Genesis (Literal or Not)?

[POI]

Taken from post 359 of here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2#p1139292)

Apparently, 'scholarly' debate still exists as to whether or not Genesis, (especially chapters 1-11), are meant to be a literal account of events or not?

For debate:

1) Is Genesis meant to be a literal account of events, as written, or not? The reason I do not specify is because I have even debated theists who claim the resurrection was not a literal event. Hence, we will first need to see where each theist thinks the Genesis account is literal, versus not? Please also provide scholarly evidence to support your answer where applicable.
2) Should God be pleased with his lack in clear communication here? Many have fallen away from the Bible, because such claims do not comport with their reality. If God's intent for Genesis was not to be literal, why do so many Bible scholars think God's message was literal? Further, if God's intent is to bring people to him, why give an unclear message which instead causes many to fall away, due to not aligning with their reality?

[Difflugia]

1) Is Genesis meant to be a literal account of events, as written, or not? Please provide scholarly evidence to support your answer.

First, considering that you haven't provided such "scholarly evidence" to support your own assertion that it is "meant to be a literal account of events," it seems a bit premature to criticize others' lack of doing so.

Second, Genesis is a large document containing stories fitting multiple genres from at least four main sources, some lesser ones, and several redactors over its history. To present your question as a binary is at best a mistake. Rescuing your original thread would probably be better served by attempting to redefine or narrow your original question. Scholars will be unified in answering your question with a no, if for no other reason than the only alternative you've presented is yes.

Genesis 1 is derived from the Babylonian account of Marduk defeating the personification of chaos, Tiamat, in combat and forming the Cosmos from her material body. The purpose of this account is to differentiate the Israelite conception of a god that is in control of the cosmic chaos through His divine will alone rather than a cosmic battle. This is clearly and obviously a theological statement. Since your question is about what was "meant" and not how any group, historical or modern, might interpret such a narrative, the answer to your question can only be no.

Since you insist on quotes from scholars, it's pretty clear to me that you haven't read what any have written on the topic. No scholar treats Genesis 1-11 as having been intended by its authors has literal in the sense of a scientific cosmology. Indeed, I challenge you to find me one. Instead, scholars barely countenance the possibility that the cosmology as presented in Genesis could be intended by its authors as literal in the modern sense and, since they are predominantly talking to other scholars, feel no need to refute it. I tried to find a few quotes that sufficiently distill this idea in a way that you'd accept. I hope these suffice:

Gerhard von Rad, Genesis:

These sentences cannot be easily overinterpreted theologically! Indeed, to us the danger appears greater that the expositor will fall short of discovering the concentrated doctrinal content. Today’s reader, preoccupied with the problem of faith and knowledge, must be careful not to read such tensions into the text. Without doubt, there is to be found here a great deal of the knowledge of the origin of the world that had been worked out and taught at the time, and as knowledge it is largely obsolete today. But this knowledge does not come under discussion here for its own sake; it is there, rather, as an aid towards making detailed statements about God’s creation.

Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary:

The Primeval History, in contrast to what follows in Genesis, cultivates a kind of narrative that is fablelike or legendary, and sometimes residually mythic. The human actors in these stories are kept at a certain distance, and seem more generalized types than individual characters with distinctive personal histories.

John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology:

Cognitive environment can be inferred and reconstructed from noncontemporary cultures only through three resources: the texts that are left to us, artifacts that archaeology exhumes, and the iconography found on objects and architecture from the ancient world. As with any other attempt to place ideas in context, comparing and contrasting the cognitive environment are both important. One of the most obvious dangers in this process is that we impose our modern cognitive environment on the ancients simply because we have failed to recognize that our own categories are not relevant to the ancients’ way of thinking. For instance, it was long claimed that Enuma Elish should not be considered a creation text because nothing was actually “made” by Marduk. This claim arises out of a basic assumption that the ancient understanding of the creative act should correspond to our own—or even more so, that creative activity can only be construed in one way (our modern way!). Consequently, the first important guideline to bear in mind is that we cannot seek to construe their world in our terms.

2) Should God be pleased with his lack in clear communication here?

Even if we assume that some god is responsible for any of the Bible texts, I don't think God's the one responsible for a lack of clarity. The constraints placed on the texts by some modern Christian readers, such as accurate historicity and univocality (let alone inerrancy) are simply not evident from the texts themselves. No reasonable person, ancient or modern, should be able to read that Ishmael was Abraham's son, yet conclude that the Ishmaelites were historically an entire ethnicity two generations later when Joseph was taken to Egypt. The problem is one of overall comprehension, not a lack of divine clarity.

