|
Can an honest, intelligent person hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis? Is it even remotely possible that this ancient book is accurate?
As we begin to look at what history has to say concerning God, it's necessary to at least acknowledge the debate over Genesis. Future articles will explore Genesis more in depth, including the issue of what a "day" means and whether the Garden of Eden is literal or allegorical. However, it is necessary to at least point out that one does not need to write off Genesis - including a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis - in order to remain rational, sane, and intelligent.
Authorship
Central to the controversy is the question of authorship. Who wrote Genesis? Traditionally, Genesis has been understood as the work of Moses. Indeed, in the narrowest sense, the Torah (or Pentateuch) refers to the "Five Books of Moses." Until the Enlightenment, the tradition was more or less universally upheld.
The Enlightenment inspired a wave of biblical textual criticism that called this tradition into serious question. The outcome of this, insofar as the Pentateuch was concerned, was that it was the product of several scribes identified as J=Jahwist, E=Elohist, D=Deuteronomistic, History, P=Priestly Code. The theory of J,E,D,P authorship has also been questioned and analyzed at great length. It must be pointed out, however, that the evidence supporting this multiple-scribe theory is driven, in part, by literary analysis and certain consequent suppositions. There has been no hard evidence strong enough to overturn the traditional association of Moses with the Pentateuch. More than likely, Moses utilized records handed down to him from previous patriarchs such as Abraham. In addition, Moses' work was probably edited later by scribes such as Ezra, who most scholars believe had a major part in the assembling of the Jewish Scriptures in their final semi-canonized collection. However, no one has convincingly disputed the traditional belief that Moses was the central figure in writing the Pentateuch, including Genesis.
It can also be said rather safely that, given the attestation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the meticulous practices of Jewish scribes, that the Genesis of antiquity pretty closely resembles the Genesis we have today. In other words, Genesis as it was written by Moses is essentially the same Genesis we have available today.
Genesis Under Fire
The book of Genesis can be divided (broadly speaking) into two parts: Genesis 1-11 and Genesis 12-50. The latter part is clearly history. One can see this in its literary form and based upon the corroboration of archaeology and other known historical events. (This is not to suggest that all of Genesis 12-50 has been confirmed. Such would not be possible given the scarcity of records in ancient history. But Genesis 12-50 is consistent with and plausible in light of what we know concerning ancient history). It is the first part of Genesis (chapters 1-11) that have come under the greatest scrutiny and have inspired the most intense controversy.
Future articles (planned for 2007) will explore the specifics of Genesis 1-11 (Creation, the Flood, etc.) but it is important to understand the single most significant element to the controversy.
Any analysis or evaluation of Genesis 1-11 will be determined according to one's presuppositions of God's existence. A perfect example of this is Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation. In Letter, Harris writes: "[M]more than half the American population believes that the entire cosmos was created 6,000 years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue."
Look carefully at that quote. He is obviously arguing that it's impossible for the cosmos to be created after the Sumerians invent glue. Fair enough. Any rational person would go along with that. Game over then........right? Well.......not quite. The argument destroys fundamentalist Christianity or any literal understanding of Genesis only if Harris' premise (that the Sumerians did in fact invent glue 7,000 years ago) is correct.
The problem with dating events, societies, cultures, and people of ancient history is that it is not a precise science. For one thing, the calendars (to the extent that ancient societies even used them) were varied and flawed. So, we can't go back and establish when the Sumerians invented glue with the same degree of certainty that we can say Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. Dating ancient events, peoples, etc. requires estimating based on a modern template.
What about that modern template? Modern science's dating methods - from archaeology to earth science - depend on NATURALISTIC uniformatarianism. In other words, modern science estimates ancient artifacts according to assumptions that preclude, among other things, supernatural intervention. Should we necessarily fault science for this? Of course not. Science can't calculate the supernatural, and must work with what it has in front of it.
