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

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 16 2009, 08:55 PM)

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.

No, but it fits the criteria for prophetic literature

QUOTE

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?

Well, it doesn't threaten it per se. The problem is that such a view simply is not how the author intended it to be understood. We cannot assign values to it that are not part of the object the author had in view. If we do, then suddenly it becomes our word, and not God's. Furthermore, to render it as a prophetic-historical account requires scriptural corroboration.

QUOTE

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.

I realize you're not. I was not assigning that to you. I am just saying that the theological import is lost if people begin treating Scripture the way PA is.

[nebula]

The problem is that such a view simply is not how the author intended it to be understood.

But how do you know that?

I mean, how can it be a scientific historical account when scientific thinking didn't exist back then? Scientific thinking didn't truly begin until the Middle Ages.

Plus, the account talks about water and land being separated, but it never talks about them being created. If Gen. 1 was meant to be read the way we read an encyclopedia, why would it be presented that way?

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 16 2009, 09:13 PM)

The problem is that such a view simply is not how the author intended it to be understood.

But how do you know that?

How do we know the intent of an author of a biography? or of a cookbook or a piece of historical fiction? We do this all the time. We naturally, almost unconsciously shift our mental focus when we read different pieces of literature based on what we are reading. We know that the writer of a book of historical fiction has a different aim than someone who is writing of a genuine historical account.

The Bible has different literary genres as well and we can readily discern them. We don't read the book of Proverbs like we read the book of John or Ephesians.

Furthermore, we have the witness of the whole of Scripture to show us how we are to understand the account in Genesis 1. There is not ONE reference to Genesis 1 in the rest of the Bible that treats it as prophetic. What the other authors of the Bible do tell us is that Genesis 1 is a genuine, historical event. No prophetic significance is assigned to Genesis 1, and that fact should be lost on us.

I mean, how can it be a scientific historical account when scientific thinking didn't exist back then? Scientific thinking didn't truly begin until the Middle Ages.

I have already said it was NOT scientific. I said while I agree that the Bible is not a scientific account, it is still genuine history and is treated as such by the other witnesses of Scripture.

Plus, the account talks about water and land being separated, but it never talks about them being created. If Gen. 1 was meant to be read the way we read an encyclopedia, why would it be presented that way?

As I stated earlier, there are details we are not privy to. I am not bothered by those missing facts. Since the Genesis 1 is not a scientific account, then I would naturally expect such details to be missing.

It's like this. I once went to a St Louis Cardinals Baseball Game a few years ago. While I was there, I saw a friend I had not seen in years. Later on a co-worker asked me what I did that weekend and I mentioned going to see the game up in St. Louis and he asked me about the game. I ommitted the part about seeing my long lost friend. Why? Because it was not relevant to the discussion I was having at the time with my co-worker.

In the same way, we are given the light we need at this time. I am confident that later on in eternity, we find discover the missing details.

[Botz]

Thanks for getting back to me PA.

I understand that you have corrected yourself etc. I still think you are rather confused and painting yourself into a corner as you throw out your various ideas about what you feel Scripture reveals...I know that when you nail your flag to the mast in a Forum like this, you can get hammered, and sometimes deservedly so, and that it might also help you to formulate your ideas better as you consider the various replies...but honestly I think you would do yourself a favour if you allowed the Holy Spirit to enlighten you a little more, before running with an idea that might trigger off something on the spur of the moment...build line upon line, precept upon precept etc...and let Scripture interpret Scripture.

Kindly. Botz.

[Guest HIS girl]

So for example you could believe Genesis is a beautiful poem only and I could believe it literally tells us about the origins of mankind and our planet but that's ok...as long as we accept Christ as our Saviour - that's all that matters - how we interperet the Word is a non issue? WRONG....

That PA, is exactly what "all roads lead to Rome" means....where's the FIRM FOUNDATION in that??

You know, I feel safer taking Jesus at His Word than I do the most eloquent theologian around.

