+1 million.

It's not my position (alone) it's a common one taken by leading scholars on the issue. I'm not sure if she is one (haven't seen the videos in awhile, I forget her credentials) but what she's teaching is what's being taught in a majority of courses on the OT.

Also, I agree that this is definitely a video series worth watching if you want to discuss the OT. (Note for soontobepro: The course is "Introduction to the Old Testament," as in, the stuff covered is considered simple, basic and foundational to understanding the OT.)

Soontobe, however, continues with the line of "it's not what the Jewish people thought it was about, it's not what scholars insist it is about, it's not what the research says it was about, it's what I say it is, because that's how I've labeled it!"

Ah well. That's RGT.

Yeah, I really don't either. But, if there's any wiggle room whatsoever (and there is a little) someone will wiggle it.

You said:

"It does try to give an account of everything that it thinks happened in the past, and will happen in the future."

That is what I objected to, I don't see any reason to think this is true - I'm asking for your argument or reason for thinking this. What you keep reproducing is your opinion that it's obvious.
Petty vulture - nice. All I'm asking for is an argument rather than "obviously", "clearly", "of course", etcetera. The same with italicizing words - I realise you believe it strongly and think your claim is obvious which is all such emphasis communicates.

I've read the Bible and came away with a very different interpretation of what the authors intended. I didn't think it was attempting to illustrate natural history other than to say "God made everything and we owe our existence and the existence of everything we see to him". It didn't mention evolution (a far more grievous ommission from an illustration of natural history than dinosaurs in my opinion) and it didnt mention a whole host of other things.

What makes you think it's intended to give a factual account of natural history?

The Genesis creation story was taken littoral by some (idk the percentage) going all the way back afaik. So was the genealogy given as it is what the the Hebrew calendar is based on. Saying it wasn't taken that way and using that to discount soontobepro arguments is as bad as him saying it was only to be taken literally.

Really though it was probably a lot like it's today. The parts of it that are literally true depend on who your talking to and what your talking about. Many many today still defend the littoral idea God made man form two people and there was a garden with a fall. But if you get into how long a day is....So its more of a mix and match of littoral and metaphor more then anything.

I'm not a biblical scholar, I was just passing on what a biblical scholar said.

Fact is, some people take it literally. But apparently there is evidence that the authors didn't.

Could you show me something concrete that shows the author's didn't mean to say God literally created man from two people and there was no littoral fall?


That's not really important though. What is important is some people now and then had an idea and that idea is some of the creation story is literally true. Its completely fair to point that out and discuss those ideas.

Well, it's in those first few lectures, I'm not sure how much detail she went into it, but I'm presuming that she wasn't speaking out of her ass either.

It is certainly legit to take on fundamentalists and to point out difficulties with their interpretation. However, if the text was never actually intended to be literal then the fault in interpretation is with the fundamentalists, and not with the text itself. Regardless, soontobepro was likely wrong is saying that its laughable to consider the Genesis account to have been intended as anything other than literal.

Well i dont know.. i think anyone who says all of the creation story is supposed to be metaphor or littoral is doing a little ass talking. But i could be wrong.

Its not just the fudys who say man was created by God from two people in a perfect garden we messed up. Its a wildly held view and the fall is Gods #1 trot out defense against suffering in the world.

I agree saying it was only meant to be taken literally is unfair. I just think going to the opposite side is also unfair.

Interesting, I did some digging and this is correct: The dates of the Jewish calendar begin with the creation of Adam and Eve and count forward.

I'll do some more research on this when I have more than three minutes at the computer, as the other method of using genealogies (only hitting the highlights) is evident with other genealogies in the Bible, as well as other sources in Jewish literature.

Maybe they assumed the first genealogy was literally accurate then counted manually from then on out and disregarded the gaps in the other genealogies? I'm not really sure on tht one.

Using a non-literal interpretation of genealogies is by far the scholarly standard, but that (apparently) doesn't jive at all with the Jewish calendar.

Hmmm.

Will see what I can find and return.

As for your last sentence, you again are using very weird definitions. I wouldn't exactly say that Genesis goes into details of the first 7 days. It's about as un-detailed as it could be.

