Genesis is history.

[Micaiah]

The internal evidence of Genesis shows that we the first 11 chapters are an historical record.

1.) The majority of orthodox Jews have interpreted Genesis 1-11 as a historical record of events. Here is a quote from a world class Jewish scholar(1):

Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’9.

2.) The genealogies given in Scripture indicate that the people spoken of in Genesis 1-11 really existed.

Genesis 5

1 This is the written account of Adam's line.


When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. [1] "

3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father [2] of Enosh. 7 And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.
28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah [3] and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.
32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

If someone knows of Mesopotamian legends that listed the genealogies of those in the stories in such detail, even giving the number of years they lived, and how old they were at the birth of various children, I’d be very interested to see such lists. Why would someone go to so much trouble to make up these details if the people were only mythical figures. It would be deceitful to give an illusion that these were real people, if they were not.
In verse 24 it states that Enoch did not die. He was a friend of God. Enoch never died. God simply took him from the earth. This is repeated in Hebrews.

Hebrews 11
4By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
5By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Here is another list of genealogies that go back to Adam. Again there is no hint here that the people were anything but real people.

Luke 3
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,

24the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,

the son of Levi, the son of Melki,

the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,

the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,

26the son of Naggai, the son of Maath,

the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,

the son of Josech, the son of Joda,

27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,

the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,

28the son of Neri, the son of Melki,

the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,

the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,

29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,

the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,

30the son of Levi, the son of Simeon,

the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,

the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,

31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,

the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,

32the son of David, the son of Jesse,

the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,

the son of Salmon,[4] the son of Nahshon,

33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[5]

the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,

34the son of Judah, the son of Jacob,

the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,

the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,

the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,

36the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan,

the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,

the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,

37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,

the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,

38the son of Kenan, the son of Enosh,

the son of Seth, the son of Adam,

the son of God.

 

[Micaiah]

3.) There are other references in Scripture to Adam which infer he was a real person, and the events that are recorded really happened.

Jude 1

13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: "See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

This first also includes statements about Enoch. Enoch was a real man as mentioned above who prophesied about sinful mans impending judgement.

The events that occurred in Genesis set the stage for God’s plan of redemption.

Romans 5



12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul speaks of the fall here as a real event.

Through Adams sin:

· Sin and death entered the world

· Judgement followed one sin, and with it condemnation

· Death reigned over all men through one man’s sin

· All men (and women) are considered sinners because of Adam’s sin

The fact of Adam’s sin is an important doctrine that would lose its significance if he were just a mythical figure in the same way the resurrection of Christ would be meaningless if Jesus was just a mythical hero.

In the next passage Paul speaks of the order required in church. Men are to preach, women to learn in silence and submission. His words on women teaching in the church is based on events that occurred at the time of the fall. Paul clearly believed these were real events.

1 Timothy 2

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[1] will be saved[2] through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

Jesus rebuke of the Pharisees distortion of God’s truth on Genesis was based on real events that occurred at the dawn of time recorded in Genesis.

Matthew 19

1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[1] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[2] ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Genesis 2

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam [8] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [9] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [10] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called 'woman, [11] '

for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

 

[Micaiah]

4.)There are many references in Scripture to Noah which infer he was a real person, and the events that are recorded really happened

Genesis 6

9 This is the account of Noah.



Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God. 10 Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress [3] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. [4] 16 Make a roof for it and finish [5] the ark to within 18 inches [6] of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark-you and your sons and your wife and your sons' wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

22 Noah did everything just as God commanded him.



Genesis 7

1 The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven [1] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

5 And Noah did all that the LORD commanded him.

6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth. 7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the LORD shut him in.

17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. [2] , [3] 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

Note the detail given here. This does not read like the Gilgamesh legend (2). That legend has the hero interacting with various gods. Here is an extract of the translated story(2).

