75 replies to this topic

[1689 Reformed_Baptist]

Hello all,

This topic is meant to be directed at those who claim to be Christians or to believe the Bible, yet do not believe that Genesis 1-11 is an historical account. Others are welcome to comment if they stay on this topic. This is not meant to be a discussion of whether or not Genesis 1-11 is true or false, rather it is a discussion over what the original author actually intended to say when he wrote it. Thus it is a discussion of biblical hermeneutics or the principles of interpretation we use to understand Scripture.

I obviously take the stance that Genesis chapters 1-11 are written in a historical grammatical format. Thus, the original author is setting forth what he says as true history. According to Genesis 1-11 the earth was literally created in 6, 24 hour days (with God resting on the 7th); the earth is about 6,000 years old according to the genealogies; Adam was created from the dust of the earth and given his wife Eve as the founders of the human race; there was a literal global flood that wiped out everyone but Noah and his family; and the Tower of Babel caused language and ethnic/culture barriers to be put in place as humans spread throughout the world. I will put forth my interpretative defense for this view and then people can comment accordingly

In Genesis chapters 1 & 2, the word "yom" is used in the Hebrew for the word day. In the Hebrew language, yom means a literal, 24 hour day when it has at least 1 of the following context: when it is paired with the words "morning" or "evening," or when it is used with either a cardinal number (one, two, three, etc.) or an ordinal number (first, second, third, etc.). The Genesis account of creation has all of these so it is clear that what is meant by "day" is a literal, 24 hour day.

The genealogies, when read naturally, give evidence to an earth that is only about 6,000 years old. It is true that some genealogies in Scripture contain gaps such as Matthew 1. However, this does not mean the Genesis genealogies do. There is a discrepancy regarding Luke 3:36, but I'll wait to see if anyone brings that up because, though I believe there is significant evidence to refute the supposed gap in the genealogy old earthers try to use this verse for, it could still only add about 30-40 years in the genealogy which would be of no use to old earthers. Those who try to insert gaps into the Genesis genealogies have a great hermeneutical problem when it comes to the word "beget." The Hebrew word is "yalad" is translated in the KJV as beget. There is no known exception of when this word indicates anything more than a direct parent-child relationship in the Old Testament. (Remember, the New Testament was written in Greek, so though there are exceptions to this in the New Testament, it uses a different word.)

The old earth interpretation of Genesis 1-11 also creates a number of theological difficulties. If millions of years occurred before Adam sinned, then there was death, disease, and suffering while God was calling all things "good." Thorns and thistle would have existed before God says they did (Genesis 3:18). However, all these things were a result of Adam's sin according to Scripture (Genesis 1:29-30, 2:16-17, 3:14-19; Romans 5:12-21). Also, the Bible clearly states that Adam and Eve existed in the beginning of creation, not millions of years into it. Mark 10:6 and Matthew 19:4 state, "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'" Clearly millions of years cannot be inserted into the Genesis text without thoroughly compromising the truth of all Scripture.

In regards to the flood, it must have been a worldwide flood. Genesis 7:18-20 tells us that the flood "waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward and the mountains were covered." If the mountains were covered, that means it's impossible for this to be a local event. Water will level itself out so even if the flood started in just Mesopotamia, it would have gone worldwide as soon as the mountains were covered. Genesis 8:5 implies that the highest mountain was what the ark landed on since it was another 2 1/2 months before other mountain tops were seen. Besides that, no local flood has ever lasted for 371 days. The sheer length of the flood testifies to its global character.

Yet, the strongest evidence in my opinion that Genesis records a global flood is the promise of the rainbow given in 9:12-17. God promised that he would never again send a flood to destroy all flesh again. If what occurred was a local flood, God has broken his promise many times. Genesis plainly teaches a literal, global flood.

So, that is a very concise defense of Genesis being an historical narrative. A lot more could be said, but I'll wait to respond to arguments.

[1689 Reformed_Baptist]

The book I used for most of the information in my OP was Old-Earth Creationism on Trial: The Verdict is In by Tim Chaffey and Jason Lisle.

[karmakazi]

1689 Reformed_Baptist, on 20 March 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

In Genesis chapters 1 & 2, the word "yom" is used in the Hebrew for the word day. In the Hebrew language, yom means a literal, 24 hour day when it has at least 1 of the following context: when it is paired with the words "morning" or "evening," or when it is used with either a cardinal number (one, two, three, etc.) or an ordinal number (first, second, third, etc.). The Genesis account of creation has all of these so it is clear that what is meant by "day" is a literal, 24 hour day.

