The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True

[omega2xx]

(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?

Unless there is no omnipotent God it should be taken literally. No one know how long ago it took place.

Yes, God prepared the earth in 6 time-periods called days in Genesis 1. These are not 24-hour periods, IMO, but long time periods lasting at least thousands of years.

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.

After each creative "day", the record says; 'And there was evening and there was morning, a first day, second day, etc' This obviously is not a 24 hour period. Of the entire creative epoch, Genesis 2:4 states; "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." Thus "day" is used in Genesis to refer to time periods other than 24 hours.

Not always as I have just explained to you. Let me give you another reason to accept 24 hours. Plant lied was created on the third day. The sun was not created until the fourth day. Plants can;'t live thousands of years without sun.

The story Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as recorded in
Genesis 2 and Genesis 3.
I believe this account is the true history of mankind's beginning. Jesus Christ believed it also.

You Are making progress.

(3) The story of Noah building an Ark and the great flood as recorded in Genesis 6 - 9. Did this all actually happen?
Yes, the Flood of Noah's day is historical fact, IMO. Again, Jesus Christ spoke of the flood as real, and a warning that God will not tolerate wickedness indefinitely. (Luke 17:25-27)

2 out o f 3 ain't bad but why not bat 1000 and accept a 24 hour day?

 

[omega2xx]

So what does it means when cultural stories of creation begin with: "Before anything was created"?

To me it means any other story was taken from the Genesis account.

 

[Polymath257]

To me it means any other story was taken from the Genesis account.

And what evidence do you have for this statement, other than your beliefs in a certain mythology?

 

[omega2xx]

Morris has misrepresented the fossil record. He has mis-stated what the TOE actually says. He has lied about how magnetic reversals work on the Earth.

Perhaps I may not be qualified (although I do think I am), but biologists such as Ashley Montague, Stephen Gould, and Francis Collins (the last an evangelical Christian) are qualified and they also state Morris lies.

Be specific. What lies has he told. Maybe they don't have the knowledge to understand what Morris says, especially Gould.

Morris has a PhD in hydraulics engineering, and Geology. IMO, that makes him better qualified than any you mentioned.

 

[omega2xx]

And what evidence do you have for this statement, other than your beliefs in a certain mythology?

Tell me how you know it is mythology and I will answer your question.

 

[CG Didymus]

1/ cosmology can see, mathematically at least, back to 10e-43 of a second after the bb event. That's trillions of times faster than the clock tick of the fastest computer ever made. The universe existed then so the seven days story is just that, a story. Of course people can say whatever their religion suggests about prior to that time. No one knows so it's all guesswork. One thing though, scientifically speaking there is no requirement for a god. As for taking place, the bb was around d 13.8 billion years ago, earth formed at around the same time as our sun, just over 4.5 billion years ago.

2/ Adam and Eve surely lived, DNA proves this and DNA does not lie, mtDNA Eve lived about 200,000 years ago. Y-mrca Adam is also known to have lived around 280,000 years ago.

3/ Noah's ark is pure allegory, a completely impossible story on several levels from the practically of a bronze age man building a boat that is technically impossible to build even today, to the logistics of storing every species of animal, not in twos as is common in Disney films but in sevens, totalling around 50 million animals along with all the food for a year. (Who did the mucking out?). Then we have water, simple maths of subtracting the volume of 2 spheres, t
1, the diameter of earth at sea level with 2, the diameter at the height of the highest mountain (Everest) plus 18 cubits, will show that the amount of water needed is about 80,000 times more than actually exists. It's my belief that the story is an expansion of a folk tale originating thousands of years before when the land collapsed at what is now Istanbul and the black sea was formed.

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.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is absolutely no evidence supporting that opinion. The creation is the beginning of events on earth. If anything. similar stories of other religions were copied from Genesis.

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.

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.

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.

There is not objective scientific evidence that rejects a literal interpretation of Genesis. In fact the only objective scientific evidence in the creation account rejects, evolution. "After their kind," is observed every day and it can be repeated.

ALL the objective evidence reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. What are your academic sources to support your assertions.

 

[Polymath257]

Tell me how you know it is mythology and I will answer your question.

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.

 

[Polymath257]

Be specific. What lies has he told. Maybe they don't have the knowledge to understand what Morris says, especially Gould.

Morris has a PhD in hydraulics engineering, and Geology. IMO, that makes him better qualified than any you mentioned.

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

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.

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.

 

[CG Didymus]

...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...

Well if some Christians believe the isn't all literal, then which parts? Baha'is "believe" the Bible but make some things like the Creation, the Flood, the Resurrection and Jesus coming back as symbolic.

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.

