The all-in-one Christian Web Site Community - Praize.com
Skip to Content

An Introduction to the Book of Genesis

(Page 2 of 3)
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Ahh...Peter and not Paul. Which Church do you suppose was intended, then? How did Paul become associated with the Roman Catholic Church?

I will follow the link, Chris, and get back to you on that, but what Church led from Peter?

Thank you Sarah and Chris.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Jeanne: Hi

will follow the link, Chris, and get back to you on that, but what Church led from Peter?

The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter established and led the Church in Rome. Unfortunately there is no Biblical evidence supporting that claim. The supposition is based upon various extra biblical sources, (legends if you like), which claim that Peter was executed in Rome by being crucified upside down. (He said he was unworthy to die in the same manner as his Master Jesus Christ). The New Testament letters produced by St Paul were written before Peter's death though and Paul died before Peter did. The Book of Acts does not mention either Paul's or Peter's deaths. Paul was beheaded by order of Nero, (we think). Peter was crucified by Nero Augustus possibly some time later. Neither event is mentioned in The Bible except as a prophesy. Jn. 21:18-19.

https://www.google.co.uk/...cVWu24PKjb8AeByZ6ABg

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Nov 22, 2017, 12:22 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Allen:

I feel we are not treating your post with the seriousness it deserves. It is a massive subject. I have two whole volumes of commentary on chapters 1 to 10 of Genesis alone and there are whole libraries commenting on the whole book and its importance to the cannon of scripture.

The importance of the book of Genesis, it seems to me, is not as a scientifically historical record of creation events but more as an introduction to the need and the method of God's intervention in human affairs in order to rescue it from its helter-skelter path to destruction.

In it we have dozens of pre-figurings of The Christ figure who would eventually bring to completion God's rescue plan. God's plan unfolds first through an individual and then through his family, then through his tribe and descendants, then through the Nation which follows, then through the destiny and experiences of that Nation. Then finally to the birth of a defenseless infant to a humble maiden, leading to an uneventful childhood in an unremarkable village. This person has now become an almost universally known historical figure, to whom countless people look to for moral guidance from his teaching and courage from his example.

It is clear that Genesis 'starts this all off', that makes it an important book, but it is actually Jesus Christ which forms the FOUNDATION of the Christian faith, not Genesis. Further more Jesus Christ, in addition to being the church's only FOUNDATION is also its only HEAD OF THE CORNER or 'cornerstone'. That is the keystone of an arch which holds the opening firmly in position. Jesus said that HE is THE Door. It is therefore through HIM that we enter into the possibility of reconciliation with God.

The Bible is merely one means of finding that DOOR and entering through it into a regenerated life fitting and pleasing to God.

Let's discuss the various story lines or items in your initial long list and how they illuminate and foreshadow aspects of the character of Jesus.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Nov 22, 2017, 12:58 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
I can agree with you here Chris. Your statement, God's plan unfolds first through an individual and then through his family, then through his tribe and descendants, then through the Nation which follows, then through the destiny and experiences of that Nation. Then finally to the birth of a defenseless infant to a humble maiden, leading to an uneventful childhood in an unremarkable village. This person has now become an almost universally known historical figure, to whom countless people look to for moral guidance from his teaching and courage from his example. is an excellent summary of what the le teaches about Christ and the promises and plan of God. He (Christ) was much more than an example for us to follow and the Bible is more than one means of finding that DOOR and entering through it into a regenerated life fitting and pleasing to God.. Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6. Salvation is only through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Christianity is an exclusive religion and all others fall into the category of John 10 1 He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.. All other religions are false and demonic means of giving men a false hope.

If Genesis 1-11 is, as I have said and believe, the foundation of the Bible and a historical record of creation, Satan would naturally attack it to prove it false. If it can't be believed then how can we possibly believe the promise of redemption through Christ? Destroy the foundation and the whole Bible falls with it.

Question: Do you accept it as a historical record or a myth? I'm certain that you know I accept it as historical and read it literally as it stands. There is no room for evolution in the account of creation.

God bless you,
Allen
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Jeanne, Don't forget the omnipotence of God. The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible says, "The Bible does not begin by attempting to prove the existence of God. It simply assumes this fact. But it does begin by describing God’s creation of the heavens and the earth (1:1–2)...verse 1 is simply saying that God created everything. This he did in the beginning...The whole verse may be interpreted as a statement of the fact of an action which is described in detail in 1:2–2:3."

God did not use matter that either came from Himself or that already existed, He simply spoke and called the heaven and earth into existence.

As the song says, "Our God is an awesome God,"

Blessings to you my friend.
Allen
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Allen, it is all made very convenient for Christians. They just accept what is written or spoken to them and do not worry about what is possible or probable in existence and what is not.

I cannot suspend my disbelief to accept what is not possible or probable.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Allen: Hi

First I need to make clear that I am not trying to shake your faith in the historicity of Genesis 1-5, or for that matter in the whole Biblical collection of ancient scripture. What you choose to believe to be the correct interpretation of Genesis Chapters 1-5 is entirely your prerogative.

Being a disciple of Jesus Christ does not come about by starting to read and believe Chapter 1 of Genesis and then keep going until you find nothing in the rest of the Bible to be skeptical about, then, and only then believing oneself to qualify as a valid 'believer'. We are in fact not called by scripture to believe in The Bible in that fashion. In fact I would actually suggest that to approach discovering one's need of a Savior by that method alone would be foolish in the extreme and probably result in failure to find 'the treasure in the field' or the 'pearl of great price' that is Assurance of Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Jn. 5:39.

