Genesis creation story as inspired mythology

[Alien]

If Adam and Noah are mythical characters, the genealogies that go from Adam to Noah, and from Noah to Abraham, would be ahistorical, and therefore, must be mythical as well.

Or simply inaccurate as far as they refer to these people. (Ok now I see your point).

[Marshall Janzen]

I had relatives over the last few days, but I'm finally getting back to this thread.

Speaking only for myself, my complaint is not the idea that Genesis as myth would somehow be less than; rather, it's to question what reason there is to suppose that Genesis is a mythical account rather than a history, especially once you get past the 3rd chapter, or the 10th chapter.

I haven't advocated a perspective that all of Genesis is myth. I think each account needs to be studied on its own merits. Genesis 1:1-2:3 is quite different in form than Genesis 2:4-3:24, for instance, and determining the genre of the first passage does not say much about the second.

I mentioned the example of the detailed genealogies; are these characteristic of myth? No one seems to be able to explain why they are in there, nor does anyone seem too worried about it, and it's the latter that I find problematic. If your position is simply "we ASSUME this is a myth and go from there", that's fine, but you should say so at the outset.

For me, the genealogies aren't the starting point for determining the genre of earlier or later parts of Genesis. I see the genealogies mainly as a way of connecting the dots between key individuals and I don't think the further details are all that important, although they may have had more meaning in the past.

Matthew adjusted his genealogy to get about 14 generations between key events, so for him at least, symbolic numbers were more important than completeness or accuracy. There may be some deeper meaning in the numbers in the Genesis genealogies too, but perhaps it has been lost to time. It just doesn't bother me too much. The words of Titus are perhaps overkill, but still worth considering: "But avoid ... genealogies ... for they are unprofitable and worthless" (Titus 3:9)!

Let's say that both the Hebrews and the Babylonians write myths. Both myths contain genealogies. Both genealogies are ahistorical (the people listed did not ever really live). How, then, can we say that the myth of the Hebrews is the true myth? How can God be said to have inspired the Hebrews to write down a false history and yet call it truth?

The Genesis accounts aren't false history written down and called truth any more than Jesus' parables are. I think you've set the wrong litmus test. If we compared Jesus' parables to other parables, the difference wouldn't be that Jesus' recounted actual historical events. That isn't what made his parables inspired. If you can accept that, then the same reasoning applies to inspired myths. The myths may tell history in a different form (such as how Ezekiel 16 tells Israel's history), but they are not encyclopedia-style history, nor are they trying to be.

The genealogies aren't a truth that transcends their veracity; it seems to me that their value is contained in their factuality.

How do you know this? Perhaps there was some meaning to the numbers that we no longer know about. As for the names, perhaps they preserved the memory of important people, some of which we hear more about in Scripture, and some of which were probably remembered through stories now lost to time.

And if inspiration can mean merely "the thoughts and experiences of Godly people", then it seems the standard by which we separate Scripture from not-Scripture will require additional assumptions and present additional difficulties.

If inspiration can only apply to plainly factual historical accounts, then one would need to excise large parts of the Old Testament (including most of the wisdom literature and poetry). That standard doesn't cut it, so regardless of the other standard we use, it will by necessity be more nuanced. That doesn't automatically make it wrong.

Now, if inspiration can mean merely "the thoughts and experiences of Godly people", could not the above be a way in which the Gospel "myths" could have been generated?

The gospels don't have the tell-tale signs of myth that one finds in Genesis 2-3. For instance, when the miraculous happens, it is described as miraculous; in Genesis, an animal talks simply because it is "subtle" and trees have magical properties all of their own. The two are not analogous. The form of Genesis 2-3 has more similarities to the story within Judges 9:8-15 than to any of the gospels.

[Marshall Janzen]

Well, let's define what a parable is. To the best of my knowledge, a biblcal parable is a story/illustration given by Christ to convey a Truth. Most are truths about the Kingdom of God.

Is Ezekiel 17 a parable? What about Ezekiel 16?

Let me get this straight. Now, an opponent in the other thread that science informs our reading of Scripture. So I guess OEC are not all consistant or all have the same ideas. She seemed perfectly content to be science on par with Scripture.

No, from what you've said here, she is saying much the same thing as me. Science informs our reading of Scripture. There is nature/creation, and then there is science which is our reading of nature/creation. There is Scripture, and then there is our reading of Scripture (theology). Again, you are confusing items on different levels: science and theology have been interpreted, while nature/creation and Scripture are the direct sources of revelation. God's revelation in nature/creation will not contradict God's revelation in Scripture. Our reading of nature/creation should inform our reading of Scripture.

As I said before, the only reason, in my mind, that we interpret Genesis as myth/symbolism is because of science. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The reasons I've given for interpreting the Eden account as myth have had nothing to do with science. They are based on the text itself. They are also based on the way other Old Testament authors treat the account, and the way the same imagery is used in the New Testament, especially in Revelation.

So the condemation of divorce goes back to something that didn't really happen? Adam and Eve didn't really become one flesh? These are all symbolic.

Just because something is symbolic doesn't mean it's untrue. The condemnation of Jerusalem/Israel in Ezekiel 16 goes back to how she "played the whore" with any passerby, and gave the children she fathered with God as sacrifices to be devoured. Now, Jerusalem the city didn't literally do exactly what is described -- Jerusalem and God didn't literally have sex and produce children, for instance -- but it is still true. The story graphically captures the extent of Israel's rebellion against God. If you read Genesis 2-3 the way you probably already read Ezekiel 16, I think it will make a lot more sense to you.

Answer this truthfully. Do you think the Jews treated Genesis as a symbolic/mythical book?

Parts of it -- especially the Eden account -- certainly. Josephus and Philo both did, and aside from what is recorded in Scripture, they're the only two Jews from that era whose views on Genesis I'm aware of.

But Christ did say He will guide us in all truth. So what is the truth?

Truth is ultimately a person -- the same person who is the light and the way. He is the ultimate source of all truth, regardless of its immediate source.

What are you saying? Are you saying Hagar and Sarah are a myth too?

I think you misread me. I said a literal passage may also have a symbolic meaning.

Are you saying that Scripture and Creation are seperate? Indeed they are, but Scripture is an account of that Creation. Thus if we want to understand Creation, we have to understand Scripture.

I was using "creation" as a noun, not a verb. It is equivalent to "nature" or "the universe". Sorry for the confusion.

So old earth age and evolution are now facts?

Yes, they've always been facts, but that's not what I said. I said nature in itself is factual. Whether we accurately interpret it is another matter.

If evolution and old age was all that, I think all scientists would agree to it.

If the Holocaust was really all that, would all historians -- even fringe historians -- agree to it? Some historians have personal reasons for wanting to reject the Holocaust, and some scientists have personal (and theological) reasons for wanting to reject evolution and an old earth. For the vast majority, though, across all religions, there is a consensus on these issues.

