When does the account move from fiction to historical fact?

[Dale Cozby]

After seeing 6 people in the evolution poll vote that the Adam/Eve story is a made up story to cover the evolution of man.....then it would follow that the genealogy of Genesis is fiction since they start with Adam begetting and move along.

Thus we arrive at the next major story...Noah. Since there seems to be scientifically accepted evidence of some sort of deluge, in the old world at least, is Noah only a fictional story told to explain how people survived the deluge?

If Noah is fictional.....then where is the point the Genesis account moves to some level of historical accounting? Abram? the twelve tribes? or is it just a slow movement from fictional to factual with less fiction and more facts as we get toward the end. Or do we still get embellished stories told from Moses and his successors slowly fading into a bit more real history up to the New Testament?

I would kinda like to hear your thoughts on how to move from the stories of Genesis from fiction to history if you think Adam wasn't a real person.

Also what is the criteria you use to determine fact from fiction when reading the Bible?

[Ryan Scott]

It never does. The books of the Bible were written to communicate truth about the relationship between God and creation. They were not written to explain historical events. This is why we have differing accounts of events even in the gospels; one has to jump through some questionable interpretive hoops just to have all the gospels record Christ's death on the same day.

That doesn't mean they can't be reliable witnesses of real historical events, but we can't look at the books of the Bible in the way we view an historical account written by a modern author today.

If the Bible provided historical fact, we wouldn't need faith.

[Daniel Hamlin]

I may respond more, I just don't have the time at this moment.

My answer is that one needs to understand the Ancient Near East context. I'm getting ready to order (through Inter-Library Loan or Amazon) John Walton's "Ancient Near-Eastern Thought". He's a professor at Wheaton.

There is so much scientific evidence *against* a literal Adam and Eve and Noah's flood that it becomes necessary to examine one's presuppositions about what the Bible is, and the "how" and "why" it was written. I don't claim to have the answers since I am on the journey myself. However, I accept that fact that the Bible is inspired and that God wanted us to have those stories. It's just that in 21st century Western culture we typically read into these stories things that the original writer was not really trying to convey, and we try and make these texts answer questions that were not originally intended to answer.

So, I don't have an easy answer to your question. There isn't a simple formula that says "If this, and this, then it is literal".

[Hans Deventer]

Dale, I'd like to put the question the other way around, for I've read yours many times here on NazNet through the years.

From a theoretical point of view, what is left of the Bible and your faith if it could be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that even only one thing mentioned in the Bible was not true historically? I'm not talking about how to prove that, just the hypothetical idea. What would that do to your faith?

[Crystal Lutton]

I happen to believe in the Biblical account of Creation--once I realized the implication of accepting Jesus' atoning death on the cross I looked at the rest of the stories that often the human mind reads and thinks can't possibly have happened and I shrugged--realizing if the cross is true then I believe any of it could be exactly how Scripture says.

That said, I live and die and eat, sleep and breath AT the cross. If someone else chooses to reject any other story of Scripture I won't get sidetracked debating it with them--exactly for the reason that Hans mentioned. If the Genesis account isn't totally accurate, my faith in the cross still stands. If Jonah is a parable used by Rabbi's to teach certain concepts that there is no archaelogical or historical support for (ie that Ninevah ever repented--especially since the Jews put Jonah in with the Wisdom writings and not with history the way the Church tends to) then I'm still good (btw, that's one I do think probably belongs with Wisdom and not with History but *shrug*). At the end of the day--and the end of days--it's our faith related to the cross that ultimately matters.

And I find that many today tend to want to view the accounts of the Ancient Hebrews in a modern day Discovery Channel sort of way--we want to read the Biblical account and have it be a totally accurate narrative as though we're watching video recording all the actual events. That's not how they wrote, though. There is a circular motion to their writing--so sometimes things appear again in the story, in a different way, that are probably the same thing told with a different emphasis. Did Abraham have Sara say she was his sister one time with lots of implications for us or several times and each time *he* learned something new? I happen to believe that the Genesis account of creation includes the creation of "mankind" after the creation of Adam and Eve--the original people--and I find this answers a lot of the objections many have to everyone coming from only two people (both scientifically and timeline-wise).

