Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis: is it to be taken literally?
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 3 of 301 (106383)
05-07-2004 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Proboscis
05-07-2004 4:23 PM


Care to be more specific?
Hi,
Could you clarify what you mean by your topic title?
Do you mean the entire Book of Genesis or only parts of it, if only parts then what part(s)?
I am guessing that you mean the two creation myths, but I could be wrong, so what exactly is it that you wish to discuss?
Cheers.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Proboscis, posted 05-07-2004 4:23 PM Proboscis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-08-2004 1:50 PM Brian has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 27 of 301 (106583)
05-08-2004 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by almeyda
05-08-2004 6:34 AM


Re: ...
Professor Albright in his essay "Biblical Period" writes "Hebrew national tradition excels all others in its clear picture of tribal & family origins.
Of course, most of Albright’s theories about the origins of Israel have been totally refuted, he still casts a giant shadow over ‘biblical archaeology’ but his ‘conquest model’, for example, is now 100% rejected.
Albright suggested that the Israelites never totally left Palestine, (Albright, W. F., 1939 The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in Light of Archaeology. BASOR 74: pp11-23.) He argued that the settlement of Israel in Palestine had actually begun in the age of the Patriarchs, and that Abraham had been a part of a group known as the ‘apiru, a semi-nomadic people who were well attested to in various sources during the 15th and 14th centuries BCE. Some of the ‘Israelite’ element in the ‘apiru settled in the marginal land of the hill country, and when their countrymen returned from Egypt in the Exodus, they then joined together and mounted a military campaign across the whole of Palestine. Albright also explains that this was why the later traditions could no longer differentiate the various groups.
Albright’s assertion that Abraham was a wandering nomad was based entirely on his faulty premise that the Israelites were part of the group named ‘apiru in the Amarna Letters (and elsewhere), however, Mendehall (Mendenhall, G. E. 1962 The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. BA 25: pp 66-87.) demonstrated that the ‘apiru depicted in contemporary sources were anything but nomads, they were bandits, mercenaries, people who rejected authority. The link between the Israelites/’apiru is irreparable, Albright’s theory died 40 years ago because he could not provide any convincing evidence that the early Israelites were nomadic or semi nomadic.
This essay you are citing is claiming that the early Israelites were a nomadic people, its basic premise has not been entertained for decades, you really need more up to date information.
I wonder if you actually have any idea how much of the ‘intricate history’ in the Books of Genesis through to II Kings has been falsified, I urge you to do some serious reading. If you have a decent university library near you, take out an external reader membership and look for some of these:
Albright, W.F., 1935 Archaeology and the Date of the Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. BASOR 58: pp.10-18.
Albright, W.F., 1937 Further Light on the History of Israel from Lachish and Megiddo. BASOR 68: pp. 22-26
Albright, W. F., 1939 The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in Light of Archaeology. BASOR 74: pp11-23.
Alt, A. 1966 The Formation of the Israelite State in Palestine in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Oxford: Blackwell: pp135-69.
Coote, R.B. and K.W. Whitelam, 1987 The emergence of early Israel in historical perspective. The social world of Biblical antiquity; 5., Sheffield: Almond.
Dever, W., How to tell an Canaanite from an Israelite In Shanks The Rise of Israel
Dever, W., 1995 Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Question of Israel's Origins. BA, 58: pp. 200-213.
Eickelman Dale, F., 1989 The Middle East : an anthropological approach., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Finkelstein, I., 1995 The Great Transformation: The 'Conquest' of the Highlands Fronteirs and the Rise of the Territorial States in Levy 1995..
Finkelstein, I. 1988 The archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Israel Exploration Society. Jerusalem
Frick, F.S., 1985 The formation of the state in ancient Israel : a survey of models and theories. The Social world of Biblical antiquity; 4., Sheffield: Almond.
Gottwald, N.K., 1979 The tribes of Yahweh : a sociology of the religion of liberated Israel 1250-1050 B.C.E., London: SCM Press.
Gottwald, N.K., 1983 The Bible and liberation : political and social hermeneutics : revised edition of a 'Radical religion' reader., Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.
Gottwald, N.K. 1992 Response to William Dever in Shanks H The Rise of Ancient Israel.
Hopkins D. 1993 Pastoralists in Late Bronze Age Palestine: Where Did They Go?, BA 56: p200-211
Ibrahim, M., 1978 'The Collared Rim jar of the Early Iron Age' in Moorey and Parr 'Archaeology in the Levant’
Lang, B., 1985 Anthopological Approaches to the Old Testament., London: SPCK.
Levy, T.E., 1995 The archaeology of society in the Holy Land., London: Leicester University Press.
Mendenhall, G. E. 1962 The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine. BA 25: pp 66-87.
Moorey, P.R.S., M. Kenyon Kathleen, and P. Parr, 1978 Archaeology in the Levant : essays for Kathleen Kenyon., Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
Noth, M., 1960 The history of Israel., London: A. & C. Black.
Orme, B., 1981 Anthropology for archaeologists: an introduction., London: Duckworth.
Shanks, H. 1992 The Rise of Ancient Israel Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington.
Vansina, J., 1985 Oral tradition as history., London: James Currey.
Weippert, M., 1971 The settlement of the Israelite tribes in Palestine: a critical survey of the recent scholarly debate. Studies in Biblical theology. 2nd series; 21., London: SCM Press.
Yigal, S., The Four-Room House: Its Situation and Function in the Israelite City. IEJ, 1970. 20: p. 180-90.
If you wanted to read as few books as possible, I would recommend Weippert’s book and Levy’s. These would at least give you a better idea than an isolated, outdated Albright quote.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 6:34 AM almeyda has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 29 of 301 (106607)
05-08-2004 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by almeyda
05-08-2004 12:39 PM


