Genesis (Literal or Not)?

[POI]

Taken from post 359 of here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2#p1139292)

Apparently, 'scholarly' debate still exists as to whether or not Genesis, (especially chapters 1-11), are meant to be a literal account of events or not?

For debate:

1) Is Genesis meant to be a literal account of events, as written, or not? The reason I do not specify is because I have even debated theists who claim the resurrection was not a literal event. Hence, we will first need to see where each theist thinks the Genesis account is literal, versus not? Please also provide scholarly evidence to support your answer where applicable.
2) Should God be pleased with his lack in clear communication here? Many have fallen away from the Bible, because such claims do not comport with their reality. If God's intent for Genesis was not to be literal, why do so many Bible scholars think God's message was literal? Further, if God's intent is to bring people to him, why give an unclear message which instead causes many to fall away, due to not aligning with their reality?

[POI]

I don't know what that's suppose to mean. What is "the claim for truth"?

If one wishes to convince one to believe in the Bible God, what book might they suggest for them read to convince them, or draw them closer? Drum roll please.........

None of those passages say the purpose of the Bible is to "draw one closer."

See above.

Consider, too, that Genesis was written over 1,500 years ago. Until just fairly recently, average people like you and me didn't have direct access to the text to read and decide for ourselves what it meant.

Instead, most people encountered Genesis as it was read aloud as part of the regular worship services of their Jewish or Christian community, where its meaning would have also been explained and expounded upon by the clergy.

The idea, then, that the purpose of the text is to draw individuals closer to God is untenable, I think. It may achieve that as a secondary effect through private devotional reading of the Bible in the modern world. But the primary purpose of Genesis, like all Scripture, is to serve the theological and liturgical needs of the community.

Everyone could agree with you, but is that what makes it true? What is the evidence that Genesis, as written, is not a literal set of physical events in history?

**************

(YOU) So, this is an historical judgement regarding the literary nature of the text. Therefore the justification to support that claim will necessarily entail citing the judgements of experts on Near Eastern history and specifically those who have carefully and critically analyzed Genesis, namely biblical scholars.

Difflugia has already cited several above (see post #11) who, to various degrees, already substantiate this claim. I'll add John Marks' commentary on Genesis in the Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (1950), the first historical-critical commentary I ever read (pg. 7):

The values to be derived from reading Genesis are not scientific or primarily historical; they are religious.

The stories of creation do not contain scientific materials of use to geology, biology, or zoology; and the primeval history as a whole (ch. 1-11) contains no historical records of primitive man. . . .

The patriarchal stories combine historical fact, tradition, poetry, and symbolism, according to what today is recognized as unscientific historical method. Their value lies not so much in the bits of historical information they provide as in the religious insights they disclose.

Based on similar comments in a wide array of other critical, Catholic, and even Evangelical commentaries on Genesis over the past 100 years, I think we can safely say that the composite nature of the text and the mytho-poetic and legendary nature of the stories in Genesis is the consensus of modern scholarship.

(POI) Does this mean there IS not real scholarly debate? The debate, on the other side, is instead like the fringe group continuing to argue for a flat earth vs. a spherical earth? I trust you and I agree there is no REAL debate as to whether or not the earth is in some spherical shape. And yet, a "debate" will rage on eternally. If the scholarly debate is still valid, then God's word is unclear, unlike the evidence to demonstrate the world is not flat.

(YOU) Questions like this always strike me as odd. They seem to operate under the assumption that God gave humanity the Bible and then just left everyone to puzzle out for themselves what this collection of texts might mean.[/quote]

(POI) Well, it shouldn't strike you as odd. We read the same collection of books you do. So, the OT is not "God-breathed" then? I guess we can just ignore that verse. (i.e.):

"All Scripture is breathed out by God"

(YOU) Look, Jesus didn't write a book.

(POI) That's too bad! He left nothing tangible behind to address. He left it in the hands of fallible and corrupt humans. Good job Jesus! It's a good thing he preached faith. 'Cuz yer gonna need a lot of it....

