Genesis Unveiled

Introduction

Perhaps, it is important for us to become familiar with the narratives of the biblical texts in way which few people have looked at it before. I think is sometimes better to read the Bible from a scholarly perspective, in order to fully understand it. Although this isn't instrumental to being a Christian, it is something that I'd recommend doing if you feel you have problems with it. Many difficulties arise when people assume that just because the bible is considered divine, that no historical or cultural context needs to be applied to it. To be frank, this is simply not true.

For the most part, there are two camps here. The first are literalists, who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and then there are also what many refer to as modernists, people who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, or in other words those that see the bible as being under divine inspiration but nevertheless filtered through human perception. However, some modernists make the mistake of labelling certain things as purely allegorical, as opposed to actually analyzing the text and the way certain Hebrew words are actually used throughout the different narratives.

For example, a modernists might realize that it's extremely unlikely that Noah's flood actually covered the entire earth, and therefore dismiss it as allegory, when in fact, the context clearly points to a regional flood. The notion that the flood was global could actually be based on a shallow reading of the English translation.

Personally, I dislike the word “modernist” since the authors didn't have a modern understanding yet at the same I highly doubt they were deliberately writing about material creation. I prefer the term rationalist. So why do I reject the literalist view? Is it because it conflicts with science? No. If that was the only reason then I'd have to be an atheist, since many atheists believe that the Bible directly contradicts science and cannot therefore be true. This would be perfectly valid if that were true. In fact, I can understand where many atheists come from, especially those who are former Christians. They probably feel like they have been lied to their entire life.

So no. I reject the literalist view simply because the literalist view very much appears to go directly against the grammar and the intended context of the text. If you delve deep it should become clear that this was not the focus of the narrative. Don't get me wrong, I'm not downplaying everything in the bible. For example, I do not doubt that Moses literally parted the red sea, or that the bike literally turned to blood, or that Jesus literally and physically rose from the dead. There are a number of things in the bible that are miraculous. However, I don't believe that man being literally being made out of dust simply because a. there is no historical evidence for this like there is for other things, such as the resurrection, and b. the actual text not only implies a much deeper meaning, but it also uses a pun, which I'll explain later.

Now, I'm not saying that a literalist interpretation is entirely false, only that it is forcing a low context reading into a high contextualized culture. I believe that strictly adhering to a literalist interpretation is entirely missing the point and it demonstrates a level of ignorance and lack of philosophical understanding. This is not to say that literalists are invariably unintelligent, but in my experience it would seem that a lot of them are. For example, my grandmother was a fanatical Seventh Day Adventist. She was one of the main reasons why I became alienated from religion for much of my childhood. But not all Christians are like this, and there is a much better explanation that fits with the data. Being a theist does not automatically mean that you blindly believe whatever you're told. This is a strawman, just like saying that atheism is anything other than a lack of belief in God or gods.

What do I mean by this? Stick with me and I'll show you. Buckle your seat belts ladies and gentlemen. This is probably going to be a long and detailed answer.

The original manuscripts of the books of the Tanakh (the Hebrew bible) were written in what anthropologists and scholars today refer to as a “high-context culture”. High-context cultures are those that communicate in ways that are implicit and rely heavily on context. In contrast, low-context cultures rely on explicit verbal communication. High-context cultures are collectivist, value interpersonal relationships, and have members that form stable, close relationships.
...