Genesis 1: the obvious reading??

[OldSchool2]

Did it ever occur to you that Genesis 1 could contain both a moral and a historical truth(s)?

It contains theological and historical truths.  I have no problem with that.  But that is not what you are arguing.  You are arguing that it isn't historical. You  are arguing that it is a parable.

 

"God made the world (historical) and saw that it was good (moral)" -- then came the fall of man.

How difficult is that?

Because none of that of is "moral" truth.  Both are historical.  That God say it was good doesn't establish a moral standard.  it simply means that God liked what He saw.  You are straining to force a moral truth that doesn't exist.

 

And IMO means "In My Opinion" -- so who gave YOU the "right" to tell me or anyone else here that I can't have one about Genesis? Unlike you, I am not peddling my own personal views as dogma that everyone must accept.

The problem is that you are claiming it is parable.  That takes this out of the realm of opinion.  You are making a textual argument and a textual argument is or should be based on fcct.  You have a right ot your own opinion, but you don't have a right to your own facts.   Your opinion that this is a parable is a wrong opinion and it demonstratably wrong.  

 

You took this out of the realm of opinion when you tried to make textual argumnets and you are making textual claims that you can't support with facts ...

The facts are that the Earth isn't 6,000 years old and that Genesis has several striking similarities to other ancient literature. And I am not willing to deny any of that in order to satisfy your simplistic approach to scripture.

The Bible isn't being mocked here, only your "one size fits all" interpretation of it.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

The facts are that the Earth isn't 6,000 years old and that Genesis has several striking similarities to other ancient literature. And I am not willing to deny any of that in order to satisfy your simplistic approach to scripture.

 

 

This isn't about the age of the earth.  This is about the historicity of the Bible's claims in Genesis 1 which you deny.  God says that He created the earth in six days. You are calling God a liar.  You impugn in the integrity of a holy and righteous God because you can't muster up the faith to believe what He says.

 

The Bible isn't being mocked here, only your "one size fits all" interpretation of it.

 

The Bible is being mocked by sinful, fallible little men who claim that Genesis 1 is fictitious fairytale, fable or parable.  The mockery does not stem from those of us who love and trust God.  It comes from those who call Him a liar.

[OldSchool2]

The facts are that the Earth isn't 6,000 years old and that Genesis has several striking similarities to other ancient literature. And I am not willing to deny any of that in order to satisfy your simplistic approach to scripture.

This isn't about the age of the earth.  This is about the historicity of the Bible's claims in Genesis 1 which you deny.  God says that He created the earth in six days. You are calling God a liar.  You impugn in the integrity of a holy and righteous God because you can't muster up the faith to believe what He says.

 

The Bible isn't being mocked here, only your "one size fits all" interpretation of it.

The Bible is being mocked by sinful, fallible little men who claim that Genesis 1 is fictitious fairytale, fable or parable.  The mockery does not stem from those of us who love and trust God.  It comes from those who call Him a liar.

When we all stand at the Judgment Seat, we will clearly see who the liars are.

You said (post #146) that "The Bible tells us that all five books of the Torah are written by Moses," but you have yet to provide the chapter and verse to prove that claim.

Is it a coincidence that the Enuma Elish is recorded on seven tablets and that the Genesis creation is completed in seven days? Or that man is created in the sixth tablet and on the sixth day? And what about the other similarities between these works?

The Bible didn't develop in a vacuum, the six "days" of creation don't have to be literal 24-hour days and only a narrow-minded, self-appointed prophet would insist on making it all a test of fellowship.

[Guest]

The Bible didn't develop in a vacuum, the six "days" of creation don't have to be literal 24-hour days and only a narrow-minded, self-appointed prophet would insist....

 

 

Yes Beloved

 

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6

 

Strangely

 

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4

 

It

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

 

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

 

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

Is True

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

~

 

And As For Fellowship

 

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

 

It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;

 

As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore. Psalms 133

 

What A Treasure You Are

 

As cold waters to a thirsty soul, so is good news from a far country. Proverbs 25:25

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

[a-seeker]

Oh and I was hoping we could dispense with these comments

 

Exegesis isn't your strong suit ....