In 1853, the archaeologist Austen Henry Layard and his team were excavating the palace library of the ancient Assyrian capital Nineveh. Among their finds were a series of 12 tablets of a great epic. The tablets dated from about 650 BC, but the poem was much older. The hero, Gilgamesh, according to the Sumerian King List,3 was a king of the first dynasty of Uruk who reigned for 126 years.4



However, in the legend, Gilgamesh is 2/3 divine and 1/3 mortal. He has enormous intelligence and strength, but oppresses his people. The people call upon the gods, and the sky-god Anu, the chief god of the city, makes a wild man called Enkidu with enough strength to match Gilgamesh. Eventually the two fight, but neither can win. Their enmity becomes mutual respect then devoted friendship.



The two new friends set off on adventures together, but eventually the gods kill Enkidu. Gilgamesh grievously mourns his friend, and realises that he too must eventually die. However, he learns of one who became immortal—Utnapishtim, the survivor of a global Flood. Gilgamesh travels across the sea to find Utnapishtim, who tells of his remarkable life.



...............................



Then Enlil saw the ark and was enraged that some humans had survived. But Ea sternly rebuked Enlil for overkill in bringing the flood. Whereupon Enlil granted immortality to Utnapishtim and his wife, and sent them to live far away, at the Mouth of the Rivers.



Here is where Gilgamesh found him, and heard the remarkable story. First Utnapishtim tested Gilgamesh’s worthiness for immortality by challenging him to stay awake for 7 nights. But Gilgamesh was too exhausted and quickly fell asleep. Utnapishtim asked his wife to bake a loaf of bread and place it by Gilgamesh every day he slept. When Gilgamesh awoke, he thought he had just been asleep for a moment. But Utnapishtim showed Gilgamesh the loaves at different stages of aging, showing that he had been asleep for days.



Gilgamesh once more lamented about his inevitable death, and Utnapishtim took pity on him. So he revealed where he could find a plant of immortality. This was a thorny plant in the domain of Apsu, the god of the subterranean sweet water. Gilgamesh opened a conduit to the Apsu, tied heavy stones to his ankle, sunk deep down, and grabbed the plant. Although the plant pricked him, he cut off the stones, and rose.



Unfortunately, on the return journey, Gilgamesh stopped at a cool spring to bathe, and a snake carried off the plant. Gilgamesh wept bitterly, because he could not return to the underground waters.

The writing styles of the two accounts are very different. The latter clearly fits into the mould of a myth. It would be wrong to claim that the story of Noah was similar, or was based on a similar writing style. The idea that the myth is a pagan distortion of the real story makes much more sense.


Here are further references the author of Hebrews to many of the characters in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

Hebrews 11

3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. 4By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
5By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
7By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
8By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
11By faith Abraham, even though he was past age--and Sarah herself was barren--was enabled to become a father because he[1] considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.
13All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth.

Again, it is obvious that the author considered these people to be real people, and the events of their lives to be genuine. There is no hint that they were mythical figures of Jewish legends. The author spoke plainly about events of the past under inspiration. We should accept them as such.

• Russell Grigg, “Should Genesis be taken literally?” http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp
• Jonathan Sarfati, “Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic”
  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp

 

[rmwilliamsll]

history and historical writing is more of a spectrum of possibilities than a fixed transcultural single item.

for instance:

an eyewitness account has several different kind of presentations, mostly depending on the training of the observer and what exactly is the purpose of the account.
say you observe a traffic accident. and a cop interviews you.
your account, the cops written report, and the people involved in the accident all have a different purpose and a different POV. Different levels of involvement, for instance, the radical difference between the drivers of the two cars(presumably) account of what happened. Yet all: cop-written report, your eyewitness account, the two drivers, saw the same event, yet all accounts will differ. why?

likewise a professional newspaperman's account of the accident will be different yet. But all are history. Then look at recollections written years afterwards, they will be very different, why? intervening years cast a different light on the accident, some events will be more important in the light of what happened afterwards.

The same thing with the writing of history. There are textbooks, long polemical writings justifying one or the other side of crucial events, professional and otherwise recollections and memories.

Then there are historical novels, novels with historical basis etc etc. All using the same materials, all with different objectives and purposes for their activities. Yet all are within the rubric of history.

And this is before any discussion of how history and history-writing has radically changed over the centuries and through various cultures, this is just an analysis of western literary culture, not even oral histories which operate with an expanded set of rules due to their nature as verbal communication not written.

so which use of the word history are you referring to?

....

 

[Micaiah]

Historical in the sense that it is a record of events that occured in the past. Since the record was inspired by God, it is truthful.

 

[notto]

If we use the same rules for all Creation and historical accounts available, including Chinese, Egyptian, and others, then they all must be true, therefore, none are true.

Best to look at all the evidence available which tells us that the earth is old, that civilizations appear all over the planet that didn't spring from Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago, and that the flood was not worldwide.

The truth of the bible only holds to the context under which it was written. The writers left out the details that they were not inspired to understand or know. They didn't know that people were farming in South American some 15,000 years ago or that aboriginees in australia were writing on caves some 10,000 years ago. This knowledge was not revealed to them but that does't negate the truths of the creation narratives. God created, God loves man, Man is disobedient to God, man is fallen.

 

[Micaiah]

If we use the same rules for all Creation and historical accounts available, including Chinese, Egyptian, and others, then they all must be true, therefore, none are true.

An historian can get facts wrong, or report facts in a way that presents a distorted picture of the past. Neither would be true of God's inspired word.

Best to look at all the evidence available which tells us that the earth is old, that civilizations appear all over the planet that didn't spring from Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago, and that the flood was not worldwide.

That is man's interpretation of the evidence, and should not be placed above the plain teaching Scripture.

The truth of the bible only holds to the context under which it was written. The writers left out the details that they were not inspired to understand or know. They didn't know that people were farming in South American some 15,000 years ago or that aboriginees in australia were writing on caves some 10,000 years ago. This knowledge was not revealed to them but that does't negate the truths of the creation narratives. God created, God loves man, Man is disobedient to God, man is fallen.

Not so. God's truth transcends time and man's ability to understand it.

God created, God loves man, Man is disobedient to God, man is fallen.

True, but Genesis specifically states much more than this. To reduce the specificity of Genesis is and attack on God's word.

 

[herev]

Again, it is obvious that Peter considered these people to be real people, and the events of their lives to be genuine. There is no hint that they were mythical figures of Jewish legends. Peter spoke plainly about events of the past under inspiration. We should accept them as such.

and just out of curiousity, why are you attributing a quote from Hebrews to Peter?

 

[Micaiah]

Thankyou. My mistake.

 

[notto]

To reduce the specificity of Genesis is and attack on God's word.

How so? What I said is truth gained from the Genesis narrative. How is distilling that truth an attack on God's word? If I say that God is love or Jesus is the savior in an effort to explain the message of the bible is that an attack on God's word? To suggest that what I said or how I interpret Genesis is in any way an attack on God's word is really quite absurd and fairly offensive. I would ask you to mind how you judge other Christians and check your own motives in doing so.

 

[Micaiah]

To reduce the specificity of Genesis is and attack on God's word.

Consider the crucifixion. There are people who claim to believe in Christ, and some of His teachings while rejecting the historicity of His virgin birth, death and resurrection. These people cannot claim to be Christian. Our belief in Christ rests on historical events. In this case, claiming the various factual details asserted in Scripture are not reliable is to limit its specificity, and has serious theological implications.

As I have demonstrated above, the internal evidence of Scripture is clear that the account of Creation given in Genesis is intended to be read as history.

 

[herev]

Consider the crucifixion. There are people who claim to believe in Christ, and some of His teachings while rejecting the historicity of His virgin birth, death and resurrection. These people cannot claim to be Christian. Our belief in Christ rests on historical events. In this case, claiming the various factual details asserted in Scripture are not reliable is to limit its specificity, and has serious theological implications.

