If Genesis is Metaphorical, what's the metaphor?

no, genesis is not written in a historical style. compare it to kings or chronicles. those are traditional hebrew (philosophical) histories.genesis is something else: a collection of tales.we can observe that it's a collection by noting different styles, different names for god, and conflicts. for instance we know that genesis 1:1-2:4 and genesis 2:4-3:1 are two separate accounts. it's also pretty obvious to pick out where the noah story is broken.i'll give you a specific example of what genesis is. have you heard the story of george washinton cutting down the cherry tree? chucking the silver dollar across the delaware? benjamin franklin getting electrocuted with a kite? suppose i were collect a bunch of stories about our founding fathers. we all know them, and most of us know that most of the stories aren't even true. but they ARE a part of culture. and we still tell them to kids, even after knowing they're ficticious.now if i lived in jerusalem in 600 bc and collected stories about the founding fathers of judah and israel, i'd have genesis. the only bits that could even be construed as historical are the genealogies, and those are probably largely tradition and nothing else.as for genesis being metaphorical, sometimes it is. you can read genesis 2/3 as the birth of conciousness. you can read the tower of babel as an attack on nebuchadnezzar. and the stories probably ARE about those things to some degree. but the stories are mostly VERY straightforward. they usually have a point, and it'll usually even say what the point is.genesis 2 is about the origin of marriage: "and that is why a man leaves his parents and cleaves to a woman..." etc. a lot of the stories in the torah are etiologies: origin myths. the reasons why we do thing we already do.genesis 3 is full of etiologies. it tells why snakes have no legs and smell with their tongues, it tells why the jews lived in a desert, and it tells why women have a painful childbirth (and experience emotional pain raising children as well).most people who say "genesis is metaphorical" are saying that because they have to blur the lines a little to fit their pseudo-belief in the bible with their belief in evolution. genesis does not match the real world, kids. and more importantly, it was never meant to.

i would beg to differ. it's not written as a history at all. there is no form of date-keeping of any sort. it is not told has a history, it's told as tradition.even the "histories" of the bible aren't very historical.

i dunno how many are largely true, but the stories of genesis are often based on real places and events, with a decidedly hebrew twist.for instance, the ziggurat bab-el was a real place. but god didn't divide the nations there and cease its construction.sodom and gamorrah appear to have been real places, destroyed at approximately the same time. but not by fire and brimstone, per se. they appear to have been burned to the ground in a war.the stories are often derivitive of other culture's stories too. the previously mentioned bab-el had a babylonian legend associated with it. the flood seems to have been borrowed from gilgamesh. there's a load more stuff about jesus than what's in the bible. but it's all obviously religious in nature. no real historical entries of any sort.

lots of stories are etiological, sure. that's a big part of tradition. a lot of genesis has to do with how peoples and places got their names. in fact the very word "genesis" should imply etiology if you stop and think about it. it's origins, right? i used to hold this opinion, and i looked for them last time i read genesis all the way through. and couldn't find any good ones.abraham lies to three different kings about his wife sarah, and not only isn't punished, he's rewarded with cattle, etc. the sons of jacob hear about their sister dinah getting raped, so they trick all the men of that city into getting circumcised, and while they're still weak from it, kill everyone. this seemed to have worked very well. where are the morals? well, i just don't see any morality being taught in genesis at all. the overall lessons are: do what god says, or he's pissed, and don't build skyscrapers, because god will get jealous. hardly morality in any true sense.

oh yeah, of course. i never meant to imply there wasn't. the last time i read genesis, i was in stitches, because i actually GOT some of the jokes.i've tried to explain at least one of them on this board a number of times: the aforementioned bab-el. it's making fun the babylonians. which brings me to the next point:alot of the jokes are ethnic slurs. and i mean a lot. and a lot have an underlying political motivation.

this post pretty much gets summed up on this one point. yes, they ARE unrelated. the difference is that one is tradition, and one is history. george washington cutting down the cherry tree -- traditional or historical?george washington was a real person. he really was the first president of the united states. and his father probably owned at least one cherry tree. yet this story is still fictitious. it's tradition.and that's the heart of the matter. tradition is fictional.troy was a real place. it really was destroyed in a war, too. but the iliad is fiction.the titanic was a real boat. it really sank. but leonardo dicaprio probably wasn't on the passanger list.we fictionalize things, and often use real historical events and places and sometimes people to do it. because human being are storytellers. and genesis is stories, NOT an accurate recording of the reigns of kings, or the events in their lives. it's all isolated stories from different sourced, loosely connected in a framework of chronology. emphasis on loosely.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 02-23-2005 14:56 AM

sure, but genesis is NOT a history. i'm talking literature here, not archaelogy. there are parts of it that are CLEARLY based on real people or places or events: bab-el is a real place.but what genesis does not do is accurately record the histories, events, genealogies, of the stories described. it tells tales, and usually tall ones.how is this hard to understand? you missed the important clause:

quote:

---

yet this story is still fictitious. it's tradition.

