Is Genesis 1-11 Literal

[Yekcidmij]

I'm not sure how literal/historical we should take Genesis 1-11. Even the parts that look the most literal have trouble. Looking at the Genealogies of Gen 4,5, and 11 I think we run into trouble.

For example, there are exactly 10 generations from Adam to Noah which is neatly paralleled by exactly 10 generations from Shem to Abraham.

The end of the pre-flood genealogy is Noah who has 3 sons; The end of the post-flood genealogy is Terah who has 3 sons.

Enoch, 7th from Adam lives for exatly 365 years, which is strikingly identical to the number of days in a solar year.

The amount of time from the birth of Shem's son to Abraham's migration into Canaan is exactly 365 years, which is strikingly identical to the number of days in a solar year.

The amount of time from the end of the flood to the birth of Abraham is 290 years which is neatly paralleled by 290 years from Abraham's birth to the entry into Egypt.

Or just do the math and discover that Noah and Shem lived for most of Abraham's life.

What this seems to indicate to me is that these numbers are schematic in nature and are being used to highlight what the author thinks is most important: Adam, Noah, Enoch?, flood, Abraham, entry into Canaan, entry into Egypt. There are added bonuses to this too because if you carry out the chronology, particularly that of the Masoretic Text, you discover other interesting "coincidences". There are 430 years in Egypt. There are 480 years from the founding of the Tabernacle to the foundation of the 1st Temple. There are 430 years of kings in Judah followed by a 50 year exile, which means that from the founding of the first temple to the founding of the 2nd temple, there is another 480 years. The Exodus occurs 2666 years after creation or 2/3 of the way to the year 4000. The year 4,000 of creation according to this chronology is the year 164 BC, which just coincidently corresponds to the year the Maccabees redidacted the Temple after winning it back from Gentile control.

All of this makes me believe that Genesis is a theo-history, that is, a theological reading and understanding of historical events, not a modern academic reading of events. It's not that the events are either literal or figurative (which people usually use to mean literal=True and figurative=false). The events retold, including the much disputed creation stories, are not retold from some uber-objective standpoint, but they are retold from a theological perspective where the God of Israel is King and all facts are subjected to that fact and interpreted in that light.

 

[crawfish]

I have presented the truth in God's word. It is up to you if you will accept it or not. My opinion or interpreation has nothing to do with it. It is what God's word says. Choose this day who you will serve: serve the One and only True God as presented in the Bible or follow your made up god. The choice is yours.

But when somebody else says something that says something different than you say and they also use scripture to justify it, then how am I to know which of you is making it up and which is serving God?

 

[Calminian]

Good question. After all this is exactly the same response creationists give when pressed on the literal meaning of biblical geocentrism/flat earth. They never can actually produce a logical argument from the text as to why these descriptions are not literal.

Everyone abandons the literal meaning of the biblical text when they are convinced that it is contradicted by science. So deploring that someone else does it is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.

Well we're making some progress, because first you're admitting you don't have a good reason for saying genesis 1-11 is non-literal except for the fact that it violates your philosophical views of origins.

To address your "you do it also" arguments, first of all, how are you defining "earth?" In the modern sense, or in the biblical sense. The biblical earth is merely dry land. It's neither flat nor spherical.

Gen. 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

Every reference you see to the earth in scripture speaks of the land as distinct from the sea and heavens.

Here's a good article that explains this in detail.

If you're open minded that should help you escape the flat earth argument. I take the Bible literally when it describes the earth as land. Do you? I believe it to be neither spherical nor flat, but having lots of hills and curves. If you're defining the earth of scripture as a planet, you're not taking the Bible literally.

Second, is the geocentrism issue. Another questions: how do you define geocentrism? If you define it as objects orbiting the sun in space, due to gravity, inertia and centrifugal force, then the Bible is silent on that. But the Bible does employ points of references when describing movement. We do the same today, and it is literal and correct. If you tell your kids to stop moving on the back seat of your moving car, are you being figurative or literal? It's obvious the car is moving, on a moving planet, right? So what do you mean by telling them to "stop moving?" Obviously your kids are smart enough to know you're speaking with the car itself as a point of reference in which they are to stop moving in.

The Bible says,

Deut. 19:14 Do not move your neighbor’s boundary stone set up by your predecessors in the inheritance you receive in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess.

But those border stones are already moving through space really fast, right? But the point of reference in this case is the ground and we are commanded to literally not move them.

When a policeman tells you to stop!, do you then think, "hmmm I wonder what he means by that? I mean we're all moving and can't stop." Try that in court.

Same with all the sunset passages. The point of reference is the earth (land). Modern astrophysicists speak of sunsets as well, and they are literally correct in doing so.

Now can you give me an answer like that to defend your view on Gen. 1-11?

If you can't maybe one of your fellow TE's can.

 

[Calminian]

...All of this makes me believe that Genesis is a theo-history, that is, a theological reading and understanding of historical events, not a modern academic reading of events..

A theo-history? And that's opposed to a modern reading?? Eek.

An interesting conclusion to be drawn from different genealogies, to say the least. You do realize that everyone has hundreds and even thousands of different genealogies depending on which road they want to take? And you also realize that the ancients skipped generations often depending on what point they were trying to make with their genealogy? Yet you say this proves any genealogy that differ from another genealogy must then be theo-histories?

Yikes, man. Any chance you want to explain that further?

 

[Yekcidmij]

And you also realize that the ancients skipped generations often depending on what point they were trying to make with their genealogy?

You mean the ancients used genealogies to make something besides historical points? Isn't that what I just said?

Yet you say this proves any genealogy that differ from another genealogy must then be theo-histories?

Was that what I concluded? I'm pretty sure I stuck to the genealogies in Genesis in particular (though I wandered over to Exodus and Kings).

 

[Calminian]

You mean the ancients used genealogies to make something besides historical points? Isn't that what I just said?

They are very historical. Obviously you haven't delved into the issue too deep so I'll try to patiently explain it. They would list people in genealogies according to whichever ever line they wanted to take, but never make up people out of thin air. That would literally prove nothing. They would also skip generations, but never make them up. You find this practice in the N.T. as well as the old as well as in other ANE cultures. It was understood by all, and no one was mislead.

Was that what I concluded? I'm pretty sure I stuck to the genealogies in Genesis in particular (though I wandered over to Exodus and Kings).

Again, as is the custom of old earthers, you apply a different standard to different parts of the Bible. I can tell you your theo-history theory has no basis in reality.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Obviously you haven't delved into the issue too deep so I'll try to patiently explain it.

Wow. That's presumptuous. Now I'm expecting to see use of ancient near eastern material in your explanation since you're the expert around here.

They would list people in genealogies according to whichever ever line they wanted to take, but never make up people out of thin air.

Who said they were made up out of thin air?

That would literally prove nothing. They would also skip generations, but never make them up. You find this practice in the N.T. as well as the old as well as in other ANE cultures. It was understood by all, and no one was mislead.

For anyone looking into the subject deeply, as you must have and I must have not, they wouldn't make the mistake of trying to compare culture and practice in the first century AD with the time frame given in Gen 5 and 11 since there is a 2,000+ year difference. And you don't really give any specifics. I guess I should just take your word on this one?

Again, as is the custom of old earthers, you apply a different standard to different parts of the Bible.

LOL. Now I'm an old earther? For someone who is the local expert, you seem to be having trouble with basic reason. I like how you think I'm an old earther, whatever exactly that is, and that I think the genealogies were made up out of thin air or that I think they were being misleading to their audience. Those are nothing near what I have concluded. I also like how you haven't disputed the points I made. What appears to be the problem for the board expert, that's you, is that you haven't actually disputed my conclusions (you've disputed several things that I never concluded) nor have you disputed the points I made. What exactly are you supposed to be doing here?

I concluded that the stories in Genesis are told from a theological standpoint, not that the stories are just all fabricated.

 

[Calminian]

I concluded that the stories in Genesis are told from a theological standpoint, not that the stories are just all fabricated.

On the one hand you have theo-history, on the other an academic reading. This is what you said. I was trying to explain to you that academia understands that these genealogies are listings of real and actual people. Thus there is no reason to take them non-literally, in fact the theological message is undermined if they are not literal. I'm just the messenger. Don't hate me for telling you the truth.

 

[Kol]

I am currently trying to decide how to understand the 7-day creation. I love to study theoretical physics, and although the math is beyond me, the story still amazes me. Genesis 1 stands right in front of me, begging me to trip over it though. The earth was created before the sun, the sun was created before the stars, and God made a star (SN 1987A) which appeared to be intact, but had actually supernova'd, then made a beam of light to fool us into thinking there was a star where there no longer (or ever had been) one at all.

All of this makes me believe that Genesis is a theo-history, that is, a theological reading and understanding of historical events, not a modern academic reading of events. It's not that the events are either literal or figurative (which people usually use to mean literal=True and figurative=false). The events retold, including the much disputed creation stories, are not retold from some uber-objective standpoint, but they are retold from a theological perspective where the God of Israel is King and all facts are subjected to that fact and interpreted in that light.

I am leaning towards this. And this is what gets me: John 7:40 and thereabouts.

"When they heard these words, some of the people said, 'This really is the prophet.' Others said, 'This is the Christ.' But some said, 'Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethelehem, the village where David was?"
​

What gets me is that Jesus was preaching to this group, and they were to some extent listening (strange enough in itself), wanting to believe. They got hung up on a technicality, one which came from the fact that they knew their scriptures. If this messiah is "Jesus of Nazareth" then he must be a false messiah, because God has clearly said the messiah is to come from Bethlehem. Of course, he was from Bethlehem. And he was from Nazareth. And he was from Galilee. And none of these truths were mutually exclusive, which makes no sense if you try to describe them in a strict, scientific system. The real kicker is that these men might have put their faith in Jesus if this one little stumbling block about his origin had been removed. The logical conclusion, given scripture and observation, was that Jesus could not be the Messiah. And he did not correct them.

There are then two conclusions I reach.

One: along with verses such as Matthew 27:9 (Jeremiah or Zecheriah?), the struggle with 1Kings 6:1 vs Acts 7 (as to when Solomon's temple was built), and others, I conclude that God is not very concerned whether I have the correct facts on any given matter.

Two: given the fact that God seems to enjoy confusing the daylights out of us (1 Corinthians 1), that is, to break down our knowledge and wisdom as worthless before His own, and given that there seems to be a faith which Christ won't accept (John 2:23 and others), it must be that God, when given the opportunity to increase our faith by materialistic means, often chooses to destroy such faith instead. John 14:11 seems to contradict this being as always being the case (or was that only for the disciples?), but for the most part it seems that believing in miracles is not a saving faith. In fact, Jesus also seems to not only disbelieve this sight-based faith, but to actively work to destroy it (John 6).

Does any of this make sense, or am I completely off my rocker?

Interesting topic.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I was trying to explain to you that academia understands that these genealogies are listings of real and actual people. Thus there is no reason to take them non-literally, in fact the theological message is undermined if they are not literal.

You are still misunderstanding my post.

I'm just the messenger. Don't hate me for telling you the truth.

Same back to you.

 

[shernren]

Second, is the geocentrism issue. Another questions: how do you define geocentrism? If you define it as objects orbiting the sun in space, due to gravity, inertia and centrifugal force, then the Bible is silent on that. But the Bible does employ points of references when describing movement.

Here we go, that old relativistic canard again. Have you actually studied what the historical, Christian proponents of geocentrism believed, or are you just making stuff up?

I believe that's called "bearing false witnesses". I think I recall one of the Ten Commandments forbidding that, but what would I know - I'm a bible-ignoring theistic evolutionist, right?

 

[Assyrian]

Here we go, that old relativistic canard again. Have you actually studied what the historical, Christian proponents of geocentrism believed, or are you just making stuff up?

I believe that's called "bearing false witnesses". I think I recall one of the Ten Commandments forbidding that, but what would I know - I'm a bible-ignoring theistic evolutionist, right?

And we all know how 'relativity' led to moral relativism and the destruction of traditional family values.

 

[Calminian]

One: along with verses such as Matthew 27:9 (Jeremiah or Zecheriah?), the struggle with 1Kings 6:1 vs Acts 7 (as to when Solomon's temple was built), and others, I conclude that God is not very concerned whether I have the correct facts on any given matter.

Your point is somewhat well taken, but here's a thought. Is it possible that God wants you to dig a little further? Perhaps it's not that God wants you to be confused, but rather, it's all the the false assumptions that surround us in our every day lives? One of those, IMO, is the notion that science is akin to reality. The other is that science is the same as logic.

I'm a science lover, don't get me wrong, but I also love theology and the subject of miracles. This has helped escape the trap uniformitarian philosophy.

Just a thought.

 

[Calminian]

Here we go, that old relativistic canard again. Have you actually studied what the historical, Christian proponents of geocentrism believed, or are you just making stuff up?...

Er, yes, I'm very familiar with what historical christians believed. But I never mentioned them in my post. My post was about describing movement based on points of reference, something the biblical writers did and something even modern astrophysicists do. And yes something even you do, as my post explained. It is a literal true way of describing things.

You're responses are always so aggressive and angry, yet never logical. Either you're not reading thoroughly or this stuff is over your head.

 

[shernren]

Er, yes, I'm very familiar with what historical christians believed. But I never mentioned them in my post. My post was about describing movement based on points of reference, something the biblical writers did and something even modern astrophysicists do. And yes something even you do, as my post explained. It is a literal true way of describing things.

You're responses are always so aggressive and angry, yet never logical. Either you're not reading thoroughly or this stuff is over your head.

So when they said that the universe was geocentric, just what did they mean?

Consider this me giving you a chance to show that you actually know what you're talking about. I study physics, so it's really quite rich for you to be telling me that astronomy is over my head.

 

[Calminian]

So when they said that the universe was geocentric, just what did they mean?

Who is "they?" Are you talking about the Bible writers as I was? If so, please quote the one that said the universe was "geocentric." Hint: the word's not in the Bible.

Consider this me giving you a chance to show that you actually know what you're talking about. I study physics, so it's really quite rich for you to be telling me that astronomy is over my head.

And who's talking astronomy?

Honestly, you're are one of the hardest people I've ever tried to converse with. You missed the entire point of the post you responded to.

If you can dial back the emotion, yes, I could probably share with you want I know.

 

[shernren]

Who is "they?" Are you talking about the Bible writers as I was? If so, please quote the one that said the universe was "geocentric." Hint: the word's not in the Bible.

No, I mean historical Christians who defended geocentrism. The fact that they did shows that there is a valid and important difference between a geocentric and a heliocentric cosmogony which your references to relativity fail to address.

And who's talking astronomy?

Honestly, you're are one of the hardest people I've ever tried to converse with. You missed the entire point of the post you responded to.

If you can dial back the emotion, yes, I could probably share with you want I know.

Now now, I trust you'll be able to dial back the unhelpful personal attacks first.

 

[Calminian]

Now now, I trust you'll be able to dial back the unhelpful personal attacks first.

What personal attack? I'm trying to tell you you're not following as graciously as possible. I'm trying really hard. I never mentioned early christians, nor astronomy. Not sure how to get you to read my posts carefully.

Please go back and read the post you responded to. Perhaps you'll see what I mean.

 

[shernren]

What personal attack? I'm trying to tell you you're not following as graciously as possible. I'm trying really hard. I never mentioned early christians, nor astronomy. Not sure how to get you to read my posts carefully.

Please go back and read the post you responded to. Perhaps you'll see what I mean.

It just goes to show that you haven't thought clearly about the issue of geocentricity yet.

Second, is the geocentrism issue. Another questions: how do you define geocentrism? If you define it as objects orbiting the sun in space, due to gravity, inertia and centrifugal force, then the Bible is silent on that. But the Bible does employ points of references when describing movement. We do the same today, and it is literal and correct. If you tell your kids to stop moving on the back seat of your moving car, are you being figurative or literal? It's obvious the car is moving, on a moving planet, right? So what do you mean by telling them to "stop moving?" Obviously your kids are smart enough to know you're speaking with the car itself as a point of reference in which they are to stop moving in.

The Bible says,

Deut. 19:14 Do not move your neighbor’s boundary stone set up by your predecessors in the inheritance you receive in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess.

But those border stones are already moving through space really fast, right? But the point of reference in this case is the ground and we are commanded to literally not move them.

When a policeman tells you to stop!, do you then think, "hmmm I wonder what he means by that? I mean we're all moving and can't stop." Try that in court.

Same with all the sunset passages. The point of reference is the earth (land). Modern astrophysicists speak of sunsets as well, and they are literally correct in doing so.

What you have done is to set up a strawman, revisionist definition of geocentrism (heliocentrism, actually, but you are implicitly defining the converse as well) and then going on to knock it down. What makes this doubly amusing is that, if you look carefully, many of your examples already assume a heliocentric model. If you began by assuming that the Earth does not move, on the other hand, then the command in Deuteronomy would literally be a command to not move boundary stones, and the policeman's instructions to stop could literally be obeyed.

What the modern geocentrist would say to you is exactly what you would say to the theistic evolutionist: you have begun by assuming that heliocentrism is true, and so it is no surprise that to you Scripture is consistent with heliocentrism. The geocentrists, on the other hand, have a perfectly workable definition of geocentrism, or "geocentricity" as Geraldus Bouw calls it, which conflicts with modern science:

[FONT=&quot]In geocentricity, the earth is static, but not necessarily at the center if the universe. In geocentricity the earth is actually offset from the geometric center of the universe. The earth is immobile as seen from outside the universe, that is, as seen from the third heaven, the location of the throne of God. (Note: a footstool is not a footstool if it is moving – Isa. 66:1.) And why heliocentrism instead of a-centricity or acentrism? Because the modern acentric model still divides the universe into unrelated sections; and because it was founded on the worship of the sun.[/FONT]​

taken from this good defense of the Scripturality of geocentrism. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the theories you would critique. Indeed, I think the final paragraph of the link above makes for sobering reading for creationists:

Evolutionists, atheists, and agnostics in the know can easily shame creationists on the issue of geocentricity by simply pointing out the hypocrisy of their insistence that the days in Genesis 1 are literal while the rising and setting of the sun is not. Likewise, to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy. Given that the geocentric model is pure physics, mathematically tractable, and realistic, and consistent with Scripture, we conclude that the creationist’s desire to reject it can only be for the sole purpose of appearing intellectual and acceptable to the world, which desire is enmity with God (James 4:4). The creationist movement is fortunate that evolutionists don’t understand these simple issues, for if they did, creationists would be shamed and held contemptible even more than they are now.
​

And you think I sound angry!

 

[Calminian]

It just goes to show that you haven't thought clearly about the issue of geocentricity yet.

Or that you're not willing to respond to my actual post, which had nothing to do with astronomy nor early christian geocentrism.

Are you just not willing? It's your choice, but there were good points there that I think will help you.

I'll make you a deal. You respond to my post, and then afterward and I'll take you up on early christian geocentrism. Fair?