Talk:Allegorical interpretations of Genesis

Cop out

The article mentions that "Some conservative Christians think that seeing Genesis as a myth or as an allegory is some kind of "cop-out," and that it was always interpreted literally until biological evolution came and disproved it." I think disprove should not be used here, since there are always arguements revolving around the topic. Given Wiki's NPOV, perhaps it should be changed to "challenged"? Allan Lee 00:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Flaws of this article

The whole premise of this article is flawed. The most likely categorization of the Adam and Eve story is myth, or "mythos." But using the term myth has undesirable connotations with pagan "mythology." Christians would cite the book of Revelation that refers to Genesis and asserts that the snake was Satan as proof within the same scripture that it is not "allegorical" to view the snake as Satan. Ironically the author of Revelation could have viewed the story as myth (the type of myth that is universally true), we will never know.

Furthermore, it is in my opinion a violation of NPOV to include this in a series called "Creationism." The subject is Allegorical interpretations of Genesis. Creationism, whatever it may be, would tend to use the text as factual documentation. Admission that it may be allegorical means that it is not a literally true account, and does not document how the universe was created.The age of fable (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence doesn't make sense. Lynchical 02:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten it for better readability and clarity. Aardvark92 15:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bigger Picture

I know this article originated out of the theistic evolution article, but I think it could be broadened to include allegorical interpretations of the parts of Genesis that don't concern the creation accounts.

For example, the apostle Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, gives an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis story of Abraham's sons Isaac and Ishmael.

It would be nice, too, to see more on the Alexandrian school and its influence in allegorical interpretation. Aardvark92 15:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The broadening of this article seems logical given the name. On the other hand, there is much to say just about the creation history... maybe someday we will need two separate articles: one for “Allegory in Genesis” and another for “Allegorical creation in genesis”... Anyway, the article is not meant to be static, feel free to expand the text in ways that seems sensible to you.

PS.: I just included this article in Template:Creationism2. If not reverted, this inclusion will almost certainly increase the edits here. Im curious about the kinds of change that will happen. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 00:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've made some major revisions based on this discussion. I've tried to rearrange the sections into more logical divisions to facilitate additions of ancient or contemporary allegorical interpretations. I've also started expanding the article to include interpretations of passages outside the creation stories, although there is enough information about the creation stories to justify a separate section, I think. Aardvark92 06:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I like your modifications. Congrats! --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Evolution?

Why is evolution singled out as disagreeing with Genesis? It's merely a single strand of scientific evidence that precludes a literal interpretation of Genesis. Evidence from astrophysics and geology is far more seriously at odds with literalism. I'll alter unless someone can point out something I've missed. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This article was originally taken from a section in the theistic evolution article. I agree that there's no reason to single out evolution; I expect this article will grow away from its roots and encompass the whole range of allegorical interpretations of Genesis. Aardvark92 14:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Quinn, in his book Ishmael, discusses Genesis as an allegory for the rise of agriculturalism; Abel represents the hunter-gatherers and Cain represents the new agriculturalists. Would there be a place in this article for this discussion?

I think there is a place for it. Since the article is titled Allegorical interpretations -- plural -- it ought to cover the many different ways people have allegorized Genesis. Aardvark92 19:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

contradictions

About the "contradictions", a few words: Job, Jude, and John are not part of the Genesis text itself. To a Jew, of course, the latter two are irrelevant. Job's mention of the "morning stars" has been traditionally understood by Jewish teachers to be referring to the angels, not the physical stars. At any rate, Job isn't part of the Genesis text, so there's no contradiction within itself Genesis on this point, unlike some of the other obvious issues between the Two Accounts in Genesis. Also, as a side-note, the oft-cited John 3:13 doesn't contradict Genesis 5:24. The Greek verb is in the "middle voice" (no analog in English) and it speaks of the intent and will of the subject. John 3:13 is better rendered, "no man has PUT HIMSELF up to heaven". Enoch was "taken away BY GOD to heaven", he didn't do it himself. John is saying nobody ever went to heaven by their own power or will. No contradiction there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.91.37 (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed some opinionated edits about the contradictions. The points are self explanatory and don't need a follow-up.

