• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
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):



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



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.

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.
 

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
3.) There are other references in Scripture to Adam which infer he was a real person, and the events that are recorded really happened.



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.



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.



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.





 
Upvote 0

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
4.)There are many references in Scripture to Noah which infer he was a real person, and the events that are recorded really happened

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).

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.

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.

 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
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?

....
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
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.
 
Upvote 0

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
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.

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.
 
Upvote 0

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,619
935
60
✟43,600.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
and just out of curiousity, why are you attributing a quote from Hebrews to Peter?
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
55
Visit site
✟29,869.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Micaiah said:
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.
 
Upvote 0

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
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.
 
Upvote 0

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,619
935
60
✟43,600.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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?
 
Upvote 0

herev

CL--you are missed!
Jun 8, 2004
13,619
935
60
✟43,600.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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?
 
Upvote 0

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
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.
 
Upvote 0

Micaiah

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2002
2,444
37
62
Western Australia
Visit site
✟2,837.00
Faith
Christian
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.

A question for a start Vance. Why have you decided that Abraham was a real person?
 
Upvote 0

Vance

Contributor
Jul 16, 2003
6,666
264
59
✟30,780.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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.
 
Upvote 0

GodSaves

Well-Known Member
May 21, 2004
840
47
50
✟1,243.00
Faith
Lutheran
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.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.