Many have fallen away from the Bible, because such claims do not comport with their reality

The claims you're talking about aren't apparent in the texts themselves. If I told you that Winnie the Pooh is a literally true narrative and I find that you later correctly divine otherwise and "have fallen away from" the book, is that A. A. Milne's fault?

If God's intent for Genesis was not to be literal, why do so many Bible scholars think God's message was literal?

Unless we expand the term "scholar" so as to make it meaningless, I suspect that this number is literally zero.

Further, if God's intent is to bring people to him, why give an unclear message which instead causes many to fall away, due to not aligning with their reality?

If that were God's intent, why did he create people to be so credulous in the first place?

[TRANSPONDER]

I'd sorta agree - that Genesis may be taken literally (and deny science that undermines it) or not take it literally (accepting the science). It is not 'Believe or not'.

The knock - on being, if Genesis is not taken as literal, what is? Exodus is now called into question. Daniel has been called into question. The Conquest has been called into question. Much of the OT has been questioned. The prophecy of Tyre failed. That is not even true, let alone literal.

Is the NT literal or not? It has been called into question, too. And for good reason. The Passover Exchange' custom is never heard of in Josephus or any other record. One had to doubt that it was ever a thing. The Blasphemy charge makes no sense - except to a Christian. One has to doubt that the Sanhedrin would ever come up with such a charge - even as a stitch -up.

In short, one who opts for a non - literal Genesis ought, in intellectual integrity - to question the rest of the Bible, too.

[POI]

Is that the point of focus then? To show that the questions cannot be answered?

No.

-- The first point was to determine if Genesis was meant to be literal, as written, or not. You do not know. Which means the Bible is unclear. Even for someone as well read as yourself.

-- The second point essentially asks -- (is it unreasonable for people fall away from the Bible after reading Genesis and then seeing that such claims do not align with their reality)? Also asked below.

My question re these questions is "Can these questions be answered outside the structure of personal opinion?" and currently (as I understand) the answer is "No they can not."

Then God is not clear. Unlike the fact that it is not personal opinion that you and I are having a discussion, unless you wish to adopt solipsism.

What is "not subjective"? The question? The answers? Both the questions and any answers?

The answer as to whether or not Genesis is meant to be literal, as written. The answer is binary. The author either meant for these events to be literal, as written, or not. Which one is it? If you cannot answer, then your believed book is not clear.

So if that is true, we can only answer that if "yes", then (such and such) or if "no" then (such and such.) but either answer would still be personal opinion, would it not?

Please harken back to the top of the OP. This question needs an answer before we can address the other thread of whether or not science debunks the Bible?

But I plainly did answer. I wrote that Genesis does not state whether the stories are to be taken literally or not. Therefore it is clear that the stories can (at least) be taken either way, producing whatever effect such beliefs would evidently evolve.

For which I also plainly responded:

Is the Bible based upon literal/actual events, or not? If <yes>, then if the Bible does not say otherwise to a specific claim, then why is Genesis not also meant to be literal/actual? If <no> to the aforementioned question, then "game over".

I'm asking <you>. (5th attempt). Is Genesis meant to be literal, as written, or not? You still have not answered.

Yet clearly one could also conclude that I ]opted to avoid repeating myself (by responding initially) only to have that ignored/misinterpreted/et al.

You have not answered the question. It's a simple <yes or no> question. You remain neutral/other, while providing excuses, which either means you admit the Bible is not clear, or you do not wish to answer the simple <yes or no> question.

What makes you think that?

Explained above:

This question needs an answer before we can address the other thread about science debunking the Bible?

For example, one of the first stories of Genesis has it that some voice in a garden claiming to be "God" gave out some instructions to a pair of human beings.
If one is to take that literally, what current scientific knowledge be able to used to explain that happening?
And if not taken literally, why bother using current scientific knowledge or even ask any scientists the question?

Start with Genesis 2. Was Adam the first human? Many deny evolutionary biology to favor the literal account.

Or how about Genesis 6-9... Litteral flood event (with described details) or not? If literal, was it a local event, or global? Was it a few thousand years ago, or longer? Science denial prevails in many, to favor the literal claims of the Bible about these claims.

But the underlying question appears to be "Why didn't God make things a lot clearer in Genesis if it is to be taken literally?" and a sensible answer does not appear to even need to be presented by scientists because it is not a question of science, but comes from an atheist.

Again, the question needs an answer before one can sensibly attempt to answer the question of the other thread. And here we are, many exchanges and no <yes or no> given.

