Genesis 1: the obvious reading??

[a-seeker]

 

Most serious students of scripture are familiar with the J, E and P(riest) texts of Genesis.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

Then compare Genesis with the Enuma Elish.
Enuma Elish begins "when on high" and Genesis "in the beginning"
Enuma Elish shows a connection between giving names and existence, and in Genesis, naming is also important.
Both Enuma Elish and Genesis suggest primeval chaos in the beginning. In both, water is divided into upper and lower waters.
Enuma Elish is recorded on seven tablets and the Genesis creation is completed in seven days.
In the Enuma Elish man is created in the 6th tablet, and in Genesis man is created on the 6th day.

There are of course many differences as well, but if NT Christians can gut the paganism out of Saturnalia and Ishtar and call them Christmas and Easter respectively, then OT believers can do the same with ancient Sumerian legends

BTW, probably means just that: probably, but talking animals and magic trees are definitely the stuff of Aesop fables.
IMO, Genesis is a parable -- Jesus used them all the time.

Finally, as a journalist and long time reader -- for more than half a century -- I think I know what readers need to know and do just by personal practice.

 

 

 

 

Old School,

 

I say this as one who thinks he is on the same wave-length as you (by the way, where have you been?); so this is a cautious warning, I posted similar things about the parallel literature of the ancient near east and it was deleted (twice) and I was instructed by the adm. not to post it again.  It was said that I "presumed to teach", but I have my doubts regarding that--since I get a Hebrew "lesson" or science "lesson" pretty much every other post and these yet remain and have even received praise from mods.  So tread carefully. I know we don't know each other, but perhaps one day we could do a one on one and compare notes (a one on one--somewhere located in the "inner courts"--was permitted by the mods).  Until then. (Oh, Genesis 3 looks very much like a parable; but I do not classify Genesis 1 - 2:3/4 as such--it strikes me as something like a hymn, at the very least something liturgical).

 

clb

[a-seeker]

This thread may be getting away from the intended topic (it was not intended as discussion of the nature or meaning of "inspiration".  I believe that was already started elsewhere.  So I would like to post something of a summary as well as a launching point for a new stage.  

The question that started this thread was "what is the obvious genre of Genesis?"  It should be noted that this is not primarily a debate between YEC and OEC; for all intents and purposes we can assume the earth younger than the sciences tell us.  All we are interested in, is the book's intended genre--intended by its author/AUTHOR; and that cannot be assumed until we have at least read it.  I don't think anyone here will insist that a first time reader accept on their word what genre it is; they would advise him to read for himself and let God's Word determine its own genre. Such was and is the premise of the experiment. We are dealing with a person reading Genesis in English with an education typical of an adult layman in search of the “obvious” genre.  Later on, our reader will acquire some specialized training; for now, he is merely gathering “impressions”. 

 

Now in asking "what genre" Genesis belongs to, we are being a bit too rigid.  The question implies that genres are isolated and inflexible classes without any shared features that transcend all language barriers (i.e. what is poetry in one language must be poetry in another) and that no new genre could ever come into being.  All this is obviously false. The first contrast typically drawn is between poetry and prose.  This is a contrast, I think, of style.  And of course prose can be poetic, and poetry can convey content typically conveyed by prose, like historical content.  Then there are literary forms, like allegory in which A actually equals or means B (I think this is what Day/Agers regard Genesis to be) or means both A and B but B is by far the deeper meaning.  There is what I will call pure history, in which A = A, and nothing more.  That is not to say there cannot be “theological meanings” or “moral instructions” attached to historical texts.  But when it says that “God created light,” or Jacob “went to Paddan-aram,” well, that is what happened.  IF you could travel back in time to that specific moment, you would see that exact thing occurring (I was tempted to call this genre time-travel-history).

 

Such at least are the various genres our reader is aware of; such will the mind inevitably try to assign a given text until one (or none!) fit better than the others. He will ask whether he is dealing with poetry or prose, and again, with allegory, or “pure history” or a different genre or something that evades classification in altogether.  If I have gotten something wrong here regarding genres or what people mean by "historical narrative", please correct me; otherwise, we move on to the reading itself.

 

(I ask that, as you read, you resist the temptation to reply to each observed problem sequentially with your solutions.  The point of the first read is not that there aren’t solutions—most of them are as public as the problems.  All we are doing is noting oddities; I draw NO conclusions from them.  To admit that there are “strange things afoot” in Genesis 1 in no way admits that 6/day is wrong.)