The problem emerges when science uses naturalistic assumptions to "PROVE" that the supernatural doesn't exist. You, the reader, may say: "Wait! Science doesn't do that. Science doesn't take a position on God." Well then, what about Sam Harris' cheap shot about the Sumerians and their glue? While honest, disciplined scientists may not take these types of shots, authors like Harris or even ordinary people do so all the time. They cite the findings of naturalistic science to try to disprove God.
You can't have it both ways. If science wants to stay neutral on God, then it must also stay neutral on the book of Genesis. A person who understands this and seeks to follow it with integrity will not cast aspersions on elements of the Judeo-Christian faith, unless they are verifiably wrong and grossly harmful to society.
The proper response of secular science to a Christian holding onto Genesis should be: Outside of God's intervention in the world, we estimate the earth to be roughly 4.5 billion years old. We understand that these calculations do not take into account the possibility of God's intervention, which would impact our calculations considerably."
Accordingly, a Christian can be smart, honest, and fair-minded and say: "Genesis is true if God is real and if Genesis accurately reflects God's revelation to the human race." Why? Because if God is real and He has intervened in the natural universe like the Bible claims He has, then modern science's naturalistic presuppositions and calculations would be thrown off. Specifically then, the Sumerians invented glue prior to when Genesis records God creating the universe only if the presuppositions and calculations of modern science are correct. We cannot know with certainty that this is the case.
Therefore, as a person looks at history for evidence for or evidence against God, the considerations outlined in this argument MUST be kept in mind. Much of how we understand and measure history depends on whether we are initially predisposed to believe in or reject the possibility of God -- whether we are open to the supernatural or fixated exclusively on the natural.
It's sad that more people can't approach Genesis with this understanding. The book of Genesis may, in fact, be true. Modern science cannot say with certainty whether it is or isn't. And neither can Sam Harris. If more people accepted this, there would be a lot less yelling and a lot more harmony and understanding.
As to the truth of Genesis....well...this all puts things ultimately where they belong - in God's court.
The copyright of the article Defending Genesis in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish Defending Genesis in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Dec 18, 2006 3:39 PM
Pink
:
.
You might make your self look dumb talking about Sam Harris as though he were the embodiment of Science.
.
Your shots claim that what Harris writes is Science--capital C. He might write some science, I don't know.
.
There's a lot more to scientific inquiry into the origins of the earth and life on earth that what you can read in any book by Harris or any other similar work. Watching the National Geographic channel for any length of time will open anyone's eyes to much about the eariliest times of earth some billions of years ago.
.
Dec 19, 2006 11:58 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Well, I've made myself look dumb before, so why stop? :-)
Seriously, I'm not holding Sam Harris up as a renowned scientist. My argument wasn't intended (not this last one anyway) to rebut the scientific community on Genesis. Rather, it's intended to show that modern science and Christianity are each reading the data concerning the origins of the earth and universe through different sets of glasses. So...when people like Harris cite modern science to "disprove" Christianity, they need to understand and appreciate those two sets of glasses.
When I probe deeper into the subjects of Creationism, the Flood, etc., I'll get into National Geographic, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, etc.
Dec 19, 2006 2:10 PM
Pink
:
.
<i>Well, I've made myself look dumb before, so why stop? :-)</i>
.
:)
.
That was great and a good one. Congratulations! First prize for being able to laugh at our self.
.
There is some thinking in certain Christian circles that God had created a previous life system on earth. You know that, don't you?
.
Adam and Eve were not the first beings on this planet according to that thinking.
.
Dec 20, 2006 7:40 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Yes, I'm familiar with some of that, including the gap theory. Have you heard of Hugh Ross? And there's of course also theistic evolution.
I plan a series of articles on Genesis in the New Year, and will address a lot of this. I just wanted to set the tone in this first article. It's important for critics of Christianity - including ex-evangelicals like yourself :-) - to realize that modern science has NOT disproven the Bible, including Genesis. It's only done so IF one accepts all the pressuppositions and assumptions of modern science.
Dec 20, 2006 8:05 AM
Pink
:
.
Proof, like beauty in the eye of the beholder, seems to lie in the mind of the beholder.
.
The problem enters when I say my proof is more valid than yours but cannot demonstrate my proof through some repeatable experiment; but, you can for your proof.
.
I might criticize Christianity; but, I also criticize its adversaries and ofen give Christianity my support. The idea that Christianity has to be 100% accepted or 100% rejected is my first criticism against it. But, that's another story.
.
I will not go into any detail or give any other examples as that has all been done many times before; but, there is much about the Bible that just doesn't add up to reality. I sat in a service, a few years or so ago, where the Calvinist preacher was talking about Jonah being swallowed by a fish and listened as he defended the account on the basis that while he didn't understand it, he knew that God was able to do all things so he accepted it as truth. What!! Was he afraid to question the Word? You tell me. Would most of his congregation get up and walk out? Jonah lived in the belly of a fish for three days? Am I not allowed to see that as some kind of an allegorical statement--hyperbole maybe? Must I accept it as the revealed truth or be relegated to hell for eternity? Or is it just one of those heresies that while it is sinful on my part, it is forgivable and won't send me to hell?
.
Dec 20, 2006 12:50 PM
Arthur D
:
Hello Mr. Tubbs. I enjoyed the article you wrote. It amazes me how people like Mr. Harris can make such outlandish claims while attacking (essentially) straw men. The "6,000 year" figure is NOT believed by all evangelical Christians. It was a construct developed by Bishop Ussher (if I'm not mistaken) based on calculations from geneologies in Genesis. However, it is overlooked that those are not complete. Therefore numbers based on such geneologies are incorrect.
But I'm glad you made the point that we have no absolute dating techniques, and the ones we do have can be very erroneous and even speculative.
It is my contention that too many people simply assume that when they are told something is "4.5 billion" years old, that the number is 100% accurate. But is it?
The other issue is that too many people think that the age of the earth is truly relevant to the reliability of Genesis. But the age of the earth is not relevant to what's stated in Genesis at all.
In fact, some Christians even try to use the age question to call into question such things as the "days" of Genesis. Were they 24-hour days like our own, or were they long periods and so forth. Since science seems to say that the earth is really old, some feel this somehow must mean that the "days" were not 24-hour days. But simple hermeneutics and context disproves this idea. I have an article at my website (www.gospelanswers1.com) that is being developed on the issue, and you may want to have a look at it. Thanks again for an interesting article.
Dec 20, 2006 1:14 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
Well, three quick answers...
1. I am NOT a Calvinist. (I'm not an Arminiast either - I'm basically in between).
2. A person is not condemned to hell for questioning parts of the Bible or believing that some parts are allegorical. The story of Jonah and the whale (or "great fish") is not a salvation issue.
3. If a person rejects miracles, then a story like Jonah is impossible to accept. As is Jesus walking on water (unless it was floating ice or something like that - a theory along those lines having been proposed). But, the way I look at it....if God is real, then He is surely capable of performing miracles. And with that in mind, I don't see stories like Jonah as being too hard to swallow. (Pun intended). ;-)
Dec 20, 2006 3:22 PM
Pink
:
.
I know you're not one of the elite. You're a Baptist, right? That makes you one of the people.
.
So, what you've said here is that there are <i>Salvation Issues</i>.
.
That there is a cutting edge.
.
But ....
.
Dec 25, 2006 9:38 AM
Boanerges
:
<i>Jonah lived in the belly of a fish for three days? Am I not allowed to see that as some kind of an allegorical statement--hyperbole maybe?</i>
Actually.. Jonah died in the fish and was brought back to life.. This parallels the sign that Jesus said would be given...
why would the people of Ninevah just "repent" because Jonah said so? I imagine that, it was a visual experience as well... that is to say, Jonah looking as if he was dead is a very realistic understanding of this story...
Dec 26, 2006 6:52 AM
Pink
:
.
The strange practices of religionism. Creating mysterious stories and then putting on a show of solving them. Strange indeed.
.
.
Dec 26, 2006 7:43 AM
Boanerges
:
<i>Creating mysterious stories and then putting on a show of solving them. Strange indeed.</i>
The story spans time and space and is verified in reality... therefore, not a "created story"... which is called a myth.. when something exists in reality, the "myth" title is tossed aside because of the evidence that exists to verify its claim... nice try though on how to dismiss something you cannot accept as truth - simply claim its a story... not very "scientific"... <i>lol...</i>
Dec 26, 2006 8:15 AM
Pink
:
.
You comment about Jonah dying piqued my curiosity and, so, I did a small search on the 'Net to see what I could find about it.
.
Apparently the story is used by resurrectionists to prove that Jesus was the prophesized one. And, these extrapolationists claim that, in order for Jesus to have been the one to whom Jonah pointed, well, then, Jonah had to have died or else the story of Jesus wouldn't have been true.
.
So, in order that the story about Jonah and the Fish Story be made true, it seems that it must follow that Jesus was trying to escape from God's commands to preach to a specified people.
.
Like I wrote in my previous post, strange.
.
Dec 27, 2006 7:45 AM
Boanerges
:
<i>And, these extrapolationists claim that, in order for Jesus to have been the one to whom Jonah pointed</i>
actually.. Jonah didnt point to anyone.. In fact, Jesus pointed towards Jonah by stating that the only sign given to the Jews would be as Jonah...
so.. you have the story backwards.... :)
but.. thats what these discussions are all about, ey?...
Dec 27, 2006 7:45 AM
Pink
:
.
In fact--it is more to the point--that much of what has taken place in popular Christianism over the past couple of generations is the combination of efforts its champions have made and continue to make in retrofitting Jesus to the Old Testament. It is as though his validity depended on what was written. It is, in my opinion, the major fault that can be found with Christianists as they attempt to politicize society with their twisted versions of reality. And, it will be the downfall of Christianism--sooner than later, hopefully.
.
Dec 27, 2006 8:13 AM
Boanerges
:
<i>It is as though his validity depended on what was written.</i>
Jesus said that very thing.. In fact, he said this:
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. 22 And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son? 23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country. 24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country. 25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; 26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. 27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. 28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, 29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow F16 of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. 30 But he passing through the midst of them went his way,
Dec 27, 2006 8:22 AM
Brian Tubbs
:
Pink, miracles happen whether we want to admit them or not. Ever read about the "mysterious" fog of New York that saved George Washington's army from utter defeat in 1776? Veterans of the RevWar wrote of this with mystical awe - there was NO way to explain it other than (to use a GW word) "Providence."
Dec 27, 2006 8:37 AM
Pink
:
.
Matthew, chapter 5: 43--48:
.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
.
Christianists seem bent on working around this one. .
:)
.
Dec 27, 2006 10:51 AM
Pink
:
.
And, speaking of miracles, how about the one that just happened in Illinois to Migisi's family?
.
Dec 27, 2006 2:55 PM
Brian Tubbs
:
I agree with your observation, Pink, on this one. A lot of Christians don't practice the teachings of Jesus - in their day to day lives. That, however, does NOT discredit Christianity itself - only some of its followers.
Dec 27, 2006 3:08 PM
Pink
:
.
It doesn't discredit Christianity one bit.
.
What is discredited is Christianism--100%.
.
I don't believe a truly Christian person would be a Christianist.
.
Jan 4, 2007 5:28 AM
Michelle Anderson
:
Hi there Brian, I recently read an article on this stating that a lot of the top scientists are Christ. They themselves see a lot of things that are "unexplainable" except through God.
Jan 4, 2007 6:06 AM
Pink
:
.
How about giving us the reference to that article?
.
22 Comments
|
