Genesis, a historical book?

[Vance]

Really, there has been no shift in the position of any TE on these forums. When the discussions are about the scientific evidence, we provide our scientific reasons for a non-literal reading. When the discussion is about Scriptural interpretation, we provide the Scriptural reasons.

And yes, there are layers of understanding which effect "plainness". I can guarantee you that you do not accept the most simplistic "plain" reading of every Scripture, but the one that seems plain to you based on what you know about Scripture, history, culture and, yes, even science (assuming you accept heliocentrism, for example). The point is that you say we reject the "plain" reading of Scripture, and we do not reject what is plain to us any more than you reject what is plain to you.


As for the Jewish position, here is what I see them saying:

AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS
Under the standards so clearly articulated by the Supreme Court, Proclamation 60 and Board Rule 5, as presently written, fail to satisfy the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state. In order to comply with the applicable constitutional provisions, the proclamation and board rule should be revised in three ways. First, evolution should be clearly included in the science curriculum. Second, evolution should be taught as are all scientific theories and should not be singled out for special negative comment. Finally, the proposed textbook standards should make clear that scientific creationism is not to be taught as scientific theory. Rather, because there is no constitutional objection to teaching about religion, public school teachers should simply tell their students, when evolution is taught, that there are certain religious groups whose members do not accept the Darwinian theory and advise them to consult with their parents or religious advisors for further guidance on the subject.

And here is a bit from a Jewish Rabbi:

Here is an OpEd piece from the Detroit News, written by Rabbi Aaron Bergman. I think this is very insightful:


"I believe with all my heart and soul that God created the world. I
believe the Hebrew Bible is God's word to the world. I do not believe
the Bible is a science book describing God's literal process of
creating the world, nor do I believe God ever meant for it to be taken
that way. "

"In short, I accept the idea of creation, but reject the
pseudo-science of creationism as bad science and even worse theology."

And I also like this:

"All this being said, I do not want to give the impression that I
think evolution is the entire truth, either. I believe evolution
should be taught as our best current understanding of how the world
works. As we learn more, then the theories should evolve as well. If
it is true that God created us from apes, then so be it. It is not forme to tell God how to create the world. Maybe God is teaching us a lesson in humility. "

More recently, I am reading a book on the OT written by another Jewish Rabbi in which he takes the non-literal approach.

Further, while it is true that many Jewish teachers have taken the literal position, the same debate has gone on among Rabbis from nearly the time of Christ. Literal or non-literal.

 

[Didaskomenos]

We've seen a subtle shift in the arguments put forward by the TE's lately. It wasn't that long ago we were reading that the reason they concluded the plain interpretation of the Genesis account of origins was wrong was almost exclusively because it contradicted the scientific evidence. Remember the stories about how we'd be saying God's Creation is deceptive if evolution was not real. I'm happy to go through and ferret out all those past posts if someone wants to dispute this. Now they are saying that just as important is the of the writing style itself.

Can we have the weighting of these factors. Give it as writing style:scientific evidence. Are we talking 50:50, or maybe 30:70.

What's the matter - are you getting tired of having your precious position being attacked on two fronts?

I have never said that scientific evidence for evolution is why I am not a YEC or OEC. True, seeing YEC and OEC "evidence" debunked clued me into something, but it's fundamentally a literary/generic reading of the Bible that turns me off to YEC and OEC. It is by this methodology that I believe the GCA does not tell us history; I look to scientists to tell me about how the earth began, and they are unanimous in describing evolution as the mechanism for the speciation seen in the world today.

 

[Micaiah]

1 Timothy 2

Men and Women in the Church
8 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

Have a look at these verses written by the apostle Paul. They are the inspired word of God.

What do you think this passage teaches?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Have you ever heard of typology? This is one of the many things that mythology is capable of. It doesn't matter whether Paul believed this was history for his point to be made - Paul was citing a typological principle, basing it on a true story, but one that wasn't historical. This is precisely the type of thing we mean when we say that the GCA is true.

 

[Micaiah]

So why would you put typological characters in a genealogy. I would have thought even a TE would recognise that as being deceiptful.

 

[artybloke]

Why would it be seen as decietful to a writer in the ancient world when genealogies all over the ancient world were equally mythological? (I mean, look at all the Egyptian pharoahs - every man jack of them "related" to some God or other. Same with Roman emperors. All of them supposedly go back as far as Romulus and Remus, or Aeneas, figures who are as mythological as - well, Adam frankly.)

