Genesis and Truth

[kenrapoza]

All, I apologize if this thread is repetitious of others in this forum. I'm relatively new here and don't mean create a thread inappropriately if one is already there.

I believe myself to be a person of truth. I believe that this is honoring to God. However, it seems as though not all Christians on this forum think along the same lines regarding the OT topic. People stick to indefensible positions, and sometimes even seem to admit it, but still choose to hold to what they may have been taught or what they prefer to believe regardless of how logical or illogical it is. It's almost the mindset of “If I close my eyes maybe they won't see me.” I don't subscribe to this as I believe it would damage my credibility as a Christian and would not be honoring to God.


I believe Genesis to be truth, as I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. However, any Scripture conveys truth only in the manner with which it was intended to convey that truth. Nobody would argue that if I twist a verse of Scripture and use it as a proof text for an illogical position that I am communicating the truth simply because I can quote a chapter and verse to support it at face value.


I believe that science and Theology should work together, if there is a sharp disagreement between the two, then I should rethink my interpretation of either one or the other, despite what my personal preference is. For example, if I found a verse in Scripture that seemed to contradict the Law of Gravity when read in a strict literal sense, I would certainly question my interpretation of the passage. Also, when Jesus said “I am the door of the sheep” (John 10:7, NASB, KJV) I understand that he was not claiming to be a wooden board with a handle.


When I became a Christian, I trusted Christ with my eternal destiny, not a frontal lobotomy. I recognize that the Scriptures contain hyperbole, metonymy, synecdoche, and polemical passages. I also recognize that Genesis contains signifcant motifs as well as word plays between events, character names, place names, etc. It also seems that sometimes we forget that while all Scripture is for us, it is not all directly to us. The direct audience of Genesis was the ancient Hebrews who would have understood these literary devices in their own original language much more clearly than we do today as modern/post-modern people with a new translation and a scientific and critical mindset. They would have understood which passages were intended to convey a literal narrative and which passages weren't.


I see the Creation account of Genesis as more of a doxology. I see that it declares the glory of God and establishes that indeed the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Lord Almighty who ALONE created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. I don't believe that even the ancient Hebrews would have taken the song of creation as a science text detailing God's actual method of creation. That is not the intention, it is not even written as a historical narrative so why would I impose those constraints on it? To use a wooden literal hermeneutic for this passage would be akin twisting the Scripture and using it as a proof text to say something it did not intend to. There is no difference between doing that and taking a literal passage and allegorizing it to the point where it doesn't say anything anymore.


What if Ussher never arrived at a Creation date of October 23rd, 4004 BC by adding up ages given in geneaologies that were never intended to be used that way? Would there still be a handful of fundamentalists with divinity and education degrees formulating "proofs" for a young earth and flying in the face of most accepted science?

I apologize if I offended anyone, the tone of this post was not intended to be antagonistic, just friendly debate. Please forgive me if it came across that way.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Very well said! Welcome to CF!

 

[Dannager]

Marvelously worded. Welcome to the forums, it's good to have you here.

 

[chaoschristian]

I see the Creation account of Genesis as more of a doxology. I see that it declares the glory of God and establishes that indeed the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Lord Almighty who ALONE created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

Indeed. Regardless of one's stance on the subject, I think that we can all agree on this.

Welcome to CF and to OT. May your stay here be both joyful and prosperous.

 

[Wadsworth]

Yes indeed. Welcome.
Now I need to go look up several of those words.

 

[vossler]

Welcome Ken, I think you'll find your time here to your liking. There are many like minded people here who, as you can see already, agree with you. I'm not here to disagree (at least not yet ) but just to say hello and hope your stay is fruitful.

Those of us on the other side of the discussions, you know those who've suffered lobotomies and other debilitating mind diseases, are few are far between (That's the nature of natural selection, right...we tend to die off and succumb to the ) As the intellectually challenged group here, you should find us easy pickings for any discussions that require the use of said intellect.

 

[kenrapoza]

Welcome Ken, I think you'll find your time here to your liking. There are many like minded people here who, as you can see already, agree with you. I'm not here to disagree (at least not yet ) but just to say hello and hope your stay is fruitful.

Those of us on the other side of the discussions, you know those who've suffered lobotomies and other debilitating mind diseases, are few are far between (That's the nature of natural selection, right...we tend to die off and succumb to the ) As the intellectually challenged group here, you should find us easy pickings for any discussions that require the use of said intellect.

All, thank you for your warm welcome. Your kindness is much appreciated.

Vossler, I realize that you are a YEC and as such I thank you for your welcome. I appreciate your kindness and candor in that you're always respectful of other people's positions. I can tell from your posts that you either exercise great care with your words or that you're genuinely a real nice guy, probably both! My goal is to be able to express myself in the same Christ-like manner that you do! It's obvious that I have quite a ways to go!

