Genesis


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

How accurate do you believe the Book of Genesis to be?  Do you think the great epochs are literal, symbolic, a combination or what.  Do you think important details are missing or that everything is adequately explained.  There is a great deal of controversy in the scientific evidence and the stories of the Old Testament.  

Was there a garden of Eden here of earth?  Is Eden still somewhere here but hidden?  Was there one continent on earth prior to the time of Peleg and after Peleg was the earth divided into the continents as we now know them?  Was the entire earth covered with water during the flood of Noah (including the Himalayas) or was there a difference in the earth's topography?

In your mind is it possible to believe in the revelations of the Bible (Genesis) without sufficient empirical evidence?  Do you think science and religion should agree?  What do you think is the more accurate - the consensus of science or the consensus of religious opinion?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When non-members ask me "how can you believe in the Book of Mormon when we lack literal evidence of it being true from scientists?"

My response is to laugh and say "If I was a person whom required scripture to be super-literal-true-with-21st-century-scientific-take-on-things, then I would throw all Abrahamic faiths out the airlock based on Genesis alone.  There is so much of it that is blatantly shown to be false by modern science -- *if* your judgement of Truth is based on 21st century scientific interpretation.  For example: the world was not created in exactly 8,640 minutes (6 days).  Frankly, the people of ancient Israel were not counting minutes with this story-- counting minutes isn't the point!   Rather, the creation story is about God creating the Earth conveyed symbolically & His power.    I 100% believe the Creation story it is true, but in that symbolic interpretation that ancient people wrote/told it in, not 21st century minute-counting." 

And I could go on with other examples.  I don't believe people literally lived to 900+ years old.  Literally an entire global flood.  Etc.

Other parts of scripture I very strongly believe are literally true- such as Christ literally raising from the dead.

  Others I don't know the blend literal versus symbolism, such as the Garden of Eden.  Frankly, I don't really find that exact blend to matter on Eden or most other parts of scripture.  

 

 

Aside: speaking as somebody whom spent many years studying evolution and all-- science tells us how things occur.  Faith tells us why.  My job studying evolution and the natural workings of the world was me getting paid to be amazed at His craftsmanship.  Understanding just the tiniest fraction of it and marveling.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Traveler said:

How accurate do you believe the Book of Genesis to be?  Do you think the great epochs are literal, symbolic, a combination or what.  Do you think important details are missing or that everything is adequately explained.  There is a great deal of controversy in the scientific evidence and the stories of the Old Testament.  

Was there a garden of Eden here of earth?  Is Eden still somewhere here but hidden?  Was there one continent on earth prior to the time of Peleg and after Peleg was the earth divided into the continents as we now know them?  Was the entire earth covered with water during the flood of Noah (including the Himalayas) or was there a difference in the earth's topography?

In your mind is it possible to believe in the revelations of the Bible (Genesis) without sufficient empirical evidence?  Do you think science and religion should agree?  What do you think is the more accurate - the consensus of science or the consensus of religious opinion?

 

The Traveler

Personally I believe that things described in the BOM and the bible actually happened, I just don't know the details.

I always look at the big picture. Would I lay my life down for a literal, six day creation? No. Would I lay my life down for Christ? Yup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st thought: I find it difficult to talk about all of Genesis as one monolith. Even if we leave out "documentary hypothesis" issues, Genesis covers a lot of ground, from creation through the flood then the patriarchs and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I think some of the answers to questions about Genesis depend on which part of Genesis I am reading.

When it comes to the cosmology/creation portion, I find myself leaning heavily towards accepting that the creation account is "myth" -- and here I'm using "myth" the way Ben Spackman uses it (I find a lot of my current views on this are influenced by Spackman): https://benspackman.com/2020/04/science-and-history-as-myth-and-fiction-exploring-some-common-labels/ Recognize that, understanding "myth" in this way, modern science is also "myth" -- the way we explain how the world works.

Concordism (the efforts to make modern science "myth" concord with ancient, Biblical "myth") also figures heavily in my thinking -- specifically, I feel no need to make ancient and modern explanations for the way the world works agree with each other. The ancients can have their "flat disc earth sandwiched between the waters of heaven and hell" and I can have my Big Bang inspired universe (full of billions of "island universes") without needing to make the two "agree".

As for some of the specifics. I don't know how I would know if Eden existed. Considering the superlatives used to describe Eden, I don't see any place on Earth today that could measure up to those superlatives, so I am inclined to believe Eden is gone. Super continents have existed at times throughout Earth's geologic history, but the most recent one (Pangaea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent) broke up before hominids appear in the fossil record, so I doubt that the break up of the Earth in Peleg's day could be referring to the breakup of a supercontinent (more likely to be a description of political division rather than geologic). I like Spackman's idea of a "cosmologic" flood rather than some kind of real global or even local flood.

In conclusion: is it possible to believe in the revelations of the Bible without "empirical" evidence? Probably depends entirely on what it means to believe in the revelations, but I have no problem believing in the revelations because, rejecting concordism as I do, I need no empirical evidence that these revelations must somehow concord with my cosmology. Should science and religion agree? When all is said and done, I expect them to agree, but, until then, I have no need for them to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

How accurate do you believe the Book of Genesis to be? 

