CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The
book of Genesis is the first book of Bible, which comes under the section of
Pentateuch. There are fifty chapters in the book divided in to two parts. The
first 11 chapters of the book is the part1which deals with the Origins and from
chapter 12 to chapter 50 is the part 2 which talks about the people and the
nation known as Israel. In this course paper, I will be focusing on the first
part of the book of Genesis from the historical and cultural perspective for
its reliability as historical documentation and in glance scientific
examination. However, there are many approaches to read the first eleven
chapters of Genesis, for instance, biological approach, theological approach
geographical approach, philosophical approach, archeological approach,
socio-civilizational approach etc. Some of critiques of the Bible have denied
the Genesis 1-11 from its historical and divine revelation point of views. For
some, the events that which recorded in Genesis 1-11 is just a myth story
similar to Babylonian, Egyptian, Sumerian mythological stories, and for some it
is poetry not literal or in actual happened historical document. There are many
more objections have been created by critiques against to the Genesis 1-11. MY
intention in writing of this paper is to reread the text of Genesis 1-11 in its
historical perspective and scientific reliability to examine its contents,
events, and characters in contemporary relevancy. Also, falsify those claims of
the opponents that are incoherent and just man made assumptions with bias concepts,
prejudiced suppositions, hatred, personal agendas, etc.
Both external and
internal evidences support the Mosaic Authorship for the book of Genesis along
with rest four books of Pentateuch. However, the documentary hypothesis highly
opposed the authorship of Moses of book of Genesis. It proposes the view that
the entire Pentateuch including the book of Genesis is not one-man work at all,
but many. This view suggests that there are at least four resources by which
entire Pentateuch was written down known as JEDP[1]. The
major rule in contributing this view is played by a German scholar Julius
Wellhausen (1844-1918), but this does not bother much to me because such
resources J E D P by which Pentateuch was compiled (according to Wellhausen)
have not been found until this day.
The name "Genesis"
comes from the Greek word Geneseos, meaning something along the lines of
"origin" or "birth". This came from the Hebrew word B'reshit,
literally "in the beginning." Therefore, Genesis is the book of
beginnings. In the first eleven chapters, we discover the beginning of the
universe, the earth, human life, sin, death, and redemption. Every single
biblical doctrine of theology directly or indirectly, ultimately has its basis
in the book of Genesis. It is a foundation book of Christian doctrine.
Anyone who has read the
Bible very much will recognize that there are different kinds of literature in
the Old and New Testaments. There are parables, poetry, prophetic visions,
dreams, epistles, proverbs, and historical narrative, with the majority being
the latter. So, how should we interpret Genesis 1–11? Is it history? Is it
mythology? Is it symbolic poetry? Is it allegory? Is it a parable? Is it a
prophetic vision? Is it a mixture of these kinds of literature or some kind of
unique genre? And does it really matter anyway?
We will come back to
the last question later, but suffice it to say here that the correct conclusion
on genre of literature is foundational to the question of the correct
interpretation. If we interpret something literally that the author intended to
be understood figuratively, then we will misunderstand the text. When Jesus
said “I am the door” (John 10:9), He did not mean that He was made of wood with
hinges attached to His side. Conversely, if we interpret something figuratively
that the author intended to be taken literally, we will err. When Jesus said,
“The Son of Man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they will
kill Him, and the third day He will be raised up” (Matt. 17:22–23), He clearly
meant it just as literally as if I said to my wife, “Susari, I’m going to fill
up the gas tank with gas and will be back in a few minutes.”
CHAPTER 2
GENESIS 1-11 RELATED TO ITS BACKGROUND
H.
Gunkel and O. Eissfeldt,[2] who
make much of the presence of myth in Genesis, admit that neither this book nor
the remainder of the Old Testament erotic myth. Nor is the material in the in
Genesis 1-11 mythological in the sense that this type of literature is centered
on the interactions of gods and goddesses who are aspect or object of nature.
Ever since the
publication of the Akkadian creation and flood stories a century ago, scholars
have wrestled with the problem of actual and/or possible ties between those
stories and the biblical accounts. Many have held that that the Israelites
simply rewrote, according to their late theological views, the pagan stories
they had become acquainted with during the exile. Others have insisted that the
biblical material had a separate literature history. Perhaps the matter can be
clarified somewhat by taking each biblical story and comparing it with the
pagan myth.
An outstanding feature
of the creation account is prominence of one God and one only. He was prior to
all aspects of nature and at no time is God identified with nature except as
its Creator and Lord. There are neither sexual processes nor material
emanations from a primordial darkness or sea. To be sure, there is an abyss,
there is darkness and a sea in the darkness, but they are not personified nor
are they deities. Much has been made of a similarity of sound between the
Hebrew word for “deep” or “abyss,” tehom, and the sea goddess, Tiamat,
of the Akkadian Epic of Creation.[3]
Though the two words may have come from the same root, tehom is
masculine and denotes inanimate, water as a personified, active deity.
A
remarkable feature of Genesis 1:16-18 is the writer’s omission of the names of
“greater light” and the “lesser light” and his mention of the stars as though
an afterthought. Though these astral bodies were important gods in the religion
of the Near East, especially in Egypt, and stars were vital to astrology, the
biblical account simply says that God put them in place and assigned them
tasks, and that was that.
2.1
Image of God
In
Genesis 1:26 occurs a plural pronoun in a divine speech “Let us make man in our
image…” and a singular pronoun in 1:27, “his image….” Some scholars have
suggested this is a vestige of polytheism and infers a divine council in which
Elohim is chief, hence contrary to the monotheism of 1:27 and the rest of the
chapter. Others have suggested a verbal plural of majesty, or a council of
angels. Many in the traditional Christian approach have seen an oblique
reference to the trinity. The plural pronoun appears in divine speeches also in
Gen. 3:22 and 11:7. Given the strong antipolytheistic and antimythical nature
of the rest of the passages in context, it is not likely that these plural
pronouns are vestiges of paganism. If the Trinity is in fact eternal, it is also
difficult to see how these plural pronouns must be ruled out as not being
oblique references to the triune character of the Godhead. The statement is
vague enough, though openness must be maintain for further light. The idea of
“image of God” appears in some of Mesopotamian literature, but it seems to be
either related to kingship or to idols that represented the deities and which
some of the power of the deities was concentrated. But in the Genesis 1:26, 27,
the image of God cannot be limited to either royalty or idols. The image of God
can be only in man and seems to denote his special place at the apex of God’s
creative acts. Only man can communicate with God, have a personal relationship
with God, or be God’s agents in ruling nature.[4]
Further,
the man is an “image of God,” but he is not partially divine nor can he become
divine as in paganism. Man is made of earth and can relate with God on a
personal level; but he cannot be God. Attempts to crash the limitations of
being human result only in disasters. Man does not simply take over menial
tasks; he is commissioned by God to a high destiny of dominion in the world and
gifted with power of freedom of choice before God. Man is not inherently
immortal, but he can experience grace and mercy and life as gift from God. Man
can also reject them.
