What do Christians believe about Genesis?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Is the entire chapter of Genesis fiction or a historical event? I ask this because I've heard from multiple people on here that you shouldn't read Genesis literally as if Adam and Eve actually existed.

I've been through 10 years in a private Christian school and not once has any of my teachers ever mentioned that Genesis was not a true story. The same goes with the flood story. Are any of these stories supposed to be taken literally?

yes, all of scripture is true, and may obviously be believed as it is written.
Yhvh does not lie.
(man makes up a lot of complications and deceptions - well then, we can chose to believe Yhvh (G_d), or believe man.)
p.s. man lies. even scientists and priests and pastors and pps.

that is man's nature.

God's (Yhvh's) nature is to tell the truth, always. so trust God by faith in Jesus (Yahushua). He will never disappoint . Man always will disappoint.

 

[alexiscurious]

Because a person becomes separated from God, when he/she starts making choices. What choices can a baby make that can separate it from God?

In Psalm 51:5, David wrote, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” David recognized that even at conception he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.

So David is wrong? Because a baby can't make "choices" while it is in the womb.

 

[alexiscurious]

yes, all of scripture is true, and may obviously be believed as it is written.
Yhvh does not lie.
(man makes up a lot of complications and deceptions - well then, we can chose to believe Yhvh (G_d), or believe man.)
p.s. man lies. even scientists and priests and pastors and pps.

that is man's nature.

God's (Yhvh's) nature is to tell the truth, always. so trust God by faith in Jesus (Yahushua). He will never disappoint . Man always will disappoint.

So Genesis is a historical event?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In Psalm 51:5, David wrote, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” David recognized that even at conception he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.

So David is wrong? Because a baby can't make "choices" while it is in the womb.

very good ! David is right! all flesh is sinful, so Jesus had to die for all.
keep on listening to God's Word. that is GOOD and RIGHT.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So Genesis is a historical event?

you can read, right? read it. God doesn't lie.

 

[alexiscurious]

you can read, right? read it. God doesn't lie.

God didn't write Genesis though...humans did.

 

[Dragons87]

In Psalm 51:5, David wrote, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” David recognized that even at conception he was a sinner. The very sad fact that infants sometimes die demonstrates that even infants are impacted by Adam’s sin, since physical and spiritual death were the results of Adam’s original sin.

So David is wrong? Because a baby can't make "choices" while it is in the womb.

I don't think trying to express theological truth on the concept of original sin was at the forefront of David's mind when he was writing the psalm. He has done some terrible things, and now the penny has dropped, and he realises just how terrible he has been. I'd be expecting a deeply mournful man to be expressing his guilt in exaggerated terms.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

God didn't write Genesis though...humans did.

the ekklesia immersed in Yahushua trust Yhvh that it is His Word as He verifies repeatedly.

other men don't believe Him nor trust Him, and will die without forgiveness if they don't turn to Him.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Is the entire chapter of Genesis fiction or a historical event? I ask this because I've heard from multiple people on here that you shouldn't read Genesis literally as if Adam and Eve actually existed.

I've been through 10 years in a private Christian school and not once has any of my teachers ever mentioned that Genesis was not a true story. The same goes with the flood story. Are any of these stories supposed to be taken literally?

at least in this they were in agreement with Scripture.

 

[aiki]

Is the entire chapter of Genesis fiction or a historical event? I ask this because I've heard from multiple people on here that you shouldn't read Genesis literally as if Adam and Eve actually existed.

I've been through 10 years in a private Christian school and not once has any of my teachers ever mentioned that Genesis was not a true story. The same goes with the flood story. Are any of these stories supposed to be taken literally?

Yes, the Genesis account of Creation is true. God did really create all that exists. Did He do it in six literal 24 hour periods? Hmmm...that's a topic of hot debate in some corners...Regardless of how one wants to understand the term "day" in the Genesis account, God creating everything is an actual historical event. And so are the events surrounding Adam and Eve and their ejection from Eden.

Selah.

 

[Job8]

Is the entire chapter of Genesis fiction or a historical event?... Are any of these stories supposed to be taken literally?

