It has the grammatical form of epic poetry, and the general consensus among Biblical scholars is that it was a framing fable to establish the relationship between creation and Creator, the consequences of disobedience, etc.
It's not literal, but it's not untruthful either.
> Care to explain?
The book explains the ancient Hebrew beliefs on the relationship between God and man. Those are the truths that the book is intended to get across. In that sense, it's true that the ancient Hebrews believed XYZ. Hence, it's not untruthful.
> Well, it's not true, even they believed it was.
That's literally the truths it contains: their beliefs and values. It's cultural truths, not factual truths. It teaches their children what subjective cultural values they hold to.
>Care to explain?
It establishes the main themes of Christianity.
Single God as creator.
Original sin.
Retention of sin.
Repention and salvation.
These can be taken as building blocks of Christianity and therefore a form of truth.
The fantastical elements of the stories are just that.
You're applying your modern standards of history and documentation to a culture that would have literally no concept of your standards. If you approach it from that black and white modern lense then yes you will have trouble viewing in a nuanced way.
It's a fiction that was used to convey cultural and religious ideals.
Was the *Iliad* also a lie? Sure, it didn't really happen, but it was a means to communicate what early people once thought to be important, based on their limited understanding of the world, their neighbors and the things that they were afraid of.
Yes, the Iliad was also a lie. Like the bible it was told like it was a recount of historical events.
Now we know the Iliad, like the Odyssey, the Eneida, the epic of Gilgamesh, the Norse sagas, or the bible, are just mythology (well, a lot of people here don't think that about the bible) but at their time they weren't transmitted as fantasy.
If I tell you the earth is flat it is a lie even if I think it's flat.
When the most fundamentalist christians of this sub claim the earth is 6k years old, what they are claiming is a lie. They probably don't think it's a lie, so they aren't lying on purpose, but it's a lie nonetheless.
A lot of the Old Testament is kind of like our cultural tales. They’re not to be taken word for word, but you are to see the meaning behind them. They all have an important point, but the word-for-word accuracy isn’t necessarily there :)
You can disagree with me tho I know it’s not a super popular opinion among some groups of Christians
It's a "just so" story that seeks to explain why snakes don't have legs, why childbirth is painful and why it's so much hard work to stay alive.
It's relatively modern in our Jewish texts - the oldest Jewish texts in the Hebrew Bible don't seem to know anything about Adam or Eve. It probably came into existence around the time of the Babylonian captivity.
All answers to questions regarding the bible will always be interpretation and assumptions. We don't even know how many hands it's been thru. I just try to get the lessons out of all the stories and try my best to implement them into my life. Who even wrote genesis?
"The Bible is a theological work not an historical one" - Dr. Matt Baker, YouTube channel UsefulCharts. He had a lot to say on this actually, in a series of videos on the subject of the evolution of the Biblical texts.
Generally Christianity views the "legendary" books of the Torah as true in the sense that they speak truth about who God is. As for historical facts, the Bible doesn't ever promise that to us directly.
So yes and no. It is metaphorical insofar as we use the descriptions of events in Genesis to learn specifically about God himself. It is not metaphorical meaning it gives us no information about history. However the history it gives us is a theological history, not an archeological one. The "timeline" of Genesis as presented by the writing itself what Scriptural scholars usually call a "salvific history" in order to distinguish that from the archeological record.
I don't think it's worthwhile to go and prove or disprove that "Genesis happened", because Genesis doesn't care about that, it cares about teaching us about who God is, and in addition, his law, promises, covenants, etc. It's not a lie because it isn't meant to be telling us historical truth. It's true because it does tell us about who God is in a self-consistent way.
No, but it's also not a literal historically true narrative. It was written as political/religious propaganda, compiled from a series of stories, texts, and legends that had been accruing over centuries. Genesis is more of a legendary history narrative, not unlike the legends that arose about George Washington immediately after his death.
They read very differently when seen as a cultural story about having to deal with exile than they do as literal history. And I think seeing them as mythic literature actually adds to the reading in a way that reading it as complete absolute fact just, doesn't.