 

From the start, it seems our reader is embarking on an historical narrative.  There is a beginning and God is engaged in activity; apart from the staggering cosmic significance behind the words “in the Beginning”, we have pretty plain historical content—something written down to tell others what someone (in this case SOMEONE) did a long time ago.

 

But then follow some oddities. The first major oddity for our reader is the existence of water without sunlight, and therefore presumably without heat, which he knows is normally required if water is to remain in liquid state.  We also have God speaking: with what tongue, he asks?  In what air is He setting up sound waves?  But these details are probably anthropomorphisms and should not be pressed.

 

But then we come to something quite baffling: on day 1 we have light without a source.  OF course the light has a cause—God.  But in all human experience light always has a physical source from which it emits.  My reader knows enough of light to know that it “travels”; and anything that travels has traveled from “somewhere”.  Trace a point of light in a dark room and you will eventually get to a lamp in another room, or to the outside where the sun is shining, or to where the moon is shining which ultimately leads you back to the sun.  If our reader traces the light on day 1 back to its physical source—where will that lead him?  To God?  But that raises other problems: like the physicality of God.  This is, he thinks, all very, very odd.  He knows of only one other place in the Bible where something like this is also described—in Revelation, a book packed with symbol and imagery, whose genre is very much contested, but which is obviously not an historical narrative. Of course it is rash to assume that he is dealing with a book exactly like Revelation—he will have to put that observation on the backburner and continue with his reading.

 

By the end of day 2 we have a very strange description of the atmosphere as we know it.  The water below is separated from the water above by an expanse (later, on day 4, he will see God setting up in this very expanse the sun and moon and stars).  It seems that the cosmology of earth has water at the bottom, an expanse above containing the luminaries, but holding at bay even more water above it—in other words the expanse appears to be solid.  Elsewhere in the Bible he recalls this being reiterated—Prov 8.28; Job 37.18.  In Genesis 7.11, Isa. 24.18, Mal 3.10, this solid dome is described as having “windows”.  It is through such windows that the torrential rainfall comes in Gen 7 which destroys the earth (Cf. Isa 24.18, Mal 3.10).

 

On day 3 he meets another oddity: vegetation growing at an accelerated rate without heat from the sun; and therefore (based on what he knows about precipitation) without rain.

 

Now I should pause.  These are mere oddities and I think everyone can admit that.  If we didn’t think they were odd then no energy would be spent in explaining them on scientific or metaphysical grounds.  Nothing so far has been done except to notice them. The question remains, what is the nature of this text, what is its intended genre? 

 

And yet it is at this point that I think (and btw “I think” is my way of saying that I do not presume to know the mind of 6dayers) a critical moment arises for many 6dayers.  Will our reader believe in God’s word, or not?  But to accuse him of disbelief in God’s word because he questions the historical value of this text is far too simplistic.  He is not a naturalist.  He believes in the Resurrection—not in any Bultmannian way, but in a very Pauline way.  He believes in the plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians.  He believes Christ walked on water. Part of the reason he believes in them is that the documents in which they are recorded seem obviously historical in intention.  So simple “disbelief”, if my reader is guilty of it, must be further defined.  Is it because of a conflict between secular sciences and Holy Scripture?  No, that is ruled out by the fact that our reader accepts many physical phenomenon reported in Scripture which the sciences have told him are impossible. Does he have an impulsive disdain for plain history, just as I cannot stand the taste of beets?  That is ridiculous.  The only conclusion that remains is that his disbelief is based on, so far, a superficial reading of the text and the immediate impression he gets about its genre.  He does not doubt that God “could’ve done all that.”  He doubts whether that is the point of Genesis. In other words, his doubt is at this point at least honest.  He hasn’t “sold out”.

