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

[Guest shiloh357]

You don't understand. If another history book makes an historical claim that occurs nowhere else in any other recorded account, then it would be taken just as sceptically by historians. If there was no evidence to the contrary, but there was only one source stating that it happened, they would not simply embrace it. That is not how historical scholarship works.

And yet, historical "scholarship" has been proven wrong on that very basis, more than once.

If we follow this line, then there are all sorts of problems. Namely with the primary pillar of Christianity: The resurrection.

The resurrection of Jesus has absolutely NO extra-biblical witness as having actually occurred. No one was at the grave when Jesus was ressurrected, and so you would have to conclude that it is just a matter of faith. Yet, it isn't really.

I will say what I have said on other threads. The uniqueness of the claims of the Bible is that they are grounded in historical and geographic fact. All of the Bible's converging lines of evidence are in a setting of real places, times and people. What that means is that the apostles were not dying for a belief or a statement of faith. They were dying for their testimony that they had indeed encountered the risen Christ. They had seen Him, talked to Him, touched Him, and ate with Him for 40 days after his resurrection and they were eyewitnesses to His ascension into heaven. They were not dying for what might be true or "probable." They gave their lives for what they knew to be absolutely, 100% true based on their eyewitness account.

Peter said it this way:

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: and this voice we ourselves heard come out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.

(2 Peter 1:16-18)

As Christians, we don't really have anything to prove as to accuracy of the Bible. It is up to the skeptics to demonstrate that the Bible cannot really be trusted.

In a nutshell, I call myself a believer because I do believe!!!!

You have a system of selective faith where the Bible is concerned. You are willing to discard the claims Scripture makes when it doesn't line up with what you want to believe.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 19 2009, 10:55 AM)

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that I have no problem with a historical account being written in a poetic style. YOUR mistake is trying to force poetic to mean "figurative."

Well I'm afraid I do have a problem with a poetic style being used in an historical account. Particularly when that style changes abruptly in chapter 12. As I said, if I am wrong (and I do admit the possibility) I do not think this is a matter that affects my salvation.

Well here is your conundrum. So far, you cannot provide ONE credible reason why we should not treat the account of Genesis 1 as an historical account. All you can do is keep telling us it is poetic. So the onus is on you provide basis for not accepting this as an historcial account. Style change at Genesis 12 is irrelevant.

I guess we've just had a bit of a mix-up. Whenever I look at the Bible, I tend to look at it as a believer, but in order to understand the whole of the view, I look at it from a non-Christian point of view to see the other side of the coin.

God did not write the Bible for you to look at it from the the standpoint of a nonbeliever. The Bible says that the carnal man is not capable of receiving the things of God because they are foolishness to him. What you are doing is a waste of time. The Bible is God's book written from God's paradigm. The nonbeliever does not have a "side of the coin," to be quite frank.

As a believer, we can accept that there was a Covenant - based on the text referring to this. However, without a direct comment stating that there was one, others could (and do) argue that it was simply added in by a post-covenant writer.

Again, that is neither here nor there. You are not a nonbeliever and I responding to your objection that I don't have a textual basis for my assertion of a law that preexisted the one given at Sinai.

Actually, these views could be easily be more liberal. I am not saying that what I am sharing here is in line with Conservatives. It would be more liberal than the Conservative view, but it is not as liberal as it could be. What I was trying to say was that one doctrine that disagrees with Conservative Christianity does not a liberal make.

The problem is that all doctrines are interlinked. You cannot reject one without rejecting at least elements of the the rest. If you reject the inerrancy of the Bible, you are rejecting the Bible's authority and by extension are rejecting God's authority. Furthermore, you are challenging God's integrity because either the Bible is God-breathed or it isn't. If it and parts of it are not true, you then must reject God's omniscience as well as God's honesty, which in turn, challenges His right as moral lawgiver and judge of all creation.

You are not simply rejecting one doctrine, you are rejecting direct revelation from the Scripture. In doing so, disagreeing with conservative Christianity is the least of your problems. You are rejecting plain teachings of Scripture when you reject innerrancy and hold to several of the views you ascribe to on this thread and so you are rejecting God's testimony and that puts you in a far more dangerous situation.

