Genesis interpretations - how many are there?

[The Grand Nudger]

A truth known only to you, maybe...lol.  Imma stick with the jews when it comes to their book and how to read it.  

Their interpretation has the benefit of not being the dumbest thing I;ve ever heard.

[Angrboda]

Really, can someone tell me how many different interpretations of Genesis are there? 

There;s only one that matters...the rabbinic interpretation.  The people who came up with the story never thought it was literal in the first place.  

It was intended as religious metaphor, poetry, not a news report from the front of theologically unimportant details.  On it;s own merits it succeeds at that.  Why Some Christians™ feel the need to rob magic book is beyond me.

Drich, for example..up there twisting his scrote trying to reconcile contradictory narratives.  The compilers didn;t give a shit.   They knew that the narratives were mismatched but it just wasn;t important to them because they didn;t need it to be true in the way that a bathsit creationist does.

There's internal evidence that the two narratives came from different traditions. The question then becomes, why did the redactors feel it necessary to include both versions. I guess we'll never really know, but if one hews to the notion that the narratives were composited in the seventh century BCE, then there are potential political reasons for the specific inclusions.

[robvalue]

They kind of paint themselves into a corner, being unable to remove stuff without the whole house of cards falling down. Instead they have to pretend things like the second story actually make sense.

[The Grand Nudger]

That;s the burden of a borrowed ladder.

[Drich]

A truth known only to you, maybe...lol.  Imma stick with the jews when it comes to their book and how to read it.  

Their interpretation has the benefit of not being the dumbest thing I;ve ever heard.

The jews who know how to read this book are no longer called Jews.

The ones who read it now are the direct descendants of those who were once called pharisees. as the descendants of the pharisees were the only group left after jesus and later more specifically the destruction of the temple.
(Jesus took a large group, and a larger group was murdered by the romans (the remain sadducees) of those who remained either converted to Christianity because of what Jesus said about the temple or the followed the only jewish teaching available (which was the minority/radical version of judaism) at the time.. which again Jesus Himself did not ..'approve of.'

 So then why would 2000 years of degradation of the oral traditions that Jesus did not like make the reading now better?

In truth it is better for you because the subject remains contradictory and muddled.. yeah better to keep you head burried in the ground than look at the bible in a way it makes sense with the world around us, otherwise you might have to change things or be accused of having a closed mind.

---

There;s only one that matters...the rabbinic interpretation.  The people who came up with the story never thought it was literal in the first place.  

It was intended as religious metaphor, poetry, not a news report from the front of theologically unimportant details.  On it;s own merits it succeeds at that.  Why Some Christians™ feel the need to rob magic book is beyond me.

Drich, for example..up there twisting his scrote trying to reconcile contradictory narratives.  The compilers didn;t give a shit.   They knew that the narratives were mismatched but it just wasn;t important to them because they didn;t need it to be true in the way that a bathsit creationist does.

There's internal evidence that the two narratives came from different traditions.  The question then becomes, why did the redactors feel it necessary to include both versions.  I guess we'll never really know, but if one hews to the notion that the narratives were composited in the seventh century BCE, then there are potential political reasons for the specific inclusions.

read them there are not two different narratives of the same event but two narratives of two different events. one the 7 day creation and 2 the creation of the garden and everything in it. That is why both were included. it tells of two different things!

---

They kind of paint themselves into a corner, being unable to remove stuff without the whole house of cards falling down. Instead they have to pretend things like the second story actually make sense.

or if you simply read what is on page with out the lens of tradition obscuring everything, it strengthen the whole creation narrative to where it encapsulates anything you wish to pair with it.

[The Grand Nudger]

At least you;ve found a way to acknowledge that your source material is contradictory and muddled.  Good thing you;re here to set those rabbis straight.



Here;s a fun experiment. Can you identify a single theologically important thing in genesis..to christianity? Some portion of genesis that must be literal in order to preserve christian ideology? An indispensable item?

In short, a good reason to make such a fool of yourself.

[Succubus]

...Matter of fact in chapters 4 through the end of adam life there are several things the bible mentions that prove life outside the garden was moving along at a much different pace than life inside the garden...

...meaning the men and women Adam's children married and had kids with...

God created people outside of the garden, why did he do that, and why didn't he tell us he did so?
I mean it must have been him, how else could it have happened.  

Unless of course it was a backup plan in case A&E fucked up.

[Angrboda]

There's internal evidence that the two narratives came from different traditions.  The question then becomes, why did the redactors feel it necessary to include both versions.  I guess we'll never really know, but if one hews to the notion that the narratives were composited in the seventh century BCE, then there are potential political reasons for the specific inclusions.

read them there are not two different narratives of the same event but two narratives of two different events. one the 7 day creation and 2 the creation of the garden and everything in it. That is why both were included. it tells of two different things!

Yeah, sorry Drich, I don't find your argument persuasive. It rests on the rather slender reed of Genesis 2:5. That provides an entry point into the narrative, but no clear exit point. You need both. And because the bible states explicitly that Adam lived 930 years, it's not true that we can't put bounds on the length of time Adam lived in the garden.

[Drich]

read them there are not two different narratives of the same event but two narratives of two different events. one the 7 day creation and 2 the creation of the garden and everything in it. That is why both were included. it tells of two different things!

Yeah, sorry Drich, I don't find your argument persuasive.  It rests on the rather slender reed of Genesis 2:5.  That provides an entry point into the narrative, but no clear exit point.  You need both.  And because the bible states explicitly that Adam lived 930 years, it's not true that we can't put bounds on the length of time Adam lived in the garden.

How is the 'exit' not the end of the chapter? 


clearly chapter 3 could not be a consecutive or a continuation of chapter 2 as the garden exodus would have a happened before the 7 day creation would have been completed. Again if chapter two happened mid day 3 then chapter three would also be mid day four if not 5.. 

The bible also states explicitly that Adam and eve would also die the very DAY they ate the forbidden fruit. 

Are you saying they did not die upon expulation? 

If they did then the life they lived outside the garden was a new existence. We already know everything inside the garden via chapter two was seperate than what happened outside even by the order God created life in the garden was different than what happened outside, and at a much accelerated rate being everything happening mid day day 3.

That said I contend they did die, (Other wise why the empty threat?) also the bible does not say God lied to them, which means they did die on some level and are clearly reduced in position as the burdens/punishment placed on man and woman work and child birth pain is meant to indicate. 

I also say they were immortal before as the tree of life sat next to the tree of knowledge and was not forbidden. yet they were expelled lest they eat of the tree of life again. In other words why eat of the tree of knowledge if the tree of life is also untasted fruit? I imagine a vast garden and two people spending 100 bazillion years in it. Even if the garden was the size of the US, after a few million years you see everything and do everything there is to do... Except the one forbidden thing... which also explains the proximity of Eve to the forbidden tree and the reason for the temptation.

If you call God a liar and say they did not die, then you can hang on to your YEC view that Adam lived a total of 930 years in and out of the garden.

Or otherwise if God told the truth and they did die in some form or fashion, the very day they ate the forbidden fruit then the first day of life outside the garden started the clock on that 930 years.

[The Grand Nudger]

Careful, it might never come untwisted if you keep doing that.