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

[MorningGlory]

It is painfully obvious that you don't consider the Bible to be inerrant or even the equal of a history book. Why do you call yourself a believer if you don't believe?

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. That is the realm of "Faith". Which is what I have been saying all along - I have Faith in Luke's gospel that his account is accurate. I also believe that if there was any new information to rise to the surface of history it would vindicate Luke's position. I'm not saying that Luke was wrong! I am saying he was right! I just happen to know how this is backed up in history.

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

I'm glad to hear that you are a believer but, may I point out, that as such you should have no doubts. I don't understand why you would question the Bible to begin with. I realize that others may see things differently but...... let me put it this way.....if it's in the Bible I believe it. I may have to put things into context (different point in time, etc.) but I don't ever dissect anything in an attempt to prove it either right or wrong. I guess I don't understand the purpose of such an exercise.

[artsylady]

I can

[ParanoidAndroid]

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.

Hi Shiloh, as promised, I wanted to respond to this post. In the other thread, I mentioned I had dropped this because I was getting dizzy from the circular discussion. This first section is one clear point of that. I have claimed that the passages are figurative because the structure shows it to be something other than history. In response you have said that a poetic structure does not equate to poetry or symbolic understanding. You have not provided any evidence to suggest to the contrary either. So we are left on that merry-go-round.

As an aside, I am not an American, and I would like to see some of this poetry that tells part of the history of the U.S. Examples would be good, in context to show how much of the historicity of the event it actually shows

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.

A lack of "historical accuracy" does not cast doubt on the Bible. The theological truths are still vitally important. "Embellishment" would not be quite right either. Imagine a piece of WWII poetry describing the storming of Normandy on D-Day - how much history do you expect to read in a poem of this sort? How much of it is more likely based on the visceral natural of war-time horror. Does this disqualify it as an important text in understanding WWII?

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?

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:

[ParanoidAndroid]

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.

So its okay to be in error, as long as it doesn't affect salvation?

In a nutshell, Yes. It is ok to be in error. In fact, I would confidently state that I am in error on some things. I don't believe I am, but I do know for a fact that somewhere in my beliefs I have made mistakes. We are humans and not perfect. Not even the greatest theologian who ever existed had everything perfect. They made mistakes. You have made mistakes, we all have made mistakes. It is ok to be wrong, when the matters do not affect the way we live our lives as christians, and do not affect our relationship with God.

I never made this a salvation issue. The problem is much more far reaching than "how wrong I can be and still be saved." The problem is that you think you can downplay or minimize the importance of your error by claiming it has no affect on your salvation. You are extremely short-sighted particularly as to how your liberal theology will affect unbelievers and even more problematic how your liberal views assault the integrity of the Word of God and by extension, God Himself. It isn't just about you. It is about those who will not really see a need for salvation since your views about parts of the Bible are not all that disimilar from that of many unbelievers.

I will NEVER tell someone that Jesus is unnecessary. Salvation is entirely necessary. If a person gets the impression they don't need to be saved, it certainly does not come from me. This is not about "how wrong can I be and still be saved". I believe I'm right. I'm simply saying that in this respect, if I'm not it doesn't matter. The same goes for you - if you are wrong, it doesn't matter. The problem is that in this discussion we are talking about one particular issue (creation). It ignores the rest of scripture and our understanding of who Jesus is, and therefore if read as an isolated commentary without the benefit of stepping back and saying, "Right, these are the various views about the topic - but beyond this lies the fact that we are sinful and need the redemptive blood of Christ".

I would submit that you have never met a real "liberal christian" if you consider me to hold liberal views. I have nothing but contempt for the belief that espouses, "I'm a Christian but I don't believe you need to submit to Jesus or anything" (this is not the same as contempt for the person who holds this belief - I disagree with them, but I do not hate them or hold contempt for them). This is true liberalism, and I see it far more often than you might care to think. Disagreeing with some aspects of Conservative Christianity does not make someone a "liberal" Christian. There are many people that give praise to God and then turn around and say, "God is bigger than belief, he comes to each of us in different ways and speaks to us all differently - all paths lead to God". That is liberal Christianity!

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?

You are skewing the issue. This is not about completely understanding every line of the Bible. It is about your contradiction with plainly stated truths in Scripture and your refusal to read a document the way the author intended it to be written.

The bottom line is not about whether any person has an infallible understanding of the Bible, but whether or not YOU accept the Bible as a 100% accurate reocord in all matters it addresses.

Do you believe you have everything theologically correct? I'm sure you do. However, if you are truthful to yourself, you will also accept that sinful humanity won't let that be the case. No one has all the truth. However, God has made his message of salvation very simple to understand. The message of salvation is beautifully simple. And therein lies the beauty of the Bible - it provides the least knowledgeable of us with the truths of salvation. And yet at the same time it provides theological conundrums for even the greatest theological minds in history.

For the record, I believe the Bible is 100% truthful in all matters. However, that does not mean I see all sections as historically accurate. Even you would agree with that statement - you don't see all parts as historically viable. I believe it all to be reliable. I just don't believe that this therefore means it must conform to the preconceived idea that I have on that matter.

I wish you the best, Shiloh

~ PA

[ParanoidAndroid]

I'm glad to hear that you are a believer but, may I point out, that as such you should have no doubts. I don't understand why you would question the Bible to begin with.

I don't have "doubts" per se. However, I do continually question my beliefs. I find this helps me grow. I think the person that shies away from questions simply shows that they have no true Faith in their belief to answer them. To quote one of my favourite shows, Babylon 5 - Do not Fear if you do not have all the answers. Only Fear when you run out of questions (I'm guessing the character in the show was quoting someone else, but I couldn't tell you who it was). When we don't question, we start to stagnate. This has been my experience and it has rung true through everything I have done.

I realize that others may see things differently but...... let me put it this way.....if it's in the Bible I believe it. I may have to put things into context (different point in time, etc.) but I don't ever dissect anything in an attempt to prove it either right or wrong. I guess I don't understand the purpose of such an exercise.

That is one way to look at it. I'm not sure what you mean by dissecting something in order to prove it right or wrong, though. I will answer as how I think you understanding it. Personally, I look at all of the Bible in detail, not to prove it "right or wrong", but rather to see whether the text supports literal understandings. This is fundamentally no different than putting things into context (you mentioned different points in time and such). It does, however, require further detailed reading than a surface understanding of the passage. I would not say this is a dissection of scripture (at least, not in a negative sense). I have found great joys in God that come from such reading.

Personally, this makes far more sense than simply saying, "this is right" and then dismissing anything that does not conform to that preconceived view. As you noted though, others take different views. All the best

Regards,

[Blien]

I think these questionings are very dangerous.. while reading all this I was reminded of the questiongs in the garden that Eve experienced by the devil. "Did God really say you cannot eat of the tree?" All those questions made her doubt and second guess God and His words.

You say "I am not trying to say that the events did not happen", but yet a couple of words later you flatly contradict yourself. "However, the author did not write chapters 1-11 with the purpose of outlining literal history."

I would be very careful in making such statements or avoid them completely. A lot of pastors do this and it makes Christian people very indecisive at the end, questioning what is written and doubting God. This has caused me to stumble many times because I became of two mind of everything. Jesus always said "It is written", so in my opinion I will follow the same suit. I'm in agreement with RunningGator.