 

[Vance]

True, we must look at these writings within the culture they were written. Historicity (in the detailed, accurate, "this is what actually happened" sense), was not a major concern in the ancient world. When everything past your grandfather takes on the misty nature of "the past", it made very little difference to them whether it was accurate "blow-by-blow" historical data, or whether it was a "presentation of our past that we take pride in and which expresses our beliefs about ourselves". Yes, they believed that it was "true", but they would never have expected it to be accurate down to the level of actual words stated, etc. And I, as someone with a university degree in ancient history, know a little bit about this.

Now, most cultures based their view of their past on oral histories (or, better, oral traditions), and there were differing degrees of dedication to accuracy. The ancient Celts were probably some of the most dedicated to accurate transmittals, with special training in memorization, specified professions dedicated to that particular task, and years of apprenticeship before they were considered ready to be the master Bard who carried on the genealogies and the "history". Yet, even they tied their genealogies to legendary, or semi-legendary figures and eventually back to supernatural characters.

And, to a certain extent, even they did not believe it had to be actual historical events in order to be "true" for their culture. This is almost impossible for us to get our heads around today, with our modern approaches to facts, details and "true events".

Early historians had no problem adding in speeches and details that they knew did not occur, but believed that something like it probably did occur and so it was simply filling in the details in a truthful manner.

Ceasar traced his genealogy back to Venus, but it is almost certain that he did not believe that this was historically true, but it was still very "true" for his family background. He did not see it as we see "myth" today, but as a form of truth that we just don't recognize today, or even have a proper sense of.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Now, most cultures based their view of their past on oral histories (or, better, oral traditions), and there were differing degrees of dedication to accuracy. The ancient Celts were probably some of the most dedicated to accurate transmittals, with special training in memorization, specified professions dedicated to that particular task, and years of apprenticeship before they were considered ready to be the master Bard who carried on the genealogies and the "history". Yet, even they tied their genealogies to legendary, or semi-legendary figures and eventually back to supernatural characters.

Both the ancient Hawaiians and the Chinese had similiar geneologies.
Both incorporated eponymonic characters without attempting to distinquish those would were historical vs those who were mythical, catagories which appear to be fundamentally meaningless to them.

There is good internal evidence that Genesis was oral history before being written down, even with a conservative viewpoint there is no essential reason that the geneologies are not eponymic, combining several historical people into one like Tubal.

 

[Vance]

Yes, which is still not to say that these texts are not the inspired Word of God. It is very difficult for us today to accept the idea that God would inspire, or even allow, a writing which is non-historical in the SEEMING guise of historicity. But given the culture and the context, it is perfectly possible that God would do it this way.

 

[herev]

I note the TE's are desperately trying to sabotage the word 'plain' and claim it for their own interpretation.

How is asking you to define the word in the manner in which you are using it an attempt to sabotage? The notion of TE's trying to "claim" it suggests you think perhaps you own the word? That's fine, just explain it. We can find other words.

I'd like to see how many people if presented with the gospel genealogies without any previous exposure to Scripture, would think the references to people in the Genealogies of Christ were anything but real people.

Given time and given both Gospel genealogies, they would eventually start to ask questions as the two don't agree. Then, if they were given the Chronicles and both SAmuels and both Kings books, they would have additional questions. Then they would certainly begin to ask questions--would they assume that they were anything but real? Depends on what their beliefs were on other issues. Very odd question, indeed.

Strange that the inspired authors of Scripture would on the one hand refer to real people up to the times of Genesis and suddenly refer to a mythical Adam and Eve.

Depends on what thier interpretation was of Scripture, what their purpose was to write it, and what their intended message was

 

[Micaiah]

Here are some quotes from Scripture (NKJV) about Adam. Tell me which part in any way parallels a Greek myth, or was intended to be anything but a historical account of a man called Adam.

Genesis 2
18And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

Genesis 2
20So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

Genesis 2
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.

Genesis 2
23And Adam said:


"This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."

Genesis 3
8And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

Genesis 3
9Then the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?"

Genesis 3
17Then to Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, "You shall not eat of it':


"Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.

 

[Micaiah]

Here are a few more.

Genesis 3
20And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

Genesis 3
21Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.

Genesis 4


Cain Murders Abel


Cain and Abel
(1) 1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD."

Genesis 4


A New Son
25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, "For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed."

Genesis 5


The Family of Adam


The Family of Adam
(1) 1 This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

Genesis 5
3And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

Genesis 5
4After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters.

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

Deuteronomy 32
8When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations,
When He separated the sons of Adam,
He set the boundaries of the peoples
According to the number of the children of Israel.

1 Chronicles 1


The Family of Adam--Seth to Abraham


The Family of Adam--from Seth to Esau
(1) 1 Adam, Seth, Enosh, 2Cainan,[1] Mahalalel, Jared, 3Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, 4Noah,[2] Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
5The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. 6The sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Diphath,[3] and Togarmah. 7The sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshishah,[4] Kittim, and Rodanim.[5]
8The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan. 9The sons of Cush were Seba, Havilah, Sabta,[6] Raama,[7] and Sabtecha. The sons of Raama were Sheba and Dedan. 10Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one on the earth. 11Mizraim begot Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, 12Pathrusim, Casluhim (from whom came the Philistines and the Caphtorim). 13Canaan begot Sidon, his firstborn, and Heth; 14the Jebusite, the Amorite, and the Girgashite; 15the Hivite, the Arkite, and the Sinite; 16the Arvadite, the Zemarite, and the Hamathite.
17The sons of Shem were Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, Aram, Uz, Hul, Gether, and Meshech.[8] 18Arphaxad begot Shelah, and Shelah begot Eber. 19To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg,[9] for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. 20Joktan begot Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, 21Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, 22Ebal,[10] Abimael, Sheba, 23Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan.
24Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, 25Eber, Peleg, Reu, 26Serug, Nahor, Terah, 27and Abram, who is Abraham. 28The sons of Abraham were Isaac and Ishmael.


The Family of Ishmael
(2) 29 These are their genealogies: The firstborn of Ishmael was Nebajoth; then Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, 30Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad,[11] Tema, 31Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These were the sons of Ishmael.


The Family of Keturah
(3) 32 Now the sons born to Keturah, Abraham's concubine, were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. The sons of Jokshan were Sheba and Dedan. 33The sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.


The Family of Isaac
(4) 34 And Abraham begot Isaac. The sons of Isaac were Esau and Israel. 35The sons of Esau were Eliphaz, Reuel, Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah. 36And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zephi,[12] Gatam, and Kenaz; and by Timna,[13] Amalek. 37The sons of Reuel were Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah.


The Family of Seir
(5) 38 The sons of Seir were Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan. 39And the sons of Lotan were Hori and Homam; Lotan's sister was Timna. 40The sons of Shobal were Alian,[14] Manahath, Ebal, Shephi,[15] and Onam. The sons of Zibeon were Ajah and Anah. 41The son of Anah was Dishon. The sons of Dishon were Hamran,[16] Eshban, Ithran, and Cheran. 42The sons of Ezer were Bilhan, Zaavan, and Jaakan.[17] The sons of Dishan were Uz and Aran.


The Kings of Edom
(6) 43 Now these were the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before a king reigned over the children of Israel: Bela the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dinhabah. 44And when Bela died, Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place. 45When Jobab died, Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place. 46And when Husham died, Hadad the son of Bedad, who attacked Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place. The name of his city was Avith. 47When Hadad died, Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place. 48And when Samlah died, Saul of Rehoboth-by-the-River reigned in his place. 49When Saul died, Baal-Hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his place. 50And when Baal-Hanan died, Hadad[18] reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Pai.[19] His wife's name was Mehetabel the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab. 51Hadad died also. And the chiefs of Edom were Chief Timnah, Chief Aliah,[20] Chief Jetheth, 52Chief Aholibamah, Chief Elah, Chief Pinon, 53Chief Kenaz, Chief Teman, Chief Mibzar, 54Chief Magdiel, and Chief Iram. These were the chiefs of Edom.

 

[Micaiah]

If you remain unconvinced that the pain teaching of Scripture is that Adam was a real man I can post you some more references. Then I can give references on Eve, and Noah, and Abraham, and other people in the intervening period. Scriptures record of the lives of these people reads nothing like the Greek myths we used to read about in School. Mr Adam was a real man. He did the things other ordinary people did. He just happened to be the first man who sinned and got banished from the garden of Eden.

 

[Vance]

Who said they paralleled a Greek myth?

