Updating the Genesis Creation Story

[sealchan]

Ok, kids at urban air bounce house for an hour and half and I'm bored so...

Have you considered that perhaps the author of genesis was writing a philosophical account of creation rather than literal? I'm guessing one of the oldest philosophical questions is which came first the chicken or the egg. In genesis 1 the author describes a chicken first creation where man "poofs" into existence. In genesis 2 the author describes an egg first creation where God "raises" man from the dust of the earth. Like many of the parables jesus gave genesis 1 and 2 are nonsensical together (like selling all you have to purchase a treasure you have found)... suggesting in my opinion ...that the point of the thing was obviously not literal begging the audience to ponder what was the point the author was making. Perhaps that style of narrative back in the day was popular entertainment? On the surface simple enough that a child could understand it but cloaking a deeper more profound meaning? What I take away from genesis account of creation is that the author hasn't a clue which came first the chicken or the egg but however creation did come about God was responsible.

Then came the fall of man... after the 6th day God proclaimed all creation to be good yet there stood in the garden the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? God somehow loses control of creation?? Satan sneaks one by??? I think the account if the fall of man too is a parable begging the person to seek for a deeper meaning.

On to the flood... the God who a few chapters ago proclaimed all creation good suddenly recanted and regrets? Another parable narrative in my opinion.

Food for thought perhaps, I'm happy to discuss if you like.

Sorry I didn't notice this...

I totally agree...in my study of Genesis there have been many, many indications that the stories are being told in a way to invite discussion. This is done through showing varying perspectives of certain motifs across stories. Ambiguity is used to invite personal interpretation which draws in the audience to reveal something of their own attitudes.

I think that the author of Genesis wrote a very concise, no non-sense creation myth based on other stories and turned them into the story of a single God. I think the author stays true to the usual ways that creation myths are told and that any ambiguities are good food for thought and debate.

It may be that what was considered most important to take away is how this creation story differed from the other comparable polytheistic stories and in this way one could understand the concerns and character of this God.

God made the world good and for our full use. He also wants us to choose good but in an environment which is ambivalent toward supporting humanities effort to be good. Disasters seem to judge our value and we humans seem bent on making things hard on ourselves...right out of the gate. The extent to which God has intended this is very much up for debate. This makes for a very personal and relevant God who cares about us but wants us to strive under difficult conditions to be worthy.

 

[sealchan]

Ok, kids at urban air bounce house for an hour and half and I'm bored so...

Have you considered that perhaps the author of genesis was writing a philosophical account of creation rather than literal? I'm guessing one of the oldest philosophical questions is which came first the chicken or the egg. In genesis 1 the author describes a chicken first creation where man "poofs" into existence. In genesis 2 the author describes an egg first creation where God "raises" man from the dust of the earth. Like many of the parables jesus gave genesis 1 and 2 are nonsensical together (like selling all you have to purchase a treasure you have found)... suggesting in my opinion ...that the point of the thing was obviously not literal begging the audience to ponder what was the point the author was making. Perhaps that style of narrative back in the day was popular entertainment? On the surface simple enough that a child could understand it but cloaking a deeper more profound meaning? What I take away from genesis account of creation is that the author hasn't a clue which came first the chicken or the egg but however creation did come about God was responsible.

Then came the fall of man... after the 6th day God proclaimed all creation to be good yet there stood in the garden the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? God somehow loses control of creation?? Satan sneaks one by??? I think the account if the fall of man too is a parable begging the person to seek for a deeper meaning.

On to the flood... the God who a few chapters ago proclaimed all creation good suddenly recanted and regrets? Another parable narrative in my opinion.

Food for thought perhaps, I'm happy to discuss if you like.

To me the Flood is definitely tied back into the creation. God seems to be letting the waters He divides threaten to come back together again. I also see Noah as a potential technologist to be contrasted with the accomplishments of the descendants of Cain. To what purpose does human technology find its greatest value?

I think that Noah suffers under the burden of having been chosen and drinks too much as a result. His humiliation before his sons seems to reintroduce the pervasiveness of sin and even the chosen Noah's limited ability to handle what God has sent his way.