2.2
Sabbath
In
the Babylonian Epic of Creation,[5] the
deities relaxed after the creative events and had a huge feast, but in Gen.
2:1-3, God’s rest simply sets an order to life for man and Sabbath is made
holy. The pagans often made holy certain places, people, or things; but God
selected a segment of time for worship and made it holy. The Babylonians had a
word shabattu but it designated certain days that were ominous with
danger; the biblical Sabbath was freighted with blessing.
2.3
The Days of Genesis in Cultural Context
One
cannot find in the pagan literature an answer to the meaning of the word “day”
in Genesis 1. True, seven clay tablets bear the Epic of creation myth, but this
doesn’t help much. A study of the Hebrew word for day, yam, does not aid
the search for meaning. For centuries, scholars in the traditional stream of
thought have split between an understanding of “day” as twenty-four hours or as
identified period of time. The Hebrew word for “day” is broad in its meaning,
and in Genesis1:5, 15, 17, and 2:4, several different meaning apparent. The
phrase “evening and morning” is an unusual sequence in Hebrew and may simply
designate the totality of the act.
There are loose
literary parallels in the arrangement of the days. Days 1 and 4 deal with day
and night; day 1 divides them and day 4 lists three categories. Day 2 and day 5
do the same thing, only the waters are divided and the three groups are
creatures. Day 3 and day 6 are concerned with earth. In day 1 the earth is
separated from the sea and three kinds of plants are listed; and in day 6 three
types of beasts are mentioned, along with man, the crowing act of creation, the
seventh in the series. There is a seventh day to cap the six days, and God does
three things on that day. A parallelism of other details on these days,
however, does not work out well.[6]
The literal structure
of the material treated under the category of a day is similar. Each day has
one to four declarations of God’s decision to do something; then there is a
statement concerning the carrying out of God’s decision; and, family, a
notation of divine approval. Within this structure, there is some freedom of
praising and syntax. Pagan literature that includes creation does not possess
this type of structure. That the author intended some type of sequence in the
steps of making the earth habitable for man seems evident. What is not so
evident is data by which we can set up time spans for each divine act, or the
precise methods by each aspects of nature came in to being.
Some recent scholars,
natively S. H. Hook,[7] have
promoted the idea that the division of the creation account into days saw the
result of liturgical usage of the material in a New Year festival. But no New
Year festival has been established for ancient Israel and there is no evidence
that Genesis 1:1-2:3 was ever a part Israelite liturgy.
There have been
extensive efforts during the past century to show that Genesis2:4b-3:24 is a
second account of creation, having a desert as a chaos and a different order of
events. Actually, the creation Adam and then Eve are only segments of a setting
for the climate events of Chapter 3.
The creation man is
depicted in the pagan accounts as man mixed with a combination of earth and
divine stuff, or as made of the tears of a god. In Genesis 2:7, God made man of
the earth, but nor more than breath was transferred from God to man; man’s work
had to do only with cultivation of the land. The God-man relationship is
presented in purely personal terms.
Kramer equates Eden
with Dilmun of Sumerian mythology.[8] But
Eden was simply a home for man, whereas Dilmun represented both a home for man
and a mysterious divine home for deities somewhere to the east. In Sumerian
economic texts, ships trade plied between Sumerian docks and Dilmun. Passively,
Dilmun was the hom eland of the Sumerian who had worshiped ancestral gods
there.
2.4. Days of Genesis in Literal Context
The problem posed by
modern science to defenders of the “literal” interpretation of Genesis 1 is
legendary: How can there be six literal days of creation when scientific dating
has demonstrated that life emerged gradually over many millions of years?[9]
2.4.1 Six Twenty-four-Hour Days
Apologists are quick to
note that this problem is acute only for those who hold to six successive,
twenty-four hours (= 144 hours) of creation. It does not apply to other
twenty-four-hour views nor to the view that interprets “days” to mean long
periods of time.
2.4.2 Arguments for Solar Days
The problem is deepened
by the fact that there is prima facie evidence to indicate that the days of
Genesis 1 are indeed twenty-four-hour periods. Consider the following points
for the arguments.
2.4.3 The Normal Meaning of Yom
The usual meaning of
the Hebrew word yom (“day”) is twenty-four hours unless the context indicates
otherwise. But the context does not indicate anything but a twenty-four-hour
day in Genesis 1.
2.4.4 The Numbers are in Series
When numbers are used
in a series (1, 2, 3 . . .) in connection with days it refers to
twenty-four-hour days. There is no exception to this elsewhere in the Old Testament.
2.4.5 “Evening and Morning” is used
The phrase “and there
was evening and there was morning” denotes each period. Since the literal
twenty-four-hour day on the Jewish Calendar began at sunset and ended before
sunset the next day, Genesis 1 must refer to literal days.
2.4.6 The days are compared to a work week
According to the Law of
Moses (Exod. 20:11) the Jewish work week of Sunday through Friday was to be
followed by rest on Saturday, just as God had done in his six-day week of
creation. But we know that the Jewish work week refers to six, successive,
twenty-four-hour days.
2.4.7 Life cannot Exist without Light
According to Genesis 1,
the sun and stars were not made until the fourth day (1:14), but there was life
on the third day (1:11–13). However, life cannot exist for long without light.
Hence, the “days” must not be long periods of time.
2.4.8 Plants cannot Live without Animals
Plants were created on
the third day (1:11–13) and animals were not created until the fifth day
(1:20–23). But there is a symbiotic elation between plants and animals, one
depending on the other for its life. For example, plants give off oxygen and
take in carbon dioxide and animals do the reverse. Hence, plants and animals
must have been created together, not separated by long periods of time.
2.4.9 Day (yom) can mean a Long Period
Most often the Hebrew
word yom means twenty-four hours. However, the meaning in Genesis 1 is
determined by context, not majority vote. Even in this passage in Genesis 1–2, yom
is used of the whole of creation. Genesis 2:4 refers to “the day (yom)”
when they were created. The Hebrew word appears elsewhere for long periods, as
in Psalm 90:4 (cited in 2 Peter 3:8): “For a thousand years in your sight are
like a day (yom) that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.”
