The Historicity of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation

[mark kennedy]

Genesis has come under attack again and again in these forums and what is absent from the discussion is the book itself. I have a challenge for Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists alike, let's look at the narratives themselves and come to a straightforward conclusion.

Are the events described in Scripture, described as historicial narratives represent actual events? To start with let's look at four primary events:

Creation:

Described as happening in six literal days in Genesis one. The word used for 'creation' is 'Bara'= to create absolutely (Psa 148:5, Isa 40:26, Deu 4:32, Jer. 31:22) ‘create’ and renew (Psa. 51:10). This kind of creation is ascribed to God alone since it is a creation from nothing Ex nihilo

This creation account is unique in that God is personal, eternal and the creator of nature as opposed to being produced by nature. Pagan mythologies are notoriously naturalistic, for example:

"Enuma elish la nabu shamumu...
When on high the heaven had not been named.
Firm gound below had not been called by name.
Naught but primordial Apsu, their begetier, and Mummu and Tiamat, she who bore them all.
Their waters commingleing as a single body.
No reed hut had been matted, no marsh land had appeared;
When no gods whatever had been brought into being,
Uncalled by name, their destinies underminded.
Then it was that the gods were formed within them."​

(Ancient Iraq by Ceorges Roux 3rd ed. 1992)

This is in strong contrast with the traditional Christian view of creation that focuses on God as acting in time and space to create life on this planet fully formed:

"The Eternal Creator Has No Peer. The assertion that the one, eternally existing God of the patriarchs and their descendants is the Creator must surely have been intended, at least in part, as a polemic against the pantheons of gods of other peoples—Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Canaanites—with whom the Israelites came in contact. The creation myths of these people often included accounts of the origins of the gods and conflicts between the gods. These divine rivalries frequently provided the context for the establishment of the universe and the rhythms of nature.The Creator Has No Rival. The God of Israel's unchallenged hegemony over the various realms of the cosmos and the creatures that inhabit them further emphasizes his uniqueness in comparison to the gods of other nations. Whereas typically their domains are limited and they must contend with rivals, his rule is uncontested. The author of Genesis 1 takes great pains to demonstrate to his audience that the universe is not populated with deities or demons who need to be subdued or appeased, but that it is all controlled by one Creator. He does not need to struggle with nature in order to make it conform to his plan and purpose. Neither is his creative word the sort of magical incantation that is attributed to Ptah and Re in Egyptian mythology. It is the sovereign God's simple command which, when uttered, produces the desired result. Furthermore, the primeval ocean is not a divine behemoth, like Tiamat, to be butchered in order to fashion earth and sky, but an impersonal part of the universe over which God's potent wind/Spirit broods (v. 2). Indeed, the great sea monsters, which cavort with the myriads of other creatures in the watery depths, are his handiwork (v. 21 cf. Psalm 104:25-26). The seas, which are remnants of the original watery chaos, are assigned borders at earth's edges (vv. 9-10 cf. Job 38:8-11; Psalm 104:5-9; Prov 8:29). " (Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology Create, Creation. Available free online at htmlbible)​

My position is not ambiquise, the view that life emerged and evolved through exclusivly naturalistic forces is intrinsically pagan. It is no different then the pagan elementals thought to be the primary first cause of creation of even the gods themselves. Order out of chaos is the primary theme of all of the pagan mythologies that I am familar with.

My challenge is simply this, God (Elohim) revealed to Moses following the Exodus from Eqypt a true and accurate account of the historical creation. The creation is not just poetic prose written for a select group isolated in their cultural and historical settings. Creation 'in the beginning' is foundational to the canon of Scripure which is why it is the focus of secular attacks on the historicity of Scripture.

I wanted to start with Creation but I will by no means end the thread there, assuming the thread generates enough interest to continue through the Fall, Flood, Bable...etc.

So the first event under consideration, special creation of living systems, fully formed by divine fiat or exclusivly naturalistic processes:

When God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth, the earth was empty and waste.— “The earth was aempty, and without form, and was of no use.” — He moreover teaches by the word “created,” that what before did not exist was now made;
for he has not used the term יצר, ( yatsar, ) which signifies to frame or forms but ברא, ( bara, ) which signifies to create. ברא It has a twofold meaning — 1. To create out of nothing, as is proved from these words, In the beginning, because nothing was made before them.
2. To produce something excellent out of pre-existent matter; as it is said afterwards, He created whales, and man. Therefore his meaning is, that the world was made out of nothing. Hence the folly of those is refuted who imagine that unformed matter existed from eternity; and who gather nothing else from the narration of Moses than that the world was furnished with new ornaments, and received a form of which it was before destitute. This indeed was formerly a common fable among heathens​

Commentary on Genesis - Volume 1, Calvin, John (1509-1564)

 

[Mallon]

Other: Poetry, parable, myth, and factual history -- all of which convey the spiritual truths God intended.

