter to me, not just the general discussion of Genesis being literal or not. The details of what parts we are talking about need to be addressed. If you want to explain your conclusions too that's be great, but for now I just want a ball park for where you three are coming from.

 

[Jim Parker]

Both Jim Parker and Silmarien have conveyed that at least part of Genesis is conveying myths to teach us.

Not "myth" as in "fairy tale" but as a literary device by which an historical event is given meaning.
In the case of the flood, that historical event is given God's revealed meaning.
I do not, in any manner, intend to suggest, by the use of the term "myth", that there was not a flood.

Just clarifying.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Not "myth" as in "fairy tale" but as a literary device by which an historical event is given meaning.
In the case of the flood, that historical event is given God's revealed meaning.
I do not, in any manner, intend to suggest, by the use of the term "myth", that there was not a flood.

Just clarifying.

Might I suggest when you use the word "myth" you then clarify it with your definition; most people see the word myth as make believe or fairy tale......might well save you some aggravation.....

 

[Jim Parker]

Might I suggest when you use the word "myth" you then clarify it with your definition; most people see the word myth as make believe or fairy tale......might well save you some aggravation.....

I did that in my post #85 and again above.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Not "myth" as in "fairy tale" but as a literary device by which an historical event is given meaning.
In the case of the flood, that historical event is given God's revealed meaning.
I do not, in any manner, intend to suggest, by the use of the term "myth", that there was not a flood.

Just clarifying.

I'm not sure how to make sense of your posts Jim.

In the first post you gave an explaination that Noah's tale was a mixture of two gradations and written in a literary device fashion. It took me a few times reading that to get the literary device your talking about. But in the way you describe it. "A combining of 2 traditions" it gives me the impression that you don't believe the story as it's told.

The phrasing of the story as a myth gives me the same impression, but then you describe myth as an explaination to a catastrophic. What I don't get is if you mean the story to be reliable or not. Is it a combination of traditions, and can be explained away that the story was a mixture of two cultural views or is the account reliable? Is it a historic account of events or a literature written to convay an event. A myth to give meaning to the event?

The way you word this does not sound like someone who is confidant in the bible as a reliable source of events. If that is the case then the next question is what parts of the narratives do you hold as true and believe? Do you draw the line at the number of days to be a literary device, but the event in some fashion happened? Or is it looser then that with some parts of Genesis. Something is there to convay a meaning but might not have occured at all.

I'm sorry to question your faith like this Jim. It seems though that you explain that you believe the account only after you explain why it isn't reliable. It leaves me scratching my head about what you mean.

 

[Jim Parker]

In the first post you gave an explaination that Noah's tale was a mixture of two gradations and written in a literary device fashion.

Not two gradations; from two traditions.
The literary device is a Chiasm. It is a means by which an important point or a turning point is emphasized and id found throughout the scriptures.

"A combining of 2 traditions" it gives me the impression that you don't believe the story as it's told.

That makes no sense to me. If two people witness and describe the same event but their stories are not identical, does that mean I should not believe the event happened?

What I don't get is if you mean the story to be reliable or not.

What you didn't get is that the event is less important than the meaning which God gives to the event.
What God has to say about the event is what is reliable and what is important.
You're missing the forest for the trees.

The way you word this does not sound like someone who is confidant in the bible as a reliable source of events.

I have often said that the Bible is not a history book or a science book. To emphasize either is to miss the point of the communication.

I'm sorry to question your faith like this Jim.

You're not questioning my faith.
You question is: "Is my faith identical in every detail to yours?"

If you need for the stories of Genesis 1-11 to be the transcript of the video tape in order to believe then so be it.

I trust God, not my understanding of the scriptures.

iakov the fool

 

[Silmarien]

The way you word this does not sound like someone who is confidant in the bible as a reliable source of events. If that is the case then the next question is what parts of the narratives do you hold as true and believe? Do you draw the line at the number of days to be a literary device, but the event in some fashion happened? Or is it looser then that with some parts of Genesis. Something is there to convay a meaning but might not have occured at all.

I'm sorry to question your faith like this Jim. It seems though that you explain that you believe the account only after you explain why it isn't reliable. It leaves me scratching my head about what you mean.