My apologies for misunderstanding you. I would probably say then that the impetus that drives my reasoning is inspired by Faith in God and his ability to present to us the information we need to find salvation and live godly lives pleasing to His Will.

You did not answer the question. How do you determine which parts of the Bible are to believed and which parts are safe to discard?

Rewind just a second there, shiloh. I have not entertained that Luke was wrong about Qurinius.

Actually that is the context in which you brought it up, originally. We were discussing the innerrancy of the Bible, and you offered the Quirinius issue up along with "copyist errors," as evidence that the Bible does get it wrong. The way you presented it in post #52 was precisely along the lines of showing biblical errors. In fact, you seemed quite comfortable with what you called the "general consensus" that Luke was mistaken.

I'm not sure where along this debate you got the impression that I was arguing for the non-existence of this census and governorship - I simply brought it up to show that things are not always as clear-cut as you would make it out to be

No, you brought up to prove errors in Scripture and in the context of a discussion concerning the accuracy of the Bible. What you are doing now is trying to back peddle on your former position.

The fact is that there is only one source to corroborate the event. Historians cannot make a case for this on such a limited level of information. They would do the same for any other event that is only mentioned in one source in the entirety of ancient historical documents. That is why historians say that such a census and governorship is historically improbable (that is, it likely did not happen).

And we can also see how bad their track record operating from such assumptions, expecially where the existence of King David is concerned.

However, for us who believe that Luke was writing with divine inspiration we are still able to say that such a view is possible, and believe fully that any new information that comes out will vindicate our position.

So it is safe to say that you believe parts of the Bible are Divinly inspired and other parts are not?

[ParanoidAndroid]

And yet, historical "scholarship" has been proven wrong on that very basis, more than once.

If we follow this line, then there are all sorts of problems. Namely with the primary pillar of Christianity: The resurrection.

The resurrection of Jesus has absolutely NO extra-biblical witness as having actually occurred. No one was at the grave when Jesus was ressurrected, and so you would have to conclude that it is just a matter of faith. Yet, it isn't really.

I will say what I have said on other threads. The uniqueness of the claims of the Bible is that they are grounded in historical and geographic fact. All of the Bible's converging lines of evidence are in a setting of real places, times and people. What that means is that the apostles were not dying for a belief or a statement of faith. They were dying for their testimony that they had indeed encountered the risen Christ. They had seen Him, talked to Him, touched Him, and ate with Him for 40 days after his resurrection and they were eyewitnesses to His ascension into heaven. They were not dying for what might be true or "probable." They gave their lives for what they knew to be absolutely, 100% true based on their eyewitness account.

Peter said it this way:

For we did not follow cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: and this voice we ourselves heard come out of heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount.

(2 Peter 1:16-18)

As Christians, we don't really have anything to prove as to accuracy of the Bible. It is up to the skeptics to demonstrate that the Bible cannot really be trusted.

Except, I think believing Jesus rose from the dead DOES need Faith. I have that Faith. I believe that the gospels are accurate portrayals of this event. However, there are actually references to Jesus' crucifixion by many ancient writers. Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, and the Talmud all refer to Jesus' crucifixion during the time of Pontius Pilate.

Faith is absolutely vital in believing Jesus rose from the dead. However, no Faith is required to believe Jesus existed, roamed the earth, taught a message of peace and was eventually executed for that. This is as close to fact as history can come. I find it... strange.... that you think it doesn't need Faith.

You have a system of selective faith where the Bible is concerned. You are willing to discard the claims Scripture makes when it doesn't line up with what you want to believe.

If by "selective" you mean that I have done in-depth research and arrived at conclusions that sometimes disagree with mainstream belief, then you are perhaps correct. But as noted, I do not think that any difference I have affects issues of salvation - that is, none of these differences change my relationship with Jesus, or my actions as a Christian, or my understanding of salvation. We are all still sinners, regardless of whether Sin came through Adam or not. We are all still saved by Grace, regardless of how we came into that situation. God is still the creator of our world and author of all that is, regardless of how the world came into being.

Do you see the difference? I do not think the issues that I diverge from the mainstream with are issues that jeopardise my salvation. If I am wrong, nothing changes. Would you at least agree with that, or do you believe my salvation is under threat for this?

