Genesis is history.

[Micaiah]

The following link gives a chart showing 'legends' from different groups about a flood.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp

Here is the chart.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/Flood_traditions.jpg


There are twenty civilisations listed from locations right across the world. Of the twenty, twelve make a full reference to the Biblical representation of the ark, and a further 6 make a partial representation of the ark.

Have a look at the elements of the Bibilical story that are represented in the various 'legends'.

It is logical to conclude these stories were derived an event like the Flood story in Genesis. As the stories passed down through generations, aspects would change to suit a cultures beliefs'. If I believe there are many gods as opposed to one God, the legends that I tell will reflect those beliefs.

Those who interpret early Genesis literally (ie. the plain and correct interpretation) assert that these stories all stemmed from an actual flood, whose details are correctly recorded in Scripture.

Those who interpret early Genesis typologically, or mythically, retort that the Genesis account is a Jewish adaptation of the legend.

 

[Micaiah]

TE's, do you believe that there are errors in the history recorded in Scripture? I am refering here to the assertions of fact made about real events and real people in those passages you consider to be a reference to historical events.

If so, can you give an example, and explain the basis you use to establish the passage is in error?

 

[Vance]

Errors? No, since something non-historical can only be an error if the text was meant to be strictly historical. So, no, there are no errors in the Bible. See Didaskomenos' wonderful exposition of this point in the other thread.

To the extent that the historical events are overlayed by God (or which God allowed to be overlayed by his chosen scribes) with non-historical additions is difficult to say.

For me, theologically, it makes no difference, so I need not go through the exercise of concluding which is which in every case. I read it all as God's message to me, for my instruction, as Paul says.

 

[Micaiah]

I am asking you to consider those texts that you believe were intended to be taken historical. I'm assuming you accept some parts of Scripture are intended to be interpretted literally as a historical record.

Do you believe there are any factual errors in the history recorded in Scripture eg dates, numbers of people, borders etc? How do you know they are factual errors? Are you saying that where ever this apparently occurs, we should interpret the errors as being reference to something symbolic?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Allow me to give you my take on this. The ideal of unbiased, objective, empirical history was in its infancy at the time of Christ. It's safe to say there is absolutely none of that type of historical account in the OT, although the Samuels, Chronicles, and Kings seem to come closest. But their intent wasn't a historian's intent of "just the facts, ma'am." Their intent for writing can be seen in the recurring phrases, "And --iah did not follow in the steps of David his father," "and --iah did what was right in the eyes of the Lord." They did not value the Baconian ideal (see rmwilliamsII's excellent thread), nor should they have. The history of Israel in the OT is a religious history, a Heilsgeschichte.

Similarly, because the writers of the NT were Christians and were recording their testimonies, they did not seek to give a cold presentation of facts. So while Luke, for example, tried his best to get the facts together from various sources, he was still writing for a different purpose than a simple chronicle of Christianity - he was writing to convince Theophilus, and hence brought out certain aspects of history and let others go. But we can say that the Gospel writers were trying to present the events as historically accurate as possible. Did one of them ever make an "error"?

Of course - one has only to compare the wording of the Synoptics to see that they had the slightest different versions. But what matters was intent. It's easy to get something like genealogies wrong, which were vestiges of the old way of reckoning an individual's prestige and importance, or the precise wording of a parable. But that's it - we're not arguing that Jesus said the parables in the Gospels, regardless that the wording slightly varies from account to account. It's indisputable that Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, was buried, and rose again in three days, since those were contemporaneous events and were thus subject to contemporary historiographic values in their recounting. Since God demonstrably didn't override the wording variations that men were prone to make, being content to let his message shine through the broken vessels, why should we expect that genealogies would need to be completely correct beyond their range of applicability, namely, that Jesus was a worthy descendant of David?

 

[Micaiah]

Hmm. I was expecting something along those lines. I am getting a clearer picture of where you are coming from. I think your line of reasoning on inspiration goes along these lines:

The authors of Scripture wrote down the things God intended as best they could. There were factual mistakes in their writings, and to some extent the writings reflect the popular beliefs of the day, as in Creation, where their beliefs were scientifically incorrect. God admitted these mistakes into the cannon of Scripture, but ensured that the accuracy was adequate to ensure the important doctrines could be distilled from those writings.

 

[Didaskomenos]

I think you've about got it, Micaiah. God did not intervene to correct their misconceptions on every possible subject tangential to what he wanted to convey.

 

[Vance]

Hmm. I was expecting something along those lines. I am getting a clearer picture of where you are coming from. I think your line of reasoning on inspiration goes along these lines:

The authors of Scripture wrote down the things God intended as best they could. There were factual mistakes in their writings, and to some extent the writings reflect the popular beliefs of the day, as in Creation, where their beliefs were scientifically incorrect. God admitted these mistakes into the cannon of Scripture, but ensured that the accuracy was adequate to ensure the important doctrines could be distilled from those writings.

Hallelujah and praise the Lord! Even if you don't agree with this approach, you have presented it very well, and without a "spin". A difficult thing to do.