Have you read the short story "Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" Well, Arnold Friend in that story can symbolize Satan and Carrie can symbolize the average, shallow girl. But that doesn't mean that in the plot of the story Carrie isn't Carrie and Arnold Friend isn't Arnold Friend. Just there is more to their characters than that.

I haven't read the story, but I agree entirely with your last two sentences here.

I think it is the same with the sepert. Just because he represents Satan doesn't mean he still isn't a serpent. Do you understand?

I don't understand how you connect this to the illustration you just gave. Carrie isn't a real girl. The author is using the story (at least partly) to depict the average, shallow girl. The serpent is a real serpent within the story, but the author is using the serpent to depict our adversary and tempter, later revealed as Satan. Adam and Eve are real individuals within the story, but the author is using them to depict early humanity. Whether or not an actual girl named Carrie, or the serpent, or Adam and Eve literally existed and did exactly what these stories describe is not the point the authors are getting at.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Hi all,


A quick disclaimer:

There is about a page and a half of this thread that i havent read, so if this repeats or rehashes somethings, my apologies.


I do want to emphasize that i do understand what has been said reguarding the use of 'Myth' as a way to understand the Creation account (and The Flood, for that matter).

While going through the Hermeneutics class on
http://www.biblicaltraining.org this was covered:

(i've bolded a few spots that i think are relavant to this thread)

(This is the outline to The Goal of Interpretation, Part 6)

IV. The Miraculous in Scripture

A. Three Approaches

1. The Supernatural Approach (Traditional)

a. The events really took place.
b. The events happened as recorded.
c. The text proclaims a divine event.
d. Since God performed this event, search for a natural cause is irrelevant.
e. A closed cause-effect continuum is denied. Openness in history is maintained.
f. The intention of the text (author's meaning) is maintained.


2. The Rationalist Approach

a. The events could not have taken place.
b. The events happened differently than recorded.
c. The text contains a natural event behind it.
d. The natural cause of this event can and should be learned.
e. A closed cause-effect continuum affirmed. Openness in history is denied.
f. The intention of the text (authorial meaning) is not maintained.


3. The Mythical Approach

a. The events could not have taken place.
b. The text proclaims a divine event.
c. The search for natural cause is irrelevant.
d. There is neither a divine nor natural cause, since the text proclaims a myth.
e. A closed cause-effect continuum affirmed. Openness in history denied.
f. The "deeper" intention of the text (authorial meaning) is maintained.


B. Presuppositions

1. Eugene B. Borowitz
2. Rudolph Bultmann

© source where applicable

If anyone wants, they can listen to the class at (i think)

http://www.biblicaltraining.org/bt_browser.php

In order to listen to any of the classes, you have to register w/ you e-mail address...

the cost---- everyones favorite amount---- free



Of the Three Approaches, there are two basic presuppostions:

Either the events took place or they didnt. If a person's presuppostion leads one to believe that they didnt happen because they couldnt have happened, then (atleast to me) the question seems to be, "Why could it have not happened?" If that person is a Christian, then the next question is, "At what point in God's Word does that Christian start to believe in Divine Intervention (Miraculous events)?" ...

Both OT & NT
Prophecies?

OT
the Exodus? David & Goliath? The Flood (even if it were local)? the fall of Jericho? Elijah and Elisha?

NT
the Incarnation (to include the Diety and Humanity of the Christ)
His Resurrection? (and because of the Resurrection) OUR Sins forgiven?



The outcomes of those presuppostions cause two views of the openness of History and two views of the meaning of the Text.
(and my personal opinion is that one of the reasons that details of geneology and such, were included for the purpose of telling us which appoach God intended us to use... but then again, i'm sure you guys already figured what my opinion is )


I think there is also another presuppostion, and that is (as i think Alien pointed out) the meaning of 'Inspired by God'..

Was God the muse that inspired the biblical writers? Or did the Holy Spirit direct and guide the words of Word of God?

I think what one uses for this meaning, is the major determining factor of how that person view each and every Book, from Gen. to Rev.

Atleast for me, a Supernatural Approach (Traditional)(Literal)
Genesis chapters 1- 11 are foundational to understanding the rest of God's Word and doctrines, with the least amount of "theological hoop-jumping".... and this approach rules out Theistic Evolution (and similar things that equal an OE).


Sorry if this post is messy and not linear or hard to follow. It started out fairly clean and to the point, but then i added and deleted and inserted stuff, as more thoughts came to me, trying to get more of my point across... well, anyway, sorry for the mess.

Together in Christ,
johnny

[Marshall Janzen]

I do want to emphasize that i do understand what has been said reguarding the use of 'Myth' as a way to understand the Creation account (and The Flood, for that matter).

Why, then, do you go on to give a definition of 'Myth' totally different than what has been presented here, and specifically, one that rules out the possibility of the events being historical?

Here, again, is the definition that's been presented in this thread as what some of us are meaning when we say "myth":

myth: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

Once again, Ezekiel 16 is a myth that does have a determinable basis of fact. It is based on real historical events, but retells them in a mythical or figurative form that reveals more than a plain historical account could. I believe the Eden creation account is much the same, but about humanity's history instead of just Israel's history.

Edit: Further, it is not about denying the miraculous, but looking at how events are described. When an animal talks, not because God opens the creature's mouth, but because it is "subtle", this is a clue that we are hearing a legend or myth, not an account of a miracle. Here's an example: read Judges 9:8-15. Now, is it necessary to deny God's ability to make trees talk to view this as a legendary or mythical story? If not, then you should understand, at least in principle, why some also see parts of Genesis as myth.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Hi Merc,

Why, then, do you go on to give a definition of 'Myth' totally different than what has been presented here, and specifically, one that rules out the possibility of the events being historical?

aahhh, it wasnt a definition.

It was an explaination of what happens with each of those Approaches. Besides that, it wasnt mine explaination.... it was from a hermeneutics class taught by Dr. Robert Stein (not that that really matters, since, if you look hard enough, one can find an academian that says just about anything under the sun.... i'm sure there are also many that would disagree with him)

Here, again, is the definition that's been presented in this thread as what some of us are meaning when we say "myth":

myth: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

Nice of you to include this again... please remember to refer to it later in this post.

Anyway, the explaination of Approach #3 does not argue or deny this definition... it neither agrees nor disagrees.

Once again, Ezekiel 16 is a myth that does have a determinable basis of fact. It is based on real historical events, but retells them in a mythical or figurative form that reveals more than a plain historical account could. I believe the Eden creation account is much the same, but about humanity's history instead of just Israel's history.

