Scripture Shows Genesis is Historical

Today at 12:34 AM Arikay said this in Post #20 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678571#post678571)

Bear: I believe the Bible says adam lived 930 years (but its only from memory).

Now god said Adam would only live a day after eating the apple. If you believe in the gap theory, then what god said is true, because a day for god is 1000 years to us. So adam lived less than a god day. However time sometimes is strange in the bible, because it only says "day" and not "god day" so the flood lasted 150 days (or somewhere around 150 I believe) but are these human days or god days? Im assuming they are human days because man isnt allowed to live beyond 1 god day. However the bible isnt very descriptive on this part. And yes im just rambling now.

Micaiah: You seem to like to make claims, and then instead of backing them up, you ask for people to disprove your claim.
I say god was an alien who created man as an experiment. Prove me wrong. If you cant prove me wrong, I must be right.

Click to expand...

You just earned yourself 500 blessing points for understanding where I was going with my question.

Genesis 2:17
"but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Genesis 5:5
"So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died."

To me, the above are not contradictions. They are in complete harmony, with propper interpretation of scripture.

When and how is it decided that certain verse is symbolic while others are not? eg. Christ being described as a goat with seven eyes and horns?

Today at 01:00 AM anon5354 said this in Post #24 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678616#post678616)

When and how is it decided that certain verse is symbolic while others are not? eg. Christ being described as a goat with seven eyes and horns?

Click to expand...

Isaiah 28:9-13
9 "Whom will he teach knowledge? And whom will he make to understand the message? Those just weaned from milk? Those just drawn from the breasts? 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little." 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people, 12 To whom He said, "This is the rest with which You may cause the weary to rest," And, "This is the refreshing"; Yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the Lord was to them, "Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little," That they might go and fall backward, and be broken And snared and caught."

If anything this thread would be more appriate for the C/E forum in the Theology section of the board.

Today at 12:17 AM Micaiah said this in Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678552#post678552)

I await the evidence from Scripture that Genesis should not be interpretted historically. Could it be that there is no such evidence?

Click to expand...

I await the evidence from the Harry Potter series that The Sorcerror's Stone should not be interpretted historically. Could it be that there is no such evidence?

The question I have is, how do we know when god is talking about a god day and when he is talking about a human day?

Based on teh god day, it would make the basics of the gap theory true, so it took god 6000 years to make the earth. Making things twice as old as 6000 years (the general YEC time frame).

How do you interpret the problems between Gen 1 and gen 2? I have heard a couple different ideas, but I was wondering what your interpretation was?

It probably would, but then I wouldnt be able to post there. well without bending/breaking the rules

Today at 10:37 PM RufusAtticus said this in Post #26 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678683#post678683)

If anything this thread would be more appriate for the C/E forum in the Theology section of the board.

Click to expand...

Once again, "The Bible is true because it says it is."

You cannot use the New Testament to prove that the Old Testament is true. That would be like saying The Empire Strikes Back is real because of Return of the Jedi/

Today at 05:46 AM Micaiah said this in Post #32 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678956#post678956)

Do we need to go on and provide posts with Scriptural references to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. These all demonstrate the historicity of Genesis.

Click to expand...

I've personally told stories and parables that made reference to Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Huckleberry Finn, Don Quixote, George Milton abd Lennie Small, Holden Caulfield, and Bugs Bunny. All I have to do now, it seems, is claim that I've been inspired by God, and therefore, those stories become historical events.

Today at 05:35 AM Micaiah said this in Post #30

Here are some passages from the New Testament which refer to Adam. Clearly Christ, Paul and others viewed Adam as real person.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The theology of the passages works just as well if Adam is the archetype human of the Genesis 2 story as if he was a real person.

For instance:

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Paul is making an argument for the subordination of women to men.  11"Women should learn in silence and all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet.  For Adam was created first, and then Eve."  This is his justification, and it is a theological justification derived from the order of creation, not from them being literal persons.

The Job verse refers to Adam trying to hide his sin. But since all people tend to do that, Adam is still serving as the archetype human.

Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.

