Genesis interpretations - how many are there?

[Brian37]

Really, can someone tell me how many different interpretations of Genesis are there? Christians clobber us non-stop for not taking Book Of Genesis for granted but which interpretation? They themselves can't agree on what is the right interpretation. These are that I know:

-Flat Earthers: They take book of Genesis really literally and think that you are going to Hell if you don't consider Earth to be flat and center of the universe because spherical Earth that revolves around the Sun corrodes morality making humans "insignificant beings on an insignificant planet."

-Young Earth Creationists: They actually are really similar to FEs they just don't take parts about Earth being flat seriously, but they believe if you accept evolution and non-six day creation that you are immoral because you consider human to be "just an animal". Curiously they think FEs are crazy.

-"Evolutionists": These apparently see biological evolution described in the Genesis book. They seem insecure in their views, sometimes they'll defend YACs and they have relatives that are YACs, but hey at least they're trying.

-Old Earth Creationists: To be honest I find this branch to be maybe the strangest. They believe that god of the Bible created universe in six days but billions of years ago, not 6000 as YACs do. And they have a movement about them that is perhaps mix of people who are YACs and "Evolutionists". Like, I remember watching a nutty "documentary" called "Mystery of the Sphinx" with Charlton Heston where he presents that worldview and as you can imagine their evidence is Atlantis, Edgar Cayce, face on Mars and so on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbUsGnMUH2Y

(EDIT documentary is actually "Mysterious Origins of Man" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQU9AhPnwsk )

There are some other interpretations (probably thousands of them) like some guy that debated AronRa claims YACs are wrong because god didn't create world in 6 days but 6000 years and some other stuff.

why not read it yourself and make up your own mind? why seek knowledge from those who know nothing about what you seek? they only know how to hide from the message not understand it.

If you want to understand creation read chapter 1 as the first 7 days. meaning read the order of creation from day ne to day 7. Now understand this will take you through to genesis 2:3 they did this because the priest who assigned the chapter and verses did not understand what was being communicated in chapter 2:4

Now read chapter 2:4 as if it were a different story. and it will tell you that on the day God made land but before there were plants or rain (some time on day 3) He created a garden then created a man he named Adam and placed in the garden on day 3. Meaning 1/2 through day three the whole of chapter 2 happens apart from the rest of creation. That everything in the garden was made to a modern standard or what was modern 6000 years ago. why 6000 years ago? because that is the point we can trace our genealogies back to the YEC have it 1/2 right in that that 6000 was the exodus of the garden and not the start of creation. why? because the bible does not give a timeline from the end of creation to the exodus of the garden..

If you read chapter one and two as they are subdivided into book chapter and verse you create automatically a timeline that begins 6000 years ago. the problem with that is the chapter 2 does not end and chapter 3 begins. chronologically chapter 2 ends on day 4 of the chapter 1 narrative. meaning after the garden and everything in it was complete day 4 of creation begins and ends, then day 5 ect... so chapter two is not a chronological consistent with chapter one and 3. 

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, the city of nod cain ran off too and all the other things that once counted as a contradiction or paradox in the creation story. it all comes together if you just read what is on page and not pay attention to the notations. Day 4.5 God creates the garden and everything in it apart from the rest of creation. day 6 God created man outside the garden...

Now because there was no timeline given as to how long man was in the garden, that leaves room for you evolutionist... meaning A&E could have been in the garden 1 day a year or a bazillion years or whatever evolution says it needs. the only thing we do know is when they came out which was about 6000 years ago.

Which part? The part where men magically pop out of dirt? Or the part where women magically pop out of a man's rib? Or the part where plants are made instantly without photosynthesis? Or the part where God condones killing off the Egyptian firstborn over a beef he has with an adult? 

We have read the bible, and just like Harry Potter it isn't that hard to read fiction to know it is just that.

[Drich]

God created people outside of the garden, why did he do that,

So as to be breeding stock for the descendants/children of Adam who pass the soul Adam's linage would have onto the next generation. (it was part ofthe original plan of sin and redemption)

and why didn't he tell us he did so?

Uh... HE DID! You morons see what God said as a contradiction though! On day 4.5 He creates Adam and gives hims a name and a soul and places Him in the garden. Then on day six he creates man outside the garden, and makes him compatible/in the image of God. but does not breath a soul into him. Man outside the garden still has a spirit which makes him smart just not an eternal soul. This very well can be evolved man.

I mean it must have been him, how else could it have happened.  

Again read gen 1 day 6 God creates man in his image.

Gen 2 Day 4.5 god creates the garden and then man and places man in the garden to tend to it.

Do you really think the OT jews were so stupid as to not see a continuity error? No they were not that stupid. what most of us see as a continutiy problem is infact two different stories about two different types of created man. The first being ADAM in the Garden of Eden. and the second being man outside the garden who was not given a soul like adam was.

look at chapter three and four for more evidence that man was developing outside the garden. look at who Adam and eve children married... look at the city CITY of Nod where cain fled/banished to Where did this city come from if cain just killed his brother? If the were the only two children of ADAM and eve where did the population of a whole city come from if not from the man or descendants of man who lived outside the garden?