Ultimately I think that we are not as close as we think to fully understanding all of Scripture and that there are reasons it is able to speak to all different people at all different times in history in complimentary but different ways. It's an amazing book--reflecting the Creator who is beyond our full comprehension. Yet that is why, at the end of the day, I can "accept" and "believe" a lot of stories from Scripture--because I do so knowing that I "understand" in a limited way but NOTHING is beyond God.

[Dale Cozby]

Dale, I'd like to put the question the other way around, for I've read yours many times here on NazNet through the years.

From a theoretical point of view, what is left of the Bible and your faith if it could be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that even only one thing mentioned in the Bible was not true historically? I'm not talking about how to prove that, just the hypothetical idea. What would that do to your faith?

I have had athiests ask me this very question Hans on many occasions. Of course the answer is...by faith I accept the Biblical account as true. By faith I believe it cannot be disproven. Just as they cannot disprove I cannot prove... so the question is rhetorical. In the end:We both believe "by faith" that which we choose to believe and that which is unproven.

They argue they only believe what can be truly and scientifically can be known(very modernist)...but I challenge them as to whether they can really know anything for sure apart from thier own faith in what is sure. Usually this circular debate ends up talking about Descartes.:rolleyes:

So by faith one accepts the Genesis account and by faith another rejects the Genesis account... and some by faith, blend rejection and acceptence of various parts as true.

So my question remains...for those that blend fact and fiction: what parts of Genesis are fiction and what parts have some historical base?

Why can't we just discuss this without condemnation of each others chosen point of faith on the matter?

I see basically four major stories told here:
Adam/Eve
Noah and his family
Abram/Sarai and thier journey
Abraham's children and thier journeys

Which figures are real historical persons? Which are composites of real persons? and which are fictional characters in the story? and why you think so.

[Hans Deventer]

I have had athiests ask me this very question Hans on many occasions. Of course the answer is...by faith I accept the Biblical account as true. By faith I believe it cannot be disproven. Just as they cannot disprove I cannot prove... so the question is rhetorical. In the end:We both believe "by faith" that which we choose to believe and that which is unproven.

So your faith hangs on the idea that nothing in the Bible can be disproven. That seems like wacky ground to me, for it makes your faith rest on a theory about the Bible rather than on the Author of the Scriptures Himself.

So my question remains...for those that blend fact and fiction: what parts of Genesis are fiction and what parts have some historical base?

No way. We've been there so many times before that I'm not going there again. My question remains: where do you base your faith on? My conclusion so far is hardly encouraging so I hope I'm mistaken.

Why can't we just discuss this without condemnation of each others chosen point of faith on the matter?

Because even the very way you ask your question is dripping with sarcasm every time you pose it. I can answer this one quite easily.

[Randy Wise]

So your faith hangs on the idea that nothing in the Bible can be disproven. That seems like wacky ground to me, for it makes your faith rest on a theory about the Bible rather than on the Author of the Scriptures Himself.


Oh that I would keep myself from entering into these threads that seem to promote argument. I would note it is the Author of the Scriptures that heavily influences our view of the testimony found in the Holy Scriptures. So we are not looking for intentional falsehood, (fiction), but for truth. "I" view discrepancies in the testimony as unintentional error not as a lie. To answer your question it wouldn't hurt my faith, but I am not sure about what it would do to those who are in the process of being saved.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

To answer your question it wouldn't hurt my faith, but I am not sure about what it would do to those who are in the process of being saved.

It would not hurt mine either, Randy. I was wondering about Dale though.

And I guess we're all in the process of being saved.

To me, the heart of the matter is that the Scriptures "are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." If they serve that purpose, that's authority and inerrancy enough for me.

[Randy Wise]

It would not hurt mine either, Randy. I was wondering about Dale though.

To me, the heart of the matter is that the Scriptures "are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." If they serve that purpose, that's authority and inerrancy enough for me.

True, I don't disagree in what you state above. "I" just add that those that wrote that testimony as those who would do their best to write down a truthful account of what took place.

Randy

[Hans Deventer]

True, I don't disagree in what you state above. "I" just add that those that wrote that testimony as those who would do their best to write down a truthful account of what took place.