The Old Testament requirement for those who would have true 'faith' was this: "Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper". 2 Chr. 20:20b.

The New Testament requirement for those who would have true 'faith' was this: "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me". Jn. 14:1.

" . . . that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Rom. 10:8b-9.

". . . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe". Thes. 2:13.

The WORD spoken of here is not Genesis or The Bible, it is the testimony of the Apostles to Jesus Christ. It is THAT WORD that effectually works also in those who believe.

It is wrong to reduce faith in Jesus Christ to mere acceptance of the notion of absolute historicity of Genesis ch. 1-5 THAT is merely the unsubstantiated theory of some ultra conservative evangelical groups.

I think you will accept the fact that the Christian Church, i.e disciples and believers in Jesus Christ, existed for some 300 years BEFORE the Bible was actually compiled and complete. During this time between 32AD and 350AD there were multitudes of believing followers of Jesus Christ who had never ever read Genesis themselves and had little appreciation of what it said, let alone how it should be understood. Few could read letters from St. Paul. Fewer indeed actually heard an Apostle preach. The earliest Gospels were not written until 30 years after the crucifixion. Stories of Jesus, his Teachings and rules of discipleship were passed on mostly by word of mouth. That did not stop the hearers from being faithful followers of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. 5000 people became baptized followers on the day of Pentecost without a single word from Genesis being included in Peter's sermon. Only during his second sermon delivered at the gate of the temple after healing the man 'lame from birth' did Peter refer to The Book of Genesis, and then not ch. 1-5 but to quote Gen. 22:18 in connection with The Covenant God made with Abraham. THAT is the primary importance of Genesis to the message of the Gospel.

So the notion that one HAS to believe Genesis Ch. 1-5 to be purely and exclusively Historical narrative, with no higher interpretation or deeper meaning than a mere synopsis of actual events, (like God's recipe book for making man out of mud, or God's diary entries for the first week of creation), is seriously underestimating the skill of the author or the 'inspired' character of the genre.

If it can't be believed then how can we possibly believe the promise of redemption through Christ? Destroy the foundation and the whole Bible falls with it.

How do you BELIEVE anything Allen? How do I believe? How does anyone believe?

The proof of belief comes by deciding to act on the information we have been given. YOU and I decided, at some time in our life, to ACT on the information given us in the Gospel. That was the beginning of believing.

" . . we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe. These things command and teach". 1 Tim. 4:10-11. We believe because "He has the words of eternal life". Jn. 6:68.

If your TRUST is in YOUR notion that the Bible is entirely factual and every event reported is literally historically accurate, then you are not trusting 'in THE LIVING GOD' but in unprovable and probably unwarranted, enthusiastic assertions regarding the infallibility, historicity and scientific accuracy of a book ABOUT God. THAT is a potentially shaky faith proposition. Even if someone could PROVE to me beyond a shadow of doubt that Genesis ch. 1-5 are pure fiction, (which incidentally I do not believe it is), my FAITH, (In CHRIST), would still be unshaken. The historicity of Genesis is almost irrelevant concerning FAITH on Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. A personal encounter is more effective in becoming regenerate than any amount of belief in the 'infallibility of scripture'.

The Bible is a means by which we can learn about God. It does not need to be scientifically accurate to perform its primary task, any more than Shakespeare's history plays need to be historically 'accurate' to be good theater. They are not history books, they are Theatrical Plays.

Question: Do you accept it as a historical record or a myth?

Genesis Ch. 1- Ch. 2:3 is an early, (and inspired), myth.

Historical truth, important though it is, is not the only kind of truth, and a myth can, and often does, represent a kind of truth which cannot be expressed in historical categories. When I call the story of the Fall 'a myth' I do not deny its truth; I imply rather that its truth lies deeper than the kind of historical truth which rests on dates and documentary evidence. Hence, in order to get the term 'myth' in proper perspective we must inquire into the origin and function of myths in the ancient civilizations which form the background of Hebrew Religion and Culture.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...-stories-in-genesis/

There is no room for evolution in the account of creation.

For YOU there is not, because you will not allow any other explanation of the text than a literal, historical one.

For ME there is the possibility of examining the evidence for evolution and deciding, case by case, if it is a plausible explanation for what we see around us, because I allow for other explanations of the Genesis text which take account of the historical, cultural, symbolic, cultic divisions and ceremonial traditions of the people who have been custodians of the text for some millennia i.e The Jews and then The Church. I also give credit, where credit is due, to scientific knowledge, which I take to be the study of God's Creation in search of truth, rather than adopting the arrogantly pious belief that 'I do not need to know because Genesis tells me EVERYTHING'.

I am not the first believing person to conclude that in first few chapters of Genesis we have rather more than a mere record of a sequence of actual historical events. The MORE THAN actually probably constitutes a far more profound 'knowledge' than can be obtained by simply believing it to be mere history.

Quote:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation. (St Augustine of Hippo AD 396-430)


Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Nov 26, 2017, 1:39 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

I think you got a little confused, Jeanne. Hope this will help clarify for you.
Blessings ~ Sarah
Quote Reply
Re: [praizeop2] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Thank you, Sarah.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [praizeop2] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Sarah: Hi.

I posted a link for Jeanne on the ambiguous question of whether Peter was the rock or perhaps Jesus was actually the 'rock' that Jesus was speaking about. It is here:

https://bible.org/...d-my-church%E2%80%9D

I think you may find it interesting.

We know though from scripture that Jesus Christ is the only true foundation of the church, not Peter, according to St. Paul, because it is Christ's church not Peter's, Peter built upon the foundation of Christ, just the same as every other believing human being.

