Is Genesis True?

[Audie]

There is a problem with viewing stories developed in oral cultures through a modern perspective of 'fact'.

Myths and stories existed for their benefits in the present, and traditions were fluid as they were not written down and published in mass.

The study of history as an effort in establishing objective truth is not something that has existed for the vast majority of human history. As such, considering ancient myths as being developed in order to represent fact is somewhat of an anachronism (as the label of allegory would be).

Nothing there to disagree with, and nothing
there that actually addresses what I said.
If you'd try again, I'd like to hear what you have
to say on topic.

 

[metis]

And all societies come from the same place.

Ya, probably about 6 million years ago somewhere in eastern Africa.

By the way, the Genesis account was written how long after the events in question?

Probably around 13.7 billion years later.

They are not the same, by the way, you can see the mythology incorporated in the earlier accounts like, one of which, is Gilgamesh.

I said they were likely "reworked", so they are not "the same".

BTW, all such stories are "myths", including the Creation and Flood narratives, which is not a word that means nor implies falsehood in theological studies. They're narratives whose primary purpose is to teach folkways and mores from a given perspective.

 

[Earthling]

I doubt that the authors believed it literally. The less educated might have taken it as such. Things haven't changed much in that regard.

It's interesting that the educated who have been mentioned repeatedly tend not to be very educated on what the Bible says yet their input is so well respected.

 

[metis]

So is Citizen Kane true, since it has "symbolic truth"?

"Myths" [see my previous post for definition] cannot be judged on the basis of "truth" because objectivity is not its purpose. "Citizen Kane" was produced for entertainment, not myths nor objective history.

 

[Sanzbir]

I'm enjoying the discussions of symbolism on this thread, but a lot of the rest of this thread reads to me like "Matthew 22:1-14 is such nonsense and falsehood, no such king existed!!"

 

[Augustus]

Nothing there to disagree with, and nothing
there that actually addresses what I said.
If you'd try again, I'd like to hear what you have
to say on topic.

Make-believe originally passed off
as true, but changing to allegory as
they became unbearably nonsensical
to educated people.

It addresses this idea. Unless you don't mean it was originally passed off as true.

 

[Earthling]

Ya, probably about 6 million years ago somewhere in eastern Africa.

Probably around 13.7 billion years later.

Right, but then all of a sudden only 6,000 years ago there's any evidence of writing, language, etc. I mean written history and bills of sale and census and things like that, rather than just pottery shards, some teeth and maybe pictographic assumed to be billyuns and millyuns of years old.

I said they were likely "reworked", so they are not "the same".

Right.

BTW, all such stories are "myths", including the Creation and Flood narratives, which is not a word that means nor implies falsehood in theological studies. They're narratives whose primary purpose is to teach folkways and mores from a given perspective.

Yeah, like a parable, illustration, etc. But, certainly you weren't implying that the "myth" in question was true, correct? Isn't that what you meant by myth?

 

[Audie]

It addresses this idea. Unless you don't mean it was originally passed off as true.

Well, as neither of us ACTUALLY knows original intent
I guess I will say they may have known they were
writing down nonsense to confuse people for generations,
or, they may not have.

 

[Sanzbir]

Put "Jesus said" in front of it, and everyone knows it's just a parable.

Put "Confucius said" in front of it, and again, everyone knows it's a story meant to illustrate a teaching.

Put "Moses said" in front of it, everyone goes "Wow, isn't he crazy for literally believing that happened??"



Jews are the only people we treat as if they didn't understand what metaphors are.

 

[Audie]

Put "Jesus said" in front of it, and everyone knows it's just a parable.

Jews are the only people we treat as if they didn't understand what metaphors are.

eeeewwwwhhhh

 

[Earthling]

Put "Jesus said" in front of it, and everyone knows it's just a parable.

Put "Confucius said" in front of it, and again, everyone knows it's a story meant to illustrate a teaching.

Put "Moses said" in front of it, everyone goes "Wow, isn't he crazy for literally believing that happened??"



Jews are the only people we treat as if they didn't understand what metaphors are.

Well, Jesus was a Jew and Confucius taught mostly history and events he witnessed while being run out of town after town. History, propriety and social conformity was Chungni's, uh, bag, or thing or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Earthling]

eeeewwwwhhhh

You go girl!