I absolutely agree, Randy. And we believe that did the best they could and even more, were inspired by the Holy Spirit. My point is just that in discussing these things, we can so easily get hung up on the means, that we loose sight of the goal. I don't believe in the Bible, I believe in Jesus Christ, to whom the Bible gives witness. It's a subtle difference, but quite a crucial one.

[Crystal Lutton]

A very crucial one indeed. We cannot ask the Bible to be more/different than it is. It makes claims about itself--those are enough.

[Dale Cozby]

Hans, you cannot by pointing out discrepancies in the accounts prove them false. All it means is we have an incomplete picture. I think you know that.

One person has faith in a theory of evolution....even if it isn't proven...not by a long shot and it has tons of holes and gaps in it. They accuse us of believing in the "God of the gaps" I say people who believe in evolution believe in a "god of the gaps". So we all choose to believe what we believe by faith.

To me, the heart of the matter is that the Scriptures "are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." If they serve that purpose, that's authority and inerrancy enough for me. So you have faith in what the scriptures say....even though you don't believe them to be true.
Hmm....that sounds a bit wierd to me. You grant them authority to determine faith but you admit them to be only fiction. Or is it that you just pick and choose which scripture to toss out and which to hold true? Why can't they all be true and yet not explainable? why toss them out as fiction?

Explaining to someone why some of it is true and some of it is fiction seems harder than to just say...In the end, I believe it to be true by faith
and I don't think we have all the answers.

I am not condemning anyone for thier faith just asking for what and why they believe what they believe. How do you go through the process of deciding what is fictional and what is historical. What criteria is used.
Someone might say the resurrection is fictional..if so how did they come to the conclusion. I just chose the Genesis stories as a point to begin.

And Hans I have my sarcasm turned down as low as it can go right now....really. I am just trying to discuss the question.

"Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings"

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, you cannot by pointing out discrepancies in the accounts prove them false. All it means is we have an incomplete picture. I think you know that.

Dale, I have very purposely NOT stepped into that trap. I have merely raised the hypothetical issue and asked a question based on that. I will NOT try to prove it. So I'm not going into evolution discussions. They don't interest me anyway. In the beginning God created, that's enough for me.

So you have faith in what the scriptures say....even though you don't believe them to be true.

That's what YOU say. I did not.

Hmm....that sounds a bit wierd to me. You grant them authority to determine faith but you admit them to be only fiction.

OK, where did I say that? And if I did not say that, I would really appreciate an apology for what I consider to be an insult.

And Hans I have my sarcasm turned down as low as it can go right now....really. I am just trying to discuss the question.

But you are still not answering my questions and you are trying all the time to get me to answer yours. And I'm not doing that, because the questions are wrong and therefore the answers won't help you.

All that I (and several others) have been trying to do is to get you to see that it is possible to think about this in other categories than the black/white one you seem to be stuck with. I'm not sure if we'll be succeeding, but the fact that I am still writing in this discussion testifies to the fact that I've not yet given up hope.

If I have learned anything through the years, it is that the questions themselves are crucial. They either help you along or keep you stuck. Like the famous "why" question when bad things happen. There won't be an answer so it's a question that just drags one down. So it is crucial for spiritual growth and understanding to learn to ask the right questions.

[Crystal Lutton]

Dale, having had this dialogue with lots of people over the years and I think you and Hans may be somewhat speaking past each other. (Hans posted as I was typing and expressed this as well) You are saying you have faith that the Biblical account of everything (or specific things you have highlighted) is "true"; he is suggesting not that they aren't true but, rather, that we are not instructed to have "faith" that they are. Our faith is to be in Jesus alone.

If our faith is in the veracity of Scripture then what happens to our faith *if* something is actually proven to not literally be the way it is written in a passage? If our faith in Jesus is built alongside or on a faith that everything in Scripture is true as we understand true in our day and age then what happens to our faith in Jesus if our faith in some aspect of a minor story in Scripture is shattered. I know people who will honestly tell you IF it turns out that Jonah did not ACTUALLY happen AS RECORDED then they cannot have faith in ANYTHING in Scripture--including the Cross. That's scary to me--especially considering what I mentioned about the issues of, "Is the book of Jonah a book of Wisdom or History?" If there was not a literal 7 day Creation then they have to throw out the entire Bible. I don't.