~ Regards,

[ParanoidAndroid]

Well here is your conundrum. So far, you cannot provide ONE credible reason why we should not treat the account of Genesis 1 as an historical account. All you can do is keep telling us it is poetic. So the onus is on you provide basis for not accepting this as an historcial account. Style change at Genesis 12 is irrelevant.

We're coming back full circle to the argument we had a few pages back. I have already outlined my reasons. You have disagreed with them. Now to avoid going around the merry-go-round another time, I think it's time we simply agree to disagree (and no, that is not an admission that I cannot back it up - I have shared the reasons multiple times, and you have rejected them; simple as that).

God did not write the Bible for you to look at it from the the standpoint of a nonbeliever. The Bible says that the carnal man is not capable of receiving the things of God because they are foolishness to him. What you are doing is a waste of time. The Bible is God's book written from God's paradigm. The nonbeliever does not have a "side of the coin," to be quite frank.

Again, that is neither here nor there. You are not a nonbeliever and I responding to your objection that I don't have a textual basis for my assertion of a law that preexisted the one given at Sinai.

I find looking at it from the other point of view to be invaluable in understanding not just my own views, but other people's views.

The problem is that all doctrines are interlinked. You cannot reject one without rejecting at least elements of the the rest. If you reject the inerrancy of the Bible, you are rejecting the Bible's authority and by extension are rejecting God's authority. Furthermore, you are challenging God's integrity because either the Bible is God-breathed or it isn't. If it and parts of it are not true, you then must reject God's omniscience as well as God's honesty, which in turn, challenges His right as moral lawgiver and judge of all creation.

You are not simply rejecting one doctrine, you are rejecting direct revelation from the Scripture. In doing so, disagreeing with conservative Christianity is the least of your problems. You are rejecting plain teachings of Scripture when you reject innerrancy and hold to several of the views you ascribe to on this thread and so you are rejecting God's testimony and that puts you in a far more dangerous situation.

I see what you are trying to get at, but I think this is taking the situation further than it should be taken. I do not reject the inerrancy of the Bible. I do not reject God's authority. I do not reject God's omniscience. I do not reject divine revelation. I do not reject scripture.

I simply posit an alternative view on Genesis 1-11, a view that looks at the spiritual "meat" underneath the story - and if I am wrong, then nothing about my understanding of God changes. We are sinful beings, regardless of how we became that way. Jesus' death and resurrection saves us from that sinfulness, and allows us to come back into complete relationship with the creator of our world.

My apologies for misunderstanding you. I would probably say then that the impetus that drives my reasoning is inspired by Faith in God and his ability to present to us the information we need to find salvation and live godly lives pleasing to His Will.

You did not answer the question. How do you determine which parts of the Bible are to believed and which parts are safe to discard?

Ok, I don't understand your question then. None of the Bible can be "discarded", it is all God's word. However, not all of it is a literal account of history and therefore each part needs to be looked at in its own context to find an appropriate understanding. Maybe if you explained how you determine which parts of the Bible are to be believed, I might get a better understanding of what you are trying to say.

Actually that is the context in which you brought it up, originally. We were discussing the innerrancy of the Bible, and you offered the Quirinius issue up along with "copyist errors," as evidence that the Bible does get it wrong. The way you presented it in post #52 was precisely along the lines of showing biblical errors. In fact, you seemed quite comfortable with what you called the "general consensus" that Luke was mistaken.

No, you brought up to prove errors in Scripture and in the context of a discussion concerning the accuracy of the Bible. What you are doing now is trying to back peddle on your former position.

And we can also see how bad their track record operating from such assumptions, expecially where the existence of King David is concerned.

I just looked over my post, and I can see how you arrived at your position. I certainly am not "back pedalling" my position now. It was my intention in bringing this up to point out that what we accept from the Bible is not so clear cut as you would have us believe. Perhaps it was a poor example in the context of our discussion, but at the time I thought it made the point (that is, most historians agree that it is historically unlikely such an event ever took place - and casting aspersions on the historical method won't really help here; it still requires Faith, until other information comes up). That is the problem with human fallibility, I guess. Maybe I used the wrong example in that discussion to make my point. I certainly have never claimed to be infallible.