 

[pearl]

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.

That just makes Jesus a scape goat appeasing a vengeful God. What your saying is that without sin there would be no incarnation at all.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well if some Christians believe the isn't all literal, then which parts? Baha'is "believe" the Bible but make some things like the Creation, the Flood, the Resurrection and Jesus coming back as symbolic.

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.

You might actually want to look to see, what some Jews believed about six days of Genesis:

The Zohar explains:

"The redemption of Israel will come about through the mystic force of the letter “Vav” [which has the numerical value of six], namely, in the sixth millennium.... Happy are those who will be left alive at the end of the sixth millennium to enter the Shabbat, which is the seventh millennium; for that is a day set apart for the Holy One on which to effect the union of new souls with old souls in the world (Zohar, Vayera 119a)."

Six Ages of the World - Wikipedia


Now compare that with Bahai Scriptures:


172. THE “SIX” RAISED UP BY VIRTUE OF THIS “UPRIGHT ALIF” # 157
(Bahaullah, Book of Aqdas)


In his writings, Shaykh Aḥmad-i-Ahsá’í placed great emphasis on the Arabic letter “Váv”. In The Dawn-Breakers, Nabíl states that this letter “symbolized for the Báb the advent of a new cycle of Divine Revelation, and has since been alluded to by Bahá’u’lláh in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas in such passages as ‘the mystery of the Great Reversal’ and ‘the Sign of the Sovereign’”.

The name for the letter “Váv” consists of three letters: Váv, Alif, Váv. According to the abjad reckoning, the numerical value of each of these letters is 6, 1 and 6 respectively. Shoghi Effendi in a letter written on his behalf to one of the believers in the East provides an interpretation of this verse of the Aqdas. He states that the “Upright Alif” refers to the advent of the Báb. The first letter with its value of six, which comes before the Alif, is a symbol of earlier Dispensations and Manifestations which predate the Báb, while the third letter, which also has a numerical value of six, stands for Bahá’u’lláh’s supreme Revelation which was made manifest after the Alif.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Page 240


Then think about what Bahaullah says:

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. "
Bahaullah

 

[Dawnofhope]

As if you didn't have enough going on? Okay, if and when you have time watch some of the Creation Series by Kent Hovind. He's got a good sense of humor about the topic and several videos.

Thanks for giving me the idea to explore this a little further. Its easiest to start a thread and see who wants to discuss rather than joining someone else's thread...well that's my excuse for poor judgement.

Whether they call themselves Evangelical, Born-Again, or Fundamentalists Christians, I'm talking about the ones who believe the Bible as literal. Everything about their beliefs hinges on the Creation and the Flood being real events. It is the foundation to getting to the story and purpose of Jesus.

I wasn't ware that such a high proportion of Christians believe this to be literally true so I'm really curious to understand why.

In the other thread we talked about the purpose of Christianity. For these Christians it is to get people "saved" from their sins. And sin all started with Adam and Eve in the Garden. The Christian character of Satan started in the Garden also. He was there as the Serpent to trick them into eating the forbidden fruit.

That is very literal.

I don't need the story to be literal, and I hope it isn't. Baha'is don't want it literal. And, it doesn't sound like something that even makes sense literally. No Sun, but you have plants? God pulls out a rib and creates Eve... and that's after He apparently forgot to make Adam a wife? So the easy answer is that it's all a myth. But... if Creation and the Flood are a myth, then what do we do with Jesus?

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community rejects a literal interpretation of the Genesis stories outlines, but lets see if the YEC Christians have a legitimate case for support their perspective.

That's why I think this question is so important. The Christians are trying to save the people of the world from sin and judgement. And the Baha'is are trying to unite the people of the world and their religions and build a peaceful world.

They say Jesus is coming back to judge the world. The Baha'i say he has already come in Baha'u'llah to bring peace to the world. So is Jesus who he says he is... according to who Christians say he is? It all depends. Is their interpretation of the Bible and their NT correct? And it all starts with Genesis.

You've convinced me. Thanks again.

Thanks Adrian for taking this on. I hope some of the YEC Christians take the time to comment.

You're welcome.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You might find this interesting. I did this thread a few years ago.
Where is the Ark of the Covenant?

The two response from each of your Jewish friends were brilliant IMHO.

 

[Dawnofhope]

None are 'true' in the sense of being scientifically/historically accurate.

I suspect that ...

• narrative 1 was intended cosmology,
• narrative 2 was an etiological narrative thought to be substantially true, and
• narrative 3 was an allegorical founders tale.

