A major theme of discussions in recent times on these boards has been the relative interpretations of the creation account (Genesis 1), the Garden of Eden and fall of humanity (Genesis 2-3), Cain and Abel (Genesis 4) or the Flood (Genesis 6-8). As there has been such a lengthy discussion on all these points, I thought it would be good to provide one Christian interpretation of the entire section of the early parts of this book.

The first point I would raise is the exact style that it is written in. Contrary to popular opinion, Genesis 1-11 is NOT written as an historical narrative. This entire section of book is written in figurative style, with poetic language, metaphors, and highly symbolic numbers. The exact style is unique in all the Bible. This writing style bears no resemblance to any other section of the Bible in terms of structure. When asked, the pastor at my church (a very knowledgeable theologian) referred to this style as "Genesis 1-11 style".

This section (1-11) covers all the events described in the first paragraph, plus the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). After this point, the style dramatically changes to historical narrative. The imagery disappears, the poetry no longer exists, the numerical symbology stops. Genesis 1-11 is special, written in a special way, and must be looked at in a special way.

At its most basic level, the first 11 chapters of Genesis can be broken into 2 sections. The first encompasses Genesis 1-3 and includes the creation of the world at its ideal point (the way God wants things to be), and details the actions of its two main characters as they destroy this perfect world by eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The second section can loosely be described as detailing humanity's slide into sin and depravity. Starting with Adam and Eve's children, Cain kills his brother, then the world falls deeper into shame, to the point where God destroys it by Flood. But saves a remnant. The world then slides further into sin again, culminating in them desiring to become like God and building a tower to the heavens (Babel). At this point, the writing style changes to historical narrative, and documents Abraham's relationship to God, including the very first promises made by God to bring about a people unto himself.

Taking these broad overall themes then as the reason for their writing, and looking at the poetic and figurative devices used throughout chapters 1-11, can this be taken as a literal account of history? I would respond - Maybe. Personally, i do not think so. I think the figurative and poetic nature of the passages is clear enough indication that it is not literal (highlighted nowhere more clearly than in the creation story itself, which parallels Hebrew poetry very similarly). I believe that some of the events described in this section may have been based on an actual event (the Flood, for example), but whether they are historical accounts is not necessarily an accurate view. However, due to the unique nature of 1-11, many Christians have suggested that it should be taken literally.

Whatever the case, whether literal or figurative (as said, I favour the latter) none of this denies the authorship of the Bible as being the words of God. Due to the figurative nature of the language it is a must when reading this section that it be taken into consideration. Personally I don't see it as an historical account of how things happened. I'm quite happy to leave that up to historians and scientists. Rather these 11 chapters are written for a different purpose (but no less important for that). Gen 1-11 details WHY the world is the way it is, and WHO was responsible for its creation. It sets a platform for the historical account of Abraham (which the Bible leaves in no doubt was a real person) by showing us (the readers) of the need that we humans had for the intervention of God, and of the promises made to Abraham right at the beginning (Genesis 12:1-3). In these promises, God sets the platform again for the rest of the Bible. These promises, detailing to Abraham that he will become the Father of a great nation and through his seed will be born the saviour of humanity. 1-11 shows the need for these promises by showing us a world that despite being created to worship God has turned its back on God and lived its own way, desiring to set themselves in God's place.

Whether a Christian takes a literal or figurative approach to these chapters, this general application provided here in the previous paragraph is agreed upon by all - 1-11 details the way God wants the world to be (in worship to God, 1-3) and how the world has become (sliding into sin, 4-11).

Hopefully this short overview of Genesis 1-11 will be helpful for both Christians and non-Christians in thinking about questions that relate to the application of passages from this section of the book of Genesis. I wish you all the best, and a great Australia Day this weekend

~ Regards, PA

After reading through Genesis again, it seems as if you are probably right. At the same time though, if you are right, it means that us Atheists have even less to "debunk". Being that it is simply poetry, and not actual history. I thought you were going to raise the topic of the flood being local though, but you didn't. I guess it's slightly off-topic, since it really doesn't matter if the story was not based on real history(It may have been somewhat).

