Why Acceptance of the Genesis Account is Extremely Important For Christians

[bcbsr]

Rejection of the Genesis account as mere myth strikes at the very heart of Christianity for the following reasons.

1. Jesus himself is described as lending it historical credence
2. Peter. Paul, Jude, Luke, Mathew, John, specifically lend it historical credence
3. It removes the basis for the theme of paradise lost to paradise regained.
4. It removes the need for redemption and a redeemer-the fall of man from original perfection.
5. It strikes at Jesus' authenticity as the Son of God by describing him as gullible and a propagator of mere myth.


These five things alone are extremely serious reasons why Christians are opposed to accepting the anti biblical demonically inspired, propaganda which has become popular during these last days.

In reality the issue is not about what Genesis literally says, but its interpretation. All Christians believe Genesis. But not all interpret in the same way.

 

[Radrook]

In reality the issue is not about what Genesis literally says, but its interpretation. All Christians believe Genesis. But not all interpret in the same way.

The issue is in reality whether an interpretation is justified by the biblical context or not. You can't just dive into the Bible with a mind full of conjectures and flim-flam ideas. You know? Otherwise you will inevitably wind up saying things about the Bible that are nonsensical. Being a Christian or labelling oneself as a Christian doesn't prevent the person from mangling biblical text and forcing wild interpretations on scripture. In fact, the Protestant Reformation was induced by such wild interpretations which were finally deemed to have gone too far.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The issue is in reality whether an interpretation is justified by the biblical context or not. You can't just dive into the Bible with a mind full of conjectures and flim-flam ideas.

Equally erroneous is diving into the Bible with pre-conceived notions like "Bishop Ussher must be followed no matter what!" Equally erroneous is the ego-centric concept that one is too important and holy, thereby clinging to the precept of 'My grand-daddy wasn't no monkey!'

In fact, the Protestant Reformation was induced by such wild interpretations which were finally deemed to have gone too far.

By who? The RCC thinks so, at least officially. The LDS think so. Pretty much all the atheists with whom I have contact think so. Who else?

 

[Radrook]

Equally erroneous is diving into the Bible with pre-conceived notions like "Bishop Ussher must be followed no matter what!" Equally erroneous is the ego-centric concept that one is too important and holy, thereby clinging to the precept of 'My grand-daddy wasn't no monkey!'


By who? The RCC thinks so, at least officially. The LDS think so. Pretty much all the atheists with whom I have contact think so. Who else?

A sense of self importance and holiness are irrelevant to truth.
By who? I don't understand the question.

BTW
About preconceptions-yes, there are persons who dive into the Bible with preconceptions.
Here are some:

Preconception 1: The Bible is not inspired of God. It is the product of human minds and nothing more.

Preconception 2: The Eden account is myth.

Preconception 3. All the miracles described in the bible are lies.

Preconception 4: The Bible has no theme.

Preconception: 5: The deity described in the Bible doesn't exist.

Preconception 6: All interpretations are equally valid when it comes to the Bible.

Preconception 7: The Bible was written by Stone Age and Bronze Age goat herders.

Preconception 8: Jesus never existed and if he did he was a mere revolutionary.

Preconception 9: Those who say Jesus existed are lying.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

A sense of self importance and holiness are irrelevant to truth.

Explaining the rather twisted reasoning of the 'works' oriented segment of Christianity.

By who? I don't understand the question.

Good dodge. Who, other than you, thinks the Protestant Reformation "went too far"?

Oh, your list of pre-conceived notions was missing a couple things. Like 'all scientists are liars', 'my group is the only group who really understands anything about the Bible' and 'what I was taught cannot be wrong under any circumstances'.

 

[Radrook]

Explaining the rather twisted reasoning of the 'works' oriented segment of Christianity.

Good dodge. Who, other than you, thinks the Protestant Reformation "went too far"?

Oh, your list of pre-conceived notions was missing a couple things. Like 'all scientists are liars', 'my group is the only group who really understands anything about the Bible' and 'what I was taught cannot be wrong under any circumstances'.

I never said that the Protestant Reformation went too far.
I don't think all scientists are liars.
I don't belong to any group which I feel holds a monopoly on truth.
I don't believe in what I was originally taught.

I don't subscribe to the works oriented segment of Christianity.

 

[ViaCrucis]

A sense of self importance and holiness are irrelevant to truth.
By who? I don't understand the question.

BTW
About preconceptions-yes, there are persons who dive into the Bible with preconceptions.
Here are some:

Preconception 1: The Bible is not inspired of God. It is the product of human minds and nothing more.

