Genesis 1: the obvious reading??

[a-seeker]

  I...uh...what?!  The book of Job isn't history?

 

...Seriously?  I always just assumed...

 

 

This is not a hill to die upon.  Some do not think it was intended as history.  Job is given no genealogy.  After the prologue the entire book is taken up in a dialogue discussing philosophical matters.  Some have regarded it as an ancient “drama”.  It is considered in our canon one of the “poetical” books.

 

  I have a question, though.  What you seem to be saying (and I don't disagree), is that Moses told the Israelites "the story of where we come from", aka Genesis, using a bit of creative license to teach theology as well.  Isn't that sort of the same as an historical narrative?  Isn't an historical narrative just a story of historical events?  He was saying, "hey, guys!  You know those vast, impressive temples for those other gods?  Well, our God gets a capital G, and HIS temple is the whole freaking world!  He totally PWNS!"  (In my example, Moses uses internet slang.  I...read too many web comics...) 

 

 

Yes.  It is “historical” in that it teaches things that ACTUALLY happened at A CERTAIN POINT IN TIME (that being point 0).  Did it happen in 6 24 hour days?  That is the point I contest.  I contest that Genesis 1 (and actually 1-12) does not belong to the same genre as say Joshua, or Kings, or any of the “uncontested” historical books.  Put very baldly and probably misleadingly, let us say that the “historical” books are intended as chiefly history with a theological lesson (70/30), Genesis 1 is intended chiefly as a little history with MUCH theology (30/70).  Again, "opponents" would have a hay-day with what I just said, but since you are less hostile I trust you to read for understanding.

 

Anyway, he was less concerned with specific details and more with getting the point across.  It can still be historical (i.e. God made everything, Adam is a real person, etc). It can still be the seedbed of christian theology, the foundation of the truths that we live by, but it is a story.

 

 

I would agree with most, if not all, of this.  As far as Adam being a real person, it is clear that SOMEONE was our ancestor (even the sciences, I believe, have traced us back to a single parent/parents).  The very name “Adam” however might be a poetic license to (once more) communicate theological truths (same with Eve).  The author has treated our first ancestors in “archetypal” language: that is, whether or not the first humans called each other Adam and Eve is irrelevant to the author; what is relevant is our tie to them and therefore the alienation that we all experience from God.  The New Testament frequently (if not always) is less interested in Adam as an historical figure than as an archetypal figure.

 

I've heard other people say that Christianity copied pagan religions, and some of it really is nonsense. But...maybe there are some similarities (divinely inspired!) in order for us to bring the Gospel to the people in those religions.  Why not? 

 

 

 They need not have “copied” as if the author of “Noah’s flood” had a copy of the Gilgamesh epic.  That is highly unlikely.  It would have been “shared” mythology delivered orally from generation to generation.  God, via Moses, took those traditions and (as another member here put it) gutted them of their overtly pagan and erroneous content.  As I put it, God “baptized” them and thereby brought them into line with true theology.  Even a hasty reading of Exodus through Kings shows how "pagan" the masses of Hebrews were.  They were raised in a pagan land (Egypt) and rescued only to enter another pagan land (Canaan).  That is why what opponents call "genocide" is misleading and off track.  It wasn't genocide; it was culturalcide (the destruction of a paganism) and the actual history of the Israellites shows how vital God's command was to their spiritual health--it was because they failed to carry out the order that we have the book of Judges through Kings (which records the two exiles all due to idolatry) ...oops, forgot to mention the point of that  which is that it is no surprise there should be pagan parallels.  They were pagans, or at least their inclinations (like alcoholics or any other dependency) was towards paganism.  

 

Again, regards to the pagan parallels: Opponents love to focus on the similarities between the literature; the differences are far more striking--and telling!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Side note:

   Moses using the pagan culture at the time to make a point is similar IMHO to Paul doing the same with the Unknown God in Athens (Acts 17).  In verse 23 he says "I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship".  He studied their religion to find a way to share the Gospel with them.  Instead of pointing to the false idols, saying, "Y'all are just plain wrong," he starts with what they know and believe, and he works from there.

 

 Absolutely.

 

In the atheistic worldview, they've reluctantly accepted that the universe had a beginning with the big bang, but they can't explain how it started or why.  (we can!)  Some are reluctantly conceding that life on this planet couldn't have started accidentally.  There must have been an intelligent hand in there somewhere.  Their answer?  Probably aliens. 

So...instead of telling them how and why they are wrong, why can't we do as Paul did and say, "Hey, you know that unknown intelligence you're looking for?  Let me tell you about Him."

 

Just a thought. 

 

 

And a good one

Edited March 17, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown