If Genesis is Metaphorical, what's the metaphor?

Thank you.

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.

I think we also need to at the least be aware that there is an underlying humor in much of the Old Testament. I think that it was not unsurprising that so many of the Burlesque Parlors had names like Minski's. If you ever spend time in a Jewish Community, particularly if you've lived in one of the older classic Ethnic Neighborhoods, you will have seen the culture of the authors of Genesis in action. Yiddish is phenominal, there are always atleast two meanings to every word, one pretty straight forward but another just below the surface that is a commentary on life. Consider someones shtick, their patter or personality and how it quickly becomes Shtick Holtz or a person with No Personality.Much of the Old Testament, particularly the Pentateuch is Burlesque.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Considering that Genesis is a rewrite of early babalyonian creation myths, I do not belive it could be considered literal. The puns that are in it in the hebrew rule out it being literal.

I will go further. It is told as a "Just so" story, to try to explain the question "why are things like they are". Why is the pain and suffering in the world. Why is there man and woman? Why do women go through childbirth? Why do snakes have no legs and crawl on the ground on their bellies?.. SOmething similar to 'Why do leopards have spots'.Combined with this are some moralistic teachings too.The way we have interpret these moral lessons in our modern context often depends on our assumptions and world view about religion that comes from later developments. For example, many Christians believe in the concept of Original Sin, and see the 'fall' of mankind in the story. The Jewish religion does not have the concept of original sin,
and therefore there was no 'fall'. The moral lessons they see are different than the Christians.

Hi Arach, I don’t think that even the greatest sceptic in the world would dismiss the entire Book of Genesis as unhistorical, there are too many *plausible* events for that to be the case.
We have no good reason to reject the possibility that Abraham, Jacob, or Joseph were real people.Certainly the idea of a foreign group settling in Egypt during times of famine is supported from a plethora of sources. For example in the Hebrew Bible we are told that there were various occasions when the patriarchs entered Egypt during times of famine. Abraham moved to Egypt during a severe famine (Gen. 12:10) and Jacob’s entire family moved there during a particularly prolonged famine (Gen. 41:50). This is entirely compatible with the information we have from Egyptian sources such as Papyrus Anastasi VI, where a report from a frontier official talks of permitting:the Bedouin tribes of Edom (to) pass the Fortress of Mer-ne-ptah. which is in Tjeku..to the pools of Per-Atumwhere are (in) Tjeku, to keep them alive and to keep their cattle alive. (ANET: 258)There is a significant event in Gen.14, the war described between the allied forces of the five Cities of the Plain and the four king alliance led by king Chedorlaomer, which is entirely plausible and finds possible support in external sources. For imstance, there is an 18th century BCE letter from Mari that mentions alliances of ten, fifteen and twenty kings, and there are five or more Mesopotamian colaitions known from the 19/18th centuries BCE (Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, Tyndale Press,London, 1966, p45).The social customs and legal practices alluded to in the patriarchal narratives are not historically implausible either. For instance, in regard to an apparent legal practice, in Gen. 16:1-4, Abraham’s wife, Sarah, gave her slave Hagar to him as a concubine. This tradition is reflected in the texts from MBA Nuzi, Babylonia and Assyria, where a marriage contract compelled a childless wife to supply a surrogate for her husband to try and reproduce with. If a son is forthcoming, it was then forbidden for the surrogate and her child to be sent away from the household, which also parallels the information in Gen. 21:10 that tells us of Abraham’s unwillingness to send Hagar and Ishmael away (Bright: History of Israel, SCM Press, London 1972. p.78).There is no way I would claim that the selling of Joseph into slavery, where he ends up in Egypt, is entirely unhistorical, the entire scenario is completely plausible. It doesn’t mean that it happened, but it is *possible* so therefore it could be historical.I also see no reason for rejecting the historicity of Abraham being a wandering Aramean. Granted, there are huge problems with accepting everything written abut Abraham as being historically accurate, but there are parts of his life story that are plausible.There are dozens of pieces of information in Genesis that are entirely *plausible*, I really cannot think of any scholar, even a minimalist one, who would reject the entire book as fictional, and historically impossible. I would disagree with this 100%.You have to remember that history writing has changed dramatically over the centuries, and no one was writing any critical histories at that time.But, *ALL* that history is, is a written record of a past event, whether that event happened or not is irrelevant, it is still history. Essentially, history is not what actually happened in the past, it is what a historian reports that happened in the past, and as such, a history can be entirely false. Oppressive regimes for instance often invent histories that portray them in a better light than the truth would.My own definition of history is ‘a narrative about the past that is created in the historian’s mind and presented as a written record.’You know how much I am against the historical accuracy of the Exodus and Conquest, but these are historical narratives, they are just false historical narratives. What’s the difference and are they unrelated?Why can’t there be a traditional tale about an historical event. This would depend on how you define history, which is a difficult thing to do, as there is no universally accepted definition thus far.What type of history would you expect to find written 2500-3000 years ago?In your very next post you write that: I dunno how many are largely true, but the stories of genesis are often based on real places and eventsHow does this differ from that I claimed earlier: Of course there are parts of The Book of Genesis that are historically plausible, it isn't entirely unhistorical. This is essentially the same as what you have written!Brian.

