...a ridiculous explanation you would reject if offered to support any other religion.
Actually, that's not true, as I tend to look quite carefully for the congruity in what someone else says they believe. But, perhaps that's something that you don't care to do, and/or prefer to avoid dealing with.
In Genesis 10, we the the repopulation of earth after the flood that never happened either globally or regionally. We know it wasn't global because there was not enough time for the population to have grown so massive that Nimrod's territory could encompass all it did by verse 12. And we know it wasn't regional because there was no flood in that region that would have been massive enough to carry the ark to "the mountains of Ararat." We've gone over this in previous posts; no need to rehash.
Then we get to chapter 11, where we learn that the whole world had one language and a common speech.
This is simply not true. It has never been true. I mean, just read the previous chapter. The writer of that chapter didn't think everyone on earth had one language.
So these people decide to build a city. As though there weren't already more than a dozen of them as recorded in the previous chapter. With a tower that reaches all the way to heaven.
Bearing in mind that heaven just meant "sky," I will refrain from the usual trope that they wanted to reach God's habitat. It's not what the book says. But note their concern: If we don't build this really big building, we may end up scattered all over the earth. This, apparently, would be a bad thing.
I could be wrong on this, but I don't think the author of Gen. 11 is the author of Gen. 10. Honestly, the author of Genesis 10 talks about a huge population of over multiple cities and even kingdoms. Gen. 11 has one group of people, all speaking one language, as if these are the only people on earth.
I am aware of Bullinger's belief that the tower was not going to be remarkable for its height but for its content: it was supposed to depict the heavens, which would have been ... I don't know. I don't get why that would concern God. But I don't get why God was bothered by this building anyway. Nevertheless, He persisted.
“If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them," God says, as if this were a bad thing. "Come, let usgo downand confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
Would this be an inconvenient time to bring up the verse that says God is not the author of confusion? Because it seems here that he's taking credit for it.
Anyway, so God, instead of appearing in some form that says "don't construct this building: it is against my will," instead decides to have everyone speak different languages. Suddenly, no one understands each other. So the people who DO understand each other get together in groups and depart for other lands, where they can be with their own people. And that's how we got the different languages of the world.
Of all the cockamamie... Seriously? You know this didn't happen, right?
And let's be real clear: similar to the flood, this confusing of languages is not some localized event unnoticed by most of humanity. This IS most of humanity. Note the scripture:
"So theLordscattered them from there over all the earth,and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel -- because there theLord confused the language of the whole world. From there theLord scattered them over the face of the whole earth."
Not a local event.
And not a true one. Languages developed independently over a great deal of time. They didn't all suddenly pop up at one location in the middle east and scatter around the world from there.
Bearing in mind that heaven just meant "sky," I will refrain from the usual trope that they wanted to reach God's habitat. It's not what the book says. But note their concern: If we don't build this really big building, we may end up scattered all over the earth. This, apparently, would be a bad thing.
. . .
This is a myth, not history. It never happened.
It sounds like they were trying to build a Utopia. Often when that's attempted it doesn't end well.
God kicked them out. Like before with Eden. Maybe a pattern starting?
Again, if we're going to discuss this as interpreting what the writers of a fictional story meant to convey, then "actual errors" is pointless because no one is asserting that the story actually happened. It's a whole different conversations.
This thread implicitly addresses the position that these events are asserted to have actually happened as described.
There's NOTHING wrong with looking at everything from a literary point of view.
It's just not the point of this thread. The moment the reader says "this story is just that: a story that never took place in real life," then we're not in any fundamental disagreement about that.
These stories didn't happen, but they cleary did. That is more difficult to describe.
The stories came from somewhere, a long time ago. Without the printing press, or an initial single writer, it seams.
And arguing,
"The sun didn't move for a day" . . "that's not scientifically valid" . . ."yeah but einstein if you cross your eyes" . . . this could go on ad infinitum. Is that the right tactic?
The more I study the Old Testament the more I realize that it is mostly allegory including Genesis. For years I assumed that the animals described in Isaiah 11 are literal animals until I realized that they are actually symbolic of 2 groups of people. Same thing with Genesis although Genesis is not my thing. In some Jewish circles the Tree of Life represents this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(Kabbalah) whatever that means.Alluding to Raf's statement about the literary point of view, here is an interesting article about Genesis as allegory:https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/genesis-as-allegory/ The author states that Genesis was never meant to be read literally or to be scientifically accurate etc.
These stories didn't happen, but they cleary did. That is more difficult to describe.
The stories came from somewhere, a long time ago. Without the printing press, or an initial single writer, it seams.
And arguing,
"The sun didn't move for a day" . . "that's not scientifically valid" . . ."yeah but einstein if you cross your eyes" . . . this could go on ad infinitum. Is that the right tactic?