I believe it to be the word of God given by revelation.

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

Was there one continent on earth prior to the time of Peleg and after Peleg was the earth divided into the continents as we now know them?

I can't see that the Bible suggests any such thing.

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

In your mind is it possible to believe in the revelations of the Bible (Genesis) without sufficient empirical evidence?

Of course. We largely choose what we believe.

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

Do you think science and religion should agree?

No. I think they rarely overlap. Science and religion ask different questions and seek different answers.

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

In your mind is it possible to believe in the revelations of the Bible (Genesis) without sufficient empirical evidence?  Do you think science and religion should agree?  What do you think is the more accurate - the consensus of science or the consensus of religious opinion?

Science, hands-down. Religious consensus is irrelevant to truth. Otherwise, we would all be Trinitarians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've made it far in life not entrenching myself into any particular opinion on such things.  I'm trying to make it to heaven, and if I get there and hear "we'll only let you in if you believe in literal six 24-hr day creative periods and worldwide flood with literal ark holding 2 of every species", I want to say "ok, sure". 

Or, if I get there and hear "entrance is only for folks bright enough to understand the realities of stellar formation and evolution across millennia, with an inspired book of scripture containing an awful lot of stuff that didn't actually happen, allegories and cultural stories passed down orally, and whatnot", I want to say "ok, sure".

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

In our increasingly secular society, it is as uncommon as it is unfashionable to speak of Adam and Eve or the Garden of Eden or of a “fortunate fall” into mortality. Nevertheless, the simple truth is that we cannot fully comprehend the Atonement and Resurrection of Christ and we will not adequately appreciate the unique purpose of His birth or His death—in other words, there is no way to truly celebrate Christmas or Easter—without understanding that there was an actual Adam and Eve who fell from an actual Eden, with all the consequences that fall carried with it.

I do not know the details of what happened on this planet before that, but I do know these two were created under the divine hand of God, that for a time they lived alone in a paradisiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family, and that through a sequence of choices they transgressed a commandment of God which required that they leave their garden setting but which allowed them to have children before facing physical death. To add further sorrow and complexity to their circumstance, their transgression had spiritual consequences as well, cutting them off from the presence of God forever. Because we were then born into that fallen world and because we too would transgress the laws of God, we also were sentenced to the same penalties that Adam and Eve faced.

Where Justice, Love, and Mercy Meet, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, April 2015 GC

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

How accurate do you believe the Book of Genesis to be?

I believe it to be completely accurate.  But I don't necessarily believe it to be literal.

I think there is a lot of figurative language in all scriptural accounts.  But I it is very difficult to extract the literal facts from such figurative language when you're dealing with documents/languages/cultures that are over 2000 years old.  So, we don't know.  The Bible's primary purpose (as is the Book of Mormon) is to persuade men to come to Christ.  And I believe the Bible does so because of an unacknowledged characteristic.

There is in history/sociology the usage of the term "Founding Myths".  This is defined as being a combination of fact and "urban legend" level oral history (fiction) that is combined into a narrative.  After all is said and done, no one truly knows where one ends and the other begins.  Nor does anyone really know the percentage of fact vs. fiction.  But they remain very important to a society/culture regardless of the facts.

Three characteristics of what constitutes a "Founding Myth".

  • They provide a common origin story.
  • They provide a common set of values for a society.
  • They provide a common vision of where the future of that society should be headed.

The Bible does provide those.  Genesis, Ten Commandments, Abraham's Bosom.   This is why Jordan Peterson recently said that even if it (the Bible) isn't "fact",  it is really even "more true than truth".  It is because it provides the basis of what we use to determine truth/error and right/wrong.

Latter-day myth:

We as Latter-day Saints, have some founding myths (which include the accepted revelatory facts).  But one that at least appears to be a tall tale is the seagull miracle.  As far as I could gather, there has not been one verified, contemporary, first-hand account of the miracle at all.  And given the wealth of personal journals we have from the time period, it makes one wonder why no one wrote about it at the time.  (If anyone can find a source, I'd certainly welcome it).

Even if it is not fact, it is an important item in our history because it speaks to the belief that even in the midst of tragedy, the Lord is with us.  And that is belief is always true.

American myth:

One myth I recently discovered was about "The Virginia Giant" (Peter Francisco).  It was said he carried an 1100 lb cannon off of a battlefield because he didn't want the Brits to take it from them when they (the Colonies) were in retreat.

But it was recently "modified" per the comments in the following video.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwHWrRaVfQg (go to 26:00 for the bit about the cannon).

While he didn't actually do this, he was nonetheless a very important individual in the Revolutionary War.  And anyone who enjoys freedoms that were born of the American Revolution owe him a debt of gratitude.

I'm perfectly fine saying "I don't know".  But I will also say the Bible is 100% true (as far as it is translated correctly).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I largely agree with @MrShorty, and like him have been heavily influenced by Ben Spackman—I see Genesis as a book of inspired ancient near eastern literature with an internal worldview and logic all its own that points to the sovereignty of Jehovah and explains His covenant to the patriarchs and to Israel as the heir of the patriarchs.  I don’t think it is “history” as twenty-first century Westerners would use the term; but I believe its stories primarily originate with figures who really lived.  For example, I believe there was an Adam, and an Eve, and a Noah—mostly because Joseph Smith affirmed that he saw them.  I don’t know if there was a literal garden of Eden, though I think at minimum Adam and Eve were the first humans of sufficient intelligence that God chose to endow them with spirits and make covenants with them that affected all their posterity.  I don’t know if there was a global flood, though I think at minimum God renewed his covenant with humankind through Noah after some sort of natural (maybe local) catastrophe.

Generally the parts of Genesis that Joseph Smith endorsed as historical, I’m willing to trust are historical; even if they are in some degree of tension with modern science.  But as for the rest:  I guess where I lean at the moment is, I see Genesis primarily as a work of literature that teaches about God’s relationship with us and human nature.  It is an incredibly complex and carefully-thought-out work of literature—every name, every geographical obscurity, every Hebraic pun that gets lost in translation, everything in that book has a reason for being there.  It interacts with, corrects, expands upon, and satirizes other ancient attitudes and practices and works of literature in ways we are only beginning to understand.  At the moment I’m more interested in trying to learn a lot of those details and wrestling with the bigger puzzles and questions that the author deliberately throws to his reader, than in trying to parse out questions about “but did this really happen this way?”

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2022 at 11:54 PM, Traveler said:

How accurate do you believe the Book of Genesis to be?  Do you think the great epochs are literal, symbolic, a combination or what.  Do you think important details are missing or that everything is adequately explained.  There is a great deal of controversy in the scientific evidence and the stories of the Old Testament.  

Was there a garden of Eden here of earth?  Is Eden still somewhere here but hidden?  Was there one continent on earth prior to the time of Peleg and after Peleg was the earth divided into the continents as we now know them?  Was the entire earth covered with water during the flood of Noah (including the Himalayas) or was there a difference in the earth's topography?

In your mind is it possible to believe in the revelations of the Bible (Genesis) without sufficient empirical evidence?  Do you think science and religion should agree?  What do you think is the more accurate - the consensus of science or the consensus of religious opinion?

 

The Traveler

It is possible to believe in anything without empirical evidence, but impossible to believe without experience (Alma 32, "awake and arouse your faculties... in a manner that ye can give place" to exercise our faculties to hear the Word). Knowledge derived from secular science and revealed religion need not agree; they are different kinds of knowledge, but many find it helpful to use them in their own sphere (and someday they may well agree). The accuracy of either depends on context,. For example, religion does not demand we accept that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, and science dos not invite us to partake of the teachings in Alma 32.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have many thought and impressions.  This subject seems to keep evolving for me - especially when I think I have resolution.   One of my greatest concerns in the religious community about the revelations given to us in Genesis is the wide spectrum of ideas thought to be sure and pure word of G-d concerning this one book of scripture.   Sometime it seems to me that the more devout the believer the more divergent is their understanding of Genesis.  I have never encountered a good excuse or reason for this divergence.  As for the problems between religion and science - it would seem that at least 90% of the inability to find common ground between science and religion has direct application to this book of scripture.

It is almost exclusively a believe of Medieval Christians that the earth is flat - based on interpretation of scripture rather than on observation of things.  But the real separation between science and religion began with Galileo who believed that the earth rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun and intern all the planets revolve around the earth - some of the planets with rather bazar orbits.  The problem was centered around a book written by Galileo on how to determine the future tides.  The problem was that his "scientific" ideas clashed with the religious doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it.  One may wonder how it was that the religious community interpreted such from Genesis but that was the problem.  But it was the main argument of the religious community that such understanding had more to do with faith in G-d rather than human observations.

One would think that resolving such doctrine issues could and should be resolved in the same manner that Elijah and the priests of Baal resolved their differences of opinions.  In essence, see who could predict the tides most accurately (empirical evidence).  For those that pay attention to history, time has consistently been on the side of science.  So strong has science proven to be - that the overwhelming trend has been for religion to slowly change and claim that the new found "truths" have always been part of religious thinking - a rewrite of history.

There are somethings I have not been able to resolve.  Was Adam and Eve the first intelligent human type species on earth?  I believe there is evidence that there were pre-humans but I do not know how to deal with such thinking according to what I understand of the "Fall of Adam".  In fact I do not know how to rectify the extinction of species and death that existed among living things prior to the time table of the Fall of Adam.

For me there are many problems with the book of Genesis.  I have thought to resolve my thinking through impressions that the creation (as recorded in Genesis) is about our solar system rather than our Galaxy, our super cluster or our universe.  In addition I wonder how much is poetic symbolism.  The earth is comprised of many elements and a great many of such elements can only be explained in science via a super nova.  But such suggestion indicates a long history of creation far beyond anything mentioned in Genesis. I am amazed how much ire among religious thinking such suggestions cause.  

The one question I am asking is: - - Has anyone resolved for themselves the paradox of understanding between Genesis and science.  If such has been resolved by empirical evidence - please share the evidence.  If such has been resolved by revelation - please explain (provide a spiritual witness) concerning such revelation .  The spiritual impression I have is that such will be revealed at some future time.

In the meantime - I have no problem exercising faith - especially that a G-d of truth and light will make the truth and light known.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem accepting science in its attempt to explain things. But next to every scientific theory I make a mental asterisk which at the end says: "unless God decided otherwise." The known laws of science cannot explain everything and the things it thinks it can explain are still subject to divine intervention. Kind of like the practice of polygamy as commanded in Jacob 2, "here is the law, unless I say otherwise." To me that is how all of science is. For example, Darwin may have gotten it all correct, except for the part that Adam and Eve were literally created in the Garden of Eden. To me that is completely plausible. 

Concerning the book of Genesis, the more I learn the more I take a symbolic approach to its interpretation and the less I care about whether it is literal or not because the symbolism is what often conveys the true message. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

I have many thought and impressions.  This subject seems to keep evolving for me - especially when I think I have resolution.   One of my greatest concerns in the religious community about the revelations given to us in Genesis is the wide spectrum of ideas thought to be sure and pure word of G-d concerning this one book of scripture.   Sometime it seems to me that the more devout the believer the more divergent is their understanding of Genesis.  I have never encountered a good excuse or reason for this divergence.  As for the problems between religion and science - it would seem that at least 90% of the inability to find common ground between science and religion has direct application to this book of scripture.

It is almost exclusively a believe of Medieval Christians that the earth is flat - based on interpretation of scripture rather than on observation of things.  But the real separation between science and religion began with Galileo who believed that the earth rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun and intern all the planets revolve around the earth - some of the planets with rather bazar orbits.  The problem was centered around a book written by Galileo on how to determine the future tides.  The problem was that his "scientific" ideas clashed with the religious doctrine that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it.  One may wonder how it was that the religious community interpreted such from Genesis but that was the problem.  But it was the main argument of the religious community that such understanding had more to do with faith in G-d rather than human observations.

One would think that resolving such doctrine issues could and should be resolved in the same manner that Elijah and the priests of Baal resolved their differences of opinions.  In essence, see who could predict the tides most accurately (empirical evidence).  For those that pay attention to history, time has consistently been on the side of science.  So strong has science proven to be - that the overwhelming trend has been for religion to slowly change and claim that the new found "truths" have always been part of religious thinking - a rewrite of history.

There are somethings I have not been able to resolve.  Was Adam and Eve the first intelligent human type species on earth?  I believe there is evidence that there were pre-humans but I do not know how to deal with such thinking according to what I understand of the "Fall of Adam".  In fact I do not know how to rectify the extinction of species and death that existed among living things prior to the time table of the Fall of Adam.

For me there are many problems with the book of Genesis.  I have thought to resolve my thinking through impressions that the creation (as recorded in Genesis) is about our solar system rather than our Galaxy, our super cluster or our universe.  In addition I wonder how much is poetic symbolism.  The earth is comprised of many elements and a great many of such elements can only be explained in science via a super nova.  But such suggestion indicates a long history of creation far beyond anything mentioned in Genesis. I am amazed how much ire among religious thinking such suggestions cause.  

The one question I am asking is: - - Has anyone resolved for themselves the paradox of understanding between Genesis and science.  If such has been resolved by empirical evidence - please share the evidence.  If such has been resolved by revelation - please explain (provide a spiritual witness) concerning such revelation .  The spiritual impression I have is that such will be revealed at some future time.

In the meantime - I have no problem exercising faith - especially that a G-d of truth and light will make the truth and light known.

 

The Traveler

The prediction contest would need to be concerning a matter that straddles both fields. But how do you measure such subjective predictions as Abraham’s happiness, peace and rest? Tithing might straddle both religion and science, and I’m sure studies have been done:

https://luke1428.com/how-science-proves-that-tithing-is-linked-to-success-and-happiness/

https://www.ldsliving.com/science-links-paying-tithing-with-happiness-success-more/s/77912

…but so what?

Religious people will apply the advanced secular knowledge of their time to their practice. Joseph Smith did it in receiving inspiration and revelation we call the Word of Wisdom. This is also how we have scriptures like Genesis in the first place (the technology of writing).

My "resolution" is that there is no paradox to be resolved since these are two kinds of knowledge, pursued through two kinds of systems. I handle a coexisting relationship between the two systems and their processes, and can integrate the knowledge gained thereby. My priority is to build the kingdom, so for example, I use the fruits of science for righteous purposes. President Nelson tells of his revelatory experience in finding, in teh midst of a delicate surgery,  a revolutionary new technique for repairing a heart valve in the nick of time to save a patient.