If every OT story turned out to be proven "wrong" or somehow not what I understand them to be then I would still have my faith in Jesus! Because of my faith in Jesus I have no issues accepting those OT stories--and I think they are vital to my "understanding" of my faith and the expression of my faith absolutely! But they are not vital to the foundation of my faith in Jesus--it's the other way around.

[Hans Deventer]

If every OT story turned out to be proven "wrong" or somehow not what I understand them to be then I would still have my faith in Jesus! Because of my faith in Jesus I have no issues accepting those OT stories--and I think they are vital to my "understanding" of my faith and the expression of my faith absolutely! But they are not vital to the foundation of my faith in Jesus--it's the other way around.

Exactly, Crystal. It's like with the people from the Samaritan village who said to the woman: "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."

The point of the Bible is that we might "hear for ourselves". It is written in order to lead us to Jesus. That does not make it invalid after that goal has been achieved, but faith becomes rooted in Jesus Himself, no longer in the witness.

This is actually crucial for our faith. Our lives don't always work out according to "the Book". If one thing, we need to learn to trust in God even if certain promises don't (yet) work out as promised. Hey, Abraham, at the end of his live, only owned a place to bury Sarah in the promised land! Still he believed.

[Randy Wise]

I absolutely agree, Randy. And we believe that did the best they could and even more, were inspired by the Holy Spirit. My point is just that in discussing these things, we can so easily get hung up on the means, that we loose sight of the goal. I don't believe in the Bible, I believe in Jesus Christ, to whom the Bible gives witness. It's a subtle difference, but quite a crucial one.

I do believe God helped as well. Yes we are influenced by the Arthur.
Randy

[Randy Wise]

A very crucial one indeed. We cannot ask the Bible to be more/different than it is. It makes claims about itself--those are enough.

Along the same lines in the question, "When does the account move from fiction to historical fact?", its our perception that might change about what was written, not what was actually written. Perception is not a measure of truth.

Randy

[Dennis Bratcher]

If I have learned anything through the years, it is that the questions themselves are crucial. They either help you along or keep you stuck. Like the famous "why" question when bad things happen. There won't be an answer so it's a question that just drags one down. So it is crucial for spiritual growth and understanding to learn to ask the right questions.

One of the statements I have always made to Religion students is that education is not about learning the answers; it is about learning to ask the right questions. It goes along with the old adage that teenagers know all the answers, while maturity is the process of learning how much you don't know and what the questions are.

Unfortunately there is a significant strand of American religion that has focused on having all the right answers, even to the point of a subtle “salvation by correct belief.” Many are slowly realizing that Faith is not about having the right answers about everything, but trusting God with a few simple truths in the midst of a lot of questions and uncertainty. People who have all the answers do not need Faith; it is for those who know how little they know, and are willing to trust God with the uncertainty and doubts (the examples of St. John of the Cross and Mother Teresa come to mind).

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Ryan Scott]

So by faith one accepts the Genesis account and by faith another rejects the Genesis account... and some by faith, blend rejection and acceptence of various parts as true.

So my question remains...for those that blend fact and fiction: what parts of Genesis are fiction and what parts have some historical base?


This is where the problem arises, Dale. I accept the entire Bible as true. Every part of the Bible has historical base in that, when it was written, it was written to teach the people of God something about God and God's relationship to creation.

I don't reject any part of the Bible as anything other than true. Fiction and history are modern literary terms which have no meaning for ancient works like the books of the Bible. The Bible is a true testimony of God's people to the work of God in the world. That's all I need to know and what I wholeheartedly affirm.

The problem comes when you accuse some of us of something different.

[Mark Woodward]

Are we limited to two categories? Fiction or History?
My great-grandfather was a real person, one that I never met. I set at my grandfather's feet as he told me stories of when his father was a lawman, road rails, carried dead bodies. I loved the stories. I also tell them to my children. Is my great-grandfather a fictional character now - no, does he closely resemble who he really was maybe. Is it now fiction? - I say no, Is it history not really.
Just what I think of when offerring the two definitions of History or Fiction.

On the faith issue - Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis" is a good book that talks some about this.

