Creation questions

Could you please elaborate on your observation that in depth study of theology and science suggest that Genesis 1-11 is not to be interpreted literally?

Theology is the field of study, thought, and analysis which treats of God, His attributes, and His relations to the universe. Our only sources of knowledge about God are [1] the Revelation of Him in His creation and [2] His direct Revelation of Himself to man, the Bible. The Bible must take precedence over any Revelation of God that one might think he observes in His creation.

1. Where then in Scripture do we find anything that indicates that Genesis 1-11 are not to be taken literally?

2. How can science, which supposedly represents an accumulation of facts by man, trump the Revelation of God?

 

Some on this thread have questioned the attitude of Jesus Christ toward Genesis 1-11. It is a fact that Jesus Christ quoted directly from Genesis 1-11:

Matthew 19:4-6
4. And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

It has already been pointed out that Jesus Christ spoke of the world at the time of Noah. Jesus Christ also stated: John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. The Old Testament existed in written form at the time that Jesus Christ was on earth. Are we to believe that He would permit His disciples to continue to believe something that was false. It is true that Jesus Christ on occasion amplified the teachings of the Old Testament but I know of no instance where he disputed the truth of Scripture, including Genesis 1-11.

 

icthus

I whole heartedly agree with your last post. It was not only the truth but inspirational. If I cannot believe the record that God gave us how can I believe that Jesus Christ died for me?

Rationally, to state that God the Son would lay aside for a time His Glory, take upon Himself the likeness of man, and die for sinners is far more difficult to believe than Genesis 1-11 or other difficult passages in Scripture. If Genesis 1-11 is not to be interpreted literally then the questions become: Did Adam and Eve exist, was their fall as recorded true, and why did Jesus Christ die?

 

Oldreg,

How does theology make me think that Genesis might not be literal? Because ancient near eastern mythology dealt heavily in epic writing. Because stroytelling was a way to get things across.

I never said that my way is the only way nor did I say that I am right and you are wrong. I have no problem with young earth creationism.

And I certainly never said that science trumps the revelation of God.

What I did say is that I think that Genesis 1-11 may not have been INTENDED to be literal.

I don't expect you to "bow down to my wisdom". But I also don't expect to be rediculed and told that I have faith in men over God.

Yes I DO HAVE a doctoral degree in the sciences and yes I have done alot of study in ancient near eastern culture and languages (Hebrew and Arabic mostly). It seems to me (I could be wrong) one can learn and use what one has learned.

Again, to me (and I could be wrong), it seems that you resent anyone with a different opinion than yours on this. In MY OPINION it is the strict literalist fundamentalist who is arrogant regarding God's word, unwilling to learn and unwilling to believe that his preconceived beliefs might be wrong.

 

Liz

The point is a valid one. However as I said previously perhaps God wished to provide an OT picture of the coming Messiah. 1 Peter 3:21 confirms the idea as the Ark being a type.

I think this objection is easily solved.
The importance is not goegraphical but universal. All mankind was destroyed. Here is what Ross says:

Further support for a regional, rather than global, cataclysm comes from consideration of God's command to Noah after the flood, the same command He had given to Adam and later gave to the people who built the tower of Babel: "Fill the earth." The fact that God repeated this command to Noah (and intervened dramatically to disperse the people of Babel's day) implies that the people of Noah's generation had not filled the earth. This view is consistent with the geographical place names recorded in the first nine chapters of Genesis. They all refer to localities either in or very close to Mesopotamia .

Does all this evidence for a regional flood mean that the Genesis flood was not universal? Not at all. Let me reiterate: the Genesis flood certainly was universal in that it destroyed all mankind and the animals associated with his livelihood except those on board Noah's ark. Only in the twentieth century has "universal" been synonymous with "global."

Is Ross's view correct? I don't know, but for me it is plausible.

icthus

Hogwash! No one is questioning the Biblical account, they are questioning your interpretation of the Biblical account.

Despite the fact that mornings and evening were impossible before the fourth day? Despite the fact that the necessary element(Sun)for creating a 24 hour day was not yet in existence?

Who is making this argument?

Huh?

So when Rev 1:1,3 say things that must "shortly" take place and the time is "near", we should honor those statements as literal?

I have had many debates on this forum over eschatology, yet I am told that all the time-statements of the NT don't really mean what they say, ( Rev 1:1,3, Jm. 5:8, I Pet 4:7, Matt 16:27,28, Matt 24:34, etc etc). Yet when we come to Genesis everything must mean exactly what a 21st century American would think it means not what it meant to those to whom it was originally written . I think there are some who have different standards when it come to interpreting scripture. In Genesis "day" means 24 hours but in Revelation "near" means 2000 years and counting.
When it comes to prophetic time-statements everything must be filtered through II Peter 3:8, yet when we come to Genesis II Peter 3:8 has no relevence. Sorry, I find this form of interpretation inconsistent at best.

Now could I accuse you of attacking the infallibilty and inerrency of scripture if you don't take a preteristic approach to Revelation?

This is the problem with just pulling out part of one scripture, context is lost.
Better read the entire passage. Interpret this passage in the same manner you do Genesis. Are we still under the Law or has heaven and earth passed away.

 

You do well Grasshopper!

Rob

 

I still didn't get my question answered. I want to know if Jesus really changed water into wine since it IS scientifically impossible for that to happen.

 

Grasshopper, No, it is NOT hogwash when I say that questions that raise doubts about the accounts in Scripture, are direct attacks on the authority of the Bible.

You can see how you yourself are using your limited knowledge (since you were not there at the Creation), to question the days in Genesis chapter one, based on your faulty understanding. Are you saying that it is impossible for God to have created each of the days as twenty-four hour periods? This is the central question here. Not what science teaches, but, whether the Almighty God Whom we serve, (who went against "science" and stopped the sun for a day), whether He is not able to do as it says in Genesis chapter one?

You argue with the use of "yom", and say that it can be used for a longer period of time. I am not saying that it cannot. However, we are here dealing with the six days in Creation, where the Bible clearly calls them "evening and morning", which can only refer to 2 twelve hour days. have you ever known this term "evening and morning" refer to more than 24 hours? Let me ask you this. The seventh day is the Sabbath, when Gof finished Hid work, and rested. He commanded that the Hebrews do the same, work six days and rest the seventh. Can you show me for Scripture, where the seventh day of rest was not a 24 hour period?

It is only in the last 150 years, when the liberals began their attacks on the Infallibility of the accounts of the Holy Bible, when they were determined to destroy that it is Inerrant in ALL that it teaches, that they begain to question the account in Genesis chapter one. Before this time, I am not aware of anyone questioning the days in Creation. Do you?

Another thing, why the need to prove that they are not 24 hour days? Leaving aside your faulty logic about the "Despite the fact that mornings and evening were impossible before the fourth day?". Here you have it. You dare challenge the account of Holy Scripture, when you sak these foolish questions. Can you not read what the Bible has to say on this? Do you not see that in verse five it says: "and the evening and the morning were the first day". Verse 8, "second day". Verse 13 "third day". Verse 19 "fourth day". Verse 23 "fifth day". Verse 31 "sixth day". So, just who do you think that you are, when you say that "morning and evenings" are "impossible before the fourth day"? I would rather believe in the Infallible account as recorded in Scripture, than some pompous person who things he know more than God. This is NOT my interpretation that you argue with, but with the Inerrant Word of Almighty God!

When I said: "Nor can it ever be proven that that fall did not take place". You ask "who is making this argument?". Why don't you open your eyes and read what is written on this post, and you will very clearly see that Genesis chapters 1-6 are being questioned. Read Craig's post on page 3, and you will see this:

"Does the Bible say that Genesis 1-11 is an historically accurate narrative intended to be interpreted literally? No, it does not. Those who teach that Genesis 1-11 is an historically accurate narrative intended to be interpreted literally are teaching a doctrine of men without knowledge, and a doctrine that is contrary to fact. And those who even suggest that those who refuse to believe this false, man-made, antiquated doctrine make God out to be a liar are guilty of sinning against God"

What then do you think he means when he questions whether these chapters can be taken literally? As the fall of man is recorded in chapter 3, this is included in chapters 1-11. Get your facts right before you post here.