Again what lazy minded people do is assume the traditional reading of genesis is right. if so there are continuity errors. I have not changed the bible or what it says. everything I say here is well with in the frame work of what has been written. just reading it differently than what the way lazy people teach.

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

Not a back up. it was apart of the main plan all along. God knew they would fail and be expelled, and have kids... so who would their kids marry and have children? where would the bio diversity come from?

Again God has made the provision in what is literally on page to allow everything we know to be true in science to conform with the creation narrative without changing one word of what has been written. all we need do is re examine how we read the text.

The way we read the text today is wrong.. the writers and compilers of the bible were not stupid. but the way we read the text suggest that they were because of the continuity errors. By simply removing the false expectation of a given time line via the book chapter and verse denotations, the whole creation narrative self corrects and ALL continuity issues become resolved

---

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.

Yes moron Genesis is the crux of Christianity in the Jesus Himself endorsed a literal reading of Genesis. If one can not read it literally the Jesus is not who He said He was.

[The Grand Nudger]

It takes a certain kind of dipshit to take an inherently ethnocentric fairytale and give it even more eugenic cowbell.

@Genesis
Get to naming those indispensable items, then? There was an entire branch of christendom..cheifly responsible for your own gospel horseshit....that didn;t think jesus -was- the god of the OT. I certainly can;t see why a literal reading of genesis would be required even if one contends that the two are one in the same. It;s certainly not the majority opinion of christians. It;s simply no longer considered to be a literal story (and ironically that;s a return to it;s jewish roots as theological metaphor)....and yet people have no trouble believing that jesus is who he said he was.

You can only be telling me that -you- would be incapable of belief if genesis weren;t the literal truth..which is unfortunate...because it isn;t.

[Drich]

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

what making sense

---

why not read it yourself and make up your own mind? why seek knowledge from those who know nothing about what you seek? they only know how to hide from the message not understand it.

If you want to understand creation read chapter 1 as the first 7 days. meaning read the order of creation from day ne to day 7. Now understand this will take you through to genesis 2:3 they did this because the priest who assigned the chapter and verses did not understand what was being communicated in chapter 2:4

Now read chapter 2:4 as if it were a different story. and it will tell you that on the day God made land but before there were plants or rain (some time on day 3) He created a garden then created a man he named Adam and placed in the garden on day 3. Meaning 1/2 through day three the whole of chapter 2 happens apart from the rest of creation. That everything in the garden was made to a modern standard or what was modern 6000 years ago. why 6000 years ago? because that is the point we can trace our genealogies back to the YEC have it 1/2 right in that that 6000 was the exodus of the garden and not the start of creation. why? because the bible does not give a timeline from the end of creation to the exodus of the garden..

If you read chapter one and two as they are subdivided into book chapter and verse you create automatically a timeline that begins 6000 years ago. the problem with that is the chapter 2 does not end and chapter 3 begins. chronologically chapter 2 ends on day 4 of the chapter 1 narrative. meaning after the garden and everything in it was complete day 4 of creation begins and ends, then day 5 ect... so chapter two is not a chronological consistent with chapter one and 3. 

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, the city of nod cain ran off too and all the other things that once counted as a contradiction or paradox in the creation story. it all comes together if you just read what is on page and not pay attention to the notations. Day 4.5 God creates the garden and everything in it apart from the rest of creation. day 6 God created man outside the garden...

Now because there was no timeline given as to how long man was in the garden, that leaves room for you evolutionist... meaning A&E could have been in the garden 1 day a year or a bazillion years or whatever evolution says it needs. the only thing we do know is when they came out which was about 6000 years ago.

Which part? The part where men magically pop out of dirt? Or the part where women magically pop out of a man's rib? Or the part where plants are made instantly without photosynthesis? Or the part where God condones killing off the Egyptian firstborn over a beef he has with an adult? 

We have read the bible, and just like Harry Potter it isn't that hard to read fiction to know it is just that.

what is the base elemental make up for "dust" carbon... what are we made of?? carbon
What does a 'rib' contain? dna, how are we constructed DNA.. 
Who said plants were made without photosynthesis? day one light was made (Only the dumbest SOBs on the planet can understand the sun is not the only source of light that allows photosynthesis.) God allowed the "adult" to name his own plage or allowed him to let his people go. pretty sweet deal if you ask any not biased person.

No you have not read the bible you are partially familiarized with stories from the bible from which you snowman your own narratives and red herring any semblance of legitimacy away. just so you can dismiss things like this amongst your selves without having to be shown up by a christian like myself.

[LadyForCamus]

Lol@Drich

[Drich]

It takes a certain kind of dipshit to take an inherently ethnocentric fairytale and give it even more eugenic cowbell.