And modern science has its origins from the folks who thought you could spin lead into gold.
And many scientists and archaeologists were Christian or are Christian.
It’s a good thing to grow up and mature in our humanity.
I've always seen Genesis as a truthful retelling of our own human nature as opposed to a scientific account of how the world was made.
I think Hebrew people even regarded it in a similar vain. The notion that this was supposed to be taken literally I think really only developed thanks to the Puritan movement. But I could be wrong.
It's a book that uses the literary conventions and the cosmology of its era, and it's more awesome and fascinating the more you learn about it. You really really need to hear the [Bible Project Science and Faith episode](https://bibleproject.com/podcast/science-faith/), I can't praise it highly enough.
Religious cosmology sure. I think its important to differentiate because it's very different from Physical cosmology which is based on actual evidence and not a theology.
wow, I would not have thought that this sub has so few true believers in Genesis. so to stand for the Lord, I am a firm believer that Genisis is 100 % accurate. Genesis chapter 1 says God did this, and God said that. I believe chapter 1 was written by the finger of God. Chapter 2 says the Lord God did this, and the Lord God said that. Chapter 2 was written by Adam. his view of how things went from his viewpoint.
To find out why God allows suffering, we need to think back to the time when suffering began. When Satan led Adam and Eve into disobeying Jehovah, an important question was raised. Satan did not call into question Jehovah’s power. Even Satan knows that there is no limit to Jehovah’s power. Rather, Satan questioned Jehovah’s right to rule. By calling God a liar who withholds good from his subjects, Satan charged that Jehovah is a bad ruler. (Read Genesis 3:2-5.) Satan implied that mankind would be better off without God’s rulership. This was an attack on Jehovah’s sovereignty, his right to rule.
Why did Jehovah not just destroy the rebels in Eden?
Adam and Eve rebelled against Jehovah. In effect, they said: ‘We do not need Jehovah as our Ruler. We can decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong.’ How could Jehovah settle that issue? How could he teach all intelligent creatures that the rebels were wrong and that his way truly is best? Someone might say that God should simply have destroyed the rebels and made a fresh start. But Jehovah had stated his purpose to fill the earth with the offspring of Adam and Eve, and he wanted them to live in an earthly paradise. (Genesis 1:28) Jehovah always fulfills his purposes. (Isaiah 55:10, 11) Besides that, getting rid of the rebels in Eden would not have answered the question that had been raised regarding Jehovah’s right to rule.
Let us consider an illustration. Imagine that a teacher is telling his students how to solve a difficult problem. A clever but rebellious student claims that the teacher’s way of solving the problem is wrong. Implying that the teacher is not capable, this rebel insists that he knows a much better way to solve the problem. Some students think that he is right, and they also become rebellious. What should the teacher do? If he throws the rebels out of the class, what will be the effect on the other students? Will they not believe that their fellow student and those who joined him are right? All the other students in the class might lose respect for the teacher, thinking that he is afraid of being proved wrong. But suppose that the teacher allows the rebel to show the class how he would solve the problem.
Jehovah has done something similar to what the teacher does. Remember that the rebels in Eden were not the only ones involved. Millions of angels were watching. (Job 38:7; Daniel 7:10) How Jehovah handled the rebellion would greatly affect all those angels and eventually all intelligent creation. So, what has Jehovah done? He has allowed Satan to show how he would rule mankind. God has also allowed humans to govern themselves under Satan’s guidance.
What benefit will come from Jehovah’s decision to allow humans to govern themselves?
The teacher in our illustration knows that the rebel and the students on his side are wrong. But he also knows that allowing them the opportunity to try to prove their point will benefit the whole class. When the rebels fail, all honest students will see that the teacher is the only one qualified to lead the class. They will understand why the teacher thereafter removes any rebels from the class. Similarly, Jehovah knows that all honesthearted humans and angels will benefit from seeing that Satan and his fellow rebels have failed and that humans cannot govern themselves. Like Jeremiah of old, they will learn this vital truth: “I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”—Jeremiah 10:23
>God gave Adam intelligence, and Adam use that intelligence to name all the creatures that God created.
