Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Enai de a lukal]

Can a literal reading of the creation story(s) in Genesis hold up to the scientific evidence? Clearly not- everything speaks against it, nothing for it. There really isn't much question here.

I see Genesis as religious poetry, but some Christians, and I guess some Jews, see it as literal. Ken Ham on his TV show Answers in Genesis, insists that it must be taken literal, that it is foundational, without it the whole of the Bible falls. What do you think.

Then the whole Bible falls. But this is a silly and naive view of scripture anyways- it would've struck most Jews as ludicrous (Judaism has never allowed any definitive formulations of scriptural interpretations get between itself and the text), and the idea was certainly not embraced by many significant Christian thinkers. For instance, Saint Augustine spoke of the folly of a literal interpretation of scripture over a thousand years ago. Simply put, scriptural inerrancy or literalism is absolutely untenable, and is not held by any credible scholars- its actually impossible that all of the Bible be literally true (given its internal inconsistency), and that it was even intended to be viewed entirely literally is an unsupported presupposition to begin with.

 

[greentwiga]

One interesting thing is the fig tree. Figs may be the only crop "domesticated" before wheat. The ancients learned that there were two types of fig trees, and both needed to be planted to get crops. We now know that figs come in male and female trees. Only female produce edible fruits, but the ancients discovered at least one male need be planted, usually in the center of the orchard. The male fig tree grows figs that are full of wasps larvae. The larvae hatch and leave the fig like smoke. The female wasps fly to other figs. If they enter a female fig, they attempt to lay eggs in each of the flowers inside the fig drupe.. The flower is the wrong shape, but the wasp succeeds in pollinating all the flowers. If they enter a male fig, they are able to lay their eggs and start the next generation. One male fig tree gives life to the orchard. Eating the male figs, besides being poor tasting, would destroy the life giving principle (the wasps) and eliminate the next crop. This image that the ancients would understand seems to be used to explain the tree of life. Of course, it wasn't the tree of life but the tree of good and evil that held the curse. Note that only humans were told that they would die if they ate. Also, was the death physical or Spiritual? Since they died that day, but Adam and Eve didn't die physically, it must have been spiritual.

 

[greentwiga]

Can a literal reading of the creation story(s) in Genesis hold up to the scientific evidence? Clearly not- everything speaks against it, nothing for it. There really isn't much question here.


Then the whole Bible falls. But this is a silly and naive view of scripture anyways- it would've struck most Jews as ludicrous (Judaism has never allowed any definitive formulations of scriptural interpretations get between itself and the text), and the idea was certainly not embraced by many significant Christian thinkers. For instance, Saint Augustine spoke of the folly of a literal interpretation of scripture over a thousand years ago. Simply put, scriptural inerrancy or literalism is absolutely untenable, and is not held by any credible scholars- its actually impossible that all of the Bible be literally true (given its internal inconsistency), and that it was even intended to be viewed entirely literally is an unsupported presupposition to begin with.

I don't see why the story of Adam and Eve can't have a solid literal base with some clear allegorical or analogies. Even the location agrees exactly with the location scientists say wheat was domesticated. Anyone writing thousands of years later would have gotten the details wrong

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I don't see why the story of Adam and Eve can't have a solid literal base with some clear allegorical or analogies. Even the location agrees exactly with the location scientists say wheat was domesticated. Anyone writing thousands of years later would have gotten the details wrong

Well, a "solid literal base with some clear allegorical or analogies" would not be a literal reading. Allegory or analogy =/= literal reading.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well, a "solid literal base with some clear allegorical or analogies" would not be a literal reading. Allegory or analogy =/= literal reading.

yup. Like I joke we have in our family "it's literally figure of speech."

I've realized that a lot of people don't know or understand the difference. That's why some discussions just won't go anywhere.