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 1 Cor. 3:11.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Nov 24, 2017, 11:44 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
ASCombs2662: Hi Allen.

One of the most important themes of Genesis Chapters 2 and 3 is the theme of the disobedience of mankind to its creator and the consequences which followed it.

Not many fundamentalist preachers seem to make much of the important issue of what that first crime actually constituted.

Reading the text through in a literal sense it is easy to miss some extremely salient points.

First God warns mankind, (which is one of the root meanings of the name Adam), NOT to eat of the 'tree' (of The Knowledge of Good And Evil). It is the only tree thus singled out and prohibited as being dangerous.

Taken literally there is not much to be said about this apart from "What kind of fruit was it", "How might it have tasted", "What color might it have been", etc. However metaphorically the 'fruit' is obviously not like any fruit known to mankind today. No 'fruit' has the power to inform the eater of "What is Good and what is Evil". Moral judgment is not conferred on human beings, (Adam), by eating a literal 'fruit' or even by 'eating' a mythical fruit. Moral judgment is purely a product of the workings of the human mind.

The question then is this: Should human beings have ever taken upon themselves the AUTHORITY to define what is GOOD and what is EVIL?

The author seems to think they should not have or at least that their judgment of what is GOOD and EVIL is flawed and radically imperfect.

Until that forbidden 'fruit' is consumed mankind has no knowledge of GOOD or EVIL. No moral compass, no inhibition, no guilt, no shame, no suspicion, no blaming of others, no personal responsibility, therefore no abdication of personal responsibility. WITH that supposed knowledge come all the negative aspects attending it, without the agape love, (God's defining characteristic), necessary to use it wisely.

The story continues with the human race, (Adam & Eve), having usurped God's ultimate right to declare what is GOOD and what is EVIL, hiding in guilt, shame, recrimination, blame shifting and abdicating responsibility for their own sinful behaviour. Gen. 3:7-15.

They have become " like god's themselves ", (but without the deific characteristic of LOVE), choosing for themselves what is GOOD and what is EVIL, behaving as if they outrank God himself in deciding moral issues. Gen.3:22.

So God, (because He LOVES them both), has to expel them from the legendary 'Paradise' in case they should 'eat of the tree of life' and 'live forever' in their DISABLED HUMANITY. Gen. 3:22-24.

It is only through God's subsequent intervention in human affairs through individuals such as Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses/Aaron, Joshua, The prophets, the ministry of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, that the human race, at last, begins, individual by individual, to LOVE as God has LOVED in Jesus Christ. ONLY through the enlightenment of The Holy Spirit and a renewed and circumcised heart, can mankind FINALLY choose rightly what is GOOD and what is EVIL, and only THEN because GOD, (in Jesus Christ), has defined for us, by word and deed, what it really means to LOVE. Jn. 15:13. 1 Cor. 13:1-13.

God has ALWAYS 'loved' the human race. All people from the beginning of time are saved by God in Jesus Christ, and they have all been recipients of His grace no matter what they have done.

Yet WE would criticize GOD for unjustly forgiving those who unrepentantly sin against us, BECAUSE WE still usurp the right to decide "What is GOOD and what is EVIL", in terms which are always favorable to US.

We are told by God to pray: "Forgive us OUR sins, but only to the extent that we forgive those who sin against US." Herein is the clue to the solution for what ails the world.

If God chooses to forgive mankind, not holding their sins against them, then who are WE to complain or accuse HIM of injustice, or demand that HE accept OUR definition of what is GOOD and what is EVIL, and the extent to which either should be rewarded or punished? Matt. 20:1-16.

God is totally free to do what God pleases. Any attempts to modify that freedom from merely human standards of righteousness and justice amount to sin, to putting oneself in God's place, which is precisely what Adam and Eve sought to do in the creation myths in Genesis.

Although "The Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good", mankind will only be driven further into slavery by attempts to right the wrongs of this world by imposing it, ever increasingly, more effectively on OTHERS.

For the human race to experience freedom from sin the only remedy is for each individual to be "Regenerated" by The Holy Spirit of God and start to behave toward their fellows as Jesus Christ has done for US.

He was not a Law Breaker, but neither would he IMPOSE it on others as a remedy for sin. Jn. 8:1-11.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Dec 2, 2017, 1:32 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Hello Brother.

First I need to make clear that I am not trying to shake your faith in the historicity of Genesis 1-5, or for that matter in the whole Biblical collection of ancient scripture. What you choose to believe to be the correct interpretation of Genesis Chapters 1-5 is entirely your prerogative.


Quite true and very considerate of you Chris. You and I have had enough debates 9Discussions or arguments) to realize that we are likely not to change our minds about what we believe unless the Holy Spirit convinces us that we need to change the view we hold. Through my years as a Christian and a student of the Bible, I have changed my thoughts on many things simply because the Spirit of God Opened my mind and heart o the truth about what the Scriptures said. I am ready to do so again if the need arises.

Being a disciple of Jesus Christ does not come about by starting to read and believe Chapter 1 of Genesis and then keep going until you find nothing in the rest of the Bible to be skeptical about, then, and only then believing oneself to qualify as a valid 'believer'. We are in fact not called by scripture to believe in The Bible in that fashion. In fact I would actually suggest that to approach discovering one's need of a Savior by that method alone would be foolish in the extreme and probably result in failure to find 'the treasure in the field' or the 'pearl of great price' that is Assurance of Salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Jn. 5:39.

