About Interpretations of Genesis

[tancg17]

So the parables God told are not stories? Were they told to make a point or bedtime stories?

 

[De_Maria]

So the parables God told are not stories? Were they told to make a point or bedtime stories?

They are told in such a way that they convey the maximum information in a manner that ordinary men can understand it thoroughly.

And yes, they make the point that God is real and He created us and has a plan for our salvation.

 

[tancg17]

I was replying to Jericho

 

[thistle]

The all powerful eternal God does not have to tell stories to make His point.

Jesus spoke in parables many times! Are parables not stories? Is Jesus not God?

 

[Gorgias]

Genesis is not written as an eye-witness account of events

See, this is the problem right here. You’re taking a 52-chapter book of the Bible which spans scores of generations, and with rather broad strokes, saying “nah… none of it is historical”. (That’s not what the Church teaches, BTW.)

Now, if you were to say “some of it isn’t intended as an ‘eyewitness account’”, then you’d be safe. As it were, you’re skating on thin ice with your assertion here.

Did the authors of Genesis really intend to mean that literally happened?

Did the authors of Genesis really intend to mean that the famine in Egypt happened? That there was a guy named Joseph who really lived?

I don’t buy that logic for a second. The all powerful eternal God does not have to tell stories to make His point.

On the other hand, it’s important to realize that God used humans to tell His story. So, He inspired them to make the points He wanted to be made, but allowed them to tell His story as they saw fit. (That’s what the Church teaches about ‘Scriptural inspiration’, BTW…)

 

[Metis1]

I tend to believe that the Genesis creation accounts are allegorical and meant to counter the teachings of the earlier Babylonian creation narrative that was polytheistic. And I also tend to believe that this use of allegory continues on into the Fall and Flood narratives as well.

I can explain in more detail why I believe this is the case if asked, but I have to leave early today.

May each of you enjoy a most Blessed Mass and Lord’s Day.

 

[Neithan]

See, this is the problem right here. You’re taking a 52-chapter book of the Bible which spans scores of generations, and with rather broad strokes, saying “nah… none of it is historical”. (That’s not what the Church teaches, BTW.)

No, I’m not saying that “none of it is historical.” It’s not written as an eye-witness account, at least not explicitly, compared with verses in the gospels and epistles.

Did the authors of Genesis really intend to mean that the famine in Egypt happened? That there was a guy named Joseph who really lived?

Probably, see above.

 

[jericho777]

jericho777:

The all powerful eternal God does not have to tell stories to make His point.

Jesus spoke in parables many times! Are parables not stories? Is Jesus not God?

I certainly believe they were real because that’s how Jesus presented them to His audience. First century Jews believed the OT was real and literal. Jesus taught the OT as being real and literal.

 

[thistle]

I certainly believe they were real because that’s how Jesus presented them to His audience. First century Jews believed the OT was real and literal. Jesus taught the OT as being real and literal.

The parables Jesus told were made up stories to make a point!

 

[Metis1]

First century Jews believed the OT was real and literal. Jesus taught the OT as being real and literal.

Actually not likely as western Asians, including the Jewish people, recognized the use of allegory and various forms symbolism. In reading the Creation accounts, therefore, they would be less likely to ask “Did this really happen?” and more likely to ask “What are you trying to tell us?”, namely what’s the meaning behind the words?

IOW, more of a subjective than an objective approach.

 

[Gorgias]

No, I’m not saying that “none of it is historical.” It’s not written as an eye-witness account, at least not explicitly, compared with verses in the gospels and epistles.

OK… so, what you’re saying is “historical, but through a process of oral tradition rather than direct-to-paper eyewitness accounts”. Is that about right?

 

[BlueMaxx]

Let us be clear here… both in the mother church and in the catechism it is allowed for a believer to take Genesis as literal or allegorical.

As such we should all strive for civility and not demean another for holding Genesis in a different light than they do. It comes across as an insult to ones faith regardless which side of the river you are on.
It is divisive and in the end the arguments do not bring us closer together nor closer to Christ.

Christ is the Truth, the Light and the Way… and He held to the word of scripture, which in His day was the OT and history of the Jewish peoples.

 

[Gorgias]

Let us be clear here… both in the mother church and in the catechism it is allowed for a believer to take Genesis as literal or allegorical.

Again: painting in strokes that are too broad. The Catechism doesn’t make the claim of the entirety of the Book of Genesis that you’re making here…

 

[BlueMaxx]

I will not argue with you, however when I get home I will point out exactly what it does say…I am currently making my way through the Catechism of the Catholic Church and it does indeed allow for one to take Genesis as literal or again as figuratively or allegorical.

I also have spoken to priests who said to me both views are allowed as long as the road leads to Christ.

 

[Dovekin]

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.”

This describes the literal sense of Scripture. In addition, there is the spiritual sense, which can be an allegorical, moral, or anagogical interpretation. IOW scripture can always be interpreted allegorically.

The literal sense in no ways means “historical.” It is “in light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.” The disagreement about Genesis is whether it was written as historical truth, or if it was written as an allegory. Some might want to say “the 2nd creation was written as an allegory, but not the Jacob stories.” Others might say all of Genesis is written as an allegory. I do not know why anyone would insist that it was all written as history, or any of it is historical, for that matter. The Spirit by whom it was written seems more like @Metis1 describes, moving within our hearts rather than outside us.

 

[Neithan]

It’s a large tome. The first 11 chapters are more legendary than historical. I don’t know if any of it is historical in a literal, modern sense of factual precision.

The gospels and epistles are written by eyewitnesses, stating that they are eyewitnesses. Contrast that with Genesis, an (inspired) effort to preserve a legacy from the distant past. Consider how that effects the account of literal details. Did the authors intend to write literal history? They are writing true stories about past events and people, but that is not the same as a literal-historical record. A true story can be about real, historical people and events, using figurative names, chronology, objects and incidents.

 

[Gorgias]

when I get home I will point out exactly what it does say

Fair enough. Please do.

I also have spoken to priests who said to me both views are allowed as long as the road leads to Christ.

If you were talking about the creation epics, I’d say “sure.” I’m less inclined to agree if you’re saying that the narrative about Joseph and his descendants being in Egypt is mere “allegory”.

The literal sense in no ways means “historical.”

Of course not. However, it also doesn’t imply “not historical.” Either perspective – applied simplistically – will yield poor results.

I don’t know if any of it is historical in a literal, modern sense of factual precision.

That’s not the appropriate standard, though, is it? I think that the relevant standard might be something like “historical in the sense of ‘factual precision’ that is characterized by other narratives of its time and culture.”

 

[buffalo]

After reading the Catechism as someone else suggested read the Church Fathers and then the longstanding understanding of the Magisterium.

 

[goout]

After reading the Catechism as someone else suggested read the Church Fathers and then the longstanding understanding of the Magisterium.

Yes absolutely do that.

The odd problem that fundamentalists have is they are they epitome of modernism. Fundamentalism takes what is continuous through tradition and fits in a tiny little box that fits modern notions of what history is.
Modern people are very proof oriented, very material. History means proof. It means CNN. It means tape recorders. It means verified written evidence. And here we see the adage “atheists and fundamentalists are odd bed-fellows”.

Biblical history is not limited like that. The bible is a collection of books of different types. All rooted in human history and have a literal content (obviously!).
And much of the bible passed through oral traditions for long periods of time before being committed to writing.

The New Testament for instance, did not write itself, and Jesus did not write it. Before the NT, there was a community and a story passed down orally.

God does not reveal a book folks, the book reveals God. Revelation is about God, and points to God. The book itself is not God.