The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True

[jonathan180iq]

About languages. Don't tell me what I could have said, explain how different language developed. Please include the supporting evidence.

Languages evolve, just like everything else.

Their adaptations and accepted forms will expand and vary exponentially depending many social and even geographic factors. For example, how many variations of English can you think of?
(North American, King's/Scot/Irish, Australian, South African, etc...)
Now, how many versions of English exist just in the United States? Where did all those variations come from? What happened to the old languages?

How many variations of Spanish can you think of?
Do both of English and Spanish share a common influencing linguistic ancestor? (Latin)
Are both of those parent languages influenced by distinctly unique social and cultural factors?
Have they adapted parts of surrounding languages to create a commonly used vernacular based on geographic proximity?

You can think of the right answer to all of those questions if just spend some time on it.

The English Language that you and I are using to communicate today did not exist just a few hundred years ago. You are aware of this fact, right?
Old English - Wikipedia

I'm going to wager that even though you and I both speak English, which is a subsidiary of AEnglish, that you cannot read this script... (Neither can I)

This is the prologue to Beowulf. Good luck.

Were it not for languages like this, and a few hundred years of linguistic evolution, we wouldn't be communicating using the words that we have today.

Supporting Evidence:
http://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/LanguageBegin.pdf
Where and when did language begin? A remarkable new study may have the answer | Dictionary.com Blog
Origin of language - Wikipedia
List of languages by first written accounts - Wikipedia
How did language evolve?
How languages evolve - Alex Gendler

In contrast, you say that a Tower (which has never been verified to have actually existed) was destroyed by God to punish people for their pride and ambition as they attempted to reach heaven, and in the process languages were magically mixed up in order to confuse people so that they could never attempt such things again...

I know that you see the difference between actual study versus reliance on mythological tales. There's nothing wrong with embracing mythology - but if you want to be taken seriously, you have to understand the difference between legend and supported history.

About corn and teosinte. Get an ear of each and plant some of the seeds and tell me what the corn seed produced and what the teosinte seed produced.

On their own they produce corn and teosinte, respectively, because they aren't having any genetic input come from an outside source. Modern corn could not exist were it not for its teosinte and maize parents. Similarly, all of the modern variations of corn that have been created could not exist without the teosinte and maize grand parents. You have the option of eating husked corn today, something that human beings 10,000 years ago had no access to, like modern English, because it did not exist.

Then grind some of the seeds into powder and get them tested for DNA. Now see if there is a difference .

If you had actually read those articles and links then you would know that genetic testing has already been done... This is one of the factors that helped solidify the idea that one is the parent of the other. It's the same way in which genetic testing of your DNA compared to your grandparents would show relation.

"From Teosinte to Corn

The genes that control a number of specific traits have been identified.

For example, a gene on chromosome #1 causes the ears of corn to be big and to grow on a few short branches. In contrast, the ears of teosinte are scattered over many small branches.

A gene on the second chromosome causes more rows of kernels to grow, yielding more food per corn plant.

A gene on the fourth chromosome causes corn kernels to have small, soft casings. Teosinte kernels have much larger, harder kernel casings that make them hard to eat."

 

[InvestigateTruth]

.

... best of all, Abraham fathering Ishmael in his 80s then Isaac when he was 100 and, by the supposed ancestress of Baha'u'llah, Keturah, several sons all of whom were born after Isaac was married - so Abraham would have been probably over 120 years old. ....

Good points.
I personally believe when Bible is saying that, Abraham had a son at age 100, this son is not literally son of Abraham, but a grandson, or a son that appeared in His lineage. I would think Abraham had already passed away at that time. The scriptures tend to use symbolism to express things more briefly, however still spiritually true. I say that based on a Tradition coming from Quran:


"Allah sent revelation to ‘Imran (Joachim) saying, "I will grant you a perfect and holy son who would cure the blind and the lepers and bring the dead back to life by Allah, the permission of Allah and I make him a messenger to the israelites." ‘Imran (Joachim) then said it to his wife, Hanna(Anna), mother of Mary all about it. Thus When she conceived with the baby Mary, she thought to herself that the baby will be a boy. When she gave birth to Mary she said, "Lord, I have given birth to a girl and boys are not like girls. A girl can not be a messenger. Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious, has said, "Allah knows to whom have you given birth. When Allah, the Most High, granted Jesus to Mary he was the boy promised to ‘Imran (Joachin). When we would say something about a man from us and that thing would be found in his sons or grand sons then you must not deny it."

