A new look a Genesis

[cwink]

I have been going to a Sunday School class on Genesis that is being let by one of our Shepards. The class has been amazing and points out that there is as much direction on how we should live our lives in Genesis as many of the other books. He points out that the literary style at the time of Genisis was to tell stories, and not so much as "historical facts" .

An example that he pointed out was that when it describes the location of The Garden of Eden by the 4 rivers, that there is no place on Earth that would satisfy that location and that this style was used in the times to mean that Eden was "everywhere" and that you can surmise that Adam and Eve where meant to be "everyone".. He also pointed out that the Tree of Knowlege of Good and Evil was to be a metaphore of the loss of innocence that as we grow older we seek knowlegde from sources other than God and that can cause us to loose sight of where we should be focused in life.

He said to often Christians get caught up in the details of the bible, like was a day really 24hours? Did the people in Genesis really live the long lives depicted in Bible and when we try and discuss the Bible with Non Chritians we end up arguing over these little details and miss the point.. The point is that our literaty style of today, does not equate to the style back then, and to try and equate the stories to the present day just makes us miss the mark on the lessons that we should be focusing on in the stories..

It is great to see the Bible in a whole new perspective.

[the doctor]

Id be real careful with that line of thought, not saying right or wrong as we do know the Bible is not a complete history of the time and I agree we should not get so hung up on details we do not get the point. We believe the Bible to be the Holy Inerrant Word of God.

However, in many cases the details are very important. For instance the fact that Christ was made man. The fact that he died and defeated death to save us from our sins. You can see where if you continue very long down the road you are mentioning you may find yourself questioning very important details as "metaphorical" or "unhistorical".

To play the Devils advocate here, if the tree and Eden was "metaphoircal" perhaps then the Cross and the death and suffering of Christ was "metaphorical" as well. I may claim that it didnt really happen but I get the point of the "story".

We believe the Bible to be the Holy Inerrant Word of God.

Caveat Emptor IMO

the doc

[cwink]

Id be real careful with that line of thought, not saying right or wrong as we do know the Bible is not a complete history of the time and I agree we should not get so hung up on details we do not get the point. We believe the Bible to be the Holy Inerrant Word of God.

However, in many cases the details are very important. For instance the fact that Christ was made man. The fact that he died and defeated death to save us from our sins. You can see where if you continue very long down the road you are mentioning you may find yourself questioning very important details as "metaphorical" or "unhistorical".

To play the Devils advocate here, if the tree and Eden was "metaphoircal" perhaps then the Cross and the death and suffering of Christ was "metaphorical" as well. I may claim that it didnt really happen but I get the point of the "story".

We believe the Bible to be the Holy Inerrant Word of God.

Caveat Emptor IMO

the doc

That is not what I am trying to portray.. What the Sheppard is saying (and he is an extremely well read Christian) is that the Bible is made up of different types of literary styles. Some books are stories, some are songs/poems and some are historical facts. And that Genesis was written in a style that pertained to that time. It is hard to convey the thoughts of 5 or 6 Sunday classes into a small paragraph, but to someone that did not grow up in the church and has always had "questions" about things that just didn't add up to me, especially in the Old Testament this helps explain why I may not need to believe every detail in order to believe the Bible is truely the word of God. My last sentence should have said that "Its great to see Genesis in a whole new perspective"

[the doctor]

if no Adam and Eve...what about Noah? not really a flood? Jonah? not really a whale? Moses? not really a burning bush? parting the seas?

for me it helps to beleive in the details of a God that controls the weather, the seas, the animals, His people

I doubt all is completely being conveyed here and am certainly not trying to discredit or disprove the Shepard or the teachings as I have not been a part of them, but I would again caution about that line of thinking without some very detailed explanation, especially on a public forum where it could so easily be misinterpreted

everything is not supposed to add up to us...Bible even states that there are ways of the Lord we will never be able to fully grasp

Im a Christian and I have misconstrued what you are saying and still not certain I agree, doesnt mean I dont think you or your teacher or class arent Christians, it just makes me wonder what others may be thinking? is the Bible just a story?

certainly not

the doc

[jsherwin]

Lesson #1, If a snake is trying to talk theology to you---RUN.

[the doctor]

is that the Bible is made up of different types of literary styles. Some books are stories, some are songs/poems and some are historical facts. And that Genesis was written in a style that pertained to that time.

