Genesis Chapters 1-14 Theological Foundations

[mark kennedy]

Genesis

Antediluvian Period:

1) Historic 6 Days of Creation (Romans 1:18-22; Heb. 11:3)
2) Adam and Eve Created (Luke 3:38; Rev. 22:3)
3) Sin and Death Through Adam (Rom 5:12-21)
4) Wicked Cain Slew Righteous Abel (I John 3:12; Matt. 23:35)
5) Generations: Adam to Noah (Luke 3:23-38)
6) Antediluvian Period (Heb. 11:7; I Peter 3:19-20)
7) Flood Prevails for 150 Days (II Peter 2:5; Luke 12:27)​

From Noah to Abram:

8) Waters Recede and Noahic Covenant (II Peter 3:3-10)
9) Repopulation: Shem, Ham and Japeth (Acts 17:26)
10) Generations: From Noah to Terah (Micah 5:6)
11) Tower of Babel and Shem to Terah (Heb 11:8-10)
12) Abram Called: from Ur to Egypt (Heb 11:15)
13) Abram and Lot Separate (Jude 18,19)
14) Abram and Melchizedek (Heb 7:1-22)​

These chapters are foundational to all of Christian theism and to discard them as anything other then historical is to abandon the original intent of the author. Given the fact that the New Testament confirms in no uncertain terms the historical nature of these passages skepticism of them is suspect. The profound theological principles inextricably linked to the sin of Adam and the judgment of the Flood makes historicity of Genesis essential to Christian theism. If arguments to the contrary exist then I have yet to see them except in the most superficial of rationalizations. Dismissing them as figurative does a grave injustice to the authority of Scripture and the Christian scholarship surrounding them for almost 2,000 years before the advent of Darwinism.

Contrary opinions are welcome but those in agreement should be warned, our views are not. Ever notice that Creationists don't stay on here long? There is a reason for that, they are not welcome.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Jase]

It has less to do with Creationists not being welcome, and more to the fact that when they realize their beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny they give up and move on.

However, by your logic, if all of that is required to be true for salvation through Christ to be true, Christianity is a failure and shall fall the way of the Roman/Greek mythologies.

 

[Mallon]

I still don't understand how Genesis 1 and 2 can both be historical re-tellings of the same event when they both provide obviously conflicting timelines.

 

[mark kennedy]

It has less to do with Creationists not being welcome, and more to the fact that when they realize their beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny they give up and move on.

However, by your logic, if all of that is required to be true for salvation through Christ to be true, Christianity is a failure and shall fall the way of the Roman/Greek mythologies.

Romans 5 makes it clear that the sin of Adam was the reason we needed justification in the first place. Of course you are going to reduce the foundational chapters of the Bible to myth and metaphor, that's how the world has looked at the Bible for almost 200 years. Creationists move on because of the constant personal attacks and the unrelenting hurling of insults that cannot be answered with the obvious conclusions. The early chapters of Genesis are viewed as historical narratives by the New Testament writers, there is no substantive argument to the contrary. Creationists can only expect ad hominem attacks like this one, that is why they move on.

I still don't understand how Genesis 1 and 2 can both be historical re-tellings of the same event when they both provide obviously conflicting timelines.

Genesis 2 is an expansion of the creation account mentioned briefly in Genesis 1. They are no in conflict, Genesis 2 is simply more detailed. This is something you can expect from a secular reader who has not background or interest in Biblical exposition. The fact that we are in a theology forum underscores the fact that TEs are simply reflecting the skepticism of our age. Did you even read the cross references?

1) Historic 6 Days of Creation (Romans 1:18-22; Heb. 11:3)
2) Adam and Eve Created (Luke 3:38; Rev. 22:3)

Does the authority and clear, consistent testimony of Scripture even matter to you?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[ivebeenshown]

I still don't understand how Genesis 1 and 2 can both be historical re-tellings of the same event when they both provide obviously conflicting timelines.

They don't. 'Waw-consecutive' is just a fancy term for "a narrative going and this... and that... and this..."

I have already demonstrated how this 'consecutive and' writing does not strictly imply a chronological order for every event.

Account 1
I went to the store and bought a birdcage, and some food. Then I went and bought a parakeet named Polly. I put her in the cage and gave her dominion over it.