On a personal note - I have met the resurrected Christ. Does not matter to me at all if any of the accounts of His life are proven absolutely wrong. No stone casket with his name on it. No great,great, great, great....grandaughter. No Holy Cup discovered. No other testament unearthed or found hiding in the Popes hat...will detour my belief in the Christ who has met me on my road and "is saving" me. He is enterring into my brokeness and restoring the image of His Father. So I believe whether I am from Adam or Uncle Henry. I believe whether a whale would be good housing for a few days. I believe whether a boat was afloat with a few animals and an old bearded guy. And all of their narratives tell me of the love of my God....some clearer than others - but they all tell the story of the one I have met.
I had always heard Genesis 1-11 referred to as "pre-history" and I have felt very comfortable with that.

[Scott Daniels]

So you have faith in what the scriptures say....even though you don't believe them to be true.


This has been said well by others, but I find it fascinating when truth and historicity are merged in the way Dale does it.

1. I assume that Dale would describe the parables of Jesus as "true" regardless of whether or not the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son actually existed. The lack of historicity of these stories do not make them not "true." In fact, it could be argued that they are indeed more "true" because they are told with the express purpose of telling truth rather than history.

2. Any thinking person recognizes that the Bible is not one book or one type of literature but many types of literature - and each of those types is dealt with differently than other types. (For example, you can't interpret epistles written to specific contexts like gospels written to a general context and you can't treat proverbs like they are promises).

So to answer Dale's question we'd have to start by asking what kind of literature is Genesis? And we'd need to ask is Genesis even one kind of literature?

I would tend to agree with Mark that Genesis 1-11 appears to be a different kind of literature than 12-50 and should be interpreted differently. Personally, I would hold the historicity of both sections loosely, but I would tend to put more historical weight on 12-50 than 1-11, but I hold both sections as absolutely TRUE.

[Steven Martinez]

I am in agreement with many here. I see the problem in that the question posed makes an assumption that fiction is the opposite of fact. The opposite of fact is not fiction, it is opinion. Also I am in disagreement that fiction is the opposite of truth. The book To Kill A Mockingbird is a work of fiction. Yet, it taught me the truth of racism and social injustice in our world. The fictional works of CS Lewis is another example.
The problem with facts is that they reveal only facts, it is the relationship of facts that reveal truth. For example, look at the growing speculation of autism and vacinations. Fact: Autism rates are growing based on reported cases. Fact: Many vacinations contained (in the past) low levels of Mercury. Opinion: Some speculate that vacinations cause autism.
Here is my personal favorite: Autism rates are growing based on reported cases. Fact: George W. Bush is president of the USA. Opinion: President Bush causes Autism.

It is not the facts of Scripture that reveals truth. It is the relationship that we have with God that reveals truth.

[Dale Cozby]

This has been said well by others, but I find it fascinating when truth and historicity are merged in the way Dale does it. Fascinating or provacative?:basic03

1. I assume that Dale would describe the parables of Jesus as "true" regardless of whether or not the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son actually existed. Yes, i would believe them to express truth...even though they are most likely just a story explaining the principle and are not based on a historical or a first century current event.

2. Any thinking person recognizes that the Bible is not one book or one type of literature but many types of literature - and each of those types is dealt with differently than other types. (For example, you can't interpret epistles written to specific contexts like gospels written to a general context and you can't treat proverbs like they are promises). I agree....and I hope I am not being ruled out of the "thinking person" class.:p

So to answer Dale's question we'd have to start by asking what kind of literature is Genesis? And we'd need to ask is Genesis even one kind of literature? THANK YOU!

I would tend to agree with Mark that Genesis 1-11 appears to be a different kind of literature than 12-50 and should be interpreted differently. I agree. It is poetic prose in nature and not like the rest. Written almost in caricature, like retelling a legend metrically learned. Does Adam and Eve exist as two distinct historical figures? I don't know...maybe...and maybe not, but I am not ruling out the story as less than what it is suppose to be.

Personally, I would hold the historicity of both sections loosely, but I would tend to put more historical weight on 12-50 than 1-11, but I hold both sections as absolutely TRUE. Thank you again. That is all I am asking. Where do we start to move from the fable to the historical in Genesis.

I kinda feel beat up now...but at least Scott answered the question.:fav13
Didn't think it would take this long to get to an simple answer though.

