Genesis 1: the obvious reading??

[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? ...

What is the name of this thread? "Genesis 1: the obvious reading??"?

I did not mean to infer that the entire book was a parable, just the genesis of Genesis, hence the Enuma Elish comparison, but apparently that wasn't so obvious to some readers.

 

Well, one waits for your demonstration as to how Gen 1 is a parable ...

 

According to Merriam-Webster, a parable is "a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth," e.g., that God made the world and saw that it was good.

 

When you allege that Genesis 1 is a parable, then you are not claiming that it is non-historical & never happened?  M-W did not include that in the definition.  We could call it a story, though I'm not sure that it has a conflict & a plot.  I'm not sure where you rate it on the simplicity vs. complexity scale (0-10).  Are you sure it is simple?  How can you prove that?

 

But if all you claim is that it is a story & has a moral, then what is the point of calling it a parable?  That definition could fit lots of passages which are not normally considered parables.  And are you Weren't you trying to support your theory that it is non-historical with the rubric, "parable"?

 

The word "parable" is a Bible term, & an English dictionary is worth very little in defining Bible terms.  One needs Greek & Hebrew dictionaries, which are called "lexicons."  A parable is an illustrative story of an event that did not happen, but is true to life, as opposed to a fable which is  not true to life (animals talk).    Generally the parable is simple, though the parable of the 4 soils in Mat 13 is a tad complicated. 

 

Does Genesis 1 resemble the parables of the Lord Jesus?

[a-seeker]

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.

 

 

 

Were you merely agreeing with me?  Or is this a very clear example of you omitting the extremely important phase in argumentation of reading to understand, so you can get on to refutation?  I said that no one uses the argument "because I said so".

 

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.

 

 

This actually would belong to option 2: that there is a way to reconcile the two, but he is missing it.  Once again, read first.

Since this was the only point really worth responding to, I’ll give it its due attention. This is a an enormous amount of eisogesis.  But I will first try and relay what I think you are saying (this is not an attempt to assign false values to you Shiloh, I really am trying to understand what you are saying).  Tell me if this is right: By 2:5 we do in fact already have some vegetation, which was created back in 1:11.  Those plants (on day 3) did not require rainfall (since it had not yet rained).  The plants that spring up after 2:5, however, do require rainfall.  All, of course, because of God’s decision that some should require water and others not.  The crops sprouting up after 2:5 were of a different sort from those which appear on day 3.  Have I got that right?  I AM SERIOUSLY ASKING!!!!

Obviously the oddity of selecting some vegetation to be exempt from the H2O requirement still exists, but here is my chief problem: there is no evidence that by the end of day 3 more species of plant life were still pending; nor any evidence at 2:5 that the author wished us to assume crops which did not require rainfall were present.  As you said, at the end of day 3 it was “tov”—as good as it gets, complete, nothing more to add.  There were already fruit trees on day 3—were they not “pleasing to the eye”?  Or were there not enough fruit trees?. Only an assumed chronology would force a person to make the above maneuver.  The sounder maneuver is to see Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as complimentary but not chronologically linked.  Genesis 1 gives us creation from one perspective: the creation of the whole cosmos and God’s relation to it as Sovereign.  Genesis 2:4 (the break is announced by the inversion “earth and heavens”) is concerned with man and his relation to the earth and his vocation.  In other words, Genesis 2:4 onward is interested in Day 3 and 6, which means they were not intended to be read as chronological days.  This is the best reading of the text.

 

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. 

 

 

The Bible “follows the rules of literature”.  If by this you mean that, after studying the Bible, you discovered that it follows “the rules of literature”, then fine, that at least rises to the dignity of refutation.  But if you mean that the Bible “must follow the rules of literature” because it is literature, that is ridiculous: genres are human inventions, there are no “rules” that say a new genre cannot evolve.

 

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.

 

 

Thanks again for not reading to understand. But let’s deal with this claim

even a person of average intelligence can recognize history when they see it

Are you claiming all the scholars who do not see it as historical narrative are “below average intelligence?”  No doubt they are wrong—but are they stupid?

 

 

Shiloh, in all honesty, maybe it would be best for you not to read my posts for while.  They only frustrate you, and this gets in the way of clear judgment.  Your readings of my posts are uncharitable--you see jabs where there aren't any and miss almost everything that there is.  My post was not attacking in anyway.  It was honest and conciliatory and I never once mentioned your name--but you respond as if you have been personally affronted.  What is the deal?  Why are your fists always up?

 

Oh and I was hoping we could dispense with these comments

 

Exegesis isn't your strong suit ....

 

 

They're childish.  We have already established that neither thinks much of the other's skills in exegesis (to which you could not resist the counter--"I don't think you do exegesis at all").  Either stop reading my posts, or drop the Middle school comebacks, it's not good for you.