 

 

 

They're childish.

 

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

 

 

That is ridiculous Shiloh.  It is either childish, or presumptuous to an alarming degree.  If you honestly thought that your opinion of my “strong suit” mattered to me and would influence me, then it is obviously presumptuous.  I don’t know you.  You are a random guy on a random Christian forum that I spend my spare time on.  I have had numerous professors from various schools confirm my skills.  The point here is not that their opinion is right; but that, against theirs, yours is obviously not going to count for very much and only a man inflamed with pride would think otherwise.  Now I don’t think you are that arrogant, so childishness is the next option: anything in an adult discussion that debates the person and not what they have said is superfluous and irrelevant and is pure rhetoric.  If that is part of your rhetorical style, obviously I can’t stop you.  But the only effect such remarks have on me is to conjure up in my mind a scene in which a 46 year-old (you are 46 right?) is surrounded by 8^th graders all giving him and each other high-fives and saying things like “SNAP!” or “Oh, yeah.  That just happened.” A comical scene, but not flattering.  I would rather not have them pop into my head; so again, let's dispense with the jabs.

 

Now to show that I am not merely reacting, I will say that everything following that comment was very interesting: hence I took it up and it has proven to be a very good discussion.  But it would be easier for me (and you) if I did not need to “skip ahead” to the parts worthy of an adult discussion.

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.

 

 

 

We are probably misunderstanding each other here.  I was in no way implying that “truth changes” or that the “meaning of the text” will change.  I am not a “post-modernist”.  I believe in absolute truth.  However, Genesis 1 - 2:4 does not read like an historical narrative, or at least like any I have ever read before: I hold that it belongs to a genre distinct from poetry (it is obviously NOT poetry--there are no parallelisms) and historical narrative (if it is historical narrative, it is of a most elevated kind; ts alliteration, its number-games, or the formulaic expressions--all these are unlike any other historical narrative we have in OT).

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Even if the language suggested completely different plants between the two narratives, that would still not alleviate the oddity that God created some plants without rainfall, but others requiring it: i.e. the plants and fruit trees on day 3 sprouting supernaturally (without rainfall or sunlight) then the bushes and herbs sprouting according to the agricultural laws with which we are all familiar.

 

In other words, based on what you’ve told me (again Shiloh, I think I understand what you are saying…I am not sure I do and do not want to misinterpret you) your reading would have some plants being grown supernaturally on day 3—chiefly edibles like cabbages and orange trees, but not all (i.e. bushes and shrubs).  These latter plants God decided would require rain even for their creation.  Eventually ALL vegetation would come under the same laws, but for some reason God made an initial distinction pivoting on water between edibles and not; and again, a distinction between some fruit trees (those appearing in 1:11 which did not require water) and other fruit trees (those occurring after man was formed in 2) which apparently did, either by rain or by irrigable river-water).

 

All of this is rather complex and begs for a simpler reading.

 

Besides I do not see anything so distinct as you do in the language differentiating the plants.  Yes, the term for bush does not appear in 1:11.  But the term for plants does; as well as do fruit trees (which again appear in 1:11 without rain water, and later in 2 because of rainwater or at least river water).  One might see a distinction between “plants of the field” (2:5) and “plants….on the earth,” (1:11) but the two phrases are synonymous elsewhere in the Pentateuch.

 

The simpler solution is that day 3 represents God as creating ALL vegetation, without pending creations.  At 2:5 the author has taken a few steps back (back in fact, to a point in time where day 3 and day 6 are fused, as it were, together), and is now looking at Creation from a different, and more narrow, perspective.  Since the main theme is now of man and his relation to the earth, it is no wonder we see a longer description of man’s creation (with dirt as his material cause) and types of vegetation that might preoccupy a farmer or a gardner.

 

clb

 

[a-seeker]

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.

 

 

 

Could you define more clearly what you mean by "liberal"?  Do you mean "Naturalists"?  Can a person say "I believe Scripture is inspired" and "I hold to the DH" without contradiction (and obviously that question requires a definition of "inspiration")?