However, I noticed in the other thread that you appear to have noted the other "copyist errors" and still accept that our Bible has those errors but believe the original autographs were correct and have been corrupted over time through human transmission. As I said there, I agree with you - that makes perfect sense.

So it is safe to say that you believe parts of the Bible are Divinly inspired and other parts are not?

Not at all safe to assume that, shiloh. The entirety of the Bible is divinely inspired, as far as I'm concerned. All of it "God-breathed" (literally breath from the mouth of God) as per 2 Timothy's comments. But on some matters, I have a different view than the mainstream Christian view. But if I'm wrong, as noted in my last post, I don't think there is anything I diverge with that would put my salvation at risk.

Regards, PA

[Guest shiloh357]

I find it... strange.... that you think it doesn't need Faith.

I did not say it doesn't need it. I said that for the apostles, it was not a matter of faith but a matter of incontrovertible fact. The Christian faith is evidentiary in nature. It is not simply "believing." God has provided a gargatuan amount of evidence and part of that evidence is the eyewitnesses of the apostles. Faith is not believing that something has a good chance of being true. It is absolute confidence in the truth. Truth by its very nature is the bedrock of faith.

If by "selective" you mean that I have done in-depth research and arrived at conclusions that sometimes disagree with mainstream belief, then you are perhaps correct.

No, by selective, I mean that you are willing to discard the parts of the Bible that don't fit your assertions.

But as noted, I do not think that any difference I have affects issues of salvation - that is, none of these differences change my relationship with Jesus, or my actions as a Christian, or my understanding of salvation.

Actually, the stuff you have presented up to this point demonstrate a lack of understanding of salvation in that you have, in this thread decided that Paul was wrong in Romans 5 about the origin death being sin. That steps on all kinds of issues, really. The problem is that you have not really studied this stuff out far enough to see where your views intersect with the Bible and why the Bible cannot support the views you have espoused in this thread.

We are all still sinners, regardless of whether Sin came through Adam or not.

Case in point. That highlights what I am talking about.

I do not think the issues that I diverge from the mainstream with are issues that jeopardise my salvation. If I am wrong, nothing changes. Would you at least agree with that, or do you believe my salvation is under threat for this?

The doctrinal views you have espoused on this thread are simply unbiblical and categorically wrong and show a very poor understanding of the most basic claims the Bible makes. The "threat" extends to all of the fence riders and unbelievers you will mislead who will see enough similarity in what you believe and what they believe to see no reason to become Christians since they will see themselves as having "Christian" beliefs anyway.

[Guest shiloh357]

We're coming back full circle to the argument we had a few pages back. I have already outlined my reasons. You have disagreed with them. Now to avoid going around the merry-go-round another time, I think it's time we simply agree to disagree (and no, that is not an admission that I cannot back it up - I have shared the reasons multiple times, and you have rejected them; simple as that).

I simply asked you to provide the "figurative indicators" in Genesis 1 and heretofore, you cannot provide ONE. It is not a merry-go-round other than you trying to avoid admitting that you cannot provide ONE figurative device (metaphor, similie, symbol, etc.) from that chapter.

I find looking at it from the other point of view to be invaluable in understanding not just my own views, but other people's views.

But it a poor way to understand and analyze the Bible.

I see what you are trying to get at, but I think this is taking the situation further than it should be taken. I do not reject the inerrancy of the Bible. I do not reject God's authority. I do not reject God's omniscience. I do not reject divine revelation. I do not reject scripture.

Actually, based on your initial comments in this thread, you pretty much have to reject most of those in order to forward what you profess to believe.

I simply posit an alternative view on Genesis 1-11, a view that looks at the spiritual "meat" underneath the story

No, it your view was provide a "figurative" way looking at the account. Figurative and spiritual do not mean the same thing.

We are sinful beings, regardless of how we became that way.

Do you believe that sin and all death find their origin in the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden as the Bible teaches?

Ok, I don't understand your question then. None of the Bible can be "discarded", it is all God's word.

