It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Genesis 1-2 is probably metaphorical and mysterious, and not "literal"

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I want to emphasize the quotes around "literal", when a person such as myself talk about the Bible being inerrant it doesn't mean everything is literal and I'll soon show why. But it can be metaphorical, and allegorical and etc., it just depends on context.

Historically a lot of people take Genesis 1-2 to be literal, but it doesn't have to be, and probably shouldn't be and here is why. We have to assume the logic of a writer, why would he write something a certain way. In Genesis 2 it says nothing was yet growing because God had not yet made it rain, nor had he made man to till the land.

Wait what?

Since when did things that grow rely upon man to till the soil? Never. Not only never, but the ancient agrarians would obviously have known this. So right there Genesis 1-2 cannot be literal since it includes that "caveat" for creation.

I don't think it means God evolved everything, etc., but that there's more to the Genesis story.

Also, it basically explains there is a lot more than a single day taking place during the days, it says God created the Earth in 6 days is supposed to be literal, but then we have a passage clearly showing us that the world was made but mankind was not yet made (which he was made in the 6th day) so there is more than a day passing there.

Just some thoughts to work on in the forums.
edit on 15-10-2013 by FreeMason because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   

FreeMason
...it doesn't mean everything is literal


Dangerous slippry slope that you would have been killed for suggesting not too long ago. Because if you cant really believe what some bits of the bible are saying, then what about other bits such as those relating to Jesus? He didnt really die and get ressurected. Cant take it literally.




FreeMason
Also, it basically explains there is a lot more than a single day taking place during the days,


The "day-age" theory was discredited as soon as it was invented. Multiple problems, such as those of plants growing without the sun, reptiles being "out of order", and of many plants needing the insects for pollination that didnt get made until "days" later.


edit on 15-10-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   
They are God days not Earth days.

In the beginning there was nothing, therefore without the Sun and the Earth there was no 'day'.

God days are different from Earth days, different length of time. So when God gives you message saying 'tomorrow' you need to clarify if that is tomorrow for Him or for you.

P



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


The third creative day vegetation appeared, according to Genesis one. So the reference you are referring to that says there was no vegetation must be referring to the time period early in earth's history before that.



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   

alfa1

FreeMason
...it doesn't mean everything is literal


Dangerous slippry slope that you would have been killed for suggesting not too long ago. Because if you cant really believe what some bits of the bible are saying, then what about other bits such as those relating to Jesus? He didnt really die and get ressurected. Cant take it literally.




FreeMason
Also, it basically explains there is a lot more than a single day taking place during the days,


The "day-age" theory was discredited as soon as it was invented. Multiple problems, such as those of plants growing without the sun, reptiles being "out of order", and of many plants needing the insects for pollination that didnt get made until "days" later.


edit on 15-10-2013 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)


It's not a dangerous slippery slope I have to correct your errant view of church history.

The Bible has historically been known to contain literal, allegorical, and prophetic verses. They need not all be literal. What I am saying tho is it seems just evident that Genesis 1-2 is also not literal because we know for a fact that mankind is not necessary for things to grow...which it suggests in the way it is written in Genesis 2.



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


Don't forget this passage:

2 Peter 3:8


But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.


If you are good at flipping around you can use other passages to decipher more cryptic passages.
There are a lot of definitions or explanations to these things.

So yes, allegory and literal are combined in a very complex fashion.
Good thread.
edit on 15-10-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Mistake, I keep replying to my own post rather than editing.
Blah!
edit on 15-10-2013 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Very few Christians take the Old Testament stories literally. The vast majority of Christians and Christian scholars realize that the Old Testament is full of folk lore, myths, allegories and 'moral stories' taken from different cultures, many of which pre-date Judaism. Some of it is historical, but a lot of it simply is not. Many of the Old Testament stories have been debunked by science.

The Old Testament and the New Testament are really two different books stuck together between the same cover with the title 'The Bible' slapped on the front. The New Testament writers are known and the history is MUCH more traceable and accurate than the Old Testament. Night and day difference.

Some info on why the Old Testament shouldn't all be taken literally -

Adam and Eve are CREATION MYTHS. The Earth wasn't created in 6 days. The Earth isn't 6,000 years old. Snakes don't talk. And when Cain supposedly killed Abel .. who were 'the others' that he was so afraid of?? If they were alone on the planet there wouldn't be 'others' to be afraid of. Babylonian Origins of Adam and Eve Creation Myth

Noahs Ark is a fable. It is absolutely impossible for the entire earth to repopulate from 3 pairs of reproducing humans from 6,000 years ago. It is absolutely impossible for all the animals of the earth to have come from one reproducing pair of their species on a mountaintop in Turkey from 6000 years ago. Scientifically and absolutely impossible. Summerian Mythology Source for Noahs Ark Myth There have been major floods around the world, but there were survivors all over the planet and there was no 'one ark' that God spared with a family and two animals of each kind. Total myth. 101 Reasons Why Noahs Ark Doesn't Float .

