The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True

[roger1440]

That is not my belief, but acknowledge that the world in full of illusion and irony. Like those that search for the Noah's Ark, perhaps we search for meaning where there is none to be found.

You might find this interesting. I did this thread a few years ago.
Where is the Ark of the Covenant?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... lets investigate three stories in particular.

(1) The story of creation in seven days as recorded in Genesis 1.
Should we take this as being literally true? If so how long ago did it all take place?

(2) The story Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3.
Should we regard this as literally true? If not what is the significance of it all?

(3) The story of Noah building an Ark and the great flood as recorded in Genesis 6 - 9. Did this all actually happen or did the author of Genesis have something else in mind?

None are 'true' in the sense of being scientifically/historically accurate.

I suspect that ...

• narrative 1 was intended cosmology,
• narrative 2 was an etiological narrative thought to be substantially true, and
• narrative 3 was an allegorical founders tale.

 

[roger1440]

Here is one for you. Where the heck did Cain get a wife? I don't have a answer for that one. I'm not going to begin to guess.

 

[Native]

In what way is a story about talking rabbits, or in the case of genesis, a talking serpent true?

IMO it is "true" as a method to treathen human beings to believe in the tale of the inherited sin - otherwise humans wouldn´t believe in the salvation from Christ.
I many other cultures the Serpent represents the benign creation itself, illustrated by the omnipotent figure of the white Milky Way band encircling the Earth, also called the Ouroboros.
Links:
Ouroboros - Wikipedia
Serpent (symbolism) - Wikipedia
Snakes in mythology - Wikipedia

 

[shunyadragon]

Since God is omnipotent, there is no reason not to believe it is all literal. Everything that exists had to have a beginning or be eternal. IMO "God did it," is the most logical answer and that He did it as described in Genesis, is the most logical belief.

I believe God is omnipotent, but the case is weak concerning the origins of Genesis and the Pentateuch. The evidence is overwhelming that these texts evolved from Babylonian, Canaanite, and Ugarite mythology found in the ancient clay tablets. The Hebrew language in a primitive Canaanite/Hebrew form only appears after ~900 BCE, and Pentateuch is dated well after the return from the exile. The belief of a Canaanite polytheism, and heirarchal polytheism is clearly present in the Pentateuch, corrupting God's Revelation.

By the evidence, ancient scripture shows an evolved human view of God and Revelation. I believe in God, therefore I believe God's Revelation is there, and it is represented by a reaffirmation of Monotheism, Spiritual Law, and opposing human corruption of religon.

If anyone want to say it is allegory, find. Just remember that allegories are based on literal events. The only thing in the Bible called an allegory is in Gal 4:24-31 and we know Sarah and Hagar were literal people.

Allegories throughout the Bible are not necessarily based on literal events.

Not only that, if you understand the allegory, you know it teaches a literal, spiritual truth.

Spiritual truth yes, but not necessarily a literal record of events.

You have failed to address the facts that the overwhelming scientific objective evidence rejects all the possible literal interpretations of Genesis.

 

[David T]

So Adrian, you are giving me the choice here between the very Christian is it a myth and the very Christian is it literally true!! Which Christian perspective is right? Our bery id3a of myth grew up tbrough chriztianity itself curiously, and now we very Christian like are turning it onto the very texts that gave rise this way of understanding in the first place..is this way of understanding the text or is it culturally developed over a long period is my question.

 

[Native]

You have failed to address the facts that the overwhelming scientific objective evidence rejects all the possible literal interpretations of Genesis.

On the other hand modern science have failed to prove the overwhelming numerous cultural Stories of Creation correct

 

[Aupmanyav]

The best and most scientific description of creation is in RigVeda - 'Nasadiya Sukta' (Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.). This is not the only description of creation. There are others too in a similar vein.