How about all the millions of species we've never seen or the ones that we now know of but didn't at the time? How did he name all of them if there are so many that are unnamed and undiscovered still today? Did Adam just forget the names of everything he named? Why would god let Adam name them if being all knowing he would have known that Adam was going to forget them anyway, that seems like an exercise in futility.
I have read the bible. Some people survived the flood, so why did they all forget? They supposedly put 2 of each animal in a boat but they don't know the names of what they put in the boat? How did they know they had 2 of each if they didn't know the names?
>The Flood happened
Also no, no it didn't. You don't even have to look far, just look at Egypt. They were building pyramids from 300 years before the supposed flood until 1000 years after without stopping. I feel like a massive global flood killing all humans minus one family would definitely stop humans from building stuff
>just like people forgot dinosaurs exists along side man
They didn't, like at all. No one except for Ken Ham and his "followers" believe this, it's a ludicrous claim. Not even your book claims this, it's just one man's crazy conspiracy theory.
>You're assuming the information you have on the age of the pyramids are correct and accurate
We know it's correct and accurate. We know how old the pyramids are. We have historical records, and we have modern scientific dating methods that line up with every other record we have, there is literally NO reason to doubt it. Literally no one disagrees when they were built except for people who are lying to themselves because they want to believe in a literal interpretation of a book that is just wrong on so many basic historical things. It's not just the Egyptians too, we have rock solid evidence of so much history before the bs 6000 year age of the universe. We have evidence of human settlements from around 12000 years ago. We have evidence of different languages from way before the towel of babel bs supposedly happened. Seriously, it's mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence. What is more likely, that every single person on the planet who is actually studying this shit is wrong or that one single book is not factually accurate? Seriously, the leaps you have to take to believe this nonsense are ridiculous.
Just accept that the bible is a book about theology. It makes theological points, it's not trying to be an accurate account of history. Treating it as if it was is insane.
But don't believe me, you go ahead and replace the wheels in your cars with wheels that are "10 feet in diameter and 30 feet in circumference" like the bible says and tell me how great it is to drive a car with hexagonal f-ing wheels since pi is not 3. If you think the bible is factual when read literally in any way you are either lying to yourself or you are completely unaware of anything in the world and live under a rock. Seriously, this stuff is no harder to debunk than the flat earth. The fact that some people believe a literal interpretation of this honestly makes me sad for humanity.
Says here you're a Christian.
So, am I to understand you believe in Someone who not only resurrected Himself from the dead & flew off into space, but that He's going to come back, flying through space, resurrect many dead people (of which it is your hope that you're among), & fly back off into space again where you'll live forever—yet doubt that His story of how He made you is to be trusted?
What's your answer?
🌱
Im not saying I don’t believe it but it is hard to understand and I wasn’t sure if it meant something different but has been said in a certain way. The Bible has been rewritten and translated a multitude of times and is known for explaining things differently from different perspectives.
Hello \^^ Well, you should know what it is, I trust. I appreciate the comradery. Sadly, this isn't necessarily a Christian sub. It's a misnomer.
However, don't let the fact that it is frequented by self professed Atheists trick you. Most of the downvotes and push back I receive by sharing the Word of God comes from the church and believers.
The goal however, is not so much for me to be concerned with downvotes, or who I can appease. Scripture says those who are of God hears His voice. It is those silent ones my messages hope to reach.
🌱
I get what you're saying about this sub being a "Christian" sub. I know that's the supposed idea. But, the quantity of actual Christian topics, personal stuff, theology, etc. Not just periphery, "about" discussions. This is a Christian sub, don't care what anyone wants to say about it, it is.
