I do not believe that the people who joined together the different accounts that make up the current book of Genesis ever intended the result to be taken literally.
They had a message they wanted to get across to a people who were following the vile heathen practices of their neighbors, and wanted them instead to follow their YHWH. The kings and the people of Israel and Judah worshipped the sun, moon and stars, worshiped their Asherah, sacrificed children, and so on.
So these people who gave us the book of Genesis (particularly after the time of Josiah) used myths and legends that had meaning to the people at that time. It is up to use to discover that message and not consider their accounts as necessarily literal. They were a means for achieving an end.
Doug
Gen 2:18-22 ---------my take....STORY OR REALITY??????????????????????????
by fedorE 15 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Doug Mason
-
JCanon
So these people who gave us the book of Genesis (particularly after the time of Josiah) used myths and legends that had meaning to the people at that time. It is up to use to discover that message and not consider their accounts as necessarily literal. They were a means for achieving an end.
DougHi Doug, This sounds high-minded and academic and probably is true in other cases, but not the Bible, and you can't prove a single assertion.
On the other hand, some very much in this vein, like archaeologist and Biblical commentator Israel Finkelstein bases his conclusions on archaeological contradictions with the scriptures but founds those contradictions on the uncorrected revised timeline. Case in point he clearly shows that Solomon is dated too early. The palaces they found, though, match the Solomonic Period but only much later. So it's not that there was never a grand time of opulence in Israel at any time that matched that of Solomon, we have proof that it was, so that's not a myth. Problem is, it is called a myth because of the dating. But you have two choices here. One is to presume as you have that perhaps later on myths were created to address the emotional needs of the people at the time and things were revised. The other is to match the dating of the buildings with the Bible account and consider that the timeline is erroneous. Finkelstein chose not to correct the timeline but to bash the Bible. So now his argument falls flat when it is pointed out the Bible's dating is later than the flawed dating used by archaeologists and is in perfect sync with the archaeological dating. Therefore, that "myth" is not a myth at all. And that's a rather popular and big myth to find out isn't a myth.
So really, if you just listen to statements like yours, that sound interesting and plausible but based upon inaccurate information or biased academic commentary, then you get these ideas and think they are real. When you actually look at ALL the issues and alternatives out there then the Bible does quite well with the direct archaeological evidence, that is the actual archaeology without the biased commentary of how the Bible was revised.
But in fairness to you. Maybe there is some specific "myths" that you think you can prove that are not true in the Bible and were made up later. Obviously some can't be proven or disproven, like what was said in Eden, but a lot of it that is considered myth by the academic world and quite aggressively so, like the issue of Solomon and David, have little or no foundation whatsoever. You know? It would wholly different if the Bible said Solomon was this great builder and the archaeologist didn't find a single palace. But that's not the case. That might be a basis for saying his rule was a myth. But the palaces were found. They are just dated later than the archaeology timeline based upon false dating is saying it did. That's all. Once you correct the dating, then everything is completely fine!
Here's a chart showing where Shishak's invasion is dated to c. 871BCE which is out of range for Shishak's invasion in 925BCE. The 871BCE dating matches the Biblical dating for the 1st of Cyrus falling in 455BCE. So you have harmony with science when you use the correct, unrevised dating. So where's the myth?
-
glenster
An alternative interpretation to taking Genesis literally, when that interpre-
tation is at odds with science, is imaginable without intending theological dam-
age to the scriptures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo#Natural_knowledge_and_biblical_interpretation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_GenesisWhether you take Adam and Eve literally or not doesn't matter for the cruci-
fixion belief. Either way you end up with God considering people as fallen
from his good graces then reconciling them to himself. If Adam and Eve are
imagined to have literally existed, they got themselves killed, but it would
have been God's prerogative to consider mankind altogether as fallen from his
graces since justice would only call for judging against those two.You end up with the same thing whether a literal Adam and Eve prompted it or
not. Regardless, the crucifixion would be there as a break for the people that
resulted--from considered as fallen to being given a way for reconciliation.
http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/index.htmAlso, either way, I thought fedorE's post was pretty funny, too!
-
drew sagan
Woah!!!!!!!!-----------Dude..........like.....if you
make............another......\\\\\\\post like that........I';m going.......to explode.........!!!!!!!1-I MEAN THAT IS THE POINT RIGHT???????????????WOW!!!, &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&...........that......is.....just......to......crazy.......for........me......too......handle???????......... -----
Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. Your formatting was just to strange. -
fedorE
Thanks for your post. Id like to ramble a little...I would like to know what makes u so sure that Jesus is who the bible says he is. Where does your faith come from now?
Its is simply amazing that although the we will accept the fact that Jesus loves us and died for us on the "cross" and is the Redeemer of fallen man and man only needs to accept him as Lord and Saviour in our mind body,hearts and soul and live for Christ,,,, BUT...at the same time it doesnt matter if Adam is figurative or literal because it doesnt do any damage to the real historical account of the cruxifixtion redemption of mankind...........Is that "reasoning"?......And let us use some earlly church fathers opinion of the first Book of the Bible as proof that it doesnt matter as if they matter more than the book itself.....Is that reasonable?
if we use that reasoning we can use the BIBLE to establish evangelicalism and personal faith in jesus as the Truth. Perfect?
Look man i dont know a damn thing about the Bible , scholars do, but i do know that if i was responsible for a book that purports to have the sayings of everlasting life i have to have the first book in its cannon as understandable Truth. Not open to debate cuz it is the foundation for the New Testament
Why would God have given man a book and then have man question if its first account is figurative or literal .It matters from a -z for me if mankinds salvation is at stake..
-
glenster
What I have so far for some of those things (the JWs leaders' distinctions in
regard to the Bible and related history, and the JWS leaders' ransom idea (Mi-
chael sacrificed to make up for a literal Adam, etc.) is on pp.1a, 4, and 7-10
of the "GTJ Brooklyn" article at the next link. Their coverage of science made
to fit their stances on such things is included on pp.1 and 1a, Jesus issues are
on pp.4 and 7-10 with the ransom things on p.8, and their coverage of related
early Christian history versus an actual account of the things they bring up
about it are on p.9.
http://www.freewebs.com/glenster1/index.htmI don't think having some kind of hope commitment for the God of the Bible,
which you might or might not do and be a friend of mine, is dependant on agree-
ing with JWs leaders about all the distinctions they play prophet in requiring
for salvation. The only concern to not take people as more important than the
Bible I had in mind is shown in giving some reasons there for why I think it
would be a mistake to take the JWs leaders seriously that way as they ask to be
taken. Not wanting to do that about a literal Adam, etc., isn't the same as having to lose faith.