 

I do not hold to the DH, but only because it seems to assume too many things.  However, a good many scholars who I know to be Christians do still hold to the hypothesis.  You seem to have a very fixed definition of "Christian" which involves far more than belief in Christ and His resurrection.  How do you define what it means to be a Christian?

 

Oh, and sentences like this one

 

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.

 

 

 

 

obviously begs the question "What defines a competent scholar"?  Is it the rejection of the DH?  That is circular reasoning, obviously.

 

clb

[a-seeker]

You eventually turn every discussion on these forums into your own personal inquisition and frankly I am sick of it!

 

 

And I am sick of the way you mock the Bible with your false teaching and the way you equate Genesis 1-3 with fairytales.  I am here to make sure no one is led astray by the real fairytales and false teachings contained in posts that deny the historicity of Genesis 1-3

Referring to the BOLD TYPE: Is this a self-assigned vocation, or did mods here recruit you?

[a-seeker]

 

Enoch2021 - Firefox did it........Thank You, Blessings!

 

 

GREAT!!!  Oh, I forgot to tell you.....$$$$$$$,  ???

 

Don't be like Connor and not pay for services rendered 

 

Send To:

 

Enoch2021

HIS WORD shall not Return to HIM VOID

PO Box 777

and "GOD SAID", "And It WAS SO"  77777

 

My check is in the mail....snail mail.  That is, I literally attached it to a snail and sent it on its way.  Just keep waiting.  Don't salt your driveway if you live in a cold climate!

 

clb

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

That is ridiculous Shiloh.  It is either childish, or presumptuous to an alarming degree. 

 

 

No, it is not childish or presumptuous.  I have seen your "exegesis" first hand and frankly, it's not really exegesis at all.

 

I have had numerous professors from various schools confirm my skills. 

 

Whatever you say, lol

 

The point here is not that their opinion is right; but that, against theirs, yours is obviously not going to count for very much and only a man inflamed with pride would think otherwise. 

 

It's not a popularity contest. I know what proper exegesis looks like and the stuff you have presented, even the stuff that got deleted has shown me that you don't really don't understand it.  It's not childish of me to say so.  It is YOUR pride than can't handle being told that you're wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

We are probably misunderstanding each other here.  I was in no way implying that “truth changes” or that the “meaning of the text” will change.  I am not a “post-modernist”.  I believe in absolute truth.  However, Genesis 1 - 2:4 does not read like an historical narrative, or at least like any I have ever read before: I hold that it belongs to a genre distinct from poetry (it is obviously NOT poetry--there are no parallelisms) and historical narrative (if it is historical narrative, it is of a most elevated kind; ts alliteration, its number-games, or the formulaic expressions--all these are unlike any other historical narrative we have in OT).

 

 

This only serves to make my point.  Competent scholarship does recognize the creation narrative as an historical narrative.  The Hebrew grammar precludes Genesis 1 from being anything other than a historical narrative.

 

In Genesis 1 the structure goes like this for example:   Conjuncntion (and or v') Verb (omeir) Subject (Elohim) Object (light). So that would read from Hebrew, "and said God, light be..." You see that grammatical construct all through the the account.   That is typical of a Hebrew historical narrative.   Not only that but every place where Genesis 1-3 is mentioned in the New Testament, all three chapters are treated as actual history.  Even Jesus considers it an historical narrative given that Jesus saw Adam and Eve as literal, historical people.   He basis His claims about marriage on Genesis 2. 

 

There is a symmetry to the account, but it that makes it no less a historical narrative than the Exodus from Egypt.

 

 

 

Even if the language suggested completely different plants between the two narratives, that would still not alleviate the oddity that God created some plants without rainfall, but others requiring it: i.e. the plants and fruit trees on day 3 sprouting supernaturally (without rainfall or sunlight) then the bushes and herbs sprouting according to the agricultural laws with which we are all familiar.