As for the rest, does Genesis claim somewhere to be a "creation account?" I'm actually curious, this isn't me trying to prove a point yet.

Well, Genesis 1:1 starts with "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." It definitely would be placed in the "creation myth" section in ancient literature.

That said, saying the creation is the main point is no different than looking at, say, the story of the tortoise and the hare, and saying the point is that a rabbit and a turtle have a race.*


*My analogy sucks but it's the best one I could think of that everyone would certainly relate to regardless of literary background.

To be clear, that would be one vote for "no" so far.

Wouldn't that be redundant? If i say i created the heavens, the earth, all the animals and humans i dont see how im not speaking about creation account weather i say so or not.

This is an important point. Genesis includes the fall, original sin. Without original sin, there's nothing to be saved from, and there's no point to the entire religion. So shouldn't Genesis therefore be taken literally?

But the OT doesn't say that people need to be saved. That's not a part of it, and doesn't form a part of judaism. If we see the OT as simply saying that humans are flawed, imperfect, beings, I have no issue with that. If the Adam story is just recognizing that, I have no problem with that. Its a fine story for portraying that message.

The OT frankly works for me much better simply as a tale describing and defining a community, rather than describing actual history. Morality in the OT is ambiguous: as that prof points out, we are to review these stories, discuss them and the moral issues they reveal. The actions taken by the central characters are not necessarily being portrayed as what we should do.

We get into trouble mainly when we do try and take it literally: then it becomes absurd.

I already conceded this point.

FWIW, this was much more so directed at starvingprickenglishteacher, who has blatantly misrepresented, insulted, and mocked me throughout this thread.

Yes I pointed this out several times. Really the dinosaurs are bundled into it not mentioning evolution as far as I'm concerned, as they are a huge piece of evolutionary history.

Well "natural history" as far as the Bible is concerned is the creation of everything by God, and it does include that much. Whereas I know evolution is evident, and if a God existed he must have used evolution as his tool in creating life, I think it should have been included in a "creation" account. I don't expect a textbook on biology, paleontology, and natural history, but the mere mention of evolution and perhaps the dinosaurs wouldn't be out of place in an account of creation.

So the God of the OT wasn't thought to be literally true by ancient believers and writers? Are all of his actions also not literally true to believers and the writers?

Were not talking about Judaism, were talking about Christianity. Don't Christians by necessity need to interpret the fall as being literal?

+1

Again, I'm going off of what this prof said, and we've pretty well reached the end of my knowledge here! It was an introductory course!

I also recognize that later on people certainly took it more literally. I'm just saying that this prof has said the original authors didn't.

This makes a kind of sense. There were many stories being passed around by oral tradition long before the documents were drafted. It certainly makes sense to me that they would see it as their mythology. But I don't know. It does seem that the issue is not so cut and dried.

I did pick up the Evolution of God yesterday at Costco. Maybe it will talk about it. (Course, the way I go through books now, It will take me a long time to finish it! I'd read a lot more books if I didn't post on 2+2 so much. Hmmmmmm.)

If I understood your position earlier, you were suggesting it would be ludicrous to assume that the authors of the Genesis didn't mean to be taken literally. Those authors were not Christian.

I agree that many people later took the OT as literal. Although from listening to the Historical Jesus lectures on Itunes U (a Stanford course), apparently the authors of the NT knew when they were making stuff up as well. Well worth listening to.

You did not answer my question.

Well, that's not what you were talking about when I first responded. In answer to your question about whether Christians need to take it literally, my answer is: I don't know.

We have in fact been talking about Christianity.

Way to cop out of an answer.

Idk it just seems if we're going with a completely non littoral view then there should of been no believers in a real God, but there were. So then the question is what views did the ancient hold to be literally true (such as God is real and interactive) and which ones they saw as metaphor.

Huh? The posts that I responded to were:


I simply pointed out that this prof seems to be saying that there is evidence that the authors and the early jews would not have taken it literally but used it to describe their community (and yes, the fact that creation was "good"). The context was Genesis: which was coopted by Christiantiy, but is not a Christian document.

What, you want me to make something up? Flip a coin? WTF? I told you I didn't know whether a non-literal account of Genesis was consistent with Christianity. I assume it depends on which Christian you ask. Go ask a Christian!