As I have demonstrated above, the internal evidence of Scripture is clear that the account of Creation given in Genesis is intended to be read as history.

you know, I have always believed in the virgin birth, so this is not about my beliefs, but even going all the way back to Paul, the virginity was not an issue--Paul never mentions it--never. Surely if Paul thought is was as important as you seem to say, he would have mentioned it at least once, wouldn't he?

 

[Micaiah]

I can think of good reasons why the virgin birth is important. My point however is to demonstrate that some of the doctrines we consider most important are based on historical events, and to claim those events did not happen is to destroy the doctrine.

 

[herev]

I can think of good reasons why the virgin birth is important. My point however is to demonstrate that some of the doctrines we consider most important are based on historical events, and to claim those events did not happen is to destroy the doctrine.

I can understand your point, my concern was this comment you made here:

There are people who claim to believe in Christ, and some of His teachings while rejecting the historicity of His virgin birth, death and resurrection. These people cannot claim to be Christian.

note bold is mine for emphasis

I am only concerned in that we are dangerously close to judging in an area that is outside of our responsibility here. If one believes in Jesus as Lord and SAvior and (some would add) they follow his teachings, then they are a Christian, no? So to say the "claim" to believe and to say they cannot "claim to be Christian" sounds (IMHO) as if we are adding a demension of requirement for salvation that should not be. What do you think?

 

[Vance]

Micaiah, you are completely ignoring the cultural differences between ancient peoples in the near east and ourselves in regards to "historicity", which I have set out many times over.

 

[Micaiah]

Vance, I'm not sure what you mean. This is certainly the thread to discuss why you do not accept the historicity of Genesis. Take it away.

 

[Micaiah]

I can understand your point, my concern was this comment you made here:
note bold is mine for emphasis

I am only concerned in that we are dangerously close to judging in an area that is outside of our responsibility here. If one believes in Jesus as Lord and SAvior and (some would add) they follow his teachings, then they are a Christian, no? So to say the "claim" to believe and to say they cannot "claim to be Christian" sounds (IMHO) as if we are adding a demension of requirement for salvation that should not be. What do you think?

I agree we need to be careful of not judging people on the matter of salvation. At the end of the day it is God's call. He knows the heart. My point is that there are certain beliefs that we believe are crucial for a person to understand and accept to be saved. I believe what I've listed coincides with the Nicene Creed. Those important doctrines rest on historical facts, and to undermine the historicity of those events and people is to undermine the doctrines. This highlights the danger of claiming an event or person is not real when Scripture plainly asserts they were.

By the way, I have not seen a lot of evidence to refute what I've outlined above. It seems to me that there is little to oppose what is being stated. It is my contention that if the internal evidence is clearly that we should interpret Genesis literally, then those who argue otherwise from supposed scientific evidence, or because some of the myths around at the time had similar elements to the Creation story, are placing human reasoning over Scripture. That is a dangerous error to make, and should be rejected as a basis for interpreting Scripture.

 

[Micaiah]

Post by Vance copied from another thread. He seems a bit shy responding to my threads these days. This was the kind of response I was after, and my guess is this is about as good as it gets the TE's.

Personally, I began to wonder about the literal reading of Genesis back in high school. I had been raised in an environment that did not even consider any other viewpoint, so this was based purely on the text itself. First, I was seriously into ancient history (went on to get a BA degree in ancient history) and became familiar with how literature was written back then, what people believed about the past and how they wrote about the past. I do not recall the specific things that clinched it for me (since it was a wide variety of little clues, both historical and literary), but before I was a senior, I was almost certain that Genesis could not have been meant to be read literally.

This had nothing at all to do with science or evolution in particular, since at that time, I still held YEC beliefs. It was only after reaching this conclusion, that I began to wonder whether the YEC beliefs may be wrong as well. I didn't think so, since I had been told that YEC beliefs were not based solely on a literal reading of Genesis, but were supported by the evidence as well. I found out this was just wrong, and that YEC'ism was based almost exclusively on a literal reading of the text.

There were three primary reasons why I concluded that Scripture was most likely not meant to be read literally:

1. The literary clues: language is very poetic and symbolic, using a framework that rises above a straightforward reading. The idea that God was giving us a symbolic and typological presentation of the truth, rather than a historical narrative, seems very clear to me.