I think I understand this part of what you are saying as I too did not realize certain books of the Bible are songs, poems, praises, historical accounts, letters to churches etc and it helps tremendously to understand the time and the history in which they were written

as far as the details regarding Adam and Eve and Eden and the Tree...not sure Im buying that part

the doc

[cwink]

is that the Bible is made up of different types of literary styles. Some books are stories, some are songs/poems and some are historical facts. And that Genesis was written in a style that pertained to that time.

I think I understand this part of what you are saying as I too did not realize certain books of the Bible are songs, poems, praises, historical accounts, letters to churches etc and it helps tremendously to understand the time and the history in which they were written

as far as the details regarding Adam and Eve and Eden and the Tree...not sure Im buying that part

the doc

I am not saying that all parts of Genesis is a story. There are certainly verifiable facts within in the book.. Let me quote (or at least paraprase) what the Shepard said in Sunday's class when I asked him this question. "So if Garden of Eden is Everyplace, and Adam and Eve are everybody, does that mean that it was just not Adam and Eve on Earth, where there more people than just them two walking around"

His response was "No one knows for sure if Adam and Eve were alone on earth, and that is not the main point of the story. The lesson to be gleamed out of Adam and Eve is that they disobeyed God and took knowledge from sources God said not to and loss thier innocence and became aware of thier immortality. Think of it this way, a child does not really have a sense of mortality, they don't percieve death as a threat, and have an air of innocence about them. As the grow up and "learn" the ways of this world and don't rely on God as much they loose that innocence and become mortal or at least aware of thier immortality"

I know this is deep and really hard to explain it this type of forum, but it is truly an interesting class. I will try and get the name of the books he is using as his sources..

[the doctor]

[quote="cwink"]Think of it this way, a child does not really have a sense of mortality, they don't percieve death as a threat, and have an air of innocence about them. As the grow up and "learn" the ways of this world and don't rely on God as much they loose that innocence and become mortal or at least aware of thier immortality" [quote]

ok, if I was "on the fence" before, I can definitely now disagree

we are born sinners, we dont have to learn to sin...you think about it, do you have to teach a baby to cry when it doesnt get its way? teach it to take what doesnt belong to it? to lie? to hit? to bite? NO

Presbyterian church teaches sinners from birth in need of salvation that can only be obtained by Gods grace and our faith in Jesus Christ...no more no less

and IMO there is definitley a sense of mortality....the sole instinct is purely survival for most infants the first few months of life

I would, however, like to know the title and author of the book...and you might want to read some of Pauls letters to the Galations as he goes to great lengths to warn against adding to or taking away things from the Gospel

the doc

[cwink]

Think of it this way, a child does not really have a sense of mortality, they don't percieve death as a threat, and have an air of innocence about them. As the grow up and "learn" the ways of this world and don't rely on God as much they loose that innocence and become mortal or at least aware of thier immortality"

ok, if I was "on the fence" before, I can definitely now disagree

we are born sinners, we dont have to learn to sin...you think about it, do you have to teach a baby to cry when it doesnt get its way? teach it to take what doesnt belong to it? to lie? to hit? to bite? NO

Presbyterian church teaches sinners from birth in need of salvation that can only be obtained by Gods grace and our faith in Jesus Christ...no more no less

and IMO there is definitley a sense of mortality....the sole instinct is purely survival for most infants the first few months of life

I would, however, like to know the title and author of the book...and you might want to read some of Pauls letters to the Galations as he goes to great lengths to warn against adding to or taking away things from the Gospel

the doc

I think your still missing the point, but I think its because I can't explain it very well.. I'll see if I can get the name of the books the Sheppard has been using.. Keep in mind that this is a Church of Christ, so he is not trying to add or take away from the Gospel... He is just give giving views on what other Theologioans have disscussed.

[StraightUp]

To whom it may concern: A good commentary on Genesis--- Exploring Genesis by John Phillips

[Wingman]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but the way I read it, Adam and Eve were two individuals, in the garden, that was in a particular place. After they were kicked out, angels guarded the gate. Eve was created when God took a rib from Adam, remember? Not sure when the rest of the folks got started, but I've always believed it was after Adam and Eve were created.

As far as the "garden of Eden being by 4 rivers and no place on earth fits that description", could it be that after the flood, things didn't go back to exactly the way they were before?

I believe it literally as I do all of the other stories.

[BigOrange]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but the way I read it, Adam and Eve were two individuals, in the garden, that was in a particular place. After they were kicked out, angels guarded the gate. Eve was created when God took a rib from Adam, remember? Not sure when the rest of the folks got started, but I've always believed it was after Adam and Eve were created.

As far as the "garden of Eden being by 4 rivers and no place on earth fits that description", could it be that after the flood, things didn't go back to exactly the way they were before?