Which version of Genesis?
I think what Crashfrog was getting at is that you do not know if these ages are accurate or not, they may be entirely fictional.
As an example of the unreliability of these ages, here are the ages from Adam to Noah in three early biblical texts; The Masoretic Text, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint.
MT first: (AM = Anno Mundi)
Adam 1-930 AM
Seth 130- 1042 AM
Enosh 235-1140 AM
Kenan 325-1235 AM
Mahalalel 395-1290 AM
Jared 460-1422 AM
Enoch 622-987 AM
Methuselah 687-1656 AM
Lamech 874-1652 AM
Noah 1056- 2006 AM
MT gives date of the Flood as 1656 AM
Now the Samaritan Pentateuch:
Adam 1-930 AM
Seth 130- 1042 AM
Enosh 235-1140 AM
Kenan 325-1235 AM
Mahalalel 395-1290 AM
Jared 460-1307 AM
Enoch 522-887 AM
Methuselah 587-1307 AM
Lamech 654 - 1307 AM
Noah 707- 1657 AM
The SP gives the date of the Flood as 1307 AM
The same people in the Septuagint
Adam 1-930 AM
Seth 230- 1142 AM
Enosh 435-1340 AM
Kenan 625-1535 AM
Mahalalel 795-1690 AM
Jared 960-1922 AM
Enoch 1122-1487 AM
Methuselah 1287-2256 AM
Lamech 1454-2207 AM
Noah 1642- 2592 AM
The LXX gives the date of the Flood as 2242 AM.
You can imagine that the different dates of the early biblical characters would have a knock on effect, making the dating of all subsequent events problematic. If Genesis is to be taken literally, you then have the problem of which version of Genesis is to be taken literally and then which versions should be rejected. You would, of course, have to give fairly detailed reasons why one version of the Bible is preferred to any other.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by almeyda, posted 05-08-2004 12:39 PM almeyda has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 32 of 301 (106614)
05-08-2004 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object
05-08-2004 1:50 PM


Hi WT, good to 'see' you.
Why is the creation account of Genesis assumed a myth ?
It is to do with the format of the narratives. God may indeed have created the universe and everything in it, but the Genesis narratives are not detailed, technical accounts of how He achieved this. Myths are often used to explain events that are beyond human understanding, it doesn’t follow that a myth is a work of fiction. Think of it this way, if God created the universe and everything in it with a single thought then how boring a story would that be, and it really doesn’t give humans an understanding of how beholding we should be to God. On the other hand, if there is a narrative to explain to humans how wonderful God is and it outlines how God went about creating the universe, then that is far more interesting, it gives humans a place in God’s grand scheme.
There are many myths all over the world that explain in human terms things that are beyond our understanding. Myths that explain thunder for example, are myths that attempt to explain a real phenomenon. There is such a thing as thunder, people used to write myths to explain how thunder happens, God created the universe and everything in it and people wrote myths to explain how and why He did this.
Calling the creation narratives ‘myths’ is not the same as saying they are fictional accounts, they have just been written in such a way that humans can draw some understanding from them.
The CLAIM of Genesis is that it is the PROTECTED account of what happened, protected by God as His version of how things were and went.
Is this really a claim that Genesis makes?
In this case, as in all cases when God is communicating what He wants known, His subjective views become the objective truth.
But the ‘truth’ is always objective, whether something is true or not is not affected by what anyone believes.
Therefore if the creation account of Genesis is true, then this would logically explain every other similar account fact or fiction.
The big problem here is that the Genesis creation accounts have no basis in fact at all, there is no ‘theory of creation’ that has any credibility at all. It is a very big ‘if’ you have in there, and everything we know from science, archaeology, and history is against creation.
This also explains why these stories have common denominators and it explains their differences in that the Genesis account is the protected version of facts and the others are unguarded by God as they evolve over time and change.
This is a hugely subjective statement WT, if the Genesis narratives were factual, we would all be following Yahweh, we would all be teaching creation in science classes, and we would all be careful what we are looking at when we make love to our partners because Genesis’ version of genetic modification is pretty frightening.
The existence of similar stories in other civilizations fact or fiction and the threads of common denominators only say one thing : There is a source, a beginning of the central and common facts therein. That source is the account of Genesis from which all the others flow.
But the Genesis myths are not the oldest creation myths we have, the Atrahassis myth is much older, and the Bible has borrowed many elements from Atrahassis.
Anyway, just to let you know that ‘myth’ does not equal ‘fiction’.
Cheers.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-08-2004 1:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-09-2004 8:35 PM Brian has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 79 of 301 (107438)
05-11-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object
05-09-2004 8:35 PM


Hi WT,
If you want to stipulate that then I cannot prevent it, but everyone knows that when Genesis is equated with the adjective "myth" that the author is saying that they believe the claims of Genesis are NOT TRUE.
I am sorry WT, but everyone who equates Genesis with myth is not saying that they believe that Genesis is untrue, only someone who has no idea what a myth is would say that.
Yes, I completely agree. My point was that God's subjective views are the only subjective views that become objective, automatically, IF HE IS.
Why do they automatically become objective, God doesn’t have a monopoly on truth WT.
But, to go on and redefine myth is essentially a worthless stipulation.
But I haven’t redefined ‘myth’. Maybe I have used a definition that you are unfamiliar with?
Nobody is going to reconfigure their perception of what myth means
People should reconfigure their perceptions of what anything means if they have been mistaken about what that thing is. Anyone who equates ‘myth’ with ’fiction’ doesn’t know what myth means.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-09-2004 8:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 84 of 301 (107538)
05-11-2004 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by MarkAustin
05-11-2004 3:51 PM


Re: Genesis should be treated just like any other theory that no longer serves a purpose
Hi,
There is evidence from Elephantine of 'Yahweh and his Asherah' a female consort, maybe htis is what you are referring to?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MarkAustin, posted 05-11-2004 3:51 PM MarkAustin has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 97 of 301 (107917)
05-13-2004 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by doctrbill
05-13-2004 11:15 AM


Re: we and us and GODs
Hey Doc, really good to see you again!
I think maybe what Jar was getting at is that Jews acknowledged that people worshipped other gods, I am not convinced they acknowledged the existence of other gods, only that some people worshipped them.
Anyway, it is good to see you again, things were so bad around here that I had to resort to arguing with Buz!
Brian.
Edit: Apology to Jar, I posted this before I saw your reply, sorry.
This message has been edited by Brian, 05-13-2004 10:57 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by doctrbill, posted 05-13-2004 11:15 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by doctrbill, posted 05-13-2004 12:08 PM Brian has replied
 Message 144 by ramoss, posted 08-15-2004 10:11 PM Brian has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 107 of 301 (107965)
05-13-2004 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Rick Rose
05-13-2004 1:19 PM


Re: IMHO there is very little in the Bible ...
Yet Jesus verified the Gen accoutn:
And Jesus was as gullible as any other Jew in first century Palestine. Jesus was also silly enough to believe that Moses wrote the Torah and that Jonah was in a whale for three days. What Jesus believed to be true and what actually is true, is not always the same thing.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Rick Rose, posted 05-13-2004 1:19 PM Rick Rose has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Rick Rose, posted 05-13-2004 3:46 PM Brian has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 117 of 301 (108160)
05-14-2004 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Rick Rose
05-13-2004 3:46 PM


Re: IMHO there is very little in the Bible ...
HI,
The same can be said for what is true and what you believe to be true.
Of course, would anyone seriously dispute this?
As an example, you present yourself with a cross and make derogatory statements toward those claiming to be Christians.
I don't present myself with a cross, and where have I made derogatory statements?
Nevertheless, it's not offensive because Jesus died on a stake, not a cross.
I never claimed that Jesus died on anything.
You are as knowledgeable as those you mock.
Now that would be difficult.
No further debate on the subject. Sharpen your pencil elsewhere.
Thank God for that.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Rick Rose, posted 05-13-2004 3:46 PM Rick Rose has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by JonF, posted 05-14-2004 9:28 AM Brian has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 118 of 301 (108162)
05-14-2004 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by doctrbill
05-13-2004 12:08 PM


Re: we and us and GODs
Hi,
I watched Life of Brian recently, with someone who had never seen it (can you imagine that?) and she was duly impressed, and entertained. It is perhaps the most precious video tape in my collection.
I cannot believe that it was banned for so long here in Scotland. But it is a very funny film, and totally accurate as well
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by doctrbill, posted 05-13-2004 12:08 PM doctrbill has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 120 of 301 (108168)
05-14-2004 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by JonF
05-14-2004 9:28 AM