 

It may be asked “Why, if he believes in miracles in general, does he not just accept these ones at face value?”  And that is a very good question.  For one thing, even as miracles, they are very odd.  Miracles in the Bible are intended to evoke awe (or terror) or instill belief in a present audience, or address a concrete physical need.  Every miracle from Isaac’s conception to the 10 plagues to Jesus’ healings had an immediate audience, and the miracles were intended for them.  But the events in Genesis 1 have no human audience but the reader.  The second reason is this.  It is claimed by some that the current laws of physics operated differently back then; and of course, God can do that; they’re his laws and he can apply, suspend, or withdraw them as he pleases.  But a comparison between Genesis 1 and 2 suggests that God, so to speak, had in fact limited himself to the laws which are in operation today.  Let me explain.  On day 3 we have vegetation without the sun and, based on current laws, therefore without rain.   Can God not create vegetation without the use of rain?!  Of course he can!  He’s God!  But that doesn’t seem to be the way he is operating in Genesis 2:5. It says no crop had sprouted because He had not caused it to rain. Now I think everyone would agree that God could have produced crops without rain; but here he doesn’t.  He places vegetation in full dependence upon rainfall, as it is today.  It seems a discrepancy has arisen. Our reader finds himself confronted with 3 possibilities: 1) there is an insolvable contradiction, 2) there is an easy way to reconcile the two which he is missing, 3) perhaps he has got the purpose of Genesis 1 wrong—perhaps it is not historical narrative, in the sense that chronology mattered to God when God wrote it.  Perhaps that is not the “point” of the text.

 

Our reader is a pious Christian, and so option 1 is ruled out.  Nor can he find any easy way to reconcile the two accounts—of course God could have required on day 3 that crops be dependent on rain, but rain not to be dependent upon the sun—in which case then the Sun will have been created sometime after rainfall and vegetation, but before man was created on day 6.  This of course requires that the vegetation sprouting in 2:9 had in fact already sprouted by v. 7, and perhaps, when he learns some Hebrew, he will find grammatical reasons for accepting that.  But so far it all seems a whole lot of tinkering, and certainly a whole lot of tinkering for an historical narrative.  Certainly, if further studies of Genesis show it to be intended as an historical narrative, then these must be considered.  But for now, it is by no way obvious to our reader.  And besides, the other oddities remain.  Thus he proceeds to option 3)…..

 

I will pause at this point and assess our progress up to date.  We have not discerned the genre which God intended for Genesis 1.  We have only asked some rudimentary questions based on a quick read of God’s Word.  God very well may have intended Genesis to belong to the same category as the historical books.  That has not been ruled out.  The only thing being argued at this point is that our reader may with warrant continue to question the intended genre and test the assumption that it is historical—such research may very well prove the text’s genre to be a historical narrative.  But from where he stands, the situation is rather ambiguous.

 

Before moving on, I pose a question to 6dayers: do you agree that it is at least not unwarranted for our reader to test the hypothesis that Gen 1 is intended as historical narrative?  If not, I would greatly appreciate hearing why?  Otherwise we will move to stage 2 where our reader has acquired some training in exegesis (obviously for some the training will be so bad that it doesn’t deserve the name “exegesis”).

 

clb

[EnochBethany]

 

 

 

 

I'm referring to how God's Word was written, from Genesis 1 to the Gospels.

If the biblical scribes weren't automatons, or operating under the influence of automatic handwriting, what does that leave? Inspiration -- if not in the theological sense, in plain common sense since the different personalities and styles of each writer is clearly evident, especially in the Gospels.

IMO, how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written

"how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written,"

 

How does the interpretation of a text depend upon how the penman received the revelation?  If it is true, what difference does the revelatory process make?

 

"As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter."

 

1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends?

2) How do you know that probably a priest did it?

3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter?

4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"?

5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1?  is that anachronistic reasoning?

"The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative.

 

Well, Old School, I asked you for your proof before, didn't I.  And you did not give it.  Will you respond now?

 

"Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends"

 

1) What does written in a vacuum mean?  Was it not written for ancient Israel by the Lord?  What how does Sumeria become the context for revelation given to Israel in Sinai during their 40 year wandering?  You think the ex-slaves were thinking about Sumeria?

 

2) How do you know it is a collection of local Sumerian legends?

3) How do you distinguish between local & non-local Sumerian legends?

4) What ancient documents do you list to substantiate your collection theory?

5) What percent of the Pentateuch has a parallel in Sumerian legends?

6) Do you confuse flood parallels with creation parallels?

7) What is the percent of correlation between you ancient legends & Genesis 1?

8) Are the correlations explainable by real events which happened instead of literary borrowing?

9) What ancient documents have you personally studied?

 

As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter.

The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative.

 

 

 

 

, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter.

"The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative."

 

"As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter."

 

1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends?

2) How do you know that probably a priest did it?

3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter?

4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"?

5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1?  is that anachronistic reasoning?

"The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative."

 

1) How do u know what the reader has to do?

