# Liberal Christians: Genealogies in the Bible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2013, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507 "2013-07-03T03:42:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/81 "2013-07-03T16:49:48Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > I see you have been badly contaminated by fundamentalist Christian thought. You have nominally rejected it, which is good, because it is wrong. But your worldview is still shaped by their ignorance. Catholics have their own ignorance. I think it would be good if you rejected liberal Christianity, you know, because it’s wrong. > [@](#): > > The underlying problem with fundamentalist Christians is that they are focused too much on words. If I were a liberal Christian I wouldn’t want to focus much on words and what they mean either. > [@](#): > > To answer your questions, none of those matter, in any literal sense. I believe in the resurrection as a matter of faith, but in practical matters it’s not important. I will continue to follow Jesus by doing good, not evil. It is its own reward. Do you follow Jesus by renouncing your mommon, leaving your family and preaching the gospel? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/82 "2013-07-03T16:53:42Z")
> [@Rysler](#): > > I recommend [Bart Ehram](http://www.amazon.com/Bart-D.-Ehrman/e/B001I9RR7G/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2?qid=1372869368&sr=8-2). He does a good job of looking at the Bible analytically, and makes a case for what’s probably true and what’s not. Yeah I like Ehrman (watched a few of his debates), if I’m not mistaken he thinks all the miracle stories are false, just like me, and he came to that conclusion by studying the Bible also. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/83 "2013-07-03T17:29:31Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > That does not seem to be particularly reasonable. You believe in evolution, that’s good, but believing people became estranged from God by conversing with a talking snake makes no more sense than believing in 6 day creation. Seriously? Do you read anything that’s not a factual account? Stories can be true even when they’re fictional. Aesop’s fables teach morality. Uncle Tom’s Cabin describes slave life. Your approach is like criticizing a Monet painting because it’s not a photograph. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/84 "2013-07-03T17:36:17Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > That does not seem to be particularly reasonable. You believe in evolution, that’s good, but believing people became estranged from God by conversing with a talking snake makes no more sense than believing in 6 day creation. I don’t believe in a literal talking snake. I believe that humans are estranged from God because, in general, we think we know better and would rather do things that are self-serving instead of self-giving. > [@](#): > > Is it still true if Mary had sex with a man and wasn’t a virgin? Yes. > [@](#): > > What does that mean? The myth of the resurrection is true even if Jesus didn’t rise from the grave? Although I think he really _did_ rise from the grave, the answer is yes, the myth is true even if he didn’t. Christ continues to live today - in me, in his church, in the billions of believers since the first century, even _if_ his body was stolen or something. > [@](#): > > Often said, never cited. Admittedly my last History of Christian Thought class was over twenty years ago, so those cites are not at the forefront of my mind anymore. I’ll see what I can find. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/85 "2013-07-03T17:55:34Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Seriously? Do you read anything that’s not a factual account? Stories can be true even when they’re fictional. Aesop’s fables teach morality. Uncle Tom’s Cabin describes slave life. > > Your approach is like criticizing a Monet painting because it’s not a photograph. No one thinks Monet paintings, Aesop’s Fables or Uncle Tom’s Cabin are important guides for their lives the way many people think The Bible is. If anything, the repeated comparisons made to other media are arguments for why people should stop placing so much importance on the words within it, whatever the messages may be. Uncle Tom’s Cabin might make you think about things another way, but how many would agree that referring to it for guidance is helpful? The logic is not “Many parts of The Bible are fictional, therefore we should reject it completely”. The logic is “Many parts of The Bible are fictional, so even if the messages are good, there is probably no divine influence and it has no special importance over other great literature”. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/86 "2013-07-03T17:56:21Z")
Browsing a few articles and books online supports the idea that most church fathers supported neither a 7-day creation nor an indefinite one, but rather a creation of 7-10,000 years (arguing from the verse that 1,000 years to God is but a day). This supports my assertion that the Genesis account was not generally taken literally. “There is, unfortunately, a common misconception that Christians all used to take it [Creation] fairly literally, and that in a post-Copernican and Darwinian age some of us are now trying to cobble together some kind of non-literal understanding. This is simply not true. At no stage in the history of Christian interpretation of Genesis 1 – 3 has there been a ‘purely literal’ understanding.” - Roger Forster and Paul Marston, Reason, Science and Faith, p.198, Monarch Books © 1999 “And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? . . . That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. **For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production.** ” (Clement of Alexandria, _Miscellanies_ 6:16 [A.D. 208]). “For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, **the history having taken place in appearance and not literally** ” (Origen, _The Fundamental Doctrines_ 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]). “And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when **we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world**.” (Origen, _Against Celsius_, 6:60). For what it’s worth, a reasonably scholarly series of articles on what the early church fathers said about Genesis begins [here](http://www.reasons.org/articles/coming-to-grips-with-the-early-church-fathers-perspective-on-genesis-part-1-of-5). ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/87 "2013-07-03T18:04:02Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > No one thinks Monet paintings, Aesop’s Fables or Uncle Tom’s Cabin are important guides for their lives the way many people think The Bible is. If anything, the repeated comparisons made to other media are arguments for why people should stop placing so much importance on the words within it, whatever the messages may be. Uncle Tom’s Cabin might make you think about things another way, but how many would agree that referring to it for guidance is helpful? > > The logic is not “Many parts of The Bible are fictional, therefore we should reject it completely”. The logic is “Many parts of The Bible are fictional, so even if the messages are good, there is probably no divine influence and it has no special importance over other great literature”. That’s reasonable, as long as you accept that what’s important is a subjective value and that others will make their own value judgements. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/88 "2013-07-03T18:24:45Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Excuse me, I think we are using different definitions. > > When I say Augustine and Origen took Genesis literally, I don’t mean they didn’t allow for deeper meanings, broader principles, layers of interpretation, or figures of speech. I just mean that they considered the obvious, surface meaning to be true and historical, allowing for very minor metaphors like “day” for some other unit of time. > > To give a clumsy example, a Civil War historian might write that Sherman went through the South like a scythe through wheat. If that were in Genesis, I would say that believing that to be literally true would only require believing that a man named Sherman led an army that overwhelmed any resistance and left a path of devastation through the South. It would not require that Sherman did it by himself, or with a scythe, or that he destroyed the entire South. > > I read large parts of _Contra Celsus_ some 40 years ago, so it’s far from fresh in my memory, but scanning through an internet copy does nothing to change my impression of Origen: that he assigns deeper meanings to many of the events of Genesis, like the Tower of Babel, but he defends their historicity. When Celsus claims that stories in Genesis are copied from Greek myths, Origen says that is not so, because Moses predated Homer. > > If you have some specific passages in mind that contradict my expanded definition, please cite them, and I’ll be very pleased to learn something new. My reading of Augustine and Origen goes back 40 years, so I’m no expert. My recollection, probably bolstered by the fact that Augustine and Origen are both commonly cited as non-literalists, is that both of the writers warned against pitting a literal interpretation against observable facts. I’m not inclined to try to accumulate the facts to dispute with you because I don’t care enough about the subject to do the work. A quick look at [Homily I](http://books.google.com/books?id=X_mSBavPcq4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) in Homilies on Genesis by Origen shows him beginning the homily by saying that “in the beginning” is not referring to time, but to creation having its origin in Jesus. That seems pretty non-literal to me. YMMV. If you click on the link, do a search for “beginning”, that’ll take you to the beginning of Homily I. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/89 "2013-07-03T18:59:37Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > If you click on the link, do a search for “beginning”, that’ll take you to the **beginning** of Homily I. (emphasis added) The point in time or the origin? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/90 "2013-07-03T19:17:30Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > My reading of Augustine and Origen goes back 40 years, so I’m no expert. My recollection, probably bolstered by the fact that Augustine and Origen are both commonly cited as non-literalists, is that both of the writers warned against pitting a literal interpretation against observable facts. I’m not inclined to try to accumulate the facts to dispute with you because I don’t care enough about the subject to do the work. A quick look at [Homily I](http://books.google.com/books?id=X_mSBavPcq4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) in Homilies on Genesis by Origen shows him beginning the homily by saying that “in the beginning” is not referring to time, but to creation having its origin in Jesus. That seems pretty non-literal to me. YMMV. Actually, that’s a great example of what I was talking about. He clearly believes that Genesis 1 is a factual, chronological account, but he sees layers of meaning, literal and spiritual, e.g. he believes that the firmament really was created on the second day, and separated the waters from the waters, but then he draws some spiritual parallel to people partaking of celestial water and having lofty thoughts. He doesn’t say it like, “Of course there is no actual X, it’s just a metaphor for Y.” He says it like, “Just as God did X, so you should strive to do Y.” As for “in the beginning,” he’s just saying that Jesus existed before time did, so he’s the real beginning. But he certainly doesn’t imply that the Genesis account isn’t a chronological account of the creation of the world. On the contrary, he says, “there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days. For the second day and the third and fourth and all the rest begin to designate time.” ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/91 "2013-07-03T19:22:54Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Seriously? Do you read anything that’s not a factual account? Stories can be true even when they’re fictional. Aesop’s fables teach morality. Uncle Tom’s Cabin describes slave life. Sure, I really liked Moby Dick and thought there was a lot to learn from it. But seems you guys want to think there really was an Ahab who really went after a giant white whale, that really sank their ship. > [@](#): > > Your approach is like criticizing a Monet painting because it’s not a photograph. No it’s like you read the Iliad, and you really believe in Zeus. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/92 "2013-07-03T19:26:35Z")
But there was a whale, and it sank the Essex. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/93 "2013-07-03T19:29:20Z")