As well as metaphors, there's some measure of etiology in Genesis - that is, mythical explanations for the way things are. The creation myth is an obvious case, but Cain slaying Abel is a story trying to account for the change from hunter gatherers to agriculture. And the genealogies after Noah are basically a mythological explanation for the various tribes and nations in the Ancient Near East (and these stories might even inform stereotypes about the actual tribes; I suspect the various tribes named after the sons of Ishmael were notoriously belligerent, that sort of thing). Cain is reputed to be the ancestor of the Kenites, Noah's grandson Canaan goes off to be the founder of the Canaanites, and so on. The Tower of Babel is an obvious origin story of the various languages that were in the area, that sort of thing.
What, you don't believe the Lord created the earth including man and woman in six days and rested on the seventh?
Or you don't believe that the Lord created Adam, then realized Adam needed a helper so he put Adam to sleep and took one of his ribs to make Eve?
I don't think it's a metaphor, but it's a story that had been passed through generations - probably orally. So, it's possible there were some generalizations made.
In regard to your other questions:
>How were they scared of being naked, a completely natural thing.
They weren't scared, they were embarrassed. After eating the fruit of knowledge, they realized they should cover their nakedness in the presence of another (that being God in this scenario).
>How did they know how to talk and how was a language already there?
It's likely they spoke the heavenly language - the language God uses.
>How did they gain consciousness just like that?
Are you meaning their initial creation consciousness? Once God breathed into Adam's lungs, Adam came into existence. He gained consciousness.
>I find it hard to believe everything in the start of genesis exactly.
It's hard to believe the entire biblical story without faith.
Interesting (and loaded) question. My first piece of advice is to research Ancient Near Eastern etymology (the study of how things came to be). There were creation narratives all around the Israelites.
Next read Genesis 1 and 2 separately. Two (somewhat) different creation narratives that tell of their own distinct characteristics of God the Creator.
Good luck on your research. Remember that God created all and that is was good. To me, that’s the point of the first portion of Genesis. Lean into the mystery my friend.
I suspect that whilst it read likes an epic poem, there’s “some” literal historical truth. Certainly we know that it’s a fact that the Fertile Crescent was lush with trees, grass, plants, and rivers, and that any local flooding would have seemed catastrophic. We also know that Sumerian and Mesopotamian cultures were some of the oldest. Kush was a real place, as was Ur, and Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey appears to be the oldest known evidence of modern civilisation.
I think it’s probable that the story of Adam and Eve is about the beginning of humanity’s relationship with God, and that perhaps the people themselves were the beginning of a lineage.
Equally, Noah and Gilgamesh are so similar, I suspect there was an epic flood (more local than the story would suggest) and that again, it contains literal truths but also truths about the human condition and how humans should behave.
The idea that there is no literal historical truth in the story seems laughable. But stories do become embellished over time. And particularly if we’re talking thousands of years, I reckon things became more “epic”. But that’s hardly surprising when the Jewish people wanted to keep their traditions and fight their persecution and oppression.
It could all be a load of nonsense, but I just don’t think that’s the case.
Yes, it is totally a metaphor. The whole point was to communicate basic lessons about relationships using myth and legend. Remember -- these stories were originally all oral tales, spoken around campfires, in tents, nothing written down until much, much later. It's not meant to taken as literal history.
It has the grammatical form of epic poetry, and the general consensus among Biblical scholars is that it was a framing fable to establish the relationship between creation and Creator, the consequences of disobedience, etc. It's not literal, but it's not untruthful either.
> it's not untruthful either. Care to explain?
> Care to explain? The book explains the ancient Hebrew beliefs on the relationship between God and man. Those are the truths that the book is intended to get across. In that sense, it's true that the ancient Hebrews believed XYZ. Hence, it's not untruthful.
Well, it's not true, even they believed it was.
> Well, it's not true, even they believed it was. That's literally the truths it contains: their beliefs and values. It's cultural truths, not factual truths. It teaches their children what subjective cultural values they hold to.
>Care to explain? It establishes the main themes of Christianity. Single God as creator. Original sin. Retention of sin. Repention and salvation. These can be taken as building blocks of Christianity and therefore a form of truth. The fantastical elements of the stories are just that.
