Inerrancy of Scripture: Genesis 4:17 & Genesis 5

[Guest]

Hello,

I currently am engaged in written debate over the inerrancy of scripture with my pastor.
In particular, we are discussing whether the Genesis 1-11 is literal history.
My pastor defends the view that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are figurative and that the historical figures (Adam, Cain, Seth, Noah, etc,.) do not necessarily relate to any individual person whom actually lived in the past.
He also contents that the events (i.e. Tower of Babel) of the first 11 chapters are figurative and do not necessarily describe historical events that actually occurred.

In particular, my pastor asserts that the genealogies of Genesis 4 and 5 contradict.
Genesis 4:17 states Adam, Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech.
Genesis 4:25-5:32 states Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech.
Notice, Lamech and Enoch appear in both lists and the similarity of the names Methushael and Methuselah.
Therefore, he argues that a literal interpretation must be wrong.

I have responded that it is not a contradiction because the genealogies are tracing different ancestral lines.
That is, there were two different people named Lamech, and two named Enoch.
It is only coincidence that the name of Methushael and Methuselah are similar.

He responds "[this] is incredible. This seems to be stretching the details to fit a literalist methodology."

So, as my case is not convincing (at least to some), I would like to ask for some help in forming a response to this particular alleged discrepancy.

Thanks,

Pete

[Guest]

Does he believe in evolution?

Paul said:

Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth

And...

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--
Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
Rom 5:16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.
Rom 5:17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Rom 5:19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.


How many times does Paul state "one man" referring to Adam? If there was no Adam, there was no fall. If there was no fall, there is no need for a redeemer. And all the NT referrences to Adam by Jesus and Paul show they were in error and there is no reason to believe what they say. The global flood is the next to go. Think about it, it was just a local flood. So God's rainbow is a constant reminder that God will never again send a local flood?

You might be able to find some information here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/

[Guest]

It seems pretty straight-forward that 2 different branches of the family tree are in view. Obviously one is Cain's and one is Seth's. The parallel and similar sounding names are hardly surprising since names are often passed down along family trees and shared b/w many in close proximity.

Also, it's hard to believe the Biblical writer (whether it was Moses or Noah) would have contradicted themselves so obviously in just a matter of sentances. If they were making it up or wrong, they would easily have known to fix their mistake since the lists are so close together.

Also, I'm not sure what the 'figurative' value of contradicting geneologies would be.

[_Steve]

Good answers all from Pete, Sean and Matt. I would add a few observations.

Unfortunately, Pete's pastor has been caught up in the skeptical spirit of our age, where the Bible is assumed false unless proven true. This is not the way we approach other historical documents, literature in general, nor court testimony. It is arbitrary skepticism, which reveals a heart uniquely hostile to the scriptures.

The evidence he gives from the genealogies is so flimsy as to be ludicrous. Perhaps he is not aware that Christians and Jewish scholars who have believed in the accuracy of these accounts throughout history were also confronted with the same data, but never saw the slightest reason to conclude against the veracity of the records. Why do so now?

There are excellent reasons to believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis were intended to be taken as historical accounts, rather than a group of moral tales. To disbelieve them is to ignore the most obvious data:

1) There is no compelling evidence against a literal interpretation of these chapters;

2) The detailed genealogies, in chapters 5, 10 and 11, give the impression that the author is at least claiming to present the actual history of real families (as opposed to moral fables, which would not require such genealogical connections between the characters);

3) There is nothing astonishing, nor even surprising, about finding the same names in different genealogies. The genealogies of Jesus (which, by the way, presume the accuracy of and incorporate the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11) contain a number of names that occur more than once—e.g., Jacob and Joseph (Matt.1:2, 16/Luke 3:24, 26, 30, 33-34), Judah (Matt.1:2/ Luke 3:30). Matthat (Luke 3:24, 29). Names as similar to each other as Matthat, Mattathiah and Mattathah occur in the same family line (Luke 3:24, 29, 30, 31)!

4) The manner in which Jesus alluded to the characters and events in this section of Genesis only makes sense if He regarded them as historical. For example:

a. Jesus based His moral teaching about divorce upon the factuality of Genesis 2:28 (Matt.19:1-8);

b. Jesus believed that Cain literally killed Abel, to the extent that bloodguilt of his murder must be avenged upon His generation (Matt.23:35);

c. Conditions before the coming of the Son of Man are to resemble those just prior to Noah's flood—something impossible unless such conditions and such a flood really existed (Matt.24:37-39).

5) The New Testament writers consistently alluded to the people and stories from this section as if they were true (e.g. Rom.5:12ff/ 1 Cor.15:21-22/ 1 Pet.3:20/ 1 John 3:12). The writer of Hebrews spoke as if Abel, Enoch, and Noah were as historical as were Abraham, Moses and David (Heb.11).

These evidence give the believer a pretty good foundation of evidence for believing Genesis 1—11 are historical accounts. I give evidences from within the scriptures because, presumably, your pastor accepts the rest of scripture (apart from Genesis 1—11) as valid. If the doubter about these chapters was also an unbeliever in the rest of the Bible, I would simply pose this question (equally applicable to your pastor):

What evidence can be given that they are not as historical as they claim to be?

In Jesus,
Steve

[Guest]

The evidence that Genesis may not be literal would lie outside scripture if you give evolution any credibility. If evolution is to be believed then man could be at least 49,000 years old or much older. That would increase the chances that Genesis is at least partly figurative. For example Adam could be the symbol for mankind and our decent into sin. I've watched a video from Hugh Ross and he makes a pretty good case for a universe about 14 billion yrs old but of course that does'nt mean that creation on earth had to begin back then. Of course perhaps the flood distorted all the dating measurements that scientists assume are true so who knows.

[Guest]

Hello,

Many thanks for your excellent replies and additional arguments! Some of these arguments I have already raised with him, others I have not. In particular, Answers In Genesis has been very helpful in providing sound arguments for the literal view.

Since there seems to be a lot of interest here, I'll ask for thoughts on few more arguments (perhaps these really deserve new threads):

1) The validity of references to a figurative story:

In the course of our debate I mentioned about half of these verses cited above that show the New Testament authors considered the events of Genesis 1-11 literally. His response is that Genesis 1-11 is no more untrue than Jesus' story of the Prodigal Son. It would be equally valid for the authors of scripture to refer to a character in such a parable as it would be to refer to a literal historical person, because these stories contain 'theological truth'. Therefore, the NT references to Genesis are valid even if the characters are not historical. Where a more serious problem arises (i.e. the bloodguilt for Abel) I expect that he will argue that the story is symbolic of whatever 'really happened', and the inherited guilt relates to whatever really happened.

2) The validity of an ancient cosmology.

Another important aspect of the debate is the assertion that the ancients had believed in the cosmology depicted in the picture referenced below. He asserts that the ancient Jews believed it, that God did not think it was important to correct them, and that this cosmology is taught or reflected in various scripture passages (i.e. the pillars of the earth).

http://www.annarborvineyard.org/donscor ... mology.jpg

I am planning respond in this way:
a) The bible does use figurative language (i.e. the pillars of the earth are earth human authorities)
b) There is to my knowledge no historical documentation regarding ancient Jewish cosmology
c) Regardless of what the Jews believed, a purely biblical case to construct this cosmology cannot be made.

3) The validity of dividing between figurative and literal between Genesis 11 and Genesis 12.

He wishes to take ch 12 literally, but not 1-11. I have asked him to provide a reason. After all, if one takes a non-literal view why stop at chapter 11? Can one be sure 12 is not figurative and symbolic? If not, then how can one be sure whether anything in the bible is literal?

He responded "The fact that Genesis 1-11 deals with the history of the world, rather than the specific history of Israel, does make a difference, and does suggest that a different hermeneutic be applied."

In my humble opinion, this is Ad Hoc and not a valid argument.


I could write a fair amount about Hugh Ross, but in short I have lost confidence in his integrity and also in the validity of many his arguments. A reason I say this is that His scriptural arguments have been soundly refuted by Van Bebber and Taylor, and to my knowledge he has never responded to their legitimate objections to his old-earth interpretation (I search his website carefully). Also, Hugh Ross does continues to knowingly assert straw man arguments against YEC to advance his OEC case (i.e. in particular with regard to alleged biological evolution). On the cosmology issue, Dr. Russell Humpherys arguments appear to be a valid explanation for the major findings in astronomy (cosmic background radiation, distant starlight, and redshift), so the 14 billion year old case is not proven.

P.S. It was asked "Does he believe in evolution?" The answer is Yes.


Thanks very much for time!

Pete

[Guest]

1) The validity of references to a figurative story:

In the course of our debate I mentioned about half of these verses cited above that show the New Testament authors considered the events of Genesis 1-11 literally. His response is that Genesis 1-11 is no more untrue than Jesus' story of the Prodigal Son. It would be equally valid for the authors of scripture to refer to a character in such a parable as it would be to refer to a literal historical person, because these stories contain 'theological truth'. Therefore, the NT references to Genesis are valid even if the characters are not historical. Where a more serious problem arises (i.e. the bloodguilt for Abel) I expect that he will argue that the story is symbolic of whatever 'really happened', and the inherited guilt relates to whatever really happened.

Sorry to jump to conclusions but a belief in evolution is what is driving his exegesis. Gen 1-11 cannot be literal if evolution is true, and vice versa. What in the world does "death reigned from Adam to Moses..." mean? And what does the" first man Adam" mean? Does he belive that in the new heavens and new earth that evolution will continue? I mean, before the "fall" everything was "very good". If "very good" included evolution then why not.

2) The validity of an ancient cosmology.

The Jews got a lot of things wrong that God didn't correct. Did Jesus come and teach them about germs and bacteria and the big bang, etc? If this were so important, why not? This is an argument from silence. He seems to expect God to have said "your wrong about the creation", "The earth is really part of a 'solar system' where the round earth rotates on a tilted axis which rotates around the sun (a ball of hat gasses) which rotates around the galaxy that floats in the universe of uncountable stars and galaxies which I formed 14 billion years ago".

These people didn't care, they didn't listen to God anyway and killed the prophets that simply called them to repentance. If they won't even listen to a message about repentance, why go on about other non-essential things? Again, a comittment to evolution will override the historicity of Genesis, because to one who doesn't believe God can do Genesis literally, the only thing left is random natural processes. Either death came to all because all sinned, or death came before sin as a part of evolution and is "very good".

3) The validity of dividing between figurative and literal between Genesis 11 and Genesis 12.

He wishes to take ch 12 literally, but not 1-11. I have asked him to provide a reason. After all, if one takes a non-literal view why stop at chapter 11? Can one be sure 12 is not figurative and symbolic? If not, then how can one be sure whether anything in the bible is literal?

He responded "The fact that Genesis 1-11 deals with the history of the world, rather than the specific history of Israel, does make a difference, and does suggest that a different hermeneutic be applied."

In my humble opinion, this is Ad Hoc and not a valid argument.

I agree.