 

[CMike]

So many things don't add up in Genesis. Like the Sun and stars, not only were they created after the Earth, but created after plants? But then, I was wondering; Adam gets kicked out of Eden and has to till the soil? This is based on Gen 4:23 and 4:2 where Adam is sent out to "cultivate" the ground and his son Cain was a "tiller" of the ground. What did they till it with? Did God make them a plow and a hoe or something? And then Abel, why was he keeping flocks? Weren't they vegetarians? Was it for wool? Did God make Eve a loom and Abel some shears?

I see Genesis as religious poetry, but some Christians, and I guess some Jews, see it as literal. Ken Ham on his TV show Answers in Genesis, insists that it must be taken literal, that it is foundational, without it the whole of the Bible falls. What do you think.

I'm late to this thread.

People lived a lot longer those days.

Noah lived 950 years. Within their long lives they could have learned about flocks and hoes and stuff.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm late to this thread.

People lived a lot longer those days.

Noah lived 950 years. Within their long lives they could have learned about flocks and hoes and stuff.

Pimps and hoes and stuff? And it's more likely Noah lived about 19 years than 950- so far as we can tell, people's lives were shorter back then, not longer, despite the Biblical genealogies (one is right to be suspicious of the ages given in a book which also talks about people spontaneously being turned into pillars of salt)...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There's absolutely no good reason why the creation story in Genesis couldn't be literally true as long as one has a complete misunderstanding of what "literally" and/or "true" mean. None whatsoever.

 

[CG Didymus]

I'm late to this thread.

People lived a lot longer those days.

Noah lived 950 years. Within their long lives they could have learned about flocks and hoes and stuff.

It's nice to have a Jew that has a literal belief in the Bible. So, literally, you believe just a few thousand years ago people used to live for almost a thousand years?

Also, in my post #240 I asked about the tree with the forbidden fruit on it. Do you have any thoughts about it? The whole eating of the fruit thing is very important to fundy Christians, because they need us all to have inherited a sin nature. But, what does it mean to a Jew?

And I have one more question, some Christians use Gen. 3:15 to point to Jesus conquering the devil. Which is weird, because then they are not taking the verse to be literally a serpent but their concept of the devil/Satan in the guise of a serpent. But even if it is literally a serpent, it still doesn't make sense to me. Why a talking serpent that used to be able to walk but now is cursed and must crawl on its belly? Thanks.

 

[metis]

As a Jew, let me just say that most of us do not interpret the creation accounts literally, instead gravitating toward viewing it as allegory.

 

[Awoon]

One interesting thing is the fig tree. Figs may be the only crop "domesticated" before wheat. The ancients learned that there were two types of fig trees, and both needed to be planted to get crops. We now know that figs come in male and female trees. Only female produce edible fruits, but the ancients discovered at least one male need be planted, usually in the center of the orchard. The male fig tree grows figs that are full of wasps larvae. The larvae hatch and leave the fig like smoke. The female wasps fly to other figs. If they enter a female fig, they attempt to lay eggs in each of the flowers inside the fig drupe.. The flower is the wrong shape, but the wasp succeeds in pollinating all the flowers. If they enter a male fig, they are able to lay their eggs and start the next generation. One male fig tree gives life to the orchard. Eating the male figs, besides being poor tasting, would destroy the life giving principle (the wasps) and eliminate the next crop. This image that the ancients would understand seems to be used to explain the tree of life. Of course, it wasn't the tree of life but the tree of good and evil that held the curse. Note that only humans were told that they would die if they ate. Also, was the death physical or Spiritual? Since they died that day, but Adam and Eve didn't die physically, it must have been spiritual.

Death cant be the loss of ignorance?

 

[CMike]

As a Jew, let me just say that most of us do not interpret the creation accounts literally, instead gravitating toward viewing it as allegory.

That is for liberal jews.

Traditional jews take the Torah literally.

 

[CMike]

It's nice to have a Jew that has a literal belief in the Bible. So, literally, you believe just a few thousand years ago people used to live for almost a thousand years?

Yes. That's what it says.

Also, in my post #240 I asked about the tree with the forbidden fruit on it. Do you have any thoughts about it? The whole eating of the fruit thing is very important to fundy Christians, because they need us all to have inherited a sin nature. But, what does it mean to a Jew?

I can speak for fundy Christians. The Torah doesn't say that. They made it up.

Jews don't believe in "original sin".

And I have one more question, some Christians use Gen. 3:15 to point to Jesus conquering the devil. Which is weird, because then they are not taking the verse to be literally a serpent but their concept of the devil/Satan in the guise of a serpent. But even if it is literally a serpent, it still doesn't make sense to me. Why a talking serpent that used to be able to walk but now is cursed and must crawl on its belly? Thanks.

The answer is in the passages.

The serpent was originally standing, and was punished by deceiving Eve into eating the apple from the forbidden tree.

G-D also made animosity between serpents and women.

I can't speak for christians again.

 

[greentwiga]

Everyone who believes in a literal Bible acknowledges that there are non-literal parts. Jesus spoke in parables. The prophets clearly used analogies such as the vine that wanted to rule or the boiling pot. Sometimes people want to make things allegorical that aren't. Some want to spiritualize the 10 plagues of Moses, but the Ipwer papyrus indicates that they were real events.
For example, was the serpent a real event? Compare Genesis 3 to the oracle at Delphi. Both were located on a mountain, in a grove of trees, and at a spring. The Oracle was a woman called the Pythia. She spoke to Python to get her oracles. Originally it was focused on fertility of the land or women, but later was extended to success such as at war. A later addition was Apollo, who was said to have imprisoned Python under the ground.
What should we do with this episode? Is it literal? is it allegorical? Did Eve try to set herself up as a prophetess of the Serpent and God cursed her? Is this a literal recording of someones false belief? This is similar to US court's literal recording to someone's false statements.
Interestingly, if God is teaching people to reject a false religion, one would expect a difference between people living near Eden and others farther away. Most sites that have been excavated to the 6,000 to 12,000 BC level, such as along the Euphrates, have many "venus" figurines. The sites near the mountain Karacadag, strikingly, don't.
Thus, If this is a literal recording of a false belief in the Serpent God, does that make it not literal? If so, are scientists literal recording of Hindus, Animists, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists beliefs false? What about you? Are you interested in the truth or would you prefer a silly interpretation that allows you to reject the Bible. Whatever you conclude about this passage, I hope it is from careful analysis and not deciding what you want first and then forcing the chapter into your beliefs.

 

[CMike]

Everyone who believes in a literal Bible acknowledges that there are non-literal parts. Jesus spoke in parables. The prophets clearly used analogies such as the vine that wanted to rule or the boiling pot. Sometimes people want to make things allegorical that aren't. Some want to spiritualize the 10 plagues of Moses, but the Ipwer papyrus indicates that they were real events.
For example, was the serpent a real event? Compare Genesis 3 to the oracle at Delphi. Both were located on a mountain, in a grove of trees, and at a spring. The Oracle was a woman called the Pythia. She spoke to Python to get her oracles. Originally it was focused on fertility of the land or women, but later was extended to success such as at war. A later addition was Apollo, who was said to have imprisoned Python under the ground.
What should we do with this episode? Is it literal? is it allegorical? Did Eve try to set herself up as a prophetess of the Serpent and God cursed her? Is this a literal recording of someones false belief? This is similar to US court's literal recording to someone's false statements.
Interestingly, if God is teaching people to reject a false religion, one would expect a difference between people living near Eden and others farther away. Most sites that have been excavated to the 6,000 to 12,000 BC level, such as along the Euphrates, have many "venus" figurines. The sites near the mountain Karacadag, strikingly, don't.
Thus, If this is a literal recording of a false belief in the Serpent God, does that make it not literal? If so, are scientists literal recording of Hindus, Animists, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists beliefs false? What about you? Are you interested in the truth or would you prefer a silly interpretation that allows you to reject the Bible. Whatever you conclude about this passage, I hope it is from careful analysis and not deciding what you want first and then forcing the chapter into your beliefs.

