Scripture Shows Genesis is Historical

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 10:43 AM Gooch's dad said this in Post #43

The account in Genesis refers to a 'tree of life' and a 'tree of knowledge of good and evil'. If this isn't a clear indication that the story is a parable, then I'll eat my hat. C'mon, people, its allegory.

  Thank you, Gooch's Dad. I had overlooked the allegorical status of the two trees.  Good work.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 10:56 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #46

The first is Creation the second two you mention is the GENERATIONS. This is what gets everyone mixed up and confused. They do not distinguish between creation and the generations.

Genesis 2:4
    These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 5:1
    This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;    

Both Genesis 2:4b and Genesis 5:1 describe creation, John.  If this is a historical document, why should these descriptions of creation differ from Genesis 1? 

Also, if you continue with Genesis 2, you find that entities don't exist at the start of the narrative but are created later.  Virtually all Christian Biblical scholars have concluded these represent 2 separate creation stories.  I once looked at every Biblical commentary in Barnes & Nobles (over 20) and they all said there were two creation stories.  I suspect that the only confused person is you.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 03:29 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #52

Oh, really tweety? Well, sense your an expert on the book of Rev. maybe you would like to explain a little bit of it's meaning to me.

Rev. 22:14-15
    Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. [15] But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.

Are the gates symbolic gates? Is the city a symbolic city? Are the dogs and the sorcerers & the sexually immoral who are denyed access to the city, are they symbolic also?

Yes to all. Just as the "kingdom of God" is a symbolic kingdom.  Never was a geographical literal kingdom, was it?

The symbolism is pretty clear, isn't it, John? Those who obey the commandments get into the afterlife, but the rest don't.  Considering your documented false witness, if I were you, I'd worry about being outside the gates.

 

[lucaspa]

BTW, Micaiah, in all your quotes from the gospel of Luke, how do you know that the author really was named Luke?

Again, all you have done, at the most (and I dispute even that, for the passages you quoted are just as much allegorical and theological as the others) is show that the authors of the text refer back to these names.

But does that mean the people had to be real?  Many authors refer to the "Herculean strength" of some individual. Does that make Hercules a real person? I have seen the phrase "Jovian countenance" used. Does that make Jove (Zeus) a real god?

People refer to unreal images all the time. It's called "metaphor".  As long as the audience knows the metaphor, they get the idea. But that doesn't mean the individual mentioned in the metaphor is real.   What you have done is mistaken metaphor for history.

 

[Outspoken]

"If this is a historical document, why should these descriptions of creation differ from Genesis 1? "

One is a more attention to different details. As for your Kingdom of God anaolgy, it is quite false. Christ himself said his kingdom was not of this world else we would think it was. Genesis is pretty clear about it being historical and not figurative at all.

"It's called "metaphor". "

Yes and what you are mistaken about is that in the context of literary clues a metaphor is pointed out for us just as in genesis its pointed out that it is literal and historical.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 09:56 PM Outspoken said this in Post #65

"If this is a historical document, why should these descriptions of creation differ from Genesis 1? "

One is a more attention to different details. As for your Kingdom of God anaolgy, it is quite false. Christ himself said his kingdom was not of this world else we would think it was. Genesis is pretty clear about it being historical and not figurative at all.

"It's called "metaphor". "

Yes and what you are mistaken about is that in the context of literary clues a metaphor is pointed out for us just as in genesis its pointed out that it is literal and historical.

So we're right back to "Genesis is true because it says it's true."

Somebody change the channel; this show's a re-run

 

[Outspoken]

"So we're right back to "Genesis is true because it says it's true.""

Maybe you didn't read my post clearly enough. The point I was making was that genesis is a literal book in terms of the creation story. Did you not understand that or did you mistakenly quote my post?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 10:28 PM Outspoken said this in Post #67

"So we're right back to "Genesis is true because it says it's true.""

Maybe you didn't read my post clearly enough. The point I was making was that genesis is a literal book in terms of the creation story. Did you not understand that or did you mistakenly quote my post?

I see what you're trying to say, but I don't quite see the relevence. The authors of Genesis (whoever they were), certainly never flatly said that the story was metaphor, but what of it?

Every ancient civilization and religion has a creation myth which it accepts as true as a matter of faith; who should the Hebrews be any different?

And if you examine the tone and style of the Old Testament, doesn't the creation myth seem out of place, almost as if it were tacked on to the front as an afterthought? The creation myth ruins the continuity of the book book of Genesis. If you cut out chapters 1-4, and begin reading Genesis at 5, doesn't it sound more natural, and more in line with the rest of the Torah?

 

[Micaiah]

I suspect that, in the end, you will not change your mind. That is OK. I don't care if you do. But I do care that you not make these untruthful statements as though they are true. If you want to state them as "I believe that a literal interpretation of the Bible is Christian teaching" then you are fine. But you don't state the qualifier of "believe". As long as you bear false witness, it is my duty to correct that.

Judging by the tone of your comments Lucaspa and the vigour with which you defend the position, I am almost certain these comments reflect your own beliefs ie you are a theistic evolutionist. You apparently believe in the God of the Bible but refuse to accept the clear teaching of Scripture. I would again invite you to give some comment on your own beliefs in the thread 'World View and Science". I find it intriguing that you are so reluctant to state your beliefs clearly.