2) What leads you to suppose that Gen 1ff is multiple versions or same events views by different authors?  Proof?

3) How do you know that Genesis uses fable literary devices?

4) Do you understand the different between fable & parable?

5) Which events could not have been historical?  How do you know?

 

Pardon me for pointing out that you are making a lot of assertions for which you give no proof.

 

Best wishes

 

Most serious students of scripture are familiar with the J, E and P(riest) texts of Genesis.

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

Then compare Genesis with the Enuma Elish.

Enuma Elish begins "when on high" and Genesis "in the beginning"

Enuma Elish shows a connection between giving names and existence, and in Genesis, naming is also important.

Both Enuma Elish and Genesis suggest primeval chaos in the beginning. In both, water is divided into upper and lower waters.

Enuma Elish is recorded on seven tablets and the Genesis creation is completed in seven days.

In the Enuma Elish man is created in the 6th tablet, and in Genesis man is created on the 6th day.

There are of course many differences as well, but if NT Christians can gut the paganism out of Saturnalia and Ishtar and call them Christmas and Easter respectively, then OT believers can do the same with ancient Sumerian legends

BTW, probably means just that: probably, but talking animals and magic trees are definitely the stuff of Aesop fables.

IMO, Genesis is a parable -- Jesus used them all the time.

Finally, as a journalist and long time reader -- for more than half a century -- I think I know what readers need to know and do just by personal practice.

 

Have you no answers to the questions?

Have you no proof?

 

A/

1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends?

2) How do you know that probably a priest did it?

3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter?

4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"?

5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1? is that anachronistic reasoning?

B.

1) How do u know what the reader has to do?

2) What leads you to suppose that Gen 1ff is multiple versions or same events views by different authors? Proof?

3) How do you know that Genesis uses fable literary devices?

4) Do you understand the different between fable & parable?

5) Which events could not have been historical? How do you know?

 

Quote your original sources to make your proof, if you want me to believe your assertions.

Just up & saying things does not convince me.

Where is there a magic tree in Genesis?

 

You are correct that fables have talking animals.

But that does not prove that the reference to one Serpent who talked makes it a fable.  (or do you claim that humans are animals & talk, thus all stories about humans are fables?)

The Word of God tells us about God, who is omnipotent, and about evil spirits who have inhabited animals, if on rare occasions.

 

Thou sayest:  "Most serious students of scripture are familiar with the J, E and P(riest) texts of Genesis."

 

What is your proof of that?  I will grant you that serious students are familiar with the JEDP theory of the sources of the Pentateuch; but I have never read any claim that anyone has ever found

J,E, & P texts of Genesis.  Who found them & where?  In what library are they found?

If there are no such texts in existence,

how do you know that the theory is not bogus imagination?

 

"Finally, as a journalist and long time reader -- for more than half a century -- I think I know what readers need to know and do just by personal practice."

 

Well I won't argue with what you think.

But how do you know what readers need to know?

How does the practice of journalism lead to knowing what readers need to know?

Do journalists focus on what readers need to know or what sells?

:

[other one]

Do journalists focus on what readers need to know or what sells?

:

 

A serious journalist who is a professional who lives on his/her writings does both if they are any good...   they write what sells to make a living and mix what they either think the readers need for their own good, or what the reader needs to know to maybe influence them to become what the journalist wants them to be.

 

Really good ones like Walter Cronkite are so effective that they can build up such a trust that people will follow their teaching and never even know they've been taught....   Walter was a remarkable person who did that for much of our nation for years...    I am told that he was also the voice at the owl god Moloch at the Bohemian Grove for the cremation of care rituals...

 

People should be very careful who they read and listen to.

 

Yes, including me.

[OldSchool2]

 

 

 

 

 

I'm referring to how God's Word was written, from Genesis 1 to the Gospels.

If the biblical scribes weren't automatons, or operating under the influence of automatic handwriting, what does that leave? Inspiration -- if not in the theological sense, in plain common sense since the different personalities and styles of each writer is clearly evident, especially in the Gospels.

IMO, how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written

"how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written,"

 

How does the interpretation of a text depend upon how the penman received the revelation?  If it is true, what difference does the revelatory process make?

 

"As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter."

 

1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends?

2) How do you know that probably a priest did it?

3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter?

4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"?

5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1?  is that anachronistic reasoning?

"The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative.

 

Well, Old School, I asked you for your proof before, didn't I.  And you did not give it.  Will you respond now?

 

"Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends"

 

1) What does written in a vacuum mean?  Was it not written for ancient Israel by the Lord?  What how does Sumeria become the context for revelation given to Israel in Sinai during their 40 year wandering?  You think the ex-slaves were thinking about Sumeria?

 

2) How do you know it is a collection of local Sumerian legends?

3) How do you distinguish between local & non-local Sumerian legends?

4) What ancient documents do you list to substantiate your collection theory?

5) What percent of the Pentateuch has a parallel in Sumerian legends?

6) Do you confuse flood parallels with creation parallels?

7) What is the percent of correlation between you ancient legends & Genesis 1?

8) Are the correlations explainable by real events which happened instead of literary borrowing?

9) What ancient documents have you personally studied?

 

As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter.

The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative.

 

 

 

 

, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter.

"The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative."

 

"As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter."

 

1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends?

2) How do you know that probably a priest did it?

3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter?

4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"?

5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1?  is that anachronistic reasoning?

"The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative."

 

1) How do u know what the reader has to do?

2) What leads you to suppose that Gen 1ff is multiple versions or same events views by different authors?  Proof?

3) How do you know that Genesis uses fable literary devices?

4) Do you understand the different between fable & parable?

5) Which events could not have been historical?  How do you know?

 

Pardon me for pointing out that you are making a lot of assertions for which you give no proof.

 

Best wishes

 

Most serious students of scripture are familiar with the J, E and P(riest) texts of Genesis.

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

Then compare Genesis with the Enuma Elish.

Enuma Elish begins "when on high" and Genesis "in the beginning"

Enuma Elish shows a connection between giving names and existence, and in Genesis, naming is also important.

Both Enuma Elish and Genesis suggest primeval chaos in the beginning. In both, water is divided into upper and lower waters.

Enuma Elish is recorded on seven tablets and the Genesis creation is completed in seven days.

In the Enuma Elish man is created in the 6th tablet, and in Genesis man is created on the 6th day.

There are of course many differences as well, but if NT Christians can gut the paganism out of Saturnalia and Ishtar and call them Christmas and Easter respectively, then OT believers can do the same with ancient Sumerian legends

BTW, probably means just that: probably, but talking animals and magic trees are definitely the stuff of Aesop fables.

IMO, Genesis is a parable -- Jesus used them all the time.

Finally, as a journalist and long time reader -- for more than half a century -- I think I know what readers need to know and do just by personal practice.

 

Have you no answers to the questions?

Have you no proof? ...

 

Meteorology is a science proved through probabilities, or do you think correct forecasts are all just coincidences.

[OldSchool2]

 

Most serious students of scripture are familiar with the J, E and P(riest) texts of Genesis.

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

Then compare Genesis with the Enuma Elish.

Enuma Elish begins "when on high" and Genesis "in the beginning"

Enuma Elish shows a connection between giving names and existence, and in Genesis, naming is also important.

Both Enuma Elish and Genesis suggest primeval chaos in the beginning. In both, water is divided into upper and lower waters.

Enuma Elish is recorded on seven tablets and the Genesis creation is completed in seven days.

In the Enuma Elish man is created in the 6th tablet, and in Genesis man is created on the 6th day.

There are of course many differences as well, but if NT Christians can gut the paganism out of Saturnalia and Ishtar and call them Christmas and Easter respectively, then OT believers can do the same with ancient Sumerian legends

BTW, probably means just that: probably, but talking animals and magic trees are definitely the stuff of Aesop fables.

IMO, Genesis is a parable -- Jesus used them all the time.

Finally, as a journalist and long time reader -- for more than half a century -- I think I know what readers need to know and do just by personal practice.

 

 

Old School,

 

I say this as one who thinks he is on the same wave-length as you (by the way, where have you been?); so this is a cautious warning, I posted similar things about the parallel literature of the ancient near east and it was deleted (twice) and I was instructed by the adm. not to post it again ...

 

I just can't understand how the pagan origins of Christmas tress and Easter eggs could ever disprove the actual birth, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. After all, the NT and the OT both didn't develop in a cultural vacuum, and neither do Christians.

