In Novum's first attempt to start a thread discussion, we asked about our interpretive authority structures and frameworks and why we granted authority to certain institutions and ways of viewing the world. As the discussion has gone on (and is still ongoing), the conversation concerning interpretation evolved. Eventually we found ourselves wrestling through how we determine meaning of texts, especially the biblical text. That conversation, perhaps unsurprisingly, ended up focusing on how we interpret a particular biblical text, the creation narrative(s) in Genesis. I would love for the conversation to continue in that other thread concerning the authority structures and interpretive frameworks we use to interpret the world because it is a very important discussing matters of religion, philosophy, and science. Flowing out of that conversation, this thread will focus on the meaning of the Genesis creation account(s).

So, here are a few questions to take as you will:

1. Do you interpret the Genesis creation narrative(s) as literal, allegorical, or perhaps another way? How would you define the method of interpretation as you have used it? Why do you approach the text this way?

2. When you interpret the text in the way outlined in #1, what do you take away as the main point(s) of the text?

3. Given the method of interpretation you have used, how do you understand the meaning of some of the more debated issues like the meaning of day (24 hour periods or no?), whether Adam and Eve are the first people, etc.?

Note: These questions are not after the truth of the biblical account, and therefore answering the questions does not depend on whether or not the Bible is authoritative. If you would like to discuss authority and interpretive frameworks, please join the other Novum thread. Great conversation going on over there! The questions here concern how you understand the meaning of the text, regardless of whether or not you believe that meaning to be true, reliable, or authoritative for how you view the world.

It would be helpful to define "literal." In its historical, technical sense,

Oxford English Dictionary

Quote:

---

a. orig. Theol. Originally in the context of a traditional distinction between the literal sense and various spiritual senses of a sacred text: designating or relating to the sense intended by the author of a text, normally discovered by taking the words in their natural or customary meaning, in the context of the text as a whole, without regard to any ulterior spiritual or symbolic meaning.

---

I believe all Scripture should be interpreted literally, i.e. how the author intended it. This also recognizes that the author may have employed various literary devices such as allegory (Song of Solomon), metaphors, etc.

That said, I see no literary markers in Genesis in which it should be read as anything but a historical narrative.

I tend to lean toward Moses as the author of Genesis, and I figure he got the stories from God directly either when up on the mountain or sometime later during the Exodus. As far as the creation account, I always looked at it as Moses (who was well-educated for the time, but not by comtemporary standards) trying to relay the story. The creation account seems also very visual to me, and I always picture Moses trying to explain visions shown him by God. Biblical visions are typically full of abstract symbolism, so it doesn't bother me at all to look at it that way.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I tend to lean toward Moses as the author of Genesis, and I figure he got the stories from God directly either when up on the mountain or sometime later during the Exodus. As far as the creation account, I always looked at it as Moses (who was well-educated for the time, but not by comtemporary standards) trying to relay the story. The creation account seems also very visual to me, and I always picture Moses trying to explain visions shown him by God. Biblical visions are typically full of abstract symbolism, so it doesn't bother me at all to look at it that way.

---

Do you believe Moses actually existed and the Exodus happened as relayed in the narrative?

Quote:

---

So, here are a few questions to take as you will:

1. Do you interpret the Genesis creation narrative(s) as literal, allegorical, or perhaps another way? How would you define the method of interpretation as you have used it? Why do you approach the text this way?

---

I approach it probably more allegorically. It seems to be similar to other creation myths of neighboring cultures, plus the apparently conflicting creation stories found in Genesis also leads me to think it's not a story that is meant to be taken literally.

Now, I do believe in creation. I believe God created all things. I just don't necessarily believe it was in 7 24-hour days as told in Genesis.

Quote:

---

2. When you interpret the text in the way outlined in #1, what do you take away as the main point(s) of the text?

---

I take away from it that God is the creator of all things. The "mechanics" of how He did it really don't move the needle with me. 7 24-hour days 6,000 years ago or a big explosion 13 billion years ago doesn't really make much of a difference to me. I just believe that no matter how He did it, He is the One that did it.

Quote:

---

3. Given the method of interpretation you have used, how do you understand the meaning of some of the more debated issues like the meaning of day (24 hour periods or no?), whether Adam and Eve are the first people, etc.?

---

I do believe that Adam and Eve were the first people. I do believe that it was their sin that led to the fall, but I also have no clue how long they existed prior to the fall.