I believe it literally as I do all of the other stories.

Same here. In Genesis Ch. 1, if "day" (which is biblically defined as a period of light and a period of darkness in verse 5) is to mean eons of time, how could the plants that were created on day 3 survive if subjected for millions and millions of years in total darkness? And if "day" is not to be taken literally, what would the definition of the word "year" be that is found just nine verses later in verse 14?

[Wingman]

Well, I'm not trying to say that anyone is wrong in their thinking, but I just see it in the literal sense.

I just wonder sometimes if the earth looked different after the flood than before. Could be the reason the "four rivers" location can't be found today. I just don't see how the earth could have not undergone some massive changes with all of that water rushing on top of everything, standing for a year, then running back off.

[cwink]

I used to look at it literally also.. But what I have learned in this class, is that you really can't compare the writings of Genesis to say Mark... We know who wrote Mark and when it was written. But there is no consensus on if Genesis was written by one person, by a group of people, how long after the actual events was it written, or how many generations it was handed down to before it was finally put into the form we see today..

Again, the point of this class on Genesis was not to debate if Genesis should be taken literally or not.. The point was to look deeper into the text, to see it more than just a historical account of how the world was created and to try and understand life as it was when the text was written and what lessons we can you gain out of it.

[Ordek Avci]

I'll throw my two cents in here, though two cents may be a bit over priced for my opinions.

First of all, no one simply reads the Bible literally, not you, not me, not your preacher, not the Church of Christ, not Paul the Apostle, and not Jesus himself. According to Mr. Webster, a literal reading would "adhere to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression." Once you get past the fact that none of our Bibles are translated literally, there is still no way to simply read your English Bible literally. As has already been mentioned, we can't even agree on what the English words mean. But even once you understand what the words are saying, we all agree that there is more to it than just what is on the page. We call that interpretation or application or something like that. This is what Jesus was doing on the Sermon on the Mount. "You have heard it said... but I say to you..." He took the "literal" reading of the Law and showed everyone that just taking it "literally" was incomplete.

So, skipping over the creation story (that's it's own topic), and looking at the Garden, I think we can all see a few things. Mainly, that the Garden was a real place. Why else would Moses go to such length to describe where it was? How could Adam and Eve be kicked out of some place if they were every person and Eden was everywhere? They had to be individuals and Eden had to be a place with a limited geographic boundary. It's obvious that Paul saw Adam as a real individual as well by the way he talks about him in his letters, specifically Rom. 5, 1 Cor. 15, and 1 Tim. 2.

But I would also agree that there's more to the Garden than just a nice story, there are theological implications to it as well. This is where there is obvious room for difference, but I'll throw my interpretations out there for you.

Before the Fall, the Garden was the place where God walked among his people. He, in his holiness, was able to commune with his people there. But the Garden was a limited place; it had boundaries. Therefore, I believe, God's plan from the very beginning was to expand the boundaries of the Garden until the Earth was filled with the knowledge of the glory of God as the waters cover the seas (Is. 11:9, Hab. 2:14). To do that, God charged Adam with cultivating and keeping the Garden (Gen. 2:15). These words are important because I believe that Adam in the Garden is a type of the Levites around the Tabernacle. These same verbs, 'abad for cultivate and shamar for keep, are seen again, together, in Numbers 3:8, which is talking about the role of the Levites at the Tabernacle. This is important because, like the Garden, the Tabernacle is where God communed with his people. Unfortunately for Israel, however, their sin kept them from directly communing with God, hence the need for the Law and the Levitical priests. I think you see Garden-imagery as the Israelites enter Canaan as well, with the Promised Land taking on Eden-like qualities and roles. When Joshua gets ready to lead the people to Jericho they are met by an angel with a drawn sword (like that one guarding Eden?) in Josh. 5. The Temple also is ripe with Garden imagery. The inner walls of the Holy of Holies is decorated with gourds, open flowers, palm trees, and cherubim (1 Kings 6), which, again, brings the Garden back to mind. It was here in the Holy of Holies that God would commune with his people. Fast forward to us today after Jesus dies and the veil is torn, and Paul says that we are now God's temple (1 Cor. 3:16), where God communes with us personally and individually thanks to Jesus' work on the cross. And where as Adam and Israel failed to cultivate and keep, and fill the world with the knowledge of the glory of God, Jesus is accomplishing his mission through the church (Matt. 28:18-20) until it is finally accomplished in the New Heavens and New Earth.

So, I do think there is more to the Garden than it just being a really nice, low-labor farm. But then again, I may be wrong.