Genesis 1-11 - Fact, Fiction, or something else?

[Guest shiloh357]

In the Gospel of Mark Jesus questions the necessity of hand washing. I may be that the Pharisees came to realize, over generations the importance of the practice, and made it part of their religious formula. Jesus was wrong to condemn the importance of cleanliness. He claimed it was a law of man and not of God and so condemned the practice, but then there really is no evidence he knew of the existence of germs, is there. Im my mind this raises a red flag.

You don't understand. Jesus was not condemning the act of handwashing. He was condemning the hypocritical manner in which it was imposed by the religious leaders. Jesus, in fact, never condemned any of the traditions, only the improper motives behind some people's observance of them.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 16 2009, 09:16 PM)

Whatever. The problem still exists albeit in another form. If you are going to claim "figurative indicators" exist, then the onus is on you to provide those indicators.

I believe I have shown such indicators - enough to satisfy my understanding of theatre, at least. The theatrical conventions are solid, from the introduction of the status quo, to the complication, rise to the climax and eventual resolution through Abraham. The symmetry of certain passages accompanied by the use of symbolic numbers is an added extra into this.

Those are not figurative indicators. Simply writing a poetic, symmetrical style is not enough to claim figurative indicators. You need show that the author intended for the story to be figurative. You cannot on the hand, claim that a story is full of figurative indicators, but can still be taken a literal event. It just doesn't work that way. The question at hand is, did the creation account occur the way God says it did in Genesis or not? Figurative devices in literature are things like metaphors, similies, hyperbole and so forth. Do you have any specific figurative devices that exist in the text itself?

I don't know your history, I can only speak for mine. I only became a Christian when i was 20 (maybe 19, can't recall the exact age). I have lived 2/3'rds of my life as a non-Christian (I am now approaching the 30-year mark, come November). I am only speaking of the type of arguments I would have used when I was a non-believer in the Bible's account. To me, I see a certain level of Faith required to assume that there was a covenant with particular rules like Sinai. Even if there was a Covenant, we have to take it on Faith that the healthy eating laws of Leviticus are among those laws that existed during Noah's time. Otherwise, it's just as easy to say the author made it more "relevant" to the people reading by providing cultural references they would have understood.

Whether an unbeliever is able to receive that information is irrelevant. Just because an unbeliver cannot understand such a thing, it does not suddenly become a invalid point. The fact is, we have evidence of a law code prior to Mt. Sinai. We don't have all of the details obviously, but there is no way to explain why Abel's sacrifice was acceptable or why Noah was deemed righteous unless there is a standard to measure them against. That is incontrovertible fact, and the ability or inability of a person to belive it does not make it less factual or something to be dismissed.

I am not saying anything different! Maybe you are misunderstanding my position now, but both of your statements are correct - I believe Adam and Eve were not created until Genesis 2. However, Genesis 1 and 2 could very easily have happened concurrently (that is, at the same time). Though I could be wrong and time might separate the events of chapters 1 and 2 (the text would not back that view up, though I do not discount it). At the same time, I also state that the character we know as "Adam" was indeed created with a special relationship with God (or at the very least had a special relationship with God.

What you would have then, is two races of man. One fallen, the other which is not fallen. You would have humans who were in need of redemption and humans of another line and whole other set of "parents" who are not in need of redemption. That is the ONE of the core problems with your assumption. Another problem is the fact that Bible gives absolutely NO corroboration for the extistence of another race of human beings that started from another set of "parents." The Bible teaches that ALL mankind is fallen into sin and it lays the blame squarely on the shoulders of Adam. The Bible never qualifies redemption as being only for those humans descended from Adam.

Genesis two is a retelling of the story with the focus on the creation of man. It is simply a more detailed version than chapter 1. In chapter two it is more intimate as it is to man that God reveals His Name YHVH, which is his redemptive Name.

I do agree that Paul, when writing Romans almost definitely believed death came through Adam. However, I do not think that this being wrong hurts the claims of biblical inerrancy. After all, there are many small errors in various census' throughout the Tanakh that also put to the sword ideas of infallibility. However, I do not think that these small errors affect claims of biblical infallibility because the problems don't affect major doctrine.

So if the Bible can't support your position, it is the Bible that is mistaken. Sorry, but Paul wrote from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and was taught personally by Christ (Gal. 1:16). In order to claim Paul was wrong, you have to impugn the integrity of the Holy Spirit. What most people call "errors" are really due to a lack of knowledge on their part or in your case, a simple rejection of a clear biblical teaching.

I say the same for Jesus' death. Jesus died for our sins. That is enough to know. It doesn't matter where death came from. It is easy enough for me to understand dying for someone else - I know some people who would not be alive if it weren't for the heroic actions of a man who drowned rescuing them. He died so that they would live. Jesus' substitutionary death is very similar, except on a much larger scale! Whether death came through Adam or not does not make salvation any less assured

If it didn't matter, then God would not have put it in Scripture. What I am seeing here is really nothing but a rejection of basic biblical truths beause you prefer to make your own opinion a higher authority than the Bible.

The origin of death and sin is vitally important to understanding the Gospel and understanding man's condition and what he needs redemption from. The origin of sin and death provide the context for Jesus' mission on earth and his sacrifice of Himself on the cross. The sheer importance of knowing the origin of sin and death, provide a backdrop for truly understanding the victory of the cross and the conquering of life over death. Without understanding the origin of sin and death, you have no framework for understanding the dire need and urgency of all men to repent.

I am sorry, but you are just wrong on all points.