2. A knowledge of the cultural setting, in both mindset and literature, taught me that a non-literal presentation would not have been viewed as any less "true" or correct than a literal historical record. So, reading it non-literally did not cause me any concerns over "not believing the Bible" or "not trusting God".

3. There were just too many consistency problems with the literal reading. Sure, the literalists since the middle ages have developed "work-arounds" for these problems, but that is just what they are: "work-arounds". The two creation stories which disagree regarding the order of creation, the day on which the sun and moon are created, the problem of Cain, the fact that Adam and Eve did not physically die on the day they ate the fruit, the fact that there was a tree of life, when supposedly they were already immortal, etc, etc. These made it clear to me that some, at least, of the text could not be read in its most straightforward manner. If it were not for the first two reasons, I may have stuck with a literal reading and just accepted these work-arounds. But all added up, the choice was pretty clear for me.

The scientific verification of the age of the earth came next, which was a slam dunk. The facts of evolutionary development were equally obvious once I reviewed the evidence (now without any bias in favor of a literal reading of Genesis, but still not with any predeliction to accept evolution, since I still had OEC sources telling me the earth could be old and the development of species over time could be explained without evolution). The theory of evolution as the explanation for those facts of evolutionary development came last, which I accept as the best theory going to explain those facts, and which fits the known evidence as well as any theory in science.

Here is a very interesting article describing why Genesis 1 should be read non-literally.

What makes it interesting is that it is written by someone that obviously is opposed to Darwinism.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bibl...f%20Genesis%201


Here are two more interesting discussions of the literal/nonliteral issue:

http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/OT/sixday.htm


http://www.wcg.org/lit/booklets/science/genesis_1.htm

I will add that, as a person with a historical background, and one who follows the archealogical and historical fields pretty closely, I believe that starting with Abraham, we are pretty solidly in historical narrative. This does not mean that some of the stories may not be overlaid with legendary additions (as God chose to present His message to us), but the persons and overall events I think are historical.

A question for a start Vance. Why have you decided that Abraham was a real person?

 

[Vance]

For two reasons.

First, the language used lacks the style and nature of the earlier stories, and reads much more like history. There is a very distinct difference once you get to the Patriarch sagas. While it does contain some of the "set-piece" aspects, it also is giving a rolling narrative rather than vignettes, as is the case with the earlier stories, such as Babel and Noah. For me, this reason alone would be sufficient to view the patriarchs as very likely historical, even if there is some overlay of saga-like additions to the details. As an historian (by training, even though I have moved on to the law for a profession), I tend to view such writings as generally historical unless proven otherwise by the context or evidence, thus making me a "maximalist" rather than a "minimalist". This is even more so with the Bible.

Second, the patriarchal stories match up very well with the archealogical evidence that has been discovered. While we have no specific references to any of them outside the Bible, the details described in the Bible fit VERY well with the new information we have about cultures and events of the time. This is important, because if it was NOT based on original oral traditions or even early writings passed down to the eventual "final" scribes, as guided by God, then those details would not match up so well. Later writers tend to clothe their forebears in their own trappings (see medieval paintings of Biblical times, with their "modern" dress), and it is likely that writers of these later times didn't even know these details as we do now.

Regardless, the importance of these texts is still not in their historicity, but in the message God wants to convey through them.

 

[GodSaves]

Many people have stated that Genesis cannot be taken as history. Archaeological evidence begs to differ.



Babylonian Creation Stories

"Epics of Creation, in various forms, on tablets which were in circulation before the time of Abraham, have been found in recent years in the ruins of Babylon, Nineveh, Nippur and Ashur, which are strikingly similar to the Creation account of Genesis. The main difference is there are many gods."



Original Monotheism

"Dr. Stephen Langdon, of Oxford University, has found that the earliest Babylonian inscriptions suggest that man's first religion was a belief in One God, and from that there was a rapid decline into Polytheism and Idolatry."