Why do you assume that we have not read these Scriptures? Quoting Scripture we have all read dozens of times is not really necessary.

The language uses many of the elements of early epic creation stories and other early "histories". It uses typology, poetic triad structure, powerful imagery, etc. If you read the early Sumerian epics, you will find similar styles and some nearly identical images and types. Have you read these epics? Early Egyptian epic cycles? Are they "plain history" just because they are seemingly written *as* true events and not epic legend?

The genealogies are much the same as the ancient Celtic genealogies, who all trace their lineage back to legendary or semi-legendary characters (mine personal one would go back to Nial of the Nine Hostages, an ancient Irish King who may or may not have actually existed, and thence on to a god). Do they all have the ring of historicity?

 

[GodSaves]

So, out of curiousity what books in the Bible don't talk of anything real and are just mythological? So far we got Genesis, 1 Chronicles. What about Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Cain, David, Solomon, or Elijah? Are they just legendary but not real characters?

I have seen a few theistic evolutionists say we can just throw out the Old Testament because it is all myth. I have seen some theistic evolutionists say that Jesus Christ was not fully God here on earth. I have seen some TE's say Mary was not a virgin.

I really have no clue what the TE's believe as a whole. Each seems to say parts of scripture are not real, or myths, or can be thrown out. Basically what I have seen consistently with TE's in saying that the Bible is not always correct, always using pagan religions as their evidence.

 

[Micaiah]

My experience on these sites over several years is there is a big difference between TE's as to what they consider to be history, and what is allegory or what ever they want to call it,

The group that debates now do not seem as radical as those in the past (read Lucaspa). Haven't seen much of him lately. If you want to hear where liberal theology can lead you have a look at some of the doctines by Spong, and over here in the West Australia, Carnley.

 

[artybloke]

I have seen a few theistic evolutionists say we can just throw out the Old Testament because it is all myth.

I don't think I've ever hear any theistic evolutionist say we can throw the OT because it is all myth. In fact, what they are trying to do is to get to the real truth behind the stories. The real truth of many of the stories of the OT has little or nothing to do with whether they are factual or not; in fact, the question of whether or not they are factual is irrelevant to their meaning. That's the point we're trying to make.

Like most YEC's, you're basically operating with a "positivist" view of truth - derived, incidentally, not from the Bible, but from 19th century rationalists like Comte. You seem to assume - though I don't know how many times you've been told this isn't true - that we all thing the OT isn't true. We think no such thing. We just think that truth isn't confined to factual accounts - that it is in fact to be found in poetry, fiction, myth, symbolism, legend as well as fact. In fact, I would say that a piece of poetry is more likely to reveal profound truths about the spiritual nature of humanity, the nature of God, what God requires of us, than a straight historical account.

Even where the OT is "historical" it's also poetic, and it infuses its accounts with legendary elements, poetic imagery, punning (not translatable usually) and Hebrew paralellism. When the writers use fact they do so as poets and storytellers do, not as historians do. That is, they're less concerned about accuracy, than with how it fits into the points they are making, or the things they are discovering about the spirit through the writing.

That's not accusing the writers of lying, unless you also think that all poets, writers, artists and musicians are also liars. That's saying that the nature of what they were writing involved the use of their imaginations. They were not passive receptacles.

I really have no clue what the TE's believe as a whole.

There is no such thing as the church of Theistic Evolution. Some people are very liberal others are not. As it says in the Life of Brian, We're all individuals (voice from the back: I'm not.) We don't all sing from the same hymn-sheet.

 

[Vance]

The non-literal approach to Scripture is not the exclusive territory of theistic evolutionists.

Personally, I have also never heard any Christian say you can throw away the OT. It is all God's Holy Word. We read it for the Truth God is trying to impart to us. If we also want to seek its historicity, we need to use a number of interpretive tools to do so, but like all historical inquiries, we will have varying opinions. Ask a group of ancient history scholars which parts of the Illiad are likely true history and which just legend and you will find them all over the board.

All Scripture is Truth. This is what is important.

As someone was pointing out in another thread, a 1999 poll found that 60% of Methodist clergy do not believe that the virgin birth is historically accurate. I tend to disagree with them, however.

 

[Micaiah]

Do you think they believe the truth?

 

[Vance]

While I can't know for sure without speaking to each, but I certainly think they CAN believe the Truth of Scripture even if they don't read each Scripture the same as I do.