Woody2006 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I tend to lean toward Moses as the author of Genesis, and I figure he got the stories from God directly either when up on the mountain or sometime later during the Exodus. As far as the creation account, I always looked at it as Moses (who was well-educated for the time, but not by comtemporary standards) trying to relay the story. The creation account seems also very visual to me, and I always picture Moses trying to explain visions shown him by God. Biblical visions are typically full of abstract symbolism, so it doesn't bother me at all to look at it that way.

---

Do you believe Moses actually existed and the Exodus happened as relayed in the narrative?

---

I know this wasn't to me, but I'll answer as I believe. I do believe Moses actually existed. As for the exodus, I believe that there was likely some migration around the time of Moses, but I don't believe that it was necessarily as relayed in the Scriptures. I think it's relayed like that to illustrate a greater point. The migration may have been smaller and more spread out over time.

Then again, I try not to get too hung up on trying to read everything from an ancient culture that used a lot of imagery in their writings. I try to focus on what the deeper point being relayed is.

Quote:

---

Do you believe Moses actually existed and the Exodus happened as relayed in the narrative?

---

I do believe that. I feel the lack of evidence is more our failing than anything. I have heard interesting theories that the Exodus occurred almost exclusively in northwestern Saudi Arabia, and that is not an area hospitable to Christian and Jewish researchers. It also seems kind of silly to me to get hung up on lack of archeological evidence. The story is that God miraculously sustained an entire nation in a barren desert for 40 years, but the lack of evidence is what's supposed to make me skeptical?

1) Genesis was not written in a vacuum. There are many creation stories that are similar from cultures that share the same time / geography as the writers of Genesis, including the Samaritans and the Mesopotamians. The question in these stories is "where did all of this come from, and how are we here?" The way that this question is answered is pretty similar. Once upon a time, there was nothing / darkness / Chaos, then along came some cosmic being(s) and added some order either through struggles with each other or purposefully to benefit man.

I consider Genesis to be an adoption of that theme infused with the ideas of who we understand God to be.

2) An interesting feature of Genesis is that the world did not result as a battle of competing cosmic forces, but was the work of one benevolent God. Fairly unique in creation stories. Also interesting is that the difference between man and animals is the highlight of the story. The arrival of "the knowledge of good and evil" is the conclusion of the creation story. The rest of the story is just backdrop to this event, of when Man became fully human. It sets the foundation as the beginning of a study about the relationship between God, man, good and evil.

3) I'm not really all that interested in many of these details, with a couple of exceptions. The first is that the creation story includes a day of rest. The importance of a day in which to rest, not create, and contemplate the meanings of life outside of toil and subsistence is an extremely important foundation of Judaism, and the creation story supports the importance of that. The second is that the first thing that is created is light. While this feature is shared by a few of the other creation stories from the time period, the fact that, in the wackiness that is our universe, everything that is measurable bows down to Einstien's "c", and that light was the first step in the creation story, is either really neat divine influence or a pretty cool happenstance.

In conclusion: a story/study has to start somewhere, and a creation story that emphasizes that humans are unique because we understand good and evil, and the idea that routine contemplation of that difference between humans and the rest of the universe is important, is a great beginning.

Woody2006 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I tend to lean toward Moses as the author of Genesis, and I figure he got the stories from God directly either when up on the mountain or sometime later during the Exodus. As far as the creation account, I always looked at it as Moses (who was well-educated for the time, but not by comtemporary standards) trying to relay the story. The creation account seems also very visual to me, and I always picture Moses trying to explain visions shown him by God. Biblical visions are typically full of abstract symbolism, so it doesn't bother me at all to look at it that way.

---

Do you believe Moses actually existed and the Exodus happened as relayed in the narrative?

---

Possibly. I do believe that the events happened to some extent.

One thing that historical record demonstrates is that the land of Canaan was ruled by the Egyptians before the Jews took power. Over a period of time, the land was eventually ruled by the Jews. The Exodus was the story that told how that occurred.

I think it more likely that the story of the Exodus was more allegorical. It is very plausible that the story of Exodus is more about the revolt of the local people throwing off the Egyptian rule, and that the migration included settlers that lived in the hills and rural areas around Canaan, and some section of refugees from greater Egypt and the Midian region where Yahweh worship was popular.