Ok, so if the book of Genesis is written in two different styles: poetic prose and historical accounting.....are there other books of the Bible that could be said to be written in two or more styles?

Again thanks Scott for answering the question without making a complete editorial opinion piece on what is wrong with me. Mark, I like what you have to say as well and I agree with you. Personal experience with the saving grace of the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ trumps any possible doubts that could be created by someone's new evidence to refute the Truth we have come to know personally.

[Jon Twitchell]

Dale,

You asked if there were other books that are written in two or more styles.

This doesn't exactly answer your question, but I think that many people think that the book of Job is written more like legend or extended parable, rather than a historical record.

While I am certainly not a scholar, I can see how this conclusion can be drawn, and I certainly wouldn't argue with anyone who thought that Job was not a literal person. However, there is still plenty of truth in the book of Job.

[Ryan Scott]

I don't want to belabor it, Dale, but I thought my original response to your post was sincere and I didn't intend for it to be insulting or attack you. I tried to honestly answer the question. Could you let me know what part of my original answer back on page 1 of the thread was at issue; I'd like to remedy that in the future.

[Scott Daniels]

I don't know...maybe...and maybe not, but I am not ruling out the story as less than what it is suppose to be.

Where do we start to move from the fable to the historical in Genesis.

I kinda feel beat up now...but at least Scott answered the question.

I apologize if I made you feel beat up because I've at times been on the other end of that.

I think you're language at places creates some of the strong reaction. For example, to say that the story is "supposed to be" something infers that those who read it as something different than historical are reading it in ways it wasn't intended to be read. I'm convinced that reading the stories as primarily historical is a relatively new way to read those texts. Perhaps reading them as primarily historical in nature is reading them as less than what they are supposed to be.

Also to use a term like "fable" poisons the well in the conversation by infering that those who don't read them as primarily historical only read them as something akin to a fairy tale. I would not believe the narratives of Genesis 1-11 to be primarily recounted history but I certainly would not use "fable" as the term to describe what they are.

The descriptive words matter.

[Randy Wise]

1. I assume that Dale would describe the parables of Jesus as "true" regardless of whether or not the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal Son actually existed. The lack of historicity of these stories do not make them not "true." In fact, it could be argued that they are indeed more "true" because they are told with the express purpose of telling truth rather than history.



One might state that event actually took place, that is Jesus did in fact teach those parables and the account of that event is truthful.

Randy

[Dale Cozby]

I apologize if I made you feel beat up because I've at times been on the other end of that. No Scott, you didn't beat on me, and you actually answered my question.

I think you're language at places creates some of the strong reaction. For example, to say that the story is "supposed to be" something infers that those who read it as something different than historical are reading it in ways it wasn't intended to be read. I'm convinced that reading the stories as primarily historical is a relatively new way to read those texts. Perhaps reading them as primarily historical in nature is reading them as less than what they are supposed to be. Actually, I never stated what "supposed to be" was. Intending to leave it as open as possible. Not ruling out historical, prose or poetry or some combination. I feel some jump to conclusions based on the langauge I use. ( and past posts to draw conclusions)

Also to use a term like "fable" poisons the well in the conversation by infering that those who don't read them as primarily historical only read them as something akin to a fairy tale. I would not believe the narratives of Genesis 1-11 to be primarily recounted history but I certainly would not use "fable" as the term to describe what they are.

Before I used the term I actually looked up its meaning in the dictionary to confirm its rightful use.
A fable is a story often told to impart a truth or moral teaching without actually being historical. So if the chapters in question are not historical acounts, then fable is a good choice of words to describe them.
Legend would be the other choice, but legend infers a story that has been altered from its historical facts to a point that it cannot be trusted as much as the retelling of a fable. Scine the metrics of Genesis seem to indicate a intentional method of story telling...fable seems to be the right word.

from the Webster dictionary: bolds are mine
fable: a fictitious narrative or statement: as a: a legendary story of supernatural happenings b: a narration intended to enforce a useful truth; especially : one in which animals speak and act like human beings

If it is not a historical narrative then I think that is the right term don't you think?

