What Is The Bible And What Does It Contain?

[glintofpewter]

Neon Genesis wrote

If God is perfect, how can God have regrets (Genesis 6:6)?

Hornet wrote

The Hebrew word translated as "regrets" is "nakham." It can also mean "be grieved." This verse is saying that God was saddened. This verse does not mean that God thought that He made a mistake and wished to do something all over again.

 

Maybe finding rationales to defend inconsistencies keeps us from discussing what kind of God would kill every man, woman, and child on the earth.

 

Different translations use different words: grieve, sorry, repent, regret. But the God in whose mouth we put these words is not just sighing and saying, "I'm sad". This is an angry God who vows to start anew after he

 

"...destroys, blots outs and wipes away mankind, whom I have created." (Amplified)

 

However "nakham" is translated will not change the totality of the story for me. It's an ugly view of God that the writer has presented.

 

 

Take Care

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

One pastor told me that there was one way for him to accept this story. That after the flood God realizes killing every man, woman, and child is not the way God wants to be related to creation. So God hangs up his weapon, a bow, not just to remind us but to remind God that there is a better way.

 

Take Care

Dutch

[Mike]

One pastor told me that there was one way for him to accept this story. That after the flood God realizes killing every man, woman, and child is not the way God wants to be related to creation. So God hangs up his weapon, a bow, not just to remind us but to remind God that there is a better way.

 

Take Care

Dutch

 

That's a beautiful way of looking at it Dutch. To me there is more power latent in these stories when they are viewed as just that - stories.

 

Peace,

Mike

[Hornet]

Derek,

 

Yes i share that understanding with you concerning the "Word". Others may not. Interesting points about the Arabic language you made. I am not at all familiar with it.

 

My only point in my first point is that even those who responded to the questions and think that the Bible is God's Word , which is not my understanding, have agreed, IMO, that there are translation errors by their own response.

 

One tiny step for man, one giant step for mankind.

 

Peace,

Joseph

 

Evangelical Christians believe that there can be errors in the different translations of the Bible. However, they do not believe that there were any errors in the original manuscripts. When evangelicals say that the Bible is inerrant, they are talking about the original manuscripts. As long as those copies and our translations communicate the same message as the original manuscripts, they can be called the word of God.

[Hornet]

Neon Genesis wrote

If God is perfect, how can God have regrets (Genesis 6:6)?

Hornet wrote

The Hebrew word translated as "regrets" is "nakham." It can also mean "be grieved." This verse is saying that God was saddened. This verse does not mean that God thought that He made a mistake and wished to do something all over again.

 

Maybe finding rationales to defend inconsistencies keeps us from discussing what kind of God would kill every man, woman, and child on the earth.

 

Different translations use different words: grieve, sorry, repent, regret. But the God in whose mouth we put these words is not just sighing and saying, "I'm sad". This is an angry God who vows to start anew after he

 

"...destroys, blots outs and wipes away mankind, whom I have created." (Amplified)

 

However "nakham" is translated will not change the totality of the story for me. It's an ugly view of God that the writer has presented.

 

 

Take Care

Dutch

 

The reason why God brought the flood upon the earth was because of man's sin. If there were no sin, God would not have done that.

[minsocal]

The Bible contains two views of God linked with different perspectives of justice. On the one hand there is the God of anger and retributive justice and on the other a God of love and distributive justice. In a sense, these are projections of our own moral dilema onto God. Perhaps the stories are telling us more about ourselves than about God?

[davidk]

"DavidK, Since the English translations vary, do you see them all as being equally correct at representing God's Word?"- AITNP

 

Dear Janet,

We all know translations are, well- translations. Any one translation would be hard-pressed to provide all the subtleties of another language, that's why I refer to various English translations, as well as trying to look into the historical and cultural context.

 

"As to the scientific correctness of the Bible, do you believe there is water above the "sky" (Genesis 1:6)?"

This sky, or expanse, or firmament, as it is also translated, is what they saw as the "arch of the sky". They had no instruments to send up to examine it. They saw the clouds and the rain coming from above the arch and from the earth below it. Now it doesn't reach the scientific levels of what we know today, but it is doesn't conflict with science, either.