Right now, i'm only talking about what Dr. Stein said, reguarding the Three Approaches to understanding Scripture:

If you recall, in Approach #3, the presupposition is, "(a.) The events could not have taken place.".... if it were not the presupposition, then it would automatically fall into Approach #1 (well, not automatically.. the other alternative would be "agnostic"... but even an atheistic view of Scripture, would fit into the 3 choices.. "true, false, dont know"... the difference would be that of rejection, but to keep it simple, let's just stick to a Christian choices, which limits us to the 2 presuppositions: event ~did/could not~ have taken place)

Now, reguarding Ezekiel 16, i disagree that this is Myth. This is an account of what God told His prophet to tell His (God's) people.

The form that God uses is a simile that compares His people to that of a person...

Gill's Commentary

...of a female infant, whose birth, breeding, marriage, grandeur, and conduct, are described, in order to show the wickedness and ingratitude of, his people; who, on account thereof, are threatened with judgments; though mercy is promised to a remnant that should repent....

© source where applicable

taking into account my two questions, from the previous post, to Christians (that dont think that these are actual, historical accounts i.e. myths).... here they are again:

1. Why could it have not happened?
2. At what point in God's Word does that Christian start to believe in Divine Intervention (Miraculous events)?

Before you answer these, let me ask you a couple of other questions, and PLEASE do not be offended BECAUSE OF the question... this is not meant as an attack against you, if you are as your "faith icon" indicates (Christian).

Do you believe that God exists or do you believe that God is myth?

Is it possible that God did (in some way or form) talk to His Prophets?

Now, when you go back and answer the first two questions, keep in mind the definition that you gave for myth... that is the reason why i asked you to refer to it.. well, that and the question, "why do you think that Eze 16 is myth?"

Me personally, i think that the simile in question is fantastic (as all of God's Word and Works are wonderful ) , and i thank you for pointing me to read it again.

Not only does God show Israel what they were doing, and why He was recompensing them, but it is very revealing of individuals and also the world (Christian nations in particular)..

I just thought i'd include this from Gill's...

Gill's Commentary (Eze 16:60... first part of verse)

Eze 16:60 - Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth,.... The covenant made with them at Sinai, quickly after they came out of Egypt, when they were, both as a body politic and ecclesiastical, in their infant state; for, as Kimchi says, all the while they were in Egypt, and until they, came into the land of Canaan, were called the days of their youth; and to this covenant, which had the nature of a matrimonial contract, the, prophet refers when he speaks of the "love" of their "espousals", and the "kindness" of their "youth", Jer_2:2; this covenant the Lord remembered, and made good his part, though they neglected theirs; and it was particularly remembered when Christ was made under this law, and became the fulfilling end of it to his people; yielding perfect obedience to it, and bearing the penalty of it in their room and stead; for here begins a declaration of the grace and mercy of God to the remnant, according to the election of grace, which were among this degenerate people, and whom the Lord had a special regard unto:

© source where applicable

Which finally brings us to:

Edit: Further, it is not about denying the miraculous, but looking at how events are described. When an animal talks, not because God opens the creature's mouth, but because it is "subtle", this is a clue that we are hearing a legend or myth, not an account of a miracle. Here's an example: read Judges 9:8-15. Now, is it necessary to deny God's ability to make trees talk to view this as a legendary or mythical story? If not, then you should understand, at least in principle, why some also see parts of Genesis as myth.

Right now i'm not going to read Judges 9:8-15 (i did open it up, and since i still had Gill's open, i noticed that he claims that it is " an apologue or fable,")
My wife just got home from work, so that's the reason that i'm not going to look into it further... and for the record, i do not take Gill as total or partial authority, it just happened that i used his work this time... since, it I basically agreed with it

The thing i would like to quickly address in your "edit" paragraph is, "talking snake". You say that it is not about denying the miraculous, but why is it, that you think that a talking snake has to be a "subtle clue that it's a myth" when we are discussing God's Word? .. the Almighty God? ... the True God?


Anyway, gotta go.... tonight is movie night... were gonna watch one of my favorites.... a classic.... The Duel

God Bless all our understanding of His Word,
johnny

[Marshall Janzen]

Hi Johnny,

If you recall, in Approach #3, the presupposition is, "(a.) The events could not have taken place.".... if it were not the presupposition, then it would automatically fall into Approach #1 (well, not automatically.. the other alternative would be "agnostic"... but even an atheistic view of Scripture, would fit into the 3 choices.. "true, false, dont know"... the difference would be that of rejection, but to keep it simple, let's just stick to a Christian choices, which limits us to the 2 presuppositions: event ~did/could not~ have taken place)

I think this is the wrong way to decide an issue. I don't decide that Judges 9:8-15 is figurative and not literal because the events could not have taken place. Nothing is impossible for God -- not even talking trees. I decide it's figurative based on my reading of the text and the indications that it is not intended to be literal. Same with Ezekiel 16, and same with the Eden account in Genesis.

Now, reguarding Ezekiel 16, i disagree that this is Myth. This is an account of what God told His prophet to tell His (God's) people.

The form that God uses is a simile that compares His people to that of a person...

Then, to use your terminology, I view the Eden account as a simile that represents early humanity as a person... in this case a person named Adam, which just happens to be a name used to represent humanity elsewhere. Later in the story, Adam is divided and from one side God forms Eve, and they together continue to represent humanity. Similarly, the talking serpent is a simile for Satan, the tree of life is a simile for God's sustaining power, and the tree of knowledge is a simile for godlike knowledge the humans weren't ready for.

Do you believe that God exists or do you believe that God is myth?

Is it possible that God did (in some way or form) talk to His Prophets?

God exists and is the central character of some biblical myths (and as you know by now, myths can reveal truth -- even historical truth). God spoke to his prophets in many ways.

taking into account my two questions, from the previous post, to Christians (that dont think that these are actual, historical accounts i.e. myths).... here they are again:

1. Why could it have not happened?
2. At what point in God's Word does that Christian start to believe in Divine Intervention (Miraculous events)?

1. It did happen, but what happened is more than a literal reading uncovers, just as the historical events underlying Ezekiel 16 are more than a literal reading would recognize. Jerusalem is Israel and not just a woman. Adam is early humanity and not just a man. However, both accounts are true because Israel and early humanity both existed, and the accounts truthfully describe their history, when read in recognition of the style of writing.

2. At Genesis 1:1 where God miraculously creates a universe distinct from himself.

Now, when you go back and answer the first two questions, keep in mind the definition that you gave for myth... that is the reason why i asked you to refer to it.. well, that and the question, "why do you think that Eze 16 is myth?"

Because Ezekiel 16 is (by now) a traditional story, concerning a sequence of events with a determinable basis of fact (remember, myths can be either with or without this), that includes God and explains a phenomenon (Israel's coming judgement).

Me personally, i think that the simile in question is fantastic (as all of God's Word and Works are wonderful ) , and i thank you for pointing me to read it again.