My answer to the question "Why didn't God make things a lot clearer in Genesis if it is to be taken literally?" would be.
1. It is not meant to be taken literally, therefore God didn't need to "make things a lot clearer".
2. It is meant to be taken literally, therefore it is clear enough.

re 2. It would have to be shown where in Genesis, things are not clear enough that we should take those things literally.

So perhaps that is a better place to start. What are you asking about that should or shouldn't' be taken literally re Genesis, or are you meaning the whole book?

You finally kinda answered, after adding spin.

1. Again, if the Book is a collection to claimed actual events, then how do you know these claims are not meant to be taken literally?

re 2., Is it unreasonable for people to fall away from the Bible after reading Genesis and then seeing that such claims do not align with their reality?

[POI]

First, considering that you haven't provided such "scholarly evidence" to support your own assertion that it is "meant to be a literal account of events," it seems a bit premature to criticize others' lack of doing so.

If you have been following the other thread (up to post 359), for which this topic has been then born, you would get the context. After debate of the other topic i.e. (does science debunk the Bible?), seems that topic will fundamentally go nowhere until we at least get Genesis sorted out. And I'm genuinely open to either interpretation (literal or not). I just want the right answer. If a position is presented, I may or may not provide push-back. I am remaining agnostic, until further notice. As I reminded another, in the other thread in question. Think of a gumball machine... Two folks are asked... Is the number of gumballs odd or even? One states "even", the other states "odd". One of them is right. But unless one of them essentially break the machine and counts them in front of me, I may remain agnostic and scrutinize either answer accordingly. The Tanager states this topic is of "scholarly" debate. I would agree, in part. For science to have a chance of debunking the Bible, we first need to know if the claims in the Bible, which are placed forth, CAN be challenged by science. I was under the impression everyone was on the same page, but maybe not? I thought I did a decent job in directly tying this thread to the other. Maybe not well enough? My bad! post 359 (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2#p1139292)

Second, Genesis is a large document containing stories fitting multiple genres from at least four main sources, some lesser ones, and several redactors over its history. To present your question as a binary is at best a mistake. Rescuing your original thread would probably be better served by attempting to redefine or narrow your original question. Scholars will be unified in answering your question with a no, if for no other reason than the only alternative you've presented is yes.

Well, this is what debate is for. Some may disagree with you. I opted to instead start generally, and then dive into specifics, where needed. I've even debated theists who claim the resurrection is not a literal claim However, I have started to get more specific with William in post 13.

Even if we assume that some god is responsible for any of the Bible texts, I don't think God's the one responsible for a lack of clarity. The constraints placed on the texts by some modern Christian readers, such as accurate historicity and univocality (let alone inerrancy) are simply not evident from the texts themselves. No reasonable person, ancient or modern, should be able to read that Ishmael was Abraham's son, yet conclude that the Ishmaelites were historically an entire ethnicity two generations later when Joseph was taken to Egypt. The problem is one of overall comprehension, not a lack of divine clarity.

But the entire point of this thread is to be a precursor to whether or not science debunks the Bible? Many believe it does. Many read these stories in Genesis, and beyond, and think so. If God's intent is to provide a book to draw one closer, why aid in a book which does the opposite for many? God is not responsible for such thought? Even the dumb knows some of God's desires and wishes. Seems odd he chooses to remain vague about a topic which drives many away. Further, God can make his message clear, above all humans.

The claims you're talking about aren't apparent in the texts themselves. If I told you that Winnie the Pooh is a literally true narrative and I find that you later correctly divine otherwise and "have fallen away from" the book, is that A. A. Milne's fault?

The Bible is apparently a collection of events which happened. Winnie the Pooh is not. If some of these events are later determined not to be actual events, we are to ask why they are actually not literal claims. Before the scientific revolution, how many more do you think took Genesis literally?

If that were God's intent, why did he create people to be so credulous in the first place?

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #13]

The author either meant for these events to be literal, as written, or not. Which one is it? If you cannot answer, then your believed book is not clear.

This is were things get cloudy. I am not approaching the question of the book as "my believed book" (believed in what way? That it is literal?) but rather, as to its clarity in its story form.
It seems clear enough, either taken literally or not or to remain undecided and therefore cannot answer simply "yes" or "no".

The author is long gone and so cannot be approached for any answer on said question. No one can answer the question if it means the author has to be questioned.

Thus, only personal opinion can give an answer and given the variables, the bests answer is that it is unknown what the author intended the listener should take his words as, literal, figurative or even a mix of both.

You have not answered the question. It's a simple <yes or no> question. You remain neutral/other, while providing excuses, which either means you admit the Bible is not clear, or you do not wish to answer the simple <yes or no> question.