Do you have a point?
I have made it very clear why this thread exists and what viewpoint it addresses. The existence of other viewpoints does not invalidate the purpose of this thread. They exist independently.
If you don't think this is "the right tactic" (the right tactic for what?) then GTFO of this conversation. This thread is for people interested in this subject. Clearly you are not, and that is ok.
The more I study the Old Testament the more I realize that it is mostly allegory including Genesis. For years I assumed that the animals described in Isaiah 11 are literal animals until I realized that they are actually symbolic of 2 groups of people. Same thing with Genesis although Genesis is not my thing. In some Jewish circles the Tree of Life represents this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(Kabbalah) whatever that means.Alluding to Raf's statement about the literary point of view, here is an interesting article about Genesis as allegory:https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/genesis-as-allegory/ The author states that Genesis was never meant to be read literally or to be scientifically accurate etc.
I think what's interesting about "ok, it was never meant to be taken literally" are the implications.
If Genesis was not meant to be taken literally, why did the writers of Matthew and Luke seek to trace Jesus' lineage to Abraham (a fictional character) and Adam (a fictional character)? Personally, I believe the notion that it was never meant to be taken as literally true is a retcon... But I would yield to the historian on that point. A lot of people thought it was literally true for a long time, until the fact of their literal untruth became undeniable. Then they became true in a whole other sense... true without being historical. Tall tales, meant to impart a lesson, not o teach about what really happened.
Fine. What's the lesson? Because some of these lessons are pretty ... what's the word... not smart.
This is more of a placeholder than anything else for the moment. It is spawned from a discussion in About the Way about their being no rain before Noah's flood. The consensus on that thread was that TWI got it wrong, that there was rain before the Flood. But other issues were brought up -- for example the teaching by Earl Burton that the universe is encapsulated in a gigantic bubble with water on the other side of it. No, seriously. And when reading Genesis, it is not hard to see where he got this idea. Genesis speaks of a firmament (a solid structure) separating the waters above (in the sky) from the waters beneath.
Looking at it from the primeval point of view of Genesis, when they didn't have the slightest inkling what the sky was made of, it's easy to see what's being described here: a flat earth covered by a large dome holding back a wall of water. The sun, moon and stars are IN that dome. Birds fly UNDER it. The firmament is NOT synonymous with what we think of as the sky. If visions of Stephen King dance in your head, you're on the right track, for that is precisely what the Bible describes.
Were the authors of Genesis being literal? Or were they being poetic? I don't know for sure. I haven't read all the scholarship on the matter. But I am sure of this: the Bible offers no indication whatsoever that they are NOT being literal. So I'll be describing what the Bible actually says, but I'll keep a very open mind about what it all means -- with an eye on what it meant to those living at the time Genesis was first written.
For those not keeping track, let me be clear at the outset of this thread: I no longer consider myself Christian, and I no longer believe in God. But you need not hold the same view to recognize what many -- Christians and atheists alike -- have realized for a very long time: There are actual errors in the Bible. Not errors of interpretation. Real, documentable, tangible blunders that show Genesis does not pass PFAL's criteria for what it means to be God-breathed.
For those who remain Christian, the challenge is simple: Deny the evidence and conclude Genesis DOES pass PFAL's criteria, or reject PFAL's criteria. Maybe God-breathed means something else entirely. If the second solution satisfies you, far be it from me to take that away from you. I'm not looking to persuade anyone that there is no God. If it's at all possible, I ask you to separate that proposition from the point I am making, which I will reiterate: There are actual errors in Genesis. What to do with them is up to you. Let's examine them. I probably won't be right about every point I make. But I will be right about many of them, and I suspect if you are honest with yourself, you will agree with that statement (even if you loathe where it has led me).
Let us begin...
Four years after starting this thread, I thought it might be handy for me to re-read the opening post, to make sure I was living up to my own original intent.
Some formatting is added here for emphasis in future references.
I would say if I made a blunder here, it was in saying I'll try to have an eye for what it meant to those living at the time Genesis was first written.
That is because in order for me to do that, we would have to come to an agreement as to when Genesis was first written.
Based on certain anachronisms and political references (the existence, for example, of kingdoms that did not exist until well after the character of Moses would have been dead, a lot of scholars believe Genesis was written by multiple writers as late as the Babylonian exile.
If that is true, it would lend lots of credence to the notion that none of this was originally intended to be taken literally. That doesn't change the fact that it most certainly was taken literally, and for a very long time.
In fact, I think Paul took Genesis literally, and I think the gospel message about Christ depends on it. Without a literal Adam, after all, how do we account for an original fall? What did Christ's sacrifice accomplish? It obviously didn't undo what Adam did if there was no Adam.
