The New Testament and Genesis 1-11

What I want to know is why stop at chapter 11? If you think chapters 1-11 are myth, why not believe that the rest of Genesis - and beyond for that matter - is myth? Once you start, where do you draw the line?

In fact, there are many who do not draw the line at "chapter 11." There are many who claim that Abraham is as much a myth as Adam. In fact, the open war within the Southern Baptist Convention between the Bible believers and apostate infidels was spearheaded by the publication of the Broadman Commentary back in the 1960s wherein a "Baptist" scholar asserted that God didn't really tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.

Well, if God didn't really tell Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, maybe He didn't really give His own Son as a sacrifice? Where does it all end?

For the record, Moses didn't write in chapters, so the words "chapters 1-11" really have no valid meaning. Genesis stands or falls as a unit.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Mark,

The issue for me is to know what God is trying to say in the Bible. Genesis 1-11 bears the hallmarks of a passage NOT INTENDED to be literal history.

Compare this to the NT which was clearly designed to be factual witness to the ministry of Jesus.

Let God be true and every man a liar. Even if that means that some of the traditional man-made interpretations are rejected.

 

1. Why just Genesis 1-11? Why not 12 through the rest of the book? Hmmm? Huhhh?

2. In fact, Genesis - the whole thing - bears all the hallmarks of a book intended as literal history. All who are not concerned with pacifying Bible believers know and admit this. All who believe in the Bible admit this. The only ones who assert such a ludicrous thing as that Genesis was not intended as history are those who want to sit on the fence and crow for the infidels and the Christians as well.

3. It is one thing for a man to admit he doesn't believe Genesis is credible history. But it is downright intellectual dishonesty to assert that it was not intended as history. Anyone who reads it knows better.

Mark Osgatharp

Compare this to the NT which was clearly designed to be factual witness to the ministry of Jesus.

Let God be true and every man a liar. Even if that means that some of the traditional man-made interpretations are rejected. [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

It is one thing for a man to admit he doesn't believe Genesis is credible history.

Once again you twist the nonliteralist arguement. Credible has nothing to do with it. The question is whether or not it was intended to be history.

But it is downright intellectual dishonesty to assert that it was not intended as history. Anyone who reads it knows better.

Intellectual dishonesty? You stole MY words.

Call it what you want Mark. Most secular scholars who study near eastern literature would consider the creation, the tower, the flood, and the rainbow to be Hebrew adaptations of already-extant near eastern myths. That is fact. And we know such myths exist. And in many cases they antedate written OT records.

You don't have to believe that. I don't believe that. But pretending that it is intellectual hogwash that no one finds credible is like sticking your head in the sand.

It seems to me that Moses INTENTIONALLY used language of near eastern myth in writing Genesis since he knew that the people reading it were familiar with that kind of writing. If Genesis had been written solely for 20th century western Christians (as many here seem to think) then the wording and descriptions would have been quite different. There would probably have been some discussion of the scientific side of it.

 

The point of this thread is to discuss the fact that the New Testament writers interpreted Genesis 1-11 as teaching historical truth. What do the theistic ecolutionists have to say in rebuttal, if anything?

No they interpreted as teaching truth. They quote Genesis 1-11 as it is written. But the purpose of the NT writings is theological.

Would you expect Paul to launch into a diatribe about evolution when speaking about Adam? Of course not. That was not his point.

 

OK, cite a passage that bears some "hallmark of a passage NOT INTENDED to be literal history" and explain specifically why it does not seem, in your eyes, to be intended as literal history.

Oh, and then tell me why you stop at chapter 11 and do not consider the rest of Genesis to be myth. Give me a specific reason why Genesis 12 onward is to be taken as historical while 1-11 is mythical.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Oldreg,

Evolution is not inherently atheistic. It is generally espoused by many atheists. But there are many Christians who do see evolution as God's means of creation.

And the whole debate of creation/evolution would have been foreign to the mindset of NT era readers.

 

It should be foreign to the mindset of all Christians.

No Oldreg - it should not.

Evolution is out there and is being taught. Christians cannot simply pretend that it doesn't exist or that it is a baseless theory.

No one has to agree with it. No one has to believe it ABOVE the Bible.

But we should at least be honest about it. Evolution, while just a theory, would explain alot of what we see. And it is supported by 99.9% of professional biologists and geologists and astronomists.

Take it or leave it - but be honest about it.

 

Source of the 99.9%??????

Just an estimate on my part. Reflective of the professors and postgrads I've encountered in undergrad and medical school.

 

Jesus, who spoke and the winds stopped.
Jesus, who spoke and raised Lazerus from the dead.
Jesus, who spoke and healed the sick.
Jesus, who controlled the fish of the sea in such a way that he could overload the old boys fishing nets.

Jesus, who "upholds all things by the Word of His Power"

This same Jesus was present at creation yet When God spoke back then He wasn't powerful enough to
make it happen. He needed the help of the evolution process. You put more stock in a man-made theory than the Word of God.

He could stop the wind on a dime yet couldn't make man out of the dust of the ground without a little help? Oh yeah thats right yall do believe He could have done that its just that Gen 1-11 is not literal. Therefore what He could have done has no bearing anyway.

He could tell a fellow to go catch a fish and lo and behold there was a coin in it. Jesus knew exactly where that fish was and what was gonna be its belly Yet Him and the Father and the Holy Spirit needed a little help?

If you don't believe that Gen 1-11 are literal why would you beleive in creation at all? You guys deny the major evidence we have that says God did create the world yet you still want to get in on the action. Like my daddy always used to say "You can't have it both ways".

Yall may call yourselves Old earthers, or theistic evolutionists. But what you really need to call yourselves are "THEOLOGICAL LIBERALS" cause that is what you really are.

Why should anyone on this board believe that you believe the other miracles in Scripture if you can't even believe the first ones in the first book of the Bible. Yea I know here comes the dancin in the next few posts.

How can you believe the miracle of the Holy Spirit coming to reside in your heart and not believe God simply spoke the world into existance?
Salvation of a soul defies logic. It is beyond our complete understanding yet it happens.

Yall can believe what you want that is fine. I just hate it for the minds of mush that you persuade to see it your way. You present them with a weak God and that is sickening to me.

 

In Genesis 1:20, God said "let birds fly above the earth" and it was so. In Genesis 2:19 it says that the LORD God formed every bird out of the ground. Do you see this as a contradiction? If God spoke, does that mean there was no intermediary process, such as forming something out of the ground? If so, then you set Scripture against Scripture. A better approach is to understand that birds were formed both at God's command and through natural processes (or through forming dirt, if you take that literally). There is no contradiction between the speaking and the forming natural material, because nature is not something outside of God's control. God speaks and creation responds.

This is an important biblical concept that is used outside Genesis as well. The psalmist said he was fearfully and wonderfully made by God, even that he was knit together by God in his mother's womb. Does that mean that what science tells us about cell division and embryological development is false? Not at all! What science describes is what God does.

In Matthew 5:45, Jesus says that God "makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." Does that mean that Einstein was wrong to say that his theory of relativity explains the planet's movements, because instead it must be something that God does directly without natural means to explain it? Does this verse mean rain comes from God and not from clouds? Of course not! Rain comes from God, even when there's natural means used to provide it. God provides through natural and supernatural methods. If a person restricts God to only doing the things that are unnatural, then I don't think such a person truly understands that God created the world we live in.

I think you have a profound misunderstanding of how God uses processes that seem random to us. Casting lots is by definition random, as were Urim and Thummim, and yet God used these methods to allow his people to discern his will. The merging of DNA during conception is also undirected, as far as we can tell, yet the psalmist claims that he is fearfully and wonderfully made by God (Psalm 139:13-16). The weather is also a product of impersonal forces, yet God can still use it for his own purposes, whether by bringing about famines, rains or whirlwinds. In the Bible, it seems that not only can God work through what seems random to humans, but often he specifically chooses random processes to bring about his purposes.

If you think that evolution is a problem because it is predicated on random mutations, I suggest you first work out how you accept God's sovereignty over all the other apparently random forces in creation. Can you accept that God truly is the provider of sunshine, rain and snow, in spite of the randomness (to us) of the weather? Can you accept that God can answer a prayer through a natural rainshower as well as through intervening in a way that defies meteorological explanation? If you can, then I think you'll see that randomness does not limit God.

 

The last reference you give speaks of how the Son upholds creation. That is entirely different from the other references which speak of how Jesus intervened in creation to do something unnatural. Jesus is in control of both the natural and the supernatural. Where you give him credit for calming the winds, I also give him credit for forming those winds. Where you give him credit for raising Lazarus and providing healing, I also give him credit for giving life to each one of us, and every plant and animal. Where you give him credit for providing a miraculous catch, I also give him credit for providing my daily bread.

At the heart of this is a crucial misunderstanding about whether God really made the universe we live in. If he did, then what science discovers (from electromagnetism to evolution) describes some of what God has done and is doing. If God isn't the Creator, then every scientific discovery that explains something pushes God out of the picture, because God would have no claim over what is "natural", because natural processes would owe their existence to someone or something other than God.

I think this false dichotomy between God and nature is far more dangerous to faith and biblical interpretation than any other aspect of the creation controversy. When one isolates God from nature, then one has to reinterpret so many passages of Scripture where God is clearly given the glory for things that have natural explanations. While many of these passages do use expressive imagery, one cannot just claim they are poetic and thus don't matter. Poetry means something, and even when God's involvement is described with evocative, non-literal language, the point remains that God is given the glory for these processes and events.

Many Christians have been taught to write off passages that speak of God's involvement in things like lightning and fetus development. They do so because these passages do not measure up to the standard they set for other passages, such as the creation of Adam. Rather than accepting that God may be directly involved even in things that have a scientific explanation, they choose to eliminate God from the picture in cases where they accept the science, and eliminate science from the picture in cases where God's involvement is (presently) non-negotiable. This approach is no more rational than denying God's involvement in Israel's captivity because other nations and armies were used. I believe this is a terribly destructive false dichotomy that sets up a huge crisis of faith for all who adhere to it.

To see if you've bought in to this dichotomy, just ask yourself a simple question: who provides your daily bread?

 

Shannon,

He could stop the wind on a dime yet couldn't make man out of the dust of the ground without a little help?

He could have done anything. The question is what did He do.

Oh yeah thats right yall do believe He could have done that its just that Gen 1-11 is not literal. Therefore what He could have done has no bearing anyway.

Let me ask you this... Do you really care what the Bible is trying to say? You're upset with me because I have actually studied theology, ancient literature, Semitic grammar and syntax, and biology in order to learn more about the background of the Bible. I've used the brain God gave me. You cannot consider an old earth because it would rock your doctrinal boat and make everything open to question.

Why should anyone on this board believe that you believe the other miracles in Scripture if you can't even believe the first ones in the first book of the Bible.

I don't really care what others on this board believe about my beliefs. I believe everything in the Bible. And I believe it was all written for a purpose. In most cases that purpose is to convey histrorical fact. I let God and study be my guides. Unlike some people here I am not afraid to ask questions or challenge MAN-MADE traditional doctrines if they seem less than true.

Yall may call yourselves Old earthers, or theistic evolutionists. But what you really need to call yourselves are "THEOLOGICAL LIBERALS" cause that is what you really are.

We've already discussed what a "liberal" is. None of us here fit the bill. Maybe "moderates".

But if thinking makes one a liberal, or if trying not to be judgmental makes one a liberal - then SIGN ME UP!