You are twisting my words. I did not say everything's fine as long as we accept Christ. That is what you are reading into my view. Allow me an example, the Tanakh (our Old Testament) tells us that if your child is being unruly you should stone him. Now, if I think that's literally ok and stone my children, and you do not think it is ok in the modern world, then is it all "ok as long as we accept Christ"? By no means. I am not arguing that this should be the case. I think you're finding an affront to your beliefs where none was intended. I'm looking at the spiritual meaning behind the early parts of Genesis, and this meaning does not change, regardless. Do you agree that Genesis shows: 1- that God is our creator of all that is in the world, and 2- the slide into sin for the human race. If you answer yes to both these questions, then you have the same message I do. You might also believe that it is the truthful account about the origins of our world, and you are of course entitled to believe this, just as others are entitled to believe otherwise. The message is the same, so how is this Pluralism (all roads lead to Rome).

The same cannot be said for stoning children. There is a clearly different message conveyed if I take it as acceptable (that is, the message is, "killing your children is ok if they are really naughty"), compared to you seeing it as only culturally acceptable for the time (the message in this instance would be, "For the good of a nomadic tribe, it was necessary. Today, we take the general principle that it is necessary to discipline unruly children, but stoning them is no longer necessary in a culture that can support waywardness").

See how these two messages are vastly different and therefore incompatible?

There seems to be a "feel" around here lately that accepting the Genesis Creation account as "literal" 24hr time periods is childlike and immature thinking...um..hello...was anyone here to witness the Creation account OR the "big bang"?

PA - I find the topic heading to this thread as quite arrogant....I know one may have questions and that's normal but this topic title itself has really gotten under my skin - it's like I feel offended on behalf of Jesus/God..that's exactly how I am feeling with this topic.

My apologies if you are offended by this topic or topic title. It was not my intention to do this, and there was certainly no malice involved. Needless to say, I do not think Jesus would be offended by this.

Regards,

The Creation account has nothing to do with cultural conforms etc - it's an account of how the Earth and Heavens came into being. It may have the "flavour" of ancient Hebrew "telling" of the account but that does not dilute the fact it is the telling of an actual event.

We do not have any other explanation in the Bible of how the World came to be, except for what is in

Genesis 1. Because of this "simple fact", I am one of "those people" who does not have a problem with accepting it for what it is. And yes, the Holy Spirit if need be, reveals Spiritual Truths to me within the Creation account - but that NEVER lessens the magnitude of what Genesis 1 is all about.

You're right, Jesus may not have been offended with your questioning but that still doesn't alter how I feel towards it.

I'm not angry at you but annoyed with you!

[ParanoidAndroid]

If you believe Jesus was God then I suppose you must assume he personally knew Noah. If you believe Jesus was a man then I suppose you must assume Jesus believed in the literal truth of the Torah for the same reason you do -- faith. I believe Jesus was a man -- a deeply religious man, as many men were then and still are -- but, his not questioning Noah is not proof that Noah was real. 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. If Jesus was God, how much of God's understanding did he actually possess while in human form? Could it be that aside from his devotion to the Father, and his own goodness, that he may have had no more knowledge than an educated man of that time on matters of history and medical science. Even if he, and later the disciples, had abilities to heal by the grace of God, does that mean that any of them were privy to medical or scientific knowledge equal to or greater than our own? Did they need that knowledge to heal, or was it healing without knowledge of cause that was granted them? If they did not really understand how their curing process worked is it too much to say that maybe they didn't possess anymore historical knowledge than those of their own time either? That they believed Noah was real only speaks to their own religious beliefs, it doesn't speak to whether any of them had any real knowledge of Noah and whether he actually existed or did the things said of him.

Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier, but I had to run off to work when I was on last. I just wanted to address your comments on the handwashing issue. I think it's incorrect to argue that Jesus said handwashing was irrelevant (matters of cleanliness, so to speak). Jesus was responding to the question as to why he and his disciples did not wash hands in accordance with the traditions of the elders. Jesus was speaking against the practice of ritual handwashing. I think the best way to explain this is to quote the Mishnah (Jewish text quoting their Rabbinical teachings). This tells you how the Jews viewed handwashing:

The hands are susceptible to spiritual uncleanness and are rendered clean up to the wrist. How so? If one poured the first water up to the wrist, and the second beyond the wriest and it went back to the hand

[ParanoidAndroid]

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 think we're going around in circles. I've just shared three primary reasons. I consider them "figurative devices" - certainly the structure of a piece of writing is part of the devices (Aristotle would agree with that). Symbolism in the numbers is also a figurative device, one culturally geared to the Hebrew race.