2.4.10 Issues
2.4.10.1 Revelatory Day View
Some conservative
scholars have suggested that the “days” of Genesis may be days of revelation,
not really days of creation (Wiseman). That is, it took God a literal solar
week (of 144 hours) to reveal to Adam (or Moses) what he had done in the ages
before humans were created. Even the Exodus passages (20:11) which speak of the
heavens and earth being “made” (asah) in six days can mean “revealed.”[10]
Just as a prophet can
get revelation from God looking forward to a future series of events (cf.
Daniel 2, 7, 9; Revelation 6–19), even so God can reveal a past series of
events to one of his servants. Indeed, Moses was on the holy mountain for forty
days (Ex. 24:18). God could have taken six of these days to reveal the past
creation events to him. Or after God created Adam, he could have taken six
literal days to reveal to him what he had done before Adam arrived on the
scene. Some scholars believe this material could have been memorized and passedon
as the first “history of the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 2:4), just as the
other “histories” (lit., “genealogies”) were apparently recorded and passed on
(for example, Gen. 5:1; 6:9; 10:1).
2.4.10.2 Alternate Day-Age View
Other evangelical
scholars have suggested that the “days” of Genesis are twenty-four-hour periods
of time in which God created the things mentioned, but that they are separated
by long periods in between. This would account for both the indications of
great lengths of time in Genesis 1 and indications that there were
twenty-four-hour days involved.[11]
2.4.10.3 Gap Theories
C. I. Scofield[12] made
popular the view that there could be a great gap of time between the first two
verses of the Bible into which all of the geological ages fit. In this way the days
could be twenty-four hours each and yet the world could be many millions of
years old or more. Others believe that there may be a “gap” or, better, a lapse
of time before the six, twenty- four-hour days of Genesis begin. In this case,
the first verse of the Bible would not necessarily refer to the original ex
nihilo creation of God but more recent acts of God in forming a world he had
previously created.
2.5
Trees
In
Eden were two trees of special importance. The tree of life shows up in ancient
art and in the literature to some extent. In paganism, the tree of life seemed
to symbolize the natural power of reproduction in plants, animals, and man.
These sacred trees were in divine abodes, and deities ate of them. Very few
human were allowed access to them , and these were reigning kings. As priest,
the king might dispense the power of the tree through cultic ritual. In Genesis
2, man was not forbidden to eat of the tree of life until after he was judged
for sin. The tree seemed to point to spiritual life sustained as a gift of God,
but which could be withheld. Loss of access to the tree of life exposed man to
physical death.[13]
The tree of knowledge
of good and evil has no parallel in pagan literature, but in Genesis 2 and 3 it
is intimately related to obedience or disobedience to God’s authoritative
command. When God’s command (2:17) was disobeyed, the harmony of the God-man
the man-woman, and the man-natural relationships was shattered.
Nowhere in the first
two chapters of Genesis is there a demonic force challenging the creation. By
contrast, a cosmic demonic force of an array of demons are common to the pagan
creation stories. In Gen. 1-3, evil comes into the picture in a different
context than from the creation, per se.
2.5
Serpent
The
serpent is referred to in 3:1, 14 as merely an animal, but he was more than
that; he could speak and reason. The adjective “subtle,” is elsewhere applied
to man, mostly in a bad sense, in the Old Testament. The serpent could seduce
Eve and challenged God, yet he is not presented as a cosmic power in the
nature, as in pagan mythology. In the Babylonian Epic of creation, reptiles are
associated with evil cosmic power; and in the fertility-cult, serpents seems to
phallic significance. In Egypt, the serpent was commonly identified with the
anarchic powers that the Pharaoh must always keep under control.
2.6
Sons of God
Considerable
argument has boiled about the meaning of “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4. Some
scholars have declared that this section is a vestige of an old polytheistic
myth; thus, the sons of god were deities who engaged in illicit relations with
human. But there is also evidence that pagan kings were called “sons of god” in
ancient times. There is no way to prove or disprove that either of the above
two meaning was attached to the biblical text by the Hebrews. One can only note
that the inclusion of a pagan literary in segment in the text is totally
contrary to the ancient mythical emphasis of Genesis 1-11. Also, there are two
possible meanings, as follows. Elsewhere in the Old Testament (Job. 1:6; 2:1;
38:7; Ps. 29:1; 89:6; Dan. 3:25), angels are designated as sons of God, and
some commentators in the traditional camp have suggested that fallen angels
married women and corrupted humankind. However, Jesus said that a married state
did not allow apply to angels (Matt. 22:30).
Other
traditional scholars have held that the ha’ elohim of the phrase “sons
of God” elsewhere in the Old Testament regularly means “ the one true God,”
hence pagan deities and pagan rules are ruled out. It is also argued that the
idea of worshipers of God being regarded as His children or sons is not unknown
in the Old Testament (Deut. 32:5; Ps. 73:15; Hos. 1:10 and 11:1), and the
phrase appears several times in the New Testament (Jn. 1:12; Rom. 8:14; Phil.
2:15; 1Jn. 3:1; and Rev. 21:7). The “sons of God” would represent descendents
of Seth, and the “daughters of men” would come from those who did not worship
the one true God.
2.7
The Understanding of Sin Vastly Different
In
the Bible Genesis 1-11, man knows nothing of the rigid cause and effect
structure of universe that hunts man in the ancient pagan stories or
ritualistic poems, prayer, and limitations. Pagan man knew of “good” deities
who were capricious and deities who were vicious, but the biblical man knew a
God who is a just yet compassionate Judge, granting mercy and deliverance to
those who submit to Him. Man knew a tempter who is clever and seductive, and
also knew himself as the one who freely choose to disobey God, hence he is
responsible for the evil that comes into his life.
The pagan man felt
compelled to wrestle with nature and the gods by means of divination and magic,
but he never really won the contest. The biblical man of trust and submission
to the one God experience release from sin’s power and corruption and had
fellowship with his Master. The pagan had a limited sense of what ought to be
in the area of justice, truth, and concern, but his low ethical practice
constantly nullified them God’s commands, exhortation, and promises showed
biblical man what is lofty in moral behavior and though he failed, often he also, by God’s help, rose
much higher in practice than did the pagan.[14]
The question remains:
what do the similarities and differences mean in term of the literary
dependence and the literary history of these two bodies of material? No
definite answer can be given to this question; hence, several theories have
gained the approval of various groups of scholars. These theories are as
follows: (1) Genesis 1-11 was written during the Exile after the Jews had
become the acquainted with the Mesopotamian literature and had radically
rewritten it to fit their own needs; (2) the Sumerian and Babylonian took the
ancient prototypes of biblical stories and embellished them fantastically; (3)
the Patriarchs brought the Mesopotamian stories with them to Palestine and many
generations of Hebrews gradually remolded them till they reached their present
form; (4) both the biblical and the Mesopotamian literature hark back to events
that were common knowledge in the ancient world, and each developed its own
literary account and interpretation of those events. The biblical account,
however, preserved the true interpretation of the events and Mesopotamian
corrupted its memory with polytheistic view of life. Theory No. 1 has been the
favorite of the Wellhausen School, and some recent exponents of the “Salvation
History” view have suggested theory No. 3. Both reject the any possibility that
God revealed the basic contents of Genesis 1-11 (especially Gen. 1 and 2) to
any man, or that any transmission of early sources could be have remained
uncorrupted by later generations.