Now, smarter people than I have reconciled this matter for themselves. They do believe in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ without believing the Adam and Eve story actually took place.
A matter for another thread, and I only bring it up to examine the question of why this all matters: who cares if Genesis is literally true or allegorically true or metaphorically true? Well, lots of people, actually. If you're not one of those people, FINE.
The PFAL definition of God-breathed (I would have been more accurate to say PFAL's criteria for characteristics of the God-breathed word) contends that if there is an error or contradiction, then it "all falls apart" and is not God-breathed. That's not to say PFAL is right. It's just our only common frame of reference. So, are there really errors? Yes. Are there really contradictions? Yes.
What about plot holes? Well, if they're glaring enough, a plot hole would fall in the category of an error. For example, if Genesis is talking about Satan and not a literal snake, then why does God punish snakes? Technically, Genesis does not say a word about the serpent being a spiritual being. It talks about a snake. We get that it was Satan from extrapolating later scriptures. Revelation calls Satan "that old serpent." No, it does not say he was present at Eden, but the word choice seems intentional.
So why did God punish snakes? That's why I listed it. Why didn't God talk to Abel when he talked to literally everyone else mentioned in the Bible to that point? ["Because" is not an answer. "Why would he?" is not an answer. It's an evasion. He would talk to Abel to save Abel's life. That's a blasted good reason right there].
My point: I think we need a place for plot holes when discussing errors.
Might strike you as rather odd, but personally, I'm inclined towards thinking that the first three chapters of Genesis might be some of the most misunderstood scriptures in the Bible, and I have probably spent as much (perhaps more) time pondering their meaning than I have nearly any other section of scripture. Although the way I view it now is far different than it was years ago (when closer to the doctrines and teaching of twi), and is still some distance away from being perfect or as complete as it might be for others, it does give me a certain perspective on it that I find extraordinarily difficult at times to convey in terms that can be quickly or easily understood.
God is a spirit (according to scripture.) Man is not. And that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Between spirit and flesh is... what, exactly? What is the divide, and/or what is the bridge between these two? How and or why did it start, or get to be this way? And once separated, how does (or is) anything that is spiritual in nature communicate with (or get communicated to) that which is by nature, flesh... that sees/hears/thinks ONLY in terms that are "fleshly"?
Hence, when something is referred to as being "literally true"... does that axiomatically restrict it to something that is (or can be) only known to the flesh?
Why can't something be "literally true" if or when specifically intended to refer to a spiritual reality? Ah, well... the difficulty falls back onto our expression and communication of it.
So, Genesis begins the task of communicating the whys and wherefores of certain spiritually realities to a fleshly mind. An impossibility, perhaps? Or, perhaps not. As, it can (and often does) entail the usage of words and phrases with dual meanings. Confuse, mix up, and/or otherwise exchange the two, and it positively looks like certain errors.
No longer certain about the fate of GSC, I will continue on the assumption GSC will continue:
I don't see where there's room for "Genesis 1-3 is a misunderstood section of scripture." The only misunderstanding is that it presents itself as history, was accepted for the longest time as history, is still presented as history in certain circles (see The Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter), and is bullsh#t, from the standpoint of what actually happened in history.
This thread is looking at assertions as though they are assertions of fact and history. It is not looking at assertions as allegories to teach lessons. And honestly, i think we've far passed the point where arguments about the nature of Genesis are becoming disingenuous.You can excuse any historical inaccuracy in the Bible if you are willing to adopt some kind of expansive "but does the Bible actually say this happened" interpretation.
Everyone was perfectly happy assuming it happened until it was challenged.
Paul speaks of Adam as though Adam were a historical figure of tremendous consequence.
To come along 2,000 years later and say Paul didn't mean that, Genesis didn't mean that literally, strikes me as desperate ret-conning of It Is Written.
Show me in the Bible where they say this is just a story and not history, and you may have a point. But when the writer of Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam, I don't think he's shoving a "figuratively speaking" in there.
Did Jesus ever speak to his genealogy anywhere? Did he sit down with his followers and lay it out generation by generation? I guess what I’m after is what “data” did Luke use to trace it back to Noah?
I'm not sure I agree The Bible was always taken literally and that it wasn't always obvious that it wasn't meant to be. I believe there's an idea out there that the Bible, the printing press, and giving power to the common person and not so much to Catholic Church authorities, gave rise to rampant literal interpretations. In that way The Bible becomes the authority over any person or group. Which is a neat and liberating idea, but obviously flawed.
Similar to the idea everyone in Christopher Columbus' day thought the world was flat until he challenged it.
I mean, nobody has been perfectly happy, literal interpretations of Genesis has been challenged for maybe thousands of years. Augustine.
