Reading the Bible: Genesis - Creation (again) and Fall

Author: Discipulus_Didicit

Posts

Total: 91
#31
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit

The first thing in chapter two is Gods famous weekend break on the seventh day. Based on this the chapter seems to be a continuation of the story in the first chapter, but the very next thing that happens is the creation of all plant life, which of course happened already during the last chapter. If this is a retelling of the same story then I am curious as to why the first three verses of chapter two were not put instead at the end of chapter one. This is just poor formatting on the part of either the people that originally recorded these stories or one of the people in the line of translators from the original to the modern versions and I would like if it was more clear in the book itself whether this is a review, a retelling, a continuation, or what. Today we can use the internet to instantly get information like that directly from people that spent their entire lifetimes studying this book, but it is not at all clear just from a basic reading of the actual text.

God takes a break from creating - not from working. How is it a contradiction? Is it supposed to be chronological? I.E. following immediately after the last part of the story. I seem to recall in chapter 1 had the plants before humanity. This is still the same order. I think it is a zoning in on the story relating to the creation of man. It is not simply retelling chapter 1. 1 was about God and what he did. 2 is about humanity and their jobs. The chapter division was not put in by the author. It was not actually put in until many years later - after Jesus in fact - and by Christians. Division, chapters, verses etc are not part of the original Hebrew or Greek. They are additions - and not considered part of the cannon of Scripture. 

Anyway, God makes man out of some dust picked up from the ground and a rough geography lesson in regards to the location of the garden of Eden is given (bookmark this section for if we ever get a biblical literalist in here, they have a lot of explaining to do). Some foreshadowing of the fall is also included in verses 9 and 17 of chapter 2. I remember from the last time I read the Bible (and did not make it all the way through) that the authors do include lots of foreshadowing in many of their stories. In this case I think they did a pretty good job of it. They made it feel natural by working the creation of the trees of knowledge of good and evil and of life into the creation of the worlds overall vegetation so props to them on that. Someone just needs to teach them how chapters work.
As above - the chapters are not the work of the authors. 

I now think that we should take some time to talk about common understanding of the Bible and its stories. Regarding the story of the fall, the serpent in Genesis 3:1 is commonly understood in popular culture to be the fallen angel Satan despite a plain reading of the text not lending any credibility to this interpretation. There are numerous examples of technically 'incorrect' elements in Bible stories being believed to be part of the narrative that actually aren't which I will point out as we get to them in this series. It is important to acknowledge these inconsistencies in a study of the book itself despite these ideas not coming directly from the book because this book is the basis of many beliefs, and a cursory understanding of the beliefs based around the book can help to understand the greater context of some of the later parts of the book.
Yes, it is true that the serpent is regarded as Satan. This is because books prior to Gutenberg's printing press were not written the same as we write books today.  Let me try and explain my thoughts here. Before the printing press, books were rare and the only way get a copy was to hand write it out. Hence books were not necessarily written chronologically or to be read from front to back but to be read and reread in light of the rest of the book.  The idea of this being Satan was drawn not from popular thinking but from the context of the rest of the bible as it was written and handed down over the years. I dare say that in its initial reading - the Hebrews probably knew no more about it than someone today reading it for the first time. As one reads through Genesis one begins to become familiar with particular terms and "buzz words". As we read through the entire bible right down to Revelation - many of these same buzz words are mentioned over and over again. In the time of the writing of these books, they were read to be listened to - not primarily to be read. Most people did not read anyway. And people would listen and hear in one sitting. Most hopefully would not have made assessments of these initial subjects until they had heard the entirety of the story and then once they have understood - then they can draw some conclusions. 


#32
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
 
The last thing I will touch on, because this OP is way too long already, is the way in which the stories resemble fables such as those used in some other mythologies, the basic summary of many of which being "Because ______ happened, that is why we now have ______." Compare for example the Native American fable explaining why bears have short tails and make groaning noises (http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/the-legend-of-how-the-bear-lost-his-tail/) to the various things that this story claims to explain, including:
If your position is that the bible contains elements of language found in other books - then I agree with you. In other words, all cultures have stories and therefore it is not unusual to see the bible containing stories which have similar elements then we agree. If your point is that the bible has derived its stories from other cultures or that this similarity of language and elements somehow detract from its unique message and authority then I will need to you make your case. 


