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 ...
It's a vision. Language such as "feet like bronze" "face like the sun" "eyes like blazing fire" in Ch. are all similes...not literal.
In the vision much of the symbols are revealed. "The seven stars are the angels of the churches" "The seven lampstands are the seven churches." See? The symbols here are explained...they are not literal. This is quite typical of apocalyptic literature if you do any study of the Bible in depth.
"taking the Bible too literally cheapens the deep and profound lessons"
It's really not a matter of "taking it too literally" or not. The key is to understand the literature as the spirit-filled original writer intended. And the intents become clearer the more familiar you get. This goes for Genesis as well as any other book.
Should read Ch.1
Your engaging and forgiving word choice and tone tells me everything I need to know about your interpretation of the Beatitudes too. Dominus Vobiscum.
Good observation, but I guess I was a little misuderstood. Let us agree that Mark 10:6 does not support old world creation over new. The above statement was only arguing that it does not support new over old.
If you joined a marathon for only the last mile, and tripped when you started running, I might say you tripped from the beginning...but I would not if this were the case, mean the beginning of the race.
By your reading, did Jesus Himself interpretd the Beatitudes correctly? He has used some pretty harsh language on occasion such as "brood of vipers" et al.
I'm not saying NaturalLaw was neccesarily right to use harsh language, but I am saying Christ's example shows us that there are some cases where harsh language is appropriate. Even to St Peter who was a close disciple He once said "Get behind me Satan!".
I'm more likely to trust them on this count. People who uniformly agree on all things make me more suspicious. On the other hand they agree on some things...and I suppose this makes preachers too dogmatic as well?
Do you apply this curious standard elsewhere? Or only against things you do not like?
I suppose you might respect science (as I do). But shall we reject science unless all scientists agree on everything? And shall we also blast them for being "dogmatic" if they happen to agree on some basic things they consider non controversial?
If you’ve read the Bible, do you recall this advice from James? (1:5):
“If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”
Nevermind. Found it. (Not yet released.)
The Genesis Enigma: Why the Bible Is Scientifically Accurate by Andrew Parker
You might want to give the following a skim. It is talking about one of the most fascinating little books I have ever read.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=446
All the best—GGG
You are not the one to tell me what I “have” to believe.
Where is the physical evidence that you were born on the date and time stated on your birth certificate?
"Maybe YOUR god is too weak and powerless to do such a thing, but I know that MY GOD, the eternal all-powerful God of the universe, could have done with just the sound of His voice. I believe."
Amen dear sister in Christ!!!
If it's a matter of who gets to claim the most powerful God, does someone who believes in a God that did it all in an instant get to claim bragging rights over someone who says their God did it in six days?
And you don't find the same fault in the Darwinian model?
My God put it in writing :-)
Have you considered that your very being is all the evidence that you need?
Actually John states that Revelation is from Jesus Himself, John only recorded what he was told.
[heavy sarcasm] Nonsense! Why, don't you know that until the rise of Protestant Fundamentalism" in nineteenth century America no one had ever taken this stuff seriously? Why, the Catholic, Orthodox, Non-Chalcaedonian, and Non-Ephesine churches all knew that Adam, Eve, and Noah were myths derived from Babylonian paganism! As a matter of fact, they already believed in evolution. Shoot, they'd always believed in evolution from day one! Everyone believed in evolution until Charles Darwin arose and provoked white trash neanderthals into suggesting for the first time in all recorded history that the first eleven chapters of Genesis were historically true!
Wake up and smell the coffee, you racist rednecks! You're the only people on earth who have ever believed that stuff and everyone knows you're all stupid! It's time to join the rest of the world in the ancient, traditional, immemorial belief in evolution and higher Biblical criticism! [/heavy sarcasm]
The Bible should have told you that Satan is the author of Confusion. The Bible also tells you that he made the way to Salvation so simple that even a fool could find it.
Intellectuals on the other hand have no such promise, in fact it offers little hope for those that; Thinking themselves to be wise, they became fools.
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.