The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True

adrian009 said:

I see no reason why a myth or story needs to be literally true to be used as an allegory.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I fully agree with you.

At this point in time, there simply is no good reason to assume the creation and flood narratives deal with factual history. Instead, the evidence that we do have is that both were reworked Babylonian narratives altered to fit Jewish morals and values. A tablet that deals with a Babylonian creation narrative was found in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis by around a thousand years, so the Torah authors would have probably been familiar with it.

As you're undoubtedly aware of, the Jewish scriptures heavily use various literary techniques to make their points, including allegories, metaphors, parables, etc. In some of the Jewish and Christian books, they are used so heavily that they actually occupy more space than attempts at conveying history, such as the Psalms and Revelations.

One of the greatest Jewish sages, Maimonides, believed that the first 14 chapters of Genesis extensively use these techniques at least partially because taking them literally creates problems. When it comes to dealing with interpretation, Jewish sages tended to take the approach that in a particular interpretation defies reason, then look for alternative interpretations.

adrian009 said:

Have you always been blessed with freedom of thought unfettered by tradition and culture, or did you need to free yourself?

Click to expand...

Thanks! I take the question as a compliment.

In short, I am a student (so to speak) of Carl Sagan's love of science who also became a student of Joseph Campbell's love of mythology before I had certain personal experiences which led me to a relationship with the Christian God although in an Old Testament sort of way.

Yes, I have put on my faith with an open mind and with a profound respect for science. I have pretensions of hoping that I can influence Christianity to accept what I would call the evidence for what has actually happened in God's creation and allow that to change and augment the story that Christians tell themselves. After all the New Testament was a change and augmentation of the Jewish one...why not another?

I also have pretensions of wanting to convince the Western world just how cool The Mahabharata is and that this great Indian work has a common source with the stories of the patriarchs in Genesis.

So I guess I was free to begin with and I put on the "chains" of faith in order to free everyone from those chains. Not from their faith but from their credulity and fear of change in the narrative of faith. God willing.

the Bible stories are fully meant as factual history.

they literally mean that all nations sprung from six people. shem,ham,japeth. so yo guess we are all cousins and brothers and sisters literally, which I don't believe for a moment.

osgart said:

the Bible stories are fully meant as factual history.

they literally mean that all nations sprung from six people. shem,ham,japeth. so yo guess we are all cousins and brothers and sisters literally, which I don't believe for a moment.

Click to expand...

And do you believe that talking serpent or talking donkey being "factual"?

And sorry, but Egypt (or Mizraim) and Uruk (Erech) predated the Bronze Age, so whoever wrote the Genesis got this "fact" of yours wrong.

According to the Masoretic Text, and later modern translations, the Old Testament, timeline to the Flood can be roughly estimated between 2340 BCE and 2107 BCE, by counting backward from known historical date - the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple, in 587 or 586 BCE.

I am in no way saying that the years provided in the Old Testament, but if we are to use OT as the basis of dating, then it would seem that the Flood occurred at some time in the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BCE Bronze Age.

But Egypt predated the estimated date of the Flood. The pyramids of Giza (4th dynasty, 2613–2498 BCE), predated Genesis 10.

So to say Egypt didn't exist before Ham's son, Egypt or Mizraim, is not only wrong historically, but also wrong archaeologically and anthropologically, because Egypt predated even the 1st dynasty. The worship of Horus, Seth, Hathor and Neith predated the 1st dynasty, so culturally Egypt existed in the 4th millennium BCE.

Likewise, Genesis 10 is wrong about the city of Uruk or Erech, being built by Ham's grandson, Nimrod. Uruk is older than the 4th millennium predynastic Egypt; it is older than the 3rd millennium Sumerian civilisation.

Uruk was first built around 5000 BCE, but reach its height in the 4th millennium BCE, especially between 3600 to 3000 BCE. The first temples to the goddess Inanna (later known as Ishtar among the Akkadians, Babylonians and Assyrians) were built between 3500-3200 BCE.

Eridu and Ur also predated the 3rd millennium Sumerian civilisation.

So Genesis 10 is wrong about Uruk too, and showed that the author knew very little about ancient history of pre-Sumerian civilisation.

Lastly, there are no evidences to support the existence of Nimrod, nor that of Noah and his sons.

metis said:

For what it's worth, I fully agree with you.

At this point in time, there simply is no good reason to assume the creation and flood narratives deal with factual history. Instead, the evidence that we do have is that both were reworked Babylonian narratives altered to fit Jewish morals and values. A tablet that deals with a Babylonian creation narrative was found in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis by around a thousand years, so the Torah authors would have probably been familiar with it.

Click to expand...

Thanks for contributing. Of course there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support the creation and flood narratives and all the evidence supports a contrary position. I have never believed it to be literal but just wanted to have a sense of who YECs might go about justifying their position. I was surprised to learn that so many in the USA still believe these accounts to be literally true. I have a strong faith in the same God, Jesus, and Bible as the Christians but feel no obligation to accept many passages in the bible as being literally true.

The origins of Genesis seem difficult to definitively state. Even if they did originate from Moses as the conservatives belief, they have been passed down by oral traditions for many centuries, and there remains the question as to the origin of the stories in early Genesis.

There have been some very learned people contribute their scientific understanding to this thread as well as ideas about the origins of Genesis.

metis said:

As you're undoubtedly aware of, the Jewish scriptures heavily use various literary techniques to make their points, including allegories, metaphors, parables, etc. In some of the Jewish and Christian books, they are used so heavily that they actually occupy more space than attempts at conveying history, such as the Psalms and Revelations.

Click to expand...

What you say is probably the one of the most important learnings. The stories of the bible begin with allegorical stories and myth. It is very hard to have meaningful and harmonious conversations with some Christians who do not appreciate this.

metis said:

One of the greatest Jewish sages, Maimonides, believed that the first 14 chapters of Genesis extensively use these techniques at least partially because taking them literally creates problems. When it comes to dealing with interpretation, Jewish sages tended to take the approach that in a particular interpretation defies reason, then look for alternative interpretations.

Click to expand...

Makes a lot of sense.

sealchan said:

Thanks! I take the question as a compliment.

In short, I am a student (so to speak) of Carl Sagan's love of science who also became a student of Joseph Campbell's love of mythology before I had certain personal experiences which led me to a relationship with the Christian God although in an Old Testament sort of way.

Yes, I have put on my faith with an open mind and with a profound respect for science. I have pretensions of hoping that I can influence Christianity to accept what I would call the evidence for what has actually happened in God's creation and allow that to change and augment the story that Christians tell themselves. After all the New Testament was a change and augmentation of the Jewish one...why not another?

I also have pretensions of wanting to convince the Western world just how cool The Mahabharata is and that this great Indian work has a common source with the stories of the patriarchs in Genesis.

So I guess I was free to begin with and I put on the "chains" of faith in order to free everyone from those chains. Not from their faith but from their credulity and fear of change in the narrative of faith. God willing.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing and all the best with your studies. I love your passion for the sacred texts of a religion beyond Christianity.

I grew up Christian but became a Baha'i over 25 years ago. I'm a medical doctor so both religion and science are very important to me. I see no contradiction between the two.

metis said:

For what it's worth, I fully agree with you.

At this point in time, there simply is no good reason to assume the creation and flood narratives deal with factual history. Instead, the evidence that we do have is that both were reworked Babylonian narratives altered to fit Jewish morals and values. A tablet that deals with a Babylonian creation narrative was found in northern Israel that predates the writing of Genesis by around a thousand years, so the Torah authors would have probably been familiar with it.

As you're undoubtedly aware of, the Jewish scriptures heavily use various literary techniques to make their points, including allegories, metaphors, parables, etc. In some of the Jewish and Christian books, they are used so heavily that they actually occupy more space than attempts at conveying history, such as the Psalms and Revelations.

One of the greatest Jewish sages, Maimonides, believed that the first 14 chapters of Genesis extensively use these techniques at least partially because taking them literally creates problems. When it comes to dealing with interpretation, Jewish sages tended to take the approach that in a particular interpretation defies reason, then look for alternative interpretations.

Click to expand...

Next you gonna say there was no talking donkey.

roger1440 said:

Next you gonna say there was no talking donkey.

Click to expand...

Of course, they can talk.

We have direct evidences that Francis can talk:

adrian009 said:

...The stories of the bible begin with allegorical stories and myth...

Click to expand...

If, in fact, it is mythology, then what makes Jewish mythology better than other people's mythology? And, if it is mythology, then why call it "The Word of God"?

CG Didymus said:

If, in fact, it is mythology, then what makes Jewish mythology better than other people's mythology? And, if it is mythology, then why call it "The Word of God"?

Click to expand...

Because it was inspired by Yahweh, the One True God, whose purpose was to make Himself known in a fuller measure through the His chosen people the Hebrews. The phrase 'The Word of God' has different meanings through varied scripture in both the OT and NT. Using the phrase to refer to the Bible in its entirety is problematic. It would be more correct that the Bible contains the Words of God.

adrian009 said:

Because it was inspired by Yahweh, the One True God, whose purpose was to make Himself known in a fuller measure through the His chosen people the Hebrews. The phrase 'The Word of God' has different meanings through varied scripture in both the OT and NT. Using the phrase to refer to the Bible in its entirety is problematic. It would be more correct that the Bible contains the Words of God.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, you do know he tried to drown us all because he felt sorry about creating us?

CG Didymus said:

If, in fact, it is mythology, then what makes Jewish mythology better than other people's mythology? And, if it is mythology, then why call it "The Word of God"?

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t say “Jewish mythology” is better, but it does have an idea most people can relate too. That idea is man’s yearning for freedom. This yearning transcends time. The story can be told many different ways. The basic components would always be the same. There are two characteristics that sets the story of the Exodus apart from many others, one of sameness the other is timelessness. Coincidentally, these same characteristics are attributed to God in the Bible. Or is it a coincidence?