May God bless you as you continue to learn in his way.

Dan

Dan,

Are you referring to the "Must a Christian Believe All Genesis Stories?" page (http://hometown.aol.com/kingdavid10/FAQs/BelieveGenesisStories.html)? If so, it's not meant to be a discussion of whether or not Genesis is actually literal, just a discussion of whether a Christian MUST believe it is literal in order to be saved. If it is meant to be literal, then, yes, it is wrong to believe it is not. But a Christian who makes this error does not (in my opinion) have his salvation denied for it.

I agree that the early Genesis stories likely did precede Moses by many, many years and were passed along throught memorized story-telling, but that still leaves the question open as to whether the original stories were intended to be literal or metaphorical.

I'll admit I'm not completely convinced that the early Genesis stories are meant to be literal, but I don't rule that possibility out, either. I try not to take a stand on this issue, because, frankly, I don't really have a stand to take at this point. It may sound like I'm trying to ride the fence here, but I'm just not convinced one way or the other, and I can't just flick a switch to make me believe something that I have doubts about, and I can't pretend not to have doubts when I do.

However, I must agree with you that there almost certainly was a flood that wiped out the majority of the human race, for the very reasons you gave, and I would gladly take a stand on that issue. In fact, I made this point in a discussion I had just a few days ago with an atheist. What I said to him was: "is there evidence that the majority of the human race was wiped out in a flood at some point in its past? The answer to that is - yes. Practically every civilization on Earth has its own version of the flood story - a story in which God (or the gods) find corruption in the human race, decides to send a flood to wipe them out, notify a handful of chosen people that the flood is about to happen, tell them what to do to survive, then the people follow God's (or the gods') advice, and survive. While the details differ from legend to legend, it's the most common "myth" in the world, so common that it clearly has a single source, and the fact that it was passed along so readily does suggest that it likely has a basis in fact." If you're interested, you can see my full discussion with him at http://hometown.aol.com/KingDavid10/Letters/LetterHorusSunGod.html

But thank you for asking your question, and let me know if the page you're referring to isn't the one I mentioned above.

Peace, David

That is indeed the page I was referring to. I hope you are able to sort out this issue you are having. I will give one more stab at the issue and then I'll leave you to find out for yourself. The stories of Genesis were not written simply to give a pretty overture to the God of the Hebrew people. These stories are the grand opening to the act of salvation through Jesus. There are more signs of the true Messiah within Genesis besides the obvious original sin and sacrifice of Isaac. Within every book of the Hebrew Bible, there are stories of characters who's actions and lives were all types of the actions and life of Jesus himself. If the creation story and the story of Joseph were mere illustrations, then it would bring a sense of falsification to Jesus, as he would have been resembling fairy tale characters. Though initial salvation will never depend on anything outside of trust in Jesus and repentance of sins, to fully accept the true character of the Christ, acceptance of the Genesis story as fact may be needed.

Well, I hope that I have atleast shed some light on my views. Everyone has moments where the only course to take is one of personal discovery. As you trek on, don't forget your guidebook.

Take care and may God bless your pursuits of his wisdom.

Dan

Dan,

I should point out that my doubts only concern the very early Genesis stories. I have serious doubts about Adam and Eve. Not quite so much about Noah (as I said, I do believe the flood happened, and there were only a handful of survivors - that those survivors were Noah and his family is a pretty good bet, IMO). I don't have much doubt that Abraham existed and did what the Bible says he did, same with Isaac, Jacob, and so on.

And if the early Genesis stories are intended to be metaphorical, that doesn't make them "wrong" by any means. Jesus told parables about the Prodigal Son, the Sower of Seeds, etc. That these are fictional stories intended to teach us about faith doesn't make them "wrong".

If the early Genesis stories were meant to be literal, if Adam and Eve did exist, then I admit that it is wrong for me to believe otherwise, and I hope that God finds a way for me to know the truth, whatever the truth may be. But despite studying and praying on these issues, I haven't gotten any clear answers yet. Maybe they're still to come. Maybe I won't know until the next world. Maybe God wants me to have doubts for now so that if and when I learn the truth, it will be more real to me than if I never questioned it.

Peace, David

What is it about Adam and Eve that troubles you?

For one thing, the way it's written seems kind of fable-ish. For another, if taken literally, it would suggest that minkind has only existed about 6000 years, and history suggests we've been around longer than that (I'm not saying we went back to the monkeys, but we certainly have evidence of man's presence on Earth prior to 10,000 B.C., such as the Lascaux cave drawings).

And I'd say there's overwhelming evidence that the universe itself, if not the Earth, is billions of years old - in that we can see stars that are billions of light years away. If the universe was only a few thousand years old, their light couldn't have reached us yet. That's not direct evidence against Adam and Eve, but it does seem to weigh on how literally or metaphorically we should take Genesis 1.

