If Genesis is Metaphorical, what's the metaphor?

Research Documentary HypothesisAlso check out a book by Richard Elliott Friedman called "Who Wrote the Bible?Documentary Hypothesis discusses the various theorys on the authors of the Torah.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

In our house we have a very simple and equal solution.Everyone in our house makes sure that both the seat and the lid are down when they leave.The purpose is three-fold. Both males and females are inconvenienced equally, it is safer for small children and pets, and it looks better.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

so the goal was not historical, it was the preservation of tradition.

---

Traditions are part of history. They are just as historical as the facts. Understanding traditions helps us understand the people of the time. For the common people, traditions were their history.In genealogy we look for family traditions to record and preserve for future generations.They may not be factual happenings, but they are the history of what the people believed.Genesis 2 and after read as tales passed around through the common folks.The priestly author wrote his own tale of creation in Genesis 1. Notice he took out the talking snakes and magic. Notice Genesis 1 starts with "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth..." whereas in Genesis 2 we have "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens..." The line before thar is considered to be the redactor reconciling 1 & 2.Genesis 2 reflects earth centered thought. IMO, Genesis 1 reflects the possible change in that thought.History can be written from different viewpoints.In America, our history books show history from the government or how we built the nation viewpoint.In genealogy, I view history from the viewpoint of the individual I'm researching.The Native Americans will have a different viewpoint as they describe the death of their nation.The OT was written from a priestly viewpoint. The authors in Kings and Chronicles even say: These authors were providing history from a priestly viewoint. If you want more information you would read the other books.If the authors changed the traditions too much, the common people would notice and possibly not accept the writings. Remember Genesis was probably combining to traditions, the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom. Each group needed to feel that their traditions were continued.The OT is religous or priestly history, not world history.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

i'm just saying that it's not written with the intention of saying "here's what really happened" but rather "here are the stories we've told for a thousand years"

---

But was it?The original writers, J & E, may have been recording stories. The Priestly writer's prose are not as story-like.IMO, the last writings and compilation of the five books were completed after the exile. I think this was presented to the people as factual history. The Law of God.

quote:

---

i see no reconciliation. they texts themselves are still in conflict. the orders are opposite. rather, it seems to indicate focus.

---

Genesis 2:4 matches Genesis 1:1 in the order of heavens and earth. It was an attempt to tie Genesis 1 and the Adam and Eve story together. The redactor's attempt to make them seem compatible.

quote:

---

actually, chronicles is refering most conspicuously to kings. kings seems to be refering to book similar to chronicles (chronicles covers judah, not israel, if memory serves. dunno, never found chronicles all the interesting after reading kings)

---

Not really. There is obviously another book from which the author pulled his facts. The Hebrew name for what we call the Book of Chronicles means: History of the days. Chronicles was not its title in those days.IMO, the authors had resources for what you would call historical facts.

quote:

---

these books seem to recording history with the goal of putting forth certain ideas.

---

I agree. The goal of any writer is to put forth a certain idea or ideas. Bald facts can only tell us so much. As I said they are written from a priestly point of view.

quote:

---

at this point in judaic history, i might go as far as to say that there is no difference. we don't find a secular judaic history until, what, josephus?

---

Given that the Hebrew kingdoms were destroyed and in those days they like to wipe out signs of the previous rulers, I don't find it unusual that secular writings have disappeared. I think the references in Kings and Chronicles shows that there were other books maintained.After the exile, the priests were all the Jews had left as their leaders, so the priestly writings were very focused on getting the people right with God.IMO, the Torah was presented as actual history after the exile.The task today is to determine what type of history is being presented. IMO, the Bible reads more like religious or historical fiction.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

i don't really think so. that would require internal consistency. no good history records two different answers to the same simple question. how many animals of each kind did noah take? 2 of everything like one passage says? or 2 of all the unclean, 7 of the clean? was man created before or after the animals?

---

Not really.Remember, this history was presented to the people after the exile. It was read to them by one person. They already knew pieces of it from their oral stories. Since the general populace is listening to their history, they aren't going to hear the differences that you speak of.Even people today don't hear the inconsistencies if they are just listening. I never knew of the differences until I actually STUDIED the Bible myself, plus I have the help of computer search programs.The priests presented a religious history that made all Jews feel a part of the new religion.History presented to our children today is different than when I was in school. We didn't have much presented to us concerning contributions by women, African Americans, or Native Americans in our history books.I recommend the book by Richard Elliott Friedman titled "Who Wrote The Bible?" if you haven't already. I think you will like it.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

just cause his name wasn't ever spelled the same

---

It wasn't? Obviously I'm not a Shakespeare fan.Since I learned that the Torah was not written by Moses, but various authors, I don't have a problem getting my head around the inconsistencies or fictional parts and the ancient "typos" are worth worrying about.My specialty in writing is mixing facts with fiction. In 1979, I was assigned to write an informative piece about the administrative section of our Marine Corps district. They wanted me to cover what each persons job entailed. The purpose of the piece was to make the recruiters familiar with who does what in Admin, so they would know the appropriate person to contact.Personally I don't like boring facts only pieces. I took my readers on a tour of Admin. The tour guide was a mouse (talking of course). Obviously all the people and their duties were fact and the mouse, quite obviously, was not.When each author wrote their piece, they weren't necessarily trying to support the other authors. They wrote their take on the issue and what information they wanted the audience to understand.IMO, the fictional parts were probably understood at the time. Genesis: talking snake (not real), tree giving us knowledge (not real), man understanding good and bad (real), male and female come together to procreate (real), women give birth (real), people wear clothes (real), men think they rule the family (real ) etc.I read the novellas by Francine Rivers concerning the women in the line of Jesus or lineage of grace. (Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, Mary) They are excellent, they are based on what little bit the original authors stated about them in the Bible. Rivers takes that information as her base facts and the rest is fiction as she brings out what she thinks they thought or would have done.So I'm not sure why people today feel that the ancient writers should have written any differently than we do today.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

Can you name one society or culture that hasn't done the same?

---

Read more about the early Native American tribes. IroquoisTheir history shows a tolerance for gays, other religions, etc.You have to find books that deal with the Native Americans before the missionaries came. They are hard to find since they didn't maintain written records, so much of what is written now reflects the changes after the missionaries.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France