Interpret Genesis 1 to make sense

[Truthseeker]

So God's authority, don't eat;

So biting into the apple was the first time Eve and Adam started to eat? My guess is that you meant the commandment not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

[AkByR64]

We still can comprehend "news" of what God did. The parting of the Red Sea; Moses' staff turning into a snake; the plague of locusts in Egypt; Jesus' ascension; etc.

Another point. Science appears to contradict the world views of many Christians, Jorge in particular. There are many various interpretation of Genesis. Which one comes closest to being the correct one?

My views are pretty close to those of Ken Ham, and the website https://answersingenesis.org/ they go over a lot of the scientific evidence, and biblical evidence, that shows that both are still compatible. The problem with science is that they cannot prove their same state past, that they need and build all models on. All the things, laws, they know and use to make the claims about the past are based on what they know now on earth only. If the past, laws, was different none of there models would have any validity. I figure that in the past, things and laws were different, this is why the Flood could happen, Garden, 1000 year lives etc. The future will also be different, as eternal life and angels etc. Science was only born in this limited state and have no business to speculate about the past or future. So it becomes a question only of belief. I can then be content with my beliefs also, knowing that no science can possibly overthrow them.

[AkByR64]

My take on Genesis 1, commands for creation were issued in 6 days, but between those special days millions/billions/etc. years, creation evolves indefinitely, animals to other humans on earth.

That's a terrible argument for one reason, the text explicitly says 'evening and morning' the 1st day, 2nd day etc. That is an explicit reference to ordinary day as opposed millions and billions which is how the word is usually used in that context. Clearly, the intended meaning is ordinary days. That's not my interpretation, that is literally what it says, as defined, 'defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1'. You'll have to go so far out just to stretched the Scripture just to make it fit old earth.

[JohnnyP]

So biting into the apple was the first time Eve and Adam started to eat? My guess is that you meant the commandment not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Yes, and I think the fruit is a metaphor for something else in a Heavenly realm, not literal fruit.

[Truthseeker]

Yes, and I think the fruit is a metaphor for something else in a Heavenly realm, not literal fruit.

Why metaphorical, not literal?

[JohnnyP]

Why metaphorical, not literal?

Trees are sometimes symbolic of people and kingdoms, fruit as the works of those kingdoms. The Tree of Life is symbolic of God's Kingdom, its fruit is eternal life, eating it is acceptance of that belief. The Tree of Knowledge represents Man's Kingdom that doesn't need the one God, its fruit is eternal death, eating it is acceptance of that belief.

So the fruit of the latter is like polytheism, a belief that there can be more than one god, or hard atheism, the belief that there are no higher gods. Whether or not there was literal fruit eaten as a sign of these concepts -- why do heavenly bodies need food anyway -- isn't really important, the lack of faith in God was.

[robrecht]

Trees are sometimes symbolic of people and kingdoms, fruit as the works of those kingdoms. The Tree of Life is symbolic of God's Kingdom, its fruit is eternal life, eating it is acceptance of that belief. The Tree of Knowledge represents Man's Kingdom that doesn't need the one God, its fruit is eternal death, eating it is acceptance of that belief.

So the fruit of the latter is like polytheism, a belief that there can be more than one god, or hard atheism, the belief that there are no higher gods. Whether or not there was literal fruit eaten as a sign of these concepts -- why do heavenly bodies need food anyway -- isn't really important, the lack of faith in God was.

This is a beautiful intertexual interpretation. I never thougth to bring Daniel or the parables of Jesus to bear on the interpretation of Genesis 2-3.

[Truthseeker]

Trees are sometimes symbolic of people and kingdoms, fruit as the works of those kingdoms. The Tree of Life is symbolic of God's Kingdom, its fruit is eternal life, eating it is acceptance of that belief. The Tree of Knowledge represents Man's Kingdom that doesn't need the one God, its fruit is eternal death, eating it is acceptance of that belief.

So the fruit of the latter is like polytheism, a belief that there can be more than one god, or hard atheism, the belief that there are no higher gods. Whether or not there was literal fruit eaten as a sign of these concepts -- why do heavenly bodies need food anyway -- isn't really important, the lack of faith in God was.