Ask yourself a simple question: "If God wanted to communicate with human beings in human language, would He make things plain and simple, or would He complicate matters by giving us a fictitious or allegorical account about Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the whole history of the line of Seth, Abraham, and Jacob? Would He mix fact and fiction to confuse humans, or would He simply give us the truth, no matter how "fantastic" or "foolish" it appears?"

1. The entire Bible is the Word of God. Genesis is a part of the Torah (five books of Moses) which the Jews regarded (and still regard unless liberal) as the very Word of God. They counted every letter in the Torah to make sure that every jot and tittle was preserved as given to Moses. Some scientific Jews even believe that there is a hidden "Bible Code" in the Torah which is prophetic.

2. Only God and God alone knows how the universe came into existence. Therefore He gave us a very concise account of Creation.

3. Only God and God alone knows how sin and death entered into His Creation. And that is given in more detail.

4. Only God and God alone could provide a remedy for sin and death by His grace, and so we read about Abel, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve tribes of Israel. God would send the Savior of the world -- the Lord Jesus Christ -- through Israel, and Joseph would be a "type" of Christ. Therefore a large portion of Genesis deals with thes people. The book of Genesis is foundational to the whole Bible.

In view of this, when you read Genesis, take everything in its plain literal sense. There are no myths and fables in Genesis, although it is difficult to grasp some of the revelations given therein.

 

[oi_antz]

1. The entire Bible is the Word of God. Genesis is a part of the Torah (five books of Moses) which the Jews regarded (and still regard unless liberal) as the very Word of God.

Can you please provide a reference to the information that supports this? Thanks, it will be interesting for me.

 

[alexiscurious]

Ask yourself a simple question: "If God wanted to communicate with human beings in human language, would He make things plain and simple, or would He complicate matters by giving us a fictitious or allegorical account about Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the whole history of the line of Seth, Abraham, and Jacob? Would He mix fact and fiction to confuse humans, or would He simply give us the truth, no matter how "fantastic" or "foolish" it appears?"

1. The entire Bible is the Word of God. Genesis is a part of the Torah (five books of Moses) which the Jews regarded (and still regard unless liberal) as the very Word of God. They counted every letter in the Torah to make sure that every jot and tittle was preserved as given to Moses. Some scientific Jews even believe that there is a hidden "Bible Code" in the Torah which is prophetic.

2. Only God and God alone knows how the universe came into existence. Therefore He gave us a very concise account of Creation.

3. Only God and God alone knows how sin and death entered into His Creation. And that is given in more detail.

4. Only God and God alone could provide a remedy for sin and death by His grace, and so we read about Abel, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve tribes of Israel. God would send the Savior of the world -- the Lord Jesus Christ -- through Israel, and Joseph would be a "type" of Christ. Therefore a large portion of Genesis deals with thes people. The book of Genesis is foundational to the whole Bible.

In view of this, when you read Genesis, take everything in its plain literal sense. There are no myths and fables in Genesis, although it is difficult to grasp some of the revelations given therein.

That's what I thought! But apparently some people here don't feel the same way. Now I am questioning everything that I've been taught.

 

[hedrick]

That's what I thought! But apparently some people here don't feel the same way. Now I am questioning everything that I've been taught.

You asked in the OP what Christians believe about Genesis. The problem is that Christians believe different things. Roughly speaking there are Catholics, conservative Protestants and liberal Protestants. Conservative Protestants believe that the first 5 books are historical. Liberal Protestants and many Catholics do not.

As Ebia and others have noted, that doesn't necessarily mean that Genesis is not "true." It is nearly certain that parts of the OT were passed on orally for generations. The people who wrote Genesis and other books would have had no direct knowledge of how the earth was created in scientific terms. What they had were the stories of their people. Why would they not include them? These stories set up basic concepts on which people thought about their relationship with God. Look at how Paul uses Adam in Romans. So they were important to include. But they not historical, as e.g. the Gospels, which were written within living memory. (Although even there we can see some historical issues, though minor compared to the issues with Genesis).