Account 2
I had a house.
And I bought a bird named Polly.
And I bought a birdcage for Polly; and I put her in the cage.
And I bought some food for Polly; and I put the food in the cage.
Polly was given dominion over the food and the cage.
​

They don't conflict because I didn't use "And then after that I bought a birdcage" or "And then afterward I bought some food." The King James Version, which came before any big bang theory, assumed that people could understand this concept. They used semicolons like I did above. The NIV, as much as I dislike it, used pluperfects, which provides the same understanding as what I am saying here.

I feel that it is heartbreaking to see fellow Christians settle for the notion that the very beginning of the bible is riddled with one large contradiction, when it is not a contradiction at all. Any time an apparent 'contradiction' appears in the bible there must be an answer for it.

The truth is we have never seen a universe form or bodies form in space, so when you take the 'big bang' viewpoint like God created this big bang, you take this view and run with it, and since it contradicts what Genesis says, Genesis must then be a metaphor. When will it end? Just how much of the bible is accurate or metaphoric then? What do we do with the genealogical accounts?

The truth is that when dealing with a spontaneous act of creation and formation of the universe, nobody was there to see it and you can't prove it was a big bang with planets forming from gases over billions of years. It is purely speculative, and requires one to discard Genesis 1.

 

[Mallon]

Genesis 2 is an expansion of the creation account mentioned briefly in Genesis 1. They are no in conflict, Genesis 2 is simply more detailed.

Aside from the differences in language, Genesis 2 can't be a more detailed account of Genesis 1. The literal reading that you espouse does not permit it. In Genesis 2, God first creates Adam (verse 7), decides that it's not good for Adam to be alone and will therefore make him a helper (verse 18), then proceeds to create "all" the beasts of the field and "all" the birds of the air. This flies in the face of the order presented in Genesis 1. It doesn't make sense that God would have created all animal life, then decided to make Adam an animal helper so he wouldn't be alone. Reading Genesis literally does not allow it to be read as history.

This is something you can expect from a secular reader who has not background or interest in Biblical exposition. The fact that we are in a theology forum underscores the fact that TEs are simply reflecting the skepticism of our age.

I see you're happy to dish out the ad hom remarks, but complain when they're addressed to you. Do you read Matthew 7:1-5 literally?

 

[Mallon]

They don't. 'Waw-consecutive' is just a fancy term for "a narrative going and this... and that... and this..."

I have already demonstrated how this 'consecutive and' writing does not strictly imply a chronological order for every event.

Account 1
I went to the store and bought a birdcage, and some food. Then I went and bought a parakeet named Polly. I put her in the cage and gave her dominion over it.

Account 2
I had a house.
And I bought a bird named Polly.
And I bought a birdcage for Polly; and I put her in the cage.
And I bought some food for Polly; and I put the food in the cage.
Polly was given dominion over the food and the cage.
​

They don't conflict because I didn't use "And then after that I bought a birdcage" or "And then afterward I bought some food." The King James Version, which came before any big bang theory, assumed that people could understand this concept. They used semicolons like I did above. The NIV, as much as I dislike it, used pluperfects, which provides the same understanding as what I am saying here.

I feel that it is heartbreaking to see fellow Christians settle for the notion that the very beginning of the bible is riddled with one large contradiction, when it is not a contradiction at all. Any time an apparent 'contradiction' appears in the bible there must be an answer for it.

The truth is we have never seen a universe form or bodies form in space, so when you take the 'big bang' viewpoint like God created this big bang, you take this view and run with it, and since it contradicts what Genesis says, Genesis must then be a metaphor. When will it end? Just how much of the bible is accurate or metaphoric then? What do we do with the genealogical accounts?

The truth is that when dealing with a spontaneous act of creation and formation of the universe, nobody was there to see it and you can't prove it was a big bang with planets forming from gases over billions of years. It is purely speculative, and requires one to discard Genesis 1.

You tried to use that analogy previously. I addressed it here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7499657-2/#post55723528
In short, I said:
"The problem is that you cannot make the two stories jive because the second story (Gen 2) explicitly states that God created the animals only AFTER He created Adam. The story in Gen 2 doesn't make sense if God created the animals first and then said "I'm going to make a helper for Adam". In your analogy, that would be like first buying Polly some bird food and then saying "I'm going to buy Polly some bird food." It makes no sense. Genesis 2 obviously tells us that God made "every" beast and bird after He created Adam. You have to add to text to make it say otherwise."
shernren also addressed your analogy here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7499657-3/#post55734878
You never replied in kind.

 

[ivebeenshown]

With shernren, he was assuming that I was using the 'and consecutive' to order Genesis 1 when that is not the case. Genesis 1 is ordered by "first day" "second day" "third day" and so on. I am not relying on any sort of 'consecutive and' scheme because just saying 'and this, and that, and this' does not always imply a chronological order unless you use "then's" and "after's".

As for your response, you would have to read several "then's" and "after's" into the text to assume that it contradicts Genesis 1.

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

The LORD God said, I will make him an help meet for him,(18) because there was not found an help meet for him amongst the animals.(19,20) so he made Eve (21,22.)

Throughout this passage, "then" and "after" are not used. In Genesis 1, numerical ordering of the days is used.

 

[Mallon]

With shernren, he was assuming that I was using the 'and consecutive' to order Genesis 1 when that is not the case. Genesis 1 is ordered by "first day" "second day" "third day" and so on. I am not relying on any sort of 'consecutive and' scheme because just saying 'and this, and that, and this' does not always imply a chronological order unless you use "then's" and "after's".

But the waw consecutive DOES imply chronological order. That's why it's called the waw "consecutive". "And" is used in the sense "and then..." Hence, in Genesis 2, God: (1) created Adam, (2) and then (waw) decided to make him a helper, (3) and then (waw) made the animals, (4) and then (waw) made Eve.

 

[ivebeenshown]

But the waw consecutive DOES imply chronological order. That's why it's called the waw "consecutive". "And" is used in the sense "and then..."

That's just it -- who said it was this strictly consecutive chronological order? It goes 'and and and' but not 'and then and then and then'. If it is supposed to read 'and then and then and then', then we have God thinking there is no suitable helper for Adam, then creating the animals, then thinking there is no suitable helper for Adam again, and then forming Eve -- not to mention the blatant contradiction that would place within the first couple of chapters of the holy scriptures.

Something else I have seen is this:

A striking example of this style of narrative is in 1 Kings 7:13. The building and completion of the temple we noticed several times in chapter 6, and the last time in connection with the year and month, chapter 6:9,14,37,38. After that, the fact is stated that the royal palace was 13 years in building; and then it is related that Solomon fetched Hiram from Tyre, to make 2 pillars. If we are to understand the (WAW/VAV) consecutive here, Solomon would be made to send for the artist 13 years after the temple was finished. It only expresses the thought, "Hiram, whom Solomon fetched from Tyre. -Also note Judges 2:6.
​

Genesis 1 is strictly 'first day', 'second day', etc., and Genesis 2 is not strictly contradictory.

 

[Mallon]

That's just it -- who said it was this strictly consecutive chronological order? It goes 'and and and' but not 'and then and then and then'.

The Hebrew waw means "and then..." And it is used as such in Genesis 2. You're trying to force an English interpretation onto Genesis 2, rather than taking the meaning from the original Hebrew.

If it is supposed to read 'and then and then and then', then we have God thinking there is no suitable helper for Adam, then creating the animals, then thinking there is no suitable helper for Adam again, and then forming Eve -- not to mention the blatant contradiction that would place within the first couple of chapters of the holy scriptures.

Right! And yet that is what Genesis 2 plainly says. You have this preconceived notion that Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be read as historical narratives and therefore cannot contradict one another. You therefore have to twist the meaning of Scripture in order to get the two narratives to agree with one another. That's not good exegesis.

That's not the only place the Bible contradicts itself, either. For example, in 2 Samuel 7:16, the prophet Nathan, speaking on behalf of God, tells David "Your house and your king will endure forever before me. Your throne will be established forever." Yet in 1 Chronicles 17:14, we are told Nathan said: "I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever."

The message of 2 Samuel is “Don’t worry, David, your line is safe,” but the message of 1 Chronicles, written with the exile in his rearview mirror, is “Remember it is ultimately my throne and my kingdom, and I will establish the right king in time.”

Sometimes the Bible tells two contradictory (or rather, complimentary) stories in order to expound on the deeper, more important theological underpinnings. Such is the case with 2 Samuel and 1 Chronoicles, and such is the case with Genesis 1 and 2.

More here:
The Problem with Literalism: The Books of Chronicles (1) | The BioLogos Forum

 

[ivebeenshown]

2 Samuel 7
11And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
12And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
15But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
16And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
17According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

1 Chronicles 17
10And since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel. Moreover I will subdue all thine enemies. Furthermore I tell thee that the LORD will build thee an house.
11And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.
12He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever.
13I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:
14But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.
15According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

How do they contradict? Jesus took the throne of David, to rule the kingdom of God. Jesus came to fulfill the prophecy that the Messiah would rebuild the tabernacle of David. Besides, this has nothing to do with the chronological aspects of the text we were discussing.