I think it's fantastic too -- even if a bit disturbing. I even find it more gripping than the more literal historical parts of the Bible that describe some of the same events more prosaically. Of course, I also think the Eden account is fantastic and wonderful.

Not only does God show Israel what they were doing, and why He was recompensing them, but it is very revealing of individuals and also the world (Christian nations in particular)..

Exactly. Reading the Eden account the same way also leads to it being very revealing of humanity in general and not just two long-dead people.

The thing i would like to quickly address in your "edit" paragraph is, "talking snake". You say that it is not about denying the miraculous, but why is it, that you think that a talking snake has to be a "subtle clue that it's a myth" when we are discussing God's Word? .. the Almighty God? ... the True God?

Because the only reason for the serpent's ability to speak that is given is that it is more subtle than any of the other beasts. Its unnatural ability is not attributed to God or any other supernatural force. If it said that God opened the serpent's mouth, or that a demonic being possessed the serpent or took the form of a serpent, then I would have a reason for taking it as a miracle rather than a more figurative style of account. Now, if you don't accept this principle, why do you dismiss the possibility of the talking trees in Judges 9:8-15 being a miracle?

Anyway, I hope my view is starting to make some sense, even if you don't accept it. I may not be online much tomorrow due to the holiday. Speaking of which...

Happy Canadian Thanksgiving!

[xtreem5150ahm]

Hi Johnny,

I think this is the wrong way to decide an issue. I don't decide that Judges 9:8-15 is figurative and not literal because the events could not have taken place. Nothing is impossible for God -- not even talking trees. I decide it's figurative based on my reading of the text and the indications that it is not intended to be literal. Same with Ezekiel 16, and same with the Eden account in Genesis.

Then, to use your terminology, I view the Eden account as a simile that represents early humanity as a person... in this case a person named Adam, which just happens to be a name used to represent humanity elsewhere. Later in the story, Adam is divided and from one side God forms Eve, and they together continue to represent humanity. Similarly, the talking serpent is a simile for Satan, the tree of life is a simile for God's sustaining power, and the tree of knowledge is a simile for godlike knowledge the humans weren't ready for.

God exists and is the central character of some biblical myths (and as you know by now, myths can reveal truth -- even historical truth). God spoke to his prophets in many ways.

1. It did happen, but what happened is more than a literal reading uncovers, just as the historical events underlying Ezekiel 16 are more than a literal reading would recognize. Jerusalem is Israel and not just a woman. Adam is early humanity and not just a man. However, both accounts are true because Israel and early humanity both existed, and the accounts truthfully describe their history, when read in recognition of the style of writing.

2. At Genesis 1:1 where God miraculously creates a universe distinct from himself.

Because Ezekiel 16 is (by now) a traditional story, concerning a sequence of events with a determinable basis of fact (remember, myths can be either with or without this), that includes God and explains a phenomenon (Israel's coming judgement).

<<snipped>>

Exactly. Reading the Eden account the same way also leads to it being very revealing of humanity in general and not just two long-dead people.

Because the only reason for the serpent's ability to speak that is given is that it is more subtle than any of the other beasts. Its unnatural ability is not attributed to God or any other supernatural force. If it said that God opened the serpent's mouth, or that a demonic being possessed the serpent or took the form of a serpent, then I would have a reason for taking it as a miracle rather than a more figurative style of account. Now, if you don't accept this principle, why do you dismiss the possibility of the talking trees in Judges 9:8-15 being a miracle?

Anyway, I hope my view is starting to make some sense, even if you don't accept it. I may not be online much tomorrow due to the holiday. Speaking of which...

Happy Canadian Thanksgiving!

Hi Merc,

I hope you had a good Thanksgiving, Canadian type, 1 each.

i havent forgotten of our conversation. i started to reply yesterday, but it was a total mess.. even i had a hard time following it, so i decided to start over but got sidetracked.

i did finally read that passage in Judges (yesterday during my lunch). (You mentioned 'indictating') As for the 'indicator' in that passage, i think it would be verse 7, where Jotham tells the people to listen to him, so that God would listen to them.

So, so far you and i agree that the passages, in Ez 16 and Judges 9:8-15, are intended to be figurative, and we both seem to understand what the indicators of interpreting them that way, are.

Why then, dont we see an indicator in the Creation account or in the account of the Fall, that would allign our understanding with each other?

You claim that the word 'subtle' is the indicator of the only reason given for the serpent ability to speak... but i dont think that it's subtleness is the reason for it's speaking. In fact, i dont think that there really is an indicator of why it could speak, it just seems to me a discription of the creature that misled Eve & Adam.... although, i'm sure that it has more meaning than that. If i said a horse was fast, would that mean that i was using it figuratively? Or describing it?.... Could go either way on that, couldnt we?

Strong's

subtle

H6175
ערוּם
‛ârûm
aw-room'
Passive participle of H6191; cunning (usually in a bad sense): - crafty, prudent, subtil.

© source where applicable

OK, that's no help.. let's try a dictionary, Webster's type, 1 each:

[CITE]subtle adj
1. thin, tenuous, or rarefied, as a fluid or an odor
2. fine or delicate in meaning or intent; difficult to perceive or understand
3. delicate or faint and mysterious
4. requiring mental acuteness, penetration, or discernment
5. characterized by mental acuteness or penetration
6. cunning, wily, or crafty
7. insidious in operation
8. skillful, clever, or ingenious[/CITE]

So, again, not much help... still could go either way

I read part of the commentary of Gen 3:1 from "Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible" and although it seemed like he was trying to be impartial and objective, i feel that he accomplished about as much as our look at Strong's and Webster's... not to mention, he was more boring than both Strong's and Webster's, combined (which is why i only read part of what he said... but if you want, let me know and i'll copy/paste it for you. You might get more out of it than i did).

I also took a peek at "Albert Barne's Notes on the Bible". Although he seems less boring, he does seem (atleast to me) to fall into the same trap that Clarke and other's do.. that of reading into the text, their own preconceive notions (such as the serpent being a snake, as opposed to, say a dragon... i know that might be an exaggeration, but so be it). Maybe a person just cant read it for what it's worth.. but if we dont, then what good is it? To illustrate what i mean by this, let me quote from Barne's (on Gen 3:1, and, BTW this quote is the reason that i thought he was trying to be impartial):

The whole account is either a simple narrative of facts, or it is an allegory. If it be a historical relation, its literal meaning should be sought out; if it be an allegory, no attempt should be made to explain it, as it would require a direct revelation to ascertain the sense in which it should be understood, for fanciful illustrations are endless. Believing it to be a simple relation of facts capable of a satisfactory explanation, I shall take it up on this ground; and, by a careful examination of the original text, endeavor to fix the meaning, and show the propriety and consistency of the Mosaic account of the fall of man. The chief difficulty in the account is found in the question, Who was the agent employed in the seduction of our first parents?

