History of the human race.

[Ross]

Is humanity really only six thousand years old?

[historia]

We have Matthew and Luke arguing against your viewpoint though and providing scripture containing the genealogies that you reject as myth and legend.

I'm not certain what your argument is here.

It's also not clear to me why interpreting a specific passage of the Bible in a non-literal way would somehow constitute "rejecting" it, as you seem to be suggesting. Consider, for example, that Matthew and Luke quote Jesus' parables. Parables are not meant to be interpreted literally, as they are allegories. If you don't interpret Jesus' parables literally, are you "rejecting" Matthew and Luke?

Perhaps this will help:

What I mean is the bible traces the geneology of various historical figures including King David and Jesus of Nazareth. If they were historical but the genelogical listings were symbolic somewhere there had to be the jump from the mythical to the historical.

Correct.

So if Eve , for example, was symbolic and didnt exist, but Eve's grandchild did, did a mythical woman at some point give birth to a historical baby?

So, what we need to recognize here is that ancient genealogies were not intended as historical records that simply delineated blood relationships. Rather, they often connected people who had some social, political, or religious importance to the compiler of the genealogy, whether they were strictly in a father-son relationship or not.

Probably the most useful analysis on this topic is Robert Wilson's Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (1977). After carefully examining various oral and ancient Near Eastern (e.g., Sumerian, Akkadian, Israelite) genealogies, he concludes (pgs 97, 99):

Many of the biblical genealogies we have examined exhibit some sort of formal fluidity. Names are added to or omitted from otherwise parallel versions of the genealogies, and in some cases the genealogical relations of the names themselves are changed. The phenomenon of telescoping, which is common in the anthropological and Near Eastern material, is lacking in the biblical examples we treated, but telescoping does occur in other biblical genealogies -- compare, for example, the genealogy of Moses in Exod. 6:16-20 with the geneaology of Moses' contemporary, Joshua (1 Chron. 7:22-27). In some cases (Gen. 5:1-5; 36:9-43), formal fluidity seems to have functional significance, while in other cases (Gen. 5:12-27), the fluidity may have resulted because the names involved no longer had a genealogical function.

. . .

Our work on biblical, as well as extra-biblical, genealogies indicates that genealogies are not normally created for the purpose of conveying historical information. They are not intended to be historical records. Rather, in the Bible, as well as in the ancient Near Eastern literature and in the anthropological material, genealogies seem to have been created and preserved for domestic, politico-jural, and religious purposes, and historical information is preserved in the genealogies only incidentally. In general, the makers of genealogies are not historians.

Parts of the genealogies in the Bible almost certainly reflect actual historical information involving fathers and sons. Sometimes, however, a genealogy will engage in what Wilson calls "telescoping," where it skips generations (cf., 1 Chr. 6:47 with Ezra 8:18). So, even when we're dealing with historical figures in a genealogy, we can't assume they are strictly father and son.

And, at some point, the genealogy can only go back so far before we reach the limits of human memory within a culture's oral tradition. And so any figure listed before the oldest remembered historical person -- say, Abraham -- is going to be a symbolic or literary figure.

Needless to say, it's not that a symbolic person gave birth to a real person. But rather that the author of the genealogy has taken a pre-existing literary figure and metaphorically designated him the 'father' of the oldest remembered historical person. This is a literary construct.

[Bible_Student]

A genealogy is what it is.

[JehovahsWitness]

...at some point, the genealogy can only go back so far before we reach the limits of human memory within a culture's oral tradition.

Or written and oral traditions directed under the influence of God's spirit provided and preserved accutate historical details we can have confidence in.


Further Reading: Insight on the Scriptures Vol I p. 916
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001647



RELATED POSTS

Are there mythical figures in the biblical genealogical listings?
viewtopic.php?p=1153461#p1153461

Why are there apparent discrepencies in the genealogy of Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 76#p832376

How did Matthew count his genealogical listings?
viewtopic.php?p=870155#p870155

How many generations? 41 or 42? (scroll down a little)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 29#p808429

Did Luke actually write the words Joseph "son of" Heli?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 38#p808438

To read more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , GENEALOGY and ... AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

[Ross]

I'm not certain what your argument is here.

Thank you for your answer. Your explanation is new to me and is something I will need to ponder on and investigate further.

However, in the meantime; my argument seems to be answered and attested to by Mathews genealogy in his first chapter; and please note the highlighted words:



This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,

Isaac the father of Jacob,

Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,

3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,

Perez the father of Hezron,

Hezron the father of Ram,

4 Ram the father of Amminadab,

Amminadab the father of Nahshon,

Nahshon the father of Salmon,

5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,

Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,

Obed the father of Jesse,

6 and Jesse the father of King David.