 

[wandering peacefully]

The first couple chapters of the book of Genesis describe the Fall of man from paradise, a state of unity and eternal life with God, to a state of separation, pain, loss, suffering, and death. While it is obvious to most modern readers, and especially those with any modest degree of valid scientific knowledge that the details of the story are not factual historically nor scientifically, is the story true nonetheless? Is there a real truth to the underlying theme portrayed through these symbolic characters, Adam and Eve, that is captured faithfully in the myth of the Garden of Eden?

Of course it is true of the human condition of the people living at the time the mythology was written. Because it was written by those humans living with those thoughts and conditions. It didn't fall out of space onto a page in a book that millions relate to and follow. It's like all other myths and stories that have survived through the ages. It's a story about humans and their conditions, dreams, hopes, fears.

 

[metis]

Right, but then all of a sudden only 6,000 years ago there's any evidence of writing, language, etc.

There were pictographs much prior to that time, and there's a bone altered by some Neanderthal that appears to follow the phases of the moon. It's not like writing just emerged out of nowhere.

Yeah, like a parable, illustration, etc. But, certainly you weren't implying that the "myth" in question was true, correct? Isn't that what you meant by myth?

Not historically true, so correct.

 

[sealchan]

It's interesting that the educated who have been mentioned repeatedly tend not to be very educated on what the Bible says yet their input is so well respected.

Any wise educated person knows the limits of their education and welcomes the input of others who have knowledge they dont.

Come on in, the water is fine.

 

[Augustus]

Well, as neither of us ACTUALLY knows original intent
I guess I will say they may have known they were
writing down nonsense to confuse people for generations,
or, they may not have.

We can safely say that the ancient cultures didn't view oral traditions through a modern lens of fact/fiction.

As such, it would have only been 'nonsense' if it had no value in their present, which was the purpose of oral tradition. The purpose discussing the the past was to explain the present, not some intellectual exercise in presenting objective truth.

 

[Audie]

We can safely say that the ancient cultures didn't view oral traditions through a modern lens of fact/fiction.

As such, it would have only been 'nonsense' if it had no value in their present, which was the purpose of oral tradition. The purpose discussing the the past was to explain the present, not some intellectual exercise in presenting objective truth.

I dont think I am ready to say that the ancients made
no distinction between fact and fiction.

 

[sealchan]

Viewed by who?
And what proportion of the population
would you say understood that POV?

I would be interested to hear what basis
someone would have had, 2000 yrs ago,
for thinking the flood was not an actual event.

Of on what basis one might say that the
author(s) did not believe it to be history.

I bet you'd not want to have said that at the
time of Ferdie and Isabella.

I've not presented that people of the past were
stupid.
The distinction is between educated, and, not

No less a luminary than Issac Newton believed
some very ignorant things.

It's a matter of understanding knowledge in an oral community. The classic work on this is Walter J Ong's Orality and Literacy

https://www.amazon.com/Orality-Literacy-30th-Anniversary-Accents/dp/0415538386

 

[exchemist]

In trying to address his student's philosophical questions Origen encouraged them to "extract from the philosophy of the Greeks what may serve as a course of study or a preparation for Christianity." He based this on "How useful to the children of Israel were the things brought from Egypt, which the Egyptians had not put to a proper use, but which the Hebrews, guided by the wisdom of God, used for God’s service." This allegorical support often led him astray.

For example, in his book On First Principles, he has Jesus as ‘the only-begotten Son, who was born, but without any beginning.’ And he added: ‘His generation is eternal and everlasting. It was not by receiving the breath of life that he is made a Son, by any outward act, but by God’s own nature.’

He should have checked Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14 and 1 Corinthians 4:6

Nevertheless, in spite of your personal opinion, Origen is widely regarded with great respect, as one of the early Fathers of Church. So my point stands.

By the way, his comments about Jesus are pretty standard. The Nicene Creed says "Et ex Patre natum, ante omnia saecula".

 

[sealchan]

I dont think I am ready to say that the ancients made
no distinction between fact and fiction.

If I remember my Ong, in oral cultures practical knowledge was valued over non-practical knowledge. Regarding the latter one avoids committing to anything. Tales of the beginning of the Universe might be interesting but nothing to debate about if nothing practical could result from it.