That's probably the kindest thing said to me all day, lol

That's a little cynical. Why does it not simply mean that there's a few less questions for you to have been answered? It sounds as if you feel it's your duty as an atheist (why's your name still Zero of Deism, btw?) to debunk the Bible at all costs, and that doesn't sound like you're willing to even entertain the possibility that the Bible might actually be right. It sounds like you're coming in with the preconceived belief that the Bible is wrong and you have to debunk it at all costs.

No. Unfortunately if I were to raise that one issue in the OP then there would have been dozens of questions about each of the individual events in those first 11 chapters that I would also have to have addressed. As I said, I do believe that the Flood may have been based on an actual event, and due to the genealogy in that section, there may even have been a Noah who was loyal to God and lived at the time of said Flood, perhaps even building a boat. But beyond that, due to the nature of the text, I don't think you can make too many assumptions about it, plus added with the translations of "earth" certainly not that it was a worldwide flood. The way I see it, whether it is literal or figurative is immaterial. We will never know (never having been there) until we're at a point when it will no longer matter probably. Either way, it won't affect my life as a Christian, but more importantly, the theological implications of it being historical or figurative are still exactly the same - the overarching theme of this section of text is to show humanity's slide into sin. With that in mind, the application of this section is identical whether literal or figurative so I don't think it really matters per se.

All the best, ZoD

~ Regards, PA

Didn't want to bother anyone with changing my name AGAIN. If I knew it was ok, I'd probably change it. Guess it was a bad idea to put a label on my self in my forum name. I'm actually more of an Agnostic. Anyhow. You've gotten the wrong idea. I said it that way because alot of Christians will preach that specific stories, etc are fact and 100% true, and that's where I like to step in and question things. And I've had alot of circular arguements with Christians about the Noah's Ark story.

Edit:

LOL! Just realized I can change my name every so often. I was thinking about changing it the other day too.

PA are you saying that Genesis 1-11 is like one of those movies that are "inspired by true events" but are not actually entirely factual?Like for example the movie 300?

Assuming that you are correct in your statement and The Bible is the inspired work of God, why do you think God chose to be more 'poetic' with Genesis 1-11? Or do you think that God 'inspired' this work the same way as he did with the other 'factual' books but the author saw fit to write it this way?

^I wouldn't say it's the same as a "Based on a true story" kind of scenario, though I can see how the analogy might fit. It's more a sense that the author chose to convey the message in that manner. For one, there is no indication that there ever was a true Eden. There may have been, but it may not have. The Flood may not have actually happened either, though I wouldn't be surprised if there were not an actual event at its root. The intentions of 1-11 were not a typical historical account, that's all I'm saying. The poetry and imagery are proof of this. I don't think that's the same as a movie that is written as fiction for the purpose of entertainment. Perhaps a docu-drama dramatisation would be a better analogy, if anything - edit: upon reflection this isn't the greatest analogy, sorry.

As for why this section was chosen to be written like this, I cannot say. I don't know why this was written in a different style to the rest of Genesis (indeed the rest of the Bible), I just know that it was. I don't know exactly what you mean by "factual" books, because even the poetic books (Psalms, Song of Solomon, etc) are inspired by God in the same way. It just means that these parts of the Bible have a different tone to them when reading them. A part does not need to be historical narrative in order to mean something to us today. As I said, regardless of whether the events of 1-11 actually happened exactly the way they are told to is not really relevant. The way it was written shows that it was meant to convey the WHO and the WHY, and not really the HOW.

I agree it just begs the question of what is factual and what is purely poetry, imagery, or metaphor.Although the WHO and WHY are the most important people still stress over the HOW none the less.

So you believe that the poetic nature of Genesis 1-11 is the authors doing and not God's?