  • Modern agriculture (God created us for the purpose of maintaining vegetation)
  • Why animal species have names (Adam named them)
  • Why men and women leave their parents to get married and become "one flesh" (woman was created from mans flesh)
  • Why people wear clothes (Adam and at-the-time nameless woman realize nudity is inherently bad after eating of the tree of good and evil)
  • Why men perform physical labor to survive (Part of Gods curse for disobedience)
  • Why childbirth is painful (Part of Gods curse for disobedience)
  • Why serpents don't have legs (Part of Gods curse for disobedience)
  • etc.
Ok. I will continue to wait and see your responses. 

#33
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Who recorded the events and conversations in the GoE?
#34
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Tradesecret
I would say that the associating the serpent with the devil comes from typological interpretation of the bible, which was how the earliest church tended to interpret scripture. Orthodoxy still maintains this as part of church tradition.

#35
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
Who recorded the events and conversations in the GoE?
Hmmm great question.  I would think it would have to be someone who was there. God, Adam, Eve, or the Snake. 

But you use the term "record", which implies writing to some extent. I don't think that they had recording devices at the time.  Hence, I suspect it was probably handed down from Adam to his children and then on their children. I guess this might imply a fair bit of Chinese whispers. Yet, again prior to the printing press, and as we clearly acknowledge from cultures without literacy, the memory was very good, since it was used so often to recall the events of their history. 

We are informed in the OT that Moses eventually recorded most of the events in writing. Or at least collated much of what had been kept and recorded by others. Was it accurate? That is a question which can never be answered unless we have someone else who was independently writing at the same time. I don't have to make that assessment yet as I don't have all of the information. Yet, I am prepared to presume innocence until proven guilty. 

#36
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I am under the impression that traditionally it has been assumed Moses was inspired what to write by God.  I think that originally scripture would have been taken to be authored by God, even if the actual writing down was 'obviously' done by priestly scribes.  The identity of the scribe or scribes was irrelevant.  There is nothing in the text to imply moses wrote the Pentateuch - presumably it arose as a sort of early 'urban myth'!
#37
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Who recorded the events and conversations in the GoE?
Hmmm great question.  I would think it would have to be someone who was there. God, Adam, Eve, or the Snake. 
A&E&S were late starters, they weren't there for the creation of the universe, are you saying god told A&E&S what to remember?
But you use the term "record", which implies writing to some extent. I don't think that they had recording devices at the time.  Hence, I suspect it was probably handed down from Adam to his children and then on their children. I guess this might imply a fair bit of Chinese whispers. Yet, again prior to the printing press, and as we clearly acknowledge from cultures without literacy, the memory was very good, since it was used so often to recall the events of their history. 
So everything you believe is based on a SUSPICION? WOW but if that's all you've got. The whole point of chinese whispers is that the story never survives as it was originally told, after thousands of years of chinese whispers the stories are no longer credible. But keep your suspicions.
We are informed in the OT that Moses eventually recorded most of the events in writing. Or at least collated much of what had been kept and recorded by others. Was it accurate? That is a question which can never be answered unless we have someone else who was independently writing at the same time. I don't have to make that assessment yet as I don't have all of the information. Yet, I am prepared to presume innocence until proven guilty. 
Moses didn't record anything, as a fictional character he simply couldn't. The answer to the accuracy question is, as you've said, because of the evidence of chinese whispers gives them zero chance of being accurate.

#38
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@disgusted
Chinese whispers don't come into it.  If you are a believer then the scribes wrote down what was dictated to them by God.  If you a disbeliever the whole thng is just made up.   Either way the text is not a 'chinese whipered' version of what happened.
#39
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
Tradie disagrees.
#40
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Chinese whispers don't come into it.  If you are a believer then the scribes wrote down what was dictated to them by God.  If you a disbeliever the whole thng is just made up.   Either way the text is not a 'chinese whipered' version of what happened.
#41
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
Sorry Keith, 