(YOU) And that community has made it abundantly clear that many of the stories of Genesis, as well as the ancient cosmologies underlying those stories, are not to be taken literally.

(POI) Then my entire family must be VERY VERY VERY stupid

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #36]

I apparently have no clue.

I doubt anyone does, which is why I have already answered the question in earlier post in this thread - and my answer is along the lines of " it appears to be open to personal opinion."

Yes, and I answered you. You claim to have direct access to the one, or ones, who could simply give you the answer. So why don't you?

I do, and continue to have such interaction which provides interesting answers and other data to think about. I even posted one of those interactions here, in this thread although it is easily overlooked.

Great. Did you pick one, and then express whether or not that claim was meant to be an actual literal physical event in history?

[historia]

I don't know what that's suppose to mean. What is "the claim for truth"?

If one wishes to convince one to believe in the Bible God, what book might they suggest for them read to convince them, or draw them closer?

If someone wants to draw closer to God, I would suggest they begin attending Mass.

If you want to gain a deeper understanding of the Christian faith, you should probably start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

None of those passages say the purpose of the Bible is to "draw one closer."

See above.

See what above?

What is the evidence that Genesis, as written, is not a literal set of physical events in history?

As I already mentioned, this is largely a judgement concerning the literary nature of Genesis. The consensus of biblical scholars is that the stories that make up Genesis are mythological or legendary in nature, and so should not be read literally, just as poetry as a literary genre is not meant to be read literally.

Does this mean there IS not real scholarly debate?

Not among mainstream scholars.

Questions like this always strike me as odd. They seem to operate under the assumption that God gave humanity the Bible and then just left everyone to puzzle out for themselves what this collection of texts might mean.

Well, it shouldn't strike you as odd. We read the same collection of books you do. So, the OT is not "God-breathed" then?

What is odd is not the idea that God inspired Scripture. But rather that God just left everyone to puzzle out for themselves what this collection of texts might mean.

Clearly, the Bible itself is the product of the Church and Tradition. It was never meant to be read apart from the Church and Tradition. Why then many atheist critics of Christianity assume it should be is a bit of a mystery.

And that community has made it abundantly clear that many of the stories of Genesis, as well as the ancient cosmologies underlying those stories, are not to be taken literally.

Then my entire family must be VERY VERY VERY stupid

I can't speak to the intelligence of your family. But if they have rejected the Church and Tradition in favor of just deciding for themselves what the Bible means -- as so many fundamentalist Protestants have -- then we can't really say that their opinions and assumptions have much to do with historic Christianity. And certainly it would be strange to say that that is somehow God's fault.

[Muckman]

[Replying to historia in post #43]

I often go to Christ the King Parish in Concord, NH. They have the best music in town and Father Rich is such an encouraging and inspiring priest. He's the best minister of God's Word out of all the churches I visit. I visit a lot of Churches and always return to Christ the King or West Congregational Church.

https://www.christthekingnh.org/

[POI]

You skipped one of my points. You stated Jesus wrote nothing. Think about how much less ambiguity and confusion would be if Jesus wrote his doctrine to paper himself. Why instead leave all messaging to fallible and/or corrupt humans?

Also, what you are essentially saying, is that the ones who argue in favor of the Genesis events being more-so literal physical events, is to also suggest their view is as unsupported as the flat-earther.

If someone wants to draw closer to God, I would suggest they begin attending Mass.

If you want to gain a deeper understanding of the Christian faith, you should probably start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Hmm, so this sect does not use (the Bible) as their point of reference to draw one closer?

As I already mentioned, this is largely a judgement concerning the literary nature of Genesis. The consensus of biblical scholars is that the stories that make up Genesis are mythological or legendary in nature, and so should not be read literally, just as poetry as a literary genre is not meant to be read literally.

Not among mainstream scholars.

Noted. depending on how you answer above is whether or not I may or may not respond here.

What is odd is not the idea that God inspired Scripture. But rather that God just left everyone to puzzle out for themselves what this collection of texts might mean.

