I did. Genesis 1-11 are written as historical accounts.
That is exactly what I am saying. Genesis talks about the coming of Christ in the literal historical account of God talking to a real Eve
Shem’s Descendants 10 These are the generations of Shem. When Shem was 100 years old, he fathered Arpachshad two years after the flood. 11 And Shem lived after he fathered Arpachshad 500 years and had other sons and daughters.
12 When Arpachshad had lived 35 years, he fathered Shelah. 13 And Arpachshad lived after he fathered Shelah 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
14 When Shelah had lived 30 years, he fathered Eber. 15 And Shelah lived after he fathered Eber 403 years and had other sons and daughters.
16 When Eber had lived 34 years, he fathered Peleg. 17 And Eber lived after he fathered Peleg 430 years and had other sons and daughters.
18 When Peleg had lived 30 years, he fathered Reu. 19 And Peleg lived after he fathered Reu 209 years and had other sons and daughters.
20 When Reu had lived 32 years, he fathered Serug. 21 And Reu lived after he fathered Serug 207 years and had other sons and daughters.
22 When Serug had lived 30 years, he fathered Nahor. 23 And Serug lived after he fathered Nahor 200 years and had other sons and daughters.
24 When Nahor had lived 29 years, he fathered Terah. 25 And Nahor lived after he fathered Terah 119 years and had other sons and daughters.
26 When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Terah’s Descendants 27 Now these are the generations of Terah. Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot.
If you see that as an allegory, then so be it. For me, it is as real as the nose on my face This smiley face is not indicative of my face
Do you understand that your category of “historical accounts” is a product of your own culture, and not part of the culture of the Ancient Near East?
The Bible was written for us all, but it was written to people in a different culture, with different written genres and different expectations from those genres.
Could you help me understand your perspective then?
When I read genesis 1-11, I do not see it as simple or plain.
The internal logic and flow of the story is not straightforward without adding assumptions to correct inconsistencies.
There is strong conflicting evidence from multiple perspectives (which one can miracle away but God this option brings us back to your perspective on making God seem deceptive if its figurative but applied to science).
There are is obvious poetry and wordplay and other aspects of ancient storytelling in the original languages.
There are also other portions especially in the NT (and in the OT) that suggest that simple literal approaches miss some points (words are spirit and life, point to Jesus, are hard to understand).
I have no idea what you are alluding to. My category of “historical accounts” is a product of my own culture? Do you mean, is a product of my traditional interpretation of Genesis? which, I accept that. It is possible that I could be wrong, but I see nothing in scripture to point out that Genesis accounts are not historical accounts in biblical history. I am always willing to change my views, just as long as you can provide scripture. The argument that these can’t be real historical events, because science does not allow for this-will not wash with me.
If by traditional you mean the interpretation that started with the 7th Day Adventists in the late 19th century that then spread to fundamentalist Christians in the US in the 20th century, then yes, it is traditional.
Genesis 1-11 is plain and simple that even a child can read and understand it. When God says, In the begining, that means, in the beginning. When God says, He created something on the 3rd day. It was actually created on the 3rd day. The ONLY reason that Genesis 1-11 is not plain and simple to you, is because of your belief in evolutionary science. There is nothing in the rest of the bible that dissuades from believing that Genesis 1-11 are not historical accounts. So you misapply hermeneutic biblical principles to muddy the understanding that Genesis 1-11 is not actually meaning what it plainly states.
Let’s be consistent, we can do that with all of scripture. Jonah was in the belly of a fish for 3 days…well you see… a man can’t survive in a fish for 3 days, therefore it is a story of symbolism, because 3 days is not an actual 3 literal days.
I go where the Holy Spirit leads me. I come here to sharpen myself , as I have a little project I am starting to show believers that they can trust ALL of God’s word as truth
Ya…that’s not true. In fact Martin Luther had the same issue even in his day. It is quite ironic that the people in his day could not believe that God took 6 days either. But here’s the kicker. 6 days was way too long. They believed it was 6 seconds. Martin Luther’s response was epic. You should look it up and read what his response was.
Yah, it is. @gbrooks9 had a wonderful post on this in another thread, so I will unapologetically steal from him. Everything that follows is a direct copy and paste:
Ellen White, Millerite Turned 7th Day Adventist
Ellen White (1827-1915) was an [Millerite] prophetess [who] …
experienced the “Great Disappointment” on October 22, 1844 when Jesus failed to appear as predicted by William Miller, the leader of her sect. Shortly after, she began receiving visions and was soon at the heart of a new branch of Christianity that now boasts more than 14 million followers in 200 countries.
