If Genesis is Metaphorical, what's the metaphor?

p may have been historical in nature. i'll agree to that. 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? no no. i was saying that chronicles is referring to kings, and kings is refering a book LIKE chronicles, but older and of the other nation. yes, of course. several books are mentioned. besides, it'd be rather silly for them to refer to each other. i'm fairly positive one was written first. and if memory serves, it's kings. chronicles seems to be derived from kings at least in part. no argument here. yes, it's ridiculous to think these were the only two books written, or that every book written is in the bible. in fact, the point was the opposite. i'm quite AMAZED that books in the bible mention each other, such as chronicles mentioning kings, or kings mentioning deuteronomy.but were secular histories being recorded? i guess the bible is a rather biased point of view, but the kings seem to have been religious figures, and religion seems to be largely in control of the judaic states. a secular history of the time would suprise me, but i suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility. i'd also be REALLY interested to see it. very true. i think i'm going to continue to disagree. but i'll consider it and look at some other sources. my analysis is purely based on the way the text as written.i do think that exodus was probably presented as a factual history. i'm not even sure that should be a matter of opinion. it's pretty much accepted in the academic community.

we know three things:
1. that genesis is not presented in its final form as a consistent history.
2. that facts are often changed, or overlooked, to present certain ideas.
3. that a good percentage of the stories are borrowed from, or mocking, other cultures stories.the case for genesis being unhistorical is pretty good. i'm sorry, but combine those with a complete lack of evidence for anything supporting the events the way genesis describes them, and your case is pretty much sunk.for instance, if i write about how the nazi's won ww2, do you think i'm writing a history? is hp lovecraft or tolkien history? similarly, genesis seems to be complete fiction with a tiny basis in a historical event or two. yes, it does, but that does not mean that it is a historical account of the events that occured in that society. that's the question people are asking: did this stuff happen? and the signs strongly point to no. question. why aren't psalms history then? they have historical value. they often record specific events, such as the coronation of king david. how about job?you're dealing with a definition that's too loose. psalms does not seek to record the details of events in the past. it's literature. wrong section of the library.it's not what *I* define history as, it's looking at the goals and style of the text. i wouldn't call isaiah a history either, it's a book of prophesy, even though it's completely grounded in real historical events, and even plaigarizes LARGE sections of texts from a book i WOULD call a history. the goal is not the record that history, it's to record what isaiah said will happen later. the history is just there to give it some context. how do you know that for sure?in fact, how do you even know that before the exhile they even thought much about god at all? how do you know the egypt thing isn't a post-exhilic invention, and egypt is a code-word for babylon? you don't, really.it's a fundamental mistake to think that an already anachronistic retelling of events of the far past (at the time of authorship) presents the way the society actually thought during the time in which the book is set.genesis was written after the fact, not during. it presents the views of a probably exiled culture, about their past. not the views of that culture while they lived those events, should they really have happened. i watched a movie recently called "i heart huckabees." it took me until dustin hoffman's character was introduced to realize that they were making fun of modern philosophy, and weren't serious in the slightest. yet it is totally possible to watch the movie as a serious drama, ignore the comedy, and still enjoy the movie. people do this, and they're idiots. most of it just goes right over their heads.why do i bring this up?genesis is funny. did you ever notice it? i have. it's downright hillarious in points. lots of people take it seriously, but they're missing alot. popular opinion does not indicate the intentions of the authors or the true nature of the work. and you accuse me of using modern standards? sorry, but individualism is something even relatively new to the 20th century. look at kings and chronicles. same style. same words, even.there are different styles for differen focuses, sure. and the focus of genesis is not to record events as they happened. uh. have you read genesis? there's very little mystique there. in fact god is portrayed as relatively infantile. maybe you don't fully understand it, or christian don't. but the people who wrote it sure did. no, it doesn't. but genesis is not designed to be history, whether or not it's real. my point is that popular opinion does not dictate fact. billions of people believing genesis is history does not make it history. no, it's a FOLK narrative. that's the point. sigh.i quit. someone else?

Was Le Morte D'Arthur history? _{Edited to add a link to the book}This message has been edited by jar, 02-28-2005 17:06 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

i believe just about everyone i've ever heard talk about it, talks about as (a history of) fictionalized tradition, much like genesis.