I second robrecht. However, what I was asking is, how to know when to interpret literally and when to interpret metaphorically. Also, I am not asking about interpreting Genesis 2 or later chapters.

[JohnnyP]

I second robrecht. However, what I was asking is, how to know when to interpret literally and when to interpret metaphorically. Also, I am not asking about interpreting Genesis 2 or later chapters.

Genesis 2 came up as my understanding of Day 4 in Genesis 1. As to what's literal or not, I suppose the rest of the Bible such as prophecies about good/evil figs in Jeremiah and of Jesus about fig trees bearing fruit show that maybe we should always look for a metaphor, and after that reason and question to see if it should be literal or not. Like as I said, do people in Heaven really need to eat food, do they still go to the bathroom? Maybe, maybe not, but it's just my own feeling that it's more about the metaphor than about literally eating fruit.

Other times we may need to hold off on a conclusion until more data comes in, we have to do that with some prophecies anyway. If I lived thousands of years ago I may have believed the earth came first then the sun. Today we know better.

[Truthseeker]

Genesis 2 came up as my understanding of Day 4 in Genesis 1. As to what's literal or not, I suppose the rest of the Bible such as prophecies about good/evil figs in Jeremiah and of Jesus about fig trees bearing fruit show that maybe we should always look for a metaphor, and after that reason and question to see if it should be literal or not. Like as I said, do people in Heaven really need to eat food, do they still go to the bathroom? Maybe, maybe not, but it's just my own feeling that it's more about the metaphor than about literally eating fruit.

Other times we may need to hold off on a conclusion until more data comes in, we have to do that with some prophecies anyway. If I lived thousands of years ago I may have believed the earth came first then the sun. Today we know better.

Oh, certainly Genesis 2 may be used to interpret Genesis 1 when it is relevant. And if Genesis 2 itself needs interpretation . . .

[JohnnyP]

Oh, certainly Genesis 2 may be used to interpret Genesis 1 when it is relevant. And if Genesis 2 itself needs interpretation . . .

...then you may have to go elsewhere to understand what it may mean. Interpreting Genesis 1 also depends on how we treat Genesis 2. A creationist interpretation of Genesis 1 is mandatory if Genesis 2 is viewed as simply going into more detail about Genesis 1, forget about theistic evolution.

But like I said something's fishy about it, since for one thing fish aren't mentioned in Genesis 2. And the most obvious, a plain reading suggests that those creatures are created after Adam, unlike the account in Genesis 1.

And so we can start questioning things like, did snakes really used to talk and walk around, and if Satan was that old serpent did he possess a snake and snakes were punished for it?

And so on until we figure out none of that's really in the Bible, but what is in the Bible is that Satan was a cherub in the Garden. And cherubim described elsewhere in Ezekiel and Revelation resemble an ox/eagle/lion/man. And compare that in the beginning there was Adam and made as his helpers, cattle/ox, fowl/eagle, and beast/lion.

From there we can see two different accounts to resolve the contradiction: creation of Adam and cherubim in Genesis 2, and evolution of animals to other humans on earth in Genesis 1. An understanding of Genesis 2 also helps answer the contradiction of sun after earth in Genesis 1.

So it's not like each chapter or verse is going to be an island easily understood all by itself, and sometimes it does seem to go in circles. But like Jesus said:

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

Matthew 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Matthew 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

[Truthseeker]

...then you may have to go elsewhere to understand what it may mean. Interpreting Genesis 1 also depends on how we treat Genesis 2. A creationist interpretation of Genesis 1 is mandatory if Genesis 2 is viewed as simply going into more detail about Genesis 1, forget about theistic evolution.

But like I said something's fishy about it, since for one thing fish aren't mentioned in Genesis 2. And the most obvious, a plain reading suggests that those creatures are created after Adam, unlike the account in Genesis 1.

And so we can start questioning things like, did snakes really used to talk and walk around, and if Satan was that old serpent did he possess a snake and snakes were punished for it?

And so on until we figure out none of that's really in the Bible, but what is in the Bible is that Satan was a cherub in the Garden. And cherubim described elsewhere in Ezekiel and Revelation resemble an ox/eagle/lion/man. And compare that in the beginning there was Adam and made as his helpers, cattle/ox, fowl/eagle, and beast/lion.

From there we can see two different accounts to resolve the contradiction: creation of Adam and cherubim in Genesis 2, and evolution of animals to other humans on earth in Genesis 1. An understanding of Genesis 2 also helps answer the contradiction of sun after earth in Genesis 1.

So it's not like each chapter or verse is going to be an island easily understood all by itself, and sometimes it does seem to go in circles. But like Jesus said:

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

Matthew 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Matthew 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Now someone is bringing up alleged contradictions, which subject have been argued over like forever including in TWeb. Said subject could create a thread dozens of pages long. If you want to argue contradictions, I'm not sure if there is a thread going on already. Let's wait and see if someone suggests a thread.

[JohnnyP]

Now someone is bringing up alleged contradictions, which subject have been argued over like forever including in TWeb. Said subject could create a thread dozens of pages long. If you want to argue contradictions, I'm not sure if there is a thread going on already. Let's wait and see if someone suggests a thread.

I guess I'm not sure how you are asking Genesis 1 to make sense if in part you aren't also asking how can the earth come before the sun, or how can animals come first then man in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2 Adam seems to come first then his helpmeet cattle/fowl/beasts of the field. Without addressing those issues Genesis 1 is nonsensical, but that's just me. What else about Genesis 1 do you think needs to be made sense of?

[Truthseeker]

I guess I'm not sure how you are asking Genesis 1 to make sense if in part you aren't also asking how can the earth come before the sun, or how can animals come first then man in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2 Adam seems to come first then his helpmeet cattle/fowl/beasts of the field. Without addressing those issues Genesis 1 is nonsensical, but that's just me. What else about Genesis 1 do you think needs to be made sense of?

Apparently the ancient Hebrews were much less fussy about chronological order than you are. Also, timing indication is different in Hebrew than modern English together with the convention that the order of appearance in the text usually is also chronological. You should not automatically assume that, absent timing indication, if an event is described before another event in the text, then the former therefore comes in time before the other event.

As for Earth's coming into being before the sun, remember the above paragraph. Also bear in mind that God does not move through time as we do. Or, God is eternal. Timeless. Out of time. One could say that God commanded the Earth to come into being at the same time as God commanded the sun and moon to come into being, but that would be wrong, because God is out of time. Maybe we can say, In the beginning God commanded the Earth, the sun, the moon, the plants, Eve, etc., to come into being. The universe and everything in it, in the beginning.

Anything else?

[JohnnyP]

Apparently the ancient Hebrews were much less fussy about chronological order than you are. Also, timing indication is different in Hebrew than modern English together with the convention that the order of appearance in the text usually is also chronological. You should not automatically assume that, absent timing indication, if an event is described before another event in the text, then the former therefore comes in time before the other event.

I don't assume. Aside from clear indication of timing there's also context and reason. Ancient Hebrews were also "fussy" if you want to call it that, that's why legends about Lilith and such exist, to resolve contradictions between Genesis 1 & 2. In fact my view that Adam's first helpers weren't animals like those created in Genesis 1 but rather cherubim parallels that rabbinic tradition in some ways.

For example Genesis 1 says God commanded fish, fowl, cattle, etc. Then it says God made man to have dominion over those animals. There's no reason to question timing since the context is that animals are already existing as God is planning to make man to have dominion over them.

While in Genesis 2, God makes Adam, decides Adam shouldn't be alone, and then makes creatures to be his helpers. There's no reason to question timing since the context is that Adam is already existing alone when God made helpers for him, creatures then Eve.

Etc.

As for Earth's coming into being before the sun, remember the above paragraph. Also bear in mind that God does not move through time as we do. Or, God is eternal. Timeless. Out of time. One could say that God commanded the Earth to come into being at the same time as God commanded the sun and moon to come into being, but that would be wrong, because God is out of time. Maybe we can say, In the beginning God commanded the Earth, the sun, the moon, the plants, Eve, etc., to come into being. The universe and everything in it, in the beginning.

God is omnipresent and omnipotent, it's not like He's trapped or locked out of our temporal existence, Jesus is proof of that, for Christians anyway.

But yes while God didn't have to wait on our time to see all creation unfold, being omniscient anyway, again I don't see a reason to change up the order of what's written according to how it unfolded.

Anything else?

I don't know, what else doesn't make sense?