I ask because everytime a movie comes out that is based off a book people freak out about the changes the director and writers made. Like Alan Moore was upset about the movie version of V for Vendetta. I'm just wondering if God is sitting up in heaven right now thinking "Why did they put all that poetry crap in there...the story was perfectly fine the way I told it"

I just find it extremely difficult to wholely accept because of the fact that these first 11 chapters can be found in a much older religion of the Sumerians. Certainly you would think that the Hebrew God would have kept his TRUE word and self hidden from another culture that would change his name to ENKI and the purposes for creation. It just strikes me as a gross anachronism to think that the hebrews Genesis was the original when you have the sumerians with the almost identical texts from hundreds to thousands of years earlier. I just cannot seem to reconcile these facts to make it seem logical.

Hairston

Hats off to the op
Good post.
Finally, a rational stance on Genesis.

As you said this is one Christian interpretation and of course there are many more ,ranging from the literal truth ,through to various shades of truth

so basically it's a matter of choosing the one that suits you best


fullywired

Right, but unfortunately there is only 1 true interpretation...too bad we cant figure out which one it is

Hairston (doubting Thomas' brother)

True, but according to this interpretation, based on textual understanding of the style, it doesn't matter if it is literal or not, the point is still effectively the same. Whether I choose a literal or figurative interpretation (or in your words "the one that suits me best") the point of the passage is still the same. However, if someone did take it upon them to get something out of this section beyond what I provided, depending on what it was I would have to seriously question their understanding of Biblical Theology. But if they can explain it in a contextual way, then I would not begrudge them a different point of view - after all, this passage doesn't actually affect the way I live, does it? *and as Hairston pointed out, there is only 1 true interpretation, whatever else might be the case*

~ Paranoid Android

My textual biblical understanding is nil.and I have no inclination to improve it .The interpretation of the bible is a personal one,you find what you are looking for just as others find what they are looking for and their views are not your views .The baptists would give you an argument on whether it mattered , if it was literal or not .


fullywired

When I read posts like this from different christians..all trying to explain what something means's in the bible, what other christians means and how they all read it blah blah......all making threads to lay out their points...and I think...what does this actually show me??

it just gives the impression that..they want skeptics to read it(hence the reason it is posted in a skeptics board).. all and hope they understand it and maybe (just maybe) convert over...

but see I never ever ever fall for it...Im not that easy to convert...I look into things too much

The most important part of the OP WAS:



Xianity is all about agenda, agenda agenda. When the Bible contradicts known science, church doctrine, and/or history, well, It's "symbolic". When it agrees with Church doctrine, it is "literal history". The orthodox Jews believe that these passages are literal truth. I am of the opinion that they conceal valuble secrets held in mystery schools for centuries, later misunderstood. Like the crucifixion and resurrection of Yeshu, for example: deliberate fiction, written to teach a spiritual point. Despite the point that no single event in the n.t. is in outside recorded history, the Church teaches it is literal truth, so xians blindly follow and don't question. Yeshu never speaks of being God or creating the universe, or the trinity, but that is what the church teaches, so that part, they have to say is symbolic; you have to "read the trinity into" the text, when it is simply not there. If you say the snake, the garden, the woman and the flood were a myth teaching something symbolic, look at the xifiction and prove there is a difference; you will lose.

He clearly stated he just wanted to show how Genesis isn't literal history. I don't see how it suggests he's trying to convert someone. Seems as though he just wants to give more information on Genesis the next time someone brings the subject up.

I disagree. While the interpretation of the Bible can be personal, this interpretation cannot conflict with textual reasoning. While not quite as obvious to discern with a passage such as Genesis 1-11, there are many places that are clear and people will read into it what they will, in direct contradiction to the actual words. I can see how you arrive at your conclusion but I would say that it is based on a poor understanding of scripture. HOWEVER, the unfortunate thing about what you say is that all too often it is a true statement and people take just that view of the Bible. As I said, if they can back it up with the text, then good for them and I'm happy to leave them to their interpretation. Having never met an American Baptist I can't say that I know exactly what you mean in your final statement, but knowing Australian Baptists I can say that they couldn't care less (I guess they probably believe it's literal, but they wouldn't care if I don't believe the same).