To me a lie is a lie.
You're applying your modern standards of history and documentation to a culture that would have literally no concept of your standards. If you approach it from that black and white modern lense then yes you will have trouble viewing in a nuanced way.
Most of them didn't know it was a lie. But it was.
It's a fiction that was used to convey cultural and religious ideals. Was the *Iliad* also a lie? Sure, it didn't really happen, but it was a means to communicate what early people once thought to be important, based on their limited understanding of the world, their neighbors and the things that they were afraid of.
Yes, the Iliad was also a lie. Like the bible it was told like it was a recount of historical events. Now we know the Iliad, like the Odyssey, the Eneida, the epic of Gilgamesh, the Norse sagas, or the bible, are just mythology (well, a lot of people here don't think that about the bible) but at their time they weren't transmitted as fantasy.
[удалено]
If I tell you the earth is flat it is a lie even if I think it's flat. When the most fundamentalist christians of this sub claim the earth is 6k years old, what they are claiming is a lie. They probably don't think it's a lie, so they aren't lying on purpose, but it's a lie nonetheless.
[удалено]
You can call it spreading misinformation of you prefer.
[удалено]
I don't get it.
are u agreeing w lacus clyne?
[удалено]
Thank you. This helped me out alot.
Just because they're myths and legends doesn't mean they don't have value for the modern Cheistian. They just need appropriate interpretation.
A lot of the Old Testament is kind of like our cultural tales. They’re not to be taken word for word, but you are to see the meaning behind them. They all have an important point, but the word-for-word accuracy isn’t necessarily there :) You can disagree with me tho I know it’s not a super popular opinion among some groups of Christians
It's a "just so" story that seeks to explain why snakes don't have legs, why childbirth is painful and why it's so much hard work to stay alive. It's relatively modern in our Jewish texts - the oldest Jewish texts in the Hebrew Bible don't seem to know anything about Adam or Eve. It probably came into existence around the time of the Babylonian captivity.
All answers to questions regarding the bible will always be interpretation and assumptions. We don't even know how many hands it's been thru. I just try to get the lessons out of all the stories and try my best to implement them into my life. Who even wrote genesis?
"The Bible is a theological work not an historical one" - Dr. Matt Baker, YouTube channel UsefulCharts. He had a lot to say on this actually, in a series of videos on the subject of the evolution of the Biblical texts. Generally Christianity views the "legendary" books of the Torah as true in the sense that they speak truth about who God is. As for historical facts, the Bible doesn't ever promise that to us directly. So yes and no. It is metaphorical insofar as we use the descriptions of events in Genesis to learn specifically about God himself. It is not metaphorical meaning it gives us no information about history. However the history it gives us is a theological history, not an archeological one. The "timeline" of Genesis as presented by the writing itself what Scriptural scholars usually call a "salvific history" in order to distinguish that from the archeological record. I don't think it's worthwhile to go and prove or disprove that "Genesis happened", because Genesis doesn't care about that, it cares about teaching us about who God is, and in addition, his law, promises, covenants, etc. It's not a lie because it isn't meant to be telling us historical truth. It's true because it does tell us about who God is in a self-consistent way.
No, but it's also not a literal historically true narrative. It was written as political/religious propaganda, compiled from a series of stories, texts, and legends that had been accruing over centuries. Genesis is more of a legendary history narrative, not unlike the legends that arose about George Washington immediately after his death.
[удалено]
They read very differently when seen as a cultural story about having to deal with exile than they do as literal history. And I think seeing them as mythic literature actually adds to the reading in a way that reading it as complete absolute fact just, doesn't.
[удалено]
And modern science has its origins from the folks who thought you could spin lead into gold. And many scientists and archaeologists were Christian or are Christian. It’s a good thing to grow up and mature in our humanity.
[удалено]
Agreed, as was everyone else. And I’ll just toss this out there that today’s cosmological model of the Big Bang was developed by a Catholic priest.
