|
|
| From | Message |
|---|---|
|
coram_deo 27-Oct-21, 10:19 |
 Should Genesis Be Taken Literally?For those who want the conclusion, it’s this: “If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened.” Also: “Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written: ‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’ ” <<One notes that the idea the creation account in Genesis is so wildly symbolic that it’s not about creation at all is apparently so absurd it doesn’t warrant even mentioning.>> From creation.com: Should Genesis be taken literally? Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion. This is not as difficult as it may seem, as the Bible obviously contains: • Poetry—as in the Psalms, where the repetition or parallelism of ideas is in accordance with Hebrew ideas of poetry, without the rhyme (parallelism of sound) and metre (parallelism of time) that are important parts of traditional English poetry. This, by the way, is the reason why the Psalms can be translated into other languages and still retain most of their literary appeal and poetic piquancy, while the elements of rhyme and metre are usually lost when traditional Western poetry is translated into other languages. • Parables—as in many of the sayings of Jesus, such as the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3–23), which Jesus Himself clearly states to be a parable and about which He gives meanings for the various items, such as the seed and the soil. • Prophecy—as in the books of the last section of the Old Testament (Isaiah to Malachi). • Letters—as in the New Testament epistles written by Paul, Peter, John, and others. • Biography—as in the Gospels. • Autobiography/testimony—as in the book of Acts where the author, Luke, after narrating the Apostle Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus as a historical fact (Acts 9:1–19), then describes two further occasions when Paul included this conversion experience as part of his own personal testimony (Acts 22:1–21; 26:1–22). • Authentic historical facts—as in the books of 1 and 2 Kings, etc. So the author’s intention with respect to any book of the Bible is usually quite clear from the style and the content. Who then was the author of Genesis, and what intention is revealed by his style and the content of what he wrote? The Lord Jesus Himself and the Gospel writers said that the Law was given by Moses (Mark 10:3; Luke 24:27; John 1:17), and the uniform tradition of the Jewish scribes and early Christian fathers, and the conclusion of conservative scholars to the present day, is that Genesis was written by Moses. This does not preclude the possibility that Moses had access to patriarchal records, preserved by being written on clay tablets and handed down from father to son via the line of Adam–Seth–Noah–Shem–Abraham–Isaac–Jacob, etc., as there are 11 verses in Genesis which read, ‘These are the generations [Hebrew: toledoth = ‘origins’ or by extension ‘record of the origins’] of … .’ As these statements all come after the events they describe, and the events recorded in each division all took place before rather than after the death of the individuals so named, they may very well be subscripts or closing signatures, i.e. colophons, rather than superscripts or headings. If this is so, the most likely explanation of them is that Adam, Noah, Shem, and the others each wrote down an account of the events which occurred in his lifetime, and Moses, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, selected and compiled these, along with his own comments, into the book we now know as Genesis (see also Did Moses really write Genesis?). Chapters 12–50 of Genesis were very clearly written as authentic history, as they describe the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his 12 sons who were the ancestral heads of the 12 tribes of Israel. The Jewish people, from earliest biblical times to the present day, have always regarded this portion of Genesis as the true record of their nation’s history. So what about the first 11 chapters of Genesis, which are our main concern, as these are the ones that have incurred the most criticism from modern scholars, scientists, and skeptics? Genesis 1–11 Are any of these chapters poetry? To answer this question we need to examine in a little more depth just what is involved in the parallelism of ideas that constitutes Hebrew poetry. Let us consider Psalm 1:1, which reads as follows: ‘Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers.’ Here we see triple parallelism in the nouns and verbs used (reading downwards in the following scheme): walks counsel wicked stands way sinners sits seat scoffers As well as this overt parallelism, there is also a covert or subtle progression of meaning. In the first column, ‘walks’ suggests short-term acquaintance, ‘stands’ implies readiness to discuss, and ‘sits’ speaks of long-term involvement. In the second column, ‘counsel’ betokens general advice, ‘way’ indicates a chosen course of action, and ‘seat’ signifies a set condition of mind. In the third column, ‘wicked’ describes the ungodly, ‘sinner’ characterizes the actively wicked, and ‘scoffers’ portrays the contemptuously wicked. Other types of Hebrew poetry include contrastive parallelism, as in Proverbs 27:6, ‘Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful’, and completive parallelism, as in Psalm 46:1, ‘God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of need.’ And so we return to our question. Are any of the first 11 chapters of Genesis poetry? Answer: No, because these chapters do not contain information or invocation in any of the forms of Hebrew poetry, in either overt or covert form, and because Hebrew scholars of substance are agreed that this is so (see below). Note: There certainly is repetition in Genesis chapter 1, e.g. ‘And God said …’ occurs 10 times; ‘and God saw that it was good/very good’ seven times; ‘after his/their kind’ 10 times; ‘And the evening and the morning were the … day’ six times. However, these repetitions have none of the poetic forms discussed above; rather they are statements of fact and thus a record of what happened, and possibly for emphasis—to indicate the importance of the words repeated. Are any of these chapters parables? No, because when Jesus told a parable He either said it was a parable, or He introduced it with a simile, so making it plain to the hearers that it was a parable, as on the many occasions when He said, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like … .’ No such claim is made or style used by the author of Genesis 1–11. Are any of these chapters prophecy? Not in their full context, although two promises of God are prophetic in the sense that their fulfilment would be seen in the future. One of these is Genesis 3:15, which was the pronouncement by God to the serpent (Satan) in metaphorical form: ‘And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.’ (NASB). Many have interpreted the ‘seed’ in this verse as the Messiah, including most evangelicals and even the Jewish Targums hence the Talmudic expression ‘heels of the Messiah.’ The Messiah would suffer wounds to His feet (on the Cross), but would completely destroy Satan’s power. This verse also hints at the virginal conception, as the Messiah is called the seed of the woman, contrary to the normal biblical practice of naming the father rather than the mother of a child (cf. Genesis chapters 5 and 11, 1 Chronicles chapters 1–9, Matthew chapter 1, Luke 3:23–38). The other is Genesis 8:21–22 and 9:11–17, ‘And the LORD said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake … and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.’ Are any of these chapters letters, biography, or autobiography/personal testimony? This is where we need to consider some of the subscripts mentioned above. If Adam knew the events of Creation Days 1–6, they must have been revealed to him by God, as Adam was not made until Day 6, and so he could have known them only if God had told him. This view is reinforced by the words, ‘These are the generations of [NIV: ‘This is the account of’] the heavens and of the earth when they were created …’ in Genesis 2:4a. The details of Day 7, the rest day, are included before this in Genesis 2:2–3, thereby completing (as we might expect) the record of a full seven-day week, before this subscript or closing signature appears. Then follow the events of Genesis 2:4b–5:1a. This section tells us about Adam, his wife Eve, and their sons, and reads very much like a personal account of what Adam knew, saw, and experienced concerning the Garden of Eden, and the creation of Eve (chapter 2), their rebellion against God (chapter 3), and the deeds of their descendants (chapter 4 to 5:1), albeit written in the third person6. This section ends with the words, ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam.’ Is it feasible that Adam could have written Genesis 1:1–2:4a as the result of his pre-Fall conversation with God, and Genesis 2:4b–5:1 as the record of his own experiences? There is no problem concerning his ability to have done so. Adam was created a mature man, endowed with all the DNA, knowledge and skill he needed to perform all the tasks assigned him by God. No cave-man he! Adam knew enough horticulture ‘to dress and to keep’ the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15), and ample intelligence to recognize and name the distinct kinds of animals (Genesis 2:19). He (and Eve) could converse with God without ever having learned an alphabet, and there is no reason to suppose that he was not fully skilled in writing also7 Supposed contradictions What about the supposed contradictions between the order of events in Genesis chapter 2 and the order given in chapter 1? There are none! See also Genesis contradictions? If, with the NIV, we read ‘Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east …’ (Genesis 2:8) and, ‘Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field …’ (Genesis 2:19 with emphasis added), it is clearly seen that chapter 2 states that the plants and animals were formed before Adam. When Adam named the animals (Genesis 2:20), they obviously were already in existence. There is no contradictory significance in the order of animals listed in Genesis 2:20; it is probably the order in which Adam met the animals, while the order of their creation is given in Genesis 1:20–25. Dr Henry Morris comments: ‘It was only the animals in closest proximity and most likely as theoretical candidates for companionship to man that were actually brought to him. These included the birds of the air, the cattle (verse 20—probably the domesticated animals), and the beasts of the field, which were evidently the smaller wild animals that would live near human habitations. Those not included were the fish of the sea, the creeping things, and the beasts of the earth mentioned in Genesis 1:24, which presumably were those wild animals living at considerable distance from man and his cultivated fields.’ Concerning the names of geographical sites, we have no idea what the configuration of the land or the rivers was before the Flood, because the pre-Flood world was completely destroyed. The land areas and rivers named before the Flood do not correspond to similarly named features after the Flood. The purpose of Genesis 2:18–25 is not to give another account of creation but to show that there was no kinship whatsoever between Adam and the animals. None was like him, and so none could provide fellowship or companionship for him. Why not? Because Adam had not evolved from them, but was ‘a living soul’ whom God had created ‘in His own image’ (Genesis 2:7 and 1:27). This means (among other things) that God created Adam to be a person whom He could address, and who could respond to and interact with Himself. Here, as in many other places, the plain statements of the Bible confront and contradict the notion of human evolution. There is therefore enough evidence for us to conclude that Adam most probably was the author of Genesis 2:4b–5:1, and that this is his record of his own experiences with respect to events in the Garden of Eden, the creation of Eve, the Fall, and in the lives of Cain, Abel, and Seth. The next section is from 5:1b to 6:9a, and deals with the line from Adam to Noah, ending with, ‘These are the generations [or origins] of Noah.’ The next section is from 6:9b to 10:1a, and deals mainly with the Ark and the Flood, ending with, ‘Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.’ The wording of this subscript suggests that this portion was written by one of Noah’s sons, probably Shem, as Moses was descended from Shem. These chapters read very much like an eye-witness account because of the intimacy of detail which they contain. Consider Genesis 8:6–12 and note how this contains that ring of authenticity which is characteristic of an eye-witness account. It may even have been Shem’s diary! Genesis 8:6–12: 6 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made: 7 And sent forth a raven. It went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. 8 Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put out his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him. 10 He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. 11 And the dove came back to him in the evening, and behold, in her mouth was a freshly plucked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth. 12 Then he waited another seven days and sent forth the dove, and she did not return to him anymore. (ESV). Such meticulous details are the stuff of authentic eye-witness testimony. They have the ring of truth. There is thus a substantial body of evidence that these portions of Genesis delineated by subscripts were written by the persons named therein, for the purpose of making and passing on a permanent record. So then, were these first 11 chapters written as a record of authentic historical facts? Answer: Yes, for several reasons. Internal evidence of the book of Genesis 1. There is the internal evidence of the book of Genesis itself. As already mentioned, chapters 12–50 have always been regarded by the Jewish people as being the record of their own true history, and the style of writing contained in chapters 1–11 is not strikingly different from that in chapters 12–50. 2. Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written: ‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’ 3. One of the main themes of Genesis is the Sovereignty of God. This is seen in God’s actions in respect of four outstanding events in Genesis 1–11 (Creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the Babel dispersion), and His relationship to four outstanding people in Genesis 12–50 (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph). There is thus a unifying theme to the whole of the book of Genesis, which falls to the ground if any part is mythical and not true history; on the other hand, each portion reinforces the historical authenticity of the other. Evidence from the rest of the Bible 4. The principal people mentioned in Genesis chapters 1–11 are referred to as real—historical, not mythical—people in the rest of the Bible, often many times. For example, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah are referred to in 15 other books of the Bible. 5. The Lord Jesus Christ referred to the Creation of Adam and Eve as a real historical event, by quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in His teaching about divorce (Matthew 19:3–6; Mark 10:2–9), and by referring to Noah as a real historical person and the Flood as a real historical event, in His teaching about the ‘coming of the Son of man’ (Matthew 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–27). 6. Unless the first 11 chapters of Genesis are authentic historical events, the rest of the Bible is incomplete and incomprehensible as to its full meaning. The theme of the Bible is Redemption, and may be outlined thus: i. God’s redeeming purpose is revealed in Genesis 1–11, ii. God’s redeeming purpose progresses from Genesis 12 to Jude 25, and iii. God’s redeeming purpose is consummated in Revelation 1–22. But why does mankind need to be redeemed? What is it that he needs to be redeemed from? The answer is given in Genesis 1–11, namely, from the ruin brought about by sin. Unless we know that the entrance of sin to the human race was a true historical fact, God’s purpose in providing a substitutionary atonement is a mystery. Conversely, the historical truth of Genesis 1–11 shows that all mankind has come under the righteous anger of God and needs salvation from the penalty, power, and presence of sin. 7. Unless the events of the first chapters of Genesis are true history, the Apostle Paul’s explanation of the Gospel in Romans chapter 5 and of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 has no meaning. Paul writes: ‘For as by one man’s [Adam’s] disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one [Jesus] shall many be made righteous’ (Romans 5:19). And, ‘For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive … And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit’(1 Corinthians 15:21–22; 45). The historical truth of the record concerning the first Adam is a guarantee that what God says in His Word about the last Adam [Jesus] is also true. Likewise, the historical, literal truth of the record concerning Jesus is a guarantee that what God says about the first Adam is also historically and literally true. Conclusion We return to the question which forms the title of this article. Should Genesis be taken literally? Answer: If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened. creation.com |
|
coram_deo 27-Oct-21, 15:28 |