Thank you @Jayhawker Soule

Do you any links that explores the diversity of Jewish thought about these verses? The one in regards to Isaiah 7:14 on another thread was very helpful.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Here is one for you. Where the heck did Cain get a wife? I don't have a answer for that one. I'm not going to begin to guess.

The land of Nod of course! (Genesis 4:16)

If its written in the bible then it must be literally true....but wait!?

That means there must have been other people on earth before Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve the first people on earth, yet a women in the land of Nod? Isn't that a contradiction?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thank you @Jayhawker Soule

Do you any links that explores the diversity of Jewish thought about these verses? The one in regards to Isaiah 7:14 on another thread was very helpful.

I'm pleased that you found it helpful.

As for your question, none come to mind off hand. I strongly recommend the Plaut Commentary. It does a truly remarkable job contextualizing Torah pericopes. Yes, it's a bit expensive, but serious scholarship come at a price. If you choose to purchase it, you'll refer to it over and over again, often gaining new insights with each effort.

 

[siti]

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.

If the first 9 chapters of Genesis were myths then Adam and Noah were not real people? And yet Baha'u'llah declares them both to be Manifestations, does he not?

 

[Dawnofhope]

If the first 9 chapters of Genesis were myths then Adam and Noah were not real people? And yet Baha'u'llah declares them both to be Manifestations, does he not?

That is correct. However other than their names being recorded in the book of Genesis, there is nothing to indicate that other events recorded are anything more than myth.

To the contrary:

Question.—What is the truth of the story of Adam, and His eating of the fruit of the tree?

Then it is said that God caused Adam to sleep, and He took one of His ribs and created woman in order that she might be His companion. After that it is said the serpent induced the woman to eat of the tree, saying: “God has forbidden you to eat of the tree in order that your eyes may not be opened, and that you may not know good from evil.” 2 Then Eve ate from the tree and gave unto Adam, Who also ate; their eyes were opened, they found themselves naked, and they hid their bodies with leaves. In consequence of this act they received the reproaches of God. God said to Adam: “Hast Thou eaten of the forbidden tree?” Adam answered: “Eve tempted Me, and I did eat.” God then reproved Eve; Eve said: “The serpent tempted me, and I did eat.” For this the serpent was cursed, and enmity was put between the serpent and Eve, and between their descendants. And God said: “The man is become like unto Us, knowing good and evil, and perhaps He will eat of the tree of life and live forever.” So God guarded the tree of life.

If we take this story in its apparent meaning, according to the interpretation of the masses, it is indeed extraordinary. The intelligence cannot accept it, affirm it, or imagine it; for such arrangements, such details, such speeches and reproaches are far from being those of an intelligent man, how much less of the Divinity—that Divinity Who has organized this infinite universe in the most perfect form, and its innumerable inhabitants with absolute system, strength and perfection.

We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous meanings.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 122-126



"The statement in 'Seven Days of Creation' certainly cannot be considered authoritative or correct. The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 28, 1949: Baha'i News, No. 228, February 1950, p. 4; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1716)

 

[siti]

That is correct. However other than their names being recorded in the book of Genesis, there is nothing to indicate that other events recorded are anything more than myth.

To the contrary:

Question.—What is the truth of the story of Adam, and His eating of the fruit of the tree?

Then it is said that God caused Adam to sleep, and He took one of His ribs and created woman in order that she might be His companion. After that it is said the serpent induced the woman to eat of the tree, saying: “God has forbidden you to eat of the tree in order that your eyes may not be opened, and that you may not know good from evil.” 2 Then Eve ate from the tree and gave unto Adam, Who also ate; their eyes were opened, they found themselves naked, and they hid their bodies with leaves. In consequence of this act they received the reproaches of God. God said to Adam: “Hast Thou eaten of the forbidden tree?” Adam answered: “Eve tempted Me, and I did eat.” God then reproved Eve; Eve said: “The serpent tempted me, and I did eat.” For this the serpent was cursed, and enmity was put between the serpent and Eve, and between their descendants. And God said: “The man is become like unto Us, knowing good and evil, and perhaps He will eat of the tree of life and live forever.” So God guarded the tree of life.

If we take this story in its apparent meaning, according to the interpretation of the masses, it is indeed extraordinary. The intelligence cannot accept it, affirm it, or imagine it; for such arrangements, such details, such speeches and reproaches are far from being those of an intelligent man, how much less of the Divinity—that Divinity Who has organized this infinite universe in the most perfect form, and its innumerable inhabitants with absolute system, strength and perfection.

We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous meanings.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 122-126



"The statement in 'Seven Days of Creation' certainly cannot be considered authoritative or correct. The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 28, 1949: Baha'i News, No. 228, February 1950, p. 4; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1716)

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. 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?

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.

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.

"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