When I brought up the point that all of death finds it origin in Adam and I cited Paul from Romans 5, you were willing to entertain the fact that Paul was wrong on that point. Further, when I brought up the fact that the apostles and prophets in Scripture treat Genesis 1 as a literal, historical event, you also posited the idea that they were also wrong on that point. So my question is how do you go about deciding which parts of the Bible are true and which are not?

It was my intention in bringing this up to point out that what we accept from the Bible is not so clear cut as you would have us believe. Perhaps it was a poor example in the context of our discussion, but at the time I thought it made the point (that is, most historians agree that it is historically unlikely such an event ever took place - and casting aspersions on the historical method won't really help here; it still requires Faith, until other information comes up).

How is showing the ways that historians have been wrong in the past in similar contexts "casting aspersions?" The fact is "the historical method" cannot be trusted. There simply too many times in the past that historians and scholars were sure that certain cities or battles or events did not take place or certain people did no exist, only to have those very things uncovered and proven to be true by archeology. The fact is deferring to the historical method is simply hollow.

However, I noticed in the other thread that you appear to have noted the other "copyist errors" and still accept that our Bible has those errors but believe the original autographs were correct and have been corrupted over time through human transmission. As I said there, I agree with you - that makes perfect sense.

No, they have not been corrupted. That is not what I said. While we do have several variants in the text, which is to be expected in copies and translations of copies, none of them have corrupted the text.

Not at all safe to assume that, shiloh. The entirety of the Bible is divinely inspired, as far as I'm concerned. All of it "God-breathed" (literally breath from the mouth of God) as per 2 Timothy's comments. But on some matters, I have a different view than the mainstream Christian view.

See, there is the problem. You keep thinking it is "Christian" view you are at odds with. What you don't seem to get is that you are not really rejecting the Christian view, but are rejecting plain statement and teachings of the Bible. The Divine inspiration of the Bible is interlinked with infallibility which you cannot logically hold to along with most of of what you have ascribed to in this thread.

[ParanoidAndroid]

I did not say it doesn't need it. I said that for the apostles, it was not a matter of faith but a matter of incontrovertible fact. The Christian faith is evidentiary in nature. It is not simply "believing." God has provided a gargatuan amount of evidence and part of that evidence is the eyewitnesses of the apostles. Faith is not believing that something has a good chance of being true. It is absolute confidence in the truth. Truth by its very nature is the bedrock of faith.

I can agree with you on this

No, by selective, I mean that you are willing to discard the parts of the Bible that don't fit your assertions.

On this I can't agree. I don't simply discard what doesn't fit my assertions.

Actually, the stuff you have presented up to this point demonstrate a lack of understanding of salvation in that you have, in this thread decided that Paul was wrong in Romans 5 about the origin death being sin. That steps on all kinds of issues, really. The problem is that you have not really studied this stuff out far enough to see where your views intersect with the Bible and why the Bible cannot support the views you have espoused in this thread.

Case in point. That highlights what I am talking about.

I do not think it has. Salvation is a free gift of God that saves us from our sins through his Son's death and resurrection - what in that have I missed about salvation?

The doctrinal views you have espoused on this thread are simply unbiblical and categorically wrong and show a very poor understanding of the most basic claims the Bible makes. The "threat" extends to all of the fence riders and unbelievers you will mislead who will see enough similarity in what you believe and what they believe to see no reason to become Christians since they will see themselves as having "Christian" beliefs anyway.

The only way to the Father is through the Son. I have NEVER stated that you can believe whatever you want and still consider yourself "Christian". That is a liberal philosophy which I utterly reject. I have never said it was unnecessary to repent of sins, and certainly I have never said it's ok to worship whatever you want. No one could possibly live however they want and still think they are Christians if they have truly read my posts.

I have admitted there are some issues that I don't agree with the mainstream Christian view on. That doesn't mean that I accept every view as correct. I can't stand pluralism, and I cringe whenever anyone says, "I'm a Christian but I don't really follow God".

[ParanoidAndroid]

I simply asked you to provide the "figurative indicators" in Genesis 1 and heretofore, you cannot provide ONE. It is not a merry-go-round other than you trying to avoid admitting that you cannot provide ONE figurative device (metaphor, similie, symbol, etc.) from that chapter.