However, I find it highly likely that there were leaders named Moses, Aaron and Jacob from this time period.

In addition, I leave open the possibility that many, if not most or all, of the events in Exodus actually took place in very similar ways that are described in Exodus.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you believe Moses actually existed and the Exodus happened as relayed in the narrative?

---

I do believe that. I feel the lack of evidence is more our failing than anything. I have heard interesting theories that the Exodus occurred almost exclusively in northwestern Saudi Arabia, and that is not an area hospitable to Christian and Jewish researchers. It also seems kind of silly to me to get hung up on lack of archeological evidence. The story is that God miraculously sustained an entire nation in a barren desert for 40 years, but the lack of evidence is what's supposed to make me skeptical?

---

You don't think 2 million Israelites spending 40 years in the desert (a wonderful place to preserve artifacts) would leave significant amounts of archaeological evidence? I get your larger point, that since you are accepting God miraculously sustained them that it's not as far of a reach to believe we haven't yet found evidence of the Exodus.

It just strikes me as very strange that there has been a sustained interest in finding evidence of this for an extremely long time, and so far we have absolutely nothing.

BusterAg said:

---

Woody2006 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I tend to lean toward Moses as the author of Genesis, and I figure he got the stories from God directly either when up on the mountain or sometime later during the Exodus. As far as the creation account, I always looked at it as Moses (who was well-educated for the time, but not by comtemporary standards) trying to relay the story. The creation account seems also very visual to me, and I always picture Moses trying to explain visions shown him by God. Biblical visions are typically full of abstract symbolism, so it doesn't bother me at all to look at it that way.

---

Do you believe Moses actually existed and the Exodus happened as relayed in the narrative?

---

Possibly. I do believe that the events happened to some extent.

One thing that historical record demonstrates is that the land of Canaan was ruled by the Egyptians before the Jews took power. Over a period of time, the land was eventually ruled by the Jews. The Exodus was the story that told how that occurred.

I think it more likely that the story of the Exodus was more allegorical. It is very plausible that the story of Exodus is more about the revolt of the local people throwing off the Egyptian rule, and that the migration included settlers that lived in the hills and rural areas around Canaan, and some section of refugees from greater Egypt and the Midian region where Yahweh worship was popular.

However, I find it highly likely that there were leaders named Moses, Aaron and Jacob from this time period.

In addition, I leave open the possibility that many, if not most or all, of the events in Exodus actually took place in very similar ways that are described in Exodus.

---

Exodus being allegorical could make sense, although it certainly doesn't read that way. It reads as a historical narrative.

Quote:

---

It reads as a historical narrative.

---

The story predates the invention of historical narrative.

If Genesis / Exodus are historical narratives in the way that you think of them, they were the very first ever written.

Quote:

---

It just strikes me as very strange that there has been a sustained interest in finding evidence of this for an extremely long time, and so far we have absolutely nothing.

---

Maybe God was REALLY insistent on "leave no trace" camping

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

It just strikes me as very strange that there has been a sustained interest in finding evidence of this for an extremely long time, and so far we have absolutely nothing.

---

Maybe God was REALLY insistent on "leave no trace" camping

---

Now that's just funny right there, I don't care who you are.

BusterAg said:

---

Quote:

---

It reads as a historical narrative.

---

The story predates the invention of historical narrative.

If Genesis / Exodus are historical narratives in the way that you think of them, they were the very first ever written.

---

Fair enough. So are you in the camp that argues it was more like 20,000 Israelites and the stories were exaggerated, or do you think many of the stories were historically false, but meant to convey a message?

Woody2006 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Quote:

---

It reads as a historical narrative.

---

The story predates the invention of historical narrative.

If Genesis / Exodus are historical narratives in the way that you think of them, they were the very first ever written.

---

Fair enough. So are you in the camp that argues it was more like 20,000 Israelites and the stories were exaggerated, or do you think many of the stories were historically false, but meant to convey a message?

---

I wasn't there, so I don't know.

What we do know is that there was a significant culture that grew outside of the towns of Canaan during the Egyptian occupation, and then eventually the Egyptian rulers of Canaan were thrown out, and the Semites started ruling.

I suspect that the Semites came partially from Egypt, partially from Midian, and partially from the Canaanite hill country. The story of Exodus is likely allegorical in telling how God protected Abrahamic Canaanites as they left Egyptian slavery (by either trudging across the desert, or kicking out the occupiers).

