Genesis 1-10: myth or history?

[liamconnor]

the bible is comprised of many literary genres.

Many, Christian and non, read Genesis 1-10 as intended history: that is, the author (or editor/s) believed the narrative to belong to the same genre of, say, Kings and Chronicles.

Others, myself included, believe Genesis 1-10 quite obviously belongs to the genre of myth. That is, the author wrote these chapters of Genesis in the same vein as the myth of, say, Persephone and Demeter, was written/told; he would have recognized the difference in style between it and the rest of Genesis.


What are the arguments in favor of each?

[polonius]

[Replying to post 10 by liamconnor]

Generally I can agree with this analysis except that it could be taken very literally if ET-AI were involved.

Most people (regardless of being atheists or abrahamic theists) seem to want to skirt this possibility by ignoring it altogether.

Nonetheless, it is possible that this is where such stories originated - from actual events.

More about this idea linked below for the reader who is interested.

The Abrahamic religious beliefs taken literally

RESPONSE: History is about exactly what happened. It should not be what someone's belief system may want to claim happened.

Just out of curiosity, do you take the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ to be history or legend?

Do you have any hard evidence to present either way?

If they really didn't, some peoples' belief system needs serious revision!

[ttruscott]

I am claiming that the author of these chapters did not write them as pure history. They were stories.

I contend that YHWH is the author of the Bible and had written in it exactly what HE wanted written. It is perfect for HIS purpose.

I also think that Gen 1-3 is a history of the beginning of the fulfillment of the promise of salvation in HIS sinful but elect people, using metaphorical language such that being sinful is called being naked and being a non-elect demon in the service of Satan is called being a serpent, etc.

[JehovahsWitness]

I think you have failed to realize that the first book of the Bible was communicated not to Adam, but to Moses...someone who had lived his entire life in Egyptian society.

And who in your opinion communicated this information to Moses?

[marco]

And who in your opinion communicated this information to Moses?

Perhaps the same source that communicated Odysseus to Homer, Aeneas to Virgil, Faustus to Marlowe and Hamlet to Shakespeare. Moses was perhaps a fine composer.

[bluethread]

And who in your opinion communicated this information to Moses?

Perhaps the same source that communicated Odysseus to Homer, Aeneas to Virgil, Faustus to Marlowe and Hamlet to Shakespeare. Moses was perhaps a fine composer.

It is argued that all literature is a compilation of shared cultural experience. With regard to Genesis, I think the divine inspiration is in the composition, not the basic information. Moshe' was admittedly raised in the house of Pharaoh, but he also spent time with the Midianites and the Israelites prior to composing that book. This transcultural experience would have given him the ability to understand the different mythologies and how they related to one another. That is what I believe the book of Genesis is, a compilation of the shard heritage of the Midianites and the Israelites, contrasted with that of the other surrounding cultures.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 5 by JehovahsWitness]

I see no reason why God could not have borrowed the myths current of the time to communicate what he wished to communicate.

So the God you worship "borrows" things does he?

We usually "borrow" that which we don't have ourselves, in your opinion an infinite all powerful Creator needed to "borrow" from someone that had what he didn't posses because he couldn't achieve what he wanted without their help? Did He borrow His own existence also? Maybe he took history lessons and had to "borrow" the money to get to school too ...

Frequently in this forum I will take an analogy given by an atheist and turn it on its head; that is, borrow the analogy, but show how it actually supports my own view when altered.

So yes, God communicated with persons already entrenched in a pagan society: a society that had thousands of pagan stories and ideas. God took some of these stories and ideas and altered them to show a different picture of reality.


I think you have failed to realize that the first book of the Bible was communicated not to Adam, but to Moses...someone who had lived his entire life in Egyptian society.

Challenge to you: Imagine who MOses was. Did Moses know the world was heliocentric? No. Did Moses know the English language? No. Did Moses know Aristotle's rules of logic? No. Did Moses know the laws of photosynthesis? No. Did Moses know even a 100000000000000000000000th of what you know.


No.


How about picturing yourself as an ancient Hebrew for a while, and then read the Bible.

Moses may or may not have known. One thing for sure,, God did. I can't comment on what ancient people knew. I am begining to learn that they were much better educated and knew things we don't.

[marco]

That is what I believe the book of Genesis is, a compilation of the shared heritage of the Midianites and the Israelites, contrasted with that of the other surrounding cultures.

Well that makes sense. When I was studying Sumerian I was surprised at the interlinking of stories and shared myths. We are ourselves, it seems, children of myths. Muhammad in relatively recent times did what you describe for Moses; he took the stories he had learned in his trading dealings with Jews and Christians and he formed a new bible, grandly asserting it to be not just inspired by God, but dictated by God. The Koran is treated with more respect, consequently, than the Bible. For the wily adventurer-trader Adam was a real person, so he is a prophet in Islam.

We have walked on the moon.

[polonius]

trusscott posted:

I also think that Gen 1-3 is a history of the beginning of the fulfillment of the promise of salvation in HIS sinful but elect people, using metaphorical language such that being sinful is called being naked and being a non-elect demon in the service of Satan is called being a serpent, etc.

RESPONSE: If it really happened as described, it's history. If it didn't it's a story, a fable, a metaphor, etc. But it isn't factual or historical.

Couldn't God tell it as it is?