[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bible Study Title: Did Bible Authors Believe in a Literal Genesis? 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 111? 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 Moses as depicted in the Creation Museums biblical authority room. There are many lines of evidence we could consider to determine the genre of Genesis 111, 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 12:68 we read: So God says that He spoke When we turn to other Old Testament authors, there are only a few references to Genesis 111. But they all treat those chapters as literal history. The Jews were very careful about genealogies. For example, in Nehemiah 7:6164 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 18 gives a long series of genealogies all the way back to Adam. Chapter 1 (verses 128) 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. David, the writer of many of the psalms, from a Creation Museum display. Outside of Genesis 611, Psalm 29:10 contains the only other use of the Hebrew word mabbul (translated Psalm 33:69 affirms that God created supernaturally by His Word, just as Genesis 1 says repeatedly. Creatures came into existence instantly when God said, Psalm 104:5 and 19 speak of events during creation week.3 But verses 69 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.4 The Psalmist is clearly describing historical events. In beautiful poetic form, Psalm 136 recounts many of Gods mighty acts in history, beginning with statements about some of His creative works in Genesis 1. Isaiah recorded Gods Word, not mythical tales. In Isaiah 54:9 God says (echoing the promise of Psalm 104:9) to Israel, In Ezekiel 14:1420 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. The New Testament has many more explicit references to the early chapters of Genesis. The genealogies of Jesus presented in Matthew 1:117 and Luke 3:2338 show that Genesis 111 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.5 Paul relied heavily on Genesis as plainly written. 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 5:1219; 1 Corinthians 15:2122, 4547). Paul affirmed that the serpent deceived Eve, not Adam (2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:1314). He took Genesis 12 literally by affirming that Adam was created first and Eve was made from the body of Adam (1 Corinthians 11:89). In Romans 1:20, Paul indicated that people have seen the evidence of Gods existence and some of His attributes since the creation of the world.6 This means that Paul believed that man was right there at the beginning of history, not billions of years after the beginning. The words of John and Peter demonstrate their trust in the historicity of the Genesis accounts. Peter similarly based some of his teachings on the literal history of Genesis 111. In 1 Peter 3:20, 2 Peter 2:49, and 2 Peter 3:37, 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 Noahs 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: It has been objected that the apostles did not know the difference between truth and myth. But this is also false. In 1 Corinthians 10:111 Paul refers to a number of passages from the Pentateuch where miracles are described and he emphasizes in verses 6 and 11 that The Greek word translated here as In John 10:3435 Jesus defended His claim to deity by quoting from Psalm 82:6 and then asserting that 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 19:36, Mark 10:39), Abel as the first prophet who was martyred (Luke 11:5051), Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:3839), the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:2832), 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 6:3233, 49), the miracles of Elijah (Luke 4:25 27), and Jonah in the big fish (Matthew 12:4041). As Wenham has compellingly argued,8 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, Besides the above-mentioned evidence that Jesus took Genesis 111 as straightforward, reliable history, the gospel writers record three important statements that reveal Jesus worldview. Careful analysis of these verses (Mark 10:6; Mark 13:1920; Luke 11:5051) 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.11 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, We should take Genesis 111 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 111 in the same literal way. But there are some other important reasons to do so. Only a literal, historical approach to Genesis 111 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.12 The sin of Adam and Eve resulted in spiritual and physical death for them, but also a divine curse on all of the once 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. The Bible is crystal clear. We must believe Genesis 111 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 doesnt have to believe that Genesis 111 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 10:910). But if we trust in Christ and yet disbelieve Genesis 111, we are being inconsistent and are not faithful followers of our Lord. God said through the prophet Isaiah (see Isaiah 66:12): 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 Gods Word? Ultimately, this question of the proper interpretation of Genesis 111 is a question of the authority of Gods Word.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Of course they did. Good article.
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct[a] your paths.(Proverbs 3:5-6)
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|