Her Book: “Conflict of the Ages”
Her literary output exceeded 5,000 articles and 40 books. Among White’s influential writings is Patriarchs and Prophets in her series “Conflict of the Ages,” first published in 1890. In this text White offers an expanded vision of Bible stories such as the Genesis creation accounts, the fall, and Noah’s great flood. In a curious twist of history, modern young-earth creationism can be traced to her visionary expansion of the Genesis flood narrative.
The Origin of Flood Geology
By mid-19th century, when White’s visions began, geologists, almost all of them bible-believing Christians, had concluded that Noah’s flood was confined to the mid-east. Its effects had been largely erased over time. This interpretation of the story, which Hebrew scholars have determined is a faithful interpretation of Genesis, was uncontroversial and accepted by most educated Christians. White rejected what she thought were geologically motivated “compromises” as inconsistent with the plain account given in the Bible, though she read this in English without consideration of the context in
which it was written.
God gave her a ‘Global’ Vision of the Flood
She insisted Noah’s flood was global and that it had produced all of the geological layers, a claim that even the most conservative Christian geologists had rejected as impossible, based on the evidence. The flood, argued White, reshaped the surface of the earth and the fossils testified to the cataclysmic nature of the flood, even though the fossils are stacked in such an orderly way that it is impossible to imagine how a chaotic flood could have deposited them like that. Earth history prior to the flood was obliterated, but the flood itself left the clearest evidence imaginable.
Excerpt of White’s vision:
The entire surface of the earth was changed at the Flood…As the waters began to subside, the hills and mountains were surrounded by a vast turbid sea. Everywhere were strewn the dead bodies of men and beasts. The Lord would not permit these to remain to decompose and pollute the air, therefore He made of the earth a vast burial ground. A violent wind which was
caused to blow for the purpose of drying up the waters, moved them with great force, in some instances even carrying away the tops of the mountains and heaping up trees, rocks, and earth above the bodies of the dead… At this time immense forests were buried. These have since been changed to coal, forming the extensive coal beds that now exist and yielding large quantities of oil.”
Limited Influence of Her Visions
White’s interpretation of the biblical narratives attracted little interest outside Adventist circles, but within the Adventist tradition her writings acquired a stature comparable to scripture. Her interpretation of the Flood became widely known outside Adventist circles through the writings of George McCready Price (1870-1963). A self-taught geologist with limited education beyond high school, Price was a gifted writer, amateur scientist, and tireless crusader in the cause of anti-evolution. His 723-page The New Geology, published in 1923, was catapulted into relevance by William Jennings Bryan, who prosecuted John Scopes at the famous trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. But even Bryan, the most important anti-evolutionist of the first half of the 20th century was not a young-earth creationist, seeing no reason to interpret the Genesis creation account as taking place over a literal seven-day week.
John Whitcomb & Henry Morris Revive White’s Vision
Because these creationist ideas were basically limited to Seventh-day Adventist biblical interpretation, most Christians outside that group paid no attention to them, and were fine with the idea that evolution was simply God’s method of creation. A few decades later, however, all this would change when respected fundamentalist scholars John Whitcomb and Henry Morris joined forces to move Price’s ideas from Adventism to mainstream evangelicalism.
Whitcomb & Morris Book: The Genesis Flood
They co-authored The Genesis Flood, the book that launched the modern creationist movement and convinced millions of Christians to accept White’s vision of earth history. But what is not widely known, because the authors of The Genesis Flood left it out of their book, is that the arguments in the book are really just Price’s arguments, updated to provide a more scientific presentation.
Dude, I have done my own homework and seen early church fathers for myself.
P.S. I am still open to pre-trib…post-trib etc…but I believe the post-trib folks claimed that pre-trib understanding of scripture was started by a Pentecostal female
Roman Catholic church had their own science department and their own findings. The debate was about one scientific finding vs another. and protecting those findings. It was Galileo who brought the bible into the arena first. If this was about scripture in the beginning, then why didn’t the Pope at the time get involved? Again…I have done my homework
Now I will grant you that my camp should be careful about how we treat the age of the earth, as we could be wrong. So the age of the earth could be another Galileo, but not evolution.
They were following the same church fathers you are probably referring to.
“Second, I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits interpreting Scripture against the common consensus of the Holy Fathers; and if Your [Reverence] wants to read not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world. Consider now, with your sense of prudence, whether the Church can tolerate giving Scripture a meaning contrary to the Holy Fathers and to all the Greek and Latin commentators. Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith “as regards the topic,” it is a matter of faith “as regards the speaker”; and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the prophets and the apostles.”–Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615
That is so simple. Because if God created evolution (death, decay, disease, strongest and the fittest, animals ripping into each other, etc…) then that would violate the character and nature of who God is. In layman terms, that cake don’t bake
This smiley face is not indicative of my face 