Genesis, a historical book?

[Micaiah]

What parts of the Creation account do you consider to be a historical record. Why / why not?

What parts of Genenis do you consider a historical record. Why / why not?

 

[artybloke]

None of it is historical. It's all myth and poetry. Some of it might be accidentally factual, but on the whole none of it is, or was meant to be, a historical record. It was however meant to be a spiritual and symbolic explanation of the origin of the Jewish nation and faith, and is therefore, in the same way as all myths and stories and poems are, true.

 

[Vance]

As for Genesis, I think that everything from Abraham on is based directly on historical events, even if not every single event is absolutely historical. This is a position held by the majority of Biblical scholars, I am pretty sure. Even most Christian Biblical Scholars (as opposed to preachers, etc).

But, of course, it is all Truth, and it is all God's Holy Word to us, for our benefit and, as Paul says, our edification.

As for the Creation account, I think it was written in powerful poetic language and that much of it does represent in a figurative way, what happened. For example, God calling for light out of the void is a very good description of the Big Bang and what came before. But given the structured, and multi-layered triads of format, I don't think that it was an attempt at all to given even a purely chronological chain of events.

But, again, it is all Truth, and it is all God's Holy Word to us, for our benefit and, as Paul says, our edification.

 

[artybloke]

I thought I'd explain something of my approach to the OT.

I look at the literary form of large parts of the Old Testament - and I see, throughout, that its form is largely poetic - verse, in fact - as opposed to prose. Now, poetry is by definition symbolic, rather than factual - but that doesn't mean it doesn't therefore contain facts, just that what facts it uses are not used in a strictly "scientific" way. Thus, the stories of Genesis may well be based on real people, but the actual historicity of the text isn't the point of the writing. It's the meaning behind the stories that is important, not whether the story happened. David may or may not have killed Goliath, it doesn't affect how the text was used by the writers and original readers to reinforce the Jewish self-identity; and it is not neccessary for its meaning now.

But all the time, of course, I'm partly seeing this way because I myself am a poet. Maybe I just want to see myself reflected in the Bible; nevertheless, large passages of the histories, the prophets and other parts of the OT are poetic in form and structure. They use Hebrew paralellism and often very clever punning and other literary devices throughout; the Bible isn't a classic of world literature for no reason.

So the Bible isn't simply a bunch of facts, or even just a book of "spiritual truths", it's a book of literature: and it really ought to be read as such.

 

[Iosias]

What parts of the Creation account do you consider to be a historical record. Why / why not?

What parts of Genenis do you consider a historical record. Why / why not?

The whole of Genesis is historical

 

[serendipity79]

I think Genisis is going to prove fairly accurate eventually. here is an interesting article i found:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/dating.asp

I believe also that there are many metophors, primarily there to hold true though time. Most of these stories still hold lessons that are valid today.

 

[artybloke]

Answers in Genesis is about as reliable a source for science and history as the National Ennquirer. Less, in fact.

try:

www.talkorigin.org

And, as the writer is probably well aware but thinks that his readers are either too thick or too lazy to check, carbon-dating is useless after 50,000 years anyway. So what's he doing dating something with a possible age in the millions of years using a method that he knows isn't going to work?

More creationist deception.

 

[Iosias]

Answers in Genesis is about as reliable a source for science and history as the National Ennquirer. Less, in fact.

try:

www.talkorigin.org

And, as the writer is probably well aware but thinks that his readers are either too thick or too lazy to check, carbon-dating is useless after 50,000 years anyway. So what's he doing dating something with a possible age in the millions of years using a method that he knows isn't going to work?

More creationist deception.

A better link is here

 

[Micaiah]

From what I've read, the TE rationale for interpreting Scripture on Creation, is to reject any plain assertions about creation if it contradicts the theory of evolution. In many cases, this appears to be the sole criteria for accepting or rejecting the plain teaching of Scripture.

As can be seen from comments posted above, some actually accept that there are historical figures spoken of in Genesis. They clearly accept part of Genesis as history and reject other parts.

Is that right TE's? Why or why not? What do you believe about Genesis? What parts are historical, and what parts are not? What criteria do you use to determine what is and isn't?