This is a common complaint about the agnostic position, but as I have shown, the answer cannot just be a "yes" or a "no".

Start with Genesis 2. Was Adam the first human? Many deny evolutionary biology to favor the literal account.

Agnostically speaking, given the information in Genesis 1 I am inclined to answer "no" because there is reference to a possible - other humans being created - event which could imply an alignment with the theory of evolution - which - an agnostic position tends to agree with having happened.

The story of Adam and Eve taken literally still does not imply some supernatural occurrences side-stepping biological evolution because we know enough about science to understand that things can be planted in gardens (so to speak) and it is possible that some kind of advanced science was involved - using material already made available to biogenetically cultivate different lifeforms.

However, religious folk don't venture into such possibilities because of the beliefs they already have, and notably - nor do materialists. But Agnostics think of those beliefs as "safe places for folk to dwell" and will venture down such paths of possibility because Agnostics are not encumbered by beliefs, "one way or the other".

Or how about Genesis 6-9... Litteral flood event (with described details) or not? If literal, was it a local event, or global? Was it a few thousand years ago, or longer? Science denial prevails in many, to favor the literal claims of the Bible about these claims.

For sure, but so what? How do such beliefs effect the world in any more harmful ways than scientists have contributed to the harmful effects on said world with their experiments?

How would it help the world to know that the Genesis Flood is not to be believed in as a literal event?

1. Again, if the Book is a collection to claimed actual events, then how do you know these claims are not meant to be taken literally?

The answer is that if the book is a collection to claimed actual events, then why should they not be taken literally?
But first it has to be established that the book is a collection to claimed actual events. Otherwise how can your question be answered?

re 2., Is it unreasonable for people to fall away from the Bible after reading Genesis and then seeing that such claims do not align with their reality?

What exactly do you mean by "fall away from the Bible"?

If you mean "no longer believe in it" then should this include all the bible, or just Genesis? Also, is the non-belief the same as saying "don't believe in it literally" or something else?

[POI]

This is were things get cloudy. I am not approaching the question of the book as "my believed book" (believed in what way? That it is literal?) but rather, as to its clarity in its story form.

Somehow, I doubt it would be cloudy if science actually corresponded with such claims in question.

It seems clear enough, either taken literally or not or to remain undecided and therefore cannot answer simply "yes" or "no".

See my answer directly above.

The author is long gone and so cannot be approached for any answer on said question. No one can answer the question if it means the author has to be questioned.

Normally, I would agree with you. But you have shot yourself in the foot here.

You also claim you speak to Him. Is this a lie? Why don't you simply ask him? Funny how other Christians here provided verse, from the same collection of books, which state:

But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it will be given to him.
James 1:5

Can you ask Him, or is this just metaphor/allegory too? Enquiring minds want to know? Was the earth created earlier? Was Adam the first human? Was the Tower of Babel literal? Was the flood literal? Was The Exodus an actual event? etc etc etc etc etc?

Thus, only personal opinion can give an answer and given the variables, the bests answer is that it is unknown what the author intended the listener should take his words as, literal, figurative or even a mix of both.

False. You can ask him and relay to all of us the answer.

Agnostically speaking, given the information in Genesis 1 I am inclined to answer "no" because there is reference to a possible - other humans being created - event which could imply an alignment with the theory of evolution - which - an agnostic position tends to agree with having happened.

The story of Adam and Eve taken literally still does not imply some supernatural occurrences side-stepping biological evolution because we know enough about science to understand that things can be planted in gardens (so to speak) and it is possible that some kind of advanced science was involved - using material already made available to biogenetically cultivate different lifeforms.

However, religious folk don't venture into such possibilities because of the beliefs they already have, and notably - nor do materialists. But Agnostics think of those beliefs as "safe places for folk to dwell" and will venture down such paths of possibility because Agnostics are not encumbered by beliefs, "one way or the other".

Rather than guess, you have direct access. Just ask him and then relay that information here. Problem quickly solved. Unless you admit the Bible verse above is inaccurate.

What exactly do you mean by "fall away from the Bible"?

As this thread was started from the other thread "does science debunk the Bible?"

[TRANSPONDER]

It does not help - indeed is a fundamental flaw in Theist thought - to appeal to far -fetched (but undisprovable 'possibles' (like advance technology that makes the Eden garden work). But the problem with Genesis is that it contradicted by science, even if one posits some advanced technology (aka a a divine miracle) and the entire point is unacceptable and morally wrong and the acts of a psychotic dictator. For this, and other reasons, the Genesis account (for starters) is open to serious doubt either as literal history or as any kind of credible dogma. And if Genesis (along with the Flood) fails, then the rest of the Bible is open to doubt and question and doubt and question is corrosive to Faith, which is all the Bible, God and Christianity is based on.

