Update 2017-07-29 (1): If anybody’s interested, here’s an AiG article on the ‘topical parallelism’ of creation days that Paul brought up (spoiler: it’s there on a surface read but the devil is in the details, as always; also like we discussed there’s no saying you can’t use various literary devices in different kinds of literature, even historical, it doesn’t take way from it): https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2011/12/10/its-not-so-parallel/
Update 2017-07-29 (2): I also didn’t know where to go with the point made about Christ needing to be a blood-relationship to a real Adam versus Christ atoning for our sin (we all sin, no Adam needed) or atoning for our sin nature (from Adam, so blood relationship required). In evolution, there’s no first Adam so we’re not blood related so biblically the kinsmen redeemer idea doesn’t work (so did Jesus act do anything?) But if Jesus only died for our sin acts then maybe a first Adam isn’t needed anyway. I don’t have a solid answer, it’s worth some googling, but apparently it has to do with Original Sin (sin nature) vs Imputed Sin (Adam’s sin is “credited” to us). The first is dealt with by the Holy Spirit through sanctification over time, the second was dealt with by Christ’s righteousness being credited to us (so would require a real first Adam for it to make any sense). http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-difference-between-original-sin-and-imputed-sin
Update 2017-07-29 (3): Btw, I don’t pretend perfection in understanding all this is achievable, but I just love how when you go digging usually you find these things have already been covered and they fit right in.
Note: This post is a point-form summary for a small group discussion that I compiled from the last section, “Real, Eternal Value Intended by the Original Authors”, of my previous post Answering Genesis 1 and 2 Contradiction Claims.
Is Genesis meant to be taken plainly?
- What was the author intending to convey?
- Poetry, parable, etc., or history?
- No Jewish poetic forms (eg. parallelism absent), scholars agree
- Jesus and the Gospels said they were given by Moses
- Genesis 12-50 are not really disputed but 1-11 are
- Colophons on tablets indicate knowledge known to the author up to the end of the tablet indicating historical records
- Numbered days, ‘evening and morning’ language, strong support for ordinary, 24hour days
- Similar language structure in Numbers 7 shows evidence original language choice in Genesis 1 specifically intended ordinary 24hour days as we experience them
Reading: Should Genesis Be Taken Literally, Genesis Is History
Does Genesis really matter for the Gospel?
- So, what if it is meant to be taken plainly, does it matter to our the gospel message and salvation?
- Cognitive dissonance: Genesis 1-11 “obviously” contradicts secular science so I reject Genesis 1-11, accept the rest of the bible, and believe secular science for everything else
- Most people don’t live with their faith and also believe that Genesis is wrong: They abandon their faith.
- This has been documented by the major creation organisations, AiG, CMI, books have been written about it
- I would even say that those who hold to their belief but disbelief Genesis forfeit confidence and power in their faith and the scripture they would otherwise have.
- Coming to confidence in the historicity of Jesus was a central factor in the confidence I have in God, my faith, and the scriptures.
Reading: Answering Genesis 1 and 2 Contradiction Claims
What happens to your theology when you don’t take Genesis plainly?
- The bible is complete and whole. It tells a single story and all parts of the bible build on and depend on other parts of the bible.
- When one part of the bible is broken, scripture starts falling apart
- One person I discussed with online said the theological and existential truths of Genesis had no need of the actual history of Genesis:
- When do we start reading the bible for real?
- So, if we read Genesis 1-11 figuratively, when do we start reading it as history? Just after the Plagues of Egypt? The Red Sea Crossing? Elijah and Elisha’s miracles? The Virgin Conception? Jesus’s Resurrection? They’re all equally miraculous – why should we believe them but not the account of Creation or Noah’s Flood?
- Original Sin and the Atonement
- “Bowler, unlike many Christians, recognizes that evolution not only destroys the creation of Adam but also the concept of original sin and the atonement of Christ.”
- If creation wasn’t historical, there was no Adam, and therefor no Adam to bring sin into the world
- How have “all died” in Adam according to 1 Cor 15:22?
- Is Adam really the “first man” according to 1 Cor 15:45?
- How did sin enter the world through one man (what man? Adam wasn’t around) according to Romans 5:12?
- How is Jesus gift of righteousness for Adam (non-existent) and Adam’s sin (non-existent Adam so non-existent sin) according to Romans 5:17?
- Looking at just a few pieces of scripture, we see Original Sin and Atonement theology are in a mess
- Deity of Christ
- Jesus said “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” (ie. not simply the beginning of mankind / the human race) in Mark 10:6
- “Jesus was saying that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation, on Day Six, not billions of years after the beginning. Jesus understood from the text of Genesis that Adam was created at the beginning of creation, which is directly opposed to the evolutionary opinion of the origin of man.”
- Jesus said “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’” (ie. not simply the beginning of mankind / the human race) in Mark 10:6
- …and this is just a few things that don’t make sense without a plain reading of Genesis.
- When do we start reading the bible for real?
Reading: The Bible and Hermeneutics, The Consequences of Denying a Supernatural Creation of Adam,
Conclusion
- Genesis is meant to be taken at its word (ie. historical) because of its inherent writing format, structure, and internal language evidence from other parts of scripture.
- The Gospel salvation message is compromised because everyone in the public education system has been taught evolution and they clearly contradict each other. Therefor most people abandon the “clearly” incorrect one: The bible and their faith.
- Most people know the crazy stats of young people leaving the church when they get on their own.
- Theology is broken when Genesis is not taken as history:
- There was no first man Adam, there was no first sin because there was no Adam
- Jesus was either ignorant or misleading of evolution (if that were true) questioning His deity
- Jesus didn’t need to die for our sins (because Adam, who brought sin into the world, didn’t exist)
- The writings of the Apostles are in error and theologically incorrect since they assume a 6-ordinary-day creation.
- …and this is just a few things that don’t make sense without a plain reading of Genesis.
- God meant what he said.