The Bible Thinks Genesis 1-3 is Historical

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

I think I would begin by quoting what I said in the other thread:

@mitchellmckain

I am all about accepting the adjustments needed to embrace science and evolution, but keeping them only to the minimal changes needed. Too often, it seems to me, this unavoidable challenge is taken as an excuse for changing the religion completely to something nearly unrecognizable, till it hardly seems any different than popular culture. It is not that I am hostile to that kind of religion, but only that the reconciliation with science doesn’t require anything of the sort. And the fear that this is some kind of slippery slope is one of the reasons for resistance to science.

So I see no reason from science why Genesis 1-3 should not be historical – just not completely literal. No reason why Adam and Eve should not be taken to be people who really existed - just not the beginning of the biological species (and other parts of the text like Genesis 4:14 supports this). I see no reason why the events described could not have happened – just not with talking animals and magical fruit for that would make it more like a Disney movie than life as we experience it, and other parts of the Bible support this also (talk of the tree of life symbolism and an ancient serpent who is a fallen angel). And there is plenty of support for seeing this as the beginning of spiritual death rather than physical death, since the latter would actually make God the liar in the story, and the serpent the teller of truth, since they did not physically die that day when God said they would die on that day.

[Vinnie]

@Marshall

How can a passage that leaves Eve out of the story require a literal Eve? There’s no mention of Eve or a woman. It’s just by one man. To me, that alone is a clue that Adam is functioning as a representative figure here. At the very least Adam represents the first couple, with both of their actions collapsed into his singular act. Better, I think, is to see that he represents humankind. Either way, Adam is more than one historical man.

Well, for me its a package deal. Why would anyone accept a literal Adam and not a literal Eve? But I think your exegesis is unsound here. First the lack of mention of Eve is an argument from silence. Such arguments can be valid but exegesis based on what an evangelists does not say is of course speculative. Why doesn’t Paul mention Eve? Because Adam represents the first couple? Maybe. Maybe its just misogyny and patriarchal language? Or maybe Paul was conscious of the actual words of Genesius 3 which says specifically that to the woman God said:

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”

He speaks to the snake, woman and man separately. To the man he says:

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return.”

Paul is just following the lead of Genesis. Death comes to all because of Adam. Yes he represents both and if Paul were talking about the pains of child-bearing he might have mentioned Eve. At any rate, I don’t think the argument from the lack of Eve’s mention is compelling since Paul may simply be aware of the details of Genesis 3 and in either case, figurative or literal, Adam, being the male, brings death to all.

@Marshall

Wouldn’t they have been familiar with the poppy? Regardless, surely they knew that the mustard plant isn’t a tree or a good nesting site for birds. There seems to be intentional hyperbole on both sides of that illustration. And perhaps the point isn’t that mustard seeds naturally produce a big tree, but that such a surprising result points to some deeper power at work?

The mustard seed will yield a tree so big that birds will be able to nest on it. That is my take. Stating the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds doesn’t look like a hyperbolic statement to me.

Vinnie

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Vinnie

I guess conservatives might say Romans 5 does in fact depend on a literal reading.

What does “depend on a literal meaning” mean? What about the intended message requires that the given, presupposed information about Adam is historically factual?

@Vinnie

But I tend to be on the same side of the fence that if I were to ask Paul if he believed in a real Adam in the past he probably would have said yes.

In any case, I think we need to admit that Paul’s construct of “real Adam” might be different than our construct of “historical Adam” and we shouldn’t automatically conflate the two.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

For example, I have a construct of “real Julius Caesar” that comes from reading Shakespeare, and is essentially a literary character. It’s not really “historical Julius Caesar” nor is it purely “mythological Julius Caesar.”

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Vinnie

In Matthew the question has “for any reason” but Matthew added that since the text of Mark he copied did not have it.

I read an article once by a Bible scholar arguing that a “for any reason divorce” was a specific kind of divorce, and it was that specific kind of divorce that was under discussion (not, as we tend to think “Is there any reason for which you would allow divorce?”).

[Vinnie]

@mitchellmckain

So I see no reason from science why Genesis 1-3 should not be historical – just not completely literal.