---

george washington was a real person. but he probably did not cut down a cherry, and tell his father that he couldn't tell a lie. that story is not historical, but a biography of him would be. see the difference yet? these aren't hard concepts. no, there ARE cherry trees. but the cherry tree in question, the one cut down by an immature george, is made up. you're mistaking my point. my point is not that abraham didn't exist. it's that the stories told about him are fiction. i don't know whether or not he was a real person, but any one skilled in reading any sort of literature notices immediately that genesis is written as fiction: traditional stories.sure, maybe abraham existed. maybe he was really the father of the jews and the muslims. but stories about him are most likely made up. because it is very unlikely that part of genesis are historical accurate. a story based on history, a history, and historically accurate story are three different things.besides, genesis is full of anachronism, which is pretty much the opposite of "historically accurate." parts could have really happened, sure. just like dracula could have really trapsed around romania sucking on necks. dracula is, after all, based on a real person. it has nothing to do with impossibility. it has to do with style of writing. you picked a good chapter, btw. genesis does appear to have been based on some kind of history, as the opening section reads like one. for the most part, this is NOT what genesis does. (and don't start on genealogies, as they appear to be rigged)i'm not saying that genesis is not historically set, or not based on historical events in some parts, i'm saying that genesis itself is NOT a history. it's like the difference between watching "gettysburg" and a documentary about the civil war.how do i know this? i've read genesis. i've read kings and chronicles. i know the historical difficulties with kings and chronicles, and why they're not really even considered ture histories. that is NOT what i am saying at all. i'm saying that genesis is a collection of traditional stories and not a history. not that it's a complete work of fiction, made up out of thin air by several random authors. maybe joseph did exist. maybe he didn't. but the story is at the very least heavily fictionalized. sure, and what i'm saying is that for the most part, there is no real historical information designed to keep records in the book of genesis. it's not terribly difficult to look around and found which stories have an element of truth in them and were based on something in the real world. i'm not saying he didn't. i'm saying the story is a traditional one, not a historical record. yes. but look at, say, the book of proverbs. is proverbs a history? that would a preposterous supposition, wouldn't it? why did i even bring it up you ask?proverbs is an accumulation of traditional material. it's the hebrew version of "poor richard's almanac" basically. but what is it really doing? it's recording a certain history, actually. it's a record of the traditional sayings, aphorisms, etc.genesis is a historical record of traditional stories. more importanly, it is evident from the construction that it was designed explicitly for this purpose. look at these two back-to-back verses in proverbs:

quote:

---

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

---

proverbs is clearly not trying to convince of us a certain way to live. otherwise, this would be more clear and consistent. instead, it's readily apparent that these two sayings come from different sources (maybe one is even the ANSWER to the other). so it's plain to see that proverbs is a just a random collection of tradition.now look at the two contradictory creation accounts. the two halves of the noah story. the three instances on abraham telling a foreign king sarah is his sister. see the similarity? the redactor didn't even care to consolidate his sources, change them a little to streamline it and make it all agree nicely. why? to preserve the integrety of the tradition. history is to some degree the telling of stories, yes. but explaining a history in context is different than spinning yarns. does it? find me morality in genesis. when god says "don't eat from that tree" he doesn't say "because it would be wrong to do so, and i care that you do the right things." he says "if you eat it, you'll die." sounds distinctly like cause and effect. genesis does not record national history. because there is no nation of israel or judah during the time it is set. rather it tells fictionalized biographies.

i might come back and address this post at length at some point tomorrow, but for now i'm not even gonna read it until we get clear this one, single, key point up. because you're not getting what i'm saying at all. maybe i'm not communicating it well enough. historically plausible and historical are very different things.lots of stuff is historically plausible. but historical fiction is one thing and a history is another. the book of genesis doesn't even have the honor of being historical fiction; it's a collection of folk tales.it's not a tale like the iliad, by one author, based on a historical event, but highly fictionalized. it's a bunch of tradition. the stories do not record historical events. they are not even consistently set in history. they record tradition, stories purely derived for a single purposes. etiologies like "how the leopard got its spots" and lots of them from all different sources.although PARTS of it are tied to the history of the people, tradition usually is. i would not call the george washington cherry tree story a history of his life by any means. in fact, i wouldn't even include it in one. just because the figures MAY had really existed does not mean the book is "historical." just because it's PLAUSIBLE does not mean the story is recording what actually happened.

