Is Genesis account just a myth?

by AK - Jeff 54 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  drew sagan

  But did they know [the Jewish history weavers I mean] that it was legend, and not fact?

  They believed the stories were handed to their people by god ;) so I guess you could say 'yes'.
  
  Although the stories were taken as the direct word of God they were not looked upon as just literal stories relating scientific fact. Many today would see the stories as either true or false. Such was not the concern of those who revered and examined this account for centuries. They could see them as true and figurative and anything else for that matter, all at the same time. Just read some of the Midrash to find out.
• 

  Aphrodite

  Changeling i love it! Do you mind if I cut and paste it to my Facebook?
• 

  hamilcarr

  An extract from The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman:

  It was only when the Hebrew Bible began to be dissected and studied in isolation from its powerful function in community life that theologians and biblical scholars began to demand of it something it was not. From the eighteenth century, in the Enlightenment quest for thoroughly accurate, verifiable history, the historical faculty of the Bible became - as it remains - a matter of bitter debate. Realizing that a seven-day creation and spontaneous miracles could not be satisfactorily explained by science and reason, the scholars began to pick and choose what they found to be "historical" in the Bible and what they did not. Theories arose about the various sources contained in the text of the Bible, and archaeologists argued over the evidence that proved and disproved the historical reliability of a given biblical passage.

  Yet, the Bible's integrity and, in fact, its historicity, do not depend on dutiful historical "proof" of any of its particular events or personalities, such as the parting of the Red Sea, the trumpet blasts that toppled the walls of Jericho, or David's slaying of Goliath with a single shot of his sling. The power of the biblical saga stems from its being a compelling and coherent narrative expression of the timeless themes of a people's liberation, continuing resistance to oppression, and quest for social equality. It eloquently expresses the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive.

  So, in a sense, literalists show a deep disrespect for ancient texts by forcing scientific accuracy on it and above all, by making a text's value dependent on its scientific precision. A striking example of this either-or attitude can be found in a recent WT article:

  If the Deluge had not happened, then Jesus' statement about "the days of the Son of man" would be meaningless.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I try to imagine what happened. Someone recorded these legends for the
  first time, or more accurately collected the legends and recorded them from
  different sources. They were not "GOD's WORD" to the recorder, just legends.
  They seemed like great stories of the past.

  Now imagine it is like the movie, Galaxy Quest. Someone else thought the
  legends were true. They pass it on as true.

  It doesn't help that some of the Biblical authors say that God gave them their
  words. That's how you sell your story. Joseph Smith just did what others before
  him have done. WTS, from it's birth, decided not to add to the scriptures so they
  wrote outside the scriptures, but esentially still claim God's guidance in their
  writings.

  If they only knew that the original stories were just that- stories. Legends passed
  on because there was no television, no books, no movies, no internet, no board
  games.
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  AK-Jeff

  Yes! The Genesis account is a myth and sorry to be the one to break the news to you but you are not really a tiger.
• 

  AK - Jeff

  They could see them as true and figurative

  Interesting. Yes the black/white thinking of the west usually precludes that approach, doesn't it? Could it be said that many legends may have been looked at in that light over the centuries? I mean the ones with 'non-Jewish/Christian background?

  So, if I get what you are saying [bear with me I am dense as hell aren't I?] - the accounts were reality, represented in allegory?

  I shall have to look into the Midrash. Would this be a good place to start?

  http://www.myjewishlearning.com/texts/Midrash.htm

  Yet, the Bible's integrity and, in fact, its historicity, do not depend on dutiful historical "proof" of any of its particular events or personalities, such as the parting of the Red Sea, the trumpet blasts that toppled the walls of Jericho, or David's slaying of Goliath with a single shot of his sling. The power of the biblical saga stems from its being a compelling and coherent narrative expression of the timeless themes of a people's liberation, continuing resistance to oppression, and quest for social equality. It eloquently expresses the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive.

  And this agrees with what you stated Drew. Thanx for that quote Hamilcar.

  It doesn't help that some of the Biblical authors say that God gave them their
  words. That's how you sell your story.