This article argues the creation account can be both literal *and* symbolic, but not only symbolic. Most importantly, the article points out that Jesus Christ and His disciples viewed Genesis chapters 1 and 2 as “a literal account of history.” Good enough for me 👍👍 The first key paragraphs in this article, imo, are: “This is important to note: most commentators throughout the history of the church have understood that, for these patterns to have theological meaning, they had to be historically real. It was not until the era of modern philosophy that a whole discipline of theological thinking arose which separated theology from history. There began to be a view that if something has a pattern, it was structured that way by a later author and was likely not a reflection of real events. This thinking seems to have influenced contemporary interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis. Many interpreters see the obvious patterns in the days of creation, and therefore separate those patterns from real history. Whether the pattern is a literary structure, a relationship to workdays, or an image of the temple, commentators assert that the purpose of the early chapters of Genesis is to teach theology rather than history. As a result, these interpretations de-historicize various sections of Genesis.” And a key paragraph at the end of this article: “This desire to impose ‘an alien concept’ on Genesis is extremely strong today, especially in academic circles. We should therefore not underestimate its pervasive influence on the church, nor mistake its long-term consequences. The Bible’s ability to accurately represent history is at the center of Christian doctrine, most particularly the doctrine of creation; it is this doctrine which sits at the foundation of all our theology.” Here’s the full article. From isgenesishistory.com Today, there are some Christians who do not think Genesis 1 and 2 should be taken as a literal record of sequential days. Instead, they interpret the days and events of the first chapters of the Bible in a variety of ways, such as a ‘literary framework,’ ‘God’s workdays,’ or as a ‘functional cosmic temple.’ There are useful observations in all these approaches. Aspects of them, in fact, can be found throughout the history of the church’s interpretation of Genesis. Ancient, medieval, and early modern commentators noticed the parallel literary pattern of three days of forming and three days of filling, or that God acts like a workman in creating the earth, or that the garden of Eden has many similarities to the structure of the tabernacle and temple. They saw these patterns as quite intentional. The metaphor of a master builder was used for God who, like the architects of the mighty cathedrals, intricately designed real structures to communicate theological truths. They knew God told Moses in Exodus 25:40 to build the tabernacle “after the pattern…which is being shown you on the mountain.” They also knew the author of Hebrews goes on to explain that this real structure was just “a copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” (Heb 8:5) They understood that God expected us to notice these patterns and figure out what they meant. This intentionality is why there is so much similarity between Eden, the tabernacle, and “the heavenly things”: they were all designed by the same Designer to be His dwelling place with man. These sorts of connections between reality and theology were obvious to the commentators; when they read the Bible, they saw that God put patterns everywhere He revealed Himself. Can history be both literal and symbolic? What makes these patterns so fascinating is that they are actually embedded in real history. There are patterns and symbols throughout the Bible, from the life of Moses to the life of David to the life of Jesus, all of which are equally literal and symbolic. If God is both transcendent and immanent—and far beyond us in creativity— we should expect that there are numberless things built into the creation and its history that uniquely reveal His delight in patterns as ways to understand Him better. This is important to note: most commentators throughout the history of the church have understood that, for these patterns to have theological meaning, they had to be historically real. It was not until the era of modern philosophy that a whole discipline of theological thinking arose which separated theology from history. There began to be a view that if something has a pattern, it was structured that way by a later author and was likely not a reflection of real events. This thinking seems to have influenced contemporary interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis. Many interpreters see the obvious patterns in the days of creation, and therefore separate those patterns from real history. Whether the pattern is a literary structure, a relationship to workdays, or an image of the temple, commentators assert that the purpose of the early chapters of Genesis is to teach theology rather than history. As a result, these interpretations de-historicize various sections of Genesis. This creates three basic problems. 1. Modern interpreters do not replace the record in Genesis with another history. They simply say it isn’t history. But if Genesis isn’t a literal record of events, then what actually happened at the beginning? Considering that the role of Special Revelation is to provide us an accurate record of the words and actions of God in time, it seems strange that the first chapters of that revelation would not do the very thing one would expect it to do: tell us how God created the world and everything in it. Curiously, this is where modern commentators say they are not scientists and point to the conventional scientific community to provide that history. Although these interpreters would not do this with any other part of the Bible, they do it with Genesis 1 and 2. Leaving aside the question as to whether contemporary scientists are qualified to speak authoritatively on matters of history, the result is that these interpretations are used to justify replacing the Biblical timeline of creation in six days with the conventional timeline of universal formation over billions of years. 2. Modern commentators do not provide any clear consensus as to where to draw the line between what is only theological and what is theological-historical. In other words, where does real history begin? There is much discussion of “genre” as being the determining factor, but it quickly becomes subjective as to where one draws the historical line. Considering this is not a problem anywhere else in Genesis (much less the other historical books of the Bible), it leads one to believe that there is not a real distinction here either, and that the earlier commentators were right: Genesis is both literal and symbolic. 