Eridu, Traditional Garden of Eden

“The particular spot which tradition has fixed as the site of the Garden of Eden is a group of mounds, 12 miles south of Ur, known as Eridu (Abu Sharem). It was the home of "Adapa," the Babylonian Adam. The Weld Prism says the first two kings of history reigned at Eridu. Ancient Babylonian inscriptions say, "Near Eridu was a garden, in which was a mysterious Sacred Tree, a Tree of Life, planted by the gods, whose roots were deep, while its branches reached to heaven, protected by guardian spirits, and no man enters.” The ruins of Eridu were excavated by Hall and Thompson, of the British Museum (1918-19). They found indications that it had been a prosperous city, revered as the Original Home of Man.”



The Eridu Region

“The region around Eridu, excavations have revealed, was densely populated in the earliest known ages of history, and was for centuries dominating Center of the World; a region where many of the oldest and most valuable inscriptions have been found.”



Babylonian Traditions of Fall of Man

“Early Babylonian inscriptions abound in references to a “tree of life,” from which man was driven, by the influence of an evil spirit personified in a serpent, and to which he was prevented from returning by guardian cherubs. Among these tablets there is a story of “Adapa,” so strikingly parallel, to the Biblical story of Adam, that he is called the Babylonian Adam. “Adapa, the seed of mankind,” – “through knowledge,” -then he “became mortal,” –the gods, said, “He shall not rest,” – “they clothed him with mourning garment.” There are two ancient Seals which seem to portray in Picture exactly what Genesis says in Words: The ‘Temptation’ Seal found among ancient Babylonian tablets, now in the British Museum, seems definitely to refer to the Garden of Eden story. In the center is a Tree; on the right, a Man; on the left, a Woman, plucking fruit; behind the Woman, a Serpent, standing erect, as if whispering to her. The ‘Adam and Eve’ Seal found, 1932, by Dr. E. A. Speiser, of the University Museum of Pennsylvania, near the bottom of the Tepe Gawra Mound, 12 miles north of Nineveh. He dated the Seal at about 3500 B.C., and called it ‘strongly suggestive of the Adam and Eve story’: a naked man and a naked woman, walking as if utterly down-cast and broken-hearted, followed by a serpent. The seal is about an inch in diameter, engraved on stone. It is now in the University Museum at Philadelphia.”



Other Traditions of the Fall of Man

“Persian: our first parents, innocent, virtuous, and happy, lived in a Garden, where there was a Tree of Immortality, till an evil spirit in the form of a Serpent appeared. Hindu: In the first age man was free from evil and disease, had all his wishes, and lived long.

Greek: the first man, in the golden age, was naked, free from evil and trouble, enjoyed communion with the gods.

Chinese: had a tradition of a happy age, when men had an abundance of food, surrounded by peaceful animals.”



The flood Deposit at Ur

“Within the last few years, an actual layer of mud, evidently deposited by the flood, has been found in three separate places: Ur, which was 12 miles from the traditional site of the Garden of Eden; at Fara, traditional home of Noah, 60 miles further up the river; and at Kish, a suburb of Babylon, 100 miles further up the river; and, possibly, also at a fourth place, Nineveh, 300 miles still further up the river. At Ur, the city of Abraham, the joint expedition of the University Museum of Pennsylvania and the British Museum, under the leadership of Dr. C. L. Woolley, found (1929), near the bottom of the Ur mounds, underneath several strata of human occupation, a great bed of solid water-laid clay 8 feet thick without admixture of human relic, with yet the ruins of another city buried beneath it. Dr. Woolley said that 8 feet of sediment implied a very great depth and a long period of water, that I could not have been put there by any ordinary overflow of the rivers, but only by some such vast inundation as the Biblical Flood. The civilization underneath the flood layer was so different from that above in that I indicated to Dr. Woolley ‘a sudden and terrific break in the continuity of history.’”



The Flood Deposit at Kish

“Kish (Ukheimer, El-Ohemer, Uhaimir), on the east edge of Babylon, on a bed of the Euphrates which is now dry, was said, on the tablets, to have been first city rebuilt after the Flood. The Field Museum-Oxford University Joint Expedition, under the direction of Dr. Stephen Langdon, found (1928-29) a bed of clean water-laid clay, in the lower strata of the ruins of Kish, 5 feet thick, indicating a flood of vast proportions. The flood layer is located just above the wall ruins. It contained no objects of any kind. Underneath it the relics represented an entirely different type of culture. Among the relics found was a four-wheeled Chariot, the wheels made of wood and copper nails, with the skeletons of the animals that drew it.”



The Flood Deposit at Fara

“Fara (Shuruppak, Sukkurru), home of the Babylonian Noah, about half way between Babylon and Ur. Once on the Euphrates, now 40 miles to the east. A low-lying group of mounds, beaten by the sands of the desert. Excavated (1931), by Dr. Eric Schmidt, of the University Museum of Pennsylvania. He found the remains of three cities: the top one, contemporaneous with the 3rd Ur dynasty; the middle city, Early Sumerian; and the bottom city, Pre-Flood. The flood layer was between the middle city and the bottom city. It consisted of yellow dirt, a mixture of sand and clay, definitely alluvial, water-laid, solid earth, without relics of human occupation. Underneath the flood deposit was a layer of charcoal and ashes, a dark colored culture refuse which may have been wall remains, painted pottery, skeletons, cylinder seals, stamp seals, pots, pans and vessels.”



At Nineveh Also

“In ‘Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology,’ Vol. XX, pages 134-35, PI 73, M. E. L. Mallowan, director of the British Museum Excavations at Nineveh (1932-33), describing the sinking of the pit in the Great Mound, through 90 feet from the top to virgin soil, states that 70 feet to the 90 presented five pre-historic strata of occupation, and that about half-way down, between the 2nd and the 3rd strata from the bottom, there was a stratum some 8 feet thick consisting of alternate layers of viscous mud and riverine sand with 13 distinct rises in level, which in his opinion, indicated a series of severe pluvial seasons. There was a distinct difference between the pottery under the wet layer, and that above it.

1. The fact that a vast flood covering the whole area of early civilization is established by the 8 foot layer of silt which cuts through the ‘cultural levels’ of all the Euphrates Valley sites.

2. Sumerian ‘King Lists’ from Lower Mesopotamia retain the tradition of a Deluge. Phrases such as, ‘then the flood swept over the earth’ … ‘after the flood,’ occur.

3. A Sumerian tablet of 2000 B.C. gives a full account of a flood. One man is saved by the intervention of the gods, in a huge boat.”



Site of the Tower of Babel

“The traditional Tower of Babel is at Borsippa, 10 miles southwest from the center of Babylon. Sir Henry Rawlinson found in a foundation corner in Borsippa a cylinder with this inscription: ‘The tower of Borsippa, which a former king erected, and completed to a height of 42 cubits, whose summit he did not finish, fell to ruins in ancient times. There was no proper care of its gutters for the water; rain and storms had washed away its brick and the tiles of it roof were broken. The great god Marduk urged me to restore it. I did not alter its site, or change its foundation walls. At a favorable time I renewed its brick work and its roofing tiles, and I wrote my name on the cornices of the edifice. I built it anew as it had been ages before; I erected its pinnacle as it was in remote days.’ This seems like a tradition of the unfinished tower of Babel. It is commonly thought by archaeologists that more then likely the actual site was in the center of Babylon, identified with the ruins just north of the Marduk Temple. G. Smith found an ancient tablet reading: ‘The building of this illustrious tower offended the gods. In a night they threw down what they had built. They scattered the abroad, and made strange their speech.’ This seems like a tradition of Babel. It is now an immense hole 330 feet square, which bas been used as a quarry from which to take bricks. When standing it consisted of a number of successive platforms one on top of another, each smaller than the one below, and sanctuary to Marduk on the top.”









There are many more pages of archaeological facts that concern the history of Genesis.