There is so much to cover in all of this. I am considering creating an outline of motifs and mapping their connections as a second pass through Genesis. I'm also looking at mapping story similarities between the Bible, Greek myth and the Mahabharata in an effort to try and quantify the extent to which all three traditions have similar stories.

 

[sealchan]

Satan of course

Actually I was thinking that Satan was the favored child of Gods wife while Jesus was His favorite. The whole opposition between the two is derivative of God and His wife's difficulties in getting along.

 

[sealchan]

I suppose then you don't believe the Bible is God's Spirit-led and inspired Word and is as God wants it to be. How do you feel qualified to update it?

In my own encounter with God I feel that I am being directed to do this work. This is underscored by a dream I had in which God demanded that I take a new name. My other God experiences share the same basic qualities of many of Abraham's encounters with God. This leads me to believe that the authors of Genesis were familiar with qualities commonly experienced by those who have encountered God. I have created a thread on the objective nature of the psychological experience of God but I couldn't locate it just now.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Sorry I didn't notice this...

I totally agree...in my study of Genesis there have been many, many indications that the stories are being told in a way to invite discussion. This is done through showing varying perspectives of certain motifs across stories. Ambiguity is used to invite personal interpretation which draws in the audience to reveal something of their own attitudes.

I think that the author of Genesis wrote a very concise, no non-sense creation myth based on other stories and turned them into the story of a single God. I think the author stays true to the usual ways that creation myths are told and that any ambiguities are good food for thought and debate.

It may be that what was considered most important to take away is how this creation story differed from the other comparable polytheistic stories and in this way one could understand the concerns and character of this God.

God made the world good and for our full use. He also wants us to choose good but in an environment which is ambivalent toward supporting humanities effort to be good. Disasters seem to judge our value and we humans seem bent on making things hard on ourselves...right out of the gate. The extent to which God has intended this is very much up for debate. This makes for a very personal and relevant God who cares about us but wants us to strive under difficult conditions to be worthy.

I very much like what you wrote here...

"Ambiguity is used to invite personal interpretation which draws in the audience to reveal something of their own attitudes."

...ambiguity invites freedom of spiritual expression and breathes life into religion(s) that would have otherwise not have survived the ages.

 

[`mud]

I really and truly think that Wisdom stops just short of the mind in the reading of the bible. True wisdom is the understanding of the immensity of the Cosmos. I guess it's going to be another century to get there, sadly...most of us don't have the time !
hey Sub...good luck with your endeavor, you'll really need it.

 

[`mud]

Ahhh...Gnosis...so little in so few !

 

[sealchan]

That is a very lame excuse. Self contradictions are errors. Explaining them away is only an attempt at dishonesty. Most of the errors of the Bible are rather minor. But they exist nonetheless. And writing a book that is subject to so many different interpretations is an error on its own. An "inspired" book should have only one interpretation. Not 40,000 different interpretations all claiming to be correct.

I'll have to disagree with you here...I think the Bible was written to inspire personal interpretation and debate...only in the hands of a male dominated society that turned into a competition to be right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll have to disagree with you here...I think the Bible was written to inspire personal interpretation and debate...only in the hands of a male dominated society that turned into a competition to be right.

Since I see the Bible as just another mistaken religious book I can understand that. I find my view that it is the writings of bronze to iron age people with little understanding of the universe or morality (though that does improve throughout the book) to be far more rational. No special reinterpretations that are a bit dodgy are needed by me. Simply he observation that like other myths they were the best that people could do at the time.

 

[sealchan]

I very much like what you wrote here...

"Ambiguity is used to invite personal interpretation which draws in the audience to reveal something of their own attitudes."

...ambiguity invites freedom of spiritual expression and breathes life into religion(s) that would have otherwise not have survived the ages.

Yes, but a more competitive environment has prevented such a generous approach from being realized in many cases.

The writing does coalesce belief but it also let's in the person who reads it to allow them room to breathe. It is a very delicate balance I think to strike and we are all still working on that. Jesus tried to redress the imbalance in his time but now we are turning Jesus into the first prosecutor in a new rule bound tradition.