Given that Genesis was written down 1,000 years before Aristotle was born, it is not a science book. The knowledge we gain from it comes from years of spiritual or religious tradition, system and process (including a recent, ongoing restoration of spiritual power and authority enabling more advanced spiritual knowledge), not a secular or scientific one. Whatever Aristotle wrote down has also been vastly improved over the last 2400 years and will yet be improved. But no science purports to discover and test spiritual knowledge (other than perhaps neuroscience, which is a matter of semantics).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

This is the most recent thread I could find that brought up the question of whether Noah's flood was global or even real.  So I'm just gonna leave this here:

Quote

Ether 13:2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

Take it how you wish. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2022 at 9:54 PM, Traveler said:

How accurate do you believe the Book of Genesis to be?  Do you think the great epochs are literal, symbolic, a combination or what.  Do you think important details are missing or that everything is adequately explained.  There is a great deal of controversy in the scientific evidence and the stories of the Old Testament.  

Was there a garden of Eden here of earth?  Is Eden still somewhere here but hidden?  Was there one continent on earth prior to the time of Peleg and after Peleg was the earth divided into the continents as we now know them?  Was the entire earth covered with water during the flood of Noah (including the Himalayas) or was there a difference in the earth's topography?

In your mind is it possible to believe in the revelations of the Bible (Genesis) without sufficient empirical evidence?  Do you think science and religion should agree?  What do you think is the more accurate - the consensus of science or the consensus of religious opinion?

 

The Traveler

 

Scholastically, it is not something that can be taken seriously (if we are talking serious history).   

Personally, I feel it is extremely accurate.  The problem is that it covers a LOT of time in a very short amount of space.  This means that though the information there may b accurate, it is not very comprehensive.  There is a LOT of gaps.  In fact, comparative to the time it covers...MOST of it is gaps.  Most of it are blank spaces on explanation leaving a LOT of room to explain.

It would be like trying to explain American History and you use one sentence to explain it.  "The United States was declared in 1776 and lasted over 200 years."

That leaves a LOT of area to talk about it and lots of room for much more to occur.

Even if we expand that to something like 5 chapters of 1000 words each...how much information can you squeeze in there about the United States of America?

That's a short history (US history is relatively short comparatively to other nations in the world). 

Genesis covers thousands of years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

This is the most recent thread I could find that brought up the question of whether Noah's flood was global or even real.  So I'm just gonna leave this here:

Take it how you wish. :)

This is a fairly accurate description of the tide going out.Not a disagreement, just a comment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

This is the most recent thread I could find that brought up the question of whether Noah's flood was global or even real.  So I'm just gonna leave this here:

Quote

Ether 13:2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

Take it how you wish. :)

Moses 1:29

And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Moses 1:29

And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

OK.  IMO, Ether is clearly referring to the (future) Americas - the promised land to which the Jaredites and then Lehites (and Mulekites) were brought.  It also seems to me from the context that these are Noah's flood waters.  So, OK, the flood could have only covered the Americas (or some portion) - making it the covenant portion of the planet?

I don't know.  Am not emotionally invested, though I prefer the whole planet flood idea.  Like I said, take it how you wish. :)  I tripped over it in my scripture study.  It could also mean that Ether believed the flood waters covered the whole earth but that he was wrong - or maybe he thought they only covered this land...  Or maybe the receding waters were from the creation when the land and water were separated.  There are lots of options.  At the moment, I'm more concerned with the fact that Klaw keeps trying to eat my dinner... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

Scholastically, it is not something that can be taken seriously (if we are talking serious history).   

Personally, I feel it is extremely accurate.  The problem is that it covers a LOT of time in a very short amount of space.  This means that though the information there may b accurate, it is not very comprehensive.  There is a LOT of gaps.  In fact, comparative to the time it covers...MOST of it is gaps.  Most of it are blank spaces on explanation leaving a LOT of room to explain.

It would be like trying to explain American History and you use one sentence to explain it.  "The United States was declared in 1776 and lasted over 200 years."

That leaves a LOT of area to talk about it and lots of room for much more to occur.

Even if we expand that to something like 5 chapters of 1000 words each...how much information can you squeeze in there about the United States of America?

That's a short history (US history is relatively short comparatively to other nations in the world). 

Genesis covers thousands of years. 

Thank you for responding – even though my post was some time ago.  I am concerned about the Old Testament (particularly Genesis) for many reasons.  We know from the Dead Sea Scriptures that many ideas past down through the Dark Ages about the Old Testament are false.  We are told in the Book of Mormon that there are many inaccuracies in the Bible and important teachings that are missing and altered – thus the reason for a restoration.  There is no revelation indicating what ancient books ought to be included in the Bible.  The ancient Old Testament text most quoted in the New Testament (including by Jesus) is from an ancient scripture not even included in the Old Testament.

The historian (and Jew) Josephus wrote his works because, according to his words there were in his day efforts to alter the sacred scriptures.  One example I remember from reading Josephus concerns the tower of Babel, that he claims was being built as a refuge from another flood.  It is interesting to me that this notion is not mentioned in Genesis but rather we are told that the tower of Babel was being built to reach heaven.  Which do you think is more accurate concerning the tower of Babel – Genesis or the works of Josephus?

Having visited the “Holy Land” what was most impressed upon me were the misconceptions generated about that area.  For example, most Christians believe Jesus was a carpenter which was believed to be the same trade of his stepfather Joseph.  The problem is that Nazareth was never actually known anywhere in a few thousand years of history to produce wooden products.  And Nazareth is an isolated community with no market for wooden products.  There is in Nazareth an ancient quarry over 4,000 years old that is still in operation today.  Most likely Jesus was a stone mason.