3. The witness of other inspired authors creates a significant problem for modern interpretations that seek to separate the theological and the historical. Shouldn’t we rely on the interpretations of men like Jesus, Paul, and Peter for understanding what the text actually means? Even in the Old Testament, the prophet Isaiah provides more than sufficient evidence that the theology and history of Genesis are inseparably joined. He quotes God Himself saying that the doctrine of creation is the primary reason He can be trusted in all matters, including His control of world events. Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it: “I am the Lord; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations…” (Isaiah 42:5-6) It is obvious that Biblical authors were familiar with the text of Genesis and saw how it connects to the real world. This is why their views must come prior to recent attempts at re-interpretation through the discovery of Ancient Near Eastern texts such as the Gilgamesh epic, Enuma Elish, or others. If anything, these texts are confirmation that the ancient pagan world retained something of its memory of the global flood and the world before it. When, however, one looks at the Biblical text in comparison with these pagan documents, the differences are significant. From the transcendence of God, to the consequences of moral choices for the created order, to the realistic presentation of people and events, there are an overwhelming number of indicators, both within the early chapters and within other parts of the Bible, that Genesis is a literal account of history. This is the perspective of Jesus and His disciples. Why Should Genesis 1 be considered History? Besides what has already been said, here are a number of additional reasons why Genesis 1 should be seen as literal history formed by God with symbolic intent: 1. The Hebrew word for ‘day’ The use of the Hebrew word ‘day’ (yom) modified by the cardinal numbers ‘one,’ ‘two,’ ‘three,’ ‘four,’ ‘five,’ and ‘six,’ alongside the nouns ‘morning’ and ‘evening’ are all specific time indicators referring to a normal week. This is the common vocabulary we see in ancient times, medieval times, and modern times. Wherever these words are used in other parts of the Pentateuch or other historical narratives of the Bible, we interpret them as referring to normal time. In fact, the Hebrews who translated Genesis into Greek for the Septuagint in the 2nd century B.C. used the normal Greek word for a 24-hour day in Genesis 1, even though there were other Greek words that signified a long period of time. 2. The use of ‘day’ in the rest of the Old Testament Although there are a handful of instances of ‘day’ being used in non-literal ways in the Old Testament, it is clear from usage and context these are not the case in Genesis 1. Theologian Geerhardus Vos explains, “It is not accurate to say that the days are God’s days. God ad intra does not have days. Creation is an act proceeding outwardly from God…. Appealing to the eternal Sabbath is also of no avail. Although God’s Sabbath is certainly endless, that cannot be said of the first Sabbath…. The use of the term ‘day’ in Genesis 2:4 is figurative, but in Genesis 1 figurative language is not used. What one must show is another place in Scripture where a first, a second, a third day, etc., are just as sharply separated and and nevertheless describe periods of time. The ‘day of the Lord’ of the prophets refers to a specific day—that is, a day on which the Lord appears for judgment, even though His judgment may last longer than one day.” 3. Specific Statements in Exodus There are numerous statements in Exodus that compare the duration of God’s creation to something already familiar to the enslaved Hebrews: one week of seven days. The most well-known of these is integral to the Fourth Commandment. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God…. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:8,11) 4. A Record of What Happened In the Beginning Genesis provides what one would expect at the beginning of a universal history: a record of what actually happened in the beginning. Often, the ‘superiority of the present’ is invoked to say the Israelites were a primitive people who could not understand what actually happened; but this is pure speculation that runs counter to the witness of the rest of the Bible. The observation that God provided an account so different in structure and content from other literature in the Ancient Near East is testimony that He gave them the one accurate account, especially considering they were surrounded by Egyptian creation stories. He certainly wasn’t waiting 3500 years for a handful of scientists in the mid 20th-century to finally explain what He actually did in the beginning. 5. It is Consistent Narrative History Genesis 1 and 2 are narrative history, as can be seen in the way events flow from one to another through chapter 3 and forward. Again, Vos explains, “within the narrative of Scripture, the creation narrative is interwoven like a link in the chain of God’s saving acts. God does not make a chain of solid gold, in which the first link is a floral wreath. If the creation history is an allegory, then the narrative concerning the fall and everything further that follows can also be allegory. The writer of the Pentateuch presents his work entirely as history.” Any attempt to find additional time between the morning/evening/day repetition, or to see the days as a list of highlights over a long period, or to call it poetry, is a rejection of basic linguistic aspects of the text. 6. Statistical Analysis of Hebrew Verbs Dr. Steve Boyd’s statistical analysis of the Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 1:1-2:4 in comparison with other narrative passages of the Old Testament reveals a “99.5% confidence level” that the passage is narrative history. As he explains, “the weight of evidence is so overwhelming that we must acknowledge that Biblical authors believed that they were recounting real events. We must therefore call their work history.” (Read the full paper here.) 7. Significant Numerical Harmony There is a significant “numerical harmony” based on the numbers three and seven in Genesis 1:1-2:4. Rabbinic scholar Umberto Cassuto observes that: The entire section is divided into seven paragraphs, one per day. The nouns God, heaven, and earth are repeated in multiples of seven throughout the passage: God 35 times, heaven 21 times, and earth 21 times. Light and day are each mentioned seven times in the first paragraph. Light is mentioned seven times in the fourth paragraph. Water is mentioned seven times in paragraphs two and three together. Beasts is mentioned seven times in paragraphs five and six together. The expression it was good appears seven times. The first verse has seven words; the second verse contains fourteen words; and the seventh paragraph has three sentences, each of which contains seven words and has the expression the seventh day in the middle. Cassuto finishes his overview with the final observation, “to suppose all of this is a mere coincidence is not possible.” 8. Numerous Chiastic Structures James Jordan identifies numerous chisastic structures in the first chapter of Genesis. Chiasm is a literary structure based on the Greek letter chi (X). This structure basically follows a pattern that inverts itself as it describes a flow of events, such as A,B,C,D,C’,B’,A’ with D being in the center. Jordon observes numerous chiastic structures within the passage, from the days of creation, to what is being created, to what is being signified. Chiasms linked to history can be found throughout the rest of the Bible, too, as Gordon Wenham has observed with the flood account and Kenneth Bailey with a large section of Luke. Such consistent patterns in historical narratives are additional evidence that God was ordering events according to His own purposes. Final Thoughts In light of all these points, how is it possible that some modern interpreters want to deny that Genesis 1 is literal history? It seems the primary rationale to de-historicize Genesis is what Steve Boyd explains in the film. He observes,“the only way you’d want yom [day] to mean a longer period of time is if you impose an alien concept, a hermeneutical concept, to the text and say, ‘Well, I think that these are ages therefore yom has to mean ages.’ What we have to do is start with the text. If we start with the text yom means ‘day.’” This desire to impose ‘an alien concept’ on Genesis is extremely strong today, especially in academic circles. We should therefore not underestimate its pervasive influence on the church, nor mistake its long-term consequences. The Bible’s ability to accurately represent history is at the center of Christian doctrine, most particularly the doctrine of creation; it is this doctrine which sits at the foundation of all our theology. isgenesishistory.com |
|
coram_deo 27-Oct-21, 18:38 |
Excerpt from the conclusion of this article: “The Bible is crystal clear. We must believe Genesis 1–11 as literal history because Jesus, the New Testament Apostles, and the Old Testament prophets did, and because these opening chapters of Genesis are foundational to the rest of the Bible.” From answersingenesis.org: Anyone who has read the Bible very much will recognize that there are different kinds of literature in the Old and New Testaments. There are parables, poetry, prophetic visions, dreams, epistles, proverbs, and historical narrative, with the majority being the latter. So, how should we interpret Genesis 1–11? Is it history? Is it mythology? Is it symbolic poetry? Is it allegory? Is it a parable? Is it a prophetic vision? Is it a mixture of these kinds of literature or some kind of unique genre? And does it really matter anyway? We will come back to the last question later, but suffice it to say here that the correct conclusion on genre of literature is foundational to the question of the correct interpretation. If we interpret something literally that the author intended to be understood figuratively, then we will misunderstand the text. When Jesus said “I am the door” (John 10:9), He did not mean that He was made of wood with hinges attached to His side. Conversely, if we interpret something figuratively that the author intended to be taken literally, we will err. When Jesus said, “The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up” (Matthew 17:22–23), He clearly meant it just as literally as if I said to my wife, “Margie, I’m going to fill up the gas tank with gas and will be back in a few minutes.” There are many lines of evidence we could consider to determine the genre of Genesis 1–11, such as the internal evidence within the Book of Genesis and how the Church has viewed these chapters throughout church history. But in this chapter we want to answer the question, “How did the other biblical authors (besides Moses, who wrote Genesis1) and Jesus interpret them?” From my reading and experience it appears that most people who consider the question of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis have never asked, much less answered, that question. To begin, consider what God says about the way He spoke to Moses in contrast to the way He spoke to other prophets. In Numbers 12:6–8 we read: Then He said, “Hear now My words: if there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; he is faithful in all My house. I speak with him face to face, even plainly, and not in dark sayings; And he sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?” So God says that He spoke “plainly” to Moses, not in “dark sayings,” that is, not in obscure language. That strongly suggests that we should not be looking for mysterious, hard-to-understand meanings in what Moses wrote. Rather, we should read Genesis as the straightforward history that it appears to be. An examination of how the rest of the Bible interprets Genesis confirms this. Old Testament Authors and Their Use of Genesis When we turn to other Old Testament authors, there are only a few references to