Who wrote Genesis 1? Poll

[jereth]

Thanks for the explanation.

No problem.

However, it does not change my conclusion, for it is still an attack on the idea that the Bible is truly God's word.

Arguing within those limitations is arguing within Christianity, but attacking the link between God and the Bible is arguing against Christianity,

I think you misunderstand me, relspace. Let me state my firm conviction that the Scriptures are the written word of God, fully authoritative and infallible, and useful for instruction, correction and training in righteousness. I believe that the words of Scripture, though written by humans, are ultimately the words of God himself.

I agree fully with the fact of divine inspiration. My issue is with what I perceive to be a mistaken idea of the means or mode of divine inspiration. It seems to me that many YECists depend on some kind of "dictation theory" for the early chapters of Genesis. In other words, they hold that the accounts of creation and flood were somehow delivered to the author in a supernatural way (vision, voice, dream, whatever.) This is what lies behind accusations such as: "You TEs are unwilling to listen to God's very own account of how he made the heavens and the earth".

Your attitude is un-neccessarily pejorative. You are saying that they are stupid to have faith in the Bible.

I never said anything of the sort! What I am saying is that they are mistaken/misled to hold one particular view of how the Bible was written. (i.e. supernatural dictation)

but also support the idea that God is ultimately the source of the content anyway, because this is the only way to argue for rational Christianity.

I agree with you -- God is ultimately the source of the content.

Yes but the question is how you are going to argue about something which Luke or Paul discusses in scripture. It is unfruitful and un-Christian to start saying things like "but this just Paul/Luke inspired by God and not really from God Himself."

I would never say that. I would say "it is Paul/Luke teaching us such and such, but at the same time it is God himself teaching us such and such through the human agency of Paul/Luke."

 

[jereth]

I just don't like what I call the "Quranic model" of its being given to man. You know, holy man goes into a cave and starts taking notes word-for-word.

That is an EXCELLENT way of putting it!

Now, are we all in agreement that YEC is only possible if we believe in this method of biblical inspiration?

I think we can safely write off the Tablet Theory. Based on the poll, it seems that only a minority of YECists believe it anyway. And I challenge anyone to name a biblical scholar who would support the Tablet Theory.

Therefore, it seems that the only real option for YECists is to believe that God revealed the contents of Genesis 1 directly to Moses.

 

[jereth]

I felt that jareth made a dangerous statement in “It is refreshing to hear something more than: "It's enough for me to just have faith…” As one Christian to another I am merely offering some cautionary rebuttal.

I very much appreciate the generous motive that lies behind your caution, brother. Nevertheless, I will stand by what I said.

I think it is exceedingly foolish to "just have faith...". This is not what Jesus nor the Scriptures commend. Faith has to be in something; it has to be based on something. I have faith in Jesus Christ because the historical evidence and the testimony of the Scriptures, combined with his own words, convinces me that he is the Son of God. If you remove all of that context surrounding him, there would be no reason for me to "just have faith" in Jesus. (See John 5:30-47 for Jesus' own take on it.)

In the examples of faith in Hebrews 11, the passage you cited, the various biblical characters exercised faith in God because they knew that God had previously shown himself faithful (i.e. trustworthy). God has never called people to faith in a vacuum.

Similarly, I think it is misguided to "just have faith" that Genesis 1 somehow came from God and is therefore a true history of creation. That is escapism. You need to be able to explain why Genesis 1 is the word of God. And when you try to do this, you realise that the only way Genesis 1 can be a "true history" is if it was directly dicated from God to man (aka the "Quaranic model" of inspiration as my dear brother Shernren put it). You can believe in direct dictation if you want -- I won't stop you. But I personally reject this model of inspiration.

I can think of no instance where it is wise to find mans opinion more refreshing than the word of God, also called sword of the Spirit, our only offensive weapon to battle an evil age lead by the father of lies.

I never said I find man's opinion more refreshing than the word of God. Please go back and read what I actually wrote. I said it is refreshing to see someone examining the basis of their faith in Genesis 1, rather than exercising a faith based on nothingness/ignorance.