So, according to above Tradition, a son of a Prophet, in the Holy Scriptures, can be a son in His lineage. I would think that Abraham would have been 100 years old when Issac was born. But because Abraham was Spiritually alive, and the Book's purpose is to express spiritual realities, it is still correct.
@adrian009 may have his own understanding though.

 

[omega2xx]

It is one thing to have musical instruments and a forge, another to suddenly build the biggest wooden ship.

Building la barge is not rocket surgery.

here is very little guidance as to how to construct the Ark, compared to the construction of the temple of Solomon. You show me how the ark should look based on the guidance in Genesis.

Very little is needed to build a barge. Much is needed when detail is required.

In fact much more things on the Ark would not have been necessary on the Titanic, such as food and creating the necessary environment for the care of each animal. You seem to believe its possible to place animals in close proximity to each other, with bare wooden surroundings, and feed them grain and water. Each animal has adapted to a unique habitat over millions of years.]

The ark didn't need an engine, life boats, deck chairs an auditorium and a lfew more things.

I'm not sure you understand basic biology and ecology. Lets look at the school level education.

Every living organism needs to find some way of nourishing itself, and animals are no exception. The exact diet of different animal species is extremely dependent on the animal and the area in which it lives.

Animals must eat other living organisms in order to survive including both plants and other animals as well as having access to water. Animals have adapted to their surroundings and so will make the most of what is there. Camels for example, inhabit dry and baron deserts where there is little water, so they have evolved the ability to store large amounts of water in their bodies.

Although the exact diets of individual animal species are very varied, the diet of animals is usually split into three groups, which are herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores.

Herbivores
Herbivorous animals are vegetarians meaning that they only eat plants. Many animals are unable to eat large amounts of vegetation as their digestive systems are unable to break it down. Herbivorous animals have evolved to be able to consume and digest large quantities of plants, many of which have more than one stomach. Elephants, rabbits, manatees and deer are all herbivorous animals.
Omnivores
Animals that are said to be omnivorous, are animals that eat pretty much anything. An omnivorous diet is made up from both plant matter and other animals, as lots of animals need to eat a high amount of protein which other animals contain. Humans, bears, lemurs, raccoons and numerous birds are all omnivorous animals.
Carnivores
Carnivorous animals are meat-eaters, meaning that they only eat other animals in order to get their nutrition. Carnivores usually have sharp teeth and strong jaws, which they need to successfully catch and eat their prey. Lions, crocodiles, otters, and weasels are all carnivorous animals.

Food Chains
Regardless of their lifestyle, all animals, ultimately provide food for other animals. Animals are connected to one another by food chains, which involves the passing of food from one animal species to another.

Typically food chains start with a plant which is known as the producer. The producer in a food chain gains the energy it needs from the sun and is the only link in the food chain which does not consume organic matter. This going to be highly problematic on the Noah's ark. The producer is consumed by a herbivore known as a primary consumer, which is then consumed by the secondary consumer, generally a small, omnivorous animal. The tertiary consumer, usually a smaller carnivore, then eats the small omnivorous mammal. The tertiary consumer is also sometimes eaten by a larger carnivore which would be the quaternary consumer.

Food chains differ from one another all over the world, and are largely dependent on the habitat and the species which live there. Of course practically all reputable scientist will recognise these have evolved over millions of years. One of the reasons so many species are dying off is because of disruption to natural habitats. Food chains for marine species work in the same way, although the producers in marine food chains are usually small aquatic plants and phytoplankton. These would be destroyed by the flood described in Genesis.

Animals have adapted in order to more easily obtain food and animals from all around the world are known to use tools both to eat their food and to obtain it. All animals have developed strong jaws, teeth and tongues in order to make the most of their meals and some animals such as apes, use tools such as rocks and sticks in order to get their food.