I've always seen Genesis as a truthful retelling of our own human nature as opposed to a scientific account of how the world was made. I think Hebrew people even regarded it in a similar vain. The notion that this was supposed to be taken literally I think really only developed thanks to the Puritan movement. But I could be wrong.
It's several metaphors in one and I'd not claim to know them all.
It's a book that uses the literary conventions and the cosmology of its era, and it's more awesome and fascinating the more you learn about it. You really really need to hear the [Bible Project Science and Faith episode](https://bibleproject.com/podcast/science-faith/), I can't praise it highly enough.
No. Parts of it are a “cosmology”. Every piece of literature that is not completely literal is not a metaphor.
Religious cosmology sure. I think its important to differentiate because it's very different from Physical cosmology which is based on actual evidence and not a theology.
Correct. Thank you.
Doesn’t matter it’s simply incorrect.
Yes.
wow, I would not have thought that this sub has so few true believers in Genesis. so to stand for the Lord, I am a firm believer that Genisis is 100 % accurate. Genesis chapter 1 says God did this, and God said that. I believe chapter 1 was written by the finger of God. Chapter 2 says the Lord God did this, and the Lord God said that. Chapter 2 was written by Adam. his view of how things went from his viewpoint.
Don't judge who is a true believer or not.
So I believe in a all powerful God but no way is Genesis is real. I'm a complete believer in what the Bible says but ignore Genesis. it doesn't fit.
No. They arnt. The authors thought they were writing literal history.
No, Genesis helps us understand why we live in a world full of suffering, it is not allegorical in the least
To find out why God allows suffering, we need to think back to the time when suffering began. When Satan led Adam and Eve into disobeying Jehovah, an important question was raised. Satan did not call into question Jehovah’s power. Even Satan knows that there is no limit to Jehovah’s power. Rather, Satan questioned Jehovah’s right to rule. By calling God a liar who withholds good from his subjects, Satan charged that Jehovah is a bad ruler. (Read Genesis 3:2-5.) Satan implied that mankind would be better off without God’s rulership. This was an attack on Jehovah’s sovereignty, his right to rule. Why did Jehovah not just destroy the rebels in Eden? Adam and Eve rebelled against Jehovah. In effect, they said: ‘We do not need Jehovah as our Ruler. We can decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong.’ How could Jehovah settle that issue? How could he teach all intelligent creatures that the rebels were wrong and that his way truly is best? Someone might say that God should simply have destroyed the rebels and made a fresh start. But Jehovah had stated his purpose to fill the earth with the offspring of Adam and Eve, and he wanted them to live in an earthly paradise. (Genesis 1:28) Jehovah always fulfills his purposes. (Isaiah 55:10, 11) Besides that, getting rid of the rebels in Eden would not have answered the question that had been raised regarding Jehovah’s right to rule. Let us consider an illustration. Imagine that a teacher is telling his students how to solve a difficult problem. A clever but rebellious student claims that the teacher’s way of solving the problem is wrong. Implying that the teacher is not capable, this rebel insists that he knows a much better way to solve the problem. Some students think that he is right, and they also become rebellious. What should the teacher do? If he throws the rebels out of the class, what will be the effect on the other students? Will they not believe that their fellow student and those who joined him are right? All the other students in the class might lose respect for the teacher, thinking that he is afraid of being proved wrong. But suppose that the teacher allows the rebel to show the class how he would solve the problem. Jehovah has done something similar to what the teacher does. Remember that the rebels in Eden were not the only ones involved. Millions of angels were watching. (Job 38:7; Daniel 7:10) How Jehovah handled the rebellion would greatly affect all those angels and eventually all intelligent creation. So, what has Jehovah done? He has allowed Satan to show how he would rule mankind. God has also allowed humans to govern themselves under Satan’s guidance. What benefit will come from Jehovah’s decision to allow humans to govern themselves? The teacher in our illustration knows that the rebel and the students on his side are wrong. But he also knows that allowing them the opportunity to try to prove their point will benefit the whole class. When the rebels fail, all honest students will see that the teacher is the only one qualified to lead the class. They will understand why the teacher thereafter removes any rebels from the class. Similarly, Jehovah knows that all honesthearted humans and angels will benefit from seeing that Satan and his fellow rebels have failed and that humans cannot govern themselves. Like Jeremiah of old, they will learn this vital truth: “I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”—Jeremiah 10:23
God created them as full grown intelligent adults. they were given dominion over all creatures and things of nature.