 

[RenHoek]

Similarly, I think it is misguided to "just have faith" that Genesis 1 somehow came from God and is therefore a true history of creation. That is escapism. You need to be able to explain why Genesis 1 is the word of God. And when you try to do this, you realise that the only way Genesis 1 can be a "true history" is if it was directly dicated from God to man (aka the "Quaranic model" of inspiration as my dear brother Shernren put it). You can believe in direct dictation if you want -- I won't stop you. But I personally reject this model of inspiration.

The reason I have faith in the Gen account, again, is because Jesus accepted it and taught it. Did He teach lies? I do not believe God would put something in the Bible to confuse reality. We will just have to disagree on this. I am not sure why “divine transcription” is something that cannot be bought into. How was Revelation given to us?

I never said I find man's opinion more refreshing than the word of God. Please go back and read what I actually wrote.

To me, to believe in evolution/non-scriptural account of creation is to accept man’s word/idea/best guess over that of what was taught by Christ himself, you might disagree with my assertion, but I stand by it.

I said it is refreshing to see someone examining the basis of their faith in Genesis 1, rather than exercising a faith based on nothingness/ignorance.

Neither ignorance, nor nothingness, but what Christ taught.

 

[jereth]

The reason I have faith in the Gen account, again, is because Jesus accepted it and taught it. Did He teach lies?

I agree Jesus accepted Gen 1 and taught it. So what? Does this prove that it is literal history? Are you able to prove to me that Jesus believed Gen 1 was a literal history? I think not. Where do you ever find Jesus saying "creation happened in 6 days"?

In Luke chapter 24 Jesus endorses "the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms". i.e. he accepted the whole OT. This includes many poetic writings. Are you now going to say that the entire OT, including all its poetic contents, is literal history because Jesus accepted it? Your logic falls down.

 

[RenHoek]

1Co 14:33 -
For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

I feel my logic does not fall down. Jesus came and destroyed the misconceptions of the law/oral traditions/Pharasitical (I think I just made up a word) law add-ons. His difference in teaching is what ultimately lead to the crucifixion. This would have been a huge coup to teach Gen as anything but history and would have garnered at least a mention in scripture. The belief of the day was that Gen is a history. He upheld that. Again I ask if He taught lies or confusion?

You poetry argument is flawed. They never claim to be a historical account, and they were accepted as poetry, so there was no confusion in the teaching.

 

[jereth]

This would have been a huge coup to teach Gen as anything but history and would have garnered at least a mention in scripture. The belief of the day was that Gen is a history. He upheld that.

The belief of the day was not that Gen 1 is a history. That is an exclusively post-Reformation interpretation. Again I ask: where does Jesus ever say "creation happened in 6 days"? Where does any NT writer say "creation happened in 6 days"? If you can show me a place, I'll back down.

Again I ask if He taught lies or confusion?

He taught truth. The confusion comes from a post-Reformation interpretation of Genesis 1 that no one in the ancient world (including Jesus) would have held.

You poetry argument is flawed. They never claim to be a historical account, and they were accepted as poetry, so there was no confusion in the teaching.

Neither does Genesis 1 ever claim to be a historical account, and never was it accepted as such (until after the Reformation).

 

[relspace]

Now, are we all in agreement that YEC is only possible if we believe in this method of biblical inspiration?

No I do not. If God is the ultimate source and if the people to whom it was directly given were to understand it at all, then the actual method or mode by which it was given is irrelevant. Just the fact that the people to whom it was directly given were to understand it is sufficient to make them the lens through which it must be understood. The limitation of language and context is inescapable and it is only rational to expect the readers of these messages which come later to understand their language and context and not visa versa.

I think we can safely write off the Tablet Theory. Based on the poll, it seems that only a minority of YECists believe it anyway. And I challenge anyone to name a biblical scholar who would support the Tablet Theory.

I do not believe this Tablet Theory but this only an opinion about something which I cannot possibly know. I see neither need nor justification for drawing conclusions from the belief that this Tablet theory is wrong.

Therefore, it seems that the only real option for YECists is to believe that God revealed the contents of Genesis 1 directly to Moses.

I would not presume dictating either beliefs or options of belief to anyone.