The story of Caananite slavery is likely real. The story of the struggle against Egypt rulers is likely real.

How much of the story is literal "historical narrative" and how much of it is telling the struggle of the Israelite people through that occupation with imagery and allusion, I don't know. I don't really think it matters all that much.

Quote:

---

How much of the story is literal "historical narrative" and how much of it is telling the struggle of the Israelite people through that occupation with imagery and allusion, I don't know. I don't really think it matters all that much.

---

I feel relatively safe in saying that the majority of your Christian brethren would disagree with this.

Do you feel the same about the Joseph narrative? No evidence he ever existed, but it doesn't really matter anyways?

I'm a Christian. It seems pretty obvious to me that Geneis is an allegory, meant to be interpreted as such. This doesn't in any way impact my overall belief.

Woody2006 said:

---

Quote:

---

How much of the story is literal "historical narrative" and how much of it is telling the struggle of the Israelite people through that occupation with imagery and allusion, I don't know. I don't really think it matters all that much.

---

I feel relatively safe in saying that the majority of your Christian brethren would disagree with this.

Do you feel the same about the Joseph narrative? No evidence he ever existed, but it doesn't really matter anyways?

---

1) I think you would be surprised at how many people focus on the theology of Jesus, and read the OT as background to that message. I guess we could try to find a poll or something, but I think that there are probably a lot more people who don't really care to argue about the genesis of the Israelites, because it really doesn't impact their belief system. Of course, this is a generalization, and there will be exceptions. But, maybe I am the weird one. I will tell you, that most seminary schools will challenge you with all of these topics.

2) I would not say that there is zero evidence he ever existed. There are some historical figures in Egyptian history that might be similar to Joseph (not Imhotep), and a seven year famine is a common theme in the regions mythology. I think it likely that there was a Joseph.

I have known people that made my stance on the first few chapters of Genesis and my stance on the "last days" a matter of fellowship. Whether you read Genesis with a calendar or whether you see it as more of a figurative narrative does not determine whether you really believe that the Bible is the Word of God, even though others have told me different.

Two people can say that they believe the Bible to be literally true, yet mean two different things by that statement. When Jesus said, "I am the vine, and you are the branches," I do not think he was referring to Himself as plant life.

However, here is where I have problems. If I take Genesis as a form of instructive parable, then it does give me trouble explaining the physical nature of the fall. But if I take it as somewhat literal, I have a whole other set of problems. Are Adam and Eve representatives of men and women or are they two unique individuals who actually can compare the state of perfection with the state of fallen sin.

I am not certain.

Quote:

---

3. I think that it obvious to most that the mountain of scientific data that refutes a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is astronomical. A literal interpretation is hard to maintain in light of so much counter-evidence, but even with an allegorical interpretation, I think the following points are valid.

• Even if Genesis is granted as not intending to be literal, the account of creation is so astoundingly different and out of scale that I think it warrants certain questions. The author fails to address so many important questions about our origins that arise out of modern biology, geology, and cosmology that it can hardly be used as a non-secular guide to answering these questions. Of course, you cannot fault the author for not knowing what we know today, but this ignorance makes the philosophical meaning of the story horribly antiquated and inadequate in my opinion.

---

I'm curious why you think the author's failure to address modern science makes the philosophical meaning antiquated and inadequate?

What do you take as the philosophical meaning of Genesis?

BusterAg said:

---

2) An interesting feature of Genesis is that the world did not result as a battle of competing cosmic forces, but was the work of one benevolent God. Fairly unique in creation stories.

---

I think this is a huge part of why people have a hard time talking about God/the Bible. They're simply talking about different things.

The God of Genesis creates ex nihilo. As far as I know, Genesis is the only creation story where God does not competitively bring the existing world or matter into order, but instead creatively speaks it into existence out of nothing.

Well, it's not ex nihilo depending on which creation narrative in Genesis you're talking about.

Quote:

---

If I take Genesis as a form of instructive parable, then it does give me trouble explaining the physical nature of the fall.

---

TLS,
Consider the narrative's purpose in contrasting the will of created beings with the will of their creator. There is an inevitability of moral failure, demonstrated by both men and angels. Only the will of God is incorruptible. It makes all of these arguments about original sin, federal headship, and the lack of sperm in Jesus' conception moot. Again - only the divine will is not corrupt or corruptible.