When you made your earlier statement, "The Bible is merely one means of finding that DOOR and entering through it into a regenerated life fitting and pleasing to God.." I mistakenly assumed that you were speaking of all roads leading to God. That would include any religious beliefs since all would be considered as spokes in a wheel leading directly to the center where God abides. I seem to remember you once saying that you believe in Universal Salvation and that no man (regardless of his faith, would go to Hell.) My grandfather used to say that it didn't matter what you believed as long as you believe in something. His faith was in reincarnation and he had little or no faith in Scripture. He believed that the Song of Solomon had no place in the Bible because of the sexual emphasize of the book. He also held to the position oh 'mind over matter.' Unfortunately, it was cancer that took his life.
I understand now that you are speaking in terms of God using many different ways to bring men to Christ for salvation. Paul was saved when Jesus appeared to him on the Damascus road. Like D. L. Moody, I was saved due to the testimony of a young Sunday School teacher. That was in 1967 and my Junior year of High School.

The Old Testament requirement for those who would have true 'faith' was this: "Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper". 2 Chr. 20:20b. The New Testament requirement for those who would have true 'faith' was this: "Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me". Jn. 14:1.

2Timothy 2:15  instructs us to, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, ."rightly dividing the word of truth
Paul tells us of the dispensation of the fullness of times in Ephesians 1:10  and of various other dispensations as well. A dispensation is defined as a stewardship or "...a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God." (C. I. Schofield) Adam and Eve had only one commandment to abide by. It pertained to their eating the forbidden fruit. They failed and mankind has failed every test of God throughout history. Still, to rightly divide the Bible, we must understand those as well as the Biblical Covenants.

It is wrong to reduce faith in Jesus Christ to mere acceptance of the notion of absolute historicity of Genesis Ch. 1-5 THAT is merely the unsubstantiated theory of some ultra conservative evangelical groups.
To be honest, I am not aware of any group that holds to this view. Years ago, I was taught that there was a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 that allowed for the billions of years of evolution. That is one area that the Holy Spirit changed my mind about. He did so through a book written ne John C, Whitcomb an Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research. The more I study, the more convinced I am that Genesis disagrees with Darwin's hypotheses but that true science supports the Biblical record.

So the notion that one HAS to believe Genesis Ch. 1-5 to be purely and exclusively Historical narrative, with no higher interpretation or deeper meaning than a mere synopsis of actual events, (like God's recipe book for making man out of mud, or God's diary entries for the first week of creation), is seriously underestimating the skill of the author or the 'inspired' character of the genre.


I realize that some hold to the Gap theory or to the Day - Age Theory. I disagree with them but still respect their knowledge of Scripture and their faith in Jesus for salvation.

How do you BELIEVE anything Allen? How do I believe? How does anyone believe? How do I believe? How does anyone believe? The proof of belief comes by deciding to act on the information we have been given. YOU and I decided, at some time in our life, to ACT on the information given us in the Gospel. That was the beginning of believing.

The same Bible that tells me of salvation through Christ tells me of creation in Genesis. Can you honestly tell me why I should believe one part of it and not the other? With that asked, I'll close for now abs wait for your reply.

God bless, Allen.

Sample Text
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Question, Jeanne: Are you sure it was the length of my post that caused your eyes to glaze over or, the wine you mention in a later post?
Wink
Quote Reply
Re: [jeanne53] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Another question for you: Don't Atheists also read and accept what they are told about Darwin, Huxley and evolution without serious question and/or research? That would put them in the same place you categorize Christians. By the way, if my posts here are delayed, I am now attending two different school, doing a multitude of research for personal use and majoring in two completely different subjects.

Blessings,
Allen
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
I realize I should go to the prayer request forum to post this but, it seems ok to tell you all here instead. This month will be very difficult for me. Christmas is coming and, we will be spending this year at my son-in-law's house with my grandchildren like last year. I sat in tears today talking to Teresa, Christmas will mark the one year anniversary that my youngest brother laid down for a nap after dinner and never woke up. Each day gets harder and the thoughts get harder to deal with. Please pray that I will be granted the grace and strength not to break down in front of my grandchildren. Pawpaw needs God's strength to let them enjoy the holiday.
Thank you and bless you all,
Allen
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
ASCombs2662: Hi Allen.

The same Bible that tells me of salvation through Christ tells me of creation in Genesis. Can you honestly tell me why I should believe one part of it and not the other? With that asked, I'll close for now abs wait for your reply.

The Gospels, Epistles and Acts are very different types of literature than the Genesis accounts. Just because they are in the same book binding does not mean they can be treated exactly the same regards interpretation. You might as well try to say the book of Revelation or Daniel can be read and understood in the same way as a letter to Corinth by St Paul or a chapter of 'Acts of the Apostles' is essentially the same as the books of Job, Jonah or Song of Songs.

If, as some suppose, the story of Adam and Eve is just a straightforward historical account, with no hidden or deeper meanings or mythic or fabled moral message, then the following questions are sensible questions.

Q1. Why did God place the tree of 'The Knowledge of Good and Evil' in the middle of the garden of Eden if eating its fruit was going to be so disastrous.

It would seem to me to be singularly irresponsible of God to plant a tree with deadly poisonous but temptingly delicious looking fruit, ( Gen. 3:6), in the most conspicuous position, right in THE MIDDLE of the garden, where it could not possibly be missed. (Gen 2:9). Then absent himself knowing full well that His and Mankind's deadliest enemy was roaming free in the same garden as Adam and Eve. Don't try to tell me that God could not foresee the trouble that might ensue. Pretty slack parenting I'd say.