In response to the point of Adam dying on the same day that he ate the fruit, someone added a NT reference saying that dying is allegorical. Well that's the whole point of mentioning such a contraction. In response to the two stories of creation, someone added that verse 5 clearly states that plants were made before man. My version says: "and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth* and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground" That's pretty self explanatory, and yet still doesn't address the animals being created after man in the second account. Also, the verse concerning Noah changes in different translations Gen 5:32 (NASB) "Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth." 170.160.9.3 00:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a contradiction: "Gen 2:17 God says to Adam, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen 5:5 Adam lives several hundreds of years after eating the fruit." The first quote is sufficiently vague such that it does not say Adam will die on the day he eats the fruit. More simply, when the day comes that Adam eats the fruit, it becomes fact that he shalt surely die. Death does not mean the immediate and swift removal of Adam from Earth but rather the face that Adam will cease to be immortal, dying is therefore inevitable. Yes, he will die - eventually. With the first quote reading as I have mentioned, the contradiction is lost. The first line says Adam will die. The second simply says when. --Wootang19 (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is precisely what Genesis does say: that Adam will die immediately, "in the day that thou eatest". You are imposing later Christian apologetics here. In the original Hebrew, the repetition of the word for "death" (sometimes translated as "dying you shall die" represents emphasis, not postponement. The same construction is used in the previous verse, "...surely eat". In the story, Adam wasn't created immortal, and was therefore going to die eventually anyhow (this is why he was evicted from Eden in Gen. 3:22, to prevent him becoming immortal, which God did not want). In the Sumerian original, the god Enki lies to the Sumerian "Adam" (Adapa) to stop him eating the food of the gods and becoming immortal: the Hebrews adapted the "toxic lie" to a different magical food. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. It's amazing how spread is the idea that Adam and Eve would be immortal if it were not for the original sin, when Gen. 3:22 tells differently! Anyway, I don't think there is necessarily a contradiction between Gen. 2:17 and Gen. 5:5. Why not accept that in Gen. 2:17 God simply deceived (lied to) Adam?... Gazilion (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Reference

The first reference, http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html , is used to demonstrate that Augustine interpreted the creation in Genesis allegorically; however the first point on that reference page states that "Augustine stresses that his interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is literal and not metaphorical or allegorical". This seems to be a misleading use of this reference, since the reference text itself contradicts the idea that Augustine viewed Genesis metaphorically. 199.254.216.2 13:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I must wonder if you truly read past that line. He took it literally in a hugely different sense than modern literalists do. You may as well say that Andrew Johnson and Lyndon B. Johnson were the same because both called themselves Democrats... 66.68.176.213 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, what Augustine called a "literal view" would be considered metaphorical by today's literalists. Aardvark92 18:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

R' Isaac of Akko

"Nahmanides' disciple, rabbi Isaac of Akko, a prominent Kabbalist of 13th-century, held, that the Universe is about 15 billion year old - strikingly close to the modern scientific calculations."

This is an incorrect statement. R' Akko believed that "God's day" was like a thousand human years and therefore each human year of 365.25 days is like 365,250 years from God's perspective. He also believed the world went through certain Kaballistic cycles of creation and that each of these cycles lasted 7000 years. He also believed that we are currently in the _second_ cycle. If you do the math that adds up to 2.5 billion years per cycle. And if we are currently in the year 5767 (Jewish calendar) of the second cycle that leads to a grand total of ~4.6 billion years.

It was Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's commentary from the book Sefer Yetzirah where he made the assumption that we are currently in the _seventh_ cycle of creation (something R' Akko did not believe) which he then equated to ~15 billion years which is comparable to modern science's estimates.

If anything, R' Aryeh Kaplan can said to believe the universe is ~15 billion years old, but one cannot say the same of R' Akko. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orthoprax (talk • contribs) 07:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Christian consensus before 1700

The Christian consensus before 1700 was that Genesis was a (possibly imperfect) historical record, not only allegorical. The beginning of the interpretation section trys to sweep this uncomfortable fact under the rug.

The sources cited by that section are: 1.) An unsourced (dead link) vague generalization by an archbishop, which doesn't amount to an assertion that a denial of the historical accuracy of Genesis was ever common or tolerated before the 1700s.

2.) Several other articles with cherry picked quotes of early church figures supporting various historical interpretations of Genesis. Many of them just quarreled with the meanings of "day" and "light", e.g., "A day of the lord is 1000 years".

Though they may have disagreed on some details, Christians who believed that Genesis had little or no historical accuracy were a very small minority until the 1700s.

Here's a list of people who've been burned at the stake (or threatened) for contradicting the church's interpretation of Genesis as a historical document:

"In 1749, the distinguished French scholar Comte de Buffon proposed that the 6 days of creation may have been 6 long epochs of time and that the Earth's surface had been shaped and reshaped by processes still going on. The Church took great exception to this and threatened Buffon to recant and publicly accept the Old Testament age of 6000 years. No doubt remembering the fate of Galileo (who lived most of his life under house arrest for proposing the Earth went around the Sun,) and Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for proposing the same theory and adding that he believed there was life elsewhere in the universe, Buffon complied." - http://starryskies.com/Artshtml/dln/6-97/earth.age.html

"In Les époques de la nature (1778) Buffon discussed the origins of the solar system, speculating that the planets had been created by comets colliding with the sun (see Passing star hypothesis). He also suggested that the age of the earth was much greater than the 4,004 years b.c. proclaimed by Archbishop James Ussher of the church. Based on the cooling rate of iron, he calculated that the age of the earth was 75,000 years. For this he was condemned by the Catholic Church in France and his books were burned. Buffon also denied that Noah's flood ever occurred and observed that some animals retain parts that are vestigial and no longer useful, suggesting that they have evolved rather than having been spontaneously generated. [3]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Louis_Leclerc,_Comte_de_Buffon

"A French scholar, Bernard Palissy who lived from 1510-1589 believed the Earth was much older based on his observations that rain, wind, and tides were the cause for much of the present-day appearance of the Earth. He wrote that, these forces could not work over such a short period of time to produce the changes. He was burned at the stake in 1589. A bad time for scientific inquiry. " - http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/age.htm

"Another was Thomas Burnet, a member of the English clergy, who lived from 1635-1715. He had written a book around 1681 supporting the idea of a worldwide flood, but in 1692, he wrote another book in which he questioned the existence of Adam and Eve, and that ended his career." http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/age.htm

Giordano Bruno: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

Before the 1500s, almost no one, perhaps no one, understood enough to have any good reason to say that the earth was older than 6,000 to 12,000 years, and most Christians accepted Genesis as a historical account by default. Christians back then believed in Adam and Eve because their alternative was that Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic "original sin" by a non-existent individual. Modern DNA evidence proves that we are not the inbred descendants of only two people.

---

I don't know about the other names in your list, but Bernard Palissy was not burned at the stake. He died in a dungeon, not because of his scientific theories, but because he was a Protestant. http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artMakerDetails?maker=867 I'm not sure if he was actually part of any of the various the Protestant revolts, however, so this might have been a case of guilt by association. At any rate, I know of no primary sources which record persecution against Palissy for his scientific views, or even that they were given much attention at all. Delsydebothom (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unapparent Contradictions

I am deleting the Noah "contradiction" because I don't see what is contradicting what. The fact that he didn't have kids earlier in his life doesn't contradict anything that I can see. If anyone reposts this quote, they should re-write it so the contradiction is more "apparent". Yaki-gaijin 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. there should be some contribution to the article like citations added rather than just tag and run.19:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojabba (talk • contribs)

Genesis readings

The readings for some are inaccurate. It makes it seem like the passages are contradicting each other, but they're not including the whole passage or something.

Original: Gen 8:4 The ark floated for about seven months. Gen 8:5 The ark floated for at least ten months.

Should be: Gen 8:4 that in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. Gen 8:5 The waters continued to diminish until the tenth month, and on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains appeared.