 

[omega2xx]

Thank you for sharing your Christian beliefs and understanding that these stories are to be taken literally. Like many, including a significant proportion of Christians, I see the allegory but do not see the stories as being literally true. I do believe God created the Universe but am guided by historic and scientific knowledge to better understand the processes, which of course will always remain mysterious. I do believe that Adam and Noah were real people but science does not support a worldwide flood as described.

That depends on who you are talking to. Henry Morris wrote a book called "The Genesis Flood." He givers some reasons some scientific facts that it did.

I wonder if the science that seems to overwhelming discount certain events as being literally true concerns you?

Real science does not contradict anything in the Bible. The TOE is not based on real science. In fact "after their kind refutes evolution.

 

[CG Didymus]

In regards to the first question regarding the creation of the earth there are a significant group of Christians that believe the earth to have been created less than 10,000 years ago. This is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

According to surveys conducted between 1982 and 2014, 40 - 47% of adults in the USA belief this to be true. That is a significant proportion of the population. How many on RF? Other than the bible what is the scientific basis for such a belief? I would be very interested to hear from any young earth creationists out there.

Young Earth creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the Universe, Earth, and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God less than 10,000 years ago. Its primary adherents are Christians who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the creation narrative in the Bible's Book of Genesis and believe that God created the Earth in six 24-hour days. In contrast to YEC, old Earth creationism is the belief in a metaphorical interpretation of the Book of Genesis and the scientifically-determined estimated ages of the Earth and Universe.

Since the mid-20th century, young Earth creationists—starting with Henry Morris (1918–2006)—have devised and promoted a pseudoscientific explanation called "creation science" as a basis for a religious belief in a supernatural, geologically recent creation. Evidence from numerous scientific disciplines contradicts YEC, showing the age of the universe as 13.8 billion years, the formation of the Earth as at least 4.5 billion years ago, and the first appearance of life on Earth as occurring at least 3.5 billion years ago.

A 2009 poll by Harris Interactive found that 39% of Americans agreed with the statement that "God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10,000 years", yet only 18% of the Americans polled agreed with the statement "The earth is less than 10,000 years old".Between 1982 and 2014, successive surveys have found that between 40% and 47% of adults in the United States inclined to the view that "God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years" when Gallup asked for their views on the origin and development of human beings. A 2011 Gallup survey reports that 30% of U.S. adults say they interpret the Bible literally.

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia

As if you didn't have enough going on? Okay, if and when you have time watch some of the Creation Series by Kent Hovind. He's got a good sense of humor about the topic and several videos.

Whether they call themselves Evangelical, Born-Again, or Fundamentalists Christians, I'm talking about the ones who believe the Bible as literal. Everything about their beliefs hinges on the Creation and the Flood being real events. It is the foundation to getting to the story and purpose of Jesus.

In the other thread we talked about the purpose of Christianity. For these Christians it is to get people "saved" from their sins. And sin all started with Adam and Eve in the Garden. The Christian character of Satan started in the Garden also. He was there as the Serpent to trick them into eating the forbidden fruit.

I don't need the story to be literal, and I hope it isn't. Baha'is don't want it literal. And, it doesn't sound like something that even makes sense literally. No Sun, but you have plants? God pulls out a rib and creates Eve... and that's after He apparently forgot to make Adam a wife? So the easy answer is that it's all a myth. But... if Creation and the Flood are a myth, then what do we do with Jesus?

That's why I think this question is so important. The Christians are trying to save the people of the world from sin and judgement. And the Baha'is are trying to unite the people of the world and their religions and build a peaceful world.

They say Jesus is coming back to judge the world. The Baha'i say he has already come in Baha'u'llah to bring peace to the world. So is Jesus who he says he is... according to who Christians say he is? It all depends. Is their interpretation of the Bible and their NT correct? And it all starts with Genesis.

Thanks Adrian for taking this on. I hope some of the YEC Christians take the time to comment.

 

[Polymath257]

Myth. Pure myth.