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.

think i've heard of it. and i see your point.i'll give it some thought and research.

Me too! LOL, I have my sanity to think of.Thanks for the discussion.Brian.

I know you both have stated that you are done with this arguement, I'd just like to add my thoughts.Basically, it sounds like you two (Arachnophilia and Brian) are basically arguing over the definition of the word "history". I'd argue that he is not.Take this for example: The Definition of Music
Music is a broad term. I'm sure we'd all agree that rock/pop is music. Even though we've probably all heard someone talk about a bad song and say "that's not music". Of course it is, they just don't happen to like it. Also, music can be nothing more then silence, as John Cage proved in 1953 with his 4 minute 33 second orchestra piece without a single note (it's even on UK radio).So, rather then the actual dictionary definition of music, and we know how wrong dictionary's are with actual definitions from the Athiest vs Agnostic thread; the real definition of music can be nothing other then:"ANY combination of sounds OR silences that ANYONE considers to be music"...pretty much as loose as it gets.This could also be total BS, of course, but I did get this definition from a Music 101 course from the University of Toronto.What I'm trying to show is that history, like music, is a broad term. I'd be more inclined to believe that your definition is not loose enough rather then Brian's definition being too loose. More importantly for the reason's Brian has discussed rather then my loose analogy.

I was going to pop this in after message 92 but I thought you guys needed a rest.Have a rest, Arach. Hi, Brian, I think you are representing a view with too broad a brush. If billions of people believe Genesis, etc. to be literal history, then we`d better include modifiers to point the way to a closer approximation to the truth. Thus, recorded traditions might become ‘cultural’ history versus ‘what-really-happened’-- ‘defined’ history. On a scale of 1-100, cultural history might score in the low twenties as against defined history which might climb up the other end of the scale depending on the number and strength of alternative sources verifying the original claim.So we would have a possible knowledge of the culture and psychology of a particular group of people at some point in time, but no more till other sources verify any or all the concepts or characters. Did it happen? Possibly. Can we confirm it? Even if another source relates to it, is this really confirmation, or a dispersion of a folk tale? Can anything worthwhile be gleaned from a name? Not much. Can anything be gleaned from a folk history? Well, apart from possibly (if it hasn`t been redacted) recording a set of customs and beliefs from an author, which MAY be factual, what other weight can you add?Biblical archaeologists used to turn cartwheels if they found pottery with Abraham or other biblical names inscribed, using this as a justification that the Biblical Abraham (or other characters or events) really existed. To the exclusion of any other explanation. More dispassionate specialists now tend to be less definitive in their claims unless corroborated by extensive digs and a battery of scientific tests. I think we have to pull a much tighter noose around the concept of history when believers use ancient folk tales to justify their actions in the present century.

yes, but does it include works of fiction, designed to be works of fiction? is "jurassic park" history? "the da vinci code?" "catcher in the rye?"art in general (and literature is art) has a very loose definition, sure. but the genres of it usually have qualify factors, even if the line is a little fuzzy. while i might group a kandinsky with a pollack, i probably wouldn't group either with a giger or a mucha. nor would i group any of those with ansel adams, or a sculpture by michaelangelo. or a song by the beatles.you can usually tell what KIND of style something is. and genesis is written like fiction.

There are treatments for elephantitis.

So comes the question:Does Life imitate Art or does Art imitate Life?In other words, did humanity write the fable and follow it as was mean't to be?Or did the Fable spring from the actual motives and yearnings of a desperate humanity in need of communion with the Divine?Further, what part does God play? Surely we are more than Deists!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-04-2005 05:03 AM

Do humans need a communion with God? If so, why not seek Him as a living Spirit? Why do we need confirmation of a link with an ancient story? Why do we need literal proof? Why can't we embrace the divine on a current daily practicality much as the people may have actually done way back when?

Style is not the sole arbitrator of what constitutes history.In 1492,
Columbus sailed
The ocean blue.--Edited to ask this question---I’m not convinced as to why in this forum a literary definition of history should concern us. Can you explain why a literary definition should be used over one that historians use?This message has been edited by Trae, 03-04-2005 04:29 AM

In 1493,
Columbus stole
All he could seeChris