~ PA

According to Hebrew tradition, the first five books of the Bible (also known as the Pentateuch or Torah) were written by Moses after he had led the Israelites out of Egypt. God actually dictated letter-by-letter to Moses what to write and this why it is written in such a unique way (in the original language, the words don't have any spaces between them).

Now I'm not sure if I believe all that, but I do accept that Moses probably wrote them. This would mean that they weren't first-hand accounts and that they were written a long time after the fact. If what Genesis says is true, then all people of the earth, even the Sumerian people, came from Noah. That would mean that you would have similar stories and versions of events (like the Deluge) in lots of different cultures. It would make sense that some of these cultures would have documented their traditions, even before the Jewish people (who were in slavery in Egypt for close to half a millenium immediately before the Torah was written). In my mind, having similarities actually scores in favor of the validity of the text. I would be much more skeptical if the Hebrew traditions were drastically different then anyone else's. If that were the case, it would mean that not a single culture anywhere remembered their actual past, which I find highly unlikely.

Not so!

I don't like to spam with one word/one smilie responses, but I cannot help myself in this instance. My intentions had nothing to do with conversion, but rather to simply explain a section of the Bible that has been debated to death in recent times. If you wish to read sinister agendas behind it, then so be it. I won't fall for it either, I also look into things too much

Ah I see. And the textual basis for showing the symbolic nature of this section counts for nothing according to you. From a "xian" point of view the only possible point is that this section contradicts modern science and so therefore to us it's wrong whereas other parts that don't contradict science and therefore are literal. Honestly Gid, take off those anti-xian spectacles for a moment and read what you wrote. Even when the passage shows clear figurative and symbolic meanings we (xians) are still rationalising because you don't like our beliefs.

Good day, I wish you the best Gid

~ Paranoid Android

Well ok PA sorry about that...my apologies

but I also mentioned how others HAVE in fact done this..I used to wonder WHY...

Think about this..how often have you tried to explain what certain things mean in the bible and only to find people STILL disagree and still make you think they dont get it?? You could do it till the cows came home...UNLESS you pinned the topic so that when new members arrive and they are going to talk about the book of genesis ..they will always see your thread...<--just an idea

I think your missing the point here .you say that textual basis shows the symbolic nature of the section but other Christian disagree with that and say it means what it says ,you appear to be saying that only sceptics atheists dispute your version of it .I say other christians also dispute it
It is just your view of it .

fullywired

Good post. I take 95% of the bible to be poetic and an insight to spiritual intuitive truths.

For an example it is only figurative writing that God made Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve and therefore the garden of eden in genesis cant be used as a literal truth as prejudice against homosexuals.

Also the new testament mentions more than once that 'God has no partiality' and therefore God loves us all whether sinners, Buddhists or atheists as equally as repented sinners.

So you are open to the possibility that the first five books of the bible wernt God inspired and just written by Moses without divine insight?

But if it isnt in direct contradiction to the actual words but merely a different point of understanding based on those same words? Words like people are quite ambiguous.

For an example someone like Meister Eckhart or St John of the Cross come to very different conclusions about passages in the bible with contradicting the words as opposed to many of the mainstream orthodox believers I have met.

Is the geneology symbolic?
It is written as dry, factual reporting. I take exception that the "years" mean "months", but a dry, boring list of "begats" is hardly symbolic. Did you even read the passages you allude to, or are you just parrotting what your preacher said. Why is geneology symbolic? Why do you just post something about what your minister said, without researching? Why do you refuse to research the symbology behind the "crucifixion" and "resurrection"? This is not a flame, but your ignorance is irresponsible. This is not an emotional response, just the truth.