But, of course, there are things arguing in its favor as being literal. The Bible gives genealogies from Adam to people that we know existed. Real people don't descend from metaphorical ones. And the fact that so many intelligent people take it as literal makes it hard for me to say it's unlikely to be literal.

So as far as I'm concerned, the jury is out on this one. Maybe it's literal, maybe it's metaphorical. As I said on that page, whether we get meaning from it is what's most important.

Peace, David

I hate to this kind of argument, but it's all I can think of off hand:

The creation story is very fable-like. If you look at the Hebrew context of writing, it is clear that the intention was to be like a fable. But the stories of Ruth and Esther are written in the same manner. I can't answer why the author chose this method, but two ideas are that he a) wanted a grand opening to the history of life, or b) thought that a essay liek "God did this, then this, then this . . . . " would be too boring. Either case, this method is used still to this day. The cherry tree was chopped down and your grandfather was in the D-day invasion (atleast, I think mine was).

The other part of debate is what my first statement is for. Man is finite and flawed. We lack the supreme knowledge that God has. These methods of carbon dating and what-not are not fool proof. It was established by finding the carbon reading for something we know is five years old, ten years old, 100 years old. Mathematical formulas, not first hand knowledge were used to tell what was 5,000 years old, or 1.2345354 trillion lightmonths old. I know that there's discussion about whether each day in the Bible was an extended amount of time (Jesus said that God's timing is not man's, and the hebrew word for day actually means an expanse of time). But if God wanted to create everything within six 24 hour periods, what's stopping him? I guess, for me, it comes down to this; I'd rather trust in the incredible, albeit illogical abilities of God than the limited understanding of some lab coats and liquid.

-Dan

The creation story is very fable-like. If you look at the Hebrew context of writing, it is clear that the intention was to be like a fable. But the stories of Ruth and Esther are written in the same manner. I can't answer why the author chose this method, but two ideas are that he a) wanted a grand opening to the history of life, or b) thought that a essay liek "God did this, then this, then this . . . . " would be too boring. Either case, this method is used still to this day. The cherry tree was chopped down and your grandfather was in the D-day invasion (atleast, I think mine was).

So it's being fable-like could mean that it is a fable, but it could be true as well. I agree. My saying it is fable-like isn't meant to settle the issue. It just raises some doubts.

The other part of debate is what my first statement is for. Man is finite and flawed. We lack the supreme knowledge that God has.

I agree, but that's the kind of argument that can go either way, since it could apply to those who trust science, or to those who do not. We're all finite and flawed and lacking God's supreme knowledge, so it doesn't settle the issue of whether this planet is thousands of years old or billions. Either side could be wrong. If this world is thousands of years old, then those who believe it is older are wrong. And if it's billions of years old, then those who believe it is younger are wrong.

These methods of carbon dating and what-not are not fool proof. It was established by finding the carbon reading for something we know is five years old, ten years old, 100 years old. Mathematical formulas, not first hand knowledge were used to tell what was 5,000 years old, or 1.2345354 trillion lightmonths old.

That's the kind of argument I'm uncomfortable with. True, they could be wrong, but I would be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to those who understand the process the most and who work with it on a regular basis.

It seems to me that those who argue for a young earth primarily believe what they do for religious reasons, not scientific ones. And those who argue for an older earth primarily believe what they do for scientific reasons, not religious ones. Again, that's not proof that they're right (since it's of course possible that they argue for an older Earth as a way of rejecting religion), but I would be more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in matters of science to those who believe what they do for scientific reasons.

I know that there's discussion about whether each day in the Bible was an extended amount of time (Jesus said that God's timing is not man's, and the hebrew word for day actually means an expanse of time). But if God wanted to create everything within six 24 hour periods, what's stopping him? I guess, for me, it comes down to this; I'd rather trust in the incredible, albeit illogical abilities of God than the limited understanding of some lab coats and liquid.

I agree that we need to trust God, and not scientists. Scientists may figure out ways to extend our lives, but it was God who gave us life in the first place, and only God can give us eternal life. Scientists have been proven to be wrong quite frequently. God is never wrong. But I'm not so sure that God WANTS me to believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old. If it's much older, then it's not God who's wrong, but those who interpret Genesis literally. If I received a clear sign from God that He wanted me to believe in the young Earth, I would, since I do not believe that God could be mistaken or lying. The scientists could, of course, be mistaken or lying (mistaken is more likely than lying, though). But I know that the scientists understand science better than I do. It's hard for me to believe that they could be THAT wrong THAT consistently. It's difficult (though by no means impossible) to buy that their belief that the world is billions of years old comes from scientific ignorance, or from their simply not wanting to believe it is younger.

David