I'm not sure we're on the same wavelength since you're still a seeker and I've already been found by Him, but my new avatar shows just how frustrating it is to deal with a "one size fits all" approach to the Bible from my fellow believers.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

 All we are interested in, is the book's intended genre--intended by its author/AUTHOR; and that cannot be assumed until we have at least read it.  I don't think anyone here will insist that a first time reader accept on their word what genre it is; they would advise him to read for himself and let God's Word determine its own genre. Such was and is the premise of the experiment. We are dealing with a person reading Genesis in English with an education typical of an adult layman in search of the “obvious” genre.  Later on, our reader will acquire some specialized training; for now, he is merely gathering “impressions”. 

 

The argument isn't "Genesis 1 is a historical narrative because I said so."   The argument is, and anyone without any special training can see it, Genesis 1 is a historical narrative because it has the earmarks of an a historical narrative.

 

To think the reader of Scripture is so dull and naive that he/she can't tell when something is an historical narrative is to insult the intelligence of just about everyone.  The only people who reject the reality of Genesis 1 as an historical narrative are those with an agenda to force Genesis 1 to fit into their own presuppositions.

 

That Genesis 1 is an historical narrative doesn't diminish or take anything away from the theological lessons that can be learned from Genesis 1.  I shown in other threads that there is much we can glean theologically from the Genesis creation account.  However, those theological truths are rooted in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.  They are rooted in Genesis 1 meaning exactly what it says, historically.  You can't separate the two.

 

Now in asking "what genre" Genesis belongs to, we are being a bit too rigid.  The question implies that genres are isolated and inflexible classes without any shared features that transcend all language barriers (i.e. what is poetry in one language must be poetry in another) and that no new genre could ever come into being.  All this is obviously false.

 

No it is not being too rigid at all.  The Bible is a piece of literature and as such, it follows the rules of literature.   There are no hybrid genres.   There is no mixing of genres.   There are occurances of one genre inserted into the middle of another Genre.     I Samuel to II Kings is an ongoing historcial narrative.  But there are other sub genres , like prophecyies and prayers and songs inserted into that historical saga of the David, Solomon and the other kings of Judah and Israel. 

 

Asking what genre Genesis belongs to is the right question to ask exegetically/hermeneutically.   Knowing what kind of genre we are dealing with gives us a direction in interpretation.

 

The poetry we see in the Old Testament follows certain rules.  We can't just arbitrarily label Genesis 1 as poetry.  Genesis 1 doesn't follow the rules of biblical/Hebrew poetry and thus it can easily be ruled out as belonging to that genre.  We are not being rigid.  We are simply following the rules literary analysis.

 

But that doesn’t seem to be the way he is operating in Genesis 2:5. It says no crop had sprouted because He had not caused it to rain. Now I think everyone would agree that God could have produced crops without rain; but here he doesn’t.  He places vegetation in full dependence upon rainfall, as it is today.  It seems a discrepancy has arisen. Our reader finds himself confronted with 3 possibilities: 1) there is an insolvable contradiction, 2) there is an easy way to reconcile the two which he is missing, 3) perhaps he has got the purpose of Genesis 1 wrong—perhaps it is not historical narrative, in the sense that chronology mattered to God when God wrote it.  Perhaps that is not the “point” of the text.

 

There is a fourth and more likely option and that is that reader isn't properly exegeting the text as is revealed by how you are approaching this text.   Exegesis isn't your strong suit otherwise you would have paid better attention to what the words actually mean in Genesis 2:5 and their relationship to Genesis 1:11-12.  In Genesis 2:5 it is referring to bushes/shrubs.   In Genesis 1 what we see created are fruit bearing trees and edible vegitation bearing seed.  Genesis 2:5 isn't saying that there was no vegitation of any kind prior to the creation of man.  Gen. 2:5 is referring to a specific kind of vegitation that had not yet sprouted and man was obviously going to be tasked with caring for such things.

 

Before moving on, I pose a question to 6dayers: do you agree that it is at least not unwarranted for our reader to test the hypothesis that Gen 1 is intended as historical narrative? 

 

There is no need "test" what genre Gnesis 1 is.  What the reader needs to test is the divine claims/origin of the text.   That it is a historical narrative defies any claims to the contrary, unless one simply doesn't understand how one recognizes a genre, but even a person of average intelligence can recognize history when they see it.   I mean we use that ability every day.

[Guest]

Most serious students of scripture are familiar with the J, E and P(riest) texts of Genesis.

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

Then compare Genesis with the Enuma Elish.

Enuma Elish begins "when on high" and Genesis "in the beginning"

Enuma Elish shows a connection between giving names and existence, and in Genesis, naming is also important.