I don't know of any book offhand that says "psst, don't take this literally, there was not turtle named Yertle"
I somewhat get the angle, arguing against literal interpretations. But I think these arguments have motives behind them. (not saying anyone here does). Creationists, obviously have a motive to push literal aspects of The Bible, since they feel they have something to lose. And ultimately these arguments end up in politics.
1. Most people in Columbus' day knew the world was not flat.
2. Yertle the Turtle actually says "fiction" on the binding. In the copy of Insomnia, by Stephen King, on my desk right now, there's a page that has a lot of teeny tiny type on it. Copyright date. Publisher's address. Credits for other people's work cited in the novel. And this gem of a paragraph: "Publisher's note: This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents are either the products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events or locales is entirely coincidental."
3. You see the same disclaimer in most works of fiction and in most fictional movies.
4. Nonetheless, it was never taken literally by anyone and if it were, then an analysis showing why it could not possibly be literally true would be warranted. Arguing against such an analysis by saying it wasn't MEANT to be taken literally when it was written does not change the fact that it was taken literally by others at a later time. I don't think one can reasonably argue that Paul and the writer of the gospel of Luke didn't believe that Adam was a real person in history. They clearly did. A significant piece of Paul's theology hinges on it. How Augustine handles that complication is something I have yet to explore, to be honest (thank you for the EXCELLENT link). I do know that Catholics in general have been comfortable for decades at least with "Adam and Eve never happened" AND "Jesus' death was a sacrifice that atones for original sin." I suppose their reconciliation of those two ideas, which contradict each other on the surface, can be found in the writings of their most prestigious philosophers.
Did Jesus ever speak to his genealogy anywhere? Did he sit down with his followers and lay it out generation by generation? I guess what I’m after is what “data” did Luke use to trace it back to Noah?
Luke traced it back to Adam.
I have no idea what "data" he used, except that some of it can be deduced from Kings and Chronicles. Whether those are reliable is a matter for another time/thread. I don't recall Jesus speaking of his genealogy.
I don't wee where there's room for "Genesis 1-3 is a misunderstood section of scripture."
Huhn? Since when isn't there room to fall short in understanding (or, miss the understanding of) either sections of, or the entirety of, scripture?
(heck, I thought - perhaps mistakenly - that even the most inflated "know-it-all" savants of twi would, or at least could, recognize there's always a possibility that they might be missing something there. Maybe I'm from a different era, or planet, or universe, or ...something.)
2 hours ago, Raf said:
The only misunderstanding is that it presents itself as history
Well, it is history. (I've never - or at least, not that I remember - ever thought otherwise.)
However, more precisely, I (now) think of it more as spiritual history.
In other words, history presented from a spiritual perspective.
But communicated in physical (or "worldly") terms.
To say that it is only (or exclusively) "allegorical" sounds more like an effort to extricate spiritual things from it, rather than seeing the overall picture that is painted as the evidence of an otherwise invisible spiritual reality.
yeah, okay. maybe that went through one ear and out the other.
so... I'll try to say it another way.
Maybe some (or many, even) of the "individual pieces" of the story aren't going to have real straightforward or obvious meanings, unless or until they are viewed as integral parts of a much bigger picture. So, if and/or when you get stuck on or obsess over what certain of the pieces might really mean, you won't (and can't) see how they fit into the spiritual story. (In other words, you can't see the forest for the trees.) For far too many years, I was rather stuck on trying to use word studies (Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, etc...) to "unlock" meanings. I'm not saying that such efforts always go unrewarded. They're simply "inadequate" in and of themselves most of the time, and many times actually get in the way of looking at it and considering it in the light of other known truth.
1. Most people in Columbus' day knew the world was not flat.
. . .
(Just clarifying a little, I meant that with some sarcasm. I believe it has often been taught, even in schools, that Columbus somehow discovered or proved the earth was round. Why the misinformation? I don't know. Yes many people knew the earth was round, even far back before much of the Bible was likely written)
WTF does that mean? Did it actually happen or not? This weaseling of words is what makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with some people.
It "spiriitually" happened. Wha? "History presented from a spiritual perspective." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN REAL LIFE?
"Evidence of an otherwise invisible spiritual reality."
Do you realize that NOTHING is untrue if you look at it this way? Nothing! Yertle the Turtle is now a true story. Green Eggs and Ham is a true story. Because you're erased the meaning of "true" by adding so many qualifiers as to render the original word meaningless.
There's a word for that: Obfuscation.
For some reason, you find the prospect that Adam and Eve never existed and Genesis 1-3 is a work of total fiction SO THREATENING that the only way you can address it is by hiding the word fiction behind a meaningless "spiritual history."
You're free to do that all you'd like, but it does not address the topic of this thread, which addresses a literal interpretation of Genesis, as you well know by now.
