Scripture Shows Genesis is Historical

[Micaiah]

This was a thread started in the other evolution/creation forum.

Thread

I'd like to continue the discussion in this forum, since it is primarily a topic relating to Christians.

The differences in views on Genesis mostly come from a different interpretation of the book. Scripture plainly teaches that the records in Genesis are of real events and real people. It is a historical record and should be interpretted in this way.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Today at 03:42 PM Micaiah said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684145#post684145)

This was a thread started in the other evolution/creation forum.

Thread

I'd like to continue the discussion in this forum, since it is primarily a topic relating to Christians.

The differences in views on Genesis mostly come from a different interpretation of the book.

Right, it is an interpretational difference.

Scripture plainly teaches that the records in Genesis are of real events and real people.

But wait I thought you said it was interpretational differences... If it was that "plain" why would there be so many interpretational differences?

It is a historical record and should be interpreted in this way.

Even when it contradicts known history and nature or itself?

 

[Micaiah]

Yes their are many interpretations of Genesis that seek to imply it says something plainly not taught. That is the case with many passages of Scripture. That doesn't imply the other modes of interpretation are correct.

 

[notto]

Micaiah,

According to the plain teachings of scripture, was man created to have dominion over the animals after they were already created, or were animals created after man because God did not want him to be alone?

According to the plain teachings of scripture, was there night and day before the sun was created? What does the plain teaching of scripture tell us about the source of light before the sun and how and what caused it and explaines how day could be present before the sun?

According to the plain teachings of scripture, was the earth set in space before the sun and other planets? Did God then put the sun, planets, and moon in place after the earth was created? How was a day measured before this came to pass?

You suggest scripture has plain teachings for us, and I agree. This plain teaching shows that God created the earth and heavens and all that is in it. What it doesn't do is present a logical or plausible series of events. This does not detract from the teachings of scriptures, only their soundness in describing the actual physical entities they discuss. Scripture never ties salvation or shows any reason to believe that these stories are the exact historical events. Even if Jesus and other portrayed them as such, if they are not exact, they do not lose their power in their message or the importance of the teachings. You suggest that because Jesus used the scriptures to show the truth of God, that they must be literal. Why would this be so? Jesus emphasises the importance of the lessons, not the literalness of the stories. The teachings that are important are the lessons in the stories, not the events presented in them as literal.

To me, Genesis plainly teaches our place in the world, established by God. If the description of the creation is found to not fit the physical evidence, to me that does not remove the teachings of scripture or God as the creator.

If physical evidence contradicts scripture, our interpretation must be wrong and we are misunderstanding the intention of scripture. This does not remove the teachings of scripture, whether it is to show us our place in the world, the creation of God.

God's lesson of the "world wide flood" looses nothing as a teaching if the flood was not world wide. To the people of God at the time, the entire world could have been destroyed in their point of view. This would adequately support the teaching of scriptures and what we are to learn from the story.

 

[Micaiah]

Are you a Christian?

If physical evidence contradicts scripture, our interpretation must be wrong and we are misunderstanding the intention of scripture. This does not remove the teachings of scripture, whether it is to show us our place in the world, the creation of God.

If that is the case, why are you a Christian? The physical evidence plainly suggests it is possible for someone to rise from the dead!

I do not seek to explain everything I believe about Creation in terms of natural laws I see at work today. Einsteins theory of relativity demonstrates that under different conditions, some of our observations and formulations based on everyday observations are inadequate to explain what happens under extreme conditions. To the average person, time is constant. But scientists now think that time is affected by such things as the relative speeds of observers and gravitational potential. What exactly happened during the Creation week largely remains a mystery.

Man doesn't know much, and I know ever less of what is known. I do not know the details of what happened during Creation. What I do know is that God speaks the truth, and He speaks the truth in a way that people can understand. I am a Christian because He communicated to me and I have understood by His grace the Gospel message. There are some aspects of the Creation story I do not understand. For example, I cannot provide a detailed, infallible, explanation on how light appeared in the created order before the sun. I can try to fill in the gaps, but at the end of the day, it is speculation. I do not reject the whole teaching of Genesis because God didn't provide me with a detailed and continuous explanation of everything that occurred in the first six days.

God has given enough information on Creation for me to recognise that the evolutionists theory contradicts what God says on this matter.

 

[notto]

Yes Micaiah, I am a Christian. I am a Christian by belief, not because of the clearness of scripture related to history or accuracy.

You yourself suggest that what happened during Creation weak is largely a mystery. Doesn't this contradict that the Genesis account is plain and easy to interpret?