Both Enuma Elish and Genesis suggest primeval chaos in the beginning. In both, water is divided into upper and lower waters.

Enuma Elish is recorded on seven tablets and the Genesis creation is completed in seven days.

In the Enuma Elish man is created in the 6th tablet, and in Genesis man is created on the 6th day.

There are of course many differences as well, but if NT Christians can gut the paganism out of Saturnalia and Ishtar and call them Christmas and Easter respectively, then OT believers can do the same with ancient Sumerian legends

BTW, probably means just that: probably, but talking animals and magic trees are definitely the stuff of Aesop fables.

IMO, Genesis is a parable -- Jesus used them all the time.

Finally, as a journalist and long time reader -- for more than half a century -- I think I know what readers need to know and do just by personal practice.

 

?

 

Most Long Time Students Of The Bible

 

And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle. Exodus 33:11

 

Know That It Was The LORD Jesus Who Told Moses What To Write

 

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18

 

So Beloved, Why The Journalistic Rush To Drop Genesis

 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

 

Into The Philosophical Pit?

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

[Guest shiloh357]

Most serious students of scripture are familiar with the J, E and P(riest) texts of Genesis.

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

Then compare Genesis with the Enuma Elish.

Enuma Elish begins "when on high" and Genesis "in the beginning"

Enuma Elish shows a connection between giving names and existence, and in Genesis, naming is also important.

Both Enuma Elish and Genesis suggest primeval chaos in the beginning. In both, water is divided into upper and lower waters.

Enuma Elish is recorded on seven tablets and the Genesis creation is completed in seven days.

In the Enuma Elish man is created in the 6th tablet, and in Genesis man is created on the 6th day.

There are of course many differences as well, but if NT Christians can gut the paganism out of Saturnalia and Ishtar and call them Christmas and Easter respectively, then OT believers can do the same with ancient Sumerian legends

BTW, probably means just that: probably, but talking animals and magic trees are definitely the stuff of Aesop fables.

IMO, Genesis is a parable -- Jesus used them all the time.

Finally, as a journalist and long time reader -- for more than half a century -- I think I know what readers need to know and do just by personal practice.

 

Actually the JEPD Document hypothesis is junk scholarship. It is a dying and archaic approach to the Bible and the entire hypothesis is being proven wrong by modern archeology in that we are finding copies of ancient extra-biblical quotations of Scriptures assigned by JEPD to particular time periods, being found earlier than than when the originals were supposed to be wrtten per the JEPD hypothesis.

 

No serious, competent scholar accepts the Document Hypothesis.  It is clinging to life support due only to some liberal scholars who can't bring themvelves to believe the Bible.

[EnochBethany]

The claim is made:  "IMO, Genesis is a parable -- Jesus used them all the time."

 

Yes, the Lord Jesus used parables. 

1) How long are parables?

2) How long is Genesis?

3) What leads you to think that Genesis is a parable?

4) Can you give a parable of the Lord Jesus that has an animal talk?

 

BTW, there are a couple of fables in the

Does Genesis look like them?

 

Here is The Bramble Fable from Judges 9:

 

"7   And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood on the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you.  8 The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive-tree, Reign thou over us.  9 But the olive-tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness,  wherewith by me they honor God and man, and go to wave to and fro over the trees?  10 And the trees said to the fig-tree, Come thou, and reign over us.  11 But the fig-tree said unto them, Should I leave my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to wave to and fro over the trees?  12 And the trees said unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us.  13 And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my new wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to wave to and fro over the trees?  14 Then said all the trees unto the  bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.  15 And the  bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and take refuge in my shade; and if not, let fire come out of the  bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.  16 Now therefore, if ye have dealt truly and uprightly, in that ye have made Abimelech king, and if ye have dealt well with Jerubbaal and his house, and have done unto him according to the deserving of his hands 17 (for my father fought for you, and  adventured his life, and delivered you out of the hand of Midian:  18 and ye are risen up against my father’s house this day, and have slain his sons, threescore and ten persons, upon one stone, and have made Abimelech, the son of his maid-servant, king over the men of Shechem, because he is your brother);  19 if ye then have dealt truly and uprightly with Jerubbaal and with his house this day, then rejoice ye in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you:  20 but if not, let fire come out from Abimelech, and devour the men of Shechem, and the house of Millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem, and from the house of Millo, and devour Abimelech.