 

clb

 

P.S.  And I wasn't doing exegesis at all.  I don't consider anything working with a translation to be exegesis.  You've never seen me do exegesis.  The posts deleted were the summary of exegesis--not the actual work.

Edited March 5, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[OldSchool2]

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? ...

What is the name of this thread? "Genesis 1: the obvious reading??"?

I did not mean to infer that the entire book was a parable, just the genesis of Genesis, hence the Enuma Elish comparison, but apparently that wasn't so obvious to some readers.

Well, one waits for your demonstration as to how Gen 1 is a parable ...

According to Merriam-Webster, a parable is "a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth," e.g., that God made the world and saw that it was good.

When you allege that Genesis 1 is a parable, then you are not claiming that it is non-historical & never happened?  ...

Since we are all here, how could Genesis 1 not have happened? My contention is that it didn't necessarily happen in six 24-hour "days".

And if "an English dictionary is worth very little in defining Bible terms," then why even bother speaking English to one another? And speaking of speaking English, there are way too many negatives in your sentence. Did you mean "... are you not claiming"? It's very hard to tell.

[EnochBethany]

Thou hast said, "And if "an English dictionary is worth very little in defining Bible terms," then why even bother speaking English to one another?

 

We speak English to each other, but we define Bible terms from Greek & Hebrew lexicons, if we want the correct meaning.  English dictionaries record what contemporary English words mean.

 

Thou hast said, "Since we are all here, how could Genesis 1 not have happened? My contention is that it didn't necessarily happen in six 24-hour "days".

 

I have no problem with you for your interp of the days.  Christians do not agree on the interp of Gen 1. 

 

But they do agree that

 

God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that

whosoever believes in Him should not perish,

but have everlasting life.

 

What must I do to be saved?

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, & you will be saved.

 

whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

"the Lord" above means YHWH, as it is a quote from the OT, though in context in Romans 13 it refers to the Lord Jesus.    He is YHWH become man, 2nd person of the Trinity, the Risen Son of God.

 

Do you have enough faith to call on the name of the Lord Jesus & trust Him to save you?

 

What prevents you for praying right now?:

 

"Lord Jesus, please save me, transform me from sinner to child of God, give me your new birth & eternal life.  I do now trust you as my Savior, & I depend on your substitutionary death on the cross as full payment for all my sins."

 

 

 

[OldSchool2]

Thou hast said, "And if "an English dictionary is worth very little in defining Bible terms," then why even bother speaking English to one another?

 

We speak English to each other, but we define Bible terms from Greek & Hebrew lexicons, if we want the correct meaning.  English dictionaries record what contemporary English words mean ...

They can do more than that.

parable: a simple story illustrating a moral or religious lesson.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin parabola, from Greek parabolē, from paraballein, to compare : para-, beside; see para-1 + ballein, to throw; see gwelə- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

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? ...

What is the name of this thread? "Genesis 1: the obvious reading??"?

I did not mean to infer that the entire book was a parable, just the genesis of Genesis, hence the Enuma Elish comparison, but apparently that wasn't so obvious to some readers.

 

Well, one waits for your demonstration as to how Gen 1 is a parable ...

 

According to Merriam-Webster, a parable is "a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth," e.g., that God made the world and saw that it was good.

 

That is not how a parable works. "God made the world and aw that it was good" is not a moral truth; it is an historical truth.  Go learn the difference.    And you don't have the right to define Genesis 1 as a parable.  You are wrong for calling it a parable.  It is not a parable.  

[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? ...

What is the name of this thread? "Genesis 1: the obvious reading??"?

I did not mean to infer that the entire book was a parable, just the genesis of Genesis, hence the Enuma Elish comparison, but apparently that wasn't so obvious to some readers.

 

Well, one waits for your demonstration as to how Gen 1 is a parable ...

 

According to Merriam-Webster, a parable is "a simple story told to illustrate a moral truth," e.g., that God made the world and saw that it was good.

 

That is not how a parable works. "God made the world and aw that it was good" is not a moral truth; it is an historical truth.  Go learn the difference.    And you don't have the right to define Genesis 1 as a parable.  You are wrong for calling it a parable.  It is not a parable.  

 

Well, IMHO, it would not be heresy, nor exclude one from salvation to dismiss Gen 1 as a parable.  But it really does not resemble a parable in its literary style.  And it would appear that parables are immediately recognized as true to life illustrative stories, rather than history.  "In the beginning God," and "the Spirit" are recognizable real persons, not "a certain man," or "the sower" or the like.  To interpret any scripture as figurative, requires good evidence; the default has to be to take it as it is, and if it says something happened, it happened.  The alternative is to reduce scripture to a rubber nose, subject to the creativity of the interpreter.

