Search This Blog

Thursday 16 June 2016

THE BOOK OF GENESIS 1-11: A DEFENCE FOR HISTORICAL DOCUMENT


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to Babylonian, Egyptian, Sumerian mythological stories, and for some it is poetry not literal or in actual happened historical document.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.

No comments:

Post a Comment