Genesis: Bible Authors Believed it to be History

PatriotandLiberty ^ | 2023 | Jonathan Sarfati

[spirited irish]

Ever had someone tell you, ‘You’re missing the whole point! The purpose of Genesis is to teach that God is our Creator. We should not be divisive over the small details. Genesis teaches the theological truth of “Who?” and “Why?” not about the “How?” and “When?”’ Or else they say that the Bible is a book for faith and morality, not history.

An obvious answer is, why should we trust Genesis when it says God created if we can’t trust it on the details? After all, Jesus told Nicodemus, ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12). So if Genesis can’t be trusted on an earthly thing, such as Earth’s age, the sequence of creative acts upon it, or the Flood that covered it, then why trust it on a heavenly thing such as who the Creator was? Also, if Genesis 1 were merely meant to tell us that God is creator, then why simply not stop at verse 1, all that’s necessary to state this?

However, the critic has overlooked something even more important—Genesis is written as real history. This is why the rest of the Bible treats the events, people, and time sequences as real history—not parables, poetry, or allegory.

[ShadowAce]

They say Genesis is "not a textbook of science" but they believe the "new testament" is a textbook of gynecology.

OK--no one else has pointed it out so I will.

The New Testament is NOT a gynecology textbook.

It's not even mostly genealogy, but I don't think there is a single verse in regards to gynecology.

[grumpygresh]

The Bible employs metaphors, similes, hyperbole etc as figures of speech. They are interpreted in the ways that the figures of speech are commonly understood. There are cases where symbolism is used , but often the text will explain the symbol in subsequent verses as in book of Revelation. If not, there are often clues in parallel passages.

The problem with allegorical interpretations is that they are often based on the imagination of the interpreter and are wholly subjective. This allows the interpreter to change the meaning of a passage to fit another narrative.

We see this in the allegorization of the Genesis narrative. Many cannot believe in 6 literal days of creation and they seek to redefine the meaning of a day. This is despite the fact that each verse also adds the detail of morning and evening associated with each day, further defining the day as 24 hours.

Context is the key to understanding.

[ealgeone]

The Church Fathers did not believe days of Genesis were 24 hour days. They were actually all over the place on this matter.

If one studies the Early Church Fathers one finds they are all over the place on a lot of issues.

Their consistency is their inconsistency.

[Redmen4ever]

There’s a lesson in “their consistency is their inconsistency.” That we should be tolerant of speculation as to such matters while united on the fundamentals of the faith.

[RoosterRedux]

Theologians throughout history understand that faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on the belief in six literal 24-hour creation days. This is not a Salvation issue.

But calling God a liar might be. And accusing others of doing the same because they disagree with you on a widely debated and debatable issue is obscene.

As to the 24-hour issue of Genesis, we understand that, because of the incredibly complex event communicated, God’s revelation to us is going to be both analogical (neither entirely identical nor entirely dissimilar) and anthropomorphic (explained to us in terms we can understand).

God portrays himself as a worker going through his workday and week. This is something that can be easily understood by the Hebrews who have just left Egypt...and by millions of believers right up to today.

Is it reasonable that some people want to believe the Genesis creation story is literal when it talks of "Days"?

Certainly. As said above, this is not a Salvation issue.

[circlecity]

If God can create a fully mature man why couldn’t he create a fully mature universe?

[ViLaLuz]

I simply believe in the Word.

[NorthStarOkie]

###This is despite the fact that each verse also adds the *detail of morning and evening* associated with each day, further defining the day as 24 hours.###

Thank you for bringing up “morning and evening.”

One argument that supports the 24 hour day, is that the word translated as a Genesis “day” is exactly the same word used elsewhere, where its meaning is clearly a 24 hour day.

Should we consider “morning and evening” to be literal? If so, a 24 hour day is consistent with the language of Genesis and inconsistent with the eons of days of evolution.

Then, if we consider every word from Genesis 12 to the end of Revelation to be God-breathed, why would we not consider every word of Genesis 1-11 to be God-breathed as well?

Jason Lisle video: Atheists CANNOT Explain This Secret Code Seen in Creation (Math points to a God)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taKaFUNJ6Ec&pp=ygUUamFzb24gbGlzbGUgYXRoZWlzdHM%3D

Gary Habermas video
The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars | Gary Habermas at UCSB (Atheists, agnostics and believers agree that the resurrection is a historical fact.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ay_Db4RwZ_M&t=3319s&ab_channel=TheVeritasForum

[GJones2]

>> Should we consider “morning and evening” to be literal? <<

Well, one characteristic of literal mornings and evenings is that light increases as the sun rises or falls in the sky, yet in Genesis the first three days have a morning and evening even though the sun is not created until the fourth.

[GJones2]

Correction: increases or decreases as the sun rises or falls in the sky.

[NorthStarOkie]

Genesis 1
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

...divided the light from the darkness... (on the first day)
...called the light Day...
...called the darkness Night...
Immediately, it is written, ...evening and morning were the first day...

Day, Night, evening, morning, first day...
??????
None of which mandate a sun as in our solar system, nor an earth revolving around the sun rotating on its axis.

It could be that the Lord actually created a 24 hr day on the first day, then formed his following creations to be consistent with that first day.

On Judgment Day, I might have an opportunity to respond, “I believed, as a fact, that Genesis 1-11 was as inspired by you as was the rest of the Bible. Certainly, there is no doubt that you are the Creator. Regarding the details, I took the information at hand and did the best I could.”

[GJones2]

I regard the the sun as an essential component of the concept of a literal, historical day (also essential to evening and morning). There has never been an historical day since the English word “day” was first used in which the sun did not exist. (I’m not speaking of metaphorical uses of “day” but of literal historical uses.) If you don’t believe that’s so, I don’t know what I can say to convince you.

[delchiante]

Day, Night, evening, morning, first day..

......

Evening and morning in Hebrew, according to a concordance I used to have, was :

Evening- The fading of the Day/sunset
Morning- the dawning, new light /sunrise

So evening and morning actually combines to be the period of the removal of the Light to the new light, or what is called Dark.
Or Night

So,on your tally

Light- Day (work to be done)
Then evening (fading of the Day(Light)
Then morning (dawn of the New Day(Light)

Why there are three ‘Days’ before the Lights in the Firmament that govern the Day and Night as we understand it come on the scene, is a mystery to us.

But the pattern is so elementary that a Kindergarten child can understand it..

And btw, Judaism and Christianity actually don’t understand what is Day and Night, or they wouldn’t begin their ‘Day’ at the ‘fading of the Light’ or at Mid Night (no light/dark)

Two religions that have the oracles and yet, have a problem with Light and Dark/ Day and Night..

Maybe a Kindergartner can ask Him and get the right answer while mature religions are kept in the dark