  Agreed, OTWO.

  So then, is it at all reasonable that Christian Foundation is built on these legends? The Genesis Legends were created not by God, but by men, perhaps as stated, for the reason of holding together a society of ancient peoples. They were passed on and became known as "God's Word". Later the followers of Jesus built upon them and used them as 'credentials' to support and prop up the New Religion selected by God - Christianity - by inclusion of oft reference to the accounts by the New Saviour Jesus?

  Or could it be stated that Jesus' refs to these accounts would have taken in his awareness of the legendary nature of the stories? So, later his words were also allegorical when taken as literal - for instance his refs to the end of the system and likening it to the Genesis account of the flood?

  Boy - what pathways are created from this query, eh?

  Yes! The Genesis account is a myth and sorry to be the one to break the news to you but you are not really a tiger.

  Yep - of that I was sure! Just not much else.

  Jeff
• 

  drew sagan

  So, if I get what you are saying [bear with me I am dense as hell aren't I?] - the accounts were reality, represented in allegory?

  I think you're beginning to catch on ;)
  
  The book I referenced earlier likens it somewhat to Jonathan Swifts book, Gullivers Travels. You can read the book on a number of different levels. Sure there is the adventure story that even children can enjoy, but layered beneath that is are sophisticated literary techniques that offer a lot more. So the story functions on a number of different levels and simply aren't just 'true or false' in that regard.

  I shall have to look into the Midrash. Would this be a good place to start?

  you can try this out
  
  http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/mhl/index.htm
  
  Lots of ancient Jewish literature is available online. There really is more than you could ever possibly read. To get an overview of it all you may want to skim through this:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinic_Literature
• 

  Narkissos

  did they know [the Jewish history weavers I mean] that it was legend, and not fact?

  Jeff,

  Perhaps you missed my first post on this thread: my point was, had they meant anything even remotely similar to "fact" in the way we use that term, they would certainly have avoided the narrative inconsistencies extant in the two creation stories. Even back then it didn't take any extraordinary insight to notice them.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Later the followers of Jesus built upon them and used them as 'credentials' to support and prop up the New Religion selected by God - Christianity - by inclusion of oft reference to the accounts by the New Saviour Jesus?

  Or could it be stated that Jesus' refs to these accounts would have taken in his awareness of the legendary nature of the stories? So, later his words were also allegorical when taken as literal - for instance his refs to the end of the system and likening it to the Genesis account of the flood?

  Boy - what pathways are created from this query, eh?

  No kidding, what pathways indeed. There are a bunch of books on the different pathways.
  I haven't read too much into them, but many seem to state the different pathways as facts.
  "Jesus did survive the crucifixion." "Jesus had offspring." "Jesus wrote that he was a son
  of God in the sense that we all can be sons of God." YADDA YADDA YADDA.

  Some of it is bound to be true, but it is entirely theory. Here's what many are generally
  agreeing on: Jesus (Yeshua ben Josif or some similar name) really existed and was
  influenced by Egyptian religious beliefs. He probably actually rode into Jerusalem on
  an ass to seem to fulfill scripture. Somebody, most likely Jesus, was nailed to a cross.

  The rest of the story takes up volumes of speculation.
  The writers of the 3 Gospels known as Matthew, Mark, Luke- these authors had the important
  job of explaining Jesus as if he fulfilled many scriptures, and as if he prophecied the downfall
  of the temple. They intertwined the truth with legend and some lies. They made him bigger
  than life after he had been dead a long time.
• 

  AK - Jeff

  Thanx Nark - yes I had missed it - sorry. Good point. Had they wished to 'adjust' it so as to make it more plausible factually, it would have been done I suppose. Yet they were content with the inconsistencies.

  Then when they were finally compiled, once again no effort was made to correct those inconsistencies.

  Since there was no obvious collusion to correct them into believable tales - what should we make of that?

  Thanx for the links drew.

  OTWO - yes I would believe that Jesus did know the Jewish prophecies and could have very well 'worked them' to fit himself into the picture. Looks like it worked - 2000 years later, billions have believed and died for that belief.

  Jeff