1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Genesis 1 - Literal or not??

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Charles Meadows, Jul 12, 2004.

  1. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sorry, I get those letters mixed up -- it's been a year since I did this and I have not dealt with the issue since then. In addition to JEPD (disagreement on order of these),later there was J1 and J2, E1 and E2, historical P, legal P, K, etc., etc. All theories with no evidence at all!

    The main refutation is that there is no evidence for JEPD or others. The theories rested on beliefs that there was no real God revealing Himself to them - it all had to do with their own idea of who God should be. All supernatural revelation of God was ignored or rejected. They looked at the Bible as a regular manmade record and then foisted theories from their own ideas about how man evolves, how societies evolve, why people wrote certain things in the Bible, how they decided what God to worship, etc.

     
  2. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    If you want more info that refutes these better than I can do here, check out:

    Gleason Archer, Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

    Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

    Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

    Harrison, Roland Kenneth. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1969. Reprint, Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 1999.

    Harrison, R. K. “Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 1, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1979.
    ------------------------------
    All of these give some refutations of the Higher Criticism theories referred to. Harrison has 2 chapters on the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis and various refutations to it that would take me too long to type out here.
     
  3. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Not many of us here would agreemuch with the whole Graf-Wellhausen theory - but that doesn't mean that when writing the Pentateuch Moses could not have had several traditional sources with which to work (J,E,P,D).
     
  4. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    I forgot to mention that more recently Dr. Eta Linneman, a scholar who once followed the theories of various Higher Criticism schools, has written to refute these theories.

     
  5. Charles Meadows

    Charles Meadows New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Applying reason to scripture study does not constitute antisupernaturalism.

    I think some Christians also have a bit of a bias however! Many of us have been taught to believe everything literally - and anyone who interprets NONliterally based on critical methods is labelled antisupernatural or liberal!


    One can still be a conservative Christian and yet not be afraid to examine the facts behind some of our HUMAN doctrines!

    EXAMPLE: Jesus healed the blind man. What was wrong with his eyesight? An ophthalmologist today could have diagnosed his problems. So when Jesus healed him - what happened? Did a cataract disappear? Did his optic nerve regenerate?

    Consider the parting of the Red Sea - what caused it? Did God simply cause the water to move or did He send a wind or a seismic tremor?

    Whem Moses wrote the Pentateuch - what did he use? Did Gid dictate to him? Did he use stories he knew? Did he have written documents to look at?
     
  6. BWSmith

    BWSmith New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another way of saying the above is, what would we see if we saw the events through the "Biblical-miracle-cam"?

    If God exists, then unexplainable miracles in our space-time universe can and do happen.

    At the same time, there is not necessarily a direct correlation between God's miraculous activity on earth and the list of miracles in the Bible.
     
  7. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree. But from what I studied, I do not find higher criticism to be applying reason but rather a case of applying presuppositions that God's word was not given as divine revelation, but was rather made up of stories or accounts written by man alone. With this attitude, it's no surprise they came up with some of the theories they came up with.


    Literal passages are to be taken literally, non-literal passages (poetry, parables, etc.) are to be taken that way. So what you say above is not true for all people who discuss these issues. I do not take nonliteral passages literally. However, I see Gen 1 as literal. It is presented as a narrative; Adam is referred to in the NT in several persons as a real person; the temptation is referred to in Romans 5 and elsewhere as a real event.


    I agree.


    I guess we don't know what happened when Jesus healed the blind man. We just know that whatever made the man blind was removed or somehow healed so he could see.

    As for the parting of the Red Sea, we do know what happened:
    It seems God used a "strong east wind" but the action was obviously supernatural. God caused the wind to blow and it was strong enough to blow the water to the sides so the people could pass through. I would call that supernatural. Also, the water came down on the Egyptians at just the right time.

    I believe that when Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he was inspired to write it the same way the NT writers were inspired. It was plenary inspiration.
    This is not hard for me to believe.
     
  8. Michael52

    Michael52 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marcia

    The question I have is: Who gets to decide what is literal and what is not? For some people the distinction between literal and non-literal seems very easy to make. Do these people get this understanding on their own or are they following the teaching of certain authorities?

    Since we don't have a Magisterium (thank the Lord) to coerce our interpretation, I like to think we have some flexibility in interpreting the scriptures. I can hardly think otherwise, since when I ask the Lord to have me "believe" or understand as He desires, the impression I always get is that He says, "My grace is sufficient" and "don't worry about that, you follow me."

    I have no problem seeing Adam as a real person. I think the Bible also portrays him as a symbolic representative for us all, that is, fallen Adam is mankind. We were all born "in" or "of" Adam. To be saved, is to turn from Adam and to Jesus (the second Adam), and be "in" or "of" Him.

    I "literally" don't fully understand how that that works (ie the "mechanics"). But I trust that it does work, despite what I don't understand. Praise the Lord!

    Michael
     
  9. Marcia

    Marcia Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    1
    How do we tell a literal passage? One of the main ways is from the style, and comparing scripture to scripure. Gen 1 is written in a narrative style. Since it discusses real people (that is confirmed by Adam referred to as a real person in the NT), it is only reasonable to assume he is in a real, true to life account.

    God doesn't play esoteric games with us. It is not hard to tell narrative style from poetry and metaphor and from visionary language like we find in Daniel and Ezekiel. If it is a straightforward narrative, it is pretty easy to see that. If it's poetry, that is easy -- does anyone have trouble seeing poetry? The poetry in Hebrew was also written in particular styles that showed it to be poetry. We usually find metaphor in poetry (the "trees clap their hands") or other poetic forms.

    Jesus' parables are usually stated as such or they begin with his remark, "The Kingdom of God is like. . ."

    In other words, it is pretty self-evident what is narrative, poetry, parable, etc. I read Jonah as a narrative as well (especially since Jesus referred to Jonah's episode). It is a straightforward story, just like Gen. 1, and should be taken literally. Unless there is an indication to take it otherwise, it is a literal narrative.
     
Loading...