(Just clarifying a little, I meant that with some sarcasm. I believe it has often been taught, even in schools, that Columbus somehow discovered or proved the earth was round. Why the misinformation? I don't know. Yes many people knew the earth was round, even far back before much of the Bible was likely written)
The writers of the Bible knew the Earth was round. There is little to no evidence that they knew it was spherical.
WTF does that mean? Did it actually happen or not? This weaseling of words is what makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with some people.
It "spiriitually" happened. Wha? "History presented from a spiritual perspective." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN REAL LIFE?
"Evidence of an otherwise invisible spiritual reality."
Do you realize that NOTHING is untrue if you look at it this way? Nothing! Yertle the Turtle is now a true story. Green Eggs and Ham is a true story. Because you're erased the meaning of "true" by adding so many qualifiers as to render the original word meaningless.
There's a word for that: Obfuscation.
For some reason, you find the prospect that Adam and Eve never existed and Genesis 1-3 is a work of total fiction SO THREATENING that the only way you can address it is by hiding the word fiction behind a meaningless "spiritual history."
You're free to do that all you'd like, but it does not address the topic of this thread, which addresses a literal interpretation of Genesis, as you well know by now.
Short answer is this, Raf. I suspect that you deny there being anything more "real" than that which is or can be detected and known by the natural senses. I, on the other hand, believe that everything that is and can be known by the natural senses is only PART of what is real. You can call or label my position as "obfuscation" if you want (which is little more than a continued denial of it), but it certainly doesn't describe it well, nor change it.
And there are plenty of things that are untrue if or when viewed from my perspective, undoubtedly far more than you can possibly imagine.
Furthermore, I don't have any more difficulty believing in the literal existence of Adam and Eve than I do of George Washington. In fact, you'd probably have an easier time trying to convince me that George Washington never existed and that someone else was the first president of the U.S.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
137
24
35
25
Popular Days
Aug 2
50
Sep 12
15
Oct 4
13
Jul 30
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 137 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 24 posts
Bolshevik 35 posts
TLC 25 posts
Popular Days
Aug 2 2014
50 posts
Sep 12 2018
15 posts
Oct 4 2018
13 posts
Jul 30 2017
11 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
I thought I was quite clear in my post # 81: even your reply in post # 82 gave every indication that you knew I was providing only a list of books And just to verify I was going provide what you
Raf
Actually, you don't just get to say this and have it be true. That's arrogance. "My position is wise even if it makes no sense to you." Honestly, that's the definition of arrogance. Why demo
Grace Valerie Claire
Raf, I beg to differ with you; Demons do exist! I know one lives here in DC!!
TLC
Actually, that's not true, as I tend to look quite carefully for the congruity in what someone else says they believe. But, perhaps that's something that you don't care to do, and/or prefer to avoid dealing with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That is not credible. I'm sorry, but it's just not.
But whatever.
Moving on...
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
In Genesis 10, we the the repopulation of earth after the flood that never happened either globally or regionally. We know it wasn't global because there was not enough time for the population to have grown so massive that Nimrod's territory could encompass all it did by verse 12. And we know it wasn't regional because there was no flood in that region that would have been massive enough to carry the ark to "the mountains of Ararat." We've gone over this in previous posts; no need to rehash.
Then we get to chapter 11, where we learn that the whole world had one language and a common speech.
This is simply not true. It has never been true. I mean, just read the previous chapter. The writer of that chapter didn't think everyone on earth had one language.
So these people decide to build a city. As though there weren't already more than a dozen of them as recorded in the previous chapter. With a tower that reaches all the way to heaven.
Bearing in mind that heaven just meant "sky," I will refrain from the usual trope that they wanted to reach God's habitat. It's not what the book says. But note their concern: If we don't build this really big building, we may end up scattered all over the earth. This, apparently, would be a bad thing.
I could be wrong on this, but I don't think the author of Gen. 11 is the author of Gen. 10. Honestly, the author of Genesis 10 talks about a huge population of over multiple cities and even kingdoms. Gen. 11 has one group of people, all speaking one language, as if these are the only people on earth.
I am aware of Bullinger's belief that the tower was not going to be remarkable for its height but for its content: it was supposed to depict the heavens, which would have been ... I don't know. I don't get why that would concern God. But I don't get why God was bothered by this building anyway. Nevertheless, He persisted.
“If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them," God says, as if this were a bad thing. "Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
Would this be an inconvenient time to bring up the verse that says God is not the author of confusion? Because it seems here that he's taking credit for it.
Anyway, so God, instead of appearing in some form that says "don't construct this building: it is against my will," instead decides to have everyone speak different languages. Suddenly, no one understands each other. So the people who DO understand each other get together in groups and depart for other lands, where they can be with their own people. And that's how we got the different languages of the world.
