The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True

[Dawnofhope]

So both Adam and Noah are known (other than through repetition of their stories in the Qur'an and affirmation of their status as Manifestations in Baha'u'llah's writings) only on the basis of a completely fabulous and intentionally symbolic mythology written, it is supposed, by a descendant of both of them - which now becomes relevant because if they really existed, they were not, as claimed in the Biblical tradition, the actual progenitors of all humans.

Manifestations of God are not just manifestations of human knowledge. They can at times access the knowledge that is with God, the All-Knowing.

In fact, there were probably millions of humans around the globe at the time they existed, but God - in his desire to promote unity and peace - chose to select Manifestations in at least 7 "Dispensations" from the same small semi-nomadic tribe in an otherwise insignificant corner of the middle east, namely, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah himself?

There is also Krishna, Buddha and undoubtedly many other Manifestations of God that we don't know about as they have been lost in the mists of time. Then there are innumerable prophets, sages, and people of great capacity that have had profound influence.

One lesson from the myth of creation in Genesis, is that God is concerned for His creation and man. An All-Loving, All-Powerful and Just God is not just concerned for one people, but for all peoples.

Now what of Abraham? Was he a real person or just a name associated with a symbolic story? He is, after all, recorded as having lived 175 years - only slightly more plausible than Adams 930 and Noah's 950 - being more than 50 years longer than any properly verified human life-span.

Abraham is consider to have been a real person. I wouldn't take the years of His lifespan too literally either.

"The years of Noah are not years as we count them, and as our teachings do not state that this reference to years means His dispensation, we cannot interpret it this way."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, November 25, 1950; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1659)

So - where in the genealogy in Genesis 11 - is the line between fable and fact? And if the story of Abraham (and his wives and concubines) is also symbolic - as the Bible itself suggests in Galatians 4:24 - what value should we assign to the Baha'i claim that Baha'u'llah is a descendant of Abraham.

Only God knows for certain. There is nothing in either the Bible or Baha'i writings that suggests the genealogy outlined in the Bible is incorrect.

"Thus it is an especial blessing that from among the descendants of Abraham should have come all the Prophets of the children of Israel. This is a blessing that God has granted to this descent: to Moses from His father and mother, to Christ from His mother’s line; also to Muḥammad and the Báb, and to all the Prophets and the Holy Manifestations of Israel. The Blessed Beauty 1 is also a lineal descendant of Abraham, for Abraham had other sons besides Ishmael and Isaac who in those days migrated to the lands of Persia and Afghanistan, and the Blessed Beauty is one of their descendants." – Abdu'l Baha, Some Answered Questions p.213

Abdu'l-Baha was appointed by Baha'u'llah as authorised interpreter and expounder of His words.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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

This all relevant and helpful. I agree that these myths are true when considered in the light you suggest. The problem comes when we confuse meaningful mythology with literal history.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

Ha ha. Its an opportunity to express what you really believe, preferably with reasons if you feel comfortable. Its important to consider the evolution of thinking about these texts. Certainly the eighteenth century accompanied by the age of reason and so called enlightenment thinking witnessed a shift from viewing these texts literally towards more allegorically.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The best and most scientific description of creation ia 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.

That is beautiful.

HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

Do you have a link?

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.

What's the evidence for the truth of the tower of Babel story? Sounds like another myth, don't you think?

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.

Highly debatable but off the topic.

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

How does that assist our discussions?

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

I really do want to understand the scientific basis for accepting Genesis chapters 1 - 9 as being literally true. Putting our respective religious beliefs aside, please explain to me as someone who accepts conventional science, why I should have reasons to doubt my education in science.

Not true. Whild the word for day, can mean an indefinite period of time, when it is use with a number it is always a 24 hour period.

In Biblical terms each day can represent a year:
Numbers 14:34: The Israelites will wander for 40 years in the wilderness, one year for every day spent by the spies in Canaan
Ezekiel 4:5-6: The prophet Ezekiel is commanded to lie on his left side for 390 days, followed by his right side for 40 days, to symbolize the equivalent number of years of punishment on Israel and Judah respectively.

 

[Native]

Its important to consider the evolution of thinking about these texts. Certainly the eighteenth century accompanied by the age of reason and so called enlightenment thinking witnessed a shift from viewing these texts literally towards more allegorically.