Unless this is just a story with a serious moral lesson. In which case the question is a silly question because for God to have done otherwise would simply have spoiled the story and therefore the moral that it conveys to the human race.

Q2. Why prohibit the fruit of that tree only, the tree of eternal life was never prohibited?

Similarly, if the story is actual historical fact things could easily have played out very differently. If by chance they had quite innocently eaten the fruit of 'The Tree of Life' first, (a perfectly logical possibility, since it was in plain sight right in the MIDDLE of the garden along with the 'Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil'), then they could not have been killed by the fruit of the Tree of the 'Knowledge of Good and Evil'.

If it is just a story with a moral though, then the Q2 is also a silly question, since it comes down to being similar to asking 'Why did the Goldilocks story feature only three bears, not four, eight or sixteen'. Silly question: But answer = "Because the author chose 3 bears to represent the three options in each case". Too hot, too cold, just right. Too big, too small, just right. etc. To have any other number of bears would not have suited the purpose of the story teller and the story would therefore NOT WORK as a story.

Q3. If Adam and Eve, (the human race), was not mortal before tasting the forbidden fruit why was it necessary for God to prevent them from eating the fruit of the tree of eternal life Thus negating the deadly effects of the 'Knowledge of Good and Evil fruit'. (Gen 3:22-24).

Again, the whole purpose of the story is to explain to God's people The Israelites, why life is hard, with few rewards for much sweat and toil, labour and childbirth painful, death a fearful and ever present danger and God seemingly remote and disinclined to offer assistance. Because of their forefathers 'DISOBEDIENCE'.

Lesson = Don't be disobedient like Adam and Eve, but keep 'The Law' and stay out of trouble. So Q3 is a silly question also. Answer = The story is the way that it is because that is the way the author decided it should be, not necessarily just because it ACTUALLY had happened that way.

Q4. If they had eaten the fruit of The Tree of Eternal Life first would they still have been subject to death when they ate of the tree of 'The Knowledge of Good and Evil'.

If the story is a purely factual historical account this question also 'makes sense'. It is a logical question to put, given the 'facts' related in the narrative. Although it would be a question that we are unable to answer it would still be a 'sensible question'. However, if the story of Adam and Eve is in the nature of a 'legend' with moral insights to be gained and lessons to be learned from it, then Q4 is also a silly question. It was merely outside the scope of whatever the author of the story intends us to inquire into or consider. The moral he wants us to 'draw' from the story can only be found in the narrative AS IT IS WRITTEN, not as we choose to speculate about how things might have turned out differently, had the supposedly actual events taken a different turn.

SO, there is a great deal to be learned from Book of Genesis, but little to be learned if it is merely regarded as straightforward HISTORY.

William the Conqueror started his tricks at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. In fourteen hundred and ninety-two Columbus sailed the ocean blue. He had three ships and left from Spain; He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.

SO WHAT! where is the moral or lesson in THAT. Historical FACT can often be LESS informative than Myth, Fable, Legend, Folklore or certain types of Fiction.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Allen you would have to presume that I drink every night and day, as the posts are not on the same day. I do not.

My eyes glazed over as I explained to Sarah, when posts are written without paragraphs and include many different sections to be discussed and are in total long...yes, it can cause the eyes to glaze over and readers to by-pass the posts.

When I took time to read the whole thing, I found it was not so bad to comprehend. I think the numbered bits at the end implied to me that the whole was complicated, yet in fact, it was not.

Allen, take this holiday time with deep breaths and pace yourself so that you and your family do not dwell on the sorrow. I hope there is enough joyful chaos to remind you that your family lives on, as does the memory of those who have passed.

Hugs.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Hi Allen.

What are we told about Aldous Huxley that isn't biographical fact? He wrote "Brave New World" or am I missing some information on him, which atheists, but not theists, should know?

As for Darwin, his life has been recorded by biographers, historians and his work on Natural Selection and the Origin of Species throughly examined. Evolution is a proven scientific theory accepted by most advanced societies and by followers of various deity beliefs. Evolution by natural selection can be witnessed in high school experiments during life spans of fruit flies.

That I and others accept these concepts that have been the work of many people within the past two centuries is simply not comparable to the unquestionable acceptance of Biblical or other holy scriptures by devoted followers of deities. Further, those using faith in their God or gods as reason enough for such scripture to be undeniably true, as the word of a creator deity, also claim that if one part is the true word, then all parts are the true word, often are willingly unaware of the history of such scriptures, denying that any could be merely human writings or imaginings of unstable minds...or as in the case of the Bible, gatherings from multiple sources of what is politically favorable to the formation of a catholic religion.

Allen, I hope you are aware that the Theory of Evolution has nothing...absolutely nothing, to say about abiogenesis, which is the beginning of life:

<<Abiogenesis is the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances: to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago.
• historical- another term for spontaneous generation.>>. from my computer's dictionary.

So..Christians and other theists can accept evolution and natural selection as part of God or other creator deities plan after the initial creation of the universe, stars, planets, etc and then carbon-based single celled life forms on Earth. In other words, the creator set it all up and then let evolution take over.

I guess the trouble there is that humans don't have much divine-given claim to the alpha position among life-forms, which has never set well with those who believe it was all created just for them and that they were set to rule over the "lower" life-forms.