It seems to me that you believe that the flood story in the Bible is a fully accurate account of what happened, whereas Jim believes that the flood occurred and that the biblical account is an accurate theological explanation, presumably projected retroactively by people who weren't in a position to give a factual account of anything. Myself, I would agree that the evidence would indicate that there was probably some sort of flood, but the theological explanation frankly looks more like an ancient people's attempt to explain natural disasters than anything else. (Though I will allow that it's a significantly better attempt than the Sumerian version.)

So from where I'm standing, Jim very much does believe in the flood story. Just not literally.

I don't actually draw lines anywhere. That just seems like an impossibility to me. Too much philosophy means that I don't view time in a linear fashion, so the idea that the Incarnation happened first and kind of reverberated backwards through time affecting the way the Israelites (and probably even other peoples) would approach their history and mythology actually makes more sense to me than models of inspiration based on a humanocentric perception of reality wherein things really unfold chronologically. (The "toss a stone into a pond and watch the ripples" theory of inspiration, let's call it.)

Which is a model wherein the Old Testament could theoretically be mythological in its entirety and yet, in a deeper sense, still be true in what it teaches. Which is why I like the approach Jim takes. Getting worked up over whether any particular part is factually accurate is a bit of a red herring if you're operating under a theory of inspiration that avoids the issue entirely. I'm generally more interested in the ways the Jewish myths depart from what you would have expected to find at the time--for instance, atheists who like to go after the Sacrifice of Isaac story really ought to read the Oresteia to see how that situation would have played out anywhere else in the ancient world.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Not two gradations; from two traditions.
The literary device is a Chiasm. It is a means by which an important point or a turning point is emphasized and id found throughout the scriptures.

That makes no sense to me. If two people witness and describe the same event but their stories are not identical, does that mean I should not believe the event happened?

What you didn't get is that the event is less important than the meaning which God gives to the event.
What God has to say about the event is what is reliable and what is important.
You're missing the forest for the trees.

I have often said that the Bible is not a history book or a science book. To emphasize either is to miss the point of the communication.

You're not questioning my faith.
You question is: "Is my faith identical in every detail to yours?"

If you need for the stories of Genesis 1-11 to be the transcript of the video tape in order to believe then so be it.

I trust God, not my understanding of the scriptures.

iakov the fool

I owe you an apology Jim. There are things I don't agree with, but most of those are from a previous conversation that stemmed this thread topic. I'm sorry for being rude to your answers.

 

[Jim Parker]

I'm sorry for being rude to your answers.

YOu didn't seem rude.
No problem!

 

[stovebolts]

Meanwhile, back at "How to Interpret Genesis"; I would like to offer the following comments.

Noah’s Flood as Myth

Myth!????
What does that mean???

I am suggesting the word "Myth" as being the form of narrative by which a culture explains the meaning of a significant natural or cultural event. It is the story that gives meaning to a seemingly random and meaningless catastrophe.

Stories of a great flood are found in the records of many ancient cultures. So, it seems to me, it is not reasonable to assume that there was no flood. It is apparent from the ancient records of multiple cultures around the world** that a flood occurred.

But what should we make of it? Why did it occur? What knowledge should we take away from the event? What does it mean to us?

It strikes me as important to us that the answers to those questions differ significantly when comparing the Mesopotamian flood epics with the later Biblical, epic of Noah’s flood.

Mesopotamia, the Tigris-Euphrates valley, is considered to be the “Cradle of Civilization.” By that title, historians point to the fact that it was in that region that the first City-states arose. They arose because of the most technologically significant development in the history of mankind: the plough. The plough made “civilization” (the city) possible because by its use, people were able for the first time to produce more food than they could personally consume; they consistently produced an abundance. That abundance made it possible for some people to be engaged in work other than feeding themselves and the beginning of the trades. People could be potters, weavers, iron smiths, soldiers, stone masons, etc. The abundance of food made cities possible by making the crafts possible as one’s life work.

But with the city came restrictions. Since cities were centers of wealth, they became targets for plunder. So they built walls. Walls confine the population and create the problem of having enough room for all the people. And that was the issue for the Mesopotamian flood epics”: overpopulation.

The resolution of the population problem in the Mesopotamian epics was to lower the birth rate. After the flood (to get rid of the overpopulation) the gods arranged for there to be more still births, a higher infant mortality rate, more barren women who could not bear children and women who chose to remain childless. (perhaps dedicated virgins at the temples to the gods)

To the Mesopotamian city-state civilizations, children were a conditional blessing and population control was a necessity of survival. (Sound familiar?)

The reason for the flood in the Biblical account had nothing to do with overpopulation. In fact, the first command of the Lord to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the whole earth.