[POI]

It does not help - indeed is a fundamental flaw in Theist thought - to appeal to far -fetched (but undisprovable 'possibles' (like advance technology that makes the Eden garden work). But the problem with Genesis is that it contradicted by science, even if one posits some advanced technology (aka a a divine miracle) and the entire point is unacceptable and morally wrong and the acts of a psychotic dictator. For this, and other reasons, the Genesis account (for starters) is open to serious doubt either as literal history or as any kind of credible dogma. And if Genesis (along with the Flood) fails, then the rest of the Bible is open to doubt and question and doubt and question is corrosive to Faith, which is all the Bible, God and Christianity is based on.

William seems to have pause about debate question (2), as if it is not clear... And yet, this entire thread is based upon the other thread, which is self-explanatory. You believe, along with many others, that science debunks the Bible. Hence, it would not be logical to remain in belief. Working from the claims in Genesis, and beyond, unless one-hell-of-an-apologist can explain away a heap of claims, it looks as though science does not comport with claims from the Bible, (if they are indeed literal). So I ask... Are such claims literal? So far, nothing much meaningful. And this is to also spite the fact that William claims direct access to the almighty, and is also backed by Bible scripture to boot.

[TRANSPONDER]

It does not help - indeed is a fundamental flaw in Theist thought - to appeal to far -fetched (but undisprovable 'possibles' (like advance technology that makes the Eden garden work). But the problem with Genesis is that it contradicted by science, even if one posits some advanced technology (aka a a divine miracle) and the entire point is unacceptable and morally wrong and the acts of a psychotic dictator. For this, and other reasons, the Genesis account (for starters) is open to serious doubt either as literal history or as any kind of credible dogma. And if Genesis (along with the Flood) fails, then the rest of the Bible is open to doubt and question and doubt and question is corrosive to Faith, which is all the Bible, God and Christianity is based on.

William seems to have pause about debate question (2), as if it is not clear... And yet, this entire thread is based upon the other thread, which is self-explanatory. You believe, along with many others, that science debunks the Bible. Hence, it would not be logical to remain in belief. Working from the claims in Genesis, and beyond, unless one-hell-of-an-apologist can explain away a heap of claims, it looks as though science does not comport with claims from the Bible, (if they are indeed literal). So I ask... Are such claims literal? So far, nothing much meaningful. And this is to also spite the fact that William claims direct access to the almighty, and is also backed by Bible scripture to boot.

I read William's post a couple of times and it is very foggy. I tried to get a meaningful starting -point but the metaphysical prowling about just looks like making no real point if not just something I've seen a number of times - trying to make all knowledge speculation in hopes to make a theist claim seem more substantial. Which it doesn't, even if one is not talking about a specific god.

[POI]

It does not help - indeed is a fundamental flaw in Theist thought - to appeal to far -fetched (but undisprovable 'possibles' (like advance technology that makes the Eden garden work). But the problem with Genesis is that it contradicted by science, even if one posits some advanced technology (aka a a divine miracle) and the entire point is unacceptable and morally wrong and the acts of a psychotic dictator. For this, and other reasons, the Genesis account (for starters) is open to serious doubt either as literal history or as any kind of credible dogma. And if Genesis (along with the Flood) fails, then the rest of the Bible is open to doubt and question and doubt and question is corrosive to Faith, which is all the Bible, God and Christianity is based on.

William seems to have pause about debate question (2), as if it is not clear... And yet, this entire thread is based upon the other thread, which is self-explanatory. You believe, along with many others, that science debunks the Bible. Hence, it would not be logical to remain in belief. Working from the claims in Genesis, and beyond, unless one-hell-of-an-apologist can explain away a heap of claims, it looks as though science does not comport with claims from the Bible, (if they are indeed literal). So I ask... Are such claims literal? So far, nothing much meaningful. And this is to also spite the fact that William claims direct access to the almighty, and is also backed by Bible scripture to boot.

I read William's post a couple of times and it is very foggy. I tried to get a meaningful starting -point but the metaphysical prowling about just looks like making no real point if not just something I've seen a number of times - trying to make all knowledge speculation in hopes to make a theist claim seem more substantial. Which it doesn't, even if one is not talking about a specific god.

What is odd is that he tells me we can only guess, while also claiming to have direct access to ask him. I even gave him a Bible verse which sides with him. Funny how we will soon read excuses as to why this does not apply Likely not much different than to suggest that my straightforward question is answered in cloudiness. But of course, not because of science.