 

 

Yes, but you are calling an oddity, I am saying is simply a supernatural event and God, being sovereign can do as He pleases.  As long as God is the explanation and given that He has all power to do so, it is not odd at all.   God is not bound to operate within the confines of what we deem scienticially possible.  It may be odd to YOU, but I see nothing odd about an all-powerful sovereign God doing as He pleases. 

 

In other words, based on what you’ve told me (again Shiloh, I think I understand what you are saying…I am not sure I do and do not want to misinterpret you) your reading would have some plants being grown supernaturally on day 3—chiefly edibles like cabbages and orange trees, but not all (i.e. bushes and shrubs).  These latter plants God decided would require rain even for their creation.  Eventually ALL vegetation would come under the same laws, but for some reason God made an initial distinction pivoting on water between edibles and not; and again, a distinction between some fruit trees (those appearing in 1:11 which did not require water) and other fruit trees (those occurring after man was formed in 2) which apparently did, either by rain or by irrigable river-water).

 

All of this is rather complex and begs for a simpler reading.

 

 

That is not complex at all.  I don't see how you can call it complex.  It comes from simply taking God at His word, that He caused the edible vegitation to come forth first, which is reasonable because it would be food for man, and then allowing man to work the ground and bring forth other kinds of vegitation.  God had a job for man to do and so He left some plant life seeded in the ground for man to take care of and cultivate.   There is nothing complex about that at all.

Besides I do not see anything so distinct as you do in the language differentiating the plants.  Yes, the term for bush does not appear in 1:11.  But the term for plants does; as well as do fruit trees (which again appear in 1:11 without rain water, and later in 2 because of rainwater or at least river water).  One might see a distinction between “plants of the field” (2:5) and “plants….on the earth,” (1:11) but the two phrases are synonymous elsewhere in the Pentateuch.

 

The simpler solution is that day 3 represents God as creating ALL vegetation, without pending creations.  At 2:5 the author has taken a few steps back (back in fact, to a point in time where day 3 and day 6 are fused, as it were, together), and is now looking at Creation from a different, and more narrow, perspective.  Since the main theme is now of man and his relation to the earth, it is no wonder we see a longer description of man’s creation (with dirt as his material cause) and types of vegetation that might preoccupy a farmer or a gardner.

 

 

That might be simpler, but that is not correct.  Simpler doesn't equate to "accurate."   The text isn't stepping back into verse 3.  Chapter two is a focus on day six.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

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.

 

 

 

Could you define more clearly what you mean by "liberal"?  Do you mean "Naturalists"?  Can a person say "I believe Scripture is inspired" and "I hold to the DH" without contradiction (and obviously that question requires a definition of "inspiration")?

 

 

Liberal scholars are characterized by the higher critics out of Europe, especially Germany that reject the Bible as "God's word" in favor of the Document Hypothesis. The DH is a rejection of the inspriation of text and treats the text as, among other things, a polemic against pagan gods written starting around 850 BC.   None of the stories are actual historical events from Genesis to Deut.

 

So the answer to your quesion, no, one cannot hold to the DH and believe that Scripture is inspired.

 

I do not hold to the DH, but only because it seems to assume too many things.  However, a good many scholars who I know to be Christians do still hold to the hypothesis.  You seem to have a very fixed definition of "Christian" which involves far more than belief in Christ and His resurrection.  How do you define what it means to be a Christian?

 

Well as it applies to this conversation, a genuine Christian will at the very least take God at His word.  The DH should be abhorrent to any genuine follower of Jesus because it in effect, calls Jesus a liar

 

Oh, and sentences like this one

 

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.

 

 

 

 

obviously begs the question "What defines a competent scholar"?  Is it the rejection of the DH?  That is circular reasoning, obviously.

 

A competent scholar of the Bible will always be a Bible believer, a follower of Jesus.  Those are the only competent scholars of the Bible.   Liberal Bible scholars who hold to the DH and do not believe the Bible to the inspired Word of God also typically do not see it as inerrant and these are basic parts of Christian doctrine that cannot be brushed aside or treated as peripheral issues.