IMO initially the cultural myths of creation was an orally tradition and as time went on, the texts and the symbols of creation were taken out of the cosmological context and in our modern times, the ancient cosmological meanings is somewhat forgotten and reduced to one god instead of several, also female deities.
The ancient myths of creation isn´t allegorical at all but real cosmological knowledge. Modern human beings have just forgotten this, causing orthodox dogmas where "we just have to believe" on something which our ancestors KNEW what they were talking about.

 

[ChristineM]

You are so wrong. They needed more animals than that to feed the carnivores. They might, I say might have been able to save some space by making the polar bears, otters, seals and beavers float along side. But, this part is true, I've heard some Christians say that there wasn't a Mt. Everest yet, so they didn't need as much water. They also say it was "kind" of animal, so they reduce the number of animals. Only one "kind" of dog-like animal was needed. Then clearly from where the Ark landed, out of that dog, all animals like wolves, foxes, chihuahuas could have easily evolved and run off and scattered to all parts of the world. Or, if they needed any help, God could have beamed them to where they needed to go. So it could have happened.

You are right in that the carnivores needed fresh meat which i have not accounted for, maybe the 7 blue whales (whale meat is food in some areas) were not on board and that space was used for live food storage... Who knows the, story is a little sketchy on detail

 

[shunyadragon]

You are so wrong. They needed more animals than that to feed the carnivores. They might, I say might have been able to save some space by making the polar bears, otters, seals and beavers float along side. But, this part is true, I've heard some Christians say that there wasn't a Mt. Everest yet, so they didn't need as much water. They also say it was "kind" of animal, so they reduce the number of animals. Only one "kind" of dog-like animal was needed. Then clearly from where the Ark landed, out of that dog, all animals like wolves, foxes, chihuahuas could have easily evolved and run off and scattered to all parts of the world. Or, if they needed any help, God could have beamed them to where they needed to go. So it could have happened.

Scotty on Star Trek could have beamed them up, and returned them after the flood resided.

 

[omega2xx]

The evidence is overwhelming, the creation stories found in Genesis occur first in Babylonian and Ugarite cuneiform tablets, and there are not Hebrew texts known older that ~700-600 BCE (silver scrolls), and that is being very generous. There are no older Hebrew writings than this. The oldest texts of any extent of the Pentateuch is found in the Dead Sea scrolls.

Genesis is the beginning of everything. NOTHING came before it. There is no evidence at all, let alone any overwhelming evidence that Genesis was copied Babylonian writings. You don't eve know if all the scrolls from that time have been found or are even still available. Conservative scholar estimate Exodus was written anywhere from 1290 BC to 1440BC, That is older than what you call the "silver scrolls, " and Genesis is much older than that.

>>I give the actual archealogical evidence over your claim of the Biblical texts. Their are no extensive OT texts older than the Dead Sea scrolls.<<

You have not given any evidence. All you have done is say something is true and that you do have evidence.

ALL the objective evidence reject a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Talk is cheap, present your evidence. How were the scrolls dated?

What are your academic sources to support your assertions.

All good study Bibles give an approximate date as to when it was written. I just gave you the opinion of conservative Bible scholars.

 

[omega2xx]

Well, I know the generation of the mythology from previous myths from the Fertile Crescent. I know a bit about how those myths were generated and how they changed over time. I know that the Earth and the universe didn't form in the way described in Genesis. I know that the Earth and the universe are far more and a few thousand years old. And I know that the invocation of supernatural beings is a sign of a mythology.

Wonderful. Now tell me HOW you know what you mentioned.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is beautiful.

Actually this is Quantum Mechanics - pointing to 'absolute nothing', erasing the distinction between existence and non-existence, and space/energy emanating ex-nihilo.

1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it.
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4ii Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

 

[omega2xx]

Yes, which makes him unqualified to discuss the *biological* theory of evolution.

Don't change the subject. This discussion is about the flood, not biology.

But more, he completely misrepresents the evidence of, for example, the grand canyon. He lied about how the sorting that would happen in a flood corresponds to what we see in the fossil record. So even with his PhD is hydraulics engineering, he misrepresented the evidence and the conclusions that can be derived from it.