I am surprised at how many theologians miss a key point here - THERE WAS SIN IN THE GARDEN BEFORE THE FALL OF MAN! The physical nature of the Fall began in Is. 14:13 (read this!), and the Fall of man followed as a natural consequence, described in terrifying simplicity in Gen. 3.

amercer said:

---

There is a lot of evidence that it wasn't written down until the Babylonian captivity

---

Amercer, you know I ain't got nothing but love for you, brother, but this seems extremely unlikely.

The Samaritan Pentateuch is written in proto-Hebrew, a language form that hadn't been spoken for over 400 years once the Babylonian captivity came about.

Even the most secular of scholars recognize that their were likely several written documents long before Babylonian captivity. One of their primary theories rest on that foundation. You wouldn't have to cobble together two different narratives (the Yahweh narratives and the Elohim narratives) if the source documents didn't even exist. Now, personally, I think this portion of the documentary hypothesis is completely bullocks, and completely ignores the hard archaeological evidence against it. However, I only mention it to point out that even they don't believe that nothing was written down before Babylonian captivity.

We know for a fact the proto-Hebrew existed as a written language by no later then 1100BC. It seems quite unlikely that a group of people bound by a single religion wouldn't bother writing anything down about it for 500 years when we know they had the means to do so.

Literally, not literalistically.

Really interesting convo going on here. Sorry I've been absent for a while. Work and family (a one-month old now in addition three other kiddos) took me away for a bit. But I'm back and will be responding to a few posts. I know you missed me.

I'm believe the creation account in Genesis describes the way the universe came into being. There was a 1st century Rabbi that held to a high view of Genesis and the Hebrew scripture and I agree with Him.

DirtDiver said:

---

I'm believe the creation account in Genesis describes the way the universe came into being. There was a 1st century Rabbi that held to a high view of Genesis and the Hebrew scripture and I agree with Him.

---

But Jesus really didn't comment on the mechanics of creation. If I'm not mistaken, the only comments he actually made on creation are found in Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4, and those are really comments on the issue of divorce. I don't think we can look at Jesus' comments as a confirmation of the mechanics of the 7-day creation we see in Genesis.

JJMt said:

---

Jesus may not have commented on the mechanics of creation, but his comments show fairly clearly that he took the creation account at face value, and believed in a literal Adam and Abel.

---

One can believe in a literal Adam and Abel without believing in the mechanics of the literal interpretation of the 7-day creation as relayed in Genesis.

JJMt said:

---

Jesus may not have commented on the mechanics of creation, but his comments show fairly clearly that he took the creation account at face value, and believed in a literal Adam and Abel.

---

Not so sure about that. Figurative Able and literal Zachariah still works here.

The Lone Stranger said:

---

However, here is where I have problems. If I take Genesis as a form of instructive parable, then it does give me trouble explaining the physical nature of the fall. But if I take it as somewhat literal, I have a whole other set of problems. Are Adam and Eve representatives of men and women or are they two unique individuals who actually can compare the state of perfection with the state of fallen sin.

I am not certain.

---

Let's consider the three possibilities:

1) They are literal. Fairly interesting, in that we all have a common ancestor, and that these two beings were the first to own the knowledge of good and evil. In this case, there was a sudden godly revelation of what is evil, highlighted in the knowledge of the importance of modesty. This also means that Abel was a literal person.

2) They are completely allegorical, it is the story of man in general coming to learn who God is through the realization of the difference between good and evil. This means that Abel was likely also 100% allegorical, and represents those individuals that contributed more to society than others that were more selfish, even though the selfish men persecuted them. Still a great story that sets the backdrop for the discussion about who God is.

3) The stories are both literal and allegorical. There was an actual person named Adam, an actual person named Eve, and an actual person named Abel. Each of these people are representative of a larger / longer process that is epitomized through recognition that these people lived. In this case, Adam and Eve were very important moral leaders in the beginning of human civilization, and they had a son that was murdered by his brother. While they might not have been literally the first humans, they were early humans that had an important impact on the way we see God. While the story "based on real events," it epitomizes the moral point of the story, and over-emphasizes.

In this particular case, I would be more inclined to believe #2. However, I think that many of the stories from the Old Testament are more likely to be more like #3. However, far too many people fail to recognize #3 as a potential answer for stories in the Old Testament.

In the end though, it doesn't really matter all that much.