1- The structure of Genesis 1-11 follows closely that of a story, not history (status quo, complication, build up, climax, resolution).

2- The numbers used in key sections of this book convey spiritual understandings of perfection that are noticeable when understanding the symbolic meaning of numbers in Hebrew culture

3- Beyond the wider structure, each individual section has its specific structural interest - some conveying symmetry not inline with what would occur historically.

As I said, I have shared these many times before - you have rejected them as indicators of a figurative reading. Case closed. We should agree to disagree because doing otherwise won't get us anywhere. You will tell me that these are not "figurative indicators" and that a section structured as poetry can still be an historical account. I disagree. Simple.

Actually, based on your initial comments in this thread, you pretty much have to reject most of those in order to forward what you profess to believe.

I cannot agree with that.

No, it your view was provide a "figurative" way looking at the account. Figurative and spiritual do not mean the same thing.

I did, however, state right at the start that the spiritual purpose of Genesis 1-11 was to convey two main theological truths: 1- that God created us, and 2- that mankind has consistently rebelled against God. They would be the "spiritual meat" of the passage. I would honestly say that if Genesis were literal history, I would still get those basic theological truths, regardless.

Do you believe that sin and all death find their origin in the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden as the Bible teaches?

I believe that at one stage, the human race was sinless. However, the first humans to exist did sin, and now that sinful nature is passed down from person-to-person. I don't specifically agree though that this happened in the literal Garden of Eden.

When I brought up the point that all of death finds it origin in Adam and I cited Paul from Romans 5, you were willing to entertain the fact that Paul was wrong on that point. Further, when I brought up the fact that the apostles and prophets in Scripture treat Genesis 1 as a literal, historical event, you also posited the idea that they were also wrong on that point. So my question is how do you go about deciding which parts of the Bible are true and which are not?

If you could tell me how you decide which parts of the Bible are true today and which are not, then you will have your answer in all likelihood.

How is showing the ways that historians have been wrong in the past in similar contexts "casting aspersions?" The fact is "the historical method" cannot be trusted. There simply too many times in the past that historians and scholars were sure that certain cities or battles or events did not take place or certain people did no exist, only to have those very things uncovered and proven to be true by archeology. The fact is deferring to the historical method is simply hollow.

And yet you use history to back up your own claims when it suits your purpose? If you cast aspersions on the historical method here, you cannot seriously suggest that history can back you up when it suits your views. History is history. It is not perfect, and as I noted, it cannot ever state that an event did or did not happen with unequivocal certainty. However, going by the evidence we have at our disposal, I have simply shared the historians view on this.

No, they have not been corrupted. That is not what I said. While we do have several variants in the text, which is to be expected in copies and translations of copies, none of them have corrupted the text.

Semantics. The numbers have been changed from the originals (most likely accidental). The meaning has not been corrupted though. The text has been, the meaning has not.

See, there is the problem. You keep thinking it is "Christian" view you are at odds with. What you don't seem to get is that you are not really rejecting the Christian view, but are rejecting plain statement and teachings of the Bible. The Divine inspiration of the Bible is interlinked with infallibility which you cannot logically hold to along with most of of what you have ascribed to in this thread.

I again respectfully disagree. I have different interpretations in some areas than some other Christians. In other areas we are similar. But I do not think these matters affect salvation.

To put it another way, I have no problem in saying that no one has ever properly understood every line of scripture. Do you think your views on the Bible are infallible? Do you believe you have everything right about the Bible? I would not hesitate to suggest that you don't. No one does. I don't, you don't, your pastor doesn't, the most knowledgeable and experienced theologian doesn't. But based on each of our understanding, we believe we have come to the conclusion that best represents God's actual meanings. I do that, you do that, your pastor does that, we all do that. When we get to heaven, there are some things I know God will chide me about, and I know there are things he will chide you about, and chide your pastor about, and chide us all about. I don't know what these are going to be because to the best of my understanding I believe I have things right. Just as everyone else does.