Clearly, the Bible itself is the product of the Church and Tradition. It was never meant to be read apart from the Church and Tradition. Why then many atheist critics of Christianity assume it should be is a bit of a mystery.

Even IF you were right, too bad there is not one "church", there is many, of conflicting doctrines. You suggest Catholicism, which means the many many many Protestant groups as well as the many many many Orthodox groups are to be omitted, just for starters. How do you know the Catholics got it right?

I can't speak to the intelligence of your family. But if they have rejected the Church and Tradition in favor of just deciding for themselves what the Bible means -- as so many fundamentalist Protestants have -- then we can't really say that their opinions and assumptions have much to do with historic Christianity. And certainly it would be strange to say that that is somehow God's fault.

Or, again, God/Jesus could have written a much better and clearer doctrine himself. Further, God seems to be crystal clear, without debate, about any topic he so chooses. You do not see Christians arguing as to whether or not God loves trespassing, murder, theft, and so-on.

[historia]

You skipped one of my points.

I tend to skip points that are tangential to the main issue we are debating. Jesus' teachings were passed on orally and then eventually written down, so I don't think we're lacking his teachings.

Also, what you are essentially saying, is that the ones who argue in favor of the Genesis events being more-so literal physical events, is to also suggest their view is as unsupported as the flat-earther.

I would not make that specific comparison. But their views are certainly contrary to modern scholarship and the teaching of the Church.

Hmm, so this sect does not use (the Bible) as their point of reference to draw one closer?

The Catholic Church is not a "sect." It's the largest Christian communion in the world, constituting over half of all Christians. It has an unbroken history going back to Jesus and the Apostles. Surely you are familiar with it?

Clearly, the Bible itself is the product of the Church and Tradition. It was never meant to be read apart from the Church and Tradition. Why then many atheist critics of Christianity assume it should be is a bit of a mystery.

Even IF you were right, too bad there is not one "church", there is many, of conflicting doctrines.

There is actually little that separates the Catholic and Orthodox churches on matters of doctrine (see CCC § 828). These two ancient churches reflect historic Christianity.

Further, God seems to be crystal clear, without debate, about any topic he so chooses. You do not see Christians arguing as to whether or not God loves trespassing, murder, theft, and so-on.

Some topics are more important than others.

Scripture was never meant to address every conceivable topic. So faulting God for not using the Bible to address the specific issues you currently find vexing seems to be just an odd conundrum you've invented for yourself.

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #36]

I apparently have no clue.

I doubt anyone does, which is why I have already answered the question in earlier post in this thread - and my answer is along the lines of " it appears to be open to personal opinion."

Yes, and I answered you. You claim to have direct access to the one, or ones, who could simply give you the answer. So why don't you?

I do, and continue to have such interaction which provides interesting answers and other data to think about. I even posted one of those interactions here, in this thread although it is easily overlooked.

Great. Did you pick one, and then express whether or not that claim was meant to be an actual literal physical event in history?

I don't understand your question. Please elaborate.

[POI]

I tend to skip points that are tangential to the main issue we are debating. Jesus' teachings were passed on orally and then eventually written down, so I don't think we're lacking his teachings.

But the point is directly related. So thanks for bringing it up. Humans alone wrote all these texts. You do not think it would have been wise for the 'almighty' himself to instead author such texts? Instead, to know your words are going to be in the hands of fallible and/or corrupt individuals, for which you leave sometimes ambiguous and/or debatable? Maybe this is, in part, why the Genesis account is nowhere as clear you would believe it to be.

I would not make that specific comparison. But their views are certainly contrary to modern scholarship and the teaching of the Church.

I would make that comparison. You stated: "The consensus of biblical scholars is that the stories that make up Genesis are mythological or legendary in nature, and so should not be read literally, just as poetry as a literary genre is not meant to be read literally." --- This means the ones who do not agree that Genesis is mostly figurative are maybe as fringe as the flat-earthers. Is the evidence for the Genesis account being figurative as demonstrative as the evidence which suggests the earth is spherical? (Yes or no)?