Not if they are in a state of hibernation. Something I can't prove but it is within the area of possibility.

Once again this is understanding basic biology and ecology. Living beings have adapted to diverse habitats around the world and most could not have survived living in the habitat of Mesopotamia. You have not answered most of my questions in previous posts because you are unable to. For example, how did all the animals redistribute around the world after the flood?

It still wouldn't work and I suspect you are just not going to get it.

There is an old adage in conservative Christianity: God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Nothing you have said is beyond the ability of an omnipotent God.

I believe in an All-Powerful, Omnipotent God.

Evidently my God is more omnipotent that your god.

My God is also All-loving and Just. I simply don't believe in a God that exterminates most of His creation as a punishment. That is beyond genocidal. I simply don't have a word to describe it.

Unless you know God's reasons, and you don't,you are judging your self more loving than God and judging Him from ignorance. you remind me of Job. God ask him if would condemn God to just fy himself.

The Bible says God is just and compassionate and full of lovingkindness. All of the descriptions come from the same source. Why do you accept some and not all?

 

[omega2xx]

Both of these give plenty of references to the literature:

The Age of the Earth: G. Brent Dalrymple: 9780804723312: Amazon.com: Books

Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution (Cambridge Paleobiology Series): Robert Lynn Carroll: 9780521478090: Amazon.com: Books


I have read Gould extensively. Punc Eq *does* produce intermediates. They will be more rare than in standard, gradual change, but they still exist. In fact, Gould presented several.

Again, go read his books before misrepresenting him.


On the contrary, given how DNA works, mutation *will* happen. Then, given the fact of differential survival, natural selection *will* happen. Both are unavoidable. Finally, the two together will produce large scale changes over time.

There is absolutely no question of this on the mathematical level. In fact, this process is used to create new computer programs to do things we didn't know how to do previously. It produces new characteristics.


Which we have. Eohippus is ancestral. Orohippus was next, then Epihippus, then Mesohipus. Etc. The Wikipedia article has extensive references if you want to look at them. Don't take Wiki's word for it. Look at the source material.


Yes, fossilization is rare. We would dearly *love* to see a more extensive record. In many lines, the preservation is poor and we don't know what happened. We don't have many fossil bats, for example. And it would be *wonderful* to find more.

But that doesn't negate the evidence we *do* have. And more evidence is being pulled out of the ground every day..


OK, I had a feeling this was your basic misunderstanding. OF COURSE intermediate species are full species. They had to survive in their environments. They had to be fully functional organisms.

WHY WOULD YOU THINK OTHERWISE?

But the intermediate species were also transitional between the older and the newer species.

Think of it like this (an analogy). Two thousand years ago, the English language did not exist. During Chaucer's time, Middle English existed. It was a full language in and of itself. But it was also transitional between Anglo-Saxon and Modern English.

The same thing happens with species. At each and every stage of the transition, they are full species, adapted to their environment. But as the environment changes over many generations (yes, even in pUnc Eq), the species change. And *that* is evolution.


Have you ever read any of his work? Or do you rely on the quote mines of others?


Mutation and natural selection.


See the link above.

How many stages did it take for French to evolve from something that was not French? The very question shows you miss the point.


Have you actually looked at any of the research journals? Have you ever read any of the research-level books? Have you ever been at a dig?

If not, then *you* are the one being deluded by evangelicals.



It is a combination of the genetics and the specifics of development. The main lines are, of course, genetic. But if the mother is under a great deal of stress, or has certain diseases, it can affect development.



Well, overall the radioactive methods assume a constant decay rate. This is justified by the fact that it takes extreme conditions to change such decay rates (temperatures of millions of degrees, for example).

After that, the assumptions depend on the specific method. For example, using Rb/Sr can detect contamination of the original sample. K/Ar requires that the mineral used be non-porous or else the Argon will leak out giving a falsely small age. Uranium tracking assumes that the original sample was heated enough to melt the tracks that existed at that time and that no further heating affected the mineral (and we know how to check when this happens).

Some methods work better on living things (Carbon dating) and others on igneous rock (K/Ar and Uranium based dating). Some have long half-lives (K/Ar, U, Rb/Sr) and others have very short half-lives (Carbon).

None assume ahead of time what the resulting age will be, but some will give garbage answers if the basic assumptions are not met (and there are ways to check these).

So, for example, Carbon dating will give false answers if the carbon source for the organism isn't one that mixes with the atmosphere but is instead from carbonaceous rock. This explains why some shell fish give false dates.

Also, you don't use Carbon dating for samples that are older than about 50-60,000 years old. The half-live of C14 is short enough that older samples will only give background readings.



Nostrils at end of nose, directed forward. This is standard for land animals. The next species becomes semi-aquatic. The nostrils have moved to pointing up, out of the water. Look at Hippos today to see an example. In the next species, more time is spent in the water. The nostrils have move up and back to allow better breathing while in the water. Finally, a fully aquatic species with the nostril placed at the top of the head.

Furthermore, we can actually see these changes in the fossil skulls.

The evolution of whales

Reading a post that long is a of time because it has no evidence. None of you links had any either. Cut and paste the evidece you links offered and prove me wrong. I predict you will not do that, which will be an admission they also did not have any. You rexplanaton of a nose becoming a blowhole is a perfect example---ALL rhetoric and not one bit of HOW it happened.

Evidently you think just saying something is evidence. How sad.

 

[rusra02]

So God commanded the animals to travel to the Ark? How about animal and flightless birds on Islands and other continents? How do you think they made it to the ark?

I think the earth was far different than today. I believe the animals were not isolated as is true today. Thus, the kinds of animals and birds gathered to Noah were of all the kinds God created, IMO.

So about 10,000 m2? How did you calculate that?

It is an estimate based on the dimensions of the ark. (Genesis 6:15) The ark was about 438 feet [134 m] long, 73 feet [22 m] wide, and 44 feet [13 m] high. 438x73x3 = 95,922.

 

[omega2xx]

Pick a language. I can't go over each and every one.

So, for example, English didn't exist 2000 years ago. Nobody at that time spoke English, or French, or Spanish. Instead, there was Latin (very common because of the Roman empire), some Celtic languages, and some early Germanic languages (none would be recognizable as modern German).

How do you know that?

The good thing about these languages is that we have written records showing how tey changed over time. We know how French evolved from Latin. We know how Spanish evolved from Latin and a mix of Arabic. We know how English evolved from Anglo-Saxon, with some other Germanic languages and an infusion of French.

Knowing how language change over time, is not evidence of how they came into being.

And yet, teosinte and modern corn can interbreed.

No they can't.

Also, look at the ears of corn grown by people 1000 years ago. Compare them to modern corn. Then compare to corn grown 1500 years ago.

Irrelevant. They re still all some variety of corn.

There is a very clear progression.

There is not.

[Teosinte and corn can interbreed.

No they can't.

 

[siti]

Good points.
I personally believe when Bible is saying that, Abraham had a son at age 100, this son is not literally son of Abraham, but a grandson, or a son that appeared in His lineage. I would think Abraham had already passed away at that time. The scriptures tend to use symbolism to express things more briefly, however still spiritually true. I say that based on a Tradition coming from Quran...

So whose wife was Keturah? She was supposed to have married Abraham when he was almost 140 (after Sarah's death at the age of 127 - Abraham was about 10 years older than Sarah according to the Biblical tradition) and bore him a son who was the direct ancestor of Baha'u'llah - according to the Baha'i tradition based on Abdu'l Baha's (infallible) claim:

"The Blessed Beauty 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

 

[omega2xx]

By "oldest known texts" @shunyadragon almost certainly meant "oldest known biblical manuscripts." That is clearly true.
You have zero evidence concerning the author of the Psalms or Ecclesiastes So, for example:

The book takes its name from the Greek ekklesiastes, a translation of the title by which the central figure refers to himself: Kohelet, meaning something like "one who convenes or addresses an assembly".[9] According to rabbinic tradition, Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon in his old age.[10] (An alternative tradition that "Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes" probably means simply that the book was edited under Hezekiah.)[11] Nevertheless, critical scholars have long rejected the idea of a pre-exilic origin.[12][13] The presence of Persian loan-words and Aramaisms points to a date no earlier than about 450 BCE,[1] while the latest possible date for its composition is 180 BCE, when another Jewish writer, Ben Sira, quotes from it.[14] The dispute as to whether Ecclesiastes belongs to the Persian or the Hellenistic periods (i.e., the earlier or later part of this period) revolves around the degree of Hellenization (influence of Greek culture and thought) present in the book. Scholars arguing for a Persian date (c. 450–330 BCE) hold that there is a complete lack of Greek influence;[1] those who argue for a Hellenistic date (c. 330–180 BCE) argue that it shows internal evidence of Greek thought and social setting.[15] [ emphasis added (JS); source ]​

Not true. Many of the Psalms are identified as being written by David. Who gave Ecclesiastes it title is irrelevant. It was written by a king of Israel. probably Solomon and it is much older than the "Dead Sea Scrolls. Conservative scholars put the date between 430 and 400 BC

 

[siti]

probably Solomon and it is much older than the "Dead Sea Scrolls. Conservative scholars put the date between 430 and 400 BC

Oh! That's only about 500 years after Solomon's death. That makes it much more likely that he wrote it.

 

[CG Didymus]

All great questions. Perhaps in the story of Noah for those who have eyes to see, ears to hear, feet to walk the spiritual path, who have been resurrected from the death of unbelief, there is an important spiritual message, and we are not to take these verses of Genesis literally.

Jesus refers to the flood and Noah's ark in the book of Matthew:

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Matthew 24:38-39

These verses appear symbolic. There comes a time in life when we must abandon the old for the new. We must live lives that are good and moral and based on the right foundation, otherwise we will be caught up in powerful forces that will harm us. Many of us have experienced the dark night of the soul when we must decide where to find shelter and guidance.

I'm learning so much about the varying viewpoints. But definitely, it needed someone with your patience to deal with it all. Thanks again for starting it.

 

[CG Didymus]

Good points.
I personally believe when Bible is saying that, Abraham had a son at age 100, this son is not literally son of Abraham, but a grandson, or a son that appeared in His lineage. I would think Abraham had already passed away at that time. The scriptures tend to use symbolism to express things more briefly, however still spiritually true. I say that based on a Tradition coming from Quran:


"Allah sent revelation to ‘Imran (Joachim) saying, "I will grant you a perfect and holy son who would cure the blind and the lepers and bring the dead back to life by Allah, the permission of Allah and I make him a messenger to the israelites." ‘Imran (Joachim) then said it to his wife, Hanna(Anna), mother of Mary all about it. Thus When she conceived with the baby Mary, she thought to herself that the baby will be a boy. When she gave birth to Mary she said, "Lord, I have given birth to a girl and boys are not like girls. A girl can not be a messenger. Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious, has said, "Allah knows to whom have you given birth. When Allah, the Most High, granted Jesus to Mary he was the boy promised to ‘Imran (Joachin). When we would say something about a man from us and that thing would be found in his sons or grand sons then you must not deny it."

So, according to above Tradition, a son of a Prophet, in the Holy Scriptures, can be a son in His lineage. I would think that Abraham would have been 100 years old when Issac was born. But because Abraham was Spiritually alive, and the Book's purpose is to express spiritual realities, it is still correct.
@adrian009 may have his own understanding though.

If Abraham was Issac's grandfather, then who was his father?

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

My question is always, who gets to decide what is myth, what is allegorical, and what is real (actually true)?????? It has always seemed to me that what gets cast into the "allegorical" basket, are simply those parts of the stories that people are uncomfortable in accepting.

 

[Dawnofhope]

...and to claim descent from a mythological character apparently???