With that being said I didn't intend to imply that all YEC are ignorant. That is not my belief. Almost all of my Christian training in the OT area has been YEC, and the church that I still attend teaches that strongly. Some of my best friends and the most admirable people I know are YEC and I would never demean them. It was until quite recently that I myself was in the YEC fundamentalist camp. I felt that if a Christian moved away from that position at all that they were compromising with the world and were being duped by baseless secular humanism.

One more thought...I realize that I am wrong in quite a few areas of my theology, and that I just don't know it yet! My positions have been developing over time and will continue to change as I gain more knowledge and insight. I am fully willing to be corrected by others of you who have more light than I (which is probably most of you!) So I hope that I don't come across with that smug superior attitude as that is not my heart.

 

[chaoschristian]

Those of us on the other side of the discussions, you know those who've suffered lobotomies and other debilitating mind diseases, are few are far between (That's the nature of natural selection, right...we tend to die off and succumb to the ) As the intellectually challenged group here, you should find us easy pickings for any discussions that require the use of said intellect.

Put that tongue back in your mouth, Vossler, or we'll take your spork away.

 

[Pats]

Hey, Ken. Welcome aboard.

 

[vossler]

All, thank you for your warm welcome. Your kindness is much appreciated.

Your welcome!

Vossler, I realize that you are a YEC and as such I thank you for your welcome. I appreciate your kindness and candor in that you're always respectful of other people's positions. I can tell from your posts that you either exercise great care with your words or that you're genuinely a real nice guy, probably both! My goal is to be able to express myself in the same Christ-like manner that you do! It's obvious that I have quite a ways to go!

Ahh, flattery! What is it they say about it? It will get either get you nowhere or everywhere. I believe both are true. Still, that's a pretty good way to start off around here. Unfortunately, given my condition, being human not the lobotomy thing, be sure that I'll probably let you down.

With that being said I didn't intend to imply that all YEC are ignorant. That is not my belief. Almost all of my Christian training in the OT area has been YEC, and the church that I still attend teaches that strongly. Some of my best friends and the most admirable people I know are YEC and I would never demean them. It was until quite recently that I myself was in the YEC fundamentalist camp. I felt that if a Christian moved away from that position at all that they were compromising with the world and were being duped by baseless secular humanism.

Trust me I didn't receive your comments as a statement of belief that we (YECs) are ignorant, you'll have plenty of time to discover that on your own. It was just a means for me to play with my 'spork' and incorporate it into the post. Can't have enough spork in the cheek, if you know what I mean.

One more thought...I realize that I am wrong in quite a few areas of my theology, and that I just don't know it yet! My positions have been developing over time and will continue to change as I gain more knowledge and insight. I am fully willing to be corrected by others of you who have more light than I (which is probably most of you!) So I hope that I don't come across with that smug superior attitude as that is not my heart.

Nah, I wasn't thinking you were in any way smug. Actually I truly felt your post was well said and had the proper tone. As for being wrong in our theology, lol, we'll there's plenty of that to go around and I'm sure you won't have to look no further than me.

If you can keep that attitude here, you'll be a more than welcome member of the club. Who knows we may even become friends. BTW, that happens around here, I can actually say there are TEs who I would consider to be my friends. Now let's just keep that between you, me and the door frame o.k.?

Things have actually mellowed around here since I first arrived, for the most part we've become more civil. Although there's still the occasional claim of someone being a non-Christian heretic or ignorant blasphemer, those incidents are fewer and farther between. Overall I'd have to say it's much improved. Even I've chilled a bit, but that doesn't mean I've lost my zeal for what I believe, I just choose to keep it under control more often.

If you've been around here for any length of time you will have noticed my occasional sarcastic tone, just remember if ever encountered it's actually rather harmless and carries no long term effects.

 

[Dannager]

Yikes, the level of civility in this thread is phenomenal. It's like there's a hole in the thread where there should be someone getting called a nitwit.

 

[Pats]

Yikes, the level of civility in this thread is phenomenal. It's like there's a hole in the thread where there should be someone getting called a nitwit.

It just reads that way to you because you're not YEC.

It reads differently to me because I have been on both sides. But, we have been having some better threads behavior wise lately. It's a nice trend.

 

[laptoppop]

Welcome, Ken!

I see the Creation account of Genesis as more of a doxology. I see that it declares the glory of God and establishes that indeed the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Lord Almighty who ALONE created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. I don't believe that even the ancient Hebrews would have taken the song of creation as a science text detailing God's actual method of creation. That is not the intention, it is not even written as a historical narrative so why would I impose those constraints on it? To use a wooden literal hermeneutic for this passage would be akin twisting the Scripture and using it as a proof text to say something it did not intend to. There is no difference between doing that and taking a literal passage and allegorizing it to the point where it doesn't say anything anymore.

I totally 100% agree with your second sentence quoted above. Amen!

I don't completely agree that it is written as a non-historical narrative. Yes, it is written in a poetic form, with special beauty and majesty. However, it also is written as fact, not just a story. In particular, the people in it are contained in geneaologies and referred to throughout the scriptures as if they were real people, not just a story. If the first chapter of Genesis is not historical, how about the second? The third? Where does it transition from doxology to historical? Some have proposed a gradual transition - with various elements being legend or various people being portrayed only partly with historical accuracy. I think that position has even more problems - but I won't get into it right now. Is Adam historical? Is Noah? Was there a worldwide flood? If so, what do you consider to be the results of the flood?