Re: IMHO there is very little in the Bible ...
Ah, must be.
He must think that I am under the impression that 'The Life of Brian' is an attempt to accurately portray Jesus life. While it is slightly more believable than the Gospels, I selected the avatar mainly for the coincidence of my Christian name and that of the leading character.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by JonF, posted 05-14-2004 9:28 AM JonF has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 233 of 301 (181869)
01-30-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Terry48420
01-30-2005 1:22 PM


Re: Reply to MiguelG
Hi Terry,
Christians before the time of Darwin almost all took Genesis literally.
I think you will be surprised to discover that this is incorrect. I used to believe this as well, but study the Church Fathers and you will get a surprise.
For example, the allegorical means of interpreting the Old Testament had previously been suggested by Philo Judaeus, but the main exponent of this approach was the Church Father Origen (186-255 CE).
When faced with an apparent difficulty in the text, Origen proposed that:
Whenever we meet with such useless, nay impossible, incidents and precepts as these, we must discard a literal interpretation and consider of what moral interpretation they are capable of, with what higher and mysterious meaning they are fraught, what deeper truths they were intended symbolically and in allegory to shadow forth. The divine wisdom has of set purpose contrived these little traps and stumbling blocks in order to cry halt to our slavish historical understanding of the text, by inserting in its midst sundry things that are impossible and unsuitable. The Holy Spirit so waylays us in order that we may be driven by passages which, taken in the prima facie sense cannot be true or useful, to search for the ulterior truth, and seek in the Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by God a meaning worthy of him (Quote in: Conybeare Frederick, C. (1910) History of New Testament Criticism, Watts & Co., London. pp.14-15)
Origen was particularly adamant about looking for hidden meanings behind the text. He acknowledged that some of the biblical text was not intended to be taken literally.
Who will be found idiot enough to believe that God planted trees in Paradise like any husbandman; that he set up in it visible and palpable tree-trunks, labelled the one ‘Tree of Life’ and the other ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ both bearing real fruit that might be masticated with corporeal teeth; that he went and walked about that garden; that Adam hid under a tree; that Cain fled from the face of God? (Conybeare: 10)
I have to thank Truthlover for helping me out with this last year as I was under the impression that early Christians took the Bible literally, but when I actually studied the Church Fathers then I found out that I was mistaken.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 1:22 PM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 7:58 PM Brian has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 255 of 301 (182079)
01-31-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Terry48420
01-30-2005 7:58 PM


Re: Reply to Brian
The Apostle Peter said there would be false teachers in II Pet 2:1,2.
So, this means that Peter may have been a false teacher.
Maybe before you call one of Christianity's greatest ever apologists a false teacher, you should study his work a little.
I do not claim that ALL believe as I do,
What you claimed was that almost all Christians before Darwin took Genesis literally. You havent provided a single reference to support this assertion. Try providing some names.
but only most true Christians.
And we all know that the only true Christian is one that believes the same as you do!
And of course there is deeper or hidden meaning in most of the Bible, but that does not take away the plain literal meaining of the text.
Of course it does.
Especially the creation and flood accounts.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Terry48420, posted 01-30-2005 7:58 PM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 4:07 PM Brian has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 257 of 301 (182118)
01-31-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Terry48420
01-31-2005 4:07 PM


Re: Reply to Brian
If you truely believe that the Apostle Peter was a false teacher, then we have no common ground from which to debate.
I don't believe a single word that any New Testament author wrote. Is this the same Peter that denied Jesus three times?
Peter believed the flood to be a factual account II Pet 2:5 and I Pet 3:20.
But, the unknown authors of these two books do not state that it was a worldwide flood.
The Hebrew writer believed the flood account factual Heb 11:7
Another unkown writer, how do you know he took all of Genesis literally?
God in Isaiah 54:9 reafirms the flood account.
The statement was that most Christians took Genesis literally! So, God is a Christian is He?
Exodus 20:11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day... The six literal days of creation.
The Book of Exodus wasn't written by a Christian!
Jesus in Mat 19:4 and Mar 10:6 afirms the creation of man in the beginning.
Jesus was not a Christian.
Not doing very well are you.
Are there any of the church fathers who take Genesis literally?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 4:07 PM Terry48420 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 6:33 PM Brian has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 271 of 301 (182228)
02-01-2005 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Terry48420
01-31-2005 6:33 PM


Re: Reply to Brian
What I believe has nothing to do with the statement you made, namely, that most Christians before Darwin subscribed to a literal Book of Genesis.
You have failed to provide a single thing to support that assertion.
Will I just assume that this is your personal opinion and that you do not actually know for sure if this is correct or not?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Terry48420, posted 01-31-2005 6:33 PM Terry48420 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024