When deciding whether or not to embrace something as true, people tend to go with what the weight of evidence suggests. Evolutionists interpret data in a way that supports their position, and then claim to have the weight of evidence. When data contradicts that evidence they seek further clarification or say it must be incorrect because it contradicts the known (assumed) facts. A good scientist is able to work out where the weight of evidence lies.

The same principal is used by Christians in interpretting Scripture. There are some passages that are obscure, or give a meaning that seems to contradict other clear teaching of Scripture. In that case, it is wise to investigate the passage further and see what is intended. Some obscure passages may never be fully understood this side of glory. That doesn't mean we lose faith in Christ.

The weight of evidence from Scripture is clearly that the book of Genesis is intended as a record of real people and real events. You have not yet begun to address many of the other quotes provided. Genesis is full of details regarding peoples lives, there ages, and genealogies. The references provided on a handful of OT people indicates clearly that the writers of Scripture regarded them as real people.

This topic is about what Scripture says in Genesis. It is not about what other people or other books say about Genesis. The internal evidence from Scripture indicates that it is intended to be interpreted historically. The Scriptureal view of Creation clearly begins with the right mode of interpretation. Genesis must be interpreted as a historical record.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 11:14 AM Nathan Poe said this in Post #66 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682764#post682764)

So we're right back to "Genesis is true because it says it's true."

Somebody change the channel; this show's a re-run

You've missed the point of this thead. We are discussing the correct method of interpreting Scripture. I understand that you may not accept this as an argument, but it is a weighty consideration for those who claim their interpretation of Scripture is valid. A person cannot claim to rightly interpret Scripture if they blatantly disregard what Scripture clearly teaches about itself.

 

[Micaiah]

27th February 2003 at 09:57 PM lucaspa said this in Post #34 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=679103#post679103)

I disagree. The theology of the passages works just as well if Adam is the archetype human of the Genesis 2 story as if he was a real person.

For instance:

1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Paul is making an argument for the subordination of women to men.  11"Women should learn in silence and all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet.  For Adam was created first, and then Eve."  This is his justification, and it is a theological justification derived from the order of creation, not from them being literal persons.

The Job verse refers to Adam trying to hide his sin. But since all people tend to do that, Adam is still serving as the archetype human.

Luk 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.

This can't work as literal because God only had one Son, and that was Jesus. So here you have just changed Christianity.

Rom 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Again, Paul is constructing a theology of salvation, with the purpose of Jesus being to have died for your sins.  As justification for this, Adam gets to stand for every man.  An archetype.

1Cr 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

My point above exactly. 

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

Again, same point.

The problem with all the quotes from the Pauline letters, Micaiah, is that Paul is not promoting Adam from some historical conviction, but is using the symbolism of Adam as justification for his theology.  This is not an intellectual assessment of historicity, but a means to win people to an pre-determined theology.

Why would the inspired authors say the sin in the world resulted from Adam's disobedience to God in the garden if they didn't mean it?

BTW, do you believe that Jesus physically died and rose from the dead? Can you explain the significance of His death?

 

[Freodin]

Today at 10:18 AM Micaiah said this in Post #70 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683321#post683321)

You've missed the point of this thead. We are discussing the correct method of interpreting Scripture. I understand that you may not accept this as an argument, but it is a weighty consideration for those who claim their interpretation of Scripture is valid. A person cannot claim to rightly interpret Scripture if they blatantly disregard what Scripture clearly teaches about itself.

The problem is the Scripture does mostly NOT "clearly teach" anything. Most things have to be interpreted - and depending on how you interprete one verse, your interpretation of another verse changes.
But you have to find a starting point that is "clear" for that. This cannot be done.

In another post you stated "Some obscure passages may never be fully understood this side of glory. "

Now how do you identify what is "clear" and what is "obscure"?

Ìt seems to me that your definition is "Whatever I think!"

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 06:38 PM Freodin said this in Post #72 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683363#post683363)

The problem is the Scripture does mostly NOT "clearly teach" anything. Most things have to be interpreted - and depending on how you interprete one verse, your interpretation of another verse changes.
But you have to find a starting point that is "clear" for that. This cannot be done.

In another post you stated "Some obscure passages may never be fully understood this side of glory. "

Now how do you identify what is "clear" and what is "obscure"?

Ìt seems to me that your definition is "Whatever I think!"

If you begin with the assumption that most of Scripture is a collection of fairy stories, and the writers did pretty much what seemed to be a good idea at the time, I agree with your conclusion that nothing is particularly clear. If you begin with an understanding that you are dealing with the writings of men inspired by the Creator of the universe, and a genuine desire to know the truth, then you will find what you seek.

The more a person becomes aware of the teaching of Scripture the more able the are to recognise those areas that are difficult to understand. Consider the example you gave above from the other thread. There is no doubt in my mind that Scripture intends for us to understand the events and people of Genesis were real. The many other references to these passages indicate this truth. When someone has trouble uniting accounts of Creation given from different perpectives, and uses this to discredit the whole story of Creation, I say they have missed the point.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 05:51 AM Micaiah said this in Post #73

If you begin with the assumption that most of Scripture is a collection of fairy stories, and the writers did pretty much what seemed to be a good idea at the time, I agree with your conclusion that nothing is particularly clear.

And that's where the Atheists and agnostics stand.

If you begin with an understanding that you are dealing with the writings of men inspired by the Creator of the universe, and a genuine desire to know the truth, then you will find what you seek.

The problem is that we have absolutely no reason to believe this, except that Scripture says so.

The more a person becomes aware of the teaching of Scripture the more able the are to recognise those areas that are difficult to understand. Consider the example you gave above from the other thread. There is no doubt in my mind that Scripture intends for us to understand the events and people of Genesis were real. The many other references to these passages indicate this truth. When someone has trouble uniting accounts of Creation given from different perpectives, and uses this to discredit the whole story of Creation, I say they have missed the point.

Again, the writers of Genesis wanted it to be accepted as truth, because it answered one of the hard questions that all religions seek to answer: "Where did we come from?"

But go to:

http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html

and tell me how many of these stories explicitly say that they're not meant to be accepted as truth.

 

[Freodin]

Yesterday at 11:51 AM Micaiah said this in Post #73 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683368#post683368)

If you begin with the assumption that most of Scripture is a collection of fairy stories, and the writers did pretty much what seemed to be a good idea at the time, I agree with your conclusion that nothing is particularly clear. If you begin with an understanding that you are dealing with the writings of men inspired by the Creator of the universe, and a genuine desire to know the truth, then you will find what you seek.

The more a person becomes aware of the teaching of Scripture the more able the are to recognise those areas that are difficult to understand. Consider the example you gave above from the other thread. There is no doubt in my mind that Scripture intends for us to understand the events and people of Genesis were real. The many other references to these passages indicate this truth. When someone has trouble uniting accounts of Creation given from different perpectives, and uses this to discredit the whole story of Creation, I say they have missed the point.

Sorry, I have to disagree. I know where I start from, but that does not keep me from understanding a "clear" text.

Your problem is that you assume a priori a certain interpretation, and than try to fit the text to it.

Texts from the Bible, in the case at hand Genesis, state certain things. They do not state (well, mostly not): "This is to be taken literally, this is a metaphor, this is only an analogous story...".

Textual analysis is a very complicated topic - and if you cannot ask the author what it WAS that he meant, your interpretations will always differ, more or less, from the original intent.

 

[anon5354]

I have a question. Is the bible written by authors "inspired" by God, or the actual transcription of God's words? I think there could be a difference, since we don't know how God inspired the authors.

 

[Micaiah]

Yesterday at 07:30 AM Freodin said this in Post #75 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684132#post684132)

Sorry, I have to disagree. I know where I start from, but that does not keep me from understanding a "clear" text.

Your problem is that you assume a priori a certain interpretation, and than try to fit the text to it.

Texts from the Bible, in the case at hand Genesis, state certain things. They do not state (well, mostly not): "This is to be taken literally, this is a metaphor, this is only an analogous story...".

Textual analysis is a very complicated topic - and if you cannot ask the author what it WAS that he meant, your interpretations will always differ, more or less, from the original intent.

Care to read the rest of the thread and explain why all the internal evidence, including the words of Paul and Christ indicates that the events and people of Genesis were real, thus indicating Genesis is a historical record of Creation.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 01:15 PM anon5354 said this in Post #76 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686459#post686459)

I have a question. Is the bible written by authors "inspired" by God, or the actual transcription of God's words? I think there could be a difference, since we don't know how God inspired the authors.

Scripture was inspired by God. The authors personality and style comes through in their writings. They didn't act as human typewriters.

What do you believe Scripture teaches about inspiration and how we should interpret Genesis?

 

[Micaiah]

1st March 2003 at 08:49 PM Nathan Poe said this in Post #74 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683424#post683424)

And that's where the Atheists and agnostics stand.



The problem is that we have absolutely no reason to believe this, except that Scripture says so.



Again, the writers of Genesis wanted it to be accepted as truth, because it answered one of the hard questions that all religions seek to answer: "Where did we come from?"

But go to:

http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html

and tell me how many of these stories explicitly say that they're not meant to be accepted as truth.

An interesting summary of myths. The Christian story of Creation should not be among them since it is not myth.

I understand that those outside Christianity find it difficult to accept the truth of Scritpure. If they did, they would probably be Christian!. In this thread I contend that the internal evidence from Scripture indicates clearly that the events and people of this book were real. There are a number of Christians who disagree with my point, and regard this as opinion. The evidence from Scripture clearly indicates otherwise.

 

[Arikay]

Well, since they werent around during that time. I would say because they believed it was. So they were added into the book, for their information.

so, the bible created its own evidence by belief.

Today at 02:47 AM Micaiah said this in Post #77 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686739#post686739)

Care to read the rest of the thread and explain why all the internal evidence, including the words of Paul and Christ indicates that the events and people of Genesis were real, thus indicating Genesis is a historical record of Creation.