 

[Polymath257]

That depends on who you are talking to. Henry Morris wrote a book called "The Genesis Flood." He givers some reasons some scientific facts that it did.

Morris is a notorious liar.

Real science does not contradict anything in the Bible. The TOE is not based on real science. In fact "after their kind refutes evolution.

No, the evidence shows TOE is correct. That it refutes a myth is beside the point.

 

[omega2xx]

I believe God is omnipotent, but the case is weak concerning the origins of Genesis and the Pentateuch. The evidence is overwhelming that these texts evolved from Babylonian, Canaanite, and Ugarite mythology found in the ancient clay tablets.

There is absolutely no evidence supporting that opinion. The creation is the beginning of events on earth. If anything. similar stories of other religions were copied from Genesis.

The Hebrew language in a primitive Canaanite/Hebrew form only appears after ~900 BCE, and Pentateuch is dated well after the return from the exile. The belief of a Canaanite polytheism, and heirarchal polytheism is clearly present in the Pentateuch, corrupting God's Revelation.

Hebrew is not related to a primitive Canaanite language. If anything Canaanite is related to Hebrew, but I don't believe that either. All language were created at the Tower of Babel and they are all distinct and separate, although there are some similarities in some words. Genesis starts in day one. How can any other language or stories precede that? Also there is no evidence all of the records that old are still available.

By the evidence, ancient scripture shows an evolved human view of God and Revelation. I believe in God, therefore I believe God's Revelation is there, and it is represented by a reaffirmation of Monotheism, Spiritual Law, and opposing human corruption of religon.

There is not doubt the understanding of God and His religion has been corrupted, but it has been corrupted by those trying to discredit it and that with no real evidence.

Allegories throughout the Bible are not necessarily based on literal events.

Spiritual truth yes, but not necessarily a literal record of events.

I would not bet the homeplace on it being true in secular allegories, but I think it is, but it true in Biblical allegories. Only one thing in the Bible is called an allegory---the story of Sarah and Hagar(Gal 4:24-31) and we certainly believe both of t hem were real characters. I see a lot of allegories in the O.T.

You have failed to address the facts that the overwhelming scientific objective evidence rejects all the possible literal interpretations of Genesis.

There is not objective scientific evidence that rejects a literal interpretation of Genesis. In fact the only objective scientific evidence in the creation account rejects, evolution. "After their kind," is observed every day and it can be repeated.

 

[omega2xx]

As if you didn't have enough going on? Okay, if and when you have time watch some of the Creation Series by Kent Hovind. He's got a good sense of humor about the topic and several videos.

It is amusing to me that the evos can only point to 1 person. Why not also look at the staff of the ICR and Back to Genesis?

Whether they call themselves Evangelical, Born-Again, or Fundamentalists Christians, I'm talking about the ones who believe the Bible as literal. Everything about their beliefs hinges on the Creation and the Flood being real events. It is the foundation to getting to the story and purpose of Jesus.

Very few Christians think the Bible is all literal and Christianity does not hinge on the creation story and the flood being real events. If anything it hinges on Jesus dying for our sins and He is he only way to get to heaven.

In the other thread we talked about the purpose of Christianity. For these Christians it is to get people "saved" from their sins. And sin all started with Adam and Eve in the Garden. The Christian character of Satan started in the Garden also. He was there as the Serpent to trick them into eating the forbidden fruit.

Unfortunately that is a common preaching in most evangelical churches. The main purpose of Christianity is to strengthen Christian in their beliefs and to show the world the advantage of following Christ.

I don't need the story to be literal, and I hope it isn't. Baha'is don't want it literal. And, it doesn't sound like something that even makes sense literally. No Sun, but you have plants? God pulls out a rib and creates Eve... and that's after He apparently forgot to make Adam a wife? So the easy answer is that it's all a myth. But... if Creation and the Flood are a myth, then what do we do with Jesus?

It is more of a comfort if it is literal.