i have, and i reject that conclusion. it's not THAT different from saying that the genesis 3 story is about original sin and the fall of mankind. it's later theology, and later commentary, and not always valid just because it's jewish.i often side with judaism on, well, just about everything about the bible (they did write most of it, after all). but this one particular conclusion i've come to reject. if it's teaching "morals" then it's not to do the right thing, or not to do the wrong thing. rather, i see the text as very political, like propaganda.

no, this seems to be your error. you're making the following jump: past + plausible = history. and it's not true.genesis is a history in the respect that it's purpose is to preserve the traditions of a culture. same sense in which proverbs would be a history of traditions. but it is not a history in and of itself, in the respect of being an accurate recording the real-world events of that culture. so the movie titanic is a history? braveheart? gladiator?i'm not talking at ALL about outside verification of events. i'm talking AGAIN about writing style and goal of the text. the writing style is a collection of tales with designed purposes. it's goal is preserve the traditional mythology of the ancient jews. if it were a history, it would read like a history. there's a set style for hebrew histories, and genesis is not it. it tries to emulate it to give it validity, but anyone studying the tanakh for a while will notice obvious differences very quickly. if it were a history, it's gao would be preserve, i dunno the history of the culture.get the difference?

no, the interpretation that genesis is a big morality play. i originally agreed, but on closer examination i do not see any kind of morality operating in the text. i'm not saying that morals cannot be taught with it, or that the people were complete wild men, just that that particulary concept is foriegn to the writing. just punishment and reward, and moral leasons appear to be absent. well, i was refering to genesis as a whole. i dunno if i agree with the political reading of gen 3. i probably do to some degree. but idolatry messages and isolationist/nationalist tendencies tend to be more out-front. i might agree, but i think god left it out of his control. the idea being that it was man's choice. i think part of the point of the bible's overall transition has to do with the evolution of man and society. the point being that god is creating something worthwhile and meaningful. and without choice, without the tree, all faith is meaningless. which, btw, they failed to do. me neither, really. makes more sense than any christian one i've heard. but then again, they HAVE had longer to think about it and were mostly responsible for it's writing.

and the POINT of this entire debate is that genesis is NOT presented as a historical account. it's presented as a collection of folk tales. no, it does not. but i was attempting to describe what a history should be, or what a history usually tries to be. what i'm saying is that genesis is not saying "this stuff happened" but rather "these are the stories we've told for a thousand years." i don't care whether or not the stuff actually happened, and it has nothing to do with that. it's strictly the style and goals of the writing. no. AND THAT IS THE POINT. no, and they could not have. except for the books of kings and chronicles, which some believe pre-date genesis. see, this is the problem with your argument. genesis is not an archaic style of history written by a culture that was not familiar with history-writing. there are contemporary histories of the culture, and we have two variants on them. samuel, kings and chronicles appear to have been written based largely on a single historical document, and then slightly manipulated in favor of various political and religious ideas. this document the three books used as source seems to have contained purely historical records.the process by which kings and chronicles were copied indicates that redactor(s) were not interested specifically in recording history correctly, but putting a certain spin on things. so they are not fully considered to be "true" histories in the sense we use the word today. they omit important facts contrary to their political positions. (ever wonder where the fundis got it?) what they also show is consistency. they were interested in one consistent story of the history of a people.now bounce back over to genesis. inconsistencies all over the place. they very obviously used different sources, and copied them exactly. they didn't even make god have one consistent name. in some places, he's called "elohym" and in others "yahweh elohym" and in yet thers "el shaddai" or variants thereof. they are used in consistently the same in blocks of text. this means that the redactors of genesis were not interested in the slightest if the stories agreed and told a realistic and unified tale. rather, it shows that they were interested in preserving the stories themselves, independent of one another.so the goal was not historical, it was the preservation of tradition. and they are wrong. billions of children believe in santa claus. that doesn't make him real. and that DOES NOT make it a history. yes. see kings and chronicles. neither, both are strictly propaganda. history is not genre, and rarely records the lifes and deaths of homeless men. if you can't see how a gospel is not a history, i can't help you and we should end this debate now. see, i just thought it was common sense.

yes, and i even refered to genesis as a history of traditions in a previous post. but the point is that it is not a history of events that actually occured, even if the events themselves did actually occur. when people come on here asking if genesis is meant to be historical, that's what they're asking: did this stuff happen or not?i'm just saying that it's not written with the intention of saying "here's what really happened" but rather "here are the stories we've told for a thousand years" they seem to have come from different cultures, actually. i'm willing to bet one is babylonian, but i've heard some arguments about which is which. i see no reconciliation. they texts themselves are still in conflict. the orders are opposite. rather, it seems to indicate focus. actually, chronicles is refering most conspicuously to kings. kings seems to be refering to book similar to chronicles (chronicles covers judah, not israel, if memory serves. dunno, never found chronicles all the interesting after reading kings)this again seems to indicate focus. it's well known in the literary community that the judaic histories in the bible leave out facts contrary to their political stances. (hell, i would go so far as to say that almost every history book does)these books seem to recording history with the goal of putting forth certain ideas. for instance, they seem to be influenced greatly by the discovery of deuteronomy, and it's newly isolationist stance. so things like jehu kissing shalmanessar iii's feet in defeat are left out, because jehu was an isolationist and LOST because of it. at this point in judaic history, i might go as far as to say that there is no difference. we don't find a secular judaic history until, what, josephus?