However, I think that the Bible's infallibility is still as secure as always. To use an example, the Hebrew scriptures tell us to stone unruly children, but we take into account the cultural context and understand how this does not mean we should stone our kids today. This would appear to affect biblical infallibility as well. But it doesn't because we take certain factors into consideration.

No, that is not analagous to what you presented earlier. You stated that Paul might have believed that death is the result of sin, but you basically stated that Paul was wrong on that point. You cannot say that the Bible can be mistaken, but still be infallible. That is an oxymoron. The issue about not stoning people speaks to a different dispensation and biblical economy, not the issue of infallibility. You really don't have a firm grasp on what infallibility is in relation to the Bible.

Your view doesn't fit with scripture so what you do is diminish the authority of Scripture implying that it was Paul's own opinion being expressed. When people want to diminish the authority of Scripture the first thing they do is assert that it is human in origin and is thus vulnerable to error.

That is how I view it, and I believe the text backs me up.

No, the text does not back you up, not by a longshot. You have not provided any textual indicators of figurative devices like metaphors, similies, etc. You have taken the parts of the Bible that don't agree with you and dismissed them as human opinion. You have tried to introduce ideas beliefs that contradict the testimony both the prophets and the apostles. You have repeatedly challenged the authority and integrity of Scripture, which is an asault on God's integrity, utlimately.

I do see how it might appear to affect infallibility issues, but for me, a closer look makes this issue as relevant as the reason we don't stone children anymore.

Which highlights the fact that you don't understand the doctrine of infallibility, as your example does not touch on that issue.

[MorningGlory]

Day 1 - God creates light

Day 4 - God creates source of light

I have found this observation intriguing

Why does the Lord create light before the source of light?

If you interpret "light" to mean specifically the visible spectrum, then I'm not sure.

On the other hand, if you consider "light" to be representative of energy then it makes much more sense. Matter without energy is motionless, without energy everything stays in exactly the same position relative to everything else from one moment to the next. This in essence negates time, time is relative, if nothing changes then time effectively doesn't exist. In order for time to start, matter needs energy to move and change. The introduction of light (energy) starts time by causing change/motion, which seems like a fairly logical way of beginning things.

Wow....that makes perfect sense, NC. I had never thought of this....and, believe me, I've thought about it a lot.

[nebula]

If you can separate my train of thought from PA's . . . I have a question.

The question at hand is, did the creation account occur the way God says it did in Genesis or not?

Will the End Times occur the way God says it will in Revelation?

[Guest shiloh357]

If you can separate my train of thought from PA's . . . I have a question.

The question at hand is, did the creation account occur the way God says it did in Genesis or not?

Will the End Times occur the way God says it will in Revelation?

It will.

[nebula]

Will the End Times occur the way God says it will in Revelation?

It will.

OK - so does that mean we'll see four riders on horseback - one horse being white, one red, one black, and one pale - riding throughout the Earth? Will we see a dragon on the shore beckoning a beast to rise out of the sea?

Things like that?

[Guest shiloh357]

Will the End Times occur the way God says it will in Revelation?

It will.

OK - so does that mean we'll see four riders on horseback - one horse being white, one red, one black, and one pale - riding throughout the Earth? Will we see a dragon on the shore beckoning a beast to rise out of the sea?

Things like that?

No, but you cannot compare the text of Revelation to the text of Genesis 1. They are entirely dissimilar. One is an historical narrative, the other is a prophetic vision that uses nonliteral imagery to communicate a literal truth or fact. It is also worth pointing out that John would have been using some imagery that was more meaningful to his original audience than us today, which is why the book of Revelation is still a mystery.

No such imagery exists in Genesis 1. While it is not an scientific account, it is still a literal, historical account.

[nebula]

But how do you know it's not a prophetic account - just looking backwards instead of forwards?

[Guest shiloh357]

But how do you know it's not a prophetic account - just looking backwards instead of forwards?

It doesn't fit the criteria for being "prophetic." Its not like the Festivals that were given as memorials. The Festivals looked forward and backwards at the same time. Even so, they had a New Testament witness as to their function in that area.

The only thing the thing we find in the rest of the Bible both OT and NT is that it witnesses to the creation account as being a literal event. While we are not given the intricate nuts and bolts of the creation process and a lot of details are ommitted, the light we DO possess tells us that the creation account should be looked at a real event that took place in history.

That is not to say that there is not a lot of theological value to the creation account. Just in the area of theology alone, the story of Genesis is an incredible wealth of theological nuggets further elucidated for us in the NT. There are types and shadows, especially in the relationship of the seventh day to the other six as it touches on the theme of redemption.

It is an historical account, but at the same time, transcends history in an amazing way. This wealth of theological value is lost, however, if we accept the notion that the Bible's account of creation is partly fact, partly myth.

[nebula]

It doesn't fit the criteria for being "prophetic." Its not like the Festivals that were given as memorials. The Festivals looked forward and backwards at the same time. Even so, they had a New Testament witness as to their function in that area.

Revelation doesn't fit that criteria, either.

The only thing the thing we find in the rest of the Bible both OT and NT is that it witnesses to the creation account as being a literal event. While we are not given the intricate nuts and bolts of the creation process and a lot of details are ommitted, the light we DO possess tells us that the creation account should be looked at a real event that took place in history.

But I'm not saying it isn't historical. How does it threaten the writing or the history to regard it as a prophetic-historical account the way Revelation is a prophetic-future account?

This wealth of theological value is lost, however, if we accept the notion that the Bible's account of creation is partly fact, partly myth.

But I am not, nor ever have, made this claim.