Here is another thought.  An ancient symbol of the Messiah is a serpent. An example is the serpent created by Moses for the Children of Israel to look upon for deliverance while in the wilderness.  Question – was the serpent in Genesis (garden epoch) that beguiled Eve really a serpent or was it Satan posing as the Messiah?

I do agree with you that the ancient scriptures contain divine truths – if one is connected through prophets called of G-d as was Moses and others – including in our age where the understanding of prophets have been restored through Joseph Smith.  What I do not believe is that any sincere person can pick up the scriptures and come to a consensus of the truth of much of anything on their own – This is why I believe there are so many Christian denominations and sects and why there is no consensus of truth among those that rely on the Bible and especially the book of Genesis.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2022 at 11:54 PM, Traveler said:

How accurate do you believe the Book of Genesis to be?  Do you think the great epochs are literal, symbolic, a combination or what.  Do you think important details are missing or that everything is adequately explained.  There is a great deal of controversy in the scientific evidence and the stories of the Old Testament.  

Was there a garden of Eden here of earth?  Is Eden still somewhere here but hidden?  Was there one continent on earth prior to the time of Peleg and after Peleg was the earth divided into the continents as we now know them?  Was the entire earth covered with water during the flood of Noah (including the Himalayas) or was there a difference in the earth's topography?

In your mind is it possible to believe in the revelations of the Bible (Genesis) without sufficient empirical evidence?  Do you think science and religion should agree?  What do you think is the more accurate - the consensus of science or the consensus of religious opinion?

 

The Traveler

Since we process nothing in a vacuum, and there are different kinds of knowledge and experience, I believe we take all the things we come across in life and integrate them the best we can into a working model for life. As a result, for me:

I believe the Book of Genesis to be an accurate representation and testimony of the nature of God, His children, and His covenant path relationship with us.  I think the dispensations represented in Gensis are real. Ongoing revelation addresses anything that one might consider to be missing from Genesis. The Old Testament is not a science book, and science in my opinion is great tool for helping us manage our earthly stewardship first, and our relationship with God second, as set forth in Genesis.

I believe that each of the items you listed in paragraph 2 exist literally, since that is the nature of oral and written transmission. The disadvantage is a lack of understanding the mindset and experience of those who first and authoritatively presented them, unless we too are ancient prophets and know exactly what they meant.

I believe that faith and knowledge work together; the empirical evidence of revelation is provided by the written and oral testimony; our acceptance of it depends on the kind of knowledge we use and integrate. Science and religion at some level are the same kind thing and so can be reconciled. I have seen no consensus of science or of religious opinion, hence we have different (and often contending) schools of thought in each discipline. But as I apply both kinds of principles in my life, I can as an individual see how they help me progress along the covenant path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Since we process nothing in a vacuum, and there are different kinds of knowledge and experience, I believe we take all the things we come across in life and integrate them the best we can into a working model for life. As a result, for me:

I believe the Book of Genesis to be an accurate representation and testimony of the nature of God, His children, and His covenant path relationship with us.  I think the dispensations represented in Gensis are real. Ongoing revelation addresses anything that one might consider to be missing from Genesis. The Old Testament is not a science book, and science in my opinion is great tool for helping us manage our earthly stewardship first, and our relationship with God second, as set forth in Genesis.

I believe that each of the items you listed in paragraph 2 exist literally, since that is the nature of oral and written transmission. The disadvantage is a lack of understanding the mindset and experience of those who first and authoritatively presented them, unless we too are ancient prophets and know exactly what they meant.

I believe that faith and knowledge work together; the empirical evidence of revelation is provided by the written and oral testimony; our acceptance of it depends on the kind of knowledge we use and integrate. Science and religion at some level are the same kind thing and so can be reconciled. I have seen no consensus of science or of religious opinion, hence we have different (and often contending) schools of thought in each discipline. But as I apply both kinds of principles in my life, I can as an individual see how they help me progress along the covenant path.

Thank you for your kind response.  I would bring to this conversation some inputs obtained from my personal spiritual studies and journeys.   Feel free to correct me or add your input (including anyone following this thread). 

We know from modern revelation through prophets of the restoration that Adam kept a written record.  Despite some philosophies of men – from the beginning with Adam sacred revelations were written by those called to do so by G-d.  The idea of oral traditions are not, to my understanding, a method for preserving sacred scripture for future generations.  However, it has always been a tradition to memorize scripture for personal use and reference.

The ancient Greeks have had a profound influence on our western culture.  Our governments, laws, means of validations, methods of education and many culture norms are deeply embedded in a foundation established by the ancient Greeks.  According to Greek historians and concepts there is a divide in how history is recorded.  The Greeks called this divide - historic and prehistoric. They were very specific that the divide came through the historian Homer and his works.  Thus, the Greeks coined preserved information before Homer as prehistoric and preserved information after Homer as historic.  There are fundamental differences that the Greeks recognized.  Primarily this profound difference is related from symbolic to literal.   Prehistoric has come to mean something different in our era and sadly few understand the Greek reason for establishing their reference.