You are not qualified to say his conclusions are a lie. You are not qualified to say the secular view is accurate.

Morris isn't quite as bad as Hovind, who is an outright fraud (and convicted of such). But he starts with his conclusion and attempts to distort the evidence to fit his world view. That isn't the way of science.

If you want to talk about fraud and a lack of scientific evidence, start with the TOE. Nothing in it has been or can be proven scientifically. You have been duped into thinking it is based on science/

Gould was a biologist. He knew what the evidence is for evolution, because he was one that was challenging the standard views on it in the early 1970's. Francis Collins, an evangelical Christian, also knows the evidence for evolution and is very clear about how creationists and IDers lie about that evidence.

Gould virtually destroyed using the fossil record to support evolution. What evidence does Collins offer to support evolution? Be specific. If you want to expose some liars, read the evo explanation of whale evolution. To say a nose can become a blowhole is a bold face lie that genetics exposes.

 

[omega2xx]

Well if some Christians believe the isn't all literal, then which parts?

Hard to be dogmatic. There are few rules to determine if a passage is literal or figurative.

One rule we should consider is it impossible for God to do. Since He is omnipotent, the creation would not be impossible for Him. If something is impossible---turning water into wine. it is figurative , teachings spiritual truth. One very important rule is that a passage may be both literal and figurative. That is what we see in allegory.

There is some allegory in Genesis. While the light God created was literal it also represents the truth of the gospel. when God gives us understanding of it. Light can symbolize good, truth and even life itself.

2 Cor 6:4 - in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God

2 Cor 6:6 - For God who said, "light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shown in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the fact of Christ,.

Baha'is "believe" the Bible but make some things like the Creation, the Flood, the Resurrection and Jesus coming back as symbolic.

The is some symbolism in the creation and the flood, but not in Jesus coming back. The also believe the resurrection is symbolic, but there are to many clear verses refuting that idea.

Because Christians do use Adam and him messing things up as the cause of sin in the world, then for me, he is all important. Without him, there is no need for a savior.

Agreed.

 

[Native]

There is no evidence at all, let alone any overwhelming evidence that Genesis was copied Babylonian writings.

The similarity of the numerous cultural Myths of Creation of course derives from the fact that we all live on the same planet Earth, in the same Solar System and in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same local part of the Universe. This is what the numerous cultural stories of creation is speaking of. What else should it be?

And this common human story is initially not depending of having any contact cultures in between.

This is what all people all over the world can observe physically and spiritually, just by watcing the Sky and listening to their inner voices and making contact with cosmos - as also decribed in the Bible by persons who have such contact with revelations and visions.

But of course there later on in the civilization have been cultural exchanges of religious tellings and of course there later on have been cultural comparisons of deities between different civilizations. The important thing is here to compare the different religions and to grasp that they all are one and that religious differences and religious wars really are human made idiotic nonsense.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Like those that search for the Noah's Ark, perhaps we search for meaning where there is none to be found.

Lots of very smart people dedicate their lives to things like finding Bigfoot, Werewolves, Chupacabras, Witches, Giants, Arks and Unicorns... In doing so, they're completely overlooking the purpose of mythology and richness of storytelling. They're not stupid - they're just delusional.

 

[Polymath257]

Don't change the subject. This discussion is about the flood, not biology.

You are not qualified to say his conclusions are a lie. You are not qualified to say the secular view is accurate.

If you want to talk about fraud and a lack of scientific evidence, start with the TOE. Nothing in it has been or can be proven scientifically. You have been duped into thinking it is based on science/

Gould virtually destroyed using the fossil record to support evolution. What evidence does Collins offer to support evolution? Be specific. If you want to expose some liars, read the evo explanation of whale evolution. To say a nose can become a blowhole is a bold face lie that genetics exposes.

Well, it is clear that Morris and other creationists, as well as your faith in your myth, have blinded you to what science has to offer. Gould did NOT destroy using the fossil record! Just wow. The whole reason evolution was first discussed is that the actual evidence isn't consistent with the flood story from the Bible. This was discovered 200 years ago. That religious fanatics are still debating it is just sad.

 

[omega2xx]

Do you have a link?