 

"As to the contradictions, if you read through Genesis 1:1-2:3 the order of creation is different in the second creation story 2:4-2:25."

This "second" telling of creation is not in conflict with the first. v5: No plant existed since, as of yet, there was not yet any rain to water the earth, there was no man to cultivate the ground.

v6- But God did bring forth a mist, or flow of water, from the earth for the whole surface of the ground (this would have the provision for the plants to preceed Man); and then- v7- God made man, to cultivate the earth.

 

The two chapters compliment each other, with the second concentrating on the 6th day.

 

"When Mary went to the empty tomb when Jesus had been resurrected was there one angel, as in Matthew 28:2-3? Was another Mary Salome with the Marys Mark 16:1)or was it Mary Magdalene and two disciples at the tomb (John 20)? Was it an angel, or a seated young man (Mark 16:5? Or were there two men standing (Luke 24:4)?"

John 20, Mary was sent back to tell the disciples of the empty tomb. It was Mary's second trip to the tomb where the two disciples were mentioned.

It doesn't appear that it can be determined how many angels were actually present.

 

"Are some of the commands in the Bible confined to the culture of their time (covering heads in prayer, not wearing buttons, making suspected adultresses drink poison to see if they are guilty)? If so, how do you decide which are relevant today and which ones have expired?"

For example: the head covering:

 

"Covering the head.

Priestesses, temple prostitutes, at the Temple of Aphrodite were commonly seen without any covering on their heads and short hair, which was unbecoming of modest women of the day. Paul's concern was for Christian women never to be allowed to be viewed as being unbecoming of a modest woman. It was a good custom that had local meaning. Why flaunt the custom and produce quarrelling and confusion in the church?".

Relevance to todays cultures require similar considerations for what is 'unbecoming of a modest woman'.

 

"If you are wondering how I deal with the above information and still love the Bible, I have been through these questions, struggling, and believe that while the Bible is not "inerrant" nor the only "Word of God" it is a beautiful attempt by man to chronicle a culture's human relationship with God as understood by the men who were inspired by God to write it down. I find that even though it is not "perfect", I read within the Bible deep truths that call me to be more loving than I am and a Way to live life "abundantly". It's okay for us to agree to disagree :-)"

I appreciate the fact that you trust the Bible enough to find the deep truths in it. The only thing I could possibly add would be that for those deep truths to be true, they had to have been God given.

 

 

Davidk

[glintofpewter]

This "second" telling of creation is not in conflict with the first. v5: No plant existed since, as of yet, there was not yet any rain to water the earth, there was no man to cultivate the ground.

v6- But God did bring forth a mist, or flow of water, from the earth for the whole surface of the ground (this would have the provision for the plants to preceed Man); and then- v7- God made man, to cultivate the earth.

 

Seems to ignore verses 2:8-25

 

Take Care

Dutch

[minsocal]

Davidk,

 

I am most interested in you explanation of the following:

 

Genesis 3:1 NIV

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

 

Genesis 3:2 NIV

The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,

 

Genesis 3:4 NIV

"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.

 

Genesis 3:13 NIV

Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

 

Genesis 3:14 NIV

 

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

 

 

minsocal

[davidk]

God spoke man into existence.

Touche Biblically. But I am an ex-Sunday School teacher. I want to know what it looks like in the real world. 100,000 years ago was there one or more groups that prophetically had been led to the universal truths? Did this spiritual maturing begin and end in many places and times. Does the Bible describe the first culture to be led to the universal truths?

Dutch,

 

Having also been a Sunday School teacher, I consider what was taught is what the real world looks like.

God's talking with man, began with the very first man, and seems to have continued through at least the first couple. I suppose it would be just fine to call them the first group. I also suppose that since that first man and wife couple soon had to begin to cultivate their own land, that they would have been the first culture, and they had already been quite aware of God's truths.

 

Did any (culture) arrive at the idea of sacrificial love? Or was 33 C.E the first time?

Because of man's sin, God explained His method for man to follow in order to be in the proper loving relationship with God. Sacrificial offerings were to be made to God to atone for his sins.

The Biblical lesson is that essentially, life requires death to survive. This is especially important when taking man's spiritual life into account. The OT sacrifices for atonment, were commanded to be from a mans' herd, or flock, or grain; all the while, looking forward to the day of the arrival of the Messiah. Remember, something has to die in order for something else to live.

The NT, goes through the fullfilled prophecy of the Messiah, but not as He was sometimes expected to be, but He was the perfect sacrifice of love. It's all a part of the plan, God's plan that is.

 

Davidk

 

P.S. Just got your last post on Gen 2:8-25; Those verses weren't ignored, but conflict no more than the first verses of Ch 2 had with Ch 1. Since they are just the continuation of a detailed account of the 6th day that began in 2:7, I saw no need to go verse by verse.

[Hornet]

This "second" telling of creation is not in conflict with the first. v5: No plant existed since, as of yet, there was not yet any rain to water the earth, there was no man to cultivate the ground.

v6- But God did bring forth a mist, or flow of water, from the earth for the whole surface of the ground (this would have the provision for the plants to preceed Man); and then- v7- God made man, to cultivate the earth.

 

Seems to ignore verses 2:8-25

 

Take Care

Dutch

 

Hello Dutch,

 

I would like to address the alleged contradictions found in the two creation accounts.

 

It is claimed that the first creation account says that plants were created before, but that the second creation account says that plants were created after man.

 

Genesis 2:4-5 (second creation account) says, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

 

Here are two of the different interpretations that people have used to resolve this alleged contradiction.

 

1. Genesis 2:4-5 is not saying that plants were created after humans. These verses are saying that there were no plants in a particular geographical location. It is not saying that there were no plants at all.

 

2. The second creation account is not saying that there were no plants at all. The second creation account is saying that there was no cultivated land and no vegetables fit for the use of man.

 

It is claimed that the first creation account says that the animals were created before man, but that the second creation account says that the animals were created after man.

 

Genesis 2:19 (second creation account) says, "Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name."

 

The Hebrew word translated as "formed" in Genesis 2:19 is using the pluperfect tense, not the simple past tense. The pluperfect tense can be considered as the past of the past—that is to say, in a narration set in the past, the event to which the narration refers is already further in the past.

[Hornet]

Davidk,

 

I am most interested in you explanation of the following:

 

Genesis 3:1 NIV

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

 

Genesis 3:2 NIV

The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,

 

Genesis 3:4 NIV

"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman.

 

Genesis 3:13 NIV

Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

 

Genesis 3:14 NIV

 

So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, "Cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.

 

 

minsocal

 

Genesis 3:2-3 states, "The woman said to the serpent, 'From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"

 

It appears that Eve was adding to what God had said. God said not to eat it, but He did not say, "Don't touch it."

 

The serpent lied to Eve. The serpent told Eve that she would not die if she ate it.

[Neon Genesis]

If God in the Hebrew bible is a monotheistic god, how do you explain why Genesis 1:26 has God refer to itself as "Us"?

Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’

The evangelical interpretation is that this is a reference to the Trinity and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were involved in the creation of the universe, but there's no reference to Jesus or the Holy Spirit anywhere in the text and Jews don't believe in the Trinity. The Hebrew word used in this passage for "Us" is "Elohim" which is the name of a pagan god in the Canaanite pantheon. El and Yahweh are both listed in the Canaanite pantheon as two separate gods yet the first Genesis creation account in the bible says that it's El, not Yahweh, who created the universe.

[minsocal]

Genesis 3:2-3 states, "The woman said to the serpent, 'From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"

 

It appears that Eve was adding to what God had said. God said not to eat it, but He did not say, "Don't touch it."

 

The serpent lied to Eve. The serpent told Eve that she would not die if she ate it.

 

My point to Davidk was a bit more simplistic. Serpents speak?

[glintofpewter]

Making Genesis 2 an extended account of the 6th day requires more contortion than I can deal with. We don't agree on the creation of the Bible, whether there is one author or two or three in Genesis. My view of the Bible is similar to Janet's statement that the Bible is

. . . a beautiful attempt by man to chronicle a culture's human relationship with God as understood by the men who were inspired by God to write it down.

So this discussion about the Bible ends in a handshake, if you will.

 

I also suppose that since that first man and wife couple soon had to begin to cultivate their own land, that they would have been the first culture, and they had already been quite aware of God's truths.

 

We were gatherers, scavengers, and hunters for hundreds of thousands of years before we cultivated the land but that is quibbling.

 

At which point in the development of homo habilis, homo erectus, homo sapiens, or other non-hominid tool makers (tools imply language) of the last 2.5 million years ago did God first speak? Did God speak only to homo sapiens, or to all hominids, or to all tool makers? One paleontologist who studies DNA says evidence and calculations suggest that all homo sapiens descended from a group of about 600. So maybe that is when God decided the homo genus had developed enough to be worth speaking to.

 

David, I don't think the answer to this question is important to you. (You could refer to Scripture, perhaps in Romans, where Paul says something about the mystery of how God works with those outside Christian culture.) But I wonder about the incredible breadth and uncounted eons of evolution and what that has to say about human and Divine development. I have said elsewhere that we create the world with our stories, which is why the Bible is important to us in this culture. I want stories that include 2.5 million years of the development of the homo genus, among many stories, and I don't think a literal reading of the Bible has a wide enough horizon to include that. I do think the Bible "chronicle(s) a culture's human relationship with God" and that it's high point may be - well I started to quote a verse, or may be that one or - unfortunately all that I could think of have been misused. Which reminds me that we read through a frame work of our own making and must relate a Passage of text to our own lives to know what truth is open for us today. We live in the reading and telling of our stories.

 

Take Care

Dutch

[davidk]

... Genesis 1:26 has God refer to itself as "Us"? The evangelical interpretation is that this is a reference to the Trinity and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were involved in the creation of the universe, but there's no reference to Jesus or the Holy Spirit anywhere in the text...

Quickly, I'd like you to note that in Gen 1:2 the Sprit of God is introduced. In John 17:24, Jesus said in His prayer to God the Father, "... for thou didst love me before the foundation of the world."; and in John 17:5, Jesus asks the Father to glorify, Jesus Himself, "with the Glory which I had with thee before the world was." Gen 1:26 is consistent with the rest of Scripture texts.

In addition, I'd like you to also take note of a phrase in Jeremiah 10:16, "The portion of Jacob is not like them (the idols made by men): for He is the maker of all things" He is a personal God not like the idols of men, nor a mere extension of mens minds. This is the root of Biblical doxology- "unto Him", not "it".

[tariki]

The Bible contains two views of God linked with different perspectives of justice. On the one hand there is the God of anger and retributive justice and on the other a God of love and distributive justice. In a sense, these are projections of our own moral dilema onto God. Perhaps the stories are telling us more about ourselves than about God?

 

minsocial, your comment above caught my eye, and my dustbin of a mind mixed it up a bit with glintofpewter's story telling and its significance and importance. It does seem to me that all stories have the potential to teach, and to tell us about ourselves. Yet often it seems the "meaning" has already been determined, and if we are unable to accept the given meaning we therefore turn away and look elsewhere.

 

A disciple once complained, "You tell us stories, but you never reveal their meaning to us."

 

Said the master, "How would you like it if someone offered you fruit and chewed it up before giving it to you?"

 

No one can find your meaning for you.

 

Not even the master.

 

 

It does seem to me that any story book has this potential, yet such potential is obscured by seeking to dictate the meaning. To insist that the meaning is one and one only, and that the story is a one way street from book to us...........well, at least to me, such leaves the unsolvable dilemma of exactly which book to invest our time in.

 

Yet possibly before any attempt at defining meaning, there is the importance of listening (as well as the telling)....

 

This is just one lament from a nursing home resident..........

 

Heard........If they only understood how important it is that we be heard! I can take being in a nursing home. It's really all right, with a positive attitude. My daughter has her hands full, three kids and a job. She visits regularly. I understand.

 

But most people here......they just want to tell their story. That's what they have to give, don't you see? And it's a precious thing to them. It's their life they want to give. You'd think people would understand what it means to us..............to give our lives in a story.

 

So we listen to each other. Most of what goes on here is people listening to each other's stories. People who work here consider that to be.....filling time. It they only knew. If they'd just take a minute to listen.

 

For me, there are many stories "out there". Many cultures, many people. I think we need to stop giving pre-eminence to out own stories, and asking others to listen, and in effect ignore the stories they have (or have had)

[Hornet]

My point to Davidk was a bit more simplistic. Serpents speak?

 

Satan was speaking through the serpent.

[Guest billmc]

Satan was speaking through the serpent.

 

Out of curiousity, where does the text specifically say that Satan was the serpent or that Satan was there?

[tariki]

Out of curiousity, where does the text specifically say that Satan was the serpent or that Satan was there?

 

Billmc,

 

Perhaps I can help here? Revelation twice identifies the Devil - or Satan - with "that ancient serpent". (Please see Rev 12:2 and Rev 20:2.) Should it be argued that Revelation was written long after Genesis, this could have to do with the pluperfect tense...........but I'm not sure.

[Neon Genesis]

Quickly, I'd like you to note that in Gen 1:2 the Sprit of God is introduced. In John 17:24, Jesus said in His prayer to God the Father, "... for thou didst love me before the foundation of the world."; and in John 17:5, Jesus asks the Father to glorify, Jesus Himself, "with the Glory which I had with thee before the world was." Gen 1:26 is consistent with the rest of Scripture texts.

In addition, I'd like you to also take note of a phrase in Jeremiah 10:16, "The portion of Jacob is not like them (the idols made by men): for He is the maker of all things" He is a personal God not like the idols of men, nor a mere extension of mens minds. This is the root of Biblical doxology- "unto Him", not "it".

Even if the Holy Spirit was involved in the creation of the universe, the Hebrew word for the Holy Spirit is not Elohim, Elohim is a completely different deity from pagan mythology. The passage in John 17:24 represents later Christian doctrine but you are trying to insert Christian doctrine into a Jewish work. Jews don't believe in Jesus and Genesis is a Jewish work, not a Christian work, so you can't insert Christian theology written decades later into a Jewish work. John's gospel may see Jesus as involved in the creation of the world and if you believe Jesus was involved in the creation of the universe, I have nothing against it, but you have to take Genesis's views and John's views separately instead of presuming they all represent a unified theology.

[davidk]

I have two additions to this topic. This is the first I'd like to deal with:

 

Gen 3:1 (NAS); "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said, to the woman,' Indeed, has God said,"You shall not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

 

And immediately questions arise. We want to know more than we are given. So it is actually necessary for us to remind ourselves what kind of book the Bible is. The Bible is a book for fallen men. Whatever it teaches it does so with truth, but not with exhaustive truth. It does not answer every question that we might ask about any of these matters, for if everything were addressed, all the libraries in the world couldn't hold enough books.

It is in this context, the serpent enters, and we are introduced to that which concerns the supernatural half of the universe.

While the Sripture is a whole, it records an increasing revelation as time passes. It all forms a unit, and while we have increasing revelation, we do not have contradictory revelation. It is often toward the end of the Bible that clear explanations of earlier parts are given. Thus in Revelation 12:9, we find, "And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Satan doesn't translate as a general adversary. Rather he is THE adversary, the SATAN. But notice that this serpent is a special serpent. A definite article is used. He can be called the old serpent, or the Devil, or the Satan. In any case, by the Hebrew definite article (in Hebrew grammer- an article of emminence) in Gen 3:1, who we are dealing with is clearly identified. In this case, the serpent actually is made a proper name- The Serpent.

Or did the Devil possess an animal, the serpent? In other words, The Serpent used a serpent. Well, the Bible does mention, at least twice, other cases of the Devil using- possession. Whether it is a Judas or an Antichrist or a serpent, we should not be taken by surprise if The Serpent speaks.

[glintofpewter]

Let me plagiarize from the notes of the New Jerusalem Bible

 

(Referring to the first account) This narrative, ascribed to the 'Priestly' source, is less concrete and more theological than that which follows, 2:4-25; it aims at a logical and exhaustive classification of beings whose creation is deliberately fitted into the framework of a week which closes with the sabbath day of rest. These beings come forth from nothing at God's command; they emerge in order of dignity; man, God's image and creation's king, comes last.

 

(referring to the second account) This 'Yahwistic' narrative has man and his destiny for the center of interest. In a figurative way it describes the primordial tragedy of the consequences of which were to dominate man's estate and story.

 

For me the point of these two notes is that a complicated dovetailing of two disparate passages is not necessary.

 

That said, the theodicy that makes sense to me includes the view that Adam and Eve do not fall down, but step up, into the world.

 

Take Care

Dutch

[Mike]

Biblical scholar James Kugel does a laudable job in his 'How to Read the Bible' of relating what modern biblical scholarship has to say about the original meanings of the ancient biblical stories, and how those stories were transformed by ancient Jewish interpreters.

 

One idea suggested is that the story of Adam and Eve is actually an attempt to explain the agricultural revolution.

 

He writes,

 

'Ancient Israelites were not modern anthropologists, of course, but that would not have stopped them from trying to consider how certain basic changes might have come about--specifically, how humans came to be farmers, learned the secrets of childbirth, and came to fashion clothes for themselves. All these elements may be rolled together into the account of events attributed by scholars to the J source.'

 

'As for the serpent in the story, he is said to be "clever"...and he also serves to convince Adam and Eve to become clever, that is, to eat from the knowledge-giving tree. His appearance in the story may have some connection with the worship of snakes attested elsewhere in the ancient Near East; such a divine or semidivine serpent might have been deemed an apt vehicle for transmitting the sacred knowledge of agriculture and the other things that might go with it. Or, the snake in the story may simply be an ordinary snake. After all, snakes were proverbially clever in the biblical world, and their lack of legs might indeed have looked like some sort of divine punishment: if so, this story explained their crime.' (How to Read the Bible 56)

 

This makes sense to me. Even in the much later book of Enoch, the author resorts to very mythological and supernatural events to explain rather mundane historical developments, like how man learned to create weapons.

 

Kugel sums up the nature of the two creation accounts by saying:

 

'In short, for modern biblical scholarship, the opening chapters of Genesis combined two originally separate texts, each with its own agenda'.

 

Peace,

Mike

[davidk]

My previous post was intended to be my second of two, but the topic of the serpent was at hand so I put the second - first.

With that said, I'd like to say that I had not intended to author this thread. However, since my name is on it, I feel it is about time I make a proper introductory contribution.

--

 

I believe there is a battle for a Christian understanding of the world by how the Bible is to be read in Biblical study.

 

So, how is the Bible to be read? How should the beginning chapters be read? Are they historical? And, of what value are they?

I suspect these first chapters of Genesis(1-11) may be the most important ones in the Bible. They put man in his proper setting in the universe with his peculiar uniqueness, and explains the wonder as well as the flaws of man.

 

Without a proper undersatanding of these first chapters, we are left with no answers to the problems of metaphysics, morals, or epistemology; and any real meaning for the works and words of Jesus Christ are lost.

 

The whole of Biblical mentality is that creation is as historically real as our own present moment in time. Genesis 1:1 and the structure of what follows pronounce that we are dealing with history just as much as if we talked about ourselves at this moment at this particular time at this particular place.

 

Of course we should be considering the Jewish concepts of truth (rather than the Greek, or Roman, or ...) which is concerned with what is open to discussion, rationality, and not just an existential leap. It is rooted in what is historical.

 

Moses, in Deut 4 & 5, reminded the Jews who stood before him that they had seen and they had heard what happened at Mt Sinai, in actual space-time history.

John, in 20:30-31, wrote that the disciples were there and saw what Jesus had said and done so they might believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and might have life through Him.

 

When dealing with Jewish writing, we need to keep in mind that there is an insistence upon history, truth rooted in space and time.

---

 

 

 

Note: To shed more light on the relationship of Genesis 1 & 2, a consideration of a literary strucuture which occurs throughout the book of Genesis: first, less important things are dealt with rapidly, and then the things of more importance to the central theme of the Bible are returned to and developed more fully.

For example, in the case of Isaac and his sons Esau and Jacob. Esau's story came first, but it is Jacob's that is fully developed. Likewise, Genesis 1 first deals with man in his 'cosmic' setting, and then Genesis 2 turns to man and puts him as the center of the theme of the book.

While the accounts have a different emphasis in this way, they are not pitted against one another.