There is something else we can understand about sacred revelation (scripture).  It appears to me that G-d speaks to human understanding.  I would use the example of Doctrine and Covenants section 88 that was given in an era of Newtonian theory.  I believe that the same revelation is given in Abraham 3 which is a profound reflection of ancient Egyptian Pythagorean theory.  And yet, I believe the revelations are one and the same (similar to Joseph’s explanation to Pharaoh concerning his dreams).

Our modern prophets encourage us to “study” scripture.  Many interpret this advice to study to exclusively mean to “read”.  I have a much broader understanding.  Part of my understanding is the consideration of other opinions.  I enjoy reading what is often labeled as expert opinion as well as discussions with others – including critics.  I have discovered that I learn more from those with different opinions.  I learn very little from those in agreement with my opinions.  I have discovered that some people with different opinions are offended when I ask questions in an effort to be sure I understand them correctly.  In general, I believe this happens most often when they are not well founded in their own opinions.  It appears to me that those expert in a subject and well established have great joy in explaining every detail to anyone interested.

Our 8th Article of Faith states in essence that we only believe the Bible to be the word of G-d when it is translated correctly – I would also add that the Bible is only to believed when it is interpreted correctly.  I believe this to be important because there are no translations of ancient text – rather there is an emphasis of using ancient text as a smorgasbord method to create a “version”.  Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scripture that particular type (family) of ancient Biblical text thought to be the most accurate have been proven to be very inaccurate.  And some text believed to be very inaccurate have been proven to be among the most accurate. 

One last point – the only way I understand that one can follow the “covenant path” is through covenant – which is explained in the 5th Article of Faith – is established through someone called of G-d through His Priesthood.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Thank you for your kind response.  I would bring to this conversation some inputs obtained from my personal spiritual studies and journeys.   Feel free to correct me or add your input (including anyone following this thread). 

We know from modern revelation through prophets of the restoration that Adam kept a written record.  Despite some philosophies of men – from the beginning with Adam sacred revelations were written by those called to do so by G-d.  The idea of oral traditions are not, to my understanding, a method for preserving sacred scripture for future generations.  However, it has always been a tradition to memorize scripture for personal use and reference.

The ancient Greeks have had a profound influence on our western culture.  Our governments, laws, means of validations, methods of education and many culture norms are deeply embedded in a foundation established by the ancient Greeks.  According to Greek historians and concepts there is a divide in how history is recorded.  The Greeks called this divide - historic and prehistoric. They were very specific that the divide came through the historian Homer and his works.  Thus, the Greeks coined preserved information before Homer as prehistoric and preserved information after Homer as historic.  There are fundamental differences that the Greeks recognized.  Primarily this profound difference is related from symbolic to literal.   Prehistoric has come to mean something different in our era and sadly few understand the Greek reason for establishing their reference.

There is something else we can understand about sacred revelation (scripture).  It appears to me that G-d speaks to human understanding.  I would use the example of Doctrine and Covenants section 88 that was given in an era of Newtonian theory.  I believe that the same revelation is given in Abraham 3 which is a profound reflection of ancient Egyptian Pythagorean theory.  And yet, I believe the revelations are one and the same (similar to Joseph’s explanation to Pharaoh concerning his dreams).

Our modern prophets encourage us to “study” scripture.  Many interpret this advice to study to exclusively mean to “read”.  I have a much broader understanding.  Part of my understanding is the consideration of other opinions.  I enjoy reading what is often labeled as expert opinion as well as discussions with others – including critics.  I have discovered that I learn more from those with different opinions.  I learn very little from those in agreement with my opinions.  I have discovered that some people with different opinions are offended when I ask questions in an effort to be sure I understand them correctly.  In general, I believe this happens most often when they are not well founded in their own opinions.  It appears to me that those expert in a subject and well established have great joy in explaining every detail to anyone interested.

Our 8th Article of Faith states in essence that we only believe the Bible to be the word of G-d when it is translated correctly – I would also add that the Bible is only to believed when it is interpreted correctly.  I believe this to be important because there are no translations of ancient text – rather there is an emphasis of using ancient text as a smorgasbord method to create a “version”.  Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scripture that particular type (family) of ancient Biblical text thought to be the most accurate have been proven to be very inaccurate.  And some text believed to be very inaccurate have been proven to be among the most accurate. 

One last point – the only way I understand that one can follow the “covenant path” is through covenant – which is explained in the 5th Article of Faith – is established through someone called of G-d through His Priesthood.

 

The Traveler

Yes, I see Adam’s as the first covenant record (genealogy, doctrine, testimony, revelation, etc.). But I believe our current version of Genesis, originally authored by Moses, is the result of oral and written traditions of those writings and other oral and written histories; I see much of the Bible the same way. This takes nothing away from the revelations as discerned by the Spirit.

Symbolic or literal, I take history among the most subjective and interpretive scholarly discipline of all the arts and sciences. Nephi understood the manner (symbolic and literal communication, reckoning and prophesying) of the Jews but within a generation that appreciation was lost, and so he reinterpreted and organized the records for his descendants.