It is not possible to do that by gathering in an ancient city in Mesopotamia.

The reason for the flood, according to Scripture, is the endless increase of sin. Mankind was becoming more and more vile and wicked by the day so God called the one righteous man left on earth with his sons and their wives to, essentially, “reboot” the system. God would remove all sinners from His earth and start again with a righteous root.

Noah did not live in a city. He was a herdsman and his livelihood depended on the ability to move freely to where his flocks and herds could graze and children were to him always an unconditional blessing. They were God’s blessing to man.

So, the cities believed that too many children were a curse (It was expensive to feed and house them.) and the gods sent a flood to relieve the earth of its burden. Then they reduced the number of births to keep the population down.

To the Hebrew (those reciting the story of the flood) children were always a blessing. The curse was not overpopulation but, rather, the result of refusal to follow the commandments of God. The idea of overpopulation being a problem would be an absurdity to the ancient Hebrew.

So, the “flood myth” is the narrative used to communicate those truths about the flood.

**(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths)

iakov the fool
(beaucoup dien cai dau)


DISCLAIMER: By reading the words posted above, you have made a free will choice to expose yourself to the rantings of iakov the fool. The poster assumes no responsibility for any temporary, permanent or otherwise annoying manifestations of cognitive dysfunction that, in any manner, may allegedly be related to the reader’s deliberate act by which he/she has knowingly allowed the above rantings to enter into his/her consciousness. No warrantee is expressed or implied. Individual mileage may vary. And, no, I don't want to hear about it. No sniveling! Enjoy the rest of your life here and the eternal one to come.

Hi Jim,
I appreciate your studies and academic research. I know things are a bit heated, and I hope our conversation turns out to be a breath of fresh air to both of us. I'm not here to challenge you, but I would like to glean from you.

From that perspective, I have Pritchards ANE texts and would like to validate your claim on population control. Can you point me to the texts?

Also, we know that Abram came out of the heart of the ANE and according to the biblical texts, it is possible Noah told Abram the story of the flood first hand while other stories, such as Gilgamesh were widely accepted. This certainly lines up with what Paul writes in Romans.

I'm curious if you have pondered the thought of Abram and Noah speaking directly and that story carried forward to the time Moses recorded it.

As a side note, I believe Genesis was written from a levitical / Mosaic perspective.

As far as the Eloyhist text, I believe it was an apologetic writing to the ANE and as you know, Eloyhim is not a Hebrew word, nor is El and both can be found in the ANE where the terms are not associated with YHVH.

Thoughts?

Edit to add: levitical / Mosaic perspective

 

[Jim Parker]

From that perspective, I have Pritchards ANE texts and would like to validate your claim on population control. Can you point me to the texts?

I recommend you get a copy of Before Abraham Was by Kikowada and Quinn and start from there.

 

[JohnDB]

Hi Jim,
I appreciate your studies and academic research. I know things are a bit heated, and I hope our conversation turns out to be a breath of fresh air to both of us. I'm not here to challenge you, but I would like to glean from you.

From that perspective, I have Pritchards ANE texts and would like to validate your claim on population control. Can you point me to the texts?

Also, we know that Abram came out of the heart of the ANE and according to the biblical texts, it is possible Noah told Abram the story of the flood first hand while other stories, such as Gilgamesh were widely accepted. This certainly lines up with what Paul writes in Romans.

I'm curious if you have pondered the thought of Abram and Noah speaking directly and that story carried forward to the time Moses recorded it.

As a side note, I believe Genesis was written from a levitical / Mosaic perspective.

As far as the Eloyhist text, I believe it was an apologetic writing to the ANE and as you know, Eloyhim is not a Hebrew word, nor is El and both can be found in the ANE where the terms are not associated with YHVH.

Thoughts?

Edit to add: levitical / Mosaic perspective

Just to muddy the water a bit,...
Shem, Noah's son, was alive and well when Abram was traveling about...and likely living towards the top right hand side of the Fertile Crescent.

In fact it's possible that Shem was the messenger for God to tell Abram to start traveling because of the dynamics of Hebrew literature. (Messengers are often not mentioned in discussions involving two parties not face to face)

 

[Edward]

"intellectualizing the Scriptures" is precisely one of the things we are, in fact, supposed to do.

Is there a scripture to back you up on that?

Because here's one which says the opposite.
Proverbs 3:5-6