That's why I think this question is so important. The Christians are trying to save the people of the world from sin and judgement. And the Baha'is are trying to unite the people of the world and their religions and build a peaceful world.

What good is to unite people and they still end up in hell?

They say Jesus is coming back to judge the world. The Baha'i say he has already come in Baha'u'llah to bring peace to the world. So is Jesus who he says he is... according to who Christians say he is? It all depends. Is their interpretation of the Bible and their NT correct? And it all starts with Genesis.

Jesus has come and the NT clearly teaches He is coming again. He did not bring peace to the world the first time, but He will the next time.

Thanks Adrian for taking this on. I hope some of the YEC Christians take the time to comment.

Well at least one did. I hope you will comment on my comments.

 

[omega2xx]

Morris is a notorious liar.

What lies has he told? You problem is that you are not qualified to judge his evidence.

No, the evidence shows TOE is correct. That it refutes a myth is beside the point.

Talk is cheap, provide just one piece of evidence that the TOE preaches. Another example that you do not understand what evidence is.

 

[rusra02]

(1) The story of creation in seven days as recorded in Genesis 1.
Should we take this as being literally true? If so how long ago did it all take place?

Yes, God prepared the earth in 6 time-periods called days in Genesis 1. These are not 24-hour periods, IMO, but long time periods lasting at least thousands of years. After each creative "day", the record says; 'And there was evening and there was morning, a first day, second day, etc' This obviously is not a 24 hour period. Of the entire creative epoch, Genesis 2:4 states; "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." Thus "day" is used in Genesis to refer to time periods other than 24 hours.

(2) The story Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as recorded in
Genesis 2 and Genesis 3.
I believe this account is the true history of mankind's beginning. Jesus Christ believed it also.

(3) The story of Noah building an Ark and the great flood as recorded in Genesis 6 - 9. Did this all actually happen?
Yes, the Flood of Noah's day is historical fact, IMO. Again, Jesus Christ spoke of the flood as real, and a warning that God will not tolerate wickedness indefinitely. (Luke 17:25-27)

 

[Native]

The creation is the beginning of events on earth.

So what does it means when cultural stories of creation begin with: "Before anything was created"?

 

[ChristineM]

This one has been round the block and more here at RF without doubt.

I've always assumed some of these stories to be myths, but I understand that many do not. So lets investigate three stories in particular.

(1) The story of creation in seven days as recorded in Genesis 1.
Should we take this as being literally true? If so how long ago did it all take place?

(2) The story Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3.
Should we regard this as literally true? If not what is the significance of it all?

(3) The story of Noah building an Ark and the great flood as recorded in Genesis 6 - 9. Did this all actually happen or did the author of Genesis have something else in mind?

I've included this in the science and religion category so we could consider the scientific evidence that would support or refute either perspective.

Many people where I live (New Zealand) don't believe any of it, let alone being literally true. I don't live in the USA where many think differently.

I'm a Baha'i who believes in the same God, Bible, and Jesus as the Christians. I view some aspects of the Bible allegorically, whereas my Christian brothers and sisters might interpret literally.

Always happy to have a friendly chat about God's word with my coreligionists or atheists alike.

1/ cosmology can see, mathematically at least, back to 10e-43 of a second after the bb event. That's trillions of times faster than the clock tick of the fastest computer ever made. The universe existed then so the seven days story is just that, a story. Of course people can say whatever their religion suggests about prior to that time. No one knows so it's all guesswork. One thing though, scientifically speaking there is no requirement for a god. As for taking place, the bb was around d 13.8 billion years ago, earth formed at around the same time as our sun, just over 4.5 billion years ago.

2/ Adam and Eve surely lived, DNA proves this and DNA does not lie, mtDNA Eve lived about 200,000 years ago. Y-mrca Adam is also known to have lived around 280,000 years ago.

