Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | Morant61 | 35662 | ||
Greetings Wak! Do you mind if I interject at this point? I can't speak for anyone but me. However, I don't doubt that God can use different literary styles to convey truth. After all, Jesus used parables. But, there isn't anything in the first four chapters of Genesis which identify them as being anything other than literal history. This is a common assumption, but there simply isn't any evidence for it. One strong piece of evidence for a literal history is the phrase, "these are the generations of". This phrase is used 11 times: ********************************************* 1) Gen. 2:4 2) Gen. 5:1 3) Gen. 6:9 4) Gen. 10:1 5) Gen. 11:10 6) Gen. 11:27 7) Gen. 25:12 8) Gen. 25:19 9) Gen. 36:1 and 9 10) Gen. 37:2. In five of these (#1, #3, #6, #8, and #10), this phrase is followed by historical narrative. In five of these (#2, #4, #5, #7, #9), this phrase is followed by historical genealogies. Source: Victor P. Hamilton's, "The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17" of the New International Commentary of the Old Testament, pp. 2-3. ************************************************* The reason this is significant is that most (not all) will not dispute that the rest of Genesis is historial narrative. Yet, when it comes to Gen. 1-4, many are willing to say that it is not history. However, the pattern is consistent throughout Genesis. The same phrase is used to introduce each section and each section is followed with history, not myth. When pressed for evidence as to why Gen. 1-4 must be considered a literary device rather than history, most will respond that it doesn't match what we "know" through science. However, I have yet to find anyone who can provide evidence from Gen. 1-4 that it is myth or parable, rather than history. Now, I can't speak for you my friend. So let me give you the opportunity to speak for yourself. Therefore I will ask you, "What evidence is there in Gen. 1-4 that it is not historical narrative?" Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | wak | 35685 | ||
I never picked up on that specifically. That's a good insight. The overall flow of Genesis I think is the best indication that Genesis may be sound blow-by-blow history. Again, I don't think God HAD to limit himself to historic precision. Perhaps creation took only seven seconds rather than 7 days or 700 billion years. I don't know. (and I don't its that important in the end) My point is not to start the 1001st argument about fossils and young earth but to say that God did not have to limit himself to literal historical truth in Genesis 1-4 to communicate his Truths and therefore the Bible is still reliable* if Genesis is not a precise literal history lesson. Is my postulate wrong? Thanks *I think that's very important in the end |
||||||
3 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | Morant61 | 35702 | ||
Greetings Wak! Is your postulate wrong? If you don't have a specific position or evidence, no, your not wrong! :-) I misunderstood you my friend! I thought you were arguing for a specific purpose. Concerning the issue of 'reliablility', I would just repeat what I've said in other posts. If there was no Adam, when Scripture says that there was, then that would unreliable. Scripture makes clear throught, not just in Genesis, that Adam and Eve existed, that they were created by God, and that they fell. Their fall brought sin and its consequences upon all of us and resulted in the necessity of Christ's death. Other than that, their is no real significance to whether or not Gen. 1-4 is historical or not! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Genesis,chapters1-4:True accounts or not | Genesis | Hank | 35705 | ||
Additionally, Tim, other than the fact that the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross is our only hope for escaping a devil's hell, there is no real reason to attach much significance to the gospel! --Hank | ||||||