The problem is that when we start looking at things scientifically and historically, Genesis looks unlikely. We have a very good understanding of the history of the universe. It goes back billions of years. Given the geological records we can be quite sure that the life throughout the earth was never destroyed by flood. Despite what you may have heard, archaeologists (outside of conservative Protestant archaeologists) are nearly certain that the Exodus couldn't have happened as described in the book of Exodus (though there probably were Israelites who had come from Egypt and were slaves there). To maintain these things, you must either read Genesis weirdly, or (more common) have a separate conservative Protestant version of science, archaeology, history, etc.

Your teachers weren't exactly wrong. They taught you what conservative Protestants believe. They probably felt strongly enough about it that they didn't feel it necessary to tell you about the alternatives. There is a certain amount of animosity between conservative and liberal Christians on these issues. Many conservatives feel that not believing in the literal accuracy of Genesis is rejecting Christianity. If you really asked, I suspect a lot of the CF posters would tell you privately that I am not really a Christian. There was a split in Christianity in the 18th and 19th Cent at least as important as in the Protestant Reformation, about whether or not Christians should accept new science and scholarship. Of course no one actually rejects these things consistently. We're using the Internet, after all. But conservative Christians reject conclusions of science and scholarship where they contradict the traditional conservative understanding of Scripture. At least some of the time. I can't live that way. Maybe you can.

You say you're questioning what you believe. I wouldn't want to see anyone reject the Christian faith because of these issues. There are plenty of Christians (though a minority, at least among Protestants) who accept concensus science and history but are still Christians. After all, the scandal of the cross should be about God's unexpected actions on Calvary, not about convincing people that they need to accept special Christian science and history. But if you've never run into the alternative, you may find it rather different than what you're used to.

 

[alexiscurious]

You asked in the OP what Christians believe about Genesis. The problem is that Christians believe different things. Roughly speaking there are Catholics, conservative Protestants and liberal Protestants. Conservative Protestants believe that the first 5 books are historical. Liberal Protestants and many Catholics do not.

As Ebia and others have noted, that doesn't necessarily mean that Genesis is not "true." It is nearly certain that parts of the OT were passed on orally for generations. The people who wrote Genesis and other books would have had no direct knowledge of how the earth was created in scientific terms. What they had were the stories of their people. Why would they not include them? These stories set up basic concepts on which people thought about their relationship with God. Look at how Paul uses Adam in Romans. So they were important to include. But they not historical, as e.g. the Gospels, which were written within living memory. (Although even there we can see some historical issues, though minor compared to the issues with Genesis).

The problem is that when we start looking at things scientifically and historically, Genesis looks unlikely. We have a very good understanding of the history of the universe. It goes back billions of years. Given the geological records we can be quite sure that the life throughout the earth was never destroyed by flood. Despite what you may have heard, archaeologists (outside of conservative Protestant archaeologists) are nearly certain that the Exodus couldn't have happened as described in the book of Exodus (though there probably were Israelites who had come from Egypt and were slaves there). To maintain these things, you must either read Genesis weirdly, or (more common) have a separate conservative Protestant version of science, archaeology, history, etc.

Your teachers weren't exactly wrong. They taught you what conservative Protestants believe. They probably felt strongly enough about it that they didn't feel it necessary to tell you about the alternatives. There is a certain amount of animosity between conservative and liberal Christians on these issues. Many conservatives feel that not believing in the literal accuracy of Genesis is rejecting Christianity. If you really asked, I suspect a lot of the CF posters would tell you privately that I am not really a Christian. There was a split in Christianity in the 18th and 19th Cent at least as important as in the Protestant Reformation, about whether or not Christians should accept new science and scholarship. Of course no one actually rejects these things consistently. We're using the Internet, after all. But conservative Christians reject conclusions of science and scholarship where they contradict the traditional conservative understanding of Scripture. At least some of the time. I can't live that way. Maybe you can.

What other major events in the Bible aren't historical? Just wondering.