 

[RenHoek]

No I do not. If God is the ultimate source and if the people to whom it was directly given were to understand it at all, then the actual method or mode by which it was given is irrelevant. Just the fact that the people to whom it was directly given were to understand it is sufficient to make them the lens through which it must be understood. The limitation of language and context is inescapable and it is only rational to expect the readers of these messages which come later to understand their language and context and not visa versa.

I do not believe this Tablet Theory but this only an opinion about something which I cannot possibly know. I see neither need nor justification for drawing conclusions from the belief that this Tablet theory is wrong.

I would not presume dictating either beliefs or options of belief to anyone.

Ge 2:4 -
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

It does claim to be history or an account of, meaning history.

The belief of the day was not that Gen 1 is a history. That is an exclusively post-Reformation interpretation.

Please site concretely where this was not the belief of the day.

Again I ask: where does Jesus ever say "creation happened in 6 days"? Where does any NT writer say "creation happened in 6 days"? If you can show me a place, I'll back down.

I have nothing in the NT stating 6 days, but I do not see anything in the NT disputing 6 days either.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Ge 2:4 -
This is the history F3 of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

and footnote 3 is:
F3: Hebrew toledoth, literally generations

from: http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineS...e+2:4&version=nkj&st=1&sd=1&new=1&showtools=1

It would be better to leave toledoth untranslated than to make such a serious interpretive error as "history". Our modern understanding of history is a result of the Enlightment, the ancients did not share this historical understanding any more than they believed that the earth revolved around the sun. science and history are modern ideas, do not read these very complex systems back into the OT, least you completely deform the meaning of the passages.

 

[RenHoek]

1. 1. descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies
      1. account of men and their descendants
         1. genealogical list of one's descendants
         2. one's contemporaries
         3. course of history (of creation etc)
      2. begetting or account of heaven (metaph)
   [*]Is generations the best translation for this word? It does not fit the context. So it seems we are left with “proceedings” “history” or “account”
   
   NAS Word Usage - Total: 39
   account 1, birth 1, genealogical registration 12, genealogies 3, generations 21, order of their birth 1
   
   These are all the translations of this word in the Bible. All deal with history or accounts thereof.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

1. 1. descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies
      1. account of men and their descendants
         1. genealogical list of one's descendants
         2. one's contemporaries
         3. course of history (of creation etc)
      2. begetting or account of heaven (metaph)
   [*]Is generations the best translation for this word? It does not fit the context. So it seems we are left with “proceedings” “history” or “account”
   
   NAS Word Usage - Total: 39
   account 1, birth 1, genealogical registration 12, genealogies 3, generations 21, order of their birth 1
   
   These are all the translations of this word in the Bible. All deal with history or accounts thereof.

One of the fascinating things about the creation-evolution-design debate is how people argue. This demonstrates, often, their commitment to research, to careful study, to depth of understanding. How often here are we presented with a dictionary entry that is expected to be the end all of the discussion, to prove the point. The problem, especially in this case, is the extraordinary importance of this single word-toledoth, not only in the text of Genesis, but in the discussion of the text historically.

Just a few clicks away is a google page that yields 23K hits on just the hebrew transliteration into english-toledoth. Scanning this list yields these links:
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/Toledoth.html
THE FIRST BOOK OF MOSES AND THE 'TOLEDOTH' OF GENESIS
By Damien F. Mackey

THE KEY TO THE STRUCTURE OF GENESIS

(i) The Colophon Phrase

Documents written in Mesopotamia were generally inscribed upon stone or clay tablets. It was customary for the ancient scribes to add a colophon note at the end of the account, giving particulars of title, date, and the name of the writer or owner, together with other details relating to the contents of a tablet, manuscript or book (14). The colophon method is no longer used today - the information originally given in a colophon having been transferred in our day to the first or title page. But in ancient documents the colophon with its important literary information was added in a very distinctive manner.

Thus the colophon ending to one of the mythological Babylonian accounts of creation reads (15):


"First tablet of ... after the tablet ... Mushetiq-umi ... A copy from Babylon; written like its original and collated. The tablet of Nabu-mushetiq-umi [5th] month Iyyar, 9th day, 27th year of Darius."


My primary purpose in this article will be to demonstrate that the MASTER KEY to the method of compilation that underlies the structure of the Book of Genesis is to be found in the use of the colophon.