So...no, that does not put them in the same place I consider theists who believe through faith that creation mythologies are absolute truth.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Hello Chris,
Sometimes you amaze me with your questions and statements you make. This post is full of examples. Before I show you what I mean, however, I have a question (containing 2 parts) to ask:
1. What method of Bible interpretation do you personally follow in your studies and,
2. How familiar are you with the grammatical-historical method of Bible interpretation? (This is the method I follow)
The Gospels, Epistles and Acts are very different types of literature than the Genesis accounts. Just because they are in the same book binding does not mean they can be treated exactly the same regards interpretation. You might as well try to say the book of Revelation or Daniel can be read and understood in the same way as a letter to Corinth by St Paul or a chapter of 'Acts of the Apostles' is essentially the same as the books of Job, Jonah or Song of Songs.
Where in anything I said have you found me stating that the different genres of Scripture are not to be recognized? The answer is that you can't. I have never made such a statement. I have, however, said that the Genesis account of creation is historical and not a myth or legend. Recognizing them is a part of the grammatical-historical method. Obviously, Daniel and Revelation are prophetical books. Psalms is poetical. It is the goal of any interpreter to note those differences and to interpret them accordingly. Agreed?
If, as some suppose, the story of Adam and Eve is just a straightforward historical account, with no hidden or deeper meanings or mythic or fabled moral message, then the following questions are sensible questions.
There is a three-fold approach to the text: observation, interpretation, and application.[6][7] Each step builds upon the other, which follows in order. The first step of observation involves an examination of words, structure, structural relationships and literary forms. After observations are formed, then the second step of interpretation involves asking interpretative questions, formulating answers to those questions, integration and summarization of the passage. After the meaning is derived through interpretation, the third step of application involves determining both the theoretical and practical significance of the text and appropriately applying this significance to today's modern context. There is also a heavy emphasis on personal application that extends into all aspects of the practitioner's life.
Milton S. Terry said, "A fundamental principle in grammatical-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture."
You might also want to know that I do not find your questions sensible in the least. Consider:
Q1. Why did God place the tree of 'The Knowledge of Good and Evil' in the middle of the garden of Eden if eating its fruit was going to be so disastrous.
You did a good job earlier in describing the plan of God throughout human history. What happened to that plan here? God placed both trees in the center of the Garden because that is where He wanted them to be. It was all part of His test of the obedience of Adam and Eve. Since He is omniscient, He knew they would fail and that their failure would make the substitutionary death of Christ necessary for Salvation.
1Peter 1:19-20 states, "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,"
Note especially verse 20. Jesus was slain from before the foundation of the world that we might be saved. All history is, as they say, 'HIS STORY.' It was all part of the plan of God.
It would seem to me to be singularly irresponsible of God to plant a tree with deadly poisonous but temptingly delicious looking fruit, ( Gen. 3:6), in the most conspicuous position, right in THE MIDDLE of the garden, where it could not possibly be missed. (Gen 2:9). Then absent himself knowing full well that His and Mankind's deadliest enemy was roaming free in the same garden as Adam and Eve. Don't try to tell me that God could not foresee the trouble that might ensue. Pretty slack parenting I'd say.
Just one question here: Who do you think you are to sit in judgment upon God? You accuse Him of being irresponsible and guilty of slack parenting. I personally believe you are guilty of pride and blasphemy.
Q2. Why prohibit the fruit of that tree only, the tree of eternal life was never prohibited?
Once again I'll say it was all part of His plan, Chris. Had they eaten of the Tree of Life, I don't believe they would ever have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They would have lived eternally in close fellowship with the Lord.
Q3. If Adam and Eve, (the human race), was not mortal before tasting the forbidden fruit why was it necessary for God to prevent them from eating the fruit of the tree of eternal life Thus negating the deadly effects of the 'Knowledge of Good and Evil fruit'. (Gen 3:22-24).
I'll leave the answer to this one for you to find. You have stated, "The story is the way that it is because that is the way the author decided it should be, not necessarily just because it ACTUALLY had happened that way." You and I both know God is the actual author of Scripture. I am certain you also know that, "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." (Deuteronomy 29:29). God hasn't chosen to reveal all things to us but, there will come a day when we will know the purpose of all that has happened throughout history. Certainly one of the lessons (applications) of the text is as you said, Don't be disobedient like Adam and Eve, but keep 'The Law' and stay out of trouble.
Q4. If they had eaten the fruit of The Tree of Eternal Life first would they still have been subject to death when they ate of the tree of 'The Knowledge of Good and Evil'.
The answer to this is stated in Genesis 3:22  "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"
After eating the forbidden fruit, they could have eaten of the tree of life as well. Had they done so, they would have been locked forever in a state of sin and rebellion against God.

In closing this section, I would appreciate a clear definition of what you mean by the terms myth and legend. Please identify your source for the definitions you use.

God bless,
Allen
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
ASCombs2662: Allen: Hi

Milton S. Terry said, "A fundamental principle in grammatical-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture."

The aim of the historical-grammatical method is to discover the meaning of the passage as the original author would have intended and what the original hearers would have understood. The original passage is seen as having only a single meaning or sense.

The laudable aspect of this method is that it avoids completely the possibility of using the text to support wild and imaginative interpretations contrived by human ingenuity or deliberate misinterpretation.

The problematic aspect is that it ties the meaning down to only what the original readership could understand. Knowledge has significantly increased, ignorance has significantly been dispelled, understanding of 'reality' is now very different than it was when the text was first read by those who originally received it. Therefore the context has changed and the author's expected audience reaction is no longer what was expected or intended.

This method, though helpful in reaching a foundational meaning of a biblical text, is not so helpful in rendering that same text in terms of contemporary revelation, i.e. what God may be saying to US TODAY through the text, (in our current situation, with OUR understanding of reality), just as it spoke directly to its original readership in THEIR original situation with their understanding of 'reality'. Two very different contexts, which the INSPIRED nature of the text is perfectly capable of coping with, if it is allowed to, rather than being 'boxed in' and 'constricted' in meaning to only that of people with a primitive and unscientific world view.