What if Ussher never arrived at a Creation date of October 23rd, 4004 BC by adding up ages given in geneaologies that were never intended to be used that way? Would there still be a handful of fundamentalists with divinity and education degrees formulating "proofs" for a young earth and flying in the face of most accepted science?

If we are not supposed to believe them, why are there so many passages where the exact ages of when each person had kids and when they died recorded? I would basically agree that it is not its primary message. I see one of the more primary reasons for the geneaologies in both the old and new testaments is to establish Jesus as messiah, consistent with an amazing number of prophesies. However, I have no basis on which to call the ages innacurate. It is not Usher, but scripture here -- which of the referenced ages are wrong and why?

In any case, welcome to the party! Come on by the Kafeteria for a cup of Java once in a while.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Yikes, the level of civility in this thread is phenomenal. It's like there's a hole in the thread where there should be someone getting called a nitwit.

Ok, well... my ex-b/f was kind of a nitwit.

Feel better, Dannager? Has order been restored?

 

[stumpjumper]

Welcome to CF Ken.

I agree with your OP except for the part about the Bible being the Word of God.

I think we can experience the Word/Logos (God's creative and revelatory aspects and the second Person of the trinity) when we read and study Scripture. But, the Bible itself is not the Word. God's Logos is ever present and available when we study revelation and creation but the Bible unopen on my desk next to me is just a Bible...

 

[Dannager]

Ok, well... my ex-b/f was kind of a nitwit.

Feel better, Dannager? Has order been restored?

Does that mean it's safe to crawl out from under this desk? I've been in there all night and boy is it tough to get a decent sleep out of it.

 

[kenrapoza]

If we are not supposed to believe them, why are there so many passages where the exact ages of when each person had kids and when they died recorded? I would basically agree that it is not its primary message. I see one of the more primary reasons for the geneaologies in both the old and new testaments is to establish Jesus as messiah, consistent with an amazing number of prophesies. However, I have no basis on which to call the ages innacurate. It is not Usher, but scripture here -- which of the referenced ages are wrong and why?

Hey I love your avatar (I'm a hopeless trekkie myself! ) Regarding the geneaologies, I don't believe that they are as closed as they appear to us. Case in point, compare the geneaology in Gen 11 with that in Luke 3. You will find that Luke 3:36 records Cainan in between Arphaxad and Shelah whereas Genesis does not. I know there is a difference of only one name between the two, but I think it illustrates a greater point. There are much larger gaps in some of the others. Compar Mat. 1:8 with 1 Chr. 3:11-12 and compare 1 Chr. 6:6-14 with Ezra 7:2. There are several generations missing.

Are we to assume that these are mere contradictions and the Bible is inconsistent? I don't think so. Remember, we must always consider the purpose of the passage. The purpose of these geneaologies is to show lineage and legitimacy. They are especially important in establishing the Messiah as the "son" of David.

So how are we to reconcile the geneaological gaps with the fact that ages are given and appear to make them closed? I put the word "son" in quotation marks previously with regards to Christ for this reason. He is obviously not David's direct son as they were removed by about 1100 years of history, nevertheless that is what he is called. When the geneaology says, for example "Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah", it actually means what it says. But sometimes what we fail to realize is that the word "begat" means "became the ancestor of", not only became the direct father of. This was not a problem for the Hebrews as they were not interested in dating the Earth, they were interested in tracing lineage, and the geneaologies serve that purpose quite well. I'm not sure how else one would reconcile the geneaological gaps with an authoritative text.

 

[kenrapoza]

Welcome to CF Ken.

I agree with your OP except for the part about the Bible being the Word of God.

I think we can experience the Word/Logos (God's creative and revelatory aspects and the second Person of the trinity) when we read and study Scripture. But, the Bible itself is not the Word. God's Logos is ever present and available when we study revelation and creation but the Bible unopen on my desk next to me is just a Bible...

I agree that the true word, or "Logos" of God is the second person of the Trinity as specified in John1:1. Just to make sure I'm clear, do you believe that the Bible accurately reveals that Logos to us; i.e., do you believe that it is inspired of God?

 

[japhy]

Just to weigh in on the whole "is the Bible the Word" issue, I believe that the Word of God is Jesus -- that is, Jesus is the "Word made flesh" -- and that the Bible is a true witness and inspired testimony to the Word. As God's Word throughout history has been obedience and salvation, the Bible is the testimony to our salvation in Christ.

Welcome to CF, ken. Please turn the lights off if you're the last one out the door.

 

[stumpjumper]

Just to make sure I'm clear, do you believe that the Bible accurately reveals that Logos to us; i.e., do you believe that it is inspired of God?

Yes, I absolutely believe the Bible is inspired. I'm just anal about the Word of God thing in relation to the Bible is all