I know you don't agree, but I believe they are there. As a Theatre major, I would go as far as to say it's an almost perfect example of storytelling - every element you would expect to find in a story is there! One could almost say it is a perfect example of archetypal storytelling (that is, the narrative perfectly illustrates the structure of a piece of writing). So for me, this speaks volumes. I do see your arguments, as I said I'm not blind to what you are saying. I just tend to disagree with you on them.

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.

That was how I viewed it when I was an unbeliever. That's all I'm saying. No need to go further than that.

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.

Humanity is humanity!

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.

So you would say the Bible has no errors at all? I would say there are small errors throughout scripture - Joshua 15, for example, outlines the cities and towns in each of the areas of Judah. In the extreme South (vv 21-32), the author counts each of the towns. He names 36 towns and villages, but then states that there were only 29 towns (see verse 32).

That is a small tiny error. But it is so irrelevant to the Bible that it does not affect infallibility for me. However, if you believe that every little error detracts from infallibility, then I'm unsure how you would answer this question (Joshua 19 has a similar problem, dealing with the nation of Naphtali - the author again miscounts the towns).

I did not want to turn this into an "Infallibility" thread, or a "contradictions" thread. However, there are many small errors like this (from other places as well) and in the context of your questioning my disregard for infallibility, it needed to be mentioned, if only to understand your view on the situation. At best, you can claim that the current version we have is incorrect due to copyist errors but the original autograph was perfect! But since we don't know have the autographs we need to take it on Faith.

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.

You don't need to be sorry. You may believe I am wrong, and I very well could be. I am not setting myself up as an infallible source on this. But to the best of my biblical knowledge (and believe it or not, I have studied for quite a long time) this is the conclusion I arrived at. Maybe my views are different because I did not grow up in Christianity. I didn't have the various dogmas crammed into me from an early age. So when I read the Bible I came to it with no preconceptions about what it said.

that's just a possibility to consider

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.

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.

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

And just to pull these issues together, I don't consider this an affront to infallibility. Maybe I don't understand the doctrine of infallibility, but I wonder what your thoughts are on the issues I provided earlier (I have quite a few more to consider for you as well - *coughcoughQuirinius'Governorshipcoughcough*)

As I said, I don't want to turn this into an infallibility thread or contradictions thread. That was not my intention when starting. But unfortunately that seems to be the way this thread seems to be turning with the discussion you bring up.

All the best, Shiloh

~ PA

[Guest shiloh357]

I think we're going around in circles. I've just shared three primary reasons. I consider them "figurative devices" - certainly the structure of a piece of writing is part of the devices (Aristotle would agree with that). Symbolism in the numbers is also a figurative device, one culturally geared to the Hebrew race.

I know you don't agree, but I believe they are there. As a Theatre major, I would go as far as to say it's an almost perfect example of storytelling - every element you would expect to find in a story is there! One could almost say it is a perfect example of archetypal storytelling (that is, the narrative perfectly illustrates the structure of a piece of writing). So for me, this speaks volumes. I do see your arguments, as I said I'm not blind to what you are saying. I just tend to disagree with you on them.

You are confusing literary forms with literary devices. Poetry is not a device. Poetry is a form of literature. You may consider things like poetry, symmetry and so forth as figurative "devices," but they are not. Just because something is written in poetic, "theatrical" fashion, does not make it "figurative." Figurative means that you have something that stands for something else. It is nonliteral imagery that points to a literal fact. For example, a person may see the creation account as parabolic, and the "days" of creation are symbolic of a hidden truth and so forth. That is figuratism.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 17 2009, 10:10 AM)

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.