Indeed - like Noah's fathering an ancestor of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah at 500 years old - and yet all of these Manifestations are claimed to be descendants of Noah's son Shem. Which would you say that was - did happen or did not happen? Because if it really did happen, then there is possibly some merit to their claims of divine intervention and the stories are not symbolic after all. If the stories are symbolic and the events claimed in them did not really happen then whose son was Shem really? Presumably, if the idea that was put forward somewhere by one of your Baha'i friends is correct, then this (Shem's birth) would be 500 years into the Noachian "Dispensation" (not 500 years into Noah's life) and Noah himself would have been long dead by the time Shem was born. But then the problem repeats with the next generation, Shem fathering Arphaxad at 100 and then recurs with Abraham's birth when Terah was 70 and, best of all, Abraham fathering Ishmael in his 80s then Isaac when he was 100 and, by the supposed ancestress of Baha'u'llah, Keturah, several sons all of whom were born after Isaac was married - so Abraham would have been probably over 120 years old. If we take the age thing with a pinch of salt, the whole genealogy has to be questioned because how can you even put Abraham and, say, the sons of Keturah in the same period of time? But Baha'u'llah is supposed to have descended from at least two of Abraham's sons both fathered at a highly improbable age. It doesn't matter to me whether this is true or not, but it did, it seems, matter sufficiently for Abdu'l Baha to have made the claim. And if Abdu'l Baha was the infallible interpreter of Baha'u'llah's message, presumably he would not have been mistaken about the lineage of his father or the mythological nature of the tales of his supposed ancestors. Would he?

So which is it? Did happen or did not happen?

I would say none of the Biblical genealogies are remotely reliable. They report impossible longevity, highly improbable ages for fathering and mothering offspring, are internally within any particular version or translation of the various genealogies incompatible and seemingly incomplete (failing to account for either sufficient time to match the "historical" narrative or failing to report sufficient generations to fill the time) - reporting conflicting names and numbers of generations and there are even more inconsistencies between the earliest manuscripts of different versions. For example the chronologies of the various versions of the Genesis 5 genealogy (Masoretic, Samaritan and Septuagint versions) differ by thousands of years. They bear all the hallmarks of having been invented to provide support for very doubtful priestly, kingly and prophetic lineages. Please do not ask me to present all the evidence - its common knowledge and you can easily check it for yourself just by reading the various genealogies in the Bible.

It is interesting to consider genealogy and clearly it is important as its mentioned in the bible or Baha'i writings. It is an area I haven't researched. I'll try to find some time to consider your questions more closely.

 

[Dawnofhope]

My question is always, who gets to decide what is myth, what is allegorical, and what is real (actually true)?????? It has always seemed to me that what gets cast into the "allegorical" basket, are simply those parts of the stories that people are uncomfortable in accepting.

Is it not the responsibility of each one of us to investigate the truth and abide by the outcome of that search for truth? I believe we need to put aside our personal prejudices and biases. I reject that every part of the bible is to be taken literally as I reject it is all allegory. It is a book written by multiple authors that covers the span of thousands of years after all. It demands considerable attention and study if we are to truly arrive at meaningful conclusions.

 

[allfoak]

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.

The stories were written by mystics.
If taken literally they become absurd.
They must be seen as a way to connect with our soul self.
They are written in the language of the soul.
They are therefore a catalyst to knowing ourselves.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So whose wife was Keturah? She was supposed to have married Abraham when he was almost 140 (after Sarah's death at the age of 127 - Abraham was about 10 years older than Sarah according to the Biblical tradition) and bore him a son who was the direct ancestor of Baha'u'llah - according to the Baha'i tradition based on Abdu'l Baha's (infallible) claim:

"The Blessed Beauty 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

Well, one of the concepts that the Scripture teaches, is that each Prophet is spiritually and symbolically return of all other Prophets. For instance John the Baptist is return of Elija according to Bible. For instance Jesus says, before Abraham, i am. At least from Bahai Scriptures and Islamic Traditions any prophet symbolically is return of other Prophets.
If i apply this concept, I would say, another person who symbolically is Abraham, married Keturah. The Scripture may not really name this person, but, because His lineage is through Abraham, and is a prophet, the Scriptures uses the concept of Symbolic return, and calls Him Abraham. That is my take anyways.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

If Abraham was Issac's grandfather, then who was his father?

another son of Abraham, whose name is not Abraham, but symbolically is the same Abraham.