 

[artybloke]

As Mallon said. Why should there be only one type of literature allowed in the Bible?

 

[busterdog]

As Mallon said. Why should there be only one type of literature allowed in the Bible?

Obviously they are all allowed.

What remains at stake is the truth. Which category one picks radically changes your view of what is true and what isn't. Some passages belong in one basket and others in a different basket.

What TE needs is a key in Scripture that allows one to make that choice reliably.

 

[Mallon]

What TE needs is a key in Scripture that allows one to make that choice reliably.

I would argue YECs could use the same. I've yet to see any two YECs interpret Scripture in the same way. Some believe Jesus' parables were factual events; others believe they were simply truths couched in story. Some believe what the Bible has to say about cosmology; others interpret the Bible's cosmology metaphorically. Et cetera.

 

[artybloke]

What TE needs is a key in Scripture that allows one to make that choice reliably.

We need no such thing. All we need is a mind that recognise metaphor when it sees it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Are the events described in Scripture, described as historicial narratives represent actual events? To start with let's look at four primary events:


ok.
take just a few words from Genesis 1 that are repeated several times.

"And God spoke"

is this a metaphor?
or did God speak out sounds, was it a language? or is it an anthromorphic metaphor that demonstrates God's accommodation of revelation to our human level by putting things into our terms?

just a few simple words.
and 1 simple question.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

is this an anthropomorphic metaphor or is it an accurate historically-correct and scientifically-observable statement?

 

[busterdog]

I would argue YECs could use the same. I've yet to see any two YECs interpret Scripture in the same way. Some believe Jesus' parables were factual events; others believe they were simply truths couched in story. Some believe what the Bible has to say about cosmology; others interpret the Bible's cosmology metaphorically. Et cetera.

Fair enough.

But, the need for a key does not mean that we all get to decide what it is going to be. Scripture should decide.

Is there another book of the Bible that makes metaphor its primary subject matter and which begins with metaphor?

The Song of Songs tells you clearly when you are dealing with real body parts and when you are dealing with similes. Isaiah mixes historical figures with graphic metaphors of particular events. However, it does not mix it metophors of real days and metaphorical days.

Can you make a case for the proposition that the day of the Lord is really and "age" of the Lord?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Is there another book of the Bible that makes metaphor its primary subject matter and which begins with metaphor?

why are you started at the book level?
do you think every passage is to be interpretated with the same hermeneutical rules simply because it is in the same book?

start at the word, phrase, sentence or even one idea level. Why make the issue one of Genesis versus Song of Songs? Genesis itself is a large document which contains a number of very unique passages written in very different styles and with different purposes, POV's and language.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I think it's silly to talk about the Bible as though it must be "all or nothing". Why would you expect an entire book, much less a collection of books by different authors, to contain the exact same tone and intention? That obviously is not the case, since the writing styles employed throughout the Bible are not identical. I think we can clearly establish that not all things in the Bible are historically accurate, as that term is now understood. This has been repeatedly done.

Some parts of the text were obviously intended as histories: the Books of the Kings, for example. Clearly these were intended as a national history of sorts, to the best of the memory and knowledge of those still living when it was written. Yet this does not mean that Kings I and II are completely devoid of metaphor. Nor should it. A book of history with no deeper spiritual meaning would be useless as Scripture, wouldn't it?

And what is history, anyway? You can read twenty different accounts of what happened on a given day and learn twenty different opinions. Why should the Bible be different? Why would we need four (or more) gospels if this were not true? Human truth is fickle and fading. The truth of Christ is an everliving spring.

"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.


For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ."

 

[mark kennedy]

Are the events described in Scripture, described as historicial narratives represent actual events? To start with let's look at four primary events:


ok.
take just a few words from Genesis 1 that are repeated several times.

"And God spoke"

is this a metaphor?

Is this a metaphor?

“And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. And He was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake Him, and say unto Him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? And He arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. “And He said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? How is it that ye have no faith?”--Mark 4:37-40​

Is this a metaphor?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it. John 1:1-5​

The Scriptures are very clear when it says God spoke:

The earth was emptiness, but by a word spoken, it became full of God's riches, and his they are still. (Matthew Henry)

When this work was produced; In the beginning - That is, in the beginning of time. Time began with the production of those beings that are measured by time. Before the beginning of time there was none but that Infinite Being that inhabits eternity. Should we ask why God made the world no sooner, we should but darken counsel by words without knowledge; for how could there be sooner or later in eternity? (John Wesley)​

or did God speak out sounds, was it a language? or is it an anthromorphic metaphor that demonstrates God's accommodation of revelation to our human level by putting things into our terms?

just a few simple words.
and 1 simple question.