 

[notto]

I think Genisis is going to prove fairly accurate eventually. here is an interesting article i found:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/dating.asp

I believe also that there are many metophors, primarily there to hold true though time. Most of these stories still hold lessons that are valid today.

It would seem that the author (a retired electronics engineer) of this piece is purposely trying to use the dating technique for something it was not intended for. (I'm quoting a response given to another person who used this, this is not directed at you).

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may01.html

"Actually, there is a fourth option which the author of your cut-and-pasted article did not consider: (4) expose the claim as a fundamental blunder that reflects badly on the author, not on the dating method. Here's the explanation: The "traditional method" of carbon dating is to concentrate the carbon in a sample, convert it to a gas, and then measure the residual radioactivity of the gas. Even though this is done in a specially shielded chamber, some small amount of background radiation will interfere with the counts. Due to this "noise," even a completely "dead" sample will yield a computed age around 20,000 to 30,000 years (give or take, depending on several factors). That is essentially the limit of the "traditional" assessment technique. For this reason, a result in the 30,000-year range by the "traditional" method is understood to mean "an indeterminately old age."

An age around 30,000 years (on a much older object) by the "traditional" carbon dating method is neither a refutation of carbon dating nor a rejection of the old-Earth timescale. Anyone trying to use it is such is either deliberately being dishonest, or else is so ill-acquainted with the procedure that they have no business criticizing it."

 

[Micaiah]

Notto,

How about you post your beliefs on Genesis, which is the intent of this thread. Look again at the first post. Feel free to start a new thread if you wish to take you point further.

 

[notto]

Notto,

How about you post your beliefs on Genesis, which is the intent of this thread. Look again at the first post. Feel free to start a new thread if you wish to take you point further.

I've done it many times before. You can look through my past posts to see my position. I was just clarifying a poor source. Bad science should never be used to base a belief on.

 

[Micaiah]

That's my line. The one about 'its all in my previous posts'.Come on. It wouldn't take long to give a summary of your position.

 

[herev]

From what I've read, the TE rationale for interpreting Scripture on Creation, is to reject any plain assertions about creation if it contradicts the theory of evolution.

And yet, in response to this, you have repeatedly been told otherwise, yet you continue to say it--why ask questions of someone's belief if you will not accept the answers?
You use the word "plain" repeatedly, yet I have personally asked you before to define "plain" but received no answer. We TE's do not think we are rejecting the "plain" readings of the text, so I am not sure what you mean by "plain assertions about creation." In fact, worded this way, we TE's would say that it is the YEC who rejects the "plain assertions from creation."

In many cases, this appears to be the sole criteria for accepting or rejecting the plain teaching of Scripture.

But to us, the "plain" teaching of scripture when referring to the creation accounts is that God is the creator of the universe and all life within it--as such he is the author of life and the only authority of creation and the created (us). The "plain" teaching of Genesis 1 and 2 are that God created us as recipients of His love and desired a better way of life for us than we currently have. The "plain" teaching of Genesis 1 and 2 is that we, through our rebellious nature, have rejected the plan that God had for us and are therefore in need of atonement in order for us to return to communion with Him. So, no, I do not reject the "plain" teaching of Scripture. In fact, I can't think of any "plain" teaching of scripture that I reject.

As can be seen from comments posted above, some actually accept that there are historical figures spoken of in Genesis. They clearly accept part of Genesis as history and reject other parts.
Is that right TE's? Why or why not? What do you believe about Genesis? What parts are historical, and what parts are not? What criteria do you use to determine what is and isn't?

This point varies among TE's. For many (as with most of my seminary professors), the best cutoff is that Genesis 1-11 are Israel's Pre-History.
You will notice a dramatic shift from Genesis 11 to Genesis 12. Genesis 1-11 are stories that pertain to the whole of creation, while Genesis 12 takes us into Israel's direct history with Abraham. As such, the accounts in Genesis 1-11 contain many oral stories handed down that were created to explain what they viewed, but didn't understand about creation (an etiological account)--as well as other myths or stories (myth is not a bad word, it is descriptive of a particular writing style) that were appropriated from other cultures (such as the flood).
But for myself, I see History (something that is witnessed and recorded either orally or in writing) as not possible without humanity to record it. Much of this will be contingent on your source theory for the Pentateuch, too. Who wrote it, when, why, etc. I personally do believe in a literal Adam and Eve, because we have no reason not to, but when viewing God's creation, we have concrete evidence that the creation accounts are not literal. Additionally, from studying other cultures' sacred writings, as well as the source ciriticism and literary criticism of the Pentateuch, we have historical, literary evidence that it was not even intended to be record of history. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those that do not see anything similar to "real HIstory" prior to Joshua or Judges in the scriptures.