Theories No. 2 and No.
4 have been common among scholars of the traditional viewpoint. These scholars
admit lack of direct evidence for theirs, but do insist on the reality of
divine revelation and inspiration and the possibility of careful transmission,
even through oral transmission, because of continuous concern about the truth
and because of the sacredness of the contents of the material to worshipers of
the one true God.
CHAPTER 3
GENESIS 1-11 AS HISTORY
During
the nineteenth century, an increasing chorus of disapproval arose against the
long-held belief of Jews and Christians that Genesis 1-11 spoke things that
actually had happened. The new view held
that Genesis 1-11 was in fact a mixture of “folklorish” myth or legend and late
Israelitish theology; theological statements of strong monotheistic tone would
be the latest in date. The amount of historical material in Genesis 1-11 would
be extremely limited.
With rise of the
form-criticism method in this century, there has been a tendency to grant the
presence of more and more ancient memory in Genesis 1-11. Parallel with form
criticism there has been a tendency to split the values in Genesis 1-11 between
(a) the meaning of the content and (b) the concrete factualness of the content.
Extremely low value has been given to the latter, though there has been a
growing admission that the author of Genesis 1-11 believed that what he wrote
was an account of what actually happened. So did the writers of the Old
Testament books and so did New Testament writers who referred to Genesis 1-11.
Part of the problem in the controversy has been ambiguity in Western scholarly
minds as to the true nature of history. An unabridged English dictionary lists
a number of words that come from the basic word history, and many of
these words have variant meanings. A reading of literature on what history is
indicates that the dictionary has not exhausted all the nuances of meaning that
scholars hold about the nature of history.
The question of how divine revelation has been
and it related to history has long been vital to biblical scholars and
theologians. There will be no attempt here to plumb the depths of the opinion
on the subject; only a few items will be discussed.
The simplest definition
of history is that it denotes events that have actually happened; hence,
history would be the opposite of myth, legend, or fiction, which would have a
minimal interest, or no interest at all, in what actually happened. Also,
history is commonly understood to be a written narrative of those past events
that happened to some people or peoples.[15] This
history may be concerned with aspect of human culture and may attempt some
explanation or interpretation of those events. Of central concern to this kind
of history are people, places, time, and cause-effect relationships.
Early in the nineteen
century, a deep concern developed in regard to “brute facts.”[16]
Scholars desired precise accuracy. As many facts as possible must be gathered
about people, especially about leaders, about cultural institutions and
practices, and about geographical environment in volume of encyclopedic
proportions. This data must be arranged about a chronological timetable that is
as complete and exact as possible. Methods were developed to validate the
statements found in sources, to ferret out discrepancies, to separate fact from
fancy, and to determine the true participants, the precise places, and the
exact time of each event.[17]
The scholars concern
for fact and proper methods is highly commendable; they made great
contributions to human knowledge, but it was soon seen that more than “brute
facts” were needed to have a full picture of “what actually happened.” In spite
of the historian’s aim to be a neutral observer and to be objective in dealing
with facts, he could not really live up to his goal. Many scholars arbitrarily
ruled out the activity of either the supernatural or demonic in human affairs
and soon enlisted some current philosophical to aid in understanding history.[18]
Historicism became
dominant in Europe, and its influence spread to other parts of the world.
Historicism sought factual connectors between a series of cause and effect
elements. But the factual was wedded to a net-work of rigid natural laws whose
chief trait was a dynamic movement toward ever higher stages of achievement.
The view of Comte, father of logical positivism,[19]
Hegel, champion of logical progression after the pattern of a thesis
–antithesis-synthesis sequence, were particularly influential among Old
Testament scholars. Later the principles of Darwin’s biological evolution were
applied by some to the Old Testament. In the last several decades, a
neo-Kantian split between secular and theological or existential meaning has
been a trait of some scholars.
Late in the nineteenth
century, the Wellhausen School, taking their clue from Hegel, declared that monotheism
and a complex priestly system did not appear in Israel until Exile of sixth
century B.C. This meant that all
monotheistic views and ritualistic practices in Genesis 1-11 must of necessity
by dates to sixth and fifth centuries B.C. The rest of Genesis 1-11 was
considered to be much more primitive and assigned to no earlier a date than the
tenth century B.C. Very little of the content of Genesis 1-11 was thought to be
actual facts of ancient history.
A combination of
studies-archeology, history of religion, and form criticism-has altered the
Wellhausen view. Gradually it was seen that monotheism had to be taken back at
least to Moses, and that the creation, fall of man, and flood narratives had to
come into the Hebrew community with the patriarchs since an antimythical and an
antipagan attitude had long been a part of the Hebrew heritage. More and more
it has been recognized that the author of Genesis 1-11 believed that the events
he wrote about had actually happened. He also wanted his readers to believe
that they had happened. From criticism has done much to stress this attitude of
the Hebrew toward Genesis 1-11. Nevertheless, such scholars stoutly insist that
the biblical writer was wrong-that the events in Genesis 1-11never happened,
but the meaning they give to “history” is so valuable we need to extract it and
apply it to present life situation. Here one cannot but pose a question: if the
meaning the biblical writer proposed for history led him to construct,
intentionally or naively, a past that never happened, may not this same
“meaning” lead later writers to abuse the past by talking about “events” that
never happened. And if we adopt the meaning of history found in Genesis 1-11,
or any other part of the Bible are we not likely to build a totally incorrect
picture of events happening today?
As mentioned at the
close of previous paragraphs of this paper, neither the Sumerians, Babylonians,
the Assyrians, nor the Egyptians really tried to tie their mythology with their
annals, chronicles, or other reports of trade and war. Yet the mythological
literature may be termed historic because it had great impact on government and
common people. Dream interpretation and divination entered into the making of
many a decision and ritualistic magic was part of many a power play.
Genesis 1-11 may also
be classified as historic because its content had impact on other Old Testament
writers especially Job, Psalms, and Isaiah.
To hold Genesis 1-11 is
more than historic, that it really contains accounts of that really happened,
traditional scholars have been faced with several problems. The first problem
is that there were no human eyewitnesses present to behold and record the
creation events in Genesis 1up man’s own creation by God, nor in Genesis 2 up
to the movement God breathed into Adam nostrils. Then there was the span of
time between Adam’s creation and the invention of writing, plus another span of
time up to the actual writing down of the contents of Genesis 1-11.
Traditional scholars
approach this on the basis of the validity of divine revelation. Admitted, the
Pentateuch does not have an explicit statement saying that God related to
someone the content of Genesis 1:1-27 or Genesis 2:1-7 However, the text the (Gen.1:28-30; 2:16-17; 3:9-19) states
that God spoke directly to the first man and woman in term of command,
instruction, interrogation, and judgment. Scholars not in the traditional
stream flatly reject a concept of a speaking God who communicated directly with
man; this attitude holds true of the entire Bible, not just Genesis 1-11. Traditional scholars firmly hold to the
doctrine of a speaking God, thus, they affirm that God had revealed the
creation account to someone. Presumably, Moses was that someone, but some
either recipient of revelation is not ruled out.
The second problem that
faces traditional scholars is the fact that Genesis 1-11 is not an encyclopedia
of data about people, places, and chronology. And historians are hungry for
this kind of information. Apart from the genealogies, only a few people are
mentioned by name: Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Lamech, Adah, Zillah, Seth, Noah,
Shem, Ham, Japheth, and Canaan. Only a few geographical places can be
positively identified: the Tigris (Hiddekel) and Euphrates rivers, Assyria,
mountains of Ararat many of the nations, coupled with geographical areas in
chapter 10, Ur of Chaldees, land of Cannan, and Haran. Outside of Genesis 1,
the only date formulate in Genesis 1-11 are in the genealogies of Genesis
5:1-35; 11:10-32 and in the flood story (6:9-9:28). Archbishop Usshar
not-withstanding, this is exceedingly meager date with which to construct a
chronology prior to Abraham, and few are the traditional scholars who now
attempt to do so.
Few modern written
histories attempt to record all events that have occurred. Even histories that
extent into multiplied volumes try to do no more than to focus on those events
that the historian considers to be significant. And there few that do not
endeavor to the events together into some kind of narrative, or some type of
movement toward a goal.
The material in Genesis
one 1-11 centers on what were regarded as significant events, which were put
together in a fairly consistent movement from the creation to the time of
Abraham. Even the genealogies were made to play their part: they either served
to sidetrack those who rebelled against God (Cain, Japheth, Ham, Cannan) or to
connect the believers in a straight line from Adam to Abraham. Quite the
opposite of the pagans, who made no attempt to fit their mythology with their king
lists and annals, the Hebrews skillfully blended that which they believed to be
truly human events with their theology of a Creator God who is Lord of nature
and history, and Judge and Redeemer of mankind. This procedure is true of their
treatment of the past in Genesis 1-11; it is true to the all scripture.
James Barr has noted
that he has observed no real difference between the four “narratives: the
creation, the flood, the Exodus, and the destruction of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzer,”[20]
at the level of presenting God as speaking and acting in the affairs of men.
According to Barr, “none of these stories are history (presumably secular) as
we commonly use the term, but they do present their contents as events of which
God was an integral part.”[21]
To the biblical writer,
an event was not simply factual data (he had no quarrel with facts of person,
place, or time), he believed an event was a happening on earth, among men but
involving God. This understanding is as true of Genesis 1-11 as it is of the
rest of the Bible.[22] To
the biblical writer, the events he recorded were unusual and unique, and they
created precedents for later events: he did not see a process or a set of rigid
natural laws. The biblical writer met a speaking and acting God on a
person-to-person basis, and he believed this to be true from the first created
couple onward. In the events he recorded, there was a God who decided to turn
to the world by creating it, to selected people to reveal His will concerning
them and all humankind. In those events were people who obeyed or disobeyed
Him, with good or bad consequences. These events were the initial patterns for
all subsequent encounters of God with men. They were simply events, but they
were unique events.
CHAPTER 4
CASE FOR ADAM AS
HISTORICAL PERSON
Critical
scholars generally consider the first chapters of Genesis to be myth, not history.
They point to the poetic nature of the text, the parallel of the early chapters
of Genesis to other ancient myths, the alleged contradiction of the text with
evolution, and the late date for Adam in the Bible (4000 B.C.) which is opposed
to scientific dating that places the first humans much earlier. All of this
they consider as evidence that the story of Adam and Eve is mythical. However,
the Bible presents Adam and Eve as literal people, who had real children from
whom the rest of the human race descended (Gen. 5:1).
4.1
Historical Adam and Eve
There is good evidence to believe that Adam
and Eve were historical persons. First, Genesis 1–2 presents them as actual
persons and even narrates the important events in their lives. Second, they
gave birth to literal children who did the same (Genesis 4–5). Third, the same
phrase (this is the history of), used to record later history in Genesis (for
example, 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19), is used of the creation account (2:4)
and of Adam and Eve and their descendants. Fourth, later Old Testament
chronologies place Adam at the top of the list (Gen. 5:1; 1Chron. 1:1). Fifth,
the New Testament places Adam at the beginning of Jesus’ literal ancestors
(Luke 3:38). Sixth, Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as the first literal “male
and female,” making their physical union the basis of marriage (Matt. 19:4).
Seventh, the book of Romans declares that literal death was brought into the
world by a literal “one man”—Adam (Rom. 5:12, 14). Eighth, the comparison of
Adam (the “first Adam”) with Christ (the “last Adam”) in 1Corinthians 15:45
manifests that Adam was understood as a literal, historical person. Ninth, Paul’s
declaration that “Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1Tim 2:13–14) reveals that
he speaks of real persons. Tenth, logically there had to be a first real set of
human beings, male and female, or else the race would have had no way to get
going. The Bible calls this literal couple “Adam and Eve,” and there is no
reason to doubt their real existence.
4.2
Objections to Historicity
4.2.1
The Poetic Nature of Genesis 1
Despite
the common assumption to the contrary and the beautiful language of Genesis 1 and
2, the creation record is not poetry. Although there is possible parallelism of
ideas between the first three and last three days, this is not in the typical
form of Hebrew poetry, which involves couplets in parallel form. A comparison
with the Psalms or Proverbs readily shows the difference. Genesis 2 has no
poetical parallelism at all. Rather, the creation account is like any other
historical narrative in the Old Testament. The account is introduced like other
historical accounts in Genesis with the phrase, “This is the history of . . .”
(Gen. 2:4; 5:1). Jesus and New Testament writers refer to the creation events
as historical (Matt. 19:4; Rom. 5:14; 1Cor. 15:45; 1Tim. 2:13–14). The Ebla
tablets have added an early nonbiblical witness of a monotheistic ex nihilo
creation.
4.2.2
Contradiction with Evolution
The
Genesis creation account contradicts macro-evolution. Genesis speaks of the
creation of Adam from the dust of the ground, not his evolution from other
animals (Gen. 2:7). It speaks of direct immediate creation at God’s command,
not long natural processes (cf. Gen. 1:1, 3, 6, 9, 21, and 27). Eve was created
from Adam; she did not evolve separately. Adam was an intelligent being who
could speak a language, study and name animals, and engage in life-sustaining
activity. He was not an ignorant half-ape.
However,
granted that the Genesis record conflicts with macro-evolution, it begs the
question to affirm Genesis is wrong and evolution is right. In fact, there is
substantial scientific evidence to critique macroevolution on its own merits.
4.2.3
The Late-Date Objection
The
traditional biblical date for the creation of Adam (ca. 4000 B.C.) is much too
late to fit the fossil evidence for early human beings, which ranges from tens
of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. The early date for humankind is
based on scientific dating and analysis of bone fragments.
However, there are
false or challengeable assumptions in this objection. First, it is assumed that
one can simply add all the genealogical records of Genesis 5 and 11 and arrive
at an approximate date of 4000 B.C. for Adam’s creation. But this is based on
the false assumption that there are no gaps in these tables, which there are.
This objection also
assumes that the dating method for early human-like fossil finds is accurate.
Yet these dating methods are subject to many variables including the change in atmospheric
conditions, contamination of the sample, and changes of rates of decay.
It assumes that early
human-like fossil finds were really human beings created in the image of God.
But this is a questionable assumption. Many of these finds are so fragmentary
that reconstruction is highly speculative. The so-called “Nebraska Man” was
actually an extinct pig’s tooth! Identification had been based on a tooth. Piltdown Man” was a fraud. Identifying a creature
from bones, especially bone fragments, is extremely speculative.
There may have been
human-like creatures that were morphologically similar to human beings but were
not created in the image of God. Bone structure cannot prove there was an immortal
soul made in God’s image inside the body. Evidence for simple tool making
proves nothing. Animals (apes, seals, and birds) are known to use simple tools.
This objection also
assumes that the “days” of Genesis were twenty-four-hour solar days. This is
not certain, since day in Genesis is used of all six days (Gen. 2:4). And “day
seven,” on which God rested, is still going on, thousands of years later (cf.
Heb. 4:4–6).
It is impossible to
affirm that Genesis is not historical. In fact, given the unproven assumptions,
the history of misinterpretation of early fossils, and the mistaken assumption
that there are no gaps in the biblical genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, the
arguments against the historicity of Adam and Eve fail.
CHAPTER 5
GENESIS 1-11 FROM
SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE
5.1
Dr. Hugh Ross
The book by Dr. Hugg
Ross[23] Navigating
Genesis: A Scientist’s Journey is finest book at present, which deals with
first 11 chapters of book of Genesis from scientific perspective. However,
there are many problems with Dr. Ross interpretation of Genesis, for instance,
he admitted the view that the flood of Noah was a local or worldwide indeed it
was not a global or universal. As a scientist, he concluded that the flood
event must be local and cannot be universal because it lacks scientific
evidences for its reliability as a global flood, and in defense of his view, he
presents few reasons. As for me: the flood of Noah is a global event truly
occurred in the pages of the history which is geographically, scientifically,
and historically reliable. See Evidence for the Noah’s Global from the
Scientific and Geographical Discoveries, www.satyaforchrist.blogspot.in. On
the other hand, Ross’ work on Genesis 1-11 is appreciable in many areas. Due to
this course paper I have mentioned here some of his important interpretations
in regard of historicity of book of Genesis.
The
first eleven chapters of the Bible are often the target of ridicule and used as
evidence that the scripture is not historically accurate. Dr. Ross has found
otherwise. He explains that even though many of the events recorded in
scripture have not left marks in nature that
can be scientifically tested, the events recorded in the Genesis 111, by their
nature, will leave such evidence. This provides a unique opportunity to use the
first chapters of scripture to test for the Bible's claim that it was inspired
by
the Creator of the universe. Dr. Ross gives the reader a quick overview of his
own journey of investigation that began with his studies in astronomy at a
young age. His understanding of Big Bang cosmology led him to the conclusion
that the universe had to have a beginner. He wanted to know if this creator had
communicated to man via any of the "holy" books of history, so he investigated
the claims about creation of each book against the established scientific record.
He found that not only was the first 11 chapters of Genesis accurate in all it claimed,
but its level of recorded detail was well beyond what could be explained by strictly
human authorship. Dr. Ross' goal in this book is to take the reader through his
journey of investigation through the first chapters of Genesis that led him to
surrender his life to the Creator of the universe through Jesus Christ.
5.2
Reasons for Resistance
One
of the primary reasons for resisting the Christian worldview that Dr. Ross has encountered
in academia is due to the claims in the first chapters of Genesis appearing to conflict
with what has been discovered in reality. He explains some different approaches
that people have used to describe the relationship between science and
religion. The separatist approach posits that science and religion describe
two
different areas of reality that do not overlap one another; one has nothing to
say about the other, thus there is no opportunity for conflict. The conflict
model holds that science and religion do attempt to describe the same aspects
of reality, but they make contradictory claims. This results in two different
factions: those who choose to believe science, and those who choose to believe
religion. The complementary model attempts to find a happy medium with the previous
two by granting that there is slight overlap, but for the most part they do
not. Where overlap exists, agreement will exist. Finally, the constructive
integrationist model grants that both science and religion attempt to describe reality,
with plenty of overlap. Further, He explains that if a religion claims that God
created the universe and also revealed Himself through written word, they would
naturally describe the same phenomena and no conflict should exist. This
provides a very powerful foundation for testing the world's religions for
accuracy, and for providing compelling evidence of the true religion.
5.3
Creation of the Cosmos
Dr.
Ross immediately takes the reader to Genesis 1:1. This passage makes a claim
about the universe: that it began to exist. Ross goes into a short discussion
of the linguistics that establish the interpretation that this describes an ex
nihilo creation of all matter, energy, space, and time. He then takes the
reader through a short explanation of the scientific evidence that this accurately
describes the origin of the universe.. Moving into Genesis 1:2, Ross explains
that misunderstanding this passage tends to be responsible for the vast
majority of apparent conflict between the scientific
record
and the rest of Genesis 1. The issue is with the point of view of the observer:
the Spirit of God. Most people do not recognize that the point of view is the
surface of the earth, not the skies above or even heaven. The rest of Genesis 1
thus should be interpreted from this perspective. Ross then describes the
latest in planetary formation
research
that has demonstrated that the earth did, in fact, begin as a waterworld with
an atmosphere so thick that no light could have penetrated it. Scientists have
discovered that darkness, indeed, did cover the face of the deep as described
by the biblical author. Because of those conditions it would naturally follow
that the earth of empty of all life (even photosynthetic), and no land masses
were formed on the surface. Genesis 1:12 make claims about the universe's and earth's
beginnings that can be verified or denied by scientific research, and science
has verified them.
5.4
Creation Days
Recalling
that Genesis 1:2 establishes the point of view as the surface of the earth, Day
1describes the first appearance of light on the surface of the earth. This
would not be the clear sky that we see today, but a permanent, darkly overcast
sky. Dr. Ross explains that current theories for the formation of the moon
would account for this change in the earth's atmosphere. The current theories
hold that another planet collided with earth at a specific velocity that
resulted in the "blasting away" of a large portion of earth's
primordial atmosphere, allowing light to reach the surface for the first time.
Dr. Ross explains that this collision event is not only compatible with the description
in Genesis 1:3, but it also provided numerous changes to the planet that were
necessary for life's existence. Day 2 describes the establishment of the water
cycle. The separation of water below and water above is the result of the
actions of the earliest photosynthetic life that occupied the oceans and the
effects of the sun's luminosity. God created these life forms with different metabolic
capabilities that produced various greenhouse gases that allowed the atmosphere
to become clear enough for enough of the sun's heat to reach the surface to evaporate
water into the atmosphere for precipitation to begin. This further prepared earth
for advanced life. But hidden behind this obvious action was a delicate
balancing act the sun was changing in luminosity at a rate that could have
destroyed the life forms that were transforming the atmosphere, but the
transformation of the atmosphere was transformed at a rate that accommodated
the changing luminosity perfectly, thus allowing the process to complete and
set the stage for God's next creative act.
Tectonic activity
(fueled by the energy release from elements brought to earth by the moon's
formation) resulted in land breaking the surface of the oceans. Dr. Ross
explains that another result of the moon collider is the slowing of the
rotation of the earth. This slowing rotation allowed for the land mass to
continue to grow over time. The established water cycle resulted in erosion of
the land; however, with the slowing rotation rate, this slowed the erosion
rate, thus it ensured that water would never cover the surface of the earth
again. With a more conducive atmosphere, land, and the water cycle in place,
God created land plant life. This plant life further transformed the atmosphere
to reveal the "great lights": the sun and the moon. Because of the
common misconception that the fourth day describes the creation of the sun and
moon, Dr. Ross takes the reader back to the original Hebrew language and
explains that the different word used in Genesis 1:14 (as opposed to verse 1)
actually means a "revealing" of what had already been created not a
whole new creative act. He goes on to explain that the transformation of the
atmosphere not only revealed the sun, moon, and stars (which is required for
advanced life), but it also prepared the atmosphere to prevent deadly levels of
the sun's ultraviolet rays from reaching the earth's surface and regulate
atmospheric chemistry (via the ozone in the different atmospheric layers). All
of this is done in preparation for God's next creative act.
Day 5 is God's
introduction of abundant sea life to the earth. Dr. Ross explains that this is most
evident in the fossil record's feature known as the Cambrian Explosion. Showing
that this event demonstrates a radical appearance of life forms points to the
work of a Creator who works rapidly rather than by the slow process of
evolution. Not only does the Cambrian Explosion take place in a geological
instant, but it also takes place right after the earth's atmosphere was able to
sustain such animal life. This earliest possible appearance of these types of
life indicates that something or someone was prepared to create new life forms
when the previously created life forms had completed their duties. This
convergence of events in time argues powerfully for the work of a Mind behind
the creation. Day six presents a further creation act that of more complex,
land dwelling animal life. The scriptural record of gradual progression of
complexity of life forms provides a compelling explanation for the gradual increase
in complexity described by the fossil record.
Dr.
Ross continues to discuss the events of the sixth day. He draws the reader's
attention to the fact that Genesis records three different "new"
creations regarding life: life itself, soulish life forms, and spiritual life
forms. He explains that scripture paints each type of life as distinct from the
others. The final act of creation, humanity, is not merely another animal; it
is created with a spiritual dimension; it is created in the "Image of
God." This is evidenced in the archaeological record by the explosive
appearances of sophisticated tools, weapons, art, and artifacts interpreted as
used for
musical
and religious expression. Such an explosion is not compatible with a gradual
appearance of uniquely human traits (as is demanded by naturalistic
evolutionary theory), but it is evidence of a sudden appearance of humanity on
earth. Dr. Ross examines several ways that scientists have used to date
humanity's origin, and how such attempts are compatible with the account given
in Genesis.
5.5
Message of Day Seven
The
timing of God's rest from creating coincides with the fossil record. Dr. Ross
explains that the fossil record tells of the introduction of animal species all
the way up to the appearance of humans; then such new species abruptly stop
appearing. He appeals to longterm evolution experiments that have examined
40,000+ generations of simple e. coli (the equivalence of 1 million years of
human evolution) and have not witnessed any macroevolutionary changes.
Evolutionary scientists have not provided any mechanism to explain such a halt
to speciation; while the Bible does God rested from creation after He created
Adam and Eve. The seventh day also provides clues to the length of the days in
Genesis 1. Most biblical scholars grant that the phrase "evening and
morning" indicates the completion of days 16; however, this phrase is
missing from the seventh day. This allows for the possibility that the seventh
day was not completed when the author penned the revelation. Dr. Ross also appeals
to other passages of scripture to build support for this notion. He takes this opportunity
to also mention that to properly interpret the Genesis creation account, any and
all other passages of scripture that speak about creation must be taken into
context.
5.6
Spiritual Perspectives on Creation
Genesis
2 was written with a different purpose than Genesis 1. Its focus is more on
man's relationship to the creation. However, before discussing this different
perspective, Dr. Ross uses the four identified rivers is Genesis 2 and
geographical and archaeological data build the case for the physical reality of
the Garden of Eden (as opposed to the metaphorical interpretation) and for its
location beneath what is today the Persian Gulf. From there Dr. Ross observes
that God introduces Adam to the creation in three different stages; each one
has a different relationship to Adam. Adam is created outside the Garden then
is placed inside the Garden. The first introduction is to the land and the
vegetation, which Adam has to maintain. Dr.Ross examines the passages that
refer to the vegetarian diet of Adam and Eve and the misunderstanding that this
also applied to the animals. He also discusses recent studies regarding
vegetarian diets that actually increase life expectancy (possibly helping to support
the long life spans prior to God's allowance of meat in the human diet). The second
introduction for Adam is to the animals. He is tasked with observing each one
and naming it according to his observations. Even though Adam could establish a
relationship with some of the animals, he understood that none of them could
provide the relationship that he needed (since he was created in God's Image,
yet the animals were not). The third introduction to Adam was God's provision
for this need: Eve. Dr. Ross discusses the relationship between man and woman
and describes it as their being allies to one another. Dr. Ross concludes the
chapter by highlighting the fact that the Garden of Eden was an idyllic place
for animals and man, one that had not yet been tainted by man's decision to act
autonomously from his Creator.
5.7 How Far the Fall?
Genesis 3
The
decisions of Adam and Eve to disobey God's command to not eat of one tree in
the Garden set in motion the destruction that comes from a heart determined to
live by its own rules and not those of its Creator. The fall affected man's
heart, and the creation indirectly through man. Dr. Ross explains that it is a
mistake to believe that the Fall resulted in changed laws of physics that
resulted in decay. He provides arguments from both scripture and nature for
this conclusion. He also explains that animal predation is nothing new either.
He examines the physiology and ecosystems of predator and prey to provide
evidence for such a position. He adds that since man is the only creature
capable of sin, then he is the only creature worthy of the
punishment,
so the presence of death in the animal and plant kingdoms cannot reflect sin's
entrance into the world, but (and due to the unchanging laws of physics) was
present prior also. Death came to all men due to sin, and Dr. Ross explains
that since death limits man's time that he can exercise his evil will, death is
actually a blessing. He emphasizes that "to interpret the Bible literally
is not enough; one must also interpret it with internal (as well as external)
consistency."
CONCLUSION
It is impossible to
reject the historicity of the book of Genesis without repudiating the authority
of the entire Bible. If Genesis is not true, then neither are the testimonies
of those prophets and apostles who believed it was true. In the Old Testament,
for example, Adam is mentioned in Deuteronomy, Job, and 1 Chronicles, while
Noah is mentioned in 1 Chronicles, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. There are at least 100
quotations or direct references to Genesis 1-11 (/Bible/Genesis/1-11) in the
New Testament. Furthermore, every one of those eleven chapters is alluded to in
the New Testament, and every one of the New Testament authors refers somewhere
in his writings to Genesis 1-11 (/Bible/Genesis/1-11).
In not one of these Old
or New Testament references to Genesis is there the slightest evidence that the
writers regarded the events as myths or allegories. The word genesis means "beginnings"
or "origin," so Genesis 1-11 (/Bible/Genesis/1-11) records for us
God's provision of the only reliable account of the origin of the universe, the
solar system, the earth, the atmosphere, and the oceans, of order and
complexity, life, man, marriage, evil, language, government, culture, nations,
and religion, not to mention rocks and fossils. Thus Genesis 1-11 is of such
foundational importance to all history that without it there is no true
understanding of ourselves or our world.
What we believe about
our origin will inevitably determine our beliefs concerning our purpose and our
destiny. Naturalistic concepts provide no hope of there being anything more
than what we see around us. On the other hand, an origin at the hands of an all
powerful, loving God guarantees a meaning to our existence, and a future. By
not taking Genesis seriously, many Christians have in fact
undermined the rest of the Bible they claim to believe and follow. They are
also in danger of unwittingly accusing Jesus Christ of being a false witness,
deceived, or a deceiver.
[1] Theopedia, “JEDP Theory,”
http://www.theopedia.com/jedp-theory (accessed on 10/06/2016).
[2] Thomas L. Thompson, Early
History of the Israelite People: From the Written & Archaeological Sources
(Netherlands: Brill,2002),54-57.
[3] "Sumerian
and Akkadian Myths,"
http://history-world.org/sumerian_and_akkadian_myths.htm (accessed on
07/06/2016).
[4] G. Herbert Livingston, The
Pentateuch In Its Cultural Environment (Michigan: Baker Book House, 1974),
138.
[5] Joshua J. Mark,"Enuma Elish
- The Babylonian Epic of Creation " http://www.ancient.eu/article/225/,
March,2011(accessed on 07/06/2016).
[6] Livingston, The Pentateuch In
Its Cultural Environment, 140.
[7] Livingston, The Pentateuch In
Its Cultural Environment, 136.
[8]
S. N. Kramer, The Sumerians (Chicago: The university of Chicago
Press, 1963), 148-49.
[9] Norman L. Geisler, Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Michigan: Baker Book House Company, 1999),
497.
[10] Jimmy Akin, "The Revelatory
Day Interpretation," http://jimmyakin.com/2006/02/the_revelatory_.html
(accessed on 11/06/2016).
[11]
"Days of Creation: The
Alternate-Day-Age Theory,"
http://www.wordoflifemalta.org/CreationEvangelism/days_of_creation-The_Alternate-Day-Age_Theory%20-%20copy.htm
(accessed on 11/06/2016).
[12]
C.
I. Scofield, “The Gap Theory,”
http://www.creationdays.dk/C.%20I%Scrofield/1.php (accessed on 11/06/2016).
[13] Livingston, The Pentateuch In
Its Cultural Environment, 140-41.
[14] Livingston, The Pentateuch In
Its Cultural Environment, 144.
[15]
"What Is History?-A Collection of Definitions"
http://archaeology.about.com/od/hterms/qt/history_definition.htm (accessed on
08/06/2016).
[16] Livingston, The Pentateuch In
Its Cultural Environment, 141.
[17] Livingston, The Pentateuch In
Its Cultural Environment, 142.
[18] Livingston, The Pentateuch In
Its Cultural Environment, 143.
[19] "Logical Positivism,"
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/6q.htm (accessed on 08/06/2016).
[20] James Barr, “Revelation Through
History in The Old Testament and in Modern Theology,” in New Theology,
ed. M. E. Marty, no. 1 (New York: Macmillan Co., 1964), 149.
[21] Barr, “Revelation Through
History in The Old Testament and in Modern Theology,” in New Theology,
149.
[22] A. J. Heschel, The Prophets
(New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1962), 426.
[23]
Hugg Ross, Navigating
Genesis: A Scientist’s Journey Through Genesis 1-11 (Taiwan: RTB
Press, 2014), 19.