Of the commentaries that i have, they all seem to be of no help one way or the other... if you would like to read any or all of 'em, let me know (or you could download them from e-sword, which is where i got 'em from).

God Bless,
johnny

[Marshall Janzen]

I hope you had a good Thanksgiving, Canadian type, 1 each.

Thanks! (See, I'm still in the spirit.) Yes, I did.

i did finally read that passage in Judges (yesterday during my lunch). (You mentioned 'indictating') As for the 'indicator' in that passage, i think it would be verse 7, where Jotham tells the people to listen to him, so that God would listen to them.

I'm not sure I understand. How is this an indicator that what God wants them to listen to is figurative and not literal? Surely God could give a prophet a literal message too?

So, so far you and i agree that the passages, in Ez 16 and Judges 9:8-15, are intended to be figurative, and we both seem to understand what the indicators of interpreting them that way, are.

No, we don't seem to agree on the indicators even there (see above).

Why then, dont we see an indicator in the Creation account or in the account of the Fall, that would allign our understanding with each other?

Maybe it would help if I presented a fuller view of how I read the Eden account. I've posted some points from this already, but here they are in a (hopefully) more coherent form.

What is the account in Genesis 2:4-4:26 revealing? First, the question is often asked whether this account is "historical" or "true". While I think the story conveys truth just as surely as Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan, that alone doesn't answer the question of historicity. In the case of Adam and Eve, I think the story goes beyond a parable. It conveys theological truth but it also reveals some broad brush strokes of history.

In this way, it is very similar to Ezekiel 16. Is the woman named Jerusalem a real person or is she imaginary? The answer is neither. She is a representation of the nation Israel. Her story within that prophetic message is Israel's story. It is told more completely than a historical record could, since it also reveals God's involvement in events that historically could seem merely natural.

I think Genesis 2-4 is revealing the history of humanity the way Ezekiel 16 reveals Israel's history. Adam and his wife Eve are not individuals any more than the lady Jerusalem and her sisters Samaria and Sodom. They are far more than individuals. God places them in a paradise and provides for all their needs, just as he adopted the child Jerusalem and raised her in luxury. Adam and Eve's actions allegorically correspond to the actions of humanity toward God.

The serpent is not just a literal serpent: it represents pride, the temptation of selfish ambition, and ultimately Satan. So, when the serpent is cursed in Genesis 3:14-15, the curse is actually referring to far more than literal snakes -- it foreshadows the second Adam's ultimate defeat of Satan (Romans 16:20). Similarly, the trees are not literal trees any more than the ring and crown in Ezekiel 16:12 are merely literal. The tree of life represents God's sustaining, life-giving power (Revelation 2:7, 22:1-2), while the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents godlike knowledge (Genesis 3:5).

Adam and Eve, representing fledgling humanity, disobey God by grasping for this knowledge that they are not ready for. As a result, they do gain some knowledge, but in the process lose their innocence. Their communion with God is broken. Relating this to prehistory, the most obvious trait distinguishing humans from other apes is the increase in brain size; the larger skull size naturally led to increased pain for women in childbirth (other factors, such as hip changes due to bipedalism and the level of cranial development at birth, also factor in). Early primates learned to use tools, making clubs, then spears, then arrows. We learned to use fire. As we gained knowledge, we became capable of violence exceeding any other beast.

Then God confronts Adam and Eve and reveals the consequences of their actions. They are banished from their paradise, no longer having access to the tree of life -- God's special sustaining power. Life will be hard as they move from gathering food in the garden to an agricultural lifestyle where for the first time weeds can be defined.

Their broken communion with God and each other is passed on in their children. The horticulturalist son kills his pastoralist brother. In short order the account goes on to describe the advent of cities (4:17), crafts (4:21) and metalworks (4:22), again compressing large-scale events into a story of a few individuals.

When the account is read this way, it is no less truthful than the account in Ezekiel 16. This approach is used even by most literalists when it comes to Genesis 3:14-15, but I don't think those verses are an aberration. When this approach is used for the entire account, it allows one to get at the themes and focus of the story instead of trying to manipulate science or history to accord with its surface details.

[xtreem5150ahm]

Thanks! (See, I'm still in the spirit.) Yes, I did.

I'm not sure I understand. How is this an indicator that what God wants them to listen to is figurative and not literal? Surely God could give a prophet a literal message too?

No, we don't seem to agree on the indicators even there (see above).

Maybe it would help if I presented a fuller view of how I read the Eden account. I've posted some points from this already, but here they are in a (hopefully) more coherent form.

What is the account in Genesis 2:4-4:26 revealing? First, the question is often asked whether this account is "historical" or "true". While I think the story conveys truth just as surely as Jesus' story of the Good Samaritan, that alone doesn't answer the question of historicity. In the case of Adam and Eve, I think the story goes beyond a parable. It conveys theological truth but it also reveals some broad brush strokes of history.

In this way, it is very similar to Ezekiel 16. Is the woman named Jerusalem a real person or is she imaginary? The answer is neither. She is a representation of the nation Israel. Her story within that prophetic message is Israel's story. It is told more completely than a historical record could, since it also reveals God's involvement in events that historically could seem merely natural.

I think Genesis 2-4 is revealing the history of humanity the way Ezekiel 16 reveals Israel's history. Adam and his wife Eve are not individuals any more than the lady Jerusalem and her sisters Samaria and Sodom. They are far more than individuals. God places them in a paradise and provides for all their needs, just as he adopted the child Jerusalem and raised her in luxury. Adam and Eve's actions allegorically correspond to the actions of humanity toward God.

The serpent is not just a literal serpent: it represents pride, the temptation of selfish ambition, and ultimately Satan. So, when the serpent is cursed in Genesis 3:14-15, the curse is actually referring to far more than literal snakes -- it foreshadows the second Adam's ultimate defeat of Satan (Romans 16:20). Similarly, the trees are not literal trees any more than the ring and crown in Ezekiel 16:12 are merely literal. The tree of life represents God's sustaining, life-giving power (Revelation 2:7, 22:1-2), while the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents godlike knowledge (Genesis 3:5).

Adam and Eve, representing fledgling humanity, disobey God by grasping for this knowledge that they are not ready for. As a result, they do gain some knowledge, but in the process lose their innocence. Their communion with God is broken. Relating this to prehistory, the most obvious trait distinguishing humans from other apes is the increase in brain size; the larger skull size naturally led to increased pain for women in childbirth (other factors, such as hip changes due to bipedalism and the level of cranial development at birth, also factor in). Early primates learned to use tools, making clubs, then spears, then arrows. We learned to use fire. As we gained knowledge, we became capable of violence exceeding any other beast.

