Posted on 09/21/2009 7:39:20 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Genesis: Real, Reliable, Historical
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.*
Introduction to (new book entitled) Earth's Catastrophic Past
Why Take Genesis Seriously?
The first eleven chapters of the Bible have been relegated by many to the category of myths, not real history. These are said to contain spiritual truth, but they cannot be taken seriously as records of real people and events. Many sincere Christians who believe the Bible do not know what their pastors believe about the historicity of Genesis. Is it safe to assume that these believe in the following truths?
1. God created everything in six 24-hour days.
2 Adam and Eve were real people.
3. God cursed a perfect world as a judgment for sin.
4. Noah constructed an Ark by which two of every kind of air-breathing, land-dwelling animal were saved along with Noah's family from a global flood.
5. The confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel produced the language groups that are found around the world today.
An alarming number of Christian leaders and teachers instead believe that God "created" through evolutionary processes over millions of years, that Adam and Eve descended from a hominid population, and that there has never been a global flood, suggesting that the account of Noah and the Ark is a story adapted from a Babylonian myth.
Mainstream Christian orthodoxy regarded the opening chapters of Genesis as just as real and reliable as the rest of the Bible until 150-200 years ago. So what has happened?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I can do that? No way! None of us can! If it really is the word of God than it’s beyond our ability to ever fully comprehend. Doesn’t mean you don’t try, but you must have enough respect to know that you never will...
What?? Why would God write us a book we can’t understand?? I have spent years studying God’s Word and it blows my mind, will I ever fully get every nugget out of it...probably not, but I certainly do understand that Genesis, creation is literal and Revelation is not like Genesis, nor is Daniel or Isaiah, they are prophetic books, it goes back to context.
A literal interpretation of Genesis would put it 5 days later, which is still not at the beginning.
But lets go back to Mark 10:6 in the original:
απο δε αρχης κτισεως αρσεν και θηλυ εποιησεν αυτους ο θεος
The key words being αρχης (strong's 746) and κτισεως (strong's 2937). I am not sure why this implies the beginning of the creation of the decaying universe we find our selfs in, but rather in context seems to mean the start (or foundation or corner stone) of humankind (disclaimer: I am only a beginner at biblical Greek).
Also, I recall that Adam was put to sleep and had a rib taken out from which Eve was formed (Genesis 2:22-23). And following in Genesis 2:24 we see something familiar, which the NIV translates as:
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Which seems to convey support for the principle of what Jesus was saying in Mark 10:6, which I take to be Christs purpose there, and the Holy Spirit's purpose in Genesis 2:22-23.
I also observe, that biblical books of prophecy are not written in the same form of the historical books of the bible, but have symbolism (like animals and beasts representing empires in both Daniel and Revelation) and even riddles (such as the 70 sevens of Daniel chapter 9). But none of bears on the question of them being true or not.
Prophetic books get the message God wants across, and yet, He does not usually choose to inform us through literal historical narratives on these occasions.
Seems to me, the books that are historical were the ones written by eye witnesses, or at least those who interviewed the live witnesses. The books more entirely dependent on the Holy Spirit are usually not historical in form.
That being said, it seems to me that the early chapters in Genesis were not composed by eye witnesses, thus I would not expect them to be historical in form, so much as they are similar to prophecy (only telling about the past rather than the future).
Yes I think the Tree of Life is a real thing. Just as I believe the Whore of Babylon is a real thing. I'm just not sure if the one was really a tree, or the other will really be an individual woman. But I believe that what God says about them is true and something we should learn from, even if we do not know the kinds of details a literal history would afford us.
Hey GG, where the heck have you been?!
How about this. The Bible says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Would you agree that evidence points to the Universe having a beginning?
“Where in the hell (and I mean that quite literally) did you get the warped idea that The Catholic teachings on Theistic Evolution constituted accepting Darwin “hook, line and sinker”? Where also did you get the idea that the very institution that assembled the book you call the bible has only an invalid interpretation of its contents?”
In that case, I reckon the same place you get your ideas on evolution: hell (and I mean that quite literally). Keep peddlin’ your wares and eventually you’ll get someone to buy them. Darwin is snake oil and has exactly as much weight behind his arguments as did the claims of the salesman of said snake oil.
It’s amazing to me how sanctimonious evo’s get about the religion they seem to be trying to lowjack.
I grow tired of the ignorant claims of the ignorant. Then some piece of work like this one comes along and raises my ire again.
Hope all is well with you. I see you never give up the fight. Your dedication is an encouragement.
Last sentence...LOL!...and oh so true!!!
Lets think about this a little.
What would physical evidence of Abraham really be like?
Presumably, to know whatever it was involved someone named Abraham, what would we need...something that was written with at the least the word "Abraham" right?
So wouldn't ancient writing be the most essential physical evidence one might find for the existence of ancient historical persons? And don't we have ancient manuscripts telling us there was someone named Abraham? So why would you not consider this "physical evidence"?
I think it’s funny when I go to your page it says,
“Natural Law hasn’t created a page.”
Are you waiting for it to evolve?
Because an all powerful God wouldn’t be able to be understood through mere words and the vast limits of human language. There are scholars in the various Christian religions that have centuries of knowledge and theory backing their expertise and they’ll say that Genesis isn’t meant to be taken literally. I sincerely doubt that any of us can achieve that level of understanding without lots of training and studies.
Anyway, I don’t agree with you, but one thing I’ll never do is want you to be censored by anyone, especially the government. As long as people can argue and not be squelched then I see the great American idea at work. I need to go to bed though, so I can do Ok at work before Obamanomics gets my job too.
Have a great tomorrow and enjoy your studies!
I have missed your wit. You definitely lighten things up when you turn up on my threads!
Or perhaps maybe it devolved back into the very nothingness that produced the “Big Bang”!
I find that if I pray for discernment before I read the Bible, I tend to understand more.
If you want to understand the meaning within a book, it's best to go to the author.
Woops, your anti-Bible prejudice is showing.
While complaining about all those people who teach the Bible, you chose yourself someone to teach you bias and error and you ran with it.
Before charging in like a liberal on the attack, you might want to look again after having revealed your bias and exercised your blind faith that evidence would never be found.
Your faith in your own opinion, (or your faith in your teacher's opinion) led you to error and hurts your credibility.
Actual physical evidence for King David exists (more than one example, maybe three) and it is actually old news.
This is from the Biblical Archaeology Review, March-April 1994, :
From Avraham Biran and his team of archaeologists found a remarkable inscription from the 9th Century BC that refers to the 'House of David' and to the 'King of Israel'. This is the first time that the name David has been found in any inscription outside the Bible. That the inscription refers not simply to David but to the 'House of David', the dynasty of the great Israelite king, is even more remarkable.
Thanks for the ping!
As St Paul pointed out in Romans, creation is sufficient evidence of God.
Whether or not organic can come from inorganic without outside interference...neither can come from nothing else without outside interference...and ultimately such interference must transcend the need to have its being through something else.
If I stumbled and fell 30 seconds into a marathon, would it be inaccurate of me to say that it happned at the beginning of the race?
Hey GGG -
Do you recall the title of a new book published just in the last month or two that tracks Genesis with the big bang theory, etc. and posits that there is no contradiction between the two? I seem to recall reading about this just a few weeks ago and now can’t find the book I’m thinking about. Thanks in advance for any help.
- rogue yam
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.