Which is why I separate what I believe into doctrines essential for salvation, and doctrines that are not. The exact nature of the creation of our universe falls into the latter view. Jesus being the perfect sinless son of God (indeed God Himself in human flesh) falls into the former. If I don't believe Jesus is the Son of God who came to save us from our sins, then no matter how well intentioned or right I have everything else, nothing can save me from my own sins. But if I don't believe creation literally happened exactly as stated in Genesis, and it turns out I'm wrong, then has anything in my fundamental understanding of the Creator really changed? I would say no. The spiritual truths of Genesis 1-11 would still be the same, my understanding of sin and redemption would still be the same. My salvation would still be secure through Christ.

[Shiloh62]

I simply asked you to provide the "figurative indicators" in Genesis 1 and heretofore, you cannot provide ONE. It is not a merry-go-round other than you trying to avoid admitting that you cannot provide ONE figurative device (metaphor, similie, symbol, etc.) from that chapter.

1- The structure of Genesis 1-11 follows closely that of a story, not history (status quo, complication, build up, climax, resolution).

2- The numbers used in key sections of this book convey spiritual understandings of perfection that are noticeable when understanding the symbolic meaning of numbers in Hebrew culture

3- Beyond the wider structure, each individual section has its specific structural interest - some conveying symmetry not inline with what would occur historically.

As I said, I have shared these many times before - you have rejected them as indicators of a figurative reading. Case closed. We should agree to disagree because doing otherwise won't get us anywhere. You will tell me that these are not "figurative indicators" and that a section structured as poetry can still be an historical account. I disagree. Simple.

Actually, based on your initial comments in this thread, you pretty much have to reject most of those in order to forward what you profess to believe.

I cannot agree with that.

No, it your view was provide a "figurative" way looking at the account. Figurative and spiritual do not mean the same thing.

I did, however, state right at the start that the spiritual purpose of Genesis 1-11 was to convey two main theological truths: 1- that God created us, and 2- that mankind has consistently rebelled against God. They would be the "spiritual meat" of the passage. I would honestly say that if Genesis were literal history, I would still get those basic theological truths, regardless.

Do you believe that sin and all death find their origin in the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden as the Bible teaches?

I believe that at one stage, the human race was sinless. However, the first humans to exist did sin, and now that sinful nature is passed down from person-to-person. I don't specifically agree though that this happened in the literal Garden of Eden.

When I brought up the point that all of death finds it origin in Adam and I cited Paul from Romans 5, you were willing to entertain the fact that Paul was wrong on that point. Further, when I brought up the fact that the apostles and prophets in Scripture treat Genesis 1 as a literal, historical event, you also posited the idea that they were also wrong on that point. So my question is how do you go about deciding which parts of the Bible are true and which are not?

If you could tell me how you decide which parts of the Bible are true today and which are not, then you will have your answer in all likelihood.

How is showing the ways that historians have been wrong in the past in similar contexts "casting aspersions?" The fact is "the historical method" cannot be trusted. There simply too many times in the past that historians and scholars were sure that certain cities or battles or events did not take place or certain people did no exist, only to have those very things uncovered and proven to be true by archeology. The fact is deferring to the historical method is simply hollow.

And yet you use history to back up your own claims when it suits your purpose? If you cast aspersions on the historical method here, you cannot seriously suggest that history can back you up when it suits your views. History is history. It is not perfect, and as I noted, it cannot ever state that an event did or did not happen with unequivocal certainty. However, going by the evidence we have at our disposal, I have simply shared the historians view on this.

No, they have not been corrupted. That is not what I said. While we do have several variants in the text, which is to be expected in copies and translations of copies, none of them have corrupted the text.

Semantics. The numbers have been changed from the originals (most likely accidental). The meaning has not been corrupted though. The text has been, the meaning has not.

See, there is the problem. You keep thinking it is "Christian" view you are at odds with. What you don't seem to get is that you are not really rejecting the Christian view, but are rejecting plain statement and teachings of the Bible. The Divine inspiration of the Bible is interlinked with infallibility which you cannot logically hold to along with most of of what you have ascribed to in this thread.

I again respectfully disagree. I have different interpretations in some areas than some other Christians. In other areas we are similar. But I do not think these matters affect salvation.