I think trying to define what type of writing it is is just over-analyzing.

Why? Because let's be honest.. we know that no matter how it was written, the reading/perception of it will be changed to fit with the common knowledge of the time.

If the bible clearly said "And he made a disc of cheese to float among the stars", while talking about the moon, it would have been believed up to the 18th/19th century, and then when that was considered ridiculous it would be turned into metaphor...

The writing style really never was a factor in whether people believed it or not. Because nobody can really seem to agree on what it's actually even trying to say. There are plenty of people who actually think two of every animal went on an impossibly gigantic ark that was built alone by one man, and then somehow managed to survive for over a month with inadequate food or water storage. And yet, plenty of people will say that never happened, and the whole story is just a metaphor or parable.

I think the believer decides what the belief actually is.. because the beliefs of the people who are following the exact same blueprint end up completely different and contrasting.

To be at all objective though, you have to read it literally. The literal interpretation is likely what has been believed by most Christians for many many many years before the modern age was able to bring some reason into things.

And Gideon Mage, a small note.. I don't think Christians believe years mean months in the genealogy. Christians believe that people used to actually live that long, but God just randomly decided to shorten peoples' lives at some point.

I don't know much about either of the people you mentioned, but if their words are not in direct contradiction to the Bible, then as long as their contextual reasoning is sound I see no reason why they can't have different interpretations of the same passage (key words - as long as their contextual reasoning is sound).

~ PA

As you yourself would know such different interpretations is inevitable with religion.

I would say that the genealogies recorded contain some level of truth to them, perhaps based on actual lineages of Abraham.

First, I have read these passages myself. Extensively, and many times. My post was based on my own point of view of reading this section, not on the words of my pastor. Just so you know, my pastor believes this section is literal (whereas I obviously believe it to be largely symbolic, perhaps based on real events in some parts). So if you think I'm parroting, keep that in mind I only brought up his comment because I felt it relevant to discuss the style it was written in - and "Genesis 1-11 style" is about as effective a phrase as I can think of to describe it. So once again, take off those anti-xian spectacles and try and actually read my words, and don't assume that everything I'm saying is simply being repeated verbatim from my pastor.

Second, I don't think I would say that the "years" are "months" in the genealogy. Apart from anything else, if this WERE the case, when Adam lived 130 years months, he would have been just under 11 years old when he fathered Seth. In fact, Mahalalel would have been just 65 years months old when he fathered Jared, making him the grand old age of 5.42 years at the time. I believe there probably were real people upon whom these genealogies were based, and they very well may have lived as long as suggested in the genealogies. But what I am getting at is the point of Genesis 1-11 is more to do with the slide into spiritual obvlivion than it is for anything else, and most definitely not necessarily as an historical account, though some of the events described may actually have happened. The genealogy in Genesis 5 covers less than a page (as does the one in Genesis 11 leading to the birth of Abraham), hardly what you would call extensive reading in the context of those first 11 chapters.

Third, I would suggest you take that chip off your shoulder before responding to this. It may just stop you making false assumptions and silly accusations just to support your preconceived notions of us xian parrots

~ Regards, PA

I beg to differ. The style anything is written in (not just a part of the Bible) is of vital importance. Would you read a Robert Frost poem and say "looking at it as literal or figurative is just over-analyzing"? Certainly your English teacher would cringe - I'd give you a 0 if marking that essay. Why does the writing style of a piece of text have such important meaning, except for the Bible - at which point it becomes "over-analyzing". As I can see, to not take the writing style into consideration is lazy.

You are right to an extent with your observation that some people will take it as literal and some not. But when you take the writing style into consideration, whether it is literal or figurative becomes meaningless. What is more important - FAR FAR more important, is the picture we see of humanity sliding into sin. Which has been the point of my post from the beginning.

All the best, KBA.