Now scholars seem to agree at least that structurally the most significant and distinguishing phrase in the Book of Genesis is the phrase:

"THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF ...".

or:

http://www.ldolphin.org/Introgen.html

There are eleven clear internal divisions in the text of Genesis. The key phrase marking these divisions are the words, "These are the generations of..." (The word "generations" in the Hebrew is toledoth). Note that the New Testament opens with the words, "The book of the generations of Jesus Christ..." The weight of evidence suggests the respective names attached to each of these divisions represent closing signatures or subscripts added by the patriarchal writers of each section. The eleven divisions are as follows:

a few minutes spent scanning the hits will yield an enormous quantity of information on the word. demonstrating its significance especially to the rise of JEPD documentary thinking. far more interesting and worthwhile then to quote the dictionary, which has no idea of the extent of the discussion.

 

[RenHoek]

From the first site you quoted:

But Dr. Driver's assertion is plainly contrary to the facts, as anyone will realize simply by reading through the narrative of the Book of Genesis (19). It does not take the attentive reader long to discover that the Toledoth phrase does not always belong to a genealogical list, for in some instances no genealogical list follows.Hence Wiseman was entirely correct when he stated that "the main history of the person named has been written before the 'Toledoth' phrase and most certainly it is not written after it" (20).

Sounds like a history to me.

From the second site you quoted:

While Genesis is an anonymous work, as are the other four books of the Pentateuch, its attributive author is Moses. However, to what extent he wrote any of its contents, with the possible exception of all or part of the Joseph narratives, is unknown. In attributing Mosaic authorship to the Pentateuch as a whole, conservative scholars have pointed out that the Torah in its entirety must not necessarily be assumed to have been the work of his own hands, any more than any of the stelae of antiquity were the product of direct activity on the part of their attributive authors. Some writers, such as Young, have not precluded the possibility that the writer drew on earlier written sources, but in general the ascription of Mosaicity to the Pentateuch implies its historicity and its formulation by Moses under divine inspiration, with the supposition that later editors may have revised the contents somewhat in accord with the traditions of the ancient Near Eastern scribes.

I thank you for the resources. They fit where I am going nicely.

 

[jereth]

Please site concretely where this was not the belief of the day.

Honestly, I think you'll have a harder time citing concretely where this was the belief of the day.

Every theologian (whose writings we have access to) from the early church fathers, through Augustine, right up until the Reformation did not believe that Genesis 1 was a historical record. I think this is good enough evidence that "historical GEnesis 1", for the majority of the Church at least, is a post-Reformation idea.

Can you show me in any Rabbinic or Talmudic writings a reference to Genesis 1 as history? I'm not just being argumentative -- I'm putting this to you as a serious question. I'll be willing to reconsider my position if you can indeed produce such a reference.

I think you are making the typical "21st century western man" error of assuming that "the people in Bible times understood the Bible the same way I naturally do". Well they did not, and this is a very self-centred error. (I admit that I am as prone as anyone else to make this error.)

I have nothing in the NT stating 6 days, but I do not see anything in the NT disputing 6 days either.

Well, then you are clearly lacking in proof that Jesus et al believed Genesis 1 was history. Why then are you (and other YECs) so absolutely sure of yourself?

Remember, the NT does speak in many places about creation. The fact that neither Jesus nor the apostles mentioned 6-day historical creation in a single one of these places should demonstrate to you that they thought differently. In Acts 14 and Acts 17, Paul teaches Pagan audiences about the Judeochristian doctrine of creation -- yet he is absolutely silent with regard to "6 days".

Until you can prove that Jesus believed Gen 1 was history, I call on you to stop arguing "Jesus is on the YECist side".

 

[jereth]

No I do not. If God is the ultimate source and if the people to whom it was directly given were to understand it at all, then the actual method or mode by which it was given is irrelevant.

I respectfully disagree. It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you believe that the key to hermeneutics is to grasp what the original readers would have understood when they read the passage. You do not seem to think that the author's thought processes were nearly as important.

IMO this is a passive approach which can only give half the picture. Yes, the original reader's understanding is important. But it is also crucial to try to grasp what was in the author's mind. After all, when we read the Scriptures we are trying to grasp "the mind of Christ", and as Christians we believe that the mind of Christ was reflected in the mind of the inspired scriptural author.