I doubt if their is a link giving the text of his book. Goggle "The Genesis Flood" and see.

What's the evidence for the truth of the tower of Babel story? Sounds like another myth, don't you think?

IMO there are no myths in the Bible. The tower of Babel perfectly explains the different language we have today. If you make everything in the Bible a myth, you will never learn the truth about God.

Highly debatable but off the topic.

How does that assist our discussions?

When there is no backquote I am never sure what the subject was. After I send this , I will backtrack and try to answer your last 2 questions.

I really do want to understand the scientific basis for accepting Genesis chapters 1 - 9 as being literally true. Putting our respective religious beliefs aside, please explain to me as someone who accepts conventional science, why I should have reasons to doubt my education in science.

The chances are you are not accepting conventional science, you are accepting what evolution preaches. Standard science says the offspring can't inherit a trait not in the gene pool of its parents, Evolution says it can.

An omnipotent God can step outside of even the science He created. If your God is not omnipotent, He is to small. The only science we have in Genesis 1 is "after their kind" in plants, in sea life, in animal life and in human life. We see this truth thousands of time every day. It can be observed and repeated.

Plant some corn and in about 90 days, not only will you always get corn, you will always get the exact same variety you planted. There is no evidence that has ever changed sin the first grain of corn was planted. Now man has found way to tinker with pollination to get a change in variety, but they have never been able to make corn produce anything but more corn.

In Biblical terms each day can represent a year:
Numbers 14:34: The Israelites will wander for 40 years in the wilderness, one year for every day spent by the spies in Canaan
Ezekiel 4:5-6: The prophet Ezekiel is commanded to lie on his left side for 390 days, followed by his right side for 40 days, to symbolize the equivalent number of years of punishment on Israel and Judah respectively.

That is not universally true. "day" in Hebrew can mean an indefinite period of time, but when it is associated with a number, it ALWAYS refers to a 24 hour day as we know it today.

Here is some food for thought---The Source Principle: The first grain of wheat contained complete and perfect the life and characteristics of every grain of wheat to this day. All life is based on the source principle. We are the product of our source---Let us make man in our image and according to our likeness---God created man in His own image...

here is my best advice---sincerely pray o God and ask Him to how you the truth. I am not able to convince anyone of anything. I can' only tell you what I believe and why I beleive it.

 

[jonathan180iq]

IMO there are no myths in the Bible. The tower of Babel perfectly explains the different language we have today.

You clearly do not understand what the world "myth" means...

myth
miTH/
noun

1. 1.
   a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
   synonyms: folk tale, folk story, legend, tale, story, fable, saga, mythos, lore, folklore, mythology
   "ancient Greek myths"

Plant some corn and in about 90 days, not only will you always get corn, you will always get the exact same variety you planted. There is no evidence that has ever changed sin the first grain of corn was planted. Now man has found way to tinker with pollination to get a change in variety, but they have never been able to make corn produce anything but more corn.

Objectively false.
The corn you eat today was once a wheat-like grass. There was a time when modern corn did not exist at all.

Evolution of Corn

 

[omega2xx]

The similarity of the numerous cultural Myths of Creation of course derives from the fact that we all live on the same planet Earth, in the same Solar System and in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same local part of the Universe. This is what the numerous cultural stories of creation is speaking of. What else should it be?

First of all you have no evidence the creation story in Genesis is a myth. Second, "in the beginning" points to the beginning. If any thing is copied, it is copied from what is in Genesis, not the other way around.,

And this common human story is initially not depending of having any contact cultures in between.

This is what all people all over the world can observe physically and spiritually, just by watcing the Sky and listening to their inner voices and making contact with cosmos - as also decribed in the Bible by persons who have such contact with revelations and visions.

The inner voices of man is not a reliabel way of knowing the truth. There are way to many voices speaking different things.

But of course there later on in the civilization have been cultural exchanges of religious tellings and of course there later on have been cultural comparisons of deities between different civilizations. The important thing is here to compare the different religions and to grasp that they all are one and that religious differences and religious wars really are human made idiotic nonsense.

All religions are not the same. Christianity is unique.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

First of all you have no evidence the creation story in Genesis is a myth. Second, "in the beginning" points to the beginning.

In the beginning of what?