Posted on 12/08/2010 8:24:38 AM PST by ImProudToBeAnAmerican
Mention the Bible in a room of people, and there will be numerous views on it. Some will consider it a bunch of stories written by men who wished to make a moral point. Others will view it as God’s religious guidebook for life. Yet others will accept it as the literal, written word of God Himself. How the Bible is viewed becomes especially important when looking at the Genesis account of creation. Can we trust that what was recorded in Genesis is an actual historical narrative? Or is it just a religious myth? None of us were there as eye witnesses to creation, so how do we vouch for the authenticity of the Genesis account?...
This is the fourth in a series of articles on Creation.
Let the discussion begin!
(Excerpt) Read more at inspiretomorrow.wordpress.com ...
its written as a historical narrative....the only ones who deny that are those that want to avoid the clear implications of God’s creation.
The field of archaeology has been vital in establishing the accuracy of Scripture. The Biblical names of places and people have been documented on clay tablets and stone monuments. Pottery fragments, jewelry, and statues, as well as ruins of cities and homes, have verified the culture of Biblical peoples. And most recently, discoveries of flour residues on “Stone Age” tools, probably used for grinding, are overturning the evolutionary pre-conception that early man was mainly a carnivore in a hunter-gatherer society, 1 and supporting the Bible’s report of farming having existed from the beginning (Genesis 4:2). As time goes on and archaeologists unearth more artifacts, the Bible is proven correct over and over again. But has anything been found to substantiate the Biblical creation account?
In 1974, archaeologists discovered a library of clay tablets in Syria that date to the final years of the Ebla Kingdom, around 2300-2250 BCE. The 17,000 tablets and fragments found thus far are written in Paleo-Canaanite, which is amazingly akin to Hebrew. Many of them contain stunning similarities to names, places, and historical events found in Genesis.2
One of the Ebla tablets contains a creation story that has some similarities to Genesis. Previous to this find, scholars thought the creation account was strictly oral until it was added to Genesis during the time of Ezra. Yet this and other evidence suggest that the information in the early chapters of Genesis was likely compiled by Moses from clay tablets brought from the Fertile Crescent by Abraham.3
Archaeological discoveries are giving us many good reasons to accept the veracity of Biblical history. But can we be sure that the creation account should be read as a historical narrative? A statistical analysis of genre in the Bible, performed by Dr. Steven W. Boyd, suggests it should be. By comparing the grammatical structure of the Hebrew in passages of poetry and prose, Dr. Boyd found that the type of verbs used for poetry and prose differed. When he applied his findings to Genesis 1:1-2:3, he found the verb structure consistent with that of a narrative; thus, the passage was meant to be read as a “concise report of actual events.”4
Archaeology continues to confirm the historical accuracy of Scripture, but we also have this assurance for believing the creation account: “For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.” (Psalms 33:4 KJV)
Complete article (see online article for sources)
Whether you believe the Bible is truth or myth, it does seem interesting that so many different cultures have nearly the same kind of Creation story.
If Genesis is a myth, man did not fall, is capable of saving himself through works, does not need to be saved by God, and the death of Jesus is pointless.
If Genesis is a historic fact, man fell as described, is incapable of saving himself through his works, must be saved by God, and the death and resurrection of Jesus are the gates of heaven.
Genesis is more than an inconvenient book on one end of the Bible that disagrees with the Discovery Channel. It’s the “why” for the New Testament’s “how”.
Most of the Old Testament stories were passed on orally for generations upon generations before they were ever written down. Kind of like playing telephone, you don’t get the original story at the end, but there are some truths.
Also, what about the stories, gospels, etc. that were not chosen at the Council of Nicea to be a part of the Catholic Holy Bible? There are probably some truths in those as well. This is why theology is much deeper than the literal interpretation of some various English translation versions of the biblical texts chosen by man to be a part of the bible that were written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew.
SITREP
Attempts have been made by numerous academics to reconcile the different dating schemes, infuriating those people who proposed them. See I. Velikovsky for a really interesting but probably wrong theory, see D. Rohl for a more likely scenario; there are hundreds of others. The professors of History and of 'Science' often have huge egos which never let FACTS get in the way of their personal careers so trying to study 'Biblical History' is like waving a red rag at a bull - FACTS are waved aside in pursuit of keeping their little personal reputations intact.
The rejection of YEC by scientists is based on the fact that YEC violates the scientific principal of extrapolation. I contradicts "what we know" about how mountains, valleys, planets, stars, galaxies, etc., form. These scientists resolutely and absolutely refuse to consider that the beginning of all things could have been different from how the world operates today (uniformitarianism).
