Reading Genesis 1-3 at Face Value

[Philip]

We've heard from many on this forum who claim that when reading through Genesis, the actual wording of it HAS to mean this or that. Meaning that unless one gets lose with wildly imaginative stretches of the range of possible meanings of any one passage - or even of individual words (in their context and by comparing their usages appropriately in the rest of Scripture and similar contexts) - that the meanings MUST be either THIS or THAT. But if you read Genesis like that - TRULY like that - the link shows that the possibilities (and I do ONLY mean POSSIBILITIES) go beyond it's traditional interpretations. Of course, this also is very relevant to OEC vs. YEC issues.

This link by conservative Bible scholar Dr. Michael Heiser, whose specialty is the ancient languages and cultures of the Bible, examines the range of possibilities that a plain reading of the Genesis texts offer us - and what they don't necessarily allow. Note that Heiser is not wedded to ANY one view, and he points out the weaknesses and strengths of those discussed - along with others weighing in with back-and-forth questions and responses to what he's written. I've come across no one that has a greater passion for the actual Biblical TEXTS - who also has the necessary background - than Heiser.

I find the discussion and Heiser's observations to be extremely interesting, especially the parts about the differences in the Creation passages and what they might tell us about Adam and Eve: http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible ... -research/

[PaulSacramento]

I have always liked reading Dr. Heiser's works.
Have you read: I dare you not to bore me with the bible ?

[B. W.]

Let's see, I watch John Ankerberg last night with Hugh Ross on the subject of Genesis 1-3 which reminds me of the article.

You might still catch this weeks show online here: http://www.jashow.org/

It was pointed out that the ancient Hebrew Language had only abolut 8,700 words compared to about 500,000 English words. As you can see, in the old Hebrew, one word was used in many diverse ways. They discussed the Hebrew word Yom on the show and show that by context is the best method to determine the shade of meaning of the word. For the absolutist literalistic YEC interpretation of Genesis chapter 1 to be true, then they also would have to admit that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit have not ceased to exist either. One cannot have it both ways - absolutely literal about creation but not elsewhere in the bible. The symbolism of the book of Revelation for YEC's must also be viewed as absolutely literal in order to be consistent - however - YEC' do consent to the symbolism - how can that be? One must understand that there is a gulf of divide between 8700 words and 500.000 words between to language systems.

Fact is, Good created ex nihilo and the literal narrative of Gensis is true, however, the words used need the proper context they were written in to understand properly. You cannot be so mechanical in word interpretation definitions of ancient languages as there is a context to consider. This context is in line with Isaiah 1:18 - "Come let us reason together," says the Lord...
-
-
-

[Philip]

I have always liked reading Dr. Heiser's works. Have you read: I dare you not to bore me with the bible ?

No, Paul, I've mostly read his "Naked Bible" website and his blog. He's a long-time debunker of false phenomena, like UFO-related, ancient astronauts, aliens in the Bible, etc. But what is very fascinating about the linked article and responses is that a literal reading of the contrasts in the Genesis Creation accounts reveal more possibilities that impact, not only the questions surrounding the time issues, but also considerations that events of Eden, while certainly having impact upon ALL humanity, can also potentially be seen outside of the greater Creation, Adam and Eve, and the earth. Now, is this true - I've no idea. But I don't think anyone else can say, with certainty, any differently.

Over the past year and a half, I have come to see problems, not only with YEC literalisms concerning time and and their purported creations of a VERY recent, VERY young universe and earth, but also in certain Progressive Creationism views (which I most identify with), that insist one read Genesis or various parts of the Bible as to match it up perfectly with the understandings of modern science. As Heiser has said before, people like Hugh Ross don't have the necessary training in the theology and language issues of Scripture. And while they know some basic Hebrew, they are far from understanding of its nuances, rules, cultural uses - which underwent some generational changes, etc.

Also, I've been very influenced by Dr. Johnny Miller's book (been to two lectures by him), "In the Beginning, We Misunderstood," as it well shows that much of the intent of Genesis 1 was designed to correct the false THEOLOGICAL understandings of a pre-scientific Israel that had just emerged from 400+ years of pagan beliefs and the Egyptian and ancient Mesopotamian creation myths that they absorbed in Egypt. If you read his book, you will realize that the way Genesis is worded to address these, it can in no way be just a series of fantastic coincidences, as the parallels between God's Creation account (in Genesis 1, especially) are in no way not purposeful. And so, certainly, God wasn't concerned with Israel's science views, as not only would they have been extremely primitive, but to also explain the complexity of how the universe appeared and worked without such understandings would have only confused them would be like telling little Johnny were babies come from - do you launch into a monologue about fertility, eggs, sperm, fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina, penis - all that, when it would never be understood?

What the Israelites needed to know was that there is ONE God Who created ALL. And this God stood above, outside of, was responsible for, and has all control over His Creation, and that He had called them into a covenant relationship that had tremendous implications and responsibilities. THOSE were the things that were important. And while I do believe that Progressive Creationism explains a lot of the evidences, I think people like Hugh Ross can often go too far in trying to explain the Bible's theology, yet without having the necessary theological and languages training to do so, in attempts to match it up with their science views. Ross read Miller's book without much formal comment - I doubt he liked it. Likely, because Hugh and co have painted themselves into a corner - as if so much of the Bible isn't truly explaining the science (as RTB and Hugh) claim - well, there go the book and CD sales. As any clever lawyer knows, one can creatively make language fit and support what he wants it to - but is it TRUE?!!! But let me also state that I love Hugh Ross and believe he and his organization HAVE brought much authentic illumination to the the reality of an ancient universe and earth, while often powerfully showing the many insurmountable problems and contradictions surrounding the various evolutionary theories - ESPECIALLY those purporting that Godless, random processes just happened to be the ONLY causes of our universe.

Bottom line? I think that, likely, there are theological AND scientific assertions - ABOUT THE TEXT -- that both those in the OEC and YEC camps have wrong. So, it not necessarily a perfect "either or." Fact is, God simply didn't give us tremendous detail and background as to HOW or HOW LONG the Creation took. That said, I do believe the universe is ancient and I do not accept any macro-evolutionary tales to the contrary.

[PaulSacramento]

An excellent post Philip.
Have you read John Weston's views on Genesis?
Have you read the works of Kenton Sparks ?
Personally I have no problem with the accomodationalist view in regards to scripture, I don't see a problem with God speaking to man in a way man can fully understand AND be able to convey to other men that do NOT have the HS in/guiding them.

[Philip]

excellent post Philip. Have you read John Weston's views on Genesis? Have you read the works of Kenton Sparks ?

Paul, have not read those works.

"... I don't see a problem with God speaking to man in a way man can fully understand AND be able to convey to other men that do NOT have the HS in/guiding them."

And neither do I. But the question isn't about those whom God spoke to, as He certainly is capable of transmitting all He so desires, and precisely as He desires to. The questions are about certain passages and their intended meanings - and do we have them correct or not. That said, I don't believe there is ANYTHING in Scripture, of critical importance or related to salvation or how God wants us to respond to Him, that's not abundantly clear.

If you think about it, much of what we hotly debate around here really has no substantial impact on such crucial items. Also, God clearly must have purpose in some of our debates and struggles to correctly understand certain passages. Some hotly debated issues would have never become a big deal if God had only guided the writers to make them crystal clear. And as He well foreknew every issue of contention that would brew amongst believers, and yet, as where various passages nonethelss leave some wiggle room in interpretation that reasonably leads to debate, I can only believe God wanted us to debate and wrestle with some issues - and thus the seeming vagueness or uncertainty may well have been purposeful. And probably when we take some of the non-crucial (not critical to salvation, etc) to the extremes of great animosity - and we see the rancor and divisiveness they cause, perhaps learning the pointless futility of such debates - and the damage they cause - is the REAL lesson He wants us to learn. After all, He says we are to be known by our love or each other. How often we forget that, in our zeal to shoot down another's arguments. And I'm as guilty as anyone on that.

[B. W.]

...If you think about it, much of what we hotly debate around here really has no substantial impact on such crucial items. Also, God clearly must have purpose in some of our debates and struggles to correctly understand certain passages. Some hotly debated issues would have never become a big deal if God had only guided the writers to make them crystal clear. And as He well foreknew every issue of contention that would brew amongst believers, and yet, as where various passages nonethelss leave some wiggle room in interpretation that reasonably leads to debate, I can only believe God wanted us to debate and wrestle with some issues - and thus the seeming vagueness or uncertainty may well have been purposeful. And probably when we take some of the non-crucial (not critical to salvation, etc) to the extremes of great animosity - and we see the rancor and divisiveness they cause, perhaps learning the pointless futility of such debates - and the damage they cause - is the REAL lesson He wants us to learn. After all, He says we are to be known by our love or each other. How often we forget that, in our zeal to shoot down another's arguments. And I'm as guilty as anyone on that.

What you wrote Phil reminds me of these verses:

Proverbs 17:3 - The refining pot is for silver and the furnace for gold, But the LORD tests the hearts. NKJV

1 Peter 1:6,7 - In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved by various trials, 7 that the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ NKJV


-
-
-

[PaulSacramento]

excellent post Philip. Have you read John Weston's views on Genesis? Have you read the works of Kenton Sparks ?

Paul, have not read those works.

"... I don't see a problem with God speaking to man in a way man can fully understand AND be able to convey to other men that do NOT have the HS in/guiding them."

And neither do I. But the question isn't about those whom God spoke to, as He certainly is capable of transmitting all He so desires, and precisely as He desires to. The questions are about certain passages and their intended meanings - and do we have them correct or not. That said, I don't believe there is ANYTHING in Scripture, of critical importance or related to salvation or how God wants us to respond to Him, that's not abundantly clear.

If you think about it, much of what we hotly debate around here really has no substantial impact on such crucial items. Also, God clearly must have purpose in some of our debates and struggles to correctly understand certain passages. Some hotly debated issues would have never become a big deal if God had only guided the writers to make them crystal clear. And as He well foreknew every issue of contention that would brew amongst believers, and yet, as where various passages nonethelss leave some wiggle room in interpretation that reasonably leads to debate, I can only believe God wanted us to debate and wrestle with some issues - and thus the seeming vagueness or uncertainty may well have been purposeful. And probably when we take some of the non-crucial (not critical to salvation, etc) to the extremes of great animosity - and we see the rancor and divisiveness they cause, perhaps learning the pointless futility of such debates - and the damage they cause - is the REAL lesson He wants us to learn. After all, He says we are to be known by our love or each other. How often we forget that, in our zeal to shoot down another's arguments. And I'm as guilty as anyone on that.

Well said.
I think we ALL agree that salvation is based on Christ, on God's grace, based on our faith IN Christ and His sacrifice and resurrection.
As Paul said, If Christ did not die and did not resurrect, then all that is preached is for nothing.
That we we still debate today has been debated to one extent or another for the last 2000 years speaks volumes when you think about it.
That great theologians of the past have taken up "both" sides in these debates also speaks volumes.
The one thing I always try to do and also ask of everyone else in these debates/discussions is to remember that we are ALL of the Body of Christ and to not be the stumbling block for a brother or sister or someone that is not a Christian but may be wondering what it is all about.
As Paul warned us:
Romans 14:13
1 Corinthians 8:9