That was how I viewed it when I was an unbeliever. That's all I'm saying. No need to go further than that.

Maybe so, but it does not provide an adequate excuse to simply dismiss the point.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 17 2009, 10:10 AM)

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.

Humanity is humanity!

That kind of dismissive answer shows you really don't have a grasp on the logical problem your view possesses. You seem unable to address the theological problems that exist wihthin what you are proposing. I would venture to suggest that you have never even thought about this on a theological level. It simply made sense to you at some point and you ran with it and have completely disregarded any consideration about where your assertions intersect with the rest of the testimony of Scripture.

If you have two different sets of parents for humanity and only one set of parents became sinful and ended up losing a special relationship with God, then what we have are two races of human beings. One in need of redemption and one who does not. You cannot brush it aside ith such a dismissive attitude. To give any support to your assertion you need to show that the whole of the biblical testimony agrees with it.

So you would say the Bible has no errors at all? I would say there are small errors throughout scripture - Joshua 15, for example, outlines the cities and towns in each of the areas of Judah. In the extreme South (vv 21-32), the author counts each of the towns. He names 36 towns and villages, but then states that there were only 29 towns (see verse 32).

The error is on your part. All of the cities are mentioned, but the writer only counts the ones that belonged to Judah. The tribe of Simeon also had cities within Judah because that tribe had no land inheritance of its own. The cities not counted as belonging to Judah are reiterated in Joshua 19 as belonging to Simeon, so there is no counting error. 29 of the cities belonged to Judah, the rest belonged Simeon who resided in Judah.

I did not want to turn this into an "Infallibility" thread, or a "contradictions" thread. However, there are many small errors like this (from other places as well) and in the context of your questioning my disregard for infallibility, it needed to be mentioned, if only to understand your view on the situation. At best, you can claim that the current version we have is incorrect due to copyist errors but the original autograph was perfect! But since we don't know have the autographs we need to take it on Faith.

Well as demonstrated, your assertion that the Bible has many errors is really a baseless assertion. You don't really know the Bible that well and are not in a position to challenge its claims. And yes, this an infallibility issue, as it is also clear that you don't believe in the Bible's infallibility.

But to the best of my biblical knowledge (and believe it or not, I have studied for quite a long time) this is the conclusion I arrived at. Maybe my views are different because I did not grow up in Christianity. I didn't have the various dogmas crammed into me from an early age. So when I read the Bible I came to it with no preconceptions about what it said.

Not having grown up in Christianity is irrelevant to whether or not your assertions are true. It doesn't matter how long you have studied or what your relationship to Christianity was years ago. If your studies have led you to the wrong conclusions, then it doesn't matter if you have studied for 1 year or 20 years.

You, clearly, have not addressed the theoloical problems inherent in your view.

And just to pull these issues together, I don't consider this an affront to infallibility.

It is a textbook challenge to the infallibility of scripture.

Maybe I don't understand the doctrine of infallibility, but I wonder what your thoughts are on the issues I provided earlier (I have quite a few more to consider for you as well - *coughcoughQuirinius'Governorshipcoughcough*)

Yeah, we have already dealt with Quirinius' governership in another thread a few months back. You will have to do better than that. Your rather amusing attempts at trying to find things wrong with the Bible, make me wonder why you even bother being a Christian at all? I mean if you can't see the Bible as being wholly trustworthy on basic facts, why would you stake your life on its spiritual claims where your eternal destiny is concerned?

As I said, I don't want to turn this into an infallibility thread or contradictions thread. That was not my intention when starting. But unfortunately that seems to be the way this thread seems to be turning with the discussion you bring up.

You made it an "infallibility thread" because you are raising assertions that are a direct assault on the Bible's integrity.

[Guest HIS girl]

I'm wondering PA- is there any other part of the Bible that you have thought - " is this fact, fiction or something else?".

[nebula]

No prophetic significance is assigned to Genesis 1, and that fact should be lost on us.

I was thinking about this last night, and I am thinking you and I have a different idea of what "prophetic" is.

The fact that read the Gospel message and God's plan for redemption from Gen. 1 to me indicates prophetic.