Genesis was dictated to Moses by God.  So God is explaining to Moses (and therefore all who follow and read the book) a description in terms that they can understand.  As such, God may have expressed it as a literal day but have known there was more to the concept.  In other words he would have simplified it so that humans at that time could understand.  To us, a suggestion that these processes would have taken millions of years is easy to grasp, but to Moses and his people it would not have made any sense.

Though the literal terminology used in the book points to the transcription of a literal day, it cannot peer into the mind of the one who dictated the story in the first place.  I believe it is possible the 7 days are an analogy to a longer process.

I had also read - and I am kicking myself for not having kept this link - on a website explaining the Hebrew written language that "in the beginning" could also have been translated "in the house of god" or something along those lines?  Unfortunately this is kind of useless without knowing where I got that information from or if it is correct.

Quote

The old earth interpretation of Genesis 1-11 also creates a number of theological difficulties. If millions of years occurred before Adam sinned, then there was death, disease, and suffering while God was calling all things "good."

I had always thought "good" meant "well made" rather than "no potential for harm or suffering"

Quote

In regards to the flood, it must have been a worldwide flood. Genesis 7:18-20 tells us that the flood "waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward and the mountains were covered." If the mountains were covered, that means it's impossible for this to be a local event. Water will level itself out so even if the flood started in just Mesopotamia, it would have gone worldwide as soon as the mountains were covered. Genesis 8:5 implies that the highest mountain was what the ark landed on since it was another 2 1/2 months before other mountain tops were seen. Besides that, no local flood has ever lasted for 371 days. The sheer length of the flood testifies to its global character.

This is one of the most interesting things in the bible - 15 cubits of water is not much at all (a cubit is roughly the length of the forearm) and it is not enough to cover any mountains that I know of.  In fact, I'm not sure how the ark would have floated in 15 cubits as the ark itself was 30 cubits high and large boats are often at least half submerged.

Quote

Yet, the strongest evidence in my opinion that Genesis records a global flood is the promise of the rainbow given in 9:12-17. God promised that he would never again send a flood to destroy all flesh again. If what occurred was a local flood, God has broken his promise many times. Genesis plainly teaches a literal, global flood.

I've heard people speculate that the outer portion of the atmosphere was water (or water vapor) prior to the flood, and that this "fell" upon the earth.  Prior to that time there would not have been rain and probably no direct sunlight as it probably would have looked like a solidly overcast day (just further out into the atmosphere).  The end of this story could be read as an explanation: now that it rains and it is possible to see rainbows it means there is no longer that outer atmosphere which can come crashing down and flood everything.

However, findings about earlier stages of the atmosphere don't seem to support this, to my knowledge.  If the chronology of the bible were correct we'd be more likely to find evidence of such a significant event.

[RavenHawk]

I believe that Genesis is historical but on a casual story level (not literal or allegorical).  The Documentary hypothesis, which comes from a study of writing styles, claims that there were at least four different authors of Genesis and that Moses played the role of editor.  Possible authors could have been Adam (perhaps even Eve), Noah, Shem, Terah, etc., and perhaps Moses.  Or the authors could have been contemporaries of Moses going off of earlier works from those former authors.  Much of the early work wasn’t written down but passed on through storytelling.  I recall a Biblical movie in which the lineage was carved into the staff.  And the lineage was the history.  Well, you can run out of room on one staff and you can break or lose staffs, so history can be lost.  But by the time of the Babylonian captivity of circa 538 bce, the Genesis that we know today took form.  For sure, the writing of this Genesis was influenced by the Enuma Elish.  Since both Babylonian and Hebrew origins are similar, the Jewish scribes were probably using the Enuma Elish to fill in holes.  It’s clear that the people of then had the faintest idea of what a boson is, but Genesis 1 is Adam’s observation of creation (through visions from GOD) and thusly, evolution.  Definitely not enough to build a scientific model from, but just the acknowledgement that it exists.  Please read my post on the subject (http://www.unexplain...pic=212773&st=0).  There were some very good replies.  Oh and please note that Adam and Eve were not at the beginning of creation (especially if they were created on the sixth day).  Genesis 1 is a chronological list of events and Genesis 2 is more of a topical version.  This is also proof that there were at least two separate authors.  I always return to this, but on talk.origins, there is a list of cultures that have a flood story in their mythology.  BTW, I think the implication is 15 cubits above the highest peak.  There are over 260 flood stories.  That certainly implies the same origin.  Does this imply a global or a local flood?  If local, it probably did wipe out 90% plus of the population.  What would it mean if a person of a family group survived other than Noah?  It doesn’t affect who GOD is, but it does affect on how accurate man can record history.  And the bottom line is, does it matter?  In the 1660s, a Bishop Ussher sat down and came up with the chronology of Genesis and the Bible.  There is no indication anywhere that the Bible was intended for this.  All it is an intellectual exercise.  No one from the early Councils till then thought this had merit.  The Bible that we know today was created in the 1400s??  I think that at some point between 325 and 1660, the concepts of lineage and genealogy changed.  “begat” had a slightly different meaning.  In earlier times, it was all about the “house” or tribe.  One was of the House of David, not necessarily a son of David.  Today, it’s more like the son of.