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

is this an anthropomorphic metaphor or is it an accurate historically-correct and scientifically-observable statement?

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. (Job 38:1-4)​

Rethorical hair splitting aside, In the beginning God simply means that there was nothing before that time, time itself begins at that point. Do I fathom God speaking the universe into existance ex nihilo? Not really

Do I accept the emergance and complexity of life from purely naturalistic causes as compatable with Genesis 1?

Absolutly not!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

so:
God spoke is not a metaphor but a scientifically and historically accurate account of what really happened?


but we know sound requires a medium, therefore God did not creatio ex nihilo but spoke into something that was already present to carry the sound waves, this is the essential definition of speech and sound.

therefore:
In the beginning God simply means that there was nothing before that time, time itself begins at that point. Do I fathom God speaking the universe into existance ex nihilo?

is a logical contradiction if "God speaking" is not an anthropomorphic metaphor.

This is connected to a whole series of similiar metaphors:
Jesus is the Word, the Bible is the Word of God, inspiration as the authors carried by the Spirit, Adam's first breath as a wind from God. All of which build and manipulate this great picture of invisible breath having power to accomplish physical things.

The problem is misplaced concreteness in reducing "and God spake" into a scientifically and historically accurate newspaperman account of the creation event. In doing so you are loosing the connection to the richness of the metaphor and concentrating of the physicality of the event. In order to try to perserve what you think is the literal, common sense meaning of the verse.

misplaced concreteness is as dangerous as allegoricalization if in doing so you subsequently miss all the big points of Gen 1, which is exactly what YECists do.

Essentially this misplaced concreteness has people discussing what language God spoke, was it Hebrew? what were these magical words, do they have power in themselves?

and missing the big point, this is the beginning of a great motif, the power of word, the power of speech, the power of thought.

I've seen the same fighting over John 1:1, which is Gen 1 rewritten in Greek terms-Logos.

but what bothers me most is the inability of people to sit down and discuss the issue at the level of the text. "God spoke" is certainly an anthromophic metaphor. It is not addressed to anyone. Speech is communication, two people, sender and receiver, there is no receiver in Gen 1 "let there be light". God is displaying His power and authority is a way that we can understand, it is not physical speech, nor is the physicality of it important, all the theological points around it are. by concentrating on defending "God said" as a physical event, you miss the fact that Gen 1 is a great and grand metaphor.

where "God spoke" is a complex metaphor that is followed throughout the Scriptures and has a place in what makes us human-speech. Gen 1 is this grand display of power in terms of the Sabbath Creation Week.

Just as YECists seem to over concretize "and God spake" they then using the same woodenly mis-applied literalness to miss all the richness of the Creation Week as a metaphor, not as a historical report.

i guess i just see it as a shame that for the sake of the conversation and for the sake of trying to learn what others think, a YECist can not even temporarily suspend disbelief and see the consequences of looking at "and God spake" as a complex literary metaphor where God is communicating deep truths to us in human terms that have no science or historical level.

 

[shernren]

There is a lot more to interpretation than simply "literal, or mythical?" My favorite example is Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

If I asked different Christians (and Jews) what "the heavens" in this passage are, I would get markedly different answers.

An early Jew might tell me that the heavens are a cast solid dome over his head, colored blue by waters above it.
A Christian subscribing to the Ptolemaic cosmogony might say that it is the crystal spheres on which the Sun and other planets orbit the Earth.
A modern Christian will say that it is outer space.

Now what surprises me is that the modern Christian often then goes on to pretend that his view is the most obvious and plain view, and that the same principles he (knowingly or not) used can be confidently applied to produce a One True Interpretation (TM) of Scripture, often accompanied by a solemn warning that whosoever disagree-eth must be deficient in the Holy Spirit. Right! This ignores the fact that no Christian before 1700 and Torricelli would have thought that vacua (plural of vacuum) can exist with certainty, much less imagine that everything outside the earth's atmosphere is essentially vacuum. The "plain sense" was not at all plain to 17 centuries of Christians and another two millenia or more of Jews; those two words in that first verse smuggle in centuries of scientific discovery in the process of interpretation.

And yet, modern Christians take it for granted that this interpretation is the right interpretation of Genesis 1 even though it was not at all "plain" to so many Christians. Why should they expect that the right interpretation of anything else in the Bible should be "plain" to them?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The bible is a mystical book, much like a book instructing one in the martial arts. The author, often the oldest master, or even the originator of the art, lays out a course of instruction that will lead the student to the understanding of the art, through the various levels of physical discipline within it. At the highest levels of achievement the practitioner leaves the book behind as he now graduates into the spirit of the art. At this time he is often not even able to participate in the physical aspects of that art, even though he is now the master of it.