Genesis 1–11. But they all treat those chapters as literal history. The Jews were very careful about genealogies. For example, in Nehemiah 7:61–64 the people who wanted to serve in the rebuilt temple needed to prove that they were descended from the priestly line of Aaron. Those who could not prove this could not serve as priests. First Chronicles 1–8 gives a long series of genealogies all the way back to Adam. Chapter 1 (verses 1–28) has no missing or added names in the genealogical links from Adam to Abraham, compared to Genesis 5 and Genesis 11. The author(s) of 1 Chronicles obviously took these genealogies as historically accurate. Outside of Genesis 6–11, Psalm 29:10 contains the only other use of the Hebrew word mabbul (translated “flood”). God literally sat as King at the global Flood of Noah. If that event was not historical, the statement in this verse would have no real force and the promise of verse 11 will give little comfort to God’s people. Psalm 33:6–9 affirms that God created supernaturally by His Word, just as Genesis 1 says repeatedly. Creatures came into existence instantly when God said, “Let there be. . . .” God did not have to wait for millions or thousands of years for light or dry land or plants and animals or Adam to appear. “He spoke and it was done; He commanded and it stood fast” (Psalm 33:9). Psalm 104:5 and 19 speak of events during creation week. But verses 6–9 in this psalm give additional information to that provided in Genesis 8, which describes how the waters receded off the earth at the end of the Flood. The Psalmist is clearly describing historical events. In beautiful poetic form, Psalm 136 recounts many of God’s mighty acts in history, beginning with statements about some of His creative works in Genesis 1. In Isaiah 54:9 God says (echoing the promise of Psalm 104:9) to Israel, “For this is like the waters of Noah to Me; for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth, so have I sworn that I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you.” The promise of God would have no force if the account of Noah’s Flood was not historically true. No one would believe in the Second Coming of Christ if the promise of it (as recorded in Matt. 24:37–39) was given as, “Just as Santa Claus comes from the North Pole in his sleigh pulled by reindeer on Christmas Eve and puts presents for the whole family under the Christmas tree in each home, so Jesus is coming again as the King of kings and Lord of lords.” In fact, the analogy would convince people that the Second Coming is a myth. In Ezekiel 14:14–20 God refers repeatedly to Noah, Daniel, and Job and clearly indicates that they were all equally historical and righteous men. There is no reason to doubt that God meant that everything the Bible says about these men is historically accurate. New Testament Authors’ View of Genesis The New Testament has many more explicit references to the early chapters of Genesis. The genealogies of Jesus presented in Matthew 1:1–17 and Luke 3:23–38 show that Genesis 1–11 is historical narrative. These genealogies must all be equally historical or else we must conclude that Jesus was descended from a myth and therefore He would not have been a real human being and therefore not our Savior and Lord. Paul built his doctrine of sin and salvation on the fact that sin and death entered the world through Adam. Jesus, as the Last Adam, came into the world to bring righteousness and life to people and to undo the damaging work of the first Adam (Romans 5:12–19; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22, 45–47). Paul affirmed that the serpent deceived Eve, not Adam (2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:13–14). He took Genesis 1–2 literally by affirming that Adam was created first and Eve was made from the body of Adam (1 Corinthians 11:8–9). In Romans 1:20, Paul indicated that people have seen the evidence of God’s existence and some of His attributes since the creation of the world. This means that Paul believed that man was right there at the beginning of history, not billions of years after the beginning. Peter similarly based some of his teachings on the literal history of Genesis 1–11. In 1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:4–9, and 2 Peter 3:3–7, he referred to the Flood. He considered the account of Noah and the Flood just as historical as the account of the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19). He affirmed that only eight people were saved and that the Flood was global, just as the future judgment at the Second Coming of Christ will be. He argued that scoffers will deny the Second Coming because they deny the supernatural creation and Noah’s Flood. And Peter told his readers that scoffers will do this because they are reasoning on the basis of the philosophical assumption that today we call uniformitarian naturalism: “all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” (2 Peter 3:4). It has been objected that the apostles did not know the difference between truth and myth. But this is also false. In 1 Corinthians 10:1–11 Paul refers to a number of passages from the Pentateuch where miracles are described and he emphasizes in verses 6 and 11 that “these things happened.” In 2 Timothy 4:3–4 Paul wrote: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. The Greek word translated here as “fables” is muthos, from which we get our English word “myth.” In contrast to “truth” or “sound doctrine,” the same Greek word is used in 1 Timothy 1:4, 4:7; Titus 1:14; and 2 Peter 1:16. In a first-century world filled with Greek, Roman, and Jewish myths, the apostles clearly knew the difference between truth and myth. And they constantly affirmed that the Word of God contains truth, not myth. Christ and His Use of Genesis The Bible is faithful, reliable, and truthful. The Scriptures cannot be contradicted or confounded. In John 10:34–35 Jesus defended His claim to deity by quoting from Psalm 82:6 and then asserting that “Scripture cannot be broken.” That is, the Bible is faithful, reliable, and truthful. The Scriptures cannot be contradicted or