Genesis: History … or Mystery?
by Calvin Smith
Image by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Wikipedia
Philosopher George Santayana said, ‘Those who cannot learn from history are
doomed to repeat it.’ But what would happen if there were no history to learn
from?
The Bible records some
4,000 years of history. Even most non-Christian historians, archaeologists,
etc. would agree that there is approximately 2,000 years of history between Jesus
and the Patriarch Abraham. A simple addition of the genealogies from Abraham to
Adam provides us with another approximately 2,000 years. So fully half of the recorded
time in the Bible occurs in Genesis chapters 1–11! Clearly this must be an
important part of our history.
Can we trust Genesis 1–11 as written?
Many Bible scholars/commentators would declare that Genesis 1–11 is just a
metaphor, allegory, poetry, mythology, or at the least that it cannot
be understood as history as plainly written, even though they profess the Bible
as the word of God. It’s notable that none of these
compromises was thought of before the rise of uniformitarian geology—see
Philosophical naturalism and the age of the earth: are they related? And
we see this in the excuses that are made for denying that God’s Word means
what it says:
‘ … God’s upper level activity of issuing creative fiats from
his heavenly throne is pictured as transpiring in a week of earthly days …
is a literary figure, an earthly, lower register time metaphor for an upper register,
heavenly reality.’1
‘The study of paleontology has rendered it virtually impossible for a serious
scientist to make a case for a six day creation about six thousand years ago …
the first chapters of Genesis should use the kind of language technically known
as ‘mythological’ to explain the origins of the universe.’2
Image by Zac Bavas
Many Christians believe the
days described in Genesis were perhaps ‘millions of years’ of
undetermined time rather than 24-hour days. They also claim that there are gaps
in the genealogies, although once again, no one saw them before the rise of modern
uniformitarian geology, precisely because they are not in the text (see
Biblical chronogenealogies
and The Genesis 5 and 11 fluidity question).
Many also deny the
global Flood, saying what is described in the Bible can be interpreted as
merely a local event
somewhere in Mesopotamia. But is Genesis really that hard to understand? Apparently
not …
‘It is of course admitted … it would be most natural to understand
the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account
into conflict with facts, and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory
on us to adopt that other.’3
‘ … the most straightforward understanding of the Genesis record …
is that God created heaven and earth in six solar days, that man was created in
the sixth day, that death and chaos entered the world after the Fall of Adam and
Eve, that all of the fossils were the result of the catastrophic universal deluge
which spared only Noah’s family and the animals therewith.’4 (Note that the author, however, does not believe
the Genesis account as plainly written.)
So the reinterpretation of Genesis is the result of Christians accepting the evolutionary
dogma taught in public schools and through the media and trying to fit it into Scripture.
But an abandonment of Genesis 1–11 as ‘real’ is an admission
that approximately 50% of the time recorded in the Bible isn’t real history!
How then can Christians that say half of the Bible’s history is just a metaphor
(or cannot be taken as plainly written) really expect intelligent people to accept
the ‘other half’ as ‘real’—events that are critical
to salvation, atonement, etc?
I confess I soon lose my way when I try to follow those who walk delicately among
‘types’ and allegories. A certain passion for clearness forces me to
ask, bluntly, whether the writer means to say that Jesus did not believe the stories
in question, or that he did? When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that ‘the
Flood came and destroyed them all,’ did he believe that the Deluge really
took, place, or not?—Thomas Huxley, 1897.
Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s bulldog) wasn’t impressed with this attitude,
and he pointed out the inconsistency in books and lectures over 100 years ago.
‘I confess I soon lose my way when I try to follow those who walk delicately
among “types” and allegories. A certain passion for clearness forces
me to ask, bluntly, whether the writer means to say that Jesus did not believe the
stories in question, or that he did? When Jesus spoke, as of a matter of fact, that
“the Flood came and destroyed them all,” did he believe that the Deluge
really took, place, or not?’5
‘If Adam may be held to be no more real a personage than Prometheus, and if
the story of the Fall is merely an instructive “type,” … what
value has Paul’s dialectic.’6
Huxley was intellectually consistent and made valid points, which many skeptics
have repeated since.
‘It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus' life and death
is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without
the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant
sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.’7
And Darwin’s modern pit bull terrier, leading
misotheist Clinton R (Richard) Dawkins, says:
‘Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t
it? Symbolic?! Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent
individual. Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than
barking mad!’8
So what are the conclusions that many have made?
‘The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human
beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense. The
virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ’s divinity, as traditionally
understood, impossible. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the
world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore
cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.’9
Are these quotes the ranting of an ardent atheist? Well, yes, but they are from
a ‘Christian’ Bishop, John Shelby Spong (see
detailed refutation of his works)! Heretical as they are, these conclusions
are the inevitable end result of applying the idea of millions of years and evolution
to Scripture. The Bible gets
modified, while the belief in ‘evolution’ remains.
Most Christians in the western world would admit that despite many Christian influences
(churches, schools, radio stations, book stores etc) the culture is becoming less
‘Christian’ all the time. As God’s people we must make a united
stand to affect those around us for Christ, but that stand can only succeed if it
is based on the authority of the Word of God.
As a non-believer growing up, I was not impressed by what I saw as the hypocrisy
of Christians wanting me to believe one area of the Bible as plainly written while
squirming and re-interpreting other parts. I was an atheist but I wasn’t stupid.
Atheists know that without Genesis as history, Christianity will fall. No wonder
the opponents of Christianity have applied so much effort to discredit this area
of Scripture.
‘Christianity is—must be! totally committed to the special creation
as described in Genesis, and Christianity must fight with its full might, fair or
foul against the theory of evolution.’10
I couldn’t agree with an atheist more ...
Related articles
Recommended Resources
References
- Meredith Kline, Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony,
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48:2–15,
1996. Return to text.
- Scripture Union, Salt Magazine, Milton Keynes, UK, p. 29,
Jan/Mar 1998. Return to text.
- Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, p. 571.
Return to text.
- Pattle P.T. Pun, A Theology of Progressive Creationism,
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 39(1):14, March 1987.
Return to text.
- Thomas H. Huxley , Science And Hebrew Tradition Essays,
pp.
207, 208, 1897. Return to text.
- Thomas H. Huxley , ref. 5, p. 236. Return
to text.
- G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist,
p. 30, 20 Sept. 1979. Return to text.
- Richard Dawkins, The root of all evil? broadcast on Channel
4, 16 January 2006. Return to text.
- Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark,
A Call
for a New Reformation, from home page for the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, 4/9/99.
Return to text.
- G. Richard Bozarth, ref. 7, p. 19. Return
to text.
Published: 16 April 2008(GMT+10)
| Derek C. wrote: “This is an awesome website. As a Christian who’s finally just turning my life over to God (for good), I needed somewhere to look for answers when I had no one to ask.” Help keep the ‘awesome’ going!  | | |
|