[CommunitarianKevin]

It is important to understand the context of Genesis. What the people thought of it during that time is different than what people think about it today. For example if it was written to be literal did that mean the people thought it was true or even that it needed to be true? Did they think of it simply as a myth, knowing it was not true, but an important part of their beliefs none-the-less? This goes much deeper than literal v. metaphor.

Edited by HuttonEtAl, 20 March 2012 - 07:21 PM.

[karmakazi]

HuttonEtAl, on 20 March 2012 - 07:19 PM, said:

It is important to understand the context of Genesis. What the people thought of it during that time is different than what people think about it today. For example if it was written to be literal did that mean the people thought it was true or even that it needed to be true? Did they think of it simply as a myth, knowing it was not true, but an important part of their beliefs non-the-less? This goes much deeper than literal v metaphor.

We have some insight into the context, as Exodus talks about Moses.  Moses was supposedly in direct contact with God and he was attempting to establish the lineage and law of the Israelites, as they worked their way towards the promised land.  From this it seems that the stories attributed to Moses were likely a mix of metaphor and history.

The geneology recorded amidst the story seems to indicate that when it was compiled, it was intended or accepted as recorded history.  Whether the "facts" were recorded, embelished or made up, ... there's really no way to know.

However - the analysis of the text contradicts the commonly held idea that Moses wrote the Torah as it shows signs of multiple authors.  It is still possible that he compiled it or wrote portions, but again we cannot know for sure.

[CommunitarianKevin]

karmakazi, on 20 March 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

We have some insight into the context, as Exodus talks about Moses.  Moses was supposedly in direct contact with God and he was attempting to establish the lineage and law of the Israelites, as they worked their way towards the promised land.  From this it seems that the stories attributed to Moses were likely a mix of metaphor and history.

The geneology recorded amidst the story seems to indicate that when it was compiled, it was intended or accepted as recorded history.  Whether the "facts" were recorded, embelished or made up, ... there's really no way to know.

However - the analysis of the text contradicts the commonly held idea that Moses wrote the Torah as it shows signs of multiple authors.  It is still possible that he compiled it or wrote portions, but again we cannot know for sure.

That is not context.
Moses' Death is discribed in the Torah.

[Jor-el]

HuttonEtAl, on 20 March 2012 - 07:39 PM, said:

That is not context.
Moses' Death is discribed in the Torah.

So that MUST mean he didn't write the Torah?

Some people fail to realize that Jreemiah didn't write the book of Jeremiah, his scribe did that, Psalms were not written by David, only some of them were.

And just because someone wrote an epilogue to a book, does not mean that the author did not write it.

As a matter of fact, I believe alot of the Torah was actually written by Joshua rather than Moses. He , like most others had scribes to do his work for him and compile the books of the Torah, and if one reads between the lines, we notice Joshua was Moses servant and scribe.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Jor-el, on 20 March 2012 - 08:58 PM, said:

So that MUST mean he didn't write the Torah?

Some people fail to realize that Jreemiah didn't write the book of Jeremiah, his scribe did that, Psalms were not written by David, only some of them were.

And just because someone wrote an epilogue to a book, does not mean that the author did not write it.

As a matter of fact, I believe alot of the Torah was actually written by Joshua rather than Moses. He , like most others had scribes to do his work for him and compile the books of the Torah, and if one reads between the lines, we notice Joshua was Moses servant and scribe.

That is your opinion and that is fine. You are entitled to it. All I am saying is a dead man did not write about his own death nor compile the books that speak of it.

[Jor-el]

1689 Reformed_Baptist, on 20 March 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Hello all,

This topic is meant to be directed at those who claim to be Christians or to believe the Bible, yet do not believe that Genesis 1-11 is an historical account. Others are welcome to comment if they stay on this topic. This is not meant to be a discussion of whether or not Genesis 1-11 is true or false, rather it is a discussion over what the original author actually intended to say when he wrote it. Thus it is a discussion of biblical hermeneutics or the principles of interpretation we use to understand Scripture.

I obviously take the stance that Genesis chapters 1-11 are written in a historical grammatical format. Thus, the original author is setting forth what he says as true history. According to Genesis 1-11 the earth was literally created in 6, 24 hour days (with God resting on the 7th); the earth is about 6,000 years old according to the genealogies; Adam was created from the dust of the earth and given his wife Eve as the founders of the human race; there was a literal global flood that wiped out everyone but Noah and his family; and the Tower of Babel caused language and ethnic/culture barriers to be put in place as humans spread throughout the world. I will put forth my interpretative defense for this view and then people can comment accordingly

Hi,

Personally I would disagree with your viewpoint.