This throws me for a loop. How is Genesis one historical but not literal? I am not 100% sure what you actually mean by this. What in it actually occurred as stated in the account aside from the concept of God being Creator in your view? Many times you profess belief in life as self-organizing and stated that it chooses its own goals. I do find your view intriguing. In such a framework, how did God even make man in his own image? Genesis 1 suggests a careful crafting of the earth for humans by God. Not just letting life choose its own path and God interacting with whatever advanced version of it managed to pop up. Sorry if I am misrepresenting you but that’s the image I currently have. But that issue aside, Genesis 1 has plants existing before the sun. Is that literal? Is it historical? I suppose it can be argued the perspective of the account is from the surface of the earth and the sun was already created and not yet visible? Old Earth creationists like Hugh Ross take this route but ultimately these mental gymnastic fail since the accounts can’t be harmonized with science.

@mitchellmckain

I see no reason why the events described could not have happened – just not with talking animals and magical fruit for that would make it more like a Disney movie than life as we experience it, and other parts of the Bible support this also (talk of the tree of life symbolism and an ancient serpent who is a fallen angel).

I have some questions about Genesis 2-3 below for you:

1. Was Adam created before it had ever rained?
2. Was Adam created before plants?
3. Was Adam formed from the dust of the ground as an adult?
4. Did God breath life into Adam’s nose?
5. After creating Adam, did God create trees, including the tree of life and the tree of knowledge?
6. Did God then take Adam and put him in the Garden telling him what he can and can’t eat?
7. Did God then try to make a bunch of helpers for Adam only to come to realize the animals won’t suffice?
8. Did God bring all the animals to Adam and let him name them?
9. Did God put Adam to sleep, steal a rib and fashion Eve from the ground out of it?
10. Were both the man and woman naked and unashamed?
11. Was the serpent more crafty than the other animals?
12. Did the serpent actually talk to Eve?
13. Was there magical fruit on the tree that Eve ate?
14. Was Adam with Eve and ate the magical fruit?
15. Did they then discover they were naked and invent clothing for their private parts?
16. Did they actually hear God walking in the garden?
17. Did they actually play hide and seek with God?
18. Does God actually ask them who told them they were naked?
19. Did Eve blame the serpent?
20. Did God then curse serpents?
21. Did God then make it so women will be subservient and desire their husbands?
22. Did God then create the physical pain associated with child bearing?
23. Did God actually curse the ground he created because Adam ate the magic fruit?
24. Did God actually make clothes for Adam and Eve?
25. Was God really worried Adam and Eve might eat from the tree of life and live forever?
26. Did God then send an Angel with a flaming sword to protect the tree?

Can you tell me what of these narrative details you actually accept? I reject all 25 as historical. I see no reason why the events described did happen. I see no reason, given al the obvious mythological and silly elements in the narratives we should try to cling to the historicity of Adam and Eve. Did two people exist sure. Did they do anything described in Genesis 2-3? If so, it makes little sense to even call them Adam and Eve.

Vinnie

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Vinnie

How is Genesis one historical but not literal?

Myths are stories told in oral traditions from a time before mankind even had these specialized activities of history, law, science, religion, and entertainment. So all of these purposes get mixed together and it gives the stories a recognizable mythical character but it doesn’t mean they did not originate from historical people which actually existed and historical events which actually happened. But it does mean that we shouldn’t be treating them like a video recording of events any more than we do of any other telling of history from long ago – but in fact with even more liberties taken straying a little bit farther from an objective description of the events.

@Vinnie

I have some questions about Genesis 2-3 below for you

short answers
1-3 no, evolution, 4 God spoke to Adam, 5 no, 6 God gave Adam a warning and commandment, 7 no, 8 unimportant, 9 no, 10 quite possibly, 11 angel not a snake, 12 sure, 13 -14 no magical fruit, 15 they were ashamed of something, 16 unimportant, 17 unimportant, 18 yes, 19 yes, 20 no, 21 quite possibly, 22 the word used was “increased,” 23 no, 24 no, 25 no, 26 no.