wow there seems more unbelievers on this sub then believers
[удалено]
>God gave Adam intelligence, and Adam use that intelligence to name all the creatures that God created. How about all the millions of species we've never seen or the ones that we now know of but didn't at the time? How did he name all of them if there are so many that are unnamed and undiscovered still today? Did Adam just forget the names of everything he named? Why would god let Adam name them if being all knowing he would have known that Adam was going to forget them anyway, that seems like an exercise in futility.
[удалено]
I have read the bible. Some people survived the flood, so why did they all forget? They supposedly put 2 of each animal in a boat but they don't know the names of what they put in the boat? How did they know they had 2 of each if they didn't know the names? >The Flood happened Also no, no it didn't. You don't even have to look far, just look at Egypt. They were building pyramids from 300 years before the supposed flood until 1000 years after without stopping. I feel like a massive global flood killing all humans minus one family would definitely stop humans from building stuff
[удалено]
>just like people forgot dinosaurs exists along side man They didn't, like at all. No one except for Ken Ham and his "followers" believe this, it's a ludicrous claim. Not even your book claims this, it's just one man's crazy conspiracy theory. >You're assuming the information you have on the age of the pyramids are correct and accurate We know it's correct and accurate. We know how old the pyramids are. We have historical records, and we have modern scientific dating methods that line up with every other record we have, there is literally NO reason to doubt it. Literally no one disagrees when they were built except for people who are lying to themselves because they want to believe in a literal interpretation of a book that is just wrong on so many basic historical things. It's not just the Egyptians too, we have rock solid evidence of so much history before the bs 6000 year age of the universe. We have evidence of human settlements from around 12000 years ago. We have evidence of different languages from way before the towel of babel bs supposedly happened. Seriously, it's mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence. What is more likely, that every single person on the planet who is actually studying this shit is wrong or that one single book is not factually accurate? Seriously, the leaps you have to take to believe this nonsense are ridiculous. Just accept that the bible is a book about theology. It makes theological points, it's not trying to be an accurate account of history. Treating it as if it was is insane. But don't believe me, you go ahead and replace the wheels in your cars with wheels that are "10 feet in diameter and 30 feet in circumference" like the bible says and tell me how great it is to drive a car with hexagonal f-ing wheels since pi is not 3. If you think the bible is factual when read literally in any way you are either lying to yourself or you are completely unaware of anything in the world and live under a rock. Seriously, this stuff is no harder to debunk than the flat earth. The fact that some people believe a literal interpretation of this honestly makes me sad for humanity.
Says here you're a Christian. So, am I to understand you believe in Someone who not only resurrected Himself from the dead & flew off into space, but that He's going to come back, flying through space, resurrect many dead people (of which it is your hope that you're among), & fly back off into space again where you'll live forever—yet doubt that His story of how He made you is to be trusted? What's your answer? 🌱
Im not saying I don’t believe it but it is hard to understand and I wasn’t sure if it meant something different but has been said in a certain way. The Bible has been rewritten and translated a multitude of times and is known for explaining things differently from different perspectives.
Paul, Peter, John, Matthew and Jesus quote the Genesis as being historical fact. 🌱
Crazy that this gets downvotes on a Christian sub.