The same holds true for the christian. At some point his mind finally grasps what the whole thing is about, and can now leave the book behind, referring to it much like a doctor reviews his medical books. He doesn't have to use it to prove his position, as no chain of scriptures could be assembled that would reveal to another what he knows to be true.

 

[DailyBlessings]

The bible is a mystical book, much like a book instructing one in the martial arts. The author, often the oldest master, or even the originator of the art, lays out a course of instruction that will lead the student to the understanding of the art, through the various levels of physical discipline within it. At the highest levels of achievement the practitioner leaves the book behind as he now graduates into the spirit of the art. At this time he is often not even able to participate in the physical aspects of that art, even though he is now the master of it.

The same holds true for the christian. At some point his mind finally grasps what the whole thing is about, and can now leave the book behind, referring to it much like a doctor reviews his medical books. He doesn't have to use it to prove his position, as no chain of scriptures could be assembled that would reveal to another what he knows to be true.

I can't quite agree with this one- unlike the instructions of a martial arts master, the Bible grows with the reader, and gains new meaning as one's knowledge of spiritual things increases. It is true that we can leave ways of reading the bible behind, as we come into a fuller understanding of it.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

[chaoschristian]

Genesis has come under attack again and again in these forums . . .

Who is attacking Genesis?

Who here doesn't affirm the CF TOS for the CO area?

Are TE's here by pretext, Mark?

I say this because we've done this thread before, multiple times, and while the starting place is different each time, the underlying premise remains the same:

Anyone who rejects a literal/indicative historical/scientific interpretation of Genesis denies 'Redemptive History', and therefore rejects Christ and calls God a liar.

Do we really need to go through the machinations just to hear you say this - again?

 

[pastorkevin73]

The funny thing about truth is that opinions don't matter. Truth is truth, opinions had no bearing on it. God desides what is truth and it is up to use to believe it or not. Rather simple, really.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Who is attacking Genesis?

Who here doesn't affirm the CF TOS for the CO area?

Are TE's here by pretext, Mark?

I say this because we've done this thread before, multiple times, and while the starting place is different each time, the underlying premise remains the same:

Anyone who rejects a literal/indicative historical/scientific interpretation of Genesis denies 'Redemptive History', and therefore rejects Christ and calls God a liar.

Do we really need to go through the machinations just to hear you say this - again?

It seems that some didn't get the first time then.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The funny thing about truth is that opinions don't matter. Truth is truth, opinions had no bearing on it. God desides what is truth and it is up to use to believe it or not. Rather simple, really.

all, every one of my epistemological filters kicked in with this posting, plus the "simple" ignited a few others....

i'm not sure there is any way to answer this statement.

all we have is opinions and interpretations, of what Scripture says, of what the universe is. None of us has access to God's Own Interpretation(GOI), there is always this "problem" that meaning exists in our minds, and is in part reliant on our experiences and education.

If God has communicated clearly, simply, and effectively to you, can you please tell me GOI for those few little divisive words: "this is my body"?

a second point is why should i believe you know GOI when i hear and see lots of people making this same claim and they say the verses mean different things than you do.

Who can i trust is really truely GOI's prophet?

 

[artybloke]

Is this a metaphor?

“And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full. And He was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake Him, and say unto Him, Master, carest thou not that we perish? And He arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. “And He said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? How is it that ye have no faith?”--Mark 4:37-40

It's a metaphor.

Is this a metaphor?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it. John 1:1-5

It's a metaphor.

A metaphor is a way of talking about one thing by talking about something else. Whether the thing being talked about in the first place (say, Jesus calming the storm) is an actual historical event or a fictional story makes no difference as to whether something is a metaphor or not. The story of Jesus calming the storm is not there merely for historical information the way you might find out what King Henry VIII had for breakfast; it's there to tell us something important about who Jesus was (the Son of God), and what he was about. The meaning behind the story, not the mere facticity of the story, is why it's in the Gospel of Mark in the first place. I'm sure there were lots of other stories he could have chosen that were circulating round that were equally as reliable but were irrelevant to the writer's purposes.

The same is even more true of the second quote, which doesn't really contain any "historical" information at all. It's more like poetic reflection; and some theologians think it might even be from an early hymn. The last sentence qouted is all metaphor.

A literary device is a literary device is a literary device; it has no bearing on a story's history or otherwise. It just means that there's a meaning that goes beyond the simple words on the page. Which I think even you could accept as a possibility, couldn't you Mark?