It's the largest Christian communion in the world, constituting over half of all Christians. It has an unbroken history going back to Jesus and the Apostles

So, it's the right one? There's no chance it could too be fallible and corrupted, because it's the oldest and the largest? It's funny because I was raised in Catholicism, and later became "Protestant". I spent many hours watching individuals, who were former Catholics, being saved during church But here's a news flash, I think they are all corrupt and fallible. And yet, this is exactly what the creator of the universe opted to do, by leaving all the writings to mere humans? Hmm? Seems quite sloppy and reckless.

Some topics are more important than others.

Hmm. I guess my son dropping the religion, because Genesis does not comport with his reality, because he views Genesis as literal, is not important enough for God to have clarified better? Isn't belief in him and his word one of the most important topics of all?

Scripture was never meant to address every conceivable topic. So faulting God for not using the Bible to address the specific issues you currently find vexing seems to be just an odd conundrum you've invented for yourself.

Okay. But the ones God bothers to mention should be clearer. So yes, faulting God, if he exists, seems quite reasonable.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #36]

I apparently have no clue.

I doubt anyone does, which is why I have already answered the question in earlier post in this thread - and my answer is along the lines of " it appears to be open to personal opinion."

Yes, and I answered you. You claim to have direct access to the one, or ones, who could simply give you the answer. So why don't you?

I do, and continue to have such interaction which provides interesting answers and other data to think about. I even posted one of those interactions here, in this thread although it is easily overlooked.

Post 16 and 29.

After re-read them, please pick a topic and let me know whether or not 'the father or the son"

Great. Did you pick one, and then express whether or not that claim was meant to be an actual literal physical event in history?

I don't understand your question. Please elaborate.

After re-reading posts 16, 29, and 36, please proceed below.

Please pick a topic in Genesis, and let me know whether or not 'the father or the son" tells you if such a Genesis claim is an actual physical literal event in history, or not? Example, 'Noah's flood' story, other?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #36]

I apparently have no clue.

I doubt anyone does, which is why I have already answered the question in earlier post in this thread - and my answer is along the lines of " it appears to be open to personal opinion."

Yes, and I answered you. You claim to have direct access to the one, or ones, who could simply give you the answer. So why don't you?

I do, and continue to have such interaction which provides interesting answers and other data to think about. I even posted one of those interactions here, in this thread although it is easily overlooked.

Post 16 and 29.

After re-read them, please pick a topic and let me know whether or not 'the father or the son"

Great. Did you pick one, and then express whether or not that claim was meant to be an actual literal physical event in history?

I don't understand your question. Please elaborate.

After re-reading posts 16, 29, and 36, please proceed below.

Please pick a topic in Genesis, and let me know whether or not 'the father or the son" tells you if such a Genesis claim is an actual physical literal event in history, or not? Example, 'Noah's flood' story, other?

The post I linked you to clearly shows that your question "If God's intent is to provide a book to draw one closer, why aid in a book which does the opposite for many?" and Historia's questioning your question by asking you "Why do you think the purpose of the Bible is to "draw one closer"?" allowed for the opportunity for me to point out to both of you (and the readers in general) that the question you are asking is based upon false/mis-information.

I pointed out that it was not The Fathers intention for the bible (or any book) to provide anyone with a means through which a Son could establish a relationship with (draw closer to) The Father.

I (The Son) then had a conversation with the father about that, which I shared in the post I linked.

The overall message re that conversation was that the bible taken literally or not (for whatever personal reason the individual has in making that decision) is of no intrinsic value because that is not how The Father has set up/arranged the rule-set.

It may be a case that you are arguing from things you have learned from Christians (which you found to be false because they only served to have you move away from building a relationship (as a Son) with The Father) as you appear to believe that the Bible is the object that should serve in that capacity. The teaching you had (if indeed this is where you got the idea) is false, and thus your question is based upon false knowledge.