More…

4 Divine breath = inspiration. By speaking to him, God gave Adam an inheritance of ideas which brought the human mind to life. This was the beginning of humanity. But there is no life stuff which can bring dead matter to life. This is a story of man’s relationship with the divine and not one of alchemy or necromancy.
5 The two trees represent two directions in which we could go. They were inherent in the very nature life and not some poison cookie jar plopped down into their life so God could test them.
6 The Earth is a garden, though some parts of the Earth more than others to be sure. God certainly gave Adam a dire warning and parental commandment. Such is always a crucial part of parenting.
7-9 Sounds like a mythical mix of a story of domestication and a decision to bring a chosen female, Eve into this relationship with God.
10 There are tropical areas of the Earth where this would have worked.
11 angels are more intelligent than all animals including man
12 challenging organisms so they would learn was quite possible one of the tasks assigned to angels.
13-14 There was a natural part of life which would give A&E the authority to dictate the difference between good and evil even when their understanding of this was far from adequate.
15 There is an obvious suggestion here what it was which made them ashamed and thus what it was which was forbidden to them.
16 God is spirit but quite capable of interacting with physical things no different from the resurrected Jesus. So perhaps God did walk in the garden and was heard doing so. It is possible.
17 The behavior of shame and fear is universal.
18 The query and response is a very important part of the story.
19 Adam blamed God and Eve first. Then Eve blamed the angel. Thus begins the self-destructive habits of sin which interfere with our growth and learning.
20. God reassigned the angel Lucifer to a different task and role as our adversary. If we wanted something to blame for the evil in our lives, then better this angel than God Himself.
21 Some unknown combination of consequences and providence in this.
22 Providence to protect the parent-child relationship of human beings.
23 That particular ground perhaps, for there are climate changes making some parts of the earth look cursed and less like a garden compared to others. But important part of this was that man would have to live by their own efforts in order to learn that blaming others for their own actions simply wouldn’t work if they wanted to survive.
24 I am reminded of the many Biblical passages where it says that God will provide. It never means that we are simply passive recipients, like some mail order shopping catalogue.
25 A literal interpretation of this is full of inconsistencies. If it was really a matter of reaching up and picking a fruit which was not forbidden to them then why did they not eat of this tree already? The tree of life represents the eternal life we have in a relationship with God – a relationship which was broken because of the fall.
26 The flaming sword is a symbol of divine truth, otherwise where it this angel with a burning sword keeping us going anywhere?

@Vinnie

I reject all 25 as historical. I see no reason why the events described did happen. I see no reason, given al the obvious mythological and silly elements in the narratives we should try to cling to the historicity of Adam and Eve.

It is easy to see I reject more than I accept. But the same is true of any of the books about Santa Claus. And yet the basis of the myth, St. Nicholas is indeed historical.

@Vinnie

Many times you profess belief in life as self-organizing and stated that it chooses its own goals. I do find your view intriguing. In such a framework, how did God even make man in his own image?

I believe our infinite potentiality reflects God’s infinite actuality, making us perfect for an eternal parent child relationship where there is no end to what God has to give and no end to what we can receive from Him.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Christy

In linguistics there is an area of discourse analysis focused on information structure that is concerned with separating topics (what we’re talking about) from comments (what I want to tell you about that) and given vs new information, foregrounded vs backgrounded information, presupposed vs asserted information and so on. So for me what is important in the interpretation of the passages is that none of the allusions to OT narratives are appearing as new, foregrounded or asserted information. It’s all just context for what Jesus and Paul were asserting.

I liked this and it had the ring of ‘truthiness’ to my ear, but I confess I don’t entirely understand it.

Edited to say I’m still reading and am getting insight through comments of others which follow as well as your own. Thanks.

[Ralphie (ralph benson)]

Were the lives of his closest followers transformed after He rose from the dead? What else besides their certainty that He rose from the grave explains their radical changes?
If I accept that they had indeed encountered the resurrected Christ and were totally new creatures as the result, I can accept many biblical passages that confuse me. If the foundation of my faith in Jesus rests on that fact that He rose from the dead, literally, and hung out with, spoke to, ate with, and was touched by those who had loved Him so, that they could barely survive without him, I don’t struggle too much with what I don’t understand.
Having encountered this risen God-Man myself thousands of years later, and been enveloped in Love I couldn’t create on my own, serves to strengthen my confidence that what they said about him, and said that He said, are accurate. In fact, like E=MC squared and the speed of light, everything else in the universe is relative to the reality that He was and is God Almighty. Even the winds and the waves obey him.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@MarkD

I liked this and it had the ring of ‘truthiness’ to my ear, but I confess I don’t entirely understand it.