[Dennis Bratcher]

Before I used the term I actually looked up its meaning in the dictionary to confirm its rightful use.
A fable is a story often told to impart a truth or moral teaching without actually being historical. So if the chapters in question are not historical acounts, then fable is a good choice of words to describe them.
Legend would be the other choice, but legend infers a story that has been altered from its historical facts to a point that it cannot be trusted as much as the retelling of a fable. Scine the metrics of Genesis seem to indicate a intentional method of story telling...fable seems to be the right word.

from the Webster dictionary: bolds are mine
fable: a fictitious narrative or statement: as a: a legendary story of supernatural happenings b: a narration intended to enforce a useful truth; especially : one in which animals speak and act like human beings

If it is not a historical narrative then I think that is the right term don't you think?

No, this is not a good definition of fable as a literary genre. Specifically, the literary genre of fable is a story told in which ordinary animals, plants, or other inanimate objects speak and act to illustrate a truth or moral lesson. There is at least one passage in Scripture that fits the genre of fable: Jotham’s story of the trees who wanted to elect a king over them, told to criticize the ambitions of Abimelech (Jud 9). Nothing in Genesis fits that category, including the serpent.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Dale Cozby]

I think the first part of Genesis is definitely poetry and not prose due to the meter. but the sub-genre is debatable.

But in the first part of Genesis we have God walking in the garden, and the serpent speaking. Both would be fable in nature.

Which would work better to describe it then?
Historical fiction: based on real people or events but not really historically factual.
Legend: usually based on real persons and events but embellished and are unprovable or undocumented historically.
Myth: stories held sacred but are held as all or mostly fiction, used to explain the unexplainable.
Historical non-fiction: factual account of real events
Fable: anthropomorphic fiction designed to tell a moral or philosophic truth.
Parable or realistic fiction: a story that could be factual but mostly just makes a point.

[Eric Vail]

No, this is not a good definition of fable as a literary genre. Specifically, the literary genre of fable is a story told in which ordinary animals, plants, or other inanimate objects speak and act to illustrate a truth or moral lesson. There is at least one passage in Scripture that fits the genre of fable: Jotham’s story of the trees who wanted to elect a king over them, told to criticize the ambitions of Abimelech (Jud 9). Nothing in Genesis fits that category, including the serpent.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

Dennis, thanks for that clarification from one who is in biblical studies. Since this field is more your specialty than mine, how do you feel about the term "myth" in conversations like this? Is it a helpful term when defined and used carefully? Is there a better term than "myth," which scholars commonly use for Gen 1-11, to categorize the genre of Gen 1-11? E.g., I recently read one scholar (can't remember the name right now) who grouped all of 2-11 into the ancient near eastern genre of "flood myth." The scholar claimed that the whole section was a single unit that perfectly matched this flood myth genre.

[Ryan Scott]

It seems like I had a biblical studies professor once you said Genesis was truth in mythic language or something along those lines.

Myth, even by Dale's definition, seems to fit best. I don't hold Genesis as fiction, but I do think it was a faithful re-telling of something unknown and unexplainable. I don't think Israel had the words to express it in any other way. That doesn't make it any less true.

[Billy Cox]

Dennis, thanks for that clarification from one who is in biblical studies. Since this field is more your specialty than mine, how do you feel about the term "myth" in conversations like this? Is it a helpful term when defined and used carefully? Is there a better term than "myth," which scholars commonly use for Gen 1-11, to categorize the genre of Gen 1-11? E.g., I recently read one scholar (can't remember the name right now) who grouped all of 2-11 into the ancient near eastern genre of "flood myth." The scholar claimed that the whole section was a single unit that perfectly matched this flood myth genre.

I compare usage of the word 'myth' to Senator Obama not putting his hand over his heart during the national anthem - there can be a perfectly rational and nuanced explanation, but it is just begging people to home in on trivialities rather than substance.

Although the TV show 'Mythbusters' is a great show, it unfortunately deepens the correlation of 'myth' with 'untrue'.

[Scott Daniels]

Jumping in late again... but as far as "myth" goes - it is a preferable term to fable for me. In academic settings the term "myth" would be used in ways that would be acceptable, but I agree with some of the previous comments that lay people would tend to hear the word as taking away from the weight or truth of a particular narrative account.

With lay people I would prefer to use a term like "inspired narrative."