And where will faith without the guidance of the bible (Gods word)take you? Without it and Gods word in conjunction, supporting each other, you will just be going around in circles. At best you will get Anthropomorphism or a plurideistic culture. We as humans left that ages ago.PS. I know this is off-topic and from now on I'll stick to the topic as best I can.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

In the end to the same place you get with it. You are engaging in the error and hubris of thinking that your myths are better then any others. They work for you, and any other claim is unsupportable. You are going even further and committing the greater error that your myths are objectively real.

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

The point that I was making is that there are parts of Genesis that *COULD* be historical. How can you say that Abraham did not exist, or that there was no such thing as a wandering Aramean? You really cannot say that this is unhistorical. So you are saying that a tradition *CAN* contain accurate historical information, and you even explicitly say this here: The traditon contains historical elements does it not, if not, then you would have to say that Washington and his dad's cherry trees didn't exist? But not entirely, because Washington WAS real, and the Cherry Tree was real, this is the point I was making. Whether Abraham ever conned pharaoh is extremely unlikely, but that doesnt mean that there is nothing historical in Abraham's narratives. And how is this different from what I am saying, that parts of Genesis *COULD* be historically accurate?In historical enquiry, you never discard all the information in a text if you find a discrepency or two, you evaluate ALL the information and keep what is plausible. How can you possibly know this? What is there about Genesis 14 for example, that is impossible? I know about the construction of the Old testament, but we cannot say there was never a man called Joseph who was sold into slavery almost 4000 years ago because Noah's Flood is demonstrably untrue.In biblical studies especially, you need to evaluate each and every text on its own merit, there is clearly fairy tales in there, but there is also a lot of information that *MAY* be true, it *MAY NOT* be true, but if there is nothing that makes the scenario impossible then it has to be considered.Perhaps Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt and traditions/exaggerations have been added on to the story (which is likely because the Joseph narratives have been revised at least three times), that doesn't mean that some parts of the story are unhistorical. That Joseph interpreted dreams could be complete trash, but it doesn't mean he didn't exist.Traditions invariably contain historical elements, how many myths have at least some basis in fact?Many people have too narrow an understanding of what history is, especially what the ancients thought that history was. Van Seters wrote an excellent outline for recognising history in ancient writings:1. History writing is a specific form of tradition in its own right. Any explanation of the genre as merely the accidental accumulation of traditional material is inadequate.2. History writing is not primarily the accurate reporting of past events. It also considers the reason for recalling the past and the significance given to past events.3. History writing examines the causes of present conditions and circumstances. In antiquity these causes were primarily moral — who is responsible for a certain state of affairs? (It goes without saying, of course, that modern scientific theories about causation or laws of evidence cannot be applied to the ancient writer.4. History writing is national or corporate in character. Therefore, merely reporting the deeds of the king may be only biographical unless they are viewed as part of the national history.5. History writing is part of the literary tradition and plays a significant role in the corporate tradition of the people.(Van Seters, (1983) In search of history: historiography in the ancient world and the origins of Biblical history Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. London 4-5)Brian.

Like I said, each to his own.I'm just doing what my human nature influences me to do. I'm supporting my belief in the bible, not only as a historical book, but a god inspired book.I apologize if that makes you uncomfortable. You can't seem to accept that people look at this book in that way. If you don't, I'm OK with that, try took give the same latitude to others.I speak about what speaks to me in a personal way, I'm not falling into the error and hubris that my beliefs are better than others.If you have to take exception to the fact that I believe in the divinely inspired scripture because in your opinion its a fallacy, then we can also say that you are placing your opinions (beliefs) over those of others.Since this is entirely off-topic, I will not respond any further on this thread to this line of discussion. If you really want to continue, lets move this to a correct thread-topic line.http://EvC Forum: Gods Bible

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

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.