 

[Micaiah]

Herev,

Why don't you accept that God created the world in six days. Scripture plainly asserts that is the case.

 

[artybloke]

Scripture plainly asserts that is the case.

Not to me it doesn't, because it conflicts with the plain revelation of God in His universe that the universe was created in 12-20 billion years. God cannot lie; therefore my interpretation of scripture must be at fault.

And to me, the Genesis accounts bear all the literary hallmarks of poetry and mythology, therefore, they are plainly not intended as historical/scientific accounts.

You seem to think that scripture was written yesterday. It wasn't. It was written thousands of years ago for a society that had no scientific understanding and was written in the literary forms and using the insights of the time it was written. None of the Biblical writers were capable of writing science, none of them would have wished to write scientifically (as they were exploring spiritual, not factual, truth) and none of them suffered from the delusion that truth can only be expressed through "fact", unlike not only an awful lot of atheists but an awful lot of creationists too.

 

[notto]

Not to me it doesn't, because it conflicts with the plain revelation of God in His universe that the universe was created in 12-20 billion years. God cannot lie; therefore my interpretation of scripture must be at fault.

And to me, the Genesis accounts bear all the literary hallmarks of poetry and mythology, therefore, they are plainly not intended as historical/scientific accounts.

You seem to think that scripture was written yesterday. It wasn't. It was written thousands of years ago for a society that had no scientific understanding and was written in the literary forms and using the insights of the time it was written. None of the Biblical writers were capable of writing science, none of them would have wished to write scientifically (as they were exploring spiritual, not factual, truth) and none of them suffered from the delusion that truth can only be expressed through "fact", unlike not only an awful lot of atheists but an awful lot of creationists too.

ditto.

 

[Micaiah]

Thanks. Waiting for Herev now.

 

[gluadys]

From what I've read, the TE rationale for interpreting Scripture on Creation, is to reject any plain assertions about creation if it contradicts the theory of evolution. In many cases, this appears to be the sole criteria for accepting or rejecting the plain teaching of Scripture.

As can be seen from comments posted above, some actually accept that there are historical figures spoken of in Genesis. They clearly accept part of Genesis as history and reject other parts.

Is that right TE's? Why or why not?

No, it is not. For most of us, the theory of evolution is not an important factor in deciding how we interpret scripture. Rather it is the nature of scripture itself.

For myself, as for artybloke, the literary character of scripture influences how I interpret it much more than any inconsistency with science.

What do you believe about Genesis? What parts are historical, and what parts are not? What criteria do you use to determine what is and isn't?

I believe it is a gathering together of many ancient literary documents woven with considerable skill into a single narrative by one or more editors who gave it the form it has today. I also believe both the original writers and the editor(s) did their work under the inspiration and blessing of God, being moved by the Holy Spirit to write/edit as they did.

As for determining what is and is not historical, I use the same techniques as for any other ancient text. Consider the works of the Greek poet Homer, for example. Clearly some parts of the Iliad and the Odyssey are ancient history. The city of Troy was real as were the Greek kingdoms. Many of the people named in the epics were real people. Just as clearly much is not historical. Achilles' divine protection from harm, except for his heel, Ulysses' encounters with the Cyclops and the Sirens, probably even the Trojan horse itself.

Once the literary form is understood, common sense is the best guide. After all, faith is intended to go beyond reason, but it is not intended to contradict it. Otherwise why would God give us the gift of rational understanding?

 

[Vance]

I see Genesis one as "plainly" non-literal poetic and figurative language. Perfect for an oral tradition (which it had to be for a long time before it was written down). The double triad structure and use of poetic terms would label this "non-literal" even without any knowledge of evolution or an old earth.

Thus some of the early Church fathers also read it non-literally, long before being influenced by modern science.