The Torah, five books of Moses, is literal.

Does it say anywhere that it isn't literal in the Torah?

 

[metis]

That is for liberal jews.

Traditional jews take the Torah literally.

Not true. "Traditional Jews" have often looked for "the meaning behind the words", well realizing that interpretation is often variable, and that certain narratives may not be taken literally. An example is the RAMBAM (Moshe Maimonides), who believed that much of the early part of Genesis, including the creation accounts, could be viewed as allegory, but he also posits other possibilities as well, citing three differing approaches (See these detailed here: Rambam and creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) and de novo (anew) ).

Shabbat shalom

 

[CMike]

Not true. "Traditional Jews" have often looked for "the meaning behind the words", well realizing that interpretation is often variable, and that certain narratives may not be taken literally. An example is the RAMBAM (Moshe Maimonides), who believed that much of the early part of Genesis, including the creation accounts, could be viewed as allegory, but he also posits other possibilities as well, citing three differing approaches (See these detailed here: Rambam and creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) and de novo (anew) ).

Shabbat shalom

I read your link, Rambam didn't say that it wasn't to be taken literally.

The commentators explain passages where they are murky so we can better understand them, but commentators don't try to change the passages from the intention of the author.

Liberal jews believe whatever they believe.

Traditional jews take the Torah seriously and take the passages literally.
Their mission is to explain where things are difficult to understand.

 

[metis]

I read your link, Rambam didn't say that it wasn't to be taken literally.

The commentators explain passages where they are murky so we can better understand them, but commentators don't try to change the passages from the intention of the author.

Liberal jews believe whatever they believe.

Traditional jews take the Torah seriously and take the passages literally.
Their mission is to explain where things are difficult to understand.

But the creation passages are "murky" because they not only pose a problem with accepting them literally, they also appear to have an earlier and different origin (Babylonian) whereas our people reworked the narrative to reflect our morals and values. Every culture has done this, and our is no exception.

Anyhow, please read this:

Philo was the first commentator to use allegory on Bible extensively in his writing.

Some medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides held that it was not required to read Genesis literally. In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was compatible with the findings of science. Indeed, Maimonides, one of the great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted accordingly. -- Allegorical interpretations of Genesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[greentwiga]

There is a difference between Jacob putting striped rods in front of the female sheep when mating to get striped young Gen 30:37+ and his dream where he saw that the striped males were mating with the females. Gen 31:10. It is literally true that he put the sticks there, but it is not true that we can put striped sticks in front of our flocks and get striped young.
Similarly, Joeseph interprets dreams. The dreams did not literally become true, but the interpretations came true.
In the same way, I am saying that the story in Genesis is literally true. The Bible records false beliefs, such as talking to the Serpent (the word is not the Hebrew word for snake). It literally happened, but God shows that that is false worship and one should only follow him.

 

[greentwiga]

But the creation passages are "murky" because they not only pose a problem with accepting them literally, they also appear to have an earlier and different origin (Babylonian) whereas our people reworked the narrative to reflect our morals and values. Every culture has done this, and our is no exception.

That is an interpretation. Notice that the Torah puts the order of domestication of plants, domestication of animals and inventions in the right order. (with an argument about camels.) It even has the location of the domestication of wheat exactly. A later creation would have gotten some facts wrong. The Babylonians had a tradition of reworking stories to fit the then current thinking. The Hebrews have a tradition of passing stories literally. For the Genesis story to have come from possibly as early as 9,000 BC, it would have to have been passed literally until the invention of writing. A better theory is that the Sumerians/Assyrians/Babylonians reworked the genesis story to fit their Gods.