When we read Paul's letter to the Galatians, do we merely stop at trying to understand what the Galatians would have learnt from his letter? No. We try to grasp the message and theology that Paul wanted to communicate to them. When we read the gospel of Matthew, do we stop at trying to understand what the readers would have learnt? No, we try to grasp the Christological understanding of Matthew.

Same goes for Genesis. It is not enough to ask: "what did the original readers of Genesis 1 learn?" We must also ask: "what was the author trying to communicate to them?" Once we've asked this, it is impossible not to consider the further question of how the author came up with the account. Hence the pertinent question: was it revealed to him by dictation (as YECs believe), or did he generate the account in his own mind (as TEs believe)?

 

[RenHoek]

Honestly, I think you'll have a harder time citing concretely where this was the belief of the day.

Either way The Bible claims it’s historicity. Either it is a lie taught down through the generations, and perpetuated by Jesus, or it is as it claims to be.

I can not find any early writings one way or the other from those not inspired. I will rely on that of the NT. Nothing concrete, but I do not see these as not being in reference to a myth.

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

Romans 5:14
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

OT
Ge 5:1 -
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.
De 4:32 -
"For ask now concerning the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth,….

“the day”


Plus, I think we both know how the Bible loves to drop some “begats” on readers. Why not seed begat fish begat frog begat chimp begat Adam?

Also, the 6 day account fits nicely as the example for the Sabbath. Why else would this model be given?

As an aside…In you opinion, where does the “fable” end, and real history begin? Did Noah exist? Did Adam exist? Was there a talking serpent? I guess I am asking where you draw the line.

Every theologian (whose writings we have access to) from the early church fathers, through Augustine, right up until the Reformation did not believe that Genesis 1 was a historical record.

I am not that concerned by the majority opinion of religious scholars. How well did the Pharisees do in that regard? They had no clue as to the true nature of the law by the time Christ came and corrected them.

I think you are making the typical "21st century western man" error of assuming that "the people in Bible times understood the Bible the same way I naturally do". Well they did not, and this is a very self-centred error. (I admit that I am as prone as anyone else to make this error.)

Point made, but see above as this is not my only argument.

Well, then you are clearly lacking in proof that Jesus et al believed Genesis 1 was history. Why then are you (and other YECs) so absolutely sure of yourself?

Again, it calls itself a historical account in the text that is being questioned. Did Jesus perpetuate this error/lie when He taught it?

Remember, the NT does speak in many places about creation. The fact that neither Jesus nor the apostles mentioned 6-day historical creation in a single one of these places should demonstrate to you that they thought differently.

This demonstrates to me that they accepted it as written. How can you say "they did not mention it, therefore they disagreed"?

Until you can prove that Jesus believed Gen 1 was history, I call on you to stop arguing "Jesus is on the YECist side".

Can’t go back in time, but to me, the evidence points in that direction. The only other explanation is that Jesus perpetuated a lie.

Joh 7:38 -
He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."
Joh 10:35 -
If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
Gen 1 was part of the scriptures at this time. We are told here, by Christ, to believe in Him the same as scripture, and that scripture cannot be broken. I see no such compilation of evidence supporting your supposition.

 

[jereth]

Either way The Bible claims it’s historicity. Either it is a lie taught down through the generations, and perpetuated by Jesus, or it is as it claims to be.

*sigh* RenHoek, you don't seem to have followed anything I've said. The Bible doesn't claim its historicity. It was never taught as history down through the generations. Jesus didn't perpetuate the idea. Once again, you are reading your post-Reformation idea back into the ancient past.

I can not find any early writings one way or the other from those not inspired.

Well, I think a lot of TEs would shut up (or at least pause to think) if a YEC coughed up a Rabbinic writing from BC times stating Genesis 1 as literal history. Isn't this worth the effort of a little search?

Rabbinic writings aside, you have plenty of inspired material, from Joshua through to Malachi. Where is there anything at all demonstrating that the Jews thought of Genesis 1 as history?

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

The author of the Genesis 2 "myth" wanted to teach that Man is head over Woman, therefore he constructed his story with Man created first. Paul is just reiterating the theological point here. There's no proof he understood it as literal history. And (surpise, surprise) no mention of "six days" of creation.

Romans 5:14

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Where does this make any claim as to the historicity of Genesis 1, or the "six days" ??!

Ge 5:1 -
This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

So? How does this uphold the historicity of the "six days" of Genesis 1? All it tells us is that one particular event (which in the poem is attributed to Day 6) actually happened.

De 4:32 -
"For ask now concerning the days that are past, which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth,….

So God created man on one particular day. So what? Does this make the "six day" story historical?

Also, the 6 day account fits nicely as the example for the Sabbath. Why else would this model be given?

The point is not: "God worked for 6/7ths of the time and rested for 1/7th of the time. Therefore go and do exactly likewise." The point is: "God worked then rested, therefore man should rest too." Hence the relevance of the Sabbath only up until the time of Christ.

Also, I would argue that Genesis 1 was based on the pre-existing 7-day week, not vice versa.

As an aside…In you opinion, where does the “fable” end, and real history begin? Did Noah exist? Did Adam exist? Was there a talking serpent? I guess I am asking where you draw the line.

Firstly, it isn't a fable, it's a myth. Big difference.

Secondly, you can see my answer on this thread (mine is post #7):
http://www.christianforums.com/t2951394-question-for-non-literalist-folks-when-does-literal-biblical-history-begin.html&page=1

I am not that concerned by the majority opinion of religious scholars. How well did the Pharisees do in that regard? They had no clue as to the true nature of the law by the time Christ came and corrected them.

I didn't bring that up to say "the theologians were right". I brought it up to demonstrate that the "historical" interpretation of Genesis 1 was non-existent until the reformation. If the Jews of Jesus' day really did believe strongly in a literal, six-day creation, how could opinion have so quickly changed within 100 years of Christ himself?

Again, it calls itself a historical account in the text that is being questioned.

Where? And please don't try to use "toledoth" to prove your point -- rmwilliamsll has already dealt with that.

This demonstrates to me that they accepted it as written. How can you say "they did not mention it, therefore they disagreed"?

My point was: if they really believed that creation happened in 6 days, and if they thought this was important (like the YECs who say 6-day creation is crucial to the gospel), why didn't any NT speaker or writer bother to say so? Especially when they did talk a lot about creation?

Joh 7:38 -
He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."
Joh 10:35 -
If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

Once again, the usual YEC mistake of conflating "Scripture" with "my interpretation of SCripture".

 

[RenHoek]

*sigh* RenHoek, you don't seem to have followed anything I've said.

I follow just fine; I just reject your conclusions as being against what the Bible itself claims. At this point we are getting redundant and to save the next terabyte of storage on the CF server, I think we will just have to agree to disagree.

The Bible doesn't claim its historicity

Incorrect.

Genesis 2:4 (NKJV)
This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
(ESV)
These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
(NAS)
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

Account, generations, history

Definition

1. descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies
   1. account of men and their descendants
      1. genealogical list of one's descendants
      2. one's contemporaries
      3. course of history (of creation etc)
   2. begetting or account of heaven (metaph)

Not allegory. Not myth. If you do not buy what it is saying for whatever reason, that is your prerogative, but you cannot truthfully say that the Bible does not claim it as historical.

Jesus didn't perpetuate the idea.

In your non-scripturally-based opinion. In my opinion He did, and I backed it up with quotes from Him. I would be careful in concretely asserting what Jesus thought, especially when it contradicts scripture.

Once again, you are reading your post-Reformation idea back into the ancient past.

I am reading as written.

Isn't this worth the effort of a little search?

Looked for about an hour, but came to the conclusion that man has a history (if I may use the word) of *******izing Gods words and intentions. Again, go back to the Sanhedrin. I am sure they thought they had it right too. It makes little difference to me who thought what in the past if they are not named Christ, or if scripture is refuted.

Rabbinic writings aside, you have plenty of inspired material, from Joshua through to Malachi. Where is there anything at all demonstrating that the Jews thought of Genesis 1 as history?

My argument does not hinge on this in the first place. I could ask you where it is stated that it is not 6 days. Neither is specified. This, to me, lends to the thought that they accepted the claim of historicity (see above quotes from the enduring word of God).