Then God confronts Adam and Eve and reveals the consequences of their actions. They are banished from their paradise, no longer having access to the tree of life -- God's special sustaining power. Life will be hard as they move from gathering food in the garden to an agricultural lifestyle where for the first time weeds can be defined.

Their broken communion with God and each other is passed on in their children. The horticulturalist son kills his pastoralist brother. In short order the account goes on to describe the advent of cities (4:17), crafts (4:21) and metalworks (4:22), again compressing large-scale events into a story of a few individuals.

When the account is read this way, it is no less truthful than the account in Ezekiel 16. This approach is used even by most literalists when it comes to Genesis 3:14-15, but I don't think those verses are an aberration. When this approach is used for the entire account, it allows one to get at the themes and focus of the story instead of trying to manipulate science or history to accord with its surface details.

i wasnt going to reply to anything, anymore tonight, but while the thought is still fresh..

The problem i see is that if the Creation account (and by association, the subsequent account of the Fall) is "only" a Myth that conveys truth, it is still the Inspired Word of God, and being the Word of God must be true in more than just a figurative sense, since He is not a deciever. That said, the order of the Creation account compared to the order that secular science "says" origins occured, are different. God's Word places the earth and water before the sun, moon and stars. Science puts the gallaxies of stars before planets. That's a major difference. God even says that plants (and the atmosphere... firmament) were Created before the sun. (the Day-Age Theory tries to give answers for this, but has different problems...like millions of years between the Creation of plants without a sun)

It really isnt about "manipulating science or history" so much as whether God's Word is trusted higher or lower than that of (our understanding of) science or history.
From a YEC point of view, anything other than taking God's Word for what it says is the manipulation to fit science and history.

And again, if the Creation account is Myth, what purpose does the ordering (or, misordering) of days, the geneologies and ages of those people serve?

If TE were true (ya, i know i'm mixing two threads, but the concept is almost the same), that would mean that there were more people (whatever species Adam & Eve were) that had had the genetic mutations to become what we are, but they were not included into the spiritual Life that became the spiritual Death of the Curse... either that or, as you claim, Adam means man-kind, and was not a specific individual. But what then concerning
Rom 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,..." ?

What about "Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." ? What is the relevance of "the age of Adam, and he died" in a "Genesis creation story as inspired mythology" understanding of Scripture? Why would he live that long, if there were other humans or humanoids around?... or, what figurative meaning could be applied or implied?... or was it a typo, and really meant "93 years", but if that's the case, then that would mean that Adam was 13 when Seth was born (and younger for Cain and Abel ~~ not that that would be entirely impossible, if Eve were older than Adam, but according to the Word, she was alittle younger, less than a day, but still..) And if we carried a typo problem of age further, that would mean that Seth was 10 1/2 years old when his son Enos was born (as opposed to 105)?

Sorry for the rant, it's just that i've seen these arguements fall this way in the past (at a different website), and i'm just trying to speed some of them along. I'm not saying that this particular discussion (or you, for that matter) would have gone in any of those directions, but i really didnt want to wait to find out.

BTW, you said,

"Then God confronts Adam and Eve and reveals the consequences of their actions. They are banished from their paradise, no longer having access to the tree of life -- God's special sustaining power. Life will be hard as they move from gathering food in the garden to an agricultural lifestyle where for the first time weeds can be defined."

Did you notice that the first mention of progeny is after being banished? Almost implies a fairly short time in the Garden.

Ok, gotta call it quits for the night... atleast as far as Tweb is concerned.

Night, and God Bless,
johnny

[Marshall Janzen]

The problem i see is that if the Creation account (and by association, the subsequent account of the Fall) is "only" a Myth that conveys truth, it is still the Inspired Word of God, and being the Word of God must be true in more than just a figurative sense, since He is not a deciever.

I don't follow. Does the Ezekiel 16 account also have to be more than figurative? If not, why would this be the case elsewhere? If something is intended to be figurative, then why would it have to be literal as well, and why would it be deceptive if it wasn't? I interpret the Eden account as a historical myth, but the story only corresponds to history when its symbolism is taken into consideration (if one goes looking for an actual time when a kid stepped on a snake, it would not be what Genesis 3:15 was about).

either that or, as you claim, Adam means man-kind, and was not a specific individual. But what then concerning
Rom 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,..." ?

If Jerusalem is truly a city and not a woman, then why does Jesus say:

Matthew 23:37, NASB

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

Now, I don't think this is really a problem. Even today we often refer to cities as women, or speak of being children of a certain city. It's metaphorical language, but quite natural.

If Adam is a name for humanity (as it definitely is in some parts of Genesis), and if the Eden account personifies early humanity as Adam, then it is quite natural for Paul to refer to early humanity as the one man, Adam. (This also explains why Paul just speaks of one man and not one man and one woman.) Paul no more confirmed that Adam was only an individual than Jesus confirmed that Jerusalem was an individual.

If your next question is how Paul can make a comparison between a symbolic person who represents humanity and Jesus, keep in mind that there are also other aspects of the comparison that are inexact. Adam wasn't deity while Jesus is. Paul also used a comparison to say, "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:19), yet however you think we inherit Adam's sin, it isn't the same way we receive Jesus' righteousness. This does not invalidate the parallel, because parallels do not need to be exact.

And again, if the Creation account is Myth, what purpose does the ordering (or, misordering) of days, the geneologies and ages of those people serve?

Genesis is not monolithic, and what one decides about a certain account doesn't necessarily alter how one treats another account. Each should be treated on its own merits. To do otherwise is like determining the historicity of Jesus' raising of Lazarus by analyzing whether his story of the rich man and Lazarus was historical. Even the same names can show up in different kinds of writing.

Anyway, since we seem to have exhausted the Eden account, I'm game to move on. I've focused on the Eden account since that's the account that I think best qualifies as myth. I haven't called the Genesis 1 account a myth, although in a certain sense I guess that could work. (In fact, I typically don't use the word "myth" at all, since it's so misunderstood. I've used it in this thread because of the topic.) In order to keep a bit focused, I'd prefer to deal with one section at a time. We can get to the genealogies later, but first you mentioned Genesis 1 and the creation week. What purpose does the ordering of days in Genesis 1 serve, if they are not historical days?

First, I think God's purpose in Genesis 1 is to establish that he is the only Creator and that he is involved with his creation. He revealed this without giving us the answers to questions that we have the God-given ability to answer on our own. Genesis 1 doesn't tell us the shape of the world, and it uses terminology that would be very familiar to those who believed in a flat earth surrounded by water covered by the canopy of the heavens. The account is given from an earth-based perspective, so there is no hint that the earth orbits the sun rather than vice versa. While these may seem to be gross oversights for those who see the text as scientific in nature, it makes sense if you believe the text is more interested in telling us about God and his relationship to humanity than in spilling all the secrets of how the universe works.

