This seems to be a particular YEC thing, describing Genesis 1-11 as “the foundation of the Bible,” and it’s the one thing about YEC that bothers me the most. It’s Christ who is the foundation of the Bible. Take another look at John 5:39.
2 Likes
Yes. Jesus is the common theme that is woven through all the pages of the Bible. If you want to say that means he is the foundation of the Bible in one sense, I can go with that. I guess I would use the word “theme” or “thread” instead, but not a big deal. It is clear that Jesus is the foundation of the Church though. That much is clearly stated in the Bible.
However, the history of Genesis is the history upon which the whole Bible depends. Genesis is the most quoted book in the whole Bible. Jesus takes it as literal actual history for sure. But if it is all just a myth, then the whole Bible is propped up by a myth and it seems that, along with Jesus, all the biblical writers were deceived into thinking it was true. I don’t buy it.
But there is a huge area of middle ground between “literal history” (as presented by AIG et al) and "“just a myth.” That is one of the common rhetorical tricks that gets old, making binary, all-or-nothing false choices between things that aren’t binary at all.
3 Likes
Those are scary questions…
Here’s a blog post by someone who has analysed just how often Jesus quoted what from the Old Testament.
Summary: no, Genesis is NOT the most quoted book in the Bible. He quotes Genesis 1-11 only briefly and in passing, just three times.
1 Like
I must say I am kind of shocked by your statement that Jesus is not a big deal for the foundation of the Bible… In John 1, we read that Jesus Himself is the Word of God!! The Bible revolves around Him from the first page to the last. If you love to repeat the catch phrase “the Bible is the Word of God”, then you must concede that the Bible (including Genesis) is founded on Jesus Christ in every sense of that word.
I hope you aren’t basing that statement on the falsified factoid circulated by ICR claiming that Jesus supposedly “quoted the most from Genesis”. He quoted it once, versus 34 unique quotes from Exodus, Deuteronomium, Isaiah, and the Psalms. This article by the Natural Historian zooms in on that problem and goes deeper by relating it to the lack of expert peer review among YEC scholars.
Also, I and many others more qualified than me have studied the passage (or two if you count repetitions in the gospels) where Jesus refers to Genesis. This study has resulted in the conclusion that it is simply irresponsible hermeneutics to (ab)use it for substantiating the believe of Genesis 1-3 being “literal actual history”. Not only because the sentence does not state anything like that, but also because that issue is totally beside His point and beside the intended meaning of His reference. He speaks only about God’s intention for marriage here and quotes Genesis 2 to support this theologically. Nothing about “literal actual history” here or about whatever the YEC movement has interpreted “history” to mean. It is interesting that those who boast of being the most consistent hermeneutically seem very willing to bend interpretations to their agenda on this point.
3 Likes
The author made a good point that Israel is the foundation of the gospel. I would agree. Gen 1-11 relates to the foundation of Israel, so in a sense, it is a foundation of the foundation of the gospel.
Seems to me that the foundation of Israel begins with Abraham…
Of course. But Genesis is the history of Abraham’s God interacting with Abraham’s ancestors, as understood and recorded by Israelites.
So it would be more fair to say that Genesis 1-11 is the foundation of the foundation of the Gospel…which begins to become meaningless.
Are you arguing about the use of a definite instead of an indefinite article? Because
is what I just said. I don’t think it’s meaningless, and I don’t see how you get to orthodox Christian theology without insights from Genesis 1-11. But it’s not as central as some YEC websites make it out to be.
Just like some Christians decide their particular interpretation of Revelation is the hermeneutical lens through which all other Scripture (and all of reality) must be interpreted and end up in weird places, YEC ministries have decided that their interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is the hermeneutical lens through which all Scripture (and all of reality) must be interpreted, and they too have ended up in weird places. If we are going to pick a hermeneutical lens, Jesus’ ministry and teaching and the apostles’ explication of Jesus’ ministry and teaching would be a better one. Israel is key in both.
1 Like
Christy, is there any part of Genesis 1-11 that you believe is actual history? How do you determine what is and what is not? Do you believe that Cain was the first son of Adam and Eve and that he murdered his brother? Do you believe the geneaologies listed there? The ages given? How about Enoch and Seth? Do you believe in a literal flood, in an ark of the size and proportion detailed in Scripture, of 40 days and 40 nights of rain, that all the high mountains of the earth were covered, in Noah and his 7 family members and the genetic bottleneck that would have been created, in the Tower of Babel, etc.
How much of Genesis 1-11 do you actually believe happened and how much do you think is myth?
And what standard do you use to make your determination? Does the way the other inspired biblical writers interpret it have any bearing on that?
Sure, some people believe in parts of Gen 1-11, but I think most Biologians reject far more than they accept. It seems they have an aversion to the Creator using miracles in the creative process! Why anyone would want to place such a restriction on God and demand that He create His creation using only natural processes, I can’t for the life of me figure out!
I believe ancient history is often mythologized. The stories of real people and real events are framed in such a way as to serve the purposes of the audience, establishing and preserving group identity, reinforcing values and traditions, making the good guys heroic and the bad guys villainous and constructing story lines that teach the lessons people want to pass on to their children and grandchildren. I don’t think the OT narratives are free from this kind of cultural framing just because they are inspired. So, although I think the people were real people and the events were based on actual events, I don’t think every detail is necessarily an objective fact or that the perspectives of the tellers are unbiased culturally, or that the genres they used for communicating their histories are comparable to the genre of modern historical reporting.
I don’t think Adam and Eve were literally the first human beings on earth, I don’t think Noah’s flood literally destroyed the entire earth, I don’t think Methuselah literally lived 969 years, or the genealogies literally represent every generation. I don’t think every language in the world literally can be traced to the Tower of Babel or that every living human is literally a descendant of Noah. None of those beliefs are necessary to accept the didactic points of those narratives or preserve the importance of the stories they tell in redemptive history. And plenty of linguistic, anthropological, archaeological, and geological evidence contradicts a purely literal reading. It’s not about an aversion to miracles. I believe miracles happened in the past and continue to happen today on a fairly regular basis. I don’t have any problem with invoking supernatural explanations or the direct intervention of God in human history or the natural world.
There is no standard for separating “truth from fiction” in the Bible, nor do I think those categories are that helpful. There is only becoming familiar with the cultural context and ways of communicating of the ancient near east and asking questions like, “Why did they tell this story this way?” “What did this mean to them?” And we go from there. I don’t think we need to perfectly understand or categorize everything in order to live justly and know what we need to know about God and ourselves.
2 Likes
[quote=“tokyoguy111, post:52, topic:4532”]
Sure, some people believe in parts of Gen 1-11, but I think most Biologians reject far more than they accept.
[/quote
Perhaps characterizing a difference of interpretation as rejecting or unbelief is part of the difficulty you have with understanding. Reading a scripture as metaphorical or as part of a grand narrative is not rejection, and may actually lead to a deeper understanding than reading it as a recitation of historical events.
Sorry. I stand corrected. You are right. Genesis is not the most often quoted OT book in the NT. I thought I read that somewhere. Must have been mistaken. Thanks for the correction.
1 Like
OK, Casper, if you are looking for something to criticize and you have to look that hard to take something out of context, then I don’t see much point in having a conversation.
I said I can agree to call Jesus the foundation of the Bible, but other words that perhaps I would prefer would be the main subject of the Bible, the THEME that permeates the Bible, or the thread that is wound all the way through the Bible from start to finish.
But one of the unique things about Christianity is that it is founded in history. It is not a made up religion with no history. Christianity is deeply connected with history from start to finish. The whole Bible is based on the opening chapters of Genesis. That history of the world provides the background for understanding so many theological truths. Christianity doesn’t make sense without that foundation. If it never happened, the Bible is built upon myth and builds on that myth all the way through. If that is no problem for you, fine. I just cannot understand that way of thinking/interpretation.
I am not familiar with whatever you are referring to. I read something somewhere that I thought said that, but either what I read was wrong or I was mistaken in the way I remembered it. Sorry.
When He says that in the beginning of creation that He made them male and female, it takes a fair amount of finagling to not see that Jesus is referring to Adam and Eve there. Now I understand your need to come away with that interpretation, but I don’t buy it. Yes, of course He was talking about marriage there, but God performed the first marriage when He created Eve and brought them together. We will have to agree to disagree. It would be very strange in my mind if Jesus is not referring to the marriage of Adam and Eve here that is the foundation for the doctrine of marriage. I suppose you think it refers to a mythical marriage? And that “them” does not refer to the mythical first couple, right?
You know, I think that if you want to, you can make the Bible say almost whatever you want it to say. You can play loosey goosey with the words, their meanings, and your approach to interpretation to avoid the plain meaning of Scripture if you want to. I’m not comfortable with that type of approach.
Hesper, what if - just what if - Jesus was purposely referring to Adam and Eve here? They were the first couple according to Genesis which He is quoting here so there is a direct connection. It’s funny that you are OK with the marriage connection, but want to distance yourself from the two people who got married in the instance quoted.
A literal understanding of the marriage of Adam and Eve here seems to be the most natural and probably understanding of this passage. Again, you may feel free to believe what you want.
Cheers!
OK, I could have stated that more clearly. What I meant was that most seem to reject the great majority of Genesis 1-11 as literal history.
God is the Creator of all and the Lord of history. He is actively involved in the world leading history to it’s prescribed/prophesied end. That began from page one of the Bible and continues until it is all fulfilled. There is deep meaning in the historical events of creation and indeed in the events of the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Treating it as a metaphor does not add any meaning to it. It simply takes away the miraculous power, glory, and wisdom of God seen in the creative process. It simply means that He didn’t do a very good job of communicating His truth to us because we have been misunderstanding it for thousands of years.
But whatever - sure it’s a metaphor if you want it to be. I can’t prove to you that it is not. I have plenty of reasons for feeling strongly that it is not, but since your approach to the Bible is obviously different than mine, they will never change your mind.
I think I have to stop posting on this site. It’s very discouraging to see the direction it has taken. However, through posting I have learned a lot of things. I’ve been made aware of some misconceptions that I had. I’ve realized, perhaps more than anything else, the importance of hermeneutics and one’s view of the Bible. I leave more concerned than when I came.
wishing you all the best
And perhaps I should not be so thin skinned at times. I think we can learn from one another’s viewpoints, if we allow ourselves to do do. I have discussed the book of Job with a friend who feels strongly that Job is also a literal reading, and to him, he relates to it much better if Job is thought of as a historical person in a literal reading. I actually relate better to it in seeing Job as an old man reflecting on the story of his life and trying to make sense of what has happened along the way. Both have validity especially as God wishes to communicate and relate to both those who think literally, and those who are more contemplative.
I didn’t “look for something to criticize”. Actually, for me its a huge point and that’s what motivated me to react. It is even surprising to me to hear that isn’t an important point for you.
For me the attitude that shows through your comments is a pretty important point and something that I have heard more often in discussions. Why would you prefer a more visceral, less fundamental term such as “theme” or “thread” over the word “foundation”? I would say the main unique thing about Christianity is the personal relationship with Jesus? Of course, the grounding of our faith in historical reality is valuable. But people of many faiths have stories they deem historical truth and it does not seem to be truly unique. For example, think about the Jews… Partly the same history, but what are most of them still missing?
It sounded to me like you were downplaying the importance of Jesus as the foundation of the Bible, simply in order to overplay the importance of “literal history” (in the YEC definition of literal history). I don’t think this is a side issue at all, our attitudes (and differences therein) on this topic are of essential importance. So please don’t accuse me of nit-picking or “looking hard for something to criticize”.
It could very well be that you actually read it accurately in YEC literature that made that claim, for example, Creation Basics & Beyond: An In-Depth Look at Science, Origins, and Evolution. If you would read the article to which I linked, you would find a quote from that book in which it is stated.
That’s a “what-if”. I am happy to see that you’re claim is now much more nuanced than in your previous post. I never said that I have distanced myself from Adam and Eve. I am open to the idea that there was a first couple of “image-bearers”, among a larger population. However, I also don’t specifically adhere to that position. I think it its an open issue based on the text. For example, Jesus could have referred to them as archetypes in a similar way as people could do that nowadays.
Here you imply that we’re playing “loosey goosey” with the Bible. That’s not really a fair accusation, because you can say it about anyone with whom you don’t agree. About your way of interpreting the Bible I could just as well say that it seems “you can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say”. I surely can’t really find the modern YEC interpretations in the Bible (for example, you almost managed to get Jesus to support your position 
). It’s a bit of a non-argument to hold on to the plain/natural reading (whatever that means) while there are so many cases this obviously doesn’t work. This one-liner about “the only true plain reading”, how often does it have to be repeated and refuted? It seems like walking in a circle.
EDIT:
Something relevant that I would like to add here is that the Scriptures also teach the doctrine of kenosis: the self-emptying of the Son of God in the flesh. One of the implications is that Jesus in the flesh was not all-knowing on every single topic. This is shown for example in the passage where He could not say when the end of times would come. So even if He would have believed that the sky were a solid dome, this would not be any problem. He would simply be operating within His own Jewish context, efficiently communicating with His contemporaries. So there is no reason to assume that Jesus would be any more knowledgeable on the history of creation than all other Jews that lived during His time. Especially since none of that was actually relevant for His salvation ministry.
This is a familiar theme here but I’ll say it anyway:
I believe in Genesis 1-11 as part of God’s revelation. However, I reject a lot of the TRADITIONS which have become tightly associated with Genesis 1-11.
First I’d have to clarify that we are both recognizing that the Hebrew text refers to the ERETZ (“land”, the opposite of sky) and NOT planet earth that was covered. (Of course, if you don’t agree, then we need to start over and define your position.) Traditional claims that Mt. Everest was covered by the Noahic Flood are clearly extra-Biblical and not something that I can take seriously.
Indeed, the flood described in Genesis appears to have been about 22 feet deep. However, the grammar is very difficult and I’m OK that some will disagree. Nevertheless, the claim of a six miles deep flood is not anywhere in the text and I have no reason to accept it just because it has become a popular TRADITION since THE GENESIS FLOOD (1962, Henry Morris & John Whitcomb Jr.)
Of course, not only does the Bible say nothing about a planet wide flood, there is no geologic evidence for a global flood. That tells me that tradition is making a claim that NEITHER of God’s major revelations affirms: neither the scriptures nor the revelation from creation itself.
Seeing how it was the Adamic lineage that was wiped out in a flood of the ERETZ (the region where the descendents of Adam lived), the genetic bottleneck is only an issue for that lineage. The Bible doesn’t say that all hominids were reduced to a single family of Noah’s eight. We find mentions of other peoples outside of the Adamic line both before and after the flood (e.g., Nephilim, son’s of God, the tribe from which Cain found his wife.) So there is no conflict between the Biblical text and genomic studies today. There’s no genetic bottleneck issue as far as I know.
Again, tradition doesn’t matter to me as much as the Hebrew text of Genesis.
Of course, 2Peter 3 also clinches the matter by distinguishing between the KOSMOS extent of the Noahic Flood and the future complete destruction of planet earth (the GE extent) in the final judgment by fire. Seeing how the author of 2Peter was very careful in contrasting the extent of the Noahic judgment and the future judgment, I prefer to make the same distinction—knowing that traditions can’t be blindly trusted to harmonize with the Biblical text.