Jonah didn't live for 3 days in a whales stomach. He couldn't live more than 10 minutes in a whales stomach let alone 3 days. It's scientifically and absolutely impossible.

The Ten Commandments are a doctrine of men and were NOT given to Moses on some mountaintop by God. The jews were never slaves in Egypt and they didn't live, en masse, in the desert for 40 years. The Egyptians who kept very good records have no records of any of this happening. There is no archeological evidence whatsoever in the desert. And if hundreds of thousands of people lived and died there, then there would be human bones, animal bones, pottery, etc. But there is NOTHING ... because it didn't happen.

Abraham may not have even existed. That's right. He supposedly lived in 2000 BC .. but the folklore about him wasn't written down until 500 BC. That's 1500 years of embellishments and changes to the story and addings on and takings off ... it's a totally unreliable folklore story.

Reform Judaism - Moses stories of Egypt are allegories

Jewish World Thinker - Jews were never slaves in Egypt

LA Times

After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua's leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua's fabled military campaigns never occurred--archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.

Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan--modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel--whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt--explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.

"Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we've broken the news very gently," said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America's preeminent archeologists.



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


Genesis chapters 1 - 11, or the 'primeval history', are made to be read both as a Spiritual Allegory and a Historic Literal Truth, it is not science or an explanation of precise details of HOW mankind came about, it is a True and Timeless Revelation of where man comes from and Who mans Creator Is....

In all probability, Science is correct that the Universe is ~13.7 billion years old and the Earth is ~4.54 billion years old, I hold that there is still a 1% extremely slim chance that Young Earth Theory could possibly be true and the Universe be 10 - 20k year old and the Earth 4 - 10k year old, although I believe that is the SLIMMEST possibility and the most UNLIKELY of all explanations which happens to be Truth....

Whether you hold an Old Earth Creation, Theistic Evolutionist, Allegorical, Literal, Gap Theory, Young Earth, or whatever interpretation (although the people who hold Young Earth Theory to be true, I will never understand exactly why), the main thing to remember is that we live in a CREATED dimension and we have been given a Revelation of WHO the Creator is and what our purpose in life is! Our Creator is TIMELESS
He dwells and inhabits eternity, this tiny universe that our tiny galaxy and our tiny solar system and our puny pipsqueak earth inhabit are nothing but a speck of dust compared to the Almighty's realm where we are destined to go....

Also, Naturalistic Darwinian Evolution is highly debatable, and my personal belief is that Progressive Creation / Intelligent Design is a much better explanation,

God bless
edit on 15-10-2013 by godlover25 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


The bible never states that the earth is 10.000 years old, people did. In fact, when you read Genesis carefully you"ll notice that there are many references to the earth in a previous state Genesis ends with:

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens

Also: in the NT:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

Science has confirmed that most of the massive extinction happened some 10 to 15.000 years ago at the end of an ice age. That would just be before the Genesis 2 (yes, 2) creation if we count back the years in biblical history

Gen. 1 (KJV)
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

We can see here that God created the heaven and the earth some (very long) time ago (verse 1) and then: A gap. I say a gap because verse 2 continues in a rather peculiar way. I think that from verse 2 and onward the creation of our current earth is described. Genesis states that the earth had to be REplenished, that the earth at that moment was without form and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Without form and darkness are strange things to attribute to God. God does not create in vain. God is the opposite of darkness and it shows that the earth at that moment was in a desolate state (probably because of previous events of which we know almost nothing). Before God formed the seas there already was water. Everything was covered in water. We know that space has massive quantities of water, and the firmament (the not penetrable barrier between our universe and God's holiness/the 3d heaven) is also made out of water which explains some of Noah's flood.

I'm moving a bit away from the subject now but the point is as follows. Satan was one of the highest angels in the angel hierarchy. He and the other angels were probably living in our universe as we do now before his rebellion. This is the only explanation for a creation before our creation, and angels are beings comparable to us (free will etc.) After the rebellion (Remember Jesus words: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven) the earth was left desolate, and the remains of that world are still visible to us thanks to the fossils of dinosaurs. Before the creation of men, this current creation, there was a world much similar to ours. But like ours, it almost literally went to hell. The further you go back in bible translations, the more you'll read words that are very specific to a "reboot" of life on earth.

There is much more to be explain, as the bible shows everything we need to now if we read carefully. This theory can also be read in depth when you google "ruin-reconstruction" or "gap theory"



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
None of its literal. Its a combination of some things within, ie. its all allegory for inner work, and some astrology and even some dark hat mesopatmian occult information thrown in at times.