confounded. In Luke 24:25–27 Jesus rebuked His disciples for not believing all that the prophets have spoken (which He equates with “all the Scriptures”). So in Jesus’s view, all Scripture is trustworthy and should be believed. Another way that Jesus revealed His complete trust in the Scriptures was by treating as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament, which most contemporary people think are unbelievable mythology. These historical accounts include Adam and Eve as the first married couple (Matthew 19:3–6, Mark 10:3–9), Abel as the first prophet who was martyred (Luke 11:50–51), Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:38–39), the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28–32), the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), Moses and the serpent in the wilderness wanderings after the exodus from Egypt (John 3:14), Moses and the manna from heaven (John 6:32–33, 49), the miracles of Elijah (Luke 4:25– 27), and Jonah in the big fish (Matthew 12:40–41). As Wenham has compellingly argued, Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took them as straightforward history, describing events that actually happened, just as the Old Testament describes. Jesus used these accounts to teach His disciples that the events of His own death, resurrection, and Second Coming would likewise certainly happen in time-space reality. Jesus also indicated that the Scriptures are essentially perspicuous (or clear): 11 times the gospel writers record Him saying, “Have you not read . . . ?” And 30 times He defended His teaching by saying “It is written.” He rebuked His listeners for not understanding and believing what the text plainly says. Besides the above-mentioned evidence that Jesus took Genesis 1–11 as straightforward, reliable history, the gospel writers record three important statements that reveal Jesus’ worldview. Careful analysis of these verses (Mark 10:6; Mark 13:19–20; Luke 11:50–51) shows that Jesus believed that Adam and Eve were in existence essentially at the same time that God created everything else (and Abel was very close to that time), not millions or billions of years after God made the other things. This shows that Jesus took the creation days as literal 24-hour days. So everything Jesus said shows that we can justifiably call Him a young-earth creationist. It has been objected that in these statements Jesus was just accommodating the cultural beliefs of His day. But this is false for four reasons. First, Jesus was the truth (John 14:6), and therefore He always spoke the truth. No deceitful or misleading words ever came from His mouth (1 Peter 2:22). Even his enemies said, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth” (Mark 12:14; NASB). Second, Jesus taught with authority on the basis of God’s Word, which He called “truth” (John 17:17), not as the scribes and Pharisees taught based on their traditions (Matthew 7:28–29). Third, Jesus repeatedly and boldly confronted all kinds of wrong thinking and behavior in his listeners’ lives, in spite of the threat of persecution for doing so (Matthew 22:29; John 2:15–16, 3:10, 4:3–4, 9; Mark 7:9–13). And finally, Jesus emphasized the foundational importance of believing what Moses wrote in a straightforward way (John 5:45; Luke 16:31, 24:25–27, 24:44–45; John 3:12, Matthew 17:5). Why Is This Important? We should take Genesis 1–11 as straightforward, accurate, literal history because Jesus, the Apostles, and all the other biblical writers did so. There is absolutely no biblical basis for taking these chapters as any kind of non-literal, figurative genre of literature. That should be reason enough for us to interpret Genesis 1–11 in the same literal way. But there are some other important reasons to do so. Only a literal, historical approach to Genesis 1–11 gives a proper foundation for the gospel and the future hope of the gospel. Jesus came into the world to solve the problem of sin that started in real, time-space history in the real Garden of Eden with two real people called Adam and Eve and a real serpent that spoke to Eve. The sin of Adam and Eve resulted in spiritual and physical death for them, but also a divine curse on all of the once “very good” creation (see Genesis 1:31 and 3:14–19). Jesus is coming again to liberate all Christians and the creation itself from that bondage to corruption (Romans 8:18–25). Then there will be a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells and where sin, death, and natural evils will be no more. A non-literal reading of Genesis destroys this message of the Bible and ultimately is an assault on the character of God. Genesis is also foundational to many other important doctrines in the rest of the Bible, such as male, loving headship in the home and the church. Conclusion The Bible is crystal clear. We must believe Genesis 1–11 as literal history because Jesus, the New Testament Apostles, and the Old Testament prophets did, and because these opening chapters of Genesis are foundational to the rest of the Bible. As we and many other creationists have always said, a person doesn’t have to believe that Genesis 1–11 is literally true to be saved. We are saved when we repent of our sins and trust solely in the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ for our salvation (John 3:16; Romans 10:9–10). But if we trust in Christ and yet disbelieve Genesis 1–11, we are being inconsistent and are not faithful followers of our Lord. God said through the prophet Isaiah (see Isaiah 66:1–2): Thus says the Lord: “Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest? For all those things My hand has made, and all those things exist, says the Lord. But on this one will I look: on him who is poor and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at My word.” Will you be one who trembles at the words of God, rather than believing the fallible and erroneous words of evolutionists who develop hypotheses and myths that deny God’s Word? Ultimately, this question of the proper interpretation of Genesis 1–11 is a question of the authority of God’s Word. answersingenesis.org |