However, many of these same scientists will insist that J*sus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, or that priests perform the miracle of transubstantiation, or that G-d wrote the Torah letter-for-letter--despite the fact that each and every one of these beliefs violates that exact same principal of extrapolation.
If followed consistently extrapolation would rule out the virgin birth because that isn't how we know babies are conceived. It would rule out the resurrection of the dead because we know the dead don't rise. It would rule out transubstantiation because this isn't what happens to bread and wine. And it would rule out Divine dictation of the Torah because we know how books are written.
Now I disagree with across-the-board atheists and skeptics. But I understand their position. But I cannot and will not understand hypocrites who use the principal of extrapolation to turn the first eleven chapters of Genesis into "religious mythology" while piously and hypocritically accepting all these other things as "miracles." The principal of extrapolation, followed consistently, rules out ALL miracles. But these people use it to dismiss the first eleven chapters of Genesis while discarding it in all these other cases.
Why is this? What is the root of this blatant hypocrisy?
I believe there is only one answer: sociology. The first eleven chapters of Genesis are identified with "trailer trash." No "intelligent" person wants to be associated or identified with "those people." So out comes the principal of extrapolation to bludgeon the first two parashiyyot of Genesis into "mythology." But after that the same principal is shelved so the "religious scientist" can piously (and hypocritically) believe in his religion's "miracles."
'Nuff said.
A simple comparison revels the truth:
What actually happened, versus the Bible:
Enlightened, scientific version: A huge explosion occurs, Nobody knows who caused it, or how, or even where the materials that exploded came from, but it happened.
Bible version
* First day: God creates light (”Let there be light!”)[Gen 1:3]—the first divine command. The light is divided from the darkness, and “day” and “night” are named.
Enlightened, scientific version: All of this matter hurling through space slowly cools and begins to form into planets.
Bible version
* Second day: God creates a firmament (”Let a firmament be...!”)[Gen 1:6–7]—the second command—to divide the waters above from the waters below. The firmament is named “skies”.
Enlightened, scientific version: The planets begin for form atmospheres
* Third day: God commands the waters below to be gathered together in one place, and dry land to appear (the third command).[Gen 1:9–10] “earth” and “sea” are named. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees (the fourth command).
Enlightened, scientific version: The planets begin to gather into solar systems around a sun
Bible version
* Fourth day: God creates lights in the firmament (the fifth command)[Gen 1:14–15] to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years. Two great lights are made (most likely the Sun and Moon, but not named), and the stars.
Enlightened, scientific version: One cell animals begin forming in the oceans. They evolve and eventually move onto land.
Bible version
* Fifth day: God commands the sea to “teem with living creatures”, and birds to fly across the heavens (sixth command)[Gen 1:20–21] He creates birds and sea creatures, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply.
Enlightened, scientific version: Evolution continues to produce larger and more involved creatures, until at last, man arrives.
Bible version
* Sixth day: God commands the land to bring forth living creatures (seventh command);[Gen 1:24–25] He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates humanity in His “image” and “likeness” (eighth command).[Gen 1:26–28] They are told to “be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it.” The totality of creation is described by God as “very good.”
Ah – ha, at long last,
Enlightened, scientific version: None
Bible version
* Seventh day: God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.
This should offer conclusive proof that the Bible could not have been as “smart” several thousand years ago as our brilliant scientists are today!
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
God directed exactly what went into the Bible, man was just a tool. The historical events are true events, the prophesies are truth and the teachings are truth. If these were not true, than the entire Bible is a lie.
Really? I don’t recall anyone at the Council of Nicea claiming God directed them on what books and stories to include. In fact, what they included had more to do with not giving credence to a heresy known at the time as gnosticism and was gaining ground.
I do not believe that everything was created 6 to ten thousand years ago. Yes genesis does say that God created the earth and the heavens in seven days but what is a day to He who created time itself?
Simple, it is one of many creation myths. The earliest we can peg written sources is about 1,000 BC. That leaves oral tradition and ancient superstitions responsible for accurately retelling everything that happened in the preceding 3,000 years, even in the times when they were likely a polytheistic tribe as were the other tribes of the region.
I haven't heard that in a while—Bible skeptics don't mention it anymore.
Ever notice how Adam and Eve are not created within the 7 day time frame?
My other $.02? Why would any "Creator" of the Universe NOT leave some narrative of his very creation and our very being?
THAT would be illogical.
Commenting without reading the article again?
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.