There a re quite a number of reasons why I do disagree, one of which is the fact that the earth is billions of years old and not 6000 years old. 2nd is the fact that the chronologies of the bible are not complete, they only list the major Patriarchs in the line, where there are gaps of generations between each Patriarch named.

We can see this when we compare the times of those Patriarchs with known historical events.

As for the flood, it didn't have to be a worldwide flood to flood the entire world... a number of major tidal waves would have done the same thing without the need to have the entire land covered in water.

Returning now to the 1st and major point. We have no literary evidence that we are talking of physical days, although they could be physical days. The text is loose enough that literal days is just one possible view.

Another item that people don't think about, the Genesis account does not HAVE to to be seen as the original creation of the universe. It could very well be referring to the restoration of the earth, something that has happened a number of times.

[Jor-el]

HuttonEtAl, on 20 March 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

That is your opinion and that is fine. You are entitled to it. All I am saying is a dead man did not write about his own death nor compile the books that speak of it.

Ok but how can you demonstrate the validity of your argument?

The fact that scribes were regularly used is a well known fact, the author is not the scribe who wrote it. The man who dictated it is.

Edited by Jor-el, 20 March 2012 - 09:13 PM.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Jor-el, on 20 March 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

Returning now to the 1st and major point. We have no literary evidence that we are talking of physical days, although they could be physical days. The text is loose enough that literal days is just one possible view.

How do you figure?

[CommunitarianKevin]

Jor-el, on 20 March 2012 - 09:12 PM, said:

Ok but how can you demonstrate the validity of your argument?

The fact that scribes were regularly used is a well known fact, the author is not the scribe who wrote it. The man who dictated it is.

Listen you really don't want to get into this with me. If you do you should probably PM me. I only posted here to suggest looking at context. That is one thing that is done in history, looking at context.

But to address the validitity of my argument I will give you this. There is no proof that Moses actually existed. No other text supports that claim. Also do I really need to demonstrate that a dead man cannot write or compile?

Don't give me the whole author/scribe thing. I do not make the claim that Moses was the author, scribe, or compiler of the texts.

[Jor-el]

HuttonEtAl, on 20 March 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

Listen you really don't want to get into this with me. If you do you should probably PM me. I only posted here to suggest looking at context. That is one thing that is done in history, looking at context.

But to address the validitity of my argument I will give you this. There is no proof that Moses actually existed. No other text supports that claim. Also do I really need to demonstrate that a dead man cannot write or compile?

Don't give me the whole author/scribe thing. I do not make the claim that Moses was the author, scribe, or compiler of the texts.

Hmm, well proof is double edged sword, because if we use it for one point, we must by necessity use it on others of the same kind. By this order of thought, Babel did not exist... until it was found, Troy did not exist until it was found, My great grandfather, who never had a single document registering his life, did not exist, yet here I am.

The lack of proof is not the proof of truth.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you, a dead man cannot write anything, but he could dictate while he lived, and others could have added after he died. I know of a number of cases, of just such a thing, but it invloved Wills written by the deceased.

One last thing I would like to add here, context is very important, but context can also be one sided if you don't actually have it all.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Jor-el, on 20 March 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

Hmm, well proof is double edged sword, because if we use it for one point, we must by necessity use it on others of the same kind. By this order of thought, Babel did not exist... until it was found, Troy did not exist until it was found, My great grandfather, who never had a single document registering his life, did not exist, yet here I am.

The lack of proof is not the proof of truth.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you, a dead man cannot write anything, but he could dictate while he lived, and others could have added after he died. I know of a number of cases, of just such a thing, but it invloved Wills written by the deceased.

One last thing I would like to add here, context is very important, but context can also be one sided if you don't actually have it all.

And when we find proof of Moses I am on board. Historians just do not deal with things that have yet to be proven. But ovbiously things get discovered and it changes history. That does not mean I am taking Greek mythology or the Hebrew Bible as fact. And honestly I strongly question your claim of the tower of Babel. We found a structure that fits the discription and that could be what the story is based on but that does not validate the story, only that the structure actually exists.

The key is if we are at least trying to understand the context. We still do not know why many things happened in history, we only have guesses but one thing is for sure...if we look at it through the lense of today we will never understand or find the answer.

Also I want to add that I am trying to be more ambigious because I really do not want to argue about religion. I am not here to hurt people's feelings or wreck their faith. I only want to suggest things.

Edited by HuttonEtAl, 20 March 2012 - 10:27 PM.