BTW, do you yourself believe in the original Scriptures as being Infallable, Inerrant, and 100% Trustworthy on ALL that it says, with 0% os any error on any subject that it speaks on? Lets have a clear answer.

 

If Scripture says so. Then Jesus did. Who really gives a hoot what "science" says what God can or cannot do?

Why, do you think that this is impossible for God?

 

Daniel 8:26 "And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days." KJV

It ends up that the evening and morning were twenty-three hundred, 24-hour days.

It's strongly suggested in Hebrews 4:1-11

Even the earliest Jewish commentaries question the timing of the creation days.
One of my favorite quotes from Martin Luther concerning Genesis One and Two is:

"...it contains things the most important, and at the same time the most obscure." "...who could explain all these momentous things with sufficient appropriateness and success: For interperters and commentators have confused and entangled them with such a variety, diversity, and infinity of questions, that it is sufficiently plain that God has reserved the majesty of this wisdom and the full and sound understanding of this chapter to Himself alone."

The rest of the post uses the same complaints and inuendo that were made towards Galileo when he proclaimed that the earth was round.

God gave us brains...use them.

Rob

 

Quite the contrary. There is no sliding scale of difficulty with God. It is no less difficult for Him to change water into wine than for Him to accomplish Genesis 1-11 just the way it plainly says that He did. I am just curious why some people think it is necessary to figure out HOW God did something different than He said.

 

The difference between water and wine is the rearrangement of protons, electrons and atomic bonds.

Not at all scientifically impossible, just not feasible given the technology of Jesus' day and even what we have now. But for God all things are possible.

 

Quite the contrary. There is no sliding scale of difficulty with God. It is no less difficult for Him to change water into wine than for Him to accomplish Genesis 1-11 just the way it plainly says that He did. I am just curious why some people think it is necessary to figure out HOW God did something different than He said. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't think he created differently from what He said. However, what is it that He actually said? Was it a scientific description of his actions?

 

Gold Dragon is right. No one on this forum would question God's power or ability - or the trustworthiness of His word.

What some of us DO question is whether or not the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is the right one. That is to say by insisting that everything in the creation account are YOU forcing YOUR will on God's word, refusing to use the brain and ability to make observations that He gave you!

 

Why is faith so underrated by those into evolutionist theology?
I'll ask you the same thing I always ask.
Please rewrite the creation account in it's proper literal and applicable interpretation, as you seem to be under the impression that in it's current form it is interpreted wrong.

 

There is absolutely no indication given by God through scripture or any of His spokesmen that Genesis 1-11 is anything but a narrative. Jesus as well as the NT writers consistently treat it as history... not allegory.

 

This topic is directly addressed by God!

God said, "let there be----" and it was.
And the evening and morning was the --day.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Many things are not directly addressed by God, so they are open to challenge.

But when God DIRECTLY addresses a subject, you ARE doubting God when you question His word on that subject.

You ARE believing man over God any way you slice it!

 

There is absolutely no indication given by God through scripture or any of His spokesmen that Genesis 1-11 is anything but a narrative.</font>[/QUOTE]I agree that Genesis 1-11 is a narrative. In fact the entire bible should be interpreted as narrative. The question is what type of narrative is it? Is it a scientific narrative?

I would say that Jesus and the NT writers never made a distinction between history and allegory in terms of one being more "true" than the other.

It wasn't until Greek philosophy became more prominent that the distinction was even made between the two types of writing. And it wasn't until the modernism of the Enlightenment that we began to think more of allegory as "not true" and history as "true".

I would also challenge the common modernist view that allegories as a form of writing are not true. There are many allegories in the Bible and while the "truth" in them may have a different character than the truth found in what we would now classify as historical narratives, they are both absolutely true.

Finally I would say that historical narratives and allegories are only mutually exclusive in our modernist context.

 

So in your view asking questions about scriptures is a direct attack on the Bible. I bet your Sunday School class is a riot.