Further, God revealed the indescribable wonders of creation in a way that would make sense to the earliest humans as well as us. Even though I think we know more about the universe now than people did in Moses' day, there are still huge mysteries. Genesis 1 doesn't require an understanding of the immensity of the stars or the amazing complexity of plant life. Instead, it tells of a creative act beyond our imagination by using terms we (and the first hearers) can understand.

Probably the most creative act a person can do is to make a story. Whether told orally or acted out on a stage or produced in a movie, a story allows a person to create a universe of their own, populated with the vistas and characters of their choosing. It is a form of creation that is known to virtually all cultures in all times, even though the methods of storytelling change. Genesis 1 describes how God, the Master Playwright, created this universe, which is his creation. It describes the three realms and the three groups of characters that make up this creation.

The first three days describe the three realms. The first realm (1:3-5) is outer space, viewed from earth. If you picture yourself on the top of Mt. Everest looking straight up, you'll get an idea of this realm. It is the upper reaches of the sky, higher than the birds. If you stay there for days (wearing your oxygen tank to prevent delusions, of course), all you'll see aside from the sun, moon and stars (which come later), is a gradual progression between light and dark, day and night.

The second realm (1:6-8) is sea and sky. Picture yourself on a tiny island just big enough to stand on. You're surrounded by the sea in every direction, and above you are only the clouds of the sky.

The third realm (1:9-13) is land. Note that this realm is created fully-furnished with all kinds of plants and trees. It, like the other realms, is complete except for the characters who will inhabit it.

The last three days describe the three groups of characters that inhabit these realms. First, the characters for the outer space realm are added (1:14-19). Note that the sun is described as governing the day while the moon governs the night: the personification is only natural since these are characters, not merely set dressing.

Second, the characters are added to the sea and sky (1:20-23). A scientist may wonder why whales and bats aren't created with the other mammals, but the point isn't to scientifically classify the animals. Instead, birds and fish (and bats and whales) are all characters that inhabit the second realm, and so they are all created on the fifth day.

Finally, the characters that live on the land are created (1:24-31). This includes livestock, bugs, wild animals, and humans.

One thing I like about this interpretation is that everything fits on the right day. In fact, if you moved any one item to a different day, it wouldn't make as much sense. It is similar to how this creation account is sometimes divided into three days of forming that correspond to three days of filling, but unlike in that view, the creation of plant life on day 3 isn't a problem. Unlike a literal scientific reading, the creation of light first, then plants, then the sun makes perfect sense, as does the personification of the sun and moon. It also explains why humans are lumped together with half the animals on the sixth day rather than having one day for animals and one day for humans.

So that's how I interpret the first chapter of Genesis. It's an account of God's creation explained in terms all humans can understand and relate to: a grand play being created of three realms with three corresponding groups of characters. It is not intended to explain the mysteries of the universe, but rather to point to the One who created those mysteries.

[drachronicler]

Hi Merc,

I hope you had a good Thanksgiving, Canadian type, 1 each.

i havent forgotten of our conversation. i started to reply yesterday, but it was a total mess.. even i had a hard time following it, so i decided to start over but got sidetracked.

i did finally read that passage in Judges (yesterday during my lunch). (You mentioned 'indictating') As for the 'indicator' in that passage, i think it would be verse 7, where Jotham tells the people to listen to him, so that God would listen to them.

So, so far you and i agree that the passages, in Ez 16 and Judges 9:8-15, are intended to be figurative, and we both seem to understand what the indicators of interpreting them that way, are.

Why then, dont we see an indicator in the Creation account or in the account of the Fall, that would allign our understanding with each other?

You claim that the word 'subtle' is the indicator of the only reason given for the serpent ability to speak... but i dont think that it's subtleness is the reason for it's speaking. In fact, i dont think that there really is an indicator of why it could speak, it just seems to me a discription of the creature that misled Eve & Adam.... although, i'm sure that it has more meaning than that. If i said a horse was fast, would that mean that i was using it figuratively? Or describing it?.... Could go either way on that, couldnt we?

Strong's

subtle

H6175
ערוּם
‛ârûm
aw-room'
Passive participle of H6191; cunning (usually in a bad sense): - crafty, prudent, subtil.

© source where applicable

OK, that's no help.. let's try a dictionary, Webster's type, 1 each:

[CITE]subtle adj
1. thin, tenuous, or rarefied, as a fluid or an odor
2. fine or delicate in meaning or intent; difficult to perceive or understand
3. delicate or faint and mysterious
4. requiring mental acuteness, penetration, or discernment
5. characterized by mental acuteness or penetration
6. cunning, wily, or crafty
7. insidious in operation
8. skillful, clever, or ingenious[/CITE]

So, again, not much help... still could go either way

I read part of the commentary of Gen 3:1 from "Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible" and although it seemed like he was trying to be impartial and objective, i feel that he accomplished about as much as our look at Strong's and Webster's... not to mention, he was more boring than both Strong's and Webster's, combined (which is why i only read part of what he said... but if you want, let me know and i'll copy/paste it for you. You might get more out of it than i did).

I also took a peek at "Albert Barne's Notes on the Bible". Although he seems less boring, he does seem (atleast to me) to fall into the same trap that Clarke and other's do.. that of reading into the text, their own preconceive notions (such as the serpent being a snake, as opposed to, say a dragon... i know that might be an exaggeration, but so be it). Maybe a person just cant read it for what it's worth.. but if we dont, then what good is it? To illustrate what i mean by this, let me quote from Barne's (on Gen 3:1, and, BTW this quote is the reason that i thought he was trying to be impartial):



Of the commentaries that i have, they all seem to be of no help one way or the other... if you would like to read any or all of 'em, let me know (or you could download them from e-sword, which is where i got 'em from).

God Bless,
johnny

There is a very good reason why the serpent in the Eden story speaks. It is confusing only to modern Christians who are out of touch with the Bible, as well as having little understanding of the beliefs and mindset of the ancient readers who it was originally written for.

To the ancient Hebrews, the Eden serpent was not demonic or magically given the ability to speak. They understood the creatures was a Cherub or Seraph, originally conceived as winged, reptilian servant creatures of God. In fact, the real meaning of the word Seraphim in Hebrew is "fiery, flying serpents", and when Hebrew was translated into Greek even before the birth of Jesus, the Seraphim were translated into "Drakones", which is where the modern word "Dragon" originates. Most Christians today do not realize this, and imagine these creatures as swan winged humans, based on later Greco-Roman mythology. In truth, no angel in the Bible has wings, and are frenquently mistaken for humans.

The talking serpent, sacred trees and loss of immortality, like the great flood, are both extremely ancient Sumerian stories that predate the earliest written bible by over a millennia. Abraham came from Ur, where these stories were widely known, and Abrahams wandering repeated these stories as an oral tradition, and after some 1500 years of retelling it, a few things changed.