It appears like all these quotes on the page are complete lies. But this is Wikipedia, I shouldn't expect accuracy. 69.23.106.244 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are tons of compilations like these: [1] [2] [3] that show apparent contradictions. As someone who believes the Bible to be true, I don't think they are true contradictions, but they point out that a literal interpretation of events is nonsensical. That point is mentioned in this article right after the contradictions you mentioned. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is not that there aren't apparent contradictions, or even real contradictions, the point here is that the examples in this article are very poor ones. We are talking here about the literal meaning of the Genesis text. This means that if you point out contradictions, you should use the literal text, otherwise these are completely meaningless, and they might even insult the intelligence of those who point out contradictions in the bible. The problem with many of these examples is that they are based on interpretations and extrapolations of the text. Let me give some examples:

- Gen 4:14-16: "A literal interpretation would imply that the only humans alive were himself, Adam, and Eve." "Would imply": yeah, maybe. Actually, the bible merely does not say anything about other children of Adam and Eve. This is simply a case of filling in the holes in a story and then saying it contradicts itself.

- Gen 8:4: see 69.23.106.244's comment. Again a case of putting words into the mouth of Genesis' author(s).

- Gen 2:18-22 "Adam is created, followed by animals, and then Eve." This adds the words "followed by" and "then" to the Genesis text. More accurately the text may be summarized: Adam is created. Animals are created. Eve is created. (Although the text does imply that she was created for (and therefore after) Adam)

- John 3:13 "No man hath ascended up to heaven." The Greek word ἀναβαίνω, translated by ascended literally means "climb up","go up" or "rise up". This verb, as used in the New Testament, always has an active meaning, whereas Enoch clearly was "taken away", which is something very different. Apart from possible figurative meanings, this is clearly a case of a misunderstanding caused by a translation.

Again, I'm not saying there are no (apparent) contradictions is Genesis or elsewhere in the bible. It's just that some of these examples are not based on the literal text of Genesis or the Bible and therefore do not belong in an article discussing if these texts are to be taken literally. I propose removing at least the abovementioned examples. They can be replaced with better ones when found.Lindert (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Update: Removed aforementioned examples. Please discuss here if you disagree.Lindert (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

An article about allegorical interpretation turns out in a boring strugle between creationism and evolutionism. Theres more to alegory in Genesis than this talk, like for example, Nahash as the third person in gan eden, two paralels creation myths, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.129.3 (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Most of this article appears to be original research. I don't see many sources, just what editors think are discrepancies, interpretations, etc with a heavy reliance on primary sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What you removed was added just in the last week and already removed several times. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've left messages on the editor's talk page. I was talking about the rest of the article. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancies section

As I've said just above, this appears to be OR and unrelated to the subject of this article, allegorical interpretations. If the sources used (and sources should be used, not our own ideas) to discuss allegorical interpretations mention discrepancies, great, then include them if that helps the article. But this is not a 'discrepancies in the Bible article' and I've removed the section as irrelevant, unsourced and evidently one or more editors original research. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong title?

The article is called Allegorical Interpretations of Genesis, implying ALL of Genesis, which is 50 chapters; in fact it's interested only in the the first few chapters. Should it be changed? PiCo (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Genesis is a very complex story. Besides which as I pointed out above, Creationism and allegory go together like oil and water. NPOV is not always applied fairly, although it is the "religion" of Wikipedia. The bias of the super-users behind the NPOV club shows here, in this one person's humble opinion.The age of fable (talk) 04:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Article is pov fork, should be deleted

This article is a pov fork from Genesis creation narrative, which treats the same subject. It's also extremely badly written and almost unsupported by reliable sources. Would someone like to recommend it for deletion?Achar Sva (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is very valuable and contains exact quotations from Christian saints which bring clarity in ways that are authoritative, and is worthy as an entry in Wikipedia over the very poor, badly sourced and inaccurate article you refer to. It is critical to have open dialog, as it is for you to focus on topics you may know about. Fferreres (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Eh.... I'm kinda in the middle here. The narrative and the interpretation thereof are not inherently the same thing, otherwise we'd fold Young Earth Creationism and Theistic evolution into Genesis creation narrative as well. The article does rely a bit too much on primary sources instead of modern academics putting those sources into context for us. It cites TalkOrigins Archive which would be a good external link but is not acceptable as a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)