Of all the cockamamie... Seriously? You know this didn't happen, right?
And let's be real clear: similar to the flood, this confusing of languages is not some localized event unnoticed by most of humanity. This IS most of humanity. Note the scripture:
"So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel -- because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth."
Not a local event.
And not a true one. Languages developed independently over a great deal of time. They didn't all suddenly pop up at one location in the middle east and scatter around the world from there.
This is a myth, not history. It never happened.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
It sounds like they were trying to build a Utopia. Often when that's attempted it doesn't end well.
God kicked them out. Like before with Eden. Maybe a pattern starting?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Perhaps.
Again, if we're going to discuss this as interpreting what the writers of a fictional story meant to convey, then "actual errors" is pointless because no one is asserting that the story actually happened. It's a whole different conversations.
This thread implicitly addresses the position that these events are asserted to have actually happened as described.
There's NOTHING wrong with looking at everything from a literary point of view.
It's just not the point of this thread. The moment the reader says "this story is just that: a story that never took place in real life," then we're not in any fundamental disagreement about that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
These stories didn't happen, but they cleary did. That is more difficult to describe.
The stories came from somewhere, a long time ago. Without the printing press, or an initial single writer, it seams.
And arguing,
"The sun didn't move for a day" . . "that's not scientifically valid" . . ."yeah but einstein if you cross your eyes" . . . this could go on ad infinitum. Is that the right tactic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Infoabsorption
The more I study the Old Testament the more I realize that it is mostly allegory including Genesis. For years I assumed that the animals described in Isaiah 11 are literal animals until I realized that they are actually symbolic of 2 groups of people. Same thing with Genesis although Genesis is not my thing. In some Jewish circles the Tree of Life represents this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(Kabbalah) whatever that means.Alluding to Raf's statement about the literary point of view, here is an interesting article about Genesis as allegory:https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/genesis-as-allegory/ The author states that Genesis was never meant to be read literally or to be scientifically accurate etc.
Edited by Infoabsorptiongoofs as usual
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Do you have a point?
I have made it very clear why this thread exists and what viewpoint it addresses. The existence of other viewpoints does not invalidate the purpose of this thread. They exist independently.
If you don't think this is "the right tactic" (the right tactic for what?) then GTFO of this conversation. This thread is for people interested in this subject. Clearly you are not, and that is ok.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks, IA.
I think what's interesting about "ok, it was never meant to be taken literally" are the implications.
If Genesis was not meant to be taken literally, why did the writers of Matthew and Luke seek to trace Jesus' lineage to Abraham (a fictional character) and Adam (a fictional character)? Personally, I believe the notion that it was never meant to be taken as literally true is a retcon... But I would yield to the historian on that point. A lot of people thought it was literally true for a long time, until the fact of their literal untruth became undeniable. Then they became true in a whole other sense... true without being historical. Tall tales, meant to impart a lesson, not o teach about what really happened.
Fine. What's the lesson? Because some of these lessons are pretty ... what's the word... not smart.
In my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Four years after starting this thread, I thought it might be handy for me to re-read the opening post, to make sure I was living up to my own original intent.
Some formatting is added here for emphasis in future references.
I would say if I made a blunder here, it was in saying I'll try to have an eye for what it meant to those living at the time Genesis was first written.
That is because in order for me to do that, we would have to come to an agreement as to when Genesis was first written.
Based on certain anachronisms and political references (the existence, for example, of kingdoms that did not exist until well after the character of Moses would have been dead, a lot of scholars believe Genesis was written by multiple writers as late as the Babylonian exile.
If that is true, it would lend lots of credence to the notion that none of this was originally intended to be taken literally. That doesn't change the fact that it most certainly was taken literally, and for a very long time.
In fact, I think Paul took Genesis literally, and I think the gospel message about Christ depends on it. Without a literal Adam, after all, how do we account for an original fall? What did Christ's sacrifice accomplish? It obviously didn't undo what Adam did if there was no Adam.
Now, smarter people than I have reconciled this matter for themselves. They do believe in the redemptive sacrifice of Christ without believing the Adam and Eve story actually took place.
A matter for another thread, and I only bring it up to examine the question of why this all matters: who cares if Genesis is literally true or allegorically true or metaphorically true? Well, lots of people, actually. If you're not one of those people, FINE.
The PFAL definition of God-breathed (I would have been more accurate to say PFAL's criteria for characteristics of the God-breathed word) contends that if there is an error or contradiction, then it "all falls apart" and is not God-breathed. That's not to say PFAL is right. It's just our only common frame of reference. So, are there really errors? Yes. Are there really contradictions? Yes.