Not an argument that's been made.

Preconception 2: The Eden account is myth.

"Myth" doesn't mean "a false story" or "not true", but means a story that communicates a deeper meaning. I believe C.S. Lewis' quote on myth has always been mentioned in this thread, it's a good one to understand the concept of myth. The Greek word mythos means "story", the act of story-telling or mythopoesis has been an essential dimension of human communication all over the world. Myths are a backbone of how we, as human societies, communicate many of our most important beliefs. That's not a bad thing, that's simply part of the universal human condition. That the Hebrews would have engaged in the same doesn't render the stories in Genesis untrue, in terms of their essential content, that's the problem with a modernistic view that the only valid form of truth-telling is in the form of woodenly literalistic accounts.

Preconception 3. All the miracles described in the bible are lies.

Not an argument that's been put forward.

Preconception 4: The Bible has no theme.

Not only not an argument that hasn't been put forward, but quite the opposite many of us who do not interpret the Genesis stories literally understand that the Bible does have a central theme: Christ.

Preconception: 5: The deity described in the Bible doesn't exist.

Preconception 6: All interpretations are equally valid when it comes to the Bible.

Again, not arguments which have been made.

Preconception 7: The Bible was written by Stone Age and Bronze Age goat herders.

Much of the Bible was written by bronze age pastoralists. The ancient Hebrews were pastoralists and it was the bronze age. That's just a fact of that time and culture.

Preconception 8: Jesus never existed and if he did he was a mere revolutionary.

Again, not an argument which has been made.

Preconception 9: Those who say Jesus existed are lying.

Again, not an argument that has been made.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I never said that the Protestant Reformation went too far.
I don't think all scientists are liars.
I don't belong to any group which I feel holds a monopoly on truth.
I don't believe in what I was originally taught.

I don't subscribe to the works oriented segment of Christianity.

And nobody here subscribes to most of the preconceptions you mentioned in your list.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Archie the Preacher]

In fact, the Protestant Reformation was induced by such wild interpretations which were finally deemed to have gone too far.

Okay - I seem to have mistaken your statement. So which 'wild interpretations' were 'finally deemed to have gone too far'?

You "don't subscribe to the works oriented segment of Christianity"? So why talk like you do?

 

[Radrook]

Not an argument that's been made.



"Myth" doesn't mean "a false story" or "not true", but means a story that communicates a deeper meaning. I believe C.S. Lewis' quote on myth has always been mentioned in this thread, it's a good one to understand the concept of myth. The Greek word mythos means "story", the act of story-telling or mythopoesis has been an essential dimension of human communication all over the world. Myths are a backbone of how we, as human societies, communicate many of our most important beliefs. That's not a bad thing, that's simply part of the universal human condition. That the Hebrews would have engaged in the same doesn't render the stories in Genesis untrue, in terms of their essential content, that's the problem with a modernistic view that the only valid form of truth-telling is in the form of woodenly literalistic accounts.





Not an argument that's been put forward.



Not only not an argument that hasn't been put forward, but quite the opposite many of us who do not interpret the Genesis stories literally understand that the Bible does have a central theme: Christ.



Again, not arguments which have been made.



Much of the Bible was written by bronze age pastoralists. The ancient Hebrews were pastoralists and it was the bronze age. That's just a fact of that time and culture.



Again, not an argument which has been made.



Again, not an argument that has been made.

-CryptoLutheran

Are you attempting to make a joke? I have repeatedly encountered the arguments I listed in my extensive discussions on and research on other websites over a period of approx. twenty years. Since that is the case, I'm forced to conclude that they never occurred to you or else that you have somehow, by some isolationist means, evaded ever encountering them.

But hey! That's OK. As humans we differ in our experiences. However, to dismiss arguments as never having been made simply because our limited experiences has never exposed us to them is illogical. Much more reasonable to simply say that one has never encountered them or heard of them than to hastily assume that they have never been made. Such a hasty conclusion or generalization based on scanty evidence is fallacious reasoning.

Myth? I aced my Myth course as an elective and it was based mainly on the teachings and views of famous Mythologist Campbell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell

So I know exactly what myth entails and what it doesn't entail. So am referring to the use of the word myth in the manner employed by those who use it as equivalent of a falsehood and not as a historical fact. For example, calling the Flood a Myth is saying that it is merely a story with a lesson to be learned as its purpose. The problem with such a view is that the writers of the NT did not view the incidents that way. They viewed them as actual historical events. To say otherwise is to call them deluded-something I am not prepared to do but which seems very acceptable to you.

BTW
I never claimed that everything in the book of Genesis is to be taken literally.
There are dreams which were symbolic. There is figurative prophetic language employed in prophecies.

Poetry with its similes and metaphors are used. The term, day itself isn't necessarily a twenty-four-hour day as the 900 plus lifespan on Adam indicates. The prophecies concerning the sons of Israel which he uttered on his deathbed arte highly symbolic.
The walking of God in Eden is not necessarily literal walking nor is his questioning about their whereabouts indicative of not knowing. Many things must be inferred based on what we know about God from context of Genesis itself and of the Bible as a whole.

Your modus operand seems to exclude that and seems to tag it as mere human opinion to fix what you consider biblical absurdities.

 

[Radrook]

And nobody here subscribes to most of the preconceptions you mentioned in your list.

-CryptoLutheran

That's is balderdash based on wishful thinking and an irresistible urge to contradict for lack of an adequate rebuttal.

 

[BobRyan]

Rejection of the Genesis account as mere myth strikes at the very heart of Christianity for the following reasons.

1. Jesus himself is described as lending it historical credence
2. Peter. Paul, Jude, Luke, Mathew, John, specifically lend it historical credence
3. It removes the basis for the theme of paradise lost to paradise regained.
4. It removes the need for redemption and a redeemer-the fall of man from original perfection.
5. It strikes at Jesus' authenticity as the Son of God by describing him as gullible and a propagator of mere myth.


These five things alone are extremely serious reasons why Christians are opposed to accepting the anti biblical demonically inspired, propaganda which has become popular during these last days.

Amen!

John 1 makes the Genesis Creation fact - foundational to the gospel

 

[BobRyan]

It is only in the USA where a large segment of Christians interpret Genesis literally. .

Ahhh the opening bash against
virgin-birthists,
bodily-resurrection-ists,
ascension-of-Christ-ists,
miracles-of-Christ-ists,
Bible-creation-ists,
Bible-flood-ists,
Bible-defined-marriage-in-Genesis-2-ists

 

[BobRyan]

This is a point of view held by a minority of Christians.

And in India Christians are the minority of citizens...

At what point did you want to post a detail that points to the truth on the subject of accepting the Bible or rejecting the Bible on the doctrine of origins.

 

[Radrook]

Amen!

John 1 makes the Genesis Creation fact - foundational to the gospel

In the beginning! Thanks for the insight!

 

[Jipsah]

John 1 makes the Genesis Creation fact - foundational to the gospel

So without a "proper" knowledge of the OT, one can't be saved, zat it? How very SDA sounding.

 

[BobRyan]

In the beginning! Thanks for the insight!

John's Bible starts this way ---
Genesis 1 "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Gen 2:1-4 " Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
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

John's Gospel starts this way
John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John's accepted TEN Commandments of God included this - at the time of John 1
Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Notice the fact that the GOSPEL as John gives it - has as its foundation the CREATION fact of the Bible - known and accepted by John AND his readers.

John shows us that this creation fact is the basis and foundation for his Gospel. The VERY POINT we are discussing according to the title and the OP.

John was obviously aware of Genesis

 

[Jipsah]

Ahhh the opening bash against
virgin-birthists,

Creed of the Church.

bodily-resurrection-ists,

Creed of the Church

ascension-of-Christ-ists,

Creed of the Church

miracles-of-Christ-ists,

Creed of the Church

Bible-creation-ists,

Ah, the folks who believe that God "made the world look old" so as to deceive us. Bash away!

Bible-flood-ists,

Where'd all the water go? <Laugh>

Bible-defined-marriage-in-Genesis-2-ists

With the implicit marriage between siblings?

 

[BobRyan]

So without a "proper" knowledge of the OT, one can't be saved, zat it? How very SDA sounding.

"Proper knowledge"???

James Barr is one atheist who fully admits that there is not a single professor of Hebrew or OT studies at any world-class university that does not know that the T.E. Bible bending of Genesis 1 is a total farce.

=============================

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

 

[BobRyan]

Notice everywhere we have a Bible statement some creed-ists want to delete the Bible and replace it with "creed" -- right up until the Bible says something to contradict one of their creeds - exposing their creed as a man-made-creed.

Creed of the Church.
Creed of the Church
Creed of the Church
Creed of the Church
Ah, the folks who believe that God "made the world look old" so as to deceive us. Bash away!
Where'd all the water go? <Laugh>
With the implicit marriage between siblings?