3/ Noah's ark is pure allegory, a completely impossible story on several levels from the practically of a bronze age man building a boat that is technically impossible to build even today, to the logistics of storing every species of animal, not in twos as is common in Disney films but in sevens, totalling around 50 million animals along with all the food for a year. (Who did the mucking out?). Then we have water, simple maths of subtracting the volume of 2 spheres, t
1, the diameter of earth at sea level with 2, the diameter at the height of the highest mountain (Everest) plus 18 cubits, will show that the amount of water needed is about 80,000 times more than actually exists. It's my belief that the story is an expansion of a folk tale originating thousands of years before when the land collapsed at what is now Istanbul and the black sea was formed.

 

[Segev Moran]

This one has been round the block and more here at RF without doubt.

Agreed

I've always assumed some of these stories to be myths, but I understand that many do not. So lets investigate three stories in particular.

When you say some, can you please elaborate?

(1) The story of creation in seven days as recorded in Genesis 1.

6 days actually.
The 7th day was the "sabath", which was the "resting" day.

Should we take this as being literally true? If so how long ago did it all take place?

It cannot be taken literally no matter how you try to twist it.
As for the question of days, some interpretations are suggested:

A Day "יום", is actually representing an era in that story. so the creation took place during 6 separate eras which length is an unknown.

A Day here doesn't relate to a time period but rather a "validation" of each creation phase.

There are some who claim they were actual days, but that days used to be much much longer.

Some claim these are depictions of actual beings that lived or arrived (et) and created this planet to be suitable for life

There are of course many more.

My opinion:

It was some kind of a guess trying to figure out the order of things.
This order is quite logical assuming all you have is your naked eyes to asses the universe.

(2) The story Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3.
Should we regard this as literally true? If not what is the significance of it all?

Literally? probably not

Some interpretations:

Adam and Eve represent the difference between male and female, 2 different types of "spiritual" that are in fact one.

Adam and eve are just a specific male and female that were created. that in fact god created many "Adams" and "Eves"

Adam and eve were a story of humans that were generated in an alien technology.

And more.

My opinion:

It was the biggest difference between humans at that time.
It is true that people looked different then each other, but they had no understanding of genetics, reproduction process(well, i guess they had some ) etc.
So the next best guess could easily be that humans were created differently, but have some kind of relation (the rib?) that makes them of the same specie.

(3) The story of Noah building an Ark and the great flood as recorded in Genesis 6 - 9. Did this all actually happen or did the author of Genesis have something else in mind?

Same concept applies here:

Its just a metaphoric story of Gods wrath and abilities.

It is a special alien weapon of sort.

It is a description of the replacement of an era

and so on.

My opinion:

It was a way to explain why there are very specific and unique kinds of animals.
I can assume they didn't have much knowledge of the wild life in other places in the world.

I Guess you can look at it as a first scientific theory that doesn't deal with gods as the ruling power of the universe rather some unknown incredibly powerful force.

Today we can look back and understand how far they were, but I guess it was a nice try

I've included this in the science and religion category so we could consider the scientific evidence that would support or refute either perspective.

There is no scientific evidence to support any of the (supernatural) stories in genesis.

Many people where I live (New Zealand) don't believe any of it, let alone being literally true. I don't live in the USA where many think differently.

too many people believe it literally no matter where you look at.
I Think this number should stand on zero

I'm a Baha'i who believes in the same God, Bible, and Jesus as the Christians. I view some aspects of the Bible allegorically, whereas my Christian brothers and sisters might interpret literally.

Always happy to have a friendly chat about God's word with my coreligionists or atheists alike.

cheers

 

[Polymath257]

Morris has misrepresented the fossil record. He has mis-stated what the TOE actually says. He has lied about how magnetic reversals work on the Earth.

Perhaps I may not be qualified (although I do think I am), but biologists such as Ashley Montague, Stephen Gould, and Francis Collins (the last an evangelical Christian) are qualified and they also state Morris lies.