What about plot holes? Well, if they're glaring enough, a plot hole would fall in the category of an error. For example, if Genesis is talking about Satan and not a literal snake, then why does God punish snakes? Technically, Genesis does not say a word about the serpent being a spiritual being. It talks about a snake. We get that it was Satan from extrapolating later scriptures. Revelation calls Satan "that old serpent." No, it does not say he was present at Eden, but the word choice seems intentional.
So why did God punish snakes? That's why I listed it. Why didn't God talk to Abel when he talked to literally everyone else mentioned in the Bible to that point? ["Because" is not an answer. "Why would he?" is not an answer. It's an evasion. He would talk to Abel to save Abel's life. That's a blasted good reason right there].
My point: I think we need a place for plot holes when discussing errors.
I guess.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Adam was God-breathed. He fell apart. The Word is God-breathed, too.
(I'm hoping this counts as an error or plot hole)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It counts as amusing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Might strike you as rather odd, but personally, I'm inclined towards thinking that the first three chapters of Genesis might be some of the most misunderstood scriptures in the Bible, and I have probably spent as much (perhaps more) time pondering their meaning than I have nearly any other section of scripture. Although the way I view it now is far different than it was years ago (when closer to the doctrines and teaching of twi), and is still some distance away from being perfect or as complete as it might be for others, it does give me a certain perspective on it that I find extraordinarily difficult at times to convey in terms that can be quickly or easily understood.
God is a spirit (according to scripture.) Man is not. And that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Between spirit and flesh is... what, exactly? What is the divide, and/or what is the bridge between these two? How and or why did it start, or get to be this way? And once separated, how does (or is) anything that is spiritual in nature communicate with (or get communicated to) that which is by nature, flesh... that sees/hears/thinks ONLY in terms that are "fleshly"?
Hence, when something is referred to as being "literally true"... does that axiomatically restrict it to something that is (or can be) only known to the flesh?
Why can't something be "literally true" if or when specifically intended to refer to a spiritual reality? Ah, well... the difficulty falls back onto our expression and communication of it.
So, Genesis begins the task of communicating the whys and wherefores of certain spiritually realities to a fleshly mind. An impossibility, perhaps? Or, perhaps not. As, it can (and often does) entail the usage of words and phrases with dual meanings. Confuse, mix up, and/or otherwise exchange the two, and it positively looks like certain errors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
it appears gsc will be shutting down at the end of November.
As such, I will cease and desist from this and all other discussions.
It has been an honor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No longer certain about the fate of GSC, I will continue on the assumption GSC will continue:
I don't see where there's room for "Genesis 1-3 is a misunderstood section of scripture." The only misunderstanding is that it presents itself as history, was accepted for the longest time as history, is still presented as history in certain circles (see The Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter), and is bullsh#t, from the standpoint of what actually happened in history.
This thread is looking at assertions as though they are assertions of fact and history. It is not looking at assertions as allegories to teach lessons. And honestly, i think we've far passed the point where arguments about the nature of Genesis are becoming disingenuous.You can excuse any historical inaccuracy in the Bible if you are willing to adopt some kind of expansive "but does the Bible actually say this happened" interpretation.
Everyone was perfectly happy assuming it happened until it was challenged.
Paul speaks of Adam as though Adam were a historical figure of tremendous consequence.
To come along 2,000 years later and say Paul didn't mean that, Genesis didn't mean that literally, strikes me as desperate ret-conning of It Is Written.
Show me in the Bible where they say this is just a story and not history, and you may have a point. But when the writer of Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam, I don't think he's shoving a "figuratively speaking" in there.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
Did Jesus ever speak to his genealogy anywhere? Did he sit down with his followers and lay it out generation by generation? I guess what I’m after is what “data” did Luke use to trace it back to Noah?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm not sure I agree The Bible was always taken literally and that it wasn't always obvious that it wasn't meant to be. I believe there's an idea out there that the Bible, the printing press, and giving power to the common person and not so much to Catholic Church authorities, gave rise to rampant literal interpretations. In that way The Bible becomes the authority over any person or group. Which is a neat and liberating idea, but obviously flawed.
Similar to the idea everyone in Christopher Columbus' day thought the world was flat until he challenged it.
I mean, nobody has been perfectly happy, literal interpretations of Genesis has been challenged for maybe thousands of years. Augustine.
I don't know of any book offhand that says "psst, don't take this literally, there was not turtle named Yertle"
I somewhat get the angle, arguing against literal interpretations. But I think these arguments have motives behind them. (not saying anyone here does). Creationists, obviously have a motive to push literal aspects of The Bible, since they feel they have something to lose. And ultimately these arguments end up in politics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
1. Most people in Columbus' day knew the world was not flat.
2. Yertle the Turtle actually says "fiction" on the binding. In the copy of Insomnia, by Stephen King, on my desk right now, there's a page that has a lot of teeny tiny type on it. Copyright date. Publisher's address. Credits for other people's work cited in the novel. And this gem of a paragraph: "Publisher's note: This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents are either the products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously, and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events or locales is entirely coincidental."