 

[sealchan]

What if you are not understanding things correctly? The Bible doesn't portray God as immoral and actually repeatedly describes God as holy, good, compassionate, merciful, patient, and above all as love. You seem to isolate and focus on hell or what you believe is torture ( which is not the word used in the Bible), without considering maybe you have some misconceptions, or there's a way to reconcile all the scriptures say or God has valid reasons concerning various things expressed in the scriptures which you don't comprehend yet.

It does if the reader reads it sincerely as such.

This is the problem with trying to argue with people who sincerely interpret something and you try and make the case that you know real understanding. It invalidates their perspective without offering a specific reason or non-Biblical frame of reference that would allow them the power to "be right".

I also think you are missing a valid perspective. God created the Universe so He does share a portion of responsibility for what happens in that Universe. By denying this you are denying a person's ability to relate to God even if it is in a negative light.

 

[sealchan]

Well, I believe the Bible does have only one interpretation - God's interpretation. It's finite people who come up with all the many others. Yet, when you think about it, the basic message about Jesus has been pretty consistent for over 2000 years. Nevertheless, that's why I think it's important for each person to constantly seek God to reveal His intended thoughts and be willing to receive correction.

So since none of us are God...

 

[sealchan]

If one sets various Biblical scriptures side by side with their similar counterparts from other traditions and if one recognizes the willingness to tell the same story in slightly different ways within the Bible itself as well as realize that many of the stories are told with language and content that are clearly crafted by human ingenuity, then one can begin to see the Bible as humanities' effort to understand their importance in a Universe which doesn't always have its own best interests (survival) at heart.

Why can't we see this is the central message of the teachings of the Bible and allow a wide field of perspective for our various cows to come in and graze together?

 

[`mud]

And sometimes the `belief` in the "belief" is the ultimate causality !

 

[sealchan]

Yes, the mystery of the being of an emergent system...when it develops a structure that is capable of self-sustaining. As with the Universe, so with God.

 

[InChrist]

In my own encounter with God I feel that I am being directed to do this work. This is underscored by a dream I had in which God demanded that I take a new name. My other God experiences share the same basic qualities of many of Abraham's encounters with God. This leads me to believe that the authors of Genesis were familiar with qualities commonly experienced by those who have encountered God. I have created a thread on the objective nature of the psychological experience of God but I couldn't locate it just now.

How do you determine your encounter is trustworthy. I mean do you have anyway of knowing or testing that the God you are encountering and who is giving you direction is valid or the true God.

 

[sealchan]

How do you determine your encounter is trustworthy. I mean do you have anyway of knowing or testing that the God you are encountering and who is giving you direction is valid or the true God.

God comes at me in an unexpected direction...I find that this corresponds with Abram/Abraham's experience...I see that modern scholarship is moving in the same direction...it seems that all roads lead where I am walking...

What else do I have before God but my life, its sense of joy and fulfillment and my understanding of what He is telling me both through the Word and in all other areas of my life? What do you have outside of the same?

This is my word for you...do you think that what the Bible teaches is literal history? If so, does it spell that history out in clear and certain terms in all cases? If not, if you could travel back in time and be a witness yourself to what happened, then would you not have the grounds for resolving all these questions? If this is sound then you know that there is one source of truth that is greater than what the Bible contains...what has actually happened in God's creation.

If you can take this step the rest will follow...

 

[`mud]

I find it interesting the comparing a particular `God` with a `true` `God`.
How can one find the difference, one whispers and one shouts ?
I feel that both of those examples are invincible holograms of nothingness.

 

[`mud]

I find it interesting the comparing a particular `God` with a `true` `God`.
How can one find the difference, one whispers and one shouts ?
I feel that both of those examples are invincible holograms of nothingness.

 

[sealchan]

I find it interesting the comparing a particular `God` with a `true` `God`.
How can one find the difference, one whispers and one shouts ?
I feel that both of those examples are invincible holograms of nothingness.

If we believe in a God capable of creating the Universe, how can we be a judge over a right knowledge of said God? For those who choose to understand a personal God, are we not meekly and humbly making a sincere guess as to His (or Her or It's) nature?

Does not God teach us His nature through the various works of those who have tried to portray him/her/it? Does God not have the means to communicate to us directly? Can He not lead us where He will to whatsoever path He chooses?