~ Paranoid Android

I'm not saying you shouldn't look for the writing style, I'm saying it's not really all that relevant to an argument.. because no matter what style it is written is it will be perceived in vastly different manners by people.

At the same time though, someone like me could say the importance of the story is to establish the power of God as a vindictive entity who will slaughter his creations if they simply act upon the desires that he gave to them in the first place.

I too would come to this conclusion in any writing style. So, like I said.. I think the writing style becomes relatively unimportant when actually discussing the implications of the writing; and everyone still manages to draw their own conclusions.

As always
KBA

You could, but I would counter that such an interpretation is contrary to the rest of Genesis which is clear to point out God's desire to bring the people into a relationship with him. From God's providence in choosing Jacob over Esau (and keeping Esau safe and bringing him to power afterwards despite this), to watching over Isaac and Abraham, to keeping Joseph safe when he rose to power in Egypt (as just a few of the more prominent examples in Genesis), this is completely contradictory to the nature of Genesis 1-11 if we take the vindictive approach to that section.

I do see what you mean, but just because many people interpret it many ways does not mean that they are right in doing so? Whether people disagree over specific points of the section (whether it was literal or figurative, for example), the overarching theme of 1-11 remains, which is (as said) the point of this post. I haven't met a Christian online or in real life who disagrees with the overarching theme of Genesis 1-11, though they may disagree with my taking particular parts as symbolic.

If ya know what I mean

~ Regards, PA

no chip, neither do I make any assumptions. I report what I see.

Yep. The entire Bible could be a giant farce, the most elaborate combination of imagination and hoaxes the world has ever seen. I could be a huge fool, falling for it hook, line and sinker. This possibility makes me rely on my faith that much more.

How about you? Are you open to the possibility that the Bible could be exactly what it says it is, the literal Word of God?

Anything is possible even that idea that the bible could be a hoax just like any other religions could be,
Like I’ve said before faith in ANY religion is what makes the difference.

You are at least open to the possibility. I admire that.



I am open to the possibility. I am open to ALL possibility (I take this to philosophical extremes).

"But nothing is impossible for God." --Luke 1:37

Therefore yes the bible could be the literal word of God
It might not be the literal word of god
It might be both the literal word of god and not the literal word of god
It might be neither the literal word of god and not the literal word of god.


Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” ---Matthew 19:16-26


Therefore yes with god it is possible (so great is his glory) that he created a godless universe excluding his own existence. How I dont know. All I know is that with God all is possible.

Let’s turn the question around are you open to the idea that it might NOT be the word of God?
Just because I believe that anything is possible does not make me a believer in your God.

I like your writing style. The way you point things out so clearly. Not many people write this way anymore. I will look forward to reading anything else you write. Thank you.

And that, my friend, is the definition of open-mindedness. Oh, how refreshing it is.

Your admiration is returned to you two-fold.

True..Brave is always open minded

Of course I am open to the idea that it might not be the word of God. That and an infinite other things.

Pity you wernt open minded when it came to atheists lol...but we wont get into that

1. Hebrew scholar Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
   
   
   'Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:
   • (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
   • ( the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
   • © Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.
   • Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.' <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c024.html#f9">[9].

fullywired

^Hi fullywired,

Thanks for that. It was quite informative. However, if you have noted, I have not said that this section was fiction. I said the writing style was unique amongst the Bible. I have stated that the events of Genesis 1-11 may have been based on real people and real events, and the genealogies based on real people. But that does not by proxy mean that Genesis 1-11 is an historical account of the events.

That said, this website makes the statement that the writing style of 1-11 is not significantly different from 12-50. On this I will have to do further reading because everything I have read has shown it to be written in a decidedly different style - so much so that scholars have often debated whether 1-11 was written by a different author than the rest of Genesis (indeed I can see the symbology quite clearly when reading it myself). This is the first source I have read that has disagreed with that assessment. I'll do further reading and further research over the next few days (very late right now where I am).

As an interesting aside, that website you linked also states of this Professor's beliefs: Note that Prof. Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis is historically true; he is just telling us what, in his opinion, the language was meant to convey. If he doesn't believe that, then what is the point of his commentary that others believe that? Just a thought.

~ Regards, PA

He was pointing out that all respected scholars believe it means what it says and is not figurative or allegorical.Whether or not he believes Genesis is immaterial.I find it strange how you accept biblical scholars opinions when they agree with yours but reject them when they don't.



fullywired


fullywired

Hi fullywired - I haven't rejected anything. All I have said is that I will need to do further research on this person's claims, because from everything I have read this person's view completely contradicts what every other scholar has said on the matter. Saying "I need to do further research" is not my sneaky way of saying "I don't believe it, so I'm just going to try and fob it off". It means I will do further research and get back to you at a later date when I have compiled my findings.

But while we're speaking of strange things that we accept and reject, it's strange that I have seen you reject Christian websites because of their "inbuilt bias" (your words, according to a search I made of your post history), yet in this case you used a Christian site because it also supported your argument (or at least, that it went contradictory to mine). Is that not the same thing?

~ Regards, PA

No not really .I knew that if I had used a non christian site, your reaction would have been "it's biased" so especially for you I chose a Christian one (thereby demonstrating my unbiased opinion ) and any "inbuilt bias" is in your favour not mine


fullywired

















fullywired

I think your pulling out the old chestnuts on this one FW.

Hairston

Of course he's right P.A.
We KNOW the Genesis stories are far more ancient and came from sumeria, whereas the later stories were the actual history of the Hebrew people. And accepting this fact makes the Bible a more realistic document. In the original version, Adam is not the first man, he is one of many men in the stone age city of Eridu, and a Garden by that city was the precincts of "the great dragon of eridu", Enki and it was called Eden. After many retellings by illiterate hebrew shepherds, Enki becomes the talking serpent (actually still a winged 'dragon' who loses his wings as punishment in the Hebrew version).

In the original 'Genesis', People lived and died for centuries. Adam was simply offered immortality (apparently an angelic post since old testament angels are simply immortal humans who still must eat food), as a reward from the High God in Heaven, but the dragon, 'assistant' God of the City of Eridu and Eden tricks Adam because Adam is a fisherman by profession and he does not want to lose this useful servant who feeds him. After centuries of retelling this story as an oral tradition, it became the much more fanciful version we see in the Bible.

This is also why there are TWO distinctly different creation stories in Genesis, the remarkably scientific one where life begins in the Sea, describes dinosaurs and their relation to birds, then mammals and mankind is LAST, is the original creation attributee to EL, who is the high God Anu in the Sumerian Eden. And later was added the ridiculous "second" Eden story in wich Adam is created first, and then the animals afterwards because Adam was 'lonely'.

And who created this silly second story that makes the Bible sound so silly? It is attributed to the 'other' God of the Hebrews,Yahweh, who scholars tell us was previously the canaanite dragon god "Yaw", also the son of EL, and before this he was the dragon god of the original Eden story, Enki. This is probably why Yahweh ordered Moses to make his idol in the form of a fiery flying serpent, and why in several places Yahweh breaths fire and is described with wings, and is given virgins and fatted calves.

Later, the Hebrews melded the High God of Heaven El with the tribal 'dragon' god Yahweh who was once Enki, and this is why Christians today worship the dragon who kills millions in the Bible, instead of the Creator God El, that Jesus told them to worship and who was his actual "Father". This is why he called to Eloi from the cross, and not the dragon Yahweh. The Yahwehist priest probably added this second creation story to flatter the terrible Yahweh, the tribal God of the Hebrews instead of El the Creator who was a far more distant being to them, and ultimately melded into Yahweh. Now Christians believe El is just another name for God oblivious to the fact he is not the same 'God" as Yahweh.