Milton S Terry is just wrong to assume that EVERY text has ONLY ONE POSSIBLE meaning. There are many texts in scripture which have multiple meanings on many different levels, all of which are TRUTH in its various different aspects and applications. Biblical author's actually interpret scripture in other ways than Milton S Terry advocates, so he is quite wrong to insist that HIS method is superior to, say St Paul's, St. John's or the words of Jesus' himself when deliberate double or multiple meanings are skillfully placed in the text to reveal truths hidden from those who refuse to inquire deeply enough.

You did a good job earlier in describing the plan of God throughout human history. What happened to that plan here? God placed both trees in the center of the Garden because that is where He wanted them to be. It was all part of His test of the obedience of Adam and Eve. Since He is omniscient, He knew they would fail and that their failure would make the substitutionary death of Christ necessary for Salvation.

Do you see what kind of God is constructed when the text is allowed only a factual, historical interpretation.

1. A God who thought only of His own preference, instead of being concerned for his children's welfare. ( God placed both trees in the center of the Garden because that is where He wanted them to be.)

2. A God who deliberately places temptation in the way of His children in order to 'test' their obedience. ( It was all part of His test of the obedience of Adam and Eve.)

3. A God who would send His only Son to a humiliating and agonising death rather than take precautions to ensure that His children come to no harm from the tree that He had sited in the middle of the garden in the first place, in order to 'test' their obedience. (He knew they would fail and that their failure would make the substitutionary death of Christ necessary for Salvation.)

These behaviours in any human being would be considered irresponsible, manipulative, and consciously, omnisciently, intent on filicide.

To think of God in that way is blasphemous, not because we are not entitled to draw conclusions from God's alleged behavior, as described in the story, ( if indeed it IS actually factually historical), but because the Bible goes to great pains to show us in a multitude of other passages, that God would not behave in that way, because His character is such that it would not be possible for Him to deliberately do so. God is not devious, manipulative or murderous. Such accusations would indeed be blasphemous.

Who do you think you are to sit in judgment upon God? You accuse Him of being irresponsible and guilty of slack parenting. I personally believe you are guilty of pride and blasphemy.

If the passage is literally, exclusively, and only, an accurate historical and factual account of what actually happened, then there is no other conclusion that a rational human being can reach.

If however it is a sophisticated 'fable' where the various characters, (Adam-mankind, Eve - the warmth of companionship, The talking snake - our innermost subconscious desires and motivations, etc), are made by the author to play out a series of events intended to enlighten and inform the reader to 'The actual presence of both GOOD and EVIL at the heart and soul of every human psyche', then God is only another element in the story, not THE ACTUAL CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE, who has redeemed mankind in the person of Jesus Christ and thus is "Reconciling the world to himself, not counting their sins against them" Cor. 2. 5:19.

But actually the whole story is about human beings being guilty of "Pride and Blasphemy" by taking upon themselves the role of Arbiters of Good and Evil, a role that is legitimately God's alone. We do it all the time, from the first words of the self obsessed and frustrated willed infant, "It's not fair"!!!! we say. Like the accusing crowd of hypocrites baying for the blood of the woman caught in adultery, (her male lover being noticeably absent and consequently not threatened with death: how convenient). Jn. 8:1-12 Notice how many innocent people formed the crowd. Jn. 8:9.

Adam's reply to God's question "Who told you you were naked, have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat"? is an ACCUSATION that it was all God's fault. "The woman YOU gave to be with me, SHE gave me fruit, and I ate".

Can't you see this is not about ADAM and GOD, it is about US and GOD. About OUR, the human race's predominant characteristic of blaming others, shifting blame from ourselves.

1Peter 1:19-20 states, "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,"
Note especially verse 20. Jesus was slain from before the foundation of the world that we might be saved. All history is, as they say, 'HIS STORY.' It was all part of the plan of God.

THAT is certainly what the Bible is about, I agree, but The life and ministry of Jesus Christ was a rescue mission, launched because of our utter incapacity, and inability to 'save' ourselves from the consequences of OUR OWN actions. God could not be held responsible in any way for our usurping of His right to determine exactly what is GOOD and what is EVIL, and then using that power of discrimination to pillory others while excusing ourselves.

Once again I'll say it was all part of His plan, Chris. Had they eaten of the Tree of Life, I don't believe they would ever have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They would have lived eternally in close fellowship with the Lord.

Well, that is just conjecture of course, and if the account is not actual, literal, factual and historical both question and answer are entirely hypothetical.

In closing this section, I would appreciate a clear definition of what you mean by the terms myth and legend. Please identify your source for the definitions you use.

I would quote from Peake's Commentary on The Bible but that would require extensive passages, too time consuming and technical to be edifying. Try these as a taster on the purpose and derivation of myths and their relationship with forgotten, hidden or secret 'truths'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_mythology

https://www.britannica.com/topic/myth

For a definition of the wide variation of uses of the term try this:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/myth.

In our current conversation we are only considering the first category, i.e. a story concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon. There is no intimation in this category that falsehood, misrepresentation of truth, fictions or imaginings or exaggerated, idealized conceptions of persons are involved.

It is incontestable that The Bible is impregnated by the cultures round about during the time that each of its literary elements, i.e OT and NT books, took shape. We can find traces of Egyptian texts (Job and many other books), and Assyrian-Chaldean texts throughout the Hebrew Bible. Even in Ecclesiastes there is thinking of an incontestably Greek or Egyptian origin. Everyone knows too that Paul draws much inspiration from Stoicism in his moral advice.

