Scripture Shows Genesis is Historical

[Micaiah]

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. For this reason, this thread is confined to the internal evidence for the case.

By historical I mean the author intented the reader interpret the record as factual statements about past events. For example when the author asserts that a phase of creation took one day, or there was a world wide flood, or Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, then this is how the author intended for these verses to be interpreted. This is the plain meaning of the text.

 

[Melchior]

If your going to have an argument about the historical authenticity of Genesis as history with using the scirpture as the only source of information allowed in the debate, then this is a theological argument, and should be moved to that forum.

You should know better.

 

[Arikay]

Are you sure?

I wonder how boring books would be if every book was taken with the plain meaning of the text.

So, if the plain meaning of the book, says the book is right, it must be right?

 

[LadyShea]

And since Genesis was a Jewish book, wouldn't you would need to read the additional Jewish scriptures that are not included in the Bible to ensure completeness?

 

[seebs]

Today at 05:32 PM Micaiah said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678005#post678005)

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. For this reason, this thread is confined to the internal evidence for the case.

By historical I mean the author intented the reader interpret the record as factual statements about past events. For example when the author asserts that a phase of creation took one day, or there was a world wide flood, or Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, then this is how the author intended for these verses to be interpreted. This is the plain meaning of the text.

Unfortunately, this fails; Christ used many statements which weren't factual as part of His teachings, because He spoke to people in terms of their experience or understanding; otherwise, they wouldn't have understood a word He said.

So, all we know is that, at the time, people interpreted Scripture that way. So what? We know that at one point they interpreted it as meaning the world was flat.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 07:38 AM Melchior said this in Post #2 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678013#post678013)

If your going to have an argument about the historical authenticity of Genesis as history with using the scirpture as the only source of information allowed in the debate, then this is a theological argument, and should be moved to that forum.

You should know better.

This is a Christian forum and the topics have an inherently Christian focus. You chose to enter a Christian website so this should not come as a surprise. I am unaware of any requirement that precludes this topic being discussed here. Since much of the debate among Christians on Creation result from different interpretations, and since Christianiaty is founded on the word of God, I think this is a useful context for our discussions.

Those who do not profess belief in Christianity may find it useful to understand the different perspectives held. You may recognise some of the inconsistencies in arguments, and wish to comment.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today 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.

So.... what is the evidence?

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. For this reason, this thread is confined to the internal evidence for the case.

So who says the Bible is the Word of God?

The fact is that there is no external evidence that the Bible is the "Word of God." What we do know is that the early church collected various books and decided, by vote, what was the "Word of God" and what wasn't. Had they voted differently, Christians would hold radically different beliefs.

What exactly do we know about that "early church" anyway?

By historical I mean the author intented the reader interpret the record as factual statements about past events. For example when the author asserts that a phase of creation took one day, or there was a world wide flood, or Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, then this is how the author intended for these verses to be interpreted. This is the plain meaning of the text.

So your argument basically boils down to "The Bible is true because the author intended it to be true."

Well, that's a step up from "The Bible is true because it says it is," but it still comes nowhere close to credibility.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 07:46 AM seebs said this in Post #5 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678027#post678027)

Unfortunately, this fails; Christ used many statements which weren't factual as part of His teachings, because He spoke to people in terms of their experience or understanding; otherwise, they wouldn't have understood a word He said.

So, all we know is that, at the time, people interpreted Scripture that way. So what? We know that at one point they interpreted it as meaning the world was flat.

I take this as an admission that those who heard and understood what Christ taught recognised He accepted Genesis as a historical record.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 07:55 AM Nathan Poe said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678043#post678043)

So your argument basically boils down to "The Bible is true because the author intended it to be true."

Well, that's a step up from "The Bible is true because it says it is," but it still comes nowhere close to credibility.

I note you describe yourself as a professional scoffer and the title seems to fit. It is hard for those who make no profession of faith to understand the assumptions underpinning the Christian's acceptance of Scripture as the Word of God and the ultimate authority. The reason the Creation debate is so vital is that it challenges that auithority.

Those who make the claim that their belief in Creation is Scriptural must demonstrate first that Scripture does in fact support their belief. Let's hear some of the evidence.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 07:41 AM LadyShea said this in Post #4 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678020#post678020)

And since Genesis was a Jewish book, wouldn't you would need to read the additional Jewish scriptures that are not included in the Bible to ensure completeness?

The 'additional Jewish scriptures' are not considered by Christians to be Scripture, which is why they are not considered here. They do not carry the authority of Scripture.

How do you think Genesis should be interpreted?

 

[Arikay]

Does this have anything to do with evolution and creationism?

Or is this about wether the bible views creationism as correct?

 

[LadyShea]

Today at 04:10 PM Micaiah said this in Post #10

The 'additional Jewish scriptures' are not considered by Christians to be Scripture, which is why they are not considered here. They do not carry the authority of Scripture.

How do you think Genesis should be interpreted?

I am confused by this. The RCC chose which books would be included in the Bible...why would some writings carry specific authority, while others...possibly written at the same time, by the same person, with additional information and even the same subjects...do not carry any authority? I know some of the "lost' books contain additional information on Adam and Eve

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 05:32 PM Micaiah said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=678005#post678005)

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. For this reason, this thread is confined to the internal evidence for the case.

By historical I mean the author intented the reader interpret the record as factual statements about past events. For example when the author asserts that a phase of creation took one day, or there was a world wide flood, or Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, then this is how the author intended for these verses to be interpreted. This is the plain meaning of the text.

What evidence do you have to support your claim that the author(s) of Genesis intended readers to read it as a historical record as opposed to something else?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 07:02 PM Micaiah said this in Post #9

I note you describe yourself as a professional scoffer and the title seems to fit. It is hard for those who make no profession of faith to understand the assumptions underpinning the Christian's acceptance of Scripture as the Word of God and the ultimate authority. The reason the Creation debate is so vital is that it challenges that auithority.

Now I'm a bit puzzled. I thought Christians accepted Christ as the Word of God and the ultimate authority. Wouldn't worshipping a book, even the Bible, constitute idolatry?

Those who make the claim that their belief in Creation is Scriptural must demonstrate first that Scripture does in fact support their belief. Let's hear some of the evidence.

So those who claim that Creationism is based in scripture must prove that creation is supported by the Bible. That does nothing to prove it's historically accurate.

 

[Cantuar]

I take this as an admission that those who heard and understood what Christ taught recognised He accepted Genesis as a historical record.

Why would it not simply mean that as a Jewish teacher talking to (mostly uneducated) Jewish people, he taught in terms of the Jews' own creation story?

 

[TheBear]

According to the Book of Genesis, how long did Adam live?

 

[TheBear]

I ask that question to make a point about the interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

 

[Orihalcon]

let's pretend that i am famous. i say, "everything i say is true." the groupies that follow me around say, "yes, yes, we belive him."

does that mean i tell the absolute truth?

the main 'evidence' of truth in the bible and various scripture is itself saying that it is true. the secondary 'evidence' is that there are a bunch of people who read it and say, "yep, it's true." beyond that... not much.

 

[Micaiah]

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.

 

[Arikay]

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.