This can't work as literal because God only had one Son, and that was Jesus. So here you have just changed Christianity.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Again, Paul is constructing a theology of salvation, with the purpose of Jesus being to have died for your sins.  As justification for this, Adam gets to stand for every man.  An archetype.

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

My point above exactly. 

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

Again, same point.

The problem with all the quotes from the Pauline letters, Micaiah, is that Paul is not promoting Adam from some historical conviction, but is using the symbolism of Adam as justification for his theology.  This is not an intellectual assessment of historicity, but a means to win people to an pre-determined theology.

Today at 05:46 AM Micaiah said this in Post #32

Do we need to go on and provide posts with Scriptural references to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. These all demonstrate the historicity of Genesis.

Click to expand...

Bad choices because there is no extrabiblical confirmation of their historicity, either.

Yesterday at 06:32 PM Micaiah said this in Post #1

Much of the debate about the meaning of Genesis is caused by different methods of interpretation. What is the evidence from Scripture that Genesis should be interpretted as a historical record? Those who don't accept this interpretation can demonstrate from Scripture why it is not a historical record.

The word of God is the ultimate authority for the Christian. The best way of assessing how a passage should be interpreted is to observe how it interpreted elsewhere in Scripture. 

Click to expand...

Actually, isn't the personal relationship with God and Jesus the ultimate authority for a Christian?  Sola Scriptura is simply that each individual can interpret and understand the Bible on his/her own and doesn't need an intermediary.  The rules for assessing a document are below.  You have set up an artificial criteria so that you can use the passages (incorrectly) to indicate a historical Genesis 1. But you are not looking at the Genesis stories themselves.  I'll repeat the internal arguments against the creation stories being literal in the next post. Meanwhile, here are the rules for interpretation of documents:

Eight Rules of Interpretation
"...the Eight Rules of Interpretation used by legal experts for more than 2500 years.

1. Rule of Definition.
Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.
2. Rule of Usage.
Don't add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period when the passage was written?
3. Rule of Context.
Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.
4. Rule of Historical background.
Don't separate interpretation and historical investigation.
5. Rule of Logic.
Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.
6. Rule of Precedent.
Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which their is no precedent.
7. Rule of Unity.
Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.
8. Rule of Inference.
Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts. http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b11.html

Today at 07:33 AM Nathan Poe said this in Post #33  All I have to do now, it seems, is claim that I've been inspired by God, and therefore, those stories become historical events.

Click to expand...

If you can get it past the review board. Solomon we are told, wrote 1000 books and only 3 of them were approved and one almost did not make it, because he mentioned a women's breasts.

Song 4:5
    Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.




 

Yesterday at 06:32 PM Micaiah said this in Post #1

Much of the debate about the meaning of Genesis is caused by different methods of interpretation. What is the evidence from Scripture that Genesis should be interpretted as a historical record? Those who don't accept this interpretation can demonstrate from Scripture why it is not a historical record.

Click to expand...

You know, Micaiah, I looked through the whole thread and, except for the passages referring to Adam, you didn't present any evidence from Genesis itself to indicate it should be interpreted literally.  Why not?

So, let's look at the internal evidence that Genesis should not be read literally.

1. There are two (well, really 3) separate creation stories that contradict. One is Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a. The second is Genesis 2:4b - Genesis 5.  The third is Genesis 5:1 thru Genesis 8. The contradictions are a clear indication that they are not met to be read literally, because to do so conflicts with Rules 5 and 7 of how to interpret. Call the stories A, B, and C.