God has gven enough information on Creation for me to recognize that even if we find physical evidence that clearly contradict scripture, it in no way establishes that God is not the creator and that the lessons of Creation or other accounts in the Bible are lost.

I do not reject the whole teaching of Genesis because we find physical evidence that does not correspond to the language there. I accept the lessons there and they form my faith.

The lessons of scripture form my belief. The physical evidence that science provides clarifies what the lessons were talking about related to their physical descriptions of events. No conflicts exist for me between my beliefs based on the lessons in scripture and what science can tell us about the physical reality of Gods creation.

 

[Micaiah]

Yes Micaiah, I am a Christian. I am a Christian by belief, not because of the clearness of scripture related to history or accuracy.

A Christian. Pleased to hear. How come it took so long for this to become known?

You yourself suggest that what happened during Creation weak is largely a mystery. Doesn't this contradict that the Genesis account is plain and easy to interpret?

There is much about Creation that is not written in Scripture, but that which is written is plain.

God has gven enough information on Creation for me to recognize that even if we find physical evidence that clearly contradict scripture, it in no way establishes that God is not the creator and that the lessons of Creation or other accounts in the Bible are lost.

There is no physical evidence that contradicts Scripture, only mans interpretation of the evidence. God, is omniscient. He knows everything about everything. He created the world and universe. His communications to us on the topic are brief. By comparison man knows nothing about Creation. It makes sense to accept the small insights on Creation provided by God than the volumes written by man that contradict God's word.

 

[notto]

Today at 01:12 AM Micaiah said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=685968#post685968)

A Christian. Pleased to hear. How come it took so long for this to become known?

Did you assume that I wasn't a Christian? I've been posting in the Christian only formums and I haven't ever said that I wasn't. I think that it was only "unknown" to you because of the assumptions of my beliefs you made. My history at these forums would bear this out and I have often stated my beliefs here. I suggest that you don't make assumptions about others faith based on their interpretation Genesis and their understanding of science. As you can see, they may not bear out. Personally, I think your attitude and line of questioning in this way is condescending and unneccessary to me and other posters. To ask "Are you a Christian?" because someone disagrees with a small part of you personally theology is close to "flaming" and can easily be interpreted as "I don't think you are a Christian." If not, I apologize, but would suggest that you don't make assumptions in the future. Thankfully, my belief does not depend on you or whether you accept my view of scripture or God.

 

[notto]

Today at 01:12 AM Micaiah said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=685968#post685968)

There is no physical evidence that contradicts Scripture, only mans interpretation of the evidence. God, is omniscient. He knows everything about everything. He created the world and universe. His communications to us on the topic are brief. By comparison man knows nothing about Creation. It makes sense to accept the small insights on Creation provided by God than the volumes written by man that contradict God's word.

Actually, on some of this we can agree. There is no physical evidence that contradicts the lessons of scripture in my understanding of them. There is no need to "interpret" physical evidence to have a bearing on scripture. Science cannot prove that God does not exist. The small insights of creation that you reference do not contradict the physical evidence we find that shown an old earth and supports evolution of man. It is adhering to a literal interpretation of a spiritual and ancient text that will lead to issues of contradiction. Because the scriptures can still reveal God to us, even in light of scientific evidence that shows us the true nature of creation, there is no conflict between science and scripture.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 09:50 AM notto said this in Post #9 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686057#post686057)

Actually, on some of this we can agree. There is no physical evidence that contradicts the lessons of scripture in my understanding of them. There is no need to "interpret" physical evidence to have a bearing on scripture. Science cannot prove that God does not exist. The small insights of creation that you reference do not contradict the physical evidence we find that shown an old earth and supports evolution of man. It is adhering to a literal interpretation of a spiritual and ancient text that will lead to issues of contradiction. Because the scriptures can still reveal God to us, even in light of scientific evidence that shows us the true nature of creation, there is no conflict between science and scripture.

Wrong. See references from Scripture in the other thread in response to your comments which falsify your interpretations. The spiritual significance of the cross is contingent on real events and real people. Jesus was the Son of God who came to earth as a man. He was the son of Joseph and Mary. His concepton was the work of the Holy Spirit, not the union of Joseph and Mary. He was crucified, and rose from the dead. To deny these events and people were real is to deny the Christian Gospel!

 

[notto]

Today at 04:40 AM Micaiah said this in Post #10 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686407#post686407)

Wrong. See references from Scripture in the other thread in response to your comments which falsify your interpretations. The spiritual significance of the cross is contingent on real events and real people. Jesus was the Son of God who came to earth as a man. He was the son of Joseph and Mary. His concepton was the work of the Holy Spirit, not the union of Joseph and Mary. He was crucified, and rose from the dead. To deny these events and people were real is to deny the Christian Gospel!

I never said that Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were not real or that Jesus was not Resurrected.
What gave you that impression? I thought we were talking about Genesis and the insights into creation it gives. A non-literal interpretation of them does not detract from the lessons or importance of the old testement as far as I see it. Again, your interpretation may vary . . . no harm in that. It is when these interpretations try to use physical evidence to back them up that they become falsifyable. When this happens, they can be approached by science and interpretations that try to explain a young earth and worldwide flood have been falsified.

Did you miss my questions? I've answered yours (yes, I'm a Christian)

According to the plain teachings of scripture, was man created to have dominion over the animals after they were already created, or were animals created after man because God did not want him to be alone?

 

[Micaiah]

Not sure on the questions to which you refer. If you refer to the matter of my assumed assumption re your Christian faith, you assumption was incorrect. I've noted that some seem reluctant to identify themselves as Christians. Why?

 

[notto]

According to the plain teachings of scripture, was man created to have dominion over the animals after they were already created, or were animals created after man because God did not want him to be alone?

 

[Micaiah]

Genesis 1:24-31 gives a description of events on the last day of Creation, Day 6. On that day God created the animals and man.

24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[2] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
29And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. 31Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

The text indicates that on this day the land animals were created before man. This is indicated in the word 'then' at the beginning of each phase of creation. Genesis 1 gives a clear statement of the order of Creation.

The chronological order of Creation doesn't follow the chronological order of the text in Genesis 2. Consider the following:

18And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23And Adam said:


"This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."

Verse 19 describes the creation of land animals after verse 18 which makes reference to man. There is no explicit statement in these verses that the land animals were created after man. Since an explicit statement was given in Genesis 1 to that affect, I accept that as the order of events.

A paraphrase could read:

18And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." 19Out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, .... [NKJV]

The NIV includes the word had in the text.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

I do not see any reason to believe that "had" is the correct translation. My Bible that has plenty of notes about alternate translations and disagreements between ancient sources says nothing here.

A plain reading doesn't make sense. This isn't a problem because the authors did not intend for us to read it that way.

 

[Andrew]

A plain reading doesn't make sense. This isn't a problem because the authors did not intend for us to read it that way.

of cse not, but only to the unspiritual.

 

[Peter N]

Interesting question about the order of creating man and the animals. My experience of reading the Bible is that it is incredibly precise, even in Genesis. This really comes through when you see the studies on meanings of the original Hebrew words, which after all, is the language given by God to His chosen people. (Why should He lead them astray?)

If there's an apparent conflict, then it becomes a test of faith. Those with lesser faith will assume Genesis must be wrong, and impose their own man-made interpretation. Those with greater faith will know that God never makes a mistake, and that they are to look deeper. The Holy Spirit will reveal the answer.

I'm sure there's a deeper lesson here. Lord, please help me to understand!

 

[wblastyn]

of cse not, but only to the unspiritual.

Of course whenever someone finds a contradiction or supposed error in your interpretation it's because they are "unspiritual".

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Today at 01:57 AM Andrew said this in Post #16 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=704902#post704902)



of cse not, but only to the unspiritual.

I would say more, but I don't think I can without offending Christ.

 

[notto]

Yesterday at 12:40 PM Peter N said this in Post #17 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=705077#post705077)

If there's an apparent conflict, then it becomes a test of faith. Those with lesser faith will assume Genesis must be wrong, and impose their own man-made interpretation. Those with greater faith will know that God never makes a mistake, and that they are to look deeper. The Holy Spirit will reveal the answer.

I'm sure there's a deeper lesson here. Lord, please help me to understand!

I don't see it as a test of faith. Whether Genesis is literal or not has no bearing on my faith in God and my understanding of God as the creation because I have not built my faith around a literal interpretation of Genesis. I know God doesn't make mistakes. I don't believe that the inspired words of Genesis are a "mistake". The revelation of creation, even if it is different than the literal interpretation in Genesis, has never caused me to question my faith.

To suggest that I have "lesser" faith in God because I trust what is shown in creation as true and understand Genesis based on the evidence in creation, is an insult. We both have faith and trust in the same God. My faith is as strong as yours in God.

I may have less "faith" that Geneis is literal, but then I am in good company. The studies of science have been addressed by many Christians and it has not caused them to loose faith, and in many cases, only strengthens it.

I have looked deeper, as you suggest, and found that even if the world is billions of years old, and evolution describes how man came to be that it does not lessen my faith in God as creator. The lessons and meaning of Genesis are not lessened if it is not literal. It shows God as the creator and lays claim to God as the creator of all things.