3. You see the same disclaimer in most works of fiction and in most fictional movies.
4. Nonetheless, it was never taken literally by anyone and if it were, then an analysis showing why it could not possibly be literally true would be warranted. Arguing against such an analysis by saying it wasn't MEANT to be taken literally when it was written does not change the fact that it was taken literally by others at a later time. I don't think one can reasonably argue that Paul and the writer of the gospel of Luke didn't believe that Adam was a real person in history. They clearly did. A significant piece of Paul's theology hinges on it. How Augustine handles that complication is something I have yet to explore, to be honest (thank you for the EXCELLENT link). I do know that Catholics in general have been comfortable for decades at least with "Adam and Eve never happened" AND "Jesus' death was a sacrifice that atones for original sin." I suppose their reconciliation of those two ideas, which contradict each other on the surface, can be found in the writings of their most prestigious philosophers.
Or, maybe not. WIll be interesting to explore.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Luke traced it back to Adam.
I have no idea what "data" he used, except that some of it can be deduced from Kings and Chronicles. Whether those are reliable is a matter for another time/thread. I don't recall Jesus speaking of his genealogy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Huhn? Since when isn't there room to fall short in understanding (or, miss the understanding of) either sections of, or the entirety of, scripture?
(heck, I thought - perhaps mistakenly - that even the most inflated "know-it-all" savants of twi would, or at least could, recognize there's always a possibility that they might be missing something there. Maybe I'm from a different era, or planet, or universe, or ...something.)
Well, it is history. (I've never - or at least, not that I remember - ever thought otherwise.)
However, more precisely, I (now) think of it more as spiritual history.
In other words, history presented from a spiritual perspective.
But communicated in physical (or "worldly") terms.
To say that it is only (or exclusively) "allegorical" sounds more like an effort to extricate spiritual things from it, rather than seeing the overall picture that is painted as the evidence of an otherwise invisible spiritual reality.
yeah, okay. maybe that went through one ear and out the other.
so... I'll try to say it another way.
Maybe some (or many, even) of the "individual pieces" of the story aren't going to have real straightforward or obvious meanings, unless or until they are viewed as integral parts of a much bigger picture. So, if and/or when you get stuck on or obsess over what certain of the pieces might really mean, you won't (and can't) see how they fit into the spiritual story. (In other words, you can't see the forest for the trees.) For far too many years, I was rather stuck on trying to use word studies (Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, etc...) to "unlock" meanings. I'm not saying that such efforts always go unrewarded. They're simply "inadequate" in and of themselves most of the time, and many times actually get in the way of looking at it and considering it in the light of other known truth.
Edited by TLCclarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
(Just clarifying a little, I meant that with some sarcasm. I believe it has often been taught, even in schools, that Columbus somehow discovered or proved the earth was round. Why the misinformation? I don't know. Yes many people knew the earth was round, even far back before much of the Bible was likely written)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
TLC,
"It's spiritual history"
WTF does that mean? Did it actually happen or not? This weaseling of words is what makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with some people.
It "spiriitually" happened. Wha? "History presented from a spiritual perspective." WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IN REAL LIFE?
"Evidence of an otherwise invisible spiritual reality."
Do you realize that NOTHING is untrue if you look at it this way? Nothing! Yertle the Turtle is now a true story. Green Eggs and Ham is a true story. Because you're erased the meaning of "true" by adding so many qualifiers as to render the original word meaningless.
There's a word for that: Obfuscation.
For some reason, you find the prospect that Adam and Eve never existed and Genesis 1-3 is a work of total fiction SO THREATENING that the only way you can address it is by hiding the word fiction behind a meaningless "spiritual history."
You're free to do that all you'd like, but it does not address the topic of this thread, which addresses a literal interpretation of Genesis, as you well know by now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The writers of the Bible knew the Earth was round. There is little to no evidence that they knew it was spherical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Short answer is this, Raf. I suspect that you deny there being anything more "real" than that which is or can be detected and known by the natural senses. I, on the other hand, believe that everything that is and can be known by the natural senses is only PART of what is real. You can call or label my position as "obfuscation" if you want (which is little more than a continued denial of it), but it certainly doesn't describe it well, nor change it.
And there are plenty of things that are untrue if or when viewed from my perspective, undoubtedly far more than you can possibly imagine.
Furthermore, I don't have any more difficulty believing in the literal existence of Adam and Eve than I do of George Washington. In fact, you'd probably have an easier time trying to convince me that George Washington never existed and that someone else was the first president of the U.S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.