Do you think that the Book of "Genesis" is a fairytale?

by booker-t 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  Genesis 1 says that God proceeded to "make" the luminaries (sun, moon, stars), not create them. The word used is waiyaas (make) versus bara (create). Any thoughts on the difference?

  Well, not much more than the difference between "to make" and "to create" in English: the former is an everyday verb, the other is a more technical (theological) term. Regardless of their etymology both are essentially abstract in Biblical Hebrew (vs. the living metaphors in yçr, "to fashion" or "model" like the potter, bnh, "to build," ysd "to found"). The action meant is the same. Practically they are interchangeable. See their uses in Genesis 1--2:4a

  In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,

  And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.

  And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

  And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky." So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

  And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

  Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
  So God created humankind in his image,
  in the image of God he created them;
  male and female he created them.

  God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

  And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had made. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had made in creation. (Literally all the work that God had created to make).
  These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

  The apologetic stress on the distinction between the two verbs as if they meant a different action only for the luminaries of the 4th day does not hold water.

  Think again about the structural pattern I tried to point out in my previous post. The "order" of Genesis 1 is crystal-clear from this perspective, and it has nothing to do with scientific paleontology.
• 

  Leolaia

  Justitia....The two verbs are used pretty much interchangeably. Notice, for instance, that a form of ybr' "create (3s)" is used in v. 21 to refer to the creation of sea creatures and flying creatures, while y`sh "make (3s)" and n`shh "make (1p)" occur in v. 25-26 to refer to the creation of land animals and humans....and then v. 27 uses ybr' to refer to the same act of creating humans.

  I have noticed that most contemporary ppl today misread the narrative by applying modern heliocentric cosmology to the text, and thus construe the separation of the night and day in v. 3-5 as earth beginning to spin on its axis, the 'rts of v. 1-2 as a planet "earth" situated in outer space as opposed to the 'rts of v. 9-11 as "land", the "days" in the chapter as "ages" in contrast to the logic of the narrative, and the light in v. 3-5 as solar light and the formation of the luminaries in v. 14-18 as something other than the text says. These readings bring the creation narrative closer in line with modern cosmology even tho they take liberties with the text.

  BTW, it is interesting to note that the Jewish solar calendar began the year on a Wednesday with the sabbath (Nisan 4) falling on Saturday. This is commonly thought to reflect the sabbatical creation week in Genesis 1, with the creation of the sun, moon, and stars occuring on the 4th day rather than the first day. Thus, the year (as reckoned by the yearly cycle of the sun) would have originally begun on Wednesday, when the sun was created. This was probably not necessarily the thought of the Priestly author of the creation narrative, but this was how it was interpreted in the Second Temple period. In the logic of Genesis 1, the sun and moon do not establish the time divisions of day and night (the periods of light and darkness), they instead take over and "dominate" these already-existing periods.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  Thanks Narkissos and Leolaia. I knew you guys would have more concrete information/definitions.
• 

  Justitia Themis

  About those two creation accounts in Genesis:

  • If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, ask yourself: Why do you need the creation accounts to be literal? If they are figurative or allegorical, does that somehow threaten your faith in your God? If indeed they are entirely of human manufacture and bear no relation to the truth, does THAT somehow threaten your belief? The Bible is full of poetic language, allegory, parables. Why would anyone NEED for the creation account to be literal?
  • Conversely, if you accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that life on earth did indeed evolve from bacteria, does the fact that Genesis doesn't specify this somehow threaten your belief? I cannot find the quote, but recently a Vatican official said something to the effect of: "We don't feel that science and the Bible are contradictory. Genesis is remarkably silent on the development and speciation of Galapagos finches."

  Personally I think everyone's best bet is to just step away from the Scriptures and ask themselves "Is this really that important?"

  Under_believer:

  Profound and succinct...pretty much what I was trying to say, albiet poorly, in my original post. Nothing is ruled out in Genesis; therefore, if you have strongly entrenched beliefs EITHER way, you must question why.
• 

  proplog2

  Don't let the fundamentalists set the agenda. Their insistence on believing all or nothing is wrong. Those who say that the whole Bible is nonsense are probably vicitms of the false dilemma presented by the fundies.

  You should treat the Bible as you would any thing else. In the final analysis you ought to be able to pick and choose what makes sense and seems factual.

  Some of the Bible is myth. Some of it is oral history run amok. Some of it is biased by a priestly caste. Some of it is the work of fanatic zealots. Some of it is wishful thinking. Some of it is true and some of it is false.
• 

  Navigator

  You shouldn't forget that, according to the Gospel of John, the universe was created by the Son, not the Father. This is more in line with the teaching of A Couse In Miracles when testifies that the earth was created by the separated Son as a place to experiece separation from God, a place to "do our own thing". As far as I'm concerned, the story of the Prodigal Son tells us everything we need to know about the Father and our future. If God had created this universe, it would be perfect which it certainly is not.
• 

  Robdar

  There is no doubt in my mind that the book of Genesis is a fairytale. Or, rather maybe, a book to be read figuratively. According to a Jewish guy that I sometimes date, many Jews, especially the reformed, do not believe the accounts in Genesis were meant to be interpreted literally. And how could anybody interpret it literally? It would drive you insane trying to make sense of it.