 

[Mallon]

How do they contradict?

I just explained that. 2 Samuel tells us Nathan said the kingdom is David's. 1 Chronicles tells us Nathan said the kingdom is God's. They present two sides to the same theological coin even though they both give us conflicting accounts about what Nathan said. The same is true of Genesis 1 and 2.

 

[Greg1234]

There is no contradiction. What makes man, man, lies beyond the flesh. And this is just what is depicted. Life in its various states, in its most basic elemental form, is not physical. Nothing to do with Darwinism.

 

[solarwave]

I don't believe Genesis to be literal but I use it to explain things because the meaning in it is true. I especially do this if talking to someone I know is a creationist about something other than creation.

If I do this why can't God?

 

[juvenissun]

Aside from the differences in language, Genesis 2 can't be a more detailed account of Genesis 1. The literal reading that you espouse does not permit it. In Genesis 2, God first creates Adam (verse 7), decides that it's not good for Adam to be alone and will therefore make him a helper (verse 18), then proceeds to create "all" the beasts of the field and "all" the birds of the air. This flies in the face of the order presented in Genesis 1. It doesn't make sense that God would have created all animal life, then decided to make Adam an animal helper so he wouldn't be alone. Reading Genesis literally does not allow it to be read as history.


I see you're happy to dish out the ad hom remarks, but complain when they're addressed to you. Do you read Matthew 7:1-5 literally?

What makes you think that the verse sequence equivalents to the time sequence? This is so in Gen 1. But it does not have to be so in Gen 2. It is the structure of the writing and has nothing to do with literalism.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I just explained that. 2 Samuel tells us Nathan said the kingdom is David's. 1 Chronicles tells us Nathan said the kingdom is God's. They present two sides to the same theological coin even though they both give us conflicting accounts about what Nathan said. The same is true of Genesis 1 and 2.

This is indeed very interesting (about Sam and Chron) and something I will look into.

The other objection I would have is the JEPW or whatever it is, where supposedly Genesis has multiple authors and chapter 1 and 2 were written by different people. How do we know that it wasn't just the Holy Spirit writing in a different perspective or personality for each chapter?

Whatever the case, Genesis 2 does not have to explicitly contradict Genesis 1. You seem to assume that the Jews were fine with the very beginning of their Torah having this obvious contradiction, and I will assume that they would read Genesis 1 first, and see how Genesis 2 can fit Genesis 1 due to the concept of the pluperfect, rather than shrugging it off and flipping to the next page. The Torah doesn't really seem to use metaphors.

 

[Mallon]

This is indeed very interesting (about Sam and Chron) and something I will look into.

Samuel, Kings, and the Chronicles actually differ on quite a few points, if you try to milk them for history. Check out the ongoing series over at the Biologos website, which goes into these historical contradictions in a lot more detail. The point is that the history is secondary to the theological message that is being conveyed. They're only contradictory if you insist on their historicity.

The other objection I would have is the JEPW or whatever it is, where supposedly Genesis has multiple authors and chapter 1 and 2 were written by different people. How do we know that it wasn't just the Holy Spirit writing in a different perspective or personality for each chapter?

Why would the Holy Spirit do that? Does the Holy Spirit do it elsewhere in the Bible?
That just sounds like an ad hoc attempt to explain away the differences to me, rather than honestly trying to deal with them.

Whatever the case, Genesis 2 does not have to explicitly contradict Genesis 1.

Not if you alter the accounts to force them to agree, no. Ignore a word here, add another there, and they'll line up perfectly, no doubt. That's not honest exegesis, though.

The Torah doesn't really seem to use metaphors.

Except when it does.

 

[canukian]

yes.

i like FREE SPEECH. the devil hates it...

: P

 

[Sophophile]

Contrary opinions are welcome but those in agreement should be warned, our views are not. Ever notice that Creationists don't stay on here long? There is a reason for that, they are not welcome.

Creationists are welcome.

People who question others' faith are not:

Flaming
You will not insult, belittle, mock, use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members, or personally attack other members or groups of members. Do not goad another member or start call-out threads. Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian. Avoid using sarcasm to attempt any of the above.

Therefore, creationists who question the faith of creationism-skeptics are not welcome.

Cheers
S.