Adape of the original story is known as Adam when the story is finally written down. The talking Seraph-dragon, Nin-gish-zida, who offers Adape eternal life on behalf of the high God in Heaven whom he serves, merely becomes "the serpent", but a serpent who apparently had at least legs and possibly wings exactly like the Sumerian servant dragons of God, is punished by having these appendages taken away, which is why he must NOW crawl on his belly, the assumption being he could fly, or at least walk before this.

The biggest difference between the original Sumerian myth and and Hebrew version, was that over the 1500 years of the Hebrews retelling the story as an oral tradition, the benificent talking dragon-servant of the high God, who sincrely tried to help Adape/Adam attain immortality, has his role reversed, and instead tricks Adam and Eve out of it. The reason for this role-reversal probably goes back to the fact that as shepherds, snakes were hated becasue of their danger to both shepherds and their flocks.

It should be pointed out that the ancient Hebrews never connected the serpent in the Eden story with Satan, who later in the book of Job seems to have gotten his legs back as he is now walking to and fro about the earth, is counted as one of the Sons of God, and is an obedient servant of God.

Satan does not become the opponent of God until the Jewish return from Persian exile, heavily innundated with zoroastrian dualism, and only then, Satan becomes identified with the evil Ahriman dragon who will constantly struggle with the forces of "Good" until an apocolyptic battle in which the evil dragon Ahriman will be bound up by and angel, cast into a deep abyss, is eventually released, rebells again and is ultimately cast into a lake of fire. If this all sounds familiar, it should, for mainstream Christianity, derived much of its inspiration from Zoroastrianism.

So in the final analysis, Genesis is not even an allegory of original sin, it is simply the result of Hebrew shepherds changing one of their oldest legends, because unlike their Sumerian ancestors, they hated snakes.

[xtreem5150ahm]

There is a very good reason why the serpent in the Eden story speaks. It is confusing only to modern Christians who are out of touch with the Bible, as well as having little understanding of the beliefs and mindset of the ancient readers who it was originally written for.

To the ancient Hebrews, the Eden serpent was not demonic or magically given the ability to speak. They understood the creatures was a Cherub or Seraph, originally conceived as winged, reptilian servant creatures of God. In fact, the real meaning of the word Seraphim in Hebrew is "fiery, flying serpents", and when Hebrew was translated into Greek even before the birth of Jesus, the Seraphim were translated into "Drakones", which is where the modern word "Dragon" originates. Most Christians today do not realize this, and imagine these creatures as swan winged humans, based on later Greco-Roman mythology. In truth, no angel in the Bible has wings, and are frenquently mistaken for humans.

The talking serpent, sacred trees and loss of immortality, like the great flood, are both extremely ancient Sumerian stories that predate the earliest written bible by over a millennia. Abraham came from Ur, where these stories were widely known, and Abrahams wandering repeated these stories as an oral tradition, and after some 1500 years of retelling it, a few things changed.

Adape of the original story is known as Adam when the story is finally written down. The talking Seraph-dragon, Nin-gish-zida, who offers Adape eternal life on behalf of the high God in Heaven whom he serves, merely becomes "the serpent", but a serpent who apparently had at least legs and possibly wings exactly like the Sumerian servant dragons of God, is punished by having these appendages taken away, which is why he must NOW crawl on his belly, the assumption being he could fly, or at least walk before this.

The biggest difference between the original Sumerian myth and and Hebrew version, was that over the 1500 years of the Hebrews retelling the story as an oral tradition, the benificent talking dragon-servant of the high God, who sincrely tried to help Adape/Adam attain immortality, has his role reversed, and instead tricks Adam and Eve out of it. The reason for this role-reversal probably goes back to the fact that as shepherds, snakes were hated becasue of their danger to both shepherds and their flocks.

It should be pointed out that the ancient Hebrews never connected the serpent in the Eden story with Satan, who later in the book of Job seems to have gotten his legs back as he is now walking to and fro about the earth, is counted as one of the Sons of God, and is an obedient servant of God.

Satan does not become the opponent of God until the Jewish return from Persian exile, heavily innundated with zoroastrian dualism, and only then, Satan becomes identified with the evil Ahriman dragon who will constantly struggle with the forces of "Good" until an apocolyptic battle in which the evil dragon Ahriman will be bound up by and angel, cast into a deep abyss, is eventually released, rebells again and is ultimately cast into a lake of fire. If this all sounds familiar, it should, for mainstream Christianity, derived much of its inspiration from Zoroastrianism.

So in the final analysis, Genesis is not even an allegory of original sin, it is simply the result of Hebrew shepherds changing one of their oldest legends, because unlike their Sumerian ancestors, they hated snakes.

Hi drachronicler,

Is the account of Moses recieving the Ten Words from God, historical?

johnny

[xtreem5150ahm]

Hi drachronicler,

Is the account of Moses recieving the Ten Words from God, historical?

johnny

[xtreem5150ahm]

They understood the creatures was a Cherub or Seraph, originally conceived as winged, reptilian servant creatures of God. In fact, the real meaning of the word Seraphim in Hebrew is "fiery, flying serpents", and when Hebrew was translated into Greek even before the birth of Jesus, the Seraphim were translated into "Drakones", which is where the modern word "Dragon" originates. Most Christians today do not realize this, and imagine these creatures as swan winged humans, based on later Greco-Roman mythology. In truth, no angel in the Bible has wings, and are frenquently mistaken for humans.

The talking serpent, sacred trees and loss of immortality, like the great flood, are both extremely ancient Sumerian stories that predate the earliest written bible by over a millennia. Abraham came from Ur, where these stories were widely known, and Abrahams wandering repeated these stories as an oral tradition, and after some 1500 years of retelling it, a few things changed.

Sorry for the lack of patience. The weekend is almost over, and i'm never sure how much time i can spare during the work-week.

The reason that i ask about your opinion of the Moses account is based on the bolded sections of your post. It would seem that you generally accept Abraham (although, it also seems you are assigning the stories origination to the Sumerians... but let's not get into that, atleast yet). It would also (almost) seem that if you accept Abraham, then Moses is not out of your picture of probability. i guess that doesnt quite matter here either, but what does matter is that you say that "no angel in the Bible has wings".

Exodus 25:20 is part of the account of the instructions for the Ark of the Covenant.

Exo 25:20 KJV

And the cherubims shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be.

Now granted, the word for "wings" can refer to part of a garment. And since i dont know Hebrew, i am relying on those that do when they translate. I dont know Greek either, but in Rev 4:8, the four living beings have six wings, and according to Strong's, the word rendered "wings" is derived from a word for 'feather'.

Also, according to the ISBE, the seraphim in Isaiah's vision (Isa_6:1-13) are also winged creatures.

Sorry to cut this short, but gotta go.

Good night and God Bless,
johnny