Also:

How can you still be a Christian? I'm confused. If you know for sure that most of these stories are false, and that authors of these stories are deceptively trying to convince you into thinking they are true, doesn't that make you at all wary of how reliable the Bible actually is? If they have no problem misreporting information, why do you believe the rest of what they are telling you in other sections of the Bible? Please answer.

 

[hedrick]

What other major events in the Bible aren't historical? Just wondering.

Also:

How can you still be a Christian? I'm confused. If you know for sure that most of these stories are false, and that authors of these stories are deceptively trying to convince you into thinking they are true, doesn't that make you at all wary of how reliable the Bible actually is? If they have no problem misreporting information, why do you believe the rest of what they are telling you in other sections of the Bible? Please answer.

There are various schools among archaeologists today. Some think David didn’t exist. That seems excessively skeptical (and in fact there’s external evidence that he did). So I would accept a moderate position. That would say that everything before about Judges is largely tribal “saga” and not history. By the time we get to the Kings we see references to historical records, and we start getting into a period where we have information from other cultures. However I have to warn you that even there the accounts are not perfectly accurate.

I don’t think the Biblical authors were “misreporting” anything. I think they were giving us the stories as they had them, and using them to make a point about God choosing their people, guiding and judging them. There is no preface to the Bible, telling us that the authors want us to believe that these stories are just what we’d see if we went back in a time machine. The “historical” books are mixed with a satire like Jonah, with prayers, praise, and messages from God to the prophets, with no specific introductions explaining how we are to understand the nature of each. The prophets are an exception, since they tell us that God revealed them directly. During much of the Church’s history, many of the stories were understood allegorically. Calvin said that Genesis was written giving things in a form that humans would understand them, and thus should not be understood as the way an astronomer would see them.

The Gospels, however, were written fairly close after the events. Luke actually does give us a preface telling us a bit about how he operated. But an honest assessment of even the Gospels says that there are some disagreements between them, and some things in them that are unlikely to be accurate.

I have the reverse problem you do: If Christians claim things to be true that obviously are not, how can we believe anything Christians say? I’d rather be very careful about what I claim. I'd rather err on the side of being skeptical.

 

[alexiscurious]

I don’t think the Biblical authors were “misreporting” anything. I think they were giving us the stories as they had them, and using them to make a point about God choosing their people, guiding and judging them.

So it was perfectly acceptable for these authors to create stories where they were in complete control of what God says and what God does? Sounds a bit dangerous to me. I thought biblical authors only wrote what God wanted them to write.

There is no preface to the Bible, telling us that the authors want us to believe that these stories are just what we’d see if we went back in a time machine.

I completely disagree. Why include such long familial lines and include son of this and king of that? There is no denying that the authors try desperately to convince us that these events are historical.

The Gospels, however, were written fairly close after the events. Luke actually does give us a preface telling us a bit about how he operated. But an honest assessment of even the Gospels says that there are some disagreements between them, and some things in them that are unlikely to be accurate.

So how do you know the gospel writers were not as imaginative as those that came before them?

 

[hedrick]

So it was perfectly acceptable for these authors to create stories where they were in complete control of what God says and what God does? Sounds a bit dangerous to me. I thought biblical authors only wrote what God wanted them to write.

I never said they created the stories. I said that passed on the sacred stories from their tribes. I think they were very careful in doing that, to the point where in many parts of Genesis you can see that they’ve passed on two different versions of the same story (Gen 1 and 2, a version of Noah where he takes a pair of each animal and other where he takes 7 pairs of the ones he is going to sacrifice, etc.), presumably because they had two different accounts in the tradition and wanted to preserve them both.

I completely disagree. Why include such long familial lines and include son of this and king of that? There is no denying that the authors try desperately to convince us that these events are historical.

In Genesis, at least, the members of those lines are largely people whose names are actually the names of various Near Eastern peoples, presumably the founding fathers of those people. Historians look at the genealogies very carefully, to see signs of relationships among various groups.

So how do you know the gospel writers were not as imaginative as those that came before them?

I don’t think the OT editors made things up either. But in the Gospels, they were working from fairly recent memories.