I again ask why He would allow us to be lied too? Why would a God of truth present a myth like all the other heathen religious stories, when it was quite clear throughout the OT that He was in a mode of distancing Himself from the false gods and their ways?

And (surpise, surprise) no mention of "six days" of creation.

And no claim it is not. This has already been conceded as a stalemate…mate .

Where does this make any claim as to the historicity of Genesis 1, or the "six days" ??!

It references Adam as a literal person that you refute in post 7. This again would be the perpetuation of a lie to me.

So? How does this uphold the historicity of the "six days" of Genesis 1? All it tells us is that one particular event (which in the poem is attributed to Day 6) actually happened.
So God created man on one particular day. So what? Does this make the "six day" story historical?

Claiming a one-day event was the point.

Mt 4:4 -
But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' "
What is the word of God to you? What does “every word” mean to you?

The point is not: "God worked for 6/7ths of the time and rested for 1/7th of the time. Therefore go and do exactly likewise."

Incorrect. It meant exactly that under the law given by God to the Jews.

The point is: "God worked then rested, therefore man should rest too."

This is correct under the new covenant freedom in Christ.

Also, I would argue that Genesis 1 was based on the pre-existing 7-day week, not vice versa.

I would ask for evidence supporting this belief. Scriptural would be nice.

I brought it up to demonstrate that the "historical" interpretation of Genesis 1 was non-existent until the reformation.

“non-existant”? Perhaps not the majority, but you cannot make that claim without substantial evidence. I request it.

If the Jews of Jesus' day really did believe strongly in a literal, six-day creation, how could opinion have so quickly changed within 100 years of Christ himself?

The same way Israel forgot God after just 40 days of Moses being on the mountain, even in the shadow of the presence of The Living God and in the same generation of the Exodus. They formed a golden calf and worshiped it. 100 years is an eternity by comparison.

Where? And please don't try to use "toledoth" to prove your point -- rmwilliamsll has already dealt with that.

If you would look at my response to him, using the same site he referenced, it made it quite clear that toledoth supports my point. Ignore if you like, but I see no real evidence from your standpoint. I have provided numerous scriptures, translations, and resources to make my case. All you give me is arguments from silence and your opinion, which you are entitled too, but what is it based on specifically? To me it sounds like you are just taking mans best guess and trying to fit it to what scripture you see fit to believe in. I find this exactly backward as compared to what Christ clearly states.

Mt 6:33 -
But seek first the kingdom of God…

My point was: if they really believed that creation happened in 6 days, and if they thought this was important (like the YECs who say 6-day creation is crucial to the gospel), why didn't any NT speaker or writer bother to say so?

A) I would say it was already written and accepted so no explanation or repetition was needed
B) I do not believe it is not crucial to the gospel

Once again, the usual YEC mistake of conflating "Scripture" with "my interpretation of SCripture".

And you confuse a mistake with differing opinions. You also confuse your opinion with fact. Again, you offer no Biblical support for your view and you do not accept the scripture as written. I have nothing more to offer you at this point. God bless.

 

[Willtor]

I am reading as written.

RenHoek, what's the definition of hubris? You may very well be reading as written, but it sure doesn't look that way.

 

[RenHoek]

RenHoek, what's the definition of hubris? You may very well be reading as written, but it sure doesn't look that way.

I am open to discussion of why you think my opinions are based on delusions of grandeur, but I see no problem with accepting the passages as they are written based on what I have sited. I feel there has been no compelling evidence to change my mind. I respect the fact that there are those who disagree, but I do not feel there is justification for their conclusions in light of scripture.

I would probably be more adamant if I felt it was an eternal issue, but I see this as a questionable matter not worthy of body division. I am really in this area/thread to see what all the hubbub is about. I want to hear rebuttal to my arguments so I can build my faith and make sure I am thinking correctly. I feel I am, as I assume you feel you are.

I understand that there are feelings out there that people are too close to worshiping the Bible itself and all the rest of the arguments against my position. I feel perfectly justified standing before my Maker some day and giving account for my view of scripture and what it tells us of creation. I must assume that you and others feel the same way.

I do have a problem with the dismissal of scripture as myth. If you, or others, do not have the same issues, it is yours to answer for, as my views are mine to answer for.