It is not the fact that these influences can be traced outside the Biblical text that is important. What is most important is that, without exception it seems, none of these Babylonian, or Iranian or Egyptian or Greek texts were inserted just as they are, with their own identity, they are used, and they are always used, polemically, that is, to show that the original point of the text in question is irrelevant and false.

Throughout the Bible, as regards surrounding cultures there is what situationists call reorientation. Thus the Biblical text disagrees with the original in crucially fundamental principles which undermine the meaning of the text that preceded it. Hence the Genesis narrative, though in its basic structure it may be strikingly similar to the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, the moral and message the Biblical version puts forth is almost the exact antithesis of the Babylonian Pagan epic. THIS is where the inspired nature of scripture resides, in the fact that there has been a radical reformation of the ethic of the original text to align it with the will and purpose of Almighty God. In effect even pagan texts, like human beings, need to be 'converted' and 'regenerated' BEFORE they can cooperate in the service of God. This reorientation to the purposes of Almighty God was, I believe, overseen and directed by The Holy Spirit, through human beings who compiled, sifted and selected from already existent material, subtracting or adding to it as they thought fitting, or originating it themselves, but nonetheless under God's supervision and inspiration.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Dec 4, 2017, 3:41 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
CHRIS I NEED FIRST TO SAY THAT i HAVE READ MUCH OF WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN AND STILL FIND IT
NOT MUCH MORE THAN A WELL STUDIED AND THOUGHT OUT OPINION. THERE IS MUCH LOGIC IN THE PROCESS BUT STILL JUST OPINION.+

ONE THING ALONE WOULD PUT DOUBT IN A STUDENTS MIND; AND THAT WAAS THE DISCOVERY NOT TO FAR BACK OF THE SITE OF WHAT WAS THOUGHT TO BE GARDEN OF EDEN AT THE MOUTH OF THE EUPHRATES RIVER..
THERE ARE MORE THINGS I COULD ADD TO THIS BUT I HAVE JUST EXPRESSED AND MY OPINION-AS FAR AS I KNOW JUST MINE.
GBU

M7TH
**
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Interesting discussion, guys.

Which brings me back to the idea that Genesis is a foundation of Christianity and accepting it is paramount to beginning a journey of faith to find God through Jesus Christ.

"Here 'unbeliever', suspend all disbelief and swallow this whole and unquestioned." That might have worked with ignorant goat herders of the ancient world, but it isn't the way anymore to impress modern and savvy 21st Century humans, even if they are goat herders.

And one reason it worked for ancient peoples is because it was so similar to established creation myths and easy enough to graft onto their own beliefs, especially if the peoples had been overwhelmed by those who had THIS creator on their side.

With the coming of the savior and all that story entailed, something additional was added...and it was that, which offered hope to humanity, even if they were conquered peoples.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Quote Reply
Re: [m7thprophet] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
m7thprophet: Hi Jim.

CHRIS I NEED FIRST TO SAY THAT i HAVE READ MUCH OF WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN AND STILL FIND IT
NOT MUCH MORE THAN A WELL STUDIED AND THOUGHT OUT OPINION. THERE IS MUCH LOGIC IN THE PROCESS BUT STILL JUST OPINION.


Well, yes, of course it is 'opinion', however well thought out, or not, it might be. Being opinion I am quite prepared to accept I might be wrong. I would however require some convincing evidence to compel me to change my opinion, so in the absence of compelling evidence I still consider it to be my best shot at the truth of the matter.

It is theorized by some that the Garden of Eden is a form of group tribal memory, of a pre- agricultural age in a semi tropical climate with no population pressure and unlimited resources. The geographical location could indeed have been somewhere between Africa and the mouth of the River Euphrates. Even 'Myths' usually have at least some basis in historical or more like pre-historical reality.

Regards Chris.
Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Good Evening Chris.

It is very late here now and, as I did yesterday, I spent my time working around the house, getting some deep cleaning done and decorating for Christmas, I have glanced at the links you gave me and will read them in detail tomorrow. For tonight I am very tired and need some sleep.
Good night, my friend and,
God bless,
Allen
Quote Reply
Re: [rdrcofe] An Introduction to the Book of Genesis In reply to
Hello all.

Chris writes:

<<It is theorized by some that the Garden of Eden is a form of group tribal memory, of a pre- agricultural age in a semi tropical climate with no population pressure and unlimited resources. The geographical location could indeed have been somewhere between Africa and the mouth of the River Euphrates. Even 'Myths' usually have at least some basis in historical or more like pre-historical reality. >>

That area has long been considered to be the Cradle of Civilization, due to its fertile environment. If life were to flourish anywhere that would be a likely place to start. Although, there are other locales that probably produced similar results providing a "garden" for life...but, of course, civilization came much later to these areas.

As to "tribal memory" the flood mythology fits in there neatly and even atheists accept this myth. Nearly every "tribe" from every part of the world has a memory of "the flood" and the Pygmy peoples have a tribal memory of a time before the flood when they were the dominant tribe in their known world. I believe they were then a seafaring people, as well. I have no clue where I read that.

Interesting how the march of time and the continental shift and the cycle of global climate has altered humanity's course. And through it all human beings have wrought some amazing things, both wonderful and terrible. I wonder if our era will be seen as wonderful or terrible when it is compared by future humans with the rest of their ancient past? I guess as we are able to see both in our ancient past, so will they...I hope.

-Jeanne
"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."