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,

7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,

Rehoboam the father of Abijah,

Abijah the father of Asa,

8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,

Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,

Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,

Jotham the father of Ahaz,

Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,

10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,

Manasseh the father of Amon,

Amon the father of Josiah,

11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

12 After the exile to Babylon:

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,

Abihud the father of Eliakim,

Eliakim the father of Azor,

14 Azor the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Akim,

Akim the father of Elihud,

15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,

Eleazar the father of Matthan,

Matthan the father of Jacob,

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

[Ross]

I'm not certain what your argument is here.

Thank you for your answer. Your explanation is new to me and is something I will need to ponder on and investigate further.

However, in the meantime; my argument seems to be answered and attested to by Mathews genealogy in his first chapter; and please note the highlighted words:



This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac,

Isaac the father of Jacob,

Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,

3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,

Perez the father of Hezron,

Hezron the father of Ram,

4 Ram the father of Amminadab,

Amminadab the father of Nahshon,

Nahshon the father of Salmon,

5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,

Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,

Obed the father of Jesse,

6 and Jesse the father of King David.

David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,

7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam,

Rehoboam the father of Abijah,

Abijah the father of Asa,

8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,

Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,

Jehoram the father of Uzziah,

9 Uzziah the father of Jotham,

Jotham the father of Ahaz,

Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,

10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,

Manasseh the father of Amon,

Amon the father of Josiah,

11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah[c] and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

12 After the exile to Babylon:

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

13 Zerubbabel the father of Abihud,

Abihud the father of Eliakim,

Eliakim the father of Azor,

14 Azor the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Akim,

Akim the father of Elihud,

15 Elihud the father of Eleazar,

Eleazar the father of Matthan,

Matthan the father of Jacob,

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

If one does not accept these New Testament and Gospel statements, and concludes that they are not literal; is this not a case of attempting to explain away the most clear worded accounts because they do not fit in to ones alternative viewpoint?

[historia]

I'm not certain what your argument is here.

Thank you for your answer. Your explanation is new to me and is something I will need to ponder on and investigate further.

However, in the meantime; my argument seems to be answered and attested to by Mathews genealogy in his first chapter; and please note the highlighted words:

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

. . .

Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.

What I was hoping you would take away from my last post was this:

Parts of the genealogies in the Bible almost certainly reflect actual historical information involving fathers and sons.

Citing a single genealogy -- especially one from Abraham to Jesus -- doesn't, in itself, rebut the point that some of the figures in some biblical geologies may be symbolic.

JW had some interesting things to say above, which are worth considering further:

Or written and oral traditions directed under the influence of God's spirit provided and preserved accutate historical details we can have confidence in.

Okay, but we need to recognize that a lot -- I mean a lot -- of that oral and written tradition employs poetry, parables, apocalyptic imagery, and other literary conventions that were never meant to be interpreted literally. That's true even when the text as we have it concerns historical people, places, and events, and therefore preserves some accurate historical details. The Bible is not a straight-forward historical account.

Further Reading: Insight on the Scriptures Vol I p. 916
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001647

So, that article makes some of the same points that Wilson did above (see post #31). If we read the genealogies of the Bible literally, then we run into contradictions.

We have to recognize that sometimes when a genealogy refers to "Y the son of X" it doesn't literally mean that Y is the direct, biological son of X. X could be Y's grandfather or great-grandfather. As we see in some other Near Eastern examples, too, "Y son of X" can mean Y is the successor to X as ruler, even if they aren't blood relations. X can also be a symbolic figure that represents a nation or profession.

The question here, then, is not whether we should read the genealogies literally or not. Unless you're cool with biblical contradictions, everyone is reading these genealogies non-literally to one degree or another. The questions is simply to what degree should we read each genealogy non-literally.

[Difflugia]

If one does not accept these New Testament and Gospel statements, and concludes that they are not literal; is this not a case of attempting to explain away the most clear worded accounts because they do not fit in to ones alternative viewpoint?

You mean like bending over backwards to harmonize texts that are obviously contradictory and cannot be inerrant?

Reducing any critical approach to the text as "attempting to explain away" the meaning of the text is either disingenuous or monumentally naive. Trying to read a father of Mary or a Levirate marriage into the text is no less a subversion of the literal meaning of "clear worded accounts" than any legitimately critical approach. If Heli isn't literally Joseph's father, then you've already lost your own game.

Unless your goal is to simply look into a mirror, your approach should be to ask what the author wants his or her reader to understand from the text. This is especially true if you think that God is real and inspired the text to read exactly as it does. Why did the author of Matthew (or God Himself) include the fictional character Ruth in the genealogy? If you instead simply deny that he (or He) did so, then you're simply rejecting the theological allegory that the author so carefully placed there and shoehorning your own theology in there.

The authors wrote what they wrote. Asking why is always valid, especially when the alternative is creating your own story to preserve your own dogma. Crediting the author with literary competence is hardly "explain[ing] away" the meaning of the text.