Nor were you. So I guess you are also limited in knowledge.

No, He may well have. Are you saying it is impossible that He did not?

Once again if morning is literal, then it means the sun coming up over the eastern horizen. Oops, there is no sun till day 4. Therefore your view is even forced to use "morning" as non literal, at least for the first 4 days. You believe there was a literal morning and literal evening without a literal sun. Don't you see how someone who actually uses brain cells might see a problem?

Ronald Reagen used the term "morning in America" as a campaign slogan. I don't think he meant it in your Genesis way. But of course you don't seem to allow the Bible to use figures of speach or metaphores.

Did God really rest? Was He all tuckered out? Or perhaps He is giving us a symbolic picture. Thus the 7 days whether 24 hours or a billion years still give us that picture.

Perhaps you can tell me why the seventh day has no evening. Was it an oversight on God's part? If it has no evening then it still continues. So I can use the very account in Genesis and make a case for the 7th day being more than 24 hours.

Augustine, himself, as is well known, states in connection with the days of Genesis 1, "What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible for us to conceive."

Anselm may be read to follow this lead in his supposition that "the 'days' of Moses' account ... are not to be equated with the days in which we live."

A striking illustration of the way in which biblical scholars wrestled with this issue is found in the work of John Colet, who, at the end of the 15th century, held to a position approximating to a day-age or even framework interpretation of the days of Genesis. Interestingly, he held that Genesis 1 was written in "the manner of a popular poet" [more poetae alicuius popularis]. In the Augustinian tradition, Colet views the precise meaning of the days of Genesis 1 as so difficult to untangle that he writes (tongue in cheek): "nothing could be more like night than these Mosaic days." In addition, he argued that the function of Genesis 1 is precisely not scientific but intended to portray the mystery of creation to the children of Israel in the days of Moses.

The 19th century Princetonians, who regarded themselves as upholders of Reformed orthodoxy and of the Westminster Standards, expressed broad views of Genesis 1 which have frequently been discussed. In particular, neither Charles Hodge, nor his son, A. A. Hodge, nor B. B. Warfield regarded the six 24 hour day view of creation as exegetically required by a careful reading of Genesis 1. The Princeton tradition refrained from dogmatic insistence on a single necessary meaning for "day" (yôm) in Genesis 1.

Perhaps because the rest of creation screams for longer days. Is God not the God of Astronomy? Of Geology? Of Biology? The more we learn of those disciplines the more we learn of God. Sticking our head in the sand in order to hold to a wooden, literal, western, interpretation is not the answer.

No, I challenge your account. And so far you have answered no questions. Let me guess, IFB'r?

Again you assume your definition of morning and evening is the only one. Tell me how do you have a literal morning without a literal Sun? It should be an easy one for you to answer since the text is so clear.

Good, then you would agree with my preterist views. See below.

He said nothing about denying the fall of man. I'll let Craig speak for himself instead of trusting you to give me what you think he means.

Yes, do you my fellow preterist?

Did Adam die the DAY he ate of the tree? Remember the same Hebrew word for day is used here as it is Gen. 1.

Gen. 2:17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

He did not die physically within your 24 hour time frame, therefore it must mean spiritual death. Now read I Cor 15 with this in mind.

You never answered the question regarding this verse you quoted from:

Matt 5: 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Please, give me the meaning using you Gen 1 hermeneutic. Are we still under the Law or has heaven and earth passed away?


Now tell me how I should interpret these clear passage:

James 5:8Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh .

Matt 16: 27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Rev 1:1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass ; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.


Aren't words like, "near", "at hand" and "shortly" just as clear as "day" in Genesis?

If you do not take a preterist approach to eschatology and Revelation then this applies to you: " You dare challenge the account of Holy Scripture",

Shouldn't you interpret the last book of the Bible in the same literal manner you do the first book? If not why not?

Now the question can be asked of you:

BTW, do you yourself believe in the original Scriptures as being Infallable, Inerrant, and 100% Trustworthy on ALL that it says, with 0% os any error on any subject that it speaks on? Lets have a clear answer.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Good point Richard, this does put the entire creation within the six day time span.