Basically, it’s the idea that speakers have a message they intend to communicate that affects the way they organize the semantic and syntactic content. The way we talk about something signals things about our perspective on the information and how we intend it to be understood.

So for example, the following sentences all have essentially the same semantic content:
John ate a sandwich for lunch.
John ate a sandwich for lunch.
John ate a sandwich for lunch.
John ate the sandwich for lunch.
It was John who ate the sandwich for lunch.
The sandwich was eaten by John for lunch.
For lunch, John ate a sandwich.
The sandwich, John ate it for lunch.

But in all the sentences, different elements are highlighted by the grammatical constructions and the definiteness or indefiniteness of the nouns. They answer different questions from different contexts and communicate different ideas about what the hearers know already or want to know or need corrected.

So in interpreting texts, to understand the intended meaning, it’s important to understand how the information is structured, not just the semantic content of the words.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@Ralphie

Having encountered this risen God-Man myself thousands of years later, and been enveloped in Love I couldn’t create on my own, serves to strengthen my confidence that what they said about him, and said that He said, are accurate.

I agree with your sentiment, but I think the issue in this discussion is that “accurate” (or true) and “objective historical fact” are not always the same thing. I can retell the Genesis story or any other literary narrative accurately (with reference to the source), but that doesn’t make the narrative a historical fact. There are plenty of examples of truth we find in Scripture for which the designation “accurate” just doesn’t work. In what way is a Psalm of lament or the parable of the Good Samaritan “accurate,” for example?

[Ralphie (ralph benson)]

I don’t think the conclusions I reached through the examples I used are sentiments. I am comfortable taking what was written at face value to the extent that I am able to do so. We have a record of men in deep despair. They are described as Jews with varied backgrounds They followed a man with great enthusiasm for years. He was murdered brutally and savagely. They describe his resurrection and its impact upon them. It is stunning.
Based on their profound personality changes, my own other-world experience with the same Figure and the millions and mullions of others with similar experiences, I believe He rose from the dead.
I’m satisfied that the account in the N.T. is true, objectively, historically and meant to be interpreted by readers as such. There are other factors which support my interpretation. Regardless how much and how deeply and thoroughly some passages are studied and analyzed, certain literal facts are given and are intended to be understood in typical fashion by people.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

I can agree with much of what you said, though I would say the typical fashion people understand stories like the parables of Jesus, which makes up the bulk of his teaching, is metaphorical and abstract.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

I don’t think anyone here is disputing the general historicity of the life of Jesus and the beginning of the church.

[Ralphie (ralph benson)]

The “ring of truth” may imply a subjective interpretation, yet, as human beings, we aren’t going to be entirely objective always and language is more than facts.
As Mary watches her son die slowly from exphixiation on his own blood, identifying with her agony is subjective and critical to our understanding of those events.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Yes, some is a literal rendering of events as recorded or recounted by the writer, and some is not.

[Ralphie (ralph benson)]

Talking animals seems stupid, bizarre and ridiculous to me, but then knowing that the laws of relativity don’t apply on the quantum level of the universe seems terribly confounding, too.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

I can only imagine how much tougher it must be to sort this out for the messages in the Bible. You have taken on a very complex problem. At least you are not the only one out there working on it.

[Terry_Sampson]

@Ralphie

Talking animals seems stupid, bizarre and ridiculous to me

Let me guess: You’ve never read Winnie the Pooh, The Chronicles of Narnia, or a Pogo comic strip.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Ralphie

Talking animals seems stupid, bizarre and ridiculous to me

It does not seem stupid, bizarre, and ridiculous to me. I love books with talking animals. And if it does turn out that dolphins have a language then I would be thrilled. But the only talking snakes and donkeys are in entertainment or the experience of dreams and schizophrenics, not the normal everyday experience of life. So where to we put the Bible in the library? On the shelf with the fantasy books or with other books about spiritual things?

@Ralphie

the laws of relativity don’t apply on the quantum level of the universe

Where in the world are you getting that from. Relativity is a fundamental part of quantum field theory.