Contradictions:
1. The name of God is different between A and B.  "Elohim" for A and "Yahweh" for B.
2. In A creation takes 6 days, in B (Genesis 2:4b) it happens in a single day (beyom). C does not give a time period.
3. In A the order of creation is: plants, water creatures and birds, land creatures, and then plural humans both male and female.  In B the order of creation is: no plants but apparently seeds and no rain, a human male, plants, animals and birds (no water creatures), woman. In C males and females plural together are created together.
4. The mechanism of creation is different.  In A all entities including creatures are spoken into existence -- "let there be" -- but in B all the animals and birds and the human male are formed from dust or soil. The human female is formed from the rib of the male. 
5. Entrance of death for humans.  A doesn't mention it. B is internally contradictory. Genesis 2:17 implies that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil will cause death ("within the day") but Genesis 3:22 says Adam and Eve are kicked out of the Garden so that they will not eat the fruit of the Tree of Eternal Life and "live forever", saying that they would have died anyway without eating the fruit.  C is different.  Genesis 6:1-3 says that "heavenly beings" (not mentioned in A and B) are mating with human females. In Genesis 6:3 God decides to make people mortal and limits their lifespan to 120 years.  No mention of any fruit of any tree.
6. C says there were "giants" who were the offspring of human females and "heavenly beings".  A and B do not mention such offspring.

Names:
"Adam" and "Eve" are not words that are used only as names like "Tom" or "Sally" for us. Instead, "adam" in Hebrew means "dirt" or "earth" and "eve" means "hearth".  When the names of characters in stories are those of general characteristics, such as "Pride" or "Death" or "Sower" or "Samaritan", we know we are dealing with allegory and symbolism, not history. We have a story of Dirt and Hearth.

Numerology:
The 6 days of creation in Genesis 1 are organized into 2 three day divisions with each day having 2 major creation events.  This fits with the numerology of the time (historical context) where the numbers 2, 3, 6, and especially 7 were thought to have mystical significance.  As history, just how likely is it that there were 2 and only 2 major creation events on each day?  This is creation story is structured around the numbers, and history does not do that.  History is much messier.  Of course, creation is structured to culminate in day 7, which is the Sabbath.  Since Genesis 1 was written after Israel was a worshipping community, Genesis 1 is not history but artificially devised to give justification for observing the Sabbath.

Singing:
Although written in English as prose, all of the Torah (the original language being Hebrew) is structured to be sung and is still sung by Cantors in Jewish synagogues every Sabbath.  Some of the phrases, such as "morning and evening" in Genesis 1, repeat because they are there to give the correct meter to the song. 

Conclusion: The creation stories were not meant to be literal history  but to convey different theological messages. 

Yesterday at 11:17 PM Micaiah said this in Post #19 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678552#post678552)

I await the evidence from Scripture that Genesis should not be interpretted historically. Could it be that there is no such evidence?

As TheBear has commented, how old was Adam. What do the genealogies in the gospels teach? What does Paul teach in Romans about the fall? What is taught in Hebrews regarding Noah?

If you care to investigate these and other texts you would find this is clear evidence that Genesis is a historical record according to Scripture.

Click to expand...

Your claim was that the author(s) of Genesis intended for it to be taken as a historical record. You have yet to support this claim.

Today at 05:41 AM Micaiah said this in Post #31

And here are some passages which refer to Noah in the NT. Clearly the NT authors under inspiration viewed Noah as a real person.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it is "clear".

Hbr 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

This is theology again.  The author is making the point that righteousness comes  from faith and uses the story of Noah as an example.

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

To continue (there is not a period there) "21 which was a symbol pointing to baptism, which now saves you."

Shame on you, misquoting the Bible!  Now we see that once again Paul is using a well-known story to make an argument for the theology he is developing. This is not an endorsement of a literal Noah but an argument for baptism and its relationship to salvation.

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Let's take this from verse 4 "God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell, where they are kept chained in darkness, waiting for the Day of Judgement." Now skip to verse 9 "And so the Lord knows how to rescue godly people from their trials and how to keep the wicked under punishment for the Day of Judgement, especially those who follow their filthy bodily lusts"

Now, taken in context, this isn't endorsing a historical Noah. Where in the OT, Micaiah, is the historical story of angels being thrown into hell? It is taking Biblical stories and extracting a theological message from them.  IOW, not reading them as history but as theology -- God will rescue godly people.  Notice that at the end Paul condemns "bodily lusts" after God in both creation stories tells people to "be fruitful and multiply". IOW, to have bodily lusts and indulge them to have children.  If you believe that Genesis is history, then you can't believe Paul.  Nice work, Micaiah.  In defending your literal interpretation of Genesis, you manage to put yourself in the position of discarding Pauline theology.