I don't believe it was dictation. That is more of a Mormon thing. Being moved along by the spirit - is how Peter describes the role of the prophet / revelation writer.  God used sinful man in their own cultures and with their own flaws to write the perfect revelation of God. The church has never understood it to be dictation. 
#42
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
Who recorded the events and conversations in the GoE?
Hmmm great question.  I would think it would have to be someone who was there. God, Adam, Eve, or the Snake. 
A&E&S were late starters, they weren't there for the creation of the universe, are you saying god told A&E&S what to remember?
God communicated to his people. Gee who would have thought that? Duh!  Who is going to be a better eyewitness than the one who created the world? 
But you use the term "record", which implies writing to some extent. I don't think that they had recording devices at the time.  Hence, I suspect it was probably handed down from Adam to his children and then on their children. I guess this might imply a fair bit of Chinese whispers. Yet, again prior to the printing press, and as we clearly acknowledge from cultures without literacy, the memory was very good, since it was used so often to recall the events of their history. 
So everything you believe is based on a SUSPICION? WOW but if that's all you've got. The whole point of chinese whispers is that the story never survives as it was originally told, after thousands of years of chinese whispers the stories are no longer credible. But keep your suspicions.
I used the word suspect. Yet the context was that people back then did not have recording devices, which they did not. I could have used the word "know" but that would be incorrect - although it is the most likely explanation. Nor did I actually say it was Chinese whispers but was actually trying to acknowledge that some persons might take the view that story telling can only be myth and nothing more. It was a dig at persons such as yourself. Your comments are so far distracting from the op and from my points. Even if you find them amusing.  
We are informed in the OT that Moses eventually recorded most of the events in writing. Or at least collated much of what had been kept and recorded by others. Was it accurate? That is a question which can never be answered unless we have someone else who was independently writing at the same time. I don't have to make that assessment yet as I don't have all of the information. Yet, I am prepared to presume innocence until proven guilty. 
Moses didn't record anything, as a fictional character he simply couldn't. The answer to the accuracy question is, as you've said, because of the evidence of chinese whispers gives them zero chance of being accurate.

Moses is not a fictional character despite your assertion.  such an assertion requires evidence to back it up. the story of Moses in Hebrew is written in the narrative historical genre, not poetical or mythical or fictional mode. As for the Chinese whispers - I indicated above I never made that declaration - simply noted it for completeness sake because of others who would raise it. 
#43
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted
No that is untrue. I never said it was Chinese whispers. I said it might imply a fair bit of Chinese whispers - this is not the same at all. And in fact I went on to contrast modern writing with pre- printing press writing. Let me be quite clear. I don't believe it was Chinese whispers. Having said that I disagree with Keith's assertion that believers think it was dictation. That is incorrect. 
#44
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
Tradesecret is right on this, the church does not see the books of the bible as being dictated. 



#45
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
You are taking 'dictated' more literally than I intended!
#46
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
Surprise surprise.




#47
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I think it's safe to say that no one took notes of what happened on the first five days!    If it's true then God must have told the writers of Genesis what to write.   "Telling what to write" is loosely 'dictating'.

it's a bit like how sportsmen do their 'autobiographies' using a ghost writer to do the actual text - but I don't know the word for that so I said 'dictating';  it's near enough (or i thought it was near enough!)
 
#48
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
No, in fact, if you read Orthodox writings about the subject, dictating is the word they use to describe what is not happening.

And sure enough, you are going to get the personalities of the writers innjust about every book of the bible. There are 4 gospels even. 4 different accounts. If you look at the books of Kingdoms and the books of Chronicles they often times describe the same events.

It has not been an issue for us Orthodox for 2000 years. I know there is this modern attitude that people back in the day were ignorant superstitious savages, but really, people were just as intelligent back in the day, just with different toys! Different mythologies and idols even. People today are just as pagan as they were in the old days of Rome. Hey, we don't have gladiator games, but we have football. 

But the early church was composed of many who were very well educated. Besides Jews, who have always taken their education seriously, the church was composed of Greeks who were also known to take education very seriously. Even Romans in their own way.

And if you read the writings of these people, it would be hard to say that their most clever were any less clever than the most clever you find today! People really have not changed that much.

So all of tgese things the skeptics trip around and point out about the bible as a reason to disbelieve in the faith, people held the same opinions even back in the earliest days of Christianity. Many of the different gnostic sects found the old Testament in particular to be very obnoxious. 


But The Orthodox Church has never had issue with these things because we know what the scriptures are used for. We are not like The Muslims who actually do believe that the Koran was dictated by God to their "prophet". We do not elevate the bible to be an idol before God. The bible is, however, an integral part of our church tradition. 

So even if none of that makes any sense to you, get. this. The Bible is our book, and we know what we use it for. Any interpretation of the bible outside the church isn't really seen as valid to us. It is, after all, our book. It doesn't belong to secular scholars or heretics.

#49
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I'm not sure about broadening things beyond gen 1-3.   The issue - as I understand it - is whether the details of that story are 'folk memories' or 'revealed truths',  because only if they are folk tales would chinese whispers come into it.


#50
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
Genesis is a combination of ancient writings and oral tradition.

God created everything.

Mankind was made in God's image.

The first account of creation is more universal(or even Earth) orientated.

The second account of creation is more human orientated.