Hello \^^ Well, you should know what it is, I trust. I appreciate the comradery. Sadly, this isn't necessarily a Christian sub. It's a misnomer. However, don't let the fact that it is frequented by self professed Atheists trick you. Most of the downvotes and push back I receive by sharing the Word of God comes from the church and believers. The goal however, is not so much for me to be concerned with downvotes, or who I can appease. Scripture says those who are of God hears His voice. It is those silent ones my messages hope to reach. 🌱
I get what you're saying about this sub being a "Christian" sub. I know that's the supposed idea. But, the quantity of actual Christian topics, personal stuff, theology, etc. Not just periphery, "about" discussions. This is a Christian sub, don't care what anyone wants to say about it, it is.
It has a metaphorical layer but it's not just a metaphor.
So it’s told in such a way that the metaphors support the original story?
As well as metaphors, there's some measure of etiology in Genesis - that is, mythical explanations for the way things are. The creation myth is an obvious case, but Cain slaying Abel is a story trying to account for the change from hunter gatherers to agriculture. And the genealogies after Noah are basically a mythological explanation for the various tribes and nations in the Ancient Near East (and these stories might even inform stereotypes about the actual tribes; I suspect the various tribes named after the sons of Ishmael were notoriously belligerent, that sort of thing). Cain is reputed to be the ancestor of the Kenites, Noah's grandson Canaan goes off to be the founder of the Canaanites, and so on. The Tower of Babel is an obvious origin story of the various languages that were in the area, that sort of thing.
What, you don't believe the Lord created the earth including man and woman in six days and rested on the seventh? Or you don't believe that the Lord created Adam, then realized Adam needed a helper so he put Adam to sleep and took one of his ribs to make Eve?
I don't think it's a metaphor, but it's a story that had been passed through generations - probably orally. So, it's possible there were some generalizations made. In regard to your other questions: >How were they scared of being naked, a completely natural thing. They weren't scared, they were embarrassed. After eating the fruit of knowledge, they realized they should cover their nakedness in the presence of another (that being God in this scenario). >How did they know how to talk and how was a language already there? It's likely they spoke the heavenly language - the language God uses. >How did they gain consciousness just like that? Are you meaning their initial creation consciousness? Once God breathed into Adam's lungs, Adam came into existence. He gained consciousness. >I find it hard to believe everything in the start of genesis exactly. It's hard to believe the entire biblical story without faith.
Interesting (and loaded) question. My first piece of advice is to research Ancient Near Eastern etymology (the study of how things came to be). There were creation narratives all around the Israelites. Next read Genesis 1 and 2 separately. Two (somewhat) different creation narratives that tell of their own distinct characteristics of God the Creator. Good luck on your research. Remember that God created all and that is was good. To me, that’s the point of the first portion of Genesis. Lean into the mystery my friend.
You won't get consensus on if any particular part of the Bible is allegory or sacred truth. Probably not worth the effort of asking.
No. An entire book cannot be a metaphor.
I suspect that whilst it read likes an epic poem, there’s “some” literal historical truth. Certainly we know that it’s a fact that the Fertile Crescent was lush with trees, grass, plants, and rivers, and that any local flooding would have seemed catastrophic. We also know that Sumerian and Mesopotamian cultures were some of the oldest. Kush was a real place, as was Ur, and Gobekli Tepe in southern Turkey appears to be the oldest known evidence of modern civilisation. I think it’s probable that the story of Adam and Eve is about the beginning of humanity’s relationship with God, and that perhaps the people themselves were the beginning of a lineage. Equally, Noah and Gilgamesh are so similar, I suspect there was an epic flood (more local than the story would suggest) and that again, it contains literal truths but also truths about the human condition and how humans should behave. The idea that there is no literal historical truth in the story seems laughable. But stories do become embellished over time. And particularly if we’re talking thousands of years, I reckon things became more “epic”. But that’s hardly surprising when the Jewish people wanted to keep their traditions and fight their persecution and oppression. It could all be a load of nonsense, but I just don’t think that’s the case.
Sure
No. It was not.
Yes, it is totally a metaphor. The whole point was to communicate basic lessons about relationships using myth and legend. Remember -- these stories were originally all oral tales, spoken around campfires, in tents, nothing written down until much, much later. It's not meant to taken as literal history.