[EnochBethany]

 

Thou hast said, "And if "an English dictionary is worth very little in defining Bible terms," then why even bother speaking English to one another?

 

We speak English to each other, but we define Bible terms from Greek & Hebrew lexicons, if we want the correct meaning.  English dictionaries record what contemporary English words mean ...

They can do more than that.

parable: a simple story illustrating a moral or religious lesson.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin parabola, from Greek parabolē, from paraballein, to compare : para-, beside; see para-1 + ballein, to throw; see gwelə- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

Yes, they sometimes include etymology, but the dictionary does not purport to define the ancestor words by modern English usage.  Neither is etymology intended to imply modern meaning.

 

The point remains:  If you would understand literature written 2000 years ago (long before English), the proper lexical tool is a NT or koine Greek dictionary (or one that includes koine usage), and not the English dictionary. 

 

The point also remains that your specific interpretation of Gen 1, does not determine your eternal destiny.  For that, focus on the Lord Jesus as a Savior.

[Guest shiloh357]

Quote

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”. 

 

Quote

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.

 

 

 

Were you merely agreeing with me?

Yes.  I was confirming that point.

 

Are you claiming all the scholars who do not see it as historical narrative are “below average intelligence?” 

 

No.

Oh and I was hoping we could dispense with these comments

 

Quote

Exegesis isn't your strong suit ....

 

 

They're childish.

 

No, it's must more honesty than you know how to face up to.

 

The Bible “follows the rules of literature”.  If by this you mean that, after studying the Bible, you discovered that it follows “the rules of literature”, then fine, that at least rises to the dignity of refutation.  But if you mean that the Bible “must follow the rules of literature” because it is literature, that is ridiculous: genres are human inventions, there are no “rules” that say a new genre cannot evolve.

 

What I mean is exactly what I said.  The Bible follows the rules of literature.  We can recognize different literary styles, genres and devices in it.   That is important for us to understand and interpret what it says.   If Genres are ever changing and evolving then nothing about what the text means can ever be certain.  There can be certainty of truth because nothing means today what it meant when the author first penned the text.   In that event, the meaning of the text becomes servant to the reader and to the particular time period the reader is living in.  What the author actually meant to convey would be irrelevant and pretty much worthless.

 

Since this was the only point really worth responding to, I’ll give it its due attention. This is a an enormous amount of eisogesis.  But I will first try and relay what I think you are saying (this is not an attempt to assign false values to you Shiloh, I really am trying to understand what you are saying).  Tell me if this is right: By 2:5 we do in fact already have some vegetation, which was created back in 1:11.  Those plants (on day 3) did not require rainfall (since it had not yet rained).  The plants that spring up after 2:5, however, do require rainfall.  All, of course, because of God’s decision that some should require water and others not.  The crops sprouting up after 2:5 were of a different sort from those which appear on day 3.  Have I got that right?  I AM SERIOUSLY ASKING!!!!

 

What I am saying is that God, in His wisdom, created all of the vegitation intended to be eaten by man and other creatures for food were created functionally mature.  Not every form of vegitation had sprouted, as is evidenced in the text.   Not that some require water and others don't, but that God is the source of all life.  God supernaturally provided for man and beast.   Other secondary plants, bushes, shrubs that don't necessarily produce food were meant to sprout later as man worked the ground.

 

I don't see anything to confusing about that.

 

Obviously the oddity of selecting some vegetation to be exempt from the H2O requirement still exists, but here is my chief problem: there is no evidence that by the end of day 3 more species of plant life were still pending; nor any evidence at 2:5 that the author wished us to assume crops which did not require rainfall were present.

 

Hence the need for better exegesis.  A simple reading of both texts in Hebrew indicate that two different kinds of vegitation are in play.  It is not so clear in English, but it is quite clear in Hebrew.

 

In other words, Genesis 2:4 onward is interested in Day 3 and 6, which means they were not intended to be read as chronological days.

 

Yes, While Gensis 1-2:3 is a chronological reading, Genesis 2 is not a chronological reading,.  It is not even mentioning day 3.  Genesis 2 is a summation of the six days  of creation followed by a narrowed focus on Day 6

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

===========================================================================

 

 

Hey Shiloh,

 

Not that some require water and others don't, but that God is the source of all life.  God supernaturally provided for man and beast.   Other secondary plants, bushes, shrubs that don't necessarily produce food were meant to sprout later as man worked the ground.

 

When does 2:6 come into play?...

 

(Genesis 2:6) "But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground."

 

 

Hence the need for better exegesis.  A simple reading of both texts in Hebrew indicate that two different kinds of vegitation are in play.  It is not so clear in English, but it is quite clear in Hebrew.

 

Can you expand briefly? Thanks