@Genesis
Get to naming those indispensable items, then?  There was an entire branch of christendom..cheifly responsible for your own gospel horseshit....that didn;t think jesus -was- the god of the OT.  I certainly can;t see why a literal reading of genesis would be required even if one contends that the two are one in the same.  It;s certainly not the majority opinion of christians.  It;s simply no longer considered to be a literal story (and ironically that;s a return to it;s jewish roots as theological metaphor)....and yet people have no trouble believing that jesus is who he said he was.

You can only be telling me that -you- would be incapable of belief if genesis weren;t the literal truth..which is unfortunate...because it isn;t.

bible says Jesus=Son of God 
bible says Jesus to take part in 7 day creation
bible says Jesus to actually enact bring fourth the will of the father here.

Again it does not matter what people think about God. If you are worshiping the God of the bible then it only matter what the bible says about God. do you dig that?

If The bible says Jesus says he was apart of ABC then that become cannon which becomes apart of the belief system. take away this work and Jesus is not what He claims to be.

can't see a problem with that? then that is fine let the christians worry about that

---

Lol@Drich

 @ you

[LadyForCamus]

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

what making sense

---

Which part? The part where men magically pop out of dirt? Or the part where women magically pop out of a man's rib? Or the part where plants are made instantly without photosynthesis? Or the part where God condones killing off the Egyptian firstborn over a beef he has with an adult? 

We have read the bible, and just like Harry Potter it isn't that hard to read fiction to know it is just that.

what is the base elemental make up for "dust" carbon... what are we made of?? carbon
What does a 'rib' contain? dna, how are we constructed DNA.. 
Who said plants were made without photosynthesis? day one light was made (Only the dumbest SOBs on the planet can understand the sun is not the only source of light that allows photosynthesis.) God allowed the "adult" to name his own plage or allowed him to let his people go. pretty sweet deal if you ask any not biased person.

No you have not read the bible you are partially familiarized with stories from the bible from which you snowman your own narratives and red herring any semblance of legitimacy away. just so you can dismiss things like this amongst your selves without having to be shown up by a christian like myself.

Or...or...maybe none of that happened. 😉

[The Grand Nudger]

So, by "die" magic book meant "will live a thousand years".

By "dust" magic book meant "carbon"

By "rib" magic book meant "DNA"

....and the sun is a redundant piece of stellar bric a brac to photosynthetics.

I;m not exactly filled with confidence that magic book can say what it means and mean what it says, or that the god that wrote it had a firm grip on how the earth (and it;s biota) formed.  This, seems to me..to be more reason to distrust magic book than acknowledging that at least some parts of it are intentionally metaphoric.

bible says Jesus=Son of God

You just -might- be missing an idiom, not entirely unlike the whole "you will die, will die" spiel daddy god gives his naked garden frolicking teenagers.

bible says Jesus to take part in 7 day creation

Idiom, again. Seven was considered a sacred number, it;s use denotes perfection of process, not a strict accounting of a length of time.

bible says Jesus to actually enact bring fourth the will of the father here.

....and?

Again it does not matter what people think about God. If you are worshiping the God of the bible then it only matter what the bible says about God. do you dig that?

I still don;t see any necessity for a literal reading of genesis.

If The bible says Jesus says he was apart of ABC then that become cannon which becomes apart of the belief system. take away this work and Jesus is not what He claims to be.

Your inability to believe in the event that genesis is the fairy tale that it;s always been is no barrier to god belief..or even to there being a god.

can't see a problem with that? then that is fine let the christians worry about that

..............they don;t...though, which is why I asked you. You worry about it enough to make a fool of yourself time and time again where no one else seems to find any need or utility.

[Angrboda]

It's worth noting that Genesis 2 has man being created outside the Garden of Eden, so there's no need to separate the two narratives.

As to the length of Adam's life, your whole invention rests upon a presumed literality of the narrative and God's claim. Turning around and then insisting on a non-literal interpretation of Adam's supposed death is simply being inconsistent, and amounts to yet one more ad hoc hypothesis. Generally speaking, the more of those you have to make, the worse it is for your theory.

As to the exit point, nothing in Genesis fixes the time when Adam and Eve left the garden, so the events detailed after Genesis 2:5 could all have occurred on the sixth day, as stated in Genesis 1. You need an end point to your timeline. (In addition to other assumptions, such as completeness, genre, and so on.)

[Drich]

what making sense

---

what is the base elemental make up for "dust" carbon... what are we made of?? carbon
What does a 'rib' contain? dna, how are we constructed DNA.. 
Who said plants were made without photosynthesis? day one light was made (Only the dumbest SOBs on the planet can understand the sun is not the only source of light that allows photosynthesis.) God allowed the "adult" to name his own plage or allowed him to let his people go. pretty sweet deal if you ask any not biased person.

No you have not read the bible you are partially familiarized with stories from the bible from which you snowman your own narratives and red herring any semblance of legitimacy away. just so you can dismiss things like this amongst your selves without having to be shown up by a christian like myself.

Or...or...maybe none of that happened. 😉

Or...OR....maybe it did.