As far as profiting from differing opinions and perspectives, I believe the most successful saints are those who approach their devotional communications with others in the spirit of council as taught in the D&C and elsewhere.

The Spirit is absolutely essential in interpreting the Bible correctly. I think this applies in understanding God’s will for us, and in the case of some scholars, making important discoveries that advance the promulgation of faith in scripture (see Elder Holland’s speech to the Maxwell Institute on disciple scholars, a term coined by Elder Maxwell… I cannot seem to locate it online, but here’s an article on it: Be Faithful Disciple-Scholars Even in Difficulty, Elder Holland Says at Maxwell Institute - Church News and Events (churchofjesuschrist.org) ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Thank you for your kind response.  I would bring to this conversation some inputs obtained from my personal spiritual studies and journeys.   Feel free to correct me or add your input (including anyone following this thread). 

We know from modern revelation through prophets of the restoration that Adam kept a written record.  Despite some philosophies of men – from the beginning with Adam sacred revelations were written by those called to do so by G-d.  The idea of oral traditions are not, to my understanding, a method for preserving sacred scripture for future generations.  However, it has always been a tradition to memorize scripture for personal use and reference.

The ancient Greeks have had a profound influence on our western culture.  Our governments, laws, means of validations, methods of education and many culture norms are deeply embedded in a foundation established by the ancient Greeks.  According to Greek historians and concepts there is a divide in how history is recorded.  The Greeks called this divide - historic and prehistoric. They were very specific that the divide came through the historian Homer and his works.  Thus, the Greeks coined preserved information before Homer as prehistoric and preserved information after Homer as historic.  There are fundamental differences that the Greeks recognized.  Primarily this profound difference is related from symbolic to literal.   Prehistoric has come to mean something different in our era and sadly few understand the Greek reason for establishing their reference.

There is something else we can understand about sacred revelation (scripture).  It appears to me that G-d speaks to human understanding.  I would use the example of Doctrine and Covenants section 88 that was given in an era of Newtonian theory.  I believe that the same revelation is given in Abraham 3 which is a profound reflection of ancient Egyptian Pythagorean theory.  And yet, I believe the revelations are one and the same (similar to Joseph’s explanation to Pharaoh concerning his dreams).

Our modern prophets encourage us to “study” scripture.  Many interpret this advice to study to exclusively mean to “read”.  I have a much broader understanding.  Part of my understanding is the consideration of other opinions.  I enjoy reading what is often labeled as expert opinion as well as discussions with others – including critics.  I have discovered that I learn more from those with different opinions.  I learn very little from those in agreement with my opinions.  I have discovered that some people with different opinions are offended when I ask questions in an effort to be sure I understand them correctly.  In general, I believe this happens most often when they are not well founded in their own opinions.  It appears to me that those expert in a subject and well established have great joy in explaining every detail to anyone interested.

Our 8th Article of Faith states in essence that we only believe the Bible to be the word of G-d when it is translated correctly – I would also add that the Bible is only to believed when it is interpreted correctly.  I believe this to be important because there are no translations of ancient text – rather there is an emphasis of using ancient text as a smorgasbord method to create a “version”.  Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scripture that particular type (family) of ancient Biblical text thought to be the most accurate have been proven to be very inaccurate.  And some text believed to be very inaccurate have been proven to be among the most accurate. 

One last point – the only way I understand that one can follow the “covenant path” is through covenant – which is explained in the 5th Article of Faith – is established through someone called of G-d through His Priesthood.

 

The Traveler

In OUR era, Pre-History is before written records.  It is probably good to go by the definitions of our era in using terms.   It's before we have written records of the civilization. 

With Genesis we have some of it repeated in the Pearl of Great Price.  Overall, the two reflect each other well, though far more information is given in the Pearl of Great Price in the areas it covers of Genesis.

With our Lord, I think the word carpenter derives in translation from a term similar to Craftsman.  I haven't gone into depth to see how they derived the idea of carpenter from Craftsman, but there are many different ways it could have been inferred (or directly stated) what his line of work was.  Working wood would have still been necessary in the Roman era no matter what the location.  Even in the desert of the Nomad they had need of wooden articles.  A prime example (though more for a wheelwright than a carpenter directly perhaps) is a wheel.  Most wheels were not Made out of stone (though not unheard of).  Wood was far easier for many to work and to utilize.  The same goes for the making of various tools they would have had and other instruments that they would have used during their lives. 

Of course, the original post was pertaining more to Genesis than the New Testament.  I think Genesis is accurate (as I stated above) from a PERSONAL viewpoint (not scholarly).  I think as it is used in conjunction with other sources (the Pearl of Great Price already  mentioned above, the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon) we can grow to understand more about gospel principles and our relationship with our Father and his Son. 

There is a LOT missing from it, which is why there is room for many other things to fill in the gaps (such as the aforementioned PoGP).  I think by going to the Temple and participating in ordinances there we can further understand the significance and symbolism found in the stories which are contained in Genesis and how they pertain to us directly in our present day. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share