The taste of evil and the experience of it as such propelled mankind into going against their vocation, which was to care for and cultivate creation. The idea that one can be like God through their own will and efforts was used to tempt mankind into evil.


And you still see this today.


I think it is worth noting that these texts are used to educate a nation of priests.










Topic's author
#51
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
God takes a break from creating - not from working. How is it a contradiction? 

I don't recall saying this was any sort of 'contradiction'... It was more of a literary critique, my exact words were...

"This is just poor formatting on the part of either the people that originally recorded these stories or one of the people in the line of translators from the original to the modern versions"

The idea of this being Satan was drawn not from popular thinking but from the context of the rest of the bible as it was written and handed down over the years. I dare say that in its initial reading - the Hebrews probably knew no more about it than someone today reading it for the first time.

The earlier stories of the Bible existed long before Christianity and the modern concept of Satan began to exist. That is the reason it is not recorded as being Satan who tricked the first woman, it it is not because Genesis is placed in the same collection of stories that later mention Satan and people were expected to connect the dots. It is because the stories of Genesis existed for hundreds of years before the stories of Satan.

If your position is that the bible contains elements of language found in other books - then I agree with you. In other words, all cultures have stories and therefore it is not unusual to see the bible containing stories which have similar elements then we agree. If your point is that the bible has derived its stories from other cultures or that this similarity of language and elements somehow detract from its unique message and authority then I will need to you make your case. 

As I have mentioned in previous posts, I am not trying to prove any point at all. I am simply reading a book.

Anyone that wants to assume that it is fiction and tries to gather information and studies just to prove that idea is free to do so, but that is going to detract from their reading.

Anyone that wants to assume that it is non-fiction and tries to gather information and studies just to prove that idea is free to do so, but that is going to detract from their reading.

If reading the book from a non-presuppositionalist point of view leads to different conclusions than reading it from a presuppositionalist point of view that is not my problem. That is a problem for the presuppositionalist.
#52
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Mmmmmmmm SCRIPTURES :  you wouldn't have ya God speak anything but. 

#53
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
God speaks everything in existence.


So really, God spoke you into existence, not just scripture.


#54
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Mopac
Confirmed.
#55
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
So god didn't say "let there be light" because he didn't dictate to the author or did he dictate?
#56
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
So it is all fabricated. OK, but that's my argument.
#57
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The earlier stories of the Bible existed long before Christianity and the modern concept of Satan began to exist. That is the reason it is not recorded as being Satan who tricked the first woman, it it is not because Genesis is placed in the same collection of stories that later mention Satan and people were expected to connect the dots. It is because the stories of Genesis existed for hundreds of years before the stories of Satan.
I wouldn't put it in terms of the existence of stories.   In monotheism there is one god and that's it.  In a dualistic faith there is a good god and a bad god. 

The Hebrew were monotheistic so while individuals could do wicked things they were certainly not gods.   The serpent was one such individual.

For the Hebrew priests, Satan was a loyal servant of the one god.   Satan had no autonomy because that would have smacked of dualism, undermining the sole authority of YHWH.   Satan could not have tempted Eve unless (as in the story of Job) he was instructed to by YHWH.

However it is probable that dualism is a very natural thing to fall into and Christianty today is almost explicitly dualistic - while denying it vehemently!

But i don't think Genesis mentions a serpent not Satan just because they hadn't thought up Satan yet - it's more subtle than that.



#58
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
Christianity is not dualistic. Satan is not a foil to God.

In fact, the devil can't even overcome a man unless said man allows the. devil to.

#59
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
Scripture is creation

The God of scripture isn't.

The Word of God is not creation.

The flesh The Word inhabited is creation.

You are creation.

The God who created you and all of creation is Uncreated.

Topic's author
#60
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@keithprosser
You are correct of course, which is the reason I was careful to specifically refer to a different concept of Satan from what the authors would have believed at the time, in this case I was referring to the concept of Satan as an independent entity who is an enemy of God. That is the concept of Satan that I was referring to in the OP:

the serpent in Genesis 3:1 is commonly understood in popular culture to be the fallen angel Satan
As well as in post 51:

The earlier stories of the Bible existed long before Christianity and the modern concept of Satan began to exist.

You are correct about Satan being a concept that did exist at that time, albeit in a vastly different form from the Christian version. That is not the interpretation I was talking about (nor do I think it is what tradesecret meant based on context clues in his post), however looking back now I can certainly see how that may not be entirely clear since I devoted only a few words in each post to making the distinction so any misunderstandings as a result are naturally my fault and I apologize.