p may have been historical in nature. i'll agree to that. i don't really think so. that would require internal consistency. no good history records two different answers to the same simple question. how many animals of each kind did noah take? 2 of everything like one passage says? or 2 of all the unclean, 7 of the clean? was man created before or after the animals? no no. i was saying that chronicles is referring to kings, and kings is refering a book LIKE chronicles, but older and of the other nation. yes, of course. several books are mentioned. besides, it'd be rather silly for them to refer to each other. i'm fairly positive one was written first. and if memory serves, it's kings. chronicles seems to be derived from kings at least in part. no argument here. yes, it's ridiculous to think these were the only two books written, or that every book written is in the bible. in fact, the point was the opposite. i'm quite AMAZED that books in the bible mention each other, such as chronicles mentioning kings, or kings mentioning deuteronomy.but were secular histories being recorded? i guess the bible is a rather biased point of view, but the kings seem to have been religious figures, and religion seems to be largely in control of the judaic states. a secular history of the time would suprise me, but i suppose it's not out of the realm of possibility. i'd also be REALLY interested to see it. very true. i think i'm going to continue to disagree. but i'll consider it and look at some other sources. my analysis is purely based on the way the text as written.i do think that exodus was probably presented as a factual history. i'm not even sure that should be a matter of opinion. it's pretty much accepted in the academic community.

we know three things:
1. that genesis is not presented in its final form as a consistent history.
2. that facts are often changed, or overlooked, to present certain ideas.
3. that a good percentage of the stories are borrowed from, or mocking, other cultures stories.the case for genesis being unhistorical is pretty good. i'm sorry, but combine those with a complete lack of evidence for anything supporting the events the way genesis describes them, and your case is pretty much sunk.for instance, if i write about how the nazi's won ww2, do you think i'm writing a history? is hp lovecraft or tolkien history? similarly, genesis seems to be complete fiction with a tiny basis in a historical event or two. yes, it does, but that does not mean that it is a historical account of the events that occured in that society. that's the question people are asking: did this stuff happen? and the signs strongly point to no. question. why aren't psalms history then? they have historical value. they often record specific events, such as the coronation of king david. how about job?you're dealing with a definition that's too loose. psalms does not seek to record the details of events in the past. it's literature. wrong section of the library.it's not what *I* define history as, it's looking at the goals and style of the text. i wouldn't call isaiah a history either, it's a book of prophesy, even though it's completely grounded in real historical events, and even plaigarizes LARGE sections of texts from a book i WOULD call a history. the goal is not the record that history, it's to record what isaiah said will happen later. the history is just there to give it some context. how do you know that for sure?in fact, how do you even know that before the exhile they even thought much about god at all? how do you know the egypt thing isn't a post-exhilic invention, and egypt is a code-word for babylon? you don't, really.it's a fundamental mistake to think that an already anachronistic retelling of events of the far past (at the time of authorship) presents the way the society actually thought during the time in which the book is set.genesis was written after the fact, not during. it presents the views of a probably exiled culture, about their past. not the views of that culture while they lived those events, should they really have happened. i watched a movie recently called "i heart huckabees." it took me until dustin hoffman's character was introduced to realize that they were making fun of modern philosophy, and weren't serious in the slightest. yet it is totally possible to watch the movie as a serious drama, ignore the comedy, and still enjoy the movie. people do this, and they're idiots. most of it just goes right over their heads.why do i bring this up?genesis is funny. did you ever notice it? i have. it's downright hillarious in points. lots of people take it seriously, but they're missing alot. popular opinion does not indicate the intentions of the authors or the true nature of the work. and you accuse me of using modern standards? sorry, but individualism is something even relatively new to the 20th century. look at kings and chronicles. same style. same words, even.there are different styles for differen focuses, sure. and the focus of genesis is not to record events as they happened. uh. have you read genesis? there's very little mystique there. in fact god is portrayed as relatively infantile. maybe you don't fully understand it, or christian don't. but the people who wrote it sure did. no, it doesn't. but genesis is not designed to be history, whether or not it's real. my point is that popular opinion does not dictate fact. billions of people believing genesis is history does not make it history. no, it's a FOLK narrative. that's the point. sigh.i quit. someone else?