> [@JohnClay](#): > > Are the genealogies in Luke 3 also a myth? If so how can you be sure that Mary was a virgin, etc? Or maybe you don’t believe in the virgin birth, etc. Why are there myths in the Bible? What’s the point of the scholars rewriting out all of those ages, etc, if they’re just myths? Asking why there are myths in the Bible is like asking why there are myths in the Iliad. _It’s a book of myths._ And the geneologies presented for Christ in Luke is certainly fictional, as is the one in Matthew. The latter isn’t even internally consistent, as a quick count shows. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/94 "2013-07-03T19:30:28Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I don’t believe in a literal talking snake. I believe that humans are estranged from God because, in general, we think we know better and would rather do things that are self-serving instead of self-giving. OK, so you are basically making your religion up and what’s in the Bible really doesn’t make much difference.. That’s what I think liberal Christians do to. > [@](#): > > Yes. OK, so a non-virgin is a virgin, very reasonable. > [@](#): > > Although I think he really _did_ rise from the grave, the answer is yes, the myth is true even if he didn’t. He rose from the grave even if he didn’t? That’s a good one. > [@](#): > > Christ continues to live today - in me, in his church, in the billions of believers since the first century, even _if_ his body was stolen or something. I don’t think he continues to live if he’s dead. > [@](#): > > Admittedly my last History of Christian Thought class was over twenty years ago, so those cites are not at the forefront of my mind anymore. I’ll see what I can find. I can’t wait. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/95 "2013-07-03T19:35:45Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I don’t believe in a literal talking snake. I believe that humans are estranged from God because, in general, we think we know better and would rather do things that are self-serving instead of self-giving. I’m estranged from God partly because the Yahweh of the Old Testament is a genocidal monster who gives every evidence of delighting in suffering and liked to murder children for things their ancestors did, and partly because he doesn’t exist. Mostly it’s the second part. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/96 "2013-07-03T19:36:46Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Browsing a few articles and books online supports the idea that most church fathers supported neither a 7-day creation nor an indefinite one, but rather a creation of 7-10,000 years (arguing from the verse that 1,000 years to God is but a day). This supports my assertion that the Genesis account was not generally taken literally. A few quotes does not say anything about what was believe “generally” does it. 7-10,000 years sounds like they are taking things pretty literal. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/97 "2013-07-03T19:41:15Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > But there was a whale, and it sank the Essex. If Melville wrote that Moby Dick rose from the dead and flew around would you believe it? Speaking of whales, what are your thoughts on Jonah? Really swallowed? There was a chapter all about that in Moby Dick. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/98 "2013-07-03T19:47:02Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > Actually, that’s a great example of what I was talking about. He clearly believes that Genesis 1 is a factual, chronological account, but he sees layers of meaning, literal and spiritual, e.g. he believes that the firmament really was created on the second day, and separated the waters from the waters, but then he draws some spiritual parallel to people partaking of celestial water and having lofty thoughts. > > He doesn’t say it like, “Of course there is no actual X, it’s just a metaphor for Y.” He says it like, “Just as God did X, so you should strive to do Y.” > > As for “in the beginning,” he’s just saying that Jesus existed before time did, so he’s the real beginning. But he certainly doesn’t imply that the Genesis account isn’t a chronological account of the creation of the world. On the contrary, he says, “there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days. For the second day and the third and fourth and all the rest begin to designate time.” That’s not what Origen is saying in the quotes I posted above. In fact he specifically says “I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance **and not literally**.” > [@Kable](#): > > OK, so you are basically making your religion up and what’s in the Bible really doesn’t make much difference.. That’s what I think liberal Christians do to. Uh, I don’t know how you get this. My “religion” is based on 2,000 years of Christian tradition and theology as well as the bible. No, I don’t worship a book like some literalists do. The Bible is a source of divine revelation - maybe the most important one - but not the only one. > [@](#): > > OK, so a non-virgin is a virgin, very reasonable. I’m not saying that she was both. I’m saying that the myth of the virgin birth has value and truth. Whether or not she was literally a virgin is immaterial. > [@](#): > > He rose from the grave even if he didn’t? That’s a good one. I don’t think he continues to live if he’s dead. [/quote] Yes, metaphorically he is alive today as he ever was, regardless of what happened to his body. > [@](#): > > I can’t wait. I posted some quotes above from Origen and Clement, and modern scholars, to show that a non-literal interpretations of Genesis go back to the earliest church. Do you want to have a discussion, or do you want to be snarky? Because I’ll engage with you if it’s the former but not the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/99 "2013-07-03T19:49:51Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I’m estranged from God partly because the Yahweh of the Old Testament is a genocidal monster who gives every evidence of delighting in suffering and liked to murder children for things their ancestors did, and partly because he doesn’t exist. > > Mostly it’s the second part. Yeah, that’s what I think too. I’m not to big on Jesus of the New Testament torturing all unbelievers in hell either. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507/100 "2013-07-03T19:51:06Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > A few quotes does not say anything about what was believe “generally” does it. 7-10,000 years sounds like they are taking things pretty literal. How old do you think non-religious people thought the world was in the first century? Plato, I think, guessed a couple hundred thousand years, but 7-10,000 was as good a guess as anyone. Once you make the leap that a “day” is not a 24-hour period, you’ve left literalism behind. If Origen and Clement had lived in the modern era they’d be on board with the scientific consensus (much like the Catholic Church is). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberal-christians-genealogies-in-the-bible/662507.md?page=6)