The only slipperly slope is taking it literally, thats giving your consciosuness away and also, turns God/Goodness/Love into the opposite, you've just pledged alliance to the Smiter, ie Saturn and Baal.
edit on 15-10-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 





Also, it basically explains there is a lot more than a single day taking place during the days, it says God created the Earth in 6 days is supposed to be literal, but then we have a passage clearly showing us that the world was made but mankind was not yet made (which he was made in the 6th day) so there is more than a day passing there.


If it's not meant to be taken literally, then why this:


And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And the evening and the morning were the second day

And the evening and the morning were the third day

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day

And the evening and the morning were the sixth day



?????????



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


What does the first age, second age, third age, etc, have to be called a day?

Maybe the Hebrew word originally written Yom would've been more correctly translated into English as age, or Godly-Time-Period, or Creation Time One, Two, Three, etc,

God bless



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by godlover25
 


Oh and one more thing,

When grandpa says "back in my day!",

Does he literally mean back one single day when he lived?

Or is he referring to a period of time that occurred in the past?



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


Let's take one last look at something,

AV Gn 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


Now lets pick apart that sentence, "And the evening and the morning were the first day."

the Hebrew words used for Evening and Morning are, according to Strongs Hebrew Concordance;

H6153 `ereb eh'-reb

from H6150;

dusk.


KJV: + day, even(-ing, tide), night.

_____Strongs_____

H1242 boqer bo'-ker

from H1239;

properly, dawn (as the break of day); generally, morning.


KJV: (+) day, early, morning, morrow.

The Hebrew word used for Day is this:

_____Strongs_____

H3117 yowm yome

from an unused root meaning to be hot;

a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverb)... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.


KJV: age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (.

so,

The same sentence can also be translated as such:

And the evening tide and the dawning tides were the first age,

or

And the first chronicles of time migrated between evening tide and dawning tides,

God bless



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
The whole translation problem exists as well for there is only constonants and 70 or more different translations possible. But they did have some rocks in their language, that came from older languages, like sumar, with definitions already in place, such as RUACH. The picture of such a thing is a saucer that makes wind on the water. Not the Spirit of God.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Ex-Vatican Translator, Mauro Biglino's Alternative Creation/Translation Theory

The videos are in the thread, and I took notes on them in detail. I have read his very good book as well.

So I'll link my posts to my notes:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


--the Bible we own, which we work on and which I'm about to tell you something about, is a Bible that was fixed between the 7th and the 9th century A.D. That is to say, in the years 600-800 A.D., in short, it's when the Merovigs first and then the Carolings ruled over Europe.

I mean that while Charlemagne was building his Holy Roman Empire.

By the lake of Galilee, one family, wich was Moshhez ben Aaron ben Asher's family, defined the Bible as we know it.

--This family was in conflict with other families: they represented the Tiberias school . There was the Palestinian school, the Samaritan one, the Babylonian one. They won....

If someone else would have won, we now would have a potentially different Bible.


And this one which shows the Church knows very well what its about:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ruach:


That is the pictogram made by those that saw the first RUACH, which is where the RUACH of the Hebrews come from.

So, that is a thing we don't know what it is, let say we don't know it, so we can take it easy, but which decidedly hovers on the water.

---As we don't know what it is, we'll name it by borrowing the name directly from the Vatica, so that we won't go wrong.

If you read last editions of the “Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis”, published by the “:Liberia Editrice Vatican” where they insert the latin neologisms, you'll find that the Vatican inserted “navis sideralis”, which means “starship” They inserted “areia navis”, thus “airship”, they inserted “aireus viator”, that is “astronaut” and they inserted an acronym, “R.I.V” which means: res inexplicatae volantes”, that is UFO's.

---The ones of you that just saw that stuff now will realize that it's an unknown thing that hovers on the water.



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Well here's where our paths and beliefs diverge,

I believe Aliens and UFO star-ships are demonic deceptions purported by the fallen angels / evil ones,

and I believe the Creator God of the Bible is the God of the Old Covenant of Israel and the God of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ blood, which has its representatives on Earth in the True Christian Church which is the Body of Christian believers on Earth who believe on Christ and His Father and walk in Their Commandments and Love day by day and moment by moment,

God bless



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by godlover25
 


There is God/Consciousness/Higher Ups, the Creator of the kindergarden universe school. But those guys are the annanuki, and beleif doesn't really change our history there. I wouldn't call them god, for some of them asshats come to mind, slavers.

There is Good or light code in the bible as well, but its not what they project, for their slavery. You have to find the Love only. The Goodness only. No smiting, judgment, wars, sacrifices including animal, patriarchy, nothing negative, all that comes from us and the universe. Everyone in the universe hasn't grown up yet fully.



posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Errgh, I digress,

I guess I see things sort of the same as far as Love and Light,

but maybe our definitions of Love and Light are different?

I don't know,

I have an Orthodox Christian view and doctrines derived from Ancient Mainstream Christian thought and practice,

God bless




top topics



 
2

log in

join