 

[siti]

I would say, another person who symbolically is Abraham, married Keturah. ... the Scriptures uses the concept of Symbolic return, and calls Him Abraham. That is my take anyways.

But this surely introduces unresolvable complexity in interpreting the genealogies. For example, it also presumably means that Abraham was not really Terah's son (since Terah reportedly fathered Abraham at the age of 70 and lived to 205), then Nahor was not really Abraham's brother, Bethuel was either not really Nahor's son and Abraham's nephew or he was not really the father of Rebecca, the mother of Israel, and Laban whose daughters were the mothers of 9 out of 13 of the "Sons of Israel". Presumably Sarah also did not really live to 127 - was she also a "Prophet" or a "Manifestation" whose life span was extended to include her descendants?

No, I think that interpretation just adds more confusion. I think its safer to suggest that the stories were simply mythological and the characters did not actually exists at all as real people. Its quite easy to see how the Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Esau and Joseph and his brother's stories were developed to explain the tribal relationships and inter-tribal animosity that persisted between them. Its much more difficult to reconcile the difficulties in interpreting the genealogies symbolically whilst maintaining that the existence of the characters should be taken literally.

On the other hand, if there were a particularly fruitful patriarch in the region whose progeny had survived well over a hundred generations, it is very likely that Baha'u'llah and everyone else of Persian descent in the 19th century, should be genetically connected to him. Identifying the exact lineage would be impossible and it would not make him special in any way at all - he would just be sharing a perfectly natural common genetic heritage with almost everyone in the middle east. Given what we know now about how genetically connected we all are, I think this line of evidence of divine favour is entirely irrelevant. But you would have thought an infallible, divinely appointed interpreter of truth would have known that and not bothered to write about it.

 

[CG Didymus]

another son of Abraham, whose name is not Abraham, but symbolically is the same Abraham.

What if all of it is only symbolic or pure fiction? But I keep forgetting to ask about the Nephilim. They were part of the reason for the flood. What's the Baha'i perspective on that? Oh, and could you comment on the sites that say bones of giants have been found.

 

[CG Didymus]

But this surely introduces unresolvable complexity in interpreting the genealogies. For example, it also presumably means that Abraham was not really Terah's son (since Terah reportedly fathered Abraham at the age of 70 and lived to 205), then Nahor was not really Abraham's brother, Bethuel was either not really Nahor's son and Abraham's nephew or he was not really the father of Rebecca, the mother of Israel, and Laban whose daughters were the mothers of 9 out of 13 of the "Sons of Israel". Presumably Sarah also did not really live to 127 - was she also a "Prophet" or a "Manifestation" whose life span was extended to include her descendants?

No, I think that interpretation just adds more confusion. I think its safer to suggest that the stories were simply mythological and the characters did not actually exists at all as real people. Its quite easy to see how the Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Esau and Joseph and his brother's stories were developed to explain the tribal relationships and inter-tribal animosity that persisted between them. Its much more difficult to reconcile the difficulties in interpreting the genealogies symbolically whilst maintaining that the existence of the characters should be taken literally.

On the other hand, if there were a particularly fruitful patriarch in the region whose progeny had survived well over a hundred generations, it is very likely that Baha'u'llah and everyone else of Persian descent in the 19th century, should be genetically connected to him. Identifying the exact lineage would be impossible and it would not make him special in any way at all - he would just be sharing a perfectly natural common genetic heritage with almost everyone in the middle east. Given what we know now about how genetically connected we all are, I think this line of evidence of divine favour is entirely irrelevant. But you would have thought an infallible, divinely appointed interpreter of truth would have known that and not bothered to write about it.

I think you're right... "simply mythological and the characters did not actually exists at all as real people." Now that answers everything, no fuss, no muss, no confusion. Except for the literal Christians, that is the most logical explanation isn't it? I'm not asking you Siti... I'm asking the scientific believing Baha'is. You Baha'is need parts of Genesis but don't need other parts. You Baha'is do realize that you say you believe the Torah is from God, but you're taking Creation and the flood and throwing them out. There's such a fine line between calling something myth, symbolic or fictional.

Anyway, back to you Siti... again thanks for your knowledge and incite.