To put it another way, I have no problem in saying that no one has ever properly understood every line of scripture. Do you think your views on the Bible are infallible? Do you believe you have everything right about the Bible? I would not hesitate to suggest that you don't. No one does. I don't, you don't, your pastor doesn't, the most knowledgeable and experienced theologian doesn't. But based on each of our understanding, we believe we have come to the conclusion that best represents God's actual meanings. I do that, you do that, your pastor does that, we all do that. When we get to heaven, there are some things I know God will chide me about, and I know there are things he will chide you about, and chide your pastor about, and chide us all about. I don't know what these are going to be because to the best of my understanding I believe I have things right. Just as everyone else does.

Which is why I separate what I believe into doctrines essential for salvation, and doctrines that are not. The exact nature of the creation of our universe falls into the latter view. Jesus being the perfect sinless son of God (indeed God Himself in human flesh) falls into the former. If I don't believe Jesus is the Son of God who came to save us from our sins, then no matter how well intentioned or right I have everything else, nothing can save me from my own sins. But if I don't believe creation literally happened exactly as stated in Genesis, and it turns out I'm wrong, then has anything in my fundamental understanding of the Creator really changed? I would say no. The spiritual truths of Genesis 1-11 would still be the same, my understanding of sin and redemption would still be the same. My salvation would still be secure through Christ.

I thought that the bible was very clear in establishing The Garden of Eden as the original location where man sinned when Adam ansd Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 19 2009, 03:08 PM)

I simply asked you to provide the "figurative indicators" in Genesis 1 and heretofore, you cannot provide ONE. It is not a merry-go-round other than you trying to avoid admitting that you cannot provide ONE figurative device (metaphor, similie, symbol, etc.) from that chapter.

1- The structure of Genesis 1-11 follows closely that of a story, not history (status quo, complication, build up, climax, resolution).

2- The numbers used in key sections of this book convey spiritual understandings of perfection that are noticeable when understanding the symbolic meaning of numbers in Hebrew culture

3- Beyond the wider structure, each individual section has its specific structural interest - some conveying symmetry not inline with what would occur historically.

As I said, I have shared these many times before - you have rejected them as indicators of a figurative reading.

Onliy because you are skewing the meaning of "figurative." "Figurative" means, "this stands for that." An example of something figurative in the Bible is like when Jesus said, "I am the door." Did Jesus mean he was a piece of wood with a knob and hinges? No, Jesus was using a metaphor. A figurative device is when an author uses nonliteral imagery to represent a literal truth. If you are going to claim that numbers are being used "symbolically" the onus is on you to provide evidence of symbolic usage. You have failed to do so.

The Bible does employ poetry and there are all kinds of biblical poetry in the Bible that tells the literal history of Israel, especially in the book of Psalms. There is American poetry that tells parts of the history of the US To claim that poetry cannot be also be historical is intellectual suicide and casts a bit of doubt on just how much you really know about this kind of stuff.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Mar 19 2009, 03:08 PM)

No, it your view was provide a "figurative" way looking at the account. Figurative and spiritual do not mean the same thing.

I did, however, state right at the start that the spiritual purpose of Genesis 1-11 was to convey two main theological truths: 1- that God created us, and 2- that mankind has consistently rebelled against God. They would be the "spiritual meat" of the passage. I would honestly say that if Genesis were literal history, I would still get those basic theological truths, regardless.

No, what you said at the outset was that you doubted the accuracy of Genesis 1-11 in its portrayal historical events. You stated that there was a enough "figurative indicators" in Gen. 1-11 to "rethink" the idea of it being a literal historical account. From the outset, your purpose was to cast doubt on the accuracy of information these opening chapters in Genesis possess. According to you, they are probably based on true events. In other words, Gen. 1-11 is at best an embellishment on what actually did happen, but cannot be seen a truly accurate account of those events. From the outset, you started this thread to question the accuracy of the Bible, at least where Gen. 1-11 is concerned.

I believe that at one stage, the human race was sinless. However, the first humans to exist did sin, and now that sinful nature is passed down from person-to-person.

Really, and what sin did they commit, and how do you support that from the text of Bible? How come the Bible only mentions redemptiobn in connection to Adam and not in connection to these other "pre-Adamic" peopple you imagine existed?

I don't specifically agree though that this happened in the literal Garden of Eden.

Really?? Here is exactly what the Bible says:

Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned: