How can we tell if Genesis is a historical narrative? – Douglas Kelly

We had a delightful time with Dr. Steve Boyd lookingat the text itself, the Hebrew text itself. It was a delightfultime with him. And he was talkingabout the genre of what we’re seeing therein Genesis 1-11. Yeah. His statement that itis impossible to read this as anything buthistorical narrative — Yes. When we look back for exampleat the text that says that Jesus was crucified, He was buried,He was dead, and for three daysHe was in the grave before He rose. Do you see anythingdifferent in the text that tells usof Jesus’ crucifixion and death and burial and in the gravefor three days and the text that we have in Genesis 1-11? In principle, no. If you only say “a daycould be an age ” then Jesus was crucified for an age,in the tomb for an age, and raised for an age. No, it means what it says. It says what it means. For instance, let’s just saythe first few chapters of Genesis are in no sensein the genre of Hebrew poetry. I’m not an expert on Hebrewpoetry but men who are, such as the late Edward J. Youngof Westminster seminary in several of his writingsand then my own colleague, Dr. John Currid, who is an expert in Hebrew, have said none of the thingsthat are required for Hebrew poetry — you know, strophe, metaphor,et cetera, et cetera — are present or is presentin those early chapters. Rather what you haveis the Waw Consecutive. And he said. And he said. And he did. [Hebrew] and so forth and so on. The Waw Consecutive is a signof the way Chronicles, Samuel and theothers are written. It is narrative prose.

It is not poetry. And when we, then, begin to look at that historicalnarrative in Genesis as more allegory or poetry, then one could alsobe inclined to look at a number of other portions of Scripture that are historically narrativeand make those an allegory as some have done evenwith the crucifixion of Christ. Sure. And certainly thefundamentalist modernist, the moderns say the virginbirth is an allegory because it violates the canonsof the European Enlightenment that God is in a separaterealm from this one and cannot intervene. The Red Sea is an allegorybecause it cannot have happened that God would intervene in water to getthese people through.

So therefore, theyresort to allegory. They’re, in a sense,no better than Origen. Just not as intelligent as hewas in many of the things they say in knee jerk reactionto modern liberalism, I think. So, no. If you evacuate the realityof the first Adam, it’s very easy to whittledown the last Adam so He will not be a challenge tothe world view of unbelievers. And then some evangelicals thinkthey’ve done a wonderful thing because they’re no longeroffensive to the unbelievers, but they won’t be satisfied.

They will allow you to go further, further. So why start? Making. Call them lovingly to Christ. Call them with love and humility written in the Word of God, and when the Word of God is recited and the Holy Spirit is prayed, they will meet God. And they won’t need to do those self-harming things. So love means we have to tell the truth about it even if their faces are pretty red. Yes. Let’s take a look at some of the other issues raised in the Creation account. And someone takes us to the end of the seventh day, we don’t have the order we see here… Yes. … In the first six days. Does it have any significance there? I don’t think it makes sense to say that the day is longer than any other 24 hour day. . He studied God creatively for six days and rested on the seventh. The same phrase is used or almost the same, Exodus 31 I believe, maybe verse 17, I’m not sure – work six days, seventh day rest. Why six? I will hardly go into Augustine’s theory on the split parts of six. But I think God loves His Son enough to create a world. And from this world he would put the human race in His image, and from the human race in this world image, God would bring a beautiful bride, the church, to his beloved Son.

Therefore, a great thing that happens in the workings of spacetime history and in salvation, this beloved Son is preparing a bride. So, God – I guess I can’t be sure – but I assume that part of his six-day use of work and rest is to prepare a life rhythm that is beneficial to humanity, the crown of His Creation. Humanity. This precious church that Jesus will give him will come out of here. Six days of work, one for rest. I believe this is because… this is not a closed discussion. But I think that may be the reason why he does this in six days and without rest. Now, the fact that he doesn’t use the exact same phrase – you know, evenings, mornings – I think it’s saying it’s a different attribute. Not the amount. And the quality we see when we appear before Him in Psalm 95, gathered in Hebrews 4, I believe, is sacrifice in the morning and evening in the Old Testament, in a morning and evening ritual. Morning and evening sermons in Yeni. The qualitative existence of God makes the Sabbath qualitatively different, especially the Christian Sabbath after the resurrection of Christ. It makes it very special, different from the other days – not long because God says work six days and rest on the seventh. If the seventh day doesn’t mean 24 hours, that means we can rest for seven thousand years. And I would not work here. (This is not much work, but I like it.) So, no, this is ridiculous. This is desperation. It’s a desperate attempt to lead to evolution. There is a very interesting passage in this explanation in Genesis 2: 5 when we are told that “there are no bushes in the field yet.” Can you get us through this? Yes, I know a prominent Hebrew who I personally know and respect, Dr. Meredith Klein specifically did this from an article she wrote years ago in the Westminster Theologicaljournal. I don’t know, maybe in the ’50s because “it’s not raining”. Genesis1 does not mean a chronological sequence, but an artistic representation of the panels of certain things happening, and is not intended to be chronologically ordered, as he said in one of his articles in a particular dictionary, because evolution. He was an evolutionist. Although Christian, definitely. And he mentions it a lot in Genesis 2: 5, because certain types of plants were absent because it wasn’t raining. Umberto Cassuto gives a good answer to this. Siah in Hebrew and Esebh language. Siah is about what happened after Adam sinned – thorns invade the land.
Esebh is wheat and barley. As Cassuto argued, there was no doubt that wheat and barley would experience shocks, but the fields were not organized until humanity started agriculture. And then, you know, rain… The first water came from the soil in the morning, but obviously barley crops, spelled wheat, maybe more water will be needed and humanity will organize in the fields. This does not mean that barley or wheat has never been created. But that’s when it starts to work. Whereas, in my opinion, thorns and thistles, possibly the Hebrew Siah, were not introduced until autumn. That would be my explanation. Some people look at Part 1 and then Part 2 and say that we have a conflict here because there is a retelling of Creation and they don’t match.

How are we seeing it? Yes, this is certainly an argument from 18th century high criticism in Germany and France. In fact, this is an incorrect reading of how the Hebrews wrote history. I think the best answer would be from Umberto Cassuto – they read it all. He states that they read categories as if developed in parts of Europe so that history could be written in Genesis 1 and 2, and therefore create contradictions that never were. So what does he say? He says that Genesis 1 is the big picture. But he says in Hebrew Historiography, you go back and take a point from the previous chapter that relates specifically to the Bible, the rest of humanity. Mankind was created on the sixth day. Genesis 2, the second account of man and woman, is written on humanity. Instead of something else, let’s say in possibly contradictory or strictly contradictory orders, it’s just like a newspaper that gives you the title and then gets the item you’re interested in, and it’s happened and It improves. in this regard. Edbert J. Uberto Cassuto and his commentary on Genesis as some of Young’s in the Beginning and others. So chapter 2 unfortunately leads us to the downfall of man.

And if death occurred as a result of the fall, as God promised, does this mean that there was no death before? And what are its implications for today’s traditional paradigm? This means that of course. Then, Dr. Nigel Cameron wrote in his book Evolutionand the Authority of the Bible that the greatest reason for evolution could be that there was no death in the universe before Adam’s disobedience to God, and the result would be judgment. Fission, and death. Not to mention places other than Genesis chapter 3 and Romans 5: 12-21 and also Corinthians I 15.. Therefore there was no death. Many argue that death must happen, because nature today balances with death. this is right. But in the new heavens and in the new heavenly world, there will be no death and nature will be beautifully balanced.

In heaven, in the new heaven, and in the new heavenly earth, it is balanced before the Fall, because it will return without sin, evil, fragmentation, and death. So development could not happen without the teeth and claws of nature, without war, without death. This could not have happened before the fall of Adam. Therefore, this one is not developed.

This is understood from the central theology of Scripture, and you have no way of accepting God’s authority. So is this a major issue called “believer development” that needs to be clarified with the adopter? ” You have to empty it. Speaking of the cause of death, you must remove a good portion of the authority of Scripture. It is not worth the price you pay to establish a doctrine that comes from a secularist. This leads us, in part, to the lineage that begins just after the story of the creation of the lineage. And there is some argument about genealogy – there are gaps etc.

Your comment on that? Fine. Again, I hate coming back to European Enlightenment as if playing the same chord with a violin. There is no problem. But this was due to the consequences of many aspects of European Enlightenment. They decided that the world is millions of years old, then hundreds of millions, then billions. Therefore, the lineage given in Genesis and also reflected in Matthew and Luke may not be true, because it will give you a world that was not several thousand years old. Now, at Princeton, there was a desire to speak more clearly with some form of development and scientific counterparts who bought the ancient world quite well. And various people, Green and then Warfield and others believe that father, son, grandson, grandson, and so on, have big gaps, now you have them in Genesis and also in Luke and Matthew. In fact, I don’t think there are gaps. Let me tell you why. It is not a gap between when a man lives and the next generation, but how old the father was when his son was born. And how old she was when her son was born. Then the interval will become irrelevant. It may not have mentioned all the ancestors, but how old it